The hippies were right as usual. Local vegan organic whole foods are more healthy for man and environment.

The soil is also an excellent carbon sink, and nature is the best therapist.

But alas, the machines have already taken over and their servants are our politicians.

The hippies were right as usual. Local vegan organic whole foods are more healthy for man and environment.

The soil is also an excellent carbon sink, and nature is the best therapist.

But alas, the machines have already taken over and their servants are our politicians. — unenlightened

Who would have thought that adhering to an intricately complex system that has evolved through trial and error for millions of years would yield better results in terms of stability, health, and efficiency compared to humanity winging it?

You all diligently buy nothing but certified organic or biodynamic food then I assume?

The solution already exists and the benefits are, as pointed out, obvious.

So what were people waiting for?

Too often this is all somebody else's fault.

You all diligently buy nothing but certified organic or biodynamic food then I assume? — Isaac

I buy everything that has sustainable branding. Of course, it's hard to know if they actually follow it, but at least in the EU, the regulations surrounding it make it hard for companies to circumvent laws and regulations; therefore, it's a bit easier to trust the official markings on products, at least in Sweden. On top of that, buying from local producers is something people should do more if the option exists, as well as buying food that's within season more than out of season.

If you tried to imply some hypocrisy I'm sorry to disappoint, I've been eating and buying with sustainability in mind for years to reap the health benefits, keep bad chemicals out of production and support the local biodiversity. I don't want to live in a future where I breathe industrial smog with cancer-inducing products everywhere I go. If people and politicians had the brain to understand this as well, other places would not be so fucked up.

But as with all climate-changing industries and ways of life that are lazier than sustainability, people just don't care until reality hits them with a sledgehammer. And that hammer has started to swing now. And each time I see that hammer hit people who ignored or fought against sustainable solutions I can't help but feel a good amount of schadenfreude.

It seems that the hammer is the required tool to get people into serious action. A carrot doesn't work, they will just buy the least expensive mass produced chemically sprayed carrot possible and then get surprised when they die too soon.

Just keep the wild fires, heat waves, cold snaps, massive storms, floodings and stuff coming. At some point people will wake the fuck up.

If you tried to imply some hypocrisy I'm sorry to disappoint — Christoffer

You're a rhetorical device in the argument, I don't care what you personally do (unless perhaps, you're wanting to make the argument that no-one is hypocritical in this respect?)

in the EU, the regulations surrounding it make it hard for companies to circumvent laws and regulations; therefore, it's a bit easier to trust the official markings on products, at least in Sweden. — Christoffer

Yes FSC timber is a good example of this even in Europe where their traceability if sometimes shockingly poor, but I think it's a good message nonetheless that consumers demand it, even if the initial response of companies is to first try and have the best of both worlds.

It seems that the hammer is the required tool to get people into serious action. A carrot doesn't work, they will just buy the least expensive mass produced chemically sprayed carrot possible and then get surprised when they die too soon. — Christoffer

I can sympathise with the pessimism, but I don't agree. I think people are not uncaring, I don't think you (and others following your efforts) are just better people. There's factors which put people in better or worse positions to take up those options, but I think it's evident that, if that's true, those factors are not the ones traditionally cited (wealth, freedom) as an abundance of both doesn't seem to do anything. I think the factors are more psychological, more to do with group dynamics and as such if we want to help the situation we'd be advised to look there. But at the very least, even if one disagrees with that theory, it's evident that simply shouting it from the rooftops doesn't work. Something has to change with the approach.

Hence the reflection.

You're a rhetorical device in the argument — Isaac

I fail to see your point?

can sympathise with the pessimism, but I don't agree. I think people are not uncaring, I don't think you (and others following your efforts) are just better people. There's factors which put people in better or worse positions to take up those options, but I think it's evident that, if that's true, those factors are not the ones traditionally cited (wealth, freedom) as an abundance of both doesn't seem to do anything. I think the factors are more psychological, more to do with group dynamics and as such if we want to help the situation we'd be advised to look there. But at the very least, even if one disagrees with that theory, it's evident that simply shouting it from the rooftops doesn't work. Something has to change with the approach. — Isaac

People who are unable to exist in a sustainable way with their environment due to things like low income, geographical placement etc. shouldn't be blamed for anything, but the privileged who keeps ignoring all warnings, keeps acting like their simple act doesn't count, keeps cutting corners in their businesses to maximize profit rather than sustainable profit for environmental sustainability, and politicians who worry more about their ego and power than working for the society that elected them; they simply are the baddies in this matter.

