|
friendbot2000 posted:That's pretty much what I was going for. I have been accused of being a fascist by talking about climate change and how everything I was proposing reduces "muh freedoms". They always want somebody else to sacrifice. It’s the third world’s fault for breeding too much. It’s the urbanites fault for not returning to the land and growing their own food. Me? I have a right to live in a subdivision and eat meat for every meal.
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 03:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 09:16 |
|
|
I genuinely believe the best approach is full on pro-nuclear outreach. It's super dangerous but it's also the least lethal thing we have in terms of deaths/kwh and it's not actually a CO2 emitter despite what the natgas industry will tell you. The public is just real dumb. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 03:19
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I genuinely believe the best approach is full on pro-nuclear outreach. It's super dangerous but it's also the least lethal thing we have in terms of deaths/kwh and it's not actually a CO2 emitter despite what the natgas industry will tell you. I was thinking about this the other day. I am highly interested in initiatives to educate the public at large about nuclear power. I think the resistance the public at large has to it is the association with events like Chernobyl. I was wondering if an educational outreach program might help or something. Clearly scientists screaming into the void doesn't help, the messaging has to come from within communities to get a culture shift on nuclear power. This is why I think community outreach and individual action is so important. If we don't educate our communities then any changes made at a governmental level can quickly be eroded if they even happen at all. Macro-level change is always fueled at the micro-level. Hence why I think it is important that we get out from behind the computer screens and go into our communities and knock on doors etc. It is like a political campaign, except for the future of the planet. ProperGanderPusher posted:They always want somebody else to sacrifice. I have cut down considerably the amount of beef and pork I intake on a regular basis and a lot of the millennial generation I have noticed is focusing on a more plant based diet, at least in metropolitan areas like D.C. and NOVA. But yeah, the buck stops here with millennials and I think we are going to be doing a lot of the heavy lifting in climate change mitigation. I have successfully converted my dad to believe that climate change is happening and that he needs to help, which is weird because he is a Trump Supporter, but baby steps to saving his chud soul I guess. I think that the millennial culture is a lot more malleable to the kinds of change we are going to need so starting with the younger crowd and converting them to radical environmentalism outreach is our best bet for changing the culture of consumption. friendbot2000 fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Nov 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 04:11
|
|
|
here is my actual garden (about half of it, the rest of it is around the side). when these dudes are big enough they're going in the local reserve. i did a floristic survey and it's seriously lacking in a lot of plants that characterise wetlands around here, especially succulent fruits, so that's what i've concentrated on. the tall seedlings you can see are mostly eucalypts and melaleuca though. the big containers are full of decomposing mulch. i'm keeping the prettiest specimens and trying to get a found object sculpture out of it
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 04:44
|
|
|
Really glad this thread got remade. It seems like the next US Congress is going to open up a select committee on climate change which is itself a fantastic idea. However, I'm concerned that it won't be able to do enough. What are the sort of things that can be done at the state/national/international level and how feasible are they? I refuse to give up hope that we can take things from where they are now where everyone's committed to just impact mitigation back to a place where we can minimize the temperature rise. People thought that the ozone layer was permanently broken, smog was eternal and New York City would drown in horse poop but we found ways to fix all those things. Climate change is probably the hardest to fix but I think we can do it. Also count me down as another person who thinks nuclear needs to be part of the power generation conversation. It's extremely safe, the average person gets more radiation from eating bananas than they would a nuclear power plant but there so much fear of ATOMZ. It's a god damned tragedy that the environmental wing in the US is anti nuclear. It never made any sense to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 05:38
|
|
|
