Virtual Teen Forums
 

Go Back   Virtual Teen Forums > >
Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read Chat Room

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 19th, 2019, 11:06 AM   #21
Sailor Mars
Global Moderator
 
Sailor Mars's Forum Picture
 
Join Date: August 26, 2015
Location: NYC
Age: 17
Gender: Female
Default Re: Climate Strike

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackParadePixie View Post
How is it just a talking point? You sit here and talk about the "facts" of man made climate change and then don't provide anything of value or substance.

While I happen to have a list of the top 100 most polluted cities in 2018 according to IQAir and the top 500 most polluted cities based on a study by the WHO. Guess which country has zero cities on both lists?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/05/healt...ntl/index.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._concentration

I find it disingenuous when people like yourself cry about climate change and act like its solely America's (or the West in general) problem and expecting us to foot the bill and suffer all the consequences of regulation, when you're blatantly ignoring and giving a pass to those who actually ARE the problem.
So because we arenít the most polluted, we should do nothing? It isnít just Americaís problem, itís the worldsí problem. We should all take responsibility and encourage other nations to do the same. EVERYONE is a problem. Every nation has its faults. While yes, some are more polluted than others, that isnít to take away that we are all contributing to the problem.

This is why, as a population, we have to make up for our mistakes and fix things before itís too late. If we, the US, take appropriate action, others countries will follow in our foot steps. We will also be contributing to helping.

Letís say the world is at 90% right now, right? If France cuts carbon emissions and switches to clean, renewable, affordable energy, it goes down to letís say 85%, then Germany and Belgium follow, so now itís around 78%, then Sweden and Norway and the Netherlands follow, so now itís around 70%, then the Uk and US and Canada follow, so now itís around 60%.

Yes, itís still high, but 60% is better than 90%, and it gives us a bigger range to work with

"The head may err, but never the blood.Ē
Nice salt pouch, asshole
barely getting bi

~Endeavour was here~
~Mike Was Here~
Elysium is the one tru brodie
Likes: (1)
Sailor Mars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 19th, 2019, 11:33 AM   #22
ShineintheDark
Awesome Poster
 
Name: Magnus
Join Date: April 11, 2017
Location: United Kingdom
Gender: Male
Default Re: Climate Strike

Quote:
Originally Posted by bonbon View Post
I didn't participate in it, and didn't want to.

I do consider they are right in that global warming is a nasty reality, and that we are overusing planetary resources. I'm in total agreement with the scientific part of their message.

But what I'm totally against is how they are reacting to it. What they basically do is shouting "do something, you've been lazy and inept" at politics. Yeah, great.

Except that our political leaders are just the mirror of our societies. Regardless how they got elected, they are representative of a significant part of the whole, and got strong support for the populations for decades, and still do. Note that I'm not talking about "the current chancellor/PM/president/whatever'; I'm talking about the long list of leaders who were at the head of our democratic countries during the last 70 years. There is a clear constant in most of their policies: they always put individual comfort over long-term ecological planning.

And we are doing exactly the same. How many of those people shouting for a greener world own a smartphone, crafted on the other side of the planet, that they'll change every two years? How many of them will happily take al-cheapo planes to go on holidays next summer? What about their clothes, that by a crushing margin were made at the lowest possible cost in faraway countries where ecological regulations are not an obstacle for profit? How many of them will, the next day, listen to the tv ads and dream about that brand new SUV?

It is so easy to ask politicians to do the dirty work for us, that is, change our lifestyle. It is totally devoid of any sense, because it shows how irresponsible we are in such matters. I've heard some of my school mates saying "it was all the fault of the older generations". What a joke - it is just as much the fault of ourselves, because we still, for the most part, don't get that we need to stop thinking it is "because of politics", "because of the megacorps", "because of China", "because of older generations". We need to admit that it is mainly, mostly, "because of ourselves".

I'll fully support people who are ready to actually sacrifice their cosy way of life to save the planet. But I find most of the current protests a revolting masquerade that's insulting for the few people who really actively fight to save the planet.
You are very much correct in pointing out the level of pollution that occurs due to the consumerist lifestyle and culture of the west that forces nations in the east to cut costs and regulations, thereby harming the planet. As such, you're also right in stating that many changes need to be made by individual people to cut their carbon footprint. I, for example, rarely if ever buy new clothes and instead wear them to they're in absolute tatters until I replace them with hand-me-downs/thrift stores/the occasional new item. I'm an active user of public transport and really am in no rush to learn to rive and put another gas guzzling vehicle on the road.

