|
Square Peg posted:We stop global warming by releasing less greenhouse gas. We can make public transit better by electrifying it (more electricity), switching to electric cars (more electricity), switch to hydroponic/vertical farming (more electricity), recycle materials rather than just digging it up and throwing it away (way more electricity/energy), etc etc etc. We need more electricity, but we need it from sources that don't produce greenhouse gasses. That means nuclear, with a side of solar/wind. We can coat every building rooftop and parking lot with solar panels and put a windmill on every farmer's field if it makes you feel better, but it will always be a drop in the bucket compared to what we need. And bulldozing half the planet to cover it in solar cells or wind farms hardly seems environmentalist to me. I have not said I'm against the use of nuclear, so I'm not sure why you are responding to me as if I did say that. I'm down with the use of nuclear. And I certainly never said anything about bulldozing anywhere to put up solar cells or wind farms. I guess I'm just tired of solutions that fixate on technological solutions to socio-political problems. Electrifying public transit might reduce emissions, but does it increase access, improve coverage, encourage people to use it more than personal vehicles? Why should car emissions be solved by producing a different product (an electric car) that requires materials, energy inputs etc instead of making a society where people can live and work without needing a personal vehicle? Recycling is great, but is it better to recycle a phone every year or every 5 years? Why use hydroponic farming rather than agroecological methods?
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 23:38 |
|
|
Fukushima did become an ecological disaster even though the effects were nowhere near as widespread as some people predicted they would be. That said, the number of people straight-up drowned by the tsunami was so high and the number of people harmed by the leak so low that it annoys me that people focus on the plant so much. edit: I guess it doesn't help that there is straight-up fearmongering either by conspiracy theorists or people who know exactly what they're doing. I've seen maps of debris (like people's houses and cars and such) washed out into the Pacific relabeled as a map of "radiation" stretching towards North Americans like tendrils; apparently radiation is measured in centimeters now and as a health physicist I was apparently never informed. Also people spreading rumours about people in North America falling over dead while people much closer and even in Japan are just fine because Asians are biologically different somehow apparently. BattleMaster fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Nov 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
JawKnee posted:Such as? I'm assuming your list is going to include transuranics, high development and deployment costs, and? every year the plus column's lead over the negatives gets weaker and weaker as renewables, esp PV, become cheaper and more efficient and economies of scale and institutional adoption work increasingly in their favour. "but baseload", yeah, that'd hold water if renewables that are widely-implementable and which provide reliable supply didnt exist, but they do also The Atoms are actually a totally-legitimate concern that poo-poohing is dumb as poo poo, even if many of the people who focus on that are poorly informed
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
OSI bean dip posted:Tell me oh wise one where and how we're going to reduce our need for energy. Tell me as someone who lives in a western nation that you'll tell the developing world to curb their use of energy so we can be the only people who got to enjoy the luxuries that came with the advent of bountiful energy. We don't need to go looking for ways, nature has that covered for us if we go past what we can sustain as a population. You hit a population limit, then you either hit a demand limit or run out of options to produce more.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
People want to technology their way out of the problem because nobody wants to admit that a big part of the problem is that the first world consumes too much as it is and now it's catching up to us. Even though we now realize that we made a lot of hosed up mistakes that are harming our environment and health nobody has the political or economic will to rectify them. This is made worse by the fact that we can't prevent the rest of the world from trying to achieve what we have, despite knowing on some level that our way of life isn't sustainable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
We need to meet it half way. People (especially in the western world) need to consume less, but we also need to produce more of our power in ways that emit less than coal, oil, and gas do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:People want to technology their way out of the problem because nobody wants to admit that a big part of the problem is that the first world consumes too much as it is and now it's catching up to us. Even though we now realize that we made a lot of hosed up mistakes that are harming our environment and health nobody has the political or economic will to rectify them. This is made worse by the fact that we can't prevent the rest of the world from trying to achieve what we have, despite knowing on some level that our way of life isn't sustainable. Oh. But you see I have this utopian worldview that says that we can just limit population because we're very good at controlling what other groups of people want to do.  