Global warming strikes again...

[Angst]

Uh. What was it like?
Of all things together, Eskimo and tea is kind of strange.
Also Inuits really don't like to be called Eskimos btw.

 

[onejayhawk]

Donald Trump's toupee achieves sentience and covers the surface of the Earth?

Which one?

I'll give you that much, white roofs, taking public transit, buying less packaging, participating in recycling are all very good things to do. I seriously respect that you do that and hope for you to continue that as well as further your activities if you have the energy to do it. It's true that there are people that acknowledge the problem while not doing anything. I myself do as much as I can, the details of which is kind of a long list at this point, but I'll tell you if you ask (As it's not part of any argument, I think it'd sound braggish if I just went all in and listed the things.) Again, I'm just a bore because it's depressing, but I'll give you that; you are trying to do something, at least, and every little bit helps.

No one is claiming that reasonable actions should be avoided. The objection is to unreasonable mandates from the government. There may be a consensus among scientists (though your citation above sweeps objections under the rug), but they are far removed from what our political movements propose. Counterproductive things, such as ethanol subsidies, remain in effect long after they are disproven.

J

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Can't help the Eskimos, but my kids are brown and they could be Eskimos without too much imagination.

Is there a point to this part of your post?

It's nice that you're doing all that recycling and taking public transit. I approve.

What I don't approve of is the attitude that if it's not affecting you directly, it's not really a problem. That's the sense I get from you, and the fact is that there are communities in northern Canada that are literally sinking, falling into the ocean, and being cut off because the permafrost is melting and the freeze/melt cycles are so out of whack.

 

[Angst]

Which one?


No one is claiming that reasonable actions should be avoided. The objection is to unreasonable mandates from the government. There may be a consensus among scientists (though your citation above sweeps objections under the rug), but they are far removed from what our political movements propose. Counterproductive things, such as ethanol subsidies, remain in effect long after they are disproven.

J

Objections are ... how to put it ... undertherugsweepable due to being so rare in the scientific consensus. I would care about the objections if they were in any meaningful number.

I'm not sure exactly what mandates are unreasonable, and have to say that you've hit one of my few blind spots on this matter. I'm not aware what ethanol subsidies are present or why they're particularly problematic.

There is a huge need for government intervention in the contemporary economies, both in regards to consumption, infrastructure and waste. The current state of things will already have large impact on our future prosperity, but there's plenty of horrible stuff still to be avoided. Any political action that is called "realistic" that doesn't protect against environmental damage is the opposite of realistic; in fact what is realistic policy is to try and evade the consequences of climate change; to act radically, and to act now. If all you care about is competition and security policy, the best course of action is to go green, and to do it radically, because otherwise your state will be much less competetive and much less secure.

 

[Synobun]

Having a problem with bloated bureaucracy that is slow to correct its mistakes isn't really relevant to climate change and the science behind it.

 

[onejayhawk]

Objections are ... how to put it ... undertherugsweepable due to being so rare in the scientific consensus. I would care about the objections if they were in any meaningful number.

I'm not sure exactly what mandates are unreasonable, and have to say that you've hit one of my few blind spots on this matter. I'm not aware what ethanol subsidies are present or why they're particularly problematic.

There is a huge need for government intervention in the contemporary economies, both in regards to consumption, infrastructure and waste. The current state of things will already have large impact on our future prosperity, but there's plenty of horrible stuff still to be avoided. Any political action that is called "realistic" that doesn't protect against environmental damage is the opposite of realistic; in fact what is realistic policy is to try and evade the consequences of climate change; to act radically, and to act now. If all you care about is competition and security policy, the best course of action is to go green, and to do it radically, because otherwise your state will be much less competetive and much less secure.

No. Simply not. Consensus is qualitative, not quantitative. Start to get specific about numbers and there are normal levels of dispute.

Obstacles to new power plants and refineries are beyond excessive. Ethanol is another, particularly in conjunction with emissions mandates.

The best course is not to go radically green. Massive starvation lies down that road. Green is rarely competitive. It's often one of the major obstacles to being competitive.

J

 

[Synobun]

I reckon being competitive doesn't matter if everyone's dead or our finite resources have been used up.

 

[CavLancer]

Uh. What was it like?
Of all things together, Eskimo and tea is kind of strange.
Also Inuits really don't like to be called Eskimos btw.

