Empiricism

I'm looking to join a that's managed by a not-for-profit environmental organisation.

The instance must also have the option to write more than 500 characters.

0
Empiricism

Rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic (& painting the Titanic green)

Generally, people think about what they want & need (proximate )

want to sustain their political popularity.

Rich people want to sustain their lifestyles more

Corporations (Businesses \ industries) want to sustain their business.

When in the history of , has an industry intentionally tried to go out of ?

The following quote is part revealing the truth (the business-as-usual agenda) and part (possibly ). To quote (aviation) "Because it’s new technologies and bringing proven solutions to scale that will deliver the emissions reductions we need, and protect the future of travel in the process,” Andrew Parker, Chief Sustainability Officer, Qantas Group.

How nice sounding, new "technologies" and "proven" "solutions" to "scale". Sounds like business-as-usual simply wants to protect it's ass(sets) and sell more stuff!

How about some fancy air respirators since are becoming as common as ignorant or misinformed salespeople?

What about clothing with an inbuilt refrigerator so the poor can try not to die during severe and prolonged heat waves?

Or perhaps the housing estates that are being built on floodplains can have lifeboats retrofitted?

The list of ways to make more money is endless. Well, at least until climate change causes the world economy to collapse. The idea of indefinite "growth" isn't only flawed thinking, it's really quite stupid (or is it simply a sales pitch?)

Evidently, the business-as-usual agenda is to continue to be in business. No industries openly ask, to paraphrase "Is it actually possible for our core business to be sustainable?" sustainabilitymag.com/articles (maybe they have a problem with being honest in public)

Seriously, they NEVER ask the important question! Can the business ever be sustainable? Of course, they're business people promoting their personal agendas (not considering all the variables, the evidence, the nature-based solutions).

The Qantas " " officer simply assumes that aviation is a must-have. As do many consumers. Of course, they do because that's simply what they want to believe - and that's why many industries are failing to be ecologically sustainable. Because they're not (period).

BusinessAsUsual caused

& saving

0
Empiricism

Title – One Planet

The essay will describe how a population of people (society) can develop a society that is relatively sustainable (e.g., virtually zero Greenhouse Gas emissions). To be clear, this essay is not stating that humans will want to transition toward a sustainable society. In other words, for various personal reasons (psychology. e.g., political & economic ideologies), people may not want to live in a sustainable society. Or for various political reasons, they may not be able to. However, this essay is stating that populations of people can live sustainably (should they want to & the political context permitted them to).

Generally, for human societies to transition towards a sustainability culture (e.g., lifestyles), people, in general, will have to vastly reduce the amount of resources and power they're consuming. The Our World in data website - Per capita greenhouse gas emissions: how much does the average person emit?" provides an indication of how the amount of resources and power that people consume is not evenly distributed (generally, wealthy people consume more resources and power, for example, more consumerism - therefore cause more Greenhouse Gas Emissions) ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-

A sustainable society must fundamentally not pollute its environment at levels that are unsustainable. A sustainable society must not be dependent on finite resources. For example, “fossil” fuels (that are not technically fossils) have a limited supply. Metal has a limited supply, there is only so much metal that can be mined. There is a limited supply of "fossil" fuels that can be extracted. Extracting fossil fuels or mining for metals causes ecological degradation (& also burns fossil fuels, therefore causing greenhouse gas emissions, to extract, process, and transport the fuels and metals)

Cities have been constructed and powered using the energy derived from burning fossil fuels and mining for resources in general. A time is approaching when the amount of fossil fuels available will start to decline (e.g. when peak oil is reached) and when climate change causes many lands to be inhabitable (e.g., frequent heatwaves, droughts, forest fires, floods, sea level rise, etc). Scientists have been warning for decades that burning fossil fuels is causing the atmosphere to warm, which in turn is causing climate change.

Generally, sustainability means humans collectively must not be degrading (damaging) the ecology of their environments (or more broadly the planet's biosphere).

Unfortunately, human societies are collectively severely damaging ecology. For example, destroying or degrading natural habits due to mining for resources such as metal or crude oil. Crude oil is then separated (distilled) into materials (fractions) such as diesel, gasoline, kerosene, gases, etc. These materials are then used as fuels that when incinerated pollute the air (atmosphere, more generally)

However, humans could choose to live a relatively sustainable way of life.

