Climate Change: Post up your Phd. dissertation, coward

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change: Post up your Phd. dissertation, coward

«‹›410 »

Ras Het: May 23, 2007; when I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child - but now I am a man.

Burt Buckle posted:

I don�t known of a carbon free way to travel to Europe or get goods from China, things like that.

# ? Sep 2, 2018 15:18

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 14, 2024 11:29

Burt Buckle: Sep 1, 2011

Conspiratiorist posted:

Anyone who praises Musk ITT has to explain what's been the positive effect of aggressively marketing inefficient EVs as novelty items for wealthy hipsters.

Those wealthy hipsters are driving electric vehicles instead of gas vehicles which is a net positive for carbon emission reductions.

# ? Sep 2, 2018 15:36

StabbinHobo: Oct 18, 2002; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

Potato Salad posted:

Regarding Tesla autos and rooftop solar, there's certainly less effective ways of separating rich morons from their money while subsidizing green tech.

exactly. its not unlike being willing to take shell and bp's money to fund negative emissions r&d. some small forced penance is the best we can do right now, *and we should take it*

Conspiratiorist posted:

Anyone who praises Musk ITT has to explain what's been the positive effect of aggressively marketing inefficient EVs as novelty items for wealthy hipsters.

tesla's marketing budget for every year of its existance has been zero dollars.
EVs are wildly more "efficient" (well to wheel) than ICEs.
you are disconnected from reality, log out of facebook.

StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 15:40 on Sep 2, 2018

# ? Sep 2, 2018 15:37

Conspiratiorist: Nov 12, 2015; 17th Separate Kryvyi Rih Tank Brigade named after Konstantin Pestushko
Look to my coming on the first light of the ~~fifth~~ ~~sixth~~ some day

I went to do the groceries without using disposable bags or a combustion engine. Praise me, for I'm a net positive through my actions and example!

Meanwhile, how much air travel does Elon Musk accumulate in a year? :shrug:

His accomplishment are a zero to the left as far as protecting the environment goes - it's indeed a good thing to invest in and promote green technologies, but whether his contributions on the matter have had a meaningful impact is dubious at best, which combined with him being a really lovely person makes it just baffling to try and set him up as some kind of positive figure whose honour must be defended.

I suppose it makes sense if you truly believe Musk's own self-aggrandizing narrative as a trend-setter, but that's mistaking correlation for causation.

# ? Sep 2, 2018 16:01

StabbinHobo: Oct 18, 2002; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

ah, dubious, good point

# ? Sep 2, 2018 16:09

Kindest Forums User: Mar 25, 2008; Let me tell you about my opinion about Bernie Sanders and why Donald Trump is his true successor.

You cannot vote Hillary Clinton because she is worse than Trump.

Burt Buckle posted:

Those wealthy hipsters are driving electric vehicles instead of gas vehicles which is a net positive for carbon emission reductions.

you have no way to prove this. how do we know that Elon Musk's anti public transportation stance is doing more harm than good. We should be focusing on a viable, proven, and existing solution to transportation: public transportation and high density living. Doubling down on the suburban lifestyle is a bad idea. But no, we're further drilling it into everyone's head they can maintain their status quo lifestyle. That's a bad pathway to solving climate change.

You have to look at the whole picture when it comes to emissions. Using a single point to describe a positive or negative emission reduction is really really dumb. If you did that, the real heroes of climate change would be the shipyards that build the 'ultra large container vessels' with high efficiency 2-stroke diesels. Or OPEC when they reduce oil production to increase prices. Or the Americans when they bomb the middle east.
All these events significantly reduce emissions in some way or another; but instead of doing this things we should reduce the amount of international freight, reduce oil demand, and stop killing people.

Same with Tesla, the efficiency of the vehicle isn't the problem. It's the amount of cars we have. We need to end our reliance on personal car ownership. Not build more cars for gently caress sakes.

# ? Sep 2, 2018 16:37

WorldsStongestNerd: Apr 28, 2010; by Fluffdaddy

Burt Buckle posted:

International transport and travel is I think one of the biggest things that there isn�t a decarbonizing alternative to. Things like food and electricity all have zero emission alternatives that would leave people with the same quality of life, but I don�t known of a carbon free way to travel to Europe or get goods from China, things like that.

