|
Lampsacus posted:I'm glad AOC is talking about political will. We want to see the phrase in the 2020 election debate lexicon. I guess I'm little surprised to see so many naysayers when AOC is brought up in thread. For record, she's great and ought to keep up the good work. She's one of the few that's actually in a position to do anything where everyone else won't do anything at all or believes climate change isn't real.
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 04:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:05 |
|
|
The climate crisis' #1 current problem is a lack of awareness, AOC elevated the issue to the national stage almost single-handedly as a Freshman Congresswoman before she'd even been sworn in, I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt until a better spokesperson shows up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 05:13
|
|
|
Credit where credit is due, that's exactly what she's done. But the NGD is only a small step above the Paris Agreement on the scale of "mattering".
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 05:18
|
|
|
True we need to see real change. I suppose the GOP's reply is... a)Global Warming isn't real b)It is real but the free market will fix it
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 05:25
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Nope, I mean basically making a giant air filter(s) for the planet. Get us back down to 280ppm. The only way I could see this working is by combining this giant air filter with a space elevator (can only bury so many 'filters') both powered by an enormous and efficient carbon neutral power source (probably fusion). As someone else said, all of these at this time would be akin to magic. Tab8715 posted:True we need to see real change. Actually the new bullet point is c) it's real but the worst consequences are 50 years away so you and your kids can enjoy some semblance of normalcy but tough poo poo to your grandkids and all generations after that. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 06:37
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:The climate crisis' #1 current problem is a lack of awareness Lack of awareness is doing it a disservice. It is willful, deliberate suppression of the issue at the hands of the corporate interests, and the politicians they control, who have held the reins of power for over 40 years. The world was drat well aware of the issue by the time Reagan came to power, it's just that he was a goon for big business, so his policy response was gutting the EPA and research funding and subsequently attempting to reframe the debate by hemming and hawing about growth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 08:32
|
|
|
Any tips for staving off the so-called "eco-anxiety"? I have to wilfully limit how much I read about climate change before it impacts my mental health. I've never considered myself an anxious person but it only takes a couple pages of this thread to give me the shivers. My country being dominated by Brexit certainly doesn't help. XR did a protest in the House of Commons yesterday and it was basically a footnote!
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 12:47
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:However, I still argue for forestry and burying trees with manual labor as the best sequestration solution. Low tech, high labor, low cost, distribution, low chance of economic or physical leakage and no catastrophic failure potential. The problem with the "manual labor" part is that your tree graveyard (like much of the new forests you'd be planting) would most likely end up far from any populated area. Which means you'd be relocating many thousands (potentially millions given the scale we're dealing with) of people to the middle of nowhere, building housing for them, and regularly trucking in food and such. At the end of the day, you'd likely be better off (both cost-wise and climate-wise) developing and deploying electric excavators, such as this one from Volvo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV1T5tEgZPA
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 13:02
|
|
|
Sudden Javelin posted:Any tips for staving off the so-called "eco-anxiety"? I have to wilfully limit how much I read about climate change before it impacts my mental health. I've never considered myself an anxious person but it only takes a couple pages of this thread to give me the shivers. Do not take my advice, I am not a licensed professional - Keep reading and push through until you're no longer bothered by it. You are dealing with grief and will go through the motions of denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. I could only arrive at acceptance by looking straight at it without illusions. Also go to therapy. Climate change used to give me big depression but it turns out when I relieved my depression it no longer did - I was using climate change to rationalize/excuse my depression, but the root cause of my depression was loving depression who would've thought. Perry Mason Jar fucked around with this message at 13:43 on Apr 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 13:17
|
|
|
mortons stork posted:Lack of awareness is doing it a disservice. It is willful, deliberate suppression of the issue at the hands of the corporate interests, and the politicians they control, who have held the reins of power for over 40 years. The world was drat well aware of the issue by the time Reagan came to power, it's just that he was a goon for big business, so his policy response was gutting the EPA and research funding and subsequently attempting to reframe the debate by hemming and hawing about growth. BIG HEADLINE posted:Actually the new bullet point is c) it's real but the worst consequences are 50 years away so you and your kids can enjoy some semblance of normalcy but tough poo poo to your grandkids and all generations after that. Do you think future generations will let fossil fuel industry executives off the hook while they sleep in their retirement homes peacefully during the end of the world?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 14:26
|
|
|
i mean henry kissinger and dick cheney will die peacefully of old age in their sleep, so no I don't really harbor any hope rex tillerson is gonna get his
