|
Arkane posted:Nothing in the agreement is binding, and the pledge to reduce emissions is impossible without new technologies. GIven that the temperature has already increased by 1C with less than a doubling of CO2, and that the temperature increase would continue even if we were to stop emitting CO2 today, we can be pretty sure that it does not take one doubling to increase the temperature by 1C. The necessary reduction in emissions is not "impossible without new technologies" in any sense whatsoever; what you mean is that our infinite-growth capitalism would require sequestration technologies to outpace our emissions. We don't need new technology, we need a different economic system.
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 01:36 |
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:GIven that the temperature has already increased by 1C with less than a doubling of CO2, and that the temperature increase would continue even if we were to stop emitting CO2 today, we can be pretty sure that it does not take one doubling to increase the temperature by 1C. Or we just build enough nuclear powerplants to ensure the climate isn't completely and utterly hosed if the global communist revolution somehow doesn't happen in the next ten years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 22:32
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
So basically we have an agreement that we need to be even more ambitious with limiting temperature increases, but with no enforcement, minimal funds to developing countries, and a vague promise to look at the insufficient pledges years from now, when we're already pretty much out of time. Ok.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
Hobo posted:So basically we have an agreement that we need to be even more ambitious with limiting temperature increases, but with no enforcement, minimal funds to developing countries, and a vague promise to look at the insufficient pledges years from now, when we're already pretty much out of time. Yeah, I don't know why there is as much celebration as there is for the agreement since it has few enforcement mechanisms and allows countries very wide leeway in addressing climate change. I guess seeing countries admit there is a problem is fine and all but I have a hard time seeing this agreement make any real difference carbon-wise. Also, if anything the reporting on it may be deceptive since the public may very well think the agreement addresses far more than it actual does. It is "better than nothing" but in many ways we needed a robust agreement, and that opportunity seems to have slipped away.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
It's more depressing than anything else. It's such a empty promise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
Basically "all countries recognise it is a serious problem and plan to eventually have a coherent idea of what to do about it" is where climate conferences should have been a decade or two ago so this is just slow progress like in every other area of politics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
You folks are so brainwashed you are litteraly begging your globalist overlords to force you to reduce your living standards and tax you into oblivion. Its disgusting how the radical far left has hijacked the green movement to push their sick and twisted authoritarian communist anti human agenda. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Basically "all countries recognise it is a serious problem and plan to eventually have a coherent idea of what to do about it" is where climate conferences should have been a decade or two ago so this is just slow progress like in every other area of politics. quote:You folks are so brainwashed you are litteraly begging your globalist overlords to force you to reduce your living standards and tax you into oblivion. Its disgusting how the radical far left has hijacked the green movement to push their sick and twisted authoritarian communist anti human agenda. 
Doopliss fucked around with this message at 01:41 on Dec 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
smoke sumthin bitch posted:You folks are so brainwashed you are litteraly begging your globalist overlords to force you to reduce your living standards and tax you into oblivion. Its disgusting how the radical far left has hijacked the green movement to push their sick and twisted authoritarian communist anti human agenda. Please tell me all about our radical far left globalist overlords 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:GIven that the temperature has already increased by 1C with less than a doubling of CO2, and that the temperature increase would continue even if we were to stop emitting CO2 today, we can be pretty sure that it does not take one doubling to increase the temperature by 1C. This is misleading. Much of that 1C increase you cite is prior to 1940, and likely had very little correlation with human activity/CO2. This is why the problem is usually described along the lines of.... "It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities." Note: "most" and "recent decades." We know mathematically that a doubling of CO2, all other factors aside, leads to a 1C increase. There are likely to be feedbacks on top of that which increase the number to above 1C per doubling, but there's wide disagreement on what the number is (from the low 1s to above 2). Placid Marmot posted:The necessary reduction in emissions is not "impossible without new technologies" in any sense whatsoever; what you mean is that our infinite-growth capitalism would require sequestration technologies to outpace our emissions. We don't need new technology, we need a different economic system. Let me clarify: it is impossible without new technology in every scenario except the one where world economies are dismantled and humanity is immediately thrust into deep poverty. You are right...in that scenario of human misery, emissions will fall dramatically.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
