(06-04-2017 09:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-04-2017 02:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, sorry you took my post that way, it wasn't meant to be condescending. I literally was meant to explain why you had not heard of resiliency, because it hasn't really entered the mainstream lexicon.

And my response to your central thesis is three-fold: people are focused on saving itself by addressing the impacts of climate change (resiliency), that a lot of the GHG reduction technology have multiple benefits (generally via a reduction in resource consumption), and that we cannot let perfection get in the way of progress.

It sounds like you do care about climate change and the potential effects it will have on future populations, as well as upcoming environmental stressors (e.g. water resources).

So if that is the case, why not support progress that will help address that? It seems like your lack of support is just because you feel as if others think GHG emission reductions will be a panacea to our problems. You say that it's because the former won't allow the latter, but why do you think that?

It sounds like I DO care? It sounds to me like you started from a belief that I DIDN'T
care.

So IF that is the case? Sounds like you are not convinced that I really care.

I care enough that I point half-actions taken in the name of better to do something will not help us reach our goal, especially if we do not have a goal. I am still waiting for somebody to tell me the goal and how all these actions are steps toward that goal.

I think in the "serious" environmental movement, the actions ARE the goals. The goal is not, for example, to reverse global warming and achieve a return to the climate of, say, 1650, by 2050. The goal is to eliminate gas powered cars. Wonderful. Maybe we will have zero oil production worldwide, but will we have reversed global warming? Nobody knows, but the best guess is "no".

Well, with the Paris Accords you did have a goal that was explicitly stated:

Quote: a long-term goal of keeping the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels

So you just don't like that goal? You keep bringing up specific dates of what climate we should attempt to get to - why do you think that is the only way to look at efforts to curb climate change?

And there are other goals in the Accord that deal with the more tangible issues, like:

Quote:
Governments agreed to: (i) strengthen societies' ability to deal with the impacts of climate change; and (ii) provide continued and enhanced international support for adaptation to developing countries.

Both from here: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/inte...s/paris_en

You will not see some world-wide goal for combating the effects of climate change because the effects will affect every country, province, city, etc. differently, and a one size fits all approach won't work.

I mean, as a conservative who I would assume, prefers less centralized government and the ability for individual communities to address problems as they see fit, doesn't a world-wide goal/plan go against your views on how government (especially on a global scale) could work? The Paris Accords was basically world-wide federalism, where a relatively minimal amount of requirements were set forth and each country was left to decide how to meet those requirements.