|
|
|
freitasm:
Really? This is not the kind of advice/joke to have here.
Unfortunately, true. With bonus interview with James Shaw introducing the maps showing the expected effects of sea level rise across the country.
iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!
These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.
MikeB4:
...
That is the same arrogant attitude that has got us to the mess we are in, we have no right to make that decision on behalf of the circa 8.5 million species on this planet now and in the future because we place the God money above all else.
One could argue that the whole fight against climate change is just as self-serving. The sooner humans disappear from this planet, the sooner nature can start to restore it for the wellbeing of the remaining 8,499,999 species.
Sometimes I use big words I don't always fully understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
floydbloke:
One could argue that the whole fight against climate change is just as self-serving. The sooner humans disappear from this planet, the sooner nature can start to restore it for the wellbeing of the remaining 8,499,999 species.
It's not all humans that are the problem. Humans have been on earth for around 6 million years. The "modern" humans around 200,000 years. The most modern humans and by no means all have taken approximately 150 years to do the damage. The most significant damage around 80 years. Humans are a part of nature and we have the ability to recover the planet.
Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.
SaltyNZ:
And don't trot out the old "Oh, New Zealand is too small to make a difference". It's a cop out, and when everyone uses it - because nobody is a big part of the problem - then we are all just as f***ed.
It's factually true, but to demand actions of others we need to be seen to take it ourselves. Its doesn't always work though.
Our nuclear free policy has done sweet FA to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Despite leading by example on free-trade, we still pay tariffs all around the world, and have had to donate IP to trading partners (e.g. food safety expertise to China) to get the modest concessions we have obtained from some economies.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't do the right thing. But we need to realistic about outcomes and prioritise maintaining some prosperity and quality of life.
I'm happy for NZ to be fast followers on clean-tech, except where we can genuinely be leaders (e.g. ruminant emissions).
Mike
SaltyNZ:
freitasm:
Really? This is not the kind of advice/joke to have here.
Unfortunately, true. With bonus interview with James Shaw introducing the maps showing the expected effects of sea level rise across the country.
I do not disagree it happens. I am saying your post implies this the action to be taken.
Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies
Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.
alasta: The fact that people feel the need to support one side or the other is a sad reflection of how polarised and tribal our society has become.
MikeB4:
floydbloke:
One could argue that the whole fight against climate change is just as self-serving. The sooner humans disappear from this planet, the sooner nature can start to restore it for the wellbeing of the remaining 8,499,999 species.
It's not all humans that are the problem. Humans have been on earth for around 6 million years. The "modern" humans around 200,000 years. The most modern humans and by no means all have taken approximately 150 years to do the damage. The most significant damage around 80 years. Humans are a part of nature and we have the ability to recover the planet.
I believe it has more to do with the number of humans on the planet. Feeding them and dealing with their waste.
Bluntj:
I believe it has more to do with the number of humans on the planet. Feeding them and dealing with their waste.
At the risk of introducing yet another "the world would be much better if only the ultra rich would voluntarily relinquish their position in the interest of fairness" thread to the discussion, we can actually feed all the people we have just fine. We waste approximately a third of all the food produced globally (~1.3B tons of food), for a variety of reasons.
In some cases it is deliberately destroyed to keep prices high. In some cases it is plowed back into the ground because it isn't pretty enough to go on a supermarket shelf. In some cases it is simply because we buy it, put it in the fridge, and then forget about it until such time as it has evolved enough to escape on its own.
I've been trying to use Perfectly Imperfect to supplement the Hello Fresh but unfortunately as a volunteer run thing it doesn't always line up with when I'm working from home and can dash out. But what I especially like about them is that not only benefit buyers of vegetables, but they also mean the growers get more income - because otherwise all that stuff was just going into the compost heap.
iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!
These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.
I see they are at it again this morning.
The government really needs to crack down on this sort of behaviour. A good start would be to cut their benefits and refuse ACC and public health system treatment for their self inflicted injuries.
My genuine question is though - how do you begin to address this.
Like even getting solar panels is an ethical minefield. If we want access globally to that level of solar panel supply, the current supply chain would need to go into overdrive. But that would mean more manufacturing in countries that have a worse emissions profile than we do, and us having to compete with richer countries to access them - at the same time we're apparently totally decarbonising (far more intensive than simply going carbon neutral) and swapping planes for ultra-expensive rail networks.
GV27:
My genuine question is though - how do you begin to address this.
Like even getting solar panels is an ethical minefield. If we want access globally to that level of solar panel supply, the current supply chain would need to go into overdrive. But that would mean more manufacturing in countries that have a worse emissions profile than we do, and us having to compete with richer countries to access them - at the same time we're apparently totally decarbonising (far more intensive than simply going carbon neutral) and swapping planes for ultra-expensive rail networks.
The wider answer to that question is that we have to claw back manufacturing from China. We spent thirty years moving all our factories there - which is a big part of why they have a worse emissions profile than we do; because they're building all our stuff for us - so that giant corporations could charge the same amount of money and pocket a larger profit. But then, COVID. Proving why that was always a dumb idea, we can look ahead to a likely conflict over Taiwan that will make the COVID supply-chain shocks feel like the truck got stuck in traffic.
The US has begun to address that with Biden's various related bills that incentivise manufacturers back to the US. But everyone needs to start doing it. It's better for the environment (less transport) and it's better for global security (China no longer has everyone else by the balls).
iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!
These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.
You start by doing the obvious and for many not that difficult - stop burning oil, gas and coal. There are many situations where this can be done right now - not without some sacrifice but better than having to continue to face the increasingly dramatic effects of climate change. While you are making the easier changes right now you can be working on how to manage the more difficult ones.
This is better than just saying its all too hard and waiting for some perfect solution.
alasta:
I see they are at it again this morning.
The government really needs to crack down on this sort of behaviour. A good start would be to cut their benefits and refuse ACC and public health system treatment for their self inflicted injuries.
I don't like X political party. We should do the same for those MPs too.
See the problem?
SaltyNZ:
The wider answer to that question is that we have to claw back manufacturing from China. We spent thirty years moving all our factories there - which is a big part of why they have a worse emissions profile than we do; because they're building all our stuff for us - so that giant corporations could charge the same amount of money and pocket a larger profit. But then, COVID. Proving why that was always a dumb idea, we can look ahead to a likely conflict over Taiwan that will make the COVID supply-chain shocks feel like the truck got stuck in traffic.
The US has begun to address that with Biden's various related bills that incentivise manufacturers back to the US. But everyone needs to start doing it. It's better for the environment (less transport) and it's better for global security (China no longer has everyone else by the balls).
An example:
2019: Cactus Outdoor acquisition helping keep production in NZ (newsroom.co.nz)
2023: Kiwi brand Cactus Outdoor shifts production of some products overseas | Stuff.co.nz
From their blog: KEEPING IT TRANSPARENT: CACTUS AND HYBRID SOURCING – Cactus Outdoor
Same with Icebreaker and others... Send our wool all the way to China, then bring the products back. Yeah, that saves them money, but doesn't save the world.
Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies
Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.
|
|
|