|
I, err, have a question. Now, I don't come to challenge global warming or any of OP's premises but to genuinely ask why we give a poo poo about CO2. I know why we care about CO and other pollutants but CO2 is rather common - who gives a poo poo? Plant moar trees. I'm sure I'm missing something here. I'm not making an argument, I'm expressing ignorance on the CO2 as a threat subject.Liberal_L33t posted:Veganism isn't necessary, which is good, because large portions of the world would probably rather die than embrace it. Also animal byproducts are of vital importance to other industries. If the cost of traditional sources of meat is pushed high enough and more efficient sources of animal protein fill in the gaps (crickets, krill, etc.) the damaging impact of the current meat industry can be attenuated without undue disruption to other industries that depend on it. People will like burgers made of processed cricket meat just fine once they get used to them. Soy also makes for good substitutes but shouldn't be overused due to the danger of causing allergies. Thought you might be interested in vitro meat: http://www.sciencealert.com/lab-grown-burger-patty-cost-drops-from-325-000-to-12 According to me, which am ignorant, they skip a lot of the energy waste in meat production. It's essentially factory grown meat. Don't take my word for it (not because the sauce is better but because I really don't fully understand it) read up on it and you may become interested. I'm very interested in it from a world efficiency standpoint.
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 06:09 |
|
|
Salt Fish posted:You would have to plant, according to one calculation I found, 1,554,723,200,000 trees per year at 2010 emissions levels to absorb the co2 being released by man. Don't....don't they autopopulate? Still, gently caress, I think that's a lot of trees. Alright, thank you. fake edit: just looked it up, that's a fuckload of trees.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The Palin Answer: "Trees love CO2!" Thank you. Also, I'm horrified for being on the same side of the fence as Palin.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
Here's a thought for car pollution: when you get your vehicle inspected, approximate efficiency is tested. You pay more the less MPG you have and the older car you have. Without discussing age, I feel like 60MPG should get $25 (because tags cost money, yo, as they always do) 40 should get...$80 (depending on how people feel about that), 20 should get $300 and after 20 it gets prohibitively expensive. You'd probably want to make a logarithmic function. Remember that this would be a bi-annual thing so it's not a common cost, though I kind of like the fact that it will land on many dumb people 'unexpectedly' and in that is sort of their 'punishment.' I know that with catalytic converters and modern exhaust systems that cars don't pollute very much but getting and refining the oil DOES pollute the poo poo of the Earth. I also know that electric vehicles are enigmatic and different people feel differently about them. They'd have to be accounted for in one way or another but tags probably isn't it - give them the 60MPG pricetag. pwnyXpress posted:I'm sure that food gets is evenly distributed to all geographic regions according to human population and need as well! He's actually got a point. We have -enough- food, if I'm reading those charts right, we're just lovely at distributing it fairly. Now if people would just go on a loving diet and quit wasting food... Verge fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Dec 1, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Sinding Johansson posted:you can pry my 92' geo metro from my cold dead hands you statist pig What if I add a qualifier that you get taxed by the mile instead of straight up? Also dude wtf cash for clunkers the gently caress is wrong w/ you?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:....are you saying you LIKED Cash for Clunkers? And would you like to know how wrong you are? It got a lot of poo poo cars off the streets. What didn't you like?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:It took good, working cars off the streets, put those cars owners in debt to keep the American Automotive Industry floating, and actually was incredibly environmentally detrimental. It damaged the used car scene for at least a decade or more. 46 MPG in its current state? Holy poo poo. Ok, yeah, obv. gently caress off w/ that thing but yeah, he and I were fuckin' around back & forth. But cars don't just get their minerals put back in the ground. We don't bury the fuckers. We recycle...I think. Aw gently caress it who am I kiddin' - ok fine yeah no one shoulda been dumping cars by year it shoulda been done by MPG, you're right, I concede. ComradeCosmobot posted:It also drove up used car prices, putting the remaining clunkers out of reach of the working poor. It's really a lose-lose trade-off. Bicycles get like a million MPG and if not that, moped, man. Moped. I got into motorcycling for this reason.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:That depends on a few things, too. Honda calculated that the non-driving cost of a vehicle in CO2 was 22% of what it emitted over a lifetime of 100,000 miles. Absolutely but if you're destroying a car at 5k miles, you're a fuckwit. A car is barely broken in at your example of 100k. Be real with me, man, who would do that? Lemming posted:Aren't you like guaranteed to die if you get in a crash in one of those things? I just advised people to get mopeds. Just wear a helmet in the geo. Yes, they have driving helmets. Yes, they will protect you.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