The amount of stupidity or laziness it takes to not understand the simple consequences of major societal actions, like not understanding the effect of spewing particles into the air, not only for CO2 related issues, but the general air quality of the place where people live and breathe and how obvious the connection is to worsened public health. People should be marching in masses, banging on politicians doors to demand action against such things, but they don't. They are riddled with apathy and laziness, hypnotized by mindless entertainment to the point when even the entertainment industry tries to produce cautionary tales about these issues and even then it doesn't transcend their lazy minds.

We live in a time when the knowledge and understanding of how industry and the general publics behavior affects the environment and health isn't some academic knowledge and/or scientists working with complex research. It exists in the general knowledge, education and culture of the general public. Everyone with at least a minor understanding and interest of their place and existence in the modern world should have thoughts and moral thinking about these things, but they're ignorant. And if group dynamics is the problem, then we should blame media, but as I mentioned, even there, in movies, series, documentaries, literature, and even marketing they keep talking about sustainability and its importance while the general public ignores the message.

It takes effort to ignore this amount of knowledge and information for anyone living in a society that keeps information free and uncensored. No one is shouting from the roof top anymore, the information is everywhere around us and people just don't care.

Is it that people don't understand how to vote? How to put pressure on politicians and industries? Have people just given up trying? Is everyone living online and doesn't understand that there's a real world around them that needs actual actions? Or are they mindlessly ignoring everything until that sledgehammer hits them?

How can anyone be ignorant of these topics today? When I ask people why they don't buy things in a sustainable way, or act in other ways for it, it simply comes down to "it's expensive", "oh, I didn't have the time", "oh, what would my act be able to accomplish" and so on. This is from people who got the cash, who got the time and are educated enough to know that each little action from each singular person, affects the whole of society.

Laziness, carelessness, ignorance, egotism and stupidity. There's little reason today for the privileged to make excuses and justifications for their ignorance of these environmental problems.

I fail to see your point? — Christoffer

There wasn't one (there), you know what rhetoric means, yes?

Laziness, carelessness, ignorance, egotism and stupidity. There's little reason today for the privileged to make excuses and justifications for their ignorance of these environmental problems. — Christoffer

So you're prepared to stand by the assertion that you're uniquely less lazy, careless, egotistical, or stupid than most? Is that genetics, do you think. Or are you just a better person? What's your theory for how you turned out so hardworking, caring, humble and clever?

You all diligently buy nothing but certified organic or biodynamic food then I assume? — Isaac

I don't care what you personally do (unless perhaps, you're wanting to make the argument that no-one is hypocritical in this respect?) — Isaac

Respect dude.

My choices have nothing to do with me pointing out the fact that bio-dynamic farming leads to better results. It's an important fact in light of large agro-businesses (stock feed companies, fertiliser producers, industrialised butchers) insisting they are fundamentally needed in this world when their practises and those they promote with their users, clients and suppliers make the Netherlands less livable each year.

I'd wish I could get all my foodstuffs locally but alas I'm stuck with cheese and eggs.

Adoption of the necessary policies has to do a lot with framing as well I think. You shouldn't do XY and Z or the world will burn! Or maybe: "If we do XY and Z we will have more nature, more free time and more security". It's governments now going down the road of the techocratic control of society, which is, if we're not careful, a prelude to fascism but in any case just raises a shit ton of resistance and distrust at a time where trust and solidarity need to be peak. Leaders who can bridge these gaps are what we need but leaders like that don't tend to go into politics because who in their right mind would be passionate about the shitfest that's modern politics nowadays?

My choices have nothing to do with me pointing out the fact that bio-dynamic farming leads to better results. — Benkei

No, of course not. As I said, they were a lead-in to the point about personal choices affecting corporate decisions. We can't escape the fact that if we all stopped buying nonorganic food, the fertiliser industry would collapse overnight (maybe not a good thing jobwise). We can make progress by other means, but it doesn't mean there's no need to analyse the personal reasons.

I'd wish I could get all my foodstuffs locally but alas I'm stuck with cheese and eggs. — Benkei

Almost the opposite for me (veg, milk and meat but no processed dairy). But sometimes the imported stuff uses less fuel overall than, say, heated greenhouses. And organic-elsewhere vs nonorganic-local is a close call usually.