The only way we're going to get out of this environmental mess we made is to adapt and control what we can. Trying to curb energy use is not going to work because there are too many forces at play that will dictate how things will go. Climate engineering likely will be what saves us from this mess or it ends up killing us all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Can someone 'splain me why Fukushima is used as a counterargument to the "Chernobyl could never happen again with a modern reactor?" Fukushima was: Like I said, Fukushima was basically a worst of the worst-case scenario situations. It survived the massive earthquake just fine. IF the Generators had been located in a different place, it probably wouldn't have even been all that affected by the tsunami either. One bad design feature hosed it, and PEPCO trying desperately to save the reactors after they realized how hosed they were turned it into a PR nightmare. Chernobyl was soviet.txt. A poo poo design forced into operation because "Hey we may need to make nukes in a hurry in a nuclear war" (like anyone's going to be making anything after a nuclear war) then turning off all the safeties and running the reactor beyond recommended limits as a test, blowing a million tonnes of concrete into the sky and starting a radioactive fire which released about a megaton worth of fallout into the area was originally fought by dudes in helicopters throwing sandbags onto the nuclear fire and becoming instantly sterilized while party apparachiks desperately handwove and said "IT'S NOT THAT BAD THESE THINGS HAPPEN" and only admitting something bad happened when they started picking up massive contamination at a nuclear facility in Sweden.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
OSI bean dip posted:Oh. But you see I have this utopian worldview that says that we can just limit population because we're very good at controlling what other groups of people want to do. Did you learn about carrying capacity in high school? I don't understand why you're trying to turn this into a pie-in-the-sky strawman. I think the last part of your post here is the most likely outcome, so if you could tell me where my viewpoint becomes utopian please do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Duck Rodgers posted:I have not said I'm against the use of nuclear, so I'm not sure why you are responding to me as if I did say that. I'm down with the use of nuclear. And I certainly never said anything about bulldozing anywhere to put up solar cells or wind farms. Energy use will never reduce from current levels on a global scale, and climate change is global problem. I agree with everything you said about making our cities smaller and more efficient and changing our horrifying consumerist ways, but thinking this is a solution to climate change ignores that a very large percentage of the energy used by first world societies is unavoidable without a major decline in living standards. And not "I prefer to live in the country" living standards, "I like to have clean water and not freeze to death" standards. Socio-politically, it's way easier to hit this problem from the supply side than the demand side. Also, it was the shift away from agroecological methods during the green revolution that stopped the world from running out of food (or at least kicked the can down the road), and agroecological/organic farming is an unsustainable luxury. It's going to take a paradigm shift towards hydroponics/vertical farming to keep people fed without either over-saturating our breadbaskets or turning every singly patch of land on the planet into low-yield farms. OSI bean dip posted:People who cite Fukushima think that the radiation would poison the entire Pacific Ocean and weren't aware that what hosed it over was a giant tsunami knocking out the backup diesel generators. Yeah, they tend to think this picture about tsunami energy is about radiation release, because that's what crackpot websites tell them. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
Square Peg posted:Yeah, they tend to think this picture about tsunami energy is about radiation release, because that's what crackpot websites tell them. I saw a version showing distribution of debris that had been washed into the ocean that was also relabeled and passed off as being about radiation. Centimeters of radiation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
To be fair, 70 cm radiation does exist in the form of amateur radio.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:Centimeters of radiation. The Americans are lucky they escaped the radiation by not being on the metric system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
Duck Rodgers posted:I have not said I'm against the use of nuclear, so I'm not sure why you are responding to me as if I did say that. I'm down with the use of nuclear. And I certainly never said anything about bulldozing anywhere to put up solar cells or wind farms. People tend to fixate on technological solutions because, by and large, they're often more pragmatic. Which do you think has a higher chance of happening in our lifetime: switching to a non-emitive power generation source, or re-building our cities/societies from the ground up with these utopian ideals in mind? I dont disagree that we need to reduce consumption across the board, but I straight up doing see it happening on a significant scale anytime soon. Changing the way we generate power is comparatively easy and will have a significant impact on the planet, even if it doesn't preclude the need to re-shape the way we live. Also I was with you until that last sentence. Agroecological methods of food production are a first-world hippie idealization. They dont scale and they're not sufficient to feed the planet's population.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
