Factorio Forums

SKKiro wrote: Fri Feb 26, 2021 1:46 pm It doesn't help that people will refuse to change for the better.

For example quite a large amount of methane is produced via agriculture. A good way to cut on those would be just less meat intake for everybody. However actually try to tell people to eat less meats (and less animal dairy products) and they will tell you "No, don't tell me how to live my life". So it seems there will always be a huge demand forever.

People can't just pick up and start eating less. If the consumption of meat decreases, then it needs to be replaced with something. Are you sure growing large amounts of plant foods won't result in more pollution? I am not an ecologist and cannot make such calculations. But I know for sure that the key problem is overpopulation and overproduction of clothes, gadgets, landscape changes, drainage of swamps and clogging of seas and oceans. Livestock farms are not the biggest problem in the world.

Challenger007 wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:12 pm

SKKiro wrote: Fri Feb 26, 2021 1:46 pm It doesn't help that people will refuse to change for the better.

For example quite a large amount of methane is produced via agriculture. A good way to cut on those would be just less meat intake for everybody. However actually try to tell people to eat less meats (and less animal dairy products) and they will tell you "No, don't tell me how to live my life". So it seems there will always be a huge demand forever.

People can't just pick up and start eating less. If the consumption of meat decreases, then it needs to be replaced with something. Are you sure growing large amounts of plant foods won't result in more pollution? I am not an ecologist and cannot make such calculations. But I know for sure that the key problem is overpopulation and overproduction of clothes, gadgets, landscape changes, drainage of swamps and clogging of seas and oceans. Livestock farms are not the biggest problem in the world.

i think both of your approach to the matter are wrong !

let me exagerate the first one; pollution is created when you heat and light your house, and when you use a car, and when you produce bicycle, and when you make books, so i tell people to stop heating and lighting their house, and i tell them to stop using their car and i tell them to stop using their bicyle and i tell them to stop reading books.

generally it doesn't convey my ideas very well, they think of me as a primitive authoritarian.

I mean it's not about what you think is good for the world and people should do that, or about what you tell people to do, it's about doing your own thing in a way that other people could do their own thing too i think.

which leads to the second problematic approach in my eyes, if you need to do your own thing and act yourself personnaly everyday for the matter, and you think the matter is overpopulation, like that's the key problem, well the solution would be to just take the matter personnaly and start by yourself, that's the only amount of work that's ethically possible for one to do imo. If i tell people there is overpopulation that prevent me from getting the amount of meat i desire, and that if other people would stop existing there would be less problems for me they also say i'm a primitive authoritarian somehow

now i realise i exagerated both approach.

Sorry if that's provocative hopefully it's not considered trolling, but i felt this thread was slowy becoming a discussion on why exactly precisely we are screwed while it could also be a list of positive thing you do personnaly

me i've started growing my own tomatoes, they taste better and don't come from places i can't afford to visit.

mmmPI wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 10:49 pm me i've started growing my own tomatoes, they taste better and don't come from places i can't afford to visit.

I’m sure the tomatoes taste better and are more cost effective, but I’m not sure that really does anything at all to reduce pollution or affects global warming.

NotRexButCaesar wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 11:48 pm

mmmPI wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 10:49 pm me i've started growing my own tomatoes, they taste better and don't come from places i can't afford to visit.

I’m sure the tomatoes taste better and are more cost effective, but I’m not sure that really does anything at all to reduce pollution or affects global warming.

It would help, if not so much goods are delivered around the whole world. Those cargo ships are really polluting

jodokus31 wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 11:59 pm

NotRexButCaesar wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 11:48 pm

mmmPI wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 10:49 pm me i've started growing my own tomatoes, they taste better and don't come from places i can't afford to visit.

I’m sure the tomatoes taste better and are more cost effective, but I’m not sure that really does anything at all to reduce pollution or affects global warming.

It would help, if not so much goods are delivered around the whole world. Those cargo ships are really polluting

Ah, as one who lives only a few miles from where the tomatoes are grown, I didn’t consider worldwide shipping.

