Empiricism @Empiricism_Reloaded@qoto.org

@Bargdaffy@defcon.social @MichaelEMann @msnbc

Though not if fossil fuels (carbon-based fuels), for example, in power stations or for heating people's homes, were replaced with wood fuel.

"For the same amount of energy, burning wood emits more CO2 than coal." https://www.dsawsp.org/environment/climate

@JustinDerrick

Good idea https://empiricalperspective.home.blog/2023/06/08/one-planet-sustainability/

@Bargdaffy@defcon.social @MichaelEMann @msnbc

Stopping only burning "fossil" fuels would not be enough - if humans continued to burn carbon-based fuels (e.g., biofuels or wood fuel).

Therefore, STOP burning carbon would be the appropriate book title.

Also, don't burn books because they also contain the element carbon.

@Bargdaffy@defcon.social @MichaelEMann @msnbc

I am considering writing a book about how to mitigate climate change. But, not many folk would read it because it would explain the solutions ;-)

@ricardoharvin

This is the beginning of the #PolyCrisis that decades of inaction regarding not mitigating ecological degradation is causing.

However, people will naturally react more to real-time events (rather than to scientific warnings aimed at preventing those climate heating-related events).

Therefore, we should encourage any politician or business person that is now reacting & aiming to mitigate climate change (better late than never). And it's never too late. Though later - has made mitigating climate change a more urgent challenge.

@ai6yr

I do find it a sign of their ignorance when even those people that accept that tobacco smoke is harmful, don't put 1+1 together and accept that all smoke inhalation is harmful.

Go figure!

Inhaling woodsmoke is more harmful than tobacco smoke.

Lung Cancer Pathogenesis Associated with Wood Smoke Exposure (Delgado et al., 2005).
https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.128.1.124

Use of wood stoves and risk of cancers of the upper aero-digestive tract: a case-control study. International Journal of Epidemiology https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/27.6.936

@alexwild

We can't solve climate change by burning more fossil fuels.

However, I like the idea of getting fossil fuel execs to pay for the damage their climate change gaslighting is causing.

@artesianspring @MichaelEMann @msnbc

Well, let us take them at their word. If they truly believe it's a "hoax", their worldview will increasingly go up against that small thing called reality.

@MichaelEMann @msnbc

"could"? The problem is that laypeople may hear "could" as "well then, it might not".

Canada's wildlife crisis will definitely be a preview of the future (Now is that future!).

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

The #Climate Optimist podcast generally discusses the subjects within a free-market neoliberal paradigm. For example, Going Green or Greenwashing? https://www.climateoptimists.co/episodes/going-green-or-greenwashing

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 https://www.resilience.org/stories/2022-11-03/tech-bros-on-acid-with-douglas-rushkoff-bonus-episode-of-crazy-town/

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 #degrowth is the solution & we can't trust the neoliberal "free" market #economy to not spread #climate #disinformation.

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). https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/21/is-it-too-late-to-halt-deep-sea-mining-the-activists-trying-to-save-the-seabed

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 #political ideas regarding how to mitigate the issues related to climate apathy in #USA politics (e.g., especially the #Republican 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)

#psychology

#science

What are #climate "tipping points"?

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

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

For example, #ClimateChange (X) is increasing the risk of #wildfires (Y) https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?as_ylo=2023&q=wildfires+climate+change&hl=nl&as_sdt=0,5

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. https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/arctic/siberias-gateway-to-the-underworld-megaslump-is-revealing-650000-year-old-secrets-from-its-permafrost

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). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-08745-6

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. https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions

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). https://empiricalperspective.home.blog/2023/04/30/the-gross-simplification-of-the-capitalist-that-lacks-knowledge-of-and-avoids-talking-about-ecology-though-bangs-on-on-about-technology/

#psychology #sustainability #AgroEcology #Degrowth #technology