|
There are probably some questionable choices of what emissions are natural. Yeah this is including increases in things that are going up because of climate change. Forest fires are getting worse b/c anthro but that's counted as natural
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2022 15:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 14:03 |
|
|
O good im feeling not too depressed—let’s watch some TV.. aye a comedy show… https://tv.apple.com/au/episode/climate-change/umc.cmc.6xn3jbngveha8qgzr89nvfkv1?showId=umc.cmc.4fcexvzqezr25p9weks6sxpob E: finished the episode ; pretty good I’d definitely recommend watching it if you have Apple TV+ There’s also a free podcast here stirlo fucked around with this message at 04:16 on Mar 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2022 03:03
|
|
|
Frozen peatlands could pass climate tipping points sooner than thoughtquote:We had calculated that frozen peatlands would remain stable until the 2070s, but a new analysis suggests they may begin thawing as early as the 2040s Good stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2022 17:10
|
|
|
what if we build nearby coal plants to directly power massive industrial freezers to re freeze the peat?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2022 23:16
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:what if we build nearby coal plants to directly power massive industrial freezers to re freeze the peat? Way ahead of you bud An oil company wants to use giant chillers to refreeze the ground that climate change is thawing in order to drill for more oil — which will ultimately accelerate global warming https://www.businessinsider.com/conocophillips-chillers-refreeze-thawing-tundra-climate-change-2020-8?op=1
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2022 03:28
|
|
|
This was a fun watch https://twitter.com/thejuicemedia/status/1504557040647094293?t=rq_hDtr5b5xVgvlbW2O5NQ&s=19
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 10:25
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:what if we build nearby coal plants to directly power massive industrial freezers to re freeze the peat? Coal plants that power direct air capture machines that pull the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, which we then bury, thus providing much-needed jobs for coal miners and carbon buriers
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 13:52
|
|
|
Tamba posted:Do you think they know that 20% of the EU's uranium supply comes from Russia? (And another 19% from Kazakhstan). Uranium is abundant, it can easily be sourced elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 13:56
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Uranium is abundant, it can easily be sourced elsewhere. Yes, it is abundant. No, it cannot easily be sourced elsewhere. The mining process has health and environmental effects that are both widespread and pretty terrible. Many communities in the US itself still suffer from the effects of uranium mining done in the 50s and 60s.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 16:39
|
|
|
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/worlds-uranium-resources-enough-for-the-foreseeable-future-say-nea-and-iaea-in-new-reportquote:Given these projections, the uranium resource base described in the Red Book is more than adequate to meet low and high case uranium demand through 2040 and beyond. Meeting high case demand requirements through 2040 would consume about 28% of the total 2019 identified resource base recoverable at a cost of < USD 130/kgU (USD 50/lb U3O8) and 87% of identified resources available at a cost of < USD 80/kgU Like oil, there are more expensive ways to get it, but the easily accessible stuff is definitely not lasting forever. e: and if you don't think that's scary, you should watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O133ppiVnWY Tamba fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Mar 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 17:25
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Yes, it is abundant. No, it cannot easily be sourced elsewhere. The mining process has health and environmental effects that are both widespread and pretty terrible. Many communities in the US itself still suffer from the effects of uranium mining done in the 50s and 60s. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 17:31
|
|
|
Just breed more
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 17:34
|
|
|
Uranium can be harvested from sea water for about $200/kg, and there's a bunch of ways of reducing waste including simply using breeder reactors rather. Regardless, uranium constitutes a very small part of power plant costs and is highly price efficient. According to the IEEE, at 2006 prices the cost of raw uranium contributes about $0.0015/kWh to the cost of nuclear electricity, while in breeder reactors the uranium cost falls to $0.000015/kWh https://deeply.thenewhumanitarian.org/oceans/articles/2018/06/28/the-nuclear-option-technology-to-extract-uranium-from-the-sea-advances https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_plants
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 17:44
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Just breed more loving fast breeders
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 01:22
