Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 22

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 22

Unread postby Plantagenet » Wed 17 Jun 2020, 11:01:45

REAL Green wrote: It is clear industrial agriculture cannot go away with 7BIL people but some of the 1BIL that are high consumers not by choice but by need might be moved to lower consumption lifestyles that would actually support and buffer the high energetic areas by being a governor of activity. This is basically human ecosystem engineering. It creates a niche for localism to prosper and this prospering would support energetic areas.


The actual population of the world is 7.65 billion people, and going higher.

I must say I disagree with your plan to reduce the living standards of 1 billion people to better support the remaining 6.5 billion, because it doesn't solve the problem. Population is on track to continue growing, so in a couple of decades you would have to further reduce living standards to support 8 billion people, and then reduce standards again to support 9 billion people, etc. etc. If your goal is a hugely overpopulated planet filled with 10 billion impoverished people, then thats what you will get.

IMHO it makes more sense to address the problem head-on and focus more attention on reaching zero population growth (ZPG) and then move to negative population growth (NPG). Since most rapid population growth today is occurring amoung the 6.5 billion non-affluent people of the world, such a program would target this group for programs in birth control. Once the planet reach ZPG, then additional program could be instituted to move to NPG. The advantage of my plan is that it directly addresses the real problem facing the world today, and that is overpopulation.

ONLY by reducing population can we actually see reductions in consumption.

Cheers!
The lack of speed has to go faster---Joe Biden
I will defeat Joe Biden---Joe Biden
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 23602
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 22

Unread postby dohboi » Wed 17 Jun 2020, 12:04:23

RG, P is articulating a mantra that is basically religion for some (even some otherwise rather thoughtful) folks around here.

You can try to use various points of blindingly obvious logic, as I have many times, but it just seems to bounce right off them.

It is come kind of tribal thing, I suppose.

Sad
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19318
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 22

Unread postby REAL Green » Wed 17 Jun 2020, 19:36:41

Plantagenet wrote: ONLY by reducing population can we actually see reductions in consumption. Cheers!


Plant, you remind me of the Dick from the Bush era "The American Way of Life is Non-negotiable" LOL. The planet will reduce population and consumption when it does. Humans will acquiesce or protest but the planet is the driver not the other way around. Humans can make it so much worse or somewhat less bad. Either way there are consequences that are unavoidable. Payment is coming due.

As far as the whole “population reduction is key” thingy, that is another dead end. There is no agreement on population is the problem. BTW, population reduction is a degrowth reality. It changes human dynamics and is not a growth meme. In fact, economist are whining we need more population growth in developed countries because aspects of degrowth are appearing from demographic shifts.

My POV is not I have answers to what I consider a trap or predicament, my POV is acceptance and from acceptance going forth in a new way of living but still grounded in the reality of the trap of the status quo. My Green Prepping is relevant for the individual up to the small community of likeminded people. It will not scale globally or nationally. Degrowth will not be seen in any country as a platform. It is only competitive for the individual and small group. On the global level it is national suicide.

I am honest about the science and science of solutions. I have been studying decline for 2 decades now and in the last 14 years living it. I am now a teacher of it. What better way to teach than to live it! BTW, I have the time and money so I have much more respect for those who don’t but still embrace what I am talking about. It is like the rich man donating money compared to the poor person. The poor person is doing it for real the rich a tax write-off. I am humble because of this.

I may be wrong but when I view the planet and the web of life, I feel like I am on to something. I am emulating the planet instead of believing false narratives of grandeur of human intelligence. Humans are the problem and their tech their false god. I am siding with the planet and the web of life realistically. The realistically means acceptance and I will make an effort to do less harm. That’s it and if I spend a lot of time talking about this stuff it is just the academic side of me exploring an alternative narrative. I am seeking to get closer to the truth. Meaning is real value and all else is transitory. It is not a narrative many will ever embrace but those who do I feel will be rewarded.
realgreenadaptation.blog
User avatar
REAL Green
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Thu 09 Apr 2020, 04:29:28
Location: MO Ozarks

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 22

Unread postby REAL Green » Wed 17 Jun 2020, 19:51:43

dohboi wrote:You can try to use various points of blindingly obvious logic, as I have many times, but it just seems to bounce right off them.


