Language and image of environmentalism

s7ryf3925pivug

There's a George Carlin routine where he describes how every war the the USA fought seemed to give birth to a new term for the psychiatric issues that combat soldiers developed. 'Shell shock' was punchy, while its modern counterpart 'Post traumatic stress disorder' is clinical, detached.

I read an article comparing the success of the campaign to stop destroying the ozone with the resistance encountered by attempts to stop man made global warming. A hole in a protective shield is a powerful image, it argued, while the greenhouse effect is a bit abstract and the image of a greenhouse is not so alarming or se.

Environmentalism is a big scientific sounding multisylabic word that has more in common with 'PTSD' than with 'Shell shock'. The greenhouse effect is the core concern but greenhouses are not threatening things and it is often obscured by relatively trivial matters like litter. The unfortunate associations with crusties and hipsters are there too.

The terminology is too abstract, too timid, too polite. Contributing to the problem is 'doing something that is bad for the environment' which sounds like an academic consideration, not something tangible and immediate. Just call it polluting. That is punchy and sounds like an offensive act... Refraining from polluting is doing something good for the environment, though it usually isn't, it's just not polluting. 'The greenhouse effect' is not an impactful term. 'Planet heating' seems more to the point.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

s7ryf3925pivug

Imagery is more what I'm talking about than image, though it has an image problem too.

dxhound2005

The End of the World is Nigh.

AlekSmart

dxhound2005 wrote: »

The End of the World is Nigh.

You forgot the need to be seen to REPENT first !! :eek:

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

AlekSmart wrote: »

You forgot the need to be seen to REPENT first !! :eek:

Repent would be too clinical and removed for the OP. What's wrong with "say you're sorry"?

SafeSurfer

How dare you

Environmentalism is a circle of people complaining about issues but providing little realistic advice on how to resolve it.

Neither Africa nor South America are going to give up the chance to industrialise once they reach a more stable and viable state, so.. most of the measures demanded by Environmentalists tend to be rather naive, and limited. Until they come up with viable advances to combat the use of fossil fuels and other needs, they're just blowing hot air.

s7ryf3925pivug

Deleted User wrote: »

Environmentalism is a circle of people complaining about issues but providing little realistic advice on how to resolve it.

Neither Africa nor South America are going to give up the chance to industrialise once they reach a more stable and viable state, so.. most of the measures demanded by Environmentalists tend to be rather naive, and limited. Until they come up with viable advances to combat the use of fossil fuels and other needs, they're just blowing hot air.

Yes and no.

No because there are realistic ideas. A known solution to the issue you mention is for developed countries to invest in setting up renewable energy in developing countries. The means to tackle most issues already exists.

Yes because the Irish Green Party's recent statements include proposing the reintroduction of wolves and saying that rural villages in Ireland only need one car per ten inhabitants [and not in the context of providing alternative means of transport]. So some of their ideas are unrealistic. But they are just a political party, and calling themselves Green doesn't automatically make them the authority on environmental issues.

Ari Unkempt Streamer

Ari Unkempt Streamer wrote: »

Yes and no.

No because there are realistic ideas. A known solution to this would be for countries to invest in setting up renewable energy in developing countries. The means to tackle most issues already exists.
.

Renewable energy for the most part isn't terribly useful, considering the energy demands of modern nations. Solar can be used for limited benefits, as can wind. Tidal or water based turbines tend to create more ecological problems than the energy they provide, although they're probably one of the more realistic options, but highly situational depending on the country in question.

Probably the best Idea I've seen so far was about the creation of Ice to replace those melting, thereby possibly decreasing the rise of water levels.

s7ryf3925pivug

Deleted User wrote: »

Renewable energy for the most part isn't terribly useful, considering the energy demands of modern nations. Solar can be used for limited benefits, as can wind. Tidal or water based turbines tend to create more ecological problems than the energy they provide, although they're probably one of the more realistic options, but highly situational depending on the country in question.

Probably the best Idea I've seen so far was about the creation of Ice to replace those melting, thereby possibly decreasing the rise of water levels.

Most of the claims about ecological problems caused by renewable energy appear to be lies and propaganda.

Renewable energy is a useful option and the fact that the countries infrastructure is largely being built from the ground up there are great opportunities to maximize its use. For example, distributed energy networks would be more suitable than a grid in Africa.

Freezing molten ice sounds mental. The only way it might work at all would be to devise a way to move vast quantities of water to permanently frozen areas. Otherwise the energy involved in freezing it would be colossal and it would just melt again Even if it was moved efficiently, this would lose some of the benefits of the ice such as reflecting heat stay from the earth and also not prevent greenhouse gases trapped in the ice from being released.

Regardless, rising sea levels is obviously a big deal, but it is only one symptom of the bigger problem of rising temperatures and extreme weather.