The real shame is that we have nobody to vote for to show support for real climate change action. We have an anti-vac, anti-science green party, a few extreme left parties that seem to pay...
The real shame is that we have nobody to vote for to show support for real climate change action. We have an anti-vac, anti-science green party, a few extreme left parties that seem to pay attention to climate issues (but I don't really trust them to priorize climate before, say, employment), and ... that's it.
Interesting. Our Australian Greens party is pro-vaccination. I found this pro-vaccination statement by their leader, who also happens to be a doctor. On their website, there's this pro-vaccination...
We have an anti-vac, anti-science green party
Interesting. Our Australian Greens party is pro-vaccination. I found this pro-vaccination statement by their leader, who also happens to be a doctor. On their website, there's this pro-vaccination speech made by one of their MPs in Parliament.
That's the sucky part. There's oftentimes no one to vote for that is ready to take aggressive action on climate change. And when they are, like some in the US and Hulot himself, they're hamstrung...
That's the sucky part. There's oftentimes no one to vote for that is ready to take aggressive action on climate change. And when they are, like some in the US and Hulot himself, they're hamstrung by more than a few different things to the point where they can't be effective. It really does boil down to society's complete indifference. It's frustrating, exactly what led to Hulot quitting.
If you want to see why no politician is directly addressing climate change take a look at the reaction to the #1 most effective way, right here on Tildes:...
That's really not necessary. Developing areas need access to birth control and sex education to avoid unwanted pregnancies, sure, but a concerted population control effort IMO would not be able to...
That's really not necessary. Developing areas need access to birth control and sex education to avoid unwanted pregnancies, sure, but a concerted population control effort IMO would not be able to achieve the type of reduction we'd need. It doesn't really tackle the problem, which is our lifestyles. The energy we use to power our civilization, the rate at which we consume, what we do with waste. There's already seven billion people on Earth. We need to examine ways to reduce the impact of every facet of our society before any of this talk.
Exactly. Even if you somehow enacted a global one child policy tomorrow, the population's going to keep growing for a long time as death rates in the third world plummet, and we're still going to...
Exactly. Even if you somehow enacted a global one child policy tomorrow, the population's going to keep growing for a long time as death rates in the third world plummet, and we're still going to need to support billions and billions of humans on the planet for at least another century or two. Considering we already need to reduce emissions by more than 100% well before then to have any chance to fix the damage we've already done, this makes enforced population control a total non starter as a solution for climate change.
We do not need to enact authoritarian population control measures to fight climate change. Ethical concerns aside, that'd require an absolutely titanic investment in bureaucracy in order to...
We do not need to enact authoritarian population control measures to fight climate change. Ethical concerns aside, that'd require an absolutely titanic investment in bureaucracy in order to produce results better than what's already happening, and reversing global population growth to any significant extent would take decades that we simply do not have. Much better to invest instead in building out our clean energy infrastructure.
What progress are we making? Look up the percentage of the world's energy that came from fossil fuels in 1980 vs today. It's the same. So many don't understand. We are long past the days of...
results better than what's already happening
What progress are we making? Look up the percentage of the world's energy that came from fossil fuels in 1980 vs today. It's the same.
So many don't understand. We are long past the days of gradual incremental change being an option, unless step 1 is building a time machine to the early 1900s. Effectively addressing climate change is going to involve some major, sweeping, quickly implemented changes and it won't even seem like it's working for decades.
The real shame is that we have nobody to vote for to show support for real climate change action. We have an anti-vac, anti-science green party, a few extreme left parties that seem to pay attention to climate issues (but I don't really trust them to priorize climate before, say, employment), and ... that's it.
Interesting. Our Australian Greens party is pro-vaccination. I found this pro-vaccination statement by their leader, who also happens to be a doctor. On their website, there's this pro-vaccination speech made by one of their MPs in Parliament.
That's the sucky part. There's oftentimes no one to vote for that is ready to take aggressive action on climate change. And when they are, like some in the US and Hulot himself, they're hamstrung by more than a few different things to the point where they can't be effective. It really does boil down to society's complete indifference. It's frustrating, exactly what led to Hulot quitting.
If you want to see why no politician is directly addressing climate change take a look at the reaction to the #1 most effective way, right here on Tildes: https://tildes.net/~enviro/5ty/population_control_is_the_climate_change_fix_nobody_wants_to_talk_about
I wonder if democracy is going to hamstring our ability to take meaningful action on climate change.
I guess if you don't see any difference in killing people vs not making as many new people...
That's really not necessary. Developing areas need access to birth control and sex education to avoid unwanted pregnancies, sure, but a concerted population control effort IMO would not be able to achieve the type of reduction we'd need. It doesn't really tackle the problem, which is our lifestyles. The energy we use to power our civilization, the rate at which we consume, what we do with waste. There's already seven billion people on Earth. We need to examine ways to reduce the impact of every facet of our society before any of this talk.
Exactly. Even if you somehow enacted a global one child policy tomorrow, the population's going to keep growing for a long time as death rates in the third world plummet, and we're still going to need to support billions and billions of humans on the planet for at least another century or two. Considering we already need to reduce emissions by more than 100% well before then to have any chance to fix the damage we've already done, this makes enforced population control a total non starter as a solution for climate change.
We do not need to enact authoritarian population control measures to fight climate change. Ethical concerns aside, that'd require an absolutely titanic investment in bureaucracy in order to produce results better than what's already happening, and reversing global population growth to any significant extent would take decades that we simply do not have. Much better to invest instead in building out our clean energy infrastructure.
What progress are we making? Look up the percentage of the world's energy that came from fossil fuels in 1980 vs today. It's the same.
So many don't understand. We are long past the days of gradual incremental change being an option, unless step 1 is building a time machine to the early 1900s. Effectively addressing climate change is going to involve some major, sweeping, quickly implemented changes and it won't even seem like it's working for decades.
That's... got nothing to do with how many people there are? I was talking about progress in halting population growth.