Climate Change: Post up your Phd. dissertation, coward

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change: Post up your Phd. dissertation, coward

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

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).

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.

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 :supaburn:

ATOMS!!!!! :supaburn:

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 else

Verge 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

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 4, 2024 12:39

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

computer parts posted:

From historical records, the Socialist solution was forcibly moving the people elsewhere. Which is really lovely.

That's also the capitalist solution

# ¿ May 29, 2016 02:48

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Forever_Peace posted:

On the political front, I think there is likely to be a moderate realignment of the political "spectrum" to capture a globalist and technocratic elite on the "left" (pro-immigration, pro-UN, pro-trade, consensus-building policy wonks protective of the global financial class), and an antiglobalist/nativist resistance on the "right" (anti-immigrant, anti-trade, skeptical of experts including both scientists and policy-makers, pro-manufacturing). This is already pretty much exactly how Brexit played out (pro-finance London globalists on the left who opposed Brexit, nativist suburban antiglobalists on the right who supported Brexit). It's going to suck for an awful lot of people when Labor and the Black community are displaced by the financial class as the primary constituency of the Left. But climate change is a global problem, and an overtly globalist majority coalition on the left is probably our best chance at a global effort to combat climate change (the whole "green party" thing, which combined environmentalism with social justice, didn't really seem to gain enough traction, tragically). So in a sense, I think the political prospects are better now than they were 10 years ago. It'll just be the less ideal approach: cap & trade, energy incentives, and a reliance technology (possibly even geoengineering). But the realignment actually needs to happen for even that chance at taking steps to combat climate change. Without it, we'll just continue the "go it alone" locally-driven piecemeal approach (see: the Divest campaign and California's new laws etc), which is incredibly important, but insufficient. (note: the "ideal" approach here was an unprecedented transformation of our megacities, emphasizing walkability and public transit and mixed used zoning, massive investments in public energy utilities, and a new model of economic growth that places hard caps on depletion and pollution

All of this happened 25 years ago dude. Unfortunately Goldman Sachs doesn't give a poo poo about climate change, and neither does the parasitical wonk and op-ed writer class that draws their paycheck from them

Like if you seriously think the global capitalist elite are going to do anything about this you're one gullible motherfucker. They'll find a way to get rich off starving children in Bangladesh, and Matt Yglesias will be right behind them putting out op-eds trumpeting it as the greatest victory for Progressivism the world has seen since the last factory collapse, and how it's unfortunate that the leftist dead-enders who are pointing this out are insufficiently grateful for the benevolence of their rightful aristocratic overlords

icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 07:57 on Aug 31, 2016

# ¿ Aug 31, 2016 07:49

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Trabisnikof posted:

It is only your lack of vision that keeps you from seeing a way to both get rich off more starving children in Bangladesh and also preserve the global power disparity by doing the bare minimum to adapt and mitigate climate change.

The 90 major companies that are intrinsically tied to greenhouse gas emissions will be sacrificed on the alter of capitalism to save all the othe rich and powerful fuckers.

Goldman Sach, as much as it may shock you, does care about adapting and mitigating climate change because it will make someone oodles of money and it might as well be them.

Goldman Sachs makes oodles of money right now, supporting polluters, and if they would make more money mitigating it they would do that, unfortunately they won't and aren't doing that. The entire concept of the tragedy of the commons is that costs are not priced into the actions of individual actors, in other words no, Goldman has zero incentive to do anything about climate change. That's why the problem exists

# ¿ Aug 31, 2016 08:00

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Trabisnikof posted:

Except there is more money to be made in the future than in the past. Goldman Sachs certainly isn't investing their future in coal.

In a world where even the loving Saudi's are trying to cash out of oil, yes the loving writing is on the wall. This isn't the tragedy of the commons, this is a pirate's delimma.

Goldman Sachs has no intrinsic association or benefit with carbon fuels. They don't care how they make money and they certainly won't have a problem shorting the gently caress out of the next carbon fuel to die.

Continuing to use oil and fossil fuels until they are unprofitable, which is what Goldman Sachs and the rest of the economy will do in the absence of any kind of governmental action, is not mitigating climate change and is what has been happening for the last 150 years. Saudis are trying to get out of oil because if/when it runs out they'll be lynched

Like, the almost magical belief in the benevolence and responsibility of huge international corporations on display is some seriously through the looking glass stuff. Do you understand how markets and the tragedy of the commons / externalities actually work?

icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 08:37 on Aug 31, 2016

# ¿ Aug 31, 2016 08:29

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Forever_Peace posted:

We're at the point where financing projects to mediate climate change is short-term profitable already. HSBC, the largest bank in the world (outside of state-run stuff in China), is staking a billion dollar position on climate-project lending (which is considerable even for them - their yearly revenue is around $66 billion).

