Futility and Environmentalism

[Isotope]

I plead my ignorance to the facts about this, and you people seem pretty informed on this subject. All I ask is a simple question.

What's the point? It seems to me that even if for some reason everybody switched to alternative fuels tomorrow, it wouldn't do any good for our current situation, since it takes a long time for the carbon dioxide, methane, etc. to clear from the atmosphere, but maybe I'm misunderstanding the entire environmental movement. Is the goal more of a "stop it before it gets worse," or is it an actual belief in stopping catastrophes from occurring through adopting green technology?

I just want to understand the end-game here, it seems.

 

[Toronado3800]

I plead my ignorance to the facts about this, and you people seem pretty informed on this subject. All I ask is a simple question.

What's the point? It seems to me that even if for some reason everybody switched to alternative fuels tomorrow, it wouldn't do any good for our current situation, since it takes a long time for the carbon dioxide, methane, etc. to clear from the atmosphere, but maybe I'm misunderstanding the entire environmental movement. Is the goal more of a "stop it before it gets worse," or is it an actual belief in stopping catastrophes from occurring through adopting green technology?

I just want to understand the end-game here, it seems.

Have some hope man!

No really, it did good when big government stopped folks from heating their houses with dirty coal and all. We even have conifers in our botanical garden again! (well the ginkos held up to it well but not the typicals)

 

[TheOldSchool]

The end game is HOPEFULLY someone invents a giant atmospheric metaphorical vacuum cleaner that sucks the carbon out of the sky, and we are able to buy them enough time to do it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, the species will survive the worst case scenerio, and a reasonable case scenerio is that there will be a lot of starvation in third world nations, and an increase in food prices for all. In other words, our standard of living will be affected, and much of the present environment will change, and many animals will simply disappear from many areas. Water will alternate between being too little and much to much. Weather extremes will take a much larger toll than today.

What is in the air already will have affects for 30 to 50 years, even if we were able to cease emitting GHGs instantly. It is a shitty hand we are dealing our children and grandchildren, but they will, most of them, survive.

 

[Mr. H.]

I'll once again offer this image. We've squeezed more work from energy over the years through technological efficiencies. 210% increase in GDP, 170% increase in vehicle miles traveled, and a 71% DECREASE in aggregate emissions.

We're doing something right, and we're doing it in a predominantly hydrocarbon society.

A "switch to alternative fuels tomorrow" would tank the GDP. Period.

Is it worth economic ruin for the expected (alleged?) improvements to the environment?

Yeah yeah jump on me for the term "aggregate emissions", but I'll just refer you to the EPA for that one.

 

[Old Rocks]

The US is doing well compared to almost everybody else. And the new industrial nations are more than making up for the good that we do. When I say we, in the context of global warming, I mean all of mankind. For the suffering will be global, also. And the poorest of nations, the ones that contributed the least to the problem, will suffer the most.

 

[skookerasbil]

I plead my ignorance to the facts about this, and you people seem pretty informed on this subject. All I ask is a simple question.

What's the point? It seems to me that even if for some reason everybody switched to alternative fuels tomorrow, it wouldn't do any good for our current situation, since it takes a long time for the carbon dioxide, methane, etc. to clear from the atmosphere, but maybe I'm misunderstanding the entire environmental movement. Is the goal more of a "stop it before it gets worse," or is it an actual belief in stopping catastrophes from occurring through adopting green technology?

I just want to understand the end-game here, it seems.

The end game here is fAiL.

Ive been saying for years on here now that nobody cares about the sceicne and all evidence supports this. Let face it, if the "consensus science" is haveng zero effect on the legislation, the end game is a stone wall for these boobs.

Watch what happens when climate change legislation comes up for a vote later this year. It will crash and burn in spectacular fashion.


And I'll be here to report it with vivid gay MSPAINT Photobucket Classics.



Like this.........

 

[TheOldSchool]

Well guess what scooterassBill! I have a crossbow! The fuck do you got to handle people when the shit goes down? Hmm?

 

[Isotope]

The US is doing well compared to almost everybody else. And the new industrial nations are more than making up for the good that we do. When I say we, in the context of global warming, I mean all of mankind. For the suffering will be global, also. And the poorest of nations, the ones that contributed the least to the problem, will suffer the most.

