|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:You guys have insulted me for like a year (I'm gonna pet a german cat in a few weeks!) and it hasn't worked, because personal consumption still isn't anything but a distraction and sad sack demands of penance based ecofacism still aren't what is needed. A country like france still has like 1/3rd the per capita carbon footprint and did so by sensible application of nuclear power and a focus on trains that is reasonable where applicable without any weird train fetishism and reasonably dense cities without extreme demands of vengeance against suburban or rural people. You underestimated what the IPCC's current trajectory temperature target is by over 1C too low for SR15 the day before it came out. You shouldn't post about what the "real solutions" are when you're too dumb to identify the problem.
|
# ? Oct 17, 2018 18:32 |
|
|
# ? May 28, 2024 15:50 |
|
owls such a pro tier shitposter he can almost pull of "my jet fuel is not a problem because france's electricity is nuclear"
|
# ? Oct 17, 2018 18:34 |
|
StabbinHobo posted:since your opening line is bullshit i didn't bother reading past it. feel free to click the little question mark icon below my avatar to correct yourself. Doorknob Slobber posted:Also I think its great that instead of actually having an argument all you can really do is make personal attacks. I'm not going to sit with you and quibble about all the things you or I individually do like some stupid loving carbon footprint badge because that is bait dude I'm sorry you aren't willing to actually talk about solutions. How has voting democrat and encouraging people to not have children gone so far in the past ~40 years since climate change was a thing people have been talking about by the way? Its hard for me to forget that we just had a democrat as a president and the democrats had legislative control and they were still 99% talk in terms of stopping climate change. Instead Obama posted:Over the last three years, I’ve directed my administration to open up millions of acres for gas and oil exploration across 23 different states. We’re opening up more than 75 percent of our potential oil resources offshore. We’ve quadrupled the number of operating rigs to a record high. We’ve added enough new oil and gas pipeline to encircle the Earth, and then some. . . . In fact, the problem . . . is that we’re actually producing so much oil and gas . . . that we don’t have enough pipeline capacity to transport all of it where it needs to go.
|
# ? Oct 17, 2018 18:36 |
|
Doorknob Slobber posted:I'm sorry you aren't willing to actually talk about solutions. I am in no way going to "talk about solutions" with your completely made up poo poo, you lying rear end in a top hat. quote:How has voting democrat and encouraging people to not have children gone so far in the past ~40 years since climate change was a thing people have been talking about by the way? Its hard for me to forget that we just had a democrat as a president and the democrats had legislative control and they were still 99% talk in terms of stopping climate change. Instead
|
# ? Oct 17, 2018 18:43 |
|
Doorknob Slobber posted:telling people to not have children because we can solve climate change that way is pretty much equal to that and its what you and a bunch of posters in this thread keep saying. You will never, ever convince enough people to stop having children to make a real impact. It will literally never happen. And from the standpoint of the state you're going full fascism to legislate who gets to have babies and who doesn't so goooooooooood luck. In the end the only people who benefit from climate change 'activists' or whatever you want to call people doing passive poo poo like not doing something are quiverfull religious chuds who will repopulate the world with homeschooled shithead climate deniers. Everyone is in different places and has different abilities to help lower the global footprint. What matters is that everyone strives to lower it on their own terms in ways that work best for them. For some people that's having fewer kids. For some that's flying less. For some that's how they vote at the ballot box. For some that's how they do community organizing. Creating a society where everyone is trying to improve toward a common goal increases our social cohesion and muscle to exert meaningful change. Doing this allows us to incrementally create policies that ripple up from the local level to make the systemic changes that you outline. It means it's no longer an all-or-nothing battle of smash the state or fail. It also means that you have work to do rather than endlessly excuse yourself because you think you're poor enough to be free from responsibility.
