|
TheOnlyStarFish posted:How is that a better plan then just switching everyone to electric vehicles? Jesus Christ. We could spend the equivalent to One Year of the United State's Military Budget to fix our roads and just GIVE people electric cars. I guess I feel like thats a better plan because then we are sharing a public fleet of public transpo vehicles instead of manufacturing billions of private vehicles that sit on lots doing nothing and just switching to electric but still making new cars of every make and model etc every year seems like it might be a half-fix, we'd still be manufacturing and shipping vehicles all over the loving place constantly which is still super stupid and inefficient. I mean I guess if you gave everyone electric cars and said ok you can't buy cars anymore, but just saying "no more private vehicles" just seems like a more elegant solution to me. Iron Twinkie posted:For fucks sake, if we accept that we have to upend, rethink, and remake society, can't we take a few extra steps to setup and build infrastructure that doesn't require MAGA hats dragging the undesirables out of their homes? Jesus. I don't think relocation requires dragging people out of their homes, but certainly focused social programs on incentives that encourage people to ditch rural areas including jobs programs, straight up giving people money, house buying programs, rent controls, the state purchasing property for sale in rural areas and turning it into parks and replanting forests. I don't think you could force everyone everywhere to forever leave those areas but over time with enough incentives you could probably move large portions of the population along a few major corridors. The way it is right now really encourages the opposite, major city centers are often times way too loving expensive to live in and over time its easy to push poor people out, especially since there are rural home buying programs and things like that for lower income people. How is that any loving worse than the bullshit thats going on in areas like Seattle and San Francisco anyways? People are often times literally getting dragged from their homes by sheriffs being evicted just because they can no longer afford to live there or with law suits by the city/state because they can no longer afford property taxes. People are already being forcibly relocated every loving day 
Doorknob Slobber fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Oct 3, 2018 |
#
?
Oct 3, 2018 23:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:18 |
|
|
Doorknob Slobber posted:How is that any loving worse than the bullshit thats going on in areas like Seattle and San Francisco anyways? People are often times literally getting dragged from their homes by sheriffs being evicted just because they can no longer afford to live there or with law suits by the city/state because they can no longer afford property taxes. People are already being forcibly relocated every loving day Oh I think it's barbaric and that housing should be a human right. What I don't get is this obsession some people have with cramming as many humans as possible into mega cities to live like ants swarming and chewing through a bloated corpse. If we are building wind and solar farms, aren't we going to need nearby communities to maintain them anyway? Which is the greater cost, the additional resources to build out our infrastructure to support more communities or the human cost of making people live in 15ft coffin homes? http://en.ntvbd.com/world/154685/Photos-tell-the-terrifying-scope-of-housing-crisis-in-Hong-Kong I honestly don't understand what makes someone think this way. It occurs to me that the last time we had this obsession with mega cities as a solution was during the Gilded Age so there must be something about massive income inequality or it's knock on effects that leads some people down that line of thinking. Edit Like, why is the assumption that mega cities are the default answer? Because it's easier to ship in food and water in bulk? Logistically, wouldn't it make more sense to have smaller communities that have sustainable local food and water resources so you don't have to bulk ship those in? You know, the thing that humans have done for tens of thousands of years? Iron Twinkie fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Oct 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 00:23
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Other countries ARE building a bunch of breeder reactors. Just because you say its true doesn't make it true. What's the total baseplate capacity of breeder reactors being built right now? Is it more than the baseplate capacity of non-breeder reactors being built right now?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 00:26
|
|
|
Iron Twinkie posted:Edit I think this is also a great, probably better idea. But I feel like it would be a lot more effort overall and most of us can barely make the effort to even really think about climate change beyond yes/no. I don't know anything but at least we're talking about solutions for a minute rather than just circle jerking about how we're all dead. I wish some politicians in the US would come forward with some kind of real 100 year plan or some poo poo. I feel like we should even be worrying about and planning for climate refugees already, but my city is too busy building expensive condos below 10 year predicted high tide levels to give a gently caress
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 01:01
|
|
|
Iron Twinkie posted:Edit Not megacities. Megacities as they exist now are terrible because it's unmanaged urban sprawl turned upwards. But you can have large cities be much, much more efficient than small towns given proper urban planning. And yes, concentration of the utilities grids matters a ton. In fact, going the other way and trying to give everyone the wide open, 'sustainable' small community lifestyle would kill the planet. It's incredibly space and energy intensive. Even small communities can too benefit immensely from multi-unit, multi-purpose housing rather than sprawling out as much as possible because of all the 'cheap' real estate. But of course that's not gonna happen, since lebensraum is such an important part of rural culture.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 01:14
|
|
|
Iron Twinkie posted:the current population NYC proper is about 8.5 million. How in the god drat gently caress is a city like that going to evacuate ahead of a climate change supercharged natural disaster or it's aftermath when it's rendered uninhabitable? Iron Twinkie posted:the rich should live in hermetically sealed domes and the poor should die. Iron Twinkie posted:we're going to need you to live behind a fettid dumpster and take your place amoungst the excrement and rats that are your kin. Iron Twinkie posted:Forced relocation is considered a crime against humanity by the International Criminal Court. Iron Twinkie posted:this obsession some people have with cramming as many humans as possible into mega cities to live like ants swarming and chewing through a bloated corpse. wow. congratulations man. in a thread with some of the dumbest assholes in a forum with some of the dumbest assholes on the entire internet, you have taken the pole position.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 01:40
|
|
|
reactionary agrarian solar farm maintenance cooperatives
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 01:42
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Just because you say its true doesn't make it true. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/fast-neutron-reactors.aspx Several countries have research and development programmes for improved fast neutron reactors, and the IAEA's INPRO programme involving 22 countries (see later section) has fast neutron reactors as a major emphasis, in connection with closed fuel cycle. For instance one scenario in France is for half of the present nuclear capacity to be replaced by fast neutron reactors by 2050 (the first half being replaced by EPR units).
