Climate change thread

probably not

...

Yeah and the ice caps are all going to be melted?
ok al gore

I think alot of Zig Forums really underestimates the cockroach that is capitalism, the next economical boom will likely shoulder on the nuclear reactor, renewable energies and hydrogen fuel cells etc.

as a matter of fact, right now plenty of world powers are working on an agreement to fossil fuel alternatives, most famous of which include china's planned nuclear ships, the joint effort fission reactors, hinkley point c etc.

Attached: 1553878446491.jpg (792x960, 82.19K)

So, just to be clear, you genuinely don't believe any climate scientists when they model the massively ecological problems that occur with global heating?

These efforts don't mitigate the systemic overproduction and the resulting pollution and scarcity inherent in capitalism. It's like trying to apply tiny band-aids to a huge, bleeding gash

Technological advancements bring about revolution.

Attached: 1532863885386.jpg (563x750, 94.89K)

simply put, even as american/western chunks of the world begin to look inward, china will simply expand outward, nature abhors a vacuum, what the west will not develop, the east will create.

tldr: I BUILD FOR CHINA

reuters.com/article/us-africa-energy-nuclearpower/russia-china-back-nuclear-as-a-clean-power-fix-for-africa-idUSKCN1PW0KV

Attached: touhou hong meiling hats simple background chinese clothes_www.miscellaneoushi.com_85.jpg (1600x1200, 343.83K)

overproduction does'nt imply a problem if proper recycling chains are built, additionally, more efficient devices are on the way, most famous of these being for example, ARM based machines that are far more power efficient than hungry x86 based ones.

revolution does not imply the end of capitalism

Attached: Bv8vzLdCAAAt1kd.png (512x512, 343.68K)

No I never said that.
I didn't even say that I don't believe the earth is warming.

However there is conflicting evidence.
Also there is not a lot of proof that this isn't natural

I'm not worried about over-use of resources as much as I'm worried about the resulting pollution. More efficient energy-use is great, but placing your trust in market-driven innovations that might make a positive impact 5 or 10 years from now when we need to act NOW to have a chance in hell is just peak madness.

Unfortunately, some liberals will likely deny capitalism's incompatibility with long-term sustainable living even while suffocating in a forest fire

sure, but pollution isn't inherent only to capitalism, given how the USSR also had many cases, most famous of which involved dumping radioactive waste and Chernobyl.

I think pollution isn't an invariability, because simply put, there is geopolitical weight if you can become a country that can deal with these problems globally, China for example will gain great clout and influence in india if they somehow managed to carry out a full restoration of the river ghanges.

plus, in a way the world is acting now, only concern being america closing her ears to the problem due to trump

Attached: 220px-Serial_Experiments_Lain_DVD_vol_1.jpg (220x318, 27.07K)

Overproduction is. Aggregate demand is heavily inflated in capitalist systems due to the compounded effects of aggressive advertising and planned obsolesence. Take fidget spinners, for example. How you can ignore this is beyond me.

DOUBT. China and India are great power rivals and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future. Any chinese influence in India will be met with stiff resistance from the Indian state.

If climate change is real (and can be as extreme as some say), I don't see how it can be mitigated. How can you convinced all countries to agree to stop putting their faith in growth and trying to please corporations and the masses? Because it is a competition and if you take your foot off the pedal, you lose.
Placing responsibilities on the individual level and asking people to live like monks which seems to be the answer for many many people is complete bullshit, studies show that all the measures you can take like stop eating meat, taking the plane and so on (which I find OK from an ethical pov) are cancelled 50 times when you have a kid. Overpopulation is the real problem here and let's be honest, there's nothing we can do about it unless you want to implement very authoritharian policies.
My only hopes are that scientists are wrong or that people finally realize that they deserve better than this hellish ideology.

Apply everything I learnt from zombie movies. Or I'll find a survalist farm, kill its occupants and take advantage of what they have built. Or maybe just wait and starve because the post-apocalypse life looks pretty dull.
Thinking about this is bleak and kinda useless tbh, noone knows what it will look like, so until then I'll pretend nothing's happening.

ehh, india is a democracy, things can change far quicker than you think they will, especially if the indian government fails to deliver it's promises by itself.

again, planned obsolescence allows for development cycles and new innovations to reach the masses, a very big reason why for example computing eventually emerged a field the USSR gave up developing itself, and instead opted to copy the existing American/British systems.

