Thread for discussing climate change

[Moksha]

Who is MA? Did you mean Atlanticmike?

In Chinese naming conventions, he would be MA. Science and religion can both be subject to politics.

[Chap]

Nobody on this thread has so far got down to discussing in detail any actions to deal with global heating. But that is of course the real point of it all.

Here is a major initiative by people in a great European city, which has a fair chance of being adopted. Just look at the title, and feel your jaw hitting the floor:

Berlin’s car ban campaign: ‘It’s about how we want to live, breathe and play’
Petition to forbid private car use in area equal in size to London’s zones 1 and 2 has collected 50,000 backers

You read that right. No private cars to be allowed (with exceptions for the handicapped, emergency services, and those whose jobs dictate car use). The already excellent public transport would no doubt be further improved. This is only the first stage of a process that begins with a petition, and ends with a law being passed. But what would happen if you proposed this in your city?

Striking fact: 91% of Berliners surveyed said they would be happier without a car

A citizens’ initiative calling for a ban on private car use in central Berlin would create the largest car-free urban area in the world.

The campaign group Berlin Autofrei has taken the first step in a process known as the people’s referendum, submitting a petition with more than 50,000 signatures calling for a ban covering the 88 sq km (34 sq mile) area circled by the “S-Bahn ring” trainline – an area roughly equal in size to all the boroughs in London’s zones 1 and 2.

People who depend on their cars for their trade or because they have impaired mobility would be exempt, as would emergency services. Everyone else would each be permitted up to 12 rented car journeys a year – in case they need to move house, for example.

But is banning cars necessary, and what is wrong with electric vehicles? “We would need about half of cars to go electric next year in order to meet the federal government’s own targets for transportation emissions,” said Nik Kaestner, from the campaign. “That clearly isn’t going to happen – currently only 1.3% of vehicles in Germany are electric. So the only solution is to reduce the amount of driving that’s happening, not just to change how we drive.”

Manuel Wiemann, a spokesperson for the initiative, said cars also polluted through tyre wear, “occupy far too much common space and unnecessarily endanger human lives, whether electric or diesel”.

A 2014 report commissioned by Berlin’s regional parliament found that 58% of traffic space was devoted to cars, even though only a third of journeys on Berlin streets (and only 17% within the S-Bahn ring) were made by car. Only 3% was set aside for bicycles, which accounted for 15% of journeys (18% within the ring).

Parked cars took up 17 sq km. In total, almost 20 times more space was dedicated to cars than to bicycles in one of Europe’s most renowned cycle-friendly cities. Three-quarters of road deaths are pedestrians or cyclists.

Nina Noblé, one of the initiative’s founders, said: “It’s as much about our immediate environment as it is about the environment at large. It’s about how we all want to live, breathe and play together. We want people to be able to sleep with their windows open, and children to be able to play in the street again. And grandparents should be able to ride their bicycles safely and have plenty of benches to take a breather on.”

Although historically anti-car campaigns in Europe have tended to have very limited success, Berlin Autofrei may prove different. The campaign is using a special form of direct democracy enshrined in the German constitution. Another people’s referendum led to the recent landmark vote to expropriate thousands of houses from Berlin’s biggest landlords.

In the first stage of a three-part process, a group must collect the signatures of 20,000 citizens in favour of a proposed law change in a given timeframe. In the second stage, 170,000 signatures must be collected. If the government refuses to implement the law after these two stages, the question is put to a public vote.

Having collected 50,333 signatures in the first stage, the campaigners are feeling confident.

“The federal environmental ministry did a study recently and 91% of people said they would be happier without a car. Moreover, only a third of individual Berliners actually have a car,” said Kaestner.

But he admitted this “doesn’t mean people will automatically be in favour. If it does get to a final vote, it will be about motivating the base just like in every other tight election.”

A previous referendum initiative calling for a cycle-friendly mobility law never had to go to a public vote, because the government adopted the proposed law after stage two of the process. There is a possibility that it may do the same with Autofrei, as the Greens will play a significant role in the next governing coalition after their vote share increased to 18.9% in Berlin in September’s elections.

For the moment Berlin Autofrei still has a long way to go. But if there was ever a chance for a radical transformation of road space, then when if not now? “And where,” said Wiemann, “if not in Berlin?”

[Res Ipsa]

Might be, Cultellus. A better way to put it may have been "confirmation bias" rather than "politics." In MA's case, I think it's fair, because, based on his posts here, his views on climate change are, in my opinion, pretty grounded in politics.

Who is MA? Did you mean Atlanticmike?

Yup. Typo.

