Confess!!! (your climate sins)

[DinoR]

I’ve had the engine on an Abrams tanks started for no other reason than that I was cold and/or wet and wanted to stand in the exhaust.

[Stowed_Bob]

For me, any climate sins are trumped by environmental sins. The gas-run lawnmower is terrible, but the odd ritual practice of manicured lawns is worse since the native birds of where I live need tall grass for somewhere to nest. The latter is a greater sin than the former in my eyes, but then I am a short-sighted person who cannot see beyond the horizons.

[Novelty_Bobble]

This thread just goes to show how good we all are at nibbling round the edges and avoid having the conversation that actually matters.

I’ll think the marching kids are actually serious about climate change when I see that their main point is, instead of a generic “down with this sort of thing”, a committment for them to have far fewer children. They are full of anger over the things that their parents have done/are doing/aren’t doing when the most effective action to be taken in the one thing that requires them to do…literally…nothing.

Ms. Thunberg is of an age where she has the ability to make that meaningful commitment and has the clout to ask others of her age to do the same. Something far more important and impactful than a silly sailing stunt gimmick does absolutely nothing to further the conversation and in fact diverts the conversation to pointless discussions about flying.

My wife and I made a choice to have one less child. That alone dwarfs anything that anyone else has mentioned in this thread. Now of course you all may have done the same as well but just didn’t mention it. OK, but the fact that you default to thinking about hybrid cars and less flying is indicative that the converstaion is forever skirting around the real problem issue…overpopulation.

[Nava]

No.

It makes zero sense for me to promise to have “one less child”. For most of the people in these boards, actually: most of us have already had or not had as many children as we were going to (or not). It makes as much sense for me to focus on how many children I’m going to have as it makes for me to focus on how many frigates to include in my fleet.

Being a somewhat-realistic person, I focus on those things I can actually do. Such as place a stepladder close to your soapbox so you can climb down safely, cos that thing sure seems high…

[installLSC]

@HurricaneDitka

The Right has long felt that the environmental movement was becoming essentially a religion for the Left. Now it seems that journey is complete, with a confessional and everything:

I suspect much laughter will ensue from the responses.

You’re right, it’s laughable to confess enviornmental sins. I mean what does the pope know about sins?

The pope said the faithful should use the Holy Year of Mercy throughout 2016 to ask forgiveness for sins committed against the environment and our “selfish” system motivated by “profit at any price”.

Or that loonly left-wingerthe Patriarch of Constantantinople?

For Patriarch Bartholomew, this is a matter of truthfulness to God, humanity and the created order. He condemns environmental abuse as nothing less than sin! At Santa Barbara in November 1997, he declared:

To commit a crime against the natural world is a sin. For human beings to cause species to become extinct and to destroy the biological diversity of God’s creation; for human beings to degrade the integrity of the earth by causing changes in its climate, by stripping the earth of its natural forests, or by destroying its wetlands; for human beings to injure other human beings with disease by contaminating the earth’s waters, its land, its air, and its life, with poisonous substances – all of these are sins.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Nava

No.

Don’t you agree that having one less child dwarfs any other environmental contribution you can make? not the “you” you, I mean in general.

It makes zero sense for me to promise to have “one less child”. For most of the people in these boards, actually: most of us have already had or not had as many children as we were going to (or not). It makes as much sense for me to focus on how many children I’m going to have as it makes for me to focus on how many frigates to include in my fleet.

I’m not really that concerned about you, me or what any specific individual does, but surely you agree that people do make a decion to have children or not, and that for those that do, it would be possible to choose not to have as many? and that making that choice would have environmental benefits? To agree to the above is no more contentious than it would be to suggest having less international flights would be beneficial.

Being a somewhat-realistic person, I focus on those things I can actually do. Such as place a stepladder close to your soapbox so you can climb down safely, cos that thing sure seems high…

Having less children or no children is quite clearly a realistic option seeing as some people already do so. For various reasons.