So as long as recycling is done, it is not inherently 'capitalism killing'

Attached: 1555436563860.gif (170x170, 89.1K)

Renewable energy is an interesting case as once it is installed it requires almost no labour power to operate, meaning the value of electricity produced by it is very low. This should lead to a low rate of profit for the energy industry in the long term once it has displaced traditional forms of power production (assuming Cockshott is right about varying RoP between industries). The switch to renewables may cause a short term boom, but it's likely to crash hard once the process is complete.

Yeah, hindunationalism is on the rise. Not especially conducive to bettering ties with China, considering China's ties to Pakistan.

If by "new innovations" you mean a new generation of smartphones each year that is only marginally better than the last, then yes. If you mean printers being programmed to stop working for no reason after 10 000 pages printed, then yes. What innovation! At this point, you're just coming across as a crypto-porky.

Planned obsolesence has two main goals:
1) For the business, to avoid over-saturating the markets (which is a retarded concern socio-economically, because if you've actually saturated the market it just means that you've produced enough to cover all actual demand or need. Rectifying this by creating artificial demand makes perfect economic sense FOR THE BUSINESS, but socio-economically, it's downright insanity).
2) For the politicians, to reduce unemployment. Again, makes perfect sense within the current framework, but to all rational observers it should rather make it perfectly clear that the current framework is just a RETARDED MESS OF PERVERSE INCENTIVES FROM A SOCIO-ECONOMIC VIEWPOINT. And especially when we're on the brink of a climate catastrophe.

Recycling also takes energy, you retard.

well, not exactly, maintenance is still a thing, and will require replacement if better developments come, like more efficient solar cells, turbines etc.

plus the extra electricity (without the pollution) will save countless untold amounts of external costs, such as less diseases due to overall lower pollution, etc.

india is not only filled with hindus, and modi most importantly so far has not really created the kind of india he promised in 2014 lol

recycling, with more sustainable energy sources will likely be less of a problem

as for smartphones and tech, these are problems already being acknowledged, production being curtailed for the expected stagnation of demmand etc.

and clearly, there is an important part when i talk about new innovations, even something like a cheap raspberry pi equals or crushes pentiums merely a year ago, and all this using smartphone levels of energy, how much energy has been saved by the uptick of ARM-based systems over power hungry x86s?

pentiums a decade ago my bad*

No idea. You're the only one whe keeps talking about it in relation to the climate issue. If your only defense of capitalism amounts to "better technology lol", when most climate scientists seem to agree that we need far-reaching systemic changes (i.e. economic and political) to avoid a runaway greenhouse effect, then I'll throw my lot in with the scientists instead of with your idealistic ass.

these systemic changes can be a geopolitical advantage, egro they will be pursued, whomever achieves this will remain the least fucked in the following decades, but these changes do not inherently mean the strict end of capitalism

to be clear i'm not fronting idealism, but rather, i'm quite cynical about this being some 'revival' of socialism when such claims have been rolled around so many times

Attached: 1554697960878.png (920x512, 224.44K)

Really really hope you don't consider yourself a Marxist fam.

nice argument

The best way to deal with climate change is the stop overpopulation

Attached: dce2192d497569b2aa02ec36db7c90b840f498009cb5228c70601014179cc08d.jpg (800x600, 102.64K)

So true. Like the big guy himself said, "No man, no problem."

Any ideology: I sleep.
Stalinist Communalism: Real shit?

we need to start making lists

1. which companies do the most harm
2. what divisions of those companies do the most harm
3. who makes decisions for those companies
4. who directly profits from the harm those companies do

apply enough autism and we come up with a game anyone can play all by themselves

why are you posting social ecology memes if you're thinking deep ecology thoughts? If you didn't know, social ecologists like to bully deep ecologists, call us transphobic or eugenicist, misanthropic, ecofascist, etc.

You got that right: Bookchin is the reason that we're smeared as ecofascists when we're simply further left of them .

Friendly remind malthusianism is anti-materialist

Agriculture (19%)
Fuel and power for residential buildings (10.2%)
Road transport (10.5%)
Tourism (8%) according to research that came out in May 2018
Oil and gas production (6.4%)
Fuel and power for commercial buildings (6.3%)
Livestock and manure (5.4%)
Agricultural soils (5.2%)
Cement production
(source "ecocult")

What

Attached: social-ecologists-contend-that-humans-ought-to-use-political-intervention-to-protect-the-natural-world-while-deep-ecologists-favor-contemplation-over-political-intervention_orig.jpeg (1024x768, 359.52K)

Question, comrades.