Arkane posted:This is misleading. Much of that 1C increase you cite is prior to 1940, and likely had very little correlation with human activity/CO2. Whether humans or nature is to blame, the earth is set to become inhospitable. IDGAF about the earth except for its value to us, which is high. We should keep it temperate for that reason. quote:Let me clarify: it is impossible without new technology in every scenario except the one where world economies are dismantled and humanity is immediately thrust into deep poverty. You are right...in that scenario of human misery, emissions will fall dramatically. No, we just have to stop wasting energy on useless poo poo and consume less.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 12:45
|
|
|
No we just have to switch to the existing clean source of energy. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 14:15
|
|
|
Arkane posted:This is misleading. Much of that 1C increase you cite is prior to 1940, and likely had very little correlation with human activity/CO2. Let's pick a date to refute a claim. Which shall we choose? 1930, which is on the trend line? 1950, which is on the trend line? No, why not 1940, which sits at the apex of an excursion from the trend and validates my position? Something in the region of 10-15% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions were produced prior to 1940; that 10-15% had a greater effect on climate than the next equal quantity of CO2 that we output will. quote:We know mathematically that a doubling of CO2, all other factors aside, leads to a 1C increase. There are likely to be feedbacks on top of that which increase the number to above 1C per doubling, but there's wide disagreement on what the number is (from the low 1s to above 2). Please explain to me the mathemagical link between arbritarily-sized degrees Celcius and CO2 doubling. If you actually meant that we can observe that a doubling of CO2 leads to a 1C increase in global temperature, then you're just repeating what I already said, albeit that it has taken less than a doubling for that 1C. quote:Let me clarify: it is impossible without new technology in every scenario except the one where world economies are dismantled and humanity is immediately thrust into deep poverty. You are right...in that scenario of human misery, emissions will fall dramatically. Rich people (that's us) use multiple times more energy than they require to not be in "deep poverty" or "human misery", while people already in poverty are not the ones who are being asked to reduce their consumption, and they could multiply their consumption if that's what's needed to bring them out of poverty. Reducing rich countries' consumption to a level that is both sustainable and comfortable will certainly destroy the economy that caused climate change, but it will not thrust anyone into "deep poverty"; there is not only a single possible economic system. Placid Marmot fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Dec 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
The problem is that dealing with climate change in a way that doesn't have a negative effect on living standards would have required us to start on it decades ago. Right now we have a choice between two extremes of "maintain living standards now, have poo poo living standards in the future" or "have lowered standards in the short to medium term, and have a better time in the future". Humans are pretty bad at estimating future value, so it's not surprising that we're going with the former option, but it does lead us to the risk of those future poo poo living standards being so bad that they mean the collapse of civilisation as we know it. But that's ok because we can use all the money we make until then to build ourselves a nice tomb.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
One reason why the climate agreement will have a positive impact, from Robert Reichquote:The real significance of the accord is its effect on private investment decisions. It seems very likely that the value of private investments in oil, gas, and coal will now drop far more than they already have, and the value of investments in wind, solar, biomass, and nuclear energy will rise. The result: Hundreds of billions of private dollars will now pour out of dirty fuels and into clean ones.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Why would investments do anything in response to this agreement, considering there's no enforcement mechanism or market-based solution (carbon tax, cap and trade, etc.)? Private dollars will pour out of dirty fuels the second that it becomes more expensive to use them vs. clean fuels and not a second earlier.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
If anything the dramatic lowered cost of fossil fuels at this point would promote their use and help disincentive private investment in alternatives (including nuclear power) in the long term. If natural gas is dirt cheap why build windmills and reactors? I don't get Reich's thinking here, if anything dirt cheap dirty energy would promote its use. While obviously fossil fuels prices have taken a big hit, that doesn't really have much do with climate change and everything to do with geopolitics. Also with no enforcement mechanism or real subsidies as a part of the plan, why would anyone change their mind? Talking about global warming being a problem isn't going to be enough to scare away fossil use without actual laws attached to them. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Dec 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Why would investments do anything in response to this agreement, considering there's no enforcement mechanism or market-based solution (carbon tax, cap and trade, etc.)? Regulatory uncertainty shifts costs. It's not about which thing is cheaper right now - it's what you believe will give you the best return on your investment over the next 10-20-40 years, or however long you project it will take your investment to be paid off. If investors perceive that, for instance, coal is likely to be hit by more and costlier restrictions or that wind power is about to receive a large subsidy, they will take it into account when they decide if they are going to invest in it. From an investment perspective the weakness of fossil fuels is that you can't predict costs of fuels, unlike nuclear/solar/wind. You can guess and hope and pray that natgas will still be very cheap in 20 years so your brand new 1b$ natgas plant will still be profitable then - but truthfully, you don't know. That risk has a cost. The Paris deal introduces more risk for fossil fuel investors since there's now a greater chance governments are going to be messing around with subsidies and taxes in the coming years. Whether the impact will be huge or trivial depends on how seriously investors believe it's not just hot air.