What I can do to Reduce the Effect of Climate Change in the Future

Climate change legislation restricts your Right to Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness.

Those future archeologists will be baffled! There will be a lot of head scratching and shrugging! I'd like to be there too, but I would be embarrassed to explain what all those things were used for (or not used at all).
I don't buy paper plates and plastic forks and I don't buy a lot of useless knick-knacks and gadgets, but honestly it's not an attempt to reduce my carbon output. It all just seems silly and wasteful. I'm looking out for my immediate best interests by not wasting money. I would love to drive an electric car, but not to save the planet, to save money on gas and maintenance. So far the electric car is out of reach. It costs more to own one (even after the savings are factored in) than to own a gasoline powered car. When it becomes competitive, I'll get one. And I suppose so will a lot of people. Same goes for the solar panels. When they become economically feasible, everyone will want them. Until then, They're only for the altruistic rich.

I don't mind fresh water going to rivers, but I do mind not saving a fair portion of the fresh water and then letting it all drain to the Pacific..
I used to understand all that better, but I haven't read up in a while.

Meantime, my ex called yesterday, and he said it was raining there for the fifth day. I remember those kind of California rains.. the area around Sepulveda Dam used to flood periodically, a big mess for traffic.. I'm hoping they've fixed that somehow.

Just kind of randomly talking now TomTom.

I'm thinking of the ways we got into this predicament.

Of course we can start with the Industrial Revolution, which really got into gear with the invention of the lightbulb. Weeee! Now we can work 24 hours a day and completely **** up our sleep patterns, raising generations of people who believe we are supposed to sleep an uninterupted X amount of hours between times Y & Z, which couldn't be further from the truth. Segmented sleep is the natural norm for humans, but we have to try to shove that square peg into a round hole.

I wonder how much of our need for "pursuit of happiness" (if that's even a thing) is due to the fact we're cranky and out of sorts because we just don't remember how to get normal sleep. Our bodies keep trying to tell us, and we keep saying it's wrong. Funny.

Used to be, people just ate...and were fine. Not fat, not diabetic, much less heart disease, etc. Then came the day we needed to create more jobs, and work was created taking what was perfectly fine and processing it so it could be sold for three times as much (probably much more). We starting getting fat, and diseased. It seemed there were 2 culprits, fat and sugar. Sadly, sugar had a much bigger marketing department, so we were all convinced that the natural fats that we'd been eating for thousands of years was unhealthy, but not this recent development consuming so many times more sugar, of a process form that didn't even exist, until evolutionary speaking, yesterday. Unfortunately, we made the wrong choice. These are my words here, but fat and sugar put together makes a carbolic acid that destroys our bodies. Cut out the sugar, we are fine. But no, we need to have jobs to process food even more, because we can't possibly be expected to eat a food in it's natural state.

Are we happier not following our bodies signals to sleep, eating food that kills us? I guess there's some weird pursuit going on there, to more misery.

We all know today (or should) how the over production of cheap clothes is not only wasteful, but something else we've come to believe is our "right" I was watching something the other day, which didn't tell me anything I didn't already know, but put a spotlight on it.
Not long ago, there were 2 seasons for buying clothes. For warm/hot weather, and for cold. Maybe needing a sweater or jacket for the in between times.
Now, there are 52 seasons of clothes. Many people could not possibly be seen wearing last weeks clothes. Shopping has become an accepted activity, not something we need to do when something wears out.

The family I was born into was very financially secure. The norm for all the families I knew was that you had "Sunday clothes" which was an outfit, or maybe 2 that you could alternate. Not only were they church clothes, but what you wore if you were doing something special, going somewhere, needed to look nice. You wore them until you grew out of them. It wasn't a matter of money, it was just how it was done. I don't remember anyone I grew up with expressing they weren't being allowed to pursue happiness because they had 1, maybe 2, Sunday clothes.

Same with so many other material things. You get the idea.

But look at this graph of unemployment in the U.S.
I was talking specifically about the years 1960 to 1970 something. It looks like unemployment was pretty much identical back then as it is today. Yet, we hadn't yet fallen so deeply into the need to buy, so there can be jobs making what we need to buy, so we can go into debt, because of what we were being told by advertising what we needed to buy. My memories of that time was that in many families one person worked, not two. Child care meant a baby sitter. You didn't need faux time saving devices because you didn't have to cram everything into the few hours between work and insomniac sleep.

Were we less happy then?

You lived in a family of privilege. All my siblings and I went to church in our casuals. My mother expected me to wear the only white shirt I owned that was torn to my grade school graduation. I didn't go.

and your point is CI?

The point I was making was that families at Best had a Sunday outfit or 2.
Many didn't have one at all.

Today, a "family of privilege" has enough clothes they may wear something 2 or 3 times before discarding. Rooms full of clothes.

A member of average or modest family today have more clothes in their closets than someone in the 60's or 70's bought in 5 or 10 years.