axeil posted:I refuse to give up hope that we can take things from where they are now where everyone's committed to just impact mitigation back to a place where we can minimize the temperature rise. People thought that the ozone layer was permanently broken, smog was eternal and New York City would drown in horse poop but we found ways to fix all those things. Climate change is probably the hardest to fix but I think we can do it. This is an incredibly dishonest argument to make. The sacrifices needed to help fix the ozone layer were absolutely miniscule compared to what would have to change to even have a small impact on the climate change issues we face today, this goes double for horse poop in New York City. Giving up CFCs is not comparable to halting carbon emissions entirely in a shockingly small time frame, going from the current world in which carbon is recklessly emitted in such huge quantities that an outside observer would think we were intentionally trying to kill ourselves.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 06:00
|
|
|
axeil posted:I refuse to give up hope that we can take things from where they are now where everyone's committed to just impact mitigation back to a place where we can minimize the temperature rise. People thought that the ozone layer was permanently broken, smog was eternal and New York City would drown in horse poop but we found ways to fix all those things. Climate change is probably the hardest to fix but I think we can do it. It depends on what you mean, but we probably can't do it and I don't know how to express that without you accusing me of being a nihilistic doom and gloomer. The reality is that we can't operate quickly enough to fix this because we'll probably be locked into scenarios previously considered catastrophic (ie, 2C warming) in less than a decade. If you want to know what we can do on a federal level, then the only answer is rapid decarbonization that probably starts with the grid. That's going to mean both outright banning new capacity and implementing schemes that will shutter existing emitting plants within 5-10 years. In other words, we need to be talking about shutting down literally brand new plants that still have 80% of their useful service life left. And that's just the grid, which is probably the easiest target by far. Feel free to convince me I'm wrong, but there's no way any of that is happening in the next ten years. edit- Comparing climate change to smog, the ozone hole, or horse poop in NYC is really misunderstanding the scale of the problem too. I'm not trying to be insulting, but you're just off by several orders of magnitude. Climate change isn't a harder version of those problems, it's an entirely separate and unrelated class of problem. Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 06:30 on Nov 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 06:24
|
|
|
incredible flesh posted:here is my actual garden (about half of it, the rest of it is around the side). when these dudes are big enough they're going in the local reserve. i did a floristic survey and it's seriously lacking in a lot of plants that characterise wetlands around here, especially succulent fruits, so that's what i've concentrated on. the tall seedlings you can see are mostly eucalypts and melaleuca though. the big containers are full of decomposing mulch. Very interesting, what is the objective of planting in the reserve? Is it newly created and isolated from natural propagules? Where are you getting your seeds, by the way? I hope you are using stock collected locally rather than something from a commercial nursery. Unfortunately careless restoration efforts that transport individuals hundreds of kilometers can accidentally swamp small and unique local populations/sub-species. Using local is best, though for large scale efforts this may not be practical.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 07:02
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Very interesting, what is the objective of planting in the reserve? Is it newly created and isolated from natural propagules?  the reserve is a bush restoration site that was totally denuded but now has a cover of maturing trees - unfortunately, like most site restorations around here, it was all done in one big burst of activity ten years ago and not touched since so the trees are all the same age, there's no understorey and the biodiversity is pretty low. we're low-lying here and i can safely predict it'll be permanently flooded before long, so i'm planting for that eventuality with stuff that loves being waterlogged but can also tolerate drought, salt and fire. australian flora is amazing and some of our most beautiful trees are also our toughest survivors. unfortunately that's why our acacias and casuarinas are taking over the everglades
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 09:11
|
|
|
i'm also trying to get a handle on the who's who of bush restoration so i can do this en masse instead of having to work alone on one site at a time. at the moment i'm finding out the whole industry is run by well-off white retirees who like gardening and banjo patterson. this is not a good thing
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 09:16
|
|
|
