Climate Change is not real!

But I hope that you will print out what you just said and hang it on your wall so when someone comes to you and asks "Why has your generation not done more 40 years ago?" then you simply point to that quote.
I guess Fifty years from now in the ruins of Berlin, New Turkey. you can tell people you fought the good fight by arguing with strangers over the internet.
 
We can fix climate change if we only shit every other day, Bolsonaro said it, and would you doubt him?
 
I like the attitude of that. Cut the rainforest down for corporate profit, and then ask the population to plz plz stop shitting in order to balance it all out
 
If they don't burn down the entire Amazonia the unemployment rate would increase even more than it has already been doing under Bolsonaro.
 
Record for the highest ever measured temperatures in Germany since the start of measuring temperatures in 1800 or so, has been breached like 3 times in the past 1 or 2 days.

Climate change is not real guys. We and we have nothing to worry about.


Just a reminder.
THE WORLD IS LITERALLY ENDING!!!
Republicans: Mkay, cool
Cashier says happy holidays
Republicans: THIS IS GENOCIDE PASS LEGISLATION IMMEDIATELY
 

It will always be a question Crni, you know why, because not everywhere in the world will be hit the same. Guess what when the world falls apart some countries are actually predicted to become more livable. I am Canadian, we expect that by 2040 there will actually be a 0.5% increase in GSP directly tied to how the climate has changed our country with more land becoming arable, and more areas open for resource extraction. See there will always be a choice. The only way there would be no choice is if the world goes full climate Nazi and starts wars over forcing other countries to do the same.

Right now my Country is actively working on reducing our emissions using programs that do not reduce our emissions, those proposed by our "progressive" and corrupt unethical prime minister. Sorry but I do not see the progressive's version of environmentalism going anywhere (damn climate Nazis) and until a real discussion that does involve real ideas not just feel good platitudes you all are fucked and I will enjoy my better off country.
 
It will always be a question Crni, you know why, because not everywhere in the world will be hit the same. Guess what when the world falls apart some countries are actually predicted to become more livable. I am Canadian, we expect that by 2040 there will actually be a 0.5% increase in GSP directly tied to how the climate has changed our country with more land becoming arable, and more areas open for resource extraction. See there will always be a choice. The only way there would be no choice is if the world goes full climate Nazi and starts wars over forcing other countries to do the same.

Yeah ... you go and believe that.

This might be true if the global average temperature doesn't move past 2°. But right now we're on a path where it exceeds 4° by 2060 and even 6° by 2090. Why have they choose 2° in Paris as a limit? Have you never asked your self that? Was it coincidence? Or because 2° sounds nice? It was actually the limit set by climate scientists where we're not just talking about severe issues anymore but the actual survival of our species. At some point a growing temperature will start a cycle where more and more green house gases will enter the atmosphere and this planet becomes inhospitable for human life.

But let us say this is not the case. Do you think Canada can just shield it self from the consequences? Rising sea levels, mass migration and so on. Millions if not billions will be affected. Including Canadians I am afraid. The effects of the changing climate is already costing us now millions. And those costs are only going to grow. How do you think will this play out when millions of people start to move in those areas you're talking about? That everything will stay peacefully and there will be no chaos. I like you dude but seriously we're looking at a future here that will be very ugly. For everyone. There is no escape from this.

Sorry but I do not see the progressive's version of environmentalism going anywhere (damn climate Nazis) and until a real discussion that does involve real ideas not just feel good platitudes you all are fucked and I will enjoy my better off country.
I really laughed out loud when I read that. I mean it. Because this is so ridiculous. It's simply incredibly naive. You're talking like as Canada is not on the same planet like the rest of the world. You really think loosing most if not all of the rain forest and marine live is not going to affect you because you're living in ... Canada?

Seriously this is totally ridiculous. Scientist like leading experts in the fields of biology, physics, the climate they all say we're heading in a global collapse of our ecosystem. But some people can only think about how the melting ice in the artic is opening up new trade routes ... it's incredible.
 
