|
Squalid posted:Reducing emissions is a moral hazzard? You guys should stop and listen to yourselves for a second, you aren't making any drat sense. Using it as an excuse to not do any of the things that absolutely need to be done to make things stop getting worse is the hazard. Thinking it's enough. Especially when you're not even doing it. Pursuing a carbon capture first policy absolutely requires emissions reduction. As we've recently had demonstrated, any emissions first policy absolutely depends on carbon capture "just magically happening on its own". Forever_Peace posted:Cool. I literally just posted a paper from Science that discusses the moral hazard of Carbon capture reliance on exhaustive detail. But hey, maybe they'd be interested in hearing your You posted a paper from Science that made it abundantly clear that even the most extreme emissions reductions plan rely on carbon capture to be successful in meeting their not particularly ambitious, and used that as an excuse for why we shouldn't be pursuing or prioritizing carbon capture. This has nothing to do with climate scientists being idiots, and everything to do with policy makers being incapable of simple logic when the outcome involves a truth they don't like to think about.
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 22:26 |
|
|
Squalid posted:What Yeah, to be fair I guess it shouldn't be surprising that someone is sanguine about GCC if they're pro-coal at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Look up-thread at folks who talk big about climate activism but go denialist when faced with the statement that not having children is the biggest singular thing they can achieve in their lifetimes to reduce their carbon footprint. Or at a societal level for a polity to impose restrictions on reproductive rights. The one child policy in China, now dead, is probably the single government policy that has had the most impact on climate change. This is the same garbage everyone else is shoveling but ten times worse. You're suggesting reducing our industrial capacity, aging our population, introducing conflict and instability as a way to... slow down how badly things get worse. Like, not even as part of a proposal to make things stop getting worse at any point in the future. Please, explain to me how population reduction, even at the levels you're proposing, is going to lead to any sort of improvement. Because reducing everyone to having super lovely lives seems to be a good way to make them unconcerned with long term consequences and seems like an easy way to make things worse, imo. Your "plan" is basically "commit mass murder, if their are less people then... uh... maybe the problem will fix itself?". That's pretty bad. Trabisnikof posted:More like I'd rather play Russian Roulette with 2 bullets in the revolver instead of 6. If we're going to keep playing every night, you're suggesting we priotize reducing the number of bullets from three to two might be appealing as a short term improvement, but is also kind of worthless if "putting the gun down" isn't at least a serious, major part of the plan. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 01:30 on Oct 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
Equivocating family planning/one-child policy analogue to 'mass murder' kinda says it all
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Equivocating family planning/one-child policy analogue to 'mass murder' kinda says it all Your proposal was "limited nuclear exchange and population control". I quote: shrike82 posted:i think stuff like limited nuclear exchanges and reproductive limits are more realistic solutions If you want to withdraw that and just talk population control then feel free to ignore the criticisms of the first half and focus on the criticisms of the second. Squalid posted:What If he'd said "pro-natural-gas" he might have had a point (a bad one), but he botched even that. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 01:37 on Oct 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
I'm not in favor of nuclear conflict but I think there's more than an even chance of a limited exchange or conventional conflict between China/India and China/Russia this century due to climate issues, not to mention the Middle East becoming uninhabitable due to rising temperatures. The reduction in population won't be a bad thing from a carbon emissions standpoint.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Using it as an excuse to not do any of the things that absolutely need to be done to make things stop getting worse is the hazard. Thinking it's enough. Especially when you're not even doing it. Ooh I get it now, you're saying excess focus on carbon mitigation is a problem because it is more important to focus on removing and sequestering carbon from the atmosphere, right? I mean yeah obviously if we could develop new effective carbon capture systems it would be great. But mitigation is much easier for obvious reasons and therefore offers greater potential for staving off the highest near-term climate projections. Remember there is some natural sequestration that goes on. More important to protect forests that stand today than plant new ones tomorrow, imo. I think it is a fair and practical to emphasize mitigation, but it is certainly arguable. I'd rather focus on what is known to be possible and effective today however. shrike82 posted:Yeah, to be fair I guess it shouldn't be surprising that someone is sanguine about GCC if they're pro-coal at the same time. Trabisnikof is extremely anti-coal, like loving half his posts in this thread are about eliminating the use of coal, or describing the decline of coal powered electric generation. What are you trying to say?