Wakko posted:It's a little bit off-putting for sure. How about eco-Stalinism? Eco-Maoism?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 09:22
|
|
|
friendbot2000 posted:I was thinking about this the other day. I am highly interested in initiatives to educate the public at large about nuclear power. I think the resistance the public at large has to it is the association with events like Chernobyl. I was wondering if an educational outreach program might help or something. Clearly scientists screaming into the void doesn't help, the messaging has to come from within communities to get a culture shift on nuclear power. This is why I think community outreach and individual action is so important. If we don't educate our communities then any changes made at a governmental level can quickly be eroded if they even happen at all. Macro-level change is always fueled at the micro-level. Hence why I think it is important that we get out from behind the computer screens and go into our communities and knock on doors etc. It is like a political campaign, except for the future of the planet. I just don't know how to do it. I'm not American but I'm part of the only significant party in my country prioritizing concrete environmental policy (that is say, not small insignificant measures or outright denial of the problem) but even here there is a giant-stop on anything nuclear and the problem is it's generational. The environmentalists from the green movements of the 70's and 80's mean well but there is no getting around their completely delusional stance on nuclear power. I've heard it all: 1. Nuclear power is the most dangerous energy source (empirically untrue) 2. Nuclear power is too expensive (come on guys realize the scale of the problem we're facing) 3. Nuclear power requires dirty mines that are bad for poor people (just like most things that sustain modern capitalistic society) And the absolute most stupid thing, 4. Nuclear power releases carbon emissions because of the shipping of metals/construction of plants/digging of waste (kill me now) And these are not fringe opinions, these people are the very core of environmental policy development as their generation is still the core of the environmental movement. They'll happily embrace the end of meat, cars, planes, fossil fuels and consumerism itself, but god forbid if you bring up that there are very few alternatives with current technology to a mix of renewables and nuclear if we're actually going to do this in time. But here is my main critique of pushing nuclear, it is already way too late. If countries had started building 20 years ago we'd absolutely be better off, but with this innate resistance to nuclear and now drastic lack of professional capacity to actually build nuclear (since there was decades with almost none being built outside of Asia) we're put in a scenario where at the time we've changed public perception and in the process of building we'll already be way past 2C. As long as the Chernobyl generation lives nuclear is effectively dead. Until they rotate out of politics by virtue of old age they are a brick wall that cannot be ran through.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 09:34
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:As for a general comment, as per 3(b), I think we need to start changing our culture. This is something where I see individual-action being immediately practicable. How happy could you be with 1/10th your present material affluence and with a substantially vegetarian diet? That's a question which consumption-obsessed westerners will be facing writ large very soon. People are 'doing culture' today which will be prohibitively expensive in 20 years. What will they do instead? We can get cracking on that now as individuals. Define "material affluence". What would my lifestyle be? I don't travel except when I have to, I don’t own a car, I eat meat multiple times a week but mostly for convenience's sake (I have no problems going full vegetarian and have been reducing my meat intake gradually). I don't cook most of the time because I am too tired when I get home. Does this mean I will live without heating? That I will HAVE to spend 1 to 2 hours a day cooking? That I will not have a microwave? That I will have to add a FURTHER 1-2 hours taking care of a garden? That gives assuming a standard 8 hour work week that I will have no time for any hobbies which I am guessing will not involve any sort of electronics, so pretty much a "live to survive" kind of thing. Am I correct? This isn't a breakdown, it's a legitimate question. AceOfFlames fucked around with this message at 12:29 on Nov 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 12:25
|
|
|
The best way to preview the lifestyle changes required is to look at footage or read first hand accounts of Russia or the Balkan / Central Asian States in the 1990's. What they went through is how things will shake out in the event of rapid government-enforced decarbonization of society. Only westerners who have spent their lives in a cycle of post-scarcity consumption tend to look at that and go "eh, what's the point, better to just die". 