I was thinking about my drive to the grocery: tomatoes don’t increase the number of trips.

NotRexButCaesar wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 12:00 am I was thinking about my drive to the grocery: tomatoes don’t increase the number of trips.

Aha so you drive to the grocery ! driving is creating pollution you should stop driving ! ahem , no , i mean do you find tomatoes everytime you go to the grocery ?

Tomato plant dies when it freeze, where i live this means there is a season to plant them, if you do it too early after winter one cold week end in april could ruin all your work, and the tomatoes.

Now if there is a season to plant them, during this particular season the tomatoes in the grocery store can't come from A) my area AND B)be fresh, AND C) be cultivated in a field.
They have to come from another area in the planet where seasons are differents, or they must be last years tomatoes stored in some way, or they are cultivated in a place where temperature is monitored. ( underground or in heated greenhouse.)

all of which consume energy in the process, if you consider storing as freezing, but you could also make dried tomatoes:)

now i really like tomatoes, and the best tomatoes are the one that are just harvested when they were almost ready to fall by themselves but those are a tad fragile, and if they were shipped over long distances they would look like a mess on the grocery shelves and no-one would buy them. Even if know i shouldn't dislike tomatoes due to their exterior look because in a pizza they all taste the same, i still choose the nicer looking tomato when i walk my 30 kilometers to the grocery store and because of that tons of less-nice-looking tomatoes goes to the trash every year.

Now when you grow your own tomato it's different, you like them no matter what, those tomatoes that survived the freeze, that didn't get attacked by caterpillars , that didn't had their leaves turn grey and die, that you didn't drop the watering can on them, even if their shape is not exactly what you'd have expected, they feel intense. You're not gonna let any of them sit on a shelf until they are wasted.

That doesn't trully do much at the global scale, but i'm not much myself either at that scale.

now i wish everyone would enjoy the tomatoes as much as i do, but i get it some people prefer the dirty potato, or the sticky strawberry, that's fine with me, i also wish those people have means to grow their own dirty potato or sticky strawberry.

Also i think people who don't want to grow their own food shouldn't be allowed to eat, but often time people say that's the archaic authoritarian that speaks thru me.

My thoughts on this matter:

This is a European perspective. I want to apologise beforehand to everyone who lives in an area that doesn’t fit into the stereotype of the continent it lies in.

Overpopulation is not an issue:
If people talk about overpopulation they usually don’t mean densely populated Europe but instead fast growing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Let’s keep in mind that climate change was for the most part caused by industrialised Nations in Europe and North America. Yes, growing population will certainly make solving the issue harder but it’s not exactly the issue itself.
It is also a common myth that we simply couldn’t grow enough food for everyone. People don’t starve because there isn’t enough food. They starve because 1. a lot of food is wasted and 2. the wrong food is produced (mainly too much meet).
Finally I just want to point out that “telling people in Africa what they should/shouldn’t do” is a very (very!) slippery slope. Let’s just say it didn’t work out for them in the past. People sometimes suggest Chinas one-child policy in this context. I hardly believe anyone would like this policy enforced in his own country. A good measure why it’s a bad idea. Which brings me to my next point.

Regulatory measures v. individual action
People generally don’t like to be told what they should do. On the other hand this is what every society is build on.
It is important to understand that climate change is a global problem. No individual can solve this problem by stop flying or eating meat. Fighting climate change only works if everyone works together. There must be rules and these rules must be enforced. Just an example: Hardly anyone would say: “Theft shouldn’t be illegal. If we just ask people to stop stealing, the problem is solved.” Or in our case: Stop stealing the basis of life from future generations.