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Ooh I get it now, you're saying excess focus on carbon mitigation is a problem because it is more important to focus on removing and sequestering carbon from the atmosphere, right? Yes, exactly! I'm sorry if I wasn't being clear about that, but that's what I'm saying. Both are important, but sequestration could at least hypothetically succeed without emission reduction - while emission reduction is apparently guaranteed to fail without sequestration even in our most optimistic estimates... and ultimately relies on forcing other people to make sacrifices, while sequestration only requires us to ask sacrifices of ourselves. (Obviously, a policy where we commit significant resources to both, simultaneously, is optimal) Forever_Peace using that to somehow conclude we should not pursue sequestration in any meaningful way beyond praying someone else lucks into solving the problem for us seems like insanity to me. quote:I mean yeah obviously if we could develop new effective carbon capture systems it would be great. But mitigation is much easier for obvious reasons and therefore offers greater potential for staving off the highest near-term climate projections. Remember there is some natural sequestration that goes on. More important to protect forests that stand today than plant new ones tomorrow, imo. I think it is a fair and practical to emphasize mitigation, but it is certainly arguable. I'd rather focus on what is known to be possible and effective today however. As far as I can tell, maybe I'm wrong but no one in this thread has indicated otherwise yet, so as far as I can tell there is no path to mitigation success without some sort of sequestration ability well beyond the natural level. It is at best a delaying tactic. We still need to pursue it, but without developing sequestration technology and application at least to a certain minimum level it is at best a bandaid. It is impossible to obtain our targets through emission reduction alone, and while emission reduction will ultimately be a key part of reducing total atmospheric carbon, it can never be anything but a part and ignoring that reality in favour of pursuing an emission-exclusive strategy is a bad thing. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 01:50 on Oct 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
We should try everything that doesn't infringe on some basic human right, the resources are certainly available
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
Okay I think we agree on the most important things Glyphgryph, however I don't think even the most successful carbon sequestration scheme could ever work without emission reduction. It just doesn't conceivable to me that the physics or economics of it could work, it will always be easier to release carbon than it is to package it up and store it somewhere, there's no way to make sequestration literally free. Therefore preventing emissions should be more efficient than sequestration. However of course we should pursue research and continue trying to develop more efficient methods, and promote current practical sequestration activity like reforestation. Unfortunately there aren't a whole lot of paths towards succeeding in our climate mitigation goals, period. Still every bit helps!
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
Banana Man posted:We should try everything that doesn't infringe on some basic human right, the resources are certainly available And if it can't be done without infringing on rights? Do we just let ourselves commit climate suicide? I'm hoping for a better answer then "of course we have the resources to do it without infringing on rights" (because if we believe really really really hard.....)
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Not to dismiss this possibility which is real and frightening, but last time I checked there was a lot of uncertainty regarding climate feedback loops. The truth is we don't really know exactly how the climate will react, which is one reason why it's so important to keep carbon concentrations as low as possible, we don't really know where the limit is before something catastrophic happens. I'm not as well versed in the science as I should be because I find it incredibly depressing but from what I understand, the risk is all trending upward, right? That is, the uncertainty isn't that we're wrong and have more time, the uncertainty is that we're wrong and we have less time. As I understand it, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Bishounen Bonanza posted:And if it can't be done without infringing on rights? Do we just let ourselves commit climate suicide? I guess maybe the more important question are what rights would you would be comfortable infringing upon to prevent it? There's a vast spectrum in sacrifices that can be made on a macro scale to accomplish lessening the severity before it resorts to something more horrifying.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
I've tried to get more up to date on this thread, but one thing I haven't seen discussed is the consumption of animal products as one of the drivers of climate change. I'm assuming that's because of an almost complete lack of political will, ingrained cultures of eating meat and cheese and eggs and all? It seems to me like climate change has a lot of complex problems with difficult solutions, but switching towards plant based diets in mass is a relatively simple (partial of course) solution to emissions. Feel free to poo poo on that. I'm sure I'm missing something. It just seems like more environmentalists would be talking up the benefits of dropping animal profits. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:As far as I can tell, maybe I'm wrong but no one in this thread has indicated otherwise yet, so as far as I can tell there is no path to mitigation success without some sort of sequestration ability well beyond the natural level. It is at best a delaying tactic. We still need to pursue it, but without developing sequestration technology and application at least to a certain minimum level it is at best a bandaid. It is impossible to obtain our targets through emission reduction alone, and while emission reduction will ultimately be a key part of reducing total atmospheric carbon, it can never be anything but a part and ignoring that reality in favour of pursuing an emission-exclusive strategy is a bad thing. Just to be clear, I don't think anyone in this thread is saying that CCS is bad and shouldn't be pursued. The reason that we're skeptical is that wide scale adoption is perpetually ten years away, and at this point we really needed it to be a mature technology several decades ago. It's almost certainly going to need to be a core component of our future plans, but for now emissions reduction is absolutely necessary if we want to reduce the amount of harm that climate change will cause in the near term.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
its no big deal posted:I've tried to get more up to date on this thread, but one thing I haven't seen discussed is the consumption of animal products as one of the drivers of climate change. Part of the reasons in addition to the ones you listed, why we don't talk about food changes to mitigate climate change is that agricultural emissions are harder to track and model than transportation or electricity. So the research at all stages is slightly less developed because of those challenges.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
iirc it was sort of discussed a while ago and people were advocating for eating less than a maintenance amount of protein sooo
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
its no big deal posted:I'm assuming that's because of an almost complete lack of political will, ingrained cultures of eating meat and cheese and eggs and all? It seems to me like climate change has a lot of complex problems with difficult solutions, but switching towards plant based diets in mass is a relatively simple (partial of course) solution to emissions. You're not wrong, as in, its a substantial source of GHG's. Of all sources of carbon its probably the hardest to tackle because of cultural reasons and demanding a change in people's life styles, that is to say, there is much more low hanging fruit. Moving from fossil fuel electricity to non carbon electricity doesn't actually demand a change to people lifestyles and certainly nothing as personal as our diets. Electricity is probably an infinitely easier problem to solve on a societal level and we find that horrifically difficult. Then you get people (me included) who view our huge dependence on carbohydrates, grains/cereals as actually unhealthy and animal products as actually, pretty drat healthy. There is actually a lot of science to support this but that's another controversial topic for another controversial thread. I don't own a car and cycle or PT everywhere. I will happily pay for more expensive non carbon electricity. I will compromise on thermal comfort. But if you want to try and take my steak and eggs away from me, we are going to have to have some very serious words. EDIT: I would certainly compromise on diet. But not until we at least sort this coal and car nonsense out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:there is much more low hanging fruit. Moving from fossil fuel electricity to non carbon electricity doesn't actually demand a change to people lifestyles and certainly nothing as personal as our diets. Electricity is probably an infinitely easier problem to solve on a societal level and we find that horrifically difficult. I think this answers my question about as well as anything. Switching to non carbon electricity does have pretty straightforward solutions as well, in at least we know what we can do. And as you say, no lifestyle change. Or at least not for plenty of people. I've met others who I don't think would make it to work if they couldn't step out their door and into their car to drive straight to the door of their office. As you say also, no need for a derail or anything on nutrition or diet from a health stand point. Thanks. Sobering reality of things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
Factory farming insects seems pretty promising
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
Banana Man posted:iirc it was sort of discussed a while ago and people were advocating for eating less than a maintenance amount of protein sooo No. Nobody has said that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:You're not wrong, as in, its a substantial source of GHG's. Of all sources of carbon its probably the hardest to tackle because of cultural reasons and demanding a change in people's life styles, that is to say, there is much more low hanging fruit. Moving from fossil fuel electricity to non carbon electricity doesn't actually demand a change to people lifestyles and certainly nothing as personal as our diets. Electricity is probably an infinitely easier problem to solve on a societal level and we find that horrifically difficult. You don't tackle any source of emissions by just tut-tutting individuals and trying to reason them into changing their behavior. Nobodies should have their steak and eggs taken away from them. Of course the incentive structures that lead to persons habitually eating steak and eggs for breakfast, that's what you target. Of course there are a lot of entrenched interests capable of stymieing any such effort, but I don't anybody here is under the illusion agricultural policy is driven by rationality.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:No. Nobody has said that. It was definitely said a thread or two ago, back when arkane posted extremely frequently in it Banana Man fucked around with this message at 08:47 on Oct 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 08:45
|
|
|
Penisaurus Sex posted:I mean sure, it's a good thing. I don't disagree. If someone can help me understand, it seems rich countries browbeating and enticing leaders of poor countries to give up resources(their citizens in this case) is the norm isn't it? and one of the largest factor causing climate change? What sacrifice are rich countries giving up here? will they ever sacrifice anything? i am sure the rich liberals will pat themselves on the back for this, and fly 1st class back home.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 13:51
|
|
|
We are past the point of return if all the crap i read is right, the political theater of hundreds of competing nations will never resolve this.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 13:59
|
|
|
its no big deal posted:I've tried to get more up to date on this thread, but one thing I haven't seen discussed is the consumption of animal products as one of the drivers of climate change. Yeah switching to more plant-based diets would likely be a significantly lower-emission route. I've personally eliminated lunchmeat from my diet a few months ago and eat vegetarian 4-5 nights a week, mostly due to climate concerns. (Still love a good steak now and then, though) The meat industry has done something really smart, though: they've managed to integrate meat consumption into our modern concepts of masculinity. There's a large segment of the American population that perceives vegetarians as "pussies" and reacts hysterically (or even aggressively) to suggestions that maybe they should put down the hamburgers sometimes. Thanks, capitalism. a whole buncha crows posted:We are past the point of return if all the crap i read is right, the political theater of hundreds of competing nations will never resolve this. You're the problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 14:14
|
|
|
We are past the point of no return i thought that was scientific fact at this point, if we stopped all emissions immediately we would still be in dire straights, sure meat consumption and the sexual commodification of meat products are important as livestock have a huge impact but its all pissing into the wind at this point unless a decade ago all emissions stopped.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
a whole buncha crows posted:We are past the point of no return i thought that was scientific fact at this point, if we stopped all emissions immediately we would still be in dire straights, sure meat consumption and the sexual commodification of meat products are important as livestock have a huge impact but its all pissing into the wind at this point unless a decade ago all emissions stopped. Yes we've "locked in" about 1-1.5 C of warming over the next century even if emissions stopped today, yes that's bad, no we're not "past the point of no return", no reducing emissions now as fast as we can is not "pissing into the wind". FFS we need to make a steamcycle dot jpeg, but for people who meander into the climate thread, read nothing, and proclaim the ignorance and futility of the sheeple. For content, here is a discussion of how the meat industry exploits toxic masculinity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 14:33
|
|
|
a whole buncha crows posted:We are past the point of no return i thought that was scientific fact at this point, if we stopped all emissions immediately we would still be in dire straights, sure meat consumption and the sexual commodification of meat products are important as livestock have a huge impact but its all pissing into the wind at this point unless a decade ago all emissions stopped. The amount of warming that we've already locked in is bad, but it can get much, much worse. This is a problem that's effectively unbounded in terms of how bad things can get if we just continue with business as usual indefinitely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
I have read this thread all the way since it was posted and the last one, just because i don't post much doesn't mean i lack understanding. We are not stopping emissions and the third world is ever increasing emissions not to mention compounding knowns and unknowns, show me emissions ending in a decade, even two and i will stow the 'alarmist' facts.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Yes we've "locked in" about 1-1.5 C of warming over the next century even if emissions stopped today, yes that's bad, no we're not "past the point of no return", no reducing emissions now as fast as we can is not "pissing into the wind". My understanding is that we're already locked into more than that and that a 2C target is not only unreachable but itself too high for safety. As mass migration, agricultural collapse and famine, and extreme weather events occur with increasing severity and frequency, the world's ability to coordinate and invest in mitigation will be reduced. It's certainly pessimistic and probably not completely accurate to say we're past the point of no return, however one defines that, but if I were personally betting on the outcome, seeing the way countries and industry have handled this so far, seeing the way the EU is handling the migration crisis, seeing the way this topic hardly spoken of on the campaign trail, and applying a little imagination to the scientific reports (really, just visualizing what these effects would look like,) I would bet that we are going to fail as a species. Obviously there are no winners as a result of that and this isn't a helpful perspective to take - it can always be worse so don't tempt fate and do what you can - but if we're having an honest debate here, well, that's my perspective.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