I think your response makes a point for me. You seem instinctively uncomfortable and defensive about it. That’s a common reaction and of course it is why we just don’t see that as a cornerstone of the policies being put forward. Greta, as far as I’ve heard, doesn’t have it as the no.1 on her list. You think I’m on a soapbox when I mention less children but judging from your lack of reaction, don’t apply the same standard to others in the thread that talk about what they do.

Why would my family planning be less worthy of approval than someone switching to an electric car?

It isn’t either/or of course. Doing all the other stuff is good, I’m absolutely a fan and I’m sure it gives people a feeling that they are contributing but to barely have any airtime for the topic of overpopulation seems to be missing a massive opportunity, for you to be so dismissive of it seems sadly all too common. If a dragon was burning down your village you may feel that buying flameproof underwear was a good idea, and so it may be, but if the conversation never then strays to actually doing something about the big smoky lizard then I can’t help feeling that you are missing a trick.

As i happens we didn’t have less children for environmental reasons, I’m not holding myself up as a green warrior, but the by-product of having that extra child is absolutely an environmental positive.

[Nava]

@Novelty_Bobble

Don’t you agree that having one less child dwarfs any other environmental contribution you can make? not the “you” you, I mean in general.

I do not agree that what family planning people did 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago should be what they bring to the table when talking about how they affected the environment, given that the effect of family size on “the environment” wasn’t something we were particularly conscious of at that point. “Overpopulation is a problem” yes, but we didn’t put it in terms of “the environment”.

People are talking about stuff they did recently and that they did while knowing it wasn’t good or was bad for the environment; you’re tying to put people to task for things we did decades ago. Also, I’m not saying that your family planning isn’t “worthy of praise”, but I’m definitely saying that requiring everybody to do exactly the same things you do for exactly the same reasons is pretty much the textbook definition of “self-centered”.

And FTR, if you had “one less child than you wanted to” and unless you only wanted one child, I had less children than you. The biosphere had jackshit to do with it, though; therefore, I do not claim it as some “environmentally conscious” thing on my part.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Nava

I do not agree that what family planning people did 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago should be what they bring to the table when talking about how they affected the environment, given that the effect of family size on “the environment” wasn’t something we were particularly conscious of at that point. “Overpopulation is a problem” yes, but we didn’t put it in terms of “the environment”.

I’m only talking about what the conversation should be now, I’m not interested in the choices made in the past. There’s nothing we can do about that.

People are talking about stuff they did recently and that they did while knowing it wasn’t good or was bad for the environment;

Sure, and none of them mentioned having kids have they? knowing what you know about the effects of overpopulation does that not strike you as at least interesting? the single most obvious impact on the environment not mentioned at all until I did so?

you’re tying to put people to task for things we did decades ago.

No I’m not, I very specfically pointing out that the one massive thing that can be done, right now, is the one thing that rarely gets talked about. However many kids I’ve had I could have had one less and done even more. I’m no saint. I point out that having one less child is an environmental good (which it is) but of course it is true that having any at all is an environmental negative (which it is). That is my “sin” (which is a bullshit concept but never mind)

Also, I’m not saying that your family planning isn’t “worthy of praise”, but I’m definitely saying that requiring everybody to do exactly the same things you do for exactly the same reasons is pretty much the textbook definition of “self-centered”.

I’m not “requiring” it. Just pointing out that ignoring it seems like a big mistake and ignores a potentially huge area to address.
And anyway, is not “requiring everyone to do exactly the same things you do” just what the current protestors are demanding? that action be taken to make people have to take a specfic course of action? requiring regulations and laws that ensure people live their lives in a certain way? How is recommending having less children any less self-centered than a cyclist wanting to ban cars from an urban area?

And FTR, if you had “one less child than you wanted to” and unless you only wanted one child, I had less children than you. The biosphere had jackshit to do with it, though; therefore, I do not claim it as some “environmentally conscious” thing on my part.

