BAU until they peel my cold dead hands from it

[zizek]

Zizek, here's some response to your barrage of posts:
Your Monsanto analogy is highly flawed, as it has the charming CEO causing the whole world to do the wrong thing due to his promises. I have seen you make that claim in the past - if not for Musk overpromising a Green BAU solution, the world would have done the right thing. I believe that this claim is delusional. Most of the 100 million annual buyers of new vehicles have not even heard of Musk, let alone believe him, or even care about the issue. He has far less influence than you think.

Tesla gives westerners the choice between an environmentally destructive lifestyle, and a slightly less environmentally destructive lifestyle. We should be moving away from the suburban lifestyle, but Elon Musk gives us the impression we can maintain the status quo and fight climate change by simply buying one of his cars. But in order for us to realistically combat climate, purchasing a car should only happen when you have NO OTHER OPTION. Whereas Elon Musk wants "a Tesla in every driveway".  Has Musk actually examined the environmental implications of building 7 billion Teslas, and 7 billion driveways?  No, of course not, but he has examined how much money he would receive if he sold that many cars. It's a lot. And that's what he's interested in.

Elon Musk has 25 million twitter followers, putting him in the 100 most twitter followers. This forum has had at least 5 threads devoted to him and his half-baked ideas. His portrait has been slathered over the front page of countless magazine. He is the focal point of technological fixes to climate change. I don't think I have ever had a discussion about EVs in real life without Musk being mentioned.  He is extremely influential.

Bill Gates is not a visionary, he managed to execute on other people's visions (the mouse, the windows user interface, the personal computer) and created a monopoly. Warren Buffet is not a visionary, he took an existing method of value investing and managed to stick to it for long decades.

I think you misunderstood my point. I don't think these people are visionaries, especially in the context of progressive societal change.  I was using the example that platitudes like visionary are reserved for billionaires like Musk et. al.

Elon Musk is a visionary, he tried to create something all said was impossible - an affordable and well-performing electric family car. Read the Tesla master plan he published in 2006. His vision has largely come true, with some snags and delays and at higher prices than originally envisioned. Still not finished though.

It was Martin Eberhard who created the plan to introduce a high priced EV before entering the mass market with an affordable EV.  The business Insider article I posted touches on that, and if I have the time I can find the direct quotes from the lawsuit between them. Not only did Eberhard think of the master plan, he designed the car for christ sake. Musk is an investor and marketing gimmick.  Not a visionary.

Modo don't sound like visionaries. Car sharing is not new, my city has two such services, one supported by the city government and one operated by a cooperative of some sort. Many people use them, and there are reserved parking spots all over the city for them. And still this doesn't stop the loads and loads of new cars being sold here. It's a very partial solution.

Partial solution? This sort of shitty attitude needs to be cut out of this forum. This is THE SOLUTION. Driving significantly less while reducing the amounts of cars built by many magnitudes. If governments and cities decided that all vehicles must be from car sharing cooperatives, we could almost solve climate change overnight.  Just a snap of the fingers. For many cities, the infrastructure is already there, the technology is already there, the cars already there. We wouldn't need to build another car for years.  Amazing. Just like that. But apparently it's easier to build millions of electric cars instead. You are a true visionary oren, with your attitude.

Many others are visionaries and are not billionaires or even millionaires. You're just overly obsessed with Musk. He will not solve all the world's problem, but he is not the root of those problems either.

I'm obsessed with Musk? Look at this forum. It's a Musk fansite. There was a point where almost every active thread was Musk Masturbation.  I wish I didn't have to constantly come here and provide a dose of criticism to Musk. I wish I didn't have to be concerned about my future. I wish I didn't have to constantly point out that the users here are accepting a strategy that is broken and destined to fail. It's fucking tiring and I really wish I didn't have to do it.

[zizek]

The root of the Climate change problem is thermodynamics and entropy, not politics.

