Steps to take in regards to climate change

People’s lives are more important than your dreams

We could save the planet without killing billions if we just rid ourselves of capitalism. This would also be more politically feasible. The overpopulation meme is a dumb substitute for actual analysis and solutions

Genocide bad
Human race good

Attached: Dmx4MA0UYAER5Ea.jpg (971x546, 49.09K)

Without capitalism 50% of food in supermarkets whouldn´t go to waste.

those statements fundamental self evident truths

How does this change the point that without Industrial agriculture we couldn’t support the current population? In feudal societies the population never rose above one billion.

We need to end factory farming and go back to permacultural ways farming

Attached: 73ee658e9c3d5bcca3579ef50f78b1c9818783db.jpg (725x923, 122.24K)

Lots of people have different interpretations of "self evident truths". Why is your right, in your opinion?

You guys do realize how much effort the Soviets put into building tractors and mechanizing agriculture?

I’d prefer not to

How is this not self evident?

Modern agriculture isn't sustainable

A Christian might say also, "How is God not self-evident?" "He does not need proof for his existence." Why do you believe in genocide being bad, and people being good, for example, and not the other way around?

How is good and bad not a spook if it does not pertain to me or my property?

Attached: IMG_20181021_094327.jpg (900x1246, 158.52K)

Not right now, but it can be reformed

If you thing “genocide is good” is wrong your pro-genocide.

would you like to die? no? then you agree with him

the best way for it to be reformed is to increase permacultural gardens, have people be able to grow their own food at a sustainable level

but this isn't what anyone is saying.

It's too late. There simply isn't enough time left to migrate the planetary infrastructure away from fossil fuels. The time for that passed about a decade ago. There isn't the political will to turn off the power stations and chemical plants. The global population will refuse to surrender their automobiles and air conditioning. The climate is fucked and civilization is living on borrowed time.

Attached: laughevenharder.jpg (479x361, 54.77K)

would you the bourgeoisie to die? yes? then you disagree with him

People don't have the time or the energy to run a vegetable garden for themselves dude

...

which require huge labor inputs

but it’s true

you have a meme tier understanding of botany

Yes they do
Also the whole point of permaculture is that you don't have to maintain it at the level you would a farm

No one cares no one is making that argument

Gardens require care and motivation, ordinary people binge Netflix because it's essentially passive

Ok and?

genocide is something you are either in favor of or against, their is no middle ground

Your talking about a hobby garden, hobby gardens produce some fruits or vegetable, but they will never produce enough cereals to be meaningful. Especially if you live in a city.

You're not going to get people who already work for 8+ hours to start a vegetable garden

Hardly anyone has an opinion of genocide. On the surface no one is for it however unless it effects a demographic a person cares about they generally will ignore it.

They will if there is no food at the grocery store

...

Primmies are reactionary. You're not gonna win any hearts and minds cutting food supplies and telling them to go farm like their forefathers did. Just distribute smarter, waste less than the shitton we do now, and run it greener. It's going to take concentrated political effort to undertake these changes though, but it's a lot better than anprim with cambodian characteristics

Attached: 1555957593519.jpg (1242x1484, 244.17K)

False.

You think this is a programe or a policy proposal or something?
It a survival strategy seeing that modern agriculture is unsustainable

You can reduce emissions plenty by just rationalising production and consumption. We don't need to abolish modern agriculture entirely just because its run inefficiently by the capitalists.

Your post is precisely why we're all dead.

There are more problems than just emissions. Like losing farmland as a result of climate change
Why wouldn't we though? A permaculture lifestyle is sustainable and healthier

Attached: 1555982579357.jpg (750x751, 168.3K)

Which can be dealt with through genetic modification and improvements in soil fertility.

