|
yaffle posted:Is there a website/study that details what a carbon neutral humanity would have to look like? If all seven billion people had the same resources/lifestyle and we weren't going to gently caress up the future in any catastrophic way, what would our lives be like? Preferably one that doesn't presume fusion power or asteroid mining or any such other currently only-in-Elon-Musk's-head type tech. This is probably the best thing I've found on the issue: https://www.withouthotair.com/ It's perfectly possible with current technology to use nuclear, wind, and/or solar energy to be carbon neutral. It's a political and economic question of allocating resources for it.
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 09:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 14:03 |
|
|
yaffle posted:Is there a website/study that details what a carbon neutral humanity would have to look like? If all seven billion people had the same resources/lifestyle and we weren't going to gently caress up the future in any catastrophic way, what would our lives be like? Preferably one that doesn't presume fusion power or asteroid mining or any such other currently only-in-Elon-Musk's-head type tech. Going full nuclear, and using electric vehicles gets us most of the way with literally almost no impact on how we actually live. Had we started on this route 15 years ago....
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 09:38
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:People are thrilled to make sacrifices when given a shared goal and a strong leader. This is 100% a failure of our leadership system. Look at Kennedy or Churchill or Hitler promising toil and service to cheering crowds. We could be fixing this right now. Your idea is laudable, but your examples are oddly bonkers, considering that Kennedy got shot, Churchill booted from office the day the war was over, and Hitler committed suicide. That's uh, not the way we want this going in this case, or the environment ends even more hosed afterwards.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 14:02
|
|
|
The problem needs to be solved technologically, in an astonishing way that benefits people, without a huge amount of material sacrifice, otherwise, even if everyone were to become low-tech subsistence farmers, all it would take is some rear end in a top hat running for office saying "Hey, let's start burning coal and oil again and go back to the good times!" Hell, that's what just happened even without any initial positive change beforehand.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 14:18
|
|
|
imagine if bangladeshi agents just started dropping tree branches on the right transmissions lines, and driving drone-boat barrel-bombs into oil tankers in the straights of hormuz and malacca
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:imagine if bangladeshi agents just started dropping tree branches on the right transmissions lines, and driving drone-boat barrel-bombs into oil tankers in the straights of hormuz and malacca Stop I can only get so hard
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 15:05
|
|
|
New interview on the folks who put together the 100 best evidenced ways to address and mitigate climate change.quote:The number one solution, in terms of potential impact? A combination of educating girls and family planning, which together could reduce 120 gigatons of CO2-equivalent by 2050 — more than on- and offshore wind power combined (99 GT).
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Your idea is laudable, but your examples are oddly bonkers, considering that Kennedy got shot, Churchill booted from office the day the war was over, and Hitler committed suicide. You guys really are broken if you think three of the most popular politicians of the 20th century aren't examples of leaders who could mobilize people to combat climate change. Do you have any idea how many jobs a green revolution would represent? People would absolutely get on board and forget/ignore that they ever believed Republican lies about the economy once infrastructure money rolled out to the whole country. Hell even a bad and wasteful wave of infrastructure spending buys public opinion for a few years. You can see it with the AHCA; people aren't so dumb that they can't see impacts in their own lives but they have to actually see it to be convinced. Once they see it only die-hard partisans will remain convinced that health care/clean energy are damaging. This is a failure of leadership.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
Orions Lord posted:One of the questions should be if global warning would pose a threat to your children's lifetime. One of the questions should have been "Why the gently caress were you so dumb for so long?"