And the root cause of the man dying by gunshot was kinetics and biology, not the man pulling the trigger. huh. crazy.

Archmid's posts are a stones throw away from denialism.  All of his posts defend the status quo, and he never learns a single thing. People like him/her need to be banned or heavily moderated.  Shit like this is actively harmful.

[oren]

BAU = people preferring their current and/or hoped for lifestyle over the common good of future humanity (including their own and their children's future) and the good of the planet. A vast majority of people are like that, especially when factoring relative lifestyles. Some because they don't care or don't believe, some care but feel powerless to make a change, some care but not enough to make sacrifices in the present, and some care enough to make sacrifices but will only do so when the majority joins them. Very few are those who will choose to make deep personal sacrifices when the rest of humanity marches like happy lemmings towards the cliff.
Stopping BAU and fixing a large part of the problem is still physically possible, should the whole of humanity make a decision to do so. I suspect it won't, though, so this is just a theoretical discussion.
Stopping BAU would include a multiple of decisions - slowing down population growth via sharp decline in reproduction, switching diets to local and nearly vegetarian, strongly reducing unnecessary transportation (i.e. most of it), curtailing all frivolous consumption (i.e. most consumption), and lots more. Renewable electricity and electric vehicles would play a part, as would other "green' technologies, but they alone can't save the day as we are way beyond carrying capacity and there is not much time left.

[oren]

Modo don't sound like visionaries. Car sharing is not new, my city has two such services, one supported by the city government and one operated by a cooperative of some sort. Many people use them, and there are reserved parking spots all over the city for them. And still this doesn't stop the loads and loads of new cars being sold here. It's a very partial solution.

Partial solution? This is THE SOLUTION. Driving significantly less while reducing the amounts of cars built by many magnitudes. If governments and cities decided that all vehicles must be from car sharing cooperatives, we could almost solve climate change overnight.  Just a snap of the fingers. For many cities, the infrastructure is already there, the technology is already there, the cars already there. We wouldn't need to build another car for years.  Amazing. Just like that. But apparently it's easier to build millions of electric cars instead.

I'll ignore the angry language, which I think does not belong in an adult forum, and is not convincing anyone as far as I am aware. But to your point, of course, car sharing is a great solution should governments and cities mandate its use and ban personal cars. I would support such a general ban, despite the effects on my personal lifestyle. I am sure many others here would do the same. But why is it not happening? Because of me, because of Musk, because of you? Or because a vast majority of people are against it, regardless of future consequences? I have spoken with many people about AGW and over-consumption and carrying capacity and over-population and all the rest. Most of these people are eventually convinced that it's a real and huge problem, and yet most of them won't make any personal sacrifice to solve it. Do you foresee a government that can be elected on such a platform of banning personal cars? I honestly don't. Had we (all of humanity) been living under a dictatorship it would have been easier to make such decisions, but that has its own caveats. (Who will be the dictator? Should I? You? Stalin?). I do note the Chinese are certainly better at long-term decision-making compared to the US.
My bottom line, I do not disagree with you on the merit of various theoretical approaches, I just can't call a "solution" some idea that IMHO in real life will not be implemented widely enough.

[Human Habitat Index]

The 1960s social revolution was our last chance to change culturally in time to avoid climate catastrophy.

But the dye was set in the 1930s when God's herb was slandered.

[gerontocrat]

I was working in Papua New Guinea in 1992. I visited a place called Rabaul as as matter of duty. I was on a boat with sonar when it was checking the change in sea floor height in the harbour due to ever-increasing pressure from magma below. The most popular song locally was "where you gonna go when the volcano blow ?".

That volcano was going to blow very soon. That was known as a reliable fact. Did anyone leave? No. It blew in 1994.

No matter how well accepted the dangers of BAU are, for most people it will be a case of "BAU until they peel my cold dead hands from it". Surely it is better to accept that and plan one's future on that basis.

