A question about climate change/global warming.

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1310 of them)
people hate being shown that what they've been doing for so long is wrong (generalisation) as it makes them look foolish/ignorant.

see also 'Creationists' and what have you

blueski, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 18:29 (seventeen years ago) link

Speaking from my own personal position in the energy field, I would tell any kid coming up who wants to make a shitload of money to get an energy engineering degree.


As someone with a family member who is CLEANING UP on methane digesters, I concur.

Laurel, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 18:35 (seventeen years ago) link

Coco from Man or Astro-man? went into biodiesel.:

http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A13678

jel --, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 18:39 (seventeen years ago) link

He makes fuel outta grease from restaurants.

jel --, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 18:40 (seventeen years ago) link

there's a documentary about some all-girl punk band touring the country doing that

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 18:43 (seventeen years ago) link

Absolutely Shakey (and Laurel). There's enough momentum behind "green" "renewable" energy right now for people to make serious $$$ for the next decade, minimum. Chemical engineers who focus on organic (hydrocarbons), physicists, even the traditional electrical and mechanical engineering disciplines - all will be in demand, especially with minors in environmental sciences or policies.

Jaq, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 18:43 (seventeen years ago) link

ahh, see, my dad has worked for years for a company in south Texas that helps refineries fix leaks and comply with EPA regulations. The oil dudes think of my dad as a necessary evil. He is not loved by his clients. My dad, by way of commiseration, perhaps, believes that the EPA is stupid and corrupt and that there is nothing wrong with the environment whatsoever.

kenan, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 19:00 (seventeen years ago) link

the guilt-avoidance and admitting-wrong things are pretty otm, at a deeper level than the r-w talking points thing (which flows out of the first two), but there's at least two other factors i can think of. one is related to the lifestyle thing, but goes a bit deeper - a major change in the social fabric in response to this would deny some people a sense of meaning/purpose in life - it would eliminate not just the existence but the social utility/status of their jobs/defining leisure activities (compare the sagebrush complaints about the spotted owl and horny lizard or whatever it was). the other is that it requires people to think on a macro level, about the world as a system, etc., which many people are unwilling to do/uncomfortable doing probably for a variety of reasons but one big one might be that it makes them feel very small and without much agency in things.

gabbneb, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 19:09 (seventeen years ago) link

the EPA is stupid and corrupt

As with any govt agency, I don't doubt there's truth in this.

Jaq, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 19:12 (seventeen years ago) link

Also, the simple things each of us can do seem so inconsequential, the bigger things (like putting up a solar panel or windmill) are costly. It all seems so hopeless. Those on the right have a kneejerk reaction to doom-and-gloom. Those who accept the problem tend to bicker about what's worse and better (paper vs. plastic, dishwashers vs. hand-washing dishes). There was a story in our local paper about houses here installing copper tubing in the ground to harness geothermal energy. I sent the article to a family friend who is making building plans - his response was that the enviromental footprint of the copper tubing and excavators and digging outweighed the use of conventional energy systems. It all just gets so confusing that it's easy to throw one's hands up in the air and go for a nice aimless drive while it's still possible.

Maria :D, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 19:19 (seventeen years ago) link

This is all reminding me of when I was in college - my Dad (sort of a country club Republican sort) was pretty annoyed with my going to marches and similar activities. "You young kids think that you can change things..." was I think what he said.

I think it is really bizarre to see people - like him - in their early 60s now - who lived through huge social changes (like, say, the Civil Rights movement) who still don't think that things can be changed. (Of course there is also the fact that a lot of them didn't feel comfortable with those changes and definitely don't want any more change.)

Sara R-C, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 19:23 (seventeen years ago) link

There are a lot of younger people who now have this very romantic notion about the old days, before styrofoam and disposable everything. I think that's partly why baking and knitting have become so hip - the return to traditional crafts and a simpler day. Too bad there's not really any going back. I'd like to see a return to sustainable ways, but without the sexism and repression of the olde days. Is it hip yet for boys to darn socks?

