|
Sharkie posted:There's not actually any science that shows that plastics are bad, unless you're burning and inhaling them or something. The science knower has logged on Ugh lovely snipe
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 01:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 20:31 |
|
|
Slow News Day posted:I happen to be, uh, quite familiar with EWG, and they are basically a dumpster fire of an organization run by total cranks. Any sort of affiliation with them should be viewed with extreme skepticism. I'd like to know more about this, if you're inclined to share.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 01:23
|
|
|
 https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/02/antarctic-researchers-say-a-marine-heatwave-could-threaten-ice-shelves/
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2023 20:51
|
|
|
The north island of New Zealand is currently being absolutely ravaged by weeks worth of storms. Homes in west Auckland were ruined, towns down the east coast were destroyed by a cyclone and it just seems to keep coming. The concept of managed retreat from climate change is now in the news and in the public consciousness. There's been a noticeable change in the terminology that the right wing is using here, especially since the start of Covid times, and I'm not sure if this is occurring over in the States as well but it's left me seething. "We need to adapt to climate change". A reasonable statement on its face, but it's not meant to support the groups who want to develop climate-proof infrastructure to mitigate the damage of these sorts of events, it's used to shut them down entirely. To adapt, in their eyes, is to simply accept it and move on. "We can't overreact and make changes to our society, we simply need to adapt". This new influx of op-eds are utilizing the word "adapt" while completely negating its meaning. They ostensibly acknowledge climate change, but argue that the only way to combat it is by doing absolutely nothing at all. Why do you think people are buying this? Why are people nodding and accepting this blatant use of double speak? Related: This is a good local article that links covid scepticism with climate change scepticism. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300809224/cyclone-gabrielle-scepticism-is-a-sting-in-covids-tail
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 13:27
|
|
|
Beartaco posted:There's been a noticeable change in the terminology that the right wing is using here, especially since the start of Covid times, and I'm not sure if this is occurring over in the States as well but it's left me seething. "We need to adapt to climate change". A reasonable statement on its face, but it's not meant to support the groups who want to develop climate-proof infrastructure to mitigate the damage of these sorts of events, it's used to shut them down entirely. To adapt, in their eyes, is to simply accept it and move on. Conservative thought pretty much requires that you either assume everything is basically fine, or that the status quo is being undermined by nefarious forces since why else would the status quo be upset?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 14:21
|
|
|
Beartaco posted:
Because they don't want to give up their treats. At least for some in part because there is no method for doing so at the scale needed anyway. Same way American Democrats tell themselves they are doing something. It's hard to face all that despair and on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 14:51
|
|
|
I just want to point out the irony that rich people (mostly tech giants/workers) have been fleeing to your country for the past several years specifically to avoid climate change.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2023 06:01
|
|
|
Enver Zogha posted:Yeah the trajectory is usually "this isn't a real problem" followed by "there is no alternative" followed by "all this suffering is the result of [foreign countries/immigrants/leftists/the Jews]" We've done nothing and we're all out of ideas. Oh well, too late now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2023 06:17
|
|
|
Leon Sumbitches posted:We've done nothing and we're all out of ideas. Oh well, too late now. "In other news, why are my kids being such ungrateful little shits? I keep giving them the 'you can be anything you want so long as you study and work hard' speech that my parents gave me and their parents gave *them*, but they keep telling me to gently caress off and are cutting themselves while doing drugs they buy off a peg at the gas station." 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2023 06:23
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:I just want to point out the irony that rich people (mostly tech giants/workers) have been fleeing to your country for the past several years specifically to avoid climate change. Yeah there is a whole industry of planes waiting fully fueled at all times to allow billionaires to flee to their not-so-secret bunkers in New Zealand at the drop of a hat. And by hat I mean socioeconomic collapse and guillotines.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2023 06:30
|
|
|
jeeves posted:Yeah there is a whole industry of planes waiting fully fueled at all times to allow billionaires to flee to their not-so-secret bunkers in New Zealand at the drop of a hat. I am broadly inclined to ascribe this at least as much to elite panic nonsense as to the elites knowing more about the situation than the average bear. During perfectly normal boring natural disasters a really weirdly high number of elites immediately freak out and assume the poors are about to turn into rage zombies so they flee and/or arm up, when the general response of non-elites is to help each other out in those times of dire need. This obviously reflects real fuckin poorly on what privilege and money do to your brain, of course. roger ailes hiring extra armed security in case the gays assassinate him was probably not a sign that he had secret intel about massive networks of homosexual communists preparing to execute their master plan
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2023 08:26
