Changes in attitudes towards global warming

A place to bring a contemplative / Dharmic perspective and opinions to current events and politics.

In the past 5 years I have become...

More concerned about man-made climate change
23
50%
Equally concerned about man-made climate change
9
20%
Less concerned about man-made climate change
6
13%
Never believed in it, still don't
5
11%
Climate change? Global warming? Bring it on!
3
7%
 
Total votes: 46

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

The downside karma of Climate Lawsuits

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Fri May 25, 2018 10:25 pm

There is a significant social cost of the strategy of filing one climate lawsuit after another. It incentivizes companies to avoid making climate policies because such policies make them more vulnerable to lawsuits.

from https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018 ... -lawsuits/
The topic came up twice during BP’s annual meeting on Monday. Chief Executive Officer Bob Dudley declined to disclose certain climate targets, or even answer some questions from activist investors, and cited the risk of legal action.

You want to get us to make statements here in front of you that you can document that will lead to a class action,” Dudley said in response to one question from the Union of Concerned Scientists about pending U.S. litigation against energy companies. Such legal actions are “a business model in the United States,” he said.

Also of interest:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/shell ... -104853746
THE HAGUE--Royal Dutch Shell PLC RDSB shareholders voted down Tuesday a proposal requiring the company align its strategy with efforts to limit global warming, signaling support for steps the company has already taken on climate change.
The resolution, put forward by Dutch activist shareholder group Follow This, won just 5% of the shareholder proxy vote.

... The company had recommended investors vote against the resolution on the grounds its ambitions are already more wide ranging. It also warned targets are too rigid a tool given the uncertainty around how efforts to limit climate change will play out.

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5007
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Fri May 25, 2018 11:10 pm

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 8:44 pm
The quote below expresses a Right view ... but the practice is missing.

If only more western Buddhist "leaders" on climate change were less reckless in their one sided political approach.
I agree that awareness of our subjective propensities is the wise approach. But without a more politically, ideologically and culturally diverse and informed conversation it's very difficult to see our own blind spots and have our subjective propensities mirrored back to us. Buddhism needs honest brokers but currently it is dominated by advocates and stealth advocates.
That's my public policy studies 101 perspective.
It's not very helpful in the real world, unfortunately. Since every one of us is subject to similar blindnesses and biases, an "honest broker' can't exist and the rest of us couldn't recognise him/her anyway.
Each of us has biases, as I said, and agendas. The best we can do is to be as aware of them as possible and honest about them to other people. I do that, but I have no sense at all that you do the same. Why do you post what you post? What do you hope to achieve? What do you believe about climate change and its effects?
If you have no answers to those questions, you need to find them. If you have bad answers, they might lead you to change your approach.
It’s hardly a secret that human recklessness is reaching a critical mass, threatening not only our collective sanity but even our long-term survival.

... The other approach is holistic. It looks at these problems as interwoven and mutually reinforcing, seeing them as objectifications of our subjective propensities mirroring back to us the distorted ways we relate to ourselves, other people, and the natural world. From this angle, any effective solution requires that we make fundamental changes in ourselves—in our views, attitudes, and intentions. ...
Who said that? Where?
---------------------
FYI: Honest brokering is best done in teams. As mis-informed as I judge many (but hardly all) Kim's opinions to be, Kim's and my posts taken together are a better guide to Buddhists than mine alone.
:rofl:
A far better guide.
Your posts, on the whole, discourage action on the problems we face by talking down any achievements and talking up all the obstacles, making action seem futile. The only sure things here are that inaction contributes to a slow-motion disaster and that, no matter how bad things are, we can always make them slightly less bad.

:jedi:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5007
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Fri Jun 01, 2018 11:41 pm

An overview of the state of play on the first anniversary of Trump's withdrawal from the Paris agreement -
What’s happened since Trump’s Paris climate announcement a year ago?
The world is moving forward with climate action, but it still might not be enough.

... Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the agreement hasn’t stopped other countries from moving forward with climate action. Here’s what other nations have been up to in the year since Trump said “au revoir” to the Paris agreement.

More parties (to the agreement)

The United States may no longer be acting like a member of the Paris agreement, but in the past year, the two remaining countries that hadn’t signed the original agreement — Syria and Nicaragua — decided to join.

Meaning that in the last year, the United States has become the only country in the entire world to announce its intention to not be a part of the Paris climate agreement.

Stronger emissions targets

In the last year, several countries have announced plans to achieve net zero carbon emissions under their national climate plan.

In Sweden — just days after Trump announced the United States’ intention to withdraw from the Paris agreement — the parliament overwhelmingly voted to adopt a national Climate Act that mandates reaching net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045. ...

In July, France announced that it would ban the sale of fossil fuel-powered vehicles by 2040, in an effort to become a carbon-neutral country. Months later, the French government passed a law immediately prohibiting new licenses for oil and gas exploration, and mandating an end to oil extraction by 2040. Since France is largely dependent on imported fossil fuels — as well as nuclear and hydropower — the law is largely symbolic, but sends a signal to countries around the world that the era of fossil fuels as the de facto source of power might be ending.

Elsewhere in Europe, countries are also starting to take strong stands against coal power. A few weeks ago, the Netherlands announced that it would ban coal-fired electricity generation in the coming decade, and retire two of its five coal-fired plants at the end of 2024....
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-paris-c ... 10507a6d2/

tl;dr = there's more to do but Trump's action won't stop it.

:twothumbsup:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5007
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Fri Jun 01, 2018 11:44 pm

On the other hand -
A lawsuit filed in March by the Southern Environmental Law Center and Environmental Defense Fund has revealed new levels of coordination between Scott Pruitt's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the climate science-denying think tank the Heartland Institute.

The EPA had repeatedly failed to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests by the two groups, which resulted in the lawsuit and subsequent release of the email communications. ...

The current head of the Heartland Institute is former Congressman Tim Huelskamp who also was quick to defend the relationship.

“Of course The Heartland Institute has been working with EPA on policy and personnel decisions,” Tim Huelskamp said in a statement to AP. “They recognized us as the pre-eminent organization opposing the radical climate alarmism agenda and instead promoting sound science and policy.”

In March Huelskamp wrote a piece in The Hill titled “Scott Pruitt is leading the EPA toward greatness,” in which he made it quite clear that the reason for this greatness was that “Trump and Pruitt share an understanding that climate change is not a significant threat to the prosperity and health of Americans.”

While in Congress, Huelskamp’s top donor was Koch Industries, the massive petrochemical empire owned by the conservative billionaire Koch brothers, Charles and David. ...
:reading: https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/05/29/e ... -institute

:jedi:
Kim

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests