How could you possibly not believe it’s a thing…?
What should be done for the environment? Stop dependence on fossil fuels, stop dependence on plastics, stop capitalism’s push for ‘unsustainable constant and continued growth’ for starters maybe
Comment on Over 1,600 Scientists and Professionals Sign ‘No Climate Emergency’ Declaration
airrow@hilariouschaos.com 6 months agoSo I don’t think man-made climate change is really an issue or a thing but (ironically) I like the environment
so my question is more what do you think should be done to help the environment?
jwelch55@lemmy.world 6 months ago
airrow@hilariouschaos.com 6 months ago
I guess the question is why do you believe it (man-made climate change) is a thing?
we observe climates changing. There are however a lot of variables so it’s hard to tell what’s causing it (may not be manmade).
an alternative theory assuming man-made climate change is real: “they” are purposely creating changes to the climate, then offering destructive solutions. Maybe then we could cut out their destructive solutions as well as the causes?
I guess I view pollution as an actionable thing we can point to that is real and causes problems: microplastics being places, emissions from various industrial machines, spills like in East Palestine last year. There are often concrete remedies to those: using less plastics like you say (or biodegradable ones?), making machines with better emissions, reducing use of machines, improve safety protocols to prevent spills.
“Climate change” is kind of vague and it’s not clear what the actionable problem is to solve.
For example, “carbon emissions” was identified as a problem. And the solution then was planting a bunch of trees to capture the carbon. And now one guy has backpedaled on that plan and says we shouldn’t plant so many trees:
wired.com/…/stop-planting-trees-thomas-crowther/
So, when people say “manmade climate change is a problem” do they really just mean “carbon emissions are a problem”? Some other people have said carbon emissions are not a problem: usnews.com/…/scientist-carbon-dioxide-doesnt-caus…
unsustainable constant and continued growth
Seems like most people want to grow and that’s ok. It’s mostly a question of what happens when the oil runs out I guess, if that’s possible. I guess it’s just a question of what sustainability is and how much sustainability is needed.
glimse@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Clean energy. Green energy storage.
Pollution from oil and gas fucks the environment pretty hard even if you pretend it isn’t affecting the climate.
airrow@hilariouschaos.com 6 months ago
Ok so like how can the world transition to clean / green energy, got any info or thoughts?
Are you advocating for a massive reduction in consumption in order to be totally green?
Do you think this will be adopted naturally inevitably at some point when clean / green energy becomes affordable?
I’ve seen some people post complaints that lithium is often mined with slave labor and isn’t sustainable (we can’t recycle it yet). So is there a better thing we should use instead of that?
Can this destruction be mitigated?
glimse@lemmy.world 6 months ago
I’m not advocating for anything as I’m not a climate scientist…but then again, most people on this CLINTEL declaration aren’t, either.
I think green energy would have already had mass-adoption if not for the lobbyists in oil and gas industries. It’s no secret they’ve been fighting the inevitable for decades in order to keep raking in the dough as their profits rely on control of the source energy…and the sun and wind are free so they don’t like it.
Yes there are tons of ways to store energy without lithium. Sand batteries and pumped hydro storage are continually proven successful. Lithium mining is an environmental concern but it pales in comparison
No, the destruction from oil/gas cannot be truly mitigated to any meaningful degree. It can be reduced but never eliminated…and even then, the industry is known to lie about it. Look no further than the chasm between their self-reported emissions and actual emissions.
airrow@hilariouschaos.com 6 months ago
this kind of seems doubtful. if it was cheaper then “capitalists” would just adopt it because it would save money. So at least some people are skeptical it is cheaper.
Thoughts on nuclear energy? Personally I am skeptical of it, it’s also risky.
the skepticism you have towards oil / gas industries lobbying is now how conservatives seem to feel about “green energy”, that it’s an inefficient scam being pushed by government and a “green industry”. Which leads me kind of split thinking maybe there are elements of either side that are correct. basically like fossil fuels are there so we’re probably going to use them until they run out, then people will be forced to switch; or economics will make people switch. So it’ll just sort itself out, but maybe some plans should be in place in case the techno-industrial system encounters energy shortages all of the sudden.
Again they must still not be thought to be costly or something. I’ve seen other alternative battery ideas like compressed air suggested… there’s some kind of disconnect though on why these things aren’t being used yet (not cost effective enough yet?).
Well I guess the idea is emissions can be countered with trees sucking in the bad polluted air and bringing out clean air. Is there anything like this process that holds up, or no? If green tech has emissions (in creating it), does this give some kind of justification to use the fossil fuels (the pro-gas industry might simply argue they emit more, but green tech emits, so who cares - this kind of thing?)