Maria :D, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 19:29 (seventeen years ago) link

Boys are genetically predispositioned not to darn.

kenan, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 19:34 (seventeen years ago) link

I forgot they found a chromosomally linked gene for aversion to needlework. Silly me.

Laurel, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 19:39 (seventeen years ago) link

My two bits on this:

1. conservative types tend to not believe in systemic/complex causation rather than direct causation. (i.e. you're poor cuz you're lazy and it's your own fault and responsibility, not b/c you're in a system that's fucked)

2. american politics are extremely tribal right now, and agreeing with anything of this stuff is akin to casting your lot in with the dirty hippies. Plus, empiric & objective science has been attacked enough lately so that you can project your political thinking onto scientists, since scientists are all biased and only want a certain political output, and want to silence all dissenting opinions.

It's kinda fun how it's a big shitpile of these folks suddenly seeing the validity of debate, an inability or deliberate decision not to understand how science actually works, and disingeniousness in wanting to put forth a "serious alternative answer," as opposed to trying to scramble around for anything to cudgel the other side.

It's a lot like the intelligent design folks who want their shit taught alongside evolutionary biology as equally valid, yet spend all their money on shit-stirring p.r. instead of actually producing any research(check the budget of Seattle's Discovery Institute), and indeed openly attack those(sincerely interested or not) who want them to publish their research so it can be checked out. The authoritarian folks are now battling the authoritative folks(the ones who actually know their shit and can call others on it).

kingfish, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 20:13 (seventeen years ago) link

In other words, that traitorous hypocrite Gore and those dirty america-hating hippies are fer it, the Leaders I trust aren't and tell me I shouldn't be either, so i'm agin' it.

That kinda thing.

kingfish, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 20:15 (seventeen years ago) link

This is becoming less and less of a left vs right wing phenonmenon, as shown by the number of posts on The Corner (like those by Jonah Goldberg) acknowledging that global warming is real. The ones who believe simply distrust Gore-ist alarmism (OMIGOD MILWAUKEE WILL BE UNDERWATER IN 20 YRS).

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 20:25 (seventeen years ago) link

But there's still plenty of folks who attack Gore just for being Gore, which is a political thing, not with the science of it; see all the increased attacks & talking points in the last two days.

hell, there's some douche on Ed Schultz's show right now going off on him.

kingfish, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 21:12 (seventeen years ago) link

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c90/gradygillan/gwarming.jpg

g®▲Ðұ, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 21:18 (seventeen years ago) link

http://cdn5.tribalfusion.com/media/761536.gif

g®▲Ðұ, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 22:19 (seventeen years ago) link

Things I've heard people say:

"Don't get me started on environmentalists! Soon denying global warming'll be like denying the holocaust. It'll be all "How dare you say it doesn't exist blah blah" (same bloke blamed "this PC world in which we live" for the rise in health and safety measures - my boss blamed lawyers. I think I agree with my boss)

"They ask me to switch off my TV instead of leaving it on standby, saying it saves energy, but have they considered that that so-called "wasted" energy is actually helping to heat my house?"

the next grozart, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 12:23 (seventeen years ago) link

These are also the kind of people who have an incredibly high suspicion of scientists, doctors and other professionals. "What's he talking about?! These people! He's not a proper scientist!" etc.

the next grozart, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 12:26 (seventeen years ago) link

"The cost of recycling is actually greater than the damage done"

the next grozart, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 12:27 (seventeen years ago) link

Recycling IS very expensive and energy-intensive, though

How about Ken Livingstone, eh??