What measures?
Obviously you can’t just forbid everything that creates pollution. You have to be smart about it. Extremely polluting things should be banned. (It’s more an environmental matter than climate related but the CFC bann is a good positive example.) For other things you have to choose less extreme measures: like setting high standards.
One very broad approach is fighting capitalism with its own weapons: Giving pollution a price tag, like a carbon tax. Unavoidable pollution will be very expensive but still possible. People and companies choose the cheaper options and will therefore reduce the pollution. With the extra money states can invest in climate friendly infrastructure like renewable energy production, trains, insulating buildings etc. (Obviously one of the first things governments should do is stop investing in coal, oil and gas etc.)

Conclusion
It’s mainly the responsibility of the industrialised nations to fight climate change but it only works if everyone works together. We can only fix this with regulatory measures. And these must come quick and must be relatively extreme.

ickputzdirwech wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 8:21 am One very broad approach is fighting capitalism with its own weapons: Giving pollution a price tag, like a carbon tax. Unavoidable pollution will be very expensive but still possible. People and companies choose the cheaper options and will therefore reduce the pollution. With the extra money states can invest in climate friendly infrastructure like renewable energy production, trains, insulating buildings etc. (Obviously one of the first things governments should do is stop investing in coal, oil and gas etc.)

The problem is also, that capitalism wants to grow exponentially. But the earth is limited.
Additionally, all sorts of resources have no real or too low price tag. F.e. human resources, environment, ...
And, junk is dumped into the environment without paying for it. Often, the whole society has to pay for it after companies have made their profit (f.e. atomic plants)

ickputzdirwech wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 8:21 am It’s mainly the responsibility of the industrialised nations to fight climate change but it only works if everyone works together. We can only fix this with regulatory measures. And these must come quick and must be relatively extreme.

ickputzdirwech wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 8:21 am One very broad approach is fighting capitalism with its own weapons: Giving pollution a price tag, like a carbon tax. Unavoidable pollution will be very expensive but still possible. People and companies choose the cheaper options and will therefore reduce the pollution. With the extra money states can invest in climate friendly infrastructure like renewable energy production, trains, insulating buildings etc. (Obviously one of the first things governments should do is stop investing in coal, oil and gas etc.)

Where i live, the regulatory measures that the governement make are made after consultations of the big companies that will have to apply them (which is justified by arguing that the governement isn't expert in a particular field and need advice from professionnal to make laws on a that field ), and as the governement doesn't want to shoot in the foot of his local corporation that pay people who pay taxes, the regulatory measures are never extreme nor even effective if they would be costly for the biggest industry.

that happened with banks in 2008 after the crisis when "measures should be taken for it to not happen again (too) soon". I started to take notice that it was a trend when crypto currency were for the first time regulated as it's a subject i wasn't completly ignorant about, but later also food regulation, insurances company, unemployment/temporary work agencies, gas taxes, gambling regulation, even soda taxes !

Therefore when i read that "we can only fix this with regulatory measures" i tend to disagree that they could solve anything. Even if it's most likely better than they exist. They may also give the feeling that "things are getting taken care of " and i think it makes people irresponsible.

Where i live we had this new "taxe carbone" which was a fee companies had to pay to the government based on quotas of pollutions. The biggest companies were "protected" from a too harsh regulation and were given much time to adapt under the form of large amount of quotas of pollutions, it was explained to the general public as a very modern decision that our great country was one of the first in the world if not the first to take because we're so good and stuff. But our great modern companies also do business in less great and modern countries and therefore shouldn't be prevented to compete with the more archaic and polluting companies by following stricter environmental rules.

This means their quotas/ allowance of pollution, was set to the amount they were already producing, sometimes even higher. And they sold the excess amount of allowance of pollution to smaller companies. Because many smaller companies were too small to be able to structuraly change their way of doing, their energy source, or a developing newer cleaner processes and were technically forced to pay an arbitrary new tax.

It's only when gas taxes increased that it started riots. And people started to ask why their gas was taxed and not the gas for the shipping boat or the fuel for planes.