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 01:44
|
|
|
Doorknob Slobber posted:I think this is also a great, probably better idea. But I feel like it would be a lot more effort overall and most of us can barely make the effort to even really think about climate change beyond yes/no. I don't know anything but at least we're talking about solutions for a minute rather than just circle jerking about how we're all dead. I wish some politicians in the US would come forward with some kind of real 100 year plan or some poo poo. I feel like we should even be worrying about and planning for climate refugees already, but my city is too busy building expensive condos below 10 year predicted high tide levels to give a gently caress Oh absolutely. We need scientists and engineers from multiple disciplines trying to figure out what a realistic sustainable societies actually look like and how we get there. We need a push to accept that the tens of millions of displaced people around the world are climate refugees and we have a shared responsibility to them. This really needs to be part of the discourse while the mainstream is An All of the Above Energy Solution vs Rolling Coal for Jesus. Even the more left candidates that are starting to break through this still seems to be a black hole sized blind spot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 02:01
|
|
|
lol I live in one of the most "green" cities in North America and we could only get single family homes zoning reformed to allow duplexes and even then they didn't increase the square footage allowed on the lots. No way will we ever densify or relocate people to live closer together in time to make any meaningful difference.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 03:48
|
|
|
Doorknob Slobber posted:How is that any loving worse than the bullshit thats going on in areas like Seattle and San Francisco anyways? People are often times literally getting dragged from their homes by sheriffs being evicted just because they can no longer afford to live there or with law suits by the city/state because they can no longer afford property taxes. People are already being forcibly relocated every loving day No longer afford the property taxes? Last time I checked in California they only charge for property tax, against whatever it is you paid for the house when you bought it. (So for those who bought in the 1980s or 1990s they pay property taxes against whatever they paid to buy it for in that time frame.) Additionally renting out the thing is an option. Also from what I understand people only get kicked out and places sold when they are delinquiet for say a period of 2-3 years. (At least in my Washington County.) There is a simple solution to the process. Don't like paying the high property taxes associated with living in a city where demand exceeds supply? Don't live there. Sell your house and move somewhere where there is much less demand. In Washington state that would be Yakima, Spokane, Ellensburg, Tri-Cities, Vancouver, Pullman. The fact of the matter is single family housing within limits of a major city is not sustainable. Otherwise, you end up with super sprawl. 1 and 2 bedroom apartments will be the norm. There is certainly a "right to housing" but that might include being forced to live somewhere you don't want to. Seattle and SF are both limited by their geography. Most coastal cities are. Senor P. fucked around with this message at 04:31 on Oct 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 04:27
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I don't think you can really cite the US Navy as an example on cost, since we don't have a clear picture of what their reactors actually cost and their plants are vastly different in size anyway. Vastly different in size but not vastly different in cost. Naval nuclear reactors actually are really great at rapid load transients... like a ship speeding up or slowing down. That's why they're so expensive for what you get. You also pay for a 25 year refueling cycle rather than a yearly. Military reactors are extremely costly compared to the civilian counterpart because you're designing for warfighting rather than profit. Commercial power plants have low reactivity transient rates because you're able to plan their load out far in advance. You can use low enrichment yields to have cost effective fuel. It makes it more akin to driving a garbage truck than a sports car though. LFTRs are forever away because no one is paying for it. There are still scientific problems to solve before we even think about building one for commercial use. With the move away from nuclear and with cheap LNG, no one will pay for that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 04:31
|
|
|
KetTarma posted:LFTRs are forever away because no one is paying for it. There are still scientific problems to solve before we even think about building one for commercial use. With the move away from nuclear and with cheap LNG, no one will pay for that. Nobody seems to remember the days when natural gas was expensive.... Of course for the countries who import it, it can hardly be called "cheap". Still it is better than coal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 04:33
|
|
|
Iron Twinkie posted:Like, why is the assumption that mega cities are the default answer? Because it's easier to ship in food and water in bulk? Logistically, wouldn't it make more sense to have smaller communities that have sustainable local food and water resources so you don't have to bulk ship those in? You know, the thing that humans have done for tens of thousands of years? Megacities? how about medium density housing instead of suburbs combined with a functioning public transit and an anti-car policy? American cities waste insane amounts of space in parking lots and suburbs and your public transit is simply shameful. We have had electric options for rail and road based public transit for at least half a century, the only reason why we have congested dirty cities is because of terrible politics. I live in a city in Eastern Europe and half of our public transit has been electric since 70s or 80s and it's not even rail based, this is not hard to do god drat it. Recently the city government has been slowly shifting to a car-unfriendly state (taxing all parking in the center and investing heavily in bike infrastructure) and while people do whine about it constantly there's enough political will to push the changes trough and move what is considered normal away from car worship. TheCoach fucked around with this message at 11:30 on Oct 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 11:26