Last edited:
I am Canadian, we expect that by 2040 there will actually be a 0.5% increase in GSP directly tied to how the climate has changed our country with more land becoming arable, and more areas open for resource extraction.
Hmmm. sounds like somebody could use some Freedom.
tumblr_inline_ogt7xqF9lj1rz627h_500.gif

It ain't me is heard getting louder over the horizon.
 
Crni, you keep equating "affected" with "doom", but GonZo *IS* right about opening arable land in the permafrost. When it comes time to asking oneself things - ask yourself why Russia pushes so hard for denial, and then ask yourself what Russia could have to lose from melting ice caps in the arctic.
You could then say "VLADIVOSTOK WOULD BE AFFECTED CHECK MATE BUDDY!" and yes, yes, absolutely - Vladivostok would be affected: But arable land would open up. Minable land would open up in areas far away from Vladivostok. Previously frozen resources would come available.
Parts of the world get doomed, others get affected. Imagine Equator litterally burning, while Antarctica becomes a temperate Sweden-esque continent, with mild winters and hot summers. Sea levels rised a full 8 metres, coastal cities alongside it.

Now - the following part is very, very important: I do not think that it is nice.

I don´t think it is nice for Vladivostok to be heavily affected by rising sea levels, as well as St. Petersburg. I do NOT think it is NICE.

But the fact remains - Russian oligarcs - will win money - by melting the tundra. They will win money - by opening up the arctic trade routes permanently. THEY - THEY will win money! Me, Zegh, I will not win money - but THEY will!

There´s even the possibility of massively HABITATING northern Siberia. Can you imagine? Again - importantissimo: I don´t think it´s a nice thing to sacrifice the entire world for increased productivity in northern Siberia, this is not ME agreeing - but it DOES remain a fact: Global warming is GOOD for capitalists and oligarcs. That is why they push for it: It´s good for THEM (not ME, but THEM!)

The same goes for Canada. Canada is not A person. Canada is not GonZo. Canada is their tycoons, oligarcs and CEOs - they WILL NOT give a shit. It costs them MONEY to give shits. They will HURL the ENTIRE POPULATION of THEIR COUNTRY into HELL - if they can earn a few bucks doing it: And that is WHY they ARE doing it!

Crni, you have grown dear in my heart - but ... *twitch* you´re SO RIGHT about some things, and ... you come SO SO CLOSE to really getting it! The closest you get is when you lamentingly go "we´re all fucked" because we aaaaaaaaaare...
Bolsanaro green-lit the utter destruction of the Amazon, not because I think it´s nice (and I don´t, believe me), not because "Brazil" thinks it´s nice - not because anybody thinks its nice! But because lumber and cattle and resource tycoons will get even richer than they allready are. Because capitalism is ALWAYS about continued growth. Capitalism does not maintain itself to sustain itself - it ONLY GROWS to sustain itself.
Bolsanaro does NOT think chopping down the Amazon will be good for people. He KNOWS it will be BAD for EVERYONE - but he will make money. His friends will make money. They will stay in their air conditioned haciendas somewhere, and sip mojitos while the rest of us boil.

NONE of this means "nice" - I cannot stress that enough. None of this means sea levels aren´t rising, polar caps aren´t melting, and people aren´t suffering around the world. It means that the capitalist powers that push for it will make money regardless of suffering, PLAN to continue making money through increased suffering, and that *that* is pretty much *why* this is happening.
Compare it to other suffering-based capitalist ventures, like military, narcotics and human trafficking.
Human trafficking is SUPER AWESOME for banks and private investors. SUPER AWESOME!!! That does *not* mean it´s good for everybody else! It´s bad for everybody else! And sad! Both bad and sad!