But eventually if you tax the shipping boat and plane fuel, that's every product prices that will increase a little and that's pretty much the same.

jodokus31 wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 10:25 am The problem is also, that capitalism wants to grow exponentially. But the earth is limited.
Additionally, all sorts of resources have no real or too low price tag. F.e. human resources, environment, ...
And, junk is dumped into the environment without paying for it. Often, the whole society has to pay for it after companies have made their profit (f.e. atomic plants)

I would say the way money is created relies on models that themselves relies on the idea that growth can be constant over virtually infinite amount of time.
It is was fine happening for much time and i think part of it is based on the fact that population growth was following the same trend.

This trend is changing in several of the top 10 economy that makes the rules, but mostly the western occidental countries. And now they are forced or will soon be forced to learn how to share things.

I think the real deal is to learn how to be happier with less instead of seeking for more things. That's quite the opposite of the growth dogma and there's a long way to go:)

For those who are interested in getting a sense of the orders of magnitude different things contribute to climate change, here is a long (for youtube standards) or short (compared to everything there is to know on the subject) video. The guy speaking is Jean-Marc JANCOVICI, the top French expert on climate change and energetic transition (and probably amongst the most knowledgeable person worldwide on the topic).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s254IPHXgVA

On his channel, there are a few videos in English while most are in French. For those who are really interested in the subject and are willing to spend some time documenting themselves on the matter, I strongly advise to watch the following playlist. It's the 20 hour course he teaches at Mines Paristech (one of the best engineering schools in France), split into 8 videos. It's in French, but there are English subtitles.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... nYHfC5xGFO

From his videos I learned that most of my beliefs on this specific subject were mistaken, and that there are things we people can do to contribute our share to the very needed effort.

mmmPI wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:32 pm when I read that "we can only fix this with regulatory measures" I tend to disagree that they could solve anything. Even if it's most likely better than they exist.

Especially when the politician is getting all their donations from the same companies.

mmmPI wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:32 pm It's only when gas taxes increased that it started riots. And people started to ask why their gas was taxed and not the gas for the shipping boat or the fuel for planes.

But eventually if you tax the shipping boat and plane fuel, that's every product prices that will increase a little and that's pretty much the same.

I think people saying “just tax the corporations” tend to think that companies are just infinite money sinks. Nothing but the government itself operates on extreme margins and waste.

jodokus31 wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 10:25 am The problem is also, that capitalism wants to grow exponentially. But the earth is limited.
Additionally, all sorts of resources have no real or too low price tag. F.e. human resources, environment, ...
And, junk is dumped into the environment without paying for it. Often, the whole society has to pay for it after companies have made their profit (f.e. atomic plants)

Atomic plants? That is your example of junk dumped into the environment? Nuclear plants must be one of the least polluting/most efficient things of all. I’m not sure I understood your point.

Interesting you say “capitalism” wants to grow. It is more that individual people want more than the system itself tends to make more. Capitalism at its roots is really just giving people the freedom to make their own transactions.

Another thing: in most developed “western” nations, human resources are most of the cost to run a company. Maybe they are undervalued, but they are not “cheap”.

mmmPI wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:32 pm I would say the way money is created relies on models that themselves relies on the idea that growth can be constant over virtually infinite amount of time.
It is was fine happening for much time and i think part of it is based on the fact that population growth was following the same trend.

I think you more mean “value” than “money” (currency). Unless you mean how money is earned? I would say value is created when less valuable ingredients are formed into a more finished product.

mmmPI wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:32 pm I think the real deal is to learn how to be happier with less instead of seeking for more things. That's quite the opposite of the growth dogma and there's a long way to go:)

I’m not sure this is possible without something very novel. As a rule, people are almost never (or at least never have been) fully satisfied: especially when it comes to material conditions.

Koub wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 7:57 pm It's the 20 hour course

I wish I had 20 hours to watch videos.

NotRexButCaesar wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 1:27 am

mmmPI wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:32 pm I would say the way money is created relies on models that themselves relies on the idea that growth can be constant over virtually infinite amount of time.
It is was fine happening for much time and i think part of it is based on the fact that population growth was following the same trend.