From Wikipedia

Rabaul is a township in East New Britain province, on the island of New Britain, in the country of Papua New Guinea. It lies about 60 kilometres to the east of the island of New Guinea. Rabaul was the provincial capital and most important settlement in the province until it was destroyed in 1994 by falling ash of a volcanic eruption in its harbor.

During the eruption, ash was sent thousands of metres into the air and the subsequent rain of ash caused 80% of the buildings in Rabaul to collapse. After the eruption the capital was moved to Kokopo, about 20 kilometres (12 mi) away. Rabaul is continually threatened by volcanic activity because it is on the edge of Rabaul caldera, a flooded caldera of a large pyroclastic shield.

Rabaul was planned and built around the harbor area known as Simpsonhafen (Simpson Harbour) during the German New Guinea administration which controlled the region between 1884 and formally through 1919. From 1910 Rabaul was the headquarters of German New Guinea until captured by the British Empire during the early days of World War I. It became the capital of the Australian mandated Territory of New Guinea until 1937 when it was first destroyed by a volcano.

During World War II it was captured by Japan in 1942, and became its main base of military and naval activity in the South Pacific. Settlements and military installations around the edge of the caldera are often collectively called Rabaul, although the old town of Rabaul was reduced to practical insignificance by the volcanic eruption in 1937.

As a tourist destination, Rabaul is popular for its volcanoes, scuba diving and for snorkeling sites, spectacular harbour and other scenery, World War II history, flora and fauna, and the cultural life of the Tolai people. Before the 1994 eruption, Rabaul was a popular commercial and recreational boating destination; fewer private small craft visit now, but 10 to 12 cruise ships visit Rabaul each year, including the Queen Elizabeth carrying up to 2000 passengers. Tourism is a major industry in Rabaul and East New Britain generally.

[Archimid]

My bottom line, I do not disagree with you on the merit of various theoretical approaches, I just can't call a "solution" some idea that IMHO in real life will not be implemented widely enough.

+1. Big Talk about not BAU, but no action. They can't even properly define what "Not BAU" looks like , nor a path to get there.

Again I ask, What is "not BAU"? How do we get there? Who lives ? Who dies?  Who determines who lives and die? These questions must be answered so we can get to "Not BAU", yet what I see are avoidance and insult.

 How do we get a group of politicians that prohibits hamburgers and non essential cars?  How do you define essential transportation? Is driving to school essential? How about a nurse or doctor going to work, is that essential? What about people that live in rural areas?  OR maybe farmers,  what types of driving  behavior are acceptable to farmers. Are tractors ok?

How do we pick and choose what is essential driving and what is luxury driving?

I agree that we need fast change, but we also need replacement technologies.

And the root cause of the man dying by gunshot was kinetics and biology, not the man pulling the trigger. huh. crazy.

If you want to treat the gunshot wound or determine the cause of death all that matter is kinetics and biology. Who shot the gun or why is irrelevant to saving the victim's life or determine the exact cause of death.

[Neven]

A lot of the answers or on the first page of this thread. I recommend reading JimD's contributions.

[oren]

A lot of the answers or on the first page of this thread. I recommend reading JimD's contributions.

Seconded.

[SteveMDFP]

Tesla gives westerners the choice between an environmentally destructive lifestyle, and a slightly less environmentally destructive lifestyle. We should be moving away from the suburban lifestyle, but Elon Musk gives us the impression we can maintain the status quo and fight climate change by simply buying one of his cars. But in order for us to realistically combat climate, purchasing a car should only happen when you have NO OTHER OPTION. 

Absolutely true, but I think not Musk's fault.  Global demand for automobile transportation is enormous, and there isn't a blessed thing Musk could do to stop that.  No billionaire could.  Until there are needed policy and cultural changes, the only way to keep people from wanting individual cars is for them to be too poor to afford them, or make the cars far more expensive.  Neither approach is likely to win political favor.
 
