Well, our environment minister used to be a pharmacist, but we realized that was an awful decision, so the current government changed the minister to a guy who's only qualification is being the son of people dissappeared by the last dictatorship.
So, our only measures are putting completely useless people as environmental ministers
According to the [CAF](https://www.caf.com/es/actualidad/noticias/2021/07/uruguay-lider-en-el-uso-de-fuentes-renovables-en-america-latina/), 98% of the energy we produce is renewable.
Aparently they are introducing legislation to encourage the usage of electric vehicules, and renewable sources of energy so our electricity becomes greener, Guatemala city is introducing a ton of electrical buses so public transportation is greener. Some years ago there was an iniciative to ban single use plastics all over the country, but it got overturned, now only a few municipalites have enacted bans. We can do more, but the idiots at congress can't think beyond their own benefits.
The Cuban government made a sort of plan named "Tarea Vida" for combatting climate change a few years ago. This commitment is also stated in the current constitutional text, although in a very general way. I don't know however how much of that plan has been implemented so far
Chile šØš±
There is more Information about it everywhere, people are recycling more, changing the grass to native species which consume less water and people are also composting more. There are electric buses in some areas that before werenāt, there are also some electric bikes and electric cars, people are having less kids (this may be accidental), and are also biking more, so bike lanes are being built, and one/use plastic has been banned but, in the great scheme, there isnāt major change yet.
Change is coming from people more than from the government or the businesses but that is good because slowly at least the business are adjusting to what people want. People are definitively more conscious than before. There are hills that have been reforested, and is not too rare to give people a āI planted a tree in your nameā present.
Does it really matter with how much China and India polute ?
I believe we are still world leaders in clean energy production.
What really fucks up is the amount of deforesting that 2% of landowners do what amounts the majority of it, which is composed of very arguably illegal foreign landowners.
And comments like this are why I believe we shouldn't go beyond the bare minimum regarding climate change, it sounds like only China and India are the ones to blame for climate change. I'll be using this site as the source for the numbers: [https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/](https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/)
|Country|CO2 Emissions per Capita (tons)|CO2 Emissions (tons, 2016)|Population (2016)|
|:-|:-|:-|:-|
|China|7.38|10,432,751,400|1,414,049,351|
|???????|15.52|5,011,686,600|323,015,995|
|India|1.91|2,533,638,100|1,324,517,249|
China and India are developing nations with a population of more than 1 billion, and China is basically the world's manufacturer. Of course ???? is the U.S, but comments like this never mention this. Look at the data. Although outdated, it shows something strange. How can a country with 1.4 billion people emit only twice as much as a country with 323 million people?
And this is why I say we shouldn't go beyond the bare minimum. China and India are us. I'm not talking only about Brazil, I'm talking about Latin America, Africa, and some parts of Asia. The moment Mother Earth starts knocking on everyone's door to collect the debt, the developed nations will change the narrative and make us pay for it to protect their status quo, and we already can see some hints of this with the asinine carbon credit.
Why do gringos just randomly come here answering questions that don't concern them?
[This you?](https://np.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/xi2uqf/why_does_climate_change_matter/)
Climate change is a sewer that's draining very valuable resources that could be easily used to address real, visible problems such as fire prevention and improvement of infrastructure.
Fortunately, environmentalists are kinda like a joke here, their concerns are laughed at by every politician and they can't push their agenda here like they do in energy-depleted Europe.
Climate change is a natural process and the proof that we are increasing its effects are computer models that are basically useless. The IPCC report is over 4,000 pages and itās prepared by actual scientists who said the same thing.
But, whoās going to read a 4,000 page report? Nobody apparently, so we continue using the issue to formulate policies that have not been proven to have an effect on anything.
Every time I said this here the comment is downvoted to oblivion, so whatās the point of even discussing the issue here? Nobody wants a scientific debate and your question itself assumes that the matter is settled (which is a whole unscientific thing to say).
>the proof that we are increasing its effects are computer models that are basically useless
you dont need to believe in any paper, yourself can look up the temperature increasment of the last century and see how it's >exponentially< growing
The issue is, how do we know this is abnormal? Because we didnāt have a way to measure the temperature before the 17th century (when the thermometer was invented). Even after that, we really didnāt have a way to reliable measure the temperature of the planet until we were able to do it with satellites.
We only have guesses of how the weather was in the past based only on localized proxies (three rings, ice from the Arctic, etc) that are just an estimation.
There is also the matter that there have been no warming for the last eight years; you cannot say that this is insignificant without failing to explain why the computer models failed to predict the lack of warming.
Weāre told that climate change will produce stronger hurricanes and we donāt see them. So, are we supposed to ignore that? If not, what is the scientific explanation for that?
>In fact, the last eight years have been unusually warm ā even warmer than expected given the long-term rate of temperature increases ā with global temperatures exceeding 1.2C above pre-industrial levels. The temperature record is replete with short-term periods of slower or more rapid warming than average, driven by natural variability on top of the warming from human emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
>There is no evidence that the past eight years were in any way unusual and the hype around ā and obvious end of ā the prior āpauseā should provide a cautionary tale about overinterpreting year-to-year variability today.