I think you more mean “value” than “money” (currency). Unless you mean how money is earned? I would say value is created when less valuable ingredients are formed into a more finished product.

No i mean money, as in monetary creation, quantitative easing, increase the monetary mass via emission of new amount of money ex nihilo.

The way the money is created for states by central banks or federal reserve.

In very moderatly short and simplistic, a government need 10 billions. It ask "the market" for a lend. But government don't pay back the money, instead they pay interest forever. ( the bond system).
So if you need 10 billions as a government the bank will study the request for a lend and then ask if the money will be used for something that will generate a stable income over long period so as to perceive interest from it. (is it reasonnable to emit bond based on this activity ?). Later that one government receive the 10 billion and spend it in something that earn says 1 billion per year. The bank takes 100 million per year as interest that' just like 1%, quite cheap (or pay interest to bond owners). And the governement will pay 100 million every year forever. That's just the interest, when you can't pay for the interest the bank will require the government to sell stuff to purge the initial amount of debt, or to sell stuff to pay for the interest one more year, another year, another year, and so on. Roads, airport, seaport, train , school, retirement funds, hospitals , national companies and so on are then sold.

It REQUIRES constant growth. otherwise the very mechanism that our world use now to control the monetary creation can't function.

If a government stop paying for bonds, then the people/banks who owned bond see their value decrease as the bonds are worth nothing anymore, and the other people owning shares of banks or companies that owned bonds see their assest value decrease and so on.

If a government say " i would need 10 billion to clean up the sea from the bombs of WWII". the bank study the request and ask, but how are you going to pay interest on that ?
Once i write up with my pen on your account 10 billions, the money is just created. But then you'll have to pay for this, and the way you are going to use it will not generate any cashflow/growth, therefore you will not be able to pay interest, hence i am not acceding to the request, i refuse to create bonds and sell them for you sorry mister governement.

If a governement tries to force the banks to create money with no intent of paying it back , or with the intent of paying the interest by forcing again the bank to create money we have the situation that occured in 2008 and because of covid, where many government ask their bank to print massive amount of money to prevent the system from collapsing because if growth stop, governement finances can't function anymore. So during crisis, money is created to prevent the system from gripping, and that money is distributed to big companies that don't invest it in "risky" asset during crisis. So they all buy shares of each others, creating massive inflation in their stockprices which is considered to be a good sign to give confidence to "the market". That look like growth on paper so the system can still function a little more time.

Each successive crisis during the time i was in age of remembering saw diminishing effect of that mechanism of quantitative easing. This means in the 2000's when 1 dollar was created by banks oustside of the regular money creation, for crisis relief, it would boost the GDP by 2 dollars. Say the company that hire you receive the money, they pay you with it, and you pay the grocery store with it. The grocery store then proceed to buy a stock, or gold, or a governement debt bond and then the money doesn't change hands anymore and doesn't count in GDP, isn't taxed , doesn't participate in (real) growth aside from inflated value of debt bond, gold, or stock. Later when 1 dollar was created it was boosting the GDP by 1 dollar only, later again for 1 dollar created, there was only like 10 cts increase on the GDP. ( those are made up number just to illustrate the trend, but the order of magnitude are way worse).

This means during crisis, the very money that's created outside the regular money creation that require growth, that money that is created to avoid the system stalling and thus falling, is not given to people that use it in a way that does the job, which in a way make sense since that money is given to big companies that all buy shares of each others, they know what's happenning and it fails at creating inflation, no growth happens, real or fake, and the only tools available is even more money printing.

There is this need for constant growth that's embedded deep in the roots of the economy as it is setup today at least from an accounting/ownership point of view.

It's roughly the same cause that prevent money to be created for non-profitable causes such as ecology that could also be described as a constant need for growth which harms ecology (imo). That is quite a digression from the topic of climate change as an environmental phenomenon. But that is some interpretation on why is it so hard to stop/change the machinery that is the financial system driving the industry towards more and more all the time.

