|
Everyone remember what we talked about. We do not engage He Who Shall Not Be Named. To contribute: Weaning ourselves off fossil fuels is the goal. Nuclear, renewables like solar and wind, etc are all productive ways to accomplish this, but I don't think we have the time to wait for these, both from an implementation standpoint (nuclear power plants take ~5-7 years for the construction phase alone), and from a maturation standpoint (solar efficiency improvements). We're dangerously close to, if not beyond the point of no return (see: positive feedback loops), which means that, putting aside the lack of political will, while such efforts are laudable, and necessary, they aren't the timely solution we need to attempt to dig ourselves out of the hole we're in with as little damage done as possible. I mention above the lack of political will to implement renewables and nuclear, and it is certainly very damaging to any kind of mitigation we might be capable of right now, today. However, the kind of change we truly need is in our lifestyle. First world excesses need to go. Transportation needs to be restricted to essential needs only. Conveniences and luxuries need to be a thing of the past. This is the elephant in the room, but if it were put to serious consideration, could we expect anything but outright rejection by the populace? I highly doubt it. Figuring out how to make this happen might give us a shot at some level of damage control, but it just seems like an impossible task.
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 19:10 |
|
|
Av027 posted:To contribute: Weaning ourselves off fossil fuels is the goal. Nuclear, renewables like solar and wind, etc are all productive ways to accomplish this, but I don't think we have the time to wait for these, both from an implementation standpoint (nuclear power plants take ~5-7 years for the construction phase alone), and from a maturation standpoint (solar efficiency improvements). We're dangerously close to, if not beyond the point of no return (see: positive feedback loops), which means that, putting aside the lack of political will, while such efforts are laudable, and necessary, they aren't the timely solution we need to attempt to dig ourselves out of the hole we're in with as little damage done as possible. These two strategies (decarbonisation & energy demand reduction) are complementary. A massive effort to reduce energy demand in the global North - through more efficient technologies, infrastructures and changing social norms - generates the carbon space to allow slower, supply-side changes to occur. This seems to be the only way to stay within budget (temperature change is driven by cumulative emissions, i.e. the area under the curve). Nuclear probably has a role to play, but given practical rates of deployment in these supply side technologies, energy demand reduction is the key to a 2oC future.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Av027 posted:However, the kind of change we truly need is in our lifestyle. First world excesses need to go. Transportation needs to be restricted to essential needs only. Conveniences and luxuries need to be a thing of the past. This is the elephant in the room, but if it were put to serious consideration, could we expect anything but outright rejection by the populace? I highly doubt it. Figuring out how to make this happen might give us a shot at some level of damage control, but it just seems like an impossible task. A cursory glance at the current cultural landscape of the Western world shows this to be nearly impossible. People by and large aren't going to be willing to give up the material wealth that they have been promised by politicians and that they feel they have earned through hard work and participation in the economy. I mean, hell, people in the US by and large get pissed when someone is given something rather than "earning" it (even if the thing being given is food!). However, digging into the real nitty-gritty of what is going on suggests to me that there is some hope in the coming decades. I hate to fall back to tired old generational cliches, but the older I get, the more I come to see this as a generational issue. It makes sense considering that: 1. People are indelibly shaped by the environment they grew up in. 2. The cultural and economic landscape of the West is changing so rapidly that people born a mere 20 years apart grow up in very different environments. I feel that the Boomers and GenXers are by and large not going to be on board with changing the first world lifestyle (there are always exceptions, of course). The Boomers particularly grew up in a time where material wealth of the average American soared and there was a radical expansion of economic opportunities. I think history will eventually bear out that the postwar period up through the 70s was a singular moment that isn't likely to be indicative of the norm (after all, expanding fossil fuel use to encompass nearly the entire economy is necessarily a one-time thing), but nevertheless, this was the environment the Boomers grew up in. Thus, they see economic stagnation as a mortal enemy and are unable to see it as anything other than the result of government malfeasance and stupidity. Your average Boomer is pretty much constitutionally unable to understand resource scarcity since they grew up in a time of absurdly abundant resources. They're also incredibly reluctant to admit that anything bad could come of