I'm not quite sure what you are suggesting by "whithout changing our production, consumption and lifestyle would only build a longer bridge without altering the catastrophic outcome."
Does this mean even though we've gone 100% renewable we still need to live on less and expect that we should use less electricity and why would you suggest that? Humankind has always found ways, perhaps environmentally challenging, to better our lives and become more productive. If all sources of energy are now "renewable" what does the 2nd part of the above quoted statement mean and why?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Exponential growth of resource usage in a finite world leads to civilizational collapse. The idea was already presented in the 1972 Meadows report Limits to growth, which seems to be accurate in its predictions unfortunately
Limits to Growth with Historical Data, University of Melbourne 2014
None of these studies seem to take into account "renewables." The one from the Guardian only mentions "Peak oil could be the catalyst for global collapse. Some see new fossil fuel sources like shale oil, tar sands and coal seam gas as saviours..." So we still seem to be talking about different things. The 3rd one is an economic argument, which is true I might add, but irrelevant to your overall argument in regards to renewable's.
There are such things as vertical farms, bio-fuels, solar panels etc....that none of these studies touch on. These are renewable's, no? The father of invention is necessity. Agreed it's pulling teeth w/all the military/industrial/medical complexes' out there but espousing collectivism (which I assume is your point somehow) has continually failed, and is currently failing everywhere it's tried.
I don't expect any up-votes here lol, but I feels compelled to challenge collectivist ideals where ever they may spring up. Communism (collectivism at it's worst) is the deadliest ideology in human history. This is future that needs avoided as well. If I am wrong about your feelings in this regard I apologize, but I watch @eleanorgoldfield's posts for being, how should we say....RED.
Thx for the posts' btw. I didn't watch the YT video tbh. I hate subtitles....;)
Thanks for challenging : ) One message of Limits to Growth is that all Earth's resources need to be considered, fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions are one crucial aspect but not the only one. You may have heard of Earth overshoot day. My point is simply that even if energy is produced using clean sources, humanity still can create massive environmental disasters through deforestation, overfishing, intensive agriculture, water contamination, other forms of pollution, especially if population keeps growing at current rate (could be 10 billion by 2050) and adopts Western lifestyle. Climate change is already on the way and would still have catastrophic impact even if Paris agreement emission reduction targets are met.
By the way I am not advocating for collectivism/communism (at least not here : )) but against status quo. The drastic changes needed for our environment might also be accomplished within a strongly regulated capitalist society with eco-tariffs.
It's my pleasure! ;) Most western govt's, by now, have already adopted renewable forests, energy, endangered species conservation etc etc...I don't understand why a "western Lifestyle" threatens you so much! Places that have populations that are out of control (Asia, South Africa, India) are places that do not adopt western ideals and their environments are suffering at a much faster rate than ours. It would make more sense to condemn "Eastern Lifestyles." Capitalism and a western lifestyle isn't the problem.
China, India & the middle east, have some of the worst track records as far as their environment. Why do you think there is such a push for immigration to places like the US & Europe out of these places? It isn't because their destinations are fetid and putrid.
I spent many years studying global warming & have watched all predictions and estimates shattered. There simply isn't anything there, this is why it's been twisted to include any weather anomaly and called "climate change." This is my educated opinion, and all the groups that claim environmentalism are also complexes in themselves. Funded by central banks and collectivist group think-tanks that want nothing more than people to submit to an overall authority and all matters of their lives. Collectivist societies are a governments (and those that actually control government i.e. central banks) wet dream! Be careful what you wish for ;).
Eco-tariffs don't sound like such a bad thing, oh and I especially enjoy this bullet-line from your link of Earth overshoot day.
"In the 10 U.S. cities with the largest carbon footprints, more than 10,000 free Endangered Species Condoms will be given away by the Center for Biological Diversity."
What a better way to spread biological diversity than to promote contraceptives in societies that actually have a grasp on the necessity for preserving their environments LOL!! You just can't make this stuff up!
I am not sure if you are trolling however this will be my last post in this @eleanorgoldfield thread since Steemit user interface on my phone is unable to render properly deeply nested replies.
It does not threaten me personally but the finite resources of our planet. Would need five Earths to satisfy the appetite of humanity if all would consume like an average American.
Globalization and free trade led to the outsourcing of polluting activities to countries with lower regulations and standards. Capitalism is dominating.
You are mixing preservation of the local environment with ecological footprint. You can live within a nice and clean walled community with natural parks, while consuming many products which require high amount of resources and generate pollution in different parts of the world. Out of sight, out of mind. That is the idea behind Earth overshoot day, measuring the ecological footprint. You should try to read it without focusing only on condoms.
Did you ? Would be nice to share your findings with the world community so that we stop worrying about this non-issue. See link in previous comment about feedback mechanisms.
Again I don't understand why you talk about collectivist conspiracy theories here.
I agree this is stupid but it does not mean that the whole concept of measuring our ecological footprint in the context of limited resources should be discarded...
Lol, no I'm not trolling, just a discussion. I'm not the type of person to spend this much time on an elaborate troll.
Your statement about globalism is spot on & free trade I couldn't agree more. I'm not solidly convinced that a different -ism would solve this matter. Businesses and gov't will always look for ways to score top dollar in commerce. Slap a different -ism on there and you'll eventually have more of the same again.
Western ideals about the environment are top notch and when you were referring to polluted water in previous comments, were you only talking about the ocean? That is ecological footprint at a local environmental level, and many countries could give one red rip about it. So I don't believe I'm mixing at all. They are one in the same.
I'm not going to post my undergrad papers here on the subject of global warming/climate change. There is little appetite for anyone not in consensus w/the environmental complexes (that are very real btw). Those that are speaking out and trying to expose it for what it is are silenced and coerced. It is up to the individual to seek out alternative opinions.
Anyway, I think we've both said our peace. Good luck! Stay away from the hammer and sickle ;)