Batham posted:The nuclear powerplants in Belgium had their lifespans extended by at least 10 years. 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?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Pretty sure you're both on the same side of this. I don't understand. It sounds like he's anti-nuclear and I'm pro-nuclear.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Arkane posted:I've heard if you put solar panels in the clear out area for a nuclear power plant (you can't build anything commercial/residential within X miles of a nuclear station, I forget the number), it would produce more energy. Never heard of that. Maybe in some regions but it doesn't look that holds true for this guy Edit: that's not a nuclear power plant at all! I'm an idiot. CommieGIR posted:Read carefully. He is bemoaning the Green Party's response to the extension of the reactor licenses. Oooohhh. I thought he was agreeing w/ them. Ok, then. Thanks, guy. Verge fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Dec 2, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Phayray posted:The number is an exclusion zone radius of 0.65 km according to this report. Even if you take the high end estimate (1.6 km exclusion zone radius -> 8 sq km) for a typical 2 GW site (0.25 GW/sq km) and take the low end estimate for solar from this NEI report of 1 GW / 116 sq km (0.009 GW/sq km), you're off by about a factor of 30. Also we can probably use that land for something. Moar trees (for CO2). I think people tend to underestimate the stupid amount of energy nuclear plants generate.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:It took 1.7 Million panels to do that AND 13 sq KM. How do you have 2 avatars?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
Caedus posted:Welcome young one. They're called gang tags. We're not cool enough for them. Bill Gates loves climate change. I remember he wanted to saturate the atmo (or was funding a project or something related I dunno) with silicates or something...can't find it. Was pretty cool. If anyone can find it please link. It was a while ago, I think after he put a bounty on reinventing the condom and before the carbon capture plant.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 05:35
|
|
Moar trees - trees
|
Relin posted:nothing will be done, the earth will heat up and co2 levels will rise until it is unfit for human habitation Don't be so mopey! All-electric vehicles are being taken seriously whereas 10 years ago they weren't even seen as a realistic idea for anyone but a child. Provided the tech works with single passenger vehicles, I'll be getting one as my next vehicle! Harley loving Davidson is working on an electric motorcycle! -hugs- Buddy, the green movement is winning. We've always been winning. The only issue is that it's a race against the clock. Whether we win before time runs out is indeed a question but it's no absolute at this time.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:You are very clearly not a member of the green movement and, given your posts in this thread, you clearly know next to nothing about climate change. I have nothing more to add; your posts just annoy me greatly. I'll be honest with you, I never really sank my teeth into the nitty gritty. I'm not the best, I'm not the worst. I think oil drilling is terrible for the environment and it's really my big issue, even though my hot button is more toward the topical destruction rather than atmospheric. That being said, just because you and I may have different views on what is 'green enough for now' and my life doesn't revolve around being green (as much as it really, probably logically should) doesn't mean I'm not vegemite eating hipster. Furthermore, all 3 vehicles I've ever bought myself (not counting the car my father got me that I drove for a year getting 25 MPG 10 years ago) have been 40+ MPG (that's calculated using trip meter and receipts, not stated) and all had a low manufacture footprint - this is a lifestyle I decided to reach for when I was 15, I have achieved it. So unless you need to bicycle everywhere to be part of your little club, I think I qualify. ComradeCosmobot posted:In another sign of the seriousness with which Americans are addressing climate change, Toyota is predicting that the RAV4 will soon overtake the Camry as its best-selling car. The fact that it's socially acceptable to buy a new Camry with its out-of-the-box environmental impact and manufacturing footprint is appalling. 35 STATED highway MPG is completely unacceptable, not even getting started on the RAV4.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Radbot posted: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. Some people hate nuclear, though and Fukushima was no help. I'm with you but carbon sequestering would be a non-factor if people just trusted nuclear, which is easier said than done because, well, nuclear is not 100% safe. Many people, as you've seen, won't settle for anything but solar, wind and wave.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
Vire posted:What is crazy to me is how little discussion I hear in these kinds of threads about how bad china's coal is loving everything up considering they are creating 50% of the worlds green house gasses alone and breathing the air in that country is literally killing close to a million people every year and its only going to get worst until 2030 where china claims emissions will peak (Fat chance unless they do some radical stuff to fix it.). Yeah, sure, but China is only half of U.S. in CO2 per capita and U.S. is only 3rd place there. China's not even in the top 10 contributors for CO2 per capita. Only counting major countries here. For an actual list, see the source computer parts posted:Because it usually devolves into discussions about restricting the number of children developed nations can have and China actually has a legitimate self interest in reducing emissions (because the party bosses have to live in that poo poo too).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
