121 degrees F, 49.6 C, in Canada, more associated with moose and permafrost. More than 500 deaths associated with heat, and the village of Lytton BC totally destroyed by fire.

'Climate emergency' is not political rhetoric, it describes exactly what is happening. — Wayfarer

And this is only one part of the world. We simultaneously have a drought going on here in New England, and one of the hottest Junes on record.

Climate is not weather, but it disrupts the weather. We’re seeing it happen before our eyes. The pattern is obvious, provided we can read a graph.

But the question for philosophy is not, is it happening or is it going to be bad, but how do we need to reimagine ourselves and our societies to include our dependencies on environment? — unenlightened

Exactly right.

There's also geoengineering, which I fear will be the political right's "easy" response to the crisis once they can no longer ignore the asteroid that they've been downplaying for decades, but I don't think we're at that phase yet for them. — Mr Bee

Unfortunately I agree with you, although I’m still hopeful that the carbon removal technology can ramp up quickly. Bill Gates is on the job, after all.

I'm all for clean, green, and hip energy if it can be sustained under capitalism and not through government intervention. — Kasperanza

So sayeth the church of neoliberalism. Glad to see someone still parrots the bullshit of Ayn Rand.

Capitalism wouldn’t last one second without “government intervention,” which is obvious to anyone who doesn’t live in Friedman and Rand’s dreamworld.

The irony that the main concern is to find 'alternative' sources of energy to solve a problem of excess energy is amusing and pathetic. The conversation is more than 50 years old already, and it might be worth folk's while to catch up a litt — unenlightened

I agree. Most of the human race should revert to a Stone Age level.

The small number who hold onto the progress we've made will eventually leave earth and have fun abroad.

The rest can enjoy the earthly sunsets and die early, in pain, in the dirt. :up:

I agree. Most of the human race should revert to a Stone Age level. — frank

I agree. You are silly.

Who goes to shit where their kids eat?
Or their kids' kids?
Climate impact, pollution, increasing extinctions, ...
Perhaps now is a good time to consider the longer term.
At least try to avoid some future suffering?
There's an ethical thing going on here.
But of course anyone is free to have no such considerations, to not care.

Hence the appeal of the Disney-themed toothpaste dispenser - high membership reward, little expense in joining. The expense in joining bit is insurmountable - what we want to achieve with something like climate change is going to require sacrifice - whether that's in terms of reduced consumption or in spending to fund community solutions. So social pressure to become a member needs to be higher. What we see in protest movements around climate change is the exact opposite. Basically, unless you're a government minister or the CEO of BP, you're not the target and so membership is optional. Middle class householders only need to take one glance at the giant leap they'd need to take feel members of the circus troop protesting outside their window, realise that non-membership will have no impact on their lives at all, to sit comfortably and watch the show. — Isaac

Interesting information, thanks.

So is there something in the research that tells us how we increase pressure to become a member?

fuels? Oh, things are too hot? Blast the air conditioning. Things are too cold? — Kasperanza

You do know that a/cs create heat, yes? And more heat than cold, yes? I agree with @Xtrix; you appear to be a know-nothing.

And very likely you have a lot of company. In a world that could contain and accommodate ignorance like yours, you could go over there away from here and do what you wanted - not in itself the best of adjustments. But global warming is among other things the clear statement that the world can no longer accommodate your kind of abuse and misuse. And there's a fair chance in the next twenty years you may find yourself in front of some tribunal for it, whether a court of human justice or the judgment of the environment itself. You should hope for the former.

Most of the human race should revert to a Stone Age level. — frank

No one is- or ever has - said this is what’s necessary. This is yet another common strawman used by science deniers. It’s either catastrophe or Stone Age, according to you. Must take real effort to remain so ignorant.

It's actually HG Wells dumbshit. — frank

You should have quoted H G Wells and agreed with him, instead of quoting me and agreeing with yourself. Even quite smart people have to respond to your post, not your thoughts.

I was agreeing with you that the whole species doesn't need to discover new energy sources, just the part that wants to remain hi-tech.

Everyone resume defensive postures.

And I was disagreeing with you in no uncertain terms.

