Life and lifestyle stuff


2ndRateMind
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Ummm. I don't think so. The French are far from absolute poverty, and actually live rather well. And it's not the environmental stuff the gilet jaune movement is about, but Macron's really rather conservative economic policies and reforms.

Best wishes, 2RM

This is a statement born out of naivete.  I guess what you mean by "living well" is anything that doesn't look like this:

Malnutrition.jpg

 

And gilet jaune was started by Macron's move to add an Environmental Tax on the French.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The main issue of the accord is that there is ZERO EVIDENCE that decreasing global temperature by 2 degrees will prevent the Climate from Changing.

Actually, there is considerable evidence. Do you think the world's leaders sign these accords for fun, because they have nothing better to occupy them that day? 2 degrees is not ideal, and we still might suffer quite severe consequences from climate change even if we hit that target, but, it is a start. 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Actually, there is considerable evidence. Do you think the world's leaders sign these accords for fun, because they have nothing better to occupy them that day? 2 degrees is not ideal, and we still might suffer quite severe consequences from climate change even if we hit that target, but, it is a start. 

Best wishes, 2RM.

2RM... Climate changes.  With or without humans.  Spaceship Earth went into an Ice Age and a Meltdown without the benefit of a single industry producing carbon emissions.  We are currently on the 4th Ice Age.

World leaders sign these accords because... tat-tada... they need a reason to move wealth out of the current economic powerhouses.  This is the same reason why US political leaders destabilized the Middle East especially Syria that caused mass migration that destabilized the EU and why we have strong political opposition to "Building that Wall".

Like I said - you need to be able to pull out the politics out of the environmentalism.

 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 2ndRateMind said:

For example:

In July 2017 French Environment Minister Nicolas Hulot announced a plan to ban all petrol and diesel vehicles in France by 2040 as part of the Paris Agreement. Hulot also stated that France would no longer use coal to produce electricity after 2022 and that up to €4 billion will be invested in boosting energy efficiency. To reach the agreement's emission targets, Norway will ban the sale of petrol- and diesel-powered cars by 2025; the Netherlands will do the same by 2030. Electric trains running on the Dutch national rail network are already entirely powered by wind energy.The House of Representatives of the Netherlands passed a bill in June 2018 mandating that by 2050 the Netherlands will cut its 1990 greenhouse-gas emissions level by 95%—exceeding the Paris Agreement goals*. The UK plans to be carbon neutral by 2050, with the entire UK fleet of cars electric by 2040.

Best wishes, 2RM

*wikipedia.

Great.  And?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

You said the Paris climate accord wasn't working. So I provided you some contrary evidence.

What you provided was evidence that four countries have made a series of promises and plans.  That isn't the same as evidence that the accords are doing anything at all.   My contention is that we've yet to see any real effects, either in policy or in practice.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay @2ndRateMind, let's get back to the title of your thread - Life and Lifestyle.

I am currently trying my best... but failing... to avoid becoming the leader of the environmentalist group in my hometown in the Philippines.  It's the first of its kind in the Philippines and they're hoping to make it national.  The reason they're trying to rope me into heading this thing is because of the lifestyle I've made in my own house.  This environmental group started with just wanting to find a solution to reduce single-use plastics that is a heavy burden on Philippine waters.  They've now expanded their ambitions to approach zero-waste lifestyles.  It's a ginormous ambition because, as I've told them, zero-waste lifestyle is a luxury of the wealthy.  But they keep reminding me that President Duterte was able to clean Boracay in under 6 months.  It can be done.  I still don't believe it can be done but a goal of just low-waste is noble.

Anyway, I'm not zero-waste at home.  I'm just low-waste.  I can do that because I have some money to pay for the premium to live this lifestyle.  Shopping at Whole Foods is decidedly much more expensive than the neighborhood Walmart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So impatient! These things take time to achieve. The accord was not a magic wand, or even a silver bullet, to end all climate change today or tomorrow. But, over the course of government lifespans, and decades, and even maybe generations, we will start to see progress, I think.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

You said the Paris climate accord wasn't working. So I provided you some contrary evidence.

