Extinction as a result of global warming

[Malcolm]

All views are not equal, if they were, it wouldn't matter if one was a Buddhist or a Christian as far as liberation goes. This also applies to politics, where some views, the views of liberals who are committed to democracy, are better than the views of others, such as conservatives, who are not committed to democracy and never have been.

When it comes to religion this is correct. But when it comes to politics it doesn't matter given that politics will always let us down. Liberalism hasn't made the world a better place.

Liberalism most certainly has made the world a better place. The examples are legion. The fact that you can communicate your ideas without fear that some governmental authority will arrest you is an example of the benefits of liberalism you overlook.

Actually in one year abortion became the number one cause of death around the world and this is partly due to the popularity of liberal ideals.

Since you don't care about the sufferings of countless myriads of nonhuman sentient beings, and see no reason at all to be concerned about mass extinctions, why care about abortions? Your nihilism is quite obvious.

By considering that Buddhists who are liberals are more sensible than conservative Buddhists you are creating a the grounds for further division among Buddhists.

There has always been division amongst Buddhists. It's baked in. The Buddha anticipated this.

What is liberalism today will not be the liberalism in another 2 decades or more. The same labels will be used over and over again but their meanings would change. Todays liberals are for censorship and authoritarianism which is more aligned with fascism than with democracy.

This is a very silly statement. I am by all considerations a liberal, and I am neither for censorship nor authoritarianism. Quite the opposite.

This is part of the reason why I am no longer of the left and I left the left.

What is considered "left" today was considered centrist 50 years ago. I have recently been informed by another participant on this forum, much to my surprise, that the Civil Rights movement the United States was a "hard left" political movement.

When it comes to being Buddhist what political party you support is not much different from which football team you support.

This is quite naive, in my opinion. There are no consequences to being a supporter of Man United, for example. There are many consequences if one supports the Tories in England, for example, or the GOP in the United States.

Its the Buddhist teachings that really matter, other forms of knowledge whether that is communism, socialism or capitalism are samsaric forms of knowledge and practice and will only lead to suffering and disappointment.

Communism, capitalism, and socialism are not forms of knowledge, they are economic systems. At present, it is quite clear that a mixed economy, one constituted of a mixture of capitalism and socialism, is best for people.

The problem with your point of view, is that by utterly withdrawing from your civic responsibilities, you are abdicating your responsibility to help the myriad sentient beings who cannot help themselves and protect themselves from our economic activity. It is as if you don't care at all about sentient beings because you do not care about the environment. So we are right where we started. You clearly don't care about the happiness and wellbeing of the myriads of sentient beings on this planet and see no reason at all to act to mitigate and reverse the present climate crisis we have caused as a species. Sadly, you have confused nihilism for Buddhadharma. You really need to work on that bodhicitta.

[Johnny Dangerous]

I've met plenty of ideological Buddhists who dig themselves into a dour, depressing, insular and fixated (not in a good way) point of view that easily rivals people who are into politics. It's kinda silly to support the samsara of religious people over the samsara of secular people - they are both samsara. Failing to distinguish one's own downfalls is at the root here. Would you like me to list off all the abuse scandals, etc. present in religious institutions - including Buddhism? One does not escape the kleshas simply by abandoning politics.

Most of your posts on this subject say as much about you as they do the people you are constantly criticizing. That isn't meant as an insult, we all have our areas of conflict and doubt.

When the Prince Siddartha left to live as an ascetic, one of the things he abandoned was politics given that he was raised by his father and other supporters to take up the leadership among the Sakyans. The Buddha's life is meant to be an example to be followed. This is not to say that politics is unimportant, yet political ideals are still within the limits of Samsara.

Please do note that the scandals in Buddhism are because of those who dont follow the Dharma. I am not with them either. Just like a lot of people who are into politics wont consider Nazis and fascists as part of them, those who are in positions of religious authority who do abuse are not my people either.

