Climate Change: Post up your Phd. dissertation, coward

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change: Post up your Phd. dissertation, coward

«‹›410 »

NewForumSoftware: Oct 8, 2016; by Lowtax

a whole buncha crows posted:

The only thing Clinton and co are definitely doing is fracking, pipelines and shale.

don't forget offshore drilling

# ? Oct 26, 2016 17:29

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 16, 2024 00:42

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

a whole buncha crows posted:

The only thing Clinton and co are definitely doing is fracking, pipelines and shale.

So do you think the Clinton position on renewables isn't something she cares about or isn't important?

The idea that the Clinton campaign/administration isn't serious about climate isn't based in fact. Heck even the podesta emails show that the management of the campaign is serious about climate.

# ? Oct 26, 2016 18:09

NewForumSoftware: Oct 8, 2016; by Lowtax

Trabisnikof posted:

The idea that the Clinton campaign/administration isn't serious about climate isn't based in fact.

Define serious

# ? Oct 26, 2016 18:12

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

Trabisnikof posted:

So do you think the Clinton position on renewables isn't something she cares about or isn't important?

The idea that the Clinton campaign/administration isn't serious about climate isn't based in fact. Heck even the podesta emails show that the management of the campaign is serious about climate.

does the stability of the ground you live on count as climate? cause she doesn't seem to care enough about that to stop advocating fracking

lets also remember that fracking was recently shown to leak way more methane than was estimated, which has a nasty effect on global warming, and yet no change in stance on fracking from clinton

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...m=.aa69d122e2de

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/f22a932ee8314c18affd75381c861edf/study-most-sources-methane-hot-spot-are-gas-facilities

Condiv fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Oct 26, 2016

# ? Oct 26, 2016 18:14

Nocturtle: Mar 17, 2007

The adults in the room (ie the Democrats in the US) likely understand the reality of climate change and might even share the outlook of the depressives in this thread. The fact that they're politically constrained to the point that they can't even come out against fracking is a huge part of the problem.

edit: For example Obama definitely understands that climate change is a big problem, but the best he could do is backdoor regulate coal power plants out of existence via the CPP. Unless the House somehow flips in November (it probably won't) Hillary can't do any better. Congress (and the Republicans + Freedom caucus) are a real brick wall in terms of a rapid response to climate change in the US.

Nocturtle fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Oct 26, 2016

# ? Oct 26, 2016 18:20

a whole buncha crows: May 8, 2003; WHEN WE DON'T KNOW WHO TO HATE, WE HATE OURSELVES.-SA USER NATION (AKA ME!)

Trabisnikof posted:

So do you think the Clinton position on renewables isn't something she cares about or isn't important?

The idea that the Clinton campaign/administration isn't serious about climate isn't based in fact. Heck even the podesta emails show that the management of the campaign is serious about climate.

I mean what i said, they are definitely doing those things. If you want to use political posture in an election as political will or blessed be political action i'm not really down for that sort of discussion.

# ? Oct 26, 2016 18:21

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Condiv posted:

does the stability of the ground you live on count as climate? cause she doesn't seem to care enough about that to stop advocating fracking

Just to be technical, it is the waste water injection not the hydrolic fracturing itself that causes induced seismicity. Not every play has as much water in it as in OK and there are other (more expensive) methods of water disposal.

But anyway, Fracing has still helped us to crush coal in the US. And in a post-Clean Power Plan world states will have to keep ratcheting down emissions regardless of how new their gas plants are.

Condiv posted:

lets also remember that fracking was recently shown to leak way more methane than was estimated, which has a nasty effect on global warming, and yet no change in stance on fracking from clinton

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...m=.aa69d122e2de

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/f22a932ee8314c18affd75381c861edf/study-most-sources-methane-hot-spot-are-gas-facilities

This is completely true, but as your links show, methane leakage is something we can regulate better.

quote:

Researchers identified more than 250 sources of a methane hot spot over the Four Corners region of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah. They include gas wells, storage tanks, pipelines and processing plants.

