|
If you think the Unabomber route is the way to go then put your money where your mouth is. Good luck!Crazycryodude posted:
Oh lol I missed this part. We're back to "desperate change is needed and that's why I'll do nothing and hope someone else saves us" Digiwizzard fucked around with this message at 02:06 on Aug 28, 2017 |
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 10:08 |
|
|
blowfish posted:Alternatively, we could just kill all humans, but somehow I think that's the less realistic option. lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
Global nuclear war is probably much more likely than any shift in way of life. Hell, any hint of a shift will set off a nuclear war. If you havent noticed, old people would rather screw us all than change. Euthanize the old is the path forward!
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
Femur posted:Global nuclear war is probably much more likely than any shift in way of life. Hell, any hint of a shift will set off a nuclear war. If you havent noticed, old people would rather screw us all than change. Step one we gotta build one of these dudes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiyPqbyHXIg
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
So that's it, we're just back to, "I'm the one who's doing nothing in the right way!" slapfights?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:So that's it, we're just back to, "I'm the one who's doing nothing in the right way!" slapfights? No, we've agreed to make a killer robot to enforce a maximum age, after which all citizens are painless executed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:The problem is that your plan B will never amount to one millionth of one percent as much as dragging the CEO of Exxon into the street and shooting them would. Small-scale actions can't do poo poo on their own. A community garden, recycling your plastics, walking to work, all that poo poo is great when you put it on top of governments taking major action. Without it you're just making your own life harder for no gain. You appear to be assuming he wants to stop global warming, but I think he's figured out its a lost cause and wants permaculture ready to go for a smoother transition, rather than having the 5 year gap Cuba had in the 90's as they transitioned.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:So that's it, we're just back to, "I'm the one who's doing nothing in the right way!" slapfights? Having any type of strong institution can save us, but we don't even have that. For example, accounting, they are paid for by the very people they are suppose to be overseeing. The basis of all these numbers, which decide whom has status, can spend our resources, is completely broken, so it's no surprise the result is poo poo. Noone talks about fixing these simple things which are the foundation of society, its evil ceos, rich people, babies, blah blah. OTOH, creating and impenetrable institution, imbuing it with power, is war with those in power, so global nuclear war. The past is the only thing that can be changed, and accounting is the discipline that deals with the past. We lack the will to enforce the past. Femur fucked around with this message at 03:56 on Aug 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Cuba is poor by accident. Fidel Castro did not come to power promising to keep them poor in the name of the environment, or even to prioritize the environment over economic growth. He, like just about every other leader in the modern world, promised economic growth. He wanted to lift Cubans out of poverty. Unfortunately the method he chose was turning the country into a giant sugar plantation for the Soviet Union, which led to an economic depression when the USSR dissolved that it still hasn't fully recovered from. Oh, and there was a big embargo that wasn't doing them any favors either. Holding it up as an environmental success story is insane. cuba's reforestation program is among the most successful in the world
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:If you're not from the US and are just hearing about the flooding in Houston: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/16/texas-flooding-houston-climate-change-disaster Note the date
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Here are the GHG emissions from the average Australian household. i have put my money where my mouth is here and lived almost my entire life without heating or air conditioning. a few years ago when i was living in sydney (i move around) the temperature hit 48c and sat there for an entire day. that's 118.4 fahrenheit. i had no air conditioning, just an electric fan and beautiful clean sydney water on tap. in the bush the temperature dropped below freezing in the winters and i had no heating, just a dog to share my bed with and a handspun woollen jacket made by a lady who grew up as a subsistence farmer in lebanon (and inexplicably didn't think her life had been a miserable hellish nightmare.) in all honesty? it sucked. but someone who's never had to deal with those temperature extremes without modcons already knows that it will suck, and in all honesty, it sucked a lot less than they would assume. like, i survived. i didn't die. i wasn't even all that uncomfortable, i was still able to get stuff done, the winter was fine for working and in the summer i just slept in the absolute hottest part of the day and was active mostly at night. yes that's incompatible with the 9-5 office job (luckily i was at university), but the 9-5 office job is also illusory bullshit that was always symptomatic of the disease that is killing us and those jobs are disappearing every day. i have also been lucky enough to experience those temperatures in a range of different buildings. right now i'm in a flimsy mid-90s suburban house and its insulation is bullshit. living in this house in one of those heat waves will be miserable, i'll get back to you on that in about three months. in the 48c summer i was living in an apartment in a refurbished victorian townhouse, which