|
StabbinHobo posted:every ton matters, no matter how much you wish it didnt (me too!) That really is the "millennials could buy houses if they didn't eat avocado toast" argument. it's undeniable that toast costs a zero amount of dollars and that literally even a penny could be saved towards a theoretical house but it's so profoundly barking up the wrong tree that it's garbage to even talk about the cost of a piece of toast in the discussion about buying a house. It's literally nothing but disingenuous redirection away from the real problems into a blatantly fake false 'personal responsibility" based framework that sidesteps literally any of the real world reasons. There is a specific things that release the absolute vast majority of the co2, those things need to be replaced. Period. Any plan that relies on everyone on earth acting in lockstep with a set of deeply unpopular directives is magical thinking.
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 03:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:40 |
|
|
Redirect the oil pipeline into the water supply of red counties. Then drop a match into the sink at a diner. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 03:06
|
|
|
Bishounen Bonanza posted:Before the public will accept the big changes of restructuring the transportation grid and cities, building nuclear, and revamping industrial farming, the culture has to change. You change the culture by focusing on individual actions.of caring. People are real loving dumb about nuclear and it's gonna take a lot to reverse that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 03:06
|
|
|
hoo boy ya'll just post dumb, dumb poo poo
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 03:42
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:hoo boy ya'll just post dumb, dumb poo poo wait do you mean to tell me that this isn't the right place to post demented words of violence and death?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 03:59
|
|
|
i ate a mcdonalds cheeseburger today for the first time in weeks it was delicious the more owl talks the more i understand kulaks and re-education camps
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 06:13
|
|
|
Happy_Misanthrope posted:Mann tweeted this out yesterday btw, the latest in a string of "The IPCC report was optimistic" posts he's been making lately. Considering he's been one of the most prominent doomsayer scolds in past years, yeah poo poo's real bad Probably the most relevant section from the abstract, which can save a lot of reading: Nature posted:Evaluating climate geoengineering proposals in the context of the Paris Agreement temperature goals Here is a nice plot from the article summarizing all the various ways we might jigger the climate.  The paper optimistically assumes the Paris agreement short-term emission reduction goals are met, followed by an average emissions reduction rate after 2031. The amount of CO2 that must be removed from the atmosphere and/or required negative radiative-forcing depends on this reduction rate. This is summarized in this plot:  As a baseline the paper assumes ~650GtCO2 will need to be removed from the atmosphere by 2100 (CDRref), equivalent to a sustained negative forcing of 0.6W/m^2. Note this is ~8GtCO2 removed per year for the rest of the century starting now (hahaha). The key techs and main takeaways: Afforestation quote:Principally the carbon storage potential is large compared to CDRref, given that historic deforestation was 2400±1000 Gt(CO2)16.(wowowow) BECCS quote:High-end estimates for BECCS in the literature involve underlying assumptions ... resulting in an uptake of ~10 Gt(CO2)/yr by 2050, with estimates for 2100 being similar or possibly even higher Biochar quote:This results in a much lower estimated maximum removal potential for biochar, ~22.5 Gt(CO2)/yr, or up to ~200 Gt(CO2) by 2100, although, as with BECCS, this could possibly be enhanced by additional use of residue biomass from agriculture and forestry. Agricultural land use quote:Earlier studies suggested a very limited possible role for soil enrichment; however, more recent analyses suggest a physical removal potential of ~200 Gt(CO2) by 2100, i.e., a significant fraction of CDRref, and this could possibly be increased up to 500 Gt(CO2) by practices such as soil carbon enrichment at greater depths. Ocean iron fertilization (I always thought this was a smart idea) quote:However, while early studies indicated that CO2 removal by OIF might be capable of far exceeding CDRref, later studies showed that this neglected many limiting factors, so that the removal capacity is likely less than 400 Gt(CO2) by 2100 Other biomass-based CDR quote:A recent assessment has concluded that the expected CO2 removal capacity for each of these would likely be less than 100 Gt(CO2) by 2100, and several would have significant environmental side effects. Cost of Biomass CDR quote:Published values for all of the techniques discussed above can presently only be taken as broadly indicative, and are typically of the order of $100/t(CO2), with the range of values given in the literature for each technique often being a factor of three or more Weathering quote:Due to the abundance of the required raw