However, you fail to understand just how much the actions and policy of the West influences the East. If we invest in renewable energy research to find innovative alternatives to fossil fuels or make the current methods more efficient, we can slowly transform the energy we use in this country until the methods that we now consider expensive, inefficient and problematic can be relied on long-term. The more focus we put into it here, the easier it is to make that transition in the future. Pacts and targets like the Paris Agreement may be dismissed as unrealistic or unnecessarily placing pressure on Western nations but they at least give us incentive to keep innovating and finding new and better ways to limit our carbon footprints. Say we one day make nuclear power safe and cheap enough to power 50% of our energy consumption (very unrealistic currently but this is a hypothetical). If it becomes cheap and easy enough for the US, UK etc, it will become cheaper and easier for nations like India, Pakistan, China, Iran et al who currently dominate pollution lists. They go for the most polluting methods because they are cheap and provide the energy needed for our consumption demands. If we develop cheaper and more efficient methods that inflict less damage, they can adopt our innovations.
ShineintheDark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 19th, 2019, 11:43 AM   #23
HeyCameron
Nice Poster
 
HeyCameron's Forum Picture
 
Name: Cameron
Join Date: August 15, 2016
Location: Orange County, CA
Gender: Male
Default Re: Climate Strike

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailor Mars View Post
So because we aren’t the most polluted, we should do nothing?
This is the kind of thinking I don't understand. Yes, it's true that America's contribution to global pollution is a drop in the bucket compared to what India and China produce, but that does mean we cannot do better and that we cannot be a world leader on this. Like it or not, much of the world does look to America for leadership on policy like this, and it would be nice if we showed we were on board with combating carbon output, rather than pulling out of climate agreements.

I acknowledge that there's only so much we can do, but that doesn't mean we shrug our shoulders and do nothing.

I need the darkness, someone please cut the lights

Last edited by HeyCameron; March 19th, 2019 at 02:29 PM.
HeyCameron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 19th, 2019, 01:12 PM   #24
mattsmith48
VT Voice of reason
 
Name: matt
Join Date: March 8, 2014
Location: North of the Banana Republic
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Default Re: Climate Strike

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackParadePixie View Post
How is it just a talking point? You sit here and talk about the "facts" of man made climate change and then don't provide anything of value or substance.

While I happen to have a list of the top 100 most polluted cities in 2018 according to IQAir and the top 500 most polluted cities based on a study by the WHO. Guess which country has zero cities on both lists?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/05/healt...ntl/index.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._concentration

I find it disingenuous when people like yourself cry about climate change and act like its solely America's (or the West in general) problem and expecting us to foot the bill and suffer all the consequences of regulation, when you're blatantly ignoring and giving a pass to those who actually ARE the problem.
The talking point is that China is not doing anything or that because they are the most polluted country its their problem not ours. That's the bullshit talking point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsmith48
There is no such thing as liberal or conservative media, the only thing the media cares about is either money or the truth.
mattsmith48 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 19th, 2019, 01:34 PM   #25
bonbon
Member++
 
bonbon's Forum Picture
 
Join Date: November 2, 2016
Age: 16
Gender: Male
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShineintheDark View Post
You are very much correct in pointing out the level of pollution that occurs due to the consumerist lifestyle and culture of the west that forces nations in the east to cut costs and regulations, thereby harming the planet. As such, you're also right in stating that many changes need to be made by individual people to cut their carbon footprint. I, for example, rarely if ever buy new clothes and instead wear them to they're in absolute tatters until I replace them with hand-me-downs/thrift stores/the occasional new item. I'm an active user of public transport and really am in no rush to learn to rive and put another gas guzzling vehicle on the road.
I'd like to be more precise on what I meant about this. I'm not really talking about "individual actions", in that it may imply that there is no coordinated movement needed. I am firmly believing that we cannot count on individual actions; rather, I believe in a collective effort, but at measures impacting heavily our individual lives. And I also believe that those collective measures won't work if they are "top-down", that is, based solely on political decisions. They need to also, mainly, be rooted from the base, and into a conscious choice. To be clearer, I think that people need to give a firm: "yes, we are ready to give up some advantages to achieve that higher goal". It must be a yes as an individual, but also as a member of a community.

