So who's really concerned about climate change?

[innonimatu]

Governments are supposed to be concerned, right? Paris Treaty, the UN panels, talk of green new deals...

But at the same time we have governments idly consenting to, enabling, a speculative bubble on an asset class that, uniquely in the history of trade, does not exist. I'm talking all the cryptocrap or course.

A trade on non-material items of zero use for living conditions. A trade that consumes as much electricity as a medium-sized wealthy country, and growing. We are supposed to be very concerned about CO2 production. But all that energy is wasted so that the financial speculation game can continue?

Is there any more obvious show of cognitive dissonance at work in contemporary politics?

So I consider it demonstrated that governments are not concerned at all with "climate change". They're just managing it as they manage all for-profit ideas our oligarchs toy with. Trade CO2 emission rights, subsidies this or hat industry, hamper another one... the blindingly obvious thing they care not. Or when they do - the chinese banned trading on cryptocrap, but not "mining" yet - they act out of financial management concerns, nit of CO2 production concerns.

Then we had the "extinction rebellion" thing a year or so ago. And miss Greta. Have they spent all their PR budget already? Because I haven't heard about it recently. But the cryptocrap was already a thing back then,. an obvious target waiting to be attacked as an irrational waste and attack on the environment. Dig it figure at all on the agenda?

Then we have the environmentalist parties. Some are influential, say the Greens in Germany. I looked into their programme. What did they had to say about cryptocrap? Oh at least the EU greens have a little thing to say: "the environmental footprint to be taken into account when designing the legal framework" for the cryptocrap. Say, what about simply outlawing the crap, is it too hard to state that the law does not protect any contract involving it? But of course not, they are all for "modern finance" because... modern? They don't want to ban the waste, they want to provide the speculators with the legal framework they need to keep on speculating!
Mind you, the speculators are paying lobbyist to push the usual lie of any polluting industry: they will miraculously only use "renewable energy" and be "net zero". Because this does not push other energy uses to inevitably use the "bad energy", no sir... Look at that global fossil fuel use falling to zero huh? Oh wait, it's not!

So, basically, it's all PR fluff. There is no one is concerned, is there?

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

I'm not sure why you focus so much on speculation, countries like Soviet Union which was amongst the worst polluters and I don't think they had speculations, so there is more to the issue why changes are happen too slowly to meet the goals.
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions

Each year seems to be an increase in CO2 over the last year, the growth rate may not be as fast as past decades but it keep increasing when it would actually need to decrease which is a major issue. The issues is far more deep than something like crypto currency, focusing on one issue wont solve the issue of climate change since it is built on many issues and most of them are old.

 

[Hrothbern]

Well... Climate is going to come in the equation of the credit rates for national debt of countries.

LONDON (Reuters) - A new algorithm-based study by a group of UK universities has predicted that 63 countries – roughly half the number rated by the likes of S&P Global, Moody’s and Fitch - could see their credit ratings cut because of climate change by 2030.
https://www.reuters.com/article/climate-change-ratings-idUSL1N2LG3FG

 

[innonimatu]

I'm not sure why you focus so much on speculation, countries like Soviet Union which was amongst the worst polluters and I don't think they had speculations, so there is more to the issue why changes are happen too slowly to meet the goals.
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions

Because it's the easiest picking out there to cut CO2. Cryptocrap produces nothing useful. Absolutely noting in any way necessary for material like.

And yet it is allowed to keep wasting more and more energy. Perhaps you missed the "crypto-art" scam? This is past ridiculous.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

You would need to cut more than just crypto currency.

 

[Samson]

Not the UK state:

The influential Public Accounts Committee (PAC) says ministers have "no plan" to meet climate change targets, two years after setting them in law.
And the business committee says the vital UN climate conference scheduled for Glasgow in November will fail unless its goals are made clear.​

Because it's the easiest picking out there to cut CO2. Cryptocrap produces nothing useful. Absolutely noting in any way necessary for material like.

And yet it is allowed to keep wasting more and more energy. Perhaps you missed the "crypto-art" scam? This is past ridiculous.

If we have to have a "climate change revolution", after the state has got rid of folding money, cryptocurrency will be the only thing we can use for funding that is not completely monitored by the state. NFT's seem a whole new level of pointless though.

 

[innonimatu]

cryptocurrency will be the only thing we can use for funding that is not completely monitored by the state

A thing that by design necessarily keeps a record of all transactions...not completely monitored? Sorry but I keep running into that claim and can't fail to laugh!
What was not completely monitored were the "exchanges". Was.

