The thing is it's become clear that climate change isn't the house on fire it was said to be so long ago. The world should be ashes by now, or heavily flooded, yet isn't, and isn't even close to that.

Imagine if we tried to enact the same kind of policies that are trying to be enacted now, like 40 years ago. Just think of what that would have done to the worldwide economy back then and where the world would be now because of it.

Also look at the tech we have now to start mitigating it. What if we can wait another 20 years for a solution that solves things in the same amount of time, or less, and way more efficiently, than if we started 40 yeas ago, all without having to deal with the hardship?

To say that's a stupid idea because, 'what if we can't fix the problem in time', doesn't make much sense based on our past and our capabilities. We solved the ozone problem for the most part, we went to the moon within a decade, and are seriously planning to go to mars, and eventually have human colonies there, and yet we don't think we'll able to deal with the CO2 problem here?

What about the people who have to deal with the heat, drought, or floods up until then? Well it's going to happen anyway for some, so regardless there's that, plus a ton of other people would have to pay for it one way or another if we get serious about it now, so who decides who pays and who doesn't? Who decides to take action now after all these years of 'not doing enough', instead of waiting for tech to do what it does and 'take us to the promised land', when it's renewable and carbon capture tech's time to shine?

Even if they were not going to take a stance, that would also be political due to their inaction on a very important issue that effects us all.
Remember "Action speaks louder than words" more often than not!

Nah. Sony should pat themselves on the back for taking one of many steps forwards.

If a society is "so fragile" that a company enacting a few greener initiatives is enough to cause it's collapse... Then that country should collapse.

Conspiracy theory. Disregarding in it's entirety.

I honestly hope he gets re-elected again, the free comical entertainment he has provided to the world has been priceless.

:looks at career:
Except fires are getting more intense and more frequent.

Why do people think going green somehow has to be at the detriment of the economy? You can initiate greener initiatives and profit greatly from it.
Nor does going green mean banning the production of all CO2 or other gases anyway.

I think you are trying to hint towards carbon capture technologies? If so, well. That's a gamble. You don't gamble trillions of lives, you just don't.

And yet... Many denied that there was a growing ozone problem, infact it's generally from the same political side that denies climate change.

But do you know how we solved the Ozone problem? The world got together, the world made a plan, the world enacted said plan.
- Do you know what the world has been doing on climate change? They have been taking a similar approach, CFC's weren't phased out overnight you know, it's a process.

Traveling to the moon or mars is not on the same scale as trying to capture decades worth of industrial CO2 across an entire planet, so lets not pretend it is.

I do deal with heat, drought and floods. I am in multiple rescue agencies.
The data on those are... That such events are becoming more frequent and more intense.

Everyone should pay. And we can't take action soon enough.

It's not always about what you can see right in front of you. Nasa can see the planet is greener than in the past. So more fires yet the planet remains to green even more so. Is that a problem?

How intense and how frequent will they continue to get, and at what rate exactly? How many fires is too many? If we get carbon back down to past levels, will it stop naturally occurring fires?

Have you not read the new green deal? Tell me that will at the very least keep things the same, if not make them better for the foreseeable future.

There are plenty of things people could do to benefit themselves and/or profit, yet they don't, and we don't force them to either.

If you mean efficiency in general, then yes, that's fine for the most part, but solving a pollution problem with more pollution isn't a legitimate answer, so we're told, because the end is upon us, apparently. Otherwise allowing another say, 20 years, for renewable and carbon tech to reach maturity and beyond, would be acceptable.

Then no decision can be made period. Going with or against climate change now is a gamble.

If you make significant changes with a significant cost to the people, and it's wrong and the change was temporary or less drastic than predicted, you're going to have a lot of upset people. If you don't make changes and it's as bad or worse than you thought, you're going to have a lot of upset people.

This is complain and cancel culture we're living in here.

Really because this says it was conservatives who saved the world.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/conservatives-ozone-montreal-protocol-1.4409482

Well when the majority of the world has reached consensus about climate change, it will happen as before, but until then, it's business as per usual.