CalmDownMate posted:"I hope you don't like apples" Have a coworker like his. Said something similar. She's fat. I should've known - she called it rabbit food.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Regarding molten salt reactors: they're great and all and a wonderful next step but as far as safety goes, they're not functionally different from conventional reactors, not by a lot, any way. I think we need to stop trying to highlight safety features which are already in use such as cooling via saturation and instead highlight nuclear pollution. I think one of the beautiful things about MSRs is that, if I understand their fuel (and I should, I went to NNPTC) it should be far easier to contain when spent.icantfindaname posted: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 I think you misunderstand, there are hydroelectric dams that don't kill fish. We need to get rid of the ones that do, [kill fish] however. Doopliss posted:Hydroelectric is really bad for greenhouse gases too, since reservoirs wind up emitting an amount of methane on par with fossil fuels. It's sort of bizarre, which is probably why it took people so long to realize, but I guess reality never promised to intuitively make sense. Da gently caress is this? Source pls. Not calling you a liar, need to know moar. Av027 posted:Also, is it really that hard to resist responding to Arkane? My bad, didn't realize I was feeding a known anti-green.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Dams create large low oxygen bodies of water. Low oxygen water grows bacteria that release methane and the methane emissions from standing water are probably about half of all global emissions: Interesting. Are there any viable resolutions to this? Ardennes posted:A lot can be done by slowly cutting down the number of smaller/older dams that are basically not worth the damage they do in terms of energy they produce, that said ultimately it is probably a better option to improve fish ladders and other workarounds than get rid of the larger dams that are very productive and would be replaced probably with fossil fuels anyway. I completely agree. We also have to take the small victories we can moving forward to try and make a colloquial 'slippery slope.' Anosmoman posted:
I like how it looks like they're chucking charcoal (a wood product).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Hey if we quit burning coal the CEO might only be able to afford a 12 bedroom house instead of a 14 bedroom one. THINK OF THE POOR CEOS! How can you expect an executive to survive without a car elevator?!? The CEO is contractually obligated to maximize profit, the environment not withstanding. His employees are obligated to follow his orders. Teaching a CEO ethics doesn't help anything, his hands are tied.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
PERPETUAL IDIOT posted:The company's CEO (in regulated states) would love more than anything to build nuclear if he could justify it to the comission. It would greatly increase short term profits in absolute terms. Rates are set by giving a rate of return on capital investment and nothing is more capital intensive than nuclear. I think you underestimate the political power of Big Fossil.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 10:17
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Up until now every post supported my primary point. With respect to coal miners, gently caress that job, I don't care. We shouldn't be concerned about that, we should have social welfare programs that allow anyone in a dead industry to transition into a productive and useful job, rather than propping up industries that are fundamentally detrimental to progress. I would hope that the US has enough compassion to allow support for labor, but failing that, it is better for the coal industry to die than to protect that subset of laborers, much like I don't shed tears for the military contractors who go out of business if we aren't in perpetual war. Now hold up, I don't think that to stop loving the Earth up we need to go full-blown socialist. Also, you don't seem to grasp the impact of destroying a major and localized industry. The coal miner doesn't bring money home - fine. He doesn't pay rent or buy nick nacks at the market. Let's say he's fed and comfortable for the time, however. So, since the coal miners are all basically supporting the city, the bars, toy stores, pretty much everything but essentials fail, one by one, the process accelerates as there be more jobless people and less money in the city. Eventually you have a loving city of unemployed people except the cashier at the grocery store. But this isn't just one city, it's happening all over the country, by your wishes. Even if it doesn't happen all at once, it would be devastating to us all. I'm not saying this excuses inaction but it does warrant attention.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
Shayu posted:Do I give up my nice things like car, phone, heat for climate changes to end? Don't want to do that. That point is contested. I don't think many people think you'll lose necessities like heating but your car is up for debate. Phones have very small carbon footprints if I know my pollution.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:The thing is that we could replace a lot of modern conveniences with alternative ones that work just as well - or better. Show me this weather-proof house.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
Ok, domes kick rear end, no argument there but I don't see any miracle materials at work here. One of the problems with domes comes down to the sphere-container problem. A sphere is theoretically the best container for holding things because you use the least material to hold the most volume. The problem with this, however, is when we stop talking about holding liquids or start talking about holding many containers. The same issue with domes. Are we talking usable floor space here? Volume? Either way you slice it, that roof is gonna get low in some sections of the house. These issues I'm pointing out, by the way, aren't social: they're functional. The best containers for humans are cubes because humans don't like to be reshaped or spun on any axis. I assure you, I'd be fine with living in a dome if I were confident that the dome in question could house me in a way I'm accustomed to.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:How much space do you reckon an attic encompasses in a 'normal' house? What about wall thickness or other dead space areas? I don't consider the attic in a conventional home as wasted space because it does not extend outward into our land-space but I'd guess...1/4? I mean, all I'm saying is that I don't see the benefit to extending the structure outward. poo poo, a dome roof makes engineering sense, no question, and a dome house if you really need to withstand nature's wrath but outside those factors, I don't see a benefit outside of having wasted horizontal space, unless you're making the claim that they can make the walls significantly thinner. This is all, of course, secondary to the difficulty in the fabrication process (steel beams that don't go straight are a oval office!)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