|
|
|
which is unfortunate, i'm pretty pro-gay-communist
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2023 08:28
|
|
|
snip
Somebody fucked around with this message at 16:00 on Feb 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2023 15:26
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:I just want to point out the irony that rich people (mostly tech giants/workers) have been fleeing to your country for the past several years specifically to avoid climate change. Oh I assure you, we know. We built our economy on the idea that James Cameron would produce Avatar 2 and bring jobs to our film industry, and instead he spent a decade producing cruelty free honey on a farm in the Wairarapa.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2023 15:27
|
|
|
Google Jeb Bush posted:This obviously reflects real fuckin poorly on what privilege and money do to your brain, of course. Alternatively it shows the kind of sociopath you have to be to get to the top under capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2023 15:29
|
|
|
I don't think this discussion deserves being tub-girled, imo. New Zealand is the location that every American claims they'll move to whenever anything bad happens over there. It's where you send your worst billionaires to try to establish their own Silicon Valley political parties.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2023 15:39
|
|
|
yea we sent them thats how that worked
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2023 18:04
|
|
|
Earth is On Track For Catastrophic Warming, UN Warns But hey, oil company profits have never been higher!
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2023 17:23
|
|
|
 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-65120327?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2023 04:42
|
|
|
California is phasing out fossil field trucks (another good but too slow/late thing). Things are at the point where that’s actually a possible thing to do too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2023 17:36
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:
My favorite part of this article is this sentence: quote:A sensationalised depiction of the Amoc shutting down was shown in the 2004 climate disaster film The Day After Tomorrow The word "sensationalized" performs an incredible amount of editorializing. They could have written "A possible depiction of the Amoc shutting down was shown in the 2004 climate disaster film The Day After Tomorrow" or "Some of the theorized consequences of the Amoc shutting down were shown in the 2004 climate disaster film The Day After Tomorrow" but they didn't, and that's probably on purpose.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2023 17:41
|
|
|
Totally agree that they pull that poo poo as a rule, but to be fair in that movie they did literally run away from cold as if it were a slasher or monster. It was a sensationalized film and if I remember right it even did the "attractive couple sharing body heat" scene as predicted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2023 17:50
|
|
|
Yeah, it's been more than a decade since I saw that movie so my memory is admittedly fuzzy but letting it slide as just sensationalized would be underselling the plot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2023 18:22
|
|
|
Describing it as "a possible depiction" would be inaccurate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2023 18:46
|
|
|
Day after tomorrow succeeded in making climate change look like a ridiculous farce to the average movie goer. Sensationalized is far too generous a term.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2023 19:57
|
|
|
Has anyone watched Extrapolations? It sounds interesting and I really think it's about time we had some serious fiction about the effects of climate change. I don't think I have a way of getting Apple TV, but if it's worth it I'd pursue other means of watching it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2023 13:18
|
|
|
its pretty lame so far. all the bad stuff happens off screen and the characters just blather the arguments we've all heard infinity times before. in that sense it may actually be decent for kids, to help visualize and imagine some situations better than govt reports and charts will. but its not entertaining drama or action.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2023 13:49
|
|
|
you mean it's not "sensationalized"
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 00:15
|
|
|
on a scale of 1: ipcc youtubes about the ar6 report to 10: the freeze wave scene in day after tomorrow its a 2 basically if you asked chatgpt to summarize parts of the report as a conversation between two people, and then paid ed norton and sienna miller to read them out loud
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2023 03:57
|
|
|
 https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1648329406325161984 You'd think that people at an organization literally called "The Department of Energy" would have a firmer grasp of thermodynamics. Of course, direct air capture has never been a scientifically serious proposal, it's just another distraction so we can continue doing nothing about climate change while patting ourselves on the back. quote:Leading the charge, the U.S. government has offered $3.5 billion in grants to build the factories that will capture and permanently store the gas - the largest such effort globally to help halt climate change through Direct Air Capture (DAC) and expanded a tax credit to $180/tonne to bolster the burgeoning technology. No surprise, a lot of it is being handed out to the oil industry: quote:Occidental Petroleum has said it is well positioned for federal grants for what could be the biggest Direct Air Capture plants in the world. It declined to say whether it had applied for support for two DAC projects it is developing in Texas.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 17:10
|
|
|
“Your relentless pursuit of oil profits got us all into this mess, here have more money to pay lip service that both the government and your industry is doing anything about the problem!”