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:You guys really are broken if you think three of the most popular politicians of the 20th century aren't examples of leaders who could mobilize people to combat climate change. Do you have any idea how many jobs a green revolution would represent? People would absolutely get on board and forget/ignore that they ever believed Republican lies about the economy once infrastructure money rolled out to the whole country. Hell even a bad and wasteful wave of infrastructure spending buys public opinion for a few years. Yep! Especially when posters on a sub-forum of a comedy site make more compelling arguments for systemic change than almost all politicians. Our leaders are paid to NOT disrupt the current system; they're paid to manage it. https://soundcloud.com/chapo-trap-house/episode-65-teaser-the-brutal-question
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:You guys really are broken if you think three of the most popular politicians of the 20th century aren't examples of leaders who could mobilize people to combat climate change. Do you have any idea how many jobs a green revolution would represent? People would absolutely get on board and forget/ignore that they ever believed Republican lies about the economy once infrastructure money rolled out to the whole country. Hell even a bad and wasteful wave of infrastructure spending buys public opinion for a few years. More like a failure of trolling. But if you're serious, try again next time with better examples. Hell, replace Hitler with Stalin and Churchill with Mao, and I could almost believe you
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:The problem needs to be solved technologically, in an astonishing way that benefits people, without a huge amount of material sacrifice, otherwise, even if everyone were to become low-tech subsistence farmers, all it would take is some rear end in a top hat running for office saying "Hey, let's start burning coal and oil again and go back to the good times!" Hell, that's what just happened even without any initial positive change beforehand. This thread goes around and around on this issue, but no, there isn't going to be a technological "solution" because it isn't really possible for there to be one. We have to both reduce emissions and eventually pull carbon back out of the atmosphere. The latter will be done with technology, but it's going to be incredibly expensive. The former will be done through technology and social change, both of which are also going to be costly. If we aren't willing to pay those costs and make those sacrifices, then we'll pay them later when we're forced to deal with the consequences of our inaction.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
Once we get the proper carbon sinking technology well be able to suck all the co2 out of the atmosphere. We wont have to slow anything down or reduce emmissions. And only then will we find out if CO2 is really responsible for climate change.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
Libluini posted:More like a failure of trolling. Stalin was a fairly poo poo speechifier though. Applause length notwithstanding 
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:This thread goes around and around on this issue, but no, there isn't going to be a technological "solution" because it isn't really possible for there to be one. We have to both reduce emissions and eventually pull carbon back out of the atmosphere. The latter will be done with technology, but it's going to be incredibly expensive. The former will be done through technology and social change, both of which are also going to be costly. If we aren't willing to pay those costs and make those sacrifices, then we'll pay them later when we're forced to deal with the consequences of our inaction. I think reduction of emissions is going to happen faster than most people think. If Li-ion battery prices continue to decrease for even a little while longer, that alone will virtually guarantee most cars/trucks moving off fossil fuels. That combined with continued incremental improvements in conventrional photovoltaics and wind energy virtually guarantee that electricity generation will become dominated by renewable sources. The ultimate enabler for all of this is simply that the cost of renewables and storage have a lot of room to decrease, while declining EROIE fundamentally limits the prices at which fossil fuel energy can be profitable. Even current oil prices, for example, render most wells (and near 100% of new ones) unprofitable. So the price that fossil fuels need to support themselves is at best fixed and in reality must go up, whereas the price of storage and renewable generation will continue to plummet even if there are no major technological breakthroughs. If there *is* even a modest technological breakthrough in certain areas (say a cheap, rechargable metal air battery, or an order of magnitude improvement in price or performance of PVs), I don't think people appreciate just how suddenly things can change and just how quickly the fossil fuel industry (and fossil fuel dependent states) can come crashing down. The current prices of fossil fuels are putting enormous strain on the industry and petrostates, and are probably not sustainable. Anything that maintains price pressure at these levels or forces them even lower is a deathblow.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
When the batteries power the robots that make the batteries. 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:This thread goes around and around on this issue, but no, there isn't going to be a technological "solution" because it isn't really possible for there to be one. We have to both reduce emissions and eventually pull carbon back out of the atmosphere. The latter will be done with technology, but it's going to be incredibly expensive. The former will be done through technology and social change, both of which are also going to be costly. If we aren't willing to pay those costs and make those sacrifices, then we'll pay them later when we're forced to deal with the consequences of our inaction. We have a technological solution. People are idiots. 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
Correction: had. Reminder - after 9/11, we briefly (over 3 days) had a sudden 1 degree Celsius variation in night/day temperatures in the U.S. appear - because all the airplanes were grounded. They were no longer creating contrails, which served to reflect incoming and outgoing radiation and moderated temperatures slightly. The lack of flights caused clear skies, with a rather stronger impact than anticipated. This effect is known as dimming, and its effects are far-reaching; did you know the most important factor in evaporation is how much sunlight water receives? What do you suppose might happen if that were reduced? Despite rising temperatures increasing water vapor capacity of the air, evaporation rates have actually declined. Sulfur dioxide from fossil fuel emissions, for example, would fall out of the atmosphere within days; these exert a net dimming effect, which would be immediately felt. Worse - do you know how strong this effect is? In Antarctica, dimming amounted to a reduction of 9% of inbound radiation. In Russia, it was as high as 30%. Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 05:04 on May 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Correction: had. Wait, so if civilization collapses such that carbon emissions are significantly halted for a year, the effect would actually be a massive spike in heating? 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
Rime posted:Wait, so if civilization collapses such that carbon emissions are significantly halted for a year, the effect would actually be a massive spike in heating?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 05:16
|
|
|
Its okay all that needs to happen is one scientist with sad brains to release some of those fancy biological weapons hidden away from the Cold War and the population growth problem is solved!