That's where carbon capture can come in. We will never have enough carbon capture to offset our entire economy, but we could offset air travel as long as cost is factored in. For example, if a jet traveling to Europe emits x tons or carbon, then the cost of capturing x tons of carbon should be included in the price of the tickets instead of treated as an externality.

As for the container ships to china, those are big enough to be nuclear like the larger millitary ships like carriers.

Now of course all this means that air travel would be more expensive, and you might want govt owned and run shipping companies instead of letting private industry have nuclear cargo ships, but there are ways to do it.

# ? Sep 2, 2018 16:39

Kindest Forums User: Mar 25, 2008; Let me tell you about my opinion about Bernie Sanders and why Donald Trump is his true successor.

You cannot vote Hillary Clinton because she is worse than Trump.

Anybody who claims that building more cars for rich people is helping climate change should be sent to the gulags

# ? Sep 2, 2018 16:42

Evil_Greven: Feb 20, 2007; Whadda I got to,
whadda I got to do
to wake ya up?

To shake ya up,
to break the structure up!?

Kindest Forums User posted:

you have no way to prove this. how do we know that Elon Musk's anti public transportation stance is doing more harm than good. We should be focusing on a viable, proven, and existing solution to transportation: public transportation and high density living. Doubling down on the suburban lifestyle is a bad idea. But no, we're further drilling it into everyone's head they can maintain their status quo lifestyle. That's a bad pathway to solving climate change.

You have to look at the whole picture when it comes to emissions. Using a single point to describe a positive or negative emission reduction is really really dumb. If you did that, the real heroes of climate change would be the shipyards that build the 'ultra large container vessels' with high efficiency 2-stroke diesels. Or OPEC when they reduce oil production to increase prices. Or the Americans when they bomb the middle east.
All these events significantly reduce emissions in some way or another; but instead of doing this things we should reduce the amount of international freight, reduce oil demand, and stop killing people.

Same with Tesla, the efficiency of the vehicle isn't the problem. It's the amount of cars we have. We need to end our reliance on personal car ownership. Not build more cars for gently caress sakes.

It is something people forget about; manufacturing a new vehicle imposes a considerable carbon cost compared to reusing an existing vehicle.

# ? Sep 2, 2018 17:00

Nocturtle: Mar 17, 2007

Corsec posted:

If we substituted fossil fuels with the best currently available non-fossil fuels technology then will it be compatible with maintaining, or even improving, current living standards? How feasible is it to decarbonize while also maintaining living standards in the first world and also providing improved living standards to the third world?

I'm currently under the impression that we can't decarbonize with current technology without a humanitarian collapse even greater than the fall of the Soviet Union in the first world, and utter ruination of the third world. But I can't remember exactly where I got that idea from, so I'm not sure if its really true and wondering what the real facts are. It'd be nice to be proved wrong.

Decarbonizing at the required rate through realistic carbon pricing, ie a carbon tax, will likely make food significantly more expensive in the near term. There was an alarming Nature article that suggested there are significant consequences for not taking this into account and that a blanket carbon tax could actually cause more hunger than climate change itself. From the press release:

quote:

Climate taxes on agriculture could lead to more food insecurity than climate change itself
30 July 2018
New IIASA-led research has found that a single climate mitigation scheme applied to all sectors, such as a global carbon tax, could have a serious impact on agriculture and result in far more widespread hunger and food insecurity than the direct impacts of climate change. Smarter, inclusive policies are necessary instead.

