In the recent spike yes, including climate change models themselves, according to which current ocean temperatures couldn't have happened basically.

Ofc the most radical bat **** crazy fanatics use these to claim "climate change is actually worse than we thought!!!", everyone else goes hm well wait we have this huge event happening immediately before with clear causal connection

This is basically the same situation that happened in the 1960's where tobacco companies pretended that smoking cigarettes wasn't causing premature deaths. They did this to make money when their own scientific studies had already told them that it was indeed causing cancer. Similarly today oil, gas, and coal companies know that the air pollution they are in part causing is killing millions of people a year.

Here is an NBC article on this

Lancet Journal article

World Health Organization (WHO) article

It is scientific studies that are showing 7 million+ people are dying each year as a result of air pollution. It is leftist organizations that are making sure the information is known. And its not just leftist organizations. It is also basic news organizations that aren't affiliated with Fox News.

No this has nothing to do with tobacco (which anyway was historically demonized grotesquely and is still being discussed with widly exaggerated claims).

the 7 m figure from the link is *half indoor* and from the link *overlaps with other causes of death* (so it's grotesquely exaggerated) AND it's mostly in poor countries (ie, changing things in rich countries doesn't affect that).

You can know that using coal for heating is bad for health (and i am not denying it), *but the alternative is freezing* in rural china in winter or kirghizistan, do you get that part?

you can know that using wood ovens to cook is bad for health (and i am not denying it), *but the alternative is heating raw* in rural Congo, do you get that part?

how horrifingly in bad faith can an institution be to take those health problems (that aren't "fossil fuel industry caused problems", rather simply poverty problems) and mix them with the purported, far less measurable, effects on health of you driving to go to the restaurant in Colorado or me taking a plan from Italy to the UK?

They lied to me?
Tobacco is good for me?

Tobacco good! Pollution good! Scientists bad!

They lied to you about the purported massive damage of second hand smoke, which was and is exaggerated grotesquely.

Try to find quantitative claims in literature about how much exactly your risks increase if you spend one hour per week in a smoke filled room. That number must be higher than all other activities we do not ban, to justify the ban surely? Is it provably riskier than eating a lot of cakes every week?

Deflection.

Uh? I say risks have been grotesquely exaggerated. Answer from two posters is "tobacco good".

I say which part was the insane exaggeration .

Shouldn't have answered at all at the completely bad faith approach of "tobacco good" maybe.

I am deflecting?

As for the private individuals risks that's a different topic given the government should never have a say about those in general

Remember this is a thread about climate change and which legal mandates are justified given that, so a reference to tobacco is a reference to the managing of externalities (IE second hand smoke) not in general about tobacco individual, private, not externalized damage.

Good post.

I wouldn't argue that the world has collectively caused a lot of the climate issues that we face today. The US, India and China has caused a literal shitstorm alone.

My argument is the direction you propose in order to eleviate some of these issues. We need a stricter carbon tax, a higher tax on the wealthy as well a smaller things like incentivizing folks to replace their furnace and gas powered heaters with heat pumps and such, incentivize local community-based shopping and how people receive and eat food. Stricter business practices while allowing us to keep our trees as well as our home owners insurance.

It's all good when you mentioned a carbon tax or taxing the ever loving **** out of the rich and educating the public but you're still working under the umbrella of capitalism in that manner. If you want to throw out capitalism for another system that would be better for all, discuss it. But a lot of improvements and technological innovation that you mention, that you would like to see first world countries partake in, in order to slow down or prevent the issues with climate change, are going to be fabricated far quicker, if at all in the economic system that we have now. Its the govt's job to figure out how to put that revenue towards creating a more self sustaining world.

I think chez was kind of eluding a long those line as well as suggesting that it's essentially better to use our advancements in science for good instead of just shutting **** down.

There has been a few pop up accounts that have suggested things like tacking climate change in the name of sweetness and community love, or is capitalism outdated and many of those have quickly turned into fire breathing DPRK death to america folk that you never see again so that is why I am asking you to specify specifics that you feel would work better in practice for all of humanity. Because again, there are a lot of smart people out there and we dont just walk into a casino and tell Phil Ivey how to play poker because we watched some Michael Parenti clips.

