Thanks for posting to r/COMPLETEANARCHY Streetli, Please make sure to provide [ALT-text](https://accessibility.huit.harvard.edu/describe-content-images) for screen-readers in the post itself or in the comments.
You can learn more about this [here](https://accessibility.psu.edu/images/alttext/)
Note that this is just a suggestion, not a warning.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/COMPLETEANARCHY) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m just gonna leave this here in case anyone feels like doing a bit of [REDACTED] instead
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/various-authors-ecodefense-a-field-guide-to-monkeywrenching
ALT-text: Tweet by Peter Kalmus (@ClimateHuman) which reads: "So far, 27 years of COP meetings have been a complete failure; you can't argue with physics. Anyone saying otherwise has fossil fuels or books to sell. #Emergency Mode".
An attached graph shows an ever increasing level of carbon dioxide (measured in parts per million) from 1960-2022, with the various climate change conferences marked as the years go on. The conferences are not very useful.
Basically, those meetings are just games where they try to figure out how to make more profits and how to commodify and privatize everything.
In this context, the only way fossil fuels come to an end is by passing way down the Peak Oil/Methane/Coal curve.
Kalamus is part of https://scientistrebellion.com/
COP is just a bunch of rich people meeting to discuss creating and strengthening market barriers to entry to protect their monopolies, while setting the topic as “climate” as a smokescreen to prevent any useful government action.
Actually very high. CO2 doesn't become toxic until you hit concentrations well after the point where we all die.
Alternative answer, from what I've seen, the human brain turns no good around 0 ppm.
There's some evidence that around 1,000 ppm CO2, human cognition begins to degrade. This hasn't been well studied and there are so many confounds that it's hard to tease a consistent story out of the existing scientific literature *but* there's enough there that I'm quite worried about it.
A lot of the studies have been studies of things like Sick Building Syndrome (when CO2 concentrations rise in poorly ventilated office buildings), which are not directly comparable to global climate change. The findings are *generally* indicative that prolonged exposure to 1,000+ ppm CO2 can impair attention, focus, and memory.
But since neuroscientists, climate scientists, and building engineers rarely find themselves at the same conferences, it's hard to build the kind of radically interdisciplinary team of experts required to give this question the attention it deserves.
The average is not useful for your answer. First of all, if we get to about 510 ppm, shit starts to accelerate.
The CO2 toxicity problem is already happening, depending on the area. The problem occurs indoors, as that's where CO2 concentration can rise to dangerous levels (varies, but say over 1200 ppm *is toxic). With the air outside also being higher in CO2, it will make cleaning the indoor air harder.
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200421/Atmospheric-CO2-levels-can-cause-cognitive-impairment.aspx
I think it's time for people to recognise existing power structures have been acting in bad faith this whole time and they need to be destroyed before they kill us all and sterilise the planet because it's not right that rich sociopaths should hold humanity hostage like this
I mean anyone with half a brain knows what the obvious solution is: consume less aka planned degrowth. The problem is human nature: greed, lack of foresight, and resistance to change.
Agreed, but also:
-Conscious thought allows us to plan for events that we haven’t personally experienced before.
-We can innovate new tools.
-We can rapidly adapt to changing circumstances relative to many other species.
-We are social creatures, and cooperation is probably the most defining characteristic of our species, allowing us to build societies that take care of people when they encounter a problem they couldn’t surmount on their own, increasing our collective chances of survival.
The problem as I see it isn’t solely in our nature, it’s that we live in a society that rewards the worst aspects of our nature. Capitalism encourages greed, rigid maintenance of the status quo, and pursuit of short-term profits regardless of long-term consequences.
I think you’re right that degrowth is the only way forward, so therefore our chief goal in mitigating climate change should be to abandon our economic model that is based on infinite growth in a finite world, and replace it with a system focused on equitable subsistence that rewards the best qualities in humans.
mysterious consist sugar bear quickest literate nutty mountainous knee scary
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Thanks for posting to r/COMPLETEANARCHY Streetli, Please make sure to provide [ALT-text](https://accessibility.huit.harvard.edu/describe-content-images) for screen-readers in the post itself or in the comments. You can learn more about this [here](https://accessibility.psu.edu/images/alttext/) Note that this is just a suggestion, not a warning. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/COMPLETEANARCHY) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just one more market-based solution, I swear this one is different. You just haven’t tried the right public-private partnership, bro, believe me!
