|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Most people in the US use planes. With median income around 50k a single flight is a non-trivial expense, especially since it would be accompanied by a car rental, and vacations via car or train would make a lot more sense.
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 01:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:09 |
|
|
International air travel is going to only increase in quantity, hope this helps. Notorious R.I.M. posted:Ahhh a new climate doomsayer is born because they just can't stomach the thought of minimizing their output for a little while. This is never going to happen. In fact, just the opposite as India and China become richer and grow their middle class. Also they will consume more meat, a lot more of it in fact. The left is fundamentally at odds with itself on this issue: you cannot raise the standards of living of poor people without also increasing the amount of GHG emissions, and there's no evidence whatsoever for this changing in the next couple decades to half century (even if we massively increase clean energy). Also if the idea of other people enjoying to travel makes you angry you really should probably see a therapist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 01:50
|
|
|
eNeMeE posted:I'm not sure about that. The answer isn't measured anywhere but given that there are a lot of people who travel like it's going out of style I'd be surprised if even 1/4 of people in the US fly more than once a year and less than 50% fly in a given year. Airplane travel is incredibly cheap, and for middle class people well worth the time saved vs. car travel in most cases. You know what isn't cheap? Getting time off- you don't want to waste 4 days of your 2 weeks/ yr vacation driving around in a loving car / (LMAO) train. Not to mention that you are completely ignoring the wear and tear such trips put on your car (people massively underestimate these costs when doing comparisons). Of course this is all irrelevant since air travel is going loving nowhere . e: But seriously, have you not looked at ticket prices recently? You can get round trips for like 70-100 bucks for many destinations, literally cheaper than you'd pay in gas even ignoring wear and tear costs. tsa fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Jan 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 01:58
|
|
|
tsa posted:you cannot raise the standards of living of poor people without also increasing the amount of GHG emissions That's not true at all. It is entirely possible to decouple improvements in standard of living and economic activity from GHG emissions, we just choose not to do it because of the incentive structures of our society.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 02:07
|
|
|
tsa posted:This is never going to happen. In fact, just the opposite as India and China become richer and grow their middle class. Also they will consume more meat, a lot more of it in fact. The left is fundamentally at odds with itself on this issue: you cannot raise the standards of living of poor people without also increasing the amount of GHG emissions, and there's no evidence whatsoever for this changing in the next couple decades to half century (even if we massively increase clean energy). The last half of your post is patently incorrect outside of a few small domains like beef production and air travel. I think Thug Lessons downplays a lot of climate impacts, but they make a very correct argument that in most cases consumption can be decoupled from GHG emissions and it can be done quickly. I'm not sure you really understand this since you're just arguing that the new middle class will eat more meat. Okay, have you looked at the CO2 and water budget for growing different kinds of meats and plants? You can raise fish for a lower carbon budget than you can raise some staple crops, so I'm going to guess you haven't. The strategy is to clean up the consumption practices you can and mitigate the ones you can't. I argue that the only real mitigations we need are: - Drastically reducing ruminant consumption - Drastically reducing air travel and ICEV usage - Opting for denser housing when given otherwise similar housing choices And we need to mitigate these because the lag time to cleaning them up is too long compared to the available carbon budget we have. But hey, I understand if you want to ignore this and just scream "All is lost" so you can absolve yourself of any blame from your hedonism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 02:11
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:First off, that all depends on what economy we decide to look at and you know that as well as I do. Lets take my own country, in Sweden air-travel matched car-emissions in loving 2014. I was curious about how long such a crazy drive would take and tried to Google Maps this, but it wouldn't let me do it directly: 88 hours from Stockholm to Islamabad 14 hours from Islamabad to New Delhi (guesstimate, it refuses to calculate road routes between Pakistan and India) 78 hours from New Delhi to Bangkok 180 hours straight is one hell of a drive... flights are as quick as 10 hours... and it estimates walking would take 2123 hours. Why the gently caress does it do foot but not ground vehicle? Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 03:15 on Jan 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 02:47
|
|
|
-> "Put Rime on Ignore, he just shiposts" -> Thread bickers over the theoretical carbon cost of personal air travel for five pages, again.  Hey, look, Forests are no longer regrowing after massive wildfires quote:The new U.S. study looked at 1,500 forest sites affected by 52 wildfires in five states in the U.S. Rockies between 1985 and 2015. It found overall decreases in the amount of tree regrowth since 2000 compared to before 2000 due to warmer, drier conditions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 03:15