Damn, I'm not sure I was in any way clearer :'D

Quote:
However, you fail to understand just how much the actions and policy of the West influences the East. If we invest in renewable energy research to find innovative alternatives to fossil fuels or make the current methods more efficient, we can slowly transform the energy we use in this country until the methods that we now consider expensive, inefficient and problematic can be relied on long-term.
Err, no. I'm actually very aware of those, and that's the root of the problem, in my opinion.

Why so? Because a lot of people tend to support the idea that we can somehow afford to externalize our pollution to the East; but then, those very same people complain that "we are the only ones doing the efforts", and in the end, the problem stands unsolved.

What we mostly do now is reject any fundamental change in our consumption behaviors: we still drive as much, travel as much, eat as much, throw away as much. Governments imposed more or less strict regulations that made the production distribution that existed 50 years ago impossible to maintain. The expected result was, when those rules were decided, that the industry would be pressured to evolve its processes, and consumers would be forced to change their habits.

But it didn't happen; instead, the industry found that it was way, way cheaper to just move to countries where those rules didn't exist, or could be bent by ways of corruption. And consumers found way, way easier to accept losing local industry than losing individual comfort.

Quote:
The more focus we put into it here, the easier it is to make that transition in the future. Pacts and targets like the Paris Agreement may be dismissed as unrealistic or unnecessarily placing pressure on Western nations but they at least give us incentive to keep innovating and finding new and better ways to limit our carbon footprints.
They are not unrealistic, but they neglect the economical and social pressure. As long as it is cheaper and more socially acceptable to relocate pollution than it is to reduce it, those pacts won't achieve the desired goal. I'm a strong believer that the Paris Agreement was a very good thing - but that it lacked a punitive part toward those who wouldn't be part of the club. And there won't be any, in any short- or mid-term future: because else, we'd risk hurting countries like US or China, that are essential in maintaining the current status-quo.

Quote:
Say we one day make nuclear power safe and cheap enough to power 50% of our energy consumption (very unrealistic currently but this is a hypothetical). If it becomes cheap and easy enough for the US, UK etc, it will become cheaper and easier for nations like India, Pakistan, China, Iran et al who currently dominate pollution lists. They go for the most polluting methods because they are cheap and provide the energy needed for our consumption demands. If we develop cheaper and more efficient methods that inflict less damage, they can adopt our innovations.
Yes, but the real question, the only one that matters, is: why would the industry do any effort to develop such cleaner ways of producing power?

That kind of project requires a lot of constant amounts of money, invested with absolutely zero economical return (except on centuries-long perspective). Who would fund that? The industry mostly won't, because it is designed for short-term maximizing of profits, and minimizing of risks. So that leaves governments. But they are unable to tell the populations that it involves spending money without any visible, easy to explain, short-term improvement of the quality of life.

That leaves maybe another way to make such changes socially acceptable: make it trendy. That's something that the industry understood very, very well, and is using in a way that makes changes even harder to achieve. They are now selling "Green" as a luxury brand, something that distinguishes the elite from the average crowd. Something that, thus, is necessary costly and produced in smaller series. This builds in the minds of many that "being ecological is too costly for most" - and that's a message populist leaders repeated ad nauseam to earn support amongst those who were the most severely impacted by the industrial relocations in cheaper foreign countries.

I do believe there are solutions, but I don't believe at all that shouting at politicians is in any way productive, or even desirable. It is merely a cheap way to find someone we can comfortably point as "responsible", while giving ourselves the satisfying illusion that "we did our citizen job". That's simply, in my opinion, a dangerous illusion we should get away with ASAP.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsmith48 View Post
That's why we need governments to push regulation, to finance renewable energy, to ban fossil fuel, etc. Its easier and faster if you go at the companies and force them to make environmentally friendly products than having individuals decided to switch to EVs.