I usually don´t post vids, but take a look at this - it´s not long:
 
Last edited:
Look here is what I am trying to say :

We could change and prevent most of the severe effects from happening but we're not doing it and the arguments when you look at it is that people are not willing to change their lifestyles which is understandable. Yet what I am trying to explain is that this change will happen either way regardless if we decide to do something or not. We have only two choices here. A very bad and disruptive effect in the near future which will affect everyone one way or another or we accept some not so severe changes now to enjoy a decent future. There is no middle ground. Just as how you can't get half Aids or half cancer or partial diabetes or half of a pregnancy. You either have it or you don't. And you either do something against it or you deal with the consequences. Yes some people will suffer eventually less from those consequences but they will hit everyone. It's like a global impact if you want. If it is large enough like 1 km in diameter you can not say that some people won't be affected.

Crni, you keep equating "affected" with "doom", but GonZo *IS* right about opening arable land in the permafrost. When it comes time to asking oneself things - ask yourself why Russia pushes so hard for denial, and then ask yourself what Russia could have to lose from melting ice caps in the arctic.
You could then say "VLADIVOSTOK WOULD BE AFFECTED CHECK MATE BUDDY!" and yes, yes, absolutely - Vladivostok would be affected: But arable land would open up. Minable land would open up. Previously frozen resources would come available.

I already addressed that.

I quote my self here :

This might be true if the global average temperature doesn't move past 2°. But right now we're on a path where it exceeds 4° by 2060 and even 6° by 2090 (...)

This land we're talking about will also not suddenly turn in to a paradise because it's a few degrees warmer or a place where you can perform sophisticated mining operations. You have actually no infrastructure in most of those areas and the soil is quite often really not suitable for a lot of agriculture and livestock either. You have vast areas of land on this planet where no one is farming anything right now because nothing is growing there but grass. A problem that farmers in Brazil for example are constantly dealing with while they burn down the rain forests. The Soil they gain here is quite often unsuited for farming because of the missing eco system. The trees are in a symbiotic relationship with the plants, insects, animals and mushrooms on the ground constantly fertilizing the areas. Now I am not an expert on agriculture but the correct level of nitrates, nitrogen and the like are essential for most crops. If those are missing the ground becomes for the most part useless for farming after a few yields. We right now get around this by using large amounts of fertilizers but this comes with it's own problems. It requires excellent infrastructures and we're also running out of resources for manufacturing them and at some point the soil can get overfertilize. But more organic ways of farming doesn't even get close to the yields we require to feed the current populations. And nations like Canada, the US and Europe are very depended on global food production and global trade. Much more than we realize. And if those collapse we can not just switch over to domestic food production in a few months. In the next few decades we will be facing what one could see as biblical events. This is not like zero-sum game where one path is closed and another one is suddenly opened. Oh hey global food production collapsed but we can now send ships trough the arctic which saves us a couple of days to get the grain and products no one is manufacturing anymore! Hey! 90% of our worlds industry is gone but we can open a few mines and oil companies in Siberia now to produce goods no one is buying anymore! *Russian voice* Splendid where are my oil-dollars now?


I am truly sorry but it is laughable to talk about those few possible positive instances where parts of Siberia or Canada could become hospitable to a small number of people while we talk about BILLIONS(!) which will be affected by rising sea levels, gigantic draughts, large storms and other extreme events. It's like living in a bubble where we belief there is a cop-out from global events taking place.

That's the point.

The only comfort I take out of it is when those events take place almost no one can say he didn't knew it. Science has told us about it for the last 60 years.

Now - the following part is very, very important: I do not think that it is nice.


I don´t think it is nice for Vladivostok to be heavily affected by rising sea levels, as well as St. Petersburg. I do NOT think it is NICE.
Good.

But the fact remains - Russian oligarcs - will win money - by melting the tundra. They will win money - by opening up the arctic trade routes permanently. THEY - THEY will win money! Me, Zegh, I will not win money - but THEY will!
Leading experts say they wont. Which includes also economists. Not in the long run. The few positive points they might gain from it will be superseded by all the negative effects. They 'belief' for what ever crazy reason they will make tons of money from it. Here are some economic effects of the climate crisis :

For the US :

A common argument made against climate-change mitigation is that it’s bad for the economy. A new US government report released Friday (Nov. 23) says it will be much worse for America’s economic health to do nothing.