|
# ? Oct 17, 2018 18:44 |
|
StabbinHobo posted:if you honestly can't wrap your brain around the difference at the EPA between the obama administration and the trump administration then you are simply broken mentally. you do not seem to be capable of modeling non-binary things. democrats and republicans both made climate change worse to varying degrees, that isn't binary. It is not a binary thing to say that they are both extremely bad and are the reason for climate change. Please though instead of arguing about climate change continue to make completely irrelevant personal attacks, I hope they make you feel better about yourself much like uselessly claiming you'll never have children or eat meat over and over again because you're the savior of the world all by your lonesome, my heroooooo
|
# ? Oct 17, 2018 18:52 |
|
children: binary-pro: children are great, the future, if you aren't pro-children you're anti-human and evil binary-con: all future modeling is based on future consumption, children are those future consumers and therefore the primary driver of future consumption, therefore have zero children ACTUAL loving THING I HAVE ADVOCATED: - try to have 1 or 2 kids instead of 2 or 3 - support better education and healthcare for the poor especially women flying: binary-pro: seeing the world is one of lifes great pleasures and being worldly is neoliberal nirvana. we are all connected by jet engines and to regress would be anti-global-civilization binary-con: after children there is no greater one single thing you can do that causes more acute harm to the climate, flying is haram ACTUAL loving THING I HAVE ADVOCATED: try not to fly more than one intercontinental round trip every few years meat: binary-pro: brisket binary-con: the land use aspect of beef, let alone the methane, make it uniquely terrible. fisheries are almost all in complete collapse. ACTUAL loving THING I HAVE ADVOCATED: try to chose the chicken based option instead of the beef based one whenever you have the choice
|
# ? Oct 17, 2018 18:55 |
|
you see, if you actually engage with the things i've said, rather than invent things i've not said, you'd realize how extremely *boringly* do-able this all is.
|
# ? Oct 17, 2018 18:57 |
|
StabbinHobo posted:children: None of this matters when the person you're talking to just wants to feel superior because they've "wisely" chosen nihilism. They've decided all action is either insufficient or impossible so any action anyone advocates for is instantly discredited since it must be one of the two.
|
# ? Oct 17, 2018 18:59 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:None of this matters when the person you're talking to just wants to feel superior because they've "wisely" chosen nihilism. it's been agreed the whole world stinks, so no one's taking showers anymore
|
# ? Oct 17, 2018 19:02 |
|
StabbinHobo posted:owls such a pro tier shitposter he can almost pull of "my jet fuel is not a problem because france's electricity is nuclear" If jet fuel is a problem you fix jet fuel. Just like how France fixed electricity by fixing electricity and replacing coal with a better in every way solution not by some weird death cult where everyone lives in the woods and swears off electricity and double pinkie promises to be extra double sad when they use a sinful lightbulb. The answer is actually do the hard work to actually make biofuel or batteries or trained electric eels an actual solution that is actually good enough someone would want to use them on their plane. and stop whining about it and trying to make up a bunch of dumb nonsense solutions that will never ever happen so you can feel so smug about them never happening.
|
# ? Oct 17, 2018 19:05 |
|
How about we carbon tax jet fuel? People will want to fly of course, so that should stimulate development of cleaner, more cost-effective flight methods. That's a good solution, right OOCC?
|
# ? Oct 17, 2018 19:13 |
|
if
|
# ? Oct 17, 2018 19:18 |
|
Conspiratiorist posted:How about we carbon tax jet fuel? People will want to fly of course, so that should stimulate development of cleaner, more cost-effective flight methods. It would be a great solution if old people weren't hell bent on taking us all to the grave with then. https://twitter.com/coinjar12/status/1048380629199417349
|
# ? Oct 17, 2018 19:48 |
|
Conspiratiorist posted:How about we carbon tax jet fuel? People will want to fly of course, so that should stimulate development of cleaner, more cost-effective flight methods. Yeah, I absolutely support stuff like that. The free market isn't going to just magically fix this, even if solutions exist. The government does need to step in for these things. But any one thing like a carbon tax is just going to be one tool, it's not going to be THE solution. And would suck if you try to make it be. Like one realistic path forward for planes is the US military funds biofuel (because they are doing that) until it's reasonably good at a technological level, then subsidies to research that get that to mass production and normal human prices instead of military prices then an increasing tax on jet fuel stops everyone from dragging their feet on switching. Then eventually it just being the normal kind of fuel. Something like that is realistic and real steps towards a real fix that will last forever. If the idea of a carbon tax is just say "every flight is 9 million dollars, har har har" then that isn't really good and that sort of carbon tax is dumb and would never get passed into law, be supported by anyone, or meaningfully help anyone. Like everyone complained about the transition off incandescent bulbs but it was ultimately a pretty good model. Of pushing and pushing to make alternatives more and more reasonable with tax credits and research funding and rising efficiency standards and whatever, then the final hard cut off at the end once they became a real alternative.
|
# ? Oct 17, 2018 19:54 |
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Yeah, I absolutely support stuff like that. The free market isn't going to just magically fix this, even if solutions exist. The government does need to step in for these things. But any one thing like a carbon tax is just going to be one tool, it's not going to be THE solution. And would suck if you try to make it be. So what happens now that we know we needed to start this gradual and painless approach 30 years ago in order to avoid 2C warming by mid-21st century?