Watching the documentary "Pump" on Netflix now. I recommend it. Feels like "Who killed the Electric Car?" but from a more modern perspective.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:I think you completely missed the car point. A major issue is people replacing massive, inefficient vehicles very frequently; every few years or sometimes even every year. That and people owning more cars than people living in the household. Why do 3 people need 6 cars? They loving don't. Ah this logic again. Yes, when a new car comes into existence (bought new) it pollutes a lot. That being said, when I bought my new vehicle, I didn't smash my old one. I've never heard of anyone throwing out a running car except in cases like cash for clunkers, which is different. gently caress it, though, make like Mackelmore and buy a moped.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2016 12:36
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:You're focusing on a very small part of his post. The primary point was that the temporary thrill of getting a new car fades, pretty quickly, and people who buy a new car for the sake of having a new car quickly want a different one. Buying a new car when your current one is only a few years old doesn't actually improve your quality of life. Obviously if you have a 15 year old clunker and you need to drive often, a new car will improve your quality of life. If this is just about quality of life, yeah, get a new car only if your current car sucks...but then I'd recommend a newer used car. Regardless, I thought he was talking about the environmental impact of car manufacture as Prius contenders so often do. The moped thing is a joke, sorry. Mackelmore, the singer, said buy one. But they are more eco friendly than any gas car, when they apply.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Actually, on a non-carbon emissions basis mopeds are often far under regulated for emission controls. Which just brings up the problem that sadly even climate change isn't our only environmental disaster occurring so our decisio making is complicated. Far less regulated but the major manufacturers (Vespa and Piaggio) offer mopeds that meet the emissions standards for full-size motorcycles. Further, at 100mpg actual no matter how you ride it, the point that most of the environmental damage from gasoline is done prior to ignition becomes incredibly noteworthy. poo poo, I've considered getting one and my primary vehicle is a medium sized motorcycle. Further, I'll point out that I'm more concerned with greenhouse gasses than aerosol toxins at this time. Not to dismiss your point at all. Note: of course I realize the real goal is to end our addiction to oil and catching poo poo on fire outright.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
El Grillo posted:I've always thought we need nuclear to get through this as renewables' intermittency and the cost of storage solutions is too big a hurdle to get over without backup. Guardian just released a report on storage developments in the UK and globally and it looks interesting Not sure what it means regarding the cost vs. nuclear debate though: http://www.theguardian.com/environm...9581&CMP=ema-60 So...the batteries issue isn't as big an issue as people think it is, depending on climate. If the day/night cycle is your problem, it's not nearly as bad as, say, clouds. People use tremendously less energy at night. The big issue is that your system has to be capable of heating homes in steady -5 C weather for weeks on end while it may be an absolute excess come summer time. Obviously you can fire up a backup plant but doing that regularly can get...stupid... It should be noted that batteries are used (albeit far less) even in grids using coal power. Ever worked fast food? Y'know how it's like hours of customers trickling in then all a sudden a stampede? Electrical demand is just like that. Just to be clear: nuclear plants totally need batteries or you waste an assload of fuel during off hours because like solar during sunshine, nuclear cores can't be flipped off to save fuel.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
El Grillo posted:Genuinely didn't know there were large-scale storage solutions in operation already. vOv As an Oregonian, I may have a bias regarding my view of clouds. You're probably right. blowfish posted:Note: nuclear is increasingly load-following. ...what? How in the gently caress? By load-following, just to be clear, you mean we use more or less fuel depending on how much is needed? How in the gently caress can you do that? Can you source this please? Alternatively, maybe I completely misunderstand you.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
Ah gotcha then. I thought the claim was being made that someone found out a way to 'shovel some more coal on the fire' with hot-rock.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The problem is mitigation won't undo the damage of climate change either. As much as people don't want to hear it, but geoengineering is inevitable just not a panacea either. I gotta agree with ya there. Everyone's got this hands-off attitude toward nature, as if not loving with it will keep everything going. We're already loving with it big time. Yeah, sometimes we'll make entire species' go extinct trying to help another but I think with just a bit of practice, a hands-on, fully engaged approach will be the most successful. We can't be afraid to get our hands dirty, not when they're covered in blood.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 06:09 |
|
|
[Wait I said wrong poo poo hang on.] I forgot that there is more than 1 rock and broke my brain. Disregard previous statements and consult another nuke. Verge fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Feb 9, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2016 00:50
|
|