The idea of taxing the carbon and regulatory measures that are discussed by people who think they have any influence on that regard are usually thought to incorporate the "new data" to the "old system", meaning that ecology should be taken into account and somehow mathematically integrated into the existing system as a parameter amongst others that could be dealt with tradeoffs and pros and cons. Which could even possibly create a new boom that would be called green growth . I think that's just crap, telling people what they want to hear, like "don't change anything in your life we'll make measure from our desk of law makers , then the industry will do magic, and you will continue as before except everything will be green and ecofriendly". That's not taking in account all the datas and failing to understand how big would be the impact on things that we take for granted.

sum-up : people don't do useful stuff to face emerging problems, it could be tied to the way people are doing stuff mostly for money, and that money is not created nor utlized for useful stuff, or that people having money and using it to make other people do stuff are unable/unwilling to make them do effective stuff regarding a particular matter which is quite problematic since that particular matter is ecology and we all rely on it to continue doing stuff.

NotRexButCaesar wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 1:27 am As a rule, people are almost never (or at least never have been) fully satisfied: especially when it comes to material conditions.

maybe you need to meet more people you could have a biaised view on them atm
maybe you didn't meet enough of those people that would have left you think differently ...
maybe you could be one of those person that makes this pseudo-rules a little less true in your own eyes
maybe if there's many person doing it, the rule will become more false than true in everyone eyes

mmmPI wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:32 pm I think the real deal is to learn how to be happier with less instead of seeking for more things. That's quite the opposite of the growth dogma and there's a long way to go:)

I wholeheartedly agree with you on that one.

NotRexButCaesar wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 1:27 am

mmmPI wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:32 pm when I read that "we can only fix this with regulatory measures" I tend to disagree that they could solve anything. Even if it's most likely better than they exist.

Especially when the politician is getting all their donations from the same companies.

It's out of question that right now governments don't do enough. People individually don't do enough either though. Don't get me wrong, it's good if people start acting as an individual but it will never be enough. In European countries you pretty much can't live carbon neutral, because of the emissions the government makes for every citizen.
Regarding companies it's not just politicians who get fooled by them. With greenwashing campaigns they convince the public that 1. they already sell "green" products and 2. that no regulatory measures are needed if everyone acts on their own. The first one is most of the time just wrong, the second impossible.
As I said above fighting climate change only works if everyone fights together. If you try to solve the issue on an individual level, you will need a consensus of 90% and more of the people and they all need to constantly act thoughtfully. If you try it via regulatory measures you "only" need a majority to vote once every few years.

And if you are unhappy with you politicians: They can only be as good as the people who vote for them. Go try and make politics yourself. I believe it's easier to convince people to vote for a different party, than to tell them to stop eating meat/driving a car/stop flying etc. And as I said it's often also not possible because of missing infrastructure, because people don't have enough money for it etc.

NotRexButCaesar wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 1:27 am Atomic plants? That is your example of junk dumped into the environment? Nuclear plants must be one of the least polluting/most efficient things of all. I’m not sure I understood your point.

Building the power plants and all the necessary infrastructure requires a lot of concrete which creates quite a lot of emissions. Also the mining of uranium is a very wasteful process which destroys huge landscapes and leaves behind a lot of toxic waste. Of course you can argue that renewable energy sources also require resources. But at least they don't leave deadly nuclear waste behind that so far nobody really knows what to do with it.

Finally a decentralised power grid with lots of small flexible energy sources can have significant benefits. Nuclear power plants are the very opposite of that.

NotRexButCaesar wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 1:27 am

jodokus31 wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 10:25 am The problem is also, that capitalism wants to grow exponentially. But the earth is limited.
Additionally, all sorts of resources have no real or too low price tag. F.e. human resources, environment, ...
And, junk is dumped into the environment without paying for it. Often, the whole society has to pay for it after companies have made their profit (f.e. atomic plants)

Atomic plants? That is your example of junk dumped into the environment? Nuclear plants must be one of the least polluting/most efficient things of all. I’m not sure I understood your point.