Furthermore, expressing it as "back to the stone age" is hyperbolic scaremongering. No, we don't have to give up modern medicine and dentistry, modern communications, modern housing, clean water and sewage treatment, a varied diet, and so on. We might have to give up petrol engined cars, eat less meat, stop flying as routine, work a bit harder at recycling, use public transport and stay at home more, stop buying fashion clothes like they're going out of fashion. We need to give up some of the crap we have been persuaded to want that we would lose nothing by doing without.

But we might lose them if we let runaway global warming destroy our societies.

Furthermore, expressing it as "back to the stone age" is hyperbolic scaremongering — unenlightened

I really didn't mean it that way. I have recent ancestors who had stone age technology. Maybe that's why it doesn't scare me?

Returning to that life would just mean letting go of grand dreams of what we could be.

If climate conditions became similar to PETM conditions, we might have no choice.

No, we don't have to give up modern medicine and dentistry, modern communications, modern housing, clean water and sewage treatment, a varied diet, and so on. — unenlightened

We would need a new energy source for all that.

Interestingly, population growth rates are turning downward in core nations due to education and opportunities for women. That will help.

Unfortunately I agree with you, although I’m still hopeful that the carbon removal technology can ramp up quickly. Bill Gates is on the job, after all. — Xtrix

Well, carbon capture is also an option for the right (and oil companies) to run on too since it doesn't require a big change in the current status quo. That is probably where I imagine the lines will be drawn politically in the future. Not ideal, but frankly that would be much better than where we are now with one side accepting the problem and the other thinking that it doesn't even exist.

So is there something in the research that tells us how we increase pressure to become a member? — Echarmion

Quite a lot, yeah. Most popular theories are based on the social capital costs of available identities (after Henri Tajfel) - polarise the range of available social identities such that fewer intermediary positions are available. People will be pulled to one or the other. Personally, I look more at narratives than social identity, but it's not the most popular position. Like Tajfel, I agree that in times of social stress options become polarised, but I think support for any 'identity' theory is sketchy (and that's me being polite about it), rather we take part in narratives which become available as part of our cultural milieu, it's these which become polarised such that we face a choice of becoming part of a narrative that's a little outside of our comfort zone, or being without a culturally available narrative to locate our behaviour in, and most people find the latter position quite uncomfortable.

I'd recommend having a look at the work of Shelly Grabe, she's extensively studied women's empowerment movements in Nicaragua from a social narrative perspective and gives a really good account of how the approach works using a concrete example.

Most accounts, however, muddy the distinction between being part of a protest movement and making sacrifices (which is why I like Grabe's work). The reasons people join social change movements where there's little risk to their own social status in doing so will be quite different from the reasons people join groups where the risk is higher.

One of the areas that's of interest now is the effect of mass social media on social group membership A few interesting studies have shown how the ability of social media to build opinion-based social groups very quickly (way beyond what was previously possible) can lead to these ephemeral motivators for action which don't have long-term robustness because the opinion-based social group dissipates as rapidly as it was formed. In a kind of 'perfect storm', opinion-based social groups are also far more strongly associated with political action than class or functional groups (see https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ejsp.334). The result, so the theory goes, is that we have a load of flash-in-the-pan mass protests which achieve virtually nothing long-term because no-one involved had a strong social identity to motivate their actions (or a distinct narrative, as I would prefer to see it).

The upshot is that in the modern age, polarising available narratives might be just too easy and so not really apply the pressure they used to. It's just too easy to find a group to join these days so little pressure to join one slightly outside of your comfort zone. so we need more real-life social groups rather than virtual ones as they are less flexible, and so more able to pull in the direction of social change. Can't see it happening though...

I think you're discounting the psychological effects that very visible movements have. — Echarmion

Not if the government is right-wing. Recently in Slovenia, a right-wing government politician called the protesters "rabble" and another such politician called them "pigs".

The upshot is that in the modern age, polarising available narratives might be just too easy and so not really apply the pressure they used to. It's just too easy to find a group to join these days so little pressure to join one slightly outside of your comfort zone. so we need more real-life social groups rather than virtual ones as they are less flexible, and so more able to pull in the direction of social change. Can't see it happening though... — Isaac

With the popularization of right-wing politics, joining a group that isn't in line with the right-wing government might just be the right kind of pressure and might make people take such group membership seriously. But because the real-world consequences of such membership are likely going to be severe (e.g. losing your job), fewer people are likely to go through with it.