|
|
|
There is a particular forum I lurk that has some v good threads on climate change and evolving from capitalism. I don't want to link it here because I feel its one of those situations where the quality of the forum will decline when it starts to become more popular. I know that sounds douchey but I'd rather not be a part of that because it'd be unfair to the forum (its small). If you are interested in joining in my lurking, pm me. e: content: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paf2pJtaXYE e: lol its aleady been posted heaps here: https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/ Lampsacus fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Oct 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 12:44
|
|
|
can we just gather the political will to seize the assets of the wealthy and use them to power glorious socialism already so we can start actually doing something about this
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 12:58
|
|
|
right behind you bud
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 13:05
|
|
|
chronic illness + disability a bitch
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 13:11
|
|
|
Is it nuts that the 2020 USA general election will decide the fate of the world? thats a lot of nuts!
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 13:26
|
|
|
Lampsacus posted:Is it nuts that the 2020 USA general election will decide the fate of the world? the election doesn't matter, socialism doesn't matter, relocation doesn't matter the world isn't going to end, the world is ending. we are living through the collapse. what's happening right now is irrevocable and the only distinction is whether it'll drive humanity mostly extinct or almost fully extinct
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 13:38
|
|
|
nah dude humans are far too good at staying alive, give up hope
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 13:43
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:the election doesn't matter, socialism doesn't matter, relocation doesn't matter this is overly pessimistic yes we're clearly on the downward slope of the current cycle, but the distinction is more likely between a 8 and a 9 figure body count, not extinct/mostly-extinct. so... ahh... cheer up?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 14:20
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:this is overly pessimistic pessimism and optimism are a matter of perspective, really
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 14:44
|
|
|
People aren't going to go extinct soon (though many other beings will,) but the warming isn't going to stop at 2c or whatever. If we could see what things actually are like 300 years in the future, we might not be so sanguine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 14:47
|
|
|
The world is rocketing towards mass extinction and will barely sustain an extreme minority of human beings by the end of this century alone. But instead of being a loving dumbass bitch and throwing your hands up and saying "oh well then" you should do everything in your power to stop that from happening. It's like if you looked at your own life, said death is inevitable (hint: it is!), and decided to forego work, relationships, housing, diet, exercise, et al because you're "just going to die anyway" but on a societal scale - an extremely dumb response to being alive/living in a society.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 15:22
|
|
|
Lampsacus posted:There is a particular forum I lurk that has some v good threads on climate change and evolving from capitalism. I don't want to link it here because I feel its one of those situations where the quality of the forum will decline when it starts to become more popular. I know that sounds douchey but I'd rather not be a part of that because it'd be unfair to the forum (its small). If you are interested in joining in my lurking, pm me. Are you being super secretive about the arctic sea ice forums you already linked in this thread?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 15:24
|
|
|
has there been even a mock proposal to start a new branch in the united states' Department of Defense to 'combat' climate change? i'm trying to think of mechanisms by which governments can just print a gently caress ton of money, throw the money-catalyst at the problem (as a mechanism for mobilizing the resources necessary), and not have it destroyed by weird ron-paulites crying INFLATION! GOLD STANDARD! SOMETHING ELSE THAT ISN'T REAL! END THE FED! maybe framed more like how the government built the a-bomb. something that requires serious planning and government/military/civillian co-operation due to a very real existential threat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 16:50
|
|
|
defense contractors are already working on devices that could eliminate our need for fossil fuels. alledgedly. i haven't heard anything about this lockheed martin "compact fusion reactor" that was hyped years back, maybe someone reading has more info? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_Compact_Fusion_Reactor edit: just an addendum to my previous post, like "hey here's the military investing in possible solutions already, and they don't even know(?)! let's do some re-arranging of the military to make this a focus".