Interesting you say “capitalism” wants to grow. It is more that individual people want more than the system itself tends to make more. Capitalism at its roots is really just giving people the freedom to make their own transactions.

Another thing: in most developed “western” nations, human resources are most of the cost to run a company. Maybe they are undervalued, but they are not “cheap”.

Regarding Atomic plant "least polluting/most efficient". You produce waste product, which have to be shut away for the next hundreds/thousands of years. Does the company care about it?
Also, if worst case scenario happens like Fukushima/Chernobyl (so statistically once in ~30 years) its polluting like crazy. Can you estimate, how long those ruins will remain?

Regarding the other points, I will answer later

NotRexButCaesar wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 12:00 am Ah, as one who lives only a few miles from where the tomatoes are grown, I didn’t consider worldwide shipping.

I was thinking about my drive to the grocery: tomatoes don’t increase the number of trips.

it's kind of crazy but where I lived in Ontario, Canada was surrounded by farms and the grocery store was stocked with items from Mexico, Puerto Rico and the USA.

where'd the foods made in Ontario go? no idea! I never found out lol

mmmPI wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 4:51 am That is quite a digression from the topic of climate change as an environmental phenomenon. But that is some interpretation on why is it so hard to stop/change the machinery that is the financial system driving the industry towards more and more all the time.

Disclaimer: I'm not very familiar with financial English, so maybe i used wrong words.

That's very true. People should study the financial system, which is not what it appears. Funny enough, the economic experts have a tendency to don't understand it themselves.
If everyone on the world would pay back all debts incl. government, then there would be no money any more. Money is created, when someone gets into debt. The connection to a gold based backing does not exist any more (since ~1970?).
The system of interest and compound interest implicitly lets the money amount grow exponentially (the debt accordingly). In reality, it does not appear that much, because most of the money is bound in money bubbles. However, the system demands permanent growth (this is where climate change gets into play) to satisfy the interest claims. A lot of money gets more automatically, not respecting the limits of earth.
With the removal of separation of commercial and investment banking in ~2000, it just got worse, because the money bubbles have more influence on real economy.
Now, that interests got lower and lower, it saves the system from crashing.

I'm not saying, that the general greed of people has no influence on the development...

Money is created when the government prints money. If everyone payed back debts, the amount of currency would not change.

jodokus31 wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 9:02 am Regarding Atomic plant "least polluting/most efficient". You produce waste product, which have to be shut away for the next hundreds/thousands of years. Does the company care about it?
Also, if worst case scenario happens like Fukushima/Chernobyl (so statistically once in ~30 years) its polluting like crazy. Can you estimate, how long those ruins will remain?

Why do you estimate that these happen once every 30 years? Fukushima was predicted to fail in the reference earthquake and Chernobyl was an experiment with something like 30(?) individual warnings ignored.

I don’t think nuclear waste storage is a problem now or likely to become a big problem in the near future.

NotRexButCaesar wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 7:39 pm

jodokus31 wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 9:02 am Regarding Atomic plant "least polluting/most efficient". You produce waste product, which have to be shut away for the next hundreds/thousands of years. Does the company care about it?
Also, if worst case scenario happens like Fukushima/Chernobyl (so statistically once in ~30 years) its polluting like crazy. Can you estimate, how long those ruins will remain?

Why do you estimate that these happen once every 30 years? Fukushima was predicted to fail in the reference earthquake and Chernobyl was an experiment with something like 30(?) individual warnings ignored.

I don’t think nuclear waste storage is a problem now or likely to become a big problem in the near future.

First 1986, second 2011, so next in 2036? Just statistics.

NotRexButCaesar wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 7:36 pm Money is created when the government prints money. If everyone payed back debts, the amount of currency would not change.

OK, let's all go to the bank and fetch our money in printed notes...
https://www.rankred.com/how-much-money- ... the-world/

Regarding debts:
https://mises.org/library/our-money-based-debt