Dohboi, I recommend stop fighting it. Let your demons become angles so to speak. What I mean is embrace planetary and human succession. It is a reality. Embracing succession has different meaning for people depending on where you are at with people, place, and age. What is common to all is the planet and civilization will follow a path that is beyond human intervention. This is a self-organizing force. Humans might intervene but that intervention is nothing more than a planetary intervention. There is no separating the two. This is the farce of the human intellect. The ego separating itself as if it is outside looking in thinking it can tweak the gears of the great clock and make it run on time. We are nothing more than geologic acquiescence. Let go of your passions of fixing what cannot be fixed and it will be fixed. What unfolds is what is supposed to unfold. That just my experience. If you are young you probably will be driven by passions and piss and vinegar. I am getting old and tired so it is easier just to accept. When I was young I was captivated by idealism.
realgreenadaptation.blog
User avatar
REAL Green
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Thu 09 Apr 2020, 04:29:28
Location: MO Ozarks

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 22

Unread postby Ibon » Wed 17 Jun 2020, 20:04:25

REAL Green wrote: Let go of your passions of fixing what cannot be fixed and it will be fixed. What unfolds is what is supposed to unfold. That just my experience. If you are young you probably will be driven by passions and piss and vinegar. I am getting old and tired so it is easier just to accept. When I was young I was captivated by idealism.


Buddha wisdom in times of human ecological overshoot.
Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com
User avatar
Ibon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 8604
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 22

Unread postby dohboi » Thu 18 Jun 2020, 01:35:31

Looks like RG and Ib need to get a room together some place! :-D :-D

I actually studied and practiced Buddhism for years under a couple different 'roshis'/masters in my youth, essentially living as a monk, though not in a monestary.

So maybe I just got it upside down--acceptance when I was young, piss and vinegar in my dotage! :lol: :lol:
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19318
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 22

Unread postby REAL Green » Thu 18 Jun 2020, 05:21:21

dohboi wrote:Looks like RG and Ib need to get a room together some place! :-D :-D I actually studied and practiced Buddhism for years under a couple different 'roshis'/masters in my youth, essentially living as a monk, though not in a monestary. So maybe I just got it upside down--acceptance when I was young, piss and vinegar in my dotage! :lol: :lol:


I have read lots of Alan Watts and he connects the east and west together marvelously! I actually enjoy Taoism most. It fits into my REAL Green of staying bellow the radar screen as greater powers war on themselves. This is the environment of when Taoism was born in the Chinese waring states period. Buddhism and green go together also because a Buddhist is natural and does not seek to subjugate nature like Christians have done since the age of the enlightenment. Europeans sought to control nature and now we see the results of this folly with the industrial Anthropocene. Even our green stuff is industrial so how can modern life ever be truly green! One needs only enjoy the Buddhist art to see this embracing of the natural and then modern art of Hollywood with pyrotechnics BS of death and destruction.

Dohboi, the only reason I thought you might be younger is you are very passionate about climate change and often that is a young man's passion. In any case keep in mind with my REAL Green the acceptance and being realistic in a life of traps and predicaments does not excuse bad behavior. It says some of it is inevitable and locked in. Society and the individual should make efforts to lower carbon missions. Just because climate may be lost does not mean more forcing is OK. We may make it less bad if we start behaving rationally. This is why I have embraced low carbon harvesting and gathering. REAL Green is also Green.

I combine care for the planet with a more resilient and sustainable local that makes REAL Green also a prepping strategy. The prepping strategy enlists the REAL Green behavior of acceptance and being realistic to motivate to prep. Prepping increases redundancy and calls for an individual to decline in place defensively. This allows it to dovetail with being green with conservation, efficiency, and green tech. I am not at all bad-mouthing renewables. I am significantly solar. I want an EV small car or truck and also a small farm tractor if a good value ever comes along. My REAL Green says be realistic about renewables. This Green New Deal talk is fantasy. What Europe is doing with policy goals of 100% renewables is fantasy. They are not going to save the status quo of the car culture of growth.