a whole buncha crows posted:sexual commodification of meat products explain
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
a whole buncha crows posted:We are past the point of return if all the crap i read is right, the political theater of hundreds of competing nations will never resolve this. It's not correct to say climate change is unsolvable by the current international political framework. It's correct to point out that by the time the international community agrees to a coordinated plan a dangerous amount of warming will be inevitable (barring magic climate capture technology). The tragedy is that in current politics exploiting a crisis is the easiest way to push drastic reforms, but with global warming by the time the crisis occurs the damage is irreversible. Not to contribute to the depressive tone of this thread, but in retrospect the UNFCCC/Kyoto protocols was an acid test of our collective political leadership. The scientific consensus had developed by the early 90s, and at that point serious action could conceivably have kept global warming below 2C. Obviously this didn't happen. We have to make the best of our present situation, but unfortunately we still have largely the same leadership and institutions that failed to take action when needed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Part of the reasons in addition to the ones you listed, why we don't talk about food changes to mitigate climate change is that agricultural emissions are harder to track and model than transportation or electricity. So the research at all stages is slightly less developed because of those challenges. As someone who just finished a degree that integrated a lot of ag emissions measuring: yeah it fuckin sucks and is hard  especially soil carbon cycling, hoo boy.Forever_Peace posted:
As much as people bemoan the actions of individuals as well there is literally nothing stopping a given person from actively choosing to take proactive steps in their life. The futility also reads a lot like that comic that I can't be arsed to dig up where the guy stands up at a convention and says "Whoa whoa, what if we create a better world for nothing??"
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 15:21
|
|
Nocturtle posted:It's not correct to say climate change is unsolvable by the current international political framework. It's correct to point out that by the time the international community agrees to a coordinated plan a dangerous amount of warming will be inevitable (barring magic climate capture technology). The tragedy is that in current politics exploiting a crisis is the easiest way to push drastic reforms, but with global warming by the time the crisis occurs the damage is irreversible. You put it better than i ever could, the alarm has been ringing for so long its become part of the background noise. Salt Fish posted:explain Forever_Peace posted:For content, here is a discussion of how the meat industry exploits toxic masculinity.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 15:22
|
|
Ol Standard Retard posted:As much as people bemoan the actions of individuals as well there is literally nothing stopping a given person from actively choosing to take proactive steps in their life. The futility also reads a lot like that comic that I can't be arsed to dig up where the guy stands up at a convention and says "Whoa whoa, what if we create a better world for nothing??" i've flown around the world some ridiculous number of times, my impact is probably higher than some african provinces.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
Sorry to be depressing, but i think we can all agree the only solution is to stop emissions, unless we are debating that treatise today and acting tomorrow the earth will continue to warm, climate change is one of the few topics you don't need to debate, its a scientific fact not a philosophical dilemma, as is the solution. The question is how do we get the G8 countries to take immediate, drastic global action to stop emissions a decade ago.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
No but you see, we managed to get India and a bunch of other third world countries to promise to reduce their use of AC by an unenforceable treaty by 2045 so we don't need to change our way of life. Our GHG emissions is 10x higher than India per capita? Who cares
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
Ol Standard Retard posted:
Except "not having kids" is the solution on an individual level and that's a non starter
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 22:26 |
|
|
a whole buncha crows posted:Sorry to be depressing, but i think we can all agree the only solution is to stop emissions, unless we are debating that treatise today and acting tomorrow the earth will continue to warm, climate change is one of the few topics you don't need to debate, its a scientific fact not a philosophical dilemma, as is the solution. Stopping emissions won't do anything. There's a 10 year lag on maximum heating from CO2 emissions. The ship has already sailed on this one unfortunately. Once we hit 4C all bets are off, industrialized civilization as we know won't survive and all the treaties in the world won't "reduce harm". The feedback loops have already started, nature has taken over. Like I hate to be a downer, but we've had around 30 years of "if you don't act now *wags finger* it's too late". It's too late. Enjoy the ride.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 17:37
|
|