Cleaning up the Big Smoke: Livingstone plans to cut carbon emissions by 60%

and presumably some of the experience gained with this long-term initiative can be imparted to Venezuela through Ken's expertise-in-exchange-for-cheap-oil-for-poor-Londoners deal he struck with Chavez:

Livingstone seals Venezuelan fuel deal

Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 12:53 (seventeen years ago) link

interesting!

blueski, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 13:08 (seventeen years ago) link

follow up information to all those attacks against Gore over the last two day, from the " Tennessee Center for Policy Research" to every rightwing radio show and blogger out there

kingfish, Thursday, 1 March 2007 00:21 (seventeen years ago) link

I suspect the biggest reason is that too many people have been preaching catastrophe from too many angles for too long. People are incurious about all sorts of subjects that could be deemed vital or essential. Picking "humans cause global warming" as a topic is really kind of pointless, unless you happen to be a big believer in it. If it's your dogma, then it suddenly it's unreasonable that others don't share your enthusiasm, wonder, or abject fear. Abortion, Iraq, Putin whoring himself around the Middle East, poverty, saving the whales...everyone's got a cause that someone else doesn't care about.

And really, you can't blame people for being at least a little bit jaded, non-plussed, or even cynical on this topic.

Dandy Don Weiner, Thursday, 1 March 2007 01:35 (seventeen years ago) link

Ah......sure I can.

peepee, Sunday, 4 March 2007 15:07 (seventeen years ago) link

......so we're only capable to worry about one cause?

peepee, Sunday, 4 March 2007 15:09 (seventeen years ago) link

we can have as many causes (and crisis) as we want. Some have many, some have few. People have jammed their heads in the sand for eons for a variety of issues.

Dandy Don Weiner, Sunday, 4 March 2007 15:35 (seventeen years ago) link

But then why choosing to jam their heads with such an energetic response against it?

peepee, Sunday, 4 March 2007 15:48 (seventeen years ago) link

Instead of consulting a message board of what amounts to like minded people on this subject, maybe it would be more productive to sit down with these people and ask them why it is they think the way they do. That way, you wouldn't have to speculate. Maybe it's your approach to the subject that makes them wave you off. Maybe they'd be willing to consider your perspective on different terms. Are you out to change their mind or simply expose them because you think they are idiots? How is it "energetic" to merely refuse to consider possibilities of humans causing global warming? Sounds pretty passive to me.

Dandy Don Weiner, Sunday, 4 March 2007 16:26 (seventeen years ago) link

Ouch!

I'm consulting a message board right now, because I'm at home, and the two people who live in this house have questions, and y'all MIGHT have some insight.

I do not argue with these people. I am calm and non-judgemental with them. I ask them questions. The thing that always gets me , though, is a lack of willingness to read something, or watch something, etc. I get along with these people. We talk in a friendly manner about all kinds of things everyday.

I have asked them why they're so bitterly opposed to the concept, and they usually have no answer except "It's a bunch of bull!", as if they'd rather not discuss it unless we're in agreement that it is a bunch of bull.

Dan, please don't project those nasty traits onto me.

(Am I comming across in a nasty way on this thread?)

peepee, Sunday, 4 March 2007 16:36 (seventeen years ago) link

In other words, I don't bring the topic up. Someone will mention how it's all bunk, and I'd say something like "it seems a reasonable conclusion to come to, given all of the scientific data." And THEY'LL go off. I stay calm, but ask them about their logic, and they'll mention that Al Gore's fat or its cold outside today.

peepee, Sunday, 4 March 2007 16:43 (seventeen years ago) link

This is defferent from my own experience, I rarely come across any denial of global warming / climate change. What I do come across is a large amount of indifference. The mental link has yet to be made between ongoing problem/possible solutions I can implement. Still, in a country where our own PM seems to be of the opinion that scientists will come up with something to sort it all out, this is hardly surprising.

Matt, Sunday, 4 March 2007 16:48 (seventeen years ago) link

I'm not trying to project those traits on you peepee and I'm sorry if you thought I was.

I'd say it sounds like the people you are referring to probably think that the issue is more partisan than scientific. They probably don't think much of Al Gore, they may not trust what he has to say, they may resent him being a celebrity for his cause, etc. Like Matt said, they may be predisposed to be indifferent towards climate issues and therefore see environmentalists as a bunch of paranoid scolds. Environmental issues have long been polarizing, with both sides being dismissive of the other to the point of losing any sort of healthy skepticism.