Adoption of the necessary policies has to do a lot with framing as well I think. You shouldn't do XY and Z or the world will burn! Or maybe: "If we do XY and Z we will have more nature, more free time and more security". It's governments now going down the road of the techocratic control of society, which is, if we're not careful, a prelude to fascism but in any case just raises a shit ton of resistance and distrust at a time where trust and solidarity need to be peak. — Benkei

Totally. People's responses are what's missing from the debate, it's too often framed (as above) as idiots vs the intelligentsia and who's realistically going to come round to that framing.

Put a celebrity in flares and half the world is wearing them the next day. Why? Because they like to feel part of a group (putting aggressive advertising to one side for now). Ban entry to the 'save the world' group and people will look elsewhere. Make entry too easy and nothing will get done (no one's going to commit more than they need to). But this constant drive to divide up the world into ever smaller combative groups might sell webspace, but it's sure not going to encourage collective action.

who in their right mind would be passionate about the shitfest that's modern politics nowadays? — Benkei

The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
— Douglas Adams

So you're prepared to stand by the assertion that you're uniquely less lazy, careless, egotistical, or stupid than most? Is that genetics, do you think. Or are you just a better person? What's your theory for how you turned out so hardworking, caring, humble and clever? — Isaac

I was fortunate to have been raised with creativity and curiosity as well as understanding consequences of actions. You know, what would constitute a pretty normal kind of upbringing in which a person gets the necessary tools to function around facts, knowledge, judgement and how to behave against other people. But that's just my guess since others should judge my behavior for what it is rather than me talking about myself.

I do however find your point with that to be rather weirdly formulated. Almost like whenever a person shows attributes generally considered to be in line with being a "good person" (in this context), then they should in some ways feel bad for being like that in contrast to people who don't care about this extremely topic the world is facing right now. The proof is in the pudding, it's obvious that people aren't caring for the environment as much as we need to based on what people express as a general public. Even when it's talked about everywhere in media, too few cares about it. So few that there's no majority in democratic elections to focus on these issues.

I just think your ad hominem making this about me instead of the population who does not care is rather odd. What's you point? Isn't it better to ask why people don't care rather than ask why some do?

Totally. People's responses are what's missing from the debate, it's too often framed (as ↪Christoffer above) as idiots vs the intelligentsia and who's realistically going to come round to that framing.

Put a celebrity in flares and half the world is wearing them the next day. Why? Because they like to feel part of a group (putting aggressive advertising to one side for now). Ban entry to the 'save the world' group and people will look elsewhere. Make entry too easy and nothing will get done (no one's going to commit more than they need to). But this constant drive to divide up the world into ever smaller combative groups might sell webspace, but it's sure not going to encourage collective action. — Isaac

You fail to see that it's the antagonists of actions to make the world sustainable who are the ones dividing the world, not the ones who propose actions to fight climate change. All of us have been fighting for inclusion of everyone acting together and getting as many on board that fight as possible, but what does it matter when we have politicians and a large portion of people who just don't care? It's not our fault that the world is going to climate hell when we've been trying to get information, education and action going for many many years.

I don't get how you are somehow blaming the polarization on the ones who's trying to globally get everyone on board to solve this? Why don't you ask the ones who are working hard to fight against fixing climate change what their motivations are? If they were on board we wouldn't have been in this mess.

I was fortunate to have been raised with creativity and curiosity as well as understanding consequences of actions. — Christoffer

Right. Good start, so we need to do something about parenting? How do we get the next generation of children raised with "creativity and curiosity as well as understanding consequences of actions"? Change schools? Change working hours for new parents? Tackle inflated qualification thresholds to give more free time? Or does shouting about how we're all doomed because of the stupid rednecks somehow get children raised better?

what would constitute a pretty normal kind of upbringing in which a person gets the necessary tools to function around facts, knowledge, judgement and how to behave against other people. — Christoffer

Well clearly it doesn't because you've just been bemoaning the lack of such people. It must be quite an uncommon upbringing, no?

Almost like whenever a person shows attributes generally considered to be in line with being a "good person" (in this context), then they should in some ways feel bad for being like that in contrast to people who don't care about this extremely topic the world is facing right now. — Christoffer

I don't think I've ever suggested you should feel bad about it. I'm suggesting the we think about why you're the way you are when others aren't. Since we evidently need more people like you and fewer like the others that would seem to be the top priority.

Isn't it better to ask why people don't care rather than ask why some do? — Christoffer

It's the same question. Why do some care and others don't.