Labor losses
Climate change could have a big impact on labor, a key pillar of the economy. By the end of the century, productivity losses due to extreme heat in jobs that require being outside, such as agriculture and construction, could result in some $160 billion in lost wages a year, according to the report.

Higher energy costs
Another big economic blow will come from rising energy costs: up to $87 billion a year by 2100 due to mounting demand on a power system made less reliable by extreme weather.

Damaged infrastructure
As much as $507 billion’s worth of real estate is at risk of being inundated by rising sea levels by 2100, according to the report. Inland, flooding could destroy thousands of bridges, resulting in damages of $1.2 billion to $1.4 billion a year by 2050.

Shrinking environmental capital
Americans would also suffer from the losses of natural resources they now bank on. Ocean acidification would take a toll—of up to $230 million—on shellfish harvests. Disappearing coral reefs alone would shave $140 billion off the recreation industry; cold-water fishing and skiing would also be affected.

https://qz.com/1473794/government-report-climate-change-will-cost-the-us-economy-billions/

And this will look similar in many other nations. In most even worse.

Russia :

This report undertakes a long-term economic evaluation of the losses, profits, and risks for agriculture connected to climate change throughout the territory of the Russian Federation. The analysis focuses primarily on grain production, since this sector is perhaps the most dependent on weather and climate factors. Issues connected with the impacts of climate change on the production of other crops, as well as on animal husbandry, require additional research.

The report focuses mainly on an economic evaluation of the impact of climate change on crop production at the national level, and it features an analysis of the situation in the country’s agricultural regions where the negative effects of climate change are especially pronounced. The final part of the report examines the prospects for adapting Russia’s agriculture to climate change.

This research relied on open sources of data and information, publications by Russian science and research institutes, international organizations, and the opinions of experts and specialists

(...)
1.3. Impact of climate on agricultural production (natural output indicators)

(...)
To sum up the ideas presented in this section, we can say that most Russian and international science and research institutes project a significant drop in grain harvests in the Russian Federation triggered by climate change. Quantitative estimates of the decrease will be used to analyse the economic loss in the following sections.

https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxf...imate-change-agriculture-russia-010413-en.pdf

And we're still talking only about a change in 2° for the most part. With temperatures above 4° even large parts of the United States will become completely inhospitable. Maybe Canada will start to build a wall then? We have to wait and see I guess.

There´s even the possibility of massively HABITATING northern Siberia. Can you imagine? Again - importantissimo: I don´t think it´s a nice thing to sacrifice the entire world for increased productivity in northern Siberia, this is not ME agreeing - but it DOES remain a fact: Global warming is GOOD for capitalists and oligarcs. That is why they push for it: It´s good for THEM (not ME, but THEM!)

The same goes for Canada. Canada is not A person. Canada is not GonZo. Canada is their tycoons, oligarcs and CEOs - they WILL NOT give a shit. It costs them MONEY to give shits. They will HURL the ENTIRE POPULATION of THEIR COUNTRY into HELL - if they can earn a few bucks doing it: And that is WHY they ARE doing it!

Crni, you have grown dear in my heart - but ... *twitch* you´re SO RIGHT about some things, and ... you come SO SO CLOSE to really getting it! The closest you get is when you lamentingly go "we´re all fucked" because we aaaaaaaaaare...
Bolsanaro green-lit the utter destruction of the Amazon, not because I think it´s nice (and I don´t, believe me), not because "Brazil" thinks it´s nice - not because anybody thinks its nice! But because lumber and cattle and resource tycoons will get even richer than they allready are. Because capitalism is ALWAYS about continued growth. Capitalism does not maintain itself to sustain itself - it ONLY GROWS to sustain itself.
Bolsanaro does NOT think chopping down the Amazon will be good for people. He KNOWS it will be BAD for EVERYONE - but he will make money. His friends will make money. They will stay in their air conditioned haciendas somewhere, and sip mojitos while the rest of us boil.