Changing your live style to reduce your carbon footprint can be difficult, costly and not for everyone.
And that's the core of the question, I think. It *is* difficult. Very difficult. It is costly, *very* costly. And it *must* be everybody, or else it is guaranteed to fail; you just cannot expect half of the society to change while the other keeps its old ways. That's just going to end up in "social wars", in a way or another, and an unstable situation that will only stand with coercion. That's a long-term impasse IMHO.

See, the problem is this to me: yes, of course we need regulations to force companies to make greener choices; but if they do non-green choices, that's because it is what the population is asking for. Because it is easier, more affordable, faster. It is exactly what you said: doing otherwise is difficult, costly, and not for everyone.

And do the population want it otherwise? What if you told people the price of driving and owning a car suddenly jumped by 50%? What if you told them that you cut the number of short-range plane flights by 50%? No chance, of course. People would be ok with ecological rules - as long as they have zero impact on them, but that's clearly not possible.

Quote:
The best thing you can do to lower you carbon footprint is to not have children, but you can't just tell people to stop making babies. So what the governments need to do is pass regulation and invest to lower the effects of those births. Same thing with planes, people need to travel they aren't gonna stop. So you force manufacturers to try to come up with an electric plane or you build high speed rails to replace planes.
That's the logical path our societies have followed for the last two centuries or so: improve technology to solve the problem, don't change the behavior. But we are facing now a different challenge: that technological improvements are not fast enough, not cheap enough, to counter the negative effects of the previous generation of it. So that logic is going to a wall: funding cannot be expanded fast and wide enough to sustain the necessary developments of mass-producing "greener" tech.

That's what I'm criticizing in those protesters; they are relying on some sort of "higher authority" (being the corporations, the governments, whatever else) to do the job for them, and expect they can reduce the overall pollution while maintaining the same levels of production/consumption. But they can't. The last 50 years proved they cannot, for all kinds of reasons, do more, faster, with less. And the protesters themselves have nothing better to propose, because they very well know that reducing pollution by significant levels will require far, far more than regulations. It will make huge dents in our comfort, and they perfectly know that it is just not acceptable for most.

There is a price to pay for change. Most of those protesters don't want to pay it, and they don't even want to explain that paying a price will be necessary. Hence why I'm not participating their "strike".

Posts merged ~Mars

Last edited by Sailor Mars; March 19th, 2019 at 02:45 PM.
bonbon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 19th, 2019, 03:51 PM   #26
mattsmith48
VT Voice of reason
 
Name: matt
Join Date: March 8, 2014
Location: North of the Banana Republic
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Default Re: Climate Strike

Quote:
Originally Posted by bonbon View Post
And that's the core of the question, I think. It *is* difficult. Very difficult. It is costly, *very* costly. And it *must* be everybody, or else it is guaranteed to fail; you just cannot expect half of the society to change while the other keeps its old ways. That's just going to end up in "social wars", in a way or another, and an unstable situation that will only stand with coercion. That's a long-term impasse IMHO.

See, the problem is this to me: yes, of course we need regulations to force companies to make greener choices; but if they do non-green choices, that's because it is what the population is asking for. Because it is easier, more affordable, faster. It is exactly what you said: doing otherwise is difficult, costly, and not for everyone.
That's why you force those companies and consumers to stop making the non-green choices. That's why we need to ban plastic straws, or bags, or coal, or fossil fuel.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bonbon View Post
And do the population want it otherwise? What if you told people the price of driving and owning a car suddenly jumped by 50%? What if you told them that you cut the number of short-range plane flights by 50%? No chance, of course. People would be ok with ecological rules - as long as they have zero impact on them, but that's clearly not possible.
That's why you need to replace that stuff with more affordable ones. If you say were raising the tax on gasoline by 50% a year, banning fossil fuels by 2030, and were adding EV charging stations everywhere. You make EVs more affordable and more viable so in 10 years when your fossil fuel ban kicks it as less of an impact.

Same thing with planes, you build and invest in high speed rails every where so that the only time you really need planes is when you need to cross a large body of water like the ocean.