This research, published in Nature Climate Change is the first international study to compare across models the effects of climate change on agriculture with the costs and effects of mitigation policies, and look at subsequent effects on food security and the risk of hunger.
...
By 2050, the models suggest that climate change could be responsible for putting an extra 24 million people at risk of hunger on average, with some models suggesting up to 50 million extra could be at risk. However, if agriculture is included in very stringent climate mitigation schemes, such as a global carbon tax or a comprehensive emission trading system applying the same rules to all sectors of the economy, the increase in food prices would be such that 78 million more people would be at risk of hunger, with some models finding that up to 170 million more would be at risk.
...
The researchers stress that their results should not be used to argue against greenhouse gas emissions reduction efforts. Climate mitigation efforts are vital. Instead, the research shows the importance of �smart�, targeted policy design, particularly in agriculture. When designing climate mitigation policies, policymakers need to scrutinize other factors and development goals more closely, rather than focusing only on the goal of reducing emissions.

�The findings are important to help realize that agriculture should receive a very specific treatment when it comes to climate change policies,� says Hasegawa. �Carbon pricing schemes will not bring any viable options for developing countries where there are highly vulnerable populations. Mitigation in agriculture should instead be integrated with development policies.�

This is only one article (and frankly I found it difficult to understand as a non-expert) but the results are plausible. Modern agriculture provides cheap food through intensive use of cheap fossil fuels and effective pricing carbon will very likely make food unaffordable for already impoverished people. The whole appeal of decarbonizing via carbon tax is it makes use of existing markets to figure out how to reorganize the economy to use fossil-fuel alternatives, but there is an ugly history of western-championed market based policies inadvertently causing famine. The point is that a blanket carbon price probably isn't a good idea, and more sophisticated policies are required ie policies that recognize people need to actually eat.

Practically speaking the first-world needs to take the lead and do the bulk of short-term decarbonization, as the developing world simple can't afford to do so right now. However I haven't seen evidence this will cause a "humanitarian collapse" in the first world, just that it will be expensive. Qualtitatively comparing emissions per capita between countries like the US+Canada with France+Sweden suggests that North Americans could drastically cut emissions and still maintain a high standard of living.

# ? Sep 2, 2018 17:02

Accretionist: Nov 7, 2012; I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES

Hello Sailor posted:

I know bioremediation techniques and their limitations, jackass. It's part of what I had to learn to get my degree. It's not a magic bullet that can solve climate change. If you think otherwise, do something besides threadshit for once and explain how you think it works, so I can tell you why you're a moron (beyond the obvious).

Any opinions on 'best bets' or directions research should go?

# ? Sep 2, 2018 17:11

aphid_licker: Jan 7, 2009

There was this idea that the carbon tax should just be paid back out to people so that at the store the low-carbon alternative is still cheaper, but people aren't forced to eat the price increase for stuff that they can't find an alternative to

# ? Sep 2, 2018 18:05

paradex: Aug 30, 2018; by R. Guyovich

THE BAR posted:

What has he done, besides making cars that eat up our limited lithium supplies?

As in, what has he done, and not one of his workers? Cause all I can find on google is things he wants to do, or things he has said could be neat.

I've made this argument to people for a couple years but there's a certain group of people that honestly think he's Iron Man and not just another rich dumdum on Twitter.

# ? Sep 2, 2018 18:34

Corsec: Apr 17, 2007

Nocturtle posted:

Practically speaking the first-world needs to take the lead and do the bulk of short-term decarbonization, as the developing world simple can't afford to do so right now. However I haven't seen evidence this will cause a "humanitarian collapse" in the first world, just that it will be expensive. Qualtitatively comparing emissions per capita between countries like the US+Canada with France+Sweden suggests that North Americans could drastically cut emissions and still maintain a high standard of living.

Thanks for the response. I'm aware of the emissions disparity between some first world countries; I think there was a previously posted statistic that French emissions per capita was 30% of the US. This is a good and encouraging argument for progress towards emissions reductions in (at least some) developed nations. More specifically, my question is what would be the consequences for living standards of a strategy that aimed for zero emissions, with current technology (not just reductions in some developed countries). So what does it look like if France aimed for zero emissions with current technology (rather than just the US going to a France-like level of emission)? Do living standards maintain, increase or reduce? Of course, this is all assuming political willingness. And I can believe that equalizing living standards will mitigate against a reduction in living standards for many, but it still operates within the limits afforded by the underlying economic performance of decarbonized assets. So what are the practical limitations that decarbonization puts on our ability to support living standards?