|
|
|
Rime posted:-> "Put Rime on Ignore, he just shiposts" CO2 is plant food, dontcha know? Speaking of food, we're gonna be worm food - if worms still exist in the future: https://twitter.com/ZLabe/status/949356861064601601
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 03:25
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:Ahhh a new climate doomsayer is born because they just can't stomach the thought of minimizing their output for a little while. If the only answer is eternal suffering penance then the answer is "we had a good run", if environmentalism is about finding ways to extend first world standards of living to the rest of the world in more sustainable ways than we have now then that's cool, do that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 03:43
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Owl stop fetishizing the act of being abroad. human beings are geese that should migrate across vast distances
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 03:44
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:But hey, I understand if you want to ignore this and just scream "All is lost" so you can absolve yourself of any blame from your hedonism. And you can blame "hedonism" then absolve yourself from worrying because you already created the ultimate (and totally impossible) answer that would solve everything: penance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 03:45
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:And you can blame "hedonism" then absolve yourself from worrying because you already created the ultimate (and totally impossible) answer that would solve everything: penance. There is no "answer", there's a bunch of strategies to lower CO2e concentrations in the atmosphere and the better we do at that the better off we are. The real binary tipping point is killing most eukaryotes via hydrogen sulfide poisoning when our oceans go euxinic and we have a long way to get there that involves tons of mass human migrations along the way. It's up to you how far you want to force that lever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 03:57
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:If the only answer is eternal suffering penance then the answer is "we had a good run", if environmentalism is about finding ways to extend first world standards of living to the rest of the world in more sustainable ways than we have now then that's cool, do that. "Stop Flying and maybe eat less beef" = "Eternal Suffering Penance" lmao you are such a coddled crybaby
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 03:57
|
|
|
Actually, there's a step between doing nothing and giving up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 04:01
|
|
|
Media and major events can change wider opinion on things, possibly even making previously desirable things into undesirable ones. The one I can think of off the top of my head is the Hindenburg disaster switching off interest in the airship era, but I'm sure there's other examples. If it were somehow demonstrated that some of our more consumptive activities are like a slow-motion zeppelin crash perhaps people might think differently about them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 04:03
|
|
|
Chadzok posted:Media and major events can change wider opinion on things, possibly even making previously desirable things into undesirable ones. The one I can think of off the top of my head is the Hindenburg disaster switching off interest in the airship era, but I'm sure there's other examples. If it were somehow demonstrated that some of our more consumptive activities are like a slow-motion zeppelin crash perhaps people might think differently about them. cigarettes are a great example of rapid public opinion change in that regard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 04:03
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:There is no "answer", there's a bunch of strategies to lower CO2e concentrations in the atmosphere and the better we do at that the better off we are. The real binary tipping point is killing most eukaryotes via hydrogen sulfide poisoning when our oceans go euxinic and we have a long way to get there that involves tons of mass human migrations along the way. It's up to you how far you want to force that lever. If the answer is that the third world has to remain in eternal suffering poverty and the first world has to turn back the clock and regress then go for it, push that lever and extinct everything outside of a deep sea vent. If this is the highest possible reachable peak then it wasn't high enough. We had a cool run and if the next 40 years or show can show us some more cool stuff then great, but if this is the best we can do to provide for people it's just not good enough and not worth setting less as some goal to keep on earth eternally for no reason.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 04:08
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:I for one would welcome and end to air-travel and a return to the golden age of Sail. Those hydrofoil catamarans are pretty fast.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 04:17
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:If the answer is that the third world has to remain in eternal suffering poverty and the first world has to turn back the clock and regress then go for it, The third world can get all the air conditioning, electric cars and buses, and dense cities they want. They can't get huge cow farms and international flights to take pictures of cats. You can't either. All you're really crying about is the fact that your lifestyle is only made possible by the suffering of others. It's something all of us in the first world have to deal with. Suck it up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 04:20
|
|
|
