Climate Change & Einstein's - You cannot solve a problem ...

[Forge.]

And some of the biggest and easiest changes to make now (for the majority of the population) are to not travel via plane or car.

So, I'm not really clear on how this works. If you're in central victoria then either you must live within walking/cycling distance to town, otherwise you'd find it bloody difficult to cover all that distance, especially if you're lugging a cello around.

Do you never do gigs anywhere else? no other cities?

How do you suppose a musician should get around with all their gear?

I would have thought a better scenario for all involved would be just to change the way our vehicles are powered. Alternatives are slowly starting to appear, but when the whole world's economy is completely tied up in oil then that's a major hurdle we need to overcome, and I'm not sure exactly how we'll ever achieve that without some kind of legislation.

Likewise, coal.

And Machinesworking is right about animal products. I keep trying to go vego again, I already have little dairy, but I have to admit I find it difficult to keep it up. But if we did all go at least vego it could make a big difference. It will be interesting to see how the lab grown meat pans out. When there's 10 billion people in the planet it might become compulsory.

[regretfullySaid]

[Forge.]

well, the meat and dairy industries are really inefficient in terms of space required, feeding them all, transporting everything involved and their methane

I really hate the way animals are treated in these factory farms too

in terms of the space needed it's much more efficient to feed people with just plants...

[Machinesworking]

1. If this badly comrpessed PDF holds any merit, it says that the amount of methane humans produce isn't anything to worry about.

2. I don't see how going vegan would help the process, but just the opposite. If more people were vegan, less cows would be killed, thus more methane being produced.

Durrr!

1. It's the cows farts not humans that are the #1 greenhouse gas producer. Humans aren't force fed diets specifically intended to fatten them up in the shortest possible amount of time, although you could argue that they blithely consume a diet that does much the same as we feed cows.

2. See point 1, cows bred for human consumption are not natural anymore, and there would be no reason to farm them if you fucking didn't eat them, hence you could get rid of the problem virtually overnight.

Not your best come back, you could try the whole "I am a MAN because I digest meat!" routine and actually seem a little less 'special needs' !

[regretfullySaid]

Everyone should die having special memories from a road trip.

[Machinesworking]

We need to get rid of cars by the way, not make them greener.

Never understood this logic.
I work as a painter and carpenter, I have heavy tools that have to come with me to the houses and apartments I work on, none of that would change in a socialist, anarchist, fascist or capitalist economy. It's not feasible to get rid of cars, but it is feasible to make public transportation so much cheaper and better that most people would rather use it than drive. The answer isn't getting rid of something but offering better alternatives, trains, light rail etc.

The problem isn't technology, it's waste. You could have clean factories, but the profit margin goes down, this is where socialist and collective control of the economy helps supposedly, but every attempt so far has ended in dictatorships competing endlessly with capitalism, IE polluting etc.

Tesla was all for a benevolent dictatorship. Too bad the world has rarely seen that.

[Machinesworking]

There's only been one attempt at socialism, in Russia,

I dont agree, I don't think Cuba is or was anything like Stalinism. Same with Tito's Yugoslavia, or the work currently being done in Bolivia. There are plenty of very different than Soviet socialist attempts being made in South America, largely due to our (USA's) shit attempts at stopping it by installing capitalist friendly dictators.

[krulecello]

He's a scientist, not an entertainer, so you will be required to think. The facts/stats in speak for themselves, if you understand them.

You don't need to think to get stats, that's not the point. Who was he talking to? Did he have an audience or was this just to be put online? Who is it aimed for?
The 20 of the 80:20? The 5%? The 1%? Is it really just a detailed reminder that we need to be more conscious of our footprint? Just saying, in the end, how much of a productive effect did/does that make?

Well, they put graphic images on cigarette packs in this country, why not do the same for cars (for the sake of equality)?

Well I don't know if that works where you are but here that doesn't mean shit. And, btw, people know full well they are driving death projectiles that poison the air, plenty of people will drive them drunk or while looking at their phone, knowing full well how close death is looming, yet they still do it.