I'm picking on cryyptocrap because its such an obvious example of policy going counter the public speech. I could as well point the primary use production graphics showing how fossil fuels remain the overwhelming source of energy, the very slow pace of the reneables, driven essentially by wind.
But that could be put to technical difficulty and slowness of change. Whereas the rise of the cryptocrap is a change happening right now for the much worse. Enabled and aided by several governments busy providing the regulatory framework that allows its trading with the usual protections of state power.

 

[Lexicus]

According to Google cryptocurrency is responsible for carbon emissions roughly equivalent to those of New Zealand.

Here's what that looks like on a graph:

Presumably, Australia accounts for most of the emissions of Oceania...

You have a valid point insofar as capitalist ideology is winning over what the evidence shows is necessary to preserve the climate in something like normalcy (and imo there is no hope of this now even if all emissions ceased tomorrow, which they won't).

But this is not the checkmate you seem to think it is. It's just capitalism in action. That capitalism is a serious obstacle to emission reduction is not an original insight, nor is the existence of "greenwashing" by powerful interests vested in the status quo.

 

[Samson]

A thing that by design necessarily keeps a record of all transactions...not completely monitored? Sorry but I keep running into that claim and can't fail to laugh!
What was not completely monitored were the "exchanges". Was.

I'm picking on cryyptocrap because its such an obvious example of policy going counter the public speech. I could as well point the primary use production graphics showing how fossil fuels remain the overwhelming source of energy, the very slow pace of the reneables, driven essentially by wind.
But that could be put to technical difficulty and slowness of change. Whereas the rise of the cryptocrap is a change happening right now for the much worse. Enabled and aided by several governments busy providing the regulatory framework that allows its trading with the usual protections of state power.

Monero is very hard to track, and you can buy guns on the dark web with bitcoin. They are all very bad for the environment though.

 

[mitsho]

First, our modern world is very complex. Secondly, there are different fields of politics. They sometimes can be contradictory. For example, many states support wine growers financially with ther economic growth policy, but still conduct campaigns against alcoholism within their health policy. Thirdly, if they want to solve those contradictions, it often takes time to devolve one or find a new balance between the two fields, cause it can make sense to support vineyards and meanwhile bring wine consumption down regardless for health reasons while still keeping it legal. And fourthly, as our world is a capitalist one, on the international floor, the different states are in a competition meaning you don't want to harmstring yourself. That means - yes - that it can be frustrating, it can take long, but it doesn't mean that "the governments" don't really mean it. That's true for some, it just doesn't follow from your example. Awareness of the impact of the electricity consumption of cryptocurrencies is rising. It just hasn't translated to political action yet.

If you want to have the example above played out with regards to climate change, substitute wine with meat. You can't deny the hunger of a large part of humanity for meat consumption. It's a status symbol and it tastes good. I don't believe in denying them what we in the western world have had. But you can make production consume less water (efficiency), you can build cyclical production processes (consistency) and you can make people more aware of which meat they really need - ideally less, but of higher quality - (sufficiency).

 

[innonimatu]

@misho I see what you mean, but I have to disagree with the meat comparison. Humans are omnivores who gave been eating meet for millions of years. Culturally and physiologically it's part of us. I dare say we need it, the example of vegetarians notwithstanding.

Cryptocrap is an extremely recent thing, one we most definitely do not need, nor have any attachment with. They're just a tool for speculation on and making (fiat) money. The difference between going without one or going without the other is abyssal.

If electricity user should be cut by 1%, what is the lowest hanging fruit, the things that can be cut with the smaller disruption? It is common sense that you always start with the low-hanging fruit.

Can I believe that our rulers are so ignorant, and their host of advisers likewise, that they don't see this low-hanging fruit? I cannot. Even after the idiocy and denial shown in the covid disaster.

So I'm necessarily left with the the option. They don't care. They're play-acting only because the CO2 trade does move money around, and money does got their interest. But money, the pursuit of the profit motive over everything else, is the source of the environmental problem in the first place. So the market-bases solutions being enshrined into treaties are going to fail to actually resolve the problem. They have been failing. And being enshrined into international treaties the thing will become even more intractable because then any group pushing for real action nationally will be dismissed with the "we're already cooperating internationally to address that in a different way".

 

[Samson]

what is the lowest hanging fruit, the things that can be cut with the smaller disruption?

