That’s as maybe. But simply changing course, whereever it may lead, doesn’t necessarily make things better, does it? You appear to be implying that doing something - as you have in other contexts - is always better than doing nothing. History would suggest that politicians succeed only in making things worse 95% of the time. Where do you think this course correction needs to go? Have you considered that perhaps the politicians have neither the knowledge, nor the ability, nor the correct levers of power to make any positive improvements?
I suppose at long as they’re just sitting in a conference room blathering, they’re not attempting to fix things. So maybe that’s something.
So Thanos snapped his fingers, but the humans didn’t disappear?
But seriously, government officials don’t care. They’re old and it doesn’t effect them to do nothing. They want their money and power more than stability of living things. And again, they’ll be dead before it really affects them.
I understand cynicism, and frustration. But what is the alternative to talking and figuring something out?
Btw, not all old people are complete f&ckers who want their descendents to live in a hellhole planet. Yes some people care more about $$$ than the wellbeing of others, but that does not describe everyone, right?
I agree with you, but it comes down to who’s in power. An entire political party in the US dedicated a shockingly large amount of political energy to outright denying the existence of global climate change (“and if it is happening, humans aren’t causing it because it’s a natural part of the process of the earth”. So which one is it?!) for a very long. So we need to do something. Yesterday. But if corporations are not held to account for the havoc they have caused and forced to make meaningful change, things are going to keep getting worse. All this “if people only recycled and turned off lights and unplugged devices when they aren’t using them” nonsense isn’t getting “saving the earth” anywhere. Because the people with the money, overwhelmingly, are making sure they are allowed to do whatever they want.
Here’s the thing. The alternative is to get out there and do something yourself, however small or trivial, instead of waiting for the politicians to do it for you - especially when you know full well they’re just filling their boots.
I have two farms. One of them is highly diverse because I’ve put a lot of work and money into it. It’s teeming with life. As well as the usual frogs, insects, snails, bugs, lizards and birds - far more than exist in or on the surrounding land - I’ve also come across a scorpion, a turtle, and some sort of mini-dinosaur. As you can probably tell, I’m no naturalist, but I like animals and I’m happy for them to be there. My main focus is raising useful plant species, and (obviously) food crops. Farming is in no way incompatible with biodiversity.
It’s a small pond where I do my work, which means I’m a middling-sized fish. I bump into conservationists and politicians now and then. The former are mostly muddle-headed do-gooders, and the latter are mostly self-serving cnuts who are interested only in getting votes and skimming something nice off the top of whatever funds come their way. There are also lots of random people who are a bit more organised than me, who get out there protecting endangered species and suchlike. They are almost always excluded from funding because of the way they work - they stay anonymous because they’d probably end up shot if people knew who they were. Politicians are not going to solve this. They’re going to have their nice lobster dinners, publish some earnest documents, and then fly home first-class and carry on with their election campaigns.
You want to do something useful? Look for people like me and go and do some work with them. Get your hands dirty. Learn what “carbon sequestration” and “diversity” actually look like down on the ground. Get your friends interested. Get some rich friends donating. In short, be part of the solution.
I am sorry, I don’t subscribe to this individual-but-not-collective framing.
We need change individually and collectively. And despite what some of you seem to think, we actually do need governments and our representatives to do something. I am not a libertarian and I will not apologize for this position, even as I rail against the stupidities of our governments with the best of you.
Global Corporations pollute far more than all the humans going about their lives on earth combined. If EVERYONE stopped driving their cars and kept their AC at 28 degrees only on days 30 and higher and only wore second hand clothes and always unplugged all the devices they’re not using (and limited the device use in the first place) and everyone go the latest energy saving appliances, it wouldn’t make a dent compared to what corporations are doing. I can and do avoid major polluters to the best of my ability, but me doing that on my own is meaningless. There need to be laws that prevent the corporations from polluting in the first place and holding them accountable when they do. Instead, the US Supreme Court, a bunch of unelected individuals with an agenda that does not reflect the majority of the American people, do shit like completely dismantle the EPA so “the market can work itself out”. Oh it’s working itself out right now. We’re right on track for doomsday.
Have you really thought about what this means? In detail? The reason I suggest you need to get your hands in the ground is that you will not grok what it truly means until you do that. It does not mean what the politicians think it means. It’s simpler than they think. And do bear in mind the original discussion was about biodiversity. The politicians seem to think that the best way to “decarbonize” is to wipe out all life on earth, which is probably true in the narrow sense, but it seems incompatible with the diversity goal.