|
# ? Oct 17, 2018 20:01 |
|
sitchensis posted:It would be a great solution if old people weren't hell bent on taking us all to the grave with then. Look at all them lovely old people. Their carbon will be the first to be sequestered.
|
# ? Oct 17, 2018 20:12 |
|
at least you're honest you believe military keynesianism is the only option just totally loving idiotic on your timelines though. very loving wrong.
|
# ? Oct 17, 2018 20:28 |
|
Okay buddy say it with us here: 'It's no longer the 80's and the time for an incremental solution to climate change has passed'
|
# ? Oct 17, 2018 20:36 |
|
You can't land a battery-powered jetliner, biofuels are a waste of potentially sequestered carbon, planes die or we die, nbd.
|
# ? Oct 17, 2018 20:46 |
|
MiddleOne posted:Okay buddy say it with us here: You get that all the weak and lame personal choice suggestions ARE the slow incremental answers, right? Some sort of begging for people to stop eating meat or taking shorter showers or something until maybe a hundred years from now and generations on that might be a big enough movement to maybe pass some watered down law. While if someone invents an electric car that is significantly better than a gas car that will take over the automotive industry at the exact speed that cars deploy and replace old cars and trends like that spread out, which is also very slow but is actually a thing that can happen, as opposed to vague plans that extremely minor personal choices will spread to a large enough community to somehow make a minor law generations from now and get a few more bikes on the road.
|
# ? Oct 17, 2018 21:04 |
|
StabbinHobo posted:you see, if you actually engage with the things i've said, rather than invent things i've not said, you'd realize how extremely *boringly* do-able this all is. I would like to point out that the binary-con solutions you outline are not any less do-able than your middle-of-the-road proposals. In fact, two out of the three of them are decidedly far easier.
|
# ? Oct 17, 2018 21:06 |
|
This is a good number to have handy, scientists estimate that 50 more years of the ongoing mass extinction will require ~3-5 million years of evolution before mammals recover modern-era level biodiversity. An estimated 5-7 million years are required for mammals to reach the level of biodiversity that existed before modern humans evolved. A nice summary:Science Daily posted:The researchers used their extensive database of mammals, which includes not only species that still exist, but also the hundreds of species that lived in the recent past and became extinct as Homo sapiens spread across the globe. This meant that the researchers could study the full impact of our species on other mammals. Along with other factors, extremely rapid environmental change is outstripping the adaptability of large mammals. When they go extinct their specialized adaptations will need to be evolved all over again. Just as the last 30 years of unrestrained fossil fuel consumption will cause a couple of centuries of economic hardship (at best), it appears humanity's ~10000 years of explosive growth will take up to 7 million years to reverse. That's a not insignificant fraction of the total time remaining for multi-cellular life on earth (IIRC 500-800 million years)!
|
# ? Oct 17, 2018 21:12 |
|
Just think of how the rest of our lives' would be enriched if owl could try to pet a sabretooth tiger.
|
# ? Oct 17, 2018 21:57 |
|
davebo posted:Just think of how the rest of our lives' would be enriched if owl could try to pet a sabretooth tiger. true story: As a very young child I was bit by a very young tiger hard enough to draw blood. If my cat patting is going to end the world you can take that as my supervillian origin story.
|
# ? Oct 17, 2018 22:19 |
|
Conspiratiorist posted:You don't even have to give up all meat, just beef, and you'll be making a large impact on your personal carbon footprint. Oh, yeah, I hardly ever eat beef. Vast majority of my meat I eat (3/4 at least, easily) is chicken.
|
# ? Oct 17, 2018 22:57 |
|
People have a hard on for telling ppl what to do. Banning plastic straws, telling them they can't have kids,etc. It always aimed at regular folks,too. Not corporations who are actually responsible. No, it's normal people that need to make all the sacrifices, not the actual corporations and powerful ppl. No plastic straws for you, even though plastic straws are a drop in the bucket. Seriously, I remember someone in this thread getting FURIOUS because people were like "arresting people for plastic straws is dumb".
|
# ? Oct 17, 2018 23:51 |
|
Blue Star posted:People have a hard on for telling ppl what to do. Banning plastic straws, telling them they can't have kids,etc. It always aimed at regular folks,too. Not corporations who are actually responsible. No, it's normal people that need to make all the sacrifices, not the actual corporations and powerful ppl. No plastic straws for you, even though plastic straws are a drop in the bucket. Notice it's the exact same morality type stuff people that like dictating this stuff always like dictating, eating restrictions, sex stuff, moral behavior. It's never ever off the wall stuff like "water heaters take a ton of energy, everyone needs to use dry shampoo" even if that would help, because that sort of thing is never in the preview of people that wanna make rules for other people.
|
# ? Oct 18, 2018 00:07 |
|
Blue Star posted:People have a hard on for telling ppl what to do. Banning plastic straws, telling them they can't have kids,etc. It always aimed at regular folks,too. Not corporations who are actually responsible. No, it's normal people that need to make all the sacrifices, not the actual corporations and powerful ppl. No plastic straws for you, even though plastic straws are a drop in the bucket. Nice plastic strawman.
|
# ? Oct 18, 2018 00:10 |
|
I just want to ban nonviable technologies that can't be decoupled from liquid fuels.
|
# ? Oct 18, 2018 00:11 |
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Nice plastic strawman.
|
# ? Oct 18, 2018 00:16 |
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Nice plastic strawman. I distinctly remember one poster getting frustrated that people were complaining about the plastic straws ban in california. Don't try to tell me y'all ain't got people like that in D&D. Anyway,ppl gonna keep having kids,guys. Sorry.
|
# ? Oct 18, 2018 00:19 |
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It's never ever off the wall stuff like "water heaters take a ton of energy, everyone needs to use dry shampoo" even if that would help, because
|
# ? Oct 18, 2018 00:35 |
|
Doorknob Slobber posted:Realistically speaking wouldn't they just hire someone else who is doing the 20+ round trips on a flight? Did reducing your own individual footprint do a thing that actually made an impact on climate change? They replaced me with a local at a far lower salary, the daughter of the CEO :-) So yeah, that helped reduce carbon emissions. And my income in 2017.
|
# ? Oct 18, 2018 01:17 |
|
Doorknob Slobber posted:Biking to work is a privilege my friend and not feasible for many people for a variety of reasons, a few I can think of off the top of my head are, being able to live close enough to work, health, weather Most of the bike commuters I see in LA are people who don't even own (or can afford to own) a car. Not every bike commuter is an executive who hates driving in traffic like me. Note: Many of the cycling advocates ignore these commuters. Which is sad.
|
# ? Oct 18, 2018 01:20 |
|
Car Hater posted:You can't land a battery-powered jetliner, biofuels are a waste of potentially sequestered carbon, planes die or we die, nbd. Solar Fuels ... liquid fuels based on solar produced hydrogen (electrolysis of water) are probably the best bet. Electric aircraft may make sense for some general aviation uses, pilot training for one. Not viable for routes more than a few 100 miles until we have massive gains in energy density of batteries.
|
# ? Oct 18, 2018 01:23 |
|
twodot posted:the vast majority of my power is generated by hydroelectric sources, so I don't spend much time worrying about consumer energy use? Wait, I thought hydroelectric ended up being extremely bad where the flooded land ends up rotting underwater and releasing absurd amounts of methane for decades. http://www.climatecentral.org/news/hydropower-as-major-methane-emitter-18246 In 2012 study, researchers in Singapore found that greenhouse gas emissions from hydropower reservoirs globally are likely greater than previously estimated ... Those researchers suggest all large reservoirs globally could emit up to 104 teragrams of methane annually. By comparison, NASA estimates that global methane emissions associated with burning fossil fuels totals between 80 and 120 teragrams annually. ... Until recently, it was believed that about 20 percent of all man-made methane emissions come from the surface of reservoirs. New research suggests that figure may be much higher than 20 percent, but it’s unclear how much higher because too little data is available to estimate.
|
# ? Oct 18, 2018 03:15 |
|
Planes should be converted into gliders that have rocket engines fueled by liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. The engines would fire to raise the plane's altitude and then turn off to let the plane glide, only turning on again once too much altitude is lost. The liquid hydrogen and oxygen would be produced using power from a source that emits low amounts of greenhouse gases.
|
# ? Oct 18, 2018 03:46 |
|
qkkl posted:Planes should be converted into gliders that have rocket engines fueled by liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. The engines would fire to raise the plane's altitude and then turn off to let the plane glide, only turning on again once too much altitude is lost. The liquid hydrogen and oxygen would be produced using power from a source that emits low amounts of greenhouse gases. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-20_Dyna-Soar
|
# ? Oct 18, 2018 03:56 |
|
|
# ? May 28, 2024 15:50 |
|
It's worth taking individual action even if it's barely a drop in the ocean in the effort to limit warming because in a shocking coincidence, many of those individual actions would also help make you more prepared, healthy, and self-sufficient in the face of increasing instability. But the truth is a small portion of posters in this thread are just nihilistic borderline-suicidal shitposters who won't even do it purely out of self-interest.
|
# ? Oct 18, 2018 04:40 |