Oh Mike, you are such a cynic! Surely we can shame President Trump into becoming a kind and generous person?

Rikkitic:

 

Oh Mike, you are such a cynic! Surely we can shame President Trump into becoming a kind and generous person?

 

 

 

 

 

What are you talking about? I am sure President Trump says he is the most kindest of people and the most generous of people of any people you can find. He is a good person. A very good person.

I feel cynicism with CC is common. People are doing things , but many won't. Countries are doing things but not much. The reality I see is that when everyone starts getting really serious, its too late. The focus then needs to be adapting to living with it. Food and water will be a big issue

tdgeek:

 

I feel cynicism with CC is common. People are doing things , but many won't. Countries are doing things but not much. The reality I see is that when everyone starts getting really serious, its too late. The focus then needs to be adapting to living with it. Food and water will be a big issue

 

I see my view as realism, not cynicism.  The first penguin often gets squeezed out of its skin like a grape by a leopard seal.

This is a situation where the big powers need to take the lead, as they did during and after WW2.  It's that scale of a problem (arguably bigger).  We need to do our part too, but (like WW2) it will be helping our bigger more powerful mates.

I personally think the US has missed the boat on developing clean-tech.  If the US had treated climate change like a moonshot, rather than as a partisan political issue ... imagine where we would be and where the US would be.

Another issue is that climate change has been portrayed an an environmental issue.  It's primarily an economic and humanitarian issue.  The biosphere will bounce back just fine ... after the planet has shrugged us off.

MikeAqua:

 

tdgeek:

 

I feel cynicism with CC is common. People are doing things , but many won't. Countries are doing things but not much. The reality I see is that when everyone starts getting really serious, its too late. The focus then needs to be adapting to living with it. Food and water will be a big issue

 

 

I see my view as realism, not cynicism.  The first penguin often gets squeezed out of its skin like a grape by a leopard seal.

 

This is a situation where the big powers need to take the lead, as they did during and after WW2.  It's that scale of a problem (arguably bigger).  We need to do our part too, but (like WW2) it will be helping our bigger more powerful mates.

 

I personally think the US has missed the boat on developing clean-tech.  If the US had treated climate change like a moonshot, rather than as a partisan political issue ... imagine where we would be and where the US would be.

 

Another issue is that climate change has been portrayed an an environmental issue.  It's primarily an economic and humanitarian issue.  The biosphere will bounce back just fine ... after the planet has shrugged us off.

 

Sort of agree. But one Chinese, or American has the same impact as one Kiwi. Its about the 7 billion of us, not the ratios of the 190 odd countries.

Its an environmetal issue held back by human greed. Many countries are keen to go green, once they have got the last $ benefit of burning the last drop of cheaper FF. Had they been forward looking, like the moonshot, its possible the green energy may well now be quite well priced. But, yes we will do that but I gotta look after the next set of financial results for my company/country. 

So, not much will change, more words will be consumed by talking about how bad it is, or is it real, than actually doing anything.

Its odd that we spend so much money on something that is of no use, but interesting for human curiosity, such as space exploration, while ignoring our dissolving habitat.

tdgeek:

 

Its odd that we spend so much money on something that is of no use, but interesting for human curiosity, such as space exploration, while ignoring our dissolving habitat.

 

I think you'll find that the space industry is pretty vital for monitoring the dissolving habitat. Where do you think most of the data comes from for the global weather and climate models? Not to mention that almost the very first application for the solar photovoltaic panel was for space systems.

SaltyNZ:

 

tdgeek:

 

Its odd that we spend so much money on something that is of no use, but interesting for human curiosity, such as space exploration, while ignoring our dissolving habitat.

 

 

 

 

I think you'll find that the space industry is pretty vital for monitoring the dissolving habitat. Where do you think most of the data comes from for the global weather and climate models? Not to mention that almost the very first application for the solar photovoltaic panel was for space systems.

 

Like many many things we discover and research we do learn stuff, not just from landing probes on comets. Satellites that orbit Earth are a very old technology, thats not the same as popping a small explosive on an asteroid, or researching Neptune. Its fun, its what humans what to do, its not vital , especially learning

how to live on Mars

SaltyNZ:

 

Not to mention that almost the very first application for the solar photovoltaic panel was for space systems.

 

Good example. Solar PV is a poor cousin here, its all bad news, not worth it and so on. If we really wanted to, we would make it useful and cost effective, but we can't. The $ bill again gets in the way.