Not all that good really. Let me explain... Back when I joined the US army, in the summer of whatever, I was sent down to Louisiana for training. Note that it was summer, because that is an important bit in this narrative. It was hot, it was humid, we were stomping around the friggin swamps down there in our "fatigues". Think long, heavy OD green pants and shirts, and not cut offs and shirts with palm trees and **** on them. First lesson: Comfort is not a priority. So we were out training 'in the field' which is to say we camped in a central camp cut out of the swamp/jungle where our heavy OD green tents were. In the center of the camp was a set up like a swing set, two A frames connected by a cross bar. Biggest swing set ever, but no actual swings. Hanging from the cross bar were two things that looked like huge duffle bags with spickets at the bottom. These were filled to the top with drinking water. Every day a truck came and pumped them full. So we would go stomping around, getting all sweaty, learning different stuff which hasn't come into play in my life since, other than never, never join the army. Too late. So I would get sweaty and miserable, but completed every exercise. Lots of folks would 'drop out' of our marches, as long as 20 miles, from place to place to do different stuff like crossing snake filled bayou on two ropes, one up one down. Don't think too bad of the army for doing this. For safety they sent along a drill sargent with an M16 to shoot snakes. That was nice of them. Plus, having the guy that was yelling at us locked and loaded was good for morale. Less complaints anyway. I felt sorry for myself, I was just young. I felt even more sorry for the two friggin Eskimos that were training along side us, US army trainees. They were in hell those poor guys. Felt sorry for them until one morning when they were caught immersed in the drinking water duffle's up to their ears. Even with all the miserable crap the army thought of to throw at us we had still found time to complain about the 'funny' taste to the water. Now we knew. We had been drinking Eskimo tea.​

 

[CavLancer]

Is there a point to this part of your post?

It's nice that you're doing all that recycling and taking public transit. I approve.

What I don't approve of is the attitude that if it's not affecting you directly, it's not really a problem. That's the sense I get from you, and the fact is that there are communities in northern Canada that are literally sinking, falling into the ocean, and being cut off because the permafrost is melting and the freeze/melt cycles are so out of whack.

I just can't help them Valka. Read the above. Every time I think of Eskimos I get a bad taste in my mouth. Oh yes, you haven't lived until you've drank Eskimo tea. :miffed:

 

[onejayhawk]

I reckon being competitive doesn't matter if everyone's dead or our finite resources have been used up.

If finite resources were in danger of being exhausted, you would have a point. If everyone were about to die, you would have a point.

Neither of those is true, so what is your point?

J

 

[Synobun]

If finite resources were in danger of being exhausted, you would have a point. If everyone were about to die, you would have a point.

Neither of those is true, so what is your point?

J

They're not in danger of this today, you are correct.

Which is the point. One day those dangers will exist. Why wait until disaster is waiting around the corner to make the changes necessary for our continued prosperity?

 

[yung.carl.jung]

The best course is not to go radically green. Massive starvation lies down that road. Green is rarely competitive. It's often one of the major obstacles to being competitive.

J

I think you're overreacting and scaremongering here. We definitely would have to cut down on energy, food production and many other amenities, but the "first world" is never starving again. That is for sure. Friendly reminder that every single year we throw out/waste as much food as the entire net production of sub-Saharan Africa. Pretty sure people wouldn't be so picky if they were actually starving. Maybe going radically green isn't the best thing.. Who knows. Your argument surely is not convincing though.

 

[onejayhawk]

I think you're overreacting and scaremongering here. We definitely would have to cut down on energy, food production and many other amenities, but the "first world" is never starving again. That is for sure. Friendly reminder that every single year we throw out/waste as much food as the entire net production of sub-Saharan Africa. Pretty sure people wouldn't be so picky if they were actually starving. Maybe going radically green isn't the best thing.. Who knows. Your argument surely is not convincing though.

I agree someone is scaremongering. It's a standard tactic for climate change advocates. Here is one example.

They're not in danger of this today, you are correct. Which is the point. One day those dangers will exist. Why wait until disaster is waiting around the corner to make the changes necessary for our continued prosperity?

We will not be at that point for many generations. Why bring it up at all?

It is one thing to be a good steward of resources. It's another to talk of disaster around the corner. Let's try to be more rational.

J

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I just can't help them Valka. Read the above. Every time I think of Eskimos I get a bad taste in my mouth. Oh yes, you haven't lived until you've drank Eskimo tea. :miffed:

I don't recall asking you to help them. I'm asking you not to snidely dismiss a problem that exists just because it's not happening in your part of the world.