To quote The One Planet Council "The One Planet Council provides a bridge between applicants and local planning authorities, with guidance and tools to support anyone making the transition to this more sustainable way of life. oneplanetcouncil.org.uk/

"More sustainable way of life" is a slightly misleading phrase because most people in developed countries presently, and temporarily, live an extremely unsustainable way of life (hence the requirement for a massive change toward sustainable development).

There are methods to live sustainably. However, these methods need to generally replace the unsustainable resources and power demands of unsustainable lifestyles (societies) if they're to be effectively sustainable. The following information explains by referencing practical, relatively easy-to-follow and do guidance, on how to grow food sustainably whilst also restoring ecology (e.g., wildlife). A practical and easily implementable, win-win solution that's based on the science of AgroEcology (not that evidence-based reasoning will prevent the unreasonable from arguing against reason). The following information also explains by referencing practical, relatively easy-to-follow and do guidance, on how to use resources and generate power relatively sustainably (not that reason will prevent the unreasonable from arguing against reason). That generally means reducing how much resources and power societies use. In other words, focusing on resource and power efficiency. The present dominant economy wastes huge amounts of resources and power-producing products that nobody actually needs (that people could live comfortably without)

Before this essay references the general solutions to sustain a form of human society (a sustainable culture), this essay will acknowledge the institutional practices that are making it appear impractical, and difficult, to mitigate climate change.

There are many well-intended people in & that are thinking about ways to try & mitigate (greenwashes aside as their dangerously useless). People's personal circumstances, e.g., managing a company, can make the challenges of mitigating their business's climate impacts overwhelming (& impractical). Cooperation is the right approach (we are all in this together) to mitigate ecological degradation. Competition is the wrong approach.

More generally, operationally, there are two approaches to mitigate climate change, the top-down approach (e.g., government or management) or the bottom-up approach (e.g., local communities). Ideally, both approaches would be symbiotically in unison (But, human psychology...so)

People are in different circumstances. However, there is an increasing number of people that, IF the policies were in place, would have a huge positive impact on mitigating ecological degradation, therefore, lessening the impacts of climate change. To quote the One Planet Development Council (OPDC) "This forward-thinking planning policy provides a genuinely affordable and sustainable way for people to live and work on their own land, bringing social, economic, and environmental benefits" (see reference section. 1.)

That OPDC statement is somewhat misinformation - land isn't affordable for many people (however, I digress & that's a political problem).

However, to reiterate and rephrase so as to be more accurate "The One Planet Council provides a bridge between applicants and local planning authorities, with guidance and tools to support anyone making the transition to a sustainable way of life. oneplanetcouncil.org.uk/

Well-intended policymakers that want to mitigate ecological degradation therefore climate change will do well to develop policies that enable people (that want to) to grow food sustainably whilst also restoring nature (win-win). Generally, One Planet Development Policies need to be vastly scaled up. As the effects of climate change become more severe, we will need more people that are living in ways that grow food locally, increase biodiversity, and generally live a low-impact lifestyle (that's in everyone's interest).

Therefore, I urge policymakers, or social influencers in general, that are not confined by the business-as-usual paradigm (paradox), to review the One Planet Development Policy (OPDP) & cooperate with one another to mitigate climate change. For example, of an urgently required revision to the OPDP - according to the medical (e.g., epidemiology) and (i.e., climate science) evidence, burning biomass (e.g., wood fuel or biofuel) is not sustainable, therefore renewable, source of energy (when scaled up). Furthermore, prolonged exposure to wood smoke inhalation (e.g., over the years) increases the probability of developing diseases (which negatively impacts health and work-related costs. i.e., more resources and power for the health system). Furthermore, wood smoke, or tobacco smoke inhalation is harmful to the fetus during pregnancy (i.e., wood smoke is pollution. See reference section. 2.) Therefore, the OPDP should be revised to consider clean air and relatively low-energy methods of heating water such as heat pumps (making use of thermal heat energy within a relatively low electrical energy system).

