Philosophy Now Forum

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:47 pm We don't WANT limitless clean energy. This is the right approach to climate change:

Green light for a dinky green car: Citroen WILL sell its tiny electric Ami in the UK from £6,000 - with a 46-mile range and 28mph top speed
Ray Massey

Let's hope it is restricted to city streets and banned from major roads.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 1:31 am
Wrong. We need abundant clean energy with which to make bricks, steel and concrete. Magma energy can provide that.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 11:06 amAt the moment all thes processes are provided with coke and gas to make. None of them can yet be produced with just electricity.
Electrical elements melt at termperatures needed to make these products.

An electric arc furnace (EAF) is a furnace that heats charged material by means of an electric arc.

Industrial arc furnaces range in size from small units of approximately one-tonne capacity (used in foundries for producing cast iron products) up to about 400-tonne units used for secondary steelmaking. Arc furnaces used in research laboratories and by dentists may have a capacity of only a few dozen grams. Industrial electric arc furnace temperatures can reach 1,800 °C (3,300 °F), while laboratory units can exceed 3,000 °C (5,400 °F).

The climate crisis has made the idea of a better future impossible to imagine
Ian Jack

Writing in 2003, the American environmentalist Bill McKibben observed that although “some small percentage” of scientists, diplomats and activists had known for 15 years that the Earth was facing a disastrous change, their knowledge had almost completely failed to alarm anyone else.

It certainly alarmed McKibben: in June 1988, the scientist James Hansen testified to the US Congress that the world was warming rapidly and human behaviour was the primary cause – the first loud and unequivocal warning of the climate crisis to come – and before the next year was out, McKibben had published The End of Nature, the first book about climate change for a lay audience. But few others seemed particularly worried. “People think about ‘global warming’ in the way they think about ‘violence on television’ or ‘growing trade deficits’, as a marginal concern to them, if a concern at all,” he wrote in 2003. “Hardly anyone has fear in their guts.”

McKibben’s words appeared in the literary magazine Granta, which I then edited, in a piece I’d commissioned for an issue on global warming: This Overheating World. It seemed a timely and important theme, but sometimes editors can get too far ahead of the game. Many thousands of people across the world felt more and knew more about the climate crisis than I did, but few of them, unfortunately, appeared to be literary novelists or writers of narrative non-fiction. The issue included some fine pieces but was not a total success. In fact, Margaret Atwood did publish a novel that year, Oryx and Crake, set in a world ruined by climate breakdown (among other causes), but the most prominent examples of its fictional treatment, the small genre sometimes known as “cli-fi”, had still to come. Cormac McCarthy’s The Road, published in 2006, may never be surpassed, not even by the Book of Revelation, as the future’s most terrifying herald.

Literature had good reasons to resist. I’m never sure what the German philosopher-sociologist Theodor Adorno was driving at with his statement that “to write poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric”; only that he might be suggesting that in the prospect or memory of such a calamity, poetry was useless and the pretension of its relevance simple-minded. And so it might be with novels and the climate crisis. Earlier writers such as Jules Verne and HG Wells entertained their readers with versions of the future that were sometimes frightening, but only in a hide-beneath-the-bedsheets way, and against the common grain of western optimism that the future would be better than the past (a feeling that survived the Eurocentric horror of the last century’s first 50 years, and, in my generation’s case, the Cuban missile crisis and the threat of nuclear war).

Who believes it now? The idea of a better future has been replaced by one of a future not as bad as it could be, providing urgent steps are taken; but for more than 20 years (more than 30 years, if the counting starts with Hansen’s address to Congress) the science behind our understanding of climate breakdown was widely dismissed either as an international conspiracy or an inconvenient speculation, or relegated to a problem on a par with McKibben’s “growing trade deficits”. National electorates and their political leaders; media magnates; company stockholders and executives, especially those in the carbon fuel business: few of them wanted to know. As recently as 2015, Boris Johnson could describe worldwide concern over the climate as “global leaders driven by a primitive fear that the present ambient warm weather is somehow caused by humanity”. In 2012 Anne-Marie Trevelyan, now his international trade secretary, wrote in support of a campaign against windfarms: “We aren’t getting hotter, global warming isn’t actually happening.” As the gospel of St Luke tells us, there will be more joy in heaven over a single sinner who repents than over the 99 righteous people who don’t need to bother, but here on Earth it might be appropriate to have statements such as Trevelyan’s (she made several) incised on durable measuring sticks that can be inserted along the high tidemark of her Northumberland constituency, whose coastline is so long and low.

