What's your position on climate change/global warming etc.?

[Joseph41]

Not sure that this should be in "Debates" as such, but we'll see how we go.

Sub-question: on a day-to-day, personal level, do you think people are morally obliged to reduce their own emissions?

Discuss.

[Calebark]

Short answer:

Spoiler

It's real

Long answer:

Spoiler

Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitttttttttttttttttttttttttt''''''''''''''''sssssssssssssssss rrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaalllllllllllllll

I definitely think there is a moral obligation to reduce your own emissions. Your actions aren't just affecting you, but those around you and future generations. I don't think it's a big sacrifice to, say, wear a jumper rather than put on the heater, or remembering to turn off lights once you leave a room. Small actions that, if done correctly, have not-so-small consequences. Small changes are better than no changes.

[heids]

Like, it's idiotic and pointless to argue that it's not real, who even cares lol, just do your best to improve it... This just seems so obvious ugh.

I think we do have a responsibility to do our best, indeed, while not necessarily needing to go out of our way for things that will make only a tiny difference.

Global poverty exists and is worsened by greed and our high standard of living.  Do we have a moral obligation to do our best to alleviate it?  And so on.

I don't think it's a big sacrifice to, say, wear a jumper rather than put on the heater.

Thisssss.  I hate it when you have to unlayer in winter and layer in summer... so pointless and wasteful.

[Shadowxo]

In Economics, we're learning about externalities, which is basically costs/benefits that don't affect the buyer/seller. eg A smoker doesn't have to pay for the pollution they cause, only the cost of cigarettes.

I think people should be free to do what they like, but if they're causing environmental damage they should have to pay (or do something else) to offset it, so they have to bear the costs of their actions. And if you're an advocate for being more environmentally friendly, you should do the same yourself, and live by the rules you think the world should live by.

I don't think others should have to bear the burden of another person's actions. Hence, I think we should be morally obliged to be more environmentally friendly, even if just by doing little things like Calebark mentioned.

[A TART]

wear a jumper rather than put on the heater,

I'm like wearing 4 layers right now (I mean there's 4 season in one day in Melbourne so it makes sense).

[strawberries]

In Economics, we're learning about externalities, which is basically costs/benefits that don't affect the buyer/seller. eg A smoker doesn't have to pay for the pollution they cause, only the cost of cigarettes.

we sort of learnt something similar in International Relations.
Basically that solving the issue of climate change and global warming is a collective action problem, we all have an incentive to cooperate to achieve a joint goal (better environment). However, there is a cost to it and people have incentives to not cooperate and "free ride" which leads to the free rider problem, where people rely on others to "bear the costs" while also enjoying the benefits of the public good that comes with it. (terrible explanation). Unfortunately there is also no privileged group willing to bear the costs.

so in answering the question, YES IT'S REAL OMG. just look at science.

okay, like sometimes it reduces business productivity...

but like, I think from an individual level...we can at least try and do something?
don't smoke, drive less (use public transport/walk/carpool), turn off your lights and heater, don't litter, reduce/reuse/recycle. not that hard...that difference might be small, but if we all try to do it it can sorta help I guess?

offtopic

I think the issue is more of how should we address it? Like is it the government's responsibility...?
what do y'all think? do you support carbon taxes? climate agreements like Paris? etc...

[geminii]

GUYS, ARE YOU SERIOUS? CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING IS FAKE!

Spoiler

lol I'm just joking hahaha

So I'm really passionate about global warming and climate change, and it's definitely a real thing. I've listened to people who have said it's real, and I've also listened to people who say it's a hoax. I think both opinions are worth listening to. When I listened to people who said it isn't real, I noticed one overarching argument. It's not that they don't think it's real - they just think, "why are we trying to solve global warming when people can't even think of a proper solution to it? Our time would be better spent on stopping things like ISIS."

So this is the main problem - people are crying 'global warming!' but we don't really have a solution for it. Yes, we can stop using fossil fuels, and use green, clean energy, but is that really enough to save the world? According to this study by WorldWatch.Org (http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf), even if we stop using fossil fuels right this second, we will exceed our 565 gigatonnes CO2 limit by 2030. Meaning, the switch to sustainable, renewable energy might help, but it will not save us nor solve the problem.

This is what people who believe climate change is a hoax like to say - we may have ways we can reduce climate change, but that's not enough. So how do we stop climate change in it's tracks?

Well, when you ask someone what is the leading cause of climate change, they'll more often than not say "cars, transport, etc.". But in reality, all the transport in the world combined makes up only 13% of all greenhouse gas emissions (http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM). So what makes up the majority of greenhouse gas emissions? Surely if we knew that, we could cut down on it, effectively saving the planet? Well, there is one main cause of climate change - and it makes up a whopping 51% of all greenhouse gas emissions. What is it?

Animal agriculture. (https://gelr.org/2015/10/23/a-leading-cause-of-everything-one-industry-that-is-destroying-our-planet-and-our-ability-to-thrive-on-it-georgetown-environmental-law-review/)

This is a very uncomfortable thing for a lot of people to hear. A lot of us love to consume meat and other animal products but in reality, it's the leading cause of climate change. So just saying 'I'm going to recycle' or 'I'm going to turn off all the lights in my house' is not enough to save the planet - but cutting down on, or even better eliminating, meat consumption is the action that's going to have the most impact. So it just depends - do you really care about climate change and the fate of our planet, or do you just say you do?