materials, the physical CO2 removal potential of enhanced weathering is principally much larger than CDRref. Direct air carbon capture and storage - DACCS quote:Current estimates for the efficiency of DACCS are technology-dependent, ranging from at best 3 to likely 20 or more times the theoretical minimum, or ~150010,000 MJ/t(CO2), implying that removing an amount equivalent to CDRref by 2100 would require a continuous power supply of approximately 4002600GW. Combined with the energy requirements for (1) and (3) (equivalent to about 100GW), this represents about 20100% of the current global electricity generation of ~2700GW. Cost of Weathering+DACCS quote:Published estimates cover a similar range to the biomass-based techniques, from about $20/t(CO2) to over $1000/t(CO2). Better estimates of the costs are particularly important for DACCS, since it essentially represents the cost ceiling for viability of any CDR Solar Shade quote:Space mirror RFG could contribute considerable cooling from a climate physics perspective, based on model simulations using it as a proxy for RFG in general; however, proposals for implementation rely on extensive future technology developments and a dramatic reduction in material transport costs from ~10,000$/kg to less than 100$/kg. Surface-Based RFG quote:Furthermore, for proposed surface-based RFG techniques, a recent literature assessment has shown that their potential maximum cooling effects are either too limited (i.e., well below RFGref), or are associated with substantial side effects Stratospheric aerosol injection quote:Model studies, as well as evidence from past volcanic eruptions, indicate a maximum potential cooling (negative radiative forcing) ranging from 2W/m2 to over 5W/m2, i.e., well above RFGref, though the upper end of the range would require extremely large injection amounts (comparable to the current global anthropogenic sulfur pollutant emissions of about 100Tg(SO2)/yr). Marine sky brightening quote:Similar to SAI, the limited knowledge about key microphysical and dynamical processes involved results in a large uncertainty in the maximum cooling that could be achieved via MSB, with estimates ranging from 0.8 to 5.4 W/m2, i.e., likely well above RFGref. Cirrus cloud thinning quote:A maximum net cooling in the range of 23.5W/m2, considerably exceeding RFGref, has been computed based on model simulations SUMMARY quote:Given the meagre knowledge surrounding technique scalability, at present only indicative orders of magnitude can be given for costs: approximately $100/t(CO2) for CDR techniques (i.e., over $800 billion/yr to achieve CDRref between 2020 and 2100); and possibly as low as $10 billion/yr for the atmospheric RFG techniques to provide RFGref, though such low costs may never be achievable due to technological challenges upon scaling up. IMO the last point is the most important. Even IF negative emission techs become feasible, by that time it will likely be too late to prevent dangerous warming. Realistically the tech needs to exist and be well understood RIGHT NOW for immediate widescale implementation, and none of the options are ready. The paper seemed more positive about DACCS then I expected, or at least as positive as it could be about an option that requires energy use equivalent up to 100% of current total global generation to work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 06:14
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:i ate a mcdonalds cheeseburger today for the first time in weeks it was delicious Why did every bit count till you did it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 06:34
|
|
|
Rime posted:actively working to overthrow global capitalism I don't even disagree, but even assuming by some miracle the behemoth is brought down, it's not going to be a smooth crash. Individual efforts etc. still can protect pockets of resources, which is worth something. We're all going the way of the dinosaur eventually, one way or another. No reason to go down without a fight, and no reason to be terrible to each other if we can help it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 06:45
|
|
|
Carbon sequestration is such a weird concept to me. I mean think of it like this; you capture carbon dioxide, concentrate it, and then put in in a mine. How is this different from buying barrels of oil and then just putting those in a mine? If we had stores of super-concentrated carbon it would make an excellent fuel source, so wouldn't we just immediately want to burn it again?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 06:52
|
|
|
Not burning it in the first place is obviously preferable, yes. If we had a way to take it out of the atmosphere for free though, then we could burn as much of it as we wanted as long as it we kept the ppm of CO2 at pre-industrial levels. This is, of course, a fantasy and not worth thinking about. Carbon itself is not a fuel source, hydrocarbons are. If you can capture carbon from the atmosphere and make it into graphite or something then it's not going to end up back in the atmosphere any time soon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 06:59
