From what I've seen, a lot of people like (love) to talk the talk, but the fewest walk the walk. I'm not one of them, beyond being a good boi with my recycling. I've become pessimistic over the years that people will do anything that challenges convenience, and mostly prefer to keep up the appearance. Often by chiding others. Can you cheer me up on that front? What do you think would be a good way to motivate change?
And conversely, many and more people love to bury their heads in the sand. I'm not chiding anyone that's making a genuine effort, but those that are denying reality. I'm not the one to be cheering you up though matey. Further, from the seminars I've been sitting in, to the experts in the field of my profession (forestry) that I've been discussing with, to listening to the lived experience of natural history legends such as David Attenborough - the synopsis of the current state of the biosphere is bleak and we're narrowing our chances of future sustainable living by the day. A lot of it is due to convenience and laziness yes, which brings to mind this scene from Waking Life: How to motivate change? That's a tricky, sticky one due to the aforementioned laziness and the entrenched status quo that has obvious interests in maintaining things the way they are. For sure no one likes a preacher, however our house is on fire. Fundamentally it's education, with education wealth parity becomes more achievable, birth rates decrease, how to inter-relate with the land and each other becomes more feasible, gaining a realisation of what we're actually doing the planet comes into focus, and on. There are no easy solutions though, and changing economic systems, societal setups and putting your fellow man's nose out of joint are all going to have to happen as a matter of survival. What are your own thoughts on the climate crisis and solutions/ways of motivating change?
I wish I had something good to say, but I don't. I've become cynical and pessimistic towards it. It's been a blatantly obvious problem for as long as I've been politically conscious, and while I at first shared the enthusiasm for chiding those who aren't doing their part, I've become disillusioned by those who claim to be as well. Michael Moore's documentary on the topic was a heavy blow in that regard. Not that the examples therein are representative of the green movement as a whole. Have you seen it? It's descended into an arena of self-righteous, antagonizing moralization on one side, and spiteful, suspicious ignorance on the other side. A lot of things in politics, to me, are not solution-oriented, but rather team-fight-oriented. People have boundless energy for pointing fingers at others and polishing their own medals, but very little energy for effective progress and the potential compromise that might be the cost of such progress. Little's given me hope. I see one of two solutions, both technology-based: 1) A new technology emerges that offers a paradigm that is more convenient than the insolvent one we have now. I can't really push Tesla as a shining example, but I'm quite sure a sizeable majority of Tesla owners bought it because they are status symbols, rather than any principled outlook on the environment. Something to that effect, only more widespread. I have no idea what it would be. 2) The climate situation becomes so desperate that tech is pushed to excel (desperation is the mother of invention) and finds a way to dig us out of the hole. Again, no idea what it would be, The motivating factos here being vanity and laziness or desperation. Cynical and pessimistic.
Yeah I worked in a smaller city for a time, and I meesed to grab some food, and the nearest place was only like 0.3mi, I'm like oh nice. Took 15min to get there... Eff that.
Not to answer for Acoustic but seems obvious to me that we have in the USA a crisis of back to back "acts of nature" at times with only a few days apart, other times simultaneously... floods, firestorms, drought, hurricanes, tornados, deep freezes (Texas) killing 80 plus ppl, utility bills soaring into thousands of dollars per day for a home or apartment, then be left with no drinking water. So we can ignore the word "climate" and drop the word "change" or acknowledge a crisis regardless of the name... Plus the majority of climate experts seem to agree on the trillions of dollars this will cause if it can't be buffered... Mass migration all over the world as people leave drought and heat stricken areas and go to higher ground from coastal cities. Food shortages due to drought and flooding, on and on. I too was taken aback with the Michael Moore movie... He presented what seemed to be a lot of legit information... Offered no solutions (which he was unfairly attacked for, as if they expected the messenger to be the scientist as well)... What do people expect? It makes sense all he pointed out, so let those casting stones explain these issues away. While they are at it, thank Moore for bringing it to their attention.
Yeah there's definitely opportunity for technology to be our salvation. No guarantees though. Fundamentally, we need new ideologies, economic models and structure of society. A good place to start would be mandatory year-long environmental sustainability/pro-ecology studies for every teenager on the Earth?