The labor to food output ration is crap. It’s fine as a hobby, but most people don’t want to spend four hours a day in a garden.

the only way to stop climate disaster is to
move out into high orbit
enough of terrestrial, nothing can be solved by still thinking in earthside terms
< powitewee asking a powatician if dey would pwetty pwease stop da destwuction of da pwanet uwu
kys fucking scientist pussy!!.!

and how are we gonna do that smartass

Which would largely improve any permacultural gardens

lol how is this a problem. If it is a necessity it wouldn't matter

take LSD in a float tank and look a picture of Earth from space, the rest will be obvious

gang

Lots of people are self-sustaining with their own gardens, look it up. They don't spend all that much time maintaining it either.

it isn’t

it will be once climate changes does enough damage

Likely that you'll get rampant cannibalism before we reach that point.

there's a lot of discussion here about the extent to which humanity will need to scale back it's industry to address the environmental future. that's a worthy discussion to have, but we need to overthrow capital first to really have this discussion, to really plan the world economy in relation to the environmental axis. i know this is an obvious, self evident statement, but it is important to remember the necessary prerequisite before getting too bogged down in the what ifs that will go unsatisfied if the current elite continue to rule society.

unlikely considering humans have lived as permaculturalists for most of our history not as cannibals

Solution to climate change 101:
youtube.com/watch?v=lAWN2Qg92qQ
Economic warfare amongst Europe/the West/Japan/South Korera VS the entire world is the only true solution

Here’s a seemingly simple question: Is Canada a net carbon dioxide emitter? You would think so from reading news headlines. We’ve earned the scorn of environmentalists, NGOs, and media outlets galore, labelled with such juvenile epithets as “fossil of the year” or “corrupt petro-state.”

Sadly, lost in all the hyperbole is the actual science. There is nothing quantitative about the vague idea that, as a “progressive nation,” Canada should be expected to “do more” to fight climate change.

But therein lies the rub; Canada is poised to immediately do more to combat climate change than almost every other country in the world. How, you ask? Well, by doing more of the same. If that sounds ludicrous, let me explain.

Most Canadians would agree that our response to climate change needs to be scientifically sound, environmentally sustainable and financially realistic, as well as global, comprehensive, and holistic. Right now, our approach is none of those things; the public discourse is driven by a myopic, ideological obsession with carbon emissions alone. What else is there, you ask?

The answer comes from the most recent report (2014) of the Global Carbon Project, which states that global human-induced CO2 emissions were 36 billion tonnes. Of that, 36 per cent stayed in the atmosphere, 27 per cent was absorbed by water, and 37 per cent was absorbed by land.

That’s right — absorbed by land! Not all CO2 emitted by people stays in the atmosphere. Much of it returns to the earth, mainly through the carbon absorption and sequestration power of plants, soil, and trees.

Attached: CarbonSinks.jpg (960x814 40.27 KB, 99.88K)

A conservative estimate of Canada’s existing carbon-absorption capacity, based on land area and the global carbon-absorption average, indicates that Canada could already be absorbing 20 to 30 per cent more CO2 than we emit. Using the same calculation, the “Big Four” polluters of China, the U.S., the European Union, and India, which together are responsible for a whopping 60 per cent of global CO2 emissions, release 10 times more CO2 than their combined land area absorbs. Canada doesn’t seem very dirty now, do we?
So when was the last time you heard a Canadian political leader, let alone the media, talk about our carbon-absorption capacity? Probably never, because we are currently ignoring that side of the equation, for a couple reasons.
First, there is insufficient political will. The government’s top experts need a mandate to pursue in-depth measurement of CO2 absorption. Recently, Canada’s federal and provincial auditors general announced a joint audit of the country’s carbon emissions. But what credible audit would examine only half a balance sheet? There’s no reason why they shouldn’t audit our absorption capacity, too. How much CO2 did our forests and land absorb? Do some trees and topographies perform better than others? In short, what is Canada’s carbon balance?
Second, it’s contrary to the interests of urbanized, overpopulated, deforested places in Europe, Asia & the Middle East to allow vast, sparsely populated, forested countries like Canada to set the climate change agenda. It doesn’t help them whatsoever for Canada to claim our fair share of the world’s carbon absorption capacity, and emerge as one of the planet’s climate leaders.
If Europe and our other traditional “Western Allies” won’t acknowledge the free ride that we are providing them by protecting our forests and thus subsidizing their emissions, it’s time for Canada to find climate allies who understand us and share our needs. It’s time for some Green Realpolitik.
We should seek out new alliances with other large, forested countries, starting with Russia, Brazil, Democratic Republic of Congo, Argentina, Indonesia, and Peru. These countries, and many others, will all benefit from a new approach that rewards carbon absorption, and would bring diverse cultural voices and political interests together around this important climate issue.
Many people in these countries have to choose between their forests and their livelihoods, as they scramble to survive the day. Some of them still clear-cut or burn their forests for the sake of agriculture or industry. But what if they no longer had to choose between planet and profit?
Imagine the kind of eco-friendly economy that DRC Congo, Peru, or any other forested country could build by generating carbon credits to sell to Dubai, Singapore, or Luxembourg. Countries on the receiving end of cap-and-trade credits could build entire green economies around conservation, not consumption. Financial pressure to deforest would subside, replaced with incentives to manage our forests and preserve their attendant ecosystems. As a bonus, Canada and its new, green allies could label all our exports as “proudly carbon neutral.”