Surely if the issue is important then a few motivated individuals can make a big difference.

Then a few tech-savvy folk working together can make a much bigger difference.

Then a small country influenced by a few could trigger a planet-wide change in attitude ...

John Dunlop

check out my last century site at dunlops dot org

JohnDunlop:

 

Surely if the issue is important then a few motivated individuals can make a big difference.

 

Then a few tech-savvy folk working together can make a much bigger difference.

 

Then a small country influenced by a few could trigger a planet-wide change in attitude ...

 

 

 

John Dunlop

 

check out my last century site at dunlops dot org

 

 

 

Not for humans. CC has been known about for almost 40 years, its been researched to the nth degree. Yet here we are at GZ and elsewhere deciding what should or shouldn't happen. We here, are more interested than any country, therein lies the problem

SaltyNZ:

 

frankv:

 

Lots of today's environmental issues (in particular, climate change) weren't even known to be issues 40 years ago.

 

 

But the big ones certainly were. Exxon knew about climate change as early as 1977 and confirmed it for sure by about 1982, and the first known article on the idea was published in The Rodney and Otamatea Times in 1912.

 

Extrapolating from "Exxon knew" to "the people alive at the time were responsible and have to pay" is unreasonable.

Incidentally, Snopes says that the Rodney & Otamatea Time article was based on a 1911 Popular Mechanics article. Don't believe everything you read on the Interweb.

On the topic of penguins... you do realise that the reason they wait is that they're unsure whether a leopard seal is waiting. Whilst being the first to jump is brave and shows leadership, it may also be a terminal event. If, for example, NZ had banned coal use in 1911 based on the Rodney & Otamatea Times article, there would have been a revolt, not only from businesses, but also from the general public.

 

Furthermore, even if the general public didn't know about climate change, they did know about the Arab Oil Crisis of 1973 which should have been a big signal that reduction in oil dependence would be a good idea, if for no other reason than that it is a strategic weakness.

 

Regrettably, in those pre-LiPo (and also pre-NiMH) days, EVs weren't a practical option. But steps *were* taken to reduce oil dependence. In NZ, CNG and LPG were promoted as automotive fuels. The Motonui gas-to-gasoline plant was built. The Main Trunk was electrified.  Oil & gas exploration in NZ was promoted. Not to mention carless days and petrol-less weekends and an 80kph speed limit to reduce petrol consumption. And not one of these things turned out to be a good thing for Kiwis in either the short or long term. But those sacrifices were made.

frankv:

 

Incidentally, Snopes says that the Rodney & Otamatea Time article was based on a 1911 Popular Mechanics article.

 

So, the first article is even older than I thought? Great!

 

Don't believe everything you read on the Interweb.

 

...Like Snopes?

tdgeek:

 

Sort of agree. But one Chinese, or American has the same impact as one Kiwi. Its about the 7 billion of us, not the ratios of the 190 odd countries.

 

Firstly that's not true.  Individual household footprints between those countries differ significantly.

Secondly I think we've proven we can't rely on individuals, intervention by governments worldwide is  needed.

When it comes to nations the big players matter most.  Take out half of NZ's emissions and nothing measurably changes.  Halve emissions from China and the US, things change.

MikeAqua:

 

tdgeek:

 

Sort of agree. But one Chinese, or American has the same impact as one Kiwi. Its about the 7 billion of us, not the ratios of the 190 odd countries.

 

 

Firstly that's not true.  Individual household footprints between those countries differ significantly.

 

Secondly I think we've proven we can't rely on individuals, intervention by governments worldwide is  needed.

 

When it comes to nations the big players matter most.  Take out half of NZ's emissions and nothing measurably changes.  Halve emissions from China and the US, things change.

 

 

 

Individuals emmissions differ but not markedly. We are all consuming goods and food that cause emmissions

Yes, we cant rely on individuals, but we cant rely on Govts as thats low and slow also. The big players are not responding, not until the coal has been used, and cheaper oil. What has happened has been very very small and token level

JohnDunlop:

 

Surely if the issue is important then a few motivated individuals can make a big difference.

 

Then a few tech-savvy folk working together can make a much bigger difference.

 

Then a small country influenced by a few could trigger a planet-wide change in attitude ...

 

A few people could definitely change things by coming up with a disruptive technology. 

Attitudinal change sufficient to motivate behavioural change seems unattainable so far.