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Carbon sequestration is such a weird concept to me. I mean think of it like this; you capture carbon dioxide, concentrate it, and then put in in a mine. How is this different from buying barrels of oil and then just putting those in a mine? If we had stores of super-concentrated carbon it would make an excellent fuel source, so wouldn't we just immediately want to burn it again? Eventually, geoengineering will permit environmental remediation at scale. The field's so undeveloped as to basically not exist, though. It's new stuff. Right now, it only really shows up as a fudge factor where you get to assume X gigatons of sequestration and you fudge your apparent carbon budget to pretext burning more fossil fuels. This engenders a lot of hostility from people toward this and its R&D budgets. But it's got a real future as a serious means of remediating the environment. Edit: As a term, Geoengineering is a bit fuzzy but I'm considering it as inclusive of weather modification and ecological engineering. Examples of what these refer to:
Accretionist fucked around with this message at 15:33 on Oct 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 15:28
|
|
|
geoengineering was pretty much verboten in the aughts because there was the belief that if people started talking geoengineering it would allow us to continue with current or higher emission levels while engaging in some fairly risky technology that could easily backfire based on not knowing enough about the interactions between various systems that we were going to meddle with. now that there's no feasible way to cut emissions to avoid catastrophic damage, geoengineering is pretty much necessary to keep the positive feedback loops in check while we scramble to cut emissions. We need some kind of geoengineering treaty ratified to put a stop to any deranged billionaire or small state that's disappearing beneath the waves from setting out and doing their own thing because otherwise there's going to be a lot of rogue geoengineering projects doing serious damage to a pretty fragile situation. And the current treaties don't seem to be doing much. Dreylad fucked around with this message at 15:48 on Oct 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 15:46
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:some kind of geoengineering treaty Fully agreed. I did a little reading recently and didn't find much. There's a Vietnam-era accord banning the offensive use of weather modification during war time because we were loving around with cloud seeding. But you did remind me of a bill which is currently parked in committee. H.R. 4586 - Geoengineering Research Evaluation Act of 2017. It's focused on Solar Radiation Management (SRM), requests a research agenda and recommendations for governance of said agenda's implementation. This part of the findings section was interesting. It's in reference to an NAS report from '15 on geoengineering: quote:(7) The Academies reports recommended investing in the research and development of methods of carbon dioxide removal and disposal at scales that would impact the climate. They also recommended the development and implementation of a dedicated albedo modification research program that furthers basic climate science, understanding of human interaction with the climate system, and improved detection of changes in radiative forcing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 16:13
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Why did every bit count till you did it? I could also go back and pull a half dozen quotes about how the goal is to minimize not eliminate flying and you should generally try and chose chicken over beef "by default". etc etc. all my actual comments are based on an almost dogmatic 80/20 "try to reduce your harm and footprint without being nuts about it" approach. but for some reason your mind is incapable of handling that? its like you have a filter as you read things. if someone is 51% one way, your brain just applies a MAX() function, and if someone is 51% another way it applies a MIN(), and then you go making up the entire rest of the downstream line of reasoning to fit that. are you simply too unwell to ... reason? to be reasoned with?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 16:40
|
|
|
Are you trying to defend eating beef while insisting that individual action is not worthless?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 16:42
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:Are you trying to defend eating beef while insisting that individual action is not worthless? perfect example of splitting
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 16:43
|
|
|
everything must be OKFINEGOOD or BANNED there is no room for reduced, managed, constrained, mitigated
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 16:47
|
|
|
So yes then. You do understand that there are millions of people who don't eat any meat at all, for reasons much less severe than "meat production is literally destroying the world", right? You can't even make a small sacrifice that wouldn't have much of a genuine impact on your life, yet you still insist that the incredibly huge changes that humanity needs to make to avoid catastrophe are perfectly reasonable and can be achieved by individuals doing the right thing. Even though you won't. You can't even be bothered to set a good example. ChairMaster fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Oct 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 16:49