Dandy Don Weiner, Sunday, 4 March 2007 18:06 (seventeen years ago) link

Maria - yes it is hip for boys to darn socks! At least in the circles I run in. Even better if they make their own period clothing. (Alas, I will never win such a boy over with my homemade ball gowns, but I am a pretty good cook for a student!)

I don't know the reasons for totally shutting off to the idea of global warming, and I'm afraid any speculation I could provide would sound horrendously insulting and condescending.

Maria, Monday, 5 March 2007 00:05 (seventeen years ago) link

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/cb0305awj.jpg

Algore is fat lol

kingfish, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 00:35 (seventeen years ago) link

Here's another reason, when the paper of record publishes bullshit hit pieces on Al Gore and his movie, by people who've done the same thing previously and been found wrong for it.

More detail here:
Bill Broad took to the pages of the paper of record to establish that there is significant concern in the scientific community about the accuracy of Gore's movie. To do so, he trotted out scientific outliers, non-scientists, and hacks with discredited arguments. In at least two cases (Pielke Jr. being a scientist and the NAS report contradicting Gore) he made gross factual errors. As for the rest, it's a classic case of journalistic "false balance" -- something I thought we were done with on global warming. I guess when it comes to Al Gore, the press still thinks it can get by on smear, suggestion, and innuendo.
And also what happened when they tried to attack the study Al cites about the 900+ peer-reviewed research papers supporting climate change.

That's the thing; b/c it's so political now, plenty of people have such vested stakes in their positions, and absolutely cannot admit that those Dirty Fucking Hippies are right, and that fat communist Algore actually knows his shit. So they cannot accept actual facts and cling to any life raft that keeps them from drowning in their own sewage, e.g. "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Facts alone don't set you free, since humans are so easily able to reject them.

kingfish, Thursday, 15 March 2007 19:45 (seventeen years ago) link

interesting evangelical split on this issue - story up on CNN about it

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 15 March 2007 19:52 (seventeen years ago) link

thing i don't get is wtf do the global-warming-is-bullshit people think the global-warming-is-fucking-us-all-and-mostly-done-by-humangs people are getting out of it? by denying it the former get to live their lives seeing the world as a resource and no more, get richer, whatever, but what do the latter get out of not denying it? some obv retorts - not answers - spring to mind but first, what do you think?

emsk, Thursday, 15 March 2007 23:43 (seventeen years ago) link

that we're communists who hate america and capitalism and the free market and want us all to live in sod huts and covered wagons and eat tofu. This is more or less what rightwinger columnists say, almost verbatim.

kingfish, Thursday, 15 March 2007 23:46 (seventeen years ago) link

Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.
The world was created in six days, less than 7000 years ago.
Tax cuts are a cure for deficits.

Clearly, these people are hard-to-convince skeptics.

M.V., Friday, 16 March 2007 00:15 (seventeen years ago) link

In fact, when some of 'em are pushed hard enough(like the CEI/AEI folks on that Thom Hartmann has on his show), they almost all revert to talking about how Kyoto will bankrupt the U.S. The equation comes down to that particular instance, as if there was one and only one particular way to go about it, and that way would be Bad for America, so we can't do anything. It almost always comes down to them holding that it's not economically possible to change how fucked up the system is right now, so status quo uber alles.

That and inertia is a bitch to overcome with people and industrial types not known for their adaptability or openness to new ideas.

kingfish, Friday, 16 March 2007 00:42 (seventeen years ago) link

"Market idolatry" is another good term for it.

kingfish, Friday, 16 March 2007 00:42 (seventeen years ago) link

jeezus, kingfish. you sound pretty reactionary and defensive.

this issue is absolute dogma for some people, a nearly prophetic belief where anyone who's not on board with the apocalypse is a "denier." Is that what science has become?