It would be wrong, however, to confine the blame for our delayed engagement to straightforward denialism. Recognising climate breakdown as a possibly terminal crisis for civilisation led to the difficulty of managing it inside our heads. As David Runciman, professor of politics at Cambridge University, wrote six years ago: “It’s hard​ to come up with a good analogy for climate change but that doesn’t stop people from trying. We seem to want some way of framing the problem that makes a decent outcome look less unlikely than it often appears.” He listed the most common analogies: climate was a “moonshot problem”, a “war mobilisation problem”, a “disease eradication problem”. Beyond giving a notion of the effort required, none worked; war, for instance, needed a clear enemy in view – and in the climate crisis, Runciman wrote, “the enemy is us”. Analogies offered a false comfort: “Just because we did all those things doesn’t mean we can do this one.”

Related: Boris Johnson’s climate speech annotated: what he said and what he meant

Climate breakdown is like nothing that has gone before. Like an intermittent fountain, its ghastly prospect shoots high in the air one minute and then vanishes as though it had never been. On 9 August this year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published a report that spread alarm and despondency everywhere. “A code red for humanity,” warned the UN secretary general. “The alarm bells are deafening, and the evidence is irrefutable: greenhouse gas emissions … are choking our planet and putting billions of people at immediate risk.” By 11 August, A-level results, Brexit lorry queues and Prince Andrew had squeezed the message from every front page.

An ordinary kind of life goes on. Research shows that in 2020 the word “cake” was mentioned 10 times more often on UK television shows than the phrase “climate change’”, and that “banana bread” was heard more frequently than “wind power” and “solar power” combined. Research shows that four in 10 young people around the world are hesitant to have children, while three-quarters of them find the future frightening and more than half believe humanity is doomed. Research (by the climate scientists James Dyke, Robert Watson and Wolfgang Knorr) shows that if humanity had acted on Hansen’s testimony immediately to stop the accelerating use of fossil fuels and begun a decarbonisation process of around 2% a year, then we would now have a two-in-three chance of limiting warming to 1.5C. If that calculation is correct, the odds these days must be quite a lot longer.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/a- ... d=msedgntp

...

...

...

When, and if, 'you', adult human beings, stop being greedy and selfish, then, and only then, climate change is solved ONCE and for ALL.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 11:24 am When, and if, 'you', adult human beings, stop being greedy and selfish, then, and only then, climate change is solved ONCE and for ALL.

So your solution to climate change is to accuse older people of greed and selfishness? Who are you writing that for? If greed and selfishness were the cause of climate change - why would they give a shit? They're okay! It's you that's fucked. That's your problem.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 11:59 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 11:24 am When, and if, 'you', adult human beings, stop being greedy and selfish, then, and only then, climate change is solved ONCE and for ALL.

So your solution to climate change is to accuse older people of greed and selfishness?

NO.

I TOLD you what the solution to climate change IS.

If 'you', adult human beings, STOP being greedy and selfish, then climate change is solved once and for all.

If you want to 'try to' "justify" your greedy and selfish behaviors, or if you want to BELIEVE that you are not greedy nor selfish, then so be it. BUT, it is your greedy and selfish behaviors WHY the climate is changing, in the direction, and at the rate, it is.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 11:59 am Who are you writing that for?

ANY one who who is CURIOS and wants to LISTEN.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 11:59 am If greed and selfishness were the cause of climate change - why would they give a shit?

If adults Truly love their children, then they will, as you say, "give a shit".

Also, when 'you', adult human beings, come to discover, or learn, and understand WHY you are greedy and selfish, then you will REALLY want to, and WILL, change, for the better.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 11:59 am They're okay!

LOL So, to you, being greedy and selfish is okay.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 11:59 am It's you that's fucked.

If you say and believe so, then that is perfectly okay, with me.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 11:59 am That's your problem.

What is, supposedly, "my problem" here?

Age wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 11:24 am When, and if, 'you', adult human beings, stop being greedy and selfish, then, and only then, climate change is solved ONCE and for ALL.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 11:59 amSo your solution to climate change is to accuse older people of greed and selfishness?

Age wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 12:40 pmNO. I TOLD you what the solution to climate change IS. If 'you', adult human beings, STOP being greedy and selfish, then climate change is solved once and for all. If you want to 'try to' "justify" your greedy and selfish behaviors, or if you want to BELIEVE that you are not greedy nor selfish, then so be it. BUT, it is your greedy and selfish behaviors WHY the climate is changing, in the direction, and at the rate, it is.

