/int/ – No shittings during wörktime
„There is no place like home“

File (max. 4)
Return to
(optional)
  • Allowed file extensions (max. size 25 MB or specified)
    Images:  BMP, GIF, JPG, PNG, PSD   Videos:  FLV, MP4, WEBM  
    Archives:  7Z, RAR, ZIP   Audio:  FLAC, MP3, OGG, OPUS  
    Documents:  DJVU (50 MB), EPUB, MOBI, PDF (50 MB)  
  • Please read the Rules before posting.
  • Make sure you are familiar with the Guide to Anonymous Posting.

No. 11412
357 kB, 2261 × 1565
159 kB, 900 × 698
Ernst, I pretty much hate green politics.

Look, I'm a quite green person myself. I want to save the planet from fucking up it's weather cycles, I want to clean oceans, fresh air and water for people and animals, especially in asian regions. Meanwhile I life in one of the countrys who have all the means and status to help humanity to achieve this.

But what do we do? Green politics. And people don't even get how much bullshit wellness circle jerk politics it is for some 'innovative' companies nobody really needs in countries like Germany.

If we would take the meme CO2 'production' as a benchmark, we can clearly see how we just contribute something like 2%. This clearly correlates with the wealth and technological competence of a nation. Especially countries which are on the way to become somewhat first world tier, contribute massively to climate change and especially sea and air pollution.

So what do we need? Sure! More solar panels and pinwheels in countries like Germany which don't fucking contribute to le climate change whatsoever. Meanwhile India is fucking up the environement beyond repair (because they don't have a choice to make it different, silly) and we don't think for a second that the green policy with the most impact would mean, that we have to send e.g. air filters or osmosis filter to india and with that the personal to teach them how to maintain such tech. For free! Tax paid! That would the only thing that would help Le Planet, but nooo, that's so uncomfortable. I mean sure I like earth and shit but buying fair trade ginger aloe vera latte gotta be enough right? Let's jerk off together some more be like totally green and stuff and care about what kind of fucking fuel our cars use.

It's like if I would grab plastic bags in the woods every day to save the trees, but every wednesday a truck comes by dumping 20 tonnes of plastic but I would never ask the driver why he does that and what we could do about it.

Ernst, I may be wrong in many details here, but on the baseline you get the idea what massive rubbish so called green politics is right?
>>
No. 11415
Environmentalism is a business lead by cults like greenpeace.
Unless it fills someones pockets or makes enough anti bee slavery protesters happy to secure a parties vote no one is interested in doing anything.
>>
No. 11418
Despite agreeing with you at large: Don't think technological transfer will work as easy as you present it to us here.

In the 1950s/60s+ people were all like
>just give 'em the technology and they will achieve western world standard

and yeah these pure technocratic approaches were blind on many eyes and it therefore failed more or less.
The problem is that every nation/region and cultural space or whatever employs shit in its own way, some air filters and training won't secure their use. Hey, after all it's cheaper to not use them, so why use them?
>>
No. 11420
257 kB, 943 × 826
105 kB, 774 × 514
Well, China. USA and EU alone are responsible for 50% of global CO2 emissions. So it makes sense they are reducing them.

Also India has much lower CO2 emission per capita than your typical 1st world country. But of course you are right. It makes little sense if they build their future infrastructure based on technologies that are already outdated, or in the process to become deprecated, only because the west used them 100-50 yêars ago. I don't understand why you are against using new technolgies in the 1st world , though. You want it to become the poo in the loo of the future?
>>
No. 11425
>>11412
>libya is blue
This probably changed after Gaddafi was killed.

Anyway, I very much agree with you.
This is partly because the "modern left" has had a tradition of intentionally or unintentionally subverting apolitical (at least when it comes to left vs. right) movements.

Environmentalism used to be non-partisan in the US. As an example: Nixon was a republican but he created the EPA, clean air and water act, various animal protection acts, and put the National Environmental Policy Act into law. These actions were either directly proposed by Nixon, or he signed them into law.