Dandy Don Weiner, Friday, 16 March 2007 01:37 (seventeen years ago) link

You're projecting again, and using the problems you have with a few of the adherents to try to discredit the phenomenom itself. Using religious language on people who don't hold the knowledge thru relegious teachings is the same shit that fundie creationists do, screeching around about "Darwinists."

kingfish, Friday, 16 March 2007 06:18 (seventeen years ago) link

who's doing the projecting here?

Nice try.

Dandy Don Weiner, Friday, 16 March 2007 10:45 (seventeen years ago) link

BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to consider limiting EPA's authority to curb greenhouse gases from power plants, will hear appeals from coal-mining companies and Republican-led states

— Greg Stohr (@GregStohr) October 29, 2021

seems bad!!

frogbs, Friday, 29 October 2021 21:23 (two years ago) link

"You see, the greenhouse gases from power plants have liberties and rights according the constitution..."

I'm a sovereign jizz citizen (the table is the table), Friday, 29 October 2021 21:44 (two years ago) link

"Polluters are people too, my friend..."

Three Rings for the Elven Bishop (Dan Peterson), Friday, 29 October 2021 21:49 (two years ago) link

it is very bad. and the first of probably many, unfortunately.

"elections have consequences"*

*also blatantly stolen SC seats

Karl Malone, Friday, 29 October 2021 21:51 (two years ago) link

if you want to know where the worst discourse is heading, once again lolico is ahead of the cunt-curve.

"The deal is this: Tuvalu sinks beneath the waves, there is even more flooding than usual in Bangladesh, and in exchange we get pharmaceutical medicine, TV, Reeboks, McDonald’s, air travel, computers, blogs, and all the other apparatus of modern life. That’s a no-brainer.+

— Andrew Lilico (@andrew_lilico) November 2, 2021

edited to reflect developments which occurred (Camaraderie at Arms Length), Tuesday, 2 November 2021 13:09 (two years ago) link

jesus christ

Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 2 November 2021 13:10 (two years ago) link

Muh Reeboks. Muh Filet O Fish. "Tuvalu", lol.

__

When they put their respectable mask on:

Charles talking about “growing global population creating ever-increasing demand on the planet’s finite resources”.

There's a certain kind of person that loves talking about growing populations and climate change... #COP26 pic.twitter.com/JZ0CFoMmvc

— Josh Gabbatiss (@Josh_Gabbatiss) November 1, 2021

recovering internet addict/shitposter (viborg), Tuesday, 2 November 2021 14:33 (two years ago) link

i didn't know who andrew lilico was and for a second i thought it was like an "accidentally left wing" post

certified juice therapist (harbl), Tuesday, 2 November 2021 14:37 (two years ago) link

xpost

Just in case the glaring smug hypocrisy of these inbred twits isn't obvious enough.

Report: Queen Elizabeth secured personal exemption from Scottish climate law

recovering internet addict/shitposter (viborg), Tuesday, 2 November 2021 14:38 (two years ago) link

Guess the thing about the climate crisis, cause it's such a nebulous problem that we're all guilty of contributing to, is that one can use it project basically any of one's pet issues on to. It's all a matter of scale. Like cosmic insignificance.

recovering internet addict/shitposter (viborg), Tuesday, 2 November 2021 18:21 (two years ago) link

Fucking royals.

recovering internet addict/shitposter (viborg), Tuesday, 2 November 2021 18:21 (two years ago) link

crossposting this here

"Although carbon emissions have been increasing rapidly since the Industrial Revolution, it is no accident that 63 percent of all emissions have been produced in these past forty years. Pace the Davos set, these emissions track neither population growth nor consumption from developing states. Their path is unimpeded by the proliferation of eco-conscious marketing schemes, “corporate social responsibility,” and promises (and non-existent realities) of mystical techno-fixes. They track the return to and difficult maintenance of profitability.