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:You do understand that there are millions of people who don't eat any meat at all, for reasons much less severe than "meat production is literally destroying the world", right? You can't even make a small sacrifice that wouldn't have much of a genuine impact on your life, quote:yet you still insist that the incredibly huge changes that humanity needs to make to avoid catastrophe are perfectly reasonable and can be achieved by individuals doing the right thing. again, maybe this could be written off as you just being confused about who you're reply to, arguing with some vague hive mind forum caricature, but sorry i have to basically be up front here in saying gently caress you for just making poo poo up and lying about me. StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Oct 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 16:54
|
|
|
Okay I guess I was being way too generous. You're arguing for a straight-up fantasy world in which you make small completely worthless sacrifices that mean absolutely nothing and serve no function other than to help you feel better about how global human civilization is going to be over soon. Forgive me, I thought those people moved on after the latest IPCC report.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 16:57
|
|
|
there you go splitting again i can't fix it so i quit
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 16:58
|
|
|
Your entire basic premise is completely flawed, dude. The math doesn't add up at all, we really don't have the time or the atmospheric budget to dick around with pathetic meaningless half-measures like that if we actually gave a poo poo about preventing disaster. There is no worthwhile individual action a person can take that we are allowed to talk about in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 17:10
|
|
|
that one is "learned helplessness" which I admit, makes perfect logical sense in context. its hard to argue we have any meaningfully greater impact on the world than rats in a lab. but whats the alternative? just pretend you don't know what you're doing? pretend you don't know what gasoline is? at what point does *not* changing your lifestyle become some kind of psychosis where one half of your brain is screaming and the other half is trying to scream louder ICANTHEARYOUICANTHEARYOU
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 17:13
|
|
|
It's not learned helplessness, it's "the problem is bigger than reducing my carbon footprint and I'm not delusional enough to think otherwise". If you want to make an actual difference, reducing your footprint is not the way to do it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 17:15
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:There is no worthwhile individual action a person can take that we are allowed to talk about in this thread. I do see three angles here:
Personally, I think civilization will be unrecognizable by 2100 and individual action will be washed away by the tide. But if 6% of American are vegetarians instead of ~3% when it's time to increase meat prices 10x, things'll go easier. poo poo like that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 17:40
|
|
|
Uh chances are my country is not going to exist in 2100 either way, so I'm not particularly concerned with how easy the people living here are going to have it with regards to adapting to a new way of life. As far as I'm concerned, we can prevent the oncoming dark ages by taking genuine useful action or we can let them happen, I just don't care that much about the difference in severity of the lovely state of the world long after I'm dead. The argument that every little bit helps make the bad times slightly better is one in which you have already conceded to failure. It's not a worthwhile approach in any way. ChairMaster fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Oct 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 17:45
|
|
|
I can think of only a few people in the whole world who could singlehandedly "make an actual difference" wrt climate change in a sufficiently short timeframe. Trump, Xi, Wheeler perhaps, and the few billionaires who have the means to crash the economy overnight. Thats it. So in this context using "making an actual difference" as your metric for if such or such action is worthwhile sounds pretty self-defeating.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 18:03
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:I can think of only a few people in the whole world who could singlehandedly "make an actual difference" wrt climate change in a sufficiently short timeframe. This is because you're still within the confines of a certain way of thinking.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 18:27
|
|
|