Only a handful were natural seeps from underground formations, and one was a vent from a coal mine, according to researchers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the California Institute of Technology. The findings were published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The study said as much as two-thirds of the methane could be spewing from only about 25 locations.

25 sites could be responsible for 2/3 of methane leaks, so that's something we can figure out and regulate.

# ? Oct 26, 2016 18:24

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

a whole buncha crows posted:

I mean what i said, they are definitely doing those things. If you want to use political posture in an election as political will or blessed be political action i'm not really down for that sort of discussion.

I'm still confused, the Clinton campaign has massive plans for renewables and talks about being pro-nuclear, so why do you claim they are "only" doing pro-fossil fuel stuff?

# ? Oct 26, 2016 18:29

a whole buncha crows: May 8, 2003; WHEN WE DON'T KNOW WHO TO HATE, WE HATE OURSELVES.-SA USER NATION (AKA ME!)

Trabisnikof posted:

so why do you claim they are "only" doing pro-fossil fuel stuff?

i didnt

e: drat dude chill out

a whole buncha crows fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Oct 26, 2016

# ? Oct 26, 2016 18:29

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Trabisnikof posted:

I'm still confused, the Clinton campaign has massive plans for renewables and talks about being pro-nuclear, so why do you claim they are "only" doing pro-fossil fuel stuff?

a whole buncha crows posted:

i didnt

Then what does this post mean?

a whole buncha crows posted:

The only thing Clinton and co are definitely doing is fracking, pipelines and shale.

# ? Oct 26, 2016 18:29

NewForumSoftware: Oct 8, 2016; by Lowtax

Trabisnikof posted:

Then what does this post mean?

It means exactly what it says it means, the only thing we know for sure is that those things are going to happen. Anything else is conjecture

# ? Oct 26, 2016 18:31

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

Trabisnikof posted:

Just to be technical, it is the waste water injection not the hydrolic fracturing itself that causes induced seismicity. Not every play has as much water in it as in OK and there are other (more expensive) methods of water disposal.

But anyway, Fracing has still helped us to crush coal in the US. And in a post-Clean Power Plan world states will have to keep ratcheting down emissions regardless of how new their gas plants are.

i'm aware, but i doubt we can regulate this properly as there are still a lot of people who deny that wwi causes seismicity. petroleum engineers and geologists at my alma mater for example.

quote:

This is completely true, but as your links show, methane leakage is something we can regulate better.

25 sites could be responsible for 2/3 of methane leaks, so that's something we can figure out and regulate.

i expect her to start talking about the methane leaks and scaling them back then, because they're pretty heinous. the best we've got right now is "fracking is good but needs more regulation" which is saying nearly nothing. (please note, by her i mean her adviser during this little debate)

Condiv fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Oct 26, 2016

# ? Oct 26, 2016 18:34

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

NewForumSoftware posted:

It means exactly what it says it means, the only thing we know for sure is that those things are going to happen. Anything else is conjecture

Except solar and wind will keep happening too. Why do we assume the Clinton Administration will approve new pipelines but new solar is conjecture?

Condiv posted:

i'm aware, but i doubt we can regulate this properly as there are still a lot of people who deny that wwi causes seismicity. petroleum engineers and geologists at my alma mater for example.

i expect her to start talking about the methane leaks and scaling them back then, because they're pretty heinous. the best we've got right now is "fracking is good but needs more regulation" which is saying nearly nothing.

"Fracking is good but needs more regulation" is as in to the weeds as one can reasonably expect from a presidential campaign, especially when your opponent is anti-regulation. Like get rid of the EPA levels of anti-regulation.

But listen, when it comes to the lack of climate and energy policy in the national conversation, I'm completely there with you. It is insane how little it gets talked about, but this is clearly an insane year.

# ? Oct 26, 2016 18:41

NewForumSoftware: Oct 8, 2016; by Lowtax

Trabisnikof posted:

Except solar and wind will keep happening too. Why do we assume the Clinton Administration will approve new pipelines but new solar is conjecture?

recorded history, reality, etc

# ? Oct 26, 2016 18:43

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

NewForumSoftware posted:

recorded history, reality, etc

We added 8.6GW of wind and 7.3GW of PV in 2015 in the US, why is it conjecture to assume we will keep installing renewables?

# ? Oct 26, 2016 18:47

NewForumSoftware: Oct 8, 2016; by Lowtax

Trabisnikof posted:

We added 8.6GW of wind in 2015 and 7.3GW of PV, why is it conjecture to assume we will keep installing renewables?

It's not, it's conjecture to claim that the Clinton campaign is "serious" on climate without defining what that even means.

Clinton is the BAU path. Trump is the "gently caress poo poo up more path". There is no choice for "fix the climate" this election. Maybe in 8 years? Surely we can afford to wait.

# ? Oct 26, 2016 18:47

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

NewForumSoftware posted:

It's not, it's conjecture to claim that the Clinton campaign is "serious" on climate without defining what that even means.

Clinton is the BAU path. Trump is the "gently caress poo poo up more path". There is no choice for "fix the climate" this election. Maybe in 8 years? Surely we can afford to wait.

Except that's not was claimed. It was claimed that Clinton will approve a bunch of shale and gas projects but approving solar or wind is "conjecture."

You're right, the Clinton campaign's promises about climate aren't a "solution" but literally no US president can "solve" climate change. It is an international problem.

Now you claim all this is just BAU: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/

But I have a feeling you aren't living in reality if you assume all the pro-climate proposals listed on that page will "just happen" as part of regular business as usual. I will agree that those additional campaign promises are conjecture of course.

# ? Oct 26, 2016 18:53

NewForumSoftware: Oct 8, 2016; by Lowtax

Trabisnikof posted:

Now you claim all this is just BAU: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/

Well no, but I'm not naive enough to believe HRC of all people is beholden to campaign promises.

# ? Oct 26, 2016 18:56

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

NewForumSoftware posted:

Well no, but I'm not naive enough to believe HRC of all people is beholden to campaign promises.

Agreed.

My point is that huge solar and wind installations is now part of BAU. It isn't conjecture to assume more PV will be installed in 2017. This is a good thing! Yay!

And likewise, Clinton has made a bunch of promises that go beyond BAU. It is conjecture if her administration will follow through with any of them.

# ? Oct 26, 2016 19:00

FBS: Apr 27, 2015; The real fun of living wisely is that you get to be smug about it.

edit wrong god drat topic

# ? Oct 26, 2016 19:01

Lemming: Apr 21, 2008

Edit: haha

Edit2: to add some content

NewForumSoftware posted:

Well no, but I'm not naive enough to believe HRC of all people is beholden to campaign promises.

She's got a pretty good voting record on environmental issues and she's heading the most progressive Democratic platform in years. Why do you suppose she's going to do an about face on her campaign promises?

Lemming fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Oct 26, 2016

# ? Oct 26, 2016 19:01

NewForumSoftware: Oct 8, 2016; by Lowtax

Trabisnikof posted:

Agreed.

My point is that huge solar and wind installations is now part of BAU. It isn't conjecture to assume more PV will be installed in 2017. This is a good thing! Yay!

And likewise, Clinton has made a bunch of promises that go beyond BAU. It is conjecture if her administration will follow through with any of them.

It's not a good thing. BAU is the collapse of civilization and death of billions. The fact that we're about to elect a candidate in 2016 who isn't making climate change a central part of their platform should be a red flag, not a cause for celebration.

Just to be clear, I don't blame Clinton for this, it's just the political reality of the situation and the reason we're not stopping climate change.

NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Oct 26, 2016

# ? Oct 26, 2016 19:03

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

NewForumSoftware posted:

It's not a good thing. BAU is the collapse of civilization and death of billions. The fact that we're about to elect a candidate in 2016 who isn't making climate change a central part of their platform should be a red flag, not a cause for celebration.

BAU is an amorphous concept. Eventually, if we don't all die, BAU will mean pro-climate and carbon-negative/neutral. That's the point of shifting regulations. The fact we've shifted BAU to mean no new coal plants in the US and a gently caress ton of renewables is a good thing. We still need to shift BAU a lot lot more, but "BAU == the worst" doesn't hold true as we fix our poo poo.

Also climate change is a central part of both Clinton and the Democratic Party platforms. The public/media just didn't really care. Clinton wove climate change into a few of her debate answers even though 0 questions were asked about the most pressing issue facing our nation and all humanity.

# ? Oct 26, 2016 19:14

NewForumSoftware: Oct 8, 2016; by Lowtax

Trabisnikof posted:

BAU is an amorphous concept.

It's really not, look at the IPCC and look at where our emissions are today.

# ? Oct 26, 2016 19:15

Nocturtle: Mar 17, 2007

It's actually worth going through HRC's campaign promises, with dumb commentary from me:

Defend, implement, and extend smart pollution and efficiency standards, including the Clean Power Plan ...
-This is good and one of the few things the President can do unilaterally.

Launch a $60 billion Clean Energy Challenge to partner with states, cities, and rural communities to cut carbon pollution ...
-How does any new funding get past congress?

Invest in clean energy infrastructure, innovation, manufacturing and workforce development ...
-How does this get past congress?

Ensure safe and responsible energy production. As we transition to a clean energy economy, we must ensure that the fossil fuel production taking place today is safe and responsible ..
-Also a good one and similar to what was done with the CPP ie discourage fossil fuel power generation with targeted regulations

Reform leasing and expand clean energy production on public lands and waters tenfold within a decade.
-Who pays? If expanding clean energy requires additional federal subsidies then how does that get past congress?

Cut the billions of wasteful tax subsidies oil and gas companies have enjoyed for too long and invest in clean energy.
-How does the get past congress?

Cut methane emissions across the economy and put in place strong standards for reducing leaks from both new and existing sources.
-Another regulation based initiative

Revitalize coal communities by supporting locally driven priorities and make them an engine of U.S. economic growth in the 21st century, as they have been for generations...
-The federal govt is heavily constrained in the assistance it can provide to local communities. The state legislatures will continue to be terrible. Expect fierce resistance to fossil fuel measures to continue.

Make environmental justice and climate justice central priorities by setting bold national goals to eliminate lead poisoning ...
-Another regulation based initiative, also promises to keep the lights on at the EPA

Promote conservation and collaborative stewardship. Hillary will keep public lands public, strengthen protections for our natural and cultural resources ...
-This is fine

Basically Hillary's realistic proposals are regulation based (and basically what B.O. is doing already), and promising not to bulldoze national parks or shutter the EPA. This is already much better than anything the Republicans are proposing. She has spending proposals that won't go anywhere unless the composition of congress magically changes. It's not like the President can order nuclear plants and solar farms built unilaterally. Crucially there's absolutely no mention of carbon pricing, one of the few plausible ways to seriously reduce carbon emissions via market forces. This is likely due to political constraints, which is a big problem.

edit:

Trabisnikof posted:

Also climate change is a central part of both Clinton and the Democratic Party platforms. The public/media just didn't really care. Clinton wove climate change into a few of her debate answers even though 0 questions were asked about the most pressing issue facing our nation and all humanity.

I think that's what people here are saying, the Democrats + Clinton can propose whatever they want but Congressional Republicans are a brick wall.

Nocturtle fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Oct 26, 2016

# ? Oct 26, 2016 19:18

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

NewForumSoftware posted:

It's really not, look at the IPCC and look at where our emissions are today.

Like the term means Business as Usual, so it is by definition amorphous. If business as usual changes then BAU changes. So BAU in 2016 isn't the same as predicted 2016 BAU made in 2012.

You cite the IPCC, but if you look at those reports, they are clear that their models of BAU are artifacts in time. Even between report editions BAU shifts as reality shifts.

Do you understand that we put a new regulation into place, BAU changes because of that regulation, right?

# ? Oct 26, 2016 19:19

NewForumSoftware: Oct 8, 2016; by Lowtax

Trabisnikof posted:

Like the term means Business as Usual, so it is by definition amorphous. If business as usual changes then BAU changes. So BAU in 2016 isn't the same as predicted 2016 BAU made in 2012.

Correct, but our emissions have never done anything but be worse than the worst projections given by the IPCC. Given that Hillary Clinton probably isn't going to radically change anything(given both her stated policies and the political realities she's facing), does that bode well for the future. If we're taking a similar approach to what we did for the past eight years, and the past eight years have seen no meaningful progress, how do you continue to convince yourself that the worst case scenarios are not only the most likely, but inevitable. The problem only gets harder to deal with as time goes on, not easier. More expensive, more difficult to take collective action.

# ? Oct 26, 2016 19:23

Paradoxish: Dec 19, 2003; Will you stop going crazy in there?

Nocturtle posted:

I think that's what people here are saying, the Democrats + Clinton can propose whatever they want but Congressional Republicans are a brick wall.

Right, although the problem extends beyond congressional Republicans out to the electorate as a whole. People don't want to pay for climate change in a real way (ie, through taxes) so it's incredibly unlikely that large scale projects will actually get funding even with a Democratic congress. I'm pretty confident that this will change sooner or later, but probably not before people in the US start to realize that their livelihoods are being threatened. Of course, the problem at that point is that we won't be able to do anything to reverse course on a timescale that's meaningful for the people being affected.

# ? Oct 26, 2016 19:34

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Nocturtle posted:

It's actually worth going through HRC's campaign promises, with dumb commentary from me:

Eeee! I love getting into likelihood of specific policies passing

quote:

Defend, implement, and extend smart pollution and efficiency standards, including the Clean Power Plan ...
-This is good and one of the few things the President can do unilaterally.

From what I understand, even if the CPP loses in court the emissions limits aren't actually at risk, only the technology based mechanisms. So hopefully we can keep the CPP.

quote:

Launch a $60 billion Clean Energy Challenge to partner with states, cities, and rural communities to cut carbon pollution ...
-How does any new funding get past congress?

Invest in clean energy infrastructure, innovation, manufacturing and workforce development ...
-How does this get past congress?

Presumably as part of a big clean jobs bill that sends a bunch of money to Republic districts and big businesses. Luckily there are a lot of big businesses who want to build us climate poo poo (Bechtel, GE, Violia, etc).

quote:

Ensure safe and responsible energy production. As we transition to a clean energy economy, we must ensure that the fossil fuel production taking place today is safe and responsible ..
-Also a good one and similar to what was done with the CPP ie discourage fossil fuel power generation with targeted regulations

Reform leasing and expand clean energy production on public lands and waters tenfold within a decade.
-Who pays? If expanding clean energy requires additional federal subsidies then how does that get past congress?

From what I understand the leasing stuff is all regulatory, so they can make producers pay. Likewise, Obama's DoI has already set aside massive (larger than many states) renewable energy production zones in the west.

quote:

Cut the billions of wasteful tax subsidies oil and gas companies have enjoyed for too long and invest in clean energy.
-How does the get past congress?

Presumably this happens like when Obama recently got renewable subsidies passed, by throwing a bone to the O&G industry. I'm not sure what Clinton would use. Obama used lifting the ban on oil exports to trade for extending the renewables tax credit.

quote:

Cut methane emissions across the economy and put in place strong standards for reducing leaks from both new and existing sources.
-Another regulation based initiative

Yeah I bet the EPA is working through new rules on this already too.

quote:

Revitalize coal communities by supporting locally driven priorities and make them an engine of U.S. economic growth in the 21st century, as they have been for generations...
-The federal govt is heavily constrained in the assistance it can provide to local communities. The state legislatures will continue to be terrible. Expect fierce resistance to fossil fuel measures to continue.