I do think that crypto causes more harm than the good it does, but I also think the utility is sometimes underestimated. And you really can do crime with it.

You "the things that can be cut with the smaller disruption", and my answer is coal seam fires. They contribute about 3% to global CO2 emissions, do nobody any good, a lot of people a lot of harm, and the solution provides jobs that many people can be trained to do. The Chinese are having a lot of success by pumping loads of mud into them, then keeping an eye on them and pumping more mud in if need be. We should be doing loads more of it.

 

[Lexicus]

The Chinese are having a lot of success by pumping loads of mud into them, then keeping an eye on them and pumping more mud in if need be.

I do wonder what the emissions are from this pumping though...

 

[Birdjaguar]

@misho I see what you mean, but I have to disagree with the meat comparison. Humans are omnivores who gave been eating meet for millions of years. Culturally and physiologically it's part of us. I dare say we need it, the example of vegetarians notwithstanding.

Cryptocrap is an extremely recent thing, one we most definitely do not need, nor have any attachment with. They're just a tool for speculation on and making (fiat) money. The difference between going without one or going without the other is abyssal.

If electricity user should be cut by 1%, what is the lowest hanging fruit, the things that can be cut with the smaller disruption? It is common sense that you always start with the low-hanging fruit.

Nobody "needs" meat. You might have the self discipline to stop or cut down your consumption, but there is not human need for meat products. Banning the consumption of beef and pork would be a good step. If you want to reduce the use of electricity why not ban all air conditioning units?

 

[innonimatu]

Nobody "needs" meat. You might have the self discipline to stop or cut down your consumption, but there is not human need for meat products. Banning the consumption of beef and pork would be a good step. If you want to reduce the use of electricity why not ban all air conditioning units?

I'm not arguing about need, a debate about needing meat or not usually does not get anywhere. I argue about easiness of making changes. And t is very clear that curbing the cryptocrap is far, far asier than cutting consumption of meat.

If governments refuse to even do the easy, can you expect them to do the hard?

India, interestingly, is banning cryptocraps. Not because of energy use but apparently because of the threat to financial stability.

"The west", so advanced it is supposed to be, is just doing nothing and letting things deteriorate. As usual.

 

[Lexicus]

If governments refuse to even do the easy, can you expect them to do the hard?

Governments are doing stuff now that is "harder" than banning cryptocrap.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I'm not arguing about need, a debate about needing meat or not usually does not get anywhere. I argue about easiness of making changes. And t is very clear that curbing the cryptocrap is far, far asier than cutting consumption of meat.

If governments refuse to even do the easy, can you expect them to do the hard?

India, interestingly, is banning cryptocraps. Not because of energy use but apparently because of the threat to financial stability.

"The west", so advanced it is supposed to be, is just doing nothing and letting things deteriorate. As usual.

Blockchain will be a useful tool as it breaks away rom crypto currencies.

 

[innonimatu]

Blockchain will be a useful tool as it breaks away rom crypto currencies.

That tired old excuse... so tell me, after all these years what adequate or useful applications been found for the blockchain? It wasn't for lack of people peddling it...

I'll tell you one. Git. Except that one existed before the first cryptocrap scheme was hatched. Now you just have to find a recent one, in the last 10 years.

 

[Birdjaguar]

That tired old excuse...

You mean like advocating socialism to fix the ills of the world. It's been around 150 years and has yet to move beyond a theoretical framework from which bits and pieces have been tried. Its failure hasn't been for lack of people peddling it.....

Blockchain has had only 40 years since it was presented to the world and until recent decades we haven't had the computer tech to actually put it to effective use. It's progress is slow because change is hard, but it is being applied more and more. It use jsut isn't headline news.

 

[mitsho]

I would stop calling it cryptocrap though. That kinda undercuts your argument.

And sure, "they don't really mean it" is one valid interpretation. But there is also "it just takes more time like it does with every new innovation", or "the extent of the problem hasn't been realized yet", or yes "the lobby arguing for it is bigger than the one against". And that last one is just Democracy, sensible policies are easily written by the experts, but then they need to gain support in the forum of public opinion.

Also, do you agree with me that a single country banning cryptocurrencies (or blockchains as a whole?) wouldn't do anything since you can still use as it is a global network. Just banning the infrastructure is easy (but still a lot of police work), but regulating the users seems like a nightmare, no? Basically, I'm interested in the how.