There's this company in Burnaby called general fusion which is funded by Jeff Bezos which is going to disrupt power generation and create thousands of clean energy jobs so we'll all be able to afford a share of a dormitory to live in
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
M.McFly posted:Also I was with you until that last sentence. Agroecological methods of food production are a first-world hippie idealization. They dont scale and they're not sufficient to feed the planet's population. Bring on GMOs and crops that resist environmental conditions that would otherwise wipe out entire fields.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
OSI bean dip posted:To be fair, 70 cm radiation does exist in the form of amateur radio. that's a fuckload of atoms tbh
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Justin_Ling/status/801818968457678848 🙃🙃🙃🙃🙃
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
Everything's just getting too divisive and expensive and difficult, better just stick with FPTP
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-liberals-voting-rules-1.3863896quote:Bill C-33 includes seven things: Don't read the comments section. Just don't. I mean you shouldn't ever, but especially not here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
uh so apparently donating to build statues of your father while donating to a foundation with his name on it is definitely an activity that is not seeking to influence you when someone is looking for regulatory approval from your government
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
M.McFly posted:People tend to fixate on technological solutions because, by and large, they're often more pragmatic. Which do you think has a higher chance of happening in our lifetime: switching to a non-emitive power generation source, or re-building our cities/societies from the ground up with these utopian ideals in mind? I dont disagree that we need to reduce consumption across the board, but I straight up doing see it happening on a significant scale anytime soon. Changing the way we generate power is comparatively easy and will have a significant impact on the planet, even if it doesn't preclude the need to re-shape the way we live. Technological solutions are easier because they don't threaten capitalism. In fact they might even be good for capitalism. Old car emitting too much? Buy this new electric car! Re-shaping the way we live to do less damage to the environment fundamentally threatens capitalism. Sharing one car among say 20 people is way better for the environment than each person having two of their own. But how many automakers would that put out of business? How many workers laid off? Of course its going to be extremely politically difficult to make those changes. But I believe they are necessary changes to avoid the worst of climate change and other environmental crises we face. Technological changes alone aren't enough. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against technology, but without those other changes technological solutions will reinforce the socio-political structures that are causing climate change and other environmental crises. quote:Also I was with you until that last sentence. Agroecological methods of food production are a first-world hippie idealization. They dont scale and they're not sufficient to feed the planet's population. Via Campesina, the largest organization of peasant farmers, endorses agroecology so it is definitely not a first-world hippie thing. The FAO says that peasant farmers already feed the majority of the worlds population. Agroecology doesn't need to scale, it only needs to continue to improve methods for those peasant farmers. Duck Rodgers fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Nov 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-liberals-voting-rules-1.3863896 those are good changes, especially the one about mandate and pre-registering people to vote... assuming the budget reflects the increased mandate
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-liberals-voting-rules-1.3863896 Have comment sections always been this lovely? I'm not sure if it's just because I'm more conscious of it or if it's actually a cultural shift, but it didn't seem/feel that people were this mean-spirited and underinformed, say, 10ish years ago.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
OSI bean dip posted:Bring on GMOs and crops that resist environmental conditions that would otherwise wipe out entire fields. GMOs that are drought resistant and the like would be great. But governments around the world have been cutting public funding for agricultural research. For instance, the Conservatives in one of their 2012 omnibus bills closed down a research center in Winnipeg that developed crops for prairie farmers. So increasingly, all the research is being funded by private companies. Drought resistant crops don't promise a lot of profits, so they don't get much of that funding. Instead the various biotech companies are much more interested in developing oil crops that can be used to make biofuels. So much for feeding the world. This is why technological solutions aren't enough. We need to make political changes to ensure that technology is developed and applied in a way that is socially and environmentally beneficial.