Meanwhile, in the real world, looks like I am not alone in thinking some political action is actually criminal

The issue I see with heat pumps is the increased demand on electricity. As well heat pumps are great in mild climates but once you get past -20C /-4F than you are required to have a backup heat source as well like a gas furnace. Also many homes are only 100 AMP and may not be able to handle a heat pump

Unless any country adds a huge amount of electrical power to the grid the though of electric cars and heat pumps seems a stretch

Also Canada has had a carbon tax that has done nothing to reduce emissions and only seems to be a wealth distribution system

As much as I am a believer in Climate change I question things like electric cars were a majority of the components are assembled in China

So we mine our coal and Ship it by rail to ports in Vancouver as no one on the west coast allows coal through their ports. That coal is than barged to China to power what is projected a new power plant every few weeks. Those power plants power the assembly and production of the components for cars and solar panels. The minerals required for those are sourced from South America and African were environmental standards do not exist. As well in Africa many of the minerals are mined by slaves or children that work 16 hour days under the worst condition.

Add in electric cars require as well a 240 volt charger and weigh 2-3 times as much as a gasoline driven vehicle which wreck our roads twice as fast and when these vehicles get in accidents the claims are astronomical.

I get the place of electric cars for some but they are not the answer

It's a sham, it's all about control and enslaving. Anyone with a logical mind can see the whole electric car plan doesn't make any sense. Cars have emissions controls on them already, and there are oceans of oil even below the United States (but they wanted us to believe oil came from dead dinosaurs and it's running out as a way of financially enslaving us).

Yes there is climate change 100% but the question is is it cyclical or is it caused by cows farting and a carbon footprint where we have to drastically change our lives. The other planets in our solar system are also going through global warming, should we tells those aliens living in mercury or venus to switch to electric cars too then?

It isnt about controlling and enslaving, its about making money. You had businesses that spent money curtailing climate and health issues for revenue the same way you have businesses now spending money to promote health and climate issues for revenue.

If new tech benefits with a shift in public opinion towards a more suatainable way of life, then thats what we will get.

Unfortunately, it's not. They already have all the money in the world.

But it's mostly the same people owning both, you realize that yes? with index funds and centralized management of them, it's literally the same people having a financial interest in A and anti-A.

Blackrock funds include both green stuff and fossil fuel industries, banally.

It's a lot easier to plug and play the entire grid into cleaner centralized generation sources than to replace millions of smaller energy generators.

At any rate, the larger carbon emitting generators are far more cleaner and more efficient than what we have at home.

but in normal (ie continental European) countries you have condos not single houses, with gas boilers heating up 30+ flats.

and you dissipate energy with transportation, not sure that part is obvious to everyone, distance is a waste if you send electricity.

and you dissipate going from heat to electricity, instead of directly heating the water that will heat the apartment.

from NASA - see link - quote


"Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing scientists - 97 percent - agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change"


.
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-cha...limate-change/


.

this is the kind of stuff we should focus on when trying to "decarbonize", but given a success in these areas would imply we can decarbonize thanks to capitalism and without changing our lifestyle at all, it's very much hated by a lot of the people who claim climate change is the biggest threat ever

https://newatlas.com/materials/concr...carbon-cement/

When the only acceptable solutions to a described problem are "more socialism", you know the problem is 1) being exaggerated (in the scope of the actions required to fix it, and in it's dangerousness) 2) the existence of people telling you that is the actual real societal problem

More good news for people who want to keep the problem in check without changing how we enjoy life on this planet

Since the mid 19th century it's estimated humans have put a total of 2,400 gigatons of CO₂ into the atmosphere, much of which has been absorbed by oceans and the land, but still leaving about 950 gigatons in the air, to which we currently add over 40 gigatons each year.

So, lol.

we can build mini nuclear reactors coupled with carbon capturing facilities, let's build 500 per year , how many years will it take to completely offset emissions without doing anything else, living completely normally? 5? 10? notice this will cost a small fraction of what the socialist green transition already is costing.

we can do that with less than a trillion per year worldwide and no one has to change absolutely anything in his lifestyle

FWIW if your stuck building hundreds and hundreds of nuclear reactors, costing billions each , mind as well continue on the road we already on …..without the risk of nuclear accident and nuclear waste management problems as a freeroll .