Nor do I but the fact remains that that single aspect of our lives has had, by far, the greatest environmental impact. There’s nothing in your life that you can do that will even come close. If I bought an electric car because it was cheaper to run and didn’t care at all about the environemental aspect I’d still have done a good thing would I not? I could still point to the good it does even if I didn’t buy it for that reason.

[GIGObuster]

@Novelty_Bobble

I’m not “requiring” it. Just pointing out that ignoring it seems like a big mistake and ignores a potentially huge area to address.

Now, just by experience, the reality is that yes, family planning (that gives people the choice and the recommendation to have fewer kids, not a dictatorial order) has been mentioned before as one item to use that is part of the solutions.

Unfortunately, there are many in the right wing that also do frown on that and have used it before as a weapon to dismiss the rest of what the proponents of change are mentioning as well.

Right-wingers bash Gore for wanting women to have access to birth control

Here’s what Gore said on Monday at the Games for Change Festival in New York City:

One of the things we could do about it is to change the technologies, to put out less of this pollution, to stabilize the population, and one of the principal ways of doing that is to empower and educate girls and women. You have to have ubiquitous availability of fertility management so women can choose how many children to have, the spacing of the children. You have to lift child-survival rates so that parents feel comfortable having small families. And most important, you have to educate girls and empower women. And that’s the most powerful leveraging factor, and when that happens, then the population begins to stabilize and societies begin to make better choices and more balanced choices.

That’s about the most mild and noncontroversial statement anyone could make about population. He didn’t blame human numbers for our environmental problems. He didn’t fret about the world population heading toward 7 billion this year, or 9 billion by 2050. He didn’t say we need to get our fertility rates down. He didn’t say governments should make people have fewer children. He didn’t say people ought to decide on their own to have fewer children. He didn’t mention a single number.

But the ‘wingers are up in arms:

[ul]
[li]“Al Gore branches out into population control theory,” writes climate denier Anthony Watts on his Watts Up With That? blog. Where’s the “control” in Gore’s statement? Well, he does want women to be able to control their own fertility, but that’s hardly an oppressive Chinese-style population-control policy.[/li][li] “Al Gore promotes having fewer children to curb pollution,” writes Joe Newby at Examiner.com. Not a bad idea, but not what Gore said.[/li][li] “Gore said that couples need to learn to ‘feel comfortable having small families’ so that pollution can be curbed,” writes Billy Hallowell at The Blaze. Actually he said that parents might “feel comfortable having small families” if they were confident their kids wouldn’t die young.[/li][/ul]

So what is it that has conservatives’ panties in such a twist? Surely they don’t object to saving babies’ lives and sending girls to school. They do, however, need to maintain their favorite stereotype of greens as fascist quasi-eugenicists who want to control population via tyranny. They do need to keep the focus on their favorite bete noir, Al Gore. And they do — at least some of them — need to find plausible-sounding excuses to go after contraception.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@GIGObuster

Now, just by experience, the reality is that yes, family planning (that gives people the choice and the recommendation to have fewer kids, not a dictatorial order) has been mentioned before as one item to use that is part of the solutions.

Unfortunately, there are many in the right wing that also do frown on that and have used it before as a weapon to dismiss the rest of what the proponents of change are mentioning as well.

Depressing isn’t it? Even introducing it into the conversation seems to be avoided now when really, all the other things are window dressing without tackling overpopulation.

I read a release from the Pope not long ago that presumed to lecture on environmentalism…I’m sure the irony was completely lost on him.

[nelliebly]

Here are my biggest climate sins:

1. I’ve let duped deniers who refuse to take seriously the overwhelming scientific evidence control the conversation for far too long. I thought I was doing something helpful by arguing with them and trying to show how wrong they are and what the consequences will be. It was senseless for me to argue against the flood of misinformation they get from Fox News and the very human moral weakness that leads people to eschew unpleasant reality. I wasted time.