So if you are passionate about climate change don't stop that. It is vital for the young to lower emissions even if it may be the case it will not stave off collpase. The old should lead by example for the young even though it is the young that will see the worst not the old. Part of the problem with constructive change today is the old have the money and don’t want to give up their comforts. Renewables are a tech strategy that is more resilient and sustainable. My point is they are still techie and REAL Green says behavior must come first and tech follow. I do not endorse them as something that can green up human behavior of overconsumption and overpopulation. Today renewables and their cousin EV’s are just enabling more consumption. Fossil Fuels demand is still strong with no let up in sight with natgas and oil. It is wonderful coal is phasing out but oil and natgas are not.

Imagine a world of 2BIL with a common goal of decarbonizing! It is possible a world like this could find a way to decarbonize and preventing runaway climate change but I doubt stave off eventual collapse. In any case I personally think climate change is now beyond human repair. It is in abrupt change by its own dynamics from centuries of human forcing. So REAL Green calls for adaptation and mitigation based upon a planetary force. Emulate the planet and follow her course of succession. Succession is destructive change that allows niches of constructive change. REAL Green says be adaptive and find a niche that will open up. So finally, REAL Green is a succession strategy of finding a place in a destructing world. It says degrowth individually in a retreat in force. Use the dirty status quo world to get greener. If you are a lucky one and can go TRUE Green like an aboriginal then I salute you. Most of us are carbon trapped in path dependencies of a late stage globalistic capitalism. I in no way want to discourage climate protesting people just get them closer to acceptance than anger.
realgreenadaptation.blog
User avatar
REAL Green
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Thu 09 Apr 2020, 04:29:28
Location: MO Ozarks

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 22

Unread postby dissident » Sat 20 Jun 2020, 14:17:40

The premise that dialing down the global population is a solution to all of humanity's problems is absurd. It assumes that there are intrinsic per capita limits on greed and potential to abuse resources including the biosphere and climate. This is pure nonsense. If there were one billion people on Earth, the consumption of fossil fuels could be similar depending on the lifestyle choices. In the current reality resource limits and climate change are forcing some control on consumption. In a world with apparent unlimited supply the consumption trajectory would explode with time. Think of early 1970s V8 gas guzzlers. With gasoline a few cents to the liter who would care about fuel injectors and economy? People would be driving around in land boats just like they were doing before the OPEC crisis. Heating houses and apartment blocks could be done with cheap oil.

BTW, the period circa 1970 only shows what a fraction of the global population would do. Recall that global development back then was much lower with the "west" having over 70% of the global GDP. Over time, even if the population of the globe was fixed at one billion, deus ex machina, there would be development and propagation of the resource over-consumption to the whole planet. So it is more than guaranteed that this one billion population reality would be consuming more than our over 7 billion population reality is consuming today. Thus, no sustainability anywhere to be seen.

The problem is entropy. Any human society is a system subject to entropy regardless if it is open. Only hard constraints such as peak oil (which is real in spite of all the yapping about non-conventional) force conservation. Without them, the sky is the limit.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5918
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 22

Unread postby REAL Green » Sat 20 Jun 2020, 17:16:23

dissident wrote:The premise that dialing down the global population is a solution to all of humanity's problems is absurd...If there were one billion people on Earth, the consumption of fossil fuels could be similar depending on the lifestyle choices...Over time, even if the population of the globe was fixed at one billion, deus ex machina, there would be development and propagation of the resource over-consumption to the whole planet. So it is more than guaranteed that this one billion population reality would be consuming more than our over 7 billion population reality is consuming today. Thus, no sustainability anywhere to be seen.


People equal growth. Less people less growth. The scale differential may depend on the technological capacity some but the economics of 1/7 of the population’s consumption in relation to current 7BIL consumption is obvious. This is especially true in regards to food and shelter. I seriously doubt one billion could consume what 7BIL consume today in any circumstance. I also think to have the technological society we have takes a global population of 5-7BIL. This is because of economies of scale and diverse and dispersed value chains.

