|
Rolling coal is entirely anti-environmentalism, pretending otherwise requires you to ignore the context and history of the phenomenon. Even Wikipedia makes this obvious: quote:Rolling coal is a form of conspicuous air pollution, for entertainment or for protest. Some drivers intentionally trigger coal rolling in the presence of hybrid vehicles (when it is nicknamed "Prius repellent") to taunt their drivers, who are perceived as being environmentally motivated in their vehicle choice. Coal rolling may also be directed at foreign cars, bicyclists, protesters, and pedestrians. Practitioners cite "American freedom" and "a stand against rampant environmentalism" as reasons for coal rolling. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 00:30 on Dec 27, 2017 |
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:57 |
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:consumption doesn't cause climate change.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
where did you get the secret presidential tapes from?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
Minge Binge posted:hmmmm It's really simple. Climate change is caused by emission of greenhouse gases, mainly from fossil fuels, and to lesser extent changes in land use. Consumption enters into it, at best, laterally. The average Chinese citizen consumes about 1/10th of what the average European does but China emits about the same as Europe per capita. The focus on consumption is an attempt to mystify and moralize what's essentially a technical problem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
the best kind of correct
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:It's really simple. Climate change is caused by emission of greenhouse gases, mainly from fossil fuels, and to lesser extent changes in land use. Consumption enters into it, at best, laterally. The average Chinese citizen consumes about 1/10th of what the average European does but China emits about the same as Europe per capita. The focus on consumption is an attempt to mystify and moralize what's essentially a technical problem. That doesn't mean China's emissions isn't due to consumption, it's just not the Chinese citizens doing the consuming.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:It's really simple. Climate change is caused by emission of greenhouse gases, mainly from fossil fuels, and to lesser extent changes in land use. Consumption enters into it, at best, laterally. The average Chinese citizen consumes about 1/10th of what the average European does but China emits about the same as Europe per capita. The focus on consumption is an attempt to mystify and moralize what's essentially a technical problem. China ships rear end loads of their products to us, which we then consume, which contributes to them making more and more inane poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
Cakebaker posted:That doesn't mean China's emissions isn't due to consumption, it's just not the Chinese citizens doing the consuming. This is a very common argument, sometimes called the importing and exporting of carbon emissions. But it doesn't hold up to scrutiny or measurement. There is, indeed, an importation and exportation of emissions going on, but not nearly enough to explain China's emissions:  We do see a shift in per capita emissions. Before we account for import/export, the average European emits slightly less than the average Chinese, and after we account for it the average Chinese emits slightly less than the average European. But in both cases the importation/exportation makes up only a small fraction — somewhere between 10-20% — of total per capita emissions. If you know a thing or two about economics this is not a surprising fact. China used more cement between 2011 and 2013 than the US did over the entire 20th century. That cement is not being shipped to Europe and America. It is being used in China, to build Chinese buildings, and cement production is a carbon-intensive process. Obviously cement alone can't account for China's massive emissions, but it's an illustrative example. Despite its strong exports market the Chinese economy produces primarily for domestic use, just like every other major economy on the planet. You might also be curious about the big picture. Rather than per capita, what's the total amount of emissions that are being exported from rich countries to poor countries? Luckily, we've measured that as well:  The answer turns about to be that poor countries are emitting a couple extra gigatons of carbon on behalf of rich countries, out of a total of about 40Gt. A significant but ultimately small number. So we're left right back where we started: consumption does not emit carbon. Burning fossil fuels does. Climate change is not caused by sin, but by physics. Until environmentalists are able to recognize this fact they'll be unable to formulate effective policy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
climate change is caused by sin, you loving idiot
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
australiar posted:climate change is caused by sin, you loving idiot So you’re saying we need to kill the whales?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:China used more cement between 2011 and 2013 than the US did over the entire 20th century. That cement is not being shipped to Europe and America. just in case anyone is curious China is the world's leading exporter of cement
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 05:23
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:So you’re saying we need to kill the whales? Im such a loving dork for getting this and I hate you for making me realize it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 05:24
|
|
|
i don't care about whatever drat thing that's a reference to, climate change is the wages of sin and the sooner we understand it from that angle, the better
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 10:51
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:We do see a shift in per capita emissions. Before we account for import/export, the average European emits slightly less than the average Chinese, and after we account for it the average Chinese emits slightly less than the average European. But in both cases the importation/exportation makes up only a small fraction — somewhere between 10-20% — of total per capita emissions. If you know a thing or two about economics this is not a surprising fact. China used more cement between 2011 and 2013 than the US did over the entire 20th century. That cement is not being shipped to Europe and America. It is being used in China, to build Chinese buildings, and cement production is a carbon-intensive process. Obviously cement alone can't account for China's massive emissions, but it's an illustrative example. Despite its strong exports market the Chinese economy produces primarily for domestic use, just like every other major economy on the planet. I wont try to argue that you can put an equal sign between consumption and climate change but surely limiting unnecessary consumption could be one of the steps to help combat it. It seems to me that there could be a big gap in how you measure the importing and exporting of carbon emissions depending on what you chose to include. Using cement in China to build factories that produce goods for other countries would not show up in that graph (as far as I can tell) but is still emissions that would be reduced by reducing consumption in those countries. Just because the cement isn't being directly exported out doesn't mean that the carbon emissions associated with it isn't due to consumption. Without the consumption of chinese goods in other countries a big part of the economic growth i China wouldn't have happened. Obviously that would not have been all positive, but it would have reduced emissions to a larger degree than is mesaured in that graph.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 10:54
|
|
|
we are drowning in our own greed, our gluttony, our perpetual directionless rage and jealousy and terror of everyone around us, of disease, of starvation, of death. that is the core of the climate crisis. we're greedy and terrified of death. we think we can build ourselves a perfect world where death doesn't exist, and in striving for that unattainable world we're happy to destroy the one that we were given, which is real, and home to billions of human beings, who will all die, and soon, in ways nobody could have foreseen