NONE of this means "nice" - I cannot stress that enough. None of this means sea levels aren´t rising, polar caps aren´t melting, and people aren´t suffering around the world. It means that the capitalist powers that push for it will make money regardless of suffering, PLAN to continue making money through increased suffering, and that *that* is pretty much *why* this is happening.
Compare it to other suffering-based capitalist ventures, like military, narcotics and human trafficking.
Human trafficking is SUPER AWESOME for banks and private investors. SUPER AWESOME!!! That does *not* mean it´s good for everybody else! It´s bad for everybody else! And sad! Both bad and sad!
I think you're completely misunderstanding me here.

You know I was addressing Gonzos argument that Canada will be for the most part not affected maybe even benefit from the effects. So I am not sure what your point is here. That Gonzo is not the Oil industry or their rich elite? Since when have I made that argument? Human Trafficking and conflicts are also a completely different issues. And someone like Bolsonaro might actually even really believe what he says - I quote "I have a mission from god". He probably simply doesn't believe that climate change is even really happening and that it's all just a hoax. Take this conversation between Neil Tyson and Bob Lutz (siting next to Bill Maher) for example. I actually do think that Bob is completely convinced from his argument and not lying here:



And there are many CEOs, politicians and ordinary people that think like that. This is not about money this is about ideology. You're right when it comes to "Capitalism" for the lack of better words. But Capitalism has become a religion of sorts. An ideology. And this is the danger. If it was only about money we might have actually fixed the issue a long time ago I think because climate change will cost us billions in end.

But a global collapse of the ecosystem where 90% of the species disappear will affect everyone. There can be no doubt about this. Even people migrating to those promised lands in Siberia or what ever. There is literally no escape from this. There won't be rich people sitting in some underground bunker in the most remote lands of Canada or Russia sipping Mojitos and counting their money. Right now the effects of the climate change affect the poorest countries and inhabitants but it is not going to stay that way. If the crysis in Syria and the 800.000 Refugees in Europe have shown us one thing, massive movements of people can occur and have severe effects on the political landscape like the growing right wing populism. Now think about that Climate Migrants Might Reach One Billion by 2050.

Currently, forecasts vary from 25 million to 1 billion environmental migrants by 2050, moving either within their countries or across borders, on a permanent or temporary basis, with 200 million being the most widely cited estimate, according to a 2015 study carried out by the Institute for Environment and Human Security of the United Nations University.
https://reliefweb.int/report/world/climate-migrants-might-reach-one-billion-2050


  • This is the possible future we're looking at. And there won't be a lot we can do to protect our self from it in the long run. And definitely not by moving to Siberia. As Hass said, this whole thing will be very ugly.
 
Last edited:
Jair Poopeveryotherday Bolsonaro just accused ONGs and Indigenous people of causing the fires.

Hey, brazilians, maybe it wasn't a good idea to vote for the literal Fascist sympathizer who derregulated everything?
 
sniping again, damn these are some long posts

I never said Canada would not be affected, you seem to misunderstand me. I said overall and averaging out the loss compared to the gains we will benefit in Canada. In fact if we are all so fucked and the world is doomed then we should just continue on this path (I know, I don't actually believe this but hear me out) As the oceans rise and reach a level roughly 2.0m higher than they should be massive amounts of coastal areas are going to be unlivable anymore. This is going to create a large amount of climate refugees (this is starting to happen) and they will need places to go. This will require the new infrastructure you just talked about to reach these new mining areas and farmable lands. Northern countries that will benefit from climate change like Russia, and Canada will have to open there doors and see massive population explosions as being previously cold places (fuck would 9 degrees warmer feel good when its -40) they are both relatively minor amounts of population per land mass.

As far as you saying people need to change there habits, well this is the one thing that you can not force on people. That is quite literally dictatorship. You have to give them choices and everyone driving an SUV or truck will still want to purchase a truck and may just keep driving there older gas powered vehicle if you do not give them a new option to choose from? Would it not be better to have that person choose to buy a new electric vehicle than keep going on their gas powered one? Freedom is giving the people choice, and letting them choose. Regulations are brought in to limit the choice, but if you limit too much people will just get angry and through that system out.