Accelerating the transition to electrified transportation is a step in the right direction.  An utterly inadequate step?  Yes, certainly.  Still, we might better reserve our ire for those taking steps in the totally wrong direction.  No shortage of villains there.

[Grubbegrabben]

Tesla gives westerners the choice between an environmentally destructive lifestyle, and a slightly less environmentally destructive lifestyle. We should be moving away from the suburban lifestyle, but Elon Musk gives us the impression we can maintain the status quo and fight climate change by simply buying one of his cars. But in order for us to realistically combat climate, purchasing a car should only happen when you have NO OTHER OPTION. 

Absolutely true, but I think not Musk's fault.  Global demand for automobile transportation is enormous, and there isn't a blessed thing Musk could do to stop that.  No billionaire could.  Until there are needed policy and cultural changes, the only way to keep people from wanting individual cars is for them to be too poor to afford them, or make the cars far more expensive.  Neither approach is likely to win political favor.

I read an interesting article in Time magazine a while back (can't seem to locate the copy, sorry) which went somewhat in-depth in the future of electric cars. Once they go reliably self-driving there is no reason for it to be parked outside your house for 90% of the time. Share it with others and it becomes the ultimate, environmentally friendly mass-transportation system ever built. Ok some people would rather have their own car. But personally, if I had the option to just buy transportation on demand I wouldn't hesitate one second. I don't think urban mass transport (subways, trams, buses) can ever replace the car, but I do think a network of self-driving cars can make the others obsolete.

[Archimid]

Ok I reviewed the first page, which is mostly how BAU will kill us all and how difficult it is to stop BAU. I agree with that. BAU will kill us and getting off BAU is probably the largest challenge human kind will ever face. 

My questions go mostly unanswered. What is Not BAU? How do we get to Not BAU? But there is one paragraph that JimD describes Not BAU

Dramatic change NOW means far less pain later and a greater carrying capacity IF we approach this situation intelligently.  Manage a quick decline in population, reduce affluence in the rich countries, slow economic growth, increase efficiency everywhere, eliminate the use of fossil fuels (especially coal), systematically eliminate globalization, park the planes, park the cars, end tourism, grow some of your own food, etc, etc.  If we do this we can make it through the bottleneck,which is inevitable at this point, with much better civilizational prospects.

I think that paragraph is a good description of Not BAU. No word as to how to get there, probably because it is horrible. Let's see:

Manage a quick decline in population

 The Chinese tried this 40 years ago with the one child policy. It didn't reduce the population it merely slowed down growth. I have to ask, is there any way to "quickly reduce the population" other than by people dying? I don't think so. So this is genocide. The first step to "Not BAU" is genocide. 

Can someone explain to me any other pathway to "quick population reduction"?  There isn't one.

Genocide is not a solution to climate change because that's the problem with climate change in the first place. Climate change will kill people, killing them first to reduce the population only makes the problem worse.

reduce affluence in the rich countries,

This will not necessarily lower emissions. This is politics using climate change as leverage.

slow economic growth

I don't think slow growth is "Not BAU". Not BAU is to shrink the economy to the size of the 1950's. Slow growth will not save us in time. Large negative growth might, but again, a lot of people will suffer, particularly the poor. How do we shrink the economy? We can wait for climate change to do it for us or we can elect people like Donald Trump for President. Their foolishness will collapse the global economy. War and debt will do it.

increase efficiency everywhere,

The most important action we an take. If this is done at all levels of human action and it is done quickly we might be saved from climate change. Efficiency must be everywhere. Transportation must be efficient. Government must be efficient. Unions and worker groups must be efficient. Education, healthcare, agriculture, military and security must be efficient.

I think efficiency increases will not help with economic degrowth. To the contrary, as we learn to do more with less we will create more value for less cost, making us all richer.

eliminate the use of fossil fuels (especially coal)

To do that we must reduce energy use as much as possible but we also need to replace energy use from fossil fuels to renewables. EV's are a huge part of that, as is battery storage and renewable energy generation. The EV transition is a necessity in all scenarios.

