|
Verge posted:What would you prefer they replace it with? Nuclear power plants, watt-hour for watt-hour pollute very, very little. Do you know what size of solar farm you need to replace a nuclear power plant? Pretty sure you're both on the same side of this.
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 08:37 |
|
|
Wow, a carbon sequestration plant that mitigates the carbon of 60 households' worth of transportation (not their heating, cooling, etc.). Truly, technology will be our savior.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
Caedus posted:Like... the very next paragraph in the article, dude. I should have quoted the whole article in the first place. Well, one PV mega-site would objectively do far, far more to offset carbon emissions (assuming it was replacing a non-renewable energy plant) than this carbon sequester plant is doing. Sequestering carbon makes no loving sense until we're using primarily non-carbon emitting energy sources, since it's way cheaper to install nuke plants or PV plants per unit of carbon saved. quote:Sure, but it's also a demonstration of the technology that can bemassively scaled up to the point where it CAN make a difference. This is what I'd like to see evidence of.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:The National Review continues their slide into obscurity: Loving the response to that graph: 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
Is this the thread where we pretend that "greens" are somehow preventing US nuclear development singlehandedly despite being completely irrelevant to every other conceivable issue?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:.....other countries are doing more in US Nuclear development....so, yes. Like China, France, Russia, etc. "other countries are doing more in US Nuclear development" doesn't parse, come again?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I mean't to type Nuclear development. Phone posting. I was talking about US nuclear development, I'm aware other countries are different. In the US, "greens" have literally zero responsibility for the lack of nuclear development. Based on what this thread says, though, you'd think Greenpeace had more power than the US Government.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Had more power? No. Have done a lot to make sure there is as much opposition as possible that they can generate combined with the Sierra Club and others? Yes. And if those groups had any political power at all, that'd mean something. The real answer is that nuke plants are expensive, and because of the way utility companies are organized (and paid) in many states, they have no incentive to invest in nuclear. tuyop posted:I think the point is just that unless the issue is a really minimal lifestyle change that also no or a positive impact on profit margins (see, say, cutting up six pack rings or switching to reusable grocery bags), nobody gives a gently caress what "the greens" say. It's the equivalent of saying that grandmas everywhere have been opposed to nuclear power so we can't get any political will for it. Grandmas have about the same amount of impact on this scale as environmental groups. I strongly disagree, elderly American women exert far more political power than American "greens".
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Agreed. I've pointed this out three or four times now. Its part of why I'm not a fan of privatized power companies. I'm not talking solely to you, more to the other folks that repeatedly point out how climate change would be solved if only it weren't for those meddling greens, much like the problems with capitalism would be solved if only it weren't for those Trotskyist Marxists (a group with similar political strength to American greens)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
You misunderstand, greens are not "less of" a factor, they are a literal, objective nonfactor into why nuclear isn't being developed in the US. There are no "greens" in the US Congress, nor would any American know who you were talking about if you asked them who "greens" were.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
It's truly amazing how environmentalists can't get anyone to do poo poo (go vegan, buy electric cars, etc.) but somehow they're murderously effective at preventing nuclear power. Maybe we have something to learn from them? Of course there's zero evidence that environmentalists are the drivers behind American anti-nuclear sentiment, but who cares, it FEELS right. Surely PETA and Greenpeace are bigger influences than, say, hysterical MSM reporting of what happened in Fukushima or Three Mile Island. Radbot fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Dec 18, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
blowfish posted:hey now the proportion of vegans is increasing and whole foods of all things rakes in as much money as ~monsanto~ Considering vegans make up 0.5% of the US population I'm firmly comfortable saying they have a zero negative effect. The link between veganism and Whole Foods is pretty odd, though - you are aware they sell plenty of animal products there?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Whole foods is about organic farming, a thing that people usually care about because Sure thing, champ. Now tie that back to the issue at hand.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Greens don't have congresscritters in Amerikkka but environmentalism has a nonzero influence on society and should thus make sure it's a good influence. Well when that "nonzero influence" amounts to a dozen smelly people nobody listens to, compared to lovely MSM journalism about the NUCLEAR DISASTER IN FUKUSHIMA!!, the comparison is in bad faith at least.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I hate to join this horrible argument but in the United States Environmental Nonprofits easily mobilize 10,000s of people funded by hundreds of millions of dollars and while they may not have a huge role in setting national energy policy they are definitely important at local scales. I'm gonna say they absolutely do not mobilize "hundreds of millions of dollars" (lol) for anything even tangentially related to anti-nuclear campaigns. Please provide evidence if you disagree.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
