Jump to content
  • entries
    2
  • comments
    25
  • views
    1181

OOC Blog: Climate change and why it will continue


Magicboyd25

973 views

 Share

A lot of people throughout the world are concerned, like myself. With global trends in atmospheric temperatures rising, many problems will occur. Now I know a lot of you have hear the lectures on why and what is being done etc, but I dont think much will change.

 

First off, if you dont believe me about the concept of climate change, read this link: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

 

If that doesn't convince you, well then you are fitting the mold I will describe.

 

Why I dont think much will change until it is too late:

 

1. Money

  • Everyone loves money. Government officials love money, corporations love money, individuals love money.
    • Government officials love their funding, and many of the companies that fund them are companies that would be affected by environmental laws. Now this is not in all cases, but those influences are there, and if a politician wants to run the next year, they dont support something that would hurt those that fund them.
    • Corporations dont want to work for cleaner production methods and they stretch the boundaries and laws to the max for their own profit. Corporations will also throw along the "job myth" that new oil lines or other industries will create jobs, when in reality, the job creation is only a fraction of what the cost is to the environment and the future. If you want to argue about the Keystone pipeline, just let me know, cause I will tell you how idiotic that thing is.
    • Individuals dont want to change to better and greener things. It costs money to change to more efficient technology and cars as well as better sealed windows that let less heat or air out (that then use less electricity cause the heater/AC doesn't have to work as hard). With prices so high on many of the greener technologies, I dont foresee much happening.

2. Habits

  • Everyone has habits on how things have been done for so long. It is hard to break them.
    • Many people hear that they should turn off lights and only use things when needed, well if they are not used to that, it wont change.
    • Many people are used to certain technologies, for example cars in general. A lot of people just want to get a car, not go shopping for some electric car that really is better for the environment.

3. Misconceptions and Procrastination

  • With something as large of scale as this, people in general do not want to be part of the change.
    • I hear a lot of times that people of the older generation say: "It will be your generation and the next that solve this". Well, why does it have to be the next one? There are still a good many people in that older generation that own houses and perform the daily aspects of life that involve the issues that cause climate change.
    • There are still people out there that despite all the data, dont believe in climate change. Well there are always going to be those people, just when they make it to government, you know there are issues.

  • Upvote 1
 Share

15 Comments


Recommended Comments

All environmental movements are based around the interests of people not the environment itself.

 

When you do get a preservation movement as opposed to a wise use or conservation movement you get the "spotted owls are worth more than humans."  All of the modern attempts at controlling the damage humans cause are really half-assed because of this. Humans are regarded as special either due to religious beliefs or simply from a specist standpoint.

 

Actually getting it passed comes down how much people can live with someone else breaking the rules and getting more out of it. Why switch from a lawn to native plants when your neighbor has the finest one on the block and isn't being seriously penalized? Why drive a Leaf when your friend has 442 Olds? Why pick your trash at the beach when 10 families just left it there?

Link to comment
  • Administrators

This obviously doesn't address pollution and destruction of the environment, but I don't know why we haven't been able to set up some sort of apparatus that captures carbion dioxide out of the air, and just pumps it underground. Or, maybe make CO2 pipelines from urban areas to forests, where the CO2 would (theoretically) be better captured by the plant life. It would take government operation/subsidies, but I'd imagine if you got a few nations on board (India, China, US, and others) that would eliminate the whole "carbon footprint" thing.

 

Note: I am not even closed to a climate expert, and I totally understand that everything I just said might be completely wrong :P

Link to comment

All environmental movements are based around the interests of people not the environment itself.

 

When you do get a preservation movement as opposed to a wise use or conservation movement you get the "spotted owls are worth more than humans."  All of the modern attempts at controlling the damage humans cause are really half-assed because of this. Humans are regarded as special either due to religious beliefs or simply from a specist standpoint.

 

Actually getting it passed comes down how much people can live with someone else breaking the rules and getting more out of it. Why switch from a lawn to native plants when your neighbor has the finest one on the block and isn't being seriously penalized? Why drive a Leaf when your friend has 442 Olds? Why pick your trash at the beach when 10 families just left it there?

 

I highly disagree with you. I also dont even know what you were trying to say :P 

 

Your comments about preservation does not directly relate to this. I dont see too much of a correlation either than the fact that owls are part of nature :P

 

 

This obviously doesn't address pollution and destruction of the environment, but I don't know why we haven't been able to set up some sort of apparatus that captures carbion dioxide out of the air, and just pumps it underground. Or, maybe make CO2 pipelines from urban areas to forests, where the CO2 would (theoretically) be better captured by the plant life. It would take government operation/subsidies, but I'd imagine if you got a few nations on board (India, China, US, and others) that would eliminate the whole "carbon footprint" thing.

 

Note: I am not even closed to a climate expert, and I totally understand that everything I just said might be completely wrong :P

 

I think scientists have researched things like this but what has stopped them is lawmakers and funding overall. Governments dont want to fix environmental issues because it could "Hurt jobs" (which is stupid to say cause fixing something that could kill us all in a couple hundred years is worth 10-100 jobs in a few areas).

Link to comment

What I'm saying is:

 

The majority of people simply do not care to be inconvenienced about something that they're only a small part of. Yes, it does add up, but most people do not see it that way. That itself is not a habit, but the way people think.

Link to comment

It's not called global warming. It's called climate change and it's been happening for the last 3 billion years. You can't stop it.

Link to comment

It's not called global warming. It's called climate change and it's been happening for the last 3 billion years. You can't stop it.

 

One of my better professors always said to back your arguments up with scholarly articles. :P

Link to comment

Wikipedia is a perfectly reliable source. Anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant or butthurt that an encyclopedia website actually makes shit that easy. The whole hate and mistrust of Wikipedia seems to be based solely on teachers who want their kids to spend hours working on something because they think that the bigger pain in the ass they make it, the more they learn. Why? Because American education and teachers are a lazy joke.

 

Wikipedia is just fine. If you don't like that, go google "Ice age."

Link to comment

Something is fine to quote im my mind when it is either a gov article or a published article. So believe what you will, but it isn't that credible in my mind :P

Link to comment
  • Administrators

Just look it up. For the last 3 billion years, the earth has changed back and forth between a hot house and a snowball. It's called the Ice Age (glacial period). There have been many of them and they never last very long. We are currently living at the tail end of an ice age.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change

 

While I'd be happy to hear that climate change isn't man-made, and we can continue to drive our big trucks and whatnot around, how do you refute something like this?

 

global-temp-and-co2-1880-2009.gif

Again, I'm no expert on climate science, but there's these two clashing groups with opposing scientific theories, and, well, science just isn't that opinionated. Is there proof that the data we've collected, correlating CO2 levels to increasing temperatures, isn't actually a cause/effect relationship?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I get good gas mileage with my car. People who drive hummers for the hell of it just dont give a hoot about the environment, and its not like they're going to be made illegal.

Link to comment
Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.