I'd love to think people would do something right for the sake that it's right, but it's been at least 3 decades knowing that we should be greener and how much we're fucking the ozone layer and it hasn't done a damn thing. So if you want to focus on the majority of changing a spec of their lifestyle to minimize their footprint, you need to make it fashionable, or guilt-causing, or economically rewarding, really anything except that it's just the right thing to do. And if you want that top 20% to do it, well, doesn't a large percentage of that show just how much they don't care?

I don't want to come off as defeatist or dismissive about it, I'm all for the fight of taking poison out of the air but I think if someone really wants to get things moving they're going to have to do more than just present some evidence and a couple of suggestions, cause THAT AIN'T WORKING.

Now if you know about a really goo effective organization that has a really good effective plan on making an actual positive tangible physical difference, and if they are transparent about the funds and donations they receive from people (something like Amnesty International?), maybe proceeds from a compilation album seem more like an effective start? Because I'm more into the idea that something like a collective should be started; one full of influential people, at least ones that don't have ties to any religion (including Scientology) that will can advertise on tv and you tube and cause the youth of the world to change their ways to minimize the footprint in their lifestyle and do things like donate or participate in things that will fuel an industry founded on minimal carbon footprint and geo-thermal energy. Like a huge PR campaign for the new natural resource of wind/water/solar machinery/factories,etc, run by people who give a fuck about life.

But it's not that simple when you have the oil industry embedded into the system and don't assume that once the old evil fucks die out everything will be hunky dory.
Rest assured they've got plans and bloodlines to keep their thing going regardless of what the natural resource is. A proactive extermination needs to happen to get that evil out of there, other wise it'll just be an endless battle of trying to keep the most of the last of whatever milkshake you have left.

Firstly, thanks for actually watching the link Shadx, your feedback demonstrates that you have a pretty good grasp on whats going on and the intelligence to see the complexity of the issue.

As you say, the facts/stats speak for themselves, and the most important aspect of this presentation, from my perspective (aside from the facts/stats, which are devastating), is that the person (scientist/academic/specialist) presenting them is matching his words with his actions. I don't know of too many other people (or scientists/musicians/etc) who are prepared to do this (yet), but what I do know is that it's a growing trend. For me this is genuine change, a radical (read. rational) act, and I for one find it inspirational.

[krulecello]

And some of the biggest and easiest changes to make now (for the majority of the population) are to not travel via plane or car.

So, I'm not really clear on how this works. If you're in central victoria then either you must live within walking/cycling distance to town, otherwise you'd find it bloody difficult to cover all that distance, especially if you're lugging a cello around.

Do you never do gigs anywhere else? no other cities?

How do you suppose a musician should get around with all their gear?

I would have thought a better scenario for all involved would be just to change the way our vehicles are powered. Alternatives are slowly starting to appear, but when the whole world's economy is completely tied up in oil then that's a major hurdle we need to overcome, and I'm not sure exactly how we'll ever achieve that without some kind of legislation.

Likewise, coal.

And Machinesworking is right about animal products. I keep trying to go vego again, I already have little dairy, but I have to admit I find it difficult to keep it up. But if we did all go at least vego it could make a big difference. It will be interesting to see how the lab grown meat pans out. When there's 10 billion people in the planet it might become compulsory.

Forge, I live 15k from the nearest town (and my post box). I'm currently not able to tour as much as I would like to so I'm selling up to hit the road fulltime, on bicycle, with cello. I love touring via bicycle with my cello and my most memorable road trips have been by bicycle

There are lots of car free low energy options when one gets creative about it. The most important thing to remember is that there was a time, not too long ago, we didn't have cars, and we survived, conversely, it's unlikely that we'll survive as a species if the majority of people keep driving cars (and lets add plane travel to this mix). For most people it's not a drama to kick their car habbit, because they're only transporting their own body weight, live in cities, etc. It's really up to you to look at the facts and your life circumstances and make decisions based on what you think is the right thing to do. I think increasing ones awareness is a pretty good place to start.

If you wanted to know more about the history and factual environmental impact of cars (including those that suggest 'greener' technologies), I would highly recommend this book;
"Stop Signs - Cars and Capitalism on the road to economic, social and ecological decay"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004Y74XX0

Yes, Machinesworking, being aware of the efficiency of food production is important, I tend to focus on cars and plane travel, because for the most part it's optional and unnecessary. I do think meat eating in moderation is sensible for some people, for a variety of reasons.