When you think about it, it's really the environmentalist's fault.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Back-breaking subsistence farming and dying at age 40, in other words? Subsistence farming isn't that bad if you know what you're doing and have land that isn't total poo poo. Plus, you actually get to chill out once in awhile.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Why would global climate change end currency in such a way that you can't transfer your wealth later? Retirement funds aren't kept in "currency", they're kept in stocks and bonds. Stocks and bonds that likely won't perform well when shareholders are faced with permanently diminished returns due to climate change. Current retirement models assume 7% annualized growth until retirement, I find that assumption laughable if middle-of-the-road assumptions about climate change impacts become reality. If that 7% becomes 2-3% (optimistic, IMO), virtually nobody will be able to retire.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:If that does happen, society is going to collapse altogether because without economic growth, businesses will fold up in unprecedented waves and jobless people will actually attack the rich for food, shelter, and water. Saving for retirement is a good bet because if the market does actually permanently collapse, there's nothing you could've done with that money anyway (unless you were buying tons of guns, ammo, canned food and building a stronghold). No one's going to want your cash or your gold because in bartertown, it won't be legal tender. You're acting like there's no tradeoff value to saving for retirement. If we genuinely believe that retirement will be structurally impossible at recommended rates of saving (say 10% of income when starting in early 20s, which is VASTLY more than most people actually save), then the rational course of action is to spend that money now. Why give up a vacation to Cancun, a new car, or a new house to save for retirement if there is a chance that "jobless people will actually attack the rich for food"? That's a very real tradeoff. Maybe it's my personality, but living a life of scrimping and saving and then seeing everything get vaporized would make me extremely bitter about the sacrifices I'd made to get there. computer parts posted:I have family in the climatologist circles and at the very least there is severe debate about the outcomes of climate change, with more than a few people saying that this doomsday stuff is overhyped pop science bullshit. gently caress the doomsday stuff, I don't know or care whether a certain city will be underwater by a certain date. The real doomsday stuff is what I've been talking about - a permanent, diminished return on investment that accelerates crises of capitalism to a fever pitch. That will touch every inch of the globe, regardless of your personal vulnerability to climate change. When nobody can retire and most people cannot get jobs, that's doomsday enough for me. Considering how insanely vulnerable the world economy is to the stupid actions of a few assholes, I cannot be convinced that even a middle-of-the-road climate change endgame will not destroy the world economy. Radbot fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Jan 25, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:The vast majority of consumerism is not things that will actually bring you longterm happiness. A lot of vacations, cars (this is the biggest problem we have aside from perhaps beef), dumb gadgets, they don't make you happier after the novelty wears off. It's very easy to save for retirement without actually compromising your quality of life. I gotta disagree here. I just replaced my 15 year old car with a new economy car - it's loving awesome. Please don't tell me that not having to wait by the side of the road for AAA doesn't bring me happiness. quote:Literally no one will be siting on their deathbed wishing they'd bought that new iPhone a year earlier or that they'd gotten just two or three more new truck models in their life instead of skipping a few. Travel, okay, maybe, but you can figure out how to make that work and save for retirement if you're not pissing away $3k a year buying lunch instead of bringing it, etc. You can strawman this all you want, but having talked to a lot of dying people as a former EMT (usually during interfacility transports), a lot of them really wanted to have worked less and seen the world more. Not having to save massive amounts of cash allows you to do both, coincidentally. quote:But hey, go ahead and spend it all, because possibly not having as much to spend in retirement as 7% annualized would add up to is clearly just as bad as having literally zero. We're not discussing "not having as much to spend in retirement" here, we're discussing what permanent 2-3% growth would look like. Hopefully you would agree that this would bring about a very, very deep depression, one that could likely involve starving elderly people and desperate poor folks. *That* is the issue. If one genuinely believes that you're going to be torn apart by starving hordes at 60 regardless of what you do, maximizing current utility of your resources makes sense.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Yes, if you start from a completely unfounded position based in fear and ignorance, you might start making short-sighted decisions...doesn't mean they were the correct choice. Climate change won't have effects on returns on investment. Sure thing, you're right Trab.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Climate change won't turn the world into Logan's run either. Can you link me to research showing positive effects of climate change on the economy of developed nations? 'Cause I can't find any.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
While it's unfortunate that climate change will brutally punish those who deserve it the least, at least we can all take comfort in the fact that, eventually, denialists will get theirs.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