Imagine, too, the possibilities for indigenous people all over the world to leverage their traditional role as protectors of the environment into a feasible economic opportunity. We are constantly looking for ways to bridge gaps between modern society and native cultures, so why not empower indigenous people to take on a leadership role as stewards of the world’s precious forests?
Canada must successfully lobby for a world market on carbon-offset credits, where CO2 absorption is part of the equation. The potential impact is huge. Based on the aforementioned estimates of our absorption capacity, and a conservative CO2 price of $40/tonne, Canada stands to gain $10 billion per year. Think about it; we might currently be giving away $10 billion to the rest of the world, including the Big Four polluters, every year, for free.
$10 billion dollars in our coffers could go a long way toward balancing the budget, investing in sustainable energy, providing social programs, incentivizing innovation, renewing infrastructure, and generally improving Canada’s fortunes. So when Prime Minister Trudeau meets with provincial, territorial, and indigenous leaders, he owes it to Canadians to put this issue on the agenda. The only thing we’re really asking is for our leaders to consider the entire carbon cycle, from emission to absorption, in order to get the “balance sheet” right. Then, and only then, can our best minds get to work on making a climate plan that is fair for all Canadians, and that reflects our true contribution to the world’s climate solution.
It would be nice to end on that hopeful note, but the realistic future looks rather bleak. The prime minister thus far seems content to position himself as a goodwill ambassador to the UN and Europe, not someone who will go toe to toe with them to defend Canadian interests. Meanwhile, our other leaders are falling victim to their own political ideologies. Rachel Notley wants to kick Albertans while they’re down with a new tax, Manitoba’s Greg Sellinger thinks he can magically reverse flooding via taxation, and Ontario’s recent climate initiative is a case study in the myopic, emissions-only approach to cap-and-trade. Quebec mayors like Montreal’s Coderre blindly oppose the Energy East pipeline, forsaking the memory of those who died in Lac Mégantic due to the dangers of transporting oil by train.
Taxing Canadians to try to make planet Earth greener is futile policy based on a half-blind approach that only considers emissions from our resources, not absorption from our land and forests. Unless we change that perspective, the inevitable result is a drag on our economy with job casualties, increased costs, and lost business opportunities, ultimately weakening Canada’s ability to compete on the international stage. And for what do we sell out our future? To let the Big Four polluters off the hook? To be popular with delegates in Copenhagen or Paris?
By taking credit for absorption, we win. By negotiating a robust cap-and-trade deal between nations, we win. By working with countries that share our interests, we win. By getting the credit we deserve, and ensuring that the planet’s real polluters pay their fair share, we win. So, the question is, why do we let our leaders set Canada up to fail?
With a simple mandate from government to factor in the entire carbon cycle, our best scientific minds can get to work assembling the evidence to create an appropriate, progressive climate policy for Canada.

They will be the leaders because they are where economic activity takes place. Canada has a very tiny amount of people compared to the rest of the world. This is a weakness.

Indigenous societies are a relic of a feudal past. They won’t be leading shit.

Canada gets all the benefits of US Imperialism without having to send it’s children to the Middle East to die. This is why Trudoe sucks the US’s dick.

Canada’s tiny influence on the world come’s from it being a NATO member. Canada is a small country that would have no influence on the world on it’s own.

When you live in a capitalist society you are, in fact, trained to resort to cannibalism

I'm in favor of classicide

What did he mean by this?