You're right that they have no incentive to go out and spend money combating climate change on their own, establishing nature preserves or whatever. But they do have a short-term incentive to open up new investment opportunities for themselves, in addition to the long-term incentive to avoid warming. They want market-based solutions to climate change, because that means new markets, right now. They also want unfunded mandates (like "carbon commitments" or fuel efficiency standards or renewables targets etc.) because then they are the ones to provide the financing.

Again, to be explicitly clear, this is not the way I wanted it to happen. I just think it's the way that it will: with greenwashed Bank of America credit cards and JP-funded wind farms.

Do you understand how markets and externalities work? I don't think you do. Clean Energy is profitable, and so are fossil fuels. Fossil fuels being profitable is why global warming exists. Without action taken by some government entity, fossil fuels will continue to be profitable, and global warming is not going to be stopped even if their profitability declines relative to clean energy

# ¿ Sep 1, 2016 00:35

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

If the 'progressive' solution to climate change is "the markets will fix it!" it's probably time to take the progressive movement out behind the shed, rather than let it it wallow in a belief as pathetic is that

# ¿ Sep 1, 2016 00:44

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Trabisnikof posted:

Good job refuting something no one said.

The fact that you keep sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring is that fossil fuels are already less profitably and will continue down that decline. The writing is on the wall and everyone from New York to Abu Dhabi know it.

Fossil fuels being profitable at all means GCC will continue. The world needs to go 0 carbon as fast as possible, and markets will not do that no matter how much magical thinking you engage in

# ¿ Sep 1, 2016 00:50

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Forever_Peace posted:

yes, I understand how externalities work.

Fossil fuels are profitable for the extraction industry.The the global financial industry has different incentives (as I have shown with an abundance of examples, they are more than happy to finance climate mitigation and drop the extraction industry cold, because that's where their incentives are).

Banks don't care what loans are used for, if they're profitable they'll make them. If fossil fuel extraction and use are profitable then financing those activities will be as well. The fact that they also finance clean energy is irrelevant, Goldman has 0 incentive to stop financing climate change and they won't stop out of the goodness of their hearts, no matter how strongly you believe they will

icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Sep 1, 2016

# ¿ Sep 1, 2016 00:59

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Trabisnikof posted:

Yes and no force on earth is making us go to carbon as fast as possible.

I'm saying that it is in all their best interests to stop investing in fossil fuels now and invest more and more in renewables et al.

This isn't the best case or even a good case, but it is far far better than the "nothing will ever happen ever" argument that gets made constantly.

Evidence already points to this happening, but when has evidence ever mattered when we can naysay?

The argument wasn't 'nothing will happen ever' it was that letting the markets do as they will will be disastrous. Which is true. The bare minimum you can do is not to pretend that that outome is some sort of progressive coup, but apparantly even that's too much, as it doesn't let you feel good and righteous about being on the good guy's side

icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 01:10 on Sep 1, 2016

# ¿ Sep 1, 2016 01:04

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Mozi posted:

It is a very scary situation to rationally come to the conclusion that one needs a plan and a means to quickly and painlessly end one's life when and if the situation demands it.

I never had too much hope for our efforts on this front but always thought there was some outside chance that we could maybe figure out some crazy solution and muddle through like we have throughout history. But now - stick a fork in us, we're done.

Realistically I was hoping for another couple decades of stability, at least. Just for my own selfish desires to enjoy life and the world. I'm not sure what will collapse first, now, but I'm not sure we have that long.

A lot of people my age have young kids or are planning to have children. It's their kids I feel the worst for.

I hope it goes without saying that nothing would make me happier than to be entirely wrong.

For what it's worth, the world will probably settle into a new equilibrium pretty soon after whatever huge cycle of wars/revolutions is coming. The worlds of 1905, 1925 and 1955 look a lot different from each other, but all of them are at a relatively stable equilibrium. Of course millions of people died in brief bursts in between them, but minor details

# ¿ Nov 10, 2016 16:13

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

ChairMaster posted:

We're already 10,000 years or so into a mass extinction event known as the Holocene extinction (I prefer Anthropocene extinction), and it's just getting started.

People probably don't stress the ocean as much as the land because people live on the land and not in the ocean. I mean I don't really care as much about the death of a large amount of sea life when the death of all available arable land is upon us. I can live without food that comes from the ocean a lot easier than I can live without food that comes from the land.

Well, the sulfate geoengineering thing can potentially stave off surface temperature heating for decades but does nothing for ocean acidification which will kill all the fish, so this is a pretty likely outcome

# ¿ Dec 11, 2016 07:12

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

You can put it on floating barges at the north pole to replace all the melted sea ice

# ¿ Mar 27, 2017 22:29

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

MiddleOne posted:

I'm so glad they quit nuclear power so that they could burn lots of oil and then when that was too expensive move on to the one fossil energy source capable of creating calamities on its own.

pretty much exactly like Germany, the Japanese liberal left chose anti-nuclear power as a nonnegotiable foundation issue, so big ugly coal plants is pretty much the only outcome

# ¿ May 20, 2017 08:29

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

So when we're all dead or regressed to pre-agricultural hunter-gatherer scavenging in a post-apocalypse world, which country will be judged to have been most responsible for the crash? Australia for building an economy on mining as much coal as possible? Brazil for building an economy on cutting down the Amazon and replacing it with cattle ranches? The USA for having a people fat and dumb enough to basically be cattle themselves?