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:Regulatory uncertainty shifts costs. It's not about which thing is cheaper right now - it's what you believe will give you the best return on your investment over the next 10-20-40 years, or however long you project it will take your investment to be paid off. If investors perceive that, for instance, coal is likely to be hit by more and costlier restrictions or that wind power is about to receive a large subsidy, they will take it into account when they decide if they are going to invest in it. The question is if the deal actually increases that uncertainty, and there plenty of room for skepticism. If anything it is unclear how much risk has been shifted considering how empty the deal is. To be honest, I assume most investors would look at the actual text of deal and not see that much to be concerned about.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Markets are fickle and irrational, so a bunch of large economies declaring "hmm yeah climate change is bad and we should really do something about it, kinda soon" can be bad for fossil fuel companies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Markets are fickle and irrational, so a bunch of large economies declaring "hmm yeah climate change is bad and we should really do something about it, kinda soon" can be bad for fossil fuel companies. I don't disagree, as long as we can all agree on the deal being pretty much just that - "hmm yeah, I guess it's bad, not bad enough to do anything policy-wise by god, but bad" I guess investors aren't feeling that worried, Shell is down about 2% since the agreement was reached. Lastly, if we're in TYOOL 2015 and we're relying on "regulatory uncertainty" to keep us below 2 degrees celsius, loving lol we are hosed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Nobody who is grounded in reality seriously believes in less than 2°C of warming. More realistically, we're aiming for anything below maybe 2.5 or 3°C.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Markets are fickle and irrational, so a bunch of large economies declaring "hmm yeah climate change is bad and we should really do something about it, kinda soon" can be bad for fossil fuel companies. Markets are fickle and irrational in the short term but in the long term they are much more stable and predictable, but ultimately the question if this deal would actually lead to long term consequences. In addition, on one hand they have said "we should do something about that", yet on the other hand in face of overwhelming evidence still haven't really done anything and when will they actually act? It may give companies something to considerable but ultimately investment is going to flow where there is a ready market and as long as the promises are vague, I don't see them stopping in the long term unless something really changes. Ultimately, the developing world is very unlikely to move away from fossil fuels at this point even if prices rise and there is going to be a growing market for energy regardless of what happens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:
They are moving away from fossil fuels already. Inertia works both ways - it will take several years of low fuel prices to counteract the existing trends.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Obama should make some sort of veiled tweet about climate change, it too could provide a source of regulatory uncertainty and without needing to close down half of Paris
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
computer parts posted:They are moving away from fossil fuels already. Inertia works both ways - it will take several years of low fuel prices to counteract the existing trends. Most of their moves are theoretical than anything, and in the case of China, despite the environmental costs they are still very much weded coal not to mention other developing states (coal is still 78-79% of generation and has been that way for over a decade). At this point the general prediction is that lower commodity prices in general are here to stay for a while, and while there will probably be some type of recover prices, there is going to be a "new normal." (Geopolitics is admittedly an "x factor") In all honesty, I doubt uncertainty from hollow treaty is going to make a major difference if prices stay the general direction they have been going. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Dec 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Nobody who is grounded in reality seriously believes in less than 2°C of warming. More realistically, we're aiming for anything below maybe 2.5 or 3°C. What? No , the goal should be 1.5 as we study / and learn more of the effects of temperature changes we learn that the dangers of 2 degree is more and more dangerous than initially thought.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:What? No , the goal should be 1.5 as we study / and learn more of the effects of temperature changes we learn that the dangers of 2 degree is more and more dangerous than initially thought. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/why-the-paris-talks-wont-prevent-2-degrees-of-global-warming/
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
The National Review continues their slide into obscurity: https://twitter.com/NRO/status/676516015078039556  Labelled: The only climate change chart you ever need to see
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:The National Review continues their slide into obscurity: Loving the response to that graph: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:No we just have to switch to the existing clean source of energy. Maybe you misunderstand me. I'm not saying burn less coal (although that's a compromise I'll take!) I'm saying reduce energy demand to a point where solar, wind, hydroelectric and the up-and-coming green energies can keep up with the new low demand. Be realistic, do you think a green energy array would be feasible for cities like Portland or Chicago? Of course, we could use nuclear where necessary but we'd still want to severely reduce energy usage in smaller towns since we don't want a nuclear reactor every 100 miles. Using green energy is incredibly expensive and land-consuming over some of the alternatives and I'm not talking undeveloped land, we're talking smack right up near the city land. Yes fossil fuels gently caress up undeveloped land (which is bad, I'm not downplaying that) but undeveloped land doesn't displace any businesses or homes, or at least not often (and they rarely give a poo poo). Don't forget that land aside, though, green energy sources are still expensive as gently caress-all, which is a cost you have to take into account whether you like it or not. Note: the reader should acknowledge that I run the assumption that hydroelectric, one of the most cost-effective forms of green energy, is fully taken advantage of. The reader should acknowledge that there's only so much river.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