Since Leftism has traditionally been viewed as the "counterculture" or rebellious ideology (although in certain circumstances it becomes mainstream -take for example FDR, who might not be truly "leftist", but was one of the most left-leaning presidents in US history), any person that joins a "counterculture" or rebellious movement is more likely to be a leftist. As long as the movement is outside of the mainstream it does not have to be particularly "counterculture" or rebellious to be subverted, and unless it is strictly anti-leftist (it does not mean it has to be right wing) leftists will seek to join the movement. As more leftists join the movement the movement attracts more leftists which attracts more leftists and so on until it becomes of a leftist character in terms of terms of both ideology and members. Probably you already know this. This does not mean that individuals within the new movement cannot fulfill the original purpose of the old movement, rather it just means the movement as a whole takes on different character.

A infamous example of this is "Earth First!". The beginning of the movement started with principles based on conservation biology that opposed unnecessary human disruption of natural ecosystems. During the 90s it took on a strong leftist and anarchist bent:

"After 1987, Earth First! became primarily associated with direct action to prevent logging, building of dams, and other forms of development which may cause destruction of wildlife habitats or the despoliation of wild places. The change in direction attracted many new members to Earth First!, some of whom came from a leftist or anarchist political background or were involved in the counterculture.[citation needed] Dave Foreman has suggested that this led to the introduction of activities such as a "puke-in" at a shopping mall, a flag burning, the heckling of Edward Abbey at the 1987 Earth First! rendezvous, and back-and-forth debates in the Earth First! Journal on topics such as anarchism, which Foreman and other Earth First! members did not wish to be associated. Most of the group's older members, including Dave Foreman, Howie Wolke, Bart Koehler, Christopher Manes, George Wuerthner, and Earth First! Journal editor John Davis, became increasingly uncomfortable with this new direction. This tension reportedly led several of the founders to sever their ties to Earth First! in 1990. Many of them went on to launch the magazine, Wild Earth, as well as the environmental group, the Wildlands Project. On the other hand, Roselle, along with activists such as Judi Bari, welcomed the new direct-action tactics and leftist direction of Earth First!."

I think that for an environmentalist movement in the west to fulfill its original purpose and not stray from it, it must be strictly anti-leftist (but again not necessarily right wing).
>>
No. 11426
>le everyone else is doing it argument
The issue at hand here is the long term health and national security of all nations. Trying to say "well they're even bigger polluters" is like saying "well look at that guy he's shooting up with water directly from dirty potholes every day so what if I smoke a little meth once in awhile". What the other guy is doing is irrelevant. If anything them being worse should serve as a stark warning of why not to do it also, not even a little bit.

Do YOU want to have your rivers looking like. Indian rivers? No? How about just a little bit of poo in your streets, only a little?

>>11415
Green Peace is not a cult by any definition of the term. I don't really care how butthurt you are at environmentalism you can't just throw random words around as if they have both meaning.

>>11418
The problem is this expectation that more technology will save us from ourselves and the damage were doing with modern technology. The biggest actual problem isn't even technological, it's economic and political. The first thing you would need to do is kill the shitty Consumerist Capitalist economic model. And no, Communism is not the solution. The next thing you will need (or first, depending how strong) is a political faction with the indomitable will to force those changes. Fact of the matter is most things happen the way they do thanks to inertia. This whole "green" movement is now an attitude adopted by consumers and to a lesser extent companies. Even little things, like say plastic twist off caps being reduced in size and made from recycled plastics, all contributes and moreover some of these things can be done more cheaply thus providing the economic incentive, and frankly most of the time people either don't notice or don't even care. The main issue is completely lacking the political will to accomplish anything that is further mired in political corruption. Our current administration in USA is a very good example of these twin problems.
>>
No. 11427
I'm not quite sure what you're complaining about here. Funnily enough the position of looking at the industry of developing countries is often a criticism of Green ideas in itself (prioritising environment over people). This is especially true as the only groups that talk of a carbon tax at the consumer level rather than taxing factories for emissions are Greens.

Yes, the west pollutes less now than it did before the deindustrialisation of the 1970s but that hardly removes moral responsibility to pollute less (and ignores local impacts). It also ignores the role lead economies play in introducing and refining new technology or in our role in fuelling the demand for dirty factories in India. Finally, at the very least it is a situation where every little helps given the environment is a public commodity.

