Businesses won't do it without the government forcing them to do it. Cutting back on these type of regulations is always a bad thing. He already rolled back the Clean Water Initiative. The main goal behind that is for corporations to get away with more **** and lower costs on their end for more profit that will never go to their workers and is a detriment to the rest of us.

Over a hundred and ninety countries have signed up to The Paris Agreement, so it's the key to any kind of concerted effort to reduce global warming. Perhaps most of us already know what the agreement does and doesn't do, but if not, here's an easy-to-digest guide which is pretty good even though it's two years out of date:-



Commendable though it is, The Paris Agreement isn't much more than a statement of intent, by which countries are hoping to limit global warming to 2°C. Even if countries achieve the goals they are voluntarily setting themselves, it's not certain that that will be enough to avert a global disaster. So let's not become complacent. It'd be a mistake to imagine that with the Paris Agreement we can stop worrying about the effects of global warming.

^ That'd be nice of course, goofle, but I think we need some government intervention and incentives to push things in the desired direction. It's no good leaving a chocolate cake in a roomfull of small children and saying, "Hopefully they'll just take a small slice each and leave some for later."
EDIT: dj has just made this same point more powerfully. Thanks!

Arctic ‘Doomsday’ Vault, Meant To Protect Against Disasters, Gets Flooded After Permafrost Melts

"The Svalbard Global Seed Vault, more commonly known as the "Doomsday Vault," houses more than 800,000 important crop seeds, as well as several tree samples, that humanity would need in order to survive should a global natural or man-made disaster occur.

The vault itself is located 400 feet under the Arctic permafrost and is strong enough to survive even a nuclear holocaust, but the Norwegian government, who is in charge of the vault, did not take into consideration that the ice surrounding the stronghold would melt and flood the facility, which is exactly what just happened."

Impeach him.

Impeach Schnapps him.

Impeach brandy>>

So aside from curbing gas emissions, what other avenues can people take on a large scale that would hinder the current rate?

Everybody should turn up their air conditioning and open their windows.

Go vegan. :D or at least reduce animal product consumption.

I'd rather drown.

I mean, experiencing Waterworld is probably a lot more enjoyable than watching it.

Do you really want Kevin Costner wandering around on a boat?

Why would you force animals to consume less product? That's mean.
We'd all rather you drowned.

I am in favour of a free world. Decide what you believe in, petition, argue etc. Don't force.

Then quit paying taxes.

You're better than that response.

So you're okay with the government forcing you to pay taxes?

^ That's a very pertinent news story: a short tragi-comedy but with a lot more tragi than comedy because it highlights two uncomfortable facts:-

i) how ineffectual our attempts might be to preserve anything in the face of drastic climate change.
ii) how nature has already raced ahead of our predictions about future climatic conditions.

^ That's exactly the kind of question that I hoped might get debated here. Thanks!

Here's a short, factual list of suggestions:-



In case you want to check back on those suggestions, they were:-
i) plant a tree (or some climbing greenery over your house)
ii) switch to energy saving lightbulbs ( and turn off lights, etc that you don't need)
iii) turn off the bathroom tap while you are brushing your teeth.
iv) sell your car ( or at least car pool, switch to a hybrid, and stop joy riding)
v) become a vegetarian (or at least cut down on beef, switching to poultry or fish instead)

The stuff in brackets are my ideas, btw.

This clip is longer and with more suggestions. It starts with "What is global warming", but it's pretty amusing. Seven minutes well spent I would say:-

@ B@ - Not really. I still don't wanna go to jail or not have a job.

I'm sure you don't like your government killing innocent people in foreign countries, you probably still voted for one of the responsible parties in the last election and pay taxes that fund those operations.

So you're an anarchist? And I didn't vote cause **** all the options.

Potentially. Ideally. I don't know if I have enough faith in people to believe it would work out fine. I'm certainly an anarchist ethically, because I believe in the Non Aggression Policy and Universal Ethics.

But I also understand that there's no point arguing for something that isn't ever likely to happen in my lifetime, so it's best to aim for something a little closer. Gradual steps.

I wonder how many of you are hoping to have children in the future?

If you have a child in the next ten years or so, he/she might be about seventy-five in the year 2100 - and that's not so old by today's expectations.
According to this article, if carbon emissions continue at present rates, a sea-level rise of 2 metres/6 feet is possible by the year 2100.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.2a70a9f22bfb

You can click here to find maps that show the America that your child might face in his/her retirement years, though it only shows the extent of flooding. Mercifully, perhaps, it doesn't show the hoards of refugees moving inland from the coasts, which will make the recent Syrian refugee crisis in Europe look like something, er, on a smaller scale:-

https://ss2.climatecentral.org/#12/4...feet&pois=hide

If you come to my house you can **** in the garage.