The OPDP should also be revised to meet the requirements of the ecological landscape of any area. For example, the types of foods (predominantly plants & fungi as ruminants such as sheep & cows emit methane) that can be grown in a region. Also, the time scales involved to improve the soil condition (fertility) will vary. Many areas of land have soils that have been severely damaged by industrial forms of farming (e.g., overgrazing, insecticide [poisons], and mechanized machinery such as tractors that decrease soil fertility. See reference section. 3.)

Business As Usual (BAU) is a climate paradox (that's why it seems difficult (BAU is fundamentally human-as-usual psychology). BAU has been full of “what about?” excuses (people) that have caused the outcome that the window of opportunity to mitigate severe climate change is closing fast. Many ecological landscapes are generally in extremely poorly managed conditions. Many people are still burning carbon-based fuels (this form of society simply can not be sustained)

In summary, One Planet Development – Just do it already! The One Planet Development approach will also buy time for relatively large businesses and society, in general, to adapt.

To reiterate, this essay has not stated that humans will want to or be able to (due to business-as-usual politics) transition toward a sustainable society. The essay has referenced the practical guidance that humans can live in a relatively sustainable society. I have made this distinction explicit because the agents that are inferring that transitioning towards a sustainable society is difficult are greenwashing (i.e., for their own personal reasons they don't want to live in a sustainable society. e.g., monetary & lifestyle agendas)

Website References that include multitudes of interdisciplinary science and or further reading.

1. One Planet Development Policy oneplanetcouncil.org.uk/

2. Doctors and Scientists against wood smoke pollution. dsawsp.org/environment/climate

3. The Soil Association. soilassociation.org/

0
Empiricism

It's interesting juxtaposing the following podcasts that are generally about the same subject of , therefore, mitigating

The Optimist podcast generally discusses the subjects within a free-market neoliberal paradigm. For example, Going Green or Greenwashing? climateoptimists.co/episodes/g

Whilst the Crazy Town Podcast generally infers that the neoliberalist free market economy is part of the core business as a usual problem (therefore won't mitigate climate change). For example, Tech Bros on Acid with Douglas Rushkoff resilience.org/stories/2022-11

The Climate Optimists Podcast generally advocates that businesses should be encouraged to, for example, put more accurate "green" information on the product labels and hope that the consumers make the right choices. Whilst the Crazy Town podcast generally advocates that is the solution & we can't trust the neoliberal "free" market to not spread .

The Crazy Town doesn't put a positive spin on the challenge to mitigate climate change. It does suggest solutions, though those solutions are not generally the same as the neoliberal consumerist solutions suggested by the Positive Climate podcast. For example, you won't hear the Crazy Town podcast hosts advocating that everyone should buy electric cars. Whilst the Climate Optimist Podcast hosts generally promote electrifying everything and they didn't explicitly state how that conflicts with sustainable development - the mining companies are planning on extracting minerals from the ocean floor (Degrading pristine wildlife habitat. Well, "pristine" besides the plastic particle pollution). theguardian.com/environment/20

The Climate Optimist Podcast is promoting more of a business-as-usual-light option (neoliberal consumerism). Having said that, the Climate Optimist podcast has some effective ideas regarding how to mitigate the issues related to climate apathy in politics (e.g., especially the party).

This will happen! (the future) - However, as the effects of climate change inevitably negatively impact more USA voters, you will start to hear a very different narrative from the Republican party (i.e., they will change their narratives to address their core voter's concerns about climate change).

The time of climate apathy will be over when climate change is negatively effecting all people's lives (in a global economy. e.g., food prices \ supplies)

0
Empiricism

What are "tipping points"?

Climate tipping points are termed positive feedback loops or positive reinforcers.

Basically, Increasing the "X" variable increases the "Y" variable.

For example, (X) is increasing the risk of (Y) scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?a

Wildfires are fundamentally Carbon being burnt (Carbon Based lifeforms. e.g., plants and animals) which releases carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which in turn trap heat into the atmosphere.

Human activities are burning carbon-based fuels ("Fossil" fuels & Biomass [e.g., wood fuel]), which release carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which in turn trap heat into the atmosphere, which in turn cause more wildfires, which release carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which in turn trap heat into the atmosphere - that's a positive reinforcer (although not "positive" within the colloquial [common] use of the word)

Wildfires are only one of many known positive climate heating reinforcers (there may also be some unknown reinforcers). Another climate reinforcer is how climate heating is causing the melting of permafrost. Permafrost is any ground that remains completely frozen—32°F (0°C) or colder—for at least two years straight. Permafrost covers large regions of the Earth. Areas closer to the North or South pole have regions of permafrost that have been frozen for hundreds of thousands of years. livescience.com/planet-earth/a

Permafrost soils also contain large quantities of organic carbon. As Earth’s climate warms, the permafrost is thawing. This means that the organic carbon will decompose and release greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere - another positive climate heating reinforcer.