is most inner-city high-density living (one studio apartment per room), and those buildings are incredibly loving solid. i have also experienced three farmhouses - another flimsy mid-90s disaster, an early-1900s cottage, and a bungalow built in the 70s with the climate in mind. the first was awful in the summer and the winter. the latter two? they were okay. i could live there without air-conditioning or heating easily. architecture and clean water (!) is the secret to surviving weather fluctuations, not electric climate control. every developed nation on earth atm is having a construction boom as they all frantically try to prop up the house of cards - unfortunately they're mostly building with plastic straws and styrofoam to save a buck, but it is absolutely possible to build for an intense climate, and it is absolutely possible to live your life without heating or air-conditioning. it's not even that bad. you will live.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
to pre-empt your next argument, yes i know that children and the elderly can't be expected to live without climate control when the summers are hitting 118f regularly, which very soon they will be. it's not an all-or-nothing thing, some spaces can still be air-conditioned to protect vulnerable people. but 90% of the population can survive without it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 04:23
|
|
|
Heating and air conditioning can be provided entirely with 100% clean energy, and there's no reason not to do it. Compared with other emissions sources, (transportation, cement, etc.), it's one of areas with the least technical barriers to implementation. But that wasn't really my point there, but rather than people mis-identify the source of the problem as consumerism when really it's overwhelmingly based around basic necessities.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
heating and air conditioning isn't a basic necessity very few of what you think are basic necessities actually are. other things that you can in fact live without include more than one room per person in your house, more than one computer screen per person in your house, a new phone every year, red meat, and summer produce in the dead of winter
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
We must secure a future for our avocado toast
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
the old ceremony posted:to pre-empt your next argument, yes i know that children and the elderly can't be expected to live without climate control when the summers are hitting 118f regularly, which very soon they will be. it's not an all-or-nothing thing, some spaces can still be air-conditioned to protect vulnerable people. but 90% of the population can survive without it. So? I've never owned a car and many other people could exist without one too just fine. It's completely irrelevant because you're simply not going to convince people to do it until they have to - just like they won't turn their lawns into potato patches until they have to or do without air-conditioning or meat until they have to. Maybe the government should force it on us but in a democracy that's not going to happen quickly if at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
"Basic necessity" does not mean "you will literally die without it". You will probably not die from drinking unclear water, and large portions of the world lack it and manage to survive. I don't think forcing people to live in sub-freezing or >50C temperatures without climate control is really that different from demanding people use unclean water, and wouldn't be surprised if they have similar health outcomes (maybe even worse). And of course this is not all-or-nothing. You do not need to abolish AC entirely and force people to live in unsafe temperatures to get them to turn up the thermostat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
the old ceremony posted:heating and air conditioning isn't a basic necessity Air conditioning will be a basic necessity in parts of the world soon enough.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 04:59
|
|
|
Also I would not rely on the assumption we can achieve far higher efficiency in the allocation of climate control resources to those in most need. Even if we had a completely different economic system where services are distributed on the basis of need rather than the ability to pay it's extremely difficult to achieve perfect or near-perfect efficiency, and ofc. we don't actually live in such a system. Realistically you would be killing a lot of people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
Bates posted:So? I've never owned a car and many other people could exist without one too just fine. It's completely irrelevant because you're simply not going to convince people to do it until they have to - just like they won't turn their lawns into potato patches until they have to or do without air-conditioning or meat until they have to. Maybe the government should force it on us but in a democracy that's not going to happen quickly if at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 05:19
|
|
|
Burt Buckle posted:Air conditioning will be a basic necessity in parts of the world soon enough.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 05:21
|
|
|
Yeah, the Persian Gulf, in particular, isn't going to be all that livable without AC. Yet it still has at least decades enough of energy to make that lifestyle possible. In all honesty, I think the more reliable method of dealing with the issue is to push forward on the infrastructure angle rather than turn to carbon-equivalent of austerity. (Also, the developing world is rapidly becoming more developed, and I doubt people who just got AC a few years ago are going to give it up, especially when the first world has been enjoying it since the 50s/60s.) I think the only real answer is a massive infrastructure fund that pushes renewable energy that isn't beholden to a single world power. China/US/EU/India have the resources to make it happen (although I doubt it ever could).
