The psychology of climate change

Smurf1976 · 16 November 2009

basilio said:
? As I see it the reality of my previous premise, that the world is broadly living a lie in it’s approach to expecting never ending growth, means that no approach will work. One can already see the gaming approaches by financial institutions with illusionary carbon savings and creative accounting.

So what will work ?

Hit the nail on the head there - with constant growth we're destined to use up the world's resources, the only question being at what rate and in what order in terms of specific mineral deposits.

With oil in particular, we seem determined to use the whole lot all at once (in terms of known deposits) and as quickly as possible. Much the same with gas too.

Been there and seen that first hand with the creative accounting. It's how you turn an increase in emissions into a "real terms" decrease by factoring out constant growth. That growth is the problem in the first place seems difficult for many to comprehend.

As for what works, well I think it's rather interesting that most serious discussions of environmental issues that I see ultimately come down to the point that growth must stop. We must aim for GDP in 10 or 20 years time to be lower than it is today. And that means that if we are to maintain living standards, we need to aim for population to decline also.

That scenario applies whether we're talking about oil depletion, CO2, dams or anything else environmental - we'll end up trashing the whole lot if we keep growing.

The shocking statistic that I often quote is for people to realise that at the magic 4% growth that politicians and economists pursue, in the year 2100 Tasmania alone will have a larger economy and use more resources than the entire country does now. I'd challenge anyone to come up with a workable means of implementing that situation even if you were prepared to completely trash the environment. There just aren't enough resources to do it.

And if you want another scare, realise that at this rate of growth Australia alone will use nearly the entire world oil resources over the next century.

As with any pyramid scheme, constant growth falls over eventually and the whole thing comes crashing down. It's inevitable at some point and my guess is that peak oil will be the trigger - the alternatives are less productive and will crimp GDP growth permanently.

Julia · 16 November 2009

2020hindsight said:
Julia
and unless I've missed it, you haven't acknowledged that there's a problem. - and a serious one. Sorry gotta run. work calls.

I don't have to acknowledge anything.

You are the one who is claiming human beings are the cause of 'climate change'.
You have indicated a belief that this is as a result of increased CO2.
The ETS is supposed to be a means of reducing CO2.

As a devout believer in all this, I am asking you to explain to the rest of us how the ETS is going to address the problem you believe exists. If you can't do that, then just say so. Don't be pathetic about saying "work calls".
That has never stopped you in the past.

2020, you constantly go on about this topic, implicitly berating those of us who are, at best, agnostic about how much climate is changing, and whether such changes are anthropogenic in nature, ridiculing anyone who doesn't follow the religious zeal of the climate change enthusiasts.

Well, unless you can come up with a genuine understanding of how any ETS, particularly that currently proposed by the Australian government, is going to address what you see as a problem, I suggest you just stop harassing others on the subject.

In the meantime, you might care to take a few hints from Basilio who presents a balanced expression of what he believes. His posts represent someone who thinks for himself, in contrast to someone who is only capable of parroting off the semi-formed views of others.

In other words, 2020, put up or shut up.

drsmith · 16 November 2009

Smurf1976 said:
As with any pyramid scheme, constant growth falls over eventually and the whole thing comes crashing down. It's inevitable at some point and my guess is that peak oil will be the trigger - the alternatives are less productive and will crimp GDP growth permanently.

The answer is technological advancement to new energy sources before fossil fuels expire so we can continue our growth. The alternative is a serious and sudden reduction of the human population as the latter runs out, most likely by war.

One would hope that by 2100 we have established colonies on the moon and Mars that are largely self sustaining. In a cosmic sense we are still very much at the bottom of the pyramid.

Smurf1976 · 17 November 2009

drsmith said:
The answer is technological advancement to new energy sources before fossil fuels expire so we can continue our growth. The alternative is a serious and sudden reduction of the human population as the latter runs out, most likely by war.

I'm willing to bet, and have done so by my investments, that we've got not more than 3 years to get that technological advancement done and actually built - we just don't have the oil extraction capacity for another round of "growth" before the constraints hit.

We don't even seem to have the capacity now just to go back to 2007 consumption rates without drawing down storage. I could be wrong, but that's how it looks.