Climate disruption (and global heating) Critical biodiversity loss Sixth mass extinction event Global overpopulation and overconsumption Political will (or lack thereof) Economic and societal structures that facilitate the above
Most of that doesn't seem to be related to or involve climate though Without a doubt we would be better stewards of the Earth. I think it is no surprise there is no political will to change unless the burden is laid on the middle and lower class. The upper class, in their narrow minds, are doing well the way things are! I think these systems are rotten from the top down and bottom up, but the monetary system is my go-to issue. The globalist banksters controlling the supply and flow of money is such a heavy hand from "above" that most of the worls and therefore the government's and corporations respond to the monetary stimuli.
How are the above not related to climate? They are all absolutely integral to the causes, drivers, consequences and solutions of the climate crisis, to my mind.
Maybe. I'm not a huge fan - sounds like indoctrination. You could easily argue that it's morally good indoctrination - our planet is on the line - and I could be convinced that it'd be a necessary thing to do. But it rubs me the wrong way, and I don't know if it'd be effective if structured by authority like that. Besides, I feel like this Greta generation is quite pro-environment as it is, even if they have lives that don't reflect it. They don't need to be convinced, don't you agree? They need to be enticed to act along those lines in adult life, where they have more power of choice. The (absolutely hilarious) iPhone with a 'Go Green' sticker on it comes to mind - kids, and imo a lot of people on the left, want to show their commitment, but if it fucks with their TikTok time, then you can forget about it. To return to my Tesla example. Why buy a Tesla? Motivation: Social status. Context of that motivation: It's a symbol of 1) wealth and 2) environmental conscience. Just hammer harder on that second part there, well aware that people are motivated by human nature. We can't manipulate that, but we can manipulate the context. As we already have. I feel like we're doing the right thing already - just far too slow... and maybe not targetting the right things. Then there's the challenge of bringing everyone on board - we in the West have benefitted greatly from industry - now we want everyone in the developing world to slow down to protect the environment. From what I gather, green ideas don't sell so well in China and India.
This reads to me, VT auld pal, like someone who is jaded and has been blighted by the partisanship and pessimism that comes with the territory of discussing political rigmaroles for a long, long time. This is an issue which transcends politics. Morally good indoctrination or not is by the by. The fact is, something has to be done in terms of educating people, globally, of their influence on the surrounding environment and ways and means in which to make this influence benign or, ideally, supportive. What better way than engaging the youth? Why does it rub you the wrong way? Is it not something to be expected of a mature society? Is it not something that is evidently a process of nature - support, balance, co-operation? I do agree that the younger generations are more pro-environmental than us olders. They have to be. It seems to be a process of steeling themselves currently (although how much of that is conscious is debatable), as it's blatantly obvious that many older generations (who have already extracted vast quantities of the Earth's resources and wealth and are beneficiaries of a financial and societal setup that has allowed them to reap all the corn in the field, and then salt the earth) have no interest in substantial change or making the tough calls in regards the serious events that are to come. I disagree that younger generations will need to be enticed to make proactive change though. This situation is going to become severe, and as such proactive change becomes a necessity. In terms of having an iPhone or Tesla motor equalling being a part-time environmentalist, well yes and no. I can see why you'd come to that conclusion, but I don't think it is particularly justified as people are working within the parameters that society and culture has set out. Further, it is an ongoing technological process and so Tesla motors and other electric vehicles will improve, come down in price and be more equitable for more people as the years pass, and mobile phone technology will innovate to a level where the amounts of rare minerals used in their creation will not be so extreme. We're just not there yet. So to slander those that choose to use these products is pointless imo as it achieves nothing other than yet more partisanship. However, if you were to inform someone on say, the destructive nature of their eating habitats, it would be a lot more constructive as the potential personal/ecological/societal change is a lot more tangible, compared to mocking someone with a five year old iPhone or a Tesla motor on finance. It's true that it is going to be difficult to bridge the disparity between Western nations that have already completed an industrialisation cycle, with those nations that are currently going through it (and in terms of China that's it's own separate serious thread). Perhaps I can speak best on India, having spent around a year of my life total there and having been involved with several permaculture and farming projects there. Indians know how to look after their land. It doesn't even take much looking after. It's a fucking rich land, possibly the richest land outside of the African continent, in terms of nutrient profiles and minerals to be found - I mean it has to be considering the amount of people it supports, spread all over. The problem is that the country has been sold-out by (surprise surprise) corrupt politicians and Big Agriculture/Big Pharma. The opportunity for sustainable farming has been decimated by industrial lobbying and backhanders that have driven industrial agriculture. So essentially, chemicals that were used for nefarious purposes in Hitler's war, have since been transformed and utilised for war on the living world. A practice which operates hand-in-hand with the fossil fuel industry. That is why the practice of being conscious of the food you buy is so important, and directly impacts this, as does being aware of the societal structure you are living in and the farming mechanisms that are taking place. Kudos to all the Indian farmers out protesting for past several months, against yet more industrialisation of their land and farming practices. There are other factors such as coal power, factory pollution output etc. but land use and farming is the real key to my mind, as if there are solutions found here, it offers great potential for future sustainability. So it seems there's a point here about regeneration. Regeneration of soils and habitats, regeneration of economies and societies and regeneration of democracy. And fundamental to this are: the soils (the key to life and sustenance), the food (the currency of life), the youth (the inheritors and innovators). Link these components together, and harness and regenerate them (globally and inter-connectedly) and then there's real potential. Imo. Now, I'm sure a retort to this could be: "Meh, that's all wishy-washy thinking. The reality of life is a lot more unforgiving and serious than some goody-goody koombaya let's all live together sentiment" And to that I would say: bullshit. It comes down to cultivation. Your land is cultivated, your children are cultivated, HOPE is cultivated. What are you cultivating? Badness and madness, or some hope?