We're either going to make it happen or we're dead. — Xtrix

I don't think that's true. There's not one thing to make happen. There are lots of apocalyptic scenarios, but also lots of survivalist scenarios. Even some of the apocalyptic ones are quite optimistic: we might wipe ourselves out, maybe take a lot of species with is, but leave a living planet that obtains some kind of harmony. That's not necessarily a bad outcome. The survival outcomes could be anything from ideal (complete reversal of manmade climate change in the nick of time) to abject (a minority survive but resort to cannibalism) via horrifying (we survive as cyborgs). It's not a coin toss. Options on the table today may not be on the table tomorrow, but there'll be other, less good ones.

The upshot is that in the modern age, polarising available narratives might be just too easy and so not really apply the pressure they used to. It's just too easy to find a group to join these days so little pressure to join one slightly outside of your comfort zone. so we need more real-life social groups rather than virtual ones as they are less flexible, and so more able to pull in the direction of social change — Isaac

They change behaviour as well. Online everyone's an individualist at the centre of their own virtual world. Real groups have real group dynamics.

Climate is not weather, but it disrupts the weather. We’re seeing it happen before our eyes. The pattern is obvious, provided we can read a graph. — Xtrix

For most people, this is too abstract. It seems to me that unless people experience climate change directly, in a way that doesn't depend on trusting others, they can't really relate to it.

For example, those who have had a garden for at least 20 years, and, of course, crop farmers know climate change first hand. But how are city people supposed to relate to it?


We've had a considerable garden for 40+ years and we try to grow at least the seasonal vegetables for ourselves. Up until some 30 years ago, it was barely ever necessary to water the plants, there was enough and evenly distributed rain. Now, it's impossible to grow anything by relying solely on rain. Also, most of the rain now is torrential, making erosion a major problem, so we had to build terraces and frame all the allotments. In the past, torrential rain was so rare that it was possible to maintain a classical garden on steep terrain. We also need to use ground covers, we had to adapt in terms of choice of varieties, and so on.

That’s because you’re completely ignorant about this topic. If you continue to choose not to take 10 minutes to read about it, please stop trolling this thread. — Xtrix

Bu that's just it: If he read about it, it would be yet another thing he read. And as such, easily dismissable.

Have you read the Moral Case for Fossil Fuels by Alex Epstein?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6b7K1hjZk4

I believe the climate is changing, as it always has, but I do not see it as inherently frightening. What is frightening to me is watching the same all-too-human hands that led us here work to send it in the opposite direction. The idea of solar geoengineering, spraying aerosols to dim sunlight or to brighten clouds, is the stuff of dystopian nightmare. The hubris in this respect is worrisome.

There are multiple potential tipping points. See above for some links, or you can Google "climate tipping points."

Climate change in this context refers to a rapid change in the Earth's climate driven by human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels. — Xtrix

Then the solution is simply to create a cheaper energy resource that burning fossil fuels. Even in aircraft design they are looking for using other fuels.

But I guess the perspective still is on our own asses, because life on Earth will surely adapt to situations where the polar caps have melted etc. We humans on the other hand might have huge problems.

Global temperatures, historical:


And a bit more perspective to those changes:

There are lots of apocalyptic scenarios, but also lots of survivalist scenarios. Even some of the apocalyptic ones are quite optimistic: we might wipe ourselves out, maybe take a lot of species with is, but leave a living planet that obtains some kind of harmony. That's not necessarily a bad outcome. — Kenosha Kid

Perhaps one philosophical question (as this is a Philosophy Forum) is the following: Do we look at ourselves as being part of the fauna on Earth or do we have the somewhat Christian view that this is a garden that has been given us to keep and make the separation with nature and us. Some might say that this is totally unimportant, but actually it's very important.