We're already utterly fucked imo. I do not look forward to being an old man trying to survive in summers as hot as the sahara.
>>
No. 11429
>>11427
Yeah that too
https://www.ktvu.com/news/global-warming-is-occurring-at-a-faster-pace-than-scientists-thought-un-panel
The basic conclusion is it's even worse than scientists already imagined.

This is also part of why we are mathematically unlikely to ever encounter intelligent life even if we do miraculously get our shit together, which we won't. If you just look at Earth it spent like 99.9% of its time without intelligent life. During the what 200,000 years of earth's history, we spent only a known fraction of it in any kind of technological urban age (maybe 10,000 years afaik) and of that only spent a couple centuries with actual non-mechanical energy sources, most likely followed by our complete implosion.

Odds are any species that becomes highly technologically savvy is going to kill itself way before it has the chance to actually spread across the galaxy. There is probably a great deal of life out there, most of it simple and microbial or at best the equivalent of small insect like or rodent or lizard like creatures. I'd estimate that of the majority of intelligent life in the galaxy the vast majority has already turned their planets into something like Venus or Mars already.
>>
No. 11441
>>11429
I wouldn't go as far as to say ending all life on Earth or even civilization. It's just too easy to mitigate once you get to the level that justifies geoengineering (think mirror satellites) or simply...I'll just post the Isaac Arthur video on the topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsXmDKQp5_E

Will be hot as fuck though and I bet it will stay that way forever once the rum and reggaeton industry finds a foothold. We'll be praying for deaths sweet release I'm sure.
>>
No. 11443
>>11441
Oh I wouldn't say all life on earth. Total global thermonuclear exchange is unlikely to do that. I mean a large mass extinction event which frankly our whole global system is way more fragile than most people realize. I'd estimate a global pandemic with a low number of 100,000,000 casualties would be enough to totally crash the world system and take decades just to try and piece some things back together. The longterm effects of climate change will also likely help crash civilization cumulatively speaking since we are also talking not just about getting warmer but all the cascade effects. It just dawned on me that you really do need at minimum above average intelligence to comprehend why this is a bad thing and how it impacts all these codependent dynamic systems. There is a reason why DoD released a report not too long ago which called climate change a priority national security threat https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/220575-pentagon-unveils-plan-to-fight-climate-change
>>
No. 11462
>>11412
I can feel you Ernst. But look, at least you have a green party in Germany, in Turkey - as in most developping and underdevelopped countries - we have not reached this point yet.
I personally think that going green is some sort of post-materialistic desire. Once you already have a decent lifestyle, you woulf start caring about the environment. But as long as you have to bother with more urgent needs such as decent income, perspective for your children on the job market and thus, better universities, infra-structure in rural parts of the country, or even - lol - basic securities such as being free from war, supression and having access to medical treatment, this won't change. And I am also looking in the direction of China, India (for obvious reasons) and even the US here, since a considerable amount of the US American population is also not living the American dream at all.
As sad as it is, I fear it won't change until climate change has an impact on our life where it starts threatening basic needs. Just think of a rising sea level for instance. 70% of the world population live in coastal region. After they start becoming homeless and refugees are numbering up into the hundreds of millions and more, we'll better start re-thinking our hippie-politics.
>>
No. 11464
>>11426
>Green Peace is not a cult by any definition of the term

Take the dictionary definition and replace "religious" with some other word (green, propagandistic, unworldly, anti-scientific or what ever).