School's solar panel savings give every teacher up to $15,000 raises Renewable sources of energy such as wind and solar are generating more power in the U.S. than coal. Ben Tracy visits a rural Arkansas school district using the sun's rays in an unusual way.
On politics and the youth This reads to me, VT auld pal, like someone who is jaded and has been blighted by the partisanship and pessimism that comes with the territory of discussing political rigmaroles for a long, long time. This is an issue which transcends politics. I'd argue that makes me the weathered realist, friend. Paid close enough attention for a long enough time to see that partisanship dominates the agenda. I don't see - at all - how this transcends politics. Yes, I understand, this is a very pressing matter. We want it to transcend politics. But the mechanisms by which we will induce change are entirely political. Take your suggested solution on classes for kids - the process of bringing that about is entirely political. It all is. We can't afford kid to ourselves about the arena we're fighting this fight in. It presents its own challenge. Morally good indoctrination or not is by the by. The fact is, something has to be done in terms of educating people, globally, of their influence on the surrounding environment and ways and means in which to make this influence benign or, ideally, supportive. What better way than engaging the youth? Why does it rub you the wrong way? Is it not something to be expected of a mature society? Is it not something that is evidently a process of nature - support, balance, co-operation? You may well convince me on that. For now, see my point on it not being necessary. Kids are very conscious about the environment, per my experience. This is a resource game - there will only be a certain amount of resources available to solve this problem, and I think they are better spent elsewhere. I prefer earlier schooling to be focused around the fundementals such as language and mathematics. Not that I'm dismissing this entirely - it feels wrong is not a good retort, now, is it? I should take some time to consider this option. I wouldn't be opposed to it at all the higher education level. Norwegian universities have a common class for every single line of study - examen philosophicum, a class that thoroughly teaches the scientific method, which I think is absolutely genius at a societal level. Pair that with an environmental class, and you could have me convinced. I suppose this solution prohibits the majority of the population outside of a very few very rich nations. I do agree that the younger generations are more pro-environmental than us olders. They have to be. It seems to be a process of steeling themselves currently (although how much of that is conscious is debatable), as it's blatantly obvious that many older generations (who have already extracted vast quantities of the Earth's resources and wealth and are beneficiaries of a financial and societal setup that has allowed them to reap all the corn in the field, and then salt the earth) have no interest in substantial change or making the tough calls in regards the serious events that are to come. Yep. I disagree that younger generations will need to be enticed to make proactive change though. This situation is going to become severe, and as such proactive change becomes a necessity. So they shouldn't be enticed? That can't be what you mean. On technology In terms of having an iPhone or Tesla motor equalling being a part-time environmentalist, well yes and no. I can see why you'd come to that conclusion, but I don't think it is particularly justified as people are working within the parameters that society and culture has set out. Further, it is an ongoing technological process and so Tesla motors and other electric vehicles will improve, come down in price and be more equitable for more people as the years pass, and mobile phone technology will innovate to a level where the amounts of rare minerals used in their creation will not be so extreme. We're just not there yet. So to slander those that choose to use these products is pointless imo as it achieves nothing other than yet more partisanship. However, if you were to inform someone on say, the destructive nature of their eating habitats, it would be a lot more constructive as the potential personal/ecological/societal change is a lot more tangible, compared to mocking someone with a five year old iPhone or a Tesla motor on finance. I'm not mocking or slandering anyone. You have my cold observations confused with derision. I'm pointing out what I see as the motivations for acquiring such items. That doesn't mean that I don't want them to buy Teslas. On the contrary. I want to figure out the motivations that people have for doing environmentally conscious things, and then play to those motivations. Rather than enforce the motivations I would like them to have. Otherwise, this section speaks