As never in the timeline of life on Earth has one single species been so dominant and abundant, it's not surprising that it can teeter on a collapse based on it's own existence. The whole advanced economy (that we call globalization) is needed to sustain such large populations. But at least I'm an optimist. We have already seen Peak-conventional-Oil (production). And we are living during one of the worst pandemics in history.

Still life is quite good and I can discuss this issue with people I don't personally know that are on other continents.

(Some other species have difficulties, when humans have introduced them to habitats without enough predators...building more advanced societies would help.)

Well, carbon capture is also an option for the right (and oil companies) to run on too since it doesn't require a big change in the current status quo. That is probably where I imagine the lines will be drawn politically in the future. Not ideal, but frankly that would be much better than where we are now with one side accepting the problem and the other thinking that it doesn't even exist. — Mr Bee

Your point is well taken. This is why I'm hopeful but not pushing too hard for this -- I know it can be "appropriated" by those who want to see nothing happen whatsoever.

It's actually HG Wells dumbshit. — frank

Lol -- how pathetic. Can the moderators please boot this guy -- at least from this thread? He's contributing nothing, resorts to name-calling, and apparently plagiarizes without citation. Just a thought. I flagged it as well, so take a look.

We're either going to make it happen or we're dead.
— Xtrix

I don't think that's true. There's not one thing to make happen. There are lots of apocalyptic scenarios, but also lots of survivalist scenarios. — Kenosha Kid

It's amazing that people continue on like this.

Yes, a nuclear war would probably not wipe out everyone as well. Would you want to live in that world, however? Probably not. Likewise for climate change -- if we do nothing, we're dead. Period. If we do little, there's a chance we survive in a hellish world. It does seem like the latter is a real possibility, yes.

And I never said "one thing" needs to happen. This is going to take many different changes in many different fields, involving many different countries.

Climate is not weather, but it disrupts the weather. We’re seeing it happen before our eyes. The pattern is obvious, provided we can read a graph.
— Xtrix

For most people, this is too abstract. It seems to me that unless people experience climate change directly, in a way that doesn't depend on trusting others, they can't really relate to it. — baker

Yes indeed. But the ozone was a bit abstract too, in a way. Easier to picture, because it was a "hole" and there was a lot of talk about it. But the other difference was that there wasn't as much of a pushback from powerful capitalist industries.

What's happening with climate denial is more on par with what Big Tobacco did when it became clear that smoking causes lung cancer: major pushback, sow doubt, undermine the science, associate it with communism or socialism, make it a matter of "freedom," etc. Some of the same lawyers who represented tobacco companies also represent Exxon, Chevron, etc.

I think that's the real culprit here. We forget that not long ago, George HW Bush, Newt Gingrich, W Bush, and John McCain would openly talk about climate change and the need to do something about it. That was up to about 13 or so years ago. The push came especially from the Koch network. This has been well documented, in fact. That's where I place the majority of blame.

Have you read the Moral Case for Fossil Fuels by Alex Epstein? — Kasperanza

You mean the non-scientist/climate denier/Ayn Rand cultist who was destroyed in debate by Bill McKibben years ago? Regardless, I'm not watching a single thing you suggest until you've shown you've done the minimal amount of reading required to even be taken seriously on this topic. You remind me of a person who, because he's watched a few videos on quantum mechanics on YouTube, feels confident enough to walk into an MIT physics class and lecture the professor. Grow up.

I believe the climate is changing, as it always has. — NOS4A2

:yawn:

Shocker that this tired, stupid line gets regurgitated by you.

That's sarcasm -- not shocked at all. In case that was unclear.

In case others are reading (not you -- go back to sleep):

The latest bullshit from climate deniers is the phrase "the climate is ALWAYS changing." This way they can appear to agree when asked "do you believe in climate change?" An old and rather obvious tactic, straight from the lawyers.

But no, the climate has not "always changed." Not like this, and not since we've been around. There's a mountain of evidence that shows why it's dangerous, and why the scientists are warning us about it. They're being ignored, largely due to propaganda (in my view). Same as all the people who were duped, by tobacco companies, into believing that cigarettes were harmless -- the science wasn't "settled," after all. Exactly the same tactics, almost exactly the same people involved (see above).

