Climate change happens and has happened throughout history. Don’t confuse weather with Climate. Also, keep in mind that with social media you are hearing about EVERYTHING that happens, versus before social media only the big stuff made it through. There are a lot of agendas out there and usually at the end of the fear road is profit for the people propagating it.
In my opinion, working in transportation infrastructure and on several resiliency committees, climate change is not worth worrying about. Work on it? Sure, there are great career fields in resiliency and sustainability. Very interesting stuff. Look up Galveston Wave Barrier system to protect Port Houston. Nuclear fusion for energy. Ocean coast fortification, Univ of Miami using artificial reefs to protect coastline infrastructure, coral and new habitats.
Humans are great a f-ing things up, but one of our greatest skills is finding solutions too. Do a little research at how we are adapting to these issues and the fear will subside. It may be replaced by being pissed off that we are not deploying more of this! : )
Keep lifting! 40 years here and still going. Strange how all your worries disappear with a bunch of weight on top of you!
To whom should public officials and elected representatives listen when laws about safeguarding the environment are made? In fact, to whom, other than experts in the field, should questions about objective reality be directed when making laws concerning those fields, such as health, finance, transportation, space exploration, whatever?
This is not a gotcha question. I am genuinely interested in understanding the (perhaps not so obvious) tension between the posts I have excerpted above.
As to the tension between the posts, it boils down to the utililty of (insert scientific development here) compared to the costs to benefit ratio experienced by society. Scientific development in oil and natural gas, for instance, has resulted in a product that people want because it is incredibly useful and makes their lives much better. The state did not need to coerce the public into switching from horses to automobiles.
As computer science developed, it was not necessary for the government to artificially inflate the price of typewriters to encourage word processors, nor did we need to outlaw the use of vacuum tubes and mechanical gears as transistors and microprocessors came into fruition. The utility was self-evident and people were eager to apply the new technology.
The big difference with so-called “green” initiatives boils down to government coercion. That’s why my state of Maine is seriously discussing things like EV mandates and has already implemented a series of policies that has resulted in us having one of the most expensive electricity costs out of any state in the USA while marring the landscape with windmills on our mountain peaks.
Experts are always a good start.
Experts who disagree with the experts and, this is the most important part, experts in other fields. Humans are unpredictable monkeys and public policy is multi-factored.
Take the Netherlands, for instance. It seems as though nobody asked the experts in farming if the nitrogen emission policy of the climate experts would work out for them.
I suppose it could be argued, but I’m about to hop in my 300 horsepower sedan to go to the mountains in 15 degree weather, which will cost less than 20 dollars in fuel.
I’ll contemplate the relative merits of making that trip with one horsepower from my heated and very comfortable seat. I won’t have as much time to think about it as I would on horseback since it will only take a little more than an hour to get there.
Legislation of scarcity. If it won’t occur naturally it must be created.
People: “We have plenty of food! Yay!”
EU legislators: “like hell you do. You’re gonna be eating bugs by the time we get done with you.”.
Edit: With that in mind, the general population has good reason to be anxious. The power brokers of the world that either purchase legislation or make it themselves are basically untouchable, and have created a pretty sophisticated loop of self serving at the expense of the people they represent.
So, once these essential food production methods have been garroted, which 3rd world nations, outside or exempt from these restrictions, will be producing the needed food?
Hows it going to get from where its grown to where it is eaten? Transport & distribution networks, permissions for import & export? Tarrifs & trade agreements?
I’d be anxious too. Thats a lot of decision making outside of the hands that need fed and into the hands of people who don’t really give a fuck how much your food costs or whether or not you have enough of it.
I don’t get that either. It used to be a sign of someone who had some serious affiliations.
Now kids from the suburbs and onlyfans bitchez be all tatted up on their face & necks like they just got out of their third life sentence and they’re looking for a fourth.
“Yo, dis one fo muh homies in da cul-de-sac livin dat rug life. Fo real. Wall to wall berber muthafucka!”.
Terms like Climate Change, Authoritarianism and Complex Solutions are just trigger words used to distract us.
I spent a few minutes learning that Tanzania could help retain ground water by planting a bunch of trees. And they could improve the quality of the ground water (and save money) by using less phosphorus in agriculture.
Then, i learned that farmers in the Netherlands could reduce nitrogen in cow manure (and save money) by feeding the cows less protein.
Solutions to these problems don’t need to be oppressive or even difficult.
Also, shout out to farmers in the Netherlands. The government put limits or their use of fungicides, and there were lots of losses to fungus. So they developed a way to use amino acids to make plants fungus resistant, eliminating the need for fungicides and improving yields.
You’re so concerned with frogs you didn’t see that environmental issues can be solved, costs can be cut and prosperity expanded by using Less phosphorus and Less protein.