Systematically eliminate globalization,

This is a paradox. To systematically eliminate globalization a global power will be needed.

I don't think it is possible or natural to eliminate globalization. Globalization is the next and last social step for mankind ( unless we colonize the solar system). First there were families, the groups, then villages, then cities, then groups of cities combined into large states or nations, then nations combined to create groups of nations. The next logical step is globalization.

park the planes, park the cars,

I don't see any group or politician with enough power to implement this but this would certainly implement the world wide chaos needed to degrow the economy and the population. We can't just park the cars and planes. We need some from of replacement. 

Anyone with an idea on how to realistically implement a quick stop to transportation without crashing our world, I'm all ears.

If we do this we can make it through the bottleneck,which is inevitable at this point, with much better civilizational prospects

This is not an attack on JimD.  I've fallen victim to the same fatal error.  "WE can make it through the bottleneck" is a fantasy. If the plan is to collapse our world to save the world, then we should all expect to be part of the population reduction. We should not think for one second that "we" will survive while "they" will die. If Not BAU is implemented as described we should not exempt ourselves, chances are we will be part of the reduced.

[oren]

Manage a quick decline in population

The Chinese tried this 40 years ago with the one child policy. It didn't reduce the population it merely slowed down growth. I have to ask, is there any way to "quickly reduce the population" other than by people dying? I don't think so. So this is genocide. The first step to "Not BAU" is genocide. 

Can someone explain to me any other pathway to "quick population reduction"?  There isn't one.

Genocide is not a solution to climate change because that's the problem with climate change in the first place. Climate change will kill people, killing them first to reduce the population only makes the problem worse.

I have discussed this with JimD in the past, when he still posted here. Genocide was not on the intended list of actions, but reduced reproduction certainly was.
Should humanity decide to stop reproduction now, except maybe one child per woman aged at least 27, the situation in a decade or two will be much better than it is now. We are lucky the Chinese did what they did, although it was not enough.

In general, JimD did not claim that all these actions were politically doable, just that they were necessary to go through the collapse/carrying capacity bottleneck.

[Archimid]

I imagine his intention was not to incite genocide. I think his writing is merely his read of what will happen if we don’t stop what we are doing and the seemingly only way to stop what we are doing. I agree with him.

But then there is hope. Paradigm shifts than transform the world in a matter of decades are not unusual. If that mechanism can be harnessed, replicated and improved then there is a chance to implement many real climate change solutions like EV’s , renewable power, sustainable agriculture, massive recycling, reforestation and forest protection, ocean clean up and conservation and so on.

 I think decades of work by scientists , engineers, entrepreneurs and activists are now maturing into usable technologies. I think society is also much more open to conservation and would be ready to embrace favorable changes that protect our environment.

Time ran out. Some pain is already baked in, but a global effort of the scale of some of the large human endeavors like the space race or WW2 might be enough to avoid the worst.

[wili]

Arch wrote:

If the plan is to collapse our world to save the world, then we should all expect to be part of the population reduction. We should not think for one second that "we" will survive while "they" will die...

Indeed, if one were to plan some kind of magic reduction in world population to reduce the severity of the now inevitable catastrophes coming our way, the best place to start would be the richest 20% of the world population, who do about 80% of the consumption and so of the ecological destruction. I'm quite sure that would include just about everyone on this board.

One can't 'quickly' reduce population in a humane way, if by 'quickly' means "in less than a decade or two." And we do need rapid reduction to zero and beyond of ghg emissions. The only thing that can get us close to there in 5 - 10 years is, as you say, lots more efficiency, even faster build out of alternative energies, but also great reduction of consumption, especially 'non-essential' consumption. Ultimately, these could also be viewed as essentially kinds of efficiency--in most cases, it is not efficient to feed 7.3 billion people on high-meat diets, not to zip them around the world on airplanes...