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Uranium can be harvested from sea water for about $200/kg, and there's a bunch of ways of reducing waste including simply using breeder reactors rather. Regardless, uranium constitutes a very small part of power plant costs and is highly price efficient. According to the IEEE, at 2006 prices the cost of raw uranium contributes about $0.0015/kWh to the cost of nuclear electricity, while in breeder reactors the uranium cost falls to $0.000015/kWh Hell yeah. Love it when different energy sources are normalized into apples to apples metrics. Eat poo poo methane!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 01:36
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/HirokoTabuchi/status/1507172048937922562?s=20&t=LEH_qMec5rC4sIr8oXs5vQ https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/24/climate/methane-leaks-new-mexico.html I'm paywalled but there's always more and it's always worse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 13:51
|
|
|
And now the US is pledging to make up as much of the difference for Europe in natural gas to make up for the lack of Russian imports, so expect it to get so much worse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 14:01
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Just breed more There's this too: A lot of spent uranium fuel can be thrown in a breeder and spun up to enriched. Harold Fjord posted:https://twitter.com/HirokoTabuchi/status/1507172048937922562?s=20&t=LEH_qMec5rC4sIr8oXs5vQ Yeah, this is why natural gas as a backer for renewables is problematic: Its leaky, its a potent greenhouse gas when it does leak, and its just another fossil fuel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 14:02
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:And now the US is pledging to make up as much of the difference for Europe in natural gas to make up for the lack of Russian imports, so expect it to get so much worse. Exxon Mobil might have to....stop using excess LNG to mine BitCoin! YOU CANNOT DO THIS
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 14:18
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:And now the US is pledging to make up as much of the difference for Europe in natural gas to make up for the lack of Russian imports, so expect it to get so much worse. On the other hand, the russian extraction is probably much worse in this regard anyway, so it could be a net improvement
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2022 14:19
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:There's this too: A lot of spent uranium fuel can be thrown in a breeder and spun up to enriched. Methane leaks are largely a technical problem but coal emits even more methane along with other chemicals not to mention extraction is awful. https://twitter.com/dwallacewells/status/1505348460253532160?s=20&t=qjodCElyGDbgf0s4DB-Xxg mobby_6kl posted:On the other hand, the russian extraction is probably much worse in this regard anyway, so it could be a net improvement It is along with other parts of Iran and Asia. They don't have the technology, funding, etc. or simply don't care. Methane Tracker 2021
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2022 04:06
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Methane leaks are largely a technical problem but coal emits even more methane along with other chemicals not to mention extraction is awful. Yup, this too. And Germany just bailed out their coal industry. Their 2035 goal for emissions is practically dead at this point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2022 04:19
|
|
|
Germany along with the rest of Europe doesn't really have a choice at this point. What I find so ironic is that all the work climate groups like XR Rebellion to Greta their work has enormously backfired.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2022 04:34
|
|
|
poo poo went wrong from Chernobyl onwards. Then it just kept moving wrong direction. Now we've painted ourselves in a corner.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2022 09:41
|
|
|
for the fear of Chernobyl 2, we exposed everything to an insidious poison
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2022 12:14
|
|
|
There's plenty of space to join Just Stop Oil. This is a UK campaign, but there are a lot of online roles that need to be filled; you can get involved, not only without gluing yourself to any goal posts, but potentially even from overseas. https://juststopoil.org/events/
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2022 17:38
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Germany along with the rest of Europe doesn't really have a choice at this point. What I find so ironic is that all the work climate groups like XR Rebellion to Greta their work has enormously backfired. How did it “backfire”? That implies that their work had a causal effect on making things worse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2022 18:09
|
|
|
Ornery and Hornery posted:How did it “backfire”? They're now burning more coal over natural gas due to bans and issue with imports from Russia. Natural Gas when burned releases CO2 and poorly maintained pipelines leak methane however it's still enormously better than coal which is much enormously way more carbon intensive, environmentally invasive even more fracking and has other issue like lead and other toxic pollutants. On the other hand, you could potentially argue that it's speeding up the energy transition along but that's a big stretch. Lastly, many climate groups have been opposed to urbanization, gas taxes, etc. all of which reduce emissions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2022 18:39