resource use since our utilization of resources had such a positive effect on their lives. Again, there are exceptions to my generalization, and I'd also point out that if you were to directly ask a Baby Boomer about this, most of them probably couldn't fully articulate these feelings. It's part of their subconscious. GenXers are in a similar boat, but I've got less to say about them just because I don't know too many. Most of the folks I know are either from my parents' generation (Boomers), or my generation (Millennials). However, the GenXers I do interact with are pretty pro-capitalist (I think it should be obvious at this point that capitalism is wholly incompatible with the solutions needed to address climate change) and seem very eager to emulate the generation that came before them. That leaves us with the Millennials. Millennials will almost certainly be the first American generation to have less than their parents, so the idea of giving things up or moderating our expectations aren't foreign to us. I think humans naturally want to put a positive spin on things, so Millennials try to spin their circumstances in such a way that they see themselves as frugal (rather than simply having less) and tend to value experiences over material wealth. Note that I am not saying that Millennials are somehow more noble or smarter than previous generations - if we were given access to the same material wealth and opportunities as the Boomers, I don't doubt for a second that our values would fall along similar lines. Rather, we know we're going to have to accept having less, so we're trying to make the best of it. I think this means that Millennials are more willing to listen to proposals that involve alternate lifestyles, as long as the decline in material wealth is offset by things like strong social relationships, a sense of meaning or purpose to life, etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
ANIME AKBAR posted:Once again, the whole grid storage/smart grid thing is the choking point. Economical grid storage technology doesn't exist, and will not exist for the foreseeable future. Proven fission plants have existed for decades, and don't require us to re-engineer the entire grid. And I don't think anyone here really grasps what a huge deal that is. The grid, as a whole, is the biggest and most complicated machine on Earth. You can't just say "we'll fix it and it will be cool." My point is, even if your naysaying about storage and grid improvements was true, the fact of the matter is, we are so far away from some point where adding renewables is problematic, so let's build renewables now, since we can and are, rather than waiting a decade or more to online new economically risky and expensive plants. We don't have time to wait to reduce our carbon emissions. I also think you're wrong about the costs of integrating a high renewables grid, as all the NREL studies show.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
ANIME AKBAR posted:Economical grid storage technology doesn't exist, and will not exist for the foreseeable future. Not even close to true. Not sure why you are even discussing this topic if you're so ignorant about it. Start here: http://cleantechnica.com/2014/10/13/battery-costs-may-drop-100kwh/ As an addendum to that year old story, Tesla stated publicly a couple months ago that they think they can get the cost down to $100/kWh by 2020. That is economical. ANIME AKBAR posted:And without grid storage or a completely redesigned grid, it doesn't matter how cheap it is to install renewable capacity. Beyond a certain point, the capacity couldn't possibly be utilized. Even if we assume that the soon to be exploding battery industry never materializes, this point you describe where renewables will put in more to the grid than can be used without storage is VERY far away.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Aren't you the "inches is the same as mm" guy
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Not even close to true. Not sure why you are even discussing this topic if you're so ignorant about it. Start here: http://cleantechnica.com/2014/10/13/battery-costs-may-drop-100kwh/  Oh poo poo, its "Global Warming is Fake, Check Out These Bad Graphs" Arkane!Banana Man posted:Aren't you the "inches is the same as mm" guy Yep. In other news: https://www.newscientist.com/articl...015-GLOBAL-hoot quote:It’s a health disaster in terms of dangerous air pollution. It’s an ecological disaster in terms of the loss of habitat for threatened species like the orangutan. And it’s a global disaster in terms of releasing massive quantities of carbon dioxide. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Nov 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
blowfish posted:It turns out self declared greens can be just as dumb and dishonest as the average Drill Baby Drill moron and are making an attempt at being just as dangerously stupid as well. See also: genetic engineering. Luckily, they have nowhere near the influence that you imagine they do! Do you think there are more Tea Party or Green types in America? Or does aggressive false equivalence just kinda get you going? Seriously, this line of thinking is almost as dumb as reddit's "a feminist somewhere said something about killing men 40 years ago, therefore my misogyny is warranted"