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 14:46
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:The problem with the "manual labor" part is that your tree graveyard (like much of the new forests you'd be planting) would most likely end up far from any populated area. Which means you'd be relocating many thousands (potentially millions given the scale we're dealing with) of people to the middle of nowhere, building housing for them, and regularly trucking in food and such. Ah but what you're calling a flaw is actually a very useful part of the plan. Of course you're going to need to move hundreds of thousands or maybe even millions of people around the world to do it, but that's exactly what we need. We're already going to have millions of people migrating, we need to give them something to do. If it takes 10+ people to do by hand what 1 person can do with power tools, well if we use the power tools now we've got to find something for those other 9+ people to do all day that's carbon negative. Burying trees is also something that we could do the world over starting today with no new technology and little competition for resources except land and labor. We're going to need a lot of electric backhoes building seawalls.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 17:10
|
|
|
I’m kind of surprised they passed the need for Diesel Fuel with heavy machinery. I wonder how long that battery lasts, I was under the impression that there wasn’t anything energy dense enough for those kind of applications.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 17:24
|
|
|
Wrt. last page's discussion, I've been thinking about how to minimize the damage from luxury spending. The best answer I've been able to come up with is that you should spend it on stuff where as much as possible goes towards paying other people's living expenses, since keeping people alive and happy is a thing we should do regardless of climate impact. Which translates to buying food and other products with high relative labor costs from actors with low profitability/little capital, or things like commissioning original art, maybe sponsoring/buying indie video games, forum avatars...
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 18:00
|
|
|
RIP Syndrome posted:Wrt. last page's discussion, I've been thinking about how to minimize the damage from luxury spending. The best answer I've been able to come up with is that you should spend it on stuff where as much as possible goes towards paying other people's living expenses, since keeping people alive and happy is a thing we should do regardless of climate impact. Pay for peoples' expertise instead of commodities. A labor theory of value, essentially. Notorious R.I.M. fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Apr 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 18:09
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Do you think future generations will let fossil fuel industry executives off the hook while they sleep in their retirement homes peacefully during the end of the world? My personal prediction based on being in the hellworld timeline is that the rich and oil execs will shut themselves into basically the renraku arcology (without the catastrophic scientific experiments) while the people they hosed over get disintegrated into a cat5 hurricane hitting them in the middle of what used to be a safe season.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 18:21
|
|
|
RIP Syndrome posted:Wrt. last page's discussion, I've been thinking about how to minimize the damage from luxury spending. The best answer I've been able to come up with is that you should spend it on stuff where as much as possible goes towards paying other people's living expenses, since keeping people alive and happy is a thing we should do regardless of climate impact. I ran out of wall space and then I ran out of places to put cute vases and now I mostly burn my excess money via ARTISANAL PIES
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 19:21
|
|
|
Every corner of my life is just straight up filled with tiny succulents. I must get a bigger apartment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 19:32
|
|
|
mortons stork posted:My personal prediction based on being in the hellworld timeline is that the rich and oil execs will shut themselves into basically the renraku arcology (without the catastrophic scientific experiments) while the people they hosed over get disintegrated into a cat5 hurricane hitting them in the middle of what used to be a safe season. What's the hell world timeline? I'll be 60 around 2050. Slightly related, this discussion has got me re-thinking my investments. So much of it is in industries that won't be worthwhile in the future and as a "middle class" person who's to say I'll have enough? Will future generations will allow me to extend my already incredibly expensive 1st world carbon footprint when I'm in my retirement? In a post-climate change world, death panels - not that I'm serious - make sense. Hell, why bother with a 401k when I could just enjoy whatevers left of humanity? Last but not list. A cool movie would be "other" humans finding "earth" in hundreds of years in the future which appears to be an extinct planet but life is found. All that's left is mostly a dead planet with completely empty cities along with maybe random shelters. Upon arrival, no one wants to explain what happened. Eventually it turns out they consumed their own planet and they're the last remaining descendants of the rich.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 19:58
|
|
|
I'm thinking we'll start experimenting with sulphate injections in 25-30 years. After that gently caress knows what happens. Odds are "we solved it people" will prevail.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 20:04
|
|
|
double nine posted:I'm thinking we'll start experimenting with sulphate injections in 25-30 years. After that gently caress knows what happens. Odds are "we solved it people" will prevail. This sounds like one of the worst "miracle" ways to combat climate change.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 20:21
