|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Is there a reason you feel that is true? No mainstream science says that is the case. Negative carbon emissions are absolutely required in the next few decades to have any chance of staying under 1.5C max warming. That is absolutely the mainstream scientific consensus and the basis for the Paris accord 1.5C target. Maybe you're trying to argue that greater than 1.5C warming won't be THAT catastrophic? Arguing over the exact definition of catastrophe isn't worthwhile, but in any case the level of hardship and displacement experienced at even 1.5C warming definitely counts.
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 04:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 23:44 |
|
|
The biggest issue with getting more efficient in our consumption is whether that efficiency will be offset by population growth. The projected estimates for world population have us hitting 9.7 billion by 2050. The planet cannot support a Western lifestyle for 10 billion people. It can't even support it for the West, currently, so quality of life in the West will have to decline at some point. This isn't to say we shouldn't get more efficient, we obviously should so that we can curb emissions to the max, but the Western lifestyle as it currently exists is untenable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 05:12
|
|
|
Yknow, we have a much more manageable problem if six billion people die.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 05:29
|
|
|
I think it would help if we adjust our expectations about wealth. The kind of wealth people enjoyed in the West from after the war until now is going to be impossible, but it's also not necessarily desirable. I don't want to live like a boomer, I don't wish for a car or a lot of possessions, I don't think having children is a necessary part of life and most people might be individually happier ditching those kinds of expectations anyway. A lot of those ideas about wealth are tied up with a patriarchal model with a breadwinner and housewife living in a house and commuting to work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 05:41
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:Negative carbon emissions are absolutely required in the next few decades to have any chance of staying under 1.5C max warming. That is absolutely the mainstream scientific consensus and the basis for the Paris accord 1.5C target. Maybe you're trying to argue that greater than 1.5C warming won't be THAT catastrophic? Arguing over the exact definition of catastrophe isn't worthwhile, but in any case the level of hardship and displacement experienced at even 1.5C warming definitely counts. Here's the thing, everyone admits limiting warming to +1.5C by 2100 isn't really possible anymore. We'll be lucky if we hold it to +2-3C by 2100.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 08:36
|
|
|
tsa posted:Wow, it's harder to say something more wrong. You should familiarize yourself with regulatory capture.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 15:15
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:It's clear North American consumption is beyond wasteful, and major emission reductions would still be compatible with a high quality of life. Even if we ultimately need to go carbon negative its silly to worry about at a time when there's so much unnecessary, over-the-top consumption fossil fuel consumption. Imagine if we stopped eating cows and planted trees in that amount of land. Stopping eating cows/drinking cow milk is really an extremely small inconvenience that could have an enormous impact on our carbon footprint and that would be an enormous amount of space to plant trees that could sequester carbon without the need for pie in the sky billion dollar carbon removal technology.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 18:05
|
|
|
Burt Buckle posted:Imagine if we stopped eating cows and planted trees in that amount of land. Stopping eating cows/drinking cow milk is really an extremely small inconvenience that could have an enormous impact on our carbon footprint and that would be an enormous amount of space to plant trees that could sequester carbon without the need for pie in the sky billion dollar carbon removal technology. It really is a no brainer, but people like their burgers. However we'd still need the magic carbon removal tech anyway. Afforestation and reforestation can only sequester up to ~3Gt CO2 / year for some limited time period, while more than 5Gt CO2 annual sequestration is really what's required to prevent dangerous warming. Trabisnikof posted:Here's the thing, everyone admits limiting warming to +1.5C by 2100 isn't really possible anymore. Of course this is what will actually happen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 18:47
|
|
|
Burt Buckle posted:Imagine if we stopped eating cows and planted trees in that amount of land. Stopping eating cows/drinking cow milk is really an extremely small inconvenience that could have an enormous impact on our carbon footprint and that would be an enormous amount of space to plant trees that could sequester carbon without the need for pie in the sky billion dollar carbon removal technology. It's weird how talking about france having a carbon footprint 70% less than american's largely through energy policy is basically dismissed as not even worth it while this thread will keep going back to a possible <7% decrease if everyone stops eating meat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 19:22
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It's weird how talking about france having a carbon footprint 70% less than american's largely through energy policy is basically dismissed as not even worth it while this thread will keep going back to a possible <7% decrease if everyone stops eating meat. because we need to do both but no one argues against decarbonizing the grid so we talk about the issues where there is pushback in the thread
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 20:53
|
|
|
It's weird how someone keeps insisting 70% is larger than 77%
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 20:58
|
|
|
Who dismisses France's energy policy
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 20:59
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Is there a reason you feel that is true? No mainstream science says that is the case. IPCC's AR5 requires negative emissions for RCP 2.6 you loving idiot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 21:02
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Here's the thing, everyone admits limiting warming to +1.5C by 2100 isn't really possible anymore. The current concentration pathways to 1.5C by 2100 also require a temperature overshoot to around 1.8C followed by an around 0.3C decrease. 2C is absolutely the practical bare minimum.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 21:05
|
|
|
Admiral Ray posted:The biggest issue with getting more efficient in our consumption is whether that efficiency will be offset by population growth. The projected estimates for world population have us hitting 9.7 billion by 2050. The planet cannot support a Western lifestyle for 10 billion people. It can't even support it for the West, currently, so quality of life in the West will have to decline at some point. This isn't to say we shouldn't get more efficient, we obviously should so that we can curb emissions to the max, but the Western lifestyle as it currently exists is untenable. Give women equal rights everywhere. That will drop the population growth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 21:13
|
|
|
The holistic mitigation strategy is to decarbonize the energy expenditures that you can and minimize usage of the ones you cant. I understand that thinking about more than one thing at once is impossible for some posters in this thread though. Air travel and food choices both fall into the "hard to decarbonize" group for the foreseeable future. Solving the easy problem and ignoring our consumption of these just makes our required negative emissions even more intractable. These are also both consumption patterns that will continue to scale up as more people enter the middle class in India and China. Some of these actions also have more impact than just GHG forcing. Dietary choices affect water usage and the nitrogen cycle as well, for example.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 21:15
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It's weird how talking about france having a carbon footprint 70% less than american's largely through energy policy is basically dismissed as not even worth it while this thread will keep going back to a possible <7% decrease if everyone stops eating meat. Literally nobody is dismissing a change in American energy policy. That is basically the linchpin of a low or no emissions society.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 22:00
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Give women equal rights everywhere. Actually do this regardless. Also there is no moral, ethical or reasonable argument to be made against reducing emissions any and all ways, including following france's example and then everything else too. It provably works, and we need it. There is no «but the cost/but the exceptionalism/but it's not a magic bullet» argument, gently caress off with that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 22:28
|
|
|
Burt Buckle posted:Literally nobody is dismissing a change in American energy policy. That is basically the linchpin of a low or no emissions society. I guess, a bunch of people seem to be willing to put up some half hearted "yeah, do that or whatever" to the real solutions to get them out of the way so they can go back to policing a bunch of personal behavior to save some fraction of a fraction of some percent, but only on the fractions they can staple some moral angle to. We aren't going to see anyone fighting hard for like, laws demanding anyone take room temperature baths even though waterheaters take a lot of energy. Since there is no weird quasi-religious drive to police people's baths the way there is long cultural history in demanding people eat the right foods or declaring how many kid someone absolutely must have or how and when they have sex. "Every percent matters" only matters for people if it's the specific every percent that already lined up with what they wanted to police anyway. Then they'd be fine putting more effort saving a .1% reduction and let some 10% one go as NBD.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 22:39
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Give women equal rights everywhere. Yeah high birthrates are associated with patriarchal societies and a lack of available birth control, changing those things is a really good way to prevent more future emissions. Institutions that promote large families, like the Catholic church, should be fought until they give up that policy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 22:52
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I guess, a bunch of people seem I bolded the parts where you failed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 23:43
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I bolded the parts where you failed. Why has this thread never had long discussions about showers then or refrigeration? Is it just magically luck the things people randomly decided need banning are the exact same categories people always tried to police and the other neural ones go ignored? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 23:49
|
|
|
Speaking of ignored,
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 23:50
|
|
|
It's too much. I have time to spend better by literally staring up at my ceiling fan than another owl post I really like your posting elsewhere but god drat it man, gently caress Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Aug 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 23:52
|
|
|
I love how desperately he clings to any excuse to avoid thinking about his own particular source of superfluous carbon emissions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2018 23:52
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:I love how desperately he clings to any excuse to avoid thinking about his own particular source of superfluous carbon emissions. That isn't some sort of secret. I have said over and over that climate change is a real technical issue with real technical solutions and that it bothers me how much people try to either co-opt it into either weird personal shaming where the primary goal is to focus on extremely minor personal choices that have almost no actual effect on global climate change or into some sort of weird "fun" apocalypse fanfiction where people fantasize about some sort of immediate action movie type 'exciting' death instead of a very long term serious issue that will be with people for generations.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 01:01
|
|
|