Is it not better to have almost everybody on board, then just those that agree with everything you are doing? It seems if you could get the majorities buy in for the plans you propose you would have it. But you don't, and call those who don't 100% agree with you deniers. I agree that 100% of the planet is going to be affected by climate change, I agree that the overall state of the world will be worse. I think most of the plans proposed don't give people any choice and due to that will not be accepted by the majority, never mind the business leaders and politicians that help guide and grow our countries. Until you can give people the choices that make sure that they can continue to grow and improve, we are fucked.

My example of all of this is a SUV, the jeep wrangler. This is one vehicle that will never disappear, it is one of the highest selling SUV's has one of the most environmentally friendly build processes, with the same factory making the same parts for years on end (JK's were made for 11 years, a 2007 looks almost exactly the same as a 2018). Something like that has a big impact with not constantly changing the factory tooling around and having to make smaller amounts of spare parts as you don't need to support 2 years of a body style for the next 20 years. Now they are gas guzzlers, but 2020 JL's will have a hybrid option and they will have a full electric option after that. Jeep buyers are excited about this, in fact its talked about how much this will benefit us off road with the instant torque offered by electric motors. Given the choice you will see electric SUV's and trucks as that is what people want so you might as well make want they actually want be beneficial than telling them no you cant have that because this other thing will be 2% more efficient.
 
Crni thinks the whole world will end or some shit. MOVE AWAY FROM THE COAST MORONS. You think the heat is just going to keep rising right on up and we are all going to melt and die and it cracks me up how long you have been ranting about it. Not because you don't have a right to do it, but the fact you have this much time and energy to put into climate change....it's impressive. I applaud your tenacity. GO OUT AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

Internet Warrior types really do drive me insane. All of this debate COULD BE USED ON PEOPLE THAT MATTER. Nobody here can do a single fucking thing about any of this, but Crni is so scared he waxes poetic about Star Trek coming to save the human race with Communism. I tell you the truth: If it is meant to happen it will, so stop worrying about it. You cannot change the course of human history with posts on the internet or by driving electric cars. You have to be a truly amazing person to cause that kind of change. Even greater than Obama and Kennedy combined. Not sure how great that is. Fucking Marilyn Monroe alone is pretty great.

I might start a thread on Marilyn Monroe because it will cause a lot of changes in penises around here. Might get them working again. Before you know it there will be emissions flying all over the place to counter the global warming.
 
Crni thinks the whole world will end or some shit. MOVE AWAY FROM THE COAST MORONS. You think the heat is just going to keep rising right on up and we are all going to melt and die and it cracks me up how long you have been ranting about it. Not because you don't have a right to do it, but the fact you have this much time and energy to put into climate change....it's impressive. I applaud your tenacity. GO OUT AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

Internet Warrior types really do drive me insane. All of this debate COULD BE USED ON PEOPLE THAT MATTER. Nobody here can do a single fucking thing about any of this, but Crni is so scared he waxes poetic about Star Trek coming to save the human race with Communism. I tell you the truth: If it is meant to happen it will, so stop worrying about it. You cannot change the course of human history with posts on the internet or by driving electric cars. You have to be a truly amazing person to cause that kind of change. Even greater than Obama and Kennedy combined. Not sure how great that is. Fucking Marilyn Monroe alone is pretty great.

I might start a thread on Marilyn Monroe because it will cause a lot of changes in penises around here. Might get them working again. Before you know it there will be emissions flying all over the place to counter the global warming.

Ok you now have to change you avatar to Marilyn Monroe, it only seems to make sense now hahahaha.
 
I never said Canada would not be affected, you seem to misunderstand me. I said overall and averaging out the loss compared to the gains we will benefit in Canada. In fact if we are all so fucked and the world is doomed then we should just continue on this path (I know, I don't actually believe this but hear me out) As the oceans rise and reach a level roughly 2.0m higher than they should be massive amounts of coastal areas are going to be unlivable anymore. This is going to create a large amount of climate refugees (this is starting to happen) and they will need places to go. This will require the new infrastructure you just talked about to reach these new mining areas and farmable lands. Northern countries that will benefit from climate change like Russia, and Canada will have to open there doors and see massive population explosions as being previously cold places (fuck would 9 degrees warmer feel good when its -40) they are both relatively minor amounts of population per land mass.
Yeah right. Countries will let in masses of people.

