Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumNation Suddenly Realizes This Just Going To Be A Thing That Happens From Now On
http://www.theonion.com/articles/nation-suddenly-realizes-this-just-going-to-be-a-t,30195/?ref=autoNEW YORK—Following Hurricane Sandy’s destructive tear through the Northeast this week, the nation’s 300 million citizens looked upon the trail of devastation and fully realized, for the first time, that this is just going to be something that happens from now on.
Gradually comprehending that this sort of thing is now just a fact of life, citizens all across America stared blankly at images of destroyed homes, major cities paralyzed by flooding, and ravaged communities covered in debris, and finally acknowledged that this, apparently, is now a regular part of the human experience.
“Right now, Americans all across the country are watching the aftermath of this storm and at long last recognizing that this is what life is like now,” said Dr. Richard Morales, a climatologist at the University of Pennsylvania. “Admittedly, it could take a little while for some to fully acknowledge it, but at the end of the day, people will be much happier once they accept that they and their loved ones will likely suffer the consequences of an even stronger, more deadly hurricane at some point very soon. It’s going to happen.”
“I went through something very similar a few years ago when I finally came to terms with the fact that no one would ever listen to anything I said about global warming,” Morales added. “And that it is entirely too late to do anything about it.”
The Onion and Jon Stewart are National Truth Treasures.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Democratopia
(552 posts)but the overwhelming majority of Republicans believe Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and other know-nothing loud-mouths. How did this happen to America?
CRH
(1,553 posts)
Blanks
(4,835 posts)I don't believe it's an overwhelming majority even among republicans. We've built this country around non-renewable energy sources. We've designed our cities such that; even if you want to live with a small carbon footprint, its very difficult.
We have homeowners associations that will take you to court if you don't put your gasoline powered mower out there on your lawn once a week. Most cities have strict ordinances preventing people from using a grass eating life form to keep their lawn in check, but require that your parcel be large enough that must have grass.
It doesn't matter how much you want to reverse CO2 buildup in the atmosphere; you've got to drive to the grocery store if you want to eat. We need to rethink how we design cities, neighborhoods and commercial spaces if we want to start having a serious impact on global warming.
It isn't gonna happen unless a bunch of 'collectivists' get together and show the world how it's done.
So, it doesn't matter who 'believes' in global warming; until people start taking action, it's gonna continue to get worse.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)it's going to get worse. Even if we all believed in AGW right down to our toenails it would get worse.
We are putting 2 ppm of CO2 into the atmosphere every single year. It takes Mother Nature 2,000 years to pull that amount back out. We have over 100,000 years worth of excess CO2 in the atmosphere already. Nobody is doing anything to slow our rate of CO2 emissions. Do the math.
CRH
(1,553 posts)were not allowed, by who? MSM. You just witnessed a hurricane hit the most populous section of the country devastating socioeconomic living, how much talk on climate change, CO2 emissions, and anthropogenic GHW to you see on ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, ... ? You have just witnessed a campaign between the two major parties in the country, during a time the most important crisis facing humanity has not had a venue to be discussed, even though the issue of the environment and climate change is a stark contrast between the parties on a level equal to choice and women's rights. Which topic received all the coverage?
What better way to keep the uninformed public uninformed, than not allowing a diversity of thought to be heard? To not allow certain issues to come before the electorate? To allow carefully managed hot button issues to determine who represents the public in the wealth club we call congress. Hand chosen candidates financially supported by the hydrocarbon industry who has a vested interest in status quo energy sources, and all the consumption that follows? The MSM makes this control of the politics possible, control of the economy possible, control of research and development possible, and ultimately control of public and private education possible?
Ignorance is fostered by the lack of diverse sources of information, and the manipulation of the information that is allowed, the public. The internet is making this more difficult, sadly too late.
Imagine if 30 years ago the MSM had treated conservation on equal basis with consumption? Image if mass transit had been promoted over the private vehicle. Imagine if a walk in the park was encouraged over toys, if contemplation was encouraged over consumptive hyper activity. Imagine if a community garden was encouraged over a subscription to the NFL. If information was valued more that advertisement. The MSM has shaped not just our politics and social hierarchies, but also a culture of dissatisfaction without constant consumption, resulting from desires inflamed through advertising. We are a society mostly void of 'real culture', relying instead on a manufactured culture dependent upon the underpinnings of consumption.
