|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 07:41 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Verge posted: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. 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. Ultimately, between dams and wind power, the NW could probably get away with being carbon free in terms of electricity generation pretty easily without too much political controversy. As with everything the ultimate solution is an investment in a multitude of solutions that have their niche somewhere in the formula, this obviously should include nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:Demand is going nowhere, and that's a good thing considering energy is probably the most important component in increasing standards of living for poor people across the globe, or even poor/middle class people in developed countries. The question is how to build them, nuclear power at least in the US is still private and the start up costs of a plant are very costly even with loan subsidies. Ultimately, the easiest political solution would subsidize a variety of power sources across different regions and invest in our grid to minimize the damage of fluctuations in power from wind/solar. The best way to do that is simply federal spending to subsidize everything that is non-fossil fuel related (and viable). About 28% of our grid could be considered "baseline" non-carbon sources, we still have headroom to add wind and solar on top of that. Nevertheless, NG is still going to have to be in the mix if we want to get rid of coal, but eventually the hope is to get rid of NG as well.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
At the crux of the discussion of climate change really is trade, and how to support rapid industrialization and the cheap prices it supports in the first world without carbon emissions. Even if you support sustainable practices at home, it really doesn't matter if you essentially offshore those omissions. Cuba was always between a rock and a hard place, it's only real choice was tourism/sugar/tobacco between the embargo and the collapse of the Soviet Union. They were forced to adopt a much simpler and austere form of living because of it but it always shows that life still goes on. They didn't necessarily intend to live that way, but forced into a corner they made the best they could do out of the circumstance.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
Yeah, the Persian Gulf, in particular, isn't going to be all that livable without AC. Yet it still has at least decades enough of energy to make that lifestyle possible. In all honesty, I think the more reliable method of dealing with the issue is to push forward on the infrastructure angle rather than turn to carbon-equivalent of austerity. (Also, the developing world is rapidly becoming more developed, and I doubt people who just got AC a few years ago are going to give it up, especially when the first world has been enjoying it since the 50s/60s.) I think the only real answer is a massive infrastructure fund that pushes renewable energy that isn't beholden to a single world power. China/US/EU/India have the resources to make it happen (although I doubt it ever could).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:You're mostly right but glaciers are better at storing water than snowpack in the long-term. Think more in terms of variability - once the glaciers are gone and you have an unusually dry winter in the Himalayas that's going to reduce river volume, and if you have an unusually wet one that's going to create unusually high water levels. But you're correct in your intuition that it won't be causing rivers to run dry. There's a huge amount of uncertainty about exactly how it's all going to play out though. The likely result is you're probably going to have both years of drought and flash floods since there essentially isn't a long-term form of storage for that water. If anything I think the long-term impact may be even further urbanization, and a possibly a further reliance on food imports. Also, yeah, you are also going to have "water wars" over who gets essentially gets first access to whatever water that remains. The GAP/SAP in Turkey not only had intense political fallout but very well may have had a long-term impact on the internal stability of Syria/Iraq (obviously only one of many). Ardennes fucked around with this message at 05:19 on Sep 11, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
Chadzok posted:yes, we will swiftly see the oil barons' penthouse apartments having strictly controlled lower levels of CO2 and they will no longer leave them. takeout food will be delivered, everyone else will be kept away by armed militia. That and designer oxygen masks/tanks. Most of the remaining middle class will be spending their residual paychecks to make sure they and their children can consistently breathe outside, those who can't afford it will see greatly reduced life spans. Also, co2 poisoning makes it difficult to function/work, so if you "slip up" and run out of credit to a buy a new tank...well it is a long slide. (That is my scifi short-story version of the future). Ardennes fucked around with this message at 14:07 on Oct 25, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2017 14:05