Traveling was the lead up, and planning to have colonies there was the point. Those colonies will not be self sustaining for a considerable period of time, if ever, and will require being supplied from Earth. If climate change is such a problem, and it's now or never, yet it's not being attended to, then why are people wasting time with future plans in general, let alone space travel and planetary colonization?

Same with gun violence, but is it the guns, the politics, the media, the people, etc?

I disagree. I'd say for those who don't pay now, if man made climate change is proven to be as some proclaim, then they pay more later on to make up for it, one way or another. That way if the 'climate deniers' are right, they don't need to lose anything for no reason. If they are wrong, the people fully on board who saved the planet, get to profit from their investment, as you stated earlier.

Aaaargh this thread.

Almost everything can partly be politicaly abused but that does not mean we should not do shit about anything and let it all go too far,humanity not being the sole reason for climate change does not mean we do not need to atleast take some responsibility.There is no stopping it but slowing down this heating and cooling cycle will give us more time to adapt without many many casualties.

Er. Not everywhere is getting greener... And I am privy to datasets that you probably aren't on this topic.
And because I intend to use evidence going forth, I ask for you to do the same.

Now... Desertification is a growing problem... In short, it's where deserts are growing in size, often at the expense of greener/agricultural land.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertification

The Gobi desert for example is rapidly expanding, not getting greener, China has even tried to stem it's rapid growth by building a "great green wall" with mixed results.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/04/china-great-green-wall-gobi-tengger-desertification/

Who would have thought making a man-made forest would be so difficult when water is scarce and giant dust storms ravage the landscape? Sandblasting doesn't bode well for plant life.

The Sahara Desert, Atacama Desert, Chihuahuan Desert and others all increasing in size. Ouch.

Then you have other factors like the Amazon forest, which is not only being destroyed at unprecedented rates... But because it's being destroyed, it's micro-climate is also being impacted. - The Amazon actually makes it's own weather... Which means less rain.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-017-01215-3

The result? Well. NASA's satellites have noticed that the remaining forest is starting to "brown".
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141210171716.htm

What happens when we destroy the entire thing? Well. It will likely never be able to become a forest again as it's hard to replicate that kind of climate on that particular latitude, just ask China.

So while yes, some parts of the world are getting "greener" - It's only small, low-laying vegetation, not vegetation of any significance.

I live in the driest state on the driest continent in the world. - My particular region has some of the highest fuel loads per meter squared in the world.
On average we are seeing an increase of around 5~ wildfire incidents locally per year.

But other parts of the country which are ironically "rainforest" and in the tropical regions are now experiencing our conditions, resulting in catastrophic incidents...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-09/queensland-fires-sunshine-coast-stanthorpe-beechmont-binna-burra/11490356
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/sep/09/like-nothing-weve-seen-queensland-bushfires-tear-through-rainforest

When I went on deployment, the fire agencies weren't prepared like we were as such conditions have never really happened, every year is getting more intense.

But how many? Well. You see, fire tends to assist in releasing more CO2... Australian vegetation is very adapted to it however, but other countries and their flora? Not so much.

In short, both issues above are resulting in a reduction in plant biodiversity, invasive species are increasing those pressures as well of course.
https://www.iflscience.com/environment/plant-species-in-biodiversity-hotspots-declining-up-to-350-times-faster-than-historical-average/

I try not to. Only so much moaning I can tolerate in a day.
In saying that...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal

Probably not enough? But I guess something is better than nothing.

When people do (Like Sony) people complain. This thread is evidence of it.

The end? Not quite. But there are legitimate concerns over the long term.