You're actually proving my point CI. You were a family of modest means. You had a few casual clothes, as did I. They weren't called casual clothes though. They were "play clothes". Those were the choices. Your Sunday dress, or one of your couple pairs of shorts, or 2 or 3 blouses/tshirts. I remember my younger sister and I shared a dresser, 3 drawers each. None were particularly full, but we each had enough to wear though the week since you wore something at least a couple of times. That has nothing to do with "privilege" It was how everyone was. For school I had 1 uniform jumper and a couple of white shirts, some knee socks, and a pair of shoes. Similar for brothers. A pair of black pants and some shirts, and a neck tie. That's what every student had. They were washed on the weekend.

People in the situation of your family financially today have heaps of clothes, as they are relatively so much cheaper, and one needs to keep up with the Joneses.

I don't remember anyone I knew, regardless of their family finances, feeling like they were being denied their pursuit of happiness over their amount of play clothes, or other. I can't recall anyone even talking about clothes frankly..

For todays kids, that would be considered cruel and unusal punishment.



Thanks ci, for ignoring everything else I said, and zoning in on some minor comparison that I owned a Sunday outfit, and you did not.

you're welcome

A long time ago I read about a study comparing various societies around the world with regard to the number of hours worked per week. I forgot most of it but these points stayed with me. Some hunter-gatherer tribe or other in Africa made their living primarily by gathering mogongo nuts. The tropical forest produced nuts all year. Besides a little hunting and fishing, people gathered mogongo nuts to eat fresh or to grind into a flour. They only gathered as many as they would need for a couple of days. Then they went out to find more. the researchers asked the tribesmen why they didn't gather more nuts and store them away. They answered: why would we do that? There are always nuts when we need them. When one tree wasn't producing, they would go a little further into the forest and find another tree. The researchers calculated how many hours per week were devoted to "making a living" gathering nuts, hunting, repairing shelters, etc. It turns out these "primitive" people were working an average of 17.5 hours per week. The rest of their time was spent playing with the children, singing and dancing, gossiping with friends and visiting neighboring villages.
We "advanced" folks work an average of three times as long, and don't have time for singing and dancing or for our children.

Yep.

Both my wife and I work full time and we still seem to struggle with money. We have two small children that we don't see enough of. It's a good thing we work opposite shifts so we don't have to pay for daycare, but we only eat together as a family on weekends. And after errands and chores are taken care of, we don't have much time to do stuff with the kids let alone with each other.
We live in an area where there are a lot of Amish and I see how they live. They're with their families all day, every day. I don't want to live like them (especially the religion part) but I wonder if their family life is more fulfilling and natural.

You might want to have a look at Mennonites and their religion.

How was it not so long ago? Most important was that you have clean cloth.
It was not the question of how much as today.
I also come from a "priviledge" family and still stockings and socks were mended. Dresses and skirts were altered as I was growing.
My father insisted on good quality everyday cloth and cheaper Sunday outfits.
They were worn so seldom.
We were using old towels and sheets for rags - wipes did not exsist. That is one thing one should stop using if possible as they sure pollute especially if thrown in the toilet.

Several studies have shown that, with respect to our lives being affected by GW, there are about 6 different levels of acceptance of this condition.

The "Sky is falling" crowd, who believes that death by toasting and coastal flooding is imminent and un -correctible is about 2% of the people .

On the other end of the pole are those that totally deny that GW is even occurring. They occupy about only 1% of Americans.

The other 4 groups vary from concerned activism (to correct it while its still correctible) (20%)down to "GW" occurs but is totally natural(and therefor may not be turned about( these also contain about another 20%). .
Where do you fit?? All I hear is your total denial and ridicule of those who dont "believe" as you do.

Complete denial is apparently on the downslope of those who share any thoughts at all about GW.So the complete deniers (like our new president) seem to be in a corner of fact and evidence and general opinion.

It was also interesting that, of the states that contain many GW deniers (like Texas and Iowa), these two states lead the nation in renewable energy installations (solar or wind farms). Perhaps by just doing something about reducing carbon exhudation we can deal with the problem (or in your case just recognize it makes good engineering sense).

No thanks on any religion.

Common sense deniers congregate in the counties that voted for HRC.
These deniers exhibit an inability to think about & question what they are being told, they just go along to get along.
Perhaps they should be educating themselves, instead of having the government 'educate' them.

9 Things You Need To Know About The Climate Change Hoax

1. The Climategate scandal proved that key data involving man-made climate change was manipulated.

2. The Climategate scandal was given new life in 2011, with the release of new emails.

3. NASA may have also been involved in manipulating data to serve the narrative of man-made climate change.

4. NASA also declared 2014 to be the hottest year on record – despite the fact that they were only 38 percent sure about it.

5. There is no evidence that the Earth has been warming in recent years.

6. The left likes to claim that 97 percent of scientists support the concept of man-made climate change. It's likely closer to 43 percent.

7. The amount of Arctic sea ice has become quite high.

8. Money from the federal government and leftist organizations fuel a lot of misinformation from man-made global warming alarmists.

9. It is patently absurd to link Hurricane Matthew to climate change.

You might just as well get your science news from MAD MAGAZINE.

Daily Wire has really NO CREDIBILITY to make these assertion

Common sense deniers like yourself, they have NO CREDIBILITY.