To be hones I think it's more realistic to expect countries shutting down their doors and closing the gates hoping for the best. Besides I completely disagree with "I said overall and averaging out the loss compared to the gains we will benefit in Canada.". No prediction that I know of explains it that way and it doesn't seem there is really a foundation for that assessment. Like I said this is not a zero sum game. We're again talking about the collapse of whole eco systems here. What do you think will happen when 90% of the wildlife and plants in Canada disappear?

As far as you saying people need to change there habits, well this is the one thing that you can not force on people. That is quite literally dictatorship. You have to give them choices and everyone driving an SUV or truck will still want to purchase a truck and may just keep driving there older gas powered vehicle if you do not give them a new option to choose from? Would it not be better to have that person choose to buy a new electric vehicle than keep going on their gas powered one? Freedom is giving the people choice, and letting them choose. Regulations are brought in to limit the choice, but if you limit too much people will just get angry and through that system out.
I am not stupid. I am not saying people need to change I am saying we have to. However I am not saying that we will change. Big difference. I personally believe we actually won't make the necessary changes.

But just one point. We are banning and regulating things all the time from Asbestos, DDT, speeding. We have very different societies compared to 60 years ago. Are we living in dictatorships because of it? Or did we loose our freedom because companies now can't just dump their sewage where they please like in the past before someone noticed hey maybe it is not good if we just let someone dump oil in to rivers? If this is what constitutes a dictatorship then people have no clue what a real one is. Because when you look at the REAL dictatorships out there they are also some of the most polluted regions on this planet. Go figure.

Is it not better to have almost everybody on board, then just those that agree with everything you are doing? It seems if you could get the majorities buy in for the plans you propose you would have it. But you don't, and call those who don't 100% agree with you deniers. I agree that 100% of the planet is going to be affected by climate change, I agree that the overall state of the world will be worse. I think most of the plans proposed don't give people any choice and due to that will not be accepted by the majority, never mind the business leaders and politicians that help guide and grow our countries. Until you can give people the choices that make sure that they can continue to grow and improve, we are fucked.
Ok. Here is the thing. If someone tells you the nuclear reactor at Tschernobyl exploded the geiger counters are off the charts and you should evacuate the area because there is massive radiation measured. Is this now a political decision and one which depends on any majority or opinion where you have everyone to agree and where you stand around explaining people which don't believe there is any radiation at all or that it's not so bad why it's dangerous? Or do you actually go in and evacuate the damn city to prevent any further harm?

Here is what many scientists are telling us. We are past the point where it is about choices. We have to lower the pollution we're causing. Right now. Or we have to deal with the consequences of it. Those are the two options here. 40 Years ago would could have done things a lot differently. But since previous generations decided to do nothing about it we now don't have this luxury anymore.

If the majority can not agree on the necessity of those changes, like immediately stop using coal, the burning of the Brazilian forest and overfishing of our oceans and polluting it with plastic then we will have absolutely no other choice but to deal with the consequences. Which is what I believe will happen.

Our society is like an alcoholic that's addicted. We know we have to stop drinking. But we don't do it because it's "no choice".

My example of all of this is a SUV, the jeep wrangler. This is one vehicle that will never disappear, it is one of the highest selling SUV's has one of the most environmentally friendly build processes, with the same factory making the same parts for years on end (JK's were made for 11 years, a 2007 looks almost exactly the same as a 2018). Something like that has a big impact with not constantly changing the factory tooling around and having to make smaller amounts of spare parts as you don't need to support 2 years of a body style for the next 20 years. Now they are gas guzzlers, but 2020 JL's will have a hybrid option and they will have a full electric option after that. Jeep buyers are excited about this, in fact its talked about how much this will benefit us off road with the instant torque offered by electric motors. Given the choice you will see electric SUV's and trucks as that is what people want so you might as well make want they actually want be beneficial than telling them no you cant have that because this other thing will be 2% more efficient.
I think I reached the point where I have to repeat my self. Energy efficiency vs Energy Sufficiency.