My use of the term "humanitarian collapse" was probably not adequately explained. I was thinking of a Kevin Anderson lecture were he pointed out that 10% or comparable reductions in carbon emissions per year have been historically achieved only during economic contractions such as that following the Soviet collapse, or Greek austerity. And I think we can call these a humanitarian collapse because of the resulting effects on human life- premature death, alcoholism, suicide rates etc. So if decarbonization is expensive, and more expensive than the alternative, does it still allow sufficient productivity to prevent these kinds of catastrophic declines in living standards?

EDIT: minor phrasing change.

Corsec fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Sep 2, 2018

# ? Sep 2, 2018 19:12

Hello Sailor: May 3, 2006; we're all mad here

Accretionist posted:

Any opinions on 'best bets' or directions research should go?

Bioremediation is awesome for cleaning up hydrocarbon releases... by turning it into CO2 and water. It's also useful for some metals and heavy metals. It can even degrade some plastics... by turning it into CO2, methane, and water.

Bioremediation/biosequestration techniqes for dealing with greenhouse gases hit the same hurdles as any other carbon capture technique: scaleability to a rate of capture that's going to matter, non-GHG inputs (energy and nutrients, for bio techniques), and fate of the products. Yes, it's a cheap way to solve the energy input problem by making it solar. Microbial techniques could also effectively eliminate the scaleability hurdles of other techniques, but trade them in for problems with fate of the technique (which I would argue is a scaleability problem).

To reach the rate of carbon capture required for viability, we're looking at an autotrophic microbe of some sort and environmental release of said microbe (even if we did create a vat big enough to contain them by building a wall around Texas or whatever, it would need air and sunlight). What are plants going to do when they have competition for CO2, competition which we can't easily stuff back in the box?

Then there's still the problem of "what do we do with all the products". Your first posts in this thread are an example (though referring to a mechanical solution): what are we going to do with a cubic mile of ethanol? Plus, environmental release of the microbes means environmental release of the products.

So, we'd need microbes that require a source of nutrition that we could both control (to prevent uncontrolled releases from getting a foothold) and supply in the vast amount required. We'd also need them to create a diverse range of products that are in high demand and that we're okay with destroying the existing market for, some of which won't just release the CO2 back into the atmosphere anytime in the foreseeable future.

# ? Sep 2, 2018 20:10

starkebn: May 18, 2004; "Oooh, got a little too serious. You okay there, little buddy?"

aphid_licker posted:

There was this idea that the carbon tax should just be paid back out to people so that at the store the low-carbon alternative is still cheaper, but people aren't forced to eat the price increase for stuff that they can't find an alternative to

Exactly, impose a heavy carbon tax and fund Universal Basic Income

# ? Sep 3, 2018 05:46

starkebn: May 18, 2004; "Oooh, got a little too serious. You okay there, little buddy?"

And make corporations pay their taxes

# ? Sep 3, 2018 05:47

Grouchio: Aug 31, 2014

Are the latest initiatives of states and nations combatting carbon emissions starting to have an effect yet? Every time there's news of a climate change statistic or warning, good or bad, the only responses I see on reddit (for example) are doom-filled. Or are renewable prices going to have to continue decreasing before we start seeing a lull in annual world emissions?

# ? Sep 3, 2018 06:21

StabbinHobo: Oct 18, 2002; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

Grouchio posted:

Are the latest initiatives of states and nations combatting carbon emissions starting to have an effect yet?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china-xi/amid-u-s-trade-war-chinas-xi-reiterates-reform-commitment-idUSKCN1LI0FS

Reuters posted:

Governments are not on track to meet a goal of the 2015 Paris agreement of capping temperatures well below 2 degrees Celsius ... before the end of the century
...
The Paris climate agreement, adopted by almost 200 nations in 2015, set a goal of limiting warming to �well below� a rise of 2 degrees C above pre-industrial times while �pursuing efforts� for the tougher goal of 1.5 degrees C.

�1.5 is the goal that is needed for many islands and many countries that are particularly vulnerable to avoid catastrophic effects. In many cases it means the survival of those countries. With the pledges we have on the table now we are not on track to achieve those goals�

there arent even really meaningful initiatives yet, just talk/pledges about goals that no on is going to actually deliver on (so far).

StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 13:48 on Sep 3, 2018

# ? Sep 3, 2018 13:45

StabbinHobo: Oct 18, 2002; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

this is from 2016 so it should say 265 gigatons and 6 years left on our 2C budget.

keep in mind what that top box labeled "710" says. to me thats the thing that will define real seriousness about the problem. those 710 gigatons represent literally trillions of dollars worth of oil, gas, and coal commodities that even though they're underground are still considered "on the books" of the companies or countries that claim them.

take for example exxon mobile. they have a market cap of 340 billion, and 21 billion barrels of "proven reserves". thats 1.5 trillion dollars in future revenue that is already priced into the stock.

there is simply no mathematical way to stay under 2C without nationalizing or bankrupting or bailing out exxon mobile. and also all the other private oil, gas, and coal companies.

but wait there's more

collectively those companies make up a meaningful chunk of the fortune 500. that means, in order to stay under 2C, we have to destroy boomers 401ks.

# ? Sep 3, 2018 14:17

Ssthalar: Sep 16, 2007

StabbinHobo posted:

Despair.jpeg

I'm so very happy for my happy pills right now, which reminds me:
When the revolution comes, make sure to put me up against the wall for not murdering a CEO before pills.

# ? Sep 3, 2018 16:08

Poil: Mar 17, 2007

StabbinHobo posted:

"Every Euro summer a heatwave"

Kill me now.

# ? Sep 3, 2018 18:36

Shifty Nipples: Apr 8, 2007

Ssthalar posted:

I'm so very happy for my happy pills right now, which reminds me:
When the revolution comes, make sure to put me up against the wall for not murdering a CEO before pills.

I'm alive only because I am not dead.

# ? Sep 3, 2018 18:37

Paradoxish: Dec 19, 2003; Will you stop going crazy in there?

I find it so frustrating that we still talk about 2C as if it's any kind of realistic goal. It shifts the goalposts so much that discussing basic, uncontroversial facts is "pessimism." There is no politically or economically feasible way to stay within our carbon budget given the time we have remaining.

# ? Sep 3, 2018 20:19

Conspiratiorist: Nov 12, 2015; 17th Separate Kryvyi Rih Tank Brigade named after Konstantin Pestushko
Look to my coming on the first light of the ~~fifth~~ ~~sixth~~ some day

Paradoxish posted:

I find it so frustrating that we still talk about 2C as if it's any kind of realistic goal. It shifts the goalposts so much that discussing basic, uncontroversial facts is "pessimism." There is no politically or economically feasible way to stay within our carbon budget given the time we have remaining.

Stop it with your pessimistic doom and gloom hot takes. I swear, the discourse in this thread is just so poisoned by sadbrains goons craving their mad max apocalypse world fantasies, preventing actual discussion on the tried-and-true effective courses of action, like spreading liberalism.

Furthermore

# ? Sep 3, 2018 20:27

Elderbean: Jun 10, 2013

At least I'll get the smug satisfaction of knowing the deniers will starve to death with the rest of us.

# ? Sep 3, 2018 22:13

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Elderbean posted:

At least I'll get the smug satisfaction of knowing the deniers will starve to death with the rest of us.

lol nah most of them will live out lives of pleasant luxury.

# ? Sep 3, 2018 22:24

Trainee PornStar: Jul 20, 2006; I'm just an inbetweener

Trabisnikof posted:

lol nah most of them will live out lives of pleasant luxury.

This is the truth... there will be some 'elysium' type poo poo going on, it'll be enclaves of rich people instead of space stations but it'll be the same idea.

# ? Sep 3, 2018 22:49

Senor P.: Mar 27, 2006; I MUST TELL YOU HOW PEOPLE CARE ABOUT STUFF I DONT AND BE A COMPLETE CUNT ABOUT IT

Trainee PornStar posted:

This is the truth... there will be some 'elysium' type poo poo going on, it'll be enclaves of rich people instead of space stations but it'll be the same idea.