2. I let my carbon footprint concerns lull me into believing I was doing enough. Bullshit. It’s far too little. This is a global issue that requires global economic and political change I should have been pushing for much harder. I’ve pushed locally for upgrades to public transit with some success, but I need to push harder for better regional public transportation.

[Aspenglow]

@nelliebly

Here are my biggest climate sins:

1. I’ve let duped deniers who refuse to take seriously the overwhelming scientific evidence control the conversation for far too long. I thought I was doing something helpful by arguing with them and trying to show how wrong they are and what the consequences will be. It was senseless for me to argue against the flood of misinformation they get from Fox News and the very human moral weakness that leads people to eschew unpleasant reality. I wasted time.

2. I let my carbon footprint concerns lull me into believing I was doing enough. Bullshit. It’s far too little. This is a global issue that requires global economic and political change I should have been pushing for much harder. I’ve pushed locally for upgrades to public transit with some success, but I need to push harder for better regional public transportation.

Beautifully said. Thank you.

[GIGObuster]

@Novelty_Bobble

Depressing isn’t it? Even introducing it into the conversation seems to be avoided now when really, all the other things are window dressing without tackling overpopulation.

Yes, but the point was that that item is not ignored by the ones investigating or reporting about the issue, I will have to check the apparent miss of reports like that one as yet another way the media from the right (and corporate media too) does have control of what items can be talked about in this discussion and how.

@Novelty_Bobble

I read a release from the Pope not long ago that presumed to lecture on environmentalism…I’m sure the irony was completely lost on him.

Sure, that is another reason among many that turned me into a lapsed Catholic.

But as the ones that made the report linked there say:

Want To Slow Global Warming? Researchers Look To Family Planning

But what if potential parents know the science and want to raise their child on a healthy planet? Nicholas remains optimistic.

“Having a child in that case is a vote of hope,” she says. “It’s a vote that the world is going to be a better place and we can actually tackle this challenge.”

Nicholas says in her own life, she and her fiancé are deciding whether they want to cast that vote of hope for themselves.

“Because we care so much about climate change, it is a factor we’re considering. But it’s not the only one.”

[Kropotkin]

@Nava

I do not agree that what family planning people did 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago should be what they bring to the table when talking about how they affected the environment, given that the effect of family size on “the environment” wasn’t something we were particularly conscious of at that point. “Overpopulation is a problem” yes, but we didn’t put it in terms of “the environment”.

Greenpeace was founded in 1971, that is, 48 years ago, and activists even then talked about the huge drain on the planet’s resources by people in the First World. Limiting children was absolutely on the agenda

[Velocity]

Well…I drive a SmartCar and only put maybe 5000 miles on it each year.

I do use a lot of electricity and throw out a lot of plastic though.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@GIGObuster

Yes, but the point was that that item is not ignored by the ones investigating or reporting about the issue,

Incidentally, that was the study that my original post linked to in the Guardian.

I will have to check the apparent miss of reports like that one as yet another way the media from the right (and corporate media too) does have control of what items can be talked about in this discussion and how.

I don’t doubt that members of the media with an agenda will be biased, but they can’t control what Emma Thompson chooses to say, or Greta Thunberg, or force the protesters to only call for certain action on their placards. Or…and here’s the clincher, on this very board and in this very thread they didn’t force every other poster to ignore a choice that has 20 times the impact of anything else.

Here is a link to Greenpeace’s own pageson climate change. No Right Wing Media at play here and yet I’ll leave it to the reader to see how much prominence is given to overpopulation.

[nightshadea]

“I give in to sin its the one thing that makes life liveable” -dave Gohan and me

[GuanoLad]

The problem can’t be solved by the individual. The overwhelming problem is with industry, arguably a countable number of very specific industries. It may feel good to recycle and not use drinking straws, but that’s not actually doing diddly squat. We have to change the people at the top.

Every little bit helps, though.

[GIGObuster]

@Novelty_Bobble

Incidentally, that was the study that my original post linked to in the Guardian.