I think you're overreacting and scaremongering here. We definitely would have to cut down on energy, food production and many other amenities, but the "first world" is never starving again. That is for sure. Friendly reminder that every single year we throw out/waste as much food as the entire net production of sub-Saharan Africa. Pretty sure people wouldn't be so picky if they were actually starving. Maybe going radically green isn't the best thing.. Who knows. Your argument surely is not convincing though.

There are some countries that have, or will have, laws that make it mandatory for grocery stores to donate soon-to-expire food to soup kitchens, food banks, etc.

 

[CavLancer]

Well shoot. That was my best story. :bummed:

 

[Lexicus]

No one is claiming that reasonable actions should be avoided. The objection is to unreasonable mandates from the government. There may be a consensus among scientists (though your citation above sweeps objections under the rug), but they are far removed from what our political movements propose. Counterproductive things, such as ethanol subsidies, remain in effect long after they are disproven.

According to the incoming administration it is clear that 'the objection' is to any action to limit carbon emissions at all.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

I agree someone is scaremongering. It's a standard tactic for climate change advocates. Here is one example.
J

I don't disagree that both sides are using scaremongering, but you are clearly dodging the argument at hand right now.. I'm certain you know full well as I do that the wealthiest countries on this planet will definitely not starve because we change our energy policy to "green". Hell, I'm actually 100% certain that no one in the world would have to starve if we focused less on meat and more on certain grains. Not that I'm advocating vegetarianism or even practicing, but it's just a fact that you need hundreds, maybe thousand times the resources to feed someone with meet as opposed to grains or vegetables. So we both agree your point on starvation is moot?

There are some countries that have, or will have, laws that make it mandatory for grocery stores to donate soon-to-expire food to soup kitchens, food banks, etc.

That's fantastic. In my circle there are a lot of people planning similar arrangements for Germany. Food getting wasted it just a huge pet peeve of mine. Not because "children starving in Africa", I'm a horsehockey person, I buy clothes that were probably produced by little kids with terrible lungs, I get on a lot of airplanes and I get plastic bags for no reason But I definitely do care about all the work that goes into growing, harvesting and preparing meat or vegetables. For some reason people being wasteful with food triggers me beyond belief.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

That's fantastic. In my circle there are a lot of people planning similar arrangements for Germany. Food getting wasted it just a huge pet peeve of mine. Not because "children starving in Africa", I'm a ****ty person, I buy clothes that were probably produced by little kids with terrible lungs, I get on a lot of airplanes and I get plastic bags for no reason But I definitely do care about all the work that goes into growing, harvesting and preparing meat or vegetables. For some reason people being wasteful with food triggers me beyond belief.

A lot of people here are appalled by wastage as well. My SCA group used to donate leftovers from our feasts either to the local women's shelter or the youth shelter. Since our group included a couple of professional cooks, these donations were much appreciated... until the government stepped in and said they weren't allowed to accept anymore donations. This was in spite of the fact that the food was prepared in a government-inspected kitchen.

There was a story on CBC.ca not so long ago about the immense amount of waste committed by Walmart (the ones that have a grocery department). Dumpsters full of food that wasn't anywhere near its best-before date, and the only reason it was being thrown out was because a new shipment had come in and they "needed the room." Some of the stuff was still frozen when the media did a surprise inspection. The food bank would have been beyond grateful for that food.

@CavLancer: You appear to be treating this as nothing but a joke. I'm not treating it as a joke, so if you want to continue with the conversation, please stop with the silliness. I have no idea what you're on about with "Eskimo tea" or "brown people". There are some northern communities that are quite cosmopolitan.

 

[CavLancer]

As soon as someone gets the lawyers off the backs of US grocery stores and restaurants there will be a lot more food donated. As it stands, or as it stood when I worked in a grocery/superstore or the decade before that when I worked in the restaurant biz, these places were concerned that if they gave away soon to be expired or expired food and someone got sick, they would get sued. So in my life I have personally thrown away enough food...tons of food. Broke my heart.

 

[Silurian]

Soon to be expired and expired food are different. Here in the UK, businesses, that give away food are treated as if they sold it so they will be prosecuted if it is out of date. But I can not see why this would be wrong or do you want your local restaurant to be able give "free" out of date dessert with every pizza.

Supermarkets are starting to give soon to be expired food to charities here. Out of date food goes to make electricty from my town, it is used at Devonport Naval Base in Plymouth.