to my point on technology - and enforcing a moral context in which to push that technology and the desirability of it - as a way out of our problem. I think we're in general agreement on that. It's true that it is going to be difficult to bridge the disparity between Western nations that have already completed an industrialisation cycle, with those nations that are currently going through it (and in terms of China that's it's own separate serious thread). Perhaps I can speak best on India, having spent around a year of my life total there and having been involved with several permaculture and farming projects there. Indians know how to look after their land. It doesn't even take much looking after. It's a fucking rich land, possibly the richest land outside of the African continent, in terms of nutrient profiles and minerals to be found - I mean it has to be considering the amount of people it supports, spread all over. The problem is that the country has been sold-out by (surprise surprise) corrupt politicians and Big Agriculture/Big Pharma. The opportunity for sustainable farming has been decimated by industrial lobbying and backhanders that have driven industrial agriculture. So essentially, chemicals that were used for nefarious purposes in Hitler's war, have since been transformed and utilised for war on the living world. A practice which operates hand-in-hand with the fossil fuel industry. That is why the practice of being conscious of the food you buy is so important, and directly impacts this, as does being aware of the societal structure you are living in and the farming mechanisms that are taking place. Kudos to all the Indian farmers out protesting for past several months, against yet more industrialisation of their land and farming practices. There are other factors such as coal power, factory pollution output etc. but land use and farming is the real key to my mind, as if there are solutions found here, it offers great potential for future sustainability. Amen. To spin on this - several of my highschool classmates went into physics. They regularly complain that we aren't investing more into nuclear power. That it's got bad press, is safe when properly instituted, efficient and underused. Your opinion on nuclear energy? In context of the fossil fuel world. So it seems there's a point here about regeneration. Regeneration of soils and habitats, regeneration of economies and societies and regeneration of democracy. And fundamental to this are: the soils (the key to life and sustenance), the food (the currency of life), the youth (the inheritors and innovators). Link these components together, and harness and regenerate them (globally and inter-connectedly) and then there's real potential. Imo. Can't argue with that. Some serious heavyweights in the way of that, which have to be dealt with, such as Monsanto. I'm in favor of most everything that combats the giants of industry. Concluding Now, I'm sure a retort to this could be: "Meh, that's all wishy-washy thinking. The reality of life is a lot more unforgiving and serious than some goody-goody koombaya let's all live together sentiment" And to that I would say: bullshit. It comes down to cultivation. Your land is cultivated, your children are cultivated, HOPE is cultivated. What are you cultivating? Badness and madness, or some hope? Sounds good. But again, there are reasons we haven't gotten further, even though this solution sounds very wholesome. We are going to have to force people to stop doing something that is profitable for them, and they are very powerful and very influential. So while the solution sounds great and implementable in theory here on a weed forum, I feel like the distance between that and a real-life implementation (which has to go through the arena of politics, as discussed above) is extremely difficult. Your post is far from the first of it's kind I've read over the last decade, and far from the first of it's kind I've wholeheartedly agreed with. Yet, we're still spinning our wheels. Hence, my overall opinion that what's needed is a bit less morality-inspired idealism and a bit more solution-oriented pragmatism. Including political compromise, in the spirit of getting some progress that can be built on. Maybe you're right about forcing this on younger children, for example, apropos pragmatism. Give them to me young, to paraphrase the Bible, and I'll return them to you as you want them made. Edit: Naming my next punk band Badness & Madness
Exclusive: U.S. senators press Biden to set end date for gas-powered car sales California’s two U.S. senators are urging President Joe Biden to set a firm date to phase-out gas-powered passenger vehicles as the White House grapples with how to rewrite vehicle emissions rules slashed under President Donald Trump.
Where are they going to get enough electricity to power all those vehicles? California is having trouble providing enough electricity for current use.