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Duck Rodgers posted:GMOs that are drought resistant and the like would be great. But governments around the world have been cutting public funding for agricultural research. For instance, the Conservatives in one of their 2012 omnibus bills closed down a research center in Winnipeg that developed crops for prairie farmers. So increasingly, all the research is being funded by private companies. Drought resistant crops don't promise a lot of profits, so they don't get much of that funding. Instead the various biotech companies are much more interested in developing oil crops that can be used to make biofuels. So much for feeding the world. This is why technological solutions aren't enough. We need to make political changes to ensure that technology is developed and applied in a way that is socially and environmentally beneficial. You sure do use a whole lot of words to say absolutely nothing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-liberals-voting-rules-1.3863896 CBC Comment posted:Ludicrous. The Liberals want as high of a rate of voter fraud as the US has. In the high-rise apartment I recently lived in, around election time, you could scoop up 50 voter-information cards from the recycling pile after they come out from people who have moved away or don't care. Guess Junior wants someone to vote 50 times — against him! Amazing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
To be fair, referenda are loving terrible ideas because people are idiots and probably shouldn't have direct influence on things. At most, we should trust our elected representatives to come up with a solution, and then ratify extremely important decisions with a simple yes/no referendum. But even that sucks, as we saw in Colombia this year.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
Powershift posted:You sure do use a whole lot of words to say absolutely nothing. True. So does this mean that they're going to implement whatever they want based on the vaguely worded survey that they're going to send out?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Duck Rodgers posted:Technological solutions are easier because they don't threaten capitalism. In fact they might even be good for capitalism. Old car emitting too much? Buy this new electric car! My point was that technological solutions are more likely to get implemented quickly so they're a bit easier to focus on, than say, oh I don't know...eliminating loving capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
M.McFly posted:CBC Comment posted: Dang, if only anyone had actually scooped up those cards and caused a problem we might have a problem!
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
rawrr posted:Have comment sections always been this lovely? I'm not sure if it's just because I'm more conscious of it or if it's actually a cultural shift, but it didn't seem/feel that people were this mean-spirited and underinformed, say, 10ish years ago. Boomers have discovered that they don't need to write letters to the editor anymore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/paulvieira/status/801853479581024257 I'd vote cpc just for this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
M.McFly posted:My point was that technological solutions are more likely to get implemented quickly so they're a bit easier to focus on, than say, oh I don't know...eliminating loving capitalism. Oh yeah I definitely agree. It's just that I think that it's not enough. Better than nothing for sure, it will kick the can down the road a bit at least.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
namaste faggots posted:I'd vote cpc just for this. I'd vouch for you so you could vote twice
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Weird that Bernier has a less libertarian position on the CBC than Leitch.quote:CBC/Radio-Canada has the widest network of journalists and correspondents across the country. That’s one of its unique qualities. Yet, over the past couple of years, when it had to adjust to a smaller budget, it cut back on its regional stations and concentrated more resources in the big towers in Toronto and Montreal instead. It should have done the opposite. Canadians don’t want to see their world only through the eyes of Toronto or Montreal. (Also: christ, everything on Bernier's website is obviously translated from French and has weird, awkward syntax. I'm upset.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
The comments on any version of the Queen's University costume party are a vomit inducing experience. Also dismantle the CBC in large cities, get rid of the National and have them focus on areas that don't normally get coverage because private corporations can't be arsed. Then use the extra money to create a private/public media fund like the NPR in the states.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:Weird that Bernier has a less libertarian position on the CBC than Leitch. Bernier's came first and could sound to the layman as though it's a reasonable measure to make the media landscape more free market. Leitch's response came second and had to be positioned differently than her competitor and she decided to go for that right-wing red meat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
I'd love to punch anyone who votes to remove the CBC in the back of the head.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 23:38 |
|
|
Oh yeah who will promote Canadian culture otherwise. Good point
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 19:47
|
|