No butthurt there, just a little distain for what greenpeace and dozens of other similar groups became in the last 20 or 30 years.
>>
No. 11468 Kontra
>>11464
you can also sacralize science...
>>
No. 11469
>>11468
I guess the difference here is that the statements of science are not sacralized itself but you may challenge them. While religion doesn't allow you to do that.
>>
No. 11470
>>11468
Would you say it's reasonable to lobby against or even destroy (with a whole PR team by your side) scientific work that could possibly save millions of lives because it interferes with your worldviews?
>>
No. 11475
>>11469
>statements of science are not sacralized itself

well that can happen tho, but it's an act from the outside usually

>>11470
No, but I never said that in the first place. But as you somehow already mentioned, science can save, just like a god can save. At that point you believe in science as an entity in it's own, a worldview itself which serves as a base one can make decisions from

---

ITT the world is doomed based on scientific data. And I don't want to reject scientific data but science is not able to give a picture of the whole really and you have to be careful with all the conflicting info that is floating around these days. We come to a point where it becomes an issue of perception, the world is doomed OR science or whatever will save us. Don't underestimate the power of perception and it's influence on agency.
>>
No. 11476
>>11475
>science can save, just like a god can save

You put believes and prayers on one level with antibiotics?
When i talked about science in my post above i wasn't talking about a theoretical thing that might exist but i had a certain product in mind that some organisations but Greenpeace in particular is fighting because reasons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice

https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/02/13/golden-rice-gmo-crop-greenpeace-hates-and-humanitarians-love/

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/08/activists-destroy-golden-rice-field-trial
>>
No. 11477
If you think how insignificant one person is in a country of 50-70 million.
Then you think there are 7 billion people on earth.
Most of them Niggers, Chinks and Paki's.
Who will never give a shit.
Can you change the eco-system of the planet, No.
So does CO2, increase or decrease global temperature, is a a 1 deg C make a difference, not if we use the Kelvin Scale.

You can recycle, re-use, and it can make you feel good, but you will have zero impact.
Hell buy an electric car with a massive Carbon footprint, so you can feel superior when you charge your car, where likely the electric comes from burning fossil fuels at 33% efficiency.
Or do we use nuclear power, or is that bad because you might have a disaster.

Green politics, is where you vote for increased green taxes so they can build windmills which will never be viable, or where companies can downsize and sell their carbon credits for profit.

Germany also banned imports of Chinese solar panels as it would lose jobs.

All politics is bullshit, go live in the woods, be a vegan, never buy anything, build your own house and hope they do not find it as you do not own the land or have a permit for construction.
Or buy the mass produced goods, which are labelled as organic or fair trade, instead of growing your own food or visiting a local farm, while you travel on a 2nd hand bicycle.
>>
No. 11479
>>11476
You make it all sound like there is no downside to scientific research and solutions which kind of resembles and ideology and believe

I just want to challenge your burning believe in science bringing solutions over us. Often enough science states a solution that is blind on other eyes.
I don't reject science but one has to be critical to its solutions and answers to problems, just look back into the history of science and you will see how much crap it fostered or how something sounding so nice went wrong in reality.
I don't deny medical progress or think it's wrong in the first place but the development took a lot of bad routes that should be changed or ended.

Looking for the worlds Heil in science is resembling other believe systems, perhaps people just need it? Even tho when they sacralize rationality or science. Denying that could expose a blind spot of natural science I'm sure cognitive science could back me up tho

might be interesting in that discussion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KnPBg-tanE
>>
No. 11480
>>11479
>You make it all sound like there is no downside to scientific research

What is the downside in research? Researche is there to find possible downsides (and advantages).
Sure the solutions can have downsides, that's why you find leaflets everytime you buy a bottle of cough syrup.

>just look back into the history of science and you will see how much crap it fostered or how something sounding so nice went wrong in reality.

Yes, and in the end it was often science that could tell that and why it is crap.
There is not "the" science, there are thousands of scientists and some of them have no idea what they're doing or they knowingly do bad, for example by faking studies. Those people are usually not taken seriously in their field but only by people who have no idea who they listen to.
A wonderful example is the whole Glyphosate debate we had in the last few month where you had on one side "experts" and on the other side you had experts talking.
I really recommend reading into that topic, for example how the media jumped onto the "glyphosate kills bees" topic, it's really sad if you actually looked into the study.

>I don't deny medical progress or think it's wrong in the first place but the development took a lot of bad routes that should be changed or ended.

