World headed for irreversible climate change in five years, IEA warns

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, it may not be the problem as suggested by the more polarized accounts of climate apocalypse. That doesn't mean that there isn't an issue that we should address. Human beings(and all that comes with us) have had one of the most profound effects on the earth that can be imagined. If one of these effects would be an inconvenience to us, perhaps we should look into not creating problems for ourselves? Or, at the very least, not exacerbating problems that we have accepted on the basis of whatever we choose to saddle ourselves with for whatever reasons.

Example. I really like mountains, but we have plenty of uses for coal. Maybe we should make sure we get every ounce out of the coal we have, and perhaps we shouldn't be literally chopping the tops off of mountains to get at it. While we're at it, we could probably do something to sequester all that fucking pollution. The earth (as we know it) shouldn't have to end tomorrow before we address these things in earnest, but that seems to be what we're driving at. That appears to be one of the motivating factors behind claims of climate apocalypse. No one gives a shit what these people have been saying, and it seems that they've assumed an apocalyptic tone out of desperation to get their message across.
(not insinuating that the consequences of our actions can't be disastrous btw Moros, I think it's been pretty well established that they can be)

[frankiej]

I consider the entire human race as an issue that should be addressed.

[The Grand Nudger]

Coming from the point of view of every other living thing on earth that statement would have serious merit (aside from rodents, cockroaches, livestock, pets, etc..we're best buddies with those motherfuckers). Fortunately nothing else can bitch and moan to us, so, we ignore them. Par for the course. Not that I'd side with anything other than ourselves if a choice had to be made in earnest, lol.

[frankiej]

I might side with the sloths.

[KichigaiNeko]

If it wasn't for coal and oil we wouldn't be talking at all mate. Carbon Tax here has set the coal industry another 20 years of mining... might have something to do with the resources tax ?

[The Grand Nudger]

Exactly, these things are obviously important to us. Perhaps they deserve a little more consideration than profit and profit alone. When discussing things like coal or oil, we're talking about verifiable national treasures (or if you don't like the idea of nations, verifiable treasures of humanity). They should be treated as such. Instead, especially here in the US, we're leveraging national treasures to produce junk food and disposable trinkets, largely. This has a measurable effect on our environment, and (to me at least) the entire enterprise seems idiotic and absurd.

[KichigaiNeko]

Exactly, these things are obviously important to us. Perhaps they deserve a little more consideration than profit and profit alone.

The profit is going to the govt coffers mate, along with the Utilities companies.

---

You do your best, Reduce - Reuse - Recycle and for what!?!?!

60% of your recycling goes to landfill, you use less and try to tread lightly on the planet and get slugged with 40% increase in utilities charges, and now you are getting charged to re-Use the air you breathe because governments and industries are too fkn lazy?

Some days it just isn't worth biting through the straps.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't know what it's like where you come from, but where I come from utilities and government are one in the same. State sponsored and enforced monopolies, sold as solutions for the "common good of the people". I can only assume that "the people" here refers to shareholders of said utilities. Why entrust something so valuable to a group of people who have been known to keep their passports at the ready in case they need to grab everything that isn't nailed down while fleeing the country? Critical infrastructure (like energy production and distribution) should be owned by the people that it serves, with their bests interests in mind. This includes the short and long term effects of that infrastructure. While I don't feel that we're staring down the barrel of a howitzer, I can agree that we're staring down the barrel of a shotgun at least. This is the kind of situation where an ounce of prevention is worth a ton of cure, in my opinion.

[KichigaiNeko]

Privatised state sponsored companies

[The Grand Nudger]

Every time a conversation like this comes up I take the time to pimp Buckminster Fuller's view on fossil fuels (though he was completely nuts in other areas it seems..lol). They represent an immense natural resource that would have been best used to develop sustainable solutions. That should have been the primary use for these resources, trumping any other concern. Use them sparingly where we need them, don't where they aren't required, and consume vast quantities searching for a solution to the energy problem, rather than a bandaid. There shouldn't be any sustainable energy research project or construction initiative that is "too expensive". An investment in sustainable technologies would pay dividends that are literally infinite (with respect to humanity).