Is this the thread where we try to feel good about the lovely half-measures that, even if they weren't just TED talk fodder or simply don't work at all, wouldn't do anything to stop what's coming?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Maybe we can see a single example of a proposed carbon sequestration project that, even in someone's wildest dreams, would capture a gigaton of carbon a year. Of course, that's nowhere near where we'd need to be, but let's start there.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:Done. Wow, a ton of carbon a week, and it doesn't even get sequestered. Call me when they actual start sequestering anything at literally any scale. blowfish posted:Reforesting half of China and Brazil. Probably multiple gigatons per year at that scale. I asked to see plans that are currently in the works - surely you have a link? And have you accounted for the surface albedo change of reforesting a huge amount of land that's currently occupied, let alone who would do the work, how it would be funded, or where the people that are currently ranching cattle there are supposed to go? The point isn't that I'm expecting a genie-in-a-bottle solution - it's that anything less is likely pointless.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Greenpeace is bad. Period. For the little good they do, they tend to outweigh it with bad science, fear-mongering, and appeals to emotion. Don't blame Greenpeace for using modern marketing tactics.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
blowfish posted:I do blame them for having a massive anti nuclear hate boner to the point where it's actively counterproductive to climate change mitigation. You're in luck! Very few people actually grant Greenpeace any credibility. Point your blame at CNN's endless coverage of Fukushima, and other MSM coverage of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island before that.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
I feel that I don't really owe society or humanity anything, since I wasn't asked to be brought into this world, thus I will maximize my enjoyment while I can. There is absolutely no way to reconcile capitalist America with a world where you "have less", aka, a world that has stopped experiencing economic growth. Literally every single thing Americans care about, in a macro sense, is tied to economic growth. We couldn't even deal with two loving buildings coming down in a mature way, what makes you think we can discard capitalism without some sort of hyperholocaust? Radbot fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Apr 26, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:I don't care, just don't do it in this thread. gently caress off, you don't get to police what happens here. Not despairing means you're not paying attention to the science and our new political reality. Radbot fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Nov 10, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I'm armchair moderating like crazy right now, but I do not see room for lone survivalist / suicide ethics discussion. Who do you care so much about this? The "solutions" being tossed around right now, like "make people believe in climate change before it's too late", are asinine. When will you wake up to the fact that nobody will EVER care about climate change in any significant manner until it's personally affecting them, and thus far too late?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
I find it absolutely hilarious that people think we'll be able to adapt to this change without society collapsing/changing into something that we wouldn't be familiar with today, tbqh. Trump was just elected because a bunch of the Midwest got sadbrains over Walmart paying less than Ford, do you really think people are going to react rationally to a climate crisis?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:That's the situation you're in. Don't waste your time fighting. Focus on other things. Think about how after the city is sacked there's going to be new dynamics for how people might organize. Enjoy yourself, because killing yourself isn't going to change anything anyway. This is the interesting question, to me. I didn't have kids because I saw the writing on the wall, but should I be spending my retirement fund to check out Glacier NP and the Great Barrier Reef instead of planning for a future that's already dead? Something tells me that, even if we're able to pick up the pieces after ACC changes our societies, my IRA won't be intact.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
"Why didn't they tell us climate change would be so bad??" - Person who gets all their news through the Steam Store
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:There is "ongoing structural support" for fighting climate change. The fact that the US federal government is in the hands of climate deniers for probably the next 4-8 years doesn't mean that literally all progress across the world is going to stop. Without the US in a functional leadership role there will be setbacks and the damage is going to be worse than anyone in this thread might have been hoping, but it can always be worse and there's still room to limit the damage as much as possible. It's a Tragedy of the Commons problem, an uncooperative actor will gently caress up the game. Why would China and India take a hit to their GDP to fight ACC when the US is happily flying the "gently caress you" flag and making money hand over fist? And we've really got no idea how long it will take before we see the effects in our lifetimes. Physical feedback effects aside, societal feedback effects aren't well modeled in IPCC reports and the like.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 08:37 |
|
|
Where does the thought that "first worlders will be fine" come from? Have any of you ever been to the hills of WV? Ever checked out the Texas border, away from populated areas? The NM rez? America is already totally fine with letting its citizens die of poverty, malnutrition, drug addiction, and general malaise. Why wouldn't this trend accelerate under the spectre of a looming climate crisis?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 00:16
|
|