Best wishes, 2RM.

The US that withdrew from the Paris climate accord has achieved more for climate accord goals than the countries in the Paris climate accord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

So impatient! These things take time to achieve. The accord was not a magic wand, or even a silver bullet, to end all climate change today or tomorrow. But, over the course of government lifespans, and decades, and even maybe generations, we will start to see progress, I think.

I don't know if that was a reply to my statement or someone else's, but assuming it was for me, that isn't what I said.  I said "My contention is that we've yet to see any real effects, either in policy or in practice."

I didn't mention effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, unixknight said:

I don't know if that was a reply to my statement or someone else's, but assuming it was for me, that isn't what I said.  I said "My contention is that we've yet to see any real effects, either in policy or in practice."

I didn't mention effect.

I disagree.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

That the policies are in place internationally, and (as per my previous post) being put in place at the national level.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Au contraire...

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-co2-emissions-rise-after-paris-climate-agreement-signed/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/co2-emissions-reached-an-all-time-high-in-2018/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said, it will take time. Corporates are not going to interrupt the construction of  power stations, aircraft, diesel and petrol powered cars, etc, with immediate effect. Inevitably there needs to be an allowance made for a pipeline of non-compliant technologies to work their way through the system. And for the research and development and design and eventually production of new, compliant technologies to come on stream.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎5‎/‎7‎/‎2019 at 9:25 AM, estradling75 said:

Exactly....  We are being told to blindly trust the experts... Then we find signs that he experts are lying... Or we see evidence that they are simply wrong (4 feet of water by the year 2000).  Thus by all that is rational and reasonable we should be challenging the experts and their data (because of their history of lying) and their conclusions (because of their history of being wrong) Yet when we are do we are accused of being Anti-Science, Anti-Reason, and Anti-Logic.

Yet they never lay out the logical and rational, reason why we should now trust them after their history of errors and lies

Five years from 2009 was 2014...and then this

 

How was your ocean voyage to Miami recently?  Is Jacksonville underwater now?  Anyone wearing beach waders in New York City for their normal commutes today? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎5‎/‎6‎/‎2019 at 10:34 AM, 2ndRateMind said:

So, following the UN report, published today, if we all keep on living the way we live now, we can expect up to a million species to go extinct pretty rapidly, real soon now. I wonder if this might be of interest to Latter Day Saints, and what might be your reaction to this challenge? Do we have dominion over, or custodianship of, the natural world?

Best wishes, 2RM.

The original question was this and I thought to answer this.

We are stewards over the world, and what is happening to the life on this planet should be alarming to all of us.  It is not just due to climate change that is causing this, though some try to paint it in that fashion.

A FAR bigger threat is simply the expansion of the human species and the destruction they wreak as they urbanize more and more areas.  Animals have natural habitats that they live in.  We have been destroying those habitats for many centuries and it is only speeding up.  As we destroy the forests, the seafronts, the plains, the swamps and many other habitats of animals we destroy the necessities of life that they require. Some adapt (for example, how many see those raccoons going through our trash...etc), but most do not.  These animals die.  In that light, we are going through a mass extinction event right now in our lifetimes. 

Animals have extinctions all the time, but extinction events like the one we are currently going through happen very rarely.  We are causing it on the scale of what wiped out the dinosaurs.  In this we should not just center the discussion around climate change (which is what this thread has centered on) but on ALL the aspects that are causing this extinction.  From all appearances, this extinction event is only going to accelerate.  Species are going to die off more quickly and rapidly now that the dominoes have started to fall over. 