FunkN, I'm not ignoring you. I think you are indeed very intelligent and knowledgeable, intelligent enough to know that you really don't have 'the' answer.

[andydes]

It's pretty obvious that many people need to use cars for the majority of their travel. But many other could easily cut their use a lot. Some can get by without them at all.

London's having a bit of a cycling revolution. 10 years ago, people would think you mad to risk your arse on a bike. True, it's largely because transport costs are rocketing, and there's still a long way to go before it will be a real bike friendly town. Councils have only made token gestures to cyclists and only if it doesn't affect drivers. Car has always been king for planning. That has to change because many people more want to ride. Why drive around, them pay to use a gym for your exercise? Of course, not everyone can ride to work, but people who want to need to be able to do it safely.

The meat thing is significant as well. If you don't want to go veggie, would you even notice if you ate steak and burgers half as often as you do now? Probably not really. (don't ask me to give up cheese though).

The tricky part is encouraging people to change lifestyles a little without getting all preachy. No one likes to be told how to live their life.

Of course, governments need to step up and start actually doing something as well. Because consumer choices alone aren't going to cut it, now matter how hard we try.

[andydes]

Of course, governments need to step up and start actually doing something as well. Because consumer choices alone aren't going to cut it, now matter how hard we try.

But the governments won't do anything, and when they do something it will be worse than useless, eg carbon trading.

Well, we're boned then.

[knotkranky]

We are merely the governments bank. They have an interest in keeping the account healthy so they can continue to make their withdrawals.

[myrnova]

It's the end of the world for millions of people who will die of hunger.

We have to start somewhere. I'd prefer it happen all at once with as little suffering as possible, but these damn humans seem to have different plans…

This sturmnihilst here is one of those who keep on talking crap about global destruction etc. like the ones dressed in black with guns who enter schools and cinemas, those called by the U.S.A. propaganda "dangerous terrorists" (if not pure w.a.s.p. and using boiling pans) or "needing help sociopathics" (if rich, white and "purebreed", born in oklaoma, texas etc.). Sturmtruppen, are you a wasp, at least?...

For the rest (mocking people dying of hunger), I know the man here: he thinks he lives in a splatter movie or smth. Last time he called an afghan kid murdered by american soldiers: "pornogore stuff" The world for him seems to end on palm beach...

[myrnova]

We need to get rid of cars by the way, not make them greener.

This is "radical chic". People want cars and phones, washing machines and to eat meat in restaurants. People live their lives for this. And China is even worse than the U.S.A. in terms of disrespect for nature and environment. China just says: "well, dear west, you've exploited this planet till now? Now it's our turn". And it's nothing good, as far as I can see. Not to mention India. The only nation trying to find something less dangerous for the environment i guess is Brazil, with "green oil" for cars and industries, but not because they are better, of course: just because of economy. See the amazonia forest, for the rest: seems destruction of planet Earth is the best sport for capitalism.

So: you cannot tell people not to buy cars. You have instead to kill capitalists and military servants, then give money to scientists for researching ("ethical science"): water-based engines, lab meat etc. Don't expect China being better than U.S.A. or Russia, same old shit.

[Machinesworking]

Yes, Machinesworking, being aware of the efficiency of food production is important, I tend to focus on cars and plane travel, because for the most part it's optional and unnecessary. I do think meat eating in moderation is sensible for some people, for a variety of reasons.

Disagree completely. There is no real reason to eat animal products at this point, and they are the number one reason for climate change. There are many reasons to use cars, there are no truly compelling reasons to eat animal products given the simple fact that we do not have to. Three thousand years ago, sure, the vegetarian diet in northern territories would be severely limiting, but not now.

What's interesting to me is that given the abundance of information about vegans as power lifters, triathlon runners, the longevity of vegans statistically, we still find excuses for people to eat meat, even though it's a known fact that the meat industry is the #1 global warming cause, period. Even you, with your bicycle tour etc. are convinced that meat eating is healthy for some people. In the face of the fact that meat production is the biggest environmental threat we have, it's still seen as a valid choice, because IMO it's tied into family the way religion and politics are tied in, on a purely emotional level.