[Doctor Steuss]

I think one of the most powerful tools at our disposal is going to be finding out ways to inexpensively culture meat; especially beef. Of course, one of the biggest hurdles to consumption -- even when the technology is there for taste-parity, and cost -- is going to be public opinion. Even if only something like McDonald’s were to decide it fiscally made sense though, the impact would probably be pretty incredible.

Cultured meat would sort-of act as a multi-pronged approach. It would hopefully significantly reduce all of the greenhouse gas production caused by beef (mainly) and poultry (secondary) farms. It would also potentially free up a huge amount of grain crops for human consumption if/when harvest yields decrease. I wouldn’t be surprised if as the technology took hold, you mainly began to see pasture-raised beef become a lion’s share of the natural beef market, and predominately becoming a kind of luxury item (natural steaks being the new caviar).

Admittedly, even with me thinking it'd be a great plan, I still have a little aversion to the idea of eating lab-grown meat -- and who knows how much pink slime I've consumed without a care.

[Gunnar]

Nobody on this thread has so far got down to discussing in detail any actions to deal with global heating. But that is of course the real point of it all.

What about my posts and links about the initiatives and work by the Rocky Mountain Institute? Do they count?

Here is a major initiative by people in a great European city, which has a fair chance of being adopted. Just look at the title, and feel your jaw hitting the floor:

Berlin’s car ban campaign: ‘It’s about how we want to live, breathe and play’
Petition to forbid private car use in area equal in size to London’s zones 1 and 2 has collected 50,000 backers

You read that right. No private cars to be allowed (with exceptions for the handicapped, emergency services, and those whose jobs dictate car use). The already excellent public transport would no doubt be further improved. This is only the first stage of a process that begins with a petition, and ends with a law being passed. But what would happen if you proposed this in your city?

Striking fact: 91% of Berliners surveyed said they would be happier without a car

I sympathize with that initiative. I think it makes a lot of sense. If I were living in a city with a reliable and affordable public transportation like New York City, several other major U.S. cities and most European cities have, it would be practically insane to want to put up with the expenses and bother of owning, insuring, maintaining and parking my own privately owned vehicle, even an electric one, unless I needed one for my business.

[Chap]

What about my posts and links about the initiatives and work by the Rocky Mountain Institute? Do they count?

Sorry! I must have been distracted by the high volume of white noise that has occurred on this thread from time to time ... fortunately recent modding appears to have sent it elsewhere.

If I were living in a city with a reliable and affordable public transportation like New York City, several other major U.S. cities and most European cities have, it would be practically insane to want to put up with the expenses and bother of owning, insuring, maintaining and parking my own privately owned vehicle, even an electric one, unless I needed one for my business

Yup. I currently live in a city where it would never occur to me to drive a car to get around. Cars are for going to other places outside the city - though there are a lot of great trains too. If you have an alternative, why spend hours on a journey in a car where you have to keep your concentration at a high level for hours at a time - or risk death for yourself and those you are carrying. Much nicer to look out of the window and have some coffee.

[Gunnar]

Yup. I currently live in a city where it would never occur to me to drive a car to get around. Cars are for going to other places outside the city - though there are a lot of great trains too. If you have an alternative, why spend hours on a journey in a car where you have to keep your concentration at a high level for hours at a time - or risk death for yourself and those you are carrying. Much nicer to look out of the window and have some coffee.

In my youth I lived and worked for a time in Copenhagen Denmark. This was back in the 1960s. I have no real idea how much it has changed since then, but during that time one could buy, for a very affordable price, monthly passes that entitled one to unlimited use of all the buses, trolleys, and trains in all of Copenhagen and its suburbs -- even the dedicated tourist buses and trolleys with professional tour guides explaining points of special or historical interest along the route. Had I not been rather fluent in Danish, I could even have chosen ones with English speaking guides. Whenever I wanted to go anywhere in that city, I just had to walk to the nearest bus or light rail stop, rarely more than a 5 or 10 minute walk away, and within less than 2 hours I could go from anywhere in that city to anywhere else in the greater Copenhagen area, and that included time waiting for the next available ride and transfers. I would have to have been crazy to own a car, even if I could have afforded one, which, of course, I couldn't. I could hardly have gotten to my destination faster, even if I had my own car, especially when adding the time that would have been necessary to find a convenient parking spot.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

This is a great thread for me because it dovetails nicely with a lot ‘green’ documentaries and articles I’ve been reading. In other words I’ve been giving it a lot of thought, and in our own way my wife and I have been trying to tighten up our environmentalism. Basically we recognize ‘no one drop blames itself for the flood’, so we’re trying to do better more consistently. It’s a process.

But I think humanity is doomed.