I imagine an anarchic society being controlled by a psuedo goverment of crime syndicates dictating trade, politics, justice, etc. I dont think true anarchism can exist unless you use a simple definition like no official government.

You know what the NAP is. There's nothing wrong with responding to those who trespass and/or violate your property.

Also you can still have laws and prisons in a free society, they would simply be voluntarily funded. The only real laws would be for people to not violate the Non Aggression Principle, which covers pretty much any immoral act.

But as I've said I don't have enough faith in people to do this in mass. Would work better if individuals who believe in this sort of stuff created their own country.

No. And they would have violated it and therefore lawfully responsible.

I'm honestly not surprised about the sea level. Sea level here has risen by about .5 meters recently and Queensland especially has been experiencing quite a bit of flooding. I suppose we don't focus enough on climate change (even though we were climate tax happy for a while down in aussieland) and if these big corporate businesses stopped being so busy with their own inflation, perhaps they could focus on their extensive gas emissions and pollution rate. Meh, I suppose we've caught onto it now, though... but it does sound like one scary future.

Okay.

I already said it clearly violates the NAP.

^ Thank you so much for telling us about how things stand in Australia, Rjinn!
The only other poster from that area is Stephen, who alerted us to this disaster-in-the-making:-

It seems a shame if Australia, which has seen relatively little industrialization and pollution, is now destined to catch up fast with other countries.
__________________________________________________ __________________

On the topic of disappearing beaches, there is clear evidence where I live too. Here's an article which confirms the same possible sea-level rise of 6 feet which I have previously mentioned:-

Sea- level rise threatens Yucatan Peninsula, Cancun, Mexico | Global Warming Effects

If you don't want all the facts and figures, here are a couple of striking quotes:-

And here's a picture to show what's happening. The house and palm tree show the old beach level, which used to slope gently out to a sea that would've been a "safe" one or two hundred yards away. Now the sea is eating away at the sand cliff it has made. How high is the cliff? Maybe six feet? Whatever it is, the quantity of eroded sand is just mind-boggling.

http://www.beachpro.mx/img/page/fig1.png

Has anyone here ever called their senator ? As Trump seems to be about to pull the US out of the Paris Agreement, now would be a good time to try it perhaps.

If you make a call and keep it limited to one political issue, it should be recorded in a call log, and senators are sensitive to public opinion as we all know. Your call could send a message, if that's not a tautology. Anyway, this link even gives you a script you can follow if you feel inclined.

https://www.facebook.com/newsandguts...29573030781006

It is an executive action and the Senate can prevent him from pulling out of the Accord. They can ven't against it which they have been doing well the Dems anyways.

^ Thanks for replying, dj, though I don't entirely understand your point.
I wonder what you meant by "ven't". :confused:

If it's an executive action that the Senate can prevent then I hope some worried Americans will be calling their senators asap to apply some public pressure in favor of keeping in line with the Paris Agreement.

As a reminder, afaik, the P.A. is not legally binding to the signatories, and most scientists agree that it is the bare minimum to fend off disasterous global warming. To me it's like being on a runaway train, and the P.A. is saying, "Well, perhaps we should consider decelerating." If Trump isn't prepared to even go along with that, then yes, Noam Chomsky is right:-

Yeah so he announced pulling out and I meant vent but somehow got auto corrected to ven't. Weird. They have voicing their displeasure with his decision but that is all they could do. The mayor of NYC declared that they will still follow the rules of the accord so I guess it is up to local and state governments to decide now but aren't required to federally. He basically did it to back his coal cronies/lobbyists.

My congressmen vote against pro-environment policies at will. They're practically anti-earth. I'm not calling them. They are all Republican, and I have fundamental, ideological differences with them about the issue.

No state in the Union has congressmen that voted down more pro-environment legislation than my state, especially in the past year.

^ Yes, agree about coal cronies, and as you say it sounds like at a local level some governors and mayors will be going their own way regardless, which is good news.

^ That's a shame, Wpnfire. Sorry to nag, but actually what you say is also a good reason to call them! You don't have to speak to them, or enter into an argument, you just register that you are not happy about what they're doing in your name, like this:-

For once, a cheering piece of news about the environment:-

Renewables provide more than half UK electricity for first time - BBC News

Here's a link to some photos showing the effects of climate change; most have a poignant beauty about them:-

What climate change looks like

^ haha! The beauty is in the pictures - the terror is in the captions and statistics.

This article should carry a tl;dr warning, but if you are curious about climate change, it might be interesting; ironically, given the concern about rising sea-levels, drinking water is set to become "the new oil".
Read this and you will also be able to impress people by talking about "virtual water" and how it's being traded all the time, but is never mentioned by governments or economists.

BBC - Future - Why

Also how the environment is affecting world politics today:-

Flint Water Crisis: Michigan Health Chief Charged With Involuntary Manslaughter : NPR

Some justice has come out of this but people there are still drinking from bottled water and having to get case loads at a time.