Population reductions are critical to the successful mitigation and adaptation to human problems. Since humans are in a predicament of overshoot with a planet in succession even dropping population is likely not a fix. We probably are doomed to decline and collpase. This may take a very long time and be regional but decline it likely will be.

The economics of population activity says population decline is critical to mitigating overshoot. It is also the case that until populations decline with adapted human behavior away from seeking affluence then consumption can hardly be slowed. It is also likely that lower consumption means less people because of the economics of economies of scale and industrial monocultures. Human activity supports more consumption less activity less. Technology has limits. People will strive to be more affluent and in doing so will consume more. We have 7BIL today because of the car culture of growth. Without that I imagine the best the world could do is 2BIL.
realgreenadaptation.blog
User avatar
REAL Green
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Thu 09 Apr 2020, 04:29:28
Location: MO Ozarks

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 22

Unread postby dohboi » Sat 20 Jun 2020, 17:57:18

"The premise that dialing down the global population is a solution to all of humanity's problems is absurd"

Thanks, dis.

about 20% of the world population consume some 80% of the resources.

So if you want to curb world population, start with that group, basically anyone making more than probably about $10,000 dollars a year or with over something like $ 50,000 in accumulated wealth.

The wealthiest five people probably 'consume' more than about 50% of the worlds poorest.

There is not limit to greed and consumption
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19318
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 22

Unread postby REAL Green » Sat 20 Jun 2020, 18:14:45

dohboi wrote:The wealthiest five people probably 'consume' more than about 50% of the worlds poorest.


How do you figure! You are just being sarcastic right? LOL. The 5 wealthiest people have digital wealth. Their consumption is limited by being an animal. The many technologies enhance that some but not much. How many private jet flights can they make or how many large yacht trips? The rest of it is minuscule to the bigger picture. This whole idea of rich and aggregate consumption is so off the mark. The real consumption comes from economies with rich and poor forming an economic engine.
realgreenadaptation.blog
User avatar
REAL Green
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Thu 09 Apr 2020, 04:29:28
Location: MO Ozarks

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 22

Unread postby dohboi » Sat 20 Jun 2020, 20:19:20

consumption roughly tracks wealth. that has been the conclusion of every environmental footprint study since the the idea first arose.

These asshats have multiple mansions, multiple jets, yachts...fly their dogs around

Just because you can't imagine how one person can consume that much doesn't mean it isn't possible

incredulity is not proof or even evidence

not to mention that much of their 'digital' wealth is generated by investments in coal, oil, tourism, auto companies, cruise companies, mining companies, 'defense' aka war industries...lots of very, very dirty stuff
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19318
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 22

Unread postby REAL Green » Sun 21 Jun 2020, 06:08:03

dohboi wrote:consumption roughly tracks wealth. that has been the conclusion of every environmental footprint study since the the idea first arose.

Yes, I agree so consumption is clearly the other side of the coin from population but they go hand in hand at this point in time because of how large populations are. Population as large as they are and growing with poor who are striving to become affluent is a deadly combination for the planet. Anyone who discounts this and says consumption is the root of the footprint problem is disregarding half the problem. The amount of food and space needed for this population overshoot impacts the planet in many ways just as the wealthy 1BIL impact the planet with consumption. Population and consumption are macro footprints meaning in aggregate both need to be reduced because both are at destructive levels. They are micro footprints to be adapted. We can as an individual adapt our consumption footprint obviously. We can procreate less or not at all to show a lower population footprint. What is also the case is consumption adaptation is limited by the carbon trap and path dependencies we are in. An economy can only degrowth so much without a crash. A crash is dirty and will have a larger footprint than a managed decline. Population degrowth is also a problem because it represents degrowth that impacts the economy. It is lower economic activity. Both legs of the problem really need management for reductions to achieve desired goals.

dohboi wrote:These asshats have multiple mansions, multiple jets, yachts...fly their dogs around Just because you can't imagine how one person can consume that much doesn't mean it isn't possible incredulity is not proof or even evidence


You have an emotional attachment that many have who are resentful of wealth and their large consumption but my point is they do not represent that large a number and as animals they can only eat so much and move around so much. Their individual summation does not impact as much as billions. The situation is complexed also. The nature of globalism and capitalism is a rich class moves macro growth. Some individual rich are parasitic and do little but consume. The nature of late stage capitalism is a brittle growth with embedded privilege. This becomes destructive to the social fabric because of fairness and opportunity to other talent.