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Luckily, they have nowhere near the influence that you imagine they do! Do you think there are more Tea Party or Green types in America? Or does aggressive false equivalence just kinda get you going? Blowfish's from Germany where Greens actually have influence. They're in several state governments and were in the federal government before Merkel. Also the experience of power has made a lot of them centrist neoliberals.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
Please ignore him so he just goes back to plotting in his evil lair. Maybe, if we're all really, reeeeeaaaaly good, he'll never emerge again. Your Sledgehammer posted:A cursory glance at the current cultural landscape of the Western world shows this to be nearly impossible. People by and large aren't going to be willing to give up the material wealth that they have been promised by politicians and that they feel they have earned through hard work and participation in the economy. I mean, hell, people in the US by and large get pissed when someone is given something rather than "earning" it (even if the thing being given is food!). It's going to take a complete rewrite of how our civilization functions. Or it would anyway, if it were at all possible. The focus at this point should be on providing only what we need to survive, in an effort to allow for the future survival of humanity (in something resembling our current global civilization). In other words, giving up unnecessary things like iPads and recreational boats (random examples), while shifting as many employees in as many businesses as possible to telecommuting - mind you, this is businesses that would continue to contribute something to society. This does mean that a lot of businesses would die, but in a world that's trying to get its poo poo together, I ask you what benefit does Starbucks provide? If basic necessities are provided for all, and the bullshit goes out the window, our needs can stabilize at much more sustainable levels, and people can still live comfortably, without going hungry - we might even fix a lot of those kinds of issues in the process (homelessness, hunger, etc). Yes, I do mean we need a healthly dose of socialism, and no, I don't believe capitalism could ever solve this particular problem (does it solve any?) because capitalism is all about survival of the most profitable, and carbon sequestration will never be more profitable than selling oil (at least, until we stop selling oil). Your Sledgehammer posted:However, digging into the real nitty-gritty of what is going on suggests to me that there is some hope in the coming decades. I hate to fall back to tired old generational cliches, but the older I get, the more I come to see this as a generational issue. It makes sense considering that: I'd like to share this optimism, but frankly, by the time younger generations make up the bulk of government and/or voters, this ship will have already sailed. The clock is ticking down to the final seconds. Maybe minutes if we're lucky, but maybe we're already too late. We need immediate and drastic change to control our crash landing, and waiting for renewables, or for a generation to die off is going to simply amount to too little, too late. But I will say that the assessment is pretty fair - we're all a product of the environment, and conditions we grow up in. My father, a boomer, cannot wrap his head around many of the realities I face. Retirement, for me, is a laughable fantasy, but he doesn't understand that, because his experience was always the complete opposite. When he complains about not having any grandchildren, and I tell him I'd never subject a child to growing up in the world I'll be leaving behind, he's almost angry about it (as relevant as I believe this is, let's not get derailed on this again). And it's not that he's completely ignorant either - he's well aware of global warming, and the issues therein, used to be a Republican, is now a Democrat, and realizes how stupid he was to vote Republican (though he still doesn't believe me when I tell him they're all playing for the same team), etc. But in the end, there are just some things that are so ingrained that when I try to discuss them with him, I get back pure disbelief/denial. For the record, I'm GenX, and I know quite a few GenX'ers. Most are not strictly pro-capitalism, but few would be willing to sacrifice anything in the face of the realities we face. None are climate change deniers, and they're all fairly well informed. People just tend to not care (or at least, not be willing to take action, or sacrifice anything) unless something directly affects them. Sadly, by the time this occurs, Miami will be 3 feet underwater during low tide.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
The premise that socialism could do a better job that capitalism of not hurting the poor while adapting and mitigating climate change is kinda boring, seeing how that's almost tautological from an idealistic perspective. But there's actually good evidence that the limited capitalism practiced in the world today (i.e. already regulated) can shift to deal with a regulatory change that for the vast majority of businesses, increases the cost of some supplies while decreasing the cost of others. If Toyota, Lloyds, UBS, GE et al can see the profit to be had in being smart about climate change, I think its foolish to assume the downfall of capitalism has to occur before we'll institute an effective global carbon regime. I wouldn't want to be invested in power coal right now though....