As an interdisciplinary team led by chemist Will Steffen demonstrated, in terms of GHG emissions, ocean acidification, rainforest destruction, aquaculture depletion, global warming itself, and so on, climate change tracks not only cumulative GDP growth (as is widely discussed) but such conspicuous features of contemporary global capital as the increased use of telecoms, non-recreational transportation, and foreign direct investment (FDI), which moves from almost zero in the 1960s to trillions by the 2010s. Following Polanyi, they dubbed this “the Great Acceleration.” Such acceleration does not aggregate with population growth; perversely, the relation is inverted. Emissions, resource intensivity, and other climate measures are concentrated where end-point consumption is greatest, as many climate scientists now openly state, among the world’s wealthiest. In the global top wealth and income deciles, population growth is lowest or even negative. And as the rate of population growth is curbing globally, climate change continues its exponential pace. Many climate scientists today go further still, like physicist and social ecologist Julia Steinberger, in arguing the need to push past symptomatic criticisms of biophysical and economic growth towards the clear critique of capital as the “fundamental driver” of climate change."

https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-extractive-circuit-singh-chaudhary

Linda and Jodie Rocco (map), Tuesday, 2 November 2021 18:38 (two years ago) link

one year passes...

Remember how some people would say the worst effects of climate change are in the global South and that Europe wouldn't be affected like anywhere near as hard but in the last year you see things like European river levels dropping off. This is from Spain.

There’s drought - and then there’s a super drought! 60% of the Spanish countryside is bone dry. Groundwater eventually runs out - then what..Wheat and barley crops are likely to fail entirely in four regions- & summer yet to come. pic.twitter.com/91mz8sYopf

— Peter Dynes (@PGDynes) April 16, 2023

xyzzzz__, Wednesday, 19 April 2023 08:05 (one year ago) link

Global South is getting the worst of it for sure but we are going to see bigger effects in Europe pretty fast. All bets are off if water and food supplies are fucked.

xyzzzz__, Wednesday, 19 April 2023 08:07 (one year ago) link

four months pass...

Lol @ this climate scientist. Does he have a mansion on the hill with solar panels?

I hope I am wrong and others may see things differently, but I am expecting effective societal collapse by mid-century, and planning - for my partner and I and our kids - accordingly.https://t.co/ZkZyaR9uBh

— Bill McGuire (@ProfBillMcGuire) September 13, 2023

xyzzzz__, Sunday, 17 September 2023 08:45 (seven months ago) link

It all depends on what you imagine "effective societal collapse" looks like. If you imagine it looks like the zombie apocalypse, then 'planning accordingly' feels like a joke. If it looks like the breakdown of globalism, food shortages, crumbling infrastructure, electrical brownouts, an increase in regional wars, high unemployment, more poverty and scavenging, increased but not universal violence, corrupt police states flourishing, and other similar outcomes, then some measure of planning and adaptation cold be very helpful, if only to set correct expectations and strengthen one's mental resilience and skill set.

more difficult than I look (Aimless), Sunday, 17 September 2023 17:53 (seven months ago) link

Yeah. I guess so. I interpreted this as the Wikipedia definition so I don’t understand his use of “societal collapse” to describe the possible consequence of a global problem. What society is he talking about?

Allen (etaeoe), Sunday, 17 September 2023 18:21 (seven months ago) link

FWIW, I think Damian Carrington, author of the article Bill McGuire quotes, uses the more accurate description: “extinction.”

Allen (etaeoe), Sunday, 17 September 2023 18:27 (seven months ago) link

Extinction at "mid-century" seems far too rapid by even the most alarmist standards, so whatever McGuire thinks "effective societal collapse" means, it feels like it's probably not "extinction". The physical fact of 8,000,000,000 living humans constitute a formidable barrier to extinction within a few decades from climate change alone.

more difficult than I look (Aimless), Sunday, 17 September 2023 18:45 (seven months ago) link

"then some measure of planning and adaptation cold be very helpful, if only to set correct expectations and strengthen one's mental resilience and skill set."

Not sure what form this takes. Name things you can do on your own.

