This short response to the NY Times article (of considerable length) doesn't dispute the salient points, just attempts to illustrate that certain industries were early in their lobbying and most...
This short response to the NY Times article (of considerable length) doesn't dispute the salient points, just attempts to illustrate that certain industries were early in their lobbying and most likely were more responsible for the failure of action than the Times article indicates.
Your comment makes me wonder if anyone in power has even thought through what climate change involves. To me the most realistic and gripping scenario (whether science based or not) is the one...
Your comment makes me wonder if anyone in power has even thought through what climate change involves. To me the most realistic and gripping scenario (whether science based or not) is the one found in the movie Interstellar, where essentially the majority of the human race is resigned to the fate of the planet and gives up.
I say realistic because I see hints of that happening now. Also because the movie doesn't waste time laying blame (that's not its theme anyway) but simply shows what could occur to bring the end to our planet.
When the sea level rise starts turning coastal cities into modern versions of Venice, politicians/businessmen will begin to take it seriously. It requires real economic damage in the billions of...
When the sea level rise starts turning coastal cities into modern versions of Venice, politicians/businessmen will begin to take it seriously. It requires real economic damage in the billions of dollars to snap people out of their apathy/ignorance on this issue. They have to see it, feel it, and have it make a real negative impact on their lifestyle.
Puerto Rico and the wildfires are a start in this direction, though you'll notice our news media is tying themselves in knots to avoid linking either one to climate change. It's bad for business. They'll continue in that vein for as long as possible.
I think for most of the people 'in power' this issue isn't even on their radar. They ignore it, or don't believe it. It's a superstition from far away that they laugh at, because they have other more immediate concerns on their mind, such as elections, next quarter's profits, etc.
Only once they start losing money will anything start to change. That's what it takes when money is the sole driving force of human endeavor.
Donald: I hear your meeting at the school didn’t go so well. Cooper: You heard? You know, it’s like we’ve forgotten who we are, Donald. Explorers, pioneers, not caretakers. Donald: When I was a...
Donald: I hear your meeting at the school didn’t go so well. Cooper: You heard? You know, it’s like we’ve forgotten who we are, Donald. Explorers, pioneers, not caretakers. Donald: When I was a kid, it felt like they made something new every day. Some gadget or idea. Like every day was Christmas. By six billion people, just try to imagine that. And every last one of them trying to have it all. This world isn’t so bad. And Tom will do just fine. You’re the one who doesn’t belong. Born forty years too late or forty years too early. My daughter knew it, God bless her. And your kids know it, especially Murph. Cooper: Well, we used to look up at the sky and wonder at our place in the stars. Now we just look down and worry about our place in the dirt. Donald: Cooper, you were good at something and you never got a chance to do anything with it. I’m sorry.
Interstellar fucks me up. When you look at the timeline, Donald would be a grown Millennial. There's a global food crisis, an implied war in the past, implied vastly smaller world population, and hardly anybody has the energy to hope. It's too real sometimes.
What I took away from the NYT Article was that even though there was clear agreement among scientists, industry and politics didn't seem to think it was an issue worth dealing with. This article...
What I took away from the NYT Article was that even though there was clear agreement among scientists, industry and politics didn't seem to think it was an issue worth dealing with. This article states:
In particular, “its treatment of industry actors is limited to their official statements, and neglect their political actions,” Brulle said. Those political actions have always been to oppose action on climate change and spread disinformation.
The article’s thesis is that the reason we failed to act during this supposedly “decisive decade” was neither Republican intransigence nor Big Oil’s efforts to downplay the issue and block action, but just human nature.
Which just says the NYT article didn't lay enough blame on Republicans and Big Oil. It feels like it's just political spin against the current opponents to climate change regulation more than anything. If you haven't read the NYT article, I recommend you set aside an hour or two and actually read the whole thing. I feel like knowing the history of everything that has happened in regards to this issue is a good first step to trying to figure out how to find a solution, or at least try to reduce the damage as much as possible at this point.
I did read the whole article. And in the interests of discussion and counterpoint, saw this article and decided to link it because no one else had. I didn't write it so you don't need to convince...
I did read the whole article. And in the interests of discussion and counterpoint, saw this article and decided to link it because no one else had. I didn't write it so you don't need to convince me it's not viable.