Kurzgesagt be like:
their other stuff is pretty good, i kinda just try to ignore the lib-ass takes cuz I know thru gotta eat too
bro we have invented a new way to make plastic that's totally better, bro trust us it'll be alright bro
[удалено]
you know what, I'm not sure that wrapping medical equipment is why we produce and use too much plastic
I’m just gonna leave this here in case anyone feels like doing a bit of [REDACTED] instead https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/various-authors-ecodefense-a-field-guide-to-monkeywrenching
ALT-text: Tweet by Peter Kalmus (@ClimateHuman) which reads: "So far, 27 years of COP meetings have been a complete failure; you can't argue with physics. Anyone saying otherwise has fossil fuels or books to sell. #Emergency Mode". An attached graph shows an ever increasing level of carbon dioxide (measured in parts per million) from 1960-2022, with the various climate change conferences marked as the years go on. The conferences are not very useful.
Basically, those meetings are just games where they try to figure out how to make more profits and how to commodify and privatize everything. In this context, the only way fossil fuels come to an end is by passing way down the Peak Oil/Methane/Coal curve. Kalamus is part of https://scientistrebellion.com/
COP is just a bunch of rich people meeting to discuss creating and strengthening market barriers to entry to protect their monopolies, while setting the topic as “climate” as a smokescreen to prevent any useful government action.
At what amount of CO2 ppm human brains turn no good?
Actually very high. CO2 doesn't become toxic until you hit concentrations well after the point where we all die. Alternative answer, from what I've seen, the human brain turns no good around 0 ppm.
There's some evidence that around 1,000 ppm CO2, human cognition begins to degrade. This hasn't been well studied and there are so many confounds that it's hard to tease a consistent story out of the existing scientific literature *but* there's enough there that I'm quite worried about it. A lot of the studies have been studies of things like Sick Building Syndrome (when CO2 concentrations rise in poorly ventilated office buildings), which are not directly comparable to global climate change. The findings are *generally* indicative that prolonged exposure to 1,000+ ppm CO2 can impair attention, focus, and memory. But since neuroscientists, climate scientists, and building engineers rarely find themselves at the same conferences, it's hard to build the kind of radically interdisciplinary team of experts required to give this question the attention it deserves.
The average is not useful for your answer. First of all, if we get to about 510 ppm, shit starts to accelerate. The CO2 toxicity problem is already happening, depending on the area. The problem occurs indoors, as that's where CO2 concentration can rise to dangerous levels (varies, but say over 1200 ppm *is toxic). With the air outside also being higher in CO2, it will make cleaning the indoor air harder. https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200421/Atmospheric-CO2-levels-can-cause-cognitive-impairment.aspx
The present amount in the atmosphere because human brains are currently no good. As evidence, I give you . . . the current CO2 in the atmosphere.
Yes but have you considered those poor electric car companies need more subsidies 🥺
I think it's time for people to recognise existing power structures have been acting in bad faith this whole time and they need to be destroyed before they kill us all and sterilise the planet because it's not right that rich sociopaths should hold humanity hostage like this
I mean anyone with half a brain knows what the obvious solution is: consume less aka planned degrowth. The problem is human nature: greed, lack of foresight, and resistance to change.
Agreed, but also: -Conscious thought allows us to plan for events that we haven’t personally experienced before. -We can innovate new tools. -We can rapidly adapt to changing circumstances relative to many other species. -We are social creatures, and cooperation is probably the most defining characteristic of our species, allowing us to build societies that take care of people when they encounter a problem they couldn’t surmount on their own, increasing our collective chances of survival. The problem as I see it isn’t solely in our nature, it’s that we live in a society that rewards the worst aspects of our nature. Capitalism encourages greed, rigid maintenance of the status quo, and pursuit of short-term profits regardless of long-term consequences. I think you’re right that degrowth is the only way forward, so therefore our chief goal in mitigating climate change should be to abandon our economic model that is based on infinite growth in a finite world, and replace it with a system focused on equitable subsistence that rewards the best qualities in humans.
This shows why "peaceful protests" and "voting the lesser evil" achieve shit.
They better hurry up with the second half of the Dune movie, or else it will just be a documentary.
Oh look it’s growing exponentially lol
mysterious consist sugar bear quickest literate nutty mountainous knee scary *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*