Sea levels are rising by about 3.2mm-3.5mm per year.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

Over a 30 year period, that kind of increase does add up... Islands will be disappearing, coastal areas will be under thread, flood incidents will become more common.
https://medium.com/@riad.meddeb/disappearing-islands-what-happens-to-their-nations-and-people-f318c374188
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/may/16/one-day-disappear-tuvalu-sinking-islands-rising-seas-climate-change

Pollution is already a problem though...
4.2~ million people die from air-pollution issues every year, world wide.
https://www.who.int/airpollution/en/

Animals are being captured with ingested plastics.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2019/05/microplastics-impact-on-fish-shown-in-pictures/
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/plastic-microparticles-fish-flesh-eaten-humans-food-chain-mackerel-anchovy-mullet-a7860726.html

Rivers, like this one in India are becoming heavily polluted and are having difficulty in sustaining local life.
https://www.kent.co.in/blog/the-most-polluted-rivers-of-india/

But the largest issue is run-away loop effects... The Oceans absorb a substantial amount of CO2. - But as the Oceans warm, their ability to hold the CO2 decreases due to a myriad of reasons.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/OceanCarbon
https://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_science/science/

Not only that, but basic thermodynamics and physics in general basically tells us the warmer water gets, the more it expands, increasing sea-level rise.

It's not a gamble.
You either support the idea that anthropogenic climate change is a real phenomenon that 97% of the worlds scientists support... Or you are anti-evidence, anti-scientific and you have a high probability of being incorrect.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

In saying that... Lets say we take action in pushing for greener initiatives from top-to-bottom in society, world-wide.... And it turns out Climate Change was incorrect. - We would have left the world in a better, more sustainable, cleaner state for future generations.

The opposite of course would be if we did nothing and sat on our laurels and it turned out Climate Change was a very real problem, millions/billions of lives would be effected, guess what the economy would potentially look like then?

The Montreal Protocol is a progressive piece of legislation, lets not sugar coat it. It's also a green initiative.

A conservative government here introduced gun control... There are various reasons why a conservative party/government may take a progressive stance on something, often due to factions within their party pushing for something.

See above. 97% of the worlds climate scientists is a damn strong consensus.

We just aren't there yet.
But we can halt the increasing issue that is climate change.

A mix of all of the above.

It's been proven. Scientifically.

Climate deniers aren't loosing anything, there is money to be made by going green.

That's not how it works ... 

Absence in a stance does not necessarily imply being political and the only group that this does 'effect' is from the viewpoint of pro-green supporters since the idea is still a very hard sell even among other progressive factions ... 

By comparison, just about everyone thinks that industrialization was a godsend improvement for humanity and even the likes of India are looking to emulate China's success in widespread industrialization ...

Again, climate change only materially effects the pro-green group who are especially known to be fringe doomsayers and nobody else really seems to think it's a negative since it's far more worth it to industrialize ... 

Greens do NOT represent the people so before they go speaking for them maybe they should get more voters behind them to be able to back their words ? 

Seeing as how Sony has on more than one occasion acted in line with progressive politics, it isn't "just a few greener initiatives" but Sony are downright being arrogantly hardline progressive ... 

And western society is more fragile than you think. For one, many democracies out there are 'illiberal' by nature. 'Liberal' democracy as seen in western civilizations in itself is an outlier since it has high maintenance costs ... (I think even real autocracies are more prevalent than liberal democracies ?) 

If you want our system to be modeled so badly after Turkey or Russia where political interference runs rampant in everyday life just to achieve the selfish quest to combat climate change then be my guest but at that point your nation loses the ability to be 'liberal' due to such systematic interference hence why the examples I listed are still considered 'democracies' but they are not 'liberal' in any sense of the word due to the severe political restrictions placed on them ... 

By no means is Sony setting a good example for other businesses or companies to follow and we shouldn't take our existing model for granted like that if we want a pristine and a harmonious society where people of differing political backgrounds can peacefully coexist instead of a one with political persecution ... 

Greens should build their own nation and experiment how far they can go without industrialization such as not having many factories or plants around ... 

I think they need to secede first to see how well their plans work out ... 

It's either the union or being green because they can't have both! (not especially when many people see industrialization as fundamental to modern civilization) 

I posted the Nasa greening link slightly earlier in the thread, and since you were active here, I figured you may have noticed it.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth/

So instead of the planet being less green in more places, it's more green in some places and less green in others. So it's still balancing, just in a different manner. Sounds kind of like how manufacturing is still happening, just much less in some countries and more in others, so who cares if your job is gone? Life is about change so learn a new skill or trade and stop complaining, right? Should people have to deal with mother nature, or relocate if they don't like the present green distribution? What about those who say it's the future, period, and there's no stopping it, so get on board or be left behind?