With consumption it really is the economic engine of rich and poor that is the consumption variable to be managed. Yet for this process of managed degrowth to start we need to outlaw the toys of the rich but that will have consequences by putting many less wealthy out of business who manage their toys. So, keep in mind any of these actions have consequences that need to be understood.

It is my feeling a managed degrowth would start with these toys and reduce them but also modern sports, Hollywood, and modern energetic leisure. We would focus on emergency and vital services to keep energetic. Food production and home economics adapted with more people staying home and doing food and shelter chores IOW localism. In a world of managed degrowth both the population and consumption of the macro and micro would be addressed. Population controls and also lower consumption targeting behaviors that are not vital. This means the rich and their consumption but also the less wealthy who are more numerous and their toys. This of course has zero possibility of a platform but it should be understood as what could work.

dohboi wrote:not to mention that much of their 'digital' wealth is generated by investments in coal, oil, tourism, auto companies, cruise companies, mining companies, 'defense' aka war industries...lots of very, very dirty stuff


Digital wealth is a macro wealth that some individuals control. It really is all our wealth but the fact the rich have little incentive to change the use of this wealth means they are a big problem with why consumption will be so difficult to adapt to a policy of degrowth. The rich many times are old too and the old understand they will die sooner so they want to hold on to their comforts they worked hard for all their lives. They want to pass this on to their families to live like they do.

My point is that a rich person’s foot print although large is not in aggregate as big as large populations in the micro. A very high net worth rich individual in no way consume what a mega city consumes. But where they impact the equation is the decisions of change which is a huge force to be upset about. They control the strings of change and they have little incentive to change. Population is likewise an issue at the levels it is at and the poor choose not to change their actions which is also a control issue at the other end. This is all complex at the macro and complicated at the micro but my ultimate point is both are carrying capacity issues.
realgreenadaptation.blog
User avatar
REAL Green
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Thu 09 Apr 2020, 04:29:28
Location: MO Ozarks

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 22

Unread postby dohboi » Sun 21 Jun 2020, 11:53:47

I think we are in basic agreement that both consumption levels and population are important.

Are you or anyone you know planning to have five kids? If not, then you should be focusing primarily on the part of the problem that you and those you know represent, imvho.

If you want to do something effective (and humane) about population, support women's education, women's rights to control decisions about their own bodies, etc. Those have been shown to be among the most effective means of controlling populations growth rates.

For the record, I have no resentment toward the rich, in the sense of wanting to be like them. I do resent people who thoughtlessly harm the earth, especially those most responsible. Don't you? (Or is have you passed beyond such petty emotions in your state of Zen Satori, having passed far beyond the other shore, etc etc :lol: :lol: :lol: ) But, I don't dwell on it...just point out when others are trying to be overly apologetic toward them.

Here is a thoughtful, I think, piece on the issue:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... tal-damage

...The disastrous effects of spending power are compounded by the psychological impacts of being wealthy. Plenty of studies show that the richer you are, the less you are able to connect with other people. Wealth suppresses empathy. One paper reveals that drivers in expensive cars are less likely to stop for people using pedestrian crossings than drivers in cheap cars. Another revealed that rich people were less able than poorer people to feel compassion towards children with cancer. Though they are disproportionately responsible for our environmental crises, the rich will be hurt least and last by planetary disaster, while the poor are hurt first and worst. The richer people are, the research suggests, the less such knowledge is likely to trouble them...

User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19318
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 22

Unread postby JuanP » Sun 21 Jun 2020, 12:53:17

dohboi wrote:I think we are in basic agreement that both consumption levels and population are important.

Are you or anyone you know planning to have five kids? If not, then you should be focusing primarily on the part of the problem that you and those you know represent, imvho.

