Why greens don’t want to ‘solve’ climate change

[Arrian]

I'm sure some "greens" are luddites. I'm equally sure that some others are interested in technological solutions to climate change.

It's fine to be skeptical about the technological "solutions" discussed in the article. Even if some or all of them could be useful in combatting global warming, anyone can see that each of them would have dramatic impacts on the environment that might lead to other, negative, consequences.

Seriously, look at that list. Setting aside the ridiculous made up "chance of success" figures, it's clear that each of those things could easily have side effects we don't understand.

It's pretty simple to say that we understand what would happen if we reduced emissions. It's not so simple to say we understand what would occur if we threw a bunch of sulfur into the upper atmosphere or "seeded" clouds (what is this guy, Russian?).

-Arrian

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Don't doubt that if anti-climate change sophists had not been engaging in pointless denial for years now (although they have moved from outright denial to "scepticism"), that more could have actually been done about climate change. Their procrastination has worsened our situation, and if anyone should pay for it, they should. Why should some Nigerian peasant who has done nothing die of starvation, when some idiot whose dishonest pronouncements led to the food shortage could die instead.

Can you really explain to me why it would not be just, if people have to die because of avoidable climate change, for Bjorn Lomborg to be near the front of the queue.

Because that would be a consistent application of the principles we previously determined to best govern society. That means your ideas are right out.

Completely retarded.

In essence your answer is "we've always done it that way, so criticism is moot". Hell, let's go poke fun at negroes...

Perhaps you would like to try again.

[Kuciwalker]

Completely retarded.

In essence your answer is "we've always done it that way, so criticism is moot".

No, it's not. Try rereading it a couple times.

Aren't you supposed to learn in intro philosophy courses how to correctly analyze another's argument?

[Ecthy]

Well that and the very assumption that it's ALWAYS those pesky greens who are so against the implementation of new ecological technologies is utterly stupid. Maybe in America...

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Well that and the very assumption that it's ALWAYS those pesky greens who are so against the implementation of new ecological technologies is utterly stupid. Maybe in America...

"Pesky greens" don't get elected here.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Completely retarded.

In essence your answer is "we've always done it that way, so criticism is moot".

No, it's not. Try rereading it a couple times.

Aren't you supposed to learn in intro philosophy courses how to correctly analyze another's argument?

Exactly, which is why I have always thought you were a silly American tosser.

Just because people believed it in the past or thought it best, doesn't mean it is true.

Jesus, this place is full of reactionary wankers, and demented conservative idiots. As if it's not enough that some morons still defend the Iraq war. It's become completely tedious of late.

Well, enjoy the thread.

[Pekka]

Except:

Chance of altering human behavior accordingly is less than 1%.

Like everything, people are being fundamentalist about things. Solution is most likely a hybrid one anyway, a rational, reasoned one. Not even taxing can change the behavior, though socialists tend to believe in it. It'll just make people poor in the end, the ones that aren't already rich that is.

Why Greens won't ever be the biggest part of the solution is because they are politicians. Meaning that they have political agendas. They will always have conflicts, just like any other party.

The activists aren't doing **** either. I mean most of them. There are always small group of people who are actually contributing and not in it for the chance of feeling good inside. So activists have some good folks in them, in general? Meh. No change.

Grass roots won't make it either. It'll be either technological advance that happens because of massive investments in R&D worldwide. Meaning that the things that are the biggest problems now consume less. People won't consume less. But the things that are problems in the consumption, those can be altered, at least I hope.

Greens and other activists are right but they have weird way going about it. Well Greens nto so much, at least they've entered the political field so they're going about it the right way, they have to be credited for that. Here, in Finland, they have had even some rather progressive ideas about non-environmental things. They aren't TOO bad of a party. It's technology friendly, privacy and freedom friendly, it's usually business friendly as well. I don't dislike them actually. They have few cool politicians. Few idiots. But so does everyone else.

I don't think many activists understand how difficult/impossible it is to change behavior globally or even where it counts the most. What do you expect to do with China, and other rising powers in the near future? It's laughable, there will be a war before they would accept reasoning of "I know you want to be wealthy like us but hey, you're destroying to the earth! Stop now or find better ways to produce power!".

Sure.

Solution, destroy China, possibly India etc? Right. Lead by example? Impossible. We are already rich. That's the lead they want to follow. So that's just ONE issue. Simply put, won't happen. There needs to be other ways or hybrid solutions.

[Arrian]

Jesus, this place is full of reactionary wankers, and demented conservative idiots.

Funny. I could've sworn that the majority of responses in this thread were anti-the article in the OP (including, btw, Kuci's).

-Arrian

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Agathon
Jesus, this place is full of reactionary wankers, and demented conservative idiots.

No, it's not. You only think that because you're on the other end of the spectrum. Remember, Ned thinks this place is full of whacked out commie liberals.

Edit: Arrian, we sure do quote the same blocks of text a lot.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
Just because people believed it in the past or thought it best, doesn't mean it is true.

And I never claimed that

[Ming]

Come on people... take the personal crap somewhere else and JUST discuss the topic.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
Sounds like expensive and risky projects to me. I'd rather have more nuclear power, solar powered hydrogen production, etc.

[Pekka]

Right on. Agathon needs to stay here.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Agathon
Complete bull****.

Chance of altered human behaviour (i.e. using less energy) solving climate change = 100%

Chances of humans altering their behaviour? Seems very small at the moment.

[Whoha]

Re: Why greens don’t want to ‘solve’ climate change

Originally posted by Cort Haus

2. Rocketing enough sulphur into the stratosphere for it to cool the planet by blocking the sun’s rays. Chance of success: 1/5.

coal burning