What about periods like the "dust bowl" in America? Some poor farming methods are partially to blame, but mostly extended drought. Did man made climate change cause the drought, and did the drought ever end? How could it if things are just going to keep getting worse?

Agricultural land isn't vegetation of significance? That explains a lot...

You didn't answer the question for the most part, and you don't say how much worse the extra fires are getting, if at all. Will other vegetation adapt as well?

Aren't humans an invasive species...? Does that 'problem' need to be solved?

More like too much of both, unrealistic green objectives and general power grabs on the side while they're at it.

So President Trump would be better than no leader at all? What about Hitler?

Just because you're benefiting yourself, doesn't in anyway guarantee you're benefiting others as well, like your customers.

So 75 years for the seas to rise 1 foot then? How many islands that would be impacted by this aren't burning fossil fuels anymore, and haven't been for quite some time? If it's a worldwide problem, and they have little control or power over the seas, how many have left the islands knowing that's the smart thing to do, like you said, by predicting what's coming and do what's necessary in your power to stop it or avoid it if you can't stop it.

The planet used to be much warmer and had much more CO2 in the air, and wasn't near as green if you go far enough back. How did the planet cool itself down to where it was a couple of hundred years ago?

Climate scientists, not all scientists. To expect that people don't think certain scientists won't put forth BS for their careers sake is being unrealistic. It also doesn't necessarily mean you're anti evidence, because you just may be 'anti politics' for example, and therefore, due to their connection and ridiculous propositions, like the new green deal, not to mention corruption in general, many may just be skeptical, and rightfully so.

What if Einstein wasn't skeptical about Newtons science? Or should I say 'science'?

Sure, implement green policies for things like recycling or energy efficiency, but leave climate change out of it then. Trying to solve climate change would be a major undertaking and would cost a ton of money and time, only to find out it was all for nothing? That doesn't sound smart to me, yet it does sound overly cautious at the expense of others. Should America have been cautious by rounding up the Japanese during WWII and putting them in internment camps?

So then there's no political stance to blame then, since either side can do good sometimes, and other times not so much?

97% of what, .01% of the total? How certain are those climate scientists, and what are they willing to gamble to prove their certainty? Scientists don't control the world and certainly aren't politicians. I also think most would trust a businessman over a politician because at least they're taking a risk.

Musk owns and runs a green energy auto, battery, and solar company, as well as a space exploration company. If Musk really thought climate change was going to be a serious problem in his lifetime, don't you think he would've put the space company on hold before it's inception, and focused fully on green energy and renewables? If he by some chance wasn't sure back then, if it became evident now or shortly, would he put the space company on hold, since we're so far from achieving another planet to call home?

Yet the blame always goes to the guns, and guns are where 'progress' is made, by the politicians. The same politicians who make it clear that climate change is an immediate threat and if we don't do everything we can now we're all doomed. 

But I thought they were all part of the problem. Why isn't the rest getting fixed? Why isn't it even mentioned? Why is it being allowed to get worse?

Don't be a 'climate denier', say the politicians... along with, you're just a 'conspiracy theorist'.

Proven science is 100%, is it not? Theorized, proven mathematically, and physically, multiple times by different people, correct? You apparently have 97% of the climate scientists who agree, and only on the theory for the most part. The math and physical scientific proof is far from 100% accurate.

Then the 'climate believers' can be the one's to profit. Just think about how wealthy they will all end up. Except, wait... they won't, because they are typically the type of people who believe in equality, like free everything for everyone?

Hmmm.

I did read that. Hence why I re-used some NASA links to forward my own arguments.

But no, it's not "balancing" so to speak as per the evidence I provided prior.

No evidence supporting any of this has been provided, so will be ignoring and disregarded in it's entirety.

However... On the issue of science, scientific consensus and scientists...

