This Amazon fire (not to mention the ten billion tons of ice from Greenland) has really gotten some parts of social media down. Some have descended into fatalistic apathy. Others (especially the really leftist folk) are actually advocating violent revolt against governments and the capitalist system itself as the only way to stave off disaster.
This brought to mind a few questions that are sort of separate, but intertwine. I’d appreciate as much response as you feel like giving.
Simplest question: do you have hope for the future, environmentally? If so, why, and if not, how is that affecting your life now and going forward?
One of the things that struck me about the discussion mentioned above is how much a few individuals can screw things up for everyone. Environmental leftists are fond of saying that “we know the names and addresses” of the people behind the handful of huge corporations responsible for most of the environmental damage being done, with the obvious hint/speculation. And, of course, the President of Brazil is the one behind the fires.
Does this say anything about the ability of us “normal folks” to make a difference in general, when a few greedy bastards with direct levers of power can do so much damage? (Again, thinking about the environment, but could be extended to any one of a number of issues.) To be sure, the corporations get their money and the politicians get their votes from the general public, but many argue, as with discussions about Fox News, that it’s intensified and perpetuated by folks already in power. No wonder some people think revolution is the only way out.
I personally think that even if it is the only way out, a revolution changing the global economic and power system (i.e. enough away from capitalism that it’s no longer a major factor in national level affairs) is a nonstarter, especially if we only have by the end of 2020, but even decades from now. It may be a good thing but I just don’t think it’ll happen. Do you agree? What would it take for such a thing to occur?
I think the environment is permanently screwed. However I don’t really think that the atmosphere is going to catch on fire or that I’ll be flooded out (I’m a half mile above sea level) or even that food production will be wiped out to a degree that americans can’t afford it, at least not in my lifetime. So we’re doomed, but not doomed enough for me to panic.
I think that normal folks can do nothing substantive but vote - I think that liberal protests can only influence liberal politicians, and liberal politicians aren’t going to solve the problem.
I also think that attempts to assassinate problematic leaders would not go well, and that if the attempts were successful at the immediate level they would immediately swing public support away from whatever the assassins wanted.
I do not think that a revolution as you describe is possible - you’re talking about an international revolt that literally overthrows governments, which I would consider literally impossible to execute.
I think humanity will survive the environmental crisis. It’ll cost trillions (probably hundreds of trillions) in lost productivity and property damage, but humanity itself will survive. Its going to suck, but its not going to end civilization. I think as time passes, the environment will hopefully get better as we develop more sustainable forms of economics.
THe public have very little influence in these issues.
Humans are by nature flawed, so any revolution will fail. Communism started with good intentions but ended up a total failure because when humans taste power and influence they dont’ wnat to give it up, and enough of the public are sociopaths that they’ll defend any government system (witness the cops in hong kong assaulting protesters standing up for their human rights). I don’t think we can revolution our way out of this. The best bet is to promote development and democracy, and I think people will start to demand more environmental sustainability as that happens.
The environment is very probably screwed, long-term. (As in, “for centuries, at a minimum.”) As for me personally, I think I can say “après moi, le déluge”…but it gives me no joy.
Most individuals nowadays have little or no power to make a significant difference. I don’t think this excuses us from trying.
I’ve been thinking for a while now that international boycotts of environmentally offending countries—right now this includes, though it is not limited to, Brazil and the US—might work in the long run, though not the short run. But I also doubt that many countries will have the nerve to boycott the US.
Nope. We are not going to stop using fossil fuels until we’ve burned the very last drop of oil, the very last crumb of coal. Climate change will not be taken seriously by anyone who can actually do anything about it until it way, WAY too late, which it probably already is. Best thing I can say is the total collapse of civilization will certainly occur after my death. That doesn’t help anyone else, of course.
The only hope–the only hope for the environment in the long term is if some disease evolved or was manufactured that rapidly killed every human on Earth.