If you want to do something effective (and humane) about population, support women's education, women's rights to control decisions about their own bodies, etc. Those have been shown to be among the most effective means of controlling populations growth rates.
[/quote]

Absolutely! Research has proven that providing women with access to education, jobs, family planning, a good life, and contraceptives is the most productive way to reduce population growth.

And, of course we should all try to consume less, particularly those of us who have more.

Population numbers and personal consumption are the two factors that control resource use and environmental costs, and both need to be considered.
Only Americans can hurt America.
Dwight D. Eisenhower
JuanP
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 637
Joined: Sat 16 Aug 2014, 14:06:32

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 22

Unread postby REAL Green » Sun 21 Jun 2020, 14:10:26

dohboi wrote:I think we are in basic agreement that both consumption levels and population are important.

Yea, I agree.

dohboi wrote:Are you or anyone you know planning to have five kids? If not, then you should be focusing primarily on the part of the problem that you and those you know represent, imvho.


I would adapt that a bit. In the rich of the developed world both east and west a kid is much more potent a factor of consumption then in the poor world of 7BIL. So, in reality I would say the 1BIL rich should be observing a maximum of a 2-child policy. If they want to be TRUE Green, they should only have one. Those areas of the poor world that are in overshoot with population should restrict the number of kids to the same levels but not because they impact consumption as much as their population carrying capacity has already been breached.

dohboi wrote:If you want to do something effective (and humane) about population, support women's education, women's rights to control decisions about their own bodies, etc. Those have been shown to be among the most effective means of controlling populations growth rates. .


I agree but keep in mind this will do little to bring populations down in time. It is obvious sustainable development policies are just development polices. Capitalism steps in and takes over the local economy and in many cases makes the local of people and place less humane and fair. The empowerment of women is ineffective because sustainable development leads to more consumption. What appears to be affective in the developed world in lowering population with affluence but then the bad side of affluence is increased consumption. It is almost a catch22 trap.

dohboi wrote:For the record, I have no resentment toward the rich, in the sense of wanting to be like them. I do resent people who thoughtlessly harm the earth, especially those most responsible. Don't you? (Or is have you passed beyond such petty emotions in your state of Zen Satori, having passed far beyond the other shore, etc etc :lol: :lol: :lol: ) But, I don't dwell on it...just point out when others are trying to be overly apologetic toward them.


I was once on the path to being very rich and I left that world because it did not offer me spiritual satisfaction. If I act like I know the rich I do. My family is wealthy. I know many wealthy people. Many don’t give a shit about the planet and this does bother me. This is why I am pursuing REAL Green (realgreenadaptation.blog). I want to find a way to reach out to the rich to find greater spiritual satisfaction by embracing personal degrowth policies. In a relative sense of the trap they are in of people, place, and economic reality I try to provide ways for them to embrace less affluence and more poverty of things but offset this with more spiritual affluence from meaning.

dohboi wrote: Here is a thoughtful, I think, piece on the issue: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... tal-damage
...The disastrous effects of spending power are compounded by the psychological impacts of being wealthy. Plenty of studies show that the richer you are, the less you are able to connect with other people. Wealth suppresses empathy. One paper reveals that drivers in expensive cars are less likely to stop for people using pedestrian crossings than drivers in cheap cars. Another revealed that rich people were less able than poorer people to feel compassion towards children with cancer. Though they are disproportionately responsible for our environmental crises, the rich will be hurt least and last by planetary disaster, while the poor are hurt first and worst. The richer people are, the research suggests, the less such knowledge is likely to trouble them...


That is a nice reference. I find that the richer you are the harder it is to adapt to decline. I do think there is a level of wealth that is optimum to provide resources and educations to impact the planet positively.
realgreenadaptation.blog
User avatar
REAL Green
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Thu 09 Apr 2020, 04:29:28
Location: MO Ozarks

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 22

Unread postby asg70 » Sun 21 Jun 2020, 17:42:05

REAL Green wrote:This is why I am pursuing REAL Green (realgreenadaptation.blog):


There is a very small percentage of the people that are mentally capable of being “quality” and just as few bless with the resources to be nurtured to the awakened state.