|
|
|
I feel pretty comfortable with the claim that extinction rebellion was an utterly useless movement who's only accomplishments were providing fodder for various grifts
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 04:15
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:I feel pretty comfortable with the claim that extinction rebellion was an utterly useless movement who's only accomplishments were providing fodder for various grifts I don't disagree with you, and would add that they're still around and planning something large in NYC next month. They heard the statistic that it only takes some small percentage of people to effect change and took it literally--they're trying to "mobilize 3.5% of the population". Sure guys, I'm sure you can get 12.5 million people on the streets of New York for three sustained days of protest, good effort and definitely not a waste of time effort and energy. It almost feels like an op put on by shell to waste time. I'm pretty convinced marching doesn't work. Big marches like the one in '14 are tremendous resource sinks and distractions that rarely have any long term effect other than maybe you make some social connections for future collaboration. If your goal is climate action, what good does mobilizing people to walk in a circle slowly? Certainly putting pressure on elected officials, cultivating local networks of mutual aid, developing communities of resilience and helping others prepare are better ways to spend a Saturday? Anyway, there's an event I'm looking forward to streaming about professional lobbying, climate activism, and the role of our profession in pushing for and enacting new ways of design of urban space in response to cascading ecological crises.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 05:00
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:I feel pretty comfortable with the claim that extinction rebellion was an utterly useless movement who's only accomplishments were providing fodder for various grifts Untrue. It also got lots of people criminal records and who knows what kind of security flags as potential agitators.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 05:01
|
|
|
is it a safe bet they either still dont support nuclear or have started the slow process of coming around?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 06:27
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:is it a safe bet they either still dont support nuclear or have started the slow process of coming around? There are a very limited number of people who can start a cold conventional plant. There are fewer people who can start a cold nuclear plant.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 07:02
|
|
|
XR doesn't just not support nuclear power, it's fundamentally against it in it's entirety.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 07:15
|
|
|
Thinking back only the systems folks got to play with the model to truly cold start a plant. Dozens we graduate dozen of people yearly who can do it and all the smart ones flee flee flee anything to do with it as soon as possible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 07:26
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:XR doesn't just not support nuclear power, it's fundamentally against it in it's entirety. At least they're aptly named, it seems.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 11:22
|
|
|
Several years ago someone described a process called "extinction thrash" within which a species on the brink of extinction will expend useless energy attempting to avoid being wiped out. I haven't found any specific literature that backs this up so it might be bunk, but it's still useful. XR seem like a perfect example of "we have to do something!” thrashing about. Just a complete waste of time, effort, and energy. E to clarify: I don't think humanity is on the verge of going extinct, but understand a lot of people see that as a distinct possibility and are starting to act as such. I think the subject of community and emotional resilience in times of socio-environmental turmoil really needs to be a part of the conversation around climate change. Ofc the world is in a state of perpetual change, but people are starting to come apart at the seams with the speed and intensity of the past several years. The US specifically has a cult of rugged-individualism that is not serving its adherents well and is especially ill-suited for conditions where individual actions are almost meaningless in the face of the enormity of the problems. Leon Sumbitches fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Mar 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 14:49
|
|
|
Bucky Fullminster posted:I went to check the numbers for natural emissions vs anthropogenic emissions, and found this paper that seems wildly inaccurate, can anyone tell me if I'm missing something? No, that seems about right. Current human GHG emissions are around 42 Gt CO2, which given emission growth is not out of line with 36 Gt CO2 in 2016. The earth did sustain a 280 ppm CO2 level before industrial activity after all, despite many active sinks - those CO2 emissions came from somewhere. The scale of human emissions needed to outweigh natural ones is why we didn't start seeing climate change signals till the 1950s despite the industrial revolution starting in the 1850s, and up until the 1980s it was counterbalanced by a strong aerosol signal from all the air pollution. The other article you link is 2007, and human emissions have been growing since 2007 fairly consistently.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 15:42