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:This sounds like one of the worst "miracle" ways to combat climate change. oh I'm not a fan. I'm just thinking this is the way policy will go, because spraying more stuff into the air is easier and politically safer than fundamentally rebuilding how our economies work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 20:26
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:Pay for peoples' expertise instead of commodities. Yeah, that's numero uno. Also 2) marginal utility: Using video games as an example, it's better to buy the 100th copy of some obscure title (helping with someone's utility bill) than the hundred millionth copy of Minecraft (financial instruments, walls of candy left to rot). And 3) concerning rent-seeking and wage theft: Avoid buying through Steam if you can since their service arguably does not provide value corresponding to a 40% cut, and Valve's employees and investors are already very well taken care of. aphid_licker posted:I ran out of wall space and then I ran out of places to put cute vases and now I mostly burn my excess money via ARTISANAL PIES You jest, but these days I'm pretty sure I derive more pleasure from an artisanal pie than I do from, say, a phone upgrade. edit: (Sure, we're not going to solve climate change through consumer activism, but at least following these principles makes me feel better than some of the alternatives, and mental health matters) RIP Syndrome fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Apr 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 20:47
|
|
|
double nine posted:oh I'm not a fan. I'm just thinking this is the way policy will go, because spraying more stuff into the air is easier and politically safer than fundamentally rebuilding how our economies work. Given how things have gone historically, it'll probably just delay the inevitable while many great leaders proclaim victory. Yet deep down, they've only moved the problem more into future at the cost of making it even bigger.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 21:02
|
|
|
If you are trying to plan for the future with regard to climate change, understand that the absolute best case scenario for humanity at the end of the 21st century is a managed decline that ends up approximating the living standards of modern Cuba, except with outdated smartphones instead of classic American Cars. The worst case scenario, well, outside of a nuclear hellfire ending, no one knows exactly, but it probably resembles modern Haiti, Libya or Somalia depending on what flavour of collapse you prefer. sitchensis fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Apr 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
I think it's quite clear we are going to keep trucking forward despite all the warnings. Just with the inertia of modern society it is not happening. We simply have to find a "miracle" or live in squalor. If we had only started right after the end of World War 2 or the even in the 2000s with Al Gore.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 22:22
|
|
|
double nine posted:I'm thinking we'll start experimenting with sulphate injections in 25-30 years. After that gently caress knows what happens. Odds are "we solved it people" will prevail. In 25-30 years we'll already be racing past 2°C, so economies are going to be re-structuring themselves regardless of intent. In any case, stratospheric aerosol injection halts temperature increase, but also alters rainfall patterns, and worsens the phytoplankton situation since it now has to contend with both increased rate of acidification and reduced photosynthesis.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2019 00:21
|
|
|
What if we give Coke and Pepsi 99-yr leases on the atmosphere if they agree to use atmospheric carbon sequestration to make their carbonated sodas? They'll charge us for bottled air, yes, but I really think this is the well-reasoned, market-based solution we need.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2019 00:46
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:In 25-30 years we'll already be racing past 2°C, so economies are going to be re-structuring themselves regardless of intent. Would that be immediate after the aerosol injection?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2019 00:48
|
|
|
Questions for the thread, 1. That's the tl;dr on nuclear power? Good or bad? Didn't Westinghouse go bankrupt significantly limiting any new plant creation? 2. What are the first cities to be un-inhabitable by climate change? FYI - I'll be in New Delhi, India next month.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2019 00:52
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Would that be immediate after the aerosol injection? There'll be some variance, but yes. For the same proportions, CO2 dissolves better at lower temperatures, so if we continue emitting but put a hold on global warming then the rate of acidification will increase compared to if we hadn't. Shift in rainfall patterns and the effects of reduced shortwave radiation hitting the ocean will also be more or less immediate, but seeing as they're global effects we won't know what it'll actually be doing for a couple more years afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2019 00:56
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Questions for the thread, I’m sure someone else can elaborate but the tl;dr version is it’s one of the lowest (maybe the lowest) pollution sources of energy and can produce consistently unlike solar wind (no reliance on batteries for major metro areas, for example). And we can even use what we now consider waste in other facilities designed to process it into more energy. I’m not well versed in the science behind all of it beyond it’s a very good source of power that’s been heavily stigmatized. I imagine the carbon emissions from construction are notable since it’s giant concrete silos, but afaik the carbon emissions are very low to the point of being non-existent. I suppose it depends on the type but I believe most just boil water. Ugato fucked around with this message at 01:08 on Apr 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2019 01:06