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
the old ceremony posted:i thought we established that the people in those parts of the world are going to flee en masse to places where the sun doesn't kill you I was not consulted when this was established. I bought some solar panels on Amazon today so I'm pretty excited.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 05:51
|
|
|
the old ceremony posted:i thought we established that the people in those parts of the world are going to flee en masse to places where the sun doesn't kill you https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?noseen=1&threadid=3750508&perpage=40&pagenumber=31#post459515486
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 05:58
|
|
|
Uh heating is an absolute necessity in certain parts of the world as well. I live in Minnesota and there are laws preventing your heat from being shut off in the winter for financial reasons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
Digiwizzard posted:It's just endlessly hilarious watching goony motherfuckers moaning that subsistence farming is a miserable hellish existence where the living envy the dead, and then you have a country next door that successfully avoided famine thanks to subsistence farming and now has better health outcomes then the US. But in the end, is it really worth it to live if you are a poor? This isn't a "goony" thing, this is literally the entire basis of developmental economics. I agree with you though
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
actionjackson posted:How high up is that? Most traffic lights are about 20-25 ft high (6.5-8 meters, I guess). Houston is a swamp that was dredged out to build a city. IIRC, it is only about 13m above sea level on average. Some of the outlying areas are higher, but not high enough for it to matter with the amount of water that is being dropped on them. The NOAA had to reconfigure their scales because the ones they usually used were outclassed by the first 1-2 days of rain, and there are 4-5 more days of rain predicted: https://twitter.com/LonestarTallBoi/status/901873801532760064 Like someone else said, this is the 3rd 500 year flood that has hit Houston in the past 3 years. And it's only going to get worse, because the local govt refuses to do anything to create more drainage or take climate change seriously.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
actionjackson posted:Uh heating is an absolute necessity in certain parts of the world as well. I live in Minnesota and there are laws preventing your heat from being shut off in the winter for financial reasons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
Rap Record Hoarder posted:Like someone else said, this is the 3rd 500 year flood that has hit Houston in the past 3 years. And it's only going to get worse, because the local govt refuses to do anything to create more drainage or take climate change seriously. It's worth mentioning that "local government" in this case is the state government. The City of Houston is well aware of the risks posed by climate change and have been upgrading their infrastructure for many, many years. It just hasn't been enough.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
edit: don't want to be mean
FourLeaf fucked around with this message at 04:25 on Aug 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:It's worth mentioning that "local government" in this case is the state government.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 06:20
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:edit: don't want to be mean
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 07:13
|
|
|
Kenya will now jail you if you bring a plastic bag into the country. Meanwhile in the first world we can barely get a few cities to tepidly agree to 5 cent taxes on them
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
Next year's worth of power. But yeah, coal's definitely coming back somehow.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
The fact that so much new capacity is natural gas is extremely depressing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:The fact that so much new capacity is natural gas is extremely depressing. They're replacing coal plants, usually old, extremely dirty ones. On average natural gas has 50% lower emissions compared to coal, and these plants may be making even greater gains because the decommissioned plants tend to be high emitters. It's not a permanent solution but we need to start reducing emission now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:The fact that so much new capacity is natural gas is extremely depressing. The silver lining is US electricity production flatlining since 2005 so it's not added capacity. Every new gas plant probably replace a coal plant.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
This is true, but it's also true that we really need to be getting carbon neutral in the next 20 years to have any chance of reducing the impact of catastrophic climate change. New natural gas plant construction is not compatible with that goal. Every one of those plants are going to be operated at least that long. Their owners and investors are going to be political opponents of carbon emission reduction going forward. If we were serious about climate change almost every newly constructed plant would need to be nuclear or renewable right now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
the old ceremony posted:speak! it was a quote of an extremely dumb statement about climate change from another thread but the person was corrected by many posters so I decided not to start unnecessary drama FourLeaf fucked around with this message at 23:55 on Aug 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 10:08 |
|
|
Nocturtle posted:This is true, but it's also true that we really need to be getting carbon neutral in the next 20 years to have any chance of reducing the impact of catastrophic climate change. New natural gas plant construction is not compatible with that goal. Every one of those plants are going to be operated at least that long. Their owners and investors are going to be political opponents of carbon emission reduction going forward. If we were serious about climate change almost every newly constructed plant would need to be nuclear or renewable right now. I disagree. Immediate emissions reduction must take priority because the stakes are too high to demand perfect solutions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 23:06
|
|