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 14:33
|
|
|
AceOfFlames posted:Define "material affluence". What would my lifestyle be? I don't travel except when I have to, I don’t own a car, I eat meat multiple times a week but mostly for convenience's sake (I have no problems going full vegetarian and have been reducing my meat intake gradually). I don't cook most of the time because I am too tired when I get home. Does this mean I will live without heating? That I will HAVE to spend 1 to 2 hours a day cooking? That I will not have a microwave? That I will have to add a FURTHER 1-2 hours taking care of a garden? That gives assuming a standard 8 hour work week that I will have no time for any hobbies which I am guessing will not involve any sort of electronics, so pretty much a "live to survive" kind of thing. Am I correct? spain/france/iceland/sweden/etc continue have per capita co2 outputs that are 1/3rd of america. They continue to be modern first world countries, some of the firstest world countries in fact. People wanting to make environmentalism about personal suffering and deprivation are just sad fallout 76 is bad and want to write torture porn fanfiction for their sad sack lives. There is tried and true answers and we can look at them and they look good. The US cutting emissions by half would give us a lifestyle of like, germany, not crying in a dirty hole in the ground. There is no indication that the successful countries are even at some knife edge limit that have pushed as far as they can before 'the hard cuts' need to happen, spain still has a bunch of coal plants, iceland has the 6th per capita highest car ownership of any country and the highest per capita electricity consumption. The people telling you "it's impossible", "pollution is good and makes your life better, we can't get rid of it", "we couldn't do this without this level of fossil fuel use, your happiness depends on coal" are lying to you. You can go places that have drastically lower emissions and they are all fine and not nightmare hell worlds of people dying of dysentery waiting for their grim life to end.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 16:27
|
|
|
That's a very weird sample you went with there. Sweden: Has tons of hydro-power for geographical reasons, impossible to emulate. Iceland: Same but also geothermal energy, impossible to emulate. France: Still living off smart investments in nuclear energy from before many of us were born, shame the rest of the world wasn't as smart. Spain could almost work but the only reason that Spain isn't a chart-topper is that it's very warm and very poor. MiddleOne fucked around with this message at 16:48 on Nov 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 16:42
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:I just don't know how to do it. I'm not American but I'm part of the only significant party in my country prioritizing concrete environmental policy (that is say, not small insignificant measures or outright denial of the problem) but even here there is a giant-stop on anything nuclear and the problem is it's generational. The environmentalists from the green movements of the 70's and 80's mean well but there is no getting around their completely delusional stance on nuclear power. I've heard it all: That is why I think it is really important to start messaging now about nuclear and not just writing off the Chernobyl generation. A fundamental shift needs to start happening in the environmental movement and the best way to that is from within. I find it hard to believe that we can't build nuclear reactors quickly if there was a big enough push for it. The interstates were built in a very short period of time and there wasn't a impending disaster heading our way. Humans are capable of incredible feats of engineering when we put our collective minds to it. That is why changing your community from within through individual action is so important, culture changes will drive this push. The more work we put in now, the better position we will be in to sustain eco-conscious initiatives.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 16:56
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:That's a very weird sample you went with there. Yes? The way to be less polluting is to use either renewable sources or to use nuclear power. That's not cheating, that is the actual answer. You can't say "those places don't count, they use renewable energy and nuclear".
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 17:01
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Yes? And in France's case they also drive drastically less, fly less, eat less meat, and in general live a lifestyle that's different from high emitters like the United States. It's really weird that you keep insisting that anyone in this thread is saying that we all have to live a life of asceticism when in reality we're just saying that your average American will probably not be happy with the lifestyle changes that may be necessary to reduce emissions. Also, those countries all still emit too much so there's that too. If we could reduce high emitters to their emissions levels at breakneck speed it would buy us time and that would be good. If we're talking about transitioning to that level of emissions over decades then we're hosed anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 17:05
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Yes? If every nation had access to natural renewable energy sources like hydro in sufficient amounts we wouldn't have a climate crisis. friendbot2000 posted:That is why I think it is really important to start messaging now about nuclear and not just writing off the Chernobyl generation. A fundamental shift needs to start happening in the environmental movement and the best way to that is from within. Modern nuclear reactors are much more complicated to build than simple highways. And it's not a question of having enough people manning equipment, it's a question of having enough highly specialized engineers and nuclear scientists. Building that capacity up again will take time, as will the building of the reactors themselves. We had this capacity just a few decades ago but as the building of new plants largely seized so did those competencies disappear. This will not take a matter of years adjusting for, it will take decades. Nuclear power could certainly be an answer for what stop-gap we're using instead of coal and gas for the latter part of the century (especially if international stigma around breeders could be rounded), but we're already too late for it to be an answer to the immediate climate change challenges right in front of us. Addressing them requires completely different kinds of solutions. MiddleOne fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Nov 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 17:16