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Questions for the thread, Nuclear'd be a big piece of mitigating the horrible damage since gently caress knows energy storage isn't going to save solar & wind. It wouldn't make numbers go up though. lol As for where people're screwed, basically anything near the equator. North of Peru and south of Turkey is the general range of hosed. The closer you are to the equator, the closer to turbofucked you get.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2019 01:06
|
|
|
Complications posted:
Wouldn't you still want to be somewhat close to water? I was under the impression landlocked areas have high weather variance due to temperature variance. Water is an excellent mass to hold that energy. On the relation to New Delhi, it's one worst cities impacted by climate change. And I'll be there in the middle of summer. Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Apr 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2019 01:11
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Wouldn't you still want to be somewhat close to water? I was under the impression landlocked areas have high weather variance due to temperature variance. Water is an excellent mass to hold that energy. Coastal areas have increased humidity, raising the wet bulb temperature. The Persian Gulf will be seasonally uninhabitable towards the end of the century, for example. And as the thermohaline circulation slows down, the tropics will get comparatively hotter due to the reduced temperature exchange with the higher latitudes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2019 01:17
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Wouldn't you still want to be somewhat close to water? I was under the impression landlocked areas have high weather variance due to temperature variance. Water is an excellent mass to hold that energy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2019 01:17
|
|
|
Complications posted:Sure, areas near water have less temperature variance because of that. Do you believe that it will help when that lessened temperature variance ends up locked above human tolerance for prolonged periods? The oceans are heating up too. Also there will be ongoing issues with water availability in most of those countries, and the mountain regions are going to have first call on that on account of geography. I do not know if it it'll "actually" help but if we're trying to re-locate humanity in the era of post-climate I assume it's going to be neo-coastal. I assume the future holds unbelievable massive investment, development and construction of desalinization plants.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2019 01:27
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:2. What are the first cities to be un-inhabitable by climate change? FYI - I'll be in New Delhi, India next month. You keep asking this but I think there are so many variables that nobody can answer it for certain.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2019 01:27
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:The Persian Gulf will be seasonally uninhabitable towards the end of the century, for example. The irony that the oil wealthy countries destroyed themselves first is just bizarre.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2019 01:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:05 |
|
|
Sudden Javelin posted:Any tips for staving off the so-called "eco-anxiety"? I have to wilfully limit how much I read about climate change before it impacts my mental health. I've never considered myself an anxious person but it only takes a couple pages of this thread to give me the shivers. We were always destined to die, as an individual, as a race, as a planet. A giant meteor, nuclear war, solarflare that wipes out the atmosphere, super virus, sun getting too hot, universe heatdeath, whatever--there never was any 'escape' from our planet. And we really aren't that special, just a collection of cells n neurons firing, one that just evolutionary decided being relatively smarter about tools and communication was better than giant poisonous claws of death. While it's fairly remarkable what we'd discovered about the universe and understanding it's building blocks that probably 99.99999999999999999+% of all organic life will never consider or know, its all still out there existing and there will be other life to do that somewhere throughout the universe, as probably many have before, even across many previous big bang cycles, as there will be after. While it's easy to be sad about the sacrifices, the art, the music, and their lifes work and soul that many before us put into our existence will all be lost forever, it was always going to happen and hopefully it made some lives better, which is all that really matters. As with really all life, it's about doing the best we can to live in the moment and help propagate our species (and all other life) by ensuring they have the most sustainable, happy, and fulfilling lives we can set them up for. It's kinda the most basic of all biologic of urges to propagate the species and take care of the future. And this poo poo is all sliding scale, societal doom is pretty much inevitable as it stands and won't be impeded, but if we can ease or mitigate the suffering & damage of thousands, millions, billions of people (and other life), then we owe it to do that. If we can even get a point where only 95% of life is gone but if even thousands of years that there's still pockets of humanity subsisting off sustainable animals and plants, maybe a few lakes with some diverse aquatic life somewhere, then that's a relative success because at least it's a starting point for planetary recovery. Understand it, embrace it, and then work to enlighten and advocate policies that will help reduce the suffering of people today and future generations. I think the hardest hurdle is coming up with ways to do that, and do it succinctly, without sounding like an "alarmist crazy", even I don't have a good approach to that. also if it helps you on a more sociopathic-level, pretty much no white ok-ishly well-off goon here is going to be "suffering" to a great extent in our lifetimes until we're relatively old (baring getting drowned, dying in megadrought, sucked up in a hurricane/tornado, or burnt in a fiery blaze). that's a bad way to look at it but if it helps ease it, so be it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2019 02:36
|
|