You don't change anyone's life you just change the way they travel. Beside being closer to the ground they won't see much of a difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bonbon View Post
That's the logical path our societies have followed for the last two centuries or so: improve technology to solve the problem, don't change the behavior. But we are facing now a different challenge: that technological improvements are not fast enough, not cheap enough, to counter the negative effects of the previous generation of it. So that logic is going to a wall: funding cannot be expanded fast and wide enough to sustain the necessary developments of mass-producing "greener" tech.

That's what I'm criticizing in those protesters; they are relying on some sort of "higher authority" (being the corporations, the governments, whatever else) to do the job for them, and expect they can reduce the overall pollution while maintaining the same levels of production/consumption. But they can't. The last 50 years proved they cannot, for all kinds of reasons, do more, faster, with less. And the protesters themselves have nothing better to propose, because they very well know that reducing pollution by significant levels will require far, far more than regulations. It will make huge dents in our comfort, and they perfectly know that it is just not acceptable for most.

There is a price to pay for change. Most of those protesters don't want to pay it, and they don't even want to explain that paying a price will be necessary. Hence why I'm not participating their "strike".
That's just not true, money and government support does make a difference and does accelerate the technological advancement needed to fix this problem. The best example of that was in 1962 when JFK told the American public ''were going to the moon by the end of the decade'' and 7 years later Neil Armstrong makes humanity's first steps on the lunar surface. In every documentary on the subject everyone is saying it cannot be done they need more time and that's the scientist at NASA saying that. The US government funded the thing they put their money in it and they did it. It was so big of an accomplishment that even to this day they are people saying it was a hoax.

Just like with the Moon landing, we have the base of the technology we just need to make it better. They had 7 years, we have 12. There is no excuse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsmith48
There is no such thing as liberal or conservative media, the only thing the media cares about is either money or the truth.
mattsmith48 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 19th, 2019, 04:27 PM   #27
Adamant
Nice Poster
 
Adamant's Forum Picture
 
Name: Adam
Join Date: October 17, 2018
Location: London
Gender: Male
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: Climate Strike

Didn't take part.
There are a few other comments in the thread in school and careers section
Adamant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 19th, 2019, 07:26 PM   #28
Falcons_11
VT Lover
 
Join Date: October 12, 2015
Age: 16
Gender: Male
Default Re: Climate Strike

No one in my school participated in the climate strike. It wasn't an authorized activity by the school administration. I guess most of us were scared of getting zeros some courses if we participated. Besides, the main interest in my school right now is winning the state championship in basketball.

"Conscience doth make cowards of us all!" (Hamlet)
Falcons_11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 20th, 2019, 12:26 AM   #29
mattsmith48
VT Voice of reason
 
Name: matt
Join Date: March 8, 2014
Location: North of the Banana Republic
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Default Re: Climate Strike

Quote:
Originally Posted by Falcons_11 View Post
No one in my school participated in the climate strike. It wasn't an authorized activity by the school administration. I guess most of us were scared of getting zeros some courses if we participated. Besides, the main interest in my school right now is winning the state championship in basketball.
Talk about a school with priorities

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsmith48
There is no such thing as liberal or conservative media, the only thing the media cares about is either money or the truth.
mattsmith48 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 20th, 2019, 11:30 AM   #30
Falcons_11
VT Lover
 
Join Date: October 12, 2015
Age: 16
Gender: Male
Default Re: Climate Strike

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsmith48 View Post
Talk about a school with priorities
You betcha!!

"Conscience doth make cowards of us all!" (Hamlet)
Falcons_11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 20th, 2019, 11:33 AM   #31
Snowfox
Member++
 
Name: Pyry
Join Date: May 23, 2017
Location: Finland
Age: 16
Gender: Male
Default Re: Climate Strike

I didnt went to anywhere because instead of protesting other people to do something i have this nasty tendency to actually do something by myself.
I was in school and then me and bro we went to our forest to do some work there. Yes we bought 10 hectares of land which is 60% forest. 60% now in future it will be more since we planted trees.
My goal of future is to become master of forestry. So far that 10 hectares is our hunting ground so we dont have to buy meat from grocery stores. and so far we havent had to except chicken.

But as far as I can see its more fun to some people to protest about things and actually do anything.
Likes: (1)
Snowfox is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright©2000 - 2019
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © 2004 - 2018, VirtualTeen.org