NOS is right in the meaty part of the curve for Trump-voting right-wingers. Nothing shocking there, but a good example of what I was saying above about the effectiveness of propaganda.

Next up: "CO2 is good for the planet!" or "It's the sun!" or "It's water vapor!" or "It's all funded by George Soros!" etc. etc.

You mean the non-scientist/climate denier/Ayn Rand cultist who was destroyed in debate by Bill McKibben years ago? Regardless, I'm not watching a single thing you suggest until you've shown you've done the minimal amount of reading required to even be taken seriously on this topic. You remind me of a person who, because he's watched a few videos on quantum mechanics on YouTube, feels confident enough to walk into an MIT physics class and lecture the professor. Grow up. — Xtrix

Wow, you're a really closed-minded person. I'm not expecting you to agree, but it would be nice if you could understand some of the points that Alex Epstein makes. I don't think he's some lunatic. He provides something genuine to the discussion – something that you rarely hear regarding climate change. With your insults and intimidation, I doubt you do any justice for your cause. Which is good. If you alienate enough people they won't take you seriously.

But I guess the perspective still is on our own asses, because life on Earth will surely adapt to situations where the polar caps have melted etc. We humans on the other hand might have huge problems. — ssu

Well yes, of course. That's all I'm talking about, although a lot of people here are taking a much broader view. But I don't care as much about whether other life exists, necessarily. I care about human existence. I assumed we all do. Some like to posture about this, of course, but appearing to be above it all often leaves me with two reactions: the person is silly or sick.

I'm talking about human life, not general biological life. So in case that wasn't clear, there you go. Yes, bacteria will probably go on without us. That's little consolation to me, my grandkids, or my great-great grandkids.

And a bit more perspective to those changes: — ssu

That doesn't provide perspective at all, really. Not if we're talking about human life. Because, if you notice, we haven't been around that long. Behaviorally modern humans, maybe 200 or so thousand years. Better to look at that record. Also best to take a look at what scientists say about this and why it's important.

I'm not expecting you to agree, but it would be nice if you could understand some of the points that Alex Epstein makes. I don't think he's some lunatic. — Kasperanza

I'm very familiar with Alex Epstein. I'm also familiar with other very famous climate "skeptics" -- Marc Morano. James Inhofe. Myron Ebell. Bjorn Lomborg. Fred Singer. Roy Spencer. (These latter two are especially prominent in online circulation.) None of them are "lunatics" (well, perhaps Inhofe). Some are scientists (in other fields), some are politicians, some are complete industry-funded charlatans who don't believe a word of what they're saying, and some are (I imagine) pretty nice guys who are sincere in their beliefs.

Sure, you can stick exclusively with those guys if you'd like. I've been discussing this issue with their followers for years. They, much like you, don't seem to have the slightest interest in consulting any climatologist, academy, or institution that represents the vast consensus. Won't spend 10 minutes on anything by NASA, by the Royal Academy, by Nature or Science magazine or any other research journal, by the IPCC, by NOAA, American Institute of Physics, National Center for Atmospheric Research, American Meteorological Society, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS), etc. etc. etc.

I suppose that's -- what -- "open minded"?

I mean I grew up the American education system. I was fed your perspective my entire life and I believed it for most of my life.

I just wonder what your solution is to climate change. Is it enforced public transportation? Limited electricity use? More solar energy? My opinion is that free minds in a free market will come up with a faster and more powerful solution than government programs and eco-fascistic institutions. I mean what if your solution is wrong, and you will be punishing people who don't want to follow a wrong solution? Think about all the power grabs politicians can use with climate change. Climate change is a great excuse to subsidize a company that promotes "clean energy" when really the company is NOT even helping the economy or the environment.

I mean yeah there's all this science, but what are we supposed to do about it? Just cut out fossil fuels without a real replacement? To me that's scary. Epstein's point is that fossil fuels protect and enhance people's lives. Fossil fuels protect people from heat waves. And yet the environmentalists want to limit them. I find it to be worrisome.

Lol -- how pathetic. Can the moderators please boot this guy -- at least from this thread? He's contributing nothing, resorts to name-calling, and apparently plagiarizes without citation. Just a thought. I flagged it as well, so take a look. — Xtrix

Sigh.