But back to population...the humane way to reduce population is, of course, to insure women's rights and their free access to education and to healthcare, including contraception and abortions. This has been shown to not only reduce on average the number of new births, but also leads to women having their first (and often only) child at an older age, and of course spacing generations out further can have a dramatic impact on reducing the total population. And of course you get the added benefit of happier women and a more just society as icing on the cake (or really maybe that's the cake below the icing!? )

Making gentle voluntary euthanasia more widely and easily available, as they have done in The Netherlands, I hear, could also be an important component. This also brings with it less horrific final days, and less money wasted hopelessly trying to keep dying people alive while making their last days a terror.

But nearly all these approaches fly in the face of the goals of growth-based capitalism. For this and other reasons, many people see that as one of the biggest obstacles to moving forward (not that socialism by itself is any guarantee of a green economy).

What is and is not politically possible is not really anything that anyone can very accurately predict. Few people could have accurately predicted the timing of the fall of Apartheid or of the Iron Wall, and few, even of his supporters, really thought that Trump would win...

There are stirrings among young people that I find hopeful, but of course the time is way past late.

[wili]

ger, thanks for the post about Rabaul. I was surprised to hear how very few people died, and how well the well-prepared-for evacuation went, even though there wasn't a lot of time before the warning and the eruption.

I have a feeling there is some kind of lesson in there for us, but I'm not quite sure what it is...

[zizek]

Genocide IS BAU. It's weird how quickly we forget current events or history when we sit so cozy in our homes.

The United States is assisting it's ally, Saudi Arabia, to use starvation as a weapon in the Yemen conflict. Millions of people are facing starvation, and tens of thousands have already died.

Let's move on to Elliot Abrams, who provided us with this little treat of history:

https://polizeros.com/2013/05/30/reagan-loyalists-evade-accountability-guatemalan-genocide/

Reagan evaded Congressional oversight in order to provide Rios Montt with millions of dollars of military aid.  When Reagan and the general met in Honduras in December 1982, Reagan spoke warmly of him:

 “I know that President Rios Montt is a man of great personal integrity and commitment. I know he wants to improve the quality of life for all Guatemalans and to promote social justice. My administration will do all it can to support his progressive efforts.”Â Â

“The next day,” the London Review of Books reported in 2004, “one of Guatemala’s elite platoons entered a jungle village called Las Dos Erres and killed 162 of its inhabitants, 67 of them children.”Â  The report continued:

“Soldiers grabbed babies and toddlers by their legs, swung them in the air, and smashed their heads against a wall. Older children and adults were forced to kneel at the edge of a well, where a single blow from a sledgehammer sent them plummeting below. The platoon then raped a selection of women and girls it had saved for last, pummeling their stomachs in order to force the pregnant among them to miscarry.Â

“They tossed the women into the well and filled it with dirt, burying an unlucky few alive. The only traces of the bodies later visitors would find were blood on the walls and placentas and umbilical cords on the ground.”Â Â

On another occasion, Reagan claimed that the dictator was getting a “bum rap.”

In 1983, then assistant secretary of state Elliott Abrams told PBS, “ “the amount of killing of innocent civilians is being reduced step by step”¦. We think that kind of progress needs to be rewarded and encouraged.

What does Abrams do now? Well he's the special envoy to the current Venezuelan crisis. He's in charge of the sanctions with the goal of starving her citizens so they revolt against their non-west-aligned government, with the final hope of installing a neoliberal friendly puppet, just like  Guatemala, Honduras, and so many other places.

[zizek]

Genocide isn't just a hard pill to swallow. It's encoded into our culture. The settler state of America has been murdering entire groups of people for centuries, and has never stopped.  What do you think will change when climate change starts to really kick in? What do you think bloodthirsty Americans will be able to get away with when people start getting hungry, scarred, desperate. Look at 9/11, the government had carte blanche to murder whoever they please, they practically carpet bombed the entire middle east.