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
There's actually not any good evidence that the "limited" capitalism in the world today can profit from climate change, unless you're talking about profiteering.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
Radbot posted:There's actually not any good evidence that the "limited" capitalism in the world today can profit from climate change, unless you're talking about profiteering. You may think that, and there are certainly are industries that won't make the transition, but yes, there's lots of money to be made on mitigation and adaption. Especially within a pro-climate regulatory framework, where it becomes easy for amoral corporations to make the pro-climate choices because they're better for the bottom line. Mythical socialism would obviously do it better, of course.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
Av027 posted:... The focus at this point should be on providing only what we need to survive, in an effort to allow for the future survival of humanity (in something resembling our current global civilization). In other words, giving up unnecessary things like iPads and recreational boats (random examples) ... If basic necessities are provided for all, and the bullshit goes out the window, our needs can stabilize at much more sustainable levels, and people can still live comfortably, without going hungry ... I don't want to poo poo on you and your situation, but it doesn't make too much sense for you to rail at society for being wasteful and steeped in unsustainable consumption/luxury if you yourself can't even envision living on less than you make (so as to save up for retirement/pay off debts). Obviously sometimes poo poo hits the fan and you have to live hand to mouth or take on debt, and nobody can hold a rough patch (or five) against you. But even if you were a decade or two older it'd still be pretty defeatist and perversely spoiled of you to claim that you'll never be able to retire - live beneath your means in anticipation of no longer being physically able to work - or, in other words, live sustainably. Especially when you dismiss your entire generation as being too pampered to sacrifice maximum convenience in the present for a better future. Av027 posted:I'd like to share this optimism, but frankly, by the time younger generations make up the bulk of government and/or voters, this ship will have already sailed. The clock is ticking down to the final seconds. Maybe minutes if we're lucky, but maybe we're already too late. We need immediate and drastic change to control our crash landing, and waiting for renewables, or for a generation to die off is going to simply amount to too little, too late. I think you're getting a little too alarmist here. The world at large (meaning the general public) has been aware of this problem for what, twenty years? Ten? Yes, we could and should have moved way faster. And the next ten years unfortunately aren't going to see a complete overhaul of society. But things will only get better if a bunch of people are willing to work on making it so - and they have believe they're making a difference. You make it sound like a fool's errand. Yes, things will probably get pretty bad. But we can and should do what's in our collective power to do right now, even if it's not remotely a complete solution. You have to start somewhere, and as far as serious global awareness goes, we're basically right at the beginning of this. It's way too early to give up. Prolonged Panorama fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Nov 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Not even close to true. Not sure why you are even discussing this topic if you're so ignorant about it. Start here: http://cleantechnica.com/2014/10/13/battery-costs-may-drop-100kwh/ Trabisnikof posted:My point is, even if your naysaying about storage and grid improvements was true, the fact of the matter is, we are so far away from some point where adding renewables is problematic, so let's build renewables now Nuclear seems by far the easiest way to get past that point. ANIME AKBAR fucked around with this message at 07:52 on Nov 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 07:42
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You may think that, and there are certainly are industries that won't make the transition, but yes, there's lots of money to be made on mitigation and adaption. Especially within a pro-climate regulatory framework, where it becomes easy for amoral corporations to make the pro-climate choices because they're better for the bottom line. Don't give me this 'Mythical Socialism' crap and then flip around and in the same heartbeat start giving us a lecture about what amounts to Mythical Capitalism that will be nice and compliant to regulatory standards and public needs. There's way, way more money to be lost in mitigation or adaption and if there wasn't then this problem wouldn't have emerged in the first place, we're talking hugely constraining mining, various farming industries, manufacturing and more, the economy of entire nations are based on the extraction of cheap, dirty energy sources and they will fight rather than see their main sources of income go down the toilet. Just now in the European politics thread somebody linked that the Volkswagen scandel now does extend to CO2 emissions too, flouting this continent's supposed standards for this long and only getting reveled thanks to American intervention, who knows how many other companies are ignoring environmental standards in a similar manner? I was reading an interview with Bill Gates on the Atlantic. I'd consider him a pretty good authority on many things capitalist and he had some interesting comments: quote:On why the free market won’t develop new forms of energy fast enough: khwarezm fucked around with this message at 12:54 on Nov 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 12:48
