The transition

I find it humorous that people who are opposed to technological progress always argue that technology X is inadequate based on its performance from many years ago. While people who are tech fanboys always argue that some new technology Y will change everything.
 
Upway Certified Pre-Owned E-Bikes Upway E-Bikes Mobile
Roamers said:
Consider those are issues very few care about. I suggest a quietly vocal minority.
Click to expand...
Well, except for the fact that one of the reasons "very few care about" such issues is that mainstream media won't talk about them, or if they do they talk about it in a condescending way.

Worse, most journalists have near-zero education in any scientific fields and that leaves them poorly equipped to sort out any issue and even more poorly equipped to explain it to others. That goes for both climate change (which touches upon physics, chemistry, and geophysics) and income inequality (which large needs to be an economic discussion).

You could also argue that the current generation of concentrated ownership of media has made certain topics verboten or they will piss off their owners.
 
Mr. Coffee said:
Well, except for the fact that one of the reasons "very few care about" such issues is that mainstream media won't talk about them, or if they do they talk about it in a condescending way.
Click to expand...
MSM used to report ad nausium; yesterday's news.

There are numerous things most people care about more. That's what MSM reports. IMO, we need more reporting on (and elimination of) the federal gov't over-spending.
 
The media have no place in climate change, the IPCC tell us not to listen to them.
They quote scientists, experts, studies, and consensus.
An endless stream of clickbait nonsense while the actual science is methodical, unbaised and sober.
 
Urtopia E-Bikes Urtopia E-Bikes Mobile
Mr. Coffee said:
Well, except for the fact that one of the reasons "very few care about" such issues is that mainstream media won't talk about them, or if they do they talk about it in a condescending way.

Worse, most journalists have near-zero education in any scientific fields and that leaves them poorly equipped to sort out any issue and even more poorly equipped to explain it to others. That goes for both climate change (which touches upon physics, chemistry, and geophysics) and income inequality (which large needs to be an economic discussion).

You could also argue that the current generation of concentrated ownership of media has made certain topics verboten or they will piss off their owners.
Click to expand...

The main issue with the way media covers things like climate change is they absolutely love to frame everything in horse race terms, because conflict keeps people engaged. So when you have an issue like climate change where the educated consensus is overwhelmingly on one side, they will find people who argue against it and elevate them to create "conflict" and the illusion that its some 50-50 issue.

Its also a complete fabrication that its an issue that "very few care about". It is true that its an issue that doesn't influence voting habits in line with how concerned people are about it though (its a long term issue, and for most people their top concerns are going to be stuff that affects them near term). But almost half the country is very concerned about climate change and that percentage has been steadily climbing.
 
jabberwocky said:
But almost half the country is very concerned about climate change and that percentage has been steadily climbing.
Click to expand...
It's unlikely personal habit changes will significantly influence what is happening climate wise. If people are not actively making changes they believe will affect the changes in climate, they do not really care.

One of my brothers now has (2) EVs, stopped eating meat (cow farts), and is tearing down and rebuilding his lake house with no fossil fuels used in new build. It makes him feel good.
 
The Thames Barrier which raises up to protect London from tidal surges.
London is sinking 4mm a year, 2mm sea rise, 2mm sinking land.

Strangely it hasnt been raised for going on three years.

Screenshot_20261019-172858-327.png
 
Roamers said:
It's unlikely personal habit changes will significantly influence what is happening climate wise. If people are not actively making changes they believe will affect the changes in climate, they do not really care.

One of my brothers now has (2) EVs, stopped eating meat (cow farts), and is tearing down and rebuilding his lake house with no fossil fuels used in new build. It makes him feel good.
Click to expand...

There is tons of eco-fashion that doesn't really do much aside from making people feel good. Like, tearing down a house to build a new one is likely a net negative no matter how green the new house is, since building materials are pretty carbon intensive to manufacture and transport. Construction waste is a big percentage of what fills up landfills as well.

Broadly the best thing individuals can do is vote for people who will advance policies to move large scale power generation off fossil fuels to the largest extent possible.
 
Dogs, I keep warning they are coming for them.

The Environmental Impact of Pets: Working Towards Sustainable Pet Ownership | Earth.Org

Pet ownership is a staple in many families worldwide, and estimates suggest that over half of the global population have a pet at home. However, owning a dog, cat, or any other pet might not be as sustainable as many think. We take a look at the environmental impact of pets and explore solutions...
earth.org earth.org
 
jabberwocky said:
Broadly the best thing individuals can do is vote for people who will advance policies to move large scale power generation off fossil
Click to expand...
Many vote for people that try to keep the federal gov't out of picking winners and losers. A very diverse population. That's not a bad thing.
 
jabberwocky said:
Like, tearing down a house to build a new one is likely a net negative no matter how green the new house is, since building materials are pretty carbon intensive to manufacture and transport.
Click to expand...
Eco friendlier is not the reason, it is a side benefit. His plan is to have as much reused as possible. My guess is that might change after it is determined how much it will cost to "keep material reuseable".
 
The jetstream is stalling so less warm expanded water is flowing from the Gulf to England. We are getting the brunt here in coastal California.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back