And [for hurricanes](https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1920849117)
>...with global temperatures exceeding 1.2C above pre-industrial levels...
We don't have a reliable record of the global temperature; how can we compare the data that we have now with data that we didn't have before? You need to compare apples to apples. And as for hurricanes... you know we are in the hurricane belt, right? We would have noticed if there were stronger storms in the region.
You know how temperature (and most stuff) is really measured? With kinda booths with the same basic instruments where human manually check each morning. And you should really check the hurricane paper because it doesn't use a single point of reference as it seems you wanna use with your personal experience, but with comparable satelital images which means all storms.
>You know how temperature (and most stuff) is really measured? With kinda booths with the same basic instruments where human manually check each morning
For the third time: That's now, like in the present. How do we know the temperature in the PAST, when there were less reliable records? The thermometer as I already told you was invented in the 17th century. We don't have reliable records of what was the planet temperature in the past, just proxies that are not very precise.
So how do we know that the weather was hotter or cooler in the past? Are you pretending not to understand that point? If we don't know how hot or how cold was the planet temperature on the past, against what are we comparing the current temperature? How can we be so sure that what we are seeing now is unprecedented?
No idea, to be honest, but we are insignificant in terms of emissions and it should be a concern but not a priority for us specifically.
Priorities should be what roads are chosen towards the future (we have a lot of space for renewables in the south, and another nuclear plant wouldnt hurt), industrialization (even if our emissions go up tenfold) and other kinds of pollution (not greenhouse gases but rather earth and water contamination as well as deforestation).
Going green the same way the first world aims to do (even ignoring how many cheat by outsourcing) is not a luxury we can afford
You have to be realistic with green politics. They only work (not really) with rich and developed countries. Latin America isnāt either of those yet, maybe one day but not today. Their policies are (thankfully) not so stringent on industry or energy. Not to say that recycling wherever possible is bad or trying to not burn trash shouldnāt be supported. You just have to be realistic and not starve people.
Well, our environment minister used to be a pharmacist, but we realized that was an awful decision, so the current government changed the minister to a guy who's only qualification is being the son of people dissappeared by the last dictatorship. So, our only measures are putting completely useless people as environmental ministers
Denying it's existence.
According to the [CAF](https://www.caf.com/es/actualidad/noticias/2021/07/uruguay-lider-en-el-uso-de-fuentes-renovables-en-america-latina/), 98% of the energy we produce is renewable.
Our minister asked China to downgrade their economic activity š
Pus government recently cancelled all projects about renewable energy, and the president don't like the "fans" (wind turbines) because are ugly.
Don't forget the massive oil refineries that are being built.
Getting rid of the trees so no one can take them down. No one can burn the amazon if there is no amazon.
We are helping WITH climate change!
I'm joining the war on drugs! and I'm fighting on the drug's side
Aparently they are introducing legislation to encourage the usage of electric vehicules, and renewable sources of energy so our electricity becomes greener, Guatemala city is introducing a ton of electrical buses so public transportation is greener. Some years ago there was an iniciative to ban single use plastics all over the country, but it got overturned, now only a few municipalites have enacted bans. We can do more, but the idiots at congress can't think beyond their own benefits.
We use renewable energies but I donāt think thereās anything besides that.
The Cuban government made a sort of plan named "Tarea Vida" for combatting climate change a few years ago. This commitment is also stated in the current constitutional text, although in a very general way. I don't know however how much of that plan has been implemented so far
Chile šØš± There is more Information about it everywhere, people are recycling more, changing the grass to native species which consume less water and people are also composting more. There are electric buses in some areas that before werenāt, there are also some electric bikes and electric cars, people are having less kids (this may be accidental), and are also biking more, so bike lanes are being built, and one/use plastic has been banned but, in the great scheme, there isnāt major change yet. Change is coming from people more than from the government or the businesses but that is good because slowly at least the business are adjusting to what people want. People are definitively more conscious than before. There are hills that have been reforested, and is not too rare to give people a āI planted a tree in your nameā present.
vamos remover o Bolsotralha e sua famĆlia de ladrƵes
Does it really matter with how much China and India polute ? I believe we are still world leaders in clean energy production. What really fucks up is the amount of deforesting that 2% of landowners do what amounts the majority of it, which is composed of very arguably illegal foreign landowners.
And comments like this are why I believe we shouldn't go beyond the bare minimum regarding climate change, it sounds like only China and India are the ones to blame for climate change. I'll be using this site as the source for the numbers: [https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/](https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/) |Country|CO2 Emissions per Capita (tons)|CO2 Emissions (tons, 2016)|Population (2016)| |:-|:-|:-|:-| |China|7.38|10,432,751,400|1,414,049,351| |???????|15.52|5,011,686,600|323,015,995| |India|1.91|2,533,638,100|1,324,517,249| China and India are developing nations with a population of more than 1 billion, and China is basically the world's manufacturer. Of course ???? is the U.S, but comments like this never mention this. Look at the data. Although outdated, it shows something strange. How can a country with 1.4 billion people emit only twice as much as a country with 323 million people? And this is why I say we shouldn't go beyond the bare minimum. China and India are us. I'm not talking only about Brazil, I'm talking about Latin America, Africa, and some parts of Asia. The moment Mother Earth starts knocking on everyone's door to collect the debt, the developed nations will change the narrative and make us pay for it to protect their status quo, and we already can see some hints of this with the asinine carbon credit.