So what about creating solar fuels for jet aircraft. Ammonia from hydrogen from electrolysis?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 04:20
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:Yes and this is one of the reasons I'm also more concerned about things like ice sheet hydrofracture and gas hydrate stability zones than things like ocean anoxia. We can bake in the likelihood of an anoxic event over the 21st century but we also have more time to figure out how to unfuck ourselves for things like that. Uncertainty in things like hydrofracturing models results in large sea level rise uncertainty on decadal and centennial time scales. Interestingly enough the most prominent proponent of near-term gas hydrate release (from Arctic coastal shelves if you're wondering) is saying we're supposed to get a release... right now, 2015-2025. There's no evidence it's happening and there's no increase in methane in the Arctic atmosphere. Hopefully once 2025 has come and gone and nothing has happened we can finally put that one to bed. If the WAIS disintegrates that would probably lead to some gas hydrate release but we're again looking at century to millennial scales there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 04:22
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Interestingly enough the most prominent proponent of near-term gas hydrate release (from Arctic coastal shelves if you're wondering) is saying we're supposed to get a release... right now, 2015-2025. There's no evidence it's happening and there's no increase in methane in the Arctic atmosphere. Hopefully once 2025 has come and gone and nothing has happened we can finally put that one to bed. If the WAIS disintegrates that would probably lead to some gas hydrate release but we're again looking at century to millennial scales there. The melting permafrost is releasing methane now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 04:24
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:There is no "answer", there's a bunch of strategies to lower CO2e concentrations in the atmosphere and the better we do at that the better off we are. The real binary tipping point is killing most eukaryotes via hydrogen sulfide poisoning when our oceans go euxinic and we have a long way to get there that involves tons of mass human migrations along the way. It's up to you how far you want to force that lever. I mean, there's stuff for the ocean too though. Not as much stuff, but specifically ocean fertilization and enhanced weathering.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 04:24
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:So what about creating solar fuels for jet aircraft. Ammonia from hydrogen from electrolysis? Stuff needs to be lightweight to fly and you need a lot of energy to do so. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 04:26
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:The melting permafrost is releasing methane now. This is particularly in reference to gas hydrate stability zones in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, an inundated region of permafrost that is shallow enough to possibly allow methane to reach the surface and get convected into the atmosphere.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 04:29
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Stuff needs to be lightweight to fly and you need a lot of energy to do so. I’m not talking batteries. I’m talking about using solar generated electricity to create hydrogen and then deriving a suitable liquid fuel from that (on the ground). Ammonia was used on the X1 plane.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 04:30
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Stuff needs to be lightweight to fly and you need a lot of energy to do so. What if we converted humans to run on Hydrogen instead? I'm looking at that graph and thinking that glucose is a pretty shite fuel for us, from a production standpoint.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 04:30
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:The third world can get all the air conditioning, electric cars and buses, and dense cities they want. They can't get huge cow farms and international flights to take pictures of cats. You can't either. If we can build magic green energy cars for 7 billion people we can figure out how to build carbon neutral airplanes with carbon neutral jet fuel made from algae or something. If the goal is to actually improve people's lives and not just use fake "environmentalism" to preserve the things you declare virtuous and remove the things you declare hedonism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 04:34
|
|
|
We will be using fossil fuels in planes for the foreseeable future.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 04:34
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:The melting permafrost is releasing methane now. This is not entirely true. The melting permafrost seems, tentatively, to be releasing carbon, but if it's releasing methane it's not enough to change atmospheric composition. It's not clear if it's releasing methane at all, since methanophages may actually take care of the methane bit of permafrost carbon emissions. But there are strong physical limits on how quickly the permafrost can melt and then decay into CO2 and CH4. We are pretty convinced at this point that the Arctic will be a net carbon source by mid-century or so, but the emissions are expected to be a small percentage of human emissions. What I'm talking about is something different, methane stored deep below the ocean floor in the form of gas hydrates. This can, if heated sufficiently, release very quickly. This is a lot, lot worse than gradual emissions from permafrost methane, because you'd get immense warming almost immediately. Luckily it's not going to happen this century though, because it's physically impossible (at least as far as we know).