Attached: it's a big one.png (331x294, 2.51K)

No you are trained to exploit each other which is worse

Attached: 1514075521750.png (1250x1250, 103.28K)

Attached: 20190506_193800.jpg (1025x764, 351.09K)

There are 7-8 billion humans on the planet. We already subsections of the global population who struggle to find enough to eat. Any sort of large scale permaculture project is going to take at least several months to start producing any appreciable amount of food. Any large scale permaculture project is going to produce a fraction of the food currently output by our industrialized food production system. Governments seem largely disinterested in taking any action to change our food production systems, likely because hunger is a consistent method of producing disorder and revolt.

Ergo: The move to permaculture will likely be made too late. Regardless, there will not be enough food to feed everyone on the planet. There will be some starvation, the question is only in regards severity. Given the likely sharp reduction in crop yields, this is likely to be quite a lot of starvation. There are going to be lots of people left with nothing to eat but their neighbour.

Canadians should not be leaders because (as you said) we have a very tiny amount of people. Taxing our citizens to be a "role model" for the world will do nothing but hurt the lowest earning citizens as food, gas, etc prices rise. Meanwhile the upper class will still be living comfortably
They aren't a relic of the feudal past, if that was the case the native communities (or nations, as they call themselves) would have no say in anything whatsoever. Ideally we should be trying to preserve the indigenous communities and their beliefs, culture, traditions, values, religions, etc throughout the globe. Whether it be in the Americas, Oceania, Asia, Africa, Europe, etc
Canadians benefit greatly from US imperialism to the point where the elderly who have lived in Canada and paid taxes for decades cannot retire or find elderly/retirement homes they can afford meanwhile we give refugees from Iraq and Syria, etc free housing, dental/healthcare benefits, etc.
There are also tens of thousands "Canadians" who are homeless and could use this money for housing, rehab, medicine, etc.
Also lets not forget the fact that "minorities" have more rights and freedoms than the average Canadian.
>Canada’s tiny influence on the world come’s from it being a NATO member. Canada is a small country that would have no influence on the world on it’s own.
Not only is this contradicting towards what you said previously (They will be the leaders because they are where economic activity takes place. Canada has a very tiny amount of people compared to the rest of the world.) but it also is completely insignificant and dare I say, incorrect. Canada's influence stems from many factors, Global leaders in science, technology, engineering, economics, etc. Canada is ranked 10th in the world in terms of prolific publications in scientific research (yes, even with its *small* population). If you dare to say Canada's global influence is due to being a NATO member (which many g7 and g20 countries are not) then please explain why countries with much larger populations (and even larger economies from a non per capita perspective) are not members.

And it will only get worse with modern agriculture.

thats how growing anything works it takes time that is why it is important to start.

this is debatable seeing that there is a lot of shit pumped to consumers that don't do anything for them. An efficient permaculture system producing what people need rather than what tastes good is preferable to what we have now.

If you haven't realized government don't go against the status quo until it is necessary to then go for the easiest option that offers short term appeal. The governments will not spearhead anything that isn't immediately a problem.

I agree but this isn't a reason NOT to move to permaculture it is only a foreshadow of what is to come.

There won't be enough food for everyone if current trends continue. Of course the urbanites will resort to cannibalism before the cities become sinkholes. However people who move to permaculture will be able to weather the storm

Remove bourgeoisie
Establish production for use/absolute fucking necessities
Prevent intelligentsia and bureaucrats from giving themselves the cushy life
Make restoration and preservation the number one priority.

You have to an idiot to believe the climate alarmist narrative. CO2 concentration is a function of the temp, not the cause. When the cold water of the ocean warms, it absorbs less CO2 from the atmosphere which leads to a build up of CO2 concentration that correlates with warming. Cause and effect has been flipped by the alarmist narrative

Stop being an idiot and check out the science for yourself.

The feedback equation in climate models have mistakenly attributed the warming response of the entire atmosphere to the tiny contribution of the anthropogenic portion. Humans account for about 1/3 of the increase, but since the models assume 100%, the model predict much more warming that the record affirms. Like 60% more warming according to CO2 concentration.

Explain Venus.
CO2 and CH2 gather energy around the infered spectum which warms the planet just enough so that there's more water vapor which causes a positive feedback loop of more and more water vapor in the atmosphere causing the earth to warm up.
Two atom noble gases don't have this problem.

No, you're going to die.