|
|
|
axeil posted:Really glad this thread got remade. It seems like the next US Congress is going to open up a select committee on climate change which is itself a fantastic idea. However, I'm concerned that it won't be able to do enough. What are the sort of things that can be done at the state/national/international level and how feasible are they? I think everyone latched onto the last bit of this post and completely disregarded the first bit. I know in Virginia there is a lot of state level legislation eliminating all state funding for coal plants and a lot of funding being pushed to renewable energy. One of things that people should start doing is paying more attention to state and local elections. These elections get no real support form the political machines and are very vulnerable to flipping so why not make it to our advantage? Support your local eco-friendly politician in the primaries and keep hammering your local reps with phone calls. Coastal states need to start hardening their coastlines now instead of later so getting active in that sphere will be helpful. Also, if you live in a city, consider getting involved in rent control efforts so the housing costs are less and people don't flee to the suburbs. Population densification is a net positive for helping curb emissions and conserving water and energy resources. Starting Community Gardens is a great way to spread the eco-gospel to your neighbors. It also will give you delicious veggies! Also, look in your area to see what green groups are fighting against. A good fight is to prevent more loving strip malls from being built on good farmland and watersheds. Basically, grab your armor and sword and become an eco-warrior. Rime, whats the status on that windfarm in the Midwest USA you are working on?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 17:19
|
|
|
Rime posted:The best way to preview the lifestyle changes required is to look at footage or read first hand accounts of Russia or the Balkan / Central Asian States in the 1990's. What they went through is how things will shake out in the event of rapid government-enforced decarbonization of society. Owlofcreamcheese posted:spain/france/iceland/sweden/etc continue have per capita co2 outputs that are 1/3rd of america. They continue to be modern first world countries, some of the firstest world countries in fact. OK, don't mean to sound self-centered but can we please define a policy to clarify what part of the world we refer to? I know that most people in this forum are Americans, but it's so confusing to hear "You will ALL suffer a horrible collapse and have your lives be IMMENSELY poorer! ...because America, in which I assume we all live, is not like these other countries in which I assume no one reading this lives in" ...then again, I live in the Netherlands so I guess what I should do is "get the gently caress out before the dikes break". AceOfFlames fucked around with this message at 17:23 on Nov 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 17:19
|
|
|
AceOfFlames posted:OK, don't mean to sound self centered but can we please define a policy as to what part of the world we refer to? I know that most people in this forum are Americans, but it's so confusing to hear "You will ALL suffer a horrible collapse and have your lives be IMMENSELY poorer! ...because America, in which I assume we all live, is lot like these other countries in which I assume no one reading this lives in" That is fair and a good idea. I get caught up in a Ameri-centric posting pattern sometimes so thanks for this input AceofFlames. Edit: I added a rule(more of a loose guiideline) to the OP regarding this. friendbot2000 fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Nov 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 17:21
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:And in France's case they also drive drastically less, fly less, eat less meat, and in general live a lifestyle that's different from high emitters like the United States. It's really weird that you keep insisting that anyone in this thread is saying that we all have to live a life of asceticism when in reality we're just saying that your average American will probably not be happy with the lifestyle changes that may be necessary to reduce emissions. The point is, they give an answer for what the grim and horrible dystopian future will need to look like. If someone wants to talk about americans cutting emissions 75% and they start writing a setup that sounds more like some sort of suffering jerk off fanfiction instead of writing a place that sounds like the places with some of the highest quality of life on the planet they got something mixed up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
friendbot2000 posted:I think everyone latched onto the last bit of this post and completely disregarded the first bit. I know in Virginia there is a lot of state level legislation eliminating all state funding for coal plants and a lot of funding being pushed to renewable energy. 50% of Virginia's electricity is generated by natural gas and a huge amount of that capacity is new. This is honestly a bigger problem than coal, which is already a dying industry. How do we deal with that? How do we convince people to essentially destroy a growth industry and do it in the next five years? edit- https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=VA quote:Natural gas fuels the largest share of Virginia's electricity generation. Coal-fired power plants had supplied the largest share of the state's net generation until 2009, when coal's contribution fell below that of nuclear power. As coal-fired generation decreased, natural gas-fired generation increased. In 2012, natural gas-fueled generation exceeded that of coal for the first time, and, by 2015, the contribution from natural gas-fired generation surpassed that of nuclear power.66 Natural gas now fuels half of Virginia's net electricity generation. The state's two nuclear power plants supply one-third of Virginia's generation.67 Coal provides most of the rest, although biomass, hydropower, petroleum, solar photovoltaic (PV), and other energy sources also are used to generate electricity. Solar PV contributes a small but increasing amount of distributed (customer-sited, small-scale) and utility-scale electricity generation. Virginia is a terrible example because they are literally moving in the wrong direction and replacing nuclear generation with natural gas. Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Nov 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 17:50
|
|
|
AceOfFlames posted:What would my lifestyle be? The economic constraints I have in mind aren't that predictive. I imagine it would mostly come down to politics and location. As a US worst-case, if we 100% let failure change us then I imagine someone'd be lucky to live in a favela. As a US best-case, if we 100% let our own best-interest guide us then I imagine a new norm of Paris-level density but with less stuff. To list off a few assumptions:
Accretionist fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Nov 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 18:46
|
|
|
AceOfFlames posted:...then again, I live in the Netherlands so I guess what I should do is "get the gently caress out before the dikes break". go to the kattenkabinet and pet the cats
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The point is, they give an answer for what the grim and horrible dystopian future will need to look like. If someone wants to talk about americans cutting emissions 75% and they start writing a setup that sounds more like some sort of suffering jerk off fanfiction instead of writing a place that sounds like the places with some of the highest quality of life on the planet they got something mixed up. First of all, we're actually talking about Americans (and everyone else) cutting emissions by closer to 100% over maybe the next 30-40 years at most. Secondly, I have no idea what the gently caress you're talking about since no one is talking about terrible dystopian futures as a result of cutting emissions. The terrible dystopian fanfiction comes from people who just assume that we'll never cut emissions enough because people won't accept the kind of lifestyle changes that they may need to make. This seems reasonable to me given that you've had a multiple month long breakdown over people telling you to fly less.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:
ace of flames was wondering if he'd be allowed to have heat in his house and was responding to someone saying people would need to expect 1/10th the material comforts. People in iceland have some of the lowest emissions and have heat in their house and hobbies and cars and eat meat and all sorts of modern things (no mcdonalds though, tacobell only, like demolition man). Like, countries that exist put bounds on what the level of sacrifice required to hit certain levels look like. They generally look perfectly fine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 19:07
|
|
|
And it spurred you on to hysterics and strawmanning.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 19:13
|
|
|
It was one of the most pathetic things I've ever seen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 19:30
|
|
|
Cut this poo poo out everyone. Don't poo poo up this thread with your personal rivalries on a dead gay internet forum. Let's check our egos and bad attitudes at the door, yeah?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
axeil posted:I refuse to give up hope that we can take things from where they are now where everyone's committed to just impact mitigation back to a place where we can minimize the temperature rise. People thought that the ozone layer was permanently broken, smog was eternal and New York City would drown in horse poop but we found ways to fix all those things. Climate change is probably the hardest to fix but I think we can do it. Sorry for also latching on to this, but the situation really needs to be doubly and triply clarified, because that kind of blind optimism is only going to get people hurt. Climate Change is a problem fundamentally incomparable to any of the others you gave as examples, and indeed, to any in the history of our species. To better contextualize why that is, let's look at SR15's Scenario 2. IPCC SR15 posted:Scenario 2 [one possible storyline among mid-case scenarios]: So this is what the IPCC as of their recent SR15 report considers a "mid-range" scenario. Now, understand, the IPCC is considered to be overly conservative in their estimations of Climate Change impacts, particularly in regards to choosing to ignore the known unknowns on the basis of 'not enough data', so this scenario should be taken as optimistic as it is. For reference, their Scenario 1 is little more than a thought exercise, where not only our estimations of impacts are the best possible, but by 2020 the international community unanimously agrees to and shows strong participation and support for ambitious net-zero emissions goals. In any case, the key of this Scenario 2 is that the world kicks mitigation efforts into high gear over the course of the next 10 years. The measures require a rapid, thorough, costly, and internationally agreed restructuring of virtually every facet of human economic activity by all the world's developed and developing economies, alongside the equally rapid, thorough and costly implementation of carbon sequestration technologies that do not yet exist and have no economic value. Effective Climate