|
|
|
Leon Sumbitches posted:I think the subject of community and emotional resilience in times of socio-environmental turmoil really needs to be a part of the conversation around climate change. Ofc the world is in a state of perpetual change, but people are starting to come apart at the seams with the speed and intensity of the past several years. The US specifically has a cult of rugged-individualism that is not serving its adherents well and is especially ill-suited for conditions where individual actions are almost meaningless in the face of the enormity of the problems. Is there something you think is specific to climate change on this front? My first reaction is that I both agree and disagree; we're at a point where we have so many really overwhelming problems on the near-ish horizon that it would be a very good idea for us all to be investing heavily in community and emotional resilience, but climate change (narrowly defined, hi ocean acidification and topsoil depletion) doesn't feel like the most immediate or most serious of them and unless you have a lot more resources and a very different social circle than I do trying to open up a conversation that big just doesn't work with most people. On the other hand having the bite-sized conversations points away from effective policy (lol, etc.) and so is in some ways self-sabotaging alongside being easier. All of that sort of aside from the joke of how much easier it is to funnel money into funding research than into funding practice where mental health and emotional resilience are concerned even when we've got pretty good things we could be doing with the resources.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2022 18:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 14:03 |
|
|
Irony.or.Death posted:Is there something you think is specific to climate change on this front? My first reaction is that I both agree and disagree; we're at a point where we have so many really overwhelming problems on the near-ish horizon that it would be a very good idea for us all to be investing heavily in community and emotional resilience, but climate change (narrowly defined, hi ocean acidification and topsoil depletion) doesn't feel like the most immediate or most serious of them and unless you have a lot more resources and a very different social circle than I do trying to open up a conversation that big just doesn't work with most people. On the other hand having the bite-sized conversations points away from effective policy (lol, etc.) and so is in some ways self-sabotaging alongside being easier. I think there are concrete consequences of climate change we should prepare for including displaced populations due to sea level rise, famine due to hardiness zones changing, resource wars between nations, and so on. Like you said, there are many of large looming problems and I might be oversimplifying but I think many are addressed in a similar way at the personal level: providing mental health care I'm a variety of modalities, promoting community, ensuring equitable distribution of resources, shifting towards a more localized food system meant to nourish, and the list goes on. I think we definitely have to be strategic with these conversations, this isn't stuff I bring up casually at the bar. I'm lucky enough to be organizing with folks with a national platform and openness to ideas, so I'm incorporating these concepts into our organizing work which is typically more action oriented (borrowing heavily from the work of adrienne maree brown). I think mutual aid networks are effective ways to incorporate this at the grassroots as well. Outside of grassroots, US mayors and city elected officials seem to be in the best position to work on this aspect of the crises (eg Denver's STAR program). They aren't bound by the three branch system and have more leeway to act and be influenced by activists. I'm seeing interesting things happen, but the conversation isn't nearly where it needs to be. For example, in New York, low lying areas like the Rockaways will be uninhabitable potentially as soon as 2050 and the conversation about I'm definitely looking at my city to see where I could professionally wedge myself into the conversation and there are a couple of promising places. Beyond that, I've been organizing with a few professionals in my field to meet with our representatives and present what we need for a just transition in our sector. It's been incredible to see how much lobbying access we've had without any funding, powered solely by good ideas and good communication. I'm seeing lots of activists doing similarly: explicitly spelling out our vision of the future in ways that politicians can pick up and run. This is less mental and community resilience, but folks in those fields could have similar success and I hope they do! Anyway, I don't think it's possible to fully separate everything that's coming, but those of us with eyes to see have to start preparing for what's on the horizon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2022 19:48
|
|