You're missing the point. The question is: Why would greedy, selfish people care about something that doesn't effect them? Your approach is, older people sacrifice their own welfare for your benefit. Why would they do that? They wouldn't - because they're selfish and greedy. So who are you writing that for? Only someone who wasn't selfish and greedy would pay it any attention.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 12:40 pmIf adults Truly love their children, then they will, as you say, "give a shit". Also, when 'you', adult human beings, come to discover, or learn, and understand WHY you are greedy and selfish, then you will REALLY want to, and WILL, change, for the better.

What kind of world do you want to inherit? Not one that's dying on its arse from climate change, obviously, but do you really want to inherit a world in which you have no opportunities, little food or energy, cycle to work and eat grass? Is that what you want? Because blaming greed and selfishness - which others might call, fulfilling one's potential, is exactly what you're seeking to eliminate?

Are you aware this thread proposes a solution to climate change that allows for a prosperous sustainable future?

Wind farms paid nearly £2m to switch off – even as customers face soaring energy bills
Robert Mendick 23 hrs ago

Wind farms were paid more than £1.8 million to shut down this week – at a time when consumers face huge rises in energy bills because of the spiralling cost of natural gas.

The turbines were switched off over the course of three days because the electricity they would have produced could not have reached the regions that needed it.

Instead, electricity from gas-fired power stations was used at a further cost to consumers of several million pounds.

An analysis by the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF), a charitable think tank that has criticised wind energy over its reliability and cost, found that 38 wind farms – all in Scotland – received payments totalling £1.85 million over the course of three days not to generate electricity.

The constraint payments are made by the National Grid to balance supply and demand across the electricity network. Payments tend to be highest on warm, windy days when turbines can produce a lot of electricity that is not needed.

Dr John Constable, the director of REF, said: "Uncontrollable and heavily subsidised generation such as wind-power has made the UK electricity system into a costly and dysfunctional joke.

"High winds, low winds – whatever the weather, the consumer suffers. It's almost the only thing about wind that is reliable."

REF estimated that the biggest payment, of just over £400,000, went to Moray East offshore wind farm, and £167,000 to Griffin wind farm.

The cost of wholesale gas, used in gas-fired power stations, has soared in recent months amid claims that Russia is manipulating supply, threatening to push back the post-Covid recovery in Europe.

The crisis has cast a spotlight on Britain's energy mix amid deepening concern that the country has become reliant on a combination of increasingly expensive gas and wind power, which critics say is unreliable and costly because of consumer subsidies.

A spokesperson for the National Grid Electricity System Operator said: "Constraint payments are the most efficient option to balance supply and demand, keep costs down for consumers and ensure secure and reliable electricity.

"The alternative to constraint payments is building more electricity transmission infrastructure, which is more costly, meaning consumers' bills would rise. We continuously weigh up constraint costs versus the cost of building an asset in a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis."

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/w ... d=msedgntp

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 1:24 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 11:24 am When, and if, 'you', adult human beings, stop being greedy and selfish, then, and only then, climate change is solved ONCE and for ALL.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 11:59 amSo your solution to climate change is to accuse older people of greed and selfishness?

Age wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 12:40 pmNO. I TOLD you what the solution to climate change IS. If 'you', adult human beings, STOP being greedy and selfish, then climate change is solved once and for all. If you want to 'try to' "justify" your greedy and selfish behaviors, or if you want to BELIEVE that you are not greedy nor selfish, then so be it. BUT, it is your greedy and selfish behaviors WHY the climate is changing, in the direction, and at the rate, it is.

You're missing the point. The question is: Why would greedy, selfish people care about something that doesn't effect them?

I have not missed the point about greedy, selfish people not caring about certain things, this obviously speaks for itself, and this 'non-caring behavior' is very easily noticed and seen.

Now, what you also wrote and added onto your question here, which was; "that doesn't effect them", is another moot point of yours. Climate change DOES effect them, even if they do not want to look at and accept this fact.

Being a greedy and selfish person does not make one not accept the fact of climate change. What makes one not look at and accept the fact of climate change is just the 'denial of one's own wrong doing'.

Furthermore, what I actually wrote, in response to your question was, 'If adults Truly love their children, then they will, as you say, "give a shit".' So, this issue revolves more around what effects future generations than what affects the current generation "them self".

In other words, ALL people care about what effects 'them', and for some they care more about what effects 'their children' more so. The changing of the climate through human behaviour/interaction can not be legitimately denied, and therefore 'climate change' does effect EVERY one. NO one can refute this, but EVERY one has the right to 'not care' about this 'change'.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 1:24 pm Your approach is, older people sacrifice their own welfare for your benefit.

You could not be MORE WRONG here. In fact what you said and wrote here is absolutely laughable.