You do not get a cytologist, which is a scientist that studies cells to write a paper on seismology, which is the study of Earthquakes.

Hence why a "Scientific Consensus" between "Climate Scientists" is damn important and including "all scientists" whether they are scientists that study Physics, Seismology, Cytology, Meteorology, Epidemiology, Biology, Marine Biology, Paleontology to form/write an opinion/paper on a specific topic like Climate Change... Is to put it bluntly. Stupid.

They have neither the experience, education or even work in said field, for obvious reasons as those scientists specialize elsewhere. - This is just basic common sense though.

You are right. But in this instance their "doing nothing" is actively supporting the proactive destruction of our environment.

It certainly helped. And it has been good for humanity.

False. It effects everything on this planet.
Hard to drive industry if everyone ceases to exist.

They represent a large portion of the people... And because of such will drive politicians and companies to have greener mandates.

Who gives a crap? Sony are a company, they can do whatever they desire, if you don't like the approaches they take with something... You are entitled as a consumer to take your business elsewhere.

It's called a "free market".

Again. If a western society is so fragile that a company making greener initiatives is cause for it's collapse, that society should fail.

I never said anything should be modeled after Turkey or Russia, making this tangent redundant.

It does set a good example if Sony can profit from it and help out the planet whilst they are at it.
Capitalism 101. Supply/Demand.

Nah.
Being green doesn't mean banning factories/plants/industry anyway.

The Unions have done some good for the average worker. Especially in my own nation.

Again though... You can be industrial and green, they aren't mutually exclusive.

"Actively supporting" would be the wrong phrase to describe the behaviour of most corporations out there ... 

If Sony or any other corporations wanted to be 'proactive' about destroying the environment then they'd do it by breaking the law such as producing/using CFCs which are widely banned substances but as far as I'm concerned anything else that is not a part of a consensus or against it is fair game to ignore because nonaction doesn't necessarily mean that a business is taking a political stance ... 

This is pretty much exactly the stance that only fringe doomsayers would have ...

Even by most pessimistic predictions, there's still more than 500+ years left before Earth becomes uninhabitable for human life ? (arguably way more than that, closer 100+ million years realistically) 

They still aren't anywhere near close to being the 'mandate' so they'll pretty much still be a fringe group in the forseeable future ...

Sure we can do that but that doesn't nullify my point that acting more politically than necessary is harmful and it gets especially bad if every corporation is doing it ... 

Having a world based on ideological division is negatively impactful ... 

What happens if it's more than just about being green and that every company starts doing it ? 

That is my main concern and Sony heading in that direction is a slippery slope ... 

No but having politics infect everything would lead to a semi-ruinous world like those I listed as examples ... 

Is that a system you idealize even if it means politically persecuting those who would go against the green group's interests ? 

That's the thing, Sony probably doesn't profit from it. They 'gain' in political ways by brainwashing the public in following the ideology they want ... 

Not good to see every corporation becoming some arm for a political party. News corporations are plenty toxic enough as it is so how would you like it if Microsoft or some other big influential corporation effectively coalition with the republicans on every stance including being anti-LBGTQI or being a climate change 'denier' ... 

It sure does mean banning as much hydrocarbon extraction as possible which means that factory/plants/industry will stop running for the most part! 

I don't think I meant a 'union' as in a "workers union" but I meant 'union' as in a "political union" ... 

Just about everyone is pro-industrialist and if the greens can't handle their needs been subdued in favour of public welfare then they should 'exit' this 'union' if they want to enact their own policies because an industrialists idea of 'progress' is largely not compatible with the greens idea of what 'progress' is ... 

I wonder why people don't stop at stop signs? You would think it's common sense. Could it be that they haven't been provided with evidence that they will definitely pay for it one way or another if they don't? Are just the words not enough? Does that mean police should turn a blind eye to red runners?

No evidence supporting your reply? How am I supposed to respond based on the rules, if I'm also forced to disregard your reply in it's entirety?

Common sense tells me it seems counterproductive, but we seem to disagree on that as well, so.