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:who knows how many other companies are ignoring environmental standards in a similar manner? Oh, that's easy. All of them. If ignoring the laws brings in more money than [risk of getting caught * probable amount of fine], then those laws are worthless.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 13:55
|
|
|
Prolonged Priapism posted:I don't want to poo poo on you and your situation, but it doesn't make too much sense for you to rail at society for being wasteful and steeped in unsustainable consumption/luxury if you yourself can't even envision living on less than you make (so as to save up for retirement/pay off debts). Obviously sometimes poo poo hits the fan and you have to live hand to mouth or take on debt, and nobody can hold a rough patch (or five) against you. But even if you were a decade or two older it'd still be pretty defeatist and perversely spoiled of you to claim that you'll never be able to retire - live beneath your means in anticipation of no longer being physically able to work - or, in other words, live sustainably. Especially when you dismiss your entire generation as being too pampered to sacrifice maximum convenience in the present for a better future. I should've probably made this a bit clearer. Financially, it would be difficult for me to retire, and I don't live extravagantly. I don't have cable. I don't eat out. But I have a mortgage, a car payment, and I'm underpaid. However, that wasn't really my point. By the time I hit retirement age, I'll honestly be surprised if retirement is even a thing. An additional 25-30 years of ever accelerating global warming? I think we can pretty much kiss our current lifestyle goodbye. Pampered isn't the word I'd use to describe my generation. Selfish or maybe self-centered is more accurate, but I'd apply it to the entire first world, if not humanity as a whole. People just don't care about things that don't immediately affect them. Prolonged Priapism posted:I think you're getting a little too alarmist here. The world at large (meaning the general public) has been aware of this problem for what, twenty years? Ten? Yes, we could and should have moved way faster. And the next ten years unfortunately aren't going to see a complete overhaul of society. But things will only get better if a bunch of people are willing to work on making it so - and they have believe they're making a difference. You make it sound like a fool's errand. Yes, things will probably get pretty bad. But we can and should do what's in our collective power to do right now, even if it's not remotely a complete solution. You have to start somewhere, and as far as serious global awareness goes, we're basically right at the beginning of this. It's way too early to give up. The world at large has been vaguely aware of the problem, yes. There are still plenty of deniers (I work with some), and many many people that don't understand the scope of the problem. We have near zero political will to do anything about it, and millions of dollars spent annually to actively lobby against mitigation. Solar isn't really efficient enough yet, wind and nuclear bring NIMBY assholes out of the woodwork. There are no easy solutions here, and we are most certainly neck deep in this poo poo. We're at the point where the only possibility for meaningful mitigation requires drastic action on a global scale. Without that, global civilization is gone. Yes, humanity will survive in some form regardless of how bad it gets, but the result of inaction does mean several billion fewer humans. The reason I seem so alarmist is that we're fast approaching, or maybe even passing the point of no return as we speak. There is a point where human action no longer matters - at least without considering some harebrained geoengineering scheme that'll probably backfire spectacularly. Positive feedback loops (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback), once set in motion, will dump enough greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to ensure warming will continue even if we quit fossil fuels cold turkey. Siberian tundra thaws, releasing vast quantities of methane from peat bogs. Ice sheet melting (Arctic, Antarctic, Greenland) lowers the Earth's albedo, causing more heat to be absorbed. This melting has the added effect of causing sea level rise on a rather devastating scale. Greenland ice alone fully melting amounts to over 7 meters of sea level rise. How many coastal cities are underwater at that point? Lots. These positive feedbacks are occurring as we speak. Perhaps not yet at the runaway warming level, but since we're not slowing down, neither are they. In fact, it's all accelerating. Sure, we're still talking about decades before we have meters of sea level rise, but we're not talking about decades before it's essentially unavoidable. Where we're in a position to maybe push it back a few years, but can have no other impact on its inevitability. You say it's way too early to give up, but I would argue that it's way too late to simply discuss the issue, or to consider half measures progress. We're at the "take drastic action or face the consequences" stage from where I'm standing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
So uh... China's been pumping a billion tons more CO2 into the air yearly than previously though. Whoops.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:So uh... China's been pumping a billion tons more CO2 into the air yearly than previously though. Whoops. Its not like they want anyone to actually live long in their cities.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