The same game theory calculations that led us to build 30,000 nuclear bombs and a bunch of concrete shelters is what has informed our national policy on the threat of ecological collapse from overpopulation and pollution. We've been locked into a path of inaction, because the task of making the sort of transformative, global changes that would be necessary to control the population of 3rd worlders and global industry would be nearly impossible to do, and might well not work even if we could wrest total control of the globe.

So the plan is to do nothing to save everyone, but to do some extraordinary things to save some people. It's the most likely plan to assure a reasonable outcome. They just need to keep people from freaking out too much and then wait for the collapse to run its course. It's why we don't give a shit about our crumbling infrastructure or our idiot school children. It's why any effort to extract wealth from the masses is downplayed and everyone is pardoned. Essentially, you and me have been written off as a loss. Can't say I wouldn't have done the same.

I mean 100% chance of "the best of humanity" surviving is better than a 0.001% chance of society continuing forward in it's current corpulent form.

A new TV every 2 years. A new fridge every 4 years. A new [thing] every less than 5 years. No more personal individual cars.

watch cockshott
youtube.com/watch?v=lepMdZuZiHo

It's a great video. I don't see any government doing what it suggests, however.

After re-watching the video, I realized that I posted the wrong one. Here is the right one for all the return to nature wankers:
youtube.com/watch?v=b8hnAB43O4g

The food output of Industrial agriculture has increased tremendously over the past few decades. With new technologies their is no reason to think this won’t continue.

Their is not even 1% of the oil in the world that you would have to burn to make Earth like Venus.

isn't ending subsides a lolbert thing?

and anyone honest who is well informed in these things knows there is nothing wrong with these calculations. Saving everyone from consumerism is an illogical idea.

no u

Yes there is its called climate change

Then we are doomed to fail. Socialism’s appeal to the working class was that it limited working hours, increased living standards, etc. and right now with a resurgence of the term “socialism” at least, that is the association. Bernie says socialism is cheaper healthcare, being able to see any doctor, having an increasing wage, etc. and that appeals to people because you are offering them something. Telling them that socialism means having to start farming after you get home from work (MORE work for less) isn’t endearing anyone but environmentalists who enthusiastically self-flagellate for their industrial sins.

Socialism as the resolution to capitalist contradictions that heightened class conflict was a prediction based on the notion that socialism was better for the working class, it was them re-claiming their own surplus value for a society of greater overall means. It’s the appeal to their material needs. Telling them they have to start farming or else there will be mass extinction will just not work, even if it were true. We’ve already told everyone to start biking to work and going vegan and it’s not working, nobody starts denying themselves consumption on a mass scale even when they’re fully aware that the apocalypse is approaching as a result. They can barely stop using plastic straws, and furthermore you also get the entirely predictable result of consumerist ideology, people rendering climate change a conspiracy and having not insignificant portions of the population just proudly proclaim they’d rather burn a barrel of oil spitefully in their backyard than be told by a liberal that they can’t drive their pickup truck.

The only way you’ll get them to work more time in the day to produce their own food is if you threaten them with jail (eco-Stalinism).

I thought the thread was about getting ahead of catastrophe. Sure, falling into pre-industrial farming in the total collapse of industrial society seems to be a given. But it’s not ideal. It will probably also correspond to a degree of re-territorialized production. People will once again be stuck to plots of land and given the socialist revolution didn’t have to occur, very likely didn’t occur during the apocalypse, there could easily be a ruling class that just transitioned back into something more semi-feudal. Hierarchies consisting of the ruling elite at the top, security forces and religious leaders underneath, and workers at the bottom, and vast territories of farmland with some big urban centers sprinkled in. Everybody is spread out in the countryside again, with less ability to organize successful revolts.

Note that I don’t even think this would happen. There’d be mass starvation and a reorganizing of industrial production around even smaller populations in smaller areas of the developed world before a return to pre-industrial agricultural society. Maybe in some areas it would re-emerge as desperate people try to scrape by, but those places will DEFINITELY be largely impoverished hellholes controlled by petty tyrants.

1% of Venus is already too hellish on earth. And the point that user was making is that the greenhouse gas effect is so potent in Venus that its temperature is similar to Mercury (462 Celsius vs -173 to 427 Celsius).