"State-of-the-art global models underestimate impacts from climate extremes" Nature. (2019). doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-087

Generally speaking, humans are not mitigating climate change, the effect of climate change is mitigating humans. However, whilst it's not impossible (it's an unknown unknown) that human greenhouse gas emitting activities could cause a climate heating runaway effect due to positive reinforcers, the general scientific literature (evidence), infers that the fewer greenhouse gases humans emit, the fewer ecological limiting factors will curtail humans.

Mitigating the existential threat of human-caused climate change is a precautionary approach. However, the data on greenhouse gas emissions clearly shows that industries are not taking the precautionary approach. ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-

Of course, industries supply the fuels, the machinery, etc, that enable people to take part in activities that burn fuels, etc. Many industries are evidently aiming to continue to burn fuels as are many consumers. Many businesses are aiming to continue to farm ruminants (e.g., sheep & cows that emit relatively high amounts of methane)

What is going to limit people from burning carbon-based fuels? (emitting greenhouse gases). The decisions of industries, politicians, and consumers? Well, that has not been the trend.

Generally, in wealthy countries, the effects of climate change, which are causing more localized severe weather such as heatwaves or flash floods, are causing politicians and industries to respond in ways that advocate activities that emit more greenhouse gases (more fossil fuels being burnt) into the atmosphere. For example, constructing more flood defenses. Repairing the damaged infrastructure caused by severe heatwaves such as repairing roads. This is another example of positive climate heating reinforcers. Generally, industries are leading the way (rather than focusing on nature-based solutions such as reforestation <<< that go against the farming industries' business models)

Whilst the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are a predictor of climate heating (there is a time lag), so is human behavioral psychology. In other words, habits (repetitive activities), politics, business decisions, lifestyles, and activities in general.

In many contexts, even when adults are informed that their fuel-burning activities are causing the climate to change in harmful ways, many adults don't even try to reduce their fuel-burning activities. When they're informed that eating meat is a leading cause of climate change, they generally ignore this information.

This blog post generally considers the psychology of those that are evidently not trying to reduce their fuel-burning activities (quite the opposite). empiricalperspective.home.blog

0
Empiricism

Greetings! I recently moved instance so here is a new

On Social media, I go under the pseudonym of “Empiricism”.

Empiricism aims (intention or agenda) are to promote (“toot”, “boost”, etc) accurate based information. The general theme of this account is related to promoting development. development requires mitigating ecological degradation therefore also (e.g., reducing greenhouse gas emissions).

This account will not “sugar-coat” the challenges that humanity will have to overcome if climate change is to be mitigated. For example, the general trend (historic, present & future) is that humanity is not mitigating change (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions are rising), therefore, climate change is mitigating humanity (e.g., increases in the frequency & intensity of flooding, droughts, etc.)

Since no one can be informed of all the scientific literature, if a reader thinks that Empiricism makes a statement that is not backed up by the general scientific literature, please refer Empiricism to the relevant peer-reviewed science publication (e.g., paper or website)

Here is the link to the Empiricism digital signature empiricalperspective.home.blog

mitigation

0
Empiricism

Hi activists (only the genuine ones)

My account at Climate "Justice" social was suspended (deleted) with zero due processes (no warning nor written reason was given. How ironic. "Justice"?)

Though this essay mentions probably why. qoto.org/@Empiricism_Reloaded/

With no admin accountability, we can only guess what goes on behind the scenes. So, users should feel right at home on ;-)

If you were following me at empiricism@climatejustice.social or @empiricism and would like to re-follow. This is the Empiricism_Reloaded@qoto.org account.

0

climate

45

psychology

31

sustainability

31

climatechange

20

science

19

degrowth

13
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.

Trending now

Resources

Developers

What is Mastodon?

qoto.org

More…

v3.5.19-qoto · Privacy policy