Image

BOLD PREDICTIONS
-Billions are on the verge of starvation as the lockdown continues. (yoshua, 5/20/20)

HALL OF SHAME:
-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.
-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.
asg70
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3969
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 22

Unread postby REAL Green » Sun 21 Jun 2020, 18:02:33

asg70 wrote:
REAL Green wrote:This is why I am pursuing REAL Green (realgreenadaptation.blog):


There is a very small percentage of the people that are mentally capable of being “quality” and just as few bless with the resources to be nurtured to the awakened state.


Image



Everyone counts when so few have what it takes. I take this activity seriously becuase I care about the planet. Laugh all you want I appreciate the exposure.
realgreenadaptation.blog
User avatar
REAL Green
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Thu 09 Apr 2020, 04:29:28
Location: MO Ozarks

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 22

Unread postby dohboi » Sun 21 Jun 2020, 20:16:50

I admit that my stats above were approximations. Here's a study that came up with stats from actual research (imagine that! :) ):

The rich eat the planet

doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-16941-y

"the world’s top 10% of income earners are responsible for between 25 and 43% of environmental impact.

In contrast, the world’s bottom 10% income earners exert only around 3–5% of environmental impact

the growth paradigm is hegemonic, i.e. the perception that economic growth solves all kinds of societal problems, that it equals progress, power and welfare and that it can be made practically endless through some form of supposedly green or sustainable growth

Long-term and concurrent human and planetary wellbeing will not be achieved in the Anthropocene if affluent overconsumption continues, spurred by economic systems that exploit nature and humans.

We find that, to a large extent, the affluent lifestyles of the world’s rich determine and drive global environmental and social impact.

Moreover, international trade mechanisms allow the rich world to displace its impact to the global poor.

Not only can a sufficient decoupling of environmental and detrimental social impacts from economic growth not be achieved by technological innovation alone, but also the profit-driven mechanism of prevailing economic systems prevents the necessary reduction of impacts and resource utilisation


( I still think these are underestimates of the impact of the richest, but the general point is clear)

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16941-y

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16941-y
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19318
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 22

Unread postby REAL Green » Mon 22 Jun 2020, 04:26:18

dohboi wrote:"the world’s top 10% of income earners are responsible for between 25 and 43% of environmental impact. In contrast, the world’s bottom 10% income earners exert only around 3–5% of environmental impact


This is a vital topic and for me one that points to a predicament that can’t be fixed. The 10% of income earners are the rich 1BIL globally which is responsible for the lion share of resource usage but also productive economic activity. This is the car culture of growth and consumerism. This allows us to feed and shelter 7BIL. Keep in mind the other 6BIL have been allowed to grow to that size by the activity of the other 1BIL but also large populations have allowed economies of scale allowing a rich 1BIL to be as rich as they are. It is clear it takes wealth to generate the infrastructure to allow so many people. The 6BIL have a profound impact on local environment with land use, water use, and ecological damage. So, the 3-5% environmental impact is deceptive because it is looking at the very poor 1BIL that are the bottom 10%. It is the other 5BIL in-between rich and poor because of the sheer size that are so destructive to the actual impact to land, water, and the web of life and the reason I say population is the problem too.

dohboi wrote:the growth paradigm is hegemonic, i.e. the perception that economic growth solves all kinds of societal problems, that it equals progress, power and welfare and that it can be made practically endless through some form of supposedly green or sustainable growth. Long-term and concurrent human and planetary wellbeing will not be achieved in the Anthropocene if affluent overconsumption continues, spurred by economic systems that exploit nature and humans. We find that, to a large extent,[b] the affluent lifestyles of the world’s rich determine and drive global environmental and social impact. Moreover, international trade mechanisms allow the rich world to displace its impact to the global poor.


I agree and that is what REAL Green is all about but the difference is you are not going to change this paradigm except around the margins or by a decline process or collpase. This is a carbon trap with path dependencies. If being fair works in the current system then it would have been done long ago, it doesn’t. You are trying to focus on a few very high net worth individuals as the problem and the poorer (rich) of the 1BIL as not as much a problem. You are also trying to diminish the 5BIL who are poor but still rich enough for their huge size to amplify damage. This is an issue of an economic system which is an energy and resource engine requiring rich and poor. We are all in this together. I am not making excuses for the rich. The very rich do disproportionate damage but there are not many of them compared to the billions. Population is an issue too as well as wealth.

