|
Thug Lessons posted:I'm very smart, much smarter than you, and I used my big brain to figure out that the people proposing that the world must lose 8 billion people are talking about a sweeping genocide of black and brown people No I'm pretty sure you injected the racial component. Quote someone who is calling for brown genocide tia
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 13:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 15:34 |
|
|
call to action posted:No I'm pretty sure you injected the racial component. Quote someone who is calling for brown genocide tia "we need 80% less people and somehow this will happen evenly and fairly across the planet instead of resulting in the mass murder of poor and mostly brown people from developing countries" 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 13:12
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Has this been discussed yet? NOAA's latest study on global warming and hurricanes. This sentence from the summary is troublesome: quote:It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. I feel like deniers are gonna read that and run with it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 13:55
|
|
|
so you consider abortion murder?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 13:55
|
|
|
blowfish posted:"we need 80% less people and somehow this will happen evenly and fairly across the planet instead of resulting in the mass murder of poor and mostly brown people from developing countries" The anti-green revolution crowd itt is especially bad about this. Ugh.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:There is no "peak phosphate". Like every other peak mineral scare, (with the possible exception of oil), it's a myth born out of ignorance of geologic science and a massive underestimation of human ingenuity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
cargo cult posted:Is water scarcity not a real ting? Water scarcity is rather different in the sense that the resource won't literally run out in the same way as oil can It just is subject to distribution and demand issues There's no such thing as peak water
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
I work in sustainable Energy Management, and I give up on this thread. Sorry guys, have fun.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Water scarcity is rather different in the sense that the resource won't literally run out in the same way as oil can Actually, it behaves very similarly. Oil won't literally run out, it's just subject to cost-benefit value based on extraction/refining cost vs demand. Water doesn't literally run out, either, but it gets costlier to meet regional demands as consumption increases (more population) or "easy" local sources are otherwise unable to meet it, and thus you have to do more drilling, or water treatment, or worst case have to import it from farther away or build more expansive waterworks projects like dams/reservoirs. Really, the only difference is that there are energetic alternatives to oil, or otherwise points at which it just becomes undesirable to continue investing in it, but there are no alternatives to water. "Peak water" is when humans start dying off.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
Edit: Sorry, wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:I work in sustainable Energy Management, and I give up on this thread. Sorry guys, have fun. reported
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:I work in sustainable Energy Management, and I give up on this thread. Sorry guys, have fun. Well, it's not like anything matters anymore: 703 posted:the internet was the tower of babel and now everything comes crashing down
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Well, it's not like anything matters anymore: Holy gently caress. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 09:50
|
|
|
Rime posted:Holy gently caress. more like  and 
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 10:32
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Well, it's not like anything matters anymore: 
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 11:45
|
|
|
At the risk of sounding like an idiot, how unique and how bad is that? A quick Google search doesn't turn up much (that may be my own fault).
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 12:43
|
|
|
Martian posted:At the risk of sounding like an idiot, how unique and how bad is that? A quick Google search doesn't turn up much (that may be my own fault). Various major rivers throughout South Asia rely on rivers fed by Himalayan glaciers, which in turn the regions rely on for electricity, agriculture, and drinkable water/sanitation. These rivers drying up is nothing short of a catastrophic prospect. By way of example, take the Indus Water Treaty between India and Pakistan. The rivers go through India first - which makes big use of them - and if levels start dropping then... well... In this situation, what do you think happens? Both countries are going to go into the negotiation table, and re-negotiate the Indus Water Treaty to be more equitable for Pakistan, whose agriculture relies absolutely on the rivers? Or will the extremely nationalistic India keep the water it needs, as per the way the treaty currently stands, and gently caress over the neighbor they've held extreme mutual hostility against for decades? Both of these countries possess nuclear weapons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 13:35
|
|
|
I want to get a scoop of that melted permafrost and eat it. It looks like a delicious chocolate treat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 13:36
|
|
|
I used to be friends with this incredibly smart woman that was passionate about a sustainable and green future. She was a finance major and fought her "battle" against climate change that way. I believe she ended up as a VP for the the renewable division of a large energy corp in California. She's also incredibly active in enganging students into clean energy She posted this recently: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017...campaign=buffer It claims the following points need to be addressed in order to avoid 'catastrophe': quote:
I gotta say, it's way more disheartening to see garbage like this than the video of the melting permafrost. Because this is what is considered a good faith mainstream solution to tackling climate change. And it loving sucks. And it's not going to do poo poo. And this attitude of market based solutions is what has, is, and will destroy the planet. How are we supposed to have a serious discussion about fighting ecological destruction without even addressing our sick dependency on rampant consumerism. We are so hosed
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 14:13
|
|
|
Minge Binge posted:I used to be friends with this incredibly smart woman that was passionate about a sustainable and green future. She was a finance major and fought her "battle" against climate change that way. I believe she ended up as a VP for the the renewable division of a large energy corp in California. She's also incredibly active in enganging students into clean energy Well. It says these things have to be achieved by 2020 (lol they won't). Which would be a reasonable place to be a few years into an actual long-term plan to decarbonise almost everything, but lol we won't have that either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:That's a manual on doing LCAs not an LCA comparing vegan processed foods and meat-based process foods. Yes, yes it is. I'd be interested in a source for the earlier claim too, if anyone has one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Has this been discussed yet? NOAA's latest study on global warming and hurricanes. Haha, deniers have already started quoting this in comments sections: 
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
Minge Binge posted:I used to be friends with this incredibly smart woman that was passionate about a sustainable and green future. She was a finance major and fought her "battle" against climate change that way. I believe she ended up as a VP for the the renewable division of a large energy corp in California. She's also incredibly active in enganging students into clean energy have you considered that your friend who works in sustainable investment might know more about this stuff than forums poster Minge Binge? Did it ever cross your mind?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
dont all politicians know more than us also? lets listen to them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
Those are ambitious goals but hardly impossible. Like for example renewables generation as of June was 19.5%, (though this is likely to fall somewhat as the year goes on), compared to 16.5% in 2016. If the ratio holds that's by far the largest renewables growth in the past two decades. I think EV adoption might be harder though because the market is unproven.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:have you considered that your friend who works in sustainable investment might know more about this stuff than forums poster Minge Binge? Did it ever cross your mind? Yeah everything quoted there is sensible and it works inside the framework of our systems. I think it's a goon thing to completely discount the built up complexity and momentum of about a thousand years of learned civilization experience.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
TyroneGoldstein posted:Yeah everything quoted there is sensible and it works inside the framework of our systems. I think it's a goon thing to completely discount the built up complexity and momentum of about a thousand years of learned civilization experience.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
Okay, I guess we shouldn't do sensible things that work. Brilliant. I can't imagine why these perspectives are ignored
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Okay, I guess we shouldn't do sensible things that work. Brilliant. I can't imagine why these perspectives are ignored If you look at it from the perspective of everyone not in the richest percent, full communism is completely sensible 
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Various major rivers throughout South Asia rely on rivers fed by Himalayan glaciers, which in turn the regions rely on for electricity, agriculture, and drinkable water/sanitation. These rivers drying up is nothing short of a catastrophic prospect. So does the permafrost river mean that there's not enough frozen glacier to feed those rivers? Sorry I don't understand.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:"Sensible" and "works inside the framework of our systems" are both just code works for reinforcing the structures that created the problem in the first place, whichever context you use it in. Accelerationism is, uh, maybe not the best approach when it comes to drivers of climate change.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
No, REVOLUTION NOW!* *someone else please do the revolution
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Okay, I guess we shouldn't do sensible things that work. Brilliant. I can't imagine why these perspectives are ignored Mechafunkzilla posted:Accelerationism is, uh, maybe not the best approach when it comes to drivers of climate change.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
Banana Man posted:So does the permafrost river mean that there's not enough frozen glacier to feed those rivers? Sorry I don't understand. Yes. The region is getting warmer, as shown by the permafrost (which as the name should tell you, is always frozen) melting and flowing. The glaciers aren't recovering between melt seasons, and overall water levels will begin dropping dramatically.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Yes. The region is getting warmer, as shown by the permafrost (which as the name should tell you, is always frozen) melting and flowing. The glaciers aren't recovering between melt seasons, and overall water levels will begin dropping dramatically. Ah ok thanks
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
"Dramatically" sounds like an overstatement. None of those rivers get more than 10% of their water from Himalayan glacial melt.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Hey friends Volvo announced in July they are going all - electric by 2019.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
So optimists, give us your take now
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Yes. The region is getting warmer, as shown by the permafrost (which as the name should tell you, is always frozen) melting and flowing. The glaciers aren't recovering between melt seasons, and overall water levels will begin dropping dramatically. I am bad at water macro-issues. Why would the rivers not refresh at (roughly) the same levels? The glaciers normally recharge from precipitation, right? Why wouldn't that precipitation still fall, just, you know, now directly flowing into the rivers? (And not having a supply buffer but that's not a thing that really matters in the long term as far as flow over twenty years or whatever) Other than warmer air being able to hold more water before precipitatin'.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 15:34 |
|
|
call to action posted:So optimists, give us your take now Things are gonna get bad and then worse but civilzation will probably pull through.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 02:16
|
|