Sorry, my response came off as more hostile than I intended. I was mostly just impressed by the scale and depth of the NYT article after reading it yesterday, and wanted to make sure anyone who...
Sorry, my response came off as more hostile than I intended. I was mostly just impressed by the scale and depth of the NYT article after reading it yesterday, and wanted to make sure anyone who found this post without having read the article was encouraged to do so.
My response was intended as a quick counter-jab. Just wanted to indicate in a short way that you are preaching to the choir. Zero hard feelings and I didn't take it as hostile. Your points were...
My response was intended as a quick counter-jab. Just wanted to indicate in a short way that you are preaching to the choir. Zero hard feelings and I didn't take it as hostile. Your points were valid.
If Tildes was more content-filled, I probably wouldn't have bothered posting it as it is fluff compared to the original article but it has some merit in its limited point.
This short response to the NY Times article (of considerable length) doesn't dispute the salient points, just attempts to illustrate that certain industries were early in their lobbying and most likely were more responsible for the failure of action than the Times article indicates.
Your comment makes me wonder if anyone in power has even thought through what climate change involves. To me the most realistic and gripping scenario (whether science based or not) is the one found in the movie Interstellar, where essentially the majority of the human race is resigned to the fate of the planet and gives up.
I say realistic because I see hints of that happening now. Also because the movie doesn't waste time laying blame (that's not its theme anyway) but simply shows what could occur to bring the end to our planet.
When the sea level rise starts turning coastal cities into modern versions of Venice, politicians/businessmen will begin to take it seriously. It requires real economic damage in the billions of dollars to snap people out of their apathy/ignorance on this issue. They have to see it, feel it, and have it make a real negative impact on their lifestyle.
Puerto Rico and the wildfires are a start in this direction, though you'll notice our news media is tying themselves in knots to avoid linking either one to climate change. It's bad for business. They'll continue in that vein for as long as possible.
I think for most of the people 'in power' this issue isn't even on their radar. They ignore it, or don't believe it. It's a superstition from far away that they laugh at, because they have other more immediate concerns on their mind, such as elections, next quarter's profits, etc.
Only once they start losing money will anything start to change. That's what it takes when money is the sole driving force of human endeavor.
Donald: I hear your meeting at the school didn’t go so well.
Cooper: You heard? You know, it’s like we’ve forgotten who we are, Donald. Explorers, pioneers, not caretakers.
Donald: When I was a kid, it felt like they made something new every day. Some gadget or idea. Like every day was Christmas. By six billion people, just try to imagine that. And every last one of them trying to have it all. This world isn’t so bad. And Tom will do just fine. You’re the one who doesn’t belong. Born forty years too late or forty years too early. My daughter knew it, God bless her. And your kids know it, especially Murph.
Cooper: Well, we used to look up at the sky and wonder at our place in the stars. Now we just look down and worry about our place in the dirt.
Donald: Cooper, you were good at something and you never got a chance to do anything with it. I’m sorry.
Interstellar fucks me up. When you look at the timeline, Donald would be a grown Millennial. There's a global food crisis, an implied war in the past, implied vastly smaller world population, and hardly anybody has the energy to hope. It's too real sometimes.
What I took away from the NYT Article was that even though there was clear agreement among scientists, industry and politics didn't seem to think it was an issue worth dealing with. This article states:
Which just says the NYT article didn't lay enough blame on Republicans and Big Oil. It feels like it's just political spin against the current opponents to climate change regulation more than anything. If you haven't read the NYT article, I recommend you set aside an hour or two and actually read the whole thing. I feel like knowing the history of everything that has happened in regards to this issue is a good first step to trying to figure out how to find a solution, or at least try to reduce the damage as much as possible at this point.
I did read the whole article. And in the interests of discussion and counterpoint, saw this article and decided to link it because no one else had. I didn't write it so you don't need to convince me it's not viable.
Sorry, my response came off as more hostile than I intended. I was mostly just impressed by the scale and depth of the NYT article after reading it yesterday, and wanted to make sure anyone who found this post without having read the article was encouraged to do so.
My response was intended as a quick counter-jab. Just wanted to indicate in a short way that you are preaching to the choir. Zero hard feelings and I didn't take it as hostile. Your points were valid.
If Tildes was more content-filled, I probably wouldn't have bothered posting it as it is fluff compared to the original article but it has some merit in its limited point.