No dumbass, the solubility of CO2 in water decreases as water increases, but that doesn't mean what you think it means.

What is more likely (and fucking is) to happen is that carbon dioxide will react with water to form carbonic acid in a reversible reaction.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid

What this means is that the more CO2 there is in the water, the more carbonic acid there will be in the water due to Le Chatlier's Principle. And this process is proven by decreasing pH in the ocean that is fucking coral reefs' shit up

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

No. We don't want the bourgeoisie to die. Ideally they give up their position peacefully. Probably won't happen that way, but murdering people isn't our objective.

But that isn't socialism that is social democracy
Thinngs you mentioned (universal healthcare, lower working hours) while would exist in socialism aren't inherently socialist unto themselves. In this day and age they are used as a capitalist tool to prevent the proletariat from revolting.

I don't think anyone is under the impression that socialism will have worse conditions than capitalism however capitalism is exhausting resources that make our lives easy.
If current trends continue the need to grow your own food won't become some policy proposal like you're making it out to be it will become a need.

Socialism as the resolution to capitalist contradictions that heightened class conflict was a prediction based on the notion that socialism was better for the working class, it was them re-claiming their own surplus value for a society of greater overall means. It’s the appeal to their material needs. Telling them they have to start farming or else there will be mass extinction will just not work, even if it were true.
Like i said this isn't some sort of policy proposal capitalist exploitation of the environment is leading to an eventual food crisis. People who are not reliant of fragile capitalist structures out side of their control for food have a better chance of survival than those who don't. I am saying those people should be the working class.

Going vegan is just a spook. And plenty of people bike to work however it is only the people with no other option.

Do you think I'm advocating for some liberal utopianism?

The only way you’ll get them to work more time in the day to produce their own food is if you threaten them with jail (eco-Stalinism)
Like I said people will start to grow their own food if they can no longer get it at the grocery store.
The point isn't weather or not this will happen but how to structure our agriculture seeing that right now our system is unsustainable

The elites aren't anywhere near smart enough to do anything like that. You're a conspiracy nut and a fascist.

Talking about Venus in regards to climate change is like talking about a zombie virus in regards to AIDS. One is fantasy one is reality.

No it won't, Industrial agriculture is much more efficient than pre-Industrial agriculture.
In what way? Most of the time where it’s talked about as being unsustainable their are sustainable substitutes.

Soil degradation, climate change increased population, any financial crisis will just make that worse
Yes growing your own food in a sustainable way not like these factory farms we have now

This is a complex topic, soil restoration can be fixed in areas that were original fertile by crop rotation, and changing the pesticides that are used. In addition fertilizer can increase soil fertility, or plants can be modifies to require less resources.

How would this not effect small scale agriculture?

same as above

No it wouldn’t, a finical crisis wouldn’t make production materially harder, it might make production less profitable, but this has nothing to do with the actual production process it’s self.

This is a lot more resource intensive and time consuming compared to permaculture. Not optimal.

Less land would be needed compared to the amount of land for modern agriculture.

A financial crisis would likely cause price fluctuation in all markets including food

Not when you consider labor a factor.

Not for stuff like cereals which is what the mass majority of fields are for.

the whole point of permaculure is to reduce the amount of labor than typical farmering, you're wrong.

so?

Permaculture will never be anywhere near as efficient as industrial agriculture in regards to production. Take the US, highly mechanized agriculture, around 1-2% of people work in agriculture, yet it’s the world’s biggest food exporter. This is why Industrialization and Mechanization of Agriculture is so useful.

Without cereals there would be no flower. So no cereals means no bread, pasta, or noodles. It also means no cakes, or pies. Want a backed good, no flower means it can’t exist. In addition corn, the biggest cereal produced in the US, is used for ethanol production, in a post-oil world, no ethanol means no plastics, or synthetic fibers. No medical plastics means life expectancy will dramatically reduce. No synthetic fibers means that more land for cotton production will be needed, and more land for sheep grazing. Cereal crops are extremely important for civilization, both as we know it, and as we don’t know it.

Modern agriculture is unsustainable

So in other words no more poisons whats the problem here?

are you under the impression cord cannot be grown in your backyard or something?

see

Flower isn’t a poison, it’s an essential ingredient in many foods.

Not in the quantities nessicary for Industrial use.