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 10:56
|
|
|
australiar posted:we are drowning in our own greed, our gluttony, our perpetual directionless rage and jealousy and terror of everyone around us, of disease, of starvation, of death. that is the core of the climate crisis. we're greedy and terrified of death. we think we can build ourselves a perfect world where death doesn't exist, and in striving for that unattainable world we're happy to destroy the one that we were given, which is real, and home to billions of human beings, who will all die, and soon, in ways nobody could have foreseen i'm not sure if you're serious or trolling but i'll take nuclear powered luxury space communism with net zero-to-negligible emissions over whatever you're selling
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 11:22
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:i'm not sure if you're serious or trolling but i'll take nuclear powered luxury space communism with net zero-to-negligible emissions over whatever you're selling Good luck getting there without destroying your homeworld apparently.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 12:03
|
|
|
even though yes *technically* in the abstract a future society of 8B+ people could live reasonable quality lives powered by little-to-no carbon energy sources in REALITY there is no way we get there on an acceptable timeline. de-carbonization *AND* de-growth/lowering-consumption need to happen at the same time to have any hope of avoiding a 4C+ future in our childrens/grandchildrens lifetime.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 13:32
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:China used more cement between 2011 and 2013 than the US did over the entire 20th century. That cement is not being shipped to Europe and America. self unaware posted:just in case anyone is curious China is the world's leading exporter of cement also the US imports more cement from china than any other country than bangladesh
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 14:00
|
|
|
self unaware posted:also the US imports more cement from china than any other country than bangladesh That sure seems like a heavy commodity to traipse across the Pacific ocean. Can't we get our
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
davebo posted:That sure seems like a heavy commodity to traipse across the Pacific ocean. Can't we get our Almost all cement in the US is made locally. Because you can't afford much shipping when you sell things wholesale for a $100/ton.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
Human activity causes climate change
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/946531657229701120
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
i came here just for this
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
bundle up baby it's gonna be cold out https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/nov/05/donald-trump-accused-blocking-satellite-climate-change-research feat. DJ Tromp and his team of liars and floridian real-estate speculators
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
white sauce posted:Human activity causes climate change you don't say
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
loving Arctic vortex needs to go home... ice has fallen below last year's record low extent, now:
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:loving Arctic vortex needs to go home... ice has fallen below last year's record low extent, now: I didn't see this coming. I figured we would need to go back to Niño conditions before we started getting record minimums. MSTA at the Arctic has been less absurd than 2016, so it seems like the difference would need to come from wave action, salinity differences, or ocean heat content. We really need this -EPO pattern to go away so the Pacific quits torching and SoCal actually gets some precipitation
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
A thought occurs: Wouldn't contact with any pathogen from another planet kill us all off the moment we come into contact with it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:A thought occurs: Wouldn't contact with any pathogen from another planet kill us all off the moment we come into contact with it? It’s just as likely that we’d kill the pathogen with a hostile environment. Like, a virus would have to have RNA similar to Earth life’s RNA, a prion would have to be similar to Earth proteins, a pathogenic bacteria would have to be able to survive in Earth organisms... hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 00:06 on Dec 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:It’s just as likely that we’d kill the pathogen with a hostile environment. Yeah, it's also possible its proteins are right handed or whatever and our cells and it just stare blankly at each other.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:A thought occurs: Wouldn't contact with any pathogen from another planet kill us all off the moment we come into contact with it? No? absolutely not? The norm is that diseases even from other animals don't cross to humans despite all animals sharing like 70+% of our DNA. It's basically unheard of for a tree and a human to be able to make eachother sick despite sharing 60% of their genes. A disease meant to infect an alien with zero percent shared dna (and probably something totally different than DNA or DNA that is translated entirely different or whatever) would have absolutely zero chance of infecting a human ever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
Well if they're carbon based and have vaguely similar biochemistry you could maybe have a general decomposer that can decompose earth organic matter. That's about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Well if they're carbon based and have vaguely similar biochemistry you could maybe have a general decomposer that can decompose earth organic matter. That's about it. When plants evolved cellulose it was a major crisis on earth that caused a millions of years long apocalypse where everything on earth began to die as plants sucked everything out of the atmosphere then died and laid forever unable to rot with everything stuck inside. And cellulose is just barely different than starch. Give it time and bacteria would evolve to eat aliens but time as in millions and millions and years, not days or weeks. There is barely any "general" decomposers that even do multiple really different types of carbon based life on earth. And even the few that did evolved to do multiple things, not just do one thing that works on everything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
i am made of cellulose
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
australiar posted:i am made of cellulose but we already knew that only vegetables post in the something awful climate thread
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
vegetables are my thing, everyone knows this
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
Is India's pollution really that low compared to China? I thought India and China were both equivalent in terms of population and pollution, but it appears I am mistaken. Any idea why? Also is there anything that gives metrics but as a measure of population density? (CO2 per (person and km2) What emissions information do you have with regards to commercial shipping? (I keep hearing how they're going to transition from bunker fuel to essentially running on natural gas (LNG))
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2018 04:41
|
|
|
self unaware posted:just in case anyone is curious China is the world's leading exporter of cement self unaware posted:also the US imports more cement from china than any other country than bangladesh None of that contradicts anything I said. The link I posted was about Chinese cement use, not Chinese cement production. Yes, China does export a lot of cement, but those exports are a small fraction of their total production, and the vast majority is used domestically.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2018 17:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:57 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/ZLabe/status/947475641624129536 I'm sure things are fine:
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2018 17:46
|
|