Many of the items that scientist claim affect global warming are actually the things that are affecting many of these extinctions.  Deforestation where we take away the natural forest habitat of creatures, urbanization where we destroy the plants and other items that live there (Utah is home to some of these endangered plant species currently that, if people were allowed to build on those areas would destroy them.  Even with protection it is still being destroyed by those who pay no heed to the laws trying to protect this life). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎5‎/‎7‎/‎2019 at 11:37 AM, Scott said:

OK, so let's discuss a specific example.   Let's use Salt Lake City because it is our Church headquarters.  

Although there has been improvement when in comparison to before the Clean Air Act, the air is Salt Lake City is very unhealthy at times, especially in the winter.   (Of note, this was  the primary motivation I had for moving away from there).  

https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2018/01/09/utahs-air-quality-is-sickening-even-killing-locals-year-round-new-research-suggests/

Even the conservatives are starting to cry foul:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900046954/the-politics-of-clean-air-whats-stopping-the-legislature-from-solving-the-utah-air-pollution-problem-salt-lake-city-worst-air-pollution-epa.html

So, while geography does play a part, the air in Salt Lake City is some of the worse in the nation.   It causes many health problems including pre-mature death, miscarriages, lung problems, etc.   It is almost the sole black mark on what is one of the healthiest populations in the nation.   

pol.jpg.6754d79b38c7c7a65737ba9b20d4bbd4.jpg

So, what would a solution be?

Until now, many conservatives have had the thought that nothing should be done.   The thing is that pollution effects everyone and is taking their right to clean air away.

So, without arguing, I want to hear what you think would be a good conservative solution that would help with the air quality around Salt Lake City?

I'm asking you rather than arguing with you.  

Obviously, we all contribute to the problem.   No one is innocent, so I'm not saying that I or anyone else is somehow on the high ground.  

One final question.  Does the Lord want his holy temples surrounded by unhealthy smog, such as in the photo above?    When I was living in Salt Lake metro, I remember when the Salt Lake Temple had to be cleaned on the outside since the air pollution turned it dark grey and left a layer of soot and grime.  Do you think the Lord is happy with this?   This is a question, not a statement.

 

The problem has been brought on much like some of the water problems in California has been brought on.  Trying to support too many people on an area which cannot support that many people with the type of lifestyle that they live.

Salt Lake (and further South) have been trying to bring (successfully I might add) more and more business and industry to the areas surrounding SLC and Provo.  This industry, the greater number of vehicles, and everything else associated with greater population brings in a greater amount of pollution.

The simplest solution would be to kick all that industry out.  Of course, then you'd lose a TON of money and you might not have all the rich millionaires in the area.  That would make many of those in the higher echelons of power and wealth in those areas very unhappy.  So, money keeps coming in, growth keeps occurring, and pollution will keep on increasing.  The simple solution is not one they want to hear. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

The simplest solution would be to kick all that industry out.  Of course, then you'd lose a TON of money and you might not have all the rich millionaires in the area.  That would make many of those in the higher echelons of power and wealth in those areas very unhappy.  

This is disingenuous.  Losing industry affects the people closer to the poverty line than the rich millionaires in an area.  Rich millionaires have easy mobility.  They can, after all, buy their way out.  The poor people relying on these industries on the other hand... not so much.  Plenty of examples to go by - Detroit, Pittsburg, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This is disingenuous.  Losing industry affects the people closer to the poverty line than the rich millionaires in an area.  Rich millionaires have easy mobility.  They can, after all, buy their way out.  The poor people relying on these industries on the other hand... not so much.  Plenty of examples to go by - Detroit, Pittsburg, etc. 

That is generally what happened when people try to 'stick it to the rich.'  The simple fact is that the rich have access and resources to protect themselves and their stuff so they move out of the way... It is the poor that were doing ok in the shadow of the rich that get the shaft when that happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

That the policies are in place internationally, and (as per my previous post) being put in place at the national level.

So far all I see are promises and plans.  Such things change once nobody's paying attention to them anymore.  As for any elements that are already in place, well it's too early to know if they're even going to make a difference.

So I just don't see the ironclad, concentrated awesome here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   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...
 Share