That won’t happen. If the leaders of the revolution are sincere, they will argue for a revolution that involves a significantly reduced lifestyle for everyone. And no one will join.
Such a revolution would have to be the poor vs. the rich and the middle class. And the poor would lose badly.
The world has been coming to an end for as long as I have been watching the news. There are going to be coming disasters, which will affect the Third World mostly. The developed nations will be hurt, but survive.
Maybe I am wrong, and we will develop practical fusion, and Third World women will be educated enough to reduce their reproductive rates as has happened in the West. Or maybe this time they’re right, and we are all doomed. But I doubt it.
I have hope for the future of the environment because the worst that mankind can do is make the place uninhabitable for humans. (Other living things, too, unfortunately. But we won’t permanently kill all life. Not possible.) In that case, all the people die. And just like a lawn coming back after a winter, the environment will bounce back like we were never here.
Hope for mankind? We’re fucked. I have two bits of wisdom from Lemmy Kilmister that I will paraphrase:
On the environment/planet: We’re not going to destroy the planet, the planet is made of volcanos. We’re just gonna destroy that bit of it that we need.
On the future of mankind: We’re gonna go down in a great soup, and we’re all gonna turn the spoon.
The more people there are, the more demand for resources, and therefore the greater environmental impact. Also, reducing infant mortality and educating women means women raise fewer, but more educated and therefore more productive children. If the goal is to raise the standard of living for everybody, that’s easier if there are fewer everybodies, IYSWIM.
From what I read most of the plastic going into the ocean is from 3rd world countries and I dont think we in the west can have much say about it other than bring attention to it.
Yes, we’re seeing the natural switch to electric vehicles. When a better battery hits the market it will be the immediate end of ICE cars. It will happen faster than the computer revolution. The cost difference between an E-car that is fun to drive and one that is WTH fun to drive is a few thousand dollars. It will completely change the automotive world.
Do the environmental leftists have the names and addresses of the people who will retaliate against the environment? Crazy cuts both ways.
Is it too late? Well, that depends on too late for what. Climate change is already catastrophic. It can and probably will get more catastrophic. How bad it will be depends on how quickly we act, and the sooner, the better.
I believe an electric vehicle costs roughly $1000 less in fuel to run per year vs an internal combustion engine. An electric car goes 2-3 miles per kwh, and a kwh is about $0.10. A car goes maybe 30 miles on a gallon of gasoline and gasoline can cost $2.50+.
Over ten years the fuel savings alone add up to 10k or so. But if you have to replace the battery that’ll eat up some of the savings. However supposedly EVs have lower maintenance cost than ICE due to fewer moving parts.
However the nissan leaf can be bought cheaply on the used market, and they aren’t all being snapped up. So I don’t know if electric vehicles will replace ICE just because they are cheaper.
I think the current problem with electric vehicles is you still need a gas powered one as a backup for larger trips. Also while something like a Leaf or Prius is a good small commuter car, its not good for hauling alot of people or isnt a pickup truck or isnt an suv.
First off, the Earth is fine, at least for a few hundred million or so years. H. sapiens and many other species might bite the dust, but the planet and life will endure.
As to the OP’s questions:
As my sig line suggests, I am optimistic. Things might get bad before they get better but they will get better. We’ve been making great strides in EVs and renewables, progress is being made on developing workable fusion power. More investment in fission power is necessary, but we just need a good salesman for it.
Revolutions rarely work out, especially when they’re based on radical ideologies. Destroying existing power structures is easy when compared to actually running things. Most revolutionaries end up becoming totalitarian dictators or being less revolutionary than they seemed (see Sun Yat-sen developing rail-roads on china and George Washington wrt the Whiskey Rebellion). Any “environmental revolution” would cause massive carbon emissions while being fought and if successful (and that’s a BIG IF) would require really complicated overhauls of just about everything. Good luck making that work. Better to use our votes and try to educate people as best we can (without coming off as dicks which is easy but counter-effective).