Unless these bloodthirsty maniacs are forced out of power, then genocide isn't just an option, it's a guarantee.

[zizek]

The average American would rather murder 100 faceless brown people in a distant country than ride his fat ass to work. 

[ASILurker]

The average American would rather murder 100 faceless brown people in a distant country than ride his fat ass to work.

ROFL and if they did ride a bike they'd still be packing heat!

Some perspective?

If tesla could string together 4 quarters in a row their total Sales would be $25 billion / year.

Light vehicle retail sales in the United States from 1978 to 2018 (in 1,000 units)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/199983/us-vehicle-sales-since-1951/

That's about 17 million new unit sale in 2018

Let's make a stab at an average price of only $40K USD per vehicle

Total sales revenue = $680,000,000,000 = $680 Billion / year (vs Tesla $25 Billion)

Add in a few $Billion more for Fossil Fuel petrol, gas and electricity costs to run them for a year which might be about $50 Billion... which totals $730 Billion give or take. 

Each year the USA taxpayers spend now $722 Billion / year plus on "Defence" (sic) 

Plus many $Billions more on shadowy expenses not really labelled as "Defence"

So imagine a world where the USA was able to cut it's Defence Budget by let's say $500 Billion per year. It would still the #1 most expensive most powerful Military Establishment on Earth by far.

But how much GHG emissions would be saved and how much wasted irreplaceable resources would be saved by cutting such a Defence Budget by at least $500 Billion per year forever back to sanity levels? 

So why would Climate deniers and their Corporate funders and Media enablers be so focused on the "scientific fraud" that is AGW/CC Science is and how if such recommended action is enacted it's going to destroy the economy and cost the taxpayers $ Billions they cannot afford?

What's the Cognitive Dissonant pay-off in "so-called" pro-AGW/CC action proponents especially the Luke Warmers from doing the same by ignoring the elephant in the room - a primary source of massive GHG emissions and wasted taxpayer funds in the USA - by gas-bagging endlessly how Tesla and other things are going to save the world, humanity and their current exclusive preferential Top 10% wealthiest in the world Lifestyles?

I think you know the answer to both those questions. Keep at it but keep your cool along the way. Try not to let people get under your skin.

(edit image) AKA stop stressing over shitty people ... be it the avg American or those who really hold the power in their hands.

[ivica]

A disaster in waiting

By Sadhguru, Isha Foundation. Published: 19th May 2019.

Ecological problems are no longer a myth. The facts are ranged in such a manner that it is a clear statement. The way we are going right now, it is a disastrous path. But we call it “business as usual.” If we go with “business as usual,” the planet is in for a very serious turndown in the way it functions.
...
But we are not looking for solutions yet, we are only looking to slow down the disaster. We want to gift the disaster to our children; we don’t want it to happen in our time.
...
We are trying to handle a massive problem with small incentives here and there. That is not the way it needs to be addressed if you are serious about a solution. 
...
If we do not take corrective action right now, we will pass on a legacy which we will be ashamed of and which we will be accused of and hated for by our children and the next generation of people.

http://www.newindianexpress.com/lifestyle/spirituality/2019/may/19/a-disaster-in-waiting-1977624.html

--ivica

[Human Habitat Index]

Genocide IS BAU. It's weird how quickly we forget current events or history when we sit so cozy in our homes.

The United States is assisting it's ally, Saudi Arabia, to use starvation as a weapon in the Yemen conflict. Millions of people are facing starvation, and tens of thousands have already died.

