Global warming causes trouble in Siberia
- Thread starter YellowSubmarine
- Start date
We can't; they won't. China's government is best positioned to deal with this because they're repressive but rational. Don't count on that remaining true, especially since they're so anxious to grow the consumer economy.
Over here? People won't be led where they don't want to go.
Over here? People won't be led where they don't want to go.
Politicians like to think so, but no. We don't have a political system with that kind of control on people's economic decisions.
How long ago did Hansen predict that we have "no more than a decade" to deal with climate change? Eight or nine years ago. One problem with persuading people of anything is that popular journalism sucks as an educational medium where any complex issue is involved.
Yes but politicans can pass laws that say for example by 2025 all new cars have to have an MPG of 70MPG, or say by 2016 Incandescent Light bulbs will be banned fom sale. Or by 2022 X% of power should be generated from renewelable sources etc...
Sure some might argue for change overnight but you do small steps each year. So every year/few years you increase how many MPG's new cars have to have, how much energy has to be generated by greener technologies. But the longer you leave it the greater and more frequent those steps have to be. Bigger more frequent steps tend to be more costly than smaller less frequent steps.
Sure some might argue for change overnight but you do small steps each year. So every year/few years you increase how many MPG's new cars have to have, how much energy has to be generated by greener technologies. But the longer you leave it the greater and more frequent those steps have to be. Bigger more frequent steps tend to be more costly than smaller less frequent steps.
People who become unhappy with what politicians do put the politicians out of work. The emotion-driven backlash against government is making my country increasingly ungovernable. Not all that many people believe that politicians make well-informed, intelligent decisions in the interest of the governed...less so where expert knowledge is required.
There's no good reason to think that the measures you're citing are going to mitigate climate change substantially. It's too little, too late.
There's no good reason to think that the measures you're citing are going to mitigate climate change substantially. It's too little, too late.
California's current water woes are an excellent case study for the limited role public policy can play in such expansive issues.
California is set to run out of groundwater--facing a near-total water supply collapse thanks to a lengthy drought and excessive water usage--in the next 12-24 months. The state's response? Mandate a 25% water usage reduction, across the board. Sounds good, right? Just one problem: the state's agriculture industry, which accounts for 90% of the state's water usage, is completely exempt from any such restrictions. So, that 25% reduction is now a 2.5% reduction, and it's questionable how (and if) it will even be enforced.
No doubt there are politicians who would probably like to put more extreme measures in place, but the people and (especially) businesses in California wouldn't stand for it. Nothing serious will be done until the water literally stops flowing, and we can expect similar behavior in any other instance where climate change is going to have a real impact. People don't care about hypotheticals, they don't care about 50 or 10 or even 2 years from now. Until it's a crisis inflicting real pain right here, right now, it's a problem that might as well not exist, for all the interest people have in accepting policy solutions for it that would require even modest behavioral changes.
California is set to run out of groundwater--facing a near-total water supply collapse thanks to a lengthy drought and excessive water usage--in the next 12-24 months. The state's response? Mandate a 25% water usage reduction, across the board. Sounds good, right? Just one problem: the state's agriculture industry, which accounts for 90% of the state's water usage, is completely exempt from any such restrictions. So, that 25% reduction is now a 2.5% reduction, and it's questionable how (and if) it will even be enforced.
No doubt there are politicians who would probably like to put more extreme measures in place, but the people and (especially) businesses in California wouldn't stand for it. Nothing serious will be done until the water literally stops flowing, and we can expect similar behavior in any other instance where climate change is going to have a real impact. People don't care about hypotheticals, they don't care about 50 or 10 or even 2 years from now. Until it's a crisis inflicting real pain right here, right now, it's a problem that might as well not exist, for all the interest people have in accepting policy solutions for it that would require even modest behavioral changes.
Well and that some political parties around the world are more prone to outside influence due to the nature of where their donations come from.
And there is no good reason to think the measures I cited won't mitigate climate change. As for too little too late argument, this debate has been going on for decades. With some of the opinion any individual efforts I make won't make a difference so why do something differently. Take voting for example people think my vote won't make a difference so why vote. But elections have been won or lost on cutting a deck of cards. So you're one vote does have the potential to change the outcome.
So if you have say 700million people all making some small change all those small changes can possible make one big change.
My vote rarely makes a difference in national elections; I live in a very blue state. I'll almost certainly vote for the Democrat next year, but she wins Maryland whether I do or not. 
Well, you might as well do what you think is useful and assume that other people will do what they think best. The next few centuries are likely to be difficult.
http://m.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/1259855
Well, you might as well do what you think is useful and assume that other people will do what they think best. The next few centuries are likely to be difficult.
http://m.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/1259855
Last edited:
Thanks to gerrymandering my vote is completely useless. There's going to be a crazy Republican in office whether I show up or not. They won't even elect the more reasonable Republicans who actually try to govern. They want the ones that would rather watch the country burn than get a bill passed.
European cars are generally more fuel efficent. They are also generally smaller. Sometime smaller to the point where they are illegal to drive in the United States due to safety issues (the Ford Ka was not sold in the US due to issues with the rear bumper and the rear wheels not being considered safe by US standards. It was sold in the UK though.) Americans had a tendancy to move things in their cars over distances. Small fuel efficent cars don't generally have capacity for such things. They work just fine for shorter distances and in major cities, but not in rural areas, nor in the urban sprawl of the American West. Los Angeles to San Francisco is over 600 kilometers via the shortest and most boring route (Interstate 5). In the Bay Area, people commute from as far away as Brentwood to San Francisco and back each day which is roughly 90 kilometers each way. Some drive to Sacramento and back which is about 140 kilometers each way. These are just some of the things done in California alone.
Yes the KA is a small car but it's more of a city car than one that is designed for more long distance drives which you would more likely go for something like the Ford Focus/Mondeo, C Class Merc, 3 series BMW, VW Passat which will give you a decent MPG and be comfortable for longer drives.
This just in: Europeans commute to work, too. (To be fair: Having a non-shitty public transit system helps.
) Don't tell me most Americans really need an SUV with shitty mpg.
A medium-sized European car like a C-class Mercedes or even a Skoda Octavia offers plenty of comfort for long rides and crazy mpg figures compared to the silly shit Americans are driving.
My car is really comfy, and quite fun to drive, yet when I had to drive 120km per day for a few weeks earlier this year I averaged 45-50mpg. (52 when I actually tried to be really fuel-efficient)
Leading me to conclude that Americans' bodies are now so massive that only a Chevy Tahoe and up can move them, given the only thing I see most cars hauling is the driver.
I wondered about those when I saw them all over London. I suspect that Ford also thought they'd be a hard sell here even with safety upgrades - too small, too simple. I owned the first year Toyota Echo and loved it, but it didn't do well here until it was tarted up a bit and eventually marketed as the Yaris. Supposedly the young drivers that Toyota thought they were targeting considered the thing an insult.
This is true. We also like trucks a lot (not a fan, personally). And in the end it's not about what other people think we need, but what we decide that we want.
Possibly because pickups are partially exempted from many of the fuel economy, emissions, and noise standards that apply to passenger cars. Another venerable bit of lobbying on Capitol Hill.
Starborn Dragon
Captain
Maybe it's a giant never before discovered ant lion?