I guarantee you, had the MSM taught instead of trained, conservation would be second nature, communal commons respected rather than exploited, and humans better adjusted within their 'natural' environment.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)We have an extensive education system in this country, and frankly expecting an industry based on entertainment to take up the torch and educate about global warming isn't realistic.
We have to make voluntary changes to our way of life. Many of them are items that you suggested. However, when people have the choice to watch the NFL or grow a community garden; there isn't much we can do to make them choose the activity that is best for global warming; short of restricting their freedoms.
It isn't that I disagree with all of what you are saying, but we can't lay the blame for global warming at someone else's feet and not take any action ourselves.
The solutions are out there and I think we will move toward them over time, but I guarantee you that the candidate in the debate that chose to rail on about global warming was assuring themself a break from politics for the next 4 years. As important as the issue is; that's not what the majority of people were hoping to see. These debates were a fight over jobs, and unfortunately people will trade jobs for CO2 reduction in a heartbeat.
President Obama talked about alternative energies several times and that is talking about the solutions to CO2 emissions and therefore is adressing global warming. So, it isn't accurate to say that it wasn't mentioned at all.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)The education system produces fungible workers and consumers to feed the global industrial economy. The media provides the values-based programming (aka propaganda) that keeps us wanting to produce and consume ever more material goods and comfort. The purpose of the political and legal systems is to protect the corporate owners of modern civilization from interference by any organizations working in the public interest. The only bright spot in this morass of 1984-ification is the internet.
Seriously, the trans-nationals have this whole game pretty much locked down.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)The problem must be that I am not feeling defeated enough. However, if you keep up the good work; even that could change.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)It varies for each of us, but the only way I could find my way back to some kind of hope (not optimism but hope) was to bounce off the bottom of my despair. It was't much fun, but it worked. 12-steppers are familiar with the process, and maybe there is an analogy there for those of us who have been addicted to civilization's insidious comforts.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,316 posts)Education systems are pretty useless at getting information to adults who are not in tertiary education, which is the majority of us.
The "industry based on entertainment" includes news and current affairs, and, yes, that is how adults have got new information for over 200 years, since periodicals became a reality. Of course it's realistic for us to think the media would act as a medium. What's unrealistic is expecting schools of universities to suddenly change and serve the entire population.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)We can never trust that accurate information will get to the public as long as it is paid for by corporate advertising. The farm extension system and county health departments share information with local folks all the time, so does emergency preparedness departments. Perhaps expanding that kind of model is closer to the answer. The burden is on the government for dissemination of accurate information; not private industry. Some effort should also be made to prevent the MSM from spreading inaccurate information too.
Education takes many forms. The Cuyahoga county extension office in Ohio has gardening videos on the Internet. There are a lot of ways to get information to people, but expecting the MSM to inform us is already a failed plan. Staying the course, is not, IMHO; very wise.
The problem is that people have to have an interest in the issues to pursue the facts. Folks just don't care. Given the choice between watching news that has pretty people vs folks with facts; you know what they're gonna choose.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,316 posts)NASA puts plenty of stuff on the internet too; and the Republicans interfered. PBS doesn't get quite so directly interfered with, editorially, so they try to cut funding. Face it, you are actually better off with the MSM, such as the New York Times, that is independent of politicians. You could try to set up a proper public broadcasting system, but you will always face the same problems: either it's commercial in some form, or it has to have public funding, in which case politicians will demand control. The BBC works fairly well (and you don't get more MSM than that), but persuading households to pay a compulsory yearly fee (in the UK, about $200) would not be doable in the USA, I think.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)We can't require that all news pass government muster, but we can't continue to allow places like Fox News to just make shit up and call it news.
I expect we've always had problems with stories not being covered by the MSM (that really is the core issue here), but we aren't going to get that to stop until we remove the advertising component from news. It would help to have a government fact checking entity that people trust.
Snopes has been indispensable, in helping to find out what is bullshit. However, they aren't set up to spread a story, and that's what's lacking here.
Sadly, if you dare to dwell on those points you not only risk having your posts hidden
but being PPR'd for being insufficiently supportive of the party.
(That, in itself, tells a story too.)
yends21012
(228 posts)and decide they could just report the news without any change in editorial slant or focus?
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)CRH
(1,553 posts)
On this one I don't think there was a sentence they had to make up. I think I've read this exact story about a dozen times in the past few days...
Skittles
(153,160 posts)get used to it