Yes, there are bad things but that is why i named an example. A product that has nearly only advantages (the downside being pretty much only the money being pumped into the project) and yet people fight against it and destroy research just because they don't like it for no good reason.
>>
No. 11481
2,4 MB, 608 × 1080, 0:15
>>
No. 11484
>>11426
I was not relativating the problem. In a nutshell I said that our status quo is quite great and necessary action is to be taken where such a status doesn't exist.

Making clean things cleaner is less useful than making dirty things clean, you agree?
>>
No. 11490
283 kB, 1226 × 469
165 kB, 1071 × 457
154 kB, 887 × 460
151 kB, 901 × 457
Interesting presentation on topic by Prof. Dr. Niko Paech from eco-fascist party ÖDP:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4sQ5xqUrU0

(in German language)
>>
No. 11493
>>11412
Sachalin looks like a nice place if belive this map
And kosovo is serbia!
>>
No. 11508
>>11490
>eco-fascism is a thing
>Germany
I'm sorry I just found that funny. Anyway I didn't see the video (not that I can translate two hours of German presentation anyway) but is the gist of it here essentially that Green Party members are all a bunch of rich yuppies who waste airline fuel flying all over the place? Well, can't say that's entirely inaccurate here, but in general Americans don't really fly unless they have money. $500 roundtrip flight is on the continent is simply too much for most people. Also funnily enough it's usually these same people who shop at Trader Joe's and buy all organic everything that nobody else but mid/upper middle class can afford to eat.
>>
No. 11510
>>11508
It's common knowledge you have to be able to afford being green.
What that dude does however is nothing but anti-green propaganda and exposing the hypocrisy of people does nothing to prevent men polluting the environment.

It's like that guy's saying "look, the people who say they want to save the climate don't really act like it so why should anybody".
That's not even logical.
>>
No. 11524
>>11415
greenpeace doesnt do shit about enviroment and there were enviromentalism before greenpeace existed. get your facts right.
>>
No. 11581
>>11524
>greenpeace doesnt do shit about enviroment

yeah, they kinda do.

>and there were enviromentalism before greenpeace existed

Never claimed something else.
>>
No. 11588
>>11581
>>11581
it's not a cult nor it's existence depend on 'cults' as you mentioned.

and they don't do shit about enviroment as they are ignorant about enviroment since they are not nature scientist nor get their facts from them.
>>
No. 11604
Additional info. China's decarbonisation programme is immense. They will put more renewable energy capacity in over the next five years than the total energy capacity in the UK from all sources. India will do it's bit when it can, no doubt under pressure from other countries that have already implemented carbon reduction. The Trump argument that "it's just us doing it" is false.

Another thing to note is that the industrialising countries are likely to skip the most dirty stages. For example, African countries are rushing to solar and biomass to meet their energy needs instead of passing through coal. This makes sense because they lend themselves to decentralised energy and putting in a national grid is very expensive.
>>
No. 11605
>>11604
I honestly believe the new major power bloc is going to be in Africa in a couple centuries. Once they capitalize on their own resources with their own industrial capacity which China is building up for them and acts China semi collapsed in on itself and retreated into it's own shell after their period of global ascendance will see them as a waning power. In this time both Europe and USA would've been too factionalized and messed up from their own problems. It will eventually be like seeing Spain going from world power to Iberian irrelevance today.
>>
No. 11609
147 kB, 1920 × 2552
>>11588
>and they don't do shit about enviroment as they are ignorant about enviroment since they are not nature scientist nor get their facts from them.

Funny thing is the first thing Greenpeace bring to mind for me is their repeated work in forcing my government to release facts on environmental issues. Fracking was and remains a major one, not as I’m entirely opposed but simply that government reflexively seeks to hide the impact of planning decisions. The organisation is too large to think in terms like this. Some bits of Greenpeace do good and others...At least give the police an excuse to knock some sense into the self-righteous bongo-enriching filth, it's like the post-office or Godzilla.

>>11604
>For example, African countries are rushing to solar and biomass to meet their energy needs instead of passing through coal.