I think the saddest lifestyle choice is claiming you reduce your red meat intake by 80%, that you eat 1-2 cheeseburgers a month and saying that you had your first mcdonalds hamburger in "weeks" in context of saying that like it was a relatively long pause instead of an abnormally short one that implies your red meat intake is now almost all mcdonalds hamburgers. (or that the numbers and percentages on this page are your prescriptions for what other people should do and not something you yourself can be expected to follow)
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 18:51
|
|
|
the average american eats just over one pound of beef per week. if we do some naive napkin math we can call that four quarter-pounder cheeseburgers a week. an 80% reduction from there would be 3 per month replace mdcondalds with wherever you get your cheeseburgers, and replace cheeseburgers with whatever form of beef you prefer, it doesn't matter neither of those are the point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 19:07
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:the average american eats just over one pound of beef per week. It's that you have painted a picture where you either are proscribing numbers even you can't be bothered to follow or are indicated that a majority of your red meat intake is from mcdonalds since you are talking about only "weeks" as the time between when you eat delicious mcdonalds . (which, I guess technically there is nothing actually wrong with but yikes, what a life decision)
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 19:50
|
|
|
Hey gang so I'm trapped in a raging office building inferno right now with hundreds of my coworkers. We all wanna leave cause the CEO never got around to paying for an emergency sprinkler install because he said office fires were a myth and that preparing for them would make us uncompetitive. He and the board of directors also he parked all of their luxury sedans and sports cars right in front of the doors (on accident) and are holding the doors shut and telling us we need to start gently tossing the more expensive office supplies out of the small gaps that we're able to open in the doors. They aren't letting the fire department spray the building because they're afraid it'll ruin the furniture we're supposed to remove, so they're telling us we should try spitting and crying into the fire. Some of my coworkers agree and have walked into the flames with a few half empty bottles of Dasani. Personally, I think we should just kick the doors open even if it scratches the cars or hits our bosses? But a lot of my coworkers and most of the middle management were aghast at the suggestion and went back to spitting. Please advise???
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 20:04
|
|
|
SlimGoodbody posted:Hey gang so I'm trapped in a raging office building inferno right now with hundreds of my coworkers. We all wanna leave cause the CEO never got around to paying for an emergency sprinkler install because he said office fires were a myth and that preparing for them would make us uncompetitive. He and the board of directors also he parked all of their luxury sedans and sports cars right in front of the doors (on accident) and are holding the doors shut and telling us we need to start gently tossing the more expensive office supplies out of the small gaps that we're able to open in the doors. They aren't letting the fire department spray the building because they're afraid it'll ruin the furniture we're supposed to remove, so they're telling us we should try spitting and crying into the fire. well i have bad news and good news the bad news is the entire world outside of your office building is similarly on fire that's also the good news
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 20:07
|
|
|
somehow you took two facts: - i ate a cheeseburger yesterday - i advocate not doing that every week and ran that through your MAX() function and turned it into "the majority of [my] read meat intake" its not a painting, you're delusional StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Oct 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 20:09
|
|
|
SlimGoodbody posted:I think we should just kick the doors open even if it scratches the cars or hits our bosses? But a lot of my coworkers and most of the middle management were aghast at the suggestion and went back to spitting. Please advise???
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 20:13
|
|
|
That's the opposite of what you're saying.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 20:18
|
|
|
no it is not, thats splitting the two things are in no way opposed or exclusive to one another imho, they are co-dependent in fact
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 20:24
|
|
|
Except one of them is a worthless waste of time and effort and one of them is useful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:40 |
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:and ran that through your MAX() function and turned it into "the majority of [my] read meat intake" What I took from it is that your proclamations on the standard you would have others follow is something you apply to yourself so little that you didn't even think out matching all your statements out to even pretend you followed them even for a single page of the thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 20:34
|
|