Agree "extinction" in twenty years is alarmist.

xyzzzz__, Sunday, 17 September 2023 19:05 (seven months ago) link

I don't know about extinction, and none of this is my area of expertise at all, but personally I'm expecting some form of collapse within the next 10-15 years. Considering how fast climate change has moved in the past decade, and how much it's accelerating from year to year, and how fragile all of our interconnected systems are, plus the potential for catastrophic events like the collapse of the insect population or the Gulf Stream stopping, it seems unlikely that we'll make it to mid-century with anything like the civilization we have now. Don't really see any way to plan for it, though. I haven't given much thought to saving for retirement because I don't expect to get there.

Lily Dale, Sunday, 17 September 2023 19:27 (seven months ago) link

I feel that we will probably see in the next five years in the UK:

- Certain types of food shortages
- A fairly catastrophic flood event
- More 40 degree days, more deaths due to heat among the old and poor
- Potential energy crisis, affecting ability to fan and cool your space. So this affects everyone.

xyzzzz__, Sunday, 17 September 2023 19:34 (seven months ago) link

That last one is pure speculation. The first three are based on current trends.

xyzzzz__, Sunday, 17 September 2023 19:36 (seven months ago) link

Name things you can do on your own.

Learn how to sew and repair clothes.
Acquire some simple non-power hand tools.
Get to know your neighbors.
Practice walking longer distances than you usually walk.
Acquire a bicycle and know how to maintain it.
Know what you'd do in a catastrophic flood, fire, or similar event.
Keep thinking clearly.

more difficult than I look (Aimless), Sunday, 17 September 2023 22:37 (seven months ago) link

all good suggestions, would also add farming/plant skills there

out-of-print LaserDisc edition (sleeve), Sunday, 17 September 2023 23:41 (seven months ago) link

stolen from lucifer's hammer: get a hardcover copy of 'the way things work' and keep it in a ziploc bag

mookieproof, Sunday, 17 September 2023 23:46 (seven months ago) link

hardcover copy of 'the way things work'

Practical skills and tools are very worthwhile acquisitions, but for me the most important item on my list is keep thinking clearly.

As I understand the world, humans survive very poorly in the absence of a stable shared society of some kind. As the stability of our very large social organization breaks down and can no longer solve the immediate problems of survival, it will elevate the necessity of forming new, more reliable (if smaller and more local) social alliances and finding new modes of stability.

The more quickly the older social contract is shattered, the more drastically those new social compacts will be stressed and the more likely they'll atomize into smaller and smaller groupings. Having practical skills and tools will make things not just easier for yourself, but make you a far more valuable ally in any group you join, but thinking clearly in the face of those stresses will help even more.

more difficult than I look (Aimless), Monday, 18 September 2023 00:58 (seven months ago) link

One takeway from Kim Stanley Robinson's The Ministry For The Future that stood out to me was that even after millions of people dying in climate-related events, nothing really began to pick up until Crash Day - when in the 2030s 60 passenger jets are crashed by drones, then container ships and meat farming are targeted until in the 2040s air travel ends and meat eating declines.

Elvis Telecom, Monday, 18 September 2023 01:55 (seven months ago) link

i honestly didn't get past the first chapter, which is harrowing as fuck

mookieproof, Monday, 18 September 2023 01:57 (seven months ago) link

It is harrowing as fuck, but the book is somewhat hopeful and offers some kind of pathway that isn't exercises in prepping and doomerism.

Elvis Telecom, Monday, 18 September 2023 04:17 (seven months ago) link

iirc that book makes a pretty convincing argument that "adaptation" to climate change will not be an option for millions and millions of people

Tracer Hand, Monday, 18 September 2023 07:12 (seven months ago) link

KSR sounds amazing. Have to read that book.

xyzzzz__, Monday, 18 September 2023 07:49 (seven months ago) link

I also didn't make it much past the first chapter, though I skimmed ahead some. It hadn't been that long since the heat dome in the PNW when I tried to read it, so it was all horrifyingly easy to imagine.

Lily Dale, Tuesday, 19 September 2023 03:32 (seven months ago) link

four months pass...

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.