The question is not if you or anyone else is driving around an electric or diesel truck. The issue is if millions of people do it.

It's like as If I you would get each month a pay check of 2000 $. But each month you spend 2500 $ on all kinds of stuff and end up in debt. I tell you to solve the issue you are not allowed to spend more than 2000 $. You tell me now you just have to find a way to spend those 500 $ more efficiently so you get more goods for it. And to fix the issue of the debts you take on a loan.

Does this make sense to you? As a serious question. We have a global budged here and we can go over this budged for some time making debts but we can not do this for ever.

*Edit

Crni thinks the whole world will end or some shit.
The world AS WE KNOW IT (!) will end.

Here is a small example of what I am talking about-

Salton Sea California

what it looked like in the 1950s :

salton-sea-postcard-3.jpg


SaltonSea1950s.jpg


What it looks like today:

WPB-DROUGHT-SALTONSEA284.jpg


fixedw_large_4x.jpg


However, in the early 1950s, certain species survived including gulf croaker, sargo, orange corvine and tilapia. As the fish began to thrive, it fueled a recreation boom in the 1950s and the inland desert sea became an inviting sport-fishing and vacation destination. In no time, its coastline developed numerous resorts and marinas catering to water skiers, boaters, and fishermen. Billed as “Palm Springs-by-the-Sea,” restaurants, shops, and nightclubs also sprang up along the shores. The lake enjoyed immense popularity, especially among the rich and famous as movie stars and recording artists flocked to the area. From Dean Martin, to Jerry Lewis, Frank Sinatra, and the Beach Boys, the lake became a speedboat playground.

However, Salton Sea’s bright lights would quickly fade in the 1970s when the sea’s water level began rising from several years of heavy rains and increasing agricultural drainage. Shorefront homes, businesses, resorts, and marinas flooded several times until the water stabilized in 1980 after a series of conservation measures to reduce field run-off. However, for the many resort areas, it was too late. The salt and fertilizers of the run-off had accumulated to such a degree that they had reached toxic levels, which began a cycle of decay. As algae fed on the toxins, it created massive amounts of rotten smelling matter floating upon the surface of the lake and suffocated many of the fish.


Within just a few years, the resorts had closed, the marinas were abandoned, and those who could afford to, had moved, leaving in their wake, abandoned businesses and homes, and scattered junk.

Today, Salton Sea continues to maintain itself, fed by the Alamo, Whitewater, and New Rivers, as well as continued agricultural runoff from irrigated farmland. Covering an average surface area of about 375 miles, it is the largest lake in California.

But, still the lake is in trouble. The salt in the Salton Sea is higher than that of the Pacific Ocean and numerous restoration plans have been developed over the years, the latest of which proposes to reduce the size of the lake to make it more manageable at a cost of billions of dollars and more than two decades to complete.

The lake is dotted with “signs” of more prosperous times and the area is much like a “ghost lake,” surrounded by small “ghost towns,” “ghost resorts,” and “ghost trailer parks.”


If doesn't look like "The end of the world (as we know it)" then I do not know what. And this happend due to decades of industrial and economical exploitation. And now we're looking at it on a global scale.
 
Last edited:
The world AS WE KNOW IT (!) will end. Here is a small example of what I am talking about-Salton Sea California
The Salton Sea was made on accident, you toolbag. It is drying up because it was made by a flood over 100 years ago.
 
People are trying to guilt trip common folk over worrying about the continued damage to the Amazonia by bringing up Plastic straw usage, eating meat or plastic bags, but even if we all stopped eating meat and using straws right now en masse that is not gonna undo the damage, the issue here is policy, even after the fire is put out the damage will still continue, if there are no policy changes then it will just happen again and again. Pop activism is the fucking worst.
 
Back
Top