Hope this gives everyone some insight into what the main cause of climate change is and encourages everyone to think about their actions! I think it's important to know the main cause of climate change rather than all the small causes which will not help cure climate change in the long run.

[EEEEEEP]

So this is the main problem - people are crying 'global warming!' but we don't really have a solution for it. Yes, we can stop using fossil fuels, and use green, clean energy, but is that really enough to save the world? According to this study by WorldWatch.Org (http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf), even if we stop using fossil fuels right this second, we will exceed our 565 gigatonnes CO2 limit by 2030. Meaning, the switch to sustainable, renewable energy might help, but it will not save us nor solve the problem.

This is what people who believe climate change is a hoax like to say - we may have ways we can reduce climate change, but that's not enough. So how do we stop climate change in it's tracks?

Well, when you ask someone what is the leading cause of climate change, they'll more often than not say "cars, transport, etc.". But in reality, all the transport in the world combined makes up only 13% of all greenhouse gas emissions (http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM). So what makes up the majority of greenhouse gas emissions? Surely if we knew that, we could cut down on it, effectively saving the planet? Well, there is one main cause of climate change - and it makes up a whopping 51% of all greenhouse gas emissions. What is it?

Animal agriculture. (https://gelr.org/2015/10/23/a-leading-cause-of-everything-one-industry-that-is-destroying-our-planet-and-our-ability-to-thrive-on-it-georgetown-environmental-law-review/)

I'm not sure your figure is correct.

The US's EPA reported that methane made up of only 16% and most of it was carbon dioxide.
source: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-dataa

http://www.new-harvest.org/the_world_s_leading_driver_of_climate_change_animal_agriculture
The 501(c)(3) research institute accelerating breakthroughs in cellular agriculture.

They reported 18%.
..
I respectfully disagree with you and will say that  cars, and electricity usage are the biggest factors.

[geminii]

I'm not sure your figure is correct.

The US's EPA reported that methane made up of only 16% and most of it was carbon dioxide.
source: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-dataa

http://www.new-harvest.org/the_world_s_leading_driver_of_climate_change_animal_agriculture
The 501(c)(3) research institute accelerating breakthroughs in cellular agriculture.

They reported 18%.
..
I respectfully disagree with you and will say that  cars, and electricity usage are the biggest factors.

I have heard of the 18% figure and it was confirmed a misconception.

Here are some more sources:

http://www.new-harvest.org/the_world_s_leading_driver_of_climate_change_animal_agriculture
https://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/study-claims-meat-creates-half-of-all-greenhouse-gases-1812909.html
http://planetsave.com/2012/01/15/do-you-know-the-cause-of-51-or-more-of-humanitys-greenhouse-gas-emissions/
https://www.shoutoutuk.org/2017/04/03/ts-forget-trump-the-future-of-the-planet-is-in-our-hands/

[EEEEEEP]

I have heard of the 18% figure and it was confirmed a misconception.

Here are some more sources:

http://www.new-harvest.org/the_world_s_leading_driver_of_climate_change_animal_agriculture
https://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/study-claims-meat-creates-half-of-all-greenhouse-gases-1812909.html
http://planetsave.com/2012/01/15/do-you-know-the-cause-of-51-or-more-of-humanitys-greenhouse-gas-emissions/
https://www.shoutoutuk.org/2017/04/03/ts-forget-trump-the-future-of-the-planet-is-in-our-hands/

Maybe it is, maybe it's not.

I'm still not convinced. Apologies ^^.

Would there be some possibility of cognitive bias as you are vegan?

[geminii]

Maybe it is, maybe it's not.

I'm still not convinced. Apologies ^^.

Would there be some possibility of cognitive bias as you are vegan?

It's ok! Glad you asked for evidence though!

I'm actually not vegan! I'm not allowed to be due to my parents not letting me...I'm actually a vegetarian. I was raised vegetarian. But not for ethical reasons, it was for cultural reasons (I'm Indian). But my parents never told me about the ethical reasons to be vegetarian/vegan. They don't really care about that stuff, which is why they won't let me go vegan. My entire direct family is vegetarian, for cultural reasons only.

It was only when I was 16 (I'm now 17) that I looked into it because I was looking for a topic to do for my Year 11 oral in English. That was when I started caring about it. Prior to that, I didn't really care all that much; I was just doing what my parents did, which was eat vegetarian. I was not aware of what was going on until only last year! So I definitely was not coached into the mentality that eating meat and other animal products is bad - I did my research and then changed my mind.

So I don't think there's any cognitive bias - in fact I changed my mind because I didn't want to hold any bias that 'eating vegetarian is better, going vegan is a bit extreme'. My tenet that I live by is, if I see enough evidence that counteracts my point of view, then I must change my mind. I'm a very evidence-based person.

[jamonwindeyer]

Let's keep the thread on topic please. Come on, does it really matter the exact proportions when clearly transport, electricity production and animal agriculture are all huge contributors to greenhouse gas emissions? We are arguing semantics and this isn't the purpose of the thread