It's already happened...

Jackson Hole in Wyoming...

Although there are a smattering of "millionaires" communities throughout the U.S.

Idaho, Montana, the Ozarks all come to mind...

# ? Sep 4, 2018 00:47

Chadzok: Apr 25, 2002

some random person from a decade ago posted:

I find it so frustrating that we still talk about 1.5C as if it's any kind of realistic goal. It shifts the goalposts so much that discussing basic, uncontroversial facts is "pessimism." There is no politically or economically feasible way to stay within our carbon budget given the time we have remaining.

some random person from a decade before that posted:

I find it so frustrating that we still talk about 1C as if it's any kind of realistic goal. It shifts the goalposts so much that discussing basic, uncontroversial facts is "pessimism." There is no politically or economically feasible way to stay within our carbon budget given the time we have remaining.

# ? Sep 4, 2018 00:48

Elderbean: Jun 10, 2013

Trabisnikof posted:

lol nah most of them will live out lives of pleasant luxury.

I was mostly talking about the working class republican base that keeps denying that climate change is a thing.

# ? Sep 4, 2018 01:47

qkkl: Jul 1, 2013; by FactsAreUseless

Wouldn't more rain offset global warming via evaporative cooling? Seems like the Earth will simply "sweat" to cool itself.

# ? Sep 4, 2018 02:01

Rime: Nov 2, 2011; by Games Forum

qkkl posted:

Wouldn't more rain offset global warming via evaporative cooling? Seems like the Earth will simply "sweat" to cool itself.

# ? Sep 4, 2018 03:12

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

qkkl posted:

Instead of nuking the Earth to create a dust cloud we should nuke the Moon in a controlled way to create a shielding ring of debris that blocks just enough sunlight to counter global warming.

I have a soft spot for solutions involving disarmament.

# ? Sep 4, 2018 03:32

Nocturtle: Mar 17, 2007

Elderbean posted:

I was mostly talking about the working class republican base that keeps denying that climate change is a thing.

Any contemporary western denier will be dead long before the real impacts of climate change hit home, even with statins. Frankly they won the climate change debate and won't face any consequences.

Also don't blame the "working class Republican base" for dragging it's feet on climate change, they're about as likely as not to accept the consensus. Climate change denialism increases with education in conservatives:

The New York Times had some useful comments:

quote:

This may seem counterintuitive, because better-educated Republicans are more likely to be aware of the scientific consensus that human activity is contributing to climate change. But in the realm of public opinion, climate change isn�t really a scientific issue. It�s a political one.

Even though better-educated Republicans may have more exposure to information about the science around climate change, they also have more exposure to partisan messages about it. And communications research says that matters more.

Although in my opinion it's entirely FYGM.

# ? Sep 4, 2018 03:56

Notorious R.I.M.: Jan 27, 2004; up to my ass in alligators

qkkl posted:

Wouldn't more rain offset global warming via evaporative cooling? Seems like the Earth will simply "sweat" to cool itself.

water vapor is a greenhouse gas.

# ? Sep 4, 2018 05:25

botany: Apr 27, 2013; by Lowtax

qkkl posted:

Wouldn't more rain offset global warming via evaporative cooling? Seems like the Earth will simply "sweat" to cool itself.

# ? Sep 4, 2018 07:38

Jonah Galtberg: Feb 11, 2009

qkkl posted:

Wouldn't more rain offset global warming via evaporative cooling? Seems like the Earth will simply "sweat" to cool itself.

source you are quotes

# ? Sep 4, 2018 10:14

Goa Tse-tung: Feb 11, 2008; ;3; Yams Fan

it makes sense if you think about it: if we speed up the rotation of the earth the increased wind will "cool" down the air and WALLA no more global warming

# ? Sep 4, 2018 10:21

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 14, 2024 11:29

aphid_licker: Jan 7, 2009

Just shoot very hot objects into space, like chilies or something, thus removing heat from the planet

I am doing my part to keep the planet tepid by exclusively seasoning with mayo

# ? Sep 4, 2018 10:33

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change: Post up your Phd. dissertation, coward

«‹›410 »