|
|
|
I would say it is probably more important than ever to experience any wildlife you still can. If there is a national park, especially a wooded one, take your time and see it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
Btw, as far as aviation goes. quote:However, with that said, if you allocate all the emissions to passengers, the plane is full, and you divide the pounds of carbon dioxide per mile by the average number of passengers from Table 4, Boeing aircraft capacity and fuel efficiency, you'll get 0.24 pounds of CO2 per passenger per mile. .24 pounds of co2 per passenger per mile isn't great, but you could easily surpass it if you have a car-centric lifestyle depending on how often you fly/how far. The average car emits 411 grams of CO2/.9 pounds of CO2 a mile. A round trip life to Hawaii from California is about 5,000 miles or the equivalent of driving around 1333 miles. Considering the average American drives about 13,000 miles a year, there is an obvious issue of scale. That said, obviously, aviation is still very carbon reliant (also it will mean oil will essentially never be "worthless"). I would say in general the transportation infrastructure in the US is practically designed to maximize CO2 emissions, and a big part of that is hangups we developed from the Cold War/desegregation. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 13:47 on Oct 31, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2017 13:44
|
|
|
That said, you also shouldn't drive, especially not alone. Of course, we live in a society (US) completely designed around flying and driving because we hate infrastructure investment and minorities. Also, you probably shouldn't live in an area where excessive amounts of cooling/heating are necessary. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 15:30 on Oct 31, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2017 15:25
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:On the subject of flying, in my field and academia generally researchers are expected to go to conferences and regularly present new results. This is a real requirement for advancement and getting a permanent position. These conferences almost always require air-travel and are often international, so you can't really avoid flying multiple times per year if you want to get a job. Granted, one issue is simply the "rubbing shoulders effect" and a lot of professional connections are made when alcohol is involved. You can share your results online, but let's be honest the guy that was there in person is going to get a massive leg up (as in many other industries). Also, if you want to do any sort of research overseas, there is really no way around flying.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
Improved land use practices probably wouldn't be a bad thing in Brazil, but let's be honest as long as its government absolutely doesn't care about environmental damage or hell even the most basic welfare of its population, nothing is going to change. It is also too late even if it changed tomorrow. Also, there is a point where you can say that improved practices is great and everything, but that the damage had been done and those rain-forests aren't coming back. We are long past the point where warming can easily be handled with some tweaks, and if anything it looks like cumulative emissions is only going to snowball here on out. We hosed up big time, and part of any healing process is accepting that and then to realistically plan for the future.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:I'm surprised that not more people are freaking out over the fact that the air, that we all share and can't avoid existing in, is slowly being poisoned by ever-increasing CO2 emissions to the point that we will feel it and it will retard our cognitive ability. I do think by the mid-century there is going to growing fear over the issue especially since we are almost certainly going to be living indoors to a significantly larger degree . Right now, most people still rely on normal air exchange to essentially regulate the amount of CO2 in their houses, what happens when the atmosphere only has more and more co2 in it? I am sure certain (rich) people can afford CO2 scrubbers, but yeah you can obviously see the issue here with just "opening all the windows" when it is somewhere between -40f/120f outside in March.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:It's going to become uncomfortable before it becomes dangerous and seriously impairing, so I think in general there's a sense that we'll deal with it before it gets too bad ( There almost certainly is going to be a class/race breakdown as well though since you are going to have a massive underclass by mid-century, and I am sure is there going to plenty of neurotic behavior surrounding scrubbers. Yeah, humanity is going to survive but 1960s/1970s-era Scifi is starting to feel less ridiculous (also, I do think red meat one way or another is going to become a luxury item.)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2017 16:18
|
|
).