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 09:26
|
|
|
This is incredibly misleading. The point isn't to slow down the energy transition but to compensate for hard-to-abate industries like steel, cement, heavy machinery, etc. Over >90% of our funding is already put into emission reductions. The CDR company reference in the article even gave out a press release to expand upon just that - https://twitter.com/Climeworks/status/1646475265785180160?s=20
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 17:04
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:This is incredibly misleading. The point isn't to slow down the energy transition but to compensate for hard-to-abate industries like steel, cement, heavy machinery, etc. Over >90% of our funding is already put into emission reductions. The CDR company reference in the article even gave out a press release to expand upon just that - Carbon capture from the source is less ridiculous, but that's not what the article I linked was talking about. cat botherer fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Apr 20, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 17:22
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:This is incredibly misleading. The point isn't to slow down the energy transition but to compensate for hard-to-abate industries like steel, cement, heavy machinery, etc. Over >90% of our funding is already put into emission reductions. The CDR company reference in the article even gave out a press release to expand upon just that - It's not misleading, you just appear to not understand the intricacies. There are many different CDR methods. The Reuters article is talking about the US deciding to fund research into one particular method, which is Direct Air Capture, i.e. capturing CO2 from air. It is grossly energy intensive — even if we figured out a way to do it with perfect efficiency, you're still talking about capturing only 400 parts out of 1 million. The energy accounting dictates that it only really makes sense in places that have a) abundant clean energy nearby and b) no other contenders for that clean energy (such as a town). There are only a few places in the world that fit that bill, so the tech is never going to scale to a point where it can make a meaningful contribution to CDR as a whole.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 17:29
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:How was that misleading? Direct air capture from the atmosphere literally does not make sense economically or scientifically. Among other things, it itself requires a tremendous amount of energy. It is absolutely a cynical ploy to slow down transition, with the help of a lot of useful idiots. Look at who advocates carbon capture - it's all the industries with a vested interest in inaction. Are we not supposed to experiment or something? There are industries that are hard-to-decarbonize or are you saying we aren't going to use steel?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 17:48
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Are we not supposed to experiment or something? There are industries that are hard-to-decarbonize or are you saying we aren't going to use steel?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 18:26
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:It's not misleading, you just appear to not understand the intricacies. There are many different CDR methods. The Reuters article is talking about the US deciding to fund research into one particular method, which is Direct Air Capture, i.e. capturing CO2 from air. It is grossly energy intensive — even if we figured out a way to do it with perfect efficiency, you're still talking about capturing only 400 parts out of 1 million. The energy accounting dictates that it only really makes sense in places that have a) abundant clean energy nearby and b) no other contenders for that clean energy (such as a town). There are only a few places in the world that fit that bill, so the tech is never going to scale to a point where it can make a meaningful contribution to CDR as a whole. Define meaningful. Who says it won't scale? cat botherer posted:Steel production doesn't need coke for one. Look up electric arc furnaces. You are also continuing to conflate direct air capture with carbon capture from emission sources, which makes your entire point incoherent and misleading. I'm not conflating anything. They are two different things and it's the same company you referenced.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 18:48
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Define meaningful. Who says it won't scale?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 18:52
|
|
|
I linked an article that describes how carbon dioxide removal (CDR) solutions while a small aspect are important part of the energy transition. This is not limited to Direct-Air-Capture (DAC) but absolutely includes that technology. The article states these serious proposals even if largely experimental or small scale and aren't suppose to substitute for emission reductions. Its not a pseudo-technology to play the rubes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 20:31 |
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:I linked an article that describes how carbon dioxide removal (CDR) solutions while a small aspect are important part of the energy transition. This is not limited to Direct-Air-Capture (DAC) but absolutely includes that technology. The article states these serious proposals even if largely experimental or small scale and aren't suppose to substitute for emission reductions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 19:06
|
|