# ¿ Oct 17, 2017 20:34

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Most of the really bad habitat and ecology destruction is not happening in wealthy first world countries

# ¿ Nov 1, 2017 10:52

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

A Buttery Pastry posted:

They should just start building underground, to take advantage of the fact that ambient temperatures down there are much less variable, being nearly constant around the average yearly temperature two floors down. It'd be pretty compatible with traditional Middle Eastern architecture too, which for obvious reasons was and is less welcoming to the sun than modern steel and glass architecture.

Looking forward to the King of the House of Saud being the sole ruler of mankind once the underground mole-person civilization becomes the last remnant of humanity

# ¿ Mar 29, 2018 14:00

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

So are we agreed that saying third worlders� lives are less valuable than those of animals is super hosed up and gross?

# ¿ Apr 9, 2018 18:17

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Cingulate posted:

Accccctually, I think that's an unfair phrasing: ubachung seems to be a equal-opportunity misanthrope. ITT they seem to be encouraging comparatively privileged 1st worlders like you and I to abstain from procreation.

Something can be bad without being racist.

Most humans on this planet aren�t WEIRD first worlders though. It�s mathematically a fact that if you say human lives in general are not worth more than animals�, most if those human lives will be third world lives :shrug:

# ¿ Apr 9, 2018 19:56

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Cingulate posted:

There's still a difference between an implicit entailment and an explicit statement. When I say "I want all humans to die", and you paraphrase me as "Cingulate wants all babies to die", you are in fact being accurate; but you're still mischaracterising my position. An analogy: I ask you, can you please bring me a sandwich? You go and buy a piece of ham and throw it at me. "A sandwich contains ham, thus you said 'bring ham to me', which I just did!" You're factually correct, but language doesn't actually work the way fishmech talks. If your response to me asking you for a sandwich is to throw ham at me, you're a madman.

In sum, while it is not factually false to say ubachung wants African babies to starve, it is not a fair characterisation of their position.

It�s a fairly obvious first order consequence of what he said, IMO it�s reasonable to expect peope to think through the consequences of their statements one step forward

# ¿ Apr 9, 2018 20:21

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

What they're doing is that they've decided on a position that's unpopular/not in the mainstream/hard to defend and then are using the full force of their "memorize" brainpower to fight an intellectual guerilla war against the obvious, mainstream position

# ¿ May 11, 2018 04:53

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Good news guys

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/05/young-republicans-are-slightly-more-liberal-on-climate-change/560312/?utm_source=feed

quote:

Younger Republicans Are Slightly More Liberal on Climate Change

Millennials in the GOP want more government action on environmental issues than the older generation.

...

the poll offers two new noteworthy insights.

First, it asks Americans how they feel about solar geo-engineering
...
Democrats were more likely than Republicans to see promise in geo-engineering, the poll also found.

...

More than a third of Millennial Republicans agree that the �Earth is warming mostly due to human activity,� as compared to 18 percent of Boomers and older generations. Almost 60 percent of young Republicans say that climate change is having �at least some effect on the United States,� and 45 percent see it active in their community. Nearly half of millennial Republicans say the government is doing too little to �reduce effects of climate change,� as compared to 27 percent of Boomer Republicans, the study found. (In comparison, 89 percent of Democrats say the government should do more.)

this is sarcasm

icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 21:21 on May 14, 2018

# ¿ May 14, 2018 21:11

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

AceOfFlames posted:

So where is a good place for me, a Portuguese citizen to escape to? I currently live in the Netherlands which will likely end up underwater and apparently most of Portugal will become desert. As mentioned earlier in this thread, most of Europe will become fascist so one single mention of my name will be enough to send me to a camp. What are my options?

You�ve been posting for like months that they�re going to round up all the Portugese into camps any day now. It�s not going to happen dude. You�re insane

# ¿ May 15, 2018 22:18

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

This thread is great when it�s talking about science and not so great when it�s sanctimonious Kant impersonator vs edgelord left-wing misanthrope slapfight

# ¿ Jun 2, 2018 13:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 4, 2024 12:39

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Don't worry, when President Corey Booker wins control of all three branches in 2020 on a Return to Normalcy/Carry The Struggle Against The Perfidious Russians Through To The End platform, he'll pass a comprehensive cap-and-trade plan that will solve all of this

icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 13:48 on Sep 6, 2018

# ¿ Sep 6, 2018 13:45

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change: Post up your Phd. dissertation, coward