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 16:55
|
|
|
im depressed lol posted:has there been even a mock proposal to start a new branch in the united states' Department of Defense to 'combat' climate change? That very real existential threat has to be, you know, real, as in massive crop failures and massive coastal flooding. The Manhattan Project didn't start getting massive funding until after Pearl Harbor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 17:29
|
|
|
The US military can't legally spend money on a particular thing without a Congressional appropriations bill allowing it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 17:37
|
|
|
The human brain just ain't built to care about 50 years into the future, much less 100, 200, 300. It's the loving Great Filter, friends. Accept it, it's OK, it's what happens to virtually every sentient form of life in the universe. This is normal, nothing is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 17:37
|
|
|
How are u posted:The human brain just ain't built to care about 50 years into the future, much less 100, 200, 300. It's the loving Great Filter, friends. Accept it, it's OK, it's what happens to virtually every sentient form of life in the universe. This is normal, nothing is wrong. I always thought the Great Filter was the fact that any advanced species would necessarily have to be war-like, and once they discover thermonuclear weapons it is only a matter of time before they turn the planet into an irradiated wasteland.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 17:49
|
|
|
It makes more sense from an energy-use perspective: a civilization can't go through an industrial revolution without the massive energy injection of fossil fuels, and widespread fossil fuel use inevitably triggers global ecosystem collapse. The drive to expand and consume all available resources is far more fundamental than intra-species competition - in fact, that's what drives it when it occurs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 18:01
|
|
|
I couldn’t find this in the OP or skeptical science: lately I’ve been hearing that we shouldn’t deny developing nations their industrial revolution. Then I guess the unsaid part is we shouldn’t act to prevent further carbon emissions. I’m too stupid to refute this please send help.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 19:03
|
|
|
Tollymain posted:can we just gather the political will to seize the assets of the wealthy and use them to power glorious socialism already so we can start actually doing something about this In order to give the grandson a better future I'm right behind you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 19:15
|
|
|
barkbell posted:I couldn’t find this in the OP or skeptical science: lately I’ve been hearing that we shouldn’t deny developing nations their industrial revolution. Then I guess the unsaid part is we shouldn’t act to prevent further carbon emissions. I’m too stupid to refute this please send help. It's one of those "both answers suck but in different ways" things. If we let developing nations just industrialize themselves with no restriction then yeah, emissions go up. Chances are they'll burn fossil fuels. If we don't let them then we're denying them what we have and are locking millions of people into poverty which is lovely. I guess the third option would be to invest in them so they can do it with renewables instead of coal but good loving luck convincing the rich to do that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 19:23
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:It's one of those "both answers suck but in different ways" things. That’s what I said. Developed nations could slingshot developing countries into modernization past the industrial revolution or whatever and they always respond “I don’t want to pay for it.” Which I think is the real reason for climate deniers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
barkbell posted:That’s what I said. Developed nations could slingshot developing countries into modernization past the industrial revolution or whatever and they always respond “I don’t want to pay for it.” Which I think is the real reason for climate deniers. Also there is a myth that all development must take place like our development. For example, one of the issues with high renewable grids is power shortfalls leading to brownouts or blackouts. That sucks, but if your previous infrastructure was "no electricity" then you'd probably still vastly prefer electricity even 40% of the time versus 0%. You see this in smaller villages that get solar and have no grid connection. Maybe the batteries only give them a few hours of lighting in the evening, but that's still a massive improvement for the economic viability of the village since they now can charge phones for banking/commerce/communication. Likewise, even a few hours of light can mean large improvements to safety and education. Also the grid in some of these countries is probably better than many US states: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37153 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 19:52
|
|
|
qkkl posted:I always thought the Great Filter was the fact that any advanced species would necessarily have to be war-like, and once they discover thermonuclear weapons it is only a matter of time before they turn the planet into an irradiated wasteland. The great filter is almost certainly the jump to multicellular life plus fanfiction that it's future stuff because that gets to be more dramatic and sadbrains. The jump to multicellular life is the only step in the history of life that seemed to require any waiting around waiting for it to happen once the conditions were right, every other step happened near instantly the second it could have. Any prediction of anything as the "great filter" is just being sci-fi silly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:18 |
|
|
As usual, you're wrong about everything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 20:19
|
|