Verge posted:Maybe you misunderstand me. I'm not saying burn less coal (although that's a compromise I'll take!) I'm saying reduce energy demand to a point where solar, wind, hydroelectric and the up-and-coming green energies can keep up with the new low demand. Be realistic, do you think a green energy array would be feasible for cities like Portland or Chicago? Of course, we could use nuclear where necessary but we'd still want to severely reduce energy usage in smaller towns since we don't want a nuclear reactor every 100 miles. Nuclear reactors currently provide about 20% of US electricity needs and there's around 100 plants in the country.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Nuclear reactors currently provide about 20% of US electricity needs and there's around 100 plants in the country. Right, so if this was my dreamworld (and I know it isn't) I'd double, maybe triple that, kill all coal and natural gas except small ones used in small towns that can not take advantage of green energy sources due to geographic circumstance and get all small and large towns on solar/wind that are geographically compatible. This would be cost prohibitive, in my opinion, unless we also reduce energy uses, especially in those towns completely dependent on green and fossil energy (nuclear plants generate stupid amounts of energy). Now I don't like to admit this but I know it'll come up: everyone knows that reactors pollute in their very own special way and we kind of suck at not loving that up so beta testing alternative nuclear methods should be priority 2, if not alternative nuclear waste disposal methods. It should be understood that when I use the terms cost prohibitive or expensive, I mean the market costs of labor and materials to commit these acts. Simply raising the price of energy, esp. dirty energy, would easily accomplish this, as the market will do naturally. Except the dirty energy tax, that's gotta be sin taxed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
Arkane posted:We know mathematically that a doubling of CO2, all other factors aside, leads to a 1C increase. There are likely to be feedbacks on top of that which increase the number to above 1C per doubling, but there's wide disagreement on what the number is (from the low 1s to above 2)
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Nobody who is grounded in reality seriously believes in less than 2°C of warming. More realistically, we're aiming for anything below maybe 2.5 or 3°C. You're starting to make me not want to come to this thread for good news and cheery thoughts, you know that?  Is there ANY good news from this deal at all? Does anybody have good news whatsoever (on the topic of climate change)
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
Inglonias posted:You're starting to make me not want to come to this thread for good news and cheery thoughts, you know that? Peter Thiel has been pushing molten salt reactors pretty hard recently, which may or may not be good news depending where you stand on the nuclear question: http://www.popsci.com/peter-thiel-goes-nuclear http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsky/2015/11/30/one-tech-billionaire-sees-nuclear-as-the-path-to-clean-energy-but-is-he-right/ Which is cool, but we're 10-20 years from a working prototype of MSRs, so not exactly a saving grace especially since angel investors are notoriously fickle with their flavor of the month tech projects. Mat Cauthon fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
Verge posted:Right, so if this was my dreamworld (and I know it isn't) I'd double, maybe triple that, kill all coal and natural gas except small ones used in small towns that can not take advantage of green energy sources due to geographic circumstance and get all small and large towns on solar/wind that are geographically compatible. This would be cost prohibitive, in my opinion, unless we also reduce energy uses, especially in those towns completely dependent on green and fossil energy (nuclear plants generate stupid amounts of energy). anti-nuclear sentiment is utterly asinine, flat out. if not for green opposition to nuclear a significant chunk of the fossil fuels burned over the last few decades wouldn't have been. the fact that  ATOMS!!!!! is still a thing is a joke, and is more indicative of why climate change is not being fixed or going to be fixed than anything elseVerge posted:Note: the reader should acknowledge that I run the assumption that hydroelectric, one of the most cost-effective forms of green energy, is fully taken advantage of. The reader should acknowledge that there's only so much river. and  at this. hydroelectric is literally the most environmentally destructive way to get electricity there is. but somehow mass destruction of habitats is cool because the alternative is atoms
icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 06:20 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 06:13
|
|
|
Nuclear is evil. Nuclear is Satan. Everything else is nice and clean because someone else calls it green. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 10:13
|
|
|
Hey guys, have a laugh at this dudes COP meltdown: http://www.euractiv.com/sections/energy/coal-lobby-chief-cop21-means-we-will-be-hated-slave-traders-320424
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 13:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 01:36 |
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:Hey guys, have a laugh at this dudes COP meltdown: Vilified like the slave trade? Good 
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 15:20
|
|