2020hindsight · 17 November 2009

Julia said:
I don't have to acknowledge anything.

You are the one who is claiming human beings are the cause of 'climate change'.
You have indicated a belief that this is as a result of increased CO2.
The ETS is supposed to be a means of reducing CO2.

As a devout believer in all this, I am asking you to explain to the rest of us how the ETS is going to address the problem you believe exists. If you can't do that, then just say so. Don't be pathetic about saying "work calls".
That has never stopped you in the past.

2020, you constantly go on about this topic, implicitly berating those of us who are, at best, agnostic about how much climate is changing, and whether such changes are anthropogenic in nature, ridiculing anyone who doesn't follow the religious zeal of the climate change enthusiasts.

Well, unless you can come up with a genuine understanding of how any ETS, particularly that currently proposed by the Australian government, is going to address what you see as a problem, I suggest you just stop harassing others on the subject.

In the meantime, you might care to take a few hints from Basilio who presents a balanced expression of what he believes. His posts represent someone who thinks for himself, in contrast to someone who is only capable of parroting off the semi-formed views of others.

In other words, 2020, put up or shut up.

julia ,
this thread is about the psychology of climate change
You ask me to justify the ETS as currently proposed.
sorry - but you're off thread.

(apart from which, I would be the first to agree that the current ETS is far from perfect, - being a "camel" of political compromises to satisfy the various vested interests - and those who have been swayed by the billions spent by Exxon Mobil to obfuscate the arguments - all admitted by the way - and haven't they done a great job ! -

BUT
at least it starts to deter people collectively from using as much CO2 and/or ( if it were properly designed) from cutting down as many trees. (call it a cost, call it a tax, call it a permit scheme - all adds up to the same thing - it's a deterrent - or at least it should be).

There will be no gain here unless there is some pain. (especially for the developed world).

But let's get 100% agreement that something has to be done.
Or (as far as this thread is concerned) let's look at why people don't want to do that, given that it is ( at the very LEAST) the risk-averse thing to do .

Wysiwyg · 17 November 2009

2020hindsight said:
But let's get 100% agreement that something has to be done.
Or (as far as this thread is concerned) let's look at why people don't want to do that, given that it is ( at the very LEAST) the risk-averse thing to do .

I agree 2020. Oh and by the way. I asked this fella in the street the other day "what colour is the sky"? He said, "blue".

GumbyLearner · 17 November 2009

So does wasting energy or emitting CO2 cause climate change?

wayneL · 17 November 2009

2020hindsight said:
BUT
at least it starts to deter people collectively from using as much CO2 and/or ( if it were properly designed) from cutting down as many trees. (call it a cost, call it a tax, call it a permit scheme - all adds up to the same thing - it's a deterrent - or at least it should be).

There will be no gain here unless there is some pain. (especially for the developed world).

It's pretty universally recognised that all the agreement will do is transfer emissions to the third world, enriching them at The West's expense.

That's pretty dumb. At best ineffectual, at worst it may increase co2 emissions overall and even cause civil unrest... perhaps eventually war.

Meanwhile, the true factors of MMCC continue on, unabated and ignored.

Calliope · 17 November 2009

2020hindsight said:
julia ,
this thread is about the psychology of climate change
You ask me to justify the ETS as currently proposed.
sorry - but you're off thread.

I like it, 2020 wants to stay on thread. Hooray, his days of hijacking threads are over.

2020hindsight · 17 November 2009

Wayne mentioned wars back there.
I'd say that there are some big issues of that nature ahead with the current trends of GW/CC plus population explosions -

the fishing rights wars / disputes at least
the food wars / ditto
starvation of millions in dry areas like Ethiopia, etc
the mass migration of environmental refugees - probable hardening of hearts to our fellow man (when we as Australians produce the most CO2e per capita in the world except for a couple of oil exporters - and neck and neck with USA.)

I'm sure the critters like the Congo apes and - yes - the polar bears - even the koals - even the brown bears wondering why the salmon runs are so depleted lately - if they could all post on ASF, would add a few more concerns. Coral reefs - not that they say much - but gee we're gonna miss em - and the fish they sponsor.