|
shrike82 posted:Indoor CO2 concentrations tend to be significantly higher than outdoor ones so it's less climate change and more lovely building practices potentially impairing people Yeah, the issue is that significantly higher outdoor concentrations are only going to further negatively impact indoor conditions. Also, there is a certain point in the future where the atmosphere inch into the range it has a direct effect. 930 pm is the point you start having increased fatigued levels/cognitive impairment. (Also, as I said, class/race is absolutely going to be a huge factor in exposure.) So yet again, great job Texas. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Nov 1, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
I get a feeling that in a century this era of history is going to be looked on in extremely negative terms. Granted, in a perverse egocentric way, it might be more welcoming for some if industrialized society would end, then our great grandchildren wouldn't be there curse us for destroying the world. Anyway, we do have the technology to (some of us) to survive and industrial civilization almost certainly would continue, it is just the quality of life is going to drop into the toilet. Most people are probably going to send their lives in a fortified building watching a screen and eating heavily processed foods (guess who this sounds like). The big difference to today is that is about as good as life is going to get. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Nov 2, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
Granted, it depends on your philosophy in life and what type of world you can accept. Anyway, at least at this point we have the technology to survive...just probably not everyone. So yeah money, status, and power are all going to still be there just it a more aggressive and vertical way.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:No matter the outcome it will be clear to all that white westerners impoverished future generations in exchange for 50 years of automobile ownership and cheap consumer products. I do wonder how my generation (millenials) will be viewed. On the one hand we'll likely be the first to deal with the consequences of climate change, especially if the more rapid-warming scenarios end up coming to pass. Alternatively we could equally well be viewed as the last people who could have prevented or at least minimized the disaster were we not desperately trying to reproduce our parent's lifestyles. I guess in defense of millenials (we will see), but that the turning point honestly happened before they (I guess we) reached political influence. It will probably be another 20 years before millennials have control over most political decisions. That said, if you look at millennials that already have significant influence (Zuckerberg), it is hard not to think it will still be business as usual in the future. Basically, I think most of the blame will be focused on older generations but we will still be considered a "twiddling our thumbs" generation that didn't make the necessary sacrifices. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Nov 2, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:If we're talking about rich western nations then it's honestly kind of a stretch to assume that things will get so bad that future generations will be looking back and "blaming" anyone. Things will likely be materially worse for our kids and grandkids and probably great grandkids than they are for us, but the world is just going to be how it is to them and it'll include all the trappings of technological society that will make them feel lucky to live in the times that they do. Things that seem inconceivable to us (like, say, the Great Lakes region being the economic hub of the US) will just be how things are, especially if they don't have to live through the slow churn of internal population migrations. Eh, there is already quite a bit of anger by millennials and gen-xers toward boomers, I doubt that isn't going to intensify. Yeah, I think everyone appreciates Netflix and everything but I don't think the developed world is going to escape what is coming even if they have a monetary cushion, and erratic weather patterns and super-storms will also hit the developed world such as much, just not with the same death tolls. Also, we are already seeing growing economic disparity in the developed world, and that also isn't going to be getting better. If you come from an upper-middle-class family, maybe you will get lucky and still have a relatively comfortable life but even that isn't guaranteed.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Climate change is going to ruin the appreciation of a bunch of old media too. It's a mad mad mad mad world wont be as funny when the culture feels driving ICE cars is far worse than smoking cigarettes. That said, I don't think I could sit and watch Gone With the Wind all the way through either. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Nov 2, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
Yeah, it is heating the ice above it, but it very well may be a localized phenomena and it doesn't explain other melting occurring elsewhere. Looking at the paper abstract, I think both articles are actually fairly misleading.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2017 06:19
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:I am far from being pro-nuke as probably anyone (know people who worked on the cluster-gently caress SONGS plant, and yes I have a graduate degree in Physics) but the smart thing would have been to keep the nuke plants running until all the coal plants were shut down. In the case of Germany, the use of renewables actually did expand considerably, it was just no way fast enough to meet the sudden deadlines that were imposed. The ultimate solution was a more reasonable timetable.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2017 12:17
|
|
|
white sauce posted:Someone better tell these folks about corporate profits! I just want to throw it out there, it as been about as unseasonably warm in Moscow/Western Russia. There might not be even real snow on the ground for New Years (which is a bit bonkers.)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2017 04:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 07:41 |
|
|
To be honest, I think the chief issue more than its origin, is it's cost. If you can produce a paddy that is cheaper than ground beef, it will probably be a success. That said, the big issue is that our subsidies and infrastructure is designed to produce beef as cheaply as possible. If even a fraction of those subsidies went to insect protein (I know... I know...) it probably would find a market. Granted, that also goes back to the fact that the political system in the US is pretty much hosed.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2017 16:20
|
|