The Green Paradox
- joeshestak
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 1
- Joined: April 19th, 2022, 2:50 am
Re: The Green Paradox
NYC Energy Sustainability
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: The Green Paradox
Is this some kind of advertisement?joeshestak wrote: ↑April 19th, 2022, 2:53 am Most people think that nuclear will form a large part of out future energy, Energy Heights Services - Energy Consultants specializes in implementing methods and strategies to reduce energy consumption or achieve savings. Find details about NYC Local Law LL84, LL33, LL133, LL97 scores.
NYC Energy Sustainability
"Who cares, wins"
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: The Green Paradox
Proscriptions against meat is one such example.WanderingGaze22 wrote: ↑November 14th, 2021, 2:50 am The Green Paradox refers to an undesirable effect of environmental measures.
People believe that environmentally-friendly legislation that lowers demand for fossil fuels can reduce carbon dioxide emissions and thus protect the climate. But how is that supposed to work? We cannot cancel out the worldwide supply of carbon with our energy-saving policy. We are only partially reducing demand and are thus lowering the increase in world market prices, but no more than that. We in a way only making the problem worse. The resources available still have to be extracted if they are to be used. If we threaten resource owners with ever more environmentally-friendly policy that will destroy their future business, they preempt the threat and extract their resources even faster. Instead of slowing down climate change, we accelerate it.
Watching how many time we flush in one day and reusing every plastic is not enough. What DIY tactics can be used to combat a preemptive maneuver? How can we be able to apply electric motors and city layouts so that where we need to go on a weekly basis is within a convenient area such as markets and other essentials.
What would the world be like if you banned meat? Loss of pasture land. What would happen to that land? Could you guarantee a lower carbon footprint? I doubt it. It it went back to rewilding natural herbivores would graze replacing the sheep that are now banned. Turn it over to grain? At the very moment carbohydrates are being identified as the chief cause of the metabolic crisis with T2 diabetes, NAFLD, inflammatory syndrome, atherosclerosis. Maybe you'd want to use it to make biolfuels. surely that would dump as much carbon into the atmosphere?
Are we ready to see the extinction of all those domesticants? How sure are we that a vegetarian diet could delivery on the nutritional needs of people?
Electric cars might reduce local pollution but they still need energy to run them. And the transport and storage of electricity is inefficient. Cars require rare earth metals. Will there be enough and cheaply enough before they run out? What are the negative effects and costs of wholesale recycling. Can it be done safely? What about the massive infrastructure of charging points? Have we enough copper in the world, and how and where is it mined? Who is going to care about the miners?
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: The Green Paradox
I think the underlying problem here might be that there are 8,000,000,000 of us, and we all need to eat. If we didn't eat cows and sheep, we'd eat whatever there was. Without a drastic reduction in our need for, and consumption of, food, I don't think any meaningful eco-positive progress can/will be made in this area of concern?Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 19th, 2022, 8:41 am What would the world be like if you banned meat? Loss of pasture land. What would happen to that land? Could you guarantee a lower carbon footprint? I doubt it. If it went back to rewilding natural herbivores would graze replacing the sheep that are now banned. Turn it over to grain?
Of course, we could always choose the 'Soylent Green' path?
"Who cares, wins"
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: The Green Paradox
Soylent Green would not be the most efficient way to the solution - which it does suggest. And that is reduction in the population. Population growth rated have already recently dropped, we just need to go further and get into negative growth. More is not better. Human happiness would best be served were there more room and better food for everyone. We absolutely do already have the technology to feed everyone.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 19th, 2022, 8:53 amI think the underlying problem here might be that there are 8,000,000,000 of us, and we all need to eat. If we didn't eat cows and sheep, we'd eat whatever there was. Without a drastic reduction in our need for, and consumption of, food, I don't think any meaningful eco-positive progress can/will be made in this area of concern?Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 19th, 2022, 8:41 am What would the world be like if you banned meat? Loss of pasture land. What would happen to that land? Could you guarantee a lower carbon footprint? I doubt it. If it went back to rewilding natural herbivores would graze replacing the sheep that are now banned. Turn it over to grain?
Of course, we could always choose the 'Soylent Green' path?
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: The Green Paradox
Agreed. But can the ecosystem stand it, in the long term? [If we have a 'long term'?]
"Who cares, wins"
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7932
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: The Green Paradox
Correct. And the most efficient way to do that is educating (and supporting) women and girls.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 19th, 2022, 9:38 amSoylent Green would not be the most efficient way to the solution - which it does suggest. And that is reduction in the population. Population growth rated have already recently dropped, we just need to go further and get into negative growth. More is not better. Human happiness would best be served were there more room and better food for everyone. We absolutely do already have the technology to feed everyone.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 19th, 2022, 8:53 amI think the underlying problem here might be that there are 8,000,000,000 of us, and we all need to eat. If we didn't eat cows and sheep, we'd eat whatever there was. Without a drastic reduction in our need for, and consumption of, food, I don't think any meaningful eco-positive progress can/will be made in this area of concern?Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 19th, 2022, 8:41 am What would the world be like if you banned meat? Loss of pasture land. What would happen to that land? Could you guarantee a lower carbon footprint? I doubt it. If it went back to rewilding natural herbivores would graze replacing the sheep that are now banned. Turn it over to grain?
Of course, we could always choose the 'Soylent Green' path?
- The Beast
- Posts: 1403
- Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm
Re: The Green Paradox
France is back to nuclear and selling the energy. Living with the threat of disaster was helped by the Russian threat of nuclear weapons and this is better than buying the energy from some coal burning plant across the Mediterranean. For others, I am sure women will not go to the river today. It will be a men’s job. Reality check.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: The Green Paradox
I think for the long term we would certainly need fewer people or a much more simple and less energy burning and recourse using life.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 19th, 2022, 12:26 pmAgreed. But can the ecosystem stand it, in the long term? [If we have a 'long term'?]
I think the 20thC will, in the future, be looked on as a naive and unusual period in which we thought ourselves invulnerable and consequence free.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: The Green Paradox
Giving reproductive control to women is working very well in many contexts across the developing world, as it has in the West since the advent of the "pill".LuckyR wrote: ↑April 19th, 2022, 1:55 pmCorrect. And the most efficient way to do that is educating (and supporting) women and girls.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 19th, 2022, 9:38 amSoylent Green would not be the most efficient way to the solution - which it does suggest. And that is reduction in the population. Population growth rated have already recently dropped, we just need to go further and get into negative growth. More is not better. Human happiness would best be served were there more room and better food for everyone. We absolutely do already have the technology to feed everyone.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 19th, 2022, 8:53 amI think the underlying problem here might be that there are 8,000,000,000 of us, and we all need to eat. If we didn't eat cows and sheep, we'd eat whatever there was. Without a drastic reduction in our need for, and consumption of, food, I don't think any meaningful eco-positive progress can/will be made in this area of concern?Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 19th, 2022, 8:41 am What would the world be like if you banned meat? Loss of pasture land. What would happen to that land? Could you guarantee a lower carbon footprint? I doubt it. If it went back to rewilding natural herbivores would graze replacing the sheep that are now banned. Turn it over to grain?
Of course, we could always choose the 'Soylent Green' path?
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: The Green Paradox
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023