You fail to see that it's the antagonists of actions to make the world sustainable who are the ones dividing the world, not the ones who propose actions to fight climate change. — Christoffer

You know about disagreement, right? Your "creative" upbringing included the fact that epistemic peers disagree? Or did miss that lesson? I don't "fail to see", I disagree with you. I might be wrong, of course, as might you. Presumably, that's why we're discussing the matter, to find out? Or is this just a lecture? I thought egotism was one of the traits you were blessed to have avoided?

I come from a principle that humans are naturally quite cooperative and egalitarian (at least within-group). This foundation comes from a study of hunter-gatherer social dynamics. It too might be wrong, of course, but it leads me to the necessary conclusion that if people are acting in non-cooperative ways, greedy, selfish or careless, then something has caused this. If people, like your good self, are acting in cooperative, caring and selfless ways, then nothing has 'happened' as such, that's just how humans are. As such, the only relevant question is what has happened to the selfish ones.

I don't get how you are somehow blaming the polarization on the ones who's trying to globally get everyone on board to solve this? — Christoffer

What's not to get? Or do you mean you just disagree? It's quite simple, I'm wondering if the exclusory rhetoric (telling people they're stupid for holding the beliefs they do) leads people to become more entrenched in those beliefs, and seek out more welcoming groups which might seek to exploit their sense of ostracisation to further radicalise their opposition.

Granted, it reads a bit like something from a movie, sort of alarmist:

Record heatwaves sweep the world from US to Japan via Europe
^{— Agence France-Presse via Times of Malta · Jul 15, 2023}

Propaganda coming hard and fast now, to prepare for climate lockdowns — Bob Batterson

Yet, the report has numbers, evidence, tangibles, unlike the conspiracy theorist.

Yes it just depressing, imagine this 20 years further, and probably minimum another 1° C of global warming on top of it. We'll have to deal with this the rest of our lives... but don't worry things have never been better according to idiot geniuses like Steven Pinker, Hans Rosling and like, because the numbers say so!

Scientists have talked about "tipping points", that features of the climate will not change smoothly over time, but will display sudden patterns. Are the current round of exception heat, exceptional rain, exceptional drought, etc. the result of large systems "tipping", producing dramatic change?

Anybody?

I don't think anybody really knows BC. Global warming is typically presented in averages, 1° C, 1,5 C, 2° C rise in global average etc... actual temperatures we experience are not averages, and can fluctuate from year to year, place to place. This is by the way probably the biggest issue with climate change, that the extremes will get more extreme... We don't need an average to have people die, or crops fail, one day of extreme weather is enough.

What we are experiencing now could be an outlier, el nino combined with some other chance-events, and temperature could return to the quote unquote "normal" expected climate change adjusted temperatures in the coming years. But it could also be that climate is changing faster than we expected. I don't think tipping points have been incorporated into climate modelling al that well yet, and the IPCC and scientists in general do seem to be on the conservative side in their estimates to avoid being seen as alarmist/unreliable. "Faster than expected" does seem to be a phrase that comes up alot.

Are the current round of exception heat, exceptional rain, exceptional drought, etc. the result of large systems "tipping", producing dramatic change? — BC

It seems obviously the case. Sea temps, air temps, Antarctic ice formation and extreme weather events are all off the charts, at once. What science has been warning about for at least 20 years is happening in plain sight. It was also pointed out in respect of the Antarctic sea ice, that the diminution of the floating ice pack won’t have that much of an effect, as the total volume of water is not changed much by it, BUT that it also serves to slow down the glacial flows into the ocean. And if they accelerate markedly, then we could be seeing sea-level changes measured in meters, not centimetres.

Scientists have talked about "tipping points", that features of the climate will not change smoothly over time, but will display sudden patterns — BC

Tipping points aren't necessarily abrupt, it just means it's not as easy to go back to the previous state, sometimes because a positive feedback loop was triggered.

Are the current round of exception heat, exceptional rain, exceptional drought, etc. the result of large systems "tipping", producing dramatic change? — BC

It's El Nino. It's always hotter in some places (cooler in others) during El Nino events. Last year was a La Nina. I think it was the third in a row. It's usually cooler during a La Nina, but we had record highs. That signalled that when we changed to El Nino, it was going to make more record highs.

What citizens notice and the News broadcasts comment on is weather, not climate. Climate is measured by scientists, not felt in your back yard.

Of course weather is broadly influenced by climate, but only broadly.