Rime posted:21st-century modeled permafrost carbon emissions accelerated by abrupt thaw beneath lakes: Methane and carbon dioxide emissions from abrupt thaw beneath thermokarst lakes will more than double radiative forcing from circumpolar permafrost-soil carbon fluxes this century. Interesting findings and the paper is open access. The AThaw model they use assumes that thermokarst formation rapidly increases over the 21st century and they have some fairly good arguments for that assumption. The take-home message seems to be that new thermokarst formation results in rapid permafrost retreat and a resulting temporary window of methane ebullition. More generally, we seem to have a problem systematically understating the effects of talik formation. Notorious R.I.M. fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Aug 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 01:21
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:That isn't some sort of secret. I have said over and over that climate change is a real technical issue with real technical solutions and that it bothers me how much people try to either co-opt it into either weird personal shaming where the primary goal is to focus on extremely minor personal choices that have almost no actual effect on global climate change or into some sort of weird "fun" apocalypse fanfiction where people fantasize about some sort of immediate action movie type 'exciting' death instead of a very long term serious issue that will be with people for generations.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 01:27
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:That isn't some sort of secret. I have said over and over that climate change is a real technical issue with real technical solutions and that it bothers me how much people try to either co-opt it into either weird personal shaming where the primary goal is to focus on extremely minor personal choices that have almost no actual effect on global climate change or into some sort of weird "fun" apocalypse fanfiction where people fantasize about some sort of immediate action movie type 'exciting' death instead of a very long term serious issue that will be with people for generations. Weird stance to have while simultaneously understanding nothing about the technical details.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 01:29
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Why has this thread never had long discussions about showers then or refrigeration? Is it just magically luck the things people randomly decided need banning are the exact same categories people always tried to police and the other neural ones go ignored? Because the last time we talked about how much wattage a dryer uses and how effective hang drying can be we didn't have someone who had washed clothes on every continent come in to cry about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 01:32
|
|
|
This was posted in doomsday economics:
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 01:32
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:Because the last time we talked about how much wattage a dryer uses and how effective hang drying can be we didn't have someone who had washed clothes on every continent come in to cry about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 01:39
|
|
|
I suspect eventually the media will coin the "War on Climate Change" - which, based on the wars on Drugs and Terrorism, won't go so well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 02:35
|
|
|
Polio Vax Scene posted:I suspect eventually the media will coin the "War on Climate Change" - which, based on the wars on Drugs and Terrorism, won't go so well. Yeah we're already seeing some of that: https://twitter.com/PascoSheriff/status/906712903868469249
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 02:39
|
|
|
i'm not gonna do the math, but pretty sure i could take a thousand 30 minute wank steam showers for less than the ghg cost of one trans-oceanic cat petting
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 02:40
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:i'm not gonna do the math, but pretty sure i could take a thousand 30 minute wank steam showers for less than the ghg cost of one trans-oceanic cat petting Why aren't you going to do the math? Because showers aren't something you can moralize? 1 minute of hot showering apparently creates 0.2 kg of co2. And you shower every day, so 1000 showers is less than 3 years and is absolutely more than a flight to europe to pet a cat's beautiful head. But I don't really expect anyone to get on the "smell bad and take cold showers" bandwagon because no one really cares about that sort of low level personal emission beyond the cases they can disingenuously pick to care about it when it suits them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 03:27
|
|
|
what if you have kids, but then those kids take rowboats made with carbon neutral techniques, and they row to every continent to eat all of the cats instead of beef
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 03:40
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Why aren't you going to do the math? Because showers aren't something you can moralize? 1 minute of hot showering apparently creates 0.2 kg of co2. And you shower every day, so 1000 showers is less than 3 years and is absolutely more than a flight to europe to pet a cat's beautiful head. But I don't really expect anyone to get on the "smell bad and take cold showers" bandwagon because no one really cares about that sort of low level personal emission beyond the cases they can disingenuously pick to care about it when it suits them. You're trying to rationalize your terrible (for the environment) decision and that's okay. Just don't act like petting cats in a different country is comparable to showering lmfao.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 03:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 23:44 |
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:You're trying to rationalize your terrible (for the environment) decision and that's okay. Just don't act like petting cats in a different country is comparable to showering lmfao. It literally has comparable impact. I am obviously going to use vastly more carbon heating water to shower than I ever will to visit cats. Because I shower every day, and fly a few times a year. But the idea is so deeply embedded that small amounts of carbon that are released "SINFULLY" matter and large amounts of carbon released virtuously or neutrally are totally fine. The goal seems to be a bunch of people shamed out of a couple random activities as major sacrifice that would cut their lifetime carbon output by some single digit percent instead of any sort of real goal towards any real solution.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 04:15
|
|