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 05:50
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:One of the questions should have been "Why the gently caress were you so dumb for so long?" Nah the kids will ask that when they get older.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 09:23
|
|
|
Rime posted:Wait, so if civilization collapses such that carbon emissions are significantly halted for a year, the effect would actually be a massive spike in heating? Yes, halting coal production would similarly cause a short-term temperature spike.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 09:29
|
|
|
Rime posted:Wait, so if civilization collapses such that carbon emissions are significantly halted for a year, the effect would actually be a massive spike in heating? Depends how it happens but yes, they are basically doing this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_(geoengineering) just not on purpose
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 13:18
|
|
|
So we could potentially already be above 2* of warming globally, and are just completely unaware of it due to how much reflection we put out as a byproduct of maintaining civilization.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
Yes. That's part of the reason 2° is a pipe dream. Global brightening and polar feedback loops well ahead of IPCC predictions alone means we're likely already at a point where a transition to a carbon free economy even if rapidly deployed (lol) would see us cross that threshold, and that's a conservative outlook.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
Rime posted:So we could potentially already be above 2* of warming globally, and are just completely unaware of it due to how much reflection we put out as a byproduct of maintaining civilization.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Yeah, let's not confuse "we're pretty sure this is going to happen" with "we're going to sit around and let this happen." In a scenario where we're already doing the work to convert to a zero-carbon society worldwide, there's no reason why we'd simply let the feedback gently caress us. We know it's there, we know what we'd do to deal with it.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Yes, seed aerosals in the atmosphere for the rest of eternity. I hope you didn't like having blue skies too much
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Yes, seed aerosals in the atmosphere for the rest of eternity.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
The entirety of human civilization is a small price to pay for the correct shade of blue.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
I managed to successfully get through to a conservative relative by asking "When's the last time you saw a butterfly?". There used to be huge swarms of monarch butterflies around where I live that I remember distinctly when I was a child. I havent even seen a single one this year. Here's a fun article published today: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/where-have-all-insects-gone Insect populations have dropped over 80% since 1989 in many regions.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
Blade Runner gets more and more prescient.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
Blockade posted:I managed to successfully get through to a conservative relative by asking "When's the last time you saw a butterfly?". Thought that'd be like a weird statistic of differentiation in species selected for blah blah, but no. It's areas with 80% total mass of insects gone. That's... not good. That is a very bad sign.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
Stratospheric aerosol injection is a different beast than the tropospheric aerosol injection. They are not interchangeable.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Yes, seed aerosals in the atmosphere for the rest of eternity. There's also the option of a space based sun shade, like a bunch of satellites sitting somewhere between earth and the sun so that they cast a shadow on the earth.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Remember that the guy who popularized stratospheric sulfate aerosol deployment over the last decade or so actually thinks it's a terrible idea. One of the likely outcomes is much more severe and lengthy droughts in southeast Asia. If we get to the point where the US or some other country is unilaterally deciding to wreck agricultural output in one of the most densely populated regions of the world then we're probably already so hosed that it doesn't matter anyway. This isn't something that's going to be solved by better technology either, it's just a consequence of this particular plan. Don't forget that you'd have to run this program continuously too, because there's a serious risk of sudden and catastrophic warming if you stop. Even as a last ditch effort it would need to be paired with widescale carbon capture and a rapid reduction in emissions. Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 22:08 on May 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
Blockade posted:I managed to successfully get through to a conservative relative by asking "When's the last time you saw a butterfly?". I wonder how much that has to do with chemicals like agriculture 'cides, industrial pollution, and habitat destruction. Maybe only like 10% of those numbers are due to climate change, and the rest of those insects died from exposure to human's kind and loving care of the environment. Dealing with climate change is going to be a loving nightmare. Ecosystems are hanging by a thread right now because we've done so much damage in the past centuries. How the hell are you supposed to optimistic when humans can't even figure out how to deal with even the most trivial environmental problems. It won't be long before the world looks very very different
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 14:03 |
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:The entirety of human civilization is a small price to pay for the correct shade of blue. Hell, my dad was telling me years ago that the sky wasn't the same color as it was when he was little. Intentional geoengineering will be a last desperate gamble to save our species, one which will in all likelihood (given our wonderful track record) be poorly thought-out and gently caress the world for ages to come. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9b9aoINXzk
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 23:16
|
|