Bill Nye and National Geographic have produced some neat stuff https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIpr0SwJncs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ra1M7XyyIDA The show down with a Florida congressman is really telling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
Kurt_Cobain posted:Bill Nye and National Geographic have produced some neat stuff Its ashame that probably won't happen very often anymore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
Av027 posted:The reason I seem so alarmist is that we're fast approaching, or maybe even passing the point of no return as we speak. There is a point where human action no longer matters - at least without considering some harebrained geoengineering scheme that'll probably backfire spectacularly. Positive feedback loops (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback), once set in motion, will dump enough greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to ensure warming will continue even if we quit fossil fuels cold turkey. Siberian tundra thaws, releasing vast quantities of methane from peat bogs. Ice sheet melting (Arctic, Antarctic, Greenland) lowers the Earth's albedo, causing more heat to be absorbed. This melting has the added effect of causing sea level rise on a rather devastating scale. Greenland ice alone fully melting amounts to over 7 meters of sea level rise. How many coastal cities are underwater at that point? Lots. You want to use a better link than wikipedia (which doesn't prove your point anyway) when you try to discredit the IPCC et al?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Climate Change is starting to affect food prices worldwide and might begin reversing progress in anti-starvation projects. The study will be published in a few days, but a German newspaper already got to read it: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/wwf-studie-klimawandel-treibt-die-preise-und-leert-die-regale-1.2721989 (unfortunately only in German)
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Its ashame that probably won't happen very often anymore. CommieGIR is referring to the fact that 21st Century Fox is in the process of finalizing it's takeover of the National Geographic media arm this month, and yesterday fired 180 staff members and offered redundancies to an unspecified number. Final cuts seem to be around 500 of the 2000 staff. Positions made redundant include include Picture Editors, Page Designers and 20+ year Veteran Photographers. Not like this wasn't expected when it was announced back in September : 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You want to use a better link than wikipedia (which doesn't prove your point anyway) when you try to discredit the IPCC et al? The IPCC has long been criticized for being too conservative in its estimates. The reason why should be abundantly obvious: the reports are intended primarily for policymakers, and scientists don't want to tell politicians, "Yep, we're pretty much hosed," because that gives politicians no incentive whatsoever to enact positive changes. As far as the general point Av027 is making: it is very clear that the permafrost is melting. Simple logic will get you the rest of the way, Trabisnikof. If it is already warm enough for the permafrost to start melting (and more warming is already baked into the system due to our emissions up to this point), then is the permafrost likely to stop melting anytime soon?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:The IPCC has long been criticized for being too conservative in its estimates. The reason why should be abundantly obvious: the reports are intended primarily for policymakers, and scientists don't want to tell politicians, "Yep, we're pretty much hosed," because that gives politicians no incentive whatsoever to enact positive changes. You're still a long way from providing some scientific research arguing that we've reached a tipping point that makes human emission of carbon meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
ITT we're in the final stage of climate denial: Climate change is happening, it is caused by human activity, it’s a really bad thing, but there’s very little we can do about it
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
Honj Steak posted:Climate Change is starting to affect food prices worldwide and might begin reversing progress in anti-starvation projects. The study will be published in a few days, but a German newspaper already got to read it: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/wwf-studie-klimawandel-treibt-die-preise-und-leert-die-regale-1.2721989 (unfortunately only in German) As far as I can tell, the article discusses a WWF grey literature prediction that food prices could rise in the future, not that they are already rising or that they will definitely rise. World food prices over the past 55 years according to the UN show little change in real terms:  This is likely because food production has increased faster than population growth. ANIME AKBAR posted:I don't know why you think we should care what the gently caress Citigroup or HSBC think about battery technology. It's not my primary field, but I go to talks on smart grid/storage every few months, by the people who actually have the right to make ballsy projections. But almost none of them are optimistic about implementation. For the smart grid stuff, the science part actually looks pretty solid, we know how it could be done, but nobody could conceive of actually implementing it on the necessary scale. Link to a talk or a paper or an article or anything? Find this very hard to believe that you are characterizing their arguments correctly, because it is kinda obvious that battery storage is on the near term horizon. The Tesla PowerWall started shipping two months ago, and they/we are just scratching the surface with getting the prices down. Arkane fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Nov 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:ITT we're in the final stage of climate denial: Yes, if we don't believe in market-based solutions to climate change, clearly we are denying climate change.