Well, I sort of know where you’re coming from here, but what, precisely, do you expect the politicians to do in this regard? Make plastics illegal? And if not, what? What is it you want them to do with the “poisoned food system”, and how are they going to make it happen? How do you get them to care whether it happens or not, given that they’ve achieved absolutely buggerall by talking these last 30-40 years?
It would, IMO, be perfectly possible for private enterprise to make disposable plastic bottles (for example) obsolete - not by hectoring people, but by making them a more attractive offer. Standing in their way are a whole bunch of laws and regulations that subtly but surely push them towards continuing with plastic bottles.
What better building practices? What is this technology that will cool down our cities?
That simply isn’t going to happen. Cities were designed from the ground up around the existence of cars and cheap fuel. The expense and technical complexity of doing what you’re suggesting is so vast that it’s politically untenable … which is why they haven’t done it, and instead are wittering on about electric cars (which will be one of the biggest environmental and economic disasters our planet has seen to date).
The problem with railing about what politicians “ought to” do or pointing fingers at faceless corporations (whose products you buy) is that it renders yourself powerless. The politicians don’t give a shit what you think. Corporate bosses don’t care what you think. They all have their own concerns. You yourself need to come up with a better vision than they’re offering to the masses; or if you don’t have a better vision yourself, find a group that does. Then hitch yourself to it. I’m not necessarily talking about a formal political movement, or charity, or activist group, just a bunch of likeminded people who intend to do something instead of just complaining. We can’t all be a big wheel, but being a cog in the right machine is better than being a cog in the wrong one.
They built a subway system and an HSR. That’s great, but it’s not even remotely close to what would be required for your “decarbonization” vision. But it is 80% of what’s technically achievable (and in places without Taiwan’s economic clout, it’s not achievable at all). Which is why nothing else has happened since. And I’m sure you know how expensive the HSR was, and how that sort of thing doesn’t scale well.
This is not “denialism”. It’s reality. I’ve worked with technology my whole life. I have a very good grasp of the basic physics that make things go, and how you might (in principle) build low-carbon cities; they would look nothing like what armchair environmentalists imagine. Politicians, by and large, know nothing about these things. But they do know what’s going to get them votes, and they know that proposing grand plans that are physically or economically impossible aren’t going to get them very far.
I’ll also point out that you can’t simultaneously “decarbonize” and also build gee-whiz technology. The latter is fundamentally dependent upon cheap energy and cheap materials.
This is simply incorrect. The massive scaling up of the youbike system (and yes I understand this is not carbon neutral); the widening of sidewalks; the introduction of bike lanes . . .
Again, I understand the argument that more should be done, but I simply don’t get your assertions of absence. I too want more, but I also want to give credit to what is actually happening in front of us.
That isn’t what I’m arguing. I’m saying that given a legacy city layout, any incremental change becomes progressively more expensive and delivers smaller and smaller benefits. That’s just the way engineering works. Eventually you hit a point where you’re putting lots of money in and getting nothing out - or worse, you’re achieving a net loss but sweeping the externalities under the carpet. Have you seen the Danshui LRT? It’s technically interesting, but it’s a boondoggle. Its primary objective was to inflate the value of new developments out in the 'burbs and funnel some grant money into favoured institutions.
A 20th-century city is what it is. It is, by its nature, an enormous consumer of energy and materials. Nothing you do will alter that in any meaningful way, and the things that you want to do will be hampered by the extreme engineering complexity of working around what’s already there. Yes, you can improve the quality-of-life with things like bike rentals and public transport, but that’s not the same thing as reducing energy consumption, pollution, resource use, or depredations upon Nature. Here’s a graph of Taiwan’s energy consumption. Do you see any “decarbonization” there? Despite all the innovations you’re talking about, Taiwan’s energy consumption has nearly doubled since I arrived here 20-odd years ago.
Low-carbon systems are possible. But they need to be allowed to evolve within a different context. It’s a pity undeveloped countries don’t pick up on this fact, because they currently have one of the biggest opportunities in the history of mankind, but as usual, their politicians are busy having meetings, holding out their begging bowls, and pondering on whether to order a BMW or a Lexus this year.