I call for society to embrace and decline in a managed “wise” poverty. This is REAL Green and if everyone did it this would buy the world more time but just a little. The human paradigm is not sustainable and the resilience is brittle to change. Humans are now a keystone species that have adapted the world in a climax of resource use that is an ecological overshoot with both population and consumption. The reason I promote this REAL Green is this is the force in operation with the planet and her systems but also the web of life. It is self-organizing and beyond human management except to destroy it. The adaption is only around the margins. With the web of life, it is succession of a more complex and stable to a less complex and unstable. With the planet it is a systems in flux disrupting the stable needed for the web of life. The web of human life is also in decline and decay.

Population is right there with consumption. The reason this is true is the amount of the planet inhabited. Mega cities are serious sources of consumption and waste. Even poor people are aspiring to be more affluent. This means the consumption of the 1BIL doing so much damage is growing through new rich. I disagree this is only the problem of the very high net worth rich. It is a problem of a billion rich of the global developed world plus the other 5BIL aspiring to be rich because of their size. This includes Asia too. It I wrong to point fingers at the only the west even though the west created this system. It is you and me who are part of the 1BIL rich.

There is no way to green up 7BIL people. We could maybe green up 2BIL a little. The fact is humans can’t be greened up much and we will eventually suffer consequences. It is the rich 1BIL that produce most of the tech, goods, and wealth the other 7BIL depend on. The problem is also what change that could be done is not possible because of the economic system’s practices that are accepted by all to allow competitive cooperation. The alternative is war of one group over the other. War like this would destroy the world as we know it.

dohboi wrote: Not only can a sufficient decoupling of environmental and detrimental social impacts from economic growth not be achieved by technological innovation alone, but also the profit-driven mechanism of prevailing economic systems prevents the necessary reduction of impacts and resource utilisation


I totally agree and this is why the modern green movement is FAKE Green and in denial. They are not in denial of the problem they are in denial there are solutions to this predicament. They are part of the 1BIL rich that are the problem IMA. These wealthy educated academics, scientist, and activist don’t want to be poor. They do not even want to slide down the economic ladder at all. Nobody does and this is the reason I say we are path dependent.

My REAL Green is not about blame it is about adapting and mitigating a trap. I say embrace less affluence relatively keeping your status quo connections alive so you can live. Society is incapable of the change needed and even if it had the will it is not certain the economy could be adapted to be green. A true green is aboriginal in small populations in balance with the environment. Since that is no longer possible in the new environment of the Anthropocene then the alternative is downsizing with meaning. For the individual and the small group this means life boats of resilient with more sustainable activity and things. Even this is not going to save you and the degree of change is limited by the status quo. So, it is about hospices of acceptance that seek palliative care which in the case of REAL Green is the behavioral changes that are needed to embrace decline and lower affluence with acceptance of failing human civilization. It is acceptance of the failing web of life too.

I think you want to find a solution by removing the world of a few rich but it is much more complicated. The problems are human behavior and it is all 7BIL. There is no way out of this except by a large loss of life. We can make the degree and duration less bad and try to make the process fairer but not by much is my point because it is a trap. Accept this and make your own personal arrangements and stop pointing fingers at the rich. Even if your rid the current bag of rich new ones will pop up IMA they may even be worse.

dohboi wrote: ( I still think these are underestimates of the impact of the richest, but the general point is clear)


I think you are still being emotional about the very rich. They deserve it though because they have access to the best information and resources but they choose not to change. They could be a force of a better “bad” world but choose not to. Yet, I will tell you in a world of competitive cooperation decline for the rich means being eaten alive by other rich and the new wannabe rich.
realgreenadaptation.blog
User avatar
REAL Green
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Thu 09 Apr 2020, 04:29:28
Location: MO Ozarks

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests