|
listen bro based on your own propaganda unless we achieve massive economic degrowth and deindustrialization the world is still gonna turn into a new venus and that itself would kill a huge number of people so since were hosed either way, we might as well try to empower the people who are in the most precarious positions.
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:57 |
|
|
smoke sumthin bitch posted:listen bro based on your own propaganda unless we achieve massive economic degrowth and deindustrialization the world is still gonna turn into a new venus and that itself would kill a huge number of people so since were hosed either way, we might as well try to empower the people who are in the most precarious positions.  Seriously, stop posting in this thread. Not only is it painfully obvious you are trolling, but you are not even trying to argue in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
smoke sumthin bitch posted:listen bro based on your own propaganda unless we achieve massive economic degrowth and deindustrialization the world is still gonna turn into a new venus and that itself would kill a huge number of people so since were hosed either way, we might as well try to empower the people who are in the most precarious positions. we can clearly see how Trump's victory is already starting to affect SA, legitimizing terrible uninformed opinions and shitposting
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
smoke sumthin bitch posted:I live in quebec and we have 2 carbon taxes (provincial and federal) even though every year since the beginning of times we emit a negative amount of co2 in the atmosphere. Were paying out the rear end to offset american and Chinese greenhouse gazes and all the funds are squandered/gifted to huge corporations. "Climate justice" is the biggest ponzi scheme of all time. Among other things, don't let yourself believe for a second that Quebec is anything like carbon neutral. Yes the boreal forests are carbon sinks for now, but wide swaths are going to go up in smoke (literally) over the next couple of decades. If you're going to include forest carbon to claim that Canadians don't need to do anything about climate change then what are you going to say when Canadians become (even moreso) the highest per capita carbon emitters in the world when they start burning down due to climate change? For reference this is one of those positive feedback processes people are so worried about when they say we need to stay under 2C (or less). Unlike most positive feedback processes the impact of global warming on boreal forests is fairly well understood and has already started. The only way to avoid this scenario is for massive cuts in global carbon emissions right now, but good luck with that. edit: You're probably a troll, but a lot of Canadians share this belief and it's worth pointing out why it's dumb and self-defeating. Nocturtle fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Nov 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
smoke sumthin bitch posted:listen bro based on your own propaganda unless we achieve massive economic degrowth and deindustrialization the world is still gonna turn into a new venus and that itself would kill a huge number of people so since were hosed either way, we might as well try to empower the people who are in the most precarious positions. You disingenuous poo poo, like you care about people in precarious positions. That one time you felt like you really connected with that one prostitute during one of your sex tours in some 3rd world country doesn't count. What a surprise that your Grandi-like empathy leads you to the same conclusion as others' FYGM mentality. Super convenient.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
smoke sumthin bitch posted:listen bro based on your own propaganda unless we achieve massive economic degrowth and deindustrialization the world is still gonna turn into a new venus and that itself would kill a huge number of people so since were hosed either way, we might as well try to empower the people who are in the most precarious positions. smoke sumthin bitch posted:all that stuff is cool and good if its being done voluntarily and without subsidies. The problem arises when you force these policies onto the masses. If your problem is with rich elites forcing their policies into effect on the masses, undermining democracy, I agree that is a problem which is why the power of capital needs to be reduced.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Deindustrialization is not necessary. I just talked about how one major way to combat climate change is to create jobs and build things like nuclear power plants--meaning the encouragement of industry. Neither is "degrowth" necessary. Since you seem to be assuming the only way climate change can be stopped is by causing harm, if you can't actually back up that stopping climate change will cause harm (and it doesn't have to; I just showed how solutions to climate change could be extremely beneficial), the rest of your argument isn't supported. carbon taxes are regressive and disproportionately burden the poor. anyone who is barely surviving right now will be wiped out and thats a lot of people. now you'll probably reply that this problem can be solved with wealth transfers! unfortunately knowing the U.N they would probably use that money to build more coal plants. I would be for these things if the money could be sent directly to the people and not wasted/stolen/used to finance what they pretend to be fighting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/allowances/index_en.htm
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Exercise left to reader: Where did I completely misinterpret what was going on?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
smoke sumthin bitch posted:carbon taxes are regressive and disproportionately burden the poor. anyone who is barely surviving right now will be wiped out and thats a lot of people. now you'll probably reply that this problem can be solved with wealth transfers! unfortunately knowing the U.N they would probably use that money to build more coal plants. I would be for these things if the money could be sent directly to the people and not wasted/stolen/used to finance what they pretend to be fighting. I'm also quoting the post so that when you see it, you can't edit this to make it look like you really understood that __ ______ _____ ___ __________, ____ ___ _______ _______.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Also lol if this was the basis of your climate position. The problem really is media -- a lot of people literally don't know how to read what's going on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
smoke sumthin bitch posted:carbon taxes are regressive and disproportionately burden the poor So you're totally on board with a carbon tax as long as low-income taxpayers are subsidized to make up the difference, then?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
Did you want us to just leave you alone so you can fill up the rest of the thread?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I think it's fair to say both can be stupid. D&D just isn't the place to talk about killing yourself, call a suicide hotline or something. An equilibrium our bodies can't handle. An equilibrium that brings about crop failure
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:So you're totally on board with a carbon tax as long as low-income taxpayers are subsidized to make up the difference, then? To be fair Quebec's carbon tax/market doesn't work that way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
I was noodling with the Nature Conservancy's web site and their carbon offsets calculator and according to them, my household produces about 8 tons of CO2 a month, which they invite me to offset by supporting their reforestation efforts at $15/ton. They claim that they're effectively sequestering carbon, taking into account the emissions associated with the project, et cetera. I don't know if that's true -- maybe they just take your money and buy themselves jewels, or maybe their so-called reforestation is just writing checks to landowners, or maybe the entire planet would need to be converted to forest for there to be a meaningful amount of sequestration -- but if it is true, then for about $200 a month my household can be carbon-neutral. If my household is typical, then for every household in the US to be carbon-neutral would cost about $18 billion a year, assuming there's no economy of scale at that point (and that we're not about to run out of land that can be forested). Which sounds like a lot but it's about what the federal government currently spends on agricultural subsidies. For a long time I've assumed that the solution to climate change would have to be some crazy pie-in-the-sky nonexistent technology that hopefully would spring into existence before my son inherits a burned cinder that used to be a planet, but if these back-of-the-envelope calculations are even approximately correct, then the only thing that stands in the way of solving the climate change problem is political will. Which is a big thing, don't get me wrong, but it's fifty million times easier than the literal magic that I thought was going to be necessary before I looked up offsets. The calculator asks how much beef and coal-fired electricity you consume, so I assume there's not a big source of emissions that's being left out of the estimates. Who wants to explain to me why I'm hopelessly wrong and we're all going to die by fire unless we shut down the internet and stop all fossil fuel extraction and go live in caves?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
Your last sentence is correct up to the "unless" part, read the last dozen pages or so to find out why.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:The problem really is media -- a lot of people literally don't know how to read what's going on. the problem really is meds -- the ones he forgot to take
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
You can't really gain meaningful carbon sequestration from forests. Cold area forests don't work at all because they release most of the sequestered carbon back into the atmosphere when the leaves drop and decay. Rainforests work, while they are still maturing. Once the forest is mature is won't take much more carbon because the death rate of old trees and growth of new trees is in equilibrium. If you take away the oceans, deserts, and cold areas there is very little land to reforest and get that one time bonus of trapping carbon into living plants. There are some arguments that the trees naturally sequester a small bit into the ground during their lifetime but the arguments are over the wrong magnitude - maybe a megaton whereas we pump many gigatons into the atmosphere each year.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
Yeah part of the challenge with emissions is that the energy sources we are utilizing are the product of hundreds of thousands or millions of years of natural processes accruing via botanical, zoological and geological phenomena. In 150 years of industrialization we have... Released, whatever word you want to use, literal eons worth of sequestered carbon. It's pretty much impossible to replicate the work of an entire planet done over an incomprehensible length of time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
ModernMajorGeneral posted:Isn't this a bit misleading? This doesn't seem be what the article really says. It is somewhat misleading since the model is based on an RCP8.5 pathway, assuming over 1000ppm CO2e concentration by 2100, continuing to increase at a relatively constant rate. Even without US action, the Paris agreement policies that have come into force will cause our emissions to peak by 2030. So we're likely to avert that scenario, especially since China and India are decarbonizing more quickly than most models projected. While it is true that current CO2 levels are tracking with or slightly above what the RCP8.5 scenario assumes in this year, that doesn't mean they'll stay that way, and the policies being adopted recently ensure that they won't continue tracking like that. In fact, the Global Carbon Project assumes that the low emissions growth in 2014 will continue:  Mind you, we're still screwed - current Paris agreement policies still mean 2.8C warming by 2100 - but please don't freak out just yet. Gamma Nerd fucked around with this message at 05:17 on Nov 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
Ol Standard Retard posted:Yeah, emissions rates are going to go up! For about 15 years yes. But the rates will slow and peak, especially as solar is adopted faster. The US's yearly emissions in a worst-case scenario with Trump (removing CPP, etc.) will still end up below 2005 baseline. And if we pull out of Paris, the plan won't collapse. China has announced that they will continue and even redouble efforts in that case. quote:"Proactively taking action against climate change will improve China's international image and allow it to occupy the moral high ground," Zou Ji, deputy director of the National Centre for Climate Change Strategy and a senior Chinese climate talks negotiator, told Reuters. And anyways, pulling out of Paris will have severe diplomatic consequences. quote:Earlier on Thursday ex-US climate envoy Todd Stern, who dictated State Department policy at these conferences from 2009-2015, told ClimateWire he thought the US would stay involved. Gamma Nerd fucked around with this message at 07:38 on Nov 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
Gamma Nerd posted:For about 15 years yes. But the rates will slow and peak, especially as solar is adopted faster. Are they likely to keep this promise? Would they even be able to with their population/emission rates? This would be one huge relief to come out of this horrifying week if true.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
yellowyams posted:Are they likely to keep this promise? Would they even be able to with their population/emission rates? This would be one huge relief to come out of this horrifying week if true. China would strengthen its geopolitical power greatly by positioning itself as the world leader in renewable energy. The US exiting the Paris pact creates a power vacuum, and considering the scale of the Chinese renewables industry, they are definitely able to step in. It's ironic considering that Trump, who always talks about China being too dominant, would just increase their sway over diplomatic and economic matters if the US exits Paris. Considering the economic benefits of staying in the agreement and the risks to US hegemony of an ascendant China, I have no doubt that there'll be lots of internal pressure from lobbyists and various branches of government to remain involved. As for other large emitters, especially poorer ones like India, the removal of the US's financial involvement will be a hurdle, but they seem to express a desire to continue. In fact, India might be on track to exceed its current NDCs anyways, due to the rapid permeation of solar. Gamma Nerd fucked around with this message at 07:51 on Nov 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 07:43
|
|
|
Gamma Nerd posted:And anyways, pulling out of Paris will have severe diplomatic consequences. Because you want to make a political point, that's why.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 11:06
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
smoke sumthin bitch posted:The best part about trump winning is that well finally see some opposition to the eco-tyranny being pushed by the U.N. The peoples have spoken we don't want micro apartments we dont want to live in car free cities and we dont want to eat insects. Carbon taxes are a death sentence for the third world and trump might actually save millions of lives if he manages to sabotage the Paris agreement. This is a huge step forward for humanity. hey you just got pwned by the  exmarx why didn't you ever post this in the thread, you can't deprive goonkind of such superior artwork
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 11:09
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Alex Steffen's response to the election (everybody should follow Alex Steffen on Twitter). Hey man, dunno why this post was ignored (probably because of trolls and suicide pacts) but this is by far the most sensible response to the Trump election that I have read. Of course the climate doesn't give a gently caress how I feel, but I feel much better. Gonna pass this link around.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 11:11
|
|
|
Well dang.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 13:06
|
|
|
Chadzok posted:Hey man, dunno why this post was ignored (probably because of trolls and suicide pacts) but this is by far the most sensible response to the Trump election that I have read. Of course the climate doesn't give a gently caress how I feel, but I feel much better. Gonna pass this link around. Thanks man  .His point that California, New York, Illinois, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Minnesota and the New England states alone make up roughly half the U.S. economy really resonated with me. These are places where I have roots, know that it would be easy to find allies, and likely would encounter sympathetic local and state politicians. I'm ready to work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 13:43
|
|
|
Gamma Nerd posted:*optimism and hope* Quick, someone post something about how Gamma Nerd is wrong and we're all hosed, because I no longer feel like jumping off a bridge!
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
Inglonias posted:Quick, someone post something about how Gamma Nerd is wrong and we're all hosed, because I no longer feel like jumping off a bridge! I'm probably holding too much hope out on the Paris agreement, whose weaknesses are well-known. But among a lot of countries and non-state actors there's a large amount of willingness to proceed with emissions cuts, no matter the strength or enforcement of the international framework. It's true that the US not chipping in to the GCF would leave a bit of a budget shortfall that other countries appear unwilling to fill, and as such it'd be more difficult for developing countries to pursue low-carbon infrastructure - that's probably my biggest concern right now. I think that that Medium article is a very good synopsis of the current situation, though. Perhaps it's not pessimistic enough but it's still correct that current policies and trends mean that we're probably not going to trigger 6C of warming by 2100. Unless the clathrate gun fires, but I'm doubtful that that'll occur as a single discrete event. Gamma Nerd fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Nov 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
Gamma Nerd posted:I'm probably holding too much hope out on the Paris agreement, whose weaknesses are well-known. But among a lot of countries and non-state actors there's a large amount of willingness to proceed with emissions cuts, no matter the strength or enforcement of the international framework. It's true that the US not chipping in to the GCF would leave a bit of a budget shortfall that other countries appear unwilling to fill, and as such it'd be more difficult for developing countries to pursue low-carbon infrastructure - that's probably my biggest concern right now. He ain't exactly mr sunshine, I assure you. He actually just did a tweet storm that pretty succinctly captures the gist (linking to end so scroll up): https://twitter.com/AlexSteffen/status/797553100059873280
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:He ain't exactly mr sunshine, I assure you. Of course not. Saying that 2C is the absolute best we can hope for ought to be chilling to everyone. But the doomsday scenario of 7C mentioned in the article I linked is, likewise, not going to happen if current coal and renewable trends continue. We're tracking with RCP8.5 right now, but we won't continue doing so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
Inglonias posted:Quick, someone post something about how Gamma Nerd is wrong and we're all hosed, because I no longer feel like jumping off a bridge! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
 itshappening.gif
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
 Are we doomed?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
jesus christ the planet sure went south quickly
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
That's the comically wrong jet stream guy, right? Please tell me this is some kind of comically wrong graph. Because, poo poo, man, I liked polar bears.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
The Waterworld version of Santa's Workshop in future Christmas specials will be interesting. At least for the countries that still manage to grow food.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:57 |
|
|
I would have loved to see the look on Trump's face when his military intelligence briefing told him that climate change is real and that it's a major national security issue and of great strategic importance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 03:27
|
|