Hardening of hearts - selfishness as a means of survival against rapidly developing unprecedented threats - an almost certain consequence . "Critters, biodiversity, third world starving and flooded millions - all manner of environmental refugees - who gives a damn" sorta thing

PS but my bet is that we as a nation will be leant on bigtime by the world at large to help sort out the problem ( environmetal refugees etc) when we have been so laxidazical in helping avoid / minimise it in the first place.

Wysiwyg · 17 November 2009

2020hindsight said:
Wayne mentioned wars back there.
I'd say that there are some big issues of that nature ahead with the current trends of GW/CC plus population explosions -

the fishing rights wars / disputes at least
the food wars / ditto
starvation of millions in dry areas like Ethiopia, etc
the mass migration of environmental refugees - probable hardening of hearts to our fellow man (when we as Australians produce the most CO2e per capita in the world except for a couple of oil exporters - and neck and neck with USA.)

Why is the natural attrition rate v natural birth rate out of balance?

I was thinking ...

a) medical intervention in regards to disease and being kept alive longer
b) no natural predators

2020hindsight · 17 November 2009

Wysiwyg said:
Why is the natural attrition rate v natural birth rate out of balance?

I was thinking ...

a) medical intervention in regards to disease and being kept alive longer
b) no natural predators

There's always Soylent Green to fall back on I guess ...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070723/

It's Snake Pliskin · 17 November 2009

2020hindsight said:
Wayne mentioned wars back there.
I'd say that there are some big issues of that nature ahead with the current trends of GW/CC plus population explosions -

the fishing rights wars / disputes at least
the food wars / ditto
starvation of millions in dry areas like Ethiopia, etc
the mass migration of environmental refugees - probable hardening of hearts to our fellow man (when we as Australians produce the most CO2e per capita in the world except for a couple of oil exporters - and neck and neck with USA.)

I'm sure the critters like the Congo apes and - yes - the polar bears - even the koals - even the brown bears wondering why the salmon runs are so depleted lately - if they could all post on ASF, would add a few more concerns. Coral reefs - not that they say much - but gee we're gonna miss em - and the fish they sponsor.

Hardening of hearts - selfishness as a means of survival against rapidly developing unprecedented threats - an almost certain consequence . "Critters, biodiversity, third world starving and flooded millions - all manner of environmental refugees - who gives a damn" sorta thing

PS but my bet is that we as a nation will be leant on bigtime by the world at large to help sort out the problem ( environmetal refugees etc) when we have been so laxidazical in helping avoid / minimise it in the first place.

Here is a classic case of the "we must act now" psychology that has been bandied about for the past 20 years. Non of the above is substantiated by fact and is alarmist. The psychology is that some feel they have to save the world and use alarmist doctrine which fits with the new religion.

And to suggest coral can sponsor fish, is a total attack on the English language.

Australia should cut some emissions without the socialist bent.

Wysiwyg · 17 November 2009

2020hindsight said:
There's always Soylent Green to fall back on I guess ...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070723/

Think the plot is unimaginative.

"In an overpopulated futuristic Earth, a New York police detective finds himself marked by government agents when he gets too close to a bizarre state secret involving the origins of a revolutionary and needed new foodstuff."

Fruit and vegetables diseased out of production?

2020hindsight · 17 November 2009

Wysiwyg said:
Think the plot is unimaginative.

"In an overpopulated futuristic Earth, a New York police detective finds himself marked by government agents when he gets too close to a bizarre state secret involving the origins of a revolutionary and needed new foodstuff."

Fruit and vegetables diseased out of production?

lol - try recycling gone to the limit :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green

Plot
In the year 2022, the population has grown to forty million people in New York City alone. Most housing is dilapidated and overcrowded, and the homeless fill the streets and line the fire escapes and stairways of buildings. Food as we know it today is a rare and expensive commodity. Most of the world's population survives on processed rations produced by the massive Soylent Corporation, including Soylent Red and Soylent Yellow, which are advertised as "high-energy vegetable concentrates". The newest product is Soylent Green - a small green wafer which is advertised as being produced from "high-energy plankton". It is much more nutritious and palatable than the red and yellow varieties, but it is””like most other food””in short supply, which often leads to food riots.