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Yes, if we don't believe in market-based solutions to climate change, clearly we are denying climate change. If you're arguing that "we're fast approaching, or maybe even passing the point of no return" yes you basically are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:If you're arguing that "we're fast approaching, or maybe even passing the point of no return" yes you basically are. So if you argue that we're approaching a climatic point of no return, then you're actually denying climate change is happening at all. Makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You're still a long way from providing some scientific research arguing that we've reached a tipping point that makes human emission of carbon meaningless. A couple of things: 1. Go back and read what Av027 posted again, because I am 99% sure you are arguing against something that was never actually said. There is no part in anything that he/she posted where he says "I'm sure we've reached a point where human emissions are effectively meaningless" or "Scientists say we've reached the point where human emissions are effectively meaningless." His main points were three, from what I can tell - a. Climate tipping points exist. b. Maybe (note that this is just a maybe!) we've reached a tipping point. c. Once a certain temperature rise gets baked in, collapse of global civilization is a very real possibility regardless of whether or not we cut emissions. 2. Global civilization is so complex (as are the various stresses that climate change can put on it) that you're probably never going to hear a scientist say "we've reached a point where the collapse of civilization is guaranteed/highly likely" (at least, in any sort of official capacity. Privately, some scientists are already saying things like that and I can provide links if you want me to). There is simply no way to measure something like that, all we have to look at when it comes to predicting collapse are past societies which have collapsed. Therefore, asking for some sort of scientific declaration in this regard is pretty ridiculous. However, one thing you can do is look at what has already transpired, the direction things are headed, and what you know about human nature, and then draw your own conclusions. Based on my layman's understanding of those things, I'd say Av027 is making a pretty strong point. Trabisnikof posted:ITT we're in the final stage of climate denial: Calling that statement "climate denial" is really, really stupid. It's happened on a number of occasions in this thread and it needs to stop. There is a world of difference between that and what deniers are saying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:ITT we're in the final stage of climate denial: You missed the important bit. Some people append "... so let's keep doing business as usual" to the end of that and some people go with "... but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try". Which one would you say actual climate change deniers are and which one would you say folks in this thread are?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:ITT we're in the final stage of climate denial: Where we're actually at: Climate change is happening, it is caused by human activity, it’s a really bad thing, but there’s very little we can do about it without upsetting the basic economic structure of society, which we need to consider immediately
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:You missed the important bit. Some people append "... so let's keep doing business as usual" to the end of that and some people go with "... but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try". Which one would you say actual climate change deniers are and which one would you say folks in this thread are? This is my point with Av027 - they seem to say "we need to do a lot right now and it's probably not going to happen, and what will happen will be too little too late, so gently caress it." To the point where they're not really worried about their own retirement. Or, rather, they are, but have convinced themselves that the climate change doomsday will arrive first, so it won't matter. They'll be "rescued" from their unsustainable financial lifestyle by the collapse of civilization. Everyone is screwed, so why try to plan for the future? Av027 is firmly in the "depression" stage of climate change grief. Prolonged Panorama fucked around with this message at 00:26 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Where we're actually at: We can consider it but the electorates will never vote to slash their own income and spending. If that is the only option, then this is it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:A couple of things: Here I've highlighted the alarmist points that take valid science and extend it well past the certainty it contains. That's the problem. Its easy to take a paper and extend it well past what the paper actually says. Gray literature is really bad about this. Av027 posted:Solar isn't really efficient enough yet, wind and nuclear bring NIMBY assholes out of the woodwork. There are no easy solutions here, and we are most certainly neck deep in this poo poo. We're at the point where the only possibility for meaningful mitigation requires drastic action on a global scale. Without that, global civilization is gone. Yes, humanity will survive in some form regardless of how bad it gets, but the result of inaction does mean several billion fewer humans. Each of the bolded statements might be