Are the current round of exception heat, exceptional rain, exceptional drought, etc. the result of large systems "tipping", producing dramatic change? — BC

A good source is this article from Science:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abn7950#core-collateral-purchase-access

There are several potential tipping points, and it's very possible we'll set them off. If so, life as we know it is over. Maybe we adapt in some way, but it's an existential risk.

Climate is measured by scientists, not felt in your back yard. — LuckyR

Half true. What you see and feel in your backyard is also related to the broader global changes. If you're in a draught, or caught in wildfires or a flood, or have your community uprooted by a hurricane -- that is all weather-related, yes, but also climate related. A warmer climate produces more floods, more draughts, more intense wildfires and stronger hurricanes. So while one hot day or one cold day in town X doesn't prove anything about global temperature, frequently extreme events are also not an accident, given what we know about climate change.

What citizens notice and the News broadcasts comment on is weather, not climate. Climate is measured by scientists, not felt in your back yard.

Of course weather is broadly influenced by climate, but only broadly. — LuckyR

And this is an important point. It's unseasonably cool where I am. That's El Nino: it makes it cooler in some places. Likewise, climate change hasn't changed the average temps where I live at all. You can't go by your backyard.

Thank you!.

The Science article was useful -- particularly the map of major events (tipping points) that could/would/will/might occur at different increases in the global temperature. If we are very lucky, and extremely successful in our efforts to limit the climate increase to less than 2ºC, the climate tipping points will be bad enough, at 3ºC and 4ºC, much worse.

At <2ºC, we can have Greenland and West Antarctic ice collapse, failure of the North Atlantic circulation system, and thawing of the Canadian permafrost.

Where do existential threats kick in? Mass existential threats or local existential threats? Local existential threats are here. IF Phoenix, AZ were to lose electric power for a day or two, the total deaths would be in the thousands -- given tightly sealed buildings and dependence on air conditioning, ventilation fans, and water pumps.

At 115ºF in Phoenix, dry heat or not, if you don't have access to a cool refuge, you have a very good chance of dying. Unfortunately, warm blooded animals are designed to maintain body heat, not cool one down quickly. As the internal body temperature rises from 98ºF towards 104ºF --107ºF tissue starts breaking down at the cellular level; heart failure or general organ failure (or melting of cell walls) ensues.

There are a lot of climate disasters we do not have to worry about because, as Jeff Goodell explains in his new book, The Heat Will Kill You First.

Where do existential threats kick in? Mass existential threats or local existential threats? — BC

Mass existential. Easy to see why, even with adaptation.

Not so much. Hurricanes, floods and wildfires are a normal part of earth's climate, thus observing a single episode tells the homeowner nothing about the relative state of the climate, say comparing preindustrial to current climate temps.

:100:

A Guardian UK article today ...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/19/climate-crisis-james-hansen-scientist-warning

Oh, just wait until it slightly cools of again since we might be in the top of the current Solar Cycle and then all the denialists will be "it was the Solar Cycle stupid!".

Cycle 25
Main article: Solar cycle 25
Solar cycle 25 began in December 2019.[19] Several predictions have been made for solar cycle 25[20] based on different methods, ranging from very weak to strong magnitude. A physics-based prediction relying on the data-driven solar dynamo and solar surface flux transport models by Bhowmik and Nandy (2018) seems to have predicted the strength of the solar polar field at the current minima correctly and forecasts a weak but not insignificant solar cycle 25 similar to or slightly stronger than cycle 24.[21] Notably, they rule out the possibility of the Sun falling into a Maunder-minimum-like (inactive) state over the next decade. A preliminary consensus by a solar cycle 25 Prediction Panel was made in early 2019.[22] The Panel, which was organized by NOAA's Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) and NASA, based on the published solar cycle 25 predictions, concluded that solar cycle 25 will be very similar to solar cycle 24. They anticipate that the solar cycle minimum before cycle 25 will be long and deep, just as the minimum that preceded cycle 24. They expect solar maximum to occur between 2023 and 2026 with a sunspot range of 95 to 130, given in terms of the revised sunspot number. — Wiki

Hurricanes, floods and wildfires are a normal part of earth's climate, — LuckyR

Not the ones we’re seeing now, which are both felt locally and exacerbated by global trends.

It’s not either/or.

Your comment, while true, can only be verified through analysis of climate, not weather.

Your comment, while true, can only be verified through analysis of climate, not weather. — LuckyR

Yes, true.

But because it’s all felt locally, my hope (which is borne out with some polling) is that extreme weather will be connected to climate change.