It is now time to point out, once again, how you have never once asked me for clarification about what I am saying and meaning, and from the outset of our first discussion you have continually just made ASSUMPTIONS, and have just based your responses on those ASSUMPTIONS alone. And on just about every occasion you have been completely and utterly WRONG.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 1:24 pm Why would they do that? They wouldn't - because they're selfish and greedy.

What 'that' is here exactly, is in your own imagination. But, and which by the way, probably has absolutely NOTHING whatssoever to do with what I have been actually saying, and MEANING.

Furthermore, we do not even know what 'that' is, which you speak of here.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 1:24 pm So who are you writing that for? Only someone who wasn't selfish and greedy would pay it any attention.

Do you have children or know of children?

If yes, then would you change your ways if you knew that would make life, itself, better for them?

If yes, then you are one of who I am writing 'that' for.

Now, if you do not want to pay any attention to what I write, then by your own logic here, it is you who is showing just how greedy and selfish you really are.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 1:24 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 12:40 pmIf adults Truly love their children, then they will, as you say, "give a shit". Also, when 'you', adult human beings, come to discover, or learn, and understand WHY you are greedy and selfish, then you will REALLY want to, and WILL, change, for the better.

What kind of world do you want to inherit?

One inherits a world when they are born. When one matures, then they are either a care taker or a destroyer of that world, or a bit of both. But, once one is born they have ALREADY inherited a world. So, your question here is moot. What kind of world do I want to leave for my children/future generations? however, is a much more appropriate question here.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 1:24 pm Not one that's dying on its arse from climate change, obviously, but do you really want to inherit a world in which you have no opportunities, little food or energy, cycle to work and eat grass?

I have absolutely NO idea where these thoughts are coming from, but it is CERTAINLY not coming from ANY thing that I have said and meant here.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 1:24 pm Is that what you want?

No.

If you REALLY want to accurately know what I, or ANY one "else" wants for that matter, then I suggest just asking Truly OPEN clarifying questions, instead of making assumptions.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 1:24 pm Because blaming greed and selfishness - which others might call, fulfilling one's potential, is exactly what you're seeking to eliminate?

If you think or believe being greedy and selfish, to the detriment of the climate, to "others", and to the 'world', itself, is acceptable and perfectly all right behavior, then continue on as you are. You seem to appear to believe you know "best".

By the way, your attempts at 'trying to' "justify" yours and "others" clearly Wrong behaviors in the above quite can be CLEARLY SEEN.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 1:24 pm Are you aware this thread proposes a solution to climate change that allows for a prosperous sustainable future?

Lol.

Coming up with ANOTHER idea, which will only come to fruition if some people can make money out of it, is NOT, and I will repeat IS NOT, a solution to 'climate change'.

As I have ALREADY informed you, it is 'the love of money/greed', which ALL adult beings have, in the days when this is being written, WHY the climate is changing in the direction it is and at the exponential rate that it is.

Only when you know the cause can you then take the necessary steps to affect a positive change and thus a positive outcome. After all, prevention is always much better than the cure. Therefore, the best solution to 'climate chane' is to prevent the cause of 'climate change', in the beginning.

So, when you adults STOP your own love of money, and so STOP being greedy and selfish as well, then, and only then, you will prevent the climate from changing the way it is, in the days when this is being written.

This is, really, the only True way of solving 'climate change'.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 3:27 amSo, when you adults STOP your own love of money, and so STOP being greedy and selfish as well, then, and only then, you will prevent the climate from changing the way it is, in the days when this is being written. This is, really, the only True way of solving 'climate change'.

I'm sorry I cannot help you see beyond your own self righteousness.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 4:29 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 3:27 amSo, when you adults STOP your own love of money, and so STOP being greedy and selfish as well, then, and only then, you will prevent the climate from changing the way it is, in the days when this is being written. This is, really, the only True way of solving 'climate change'.

I'm sorry I cannot help you see beyond your own self righteousness.

That is because you simply can NOT go beyond 'what is just, naturally True and Right'.

I suggest that if 'you', adults, keep 'trying to' "justify" your behaviors, and keep "fulfilling one's potential", as you put it, then you will SEE just how quickly the demise of 'your world' will be.

So, carry on, as you have been.

I have informed you of the solution to 'climate change', so now you can take it or leave it.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 5:41 am I have informed you of the solution to 'climate change', so now you can take it or leave it.

You've congratulated yourself by casting moral aspersions at others. But there's nothing practical whatsoever in anything you've said. It's self contradictory, and cannot possibly secure the future. Hard pass!