true, but the interconnections aren't proven. For example, sure there are feedback loops in the climate system that could dwarf human carbon impact, yes. Are they the ones "occurring as we speak" no, but why let that get in the way of drawing the connection. Your Sledgehammer posted:2. Global civilization is so complex (as are the various stresses that climate change can put on it) that you're probably never going to hear a scientist say "we've reached a point where the collapse of civilization is guaranteed/highly likely" (at least, in any sort of official capacity. Privately, some scientists are already saying things like that and I can provide links if you want me to). There is simply no way to measure something like that, all we have to look at when it comes to predicting collapse are past societies which have collapsed. Therefore, asking for some sort of scientific declaration in this regard is pretty ridiculous. However, one thing you can do is look at what has already transpired, the direction things are headed, and what you know about human nature, and then draw your own conclusions. Based on my layman's understanding of those things, I'd say Av027 is making a pretty strong point. Actually, I think you are able to find lots of scientific papers detailing potential civilization ending risk, but that's neither here nor there. The point is, there actually isn't evidence to support all the links between the limited findings of the actual science and the conclusions of collapse of civilization if we don't do X (which strangely is never clearly stated). quote:Calling that statement "climate denial" is really, really stupid. It's happened on a number of occasions in this thread and it needs to stop. There is a world of difference between that and what deniers are saying. It is the final stage of climate denial, like it or not. Just because it is so-called climate advocates shouting the words of denial, doesn't change the fact that it is the exact same argument they use. Hello Sailor posted:You missed the important bit. Some people append "... so let's keep doing business as usual" to the end of that and some people go with "... but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try". Which one would you say actual climate change deniers are and which one would you say folks in this thread are? Well, seeing how people keep saying we might be at the point human action no longer matters.... Radbot posted:Where we're actually at: Of course, that's not based in reality either. We can very much adapt and mitigate climate change within the basic economic structure of society. Want me to link RE:Futures again?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Each of the bolded statements might be true, but the interconnections aren't proven. For example, sure there are feedback loops in the climate system that could dwarf human carbon impact, yes. Are they the ones "occurring as we speak" no, but why let that get in the way of drawing the connection. We might be passing the point of no return right now, today, sure, it could be that literal. I'm not being that literal, even though... I sort of am. You have to remember the following: Any actions we take with current technology, to mitigate climate change, will take time to implement. Want to build a bunch of nuke plants, so we can take coal plants offline? Well, it takes what, a decade to build one (planning, construction, etc)? Even if you assume we can build enough nuke plants simultaneously to get the job done, that's a decade of dumping CO2 from those coal plants into the atmosphere, before you can take them offline. So if we take action today, we're still locked into another decade of Warming As Usual. We aren't going to be doing this of course, because there's no political will to do so, and people will fight having a nuke plant anywhere near where they live, but even if we assume we can eventually drum up enough political will to push that kind of plan through, and even go so far as to say we can put them all in unpopulated areas (so we can eliminate the NIMBY crowd's protests), how long would that take? Another decade? More? So now we're starting to build those plants in 2025, or maybe 2030, or 2035. So, what I would consider to be best case scenario (still basically a minor miracle), would be having all coal plants offline by 2035. Two full decades of Warming As Usual. And that's merely addressing part of the problem, in the United States only. And it doesn't take into account how hard the fossil fuel industry will fight to maintain the status quo. So, in essence, since we're not taking action, and have no political will to take action immediately, we're committing, right now, today, to decades of inaction while we discuss (ignore) the issue, and maybe plan and implement eventually. Decades of Warming As Usual, in which we push those positive feedbacks further and further along. If we could somehow put a date to the point of no return, say, 2030, our lack of a plan, and lack of action today does mean we're passing that point today. This is of course hypothetical. We can't put a firm date to it - it might be 2050, or it might've been 2005. But we're doing nothing (impactful) about it right now, and will be doing nothing about it for decades to come. And for the record, I'm in no kind of denial phase about Climate Change. As far as I'm concerned, humanity did this, and if we take no action to reverse course, we deserve everything we get. It's not too late, but I do believe it is too late to take half measures, or simply discuss the problem, while doing nothing about it. We can't afford decades of inaction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 19:10 |
|
|
Don't bring children into this world, they will only have hell to inherit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 17:17
|
|