As it so happens I was just reading ‘Why the Technological System Will Destroy Itself’ by Ted Kaczynski, and this part does a good job of explaining denialists (bolding and highlighting are mine):

Environmental do-gooders may answer that if the public has been persuaded to take environmental concerns seriously it will be disadvantageous in terms of natural selection for an organization to abuse the environment, because citizens can offer resistance to environmentally reckless organizations. For example, people might refuse to buy products manufactured by companies that are environmentally destructive. However, human behavior and human attitudes can be manipulated.

Environmental damage can be shielded, up to a point, from public scrutiny; with the help of public-relations firms, a corporation can persuade people that it is environmentally responsible; advertising and marketing techniques can give people such an itch to possess a corporation’s products that few individuals will refuse to buy them from concern for the environment; computer games, electronic social networking, and other mechanisms of escape keep people absorbed in hedonistic pursuits so that they don’t have time for environmental worries. More importantly, people are made to see themselves as utterly dependent on the products and services provided by the corporations. Because people have to earn money to buy the products and services on which they are dependent, they need jobs. Economic growth is necessary for the creation of jobs, therefore people accept environmental damage when it is portrayed as a price that must be paid for economic growth. Nationalism too is brought into play both by corporations and by governments. Citizens are made to feel that outside forces are threatening: “The Chinese will get ahead of us if we don’t increase our rate of economic growth. Al Qaeda will blow us up if we don’t improve our technology and our weaponry fast enough.”

These are some of the tools that organizations use to counter environmentalists’ efforts to arouse public concern; similar tools can help to blunt other forms of resistance to the organizations’ pursuit of power. The organizations that are most successful in blunting public resistance to their pursuit of power tend to increase their power more rapidly than organizations that are less successful in blunting public resistance to their power-seeking activities, whatever the degree of environmental damage involved. Because such organizations have great wealth at their disposal, environmentalists do not have the resources to compete with them in the propaganda war.

This is the reason, or an important part of the reason, why attempts to teach people to be environmentally responsible have done so little to slow the destruction of our environment. And again—note well—the process we’ve described is not contingent on any accidental set of circumstances or on any defect in human character. Given the availability of advanced technology, the process of inevitability accompanies the action of natural selection upon self-propagating systems.

I mean, I ain’t gonna stop trying to do better on a personal level with regard to my behaviors that contribute to AGW, but I’ve come to the conclusion that we’re all caught in a global system that can’t stop itself from it’s own mandates. The natural selection on self-propagating system mentioned above simply means that the companies and countries that act against their short-term interests will lose to corporations and countries that don’t. And that means we’re all subject to quarterly reports from sociopaths who give less than two craps about anything other than their own aims. In other words, they can’t afford to grow a conscience.

- Doc

[Chap]

I mean, I ain’t gonna stop trying to do better on a personal level with regard to my behaviors that contribute to AGW, but I’ve come to the conclusion that we’re all caught in a global system that can’t stop itself from it’s own mandates. The natural selection on self-propagating system mentioned above simply means that the companies and countries that act against their short-term interests will lose to corporations and countries that don’t. And that means we’re all subject to quarterly reports from sociopaths who give less than two craps about anything other than their own aims. In other words, they can’t afford to grow a conscience.

Obviously fossil fuel interests will do their best to halt or slow any movement to reduce consumption of their products, so far as they are able.

But the same was true of big tobacco - and in the end they lost out, so that in many advanced countries smoking is something that most adults would never think of doing, and which may not be done in any public or business facilities. That happened because in the end the message got through that smoking not only caused cancer, but a lot of other nasty stuff too. Governments began to realise that the social costs of damage done by smoking outweighed the revenue loss from tobacco taxes.

Now an increasing number of large investment organisations, public and private, can see that fossil fuel investments are very likely to become 'stranded assets' that no-one with an eye to the future wants to buy. So they are dumping them now, to avoid worse losses down the line, as fossil fuels are beginning to be out-competed on price and public preference by renewables. And that is a self-sustaining process once it gets started ...

For example, from Reuters:

New York's pension fund to review oil holdings, axes more coal investments

Aug 12 (Reuters) - The third-largest U.S. public pension fund on Thursday said it is launching reviews over climate concerns on $640 million invested in 42 shale oil and gas firms, including ConocoPhillips (COP.N), Hess (HES.N) and Pioneer Natural Resources (PXD.N).

The move by the New York state pension fund comes days after the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported global warming was nearly out of control, and calling its findings "a death knell for coal and fossil fuels."

Major investors, including BlackRock have re-evaluated holdings in fossil fuel producers and prodded energy executives to reduce emissions and prepare for a lower carbon world. After completing its shale review, the New York fund plans to turn next to oil and gas pipeline and processing investments, it said.

Pioneer said it looked forward to working with the New York State Comptroller and that it is "committed to being a low-carbon, low-cost energy producer."

"We engage with our shareholders on a regular basis to ensure we are being responsive to their concerns," a spokesperson said.