I see. It makes me wonder about the moral prohibition on using fossil fuels. In the best case scenario, we could only force ourselves into not using fossil fuels, and when you look at the rest of the world, it would seem like self-imposed asceticism. China, India, and Russia are not going to care enough about the environment to "go green." In other words, oil is gonna get used up. It's too cheap and easy to mass produce and utilize, and our global infrastructure is built around it. If we prevent its usage, I feel, there will be a war over oil like history has never seen.

So it seems to me that what's going to happen is going to happen as far as the environment goes, so why can't we be a nation that uses fossil fuels too?

Then again, maybe I'm asking the wrong person. You seem much more reasonable than a token rabid environmentalist.

 

[editec]

I plead my ignorance to the facts about this, and you people seem pretty informed on this subject. All I ask is a simple question.

What's the point? It seems to me that even if for some reason everybody switched to alternative fuels tomorrow, it wouldn't do any good for our current situation, since it takes a long time for the carbon dioxide, methane, etc. to clear from the atmosphere, but maybe I'm misunderstanding the entire environmental movement. Is the goal more of a "stop it before it gets worse," or is it an actual belief in stopping catastrophes from occurring through adopting green technology?

I just want to understand the end-game here, it seems.

I think they're in stop it before it gets worse mode, Iso.

 

[Isotope]

I plead my ignorance to the facts about this, and you people seem pretty informed on this subject. All I ask is a simple question.

What's the point? It seems to me that even if for some reason everybody switched to alternative fuels tomorrow, it wouldn't do any good for our current situation, since it takes a long time for the carbon dioxide, methane, etc. to clear from the atmosphere, but maybe I'm misunderstanding the entire environmental movement. Is the goal more of a "stop it before it gets worse," or is it an actual belief in stopping catastrophes from occurring through adopting green technology?

I just want to understand the end-game here, it seems.

I think they're in stop it before it gets worse mode, Iso.

Right but I'm saying I doubt that that is even possible.

 

[editec]

I plead my ignorance to the facts about this, and you people seem pretty informed on this subject. All I ask is a simple question.

What's the point? It seems to me that even if for some reason everybody switched to alternative fuels tomorrow, it wouldn't do any good for our current situation, since it takes a long time for the carbon dioxide, methane, etc. to clear from the atmosphere, but maybe I'm misunderstanding the entire environmental movement. Is the goal more of a "stop it before it gets worse," or is it an actual belief in stopping catastrophes from occurring through adopting green technology?

I just want to understand the end-game here, it seems.

I think they're in stop it before it gets worse mode, Iso.

Right but I'm saying I doubt that that is even possible.

Sadly, I think you might be right.

But I do NOT discount the theory that reducing CO2 might have some mitigating effects, either.

Basically, it's a question of whether or not we think that continuing to do the same is going to make an already bad situtation worse.

Frankly, I cannot imagine it won't make it worse, so then the real issue is is it already so bad that regardless of what we do we're hosed?


Beats me, and I doubt that anyone really KNOWS for sure.

But when faced with such a problem, doesn't it make sense to assume that adding gasoline to the already raging fire is a bad idea?

 

[Isotope]

I think they're in stop it before it gets worse mode, Iso.

Right but I'm saying I doubt that that is even possible.

Sadly, I think you might be right.

But I do NOT discount the theory that reducing CO2 might have some mitigating effects, either.

Basically, it's a question of whether or not we think that continuing to do the same is going to make an already bad situtation worse.

Frankly, I cannot imagine it won't make it worse, so then the real issue is is it already so bad that regardless of what we do we're hosed?


Beats me, and I doubt that anyone really KNOWS for sure.

But when faced with such a problem, doesn't it make sense to assume that adding gasoline to the already raging fire is a bad idea?

Nice use of that metaphor in this context. I like that.

Yeah, perhaps I belong more to the camp that believes it's going to hell in a handbasket anyway so there's no real point in this prohibition type effort. I'm definitely open to being wrong on that front but that's how it seems to me. I'm inclined to believe that if it gets bad enough we'll find a way out of it. Perhaps that is naïve of me, though.