It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
Sustainability, buying once and using for a long time and all those sorts of initiatives make a great deal of sense for the environment.
That's... Seriously... Not as much money as you might think it is.
For reference, only two of those funds are above USD 1bn. There are individual humans worth more than entire collective funds, that need to be distributed to project teams globally.
This money covers research, innovation, action, comms and capacity building. Remember, there are individuals with a net worth higher than some of these funds combined.
It's a lot less money than you think. A lot of private companies are worth significantly more, into the hundreds of billions of dollars. If you sum all of those climate funds, I'd guess it's worth less than Apple, or Amazon, or Microsoft.
Edit: it's why most of the work is in the not-for-profit sector. Trust me, we ain't raking it in!
I hate throwaway culture. I know people who buy outfits that are basically designed to fall apart - they're for one night out, then disposed. It's hugely wasteful, drains water, food and fuels/energy for... Well, nothing really.
Contrast with, say, a well made pair of shoes. They'll last a long time and be repairable. The impact is significantly lessened.
See also peat compost vs peat-free. I have no idea why peat compost is still legal (or not taxed up the wazoo ten times over at least). Peat bogs are one of the most important carbon sinks on the planet, and we use it for pot plants and kid ourselves we're doing the environment some good by having a houseplant. It's mad.
lets look at it another way, all of the climate funding available is available for proving how bad man made climate change is, by comparison how much funding is available for proving the opposite?
And again - I am not saying that we shouldn't be funding research into the climate but that research should be balanced and objective not in pursuit of a pre-determined outcome.
Why is it that, no matter what the topic, there's always someone?
Lots and lots: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/22/top-oil-firms-spending-millions-lobbying-to-block-climate-change-policies-says-report
Also who do you think paid to hack UAE in Climategate?
Not to mention the governments and policymakers in any country or state that benefits from extracting or using large amounts of coal or oil.
How many of you set your domestic broadband router to switch off overnight?
Not worth it?
Would be interesting to hear about some of the main opponents to this.
I'm not a climatologist but in other fields the opponents to the weight of mainstream scientific consensus often have their own vested interests in promoting their own view just as much - Youtube channel, website selling alternative medicines etc.
Would be interesting to analyse a few case studies of dissenting voices that might really be on to something.
..but this is old news, right?
I am not saying climate change does not exist, I am saying we should not just implicitly trust what climate scientist say, if you have a problem with the application of any level of critical thinking then there is nothing more I can say.
For router you could also read Sky Box, console, Amazon echo, whatever really.. we leave an awful lot of stuff on at home when asleep, or when we go on holiday etc.
It’s similar to changing the dial on your fridge or freezer by a few digits, or setting the heating a few degrees cooler.
I've not checked but hopefully the smart plug doesn't use the power saved by switching the router off, I probably should check!
Don't have the internet at home!