Its provided that one practices the Dharma, then the results go above and beyond the limits of Samsara. This is why there is no point in quarrelling about politics in Buddhist circles as it just creates disharmony and discord. Its best to let go of the view that just because one holds a political position that they are a more 'sensible' type of Buddhist compared to other Buddhists.

I am not surprised if there are people who think I am conservative (I am not, never been and never voted for any conservative). I used to be of the left and I left the left as today's narrative of what the left tends to support things which dont align with Buddhist teachings (such as refraining from abortion). Right has never been an option for me. I do have Buddhist friends who are of the left and of the right and I dont treat them differently based on their political views. I am in the process of becoming neutral by letting go of whatever the left wing views I used to have. So yes in that sense some of the posts I made do say something about me.

The above just strikes me as crossing over from valid self-examination to simply being navel-gazing, and a little self-absorbed.

You really seem like you need to sort your own stuff before spending so much time on a crusade directed towards the faults of others, or at least adjust the ratio somewhat.

[Dharmasherab]

The above just strikes me as crossing over from valid self-examination to simply being navel-gazing, and a little self-absorbed.

You really seem like you need to sort your own stuff before spending so much time on a crusade directed towards the faults of others, or at least adjust the ratio somewhat.

That statement is so generic that it can be applied to any unenlightened being, including yourself. Part of the reason why there are forums is for open discussion and that includes disagreement and adding value to them. What you are engaging is a form of argumentum ad hominem logical fallacy.

[Johnny Dangerous]

The above just strikes me as crossing over from valid self-examination to simply being navel-gazing, and a little self-absorbed.

You really seem like you need to sort your own stuff before spending so much time on a crusade directed towards the faults of others, or at least adjust the ratio somewhat.

That statement is so generic that it can be applied to any unenlightened being, including yourself. Part of the reason why there are forums is for open discussion and that includes disagreement and adding value to them. What you are engaging is a form of argumentum ad hominem logical fallacy.

Naw, it’s addressing your posting style more than character. Namely, the considerable number of your posts which are about trying to make others be as you’d like them to be. I mean, we are all there at times, but maybe it’s worth looking at.

Anyway, do what you want, I have no more interest in the discussion about why people with political ideas are wrong and you are right.

Thanks for telling me about how forums work though.

[kirtu]

Katharine Hayhoe : We cannot adapt our way out of climate crisis, warns leading scientist

Dr. Hayhoe, a scientist best described as extremely moderate, much like Dr. Mann, both have whom have previously decried what they mischaracterize as "climate doomerism" has finally come out and admitted that humanity cannot adapt to climate change.

The world cannot adapt its way out of the climate crisis, and counting on adaptation to limit damage is no substitute for urgently cutting greenhouse gases, a leading climate scientist has warned.

Katharine Hayhoe, chief scientist for the Nature Conservancy in the US and professor at Texas Tech University, said the world was heading for dangers unseen in the 10,000 years of human civilisation, and efforts to make the world more resilient were needed but by themselves could not soften the impact enough.

“People do not understand the magnitude of what is going on,” she said. “This will be greater than anything we have ever seen in the past. This will be unprecedented. Every living thing will be affected.”

[Genjo Conan]

"finally come out"--the article is from last June.

Anyhoo, neither Hayhoe nor Mann, nor anyone else who works in climate or a climate-related field thinks that adaptation is a panacea, unless they're trying to sell you something. Emissions need to come down, and quickly, or we're collectively going to have a pretty bad time. That doesn't mean that the doomers are right and there's nothing that can be done.

[natusake]

"finally come out"--the article is from last June.

Anyhoo, neither Hayhoe nor Mann, nor anyone else who works in climate or a climate-related field thinks that adaptation is a panacea, unless they're trying to sell you something. Emissions need to come down, and quickly, or we're collectively going to have a pretty bad time. That doesn't mean that the doomers are right and there's nothing that can be done.