This is one of the things they trade for climate justice funds etc. Those are all big conservative areas that need the help bad, so hopefully a deal could be made.

quote:

Make environmental justice and climate justice central priorities by setting bold national goals to eliminate lead poisoning ...
-Another regulation based initiative, also promises to keep the lights on at the EPA

Promote conservation and collaborative stewardship. Hillary will keep public lands public, strengthen protections for our natural and cultural resources ...
-This is fine

This is also the poo poo that helps turn local activists to the same side as national policy.

quote:

Basically Hillary's realistic proposals are regulation based (and basically what B.O. is doing already), and promising not to bulldoze national parks or shutter the EPA. This is already much better than anything the Republicans are proposing. She has spending proposals that won't go anywhere unless the composition of congress magically changes. It's not like the President can order nuclear plants and solar farms built unilaterally. Crucially there's absolutely no mention of carbon pricing, one of the few plausible ways to seriously reduce carbon emissions via market forces. This is likely due to political constraints, which is a big problem.

edit:

I think that's what people here are saying, the Democrats + Clinton can propose whatever they want but Congressional Republicans are a brick wall.

I agree there are many challenges to doing what we have to do in the US. Maybe we could get a binding climate treaty past a super majority of the new senate? Maybe we just have to bribe house republicans with re-labeled pork?

Paradoxish posted:

Right, although the problem extends beyond congressional Republicans out to the electorate as a whole. People don't want to pay for climate change in a real way (ie, through taxes) so it's incredibly unlikely that large scale projects will actually get funding even with a Democratic congress. I'm pretty confident that this will change sooner or later, but probably not before people in the US start to realize that their livelihoods are being threatened. Of course, the problem at that point is that we won't be able to do anything to reverse course on a timescale that's meaningful for the people being affected.

I agree the electorate won't pay for climate justice but they'll let us spend tax dollars on jobs. Lots of jobs to be made in clean energy, clean transit, clean Ag. Jobs building carbon neutral power plants.

I am completely cognizant that I am arguing for the sleeziest way to pass a climate bill, I just think we have to get that dirty to do it.

# ? Oct 26, 2016 19:47

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

Nocturtle posted:

The adults in the room (ie the Democrats in the US) likely understand the reality of climate change and might even share the outlook of the depressives in this thread. The fact that they're politically constrained to the point that they can't even come out against fracking is a huge part of the problem.

edit: For example Obama definitely understands that climate change is a big problem, but the best he could do is backdoor regulate coal power plants out of existence via the CPP. Unless the House somehow flips in November (it probably won't) Hillary can't do any better. Congress (and the Republicans + Freedom caucus) are a real brick wall in terms of a rapid response to climate change in the US.

This.

Bear in mind Obama was the guy who, in response to snowballs in Congress, did an anger management sketch that went dead serious when calling conservatives' behaviour "irresponsible bullsh-"

They care. The process of dragging this county kicking and screaming into renewables is going to be incremental.

# ? Oct 26, 2016 22:39

Paradoxish: Dec 19, 2003; Will you stop going crazy in there?

Trabisnikof posted:

I am completely cognizant that I am arguing for the sleeziest way to pass a climate bill, I just think we have to get that dirty to do it.

You're basically describing a modern PWA on a potentially much larger scale. Maybe I'm just too cynical, but I don't see how something like that has a chance in hell of getting anywhere.

# ? Oct 26, 2016 22:45

AceOfFlames: Oct 9, 2012

Sorry if this is old news but

Potato Salad posted:

No support structure, like, no family? Friends nearby? All fun or human contact on industry-supported appliances?

I think you might be tougher than you think, or maybe not, I don't know, and I don't matter. Pm me any time though.

Can I take this offer in place of that other jerk? I'm in the same situation but sad instead of hostile.

# ? Oct 27, 2016 21:37

call to action: Jun 10, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

Potato Salad posted:

This.

Bear in mind Obama was the guy who, in response to snowballs in Congress, did an anger management sketch that went dead serious when calling conservatives' behaviour "irresponsible bullsh-"

They care. The process of dragging this county kicking and screaming into renewables is going to be incremental.

Perfect example of what a liberal considers progress, right here. The President said a mean word to the people destroying our world.

# ? Oct 28, 2016 20:57

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

AceOfFlames posted:

Sorry if this is old news but

Can I take this offer in place of that other jerk? I'm in the same situation but sad instead of hostile.

Sure thing.

# ? Oct 28, 2016 21:12

Forever_Peace: May 7, 2007; Shoe do do do do do do do Shoe do do do do do do yeah Shoe do do do do do do do Shoe do do do do do do yeah

Mediterranean-focused article on climate impacts on Biome distribution (based on a recent paper in Science).

quote:

�Under the [business-as-usual] scenario, all of southern Spain turns into desert, deciduous forests invade most of the mountains, and Mediterranean vegetation replaces most of the deciduous forests in a large part of the Mediterranean basin,� write the study�s authors.

...

Even under the �moderate� warming scenarios, the model estimates that Mediterranean scrubland will expand and Alpine forests will recede.

Simon Goring, a scientist at the University of Wisconsin, said that the paper convincingly argued that climate change will trigger biome shifts, and not just change how biomes work within their current regions.

�We know there have been short-term changes in climate, but this [21st-century warming] is outside the envelope of any of the current forest biomes in the region,� he told me. This especially applies in the Balkans, where cool mixed forest is forecast to get much warmer. �We�re pushing everything out of that boundary, because the forest can�t tolerate them.�

# ? Nov 1, 2016 17:01

Ferdinand Bardamu: Apr 30, 2013

I lived in the apple producing capital of Europe (Bolzano IT). A couple of the researchers I worked with told me how climate change had already resulted in apple orchards being located at altitudes that have never produced apples in all of agricultural history.

# ? Nov 3, 2016 20:57

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

Forever_Peace posted:

Mediterranean-focused article on climate impacts on Biome distribution (based on a recent paper in Science).

To any biogeography-literate ecologist this is the same as saying water is wet, and the only interesting question is how fast things will shift and whether they'll fall apart on the way.

It's sad how you need to point these basic facts out.

# ? Nov 4, 2016 00:15

Forever_Peace: May 7, 2007; Shoe do do do do do do do Shoe do do do do do do yeah Shoe do do do do do do do Shoe do do do do do do yeah

The fossil-fuel industry is getting more devious.

Florida�s outrageously deceptive solar ballot initiative, explained. "Amendment 1 is a utility scam."

quote:

There�s an initiative on the state ballot this year called Amendment 1. Read casually, it appears to be pro-solar. In fact, it would lock innovative solar companies out of state markets and lead to higher rates and fees for households and businesses that choose to go solar. It would effectively crush the nascent rooftop solar market in the state.

Florida voters love rooftop solar. They have said so repeatedly in polls and surveys. Amendment 1 uses deliberately deceptive language to trick them into doing the opposite of what they want. It�s brazen as hell, a bait-and-switch pulled off right out in the open, and it looks like it�s going to work.

Amendment 1 would do three things, one silly and two malign.

First, it would inscribe in the state constitution the right to own or lease solar panels for personal use. Which is ... fine? Except customers already have that right, by Florida law. They also have the right to own a toaster or lease a car, no toaster- or car-specific constitutional amendments needed. This provision exists solely to give voters the impression that they�re supporting rooftop solar.

Second, though it doesn�t say so in the ballot language, it would preserve the total monopoly that investor-owned utilities currently have on rooftop solar in the state, locking out private competitors. (As we shall see later, an alternative initiative would have done away with the utility monopoly, but it didn�t make the ballot.)

Third and most deviously, it would create "constitutional protection for any state or local law ensuring that residents who do not produce solar energy can abstain from subsidizing its production." What this means in English is that utilities will have a constitutional basis to challenge any policy that they think unfairly favors solar power.

...

The utilities are top political donors in Florida. Since 2004, the state's four largest [investor-owned utilities] contributed at least $18 million to state politicians and political committees � a preponderance to Republicans, who now control state government. In addition, since 2007, the companies spent at least $12 million on lobbying, employing an average of one lobbyist for every two legislators in Tallahassee. "They've got a pretty good harness on the whole deal up there," says [ex-governor Charlie] Crist.

...

Florida�s utilities are grudgingly building some big solar power plants, but they want nothing to do with distributed energy. The state ranks third in the nation in potential for rooftop solar but 14th in installed capacity.

Third-party companies offer power purchase agreements (PPAs), solar leasing, and other financing mechanisms that have helped reduce the upfront costs of distributed solar and spur the market in other states. Without those tools, in Florida, only wealthy customers who can afford the full upfront cost of panels have them.

With the legislature captured by utilities, the only way to loosen their grip on solar is through direct democracy at the ballot box.

So last year, a coalition led by the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) attempted to get a "Solar Choice" initiative on the ballot, which would have amended the state constitution to end the utilities� monopoly on retail electricity sales. It would allow third-party competitors to offer PPAs, solar leasing, and all the other tools that have expanded the rooftop solar markets in other states.

The coalition included both environmental and conservative "green tea" groups, which sensibly objected to state-sponsored monopolies preventing private market competition.

The coalition set about trying to gather the almost 700,000 signatures needed to get on the Florida ballot � an extremely expensive proposition in the best of circumstances.

With the Solar Choice measure polling at 70 percent, utilities freaked out. Then, like the Grinch who stole Christmas, they had a wonderful, awful idea.

Rather than oppose the Solar Choice measure, they created a fake grassroots group (Consumers for Smart Solar, which is entirely funded by utilities and right-wing advocacy groups) and started pushing their own ballot measure. Using the happy language of "rights" and "choice," the "Smart Solar" initiative would lock in the utility death grip on distributed solar.

Consumers for Smart Solar set about burying the Solar Choice effort under a tide of utility money.

...

By outspending the grassroots efforts and confusing voters, utilities were able to keep the Solar Choice initiative off the ballot. And by then, they had such a head of steam they figured they should lock it in. So they kept gathering signatures and got the Smart Solar initiative on the ballot. That�s Amendment 1.

Utilities know their pro-solar messaging is deceptive. Sal Nuzzo, the policy director of a conservative, Koch-funded, utility-backed Florida think tank, the James Madison Institute, more or less conceded as much at an industry conference recently. He told the assembled utility execs that the Smart Solar amendment was "incredibly savvy," that they should learn from it that "solar polls very well," and that they should "use a little bit of political jiu-jitsu" by adopting "the language of promoting solar."

Utilities are using pro-solar language to trick voters into supporting monopolies that are slow-walking solar. Voters would absolutely oppose the intent of the measure if it were stated clearly. Utilities know this. Everyone who has followed the issue knows this. Nonetheless, in March, the Florida Supreme Court ruled � in a 4-3 decision, with all four Republican-appointed justices voting on the side of utilities � that it was not deceptive. (Advocates recently a motion to reopen the case.)

So now, instead of the pro-solar measure that they want and probably still think they�re getting, Florida voters will confront a confusingly worded, vaguely pro-solar-sounding measure that would lock the state�s utilities in the stone ages.

...

If it does pass, Florida utilities will have pulled off one of the most shameless, bald-faced cons in political memory, exploiting voter fondness for solar power to protect a monopoly incumbent against cleaner, more nimble competitors.

Ballotpedia page on the amendment

# ? Nov 4, 2016 14:39

TildeATH: Oct 21, 2010; by Lowtax

Any good research papers on the role of climate change in recent conflict in the Middle East and North Africa?

# ? Nov 4, 2016 16:15

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 16, 2024 00:42

Forever_Peace: May 7, 2007; Shoe do do do do do do do Shoe do do do do do do yeah Shoe do do do do do do do Shoe do do do do do do yeah

TildeATH posted:

Any good research papers on the role of climate change in recent conflict in the Middle East and North Africa?

The "Trump is a demagogue of the anthropocene" article I posted a week or two ago reviews some of this academic research iirc. Phoneposting or I'd grab it for ya. Could be a jumping off point.

# ? Nov 4, 2016 16:24

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change: Post up your Phd. dissertation, coward

«‹›410 »