Quote from: Xenomorphine on Jul 09, 2013, 06:46:38 PM
I used to think human beings were an awful thing when I was really little, but then, as I began to grow up, I saw how a lot of the 'social conscience' stuff being fed to be was coated in a bigger layer of bullshit and vested political interests than I realised.
This is certainly the case in the climate change agenda. If someone in power or influence is trying to tell you that a wind turbine will help stave off global warming, it's very likely they're going to profit from its sale. Al Gore's made a fortune from investing in green technology, and he's just the most prominent example. And there's no scientific debate - doubters of man-made climate change are assumed to be in the oil industry's pockets and are therefore shunned, yet many on the other side of the fence have a financial agenda too.
With that said, we're living in an ice age. Climate change is inevitable, and I'd be surprised if our activities weren't having an effect on it. But the weather is such a vast and unfathomably complex system that we can't even predict it accurately - so how can we possibly hope to
control it? If we affect local temperatures in a way that's considered positive, who's to say it won't have an extremely negative impact elsewhere? And if we can affect global temperatures - cooling the temperature could precipitate another glaciation, which will be very bad for anyone who doesn't currently wear t-shirts outdoors in winter.
The ice will melt one day though, with our help or not - it isn't the planet's normal state. It'll be the killing blow to every species and ecosystem we've put under pressure.
But getting back to your post. While there's a lot of bullshit surrounding climate change research (which is not to say that the entire avenue is without merit), when it comes to nature conservation, where there's a financial agenda it's usually
against it. America's done a great job of conserving its wild places for some time, yet Mitt Romney wanted to declare open season on digging up the national parks for natural gas deposits. Just one recent, prominent, first-world example.
Nobody's profiting from declaring the western black rhino extinct, or saying that the Siberian tiger is on the brink, or that the average age of great white sharks has dropped enormously, or that the rainforests are
still being wiped out.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jul 09, 2013, 09:48:15 PM
The environmental alarmism can't be helped, unfortunately. When was the last time you saw someone in power actually do something long-term and sustainable for the environment? Auto companies, for example, are still making gas-powered cars on a large scale and not really promoting any electric cars they may make and as far as I can tell, governments don't really offer incentives to its citizens for purchasing non-gas powered cars.
Not sure the auto industry is the best example. Strong government sanctions and incentives, particularly from the EU, have wrought major changes in the industry.
Toyota's hybrid Prius was the first example of this, selling in the millions, and now many manufacturers are trying to incorporate that massively costly and complex technology into their cars. Chevrolet's Volt is another successful example, and may have saved General Motors. Tesla's all-electric Model S has been a runaway success and outsold rival models from Audi, Mercedes and BMW in the US, and is currently poised for international launch. Honda and BMW are testing hydrogen fuel cell cars which emit only water, Aston Martin raced a hydrogen powered car at Le Mans (it finished the race). Jaguar's investing in aluminium to lighten their cars and increase efficiency, Lamborghini and BMW are pioneering in composite materials for the same purpose. The new 900bhp hypercars from McLaren, Ferrari, Porsche and Jaguar are all hybrids, touting their efficiency almost as much as their performance.
Audi's even developing a new type of fuel made by genetically engineered cyanobacteria, which is the development I'm most excited about - it may mean the end of biofuel, which will allow vast tracts of agricultural land to shift back to food production or (*changes pants*) go back to nature. And it could even spell the end of mining for oil.
So they all have an incentive to change, and are doing so. The reason it's so slow is mainly because it requires huge leaps in technology and infrastructure. The biggest jump will happen when petrol stations start offering hydrogen en masse, and if battery charging time can be cut to 20 minutes or less.
I only hope industrial vehicles will stay abreast of the technology shift, as they're the primary polluter in the transport sector.
Apparently hydrogen-powered aircraft are being trialled at the moment, and I imagine they'll be a production reality before road cars.
Quote from: SM on Jul 09, 2013, 11:38:29 PM
QuoteThese days, I have a much healthier attitude to humanity. We'll screw up along the way, but we're getting better and better.
This sums it up. Most people eventually grow out of that immature "ooooh, huamn beings are teh ebil, destroying teh planet!!11!" phase, and find, steps are being taken and things are being done, and how you can contribute to them beyond whining.
It's not going to happen overnight though.
Immature? Please. How old is David Attenborough now? Yes, things are being done - yes,
the natural world is still in big trouble. And like I said in my last post, it will take some gargantuan social and technological changes to reverse that.
If you're in a position to contribute to saving the world, then great. Chances are, you'll still "whine" if given the platform.