I would wager that everyone is trying to sell you something. The important thing is of course whether what they're selling is beneficial and not harmful or useless.

[Mirror]

There are some tipping points, when they're crossed there's no possibility of coming back. We don't really know how many there are and whether we crossed them already or not. Once crossed they'll contribute to heating up the climate, no matter what we do.

The effects of our activities contributing to rising emissions take a while until they fully manifest. It take roughly 10-20 years for CO2 to have an effect on actual warming...

So it might be already too late for stopping climate change. We can only prepare our infrastructure and decrease the speed of such changes in climate (it's better 3°C rise than 5°C).

[kirtu]

"finally come out"--the article is from last June.

Anyhoo, neither Hayhoe nor Mann, nor anyone else who works in climate or a climate-related field thinks that adaptation is a panacea, unless they're trying to sell you something. Emissions need to come down, and quickly, or we're collectively going to have a pretty bad time. That doesn't mean that the doomers are right and there's nothing that can be done.

People on this board were trying to sell adaptation as short as two years ago. I left for a while because of that insane and irresponsible position.

[PadmaVonSamba]

All conditioned things are impermanent and therefore extinction is inevitable.

And for the same reasons, eventually all realms will eventually be emptied and all beings free from samsara,
including you.
So, by your own reasoning, why even bother with Buddhist practice at all, much less becoming a monk?

[PadmaVonSamba]

When the Prince Siddartha left to live as an ascetic, one of the things he abandoned was politics

…and not long after he became the Buddha, he began setting up rules for what is followers were and were not allowed to do, what the sangha hierarchy would be, the rules for expulsion, rules for resolving differences and so on. That is also politics. It’s just a different type of politics.
He may have given up his own worldly political position, but he didn’t give up politics. Haven’t you ever wondered why all the other monks had to shave their heads, but he didn’t?

And if you’ll notice, quite a few sutras record the conversations he had with kings. He frequently gave them advice on how to rule, how to be good kings. In turn, the political ruling class provided him and his sangha with a variety of things including sheltered retreat facilities during the monsoon seasons.

Buddhism doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
Nor is it simply another political party.
Avoiding two extremes applies here also.

[Genjo Conan]

"finally come out"--the article is from last June.

Anyhoo, neither Hayhoe nor Mann, nor anyone else who works in climate or a climate-related field thinks that adaptation is a panacea, unless they're trying to sell you something. Emissions need to come down, and quickly, or we're collectively going to have a pretty bad time. That doesn't mean that the doomers are right and there's nothing that can be done.

People on this board were trying to sell adaptation as short as two years ago. I left for a while because of that insane and irresponsible position.

Adaptation is necessary but not sufficient. We need to adapt to the consequences that are already baked into the system. We also need to do our best to prevent further consequences, because we can only adapt so far and so fast.

I'm not sure what folks on this board were saying, but this is the mainstream consensus among climate scientists and people in related fields. For example: these days I mostly work in telecommunications regulation. One of the things we need to do is ensure that the phones keep working in the face of increasingly common extreme heat events, wildfires, floods, etc. There's a lot we can do, given enough time. At a certain point, though, we won't be able to keep up and the system will start to fail. Maybe just in small ways, but even small ways might mean that a town doesn't get the order to evacuate from a wildfire and people die. So we need to harden the infrastructure -- that's adaptation -- but we also need to pump the brakes on the underlying problem. Again, this is the mainstream consensus among the people actually working on this stuff.

[Virgo]

Katharine Hayhoe : We cannot adapt our way out of climate crisis, warns leading scientist

Dr. Hayhoe, a scientist best described as extremely moderate, much like Dr. Mann, both have whom have previously decried what they mischaracterize as "climate doomerism" has finally come out and admitted that humanity cannot adapt to climate change.