........
Thorn sneaks into the basement ... Once inside the plant, Thorn sees how corpses are processed into Soylent Green wafers. ... the horrible secret ... "Soylent Green is people! We've got to stop them somehow!"

SciFi.com film reviewer Tamara Hladik calls the film a “basic, cautionary tale of what could become of humanity physically and spiritually [if humans do not take care of the planet.]" She points out that “there is little in this film that has not been seen in other films," such as the film's depiction of “faceless, oppressive crowds; sheep mentality; the corrosion of the soul, of imagination, [and] of collective memory.”

2020hindsight · 17 November 2009

It's Snake Pliskin said:
And to suggest coral can sponsor fish, is a total attack on the English language.

comma is wrong - give this kid a fail ...
next ...:viking:

actually,
to suggest coral can sponsor fish will be an anachronism if we're not careful.
(bit like those around here who somehow link concern for the climate with socialism )

2020hindsight · 17 November 2009

:topic
praps snake we should start a thread entitled "the psychology of pedantry"

PS at least your last sentence is partly right (albeit truncated ) ...

Australia should cut some emissions ...

Julia · 17 November 2009

wayneL said:
It's pretty universally recognised that all the agreement will do is transfer emissions to the third world, enriching them at The West's expense.

That's pretty dumb. At best ineffectual, at worst it may increase co2 emissions overall and even cause civil unrest... perhaps eventually war.

Meanwhile, the true factors of MMCC continue on, unabated and ignored.

Agreed entirely.

It's Snake Pliskin said:
Here is a classic case of the "we must act now" psychology that has been bandied about for the past 20 years. Non of the above is substantiated by fact and is alarmist. The psychology is that some feel they have to save the world and use alarmist doctrine which fits with the new religion.

Yes, it's the messianic religious zeal that so arouses concern on the part of those of us who would like to see a little objectivity, along with the total lack of information provided to the public about how exactly an ETS will affect all our lives.

If Anna can spend some taxpayer dollars on explaining to households why Qld is selling assets, then surely the Feds can issue some basic information on a new tax which will have a far greater impact on our economy and personal existence than did the GST. The latter at least was explained in detail to the electorate before anyone had to vote on it.

2020hindsight said:
julia ,
this thread is about the psychology of climate change
You ask me to justify the ETS as currently proposed.
sorry - but you're off thread.

Repeating my request on this thread was my sad attempt to get a response from you, given you'd ignored the request on other threads where, yes, I agree it would have been more appropriate.

(apart from which, I would be the first to agree that the current ETS is far from perfect, - being a "camel" of political compromises to satisfy the various vested interests

But you still want it passed with all its attendant effects on the economy and on individuals, many of whom are currently struggling to make ends meet.
Why on earth wouldn't you want it to be modified so as to be actually useful and for this to happen after there is global awareness of any decisions which may be (or may not be) taken at Copenhagen?

By all means answer this on another thread if you wish. Just post a reference to where I may seek your answer.

Vizion · 17 November 2009

I'm curious, is anyone here actually engaged in research? I'm curious to know how many people here are arguing from a background in any form of hard research.

http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200611CO2globalwarming.html

Interesting article here on a website that is hard research based. Might want to have a squizz.

Wysiwyg · 18 November 2009

messianic religious zeal

I like this cute little three piece number. Matter of fact I might file it and use at a later date. Not on this forum though.

The psychology of climate change

Smurf1976

Julia

In Memoriam

drsmith

Smurf1976

2020hindsight

Wysiwyg

Everyone wants money

GumbyLearner

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

Calliope

2020hindsight

Wysiwyg

Everyone wants money

2020hindsight

It's Snake Pliskin

Wysiwyg

Everyone wants money

2020hindsight

2020hindsight

2020hindsight

Julia

In Memoriam

Vizion

Wysiwyg

Everyone wants money

Similar threads

The psychology of climate change

In Memoriam

Everyone wants money

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

Everyone wants money

Everyone wants money

In Memoriam

Everyone wants money

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency