|
Trabisnikof posted:I'm pretty sure logging has still done far more to hurt the Redwoods than Anthropogenic Climate Change has. Surely, but this isn't the pain olympics.
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:34 |
|
|
Bast Relief posted:Surely, but this isn't the pain olympics. Its just kinda funny, you picked a species that has been dying due to climate change for thousands of years. Like if you want to complain about species loss, talk about the Salmon runs that are being ruined due to water temp changes or the lack of loving snowmelt devastating god knows how many species. But wistfully looking up at the Redwoods and blaming ACC is pretty bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Its just kinda funny, you picked a species that has been dying due to climate change for thousands of years. "Of course redwoods will die due to climate change, just not fast enough for you to be concerned about"
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
Radbot posted:"Of course redwoods will die due to climate change, just not fast enough for you to be concerned about" I'm just saying even if we'd never got to 350ppm the Redwoods were still going to die. Meanwhile, there are less glamorous organisms that won't receive conservation efforts that will die because of ACC.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Its not a dying competition.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
computer parts posted:And according to that report, that includes all of the emissions from generating food. So you're not going to eliminate emissions if you decide to redirect that acreage into human production. It's not "all of the emissions from generating food", it's all of the emissions from generating food for the animals. "That acreage" is not necessary to support human food consumption without animal products: FAO posted:Livestock is the world’s largest user of land resources, with grazing land and cropland dedicated to the production of feed representing almost 80 % of all agricultural land. Feed crops are grown in one-third of total cropland, while the total land area occupied by pasture is equivalent to 26 % of the ice-free terrestrial surface. Ending animal production would result in an enormous reduction of the amount of land used and needed for food production. The "significant quantities" of emissions from processing the animal products are too small to be shown even in the actual report, which it seems you did not look at, being an unspecified fraction of 2.9% of total sector emissions. Is "animal husbandry just plain awfully destructive in every way for the local global enviorment"? Let's ask the FAO again: FAO posted:At the same time herds cause wide-scale land degradation, with about 20 percent of pastures considered as degraded through overgrazing, compaction and erosion. This figure is even higher in the drylands where inappropriate policies and inadequate livestock management contribute to advancing desertification. Not eating animal products is not the one neat trick that will save the planet, but it is the greatest reduction in harm that most first world individuals can opt for.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Its not a dying competition. Correct, its about attributing the impacts of Anthropogenic Climate Change correctly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:The "significant quantities" of emissions from processing the animal products are too small to be shown even in the actual report, which it seems you did not look at, being an unspecified fraction of 2.9% of total sector emissions. It's about 6-7% of every type of animal product other than beef specifically. You would know this if you read the report.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:Not eating animal products is not the one neat trick that will save the planet, but it is the greatest reduction in harm that most first world individuals can opt for. Besides not having more first world children. Trabisnikof posted:Correct, its about attributing the impacts of Anthropogenic Climate Change correctly. Fighting the good fight.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Fighting the good fight. The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion: The Problem Attic > Climate Change thread: Fighting the good fight
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
http://www.popsci.com/you-can-soon-buy-rings-cufflinks-made-smog There's a Kickstarter up right now for a tower that collects and compresses air pollution into solid cubes, which its creator then makes into jewelry.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:http://www.popsci.com/you-can-soon-buy-rings-cufflinks-made-smog quote:To make the cubes, each tower would use about 1,700 watts of energy from non-renewable sources--but Roosegaarde says can come from solar eventually.  Of course, not even a prototype to show off either...so probably just a scam.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
They're already making a prototype. The Kickstarter's apparently to take the towers on tour, and they'll be installing one of the towers in Rotterdam whether the Kickstarter's successful or not.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:They're already making a prototype. The Kickstarter's apparently to take the towers on tour, and they'll be installing one of the towers in Rotterdam whether the Kickstarter's successful or not. Well its obviously bad for the climate, and it pretty much can't be less energy intensive or as effective as particulate filtering at the source, so I don't think I could support it as a use of our limited funds for environmental recovery. But since the artist behind it has left out all the numbers actually require to calculate the impacts of this device, while calling it "the solution to air pollution" we won't know if it really is magically wunder-tech until its built (or they actually release some technical specs). I mean really this quote: quote:The Smog Free Tower is not only a final solution, but a sensory experience of a clean future. We believe that the experience the tower provides is a huge incentive for citizens, NGO’s, the clean-tech industry and governments to work together to free all cities of smog. The Smog Free Tower is part of a bigger picture, the Smog Free Movement. "Yup, please ignore the highly effective but boring administrative controls proven to work in California and instead invest in my Magical Tower!!!!" Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Jul 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's about 6-7% of every type of animal product other than beef specifically. FAO posted:Total tostfarm CO2 emissions: 2.9%. Definition: emissions related to the processing and transportation of livestock product between the production and retail point What you did was you looked at the figures for milk and non-cattle meat and said "well, they're all about 6-7%. [Note: not true either] That makes my made-up point seem tenable", but you missed that cattle meat, at only 0.5% postfarm C02 intensity makes up 35% of total emissions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Un-l337-Pork posted:Hillary Clinton's "ambitious" plan is to have 33% of American energy originate from clean and renewable sources by 2027. But, will Hillary be the Democratic nominee? That isn't clear yet. :bernget: And isn't it more important to focus on rising emitter countries like China and India? I would think that more of an impact could be made by helping India go solar than by getting the US to 100% renewable energy. One failure for four years does not mean that all of our efforts are worthless. Gamma Nerd fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Jul 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
Reading this thread got me into a kind of bleak mood, so I said "we're all doomed" on Facebook and got linked to this article that says we might not be doomed. My natural inclination is towards skepticism of this sort of thing, but it'd be interesting to get some actually qualified people give me a take on it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
vegetables posted:Reading this thread got me into a kind of bleak mood, so I said "we're all doomed" on Facebook and got linked to this article that says we might not be doomed. My natural inclination is towards skepticism of this sort of thing, but it'd be interesting to get some actually qualified people give me a take on it. Well, he's a professor of economics.....so there's that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Well, he's a professor of economics.....so there's that. Well, yes, that was one of the reasons I thought he was probably wrong. But he might not be, I don't know! It's not like I'm a professor of anything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
vegetables posted:Reading this thread got me into a kind of bleak mood, so I said "we're all doomed" on Facebook and got linked to this article that says we might not be doomed. My natural inclination is towards skepticism of this sort of thing, but it'd be interesting to get some actually qualified people give me a take on it. Well, he doesn't really offer an real rebuttal to the "doomed" idea. The entire article is focused on the "prospects" for action on climate change. Explicitly, he's admitting that we haven't actually taken any meaningful action yet. He's hopeful that maybe we will. His reason for optimism seems to boil down to the facts that a) solar is getting cheaper, b) the G7 have committed to some reduction targets. He offers no solutions for how to actually implement policy, which is the real problem. Countries have agreed to cut emissions before, but not actually done anything. The G7 agreement he's referencing is non-binding. He sees the idea that solar is cheap and coal is bad as meaningful for ending coal, then notes Japan is moving away from nuclear and replacing it with coal. One could also add that Germany is doing the same. He notes that various conservative governments are rolling back progress made on cutting emissions, and admits that he sees no way that any conservatives denying climate change will actually change their mind. He notes the US Congress is full of people utterly unwilling to act on climate change. In short, he seems optimistic despite admitting no real action is being taken and that in various ways, action that has been taking is being rolled back. As I've said repeatedly in this thread though, each person should do what they can to become active in politics and activist organizations. We should have a realistic analysis of where we currently are, hence my strong disagreement with optimism of the linked article, but I think the conclusion we can draw from that is that we cannot wait on the people who currently hold power to act; we must act ourselves.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
vegetables posted:Well, yes, that was one of the reasons I thought he was probably wrong. But he might not be, I don't know! It's not like I'm a professor of anything. It's not like he is, either. You might as well replace "Economics" with "Reiki."
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
vegetables posted:Reading this thread got me into a kind of bleak mood, so I said "we're all doomed" on Facebook and got linked to this article that says we might not be doomed. My natural inclination is towards skepticism of this sort of thing, but it'd be interesting to get some actually qualified people give me a take on it. As someone mildly qualified, we are not all doomed. We're not going to turn into Venus. Some of us are already doomed, though, mostly from cancer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
pwnyXpress posted:As someone mildly qualified, we are not all doomed. Well, yeah. The first world will be mostly OK. Even those in coastal areas will have the personal resources and the state's support to relocate inland. The rest of the world though? Yeah, they're gonna be thoroughly hosed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Well, yeah. The first world will be mostly OK. Even those in coastal areas will have the personal resources and the state's support to relocate inland. So business as usual then. Actually with the developing nations gone the first world may benefit from manufacturing and agriculture returning. If the rest of the world except the US and Europe was wiped off the map, we would be ok after a decade or so of adjustment. I joke mostly, but nothing will be done until the rich countries feel the pain, and they have the resources to insulate themselves from the pain. That means no action until it's too late.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
WorldsStrongestNerd posted:So business as usual then. Actually with the developing nations gone the first world may benefit from manufacturing and agriculture returning. If the rest of the world except the US and Europe was wiped off the map, we would be ok after a decade or so of adjustment. The world is coming to this anyway, climate change or no climate change. The population market has a bubble, and a correction is coming.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Well, yeah. The first world will be mostly OK. Even those in coastal areas will have the personal resources and the state's support to relocate inland. Yeah... no. No it won't. I mean yes, the first world will probably retain some semblance of modern living and with our resources we will probably be able to adapt better to climate change than pretty much all of the third world, but globalisation has an absolutely massive impact on national economies. The first world was basically built on the backs of exploiting the third world, and without a global economy things there will be a massive slowdown in local economies. But that's just the money side, which isn't really the big problem. The big problem is food and water. These are two things on the short list of things that will cause absolutey catastrophic destabilisation in the third world. If you think the refugee crisis is bad now, imagine what it's going to look like when 3-4 billion humans are either forced to flee their country for lack of food and water or stay and die. How well do you think the first world is going to handle billions of starving, desperate refugees - that are going to be blaming the entire crisis on the west, by the way. War, crime and terrorist groups grow from lack of resources, poverty and desperation. The regions with the highest risk have got some of the highest population densities, lowest levels of income and education and next to no ability to adapt, mitigate damage and avoid disasters. This is a really big problem that the first world will most definitiely feel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Famine seems to be the last, the most dreadful resource of nature. The power of population is so superior to the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction; and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague, advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and ten thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow, levels the population with the food of the world.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Famine seems to be the last, the most dreadful resource of nature. Yeah, Malthus was wrong, haha. Yes, 18th century guesswork was wrong in the face of abundant natural resources, a benign climate and human ingenuity and greed. Let's scratch off two of those and see how well we do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Where exactly does Climate Change -> End of Global Trade come from exactly? It surely isn't science based.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Not an end to global trade, but likely a slowdown as energy descent makes transportation more difficult. Until the amazon drones are up and working anyways.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Massasoit posted:Not an end to global trade, but likely a slowdown as energy descent makes transportation more difficult. What thermodynamic world are you living in where trains and ships use more energy per kg/km of good moved than drones?  But seriously, when transportation gets reduced because of global trade it will be low margin, easily replaced goods and personal transportation first. So yeah, maybe Walmart's business model will fail to work in a post Climate Change world if their margins get eaten by rising energy costs and the suburbs make even less sense. But that's not and end of shipments of copper et al across the pacific. Besides, we can accomplish meaningful energy use reduction through efficiency gains alone: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/documents/suca/ee_and_carbon.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Where exactly does When climate change leads to decline of food production in the so-called developing world, their purchasing power will decline, in addition to the usual massively destabilizing effects that famine usually has. How much arable land we're going to lose is very much in the air, but seeing that almost all of possible arable land is already in cultivation, any decrease is going to lead to famine for the percentage of the world population on the starvation line of income. Then again, starvation today is very much a consequence of economics, not of nature. In any case, when people have to spend a larger portion of their income on enough food to survive, their ability to purchase everything else decreases.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Where exactly does It comes from the fact that Climate Change will help destabilize countries and lower standards of living, two things that have negative repercussions on world trade.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
There are already almost 800 million people in the world that are "chronically malnourished." If we lose any amount of arable land at all that number goes up. That's a problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Where exactly does Depression.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Depression. Ah yes, this is what I come to the Climate Change thread for. Pure and unfiltered.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2015 07:31
|
|
|
Pointing out this terrible terrible essay on why capital E ideological ~ecology~ (which even from the description the essay's author gives is only loosely related to the study of organisms and how they interact with their biotic and abiotic environment) I also commented on in the Energy thread.Commentaries on where Political Ecology Went Wrong, Gone Wrong: in which you should wear a helmet in case of sudden urges to slam your head against your desk posted:The ecomodernist manifesto by the ‘post-environmentalist’ think-tank the Breakthrough Institute starts with premises familiar to political ecologists. Earth has become a human planet. There is no wild nature out there. We are part of nature and we constantly transform it. What landscapes we produce, what we conserve and what not, is a matter of choice. Yet most political ecologists, even the most ‘modernist’ among them, would feel uneasy (or so I hope) with the resulting eco-modernist agenda: nuclear power, genetically modified agriculture and climate geo-engineering—and all this in the name of, well, preserving ‘wilderness’… This essay reminds me of the waves Naomi Klein made a while ago with the book on how capitalism is the root of all evil (but especially climate change), and must be weeded out so that the planet can be saved. I've already gone on in the energy thread about how this article is everything that's wrong with the subset of conservationists and sustainability people that views ~decentralisation~ as an intrinsic good and is obsessed with crowing about the evils of  ATOMZ and GMOs for its own sake beyond any perceived risk, and that I think the call for ~simple~ (rural, farming/subsistence farming) lives is terrible beyond words.In the context of the climate change thread, additionally, I think the people insisting on such a As we know (and as people advocating a radical turnaround of society also tirelessly emphasise) we should have implemented all-out climate change mitigation policies already. Giving policy makers, even those who are terrible human beings you secretly wish would throw themselves under a bus cheap and/or easy environmentally friendly policy options is the path of least resistance. Given that we have no more time to waste, if our main goal is protecting the climate and the environment rather than our wet dreams about living on self sufficient farming communes, conservationists should advocate any and all policies likely to lessen human caused environmental damage even if some conservationists would prefer other options in their ideal world - putting the overthrow of capitalism before reducing GHG emissions and land use won't do any good if it the resulting utopian model of society ends up fairly dividing a totally wrecked planet that might be in much better condition if only the glorious revolution had been postponed till after renewables, nuclear power and sustainable farming including use of GMOs became more widespread. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Jul 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2015 21:45
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
I wouldn't go so far as to say revolutionaries need to put off their activism until some indeterminate level of "sustainable" has been achieved, but as someone who works in ecology I don't really have much choice but to fight for incremental changes. There are species that might not last five years without action, and there's literally no way to save them without working through existing systems, and making painful compromises. Of course no matter how many small victories you win it won't matter if we can't put the breaks on climate change. I'd hate to be the budding biologist just beginning a career monitoring cloud forests or alpine tundras. In many places they're just gonna evaporate right off the mountains wiping out countless endemics and there's literally nothing anyone can do about it 
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Pointing out this terrible terrible essay on why capital E ideological ~ecology~ (which even from the description the essay's author gives is only loosely related to the study of organisms and how they interact with their biotic and abiotic environment) I also commented on in the Energy thread. Regardless of that article, some of your points are fine, but honestly I would work on trying to deliver them in a much less obnoxious way. I've read the Klein book, and you are mischaracterizing the discussion by throwing around "ATOMZ," "glorious revolution," "lol hippies," "drugs maaaaan," etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:34 |
|
|
So, other than becoming vegan or vegetarian, what can a regular person do to help slow climate change? Not have children? If, as the OP says, we are far beyond saving, how do we come to terms with that? Got to be honest, it's hard not to become paralyzed by anxiety when looking at just how incredibly screwed we are. (And I don't have much hope that the upcoming summit will do much.) Part of me feels that the only real way to solve some of these problems would be global population control, but that seems both fascist and unfeasible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 04:33
|
|