Personally I'm quite sceptical about this given the continents history of making hot-air. Africa certainly pledges building renewable power but it’s energy markets are a mess that hamper investment while East Africa is only ramping up coal mining. Europe and China will certainly lead Africa by the nose if need be on this but renewable energy, even hydroelectric, has faced trouble on the continent by bad government.
>>
No. 25263
I don't like environmental absolutists, because while I agree with their ultimate goal, I disagree with their methods, they have no imagination, and want everything to happen instantly.
I too want to save the world from itself, but I disagree with most greens on how to get there.
>>
No. 25270 Kontra
>>11412
>he meme CO2 'production'
it's not a meme. CO2 levels and CO2 circulation changes climate drastically since the world existed. humans lately causing more CO2 than they supposed to be and it endangers the earth.

As for green parties they generally dont care about climates. Listen to nature scientists not clueless politicans who never received any scientific lecture in their entire life.
>>
No. 25272
>>25270
This. And if you knew anything about Earth's long geological history you would immediately understand what true scale of threat we are creating for ourselves. This world is such a fragile dynamic system of dynamic systems it is so easy to drop us into an ice age or irradiate the planet with UV or sink continents beneath the oceans while asphyxiating us all in a low oxygen hot house. I can sort of understand why people don't get it because most people are dumbasses and it truly does take some amount of intellect to fully understand these vast systems and our impact on it across time.
>>
No. 25280
>>25270
There is no implication like, that CO2 "doesn't matter" intended with this statement. Read the sentence further. Sorry for the bit confusing phrasing.
>>
No. 25333
>>
No. 25343
>>25333
I don't actually understand what this means and holy shit what's the deal with Curacao?
>>
No. 25364 Kontra
>>25343
read OP:
>we can clearly see how we just contribute something like 2%
>>
No. 25368
37 kB, 809 × 953
>>25364
>CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita)
Nothing with % here. Tons is the unit. First plot in OP could still be right.

Anyway! I think we can first notice the downwards trend for Germany and can also see, that Germanys production is not high compared to other states.

Regarding the statistics you posted, it still seems to be a good idea, if countries with <10 and downward trends would rather try to help countries with >10 instead of themselves.
>>
No. 25369 Kontra
>>25368
I think tons/capita is the actual unit. Shamefur dispray.
>>
No. 25377 Kontra
>>25368
>Same emissions as Cayman Islands
Wow
>>
No. 25379
>>25377
HDI of the Caymans 0.983
HDI of Germany 0.936

CO2 per capita = Same

Should make you think.
>>
No. 25380 Kontra
157 kB, 850 × 582
>>25377
For reference.
What's wrong with Ernst today?
>>
No. 25389
257 kB, 620 × 370
79 kB, 600 × 475
35 kB, 474 × 256
158 kB, 1280 × 720
>>25380
>USA
>Highest HDI in the world
Fucking lol source discarded
>>
No. 25399
>>
No. 25418 Kontra
>>25389
>2000
Ach Ernst. x(
>>
No. 25422
If you want to save the world just fuck China up. Thats all you need. If will solve like half of entire world's problems.
>>
No. 25446
191 kB, 591 × 483
>>25418
>2000
2000 what? I don't get what you're trying to say
>>
No. 25448
>>25422
Didn't work with the USSR last time.
>>
No. 25451 Kontra
>>25446
I know!
>>
No. 25869 Kontra
>>11468
You can also fetishize science, and this is definitely happening today. How many of these people who "fucking love science" and "have The Science™ on their side" have read a scientific paper on the topic they are interested in? How many could? They don't believe The Science™, they believe whatever somebody told them is The Science™, which means that the scientific part is the least important one. Science is a religion or a brand in the eyes of the public, a mysterious authority to appeal to in a (usually political) debate, and this is more and more the case with supposed scientists as well.

I've seen so many shit studies that do completely invalid statistical dick pulling under ridiculous assumptions to arrive at nonsense conclusions you wouldn't believe it. Oh, but it has a p-value under 5%, that's like really sciency!! No, I don't know what a p-value is, why do you ask? But the study says what I want to hear, so clearly it's true.

The eco faggots and the general "left" have a really bad case of this fetish, but I think that's just due to the political make-up of academia. It's everywhere across the political spectrum, you can see it with /pol/ types and economic liberals as well.