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 04:34
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:I’m not talking batteries. I’m talking about using solar generated electricity to create hydrogen and then deriving a suitable liquid fuel from that (on the ground). Well look at where ammonia is on that plot versus kerosene. It’s closer but still not really in the territory of the hydrocarbons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 04:36
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:I’m not talking batteries. I’m talking about using solar generated electricity to create hydrogen and then deriving a suitable liquid fuel from that (on the ground). I'm glad you brought this up. Yara, the world's largest ammonia producer, is planning to deploy a test plant for solar-powered production of hydrogen for ammonia synthesis next year. https://ammoniaindustry.com/yara-solar-ammonia-pilot-plant-for-start-up-in-2019/
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 04:39
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:If we can build magic green energy cars for 7 billion people we can figure out how to build carbon neutral airplanes with carbon neutral jet fuel made from algae or something. Yes and in the meantime you should fly less since innovation takes more than an attosecond to happen. If you read the recent parts of this thread you may also come to understand why shifting planes off of fossil fuels is a significantly harder problem than cars!
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 04:41
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:This is not entirely true. The melting permafrost seems, tentatively, to be releasing carbon, but if it's releasing methane it's not enough to change atmospheric composition. It's not clear if it's releasing methane at all, since methanophages may actually take care of the methane bit of permafrost carbon emissions. But there are strong physical limits on how quickly the permafrost can melt and then decay into CO2 and CH4. We are pretty convinced at this point that the Arctic will be a net carbon source by mid-century or so, but the emissions are expected to be a small percentage of human emissions. I’ll need to check with my climatologist relative, who seems very concerned about these ocean hydrides.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 04:59
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:I’ll need to check with my climatologist relative, who seems very concerned about these ocean hydrides. If warming continues the gas hydrates will be released. But they will be released slowly, and there is a big difference between a slow and sudden release. Oxidation and methanophagic bacteria will prevent them from entering the atmosphere as methane. I got this paper from the climate survey in the tweet RIM linked today and it's generally representative (to my knowledge) of how ocean chemists and geophysicists feel on gas hydrates. quote:We find that the present-day world's total marine methane hydrate inventory is estimated to be 1146 Gt of methane carbon. Within the next 100 years this global inventory may be reduced by ∼0.03% (releasing ∼473 Mt methane from the seafloor). Compared to the present-day annual emissions of anthropogenic methane, the amount of methane released from melting hydrates by 2100 is small and will not have a major impact on the global climate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 05:11
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:If warming continues the gas hydrates will be released. But they will be released slowly, and there is a big difference between a slow and sudden release. Oxidation and methanophagic bacteria will prevent them from entering the atmosphere as methane. I got this paper from the climate survey in the tweet RIM linked today and it's generally representative (to my knowledge) of how ocean chemists and geophysicists feel on gas hydrates. http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/12/09/warmer-pacific-ocean-could-release-millions-of-tons-of-seafloor-methane/ “We calculate that methane equivalent in volume to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill is released every year off the Washington coast,” said Evan Solomon, a UW assistant professor of oceanography. He is co-author of a paper to appear in Geophysical Research Letters. While scientists believe that global warming will release methane from gas hydrates worldwide, most of the current focus has been on deposits in the Arctic. This paper estimates that from 1970 to 2013, some 4 million metric tons of methane has been released from hydrate decomposition off Washington. That’s an amount each year equal to the methane from natural gas released in the 2010 Deepwater Horizon blowout off the coast of Louisiana, and 500 times the rate at which methane is naturally released from the seafloor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 05:24
|
|
|