Let's move on to Elliot Abrams, who provided us with this little treat of history:

https://polizeros.com/2013/05/30/reagan-loyalists-evade-accountability-guatemalan-genocide/

Reagan evaded Congressional oversight in order to provide Rios Montt with millions of dollars of military aid.  When Reagan and the general met in Honduras in December 1982, Reagan spoke warmly of him:

 “I know that President Rios Montt is a man of great personal integrity and commitment. I know he wants to improve the quality of life for all Guatemalans and to promote social justice. My administration will do all it can to support his progressive efforts.”Â Â

“The next day,” the London Review of Books reported in 2004, “one of Guatemala’s elite platoons entered a jungle village called Las Dos Erres and killed 162 of its inhabitants, 67 of them children.”Â  The report continued:

“Soldiers grabbed babies and toddlers by their legs, swung them in the air, and smashed their heads against a wall. Older children and adults were forced to kneel at the edge of a well, where a single blow from a sledgehammer sent them plummeting below. The platoon then raped a selection of women and girls it had saved for last, pummeling their stomachs in order to force the pregnant among them to miscarry.Â

“They tossed the women into the well and filled it with dirt, burying an unlucky few alive. The only traces of the bodies later visitors would find were blood on the walls and placentas and umbilical cords on the ground.”Â Â

On another occasion, Reagan claimed that the dictator was getting a “bum rap.”

In 1983, then assistant secretary of state Elliott Abrams told PBS, “ “the amount of killing of innocent civilians is being reduced step by step”¦. We think that kind of progress needs to be rewarded and encouraged.

What does Abrams do now? Well he's the special envoy to the current Venezuelan crisis. He's in charge of the sanctions with the goal of starving her citizens so they revolt against their non-west-aligned government, with the final hope of installing a neoliberal friendly puppet, just like  Guatemala, Honduras, and so many other places.

Genocide IS BAU.

Thanks Zizek

[oren]

BAU is genocide.

[Archimid]

BAU is genocide.  So is eliminating food and transportation for 7 billion people without replacement technologies.

[zizek]

BAU is genocide.  So is eliminating food and transportation for 7 billion people without replacement technologies.

1/3 of all food produced is wasted. Yet, 850 million people are going to bed hungry, and 9 million people die of hunger each year.

From the ER thread:

Politics, economics and culture all need energy, plastics, transportation, healthcare, education and food. All those things in turn have the potential for CO2 emissions.

That is a wicked problem because it can't be solved with political campaigns, economic policy or cultural shifts alone. The problem must be solved by using science and engineering before politics, economics and culture changes can implement the solution.

Are you a robot Archimid? You are completely obsessed with technology and lack any faith in humanity. I think the only time you mention a person/movement that can help stop climate change is Elon Musk. I'm concerned that you're fixated on something that is eventually going to disappoint you and hurt you badly.

<snip, this goes for all of us; N.>

[Tom_Mazanec]

We all must sacrifice to save the planet:
https://newrepublic.com/article/154036/will-make-sacrifices-save-planet

EDIT: UN Chief Guterres "BAU is a suicide"
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/un-chief-guterres-the-status-quo-is-a-suicide#gs.i8vmuq

JUNE 15 EDIT:
Here is what must replace BAU:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-cities-climate-change/drastic-shift-in-city-lifestyles-urged-to-avert-climate-crisis-idUSKCN1TD222
We must transform our lives and values:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/15/transform-lives-burning-planet-agriculture-consumption

[Tom_Mazanec]

Climate change tourism even though it may make the environment worse:
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/9kxe43/climate-change-tourism-stride-is-cashing-in-on-environmental-devastation

[Tom_Mazanec]

How Our Lifestyle Is Driving the Climate Crisis and How We Can Change It
https://thetyee.ca/Culture/2019/08/27/How-Our-Lifestyle-Driving-Climate-Crisis/

Tatiana Schlossberg is an environmental journalist based in New York. Her book, Inconspicuous Consumption: The Environmental Impact You Don’t Know You Have, is an investigation into systems we interact with all the time and how they relate to the climate crisis.


From athleisure to electronics to our innocent binging habits, it becomes clear that everything is interrelated. She argues that we need to understand the map if we’re going to make any changes.

The Tyee talked with Schlossberg over the phone to learn more. Here’s our conversation, edited for brevity and clarity.