Paul Beckwith reviews a crucial new paper written by James Hansen that was just released concerning how dramatically things will worsen in just the next few years. The following is not for the faint of heart. Of course, I have been warning people about this for years and Lahania did not surprise me at all.



Virgo

[kirtu]

Low level heat and other disasters are happening right now although humanity has only raised global heat by 1.2 C over pre-industrial levels. This is essentially being ignored. None of the current political leaders in power, even Green politicians, are up to actually tackling the problem, which will end civilization as we currently know it as agriculture will fail above 2 C over pre-industrial levels.

Currently a government considered center-left in Australia is recklessly permitting the expansion of coal:
(from The Guardian)

Coalmine approvals in Australia this year could add 150m tonnes of CO2 to atmosphere

Expansion of metallurgical coalmine in Queensland will add 31m tonnes alone with activists accusing Albanese government of being reckless
Coalmine expansions and developments approved in Australia so far this year are expected to add nearly 150m tonnes of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere over their lifetimes – equivalent to nearly a third of the country’s annual climate pollution.

The Albanese government this week gave the greenlight to an expansion of the Gregory Crinum coalmine in central Queensland. It produces metallurgical coal, used in steelmaking.

According to an analysis by the Australia Institute, it is likely to extend the development’s life by 11 years – until the mid-2030s – and add about 31m tonnes of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere once it is burned. That equates to 6% of Australia’s annual emissions. The owner, Sojitz Blue, will have until 2073 to decommission the mine.

The environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, said the government had “to make decisions in accordance with the facts and the national environment law”, and that the mine would be covered by the safeguard mechanism climate policy. That meant the owner would have to either cut the emissions intensity at the mine by up to 4.9% each year or buy carbon offsets.

Climate and conservation groups accused the government of recklessness and hypocrisy given its promise to act decisively on the climate crisis, pointing out it had the power to change the environment law to give it the power to block new fossil fuel developments if it chose.

The Climate Council’s chief executive, Amanda McKenzie, said the mine expansion approval showed Australia’s environment laws were “absolutely broken”.

“The Albanese government has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to arrest this decline,” she said. “Strengthening our national environment law, with climate at the heart of it, will safeguard our health, grow the economy, and protect our treasured natural places.”

[Kim O'Hara]

Low level heat and other disasters are happening right now although humanity has only raised global heat by 1.2 C over pre-industrial levels. This is essentially being ignored. None of the current political leaders in power, even Green politicians, are up to actually tackling the problem, which will end civilization as we currently know it as agriculture will fail above 2 C over pre-industrial levels.

True, and alarming, but ...

Currently a government considered center-left in Australia is recklessly permitting the expansion of coal:
(from The Guardian)

Coalmine approvals in Australia this year could add 150m tonnes of CO2 to atmosphere

Expansion of metallurgical coalmine in Queensland ...
The Climate Council’s chief executive, Amanda McKenzie, said the mine expansion approval showed Australia’s environment laws were “absolutely broken”.

“The Albanese government has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to arrest this decline,” she said. “Strengthening our national environment law, with climate at the heart of it, will safeguard our health, grow the economy, and protect our treasured natural places.”

...makes it all look worse than it is, partly through the Climate Council asking for ever more drastic action, partly because The Guardian, at least in what you're quoting, doesn't provide context which should be (1) that this is metallurgical coal, not thermal (i.e. power generation) and (2) the Labor government has been enormously better than the lunatics it replaced. Expecting them to undo ten years of inaction in their first couple of years, and then keep doubling down, is (IMO) unreasonable.
And I don't know where your "even Green politicians" came from, Kirtu. Where are they even in power? Certainly not here in Australia. Labor is centre-left, not Green by any measure. Federally they are somewhat reliant on Green support, but that's all. At State level we have some Greens in some state governments, but none in power. In my state, the Greens are hoping to achieve balance-of-power status at the next election, and may do so.
Some of us are working hard and the momentum is definitely building, but there's a long way to go.


Kim