My concern around ESAS is based on the following scenario, which is not accounted for in the above reference which only analyzes changes in water temperature along the boundary region: - Laptev and East Siberian Seas becomes year-round ice free - Loss of albedo significantly increases ocean heat content along this region - Increased OHC increases convection along this region during arctic cyclones - Ekman transport results in lower pressure along the sea floor and lifts bubbles containing methane to the surface where convection brings them into the atmosphere Essentially, what happens when you start getting regular cyclone activity in the Arctic? This reference discusses the mechanism of transport to the atmosphere, but doesn't make any assumptions about what may happen to Arctic cyclone patterns: https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2007 It's important to remember that the ESAS is shallow and changes in the atmospheric regime can dramatically affect it. I tend to believe that Arctic Amplification will eventually result in the Dipole Anomaly becoming the major mode of the Arctic which would result in frequent extratropical cyclones in the region. Notorious R.I.M. fucked around with this message at 05:36 on Jan 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 05:29
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:If we can build magic green energy cars for 7 billion people we can figure out how to build carbon neutral airplanes with carbon neutral jet fuel made from algae or something. If the goal is to actually improve people's lives and not just use fake "environmentalism" to preserve the things you declare virtuous and remove the things you declare hedonism. By the time magic green energy cars for 7 billion people or carbon neutral airplanes have been built we're already way past resolving the climate crisis. Read the OP, I honestly don't think you get that basic fundamentals of what is driving climate change.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 05:48
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:All you're really crying about is the fact that your lifestyle is only made possible by the suffering of others. It's something all of us in the first world have to deal with. Suck it up. oocc is illustrating today one of the problems in climate change discourse. Intercontinental flights are much more than an abstract feature of global transportation infrastructure to him. It's literally part of his identity. Any suggestion that there are problems with it is more than an attack on his behavior, its an attack on his whole world view and value system. And it's why he's getting so embarrassingly defensive. It's an unavoidable problem with any moralistic argument about climate change. If we were just saying "we should all reduce our carbon emissions" I'm sure oocc would nod along happily in agreement as he recycled his plastic bottles and ate lentils for dinner twice week. As soon as you turn the criticism onto his specific baby though he flips completely. "Who are you to tell ME my (luxurious_hobby_#99) is a huge unnecessary carbon source, and should be discouraged?! Actually everyone should be do MORE (luxurious_hobby_#99), not less!" This happens regardless of the issue under discussion. Think metropolitan planning departments should prioritize public transit development over personal vehicles? "Whoa, whoa, but I hate public transit!" Think we should stop subsidizing beef consumption? "Uh, yeah right bro, any idea how many grams of creatine are in a cup of black beans?" Maybe ban drag racing? "lol I don't care the gently caress about emissions I was born to race." etc etc. Everybody has a passion, most of them seem stupid and wasteful to everyone else. I guess I just don't think as a free society we should tell oocc he shouldn't pursue his passion, as wasteful and destructive as it is. Do we really want committees deciding if a Chinese IT workers trip home to see his dying aunt counts as necessary travel or not? HOWEVER that doesn't mean I believe we have to just tolerate wasteful lifestyles. Make people pay for their carbon. Make people pony up with a carbon tax. Someone like oocc who believes his two week guided tour of Antarctic was literally some kind of consciousness expanding religious pilgrimage will pay. Someone like him who is presumably in the top wealth decile for Americans, and top 1% of all humans, will always take a disproportionate share of the resources under capitalism. But maybe to take that trip he'll forgo purchase of a new car for a couple years. While the guy who can't stand to live without steak will choose to skip the holiday flight to grandmas so he can afford his meat. And the guy who loves drag racing will scrimp on every meal so he can poor every extra penny into his precious riced out Mitsubishi.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 05:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:09 |
|
|
Which again brings us back to the political solutions which is either price- (taxation) or quantity-control (rationing).
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 05:54
|
|