ConocoPhillips declined to comment, and Hess declined to comment but pointed to its annual Sustainability Report.

"This announcement is very significant given the size of the pension fund. It has significant influence related to all issues related to investments," said Richard Brooks of environmental activist group Stand.earth.

The $268 billion New York fund already sold some coal assets, and on Thursday disclosed it would restrict investment in others, including stakes in New Hope Corp (NHC.AX) and Whitehaven Coal (WHC.AX).

It plans to review a wide range of shale oil and gas producers as part of a climate action plan announced last year. The systematic review of energy investments aims to reach net zero emissions for its investment portfolio by 2040.

"We want to see our companies succeed and want them to be around. ... We're just deeply concerned that companies with the greatest exposure to transition risk are at risk of not making that transition successfully," said Liz Gordon, executive director of corporate governance for the fund.

New York Common Retirement Fund recently restricted investments in six Canadian oil sands companies, including Exxon's Imperial Oil Ltd (in my opinion.TO) and Canadian Natural Resources (CNQ.TO).

[Atlanticmike]

I mean, I ain’t gonna stop trying to do better on a personal level with regard to my behaviors that contribute to AGW, but I’ve come to the conclusion that we’re all caught in a global system that can’t stop itself from it’s own mandates. The natural selection on self-propagating system mentioned above simply means that the companies and countries that act against their short-term interests will lose to corporations and countries that don’t. And that means we’re all subject to quarterly reports from sociopaths who give less than two craps about anything other than their own aims. In other words, they can’t afford to grow a conscience.

Obviously fossil fuel interests will do their best to halt or slow any movement to reduce consumption of their products, so far as they are able.

But the same was true of big tobacco - and in the end they lost out, so that in many advanced countries smoking is something that most adults would never think of doing, and which may not be done in any public or business facilities. That happened because in the end the message got through that smoking not only caused cancer, but a lot of other nasty stuff too. Governments began to realise that the social costs of damage done by smoking outweighed the revenue loss from tobacco taxes.

Now an increasing number of large investment organisations, public and private, can see that fossil fuel investments are very likely to become 'stranded assets' that no-one with an eye to the future wants to buy. So they are dumping them now, to avoid worse losses down the line, as fossil fuels are beginning to be out-competed on price and public preference by renewables. And that is a self-sustaining process once it gets started ...

For example, from Reuters:

New York's pension fund to review oil holdings, axes more coal investments

Aug 12 (Reuters) - The third-largest U.S. public pension fund on Thursday said it is launching reviews over climate concerns on $640 million invested in 42 shale oil and gas firms, including ConocoPhillips (COP.N), Hess (HES.N) and Pioneer Natural Resources (PXD.N).

The move by the New York state pension fund comes days after the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported global warming was nearly out of control, and calling its findings "a death knell for coal and fossil fuels."

Major investors, including BlackRock have re-evaluated holdings in fossil fuel producers and prodded energy executives to reduce emissions and prepare for a lower carbon world. After completing its shale review, the New York fund plans to turn next to oil and gas pipeline and processing investments, it said.

Pioneer said it looked forward to working with the New York State Comptroller and that it is "committed to being a low-carbon, low-cost energy producer."

"We engage with our shareholders on a regular basis to ensure we are being responsive to their concerns," a spokesperson said.

ConocoPhillips declined to comment, and Hess declined to comment but pointed to its annual Sustainability Report.

"This announcement is very significant given the size of the pension fund. It has significant influence related to all issues related to investments," said Richard Brooks of environmental activist group Stand.earth.

The $268 billion New York fund already sold some coal assets, and on Thursday disclosed it would restrict investment in others, including stakes in New Hope Corp (NHC.AX) and Whitehaven Coal (WHC.AX).

It plans to review a wide range of shale oil and gas producers as part of a climate action plan announced last year. The systematic review of energy investments aims to reach net zero emissions for its investment portfolio by 2040.

"We want to see our companies succeed and want them to be around. ... We're just deeply concerned that companies with the greatest exposure to transition risk are at risk of not making that transition successfully," said Liz Gordon, executive director of corporate governance for the fund.

New York Common Retirement Fund recently restricted investments in six Canadian oil sands companies, including Exxon's Imperial Oil Ltd (in my opinion.TO) and Canadian Natural Resources (CNQ.TO).

Let's just start making every family, by law, only able to have one child. If a couple illegally have a second child, we just kill it. Oh oh, I know! We could make a law that says it's legal to kill the second child within the first month and if the child is older than a month it will be given to a family that's childless. Just think how much better off we'll be in 30 or 40 years! Let's do it for mother earth, anyone with me!! Man, I woke today feeling more progressive, I'm feeling good!! This is great!!