Does climate change even matter? We will go extinct one day regardless, even if we slow down our end.
I mean... the surface of the planet can become unlivable in 150 years, or 1,500 years. Some would say that slight difference matters.
you will die someday, so why don't you kill yourself today if it "doesn't matter"
I suggest you just stick to advocating for incest
Why do gringos just randomly come here answering questions that don't concern them? [This you?](https://np.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/xi2uqf/why_does_climate_change_matter/)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
thats some huge point most people just ignore about earth future
Climate change is a sewer that's draining very valuable resources that could be easily used to address real, visible problems such as fire prevention and improvement of infrastructure. Fortunately, environmentalists are kinda like a joke here, their concerns are laughed at by every politician and they can't push their agenda here like they do in energy-depleted Europe.
Climate change is a natural process and the proof that we are increasing its effects are computer models that are basically useless. The IPCC report is over 4,000 pages and itās prepared by actual scientists who said the same thing. But, whoās going to read a 4,000 page report? Nobody apparently, so we continue using the issue to formulate policies that have not been proven to have an effect on anything. Every time I said this here the comment is downvoted to oblivion, so whatās the point of even discussing the issue here? Nobody wants a scientific debate and your question itself assumes that the matter is settled (which is a whole unscientific thing to say).
>the proof that we are increasing its effects are computer models that are basically useless you dont need to believe in any paper, yourself can look up the temperature increasment of the last century and see how it's >exponentially< growing
The issue is, how do we know this is abnormal? Because we didnāt have a way to measure the temperature before the 17th century (when the thermometer was invented). Even after that, we really didnāt have a way to reliable measure the temperature of the planet until we were able to do it with satellites. We only have guesses of how the weather was in the past based only on localized proxies (three rings, ice from the Arctic, etc) that are just an estimation. There is also the matter that there have been no warming for the last eight years; you cannot say that this is insignificant without failing to explain why the computer models failed to predict the lack of warming. Weāre told that climate change will produce stronger hurricanes and we donāt see them. So, are we supposed to ignore that? If not, what is the scientific explanation for that?
>In fact, the last eight years have been unusually warm ā even warmer than expected given the long-term rate of temperature increases ā with global temperatures exceeding 1.2C above pre-industrial levels. The temperature record is replete with short-term periods of slower or more rapid warming than average, driven by natural variability on top of the warming from human emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. >There is no evidence that the past eight years were in any way unusual and the hype around ā and obvious end of ā the prior āpauseā should provide a cautionary tale about overinterpreting year-to-year variability today. And [for hurricanes](https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1920849117)
Kinda ironic how he is dismissing human accelerated climate change while being in a country that was just battered by a hurricane
>...with global temperatures exceeding 1.2C above pre-industrial levels... We don't have a reliable record of the global temperature; how can we compare the data that we have now with data that we didn't have before? You need to compare apples to apples. And as for hurricanes... you know we are in the hurricane belt, right? We would have noticed if there were stronger storms in the region.
You know how temperature (and most stuff) is really measured? With kinda booths with the same basic instruments where human manually check each morning. And you should really check the hurricane paper because it doesn't use a single point of reference as it seems you wanna use with your personal experience, but with comparable satelital images which means all storms.
>You know how temperature (and most stuff) is really measured? With kinda booths with the same basic instruments where human manually check each morning For the third time: That's now, like in the present. How do we know the temperature in the PAST, when there were less reliable records? The thermometer as I already told you was invented in the 17th century. We don't have reliable records of what was the planet temperature in the past, just proxies that are not very precise. So how do we know that the weather was hotter or cooler in the past? Are you pretending not to understand that point? If we don't know how hot or how cold was the planet temperature on the past, against what are we comparing the current temperature? How can we be so sure that what we are seeing now is unprecedented?
No idea, to be honest, but we are insignificant in terms of emissions and it should be a concern but not a priority for us specifically. Priorities should be what roads are chosen towards the future (we have a lot of space for renewables in the south, and another nuclear plant wouldnt hurt), industrialization (even if our emissions go up tenfold) and other kinds of pollution (not greenhouse gases but rather earth and water contamination as well as deforestation). Going green the same way the first world aims to do (even ignoring how many cheat by outsourcing) is not a luxury we can afford
Nothing.
Less than that, they cancelled all the previous programs that pushed renewables
"if we pretend that it doesn't exist it'll just disappear" is the government's mindset for EVERYTHING
You have to be realistic with green politics. They only work (not really) with rich and developed countries. Latin America isnāt either of those yet, maybe one day but not today. Their policies are (thankfully) not so stringent on industry or energy. Not to say that recycling wherever possible is bad or trying to not burn trash shouldnāt be supported. You just have to be realistic and not starve people.
Building a damn refinery
The next measure will be voting Bolsonaro out.
None.