I'm trying to get my life together in my late 20s and wanting to go back to college. I dropped out the first time due to a lot of factors but I don't want to continue being a NEET entirely and I don't really want to work retail or a trade (personal preference) for the rest of my life.

Would doing something like emergency management be a good idea? Seems like a job where you get to help people a lot and that's something I'd like to do. Can't be an EMT because I'd vomit if other people are vomiting and stuff like that. I'm just looking into college classes at my local community college and the EM thing looks interesting.

I don't think capitalism can actually build nuclear power. It requires too much central planning, which is something anarchy in production can not support. Just to make them safe it requires a ton of regulation, and no nuclear project in the world has ever managed to actually produce profits for investors without heavy government intervention. There's a reason porky is focusing so much on renewables instead of nuclear, even though nuclear should be more similar to fossil fuels in that porky owns the uranium mines but can't own the Sun.

I still want to disassemble the turbines used in fossil fuel plants and use them in the creation of nuclear power.

It is obvious though that nuclear power is a huge net useful gain to society even if it's not actually monetarily profitable.

I agree, but the poster was specifically saying that the next economic boom under capitalism will be built on nuclear. It can't, though, unless capital cedes power generation to the central planners and gives up trying to commodity electricity (which it wont do lol)

Social ecology is dead

I am also a Deep ecologist and I've read all the book in Bookchin's reading list.
A lot of it can be useful.
Except that part about cities and using technology for good

why not do finance or computer science?
lots of cash there

Risky to major in this. Definitely a "who you know" industry. Would make a decent minor though.

Solid major, provided you're willing to move where jobs are available.

Révolutions implied the fall of the previous modes of production of feudalism and classical slavery so why not capitalism?
The cotton gin led to the fall of chattel slavery in the south.

Attached: f7f7fd2b15697c59862bb7fde8dd9e74349712c33a0ee49ee6351a68db3ea14e.png (481x640, 293.36K)

Because I don't have any interest nor do I want to do either of those.

theres maybe 5 years left before the next major crisis period, think 1929 or so. absolutely going to see a new world war paradigm after a BOE signals the end and peak oil starts to really sink in, the only question is how bad will it really be in the end. theres no doubt in my mind this society/civilization is doomed, the real mystery is whether there will be enough resources and warm bodies to create a new one afterwords

Ok Alex Jones

People have been saying this since the Bush Admin its never going to happen

i sure hope posadas was right those dolphins better be fully automated by now

Attached: sea-ice.png (600x414, 109.12K)

Its growing

nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses/

Why would you want a new civilization to shit everything up? Living as semi barbaric tribes is best

what matters is surface ice since that actually affects the earths albedo and thus warming feedbacks

i personally dont care since ill be dead but it would be interesting if we fucked ourselves into a failure to launch

antarctic != arctic

If we do nothing, probably fifty years.

You don’t, you do carbon capture to reverse the process. It is the only solution. Anything else is unrealistic.

CC is probably never going to get to a point where it is feasible unless we also get some other fantasy tech along with it like cold fusion

Annon, we already have a fantasy tech powerful enough to do it, it’s just that Boomers don’t like it so they won’t agree to it.

Attached: NuclearIsTheSafestFormOfEnergy.png (849x598, 72.41K)

we dont have it at a scale to where it's cheaper than what emitting the gas in the first place produced, and as such would have to basically degrowth in an insane way as to dedicate the majority of energy production to CC which would be the same net effect as just killing the planet and ourselves

This can be fixed in five years max. The Earth can wait five years.

As long as this degrowth is just elimination of consumer BS, and increases in efficacy, things won’t be to bad.

I agree. The first world is far too overpopulated. We should eliminate it.

Attached: first world 1.jpg (1000x650, 78.83K)

degrowth under control of the bourgeoisie is going to be absolutely brutal as they strip 'luxuries' for the commoners like refrigeration and central air conditioning while doing their best to keep their bunkers stocked. even under a DoP it'd be pretty shocking for a westerner, though i suppose any real QoL drops from material scarcity would be made up by the fulfillment of actually living for humanities future instead of being literal cattle for vampires