I don’t doubt that members of the media with an agenda will be biased, but they can’t control what Emma Thompson chooses to say, or Greta Thunberg, or force the protesters to only call for certain action on their placards. Or…and here’s the clincher, on this very board and in this very thread they didn’t force every other poster to ignore a choice that has 20 times the impact of anything else.

Here is a link to Greenpeace’s own pageson climate change. No Right Wing Media at play here and yet I’ll leave it to the reader to see how much prominence is given to overpopulation.

Thing is that you are still ignoring that the item is not ignored, even by Greenpeace.

Does human scale matter? - Greenpeace International

I do get your point, but it is really not good to ignore what even Greenpeace notices, while there is importance in a point about having less humans, it is also clear that regarding climate change the issue can not be simplistically blamed on overpopulation. As GuanoLad points out, reckless choices regarding how technology is used is causing the problem and it would happen even if we stopped increasing the population years ago.

Here I will have to also talk from past experience in discussions like this one, history has shown me that if population was the main factor when a product or technology causes a problem, then an issue like the production and release of ozone layer depletion gases would not had been taken on. But it was, regardless if population increased in the meantime. Point being that, while important, overpopulation is a bit of a red herring in the sense that I have seen many misinformers from powerful interests and the right wing media to use it in an attempt to make many feel despair and not realize that we can indeed make changes to prevent worse scenarios, while still keeping in mind the population increase.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@GIGObuster

Thing is that you are still ignoring that the item is not ignored, even by Greenpeace.

Does human scale matter? - Greenpeace International

I wouldn’t ever claim it was totally ignored, if it were I’d not be able to find articles on it. But surely you agree that it pretty much never gets the attention that its magnitude would warrant.

You quote a Greenpeace story, that’s great, but go to their landing page. Click on their two key buttons “ACT” and “LEARN”. See what jumps out to you on the subject of overpopulation. Plenty on overconsumption and pollution and food and plastics and bees and trees. What is the Greenpeace policy on overpopulation? I’m sure they have one but it is certainly nowhere as prominent as those others. It seems to be the most important conversation never had.

I do get your point, but it is really not good to ignore what even Greenpeace notices, while there is importance in a point about having less humans, it is also clear that regarding climate change the issue can not be simplistically blamed on overpopulation.

I’m against simplistic solutions because they are usually wrong. I’m also against ignoring the hard questions because they are troubling and upsetting and sensitive.

As GuanoLad points out, reckless choices regarding how technology is used is causing the problem

That is an incredibly limited view and only true if you get to limit what the definition of the “problem” is. If the problem is also overconsumption then overpopulation is inextricably linked to that. It also carries with it the implication that better technology is the answer. We can keep consuming and expanding and technology will fix it all.

Here I will have to also talk from past experience in discussions like this one, history has shown me that if population was the main factor when a product or technology causes a problem, then an issue like the production and release of ozone layer depletion gases would not had been taken on. But it was, regardless if population increased in the meantime. Point being that, while important, overpopulation is a bit of a red herring in the sense that I have seen many misinformers from powerful interests and the right wing media to use it in an attempt to make many feel despair and not realize that we can indeed make changes to prevent worse scenarios, while still keeping in mind the population increase.

And if we manage to reduce “type a” pollution by 10% per head in the next decade and increase the world population by 11% over the same time period…then what?

I did clearly say that it wasn’t an either/or propositon. You don’t have to tackle overpopulation before we can do anything else but I question what is being done about it or said about at all.
You say that overpopulation is important and suggest it should be kept in mind. So…is it? do we hear clear policy statements that address it? I say I’m not sure it is and that I’ve heard more on sea plastic and straws in the last year than I have on overpopulation.

Consider it this way. If the science came in tomorrow that showed changing our house construction methods could cut CO2 emissions, per head, by 25 times as much as the next most impactful behaviour (doing without a car), what do you think would be, and should be, the prime focus of our efforts? Would you not find it bizarre if it were not a cornerstone of any discussion on climate change and environmental damage?