Change action had been tongue-in-cheek likened in the previous thread as a "War against the Sky", this is why. And yet, even if we do all this, despite making all the right choices, we still reach a catastrophic 2°C by mid-century, which then lasts for several decades before mitigation efforts finally start reducing temperatures at the end of the century. Please, truly, take a moment to let this sink in. Even if we do everything right, even if on a global scale we agree to make heavy sacrifices - because there will be painful sacrifices, there will be losers - the conditions are still going to suck. And we, the people alive right now, we who are going to be agreeing to the hard choices and suffering through their consequences, will not live to see the efforts pay off. We will die and global temperatures will still be above 1.5°C, potentially even still over 2°C. But the real kicker, what makes this problem a challenge that's truly incomparable to any we've faced in the history of our species, is that we have to drum up the political will to force these (fundamentally unpopular) measures in opposition to the global socioeconomic system that underpins our civilization. Climate Change, at its most basic, is the result of externalizing costs - offloading the economic/ecologic impact of carbon emissions worldwide and to future generations. It's late-stage capitalism. We live in a system that thrives on, that is structurally incentivized to hide its costs as best as possible, where its major actors are abstract, amoral entities whose driving principle is a focus on short-term benefits, and whose human component is insulated from the consequences through both wealth and diffusion of responsibility. Capitalism is incompatible with Climate Change solutions. This is not an advocacy towards communism or anarchism, it's just a loving fact. Any effective action against Climate Change, on top of all other ethical and technical problems it faces, has to be done in opposition to moneyed interests. We have to de-link politics from money. We have de-link "truth" from money. Necessary action shouldn't even be discussed in costs. Why is it discussed in terms of costs? What does it matter how many dollars a nuclear plant costs? Renewables+nuclear need to form the basis of the grid in any pathway where reach net zero emissions, we know this, it's an indisputable physical fact, so why do we allow coal and natural gas plants to exist? Why does it matter if a plant has already been built? Return on investment? And again, even if we do all this, even if we somehow manage to handle this colossal task before us... still on your last day, the world is going to be a harsher, more chaotic and darker place than on the day you were born. People need to come to terms with that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 19:37
|
|
|
Presidential elections 2020 and 2024 are kinda our last shots I think. If the US can't elect someone who takes the question seriously by that date then we are increasingly heading towards the bad-end of the projection scenarios. Without the US doing its part no one else will either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 19:43
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Presidential elections 2020 and 2024 are kinda our last shots I think. If the US can't elect someone who takes the question seriously by that date then we are increasingly heading towards the bad-end of the projection scenarios. Without the US doing its part no one else will either. Last shots for what?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 19:45
|
|
|
Changing the path of the Titanic before it sinks. It's our last chance at a genuinely good outcome.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 19:49
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Presidential elections 2020 and 2024 are kinda our last shots I think. If the US can't elect someone who takes the question seriously by that date then we are increasingly heading towards the bad-end of the projection scenarios. Without the US doing its part no one else will either. All the more reason to start putting in the work in these next two years, yeah? Alright, on a lighter note I came across this bit online that said while Americans are eating more meat, it is actually more chicken instead of beef and pork. The cause of the decline in beef consumption is possibly driven by the health concerns of red meat and to a lesser extent, women are working more and beef takes longer to cook(thought that bit was interesting, and makes sense if you have ever tried to cook a roast.) https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/01/2018-will-see-high-meat-consumption-us-american-diet-shifting https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/less-beef-less-carbon-ip.pdf This bit was interesting too. Between 2005 and 2014 emissions from diet(meat) decreased by 10 percent due to a 17 percent decline in beef consumption friendbot2000 fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Nov 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 19:50
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:If every nation had access to natural renewable energy sources like hydro in sufficient amounts we wouldn't have a climate crisis. It's mostly safety regulations, some sensible, some not. SRS built five heavy water reactors in 3 years, as an example. They also threw all the drat safety regs in the trash, but it was "an emergency."
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Changing the path of the Titanic before it sinks. It's our last chance at a genuinely good outcome. What do you define as a genuinely good outcome? "Catastrophe" is not a binary; when people ape that every fraction of a degree matters, it's because every fraction of a degree indeed matters, and while the system isn't linear, we don't know its tipping points for sure either. So what's your line on the sand?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 09:16 |
|
|
One where we don't have to find out first-hand how wrong or correct our projections were.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 20:26
|
|