I mean I grew up the American education system. I was fed your perspective my entire life and I believed it for most of my life. — Kasperanza

Believed what? Going solely on what you've said thus far, it seems very obvious to me that you really haven't taken the time to understand the (now) other point of view -- which happens to be the overwhelming consensus amongst people who have dedicated their lives to the field -- climatologists, oceanographers, geophysicists, astrophysicists, etc.

The climate is changing rapidly. We're already seeing some of the results, as was predicted years ago. This was known way back in the 50s, in fact. Exxon scientists noted it in the 70s and 80s. It's long been known that burning fossil fuels, along with agricultural practices and deforestation, will lead to a build-up in greenhouse gases -- CO2, methane, etc.

The higher these concentrations, the warmer the planet. This is what we're seeing. It seems like a small change, but it is having (and will continue to have) a very large effect on the planet. It's true that it's been much warmer in the past, and that CO2 has (in conjunction) been much higher as well -- during the time of the dinosaurs, for example. But humans weren't around then. That was a much different world with a different biosphere.

Since the industrial revolution, we've pumped tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and, as isn't a surprise, the global temperature average has increased. There are graphs available that show this correlation very clearly if you're more visual (like me).

So the greenhouse gases are climbing rapidly and the climate is changing rapidly. More so than in the last 100,000 years -- and we have CO2 measurements/temperature measurements from that far too (ice core samples, etc). That's really dangerous for life on Earth, because it will effect many things -- leaving even tipping points aside.

It'll effect where we live, as sea level rise will impact coastal communities. It'll effect agriculture -- so the global food supply, due to droughts and desertification. That will be devastating. It will effect fishing. It will effect water supply (as the mountain ice caps disappear, as they're already doing, and rivers dry up due to increase heat, as is already happening). There will be massive movements of people from one area to another -- much larger than anything in human history (think Bangladesh alone, which is increasingly becoming more and more inundated with water). That's millions of refugees -- not thousands. I could go on and on. Much of this is already happening, as you know.

I write all this out in case you're really curious. I would much prefer you read some of the links I've provided, but so be it.

I just wonder what your solution is to climate change. — Kasperanza

There are many solutions. The IPCC provides some, but I like Robert Pollin's ideas myself (he's an economist, not a climatologist -- but he starts with the premise that climate change is real and something needs to be done econimically). He outlines a plan that would require about 3% of GDP annually to enact. A smooth transition.

The solutions are already known. A magic bullet isn't necessary. No miracles, no totalitarianism, no radical/shocking upheaval of human life: investments in clean energy and research, a shift in subsidies, carbon taxes (proposed by many Republicans), a shift in investments to cleaner industries (which the major asset managers are already doing), divestment from fossil fuels, retrofitting buildings, infrastructure -- including high-speed rail and the public transportation systems, higher efficiency standards, better regulations, and so on.

Plenty of solutions, plenty of plans. Nothing extremist. It can easily happen, provided there's political will. But there hasn't been any, and for obvious reasons. The people of this country (and around the world) are in favor of it, and those numbers will continue to rise as things get worse. The IPCC and others have given us maybe 10 or 20 years to really get moving on this, and we have to start right away. There are some bright spots, but still a lot more needs to be done.

It's a big moment -- right now in congress there's a chance for the use of a reconciliation bill to fund much of this stuff, which would be a good start. Republicans are trying to block it all, and some moderate democrats are also standing in the way. It seems like an absurd scenario, but that's what "capitalism" does. When congress is bought by special interests who don't want anything done, usually nothing gets done. Not until it's too late or enormous damage has been done -- which is already true.

There are no such thing as "free markets." I know Ayn Rand talks about this a lot -- but it's a fantasy. She ignores a lot of history. If you want someone a little more tricky, try Milton Friedman. He's had a much bigger impact than Rand, and has a better understanding of history. His thesis is equally flawed, though. There are no "free markets" in the world. There's only state-capitalism, which is what we have here in the US. Major intervention in markets by the state. So if an industry is largely the cause of a problem -- whether lung cancer or climate change -- and have benefited from state subsidies for decades, then the state can intervene in the opposite direction as well.