|
Inglonias posted:Theres been a bit of an oopsie in southern california, if you consider hundreds of thousands of pounds of methane leaking from the ground to be "a bit of an oopsie." two months running its amazing how stuff like this and the coal ash pond spills barely even register. just imagine how much worse it was in equador and is in nigeria.
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 22:29 |
|
|
computer parts posted:I didn't know Nixon was an environmentalist. chalking everything legislative that happened up to the president of the moment isn't just poo poo politics its poo poo posting
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
CHARLES posted:el oh el. Ace level trolling here. It's objectively false that a greater proportion of the global population is dying or in poverty today than 60 years ago.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2016 08:14
|
|
|
"everyone" out of a job isn't really the problem the problem would be 10 - 100k jobs a month getting automated thats the thing about capitalism, things don't even have to go down, they just have to go up more slowly to cause shitstorms
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
oh come on now, killing oil exec's is just plain good policy for *many* reasons
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2016 14:02
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2016 13:36
|
|
|
its just a matter of what numbers you consider in-scope. if you count the methane that leaks in gas production no not really. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/earth/methane-regulations/
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
yea lets makes sure we're all proper skeptics that show our homework for another decade or two, that'll help http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/may/22/africans-face-famine-after-crops-fail
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2016 12:55
|
|
|
LLSix posted:I was raised in a Republican family and I just watched "An Inconvenient Truth" for the first time. Man, they really did a thorough hack job on him. I grew up thinking he was a fringe lunatic but I found Al Gore a reasoned and thoughtful speaker.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
Furnaceface posted:Isnt climate change going to intensify the ME problems as populations are forced to migrate out of areas that were once habitable? There's a book called 'tropic of chaos' that makes a pretty compelling case that this is already well under way. While its by no means solely responsible, or even the primary cause, desertification can clearly be seen as a contributing factor in afghanistan, syria, kenya/ethiopia and mexico's problems today. Also the arab spring. Essentially we're past the point where global warming is going to cause problems soon, and into phase 1.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
daydrinking is fun posted:I'm curious, what's the absolute lowest-tech carbon sequestration method that could conceivably work? Could you theoretically get it done by just growing forests, cutting them down, and burying the trunks in huge landfills? edit: a form of bamboo thats half-coal and grows downward StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 04:39 on Dec 29, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
whatever you do with the body will be environmentally trivial compared to the carbon cost of flying to/from montana
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
what I don't get is how the miami housing market hasn't collapsed yet 30 years from now is dang near 2050... shouldn't they stop giving out mortgages for things that will be flooding with every good storm?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
hey so I'm reading new york 2140, and curious if anyone has good info on his ice-butress/9-foot-surge-in-a-decade premise.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
also I think the question of what you can do to "prepare" is wrong in its premise. this poo poo is already happening. the arab spring was caused (in part of course) by drought driven food price increases. you can draw a line around the world at around the world at the tropic of cancer and it is a shitshow of global hotspots, drought, desertification, and societal collapse. every few years it will march a bit north (details like mountain ranges and ocean currents adding variance). the tropic of capricorn too, but nobody lives down there except south africans and austrialans, so gently caress 'em. its not about preparing, its about reacting.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:The examples I posted are all low-acreage, producing excess food with low-medium time investment. If you want low acreage, med-high time investment, massive excess, high profit, sub-2 years, you can do that too: I just spent an hour on these, thank you. That first guy turns out to be an insane lolber nut, but hey w/e we've all got flaws. edit: for the record though this has dick-all to do with solving for climate change, unless you're looking at the "after 5 - 8B ppl die off i'll start again from my saved youtube folder" angle or something
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:I don't know what a "lolber nut" is. He is a successful market gardener and has a ton of useful videos. quote:Permaculture (as seen in the first batch of videos I linked) certainly has something to do with solving climate change, since it is actual, genuine carbon sequestration today that also produces lots of food per acre, with minimal external requirements, and can be implemented anywhere and adapt to changing conditions. we have a roughly 20 Petawatt-Hour per year problem to solve, no amount of backyard gardening is going to make a dent in that. In fact, a massive massive massive driver of the problem is "people who insist on having their own yard". StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 04:08 on Mar 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:A self-sufficient permaculture settlement that's deliberately involved in regenerative farming and soil sequestration techniques is part of the solution. It isn't the entire solution and isn't intended to be. sure, this is like drinking ginger-ale when you're sick. feels good. does nothing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 13:21
|
|
|
maybe after 150 pages we could band together and craft some kind of effort post that somehow wraps peoples brains around the size of the problem, so they stop talking about their herb garden or bicyling to work like it matters.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 13:22
|
|
|
if X% of farming & agriculture was switched from the median carbon cost it has now to the median carbon cost of a well run permaculture farm over the course of say the next decade(s) what would the net carbon impact be? lets see what it takes to get to a even gigaton edit: and re-model it however you can make it work, doesn't have to be switching, maybe its all new farms going forward, whatever scenario you can cook up just use real numbers from *any* source you can find that isn't made up feel good rounding error stuff StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 14:05 on Mar 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 13:59
|
|
|
math is not nihilst
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 14:19
|
|
|
and really, getting lost in a delusional fantasy hobby while continuing to live a >1T/year lifestyle is a form of denial
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 14:21
|
|
|
here, some actual numbers for context from the nihilists at the IPCC http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg3/index.php?idp=57 (5th Assessment, 2014)quote:Some simple calculations can help illustrate the nature of the global mitigation challenge. Current per capita carbon emissions are slightly more than 3 tonnes per year in Annex I countries and slightly less than 0.5 tonnes per year in non-Annex I countries. With about 1.3 billion people living in Annex I countries and about 4.7 billion in non-Annex I countries, total carbon emissions are in the range of (3.1)(1.3) + (0.48)(4.7) = 6.29 billion tonnes. Thus carbon emissions at a global scale average about 1 tonne per capita per year. The stabilization of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere at 450, 550, 650, and 750ppmv will require steep declines in the aggregate emissions as well emissions per capita and per dollar of gross domestic product (GDP) as illustrated in the IPCC SAR Synthesis Report (IPCC, 1996). For example, based on the SAR Synthesis Report and a recent set of calculations by Bolin and Kheshgi (2000), stabilization of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere at 450, 550, 650, and 750ppmv would require limiting fossil-fuel carbon emissions at about 3, 6, 9 and 12 billion tonnes, respectively, by 2100 and further reductions thereafter to less than half current global emissions. If, for example, the world population stabilized at about 10 billion people by then, an average carbon emissions per capita of 0.3, 0.6, 0.9, and 1.2 tonnes of carbon would be required to achieve the 450, 550, 650, and 750ppmv limits, respectively. We make no assumption here about how these emissions would or should be allocated globally, but simply report that the average by 2100 must work out to these levels to achieve the stabilization objectives. Thus, to achieve a 450ppmv concentration target, average carbon emissions per capita globally need to drop from about 1 tonne today to about 0.3 tons in 2100; to achieve a 650ppmv target they need to drop to 0.9 tonnes (about one-quarter of current emissions per capita in the Annex I countries) by 2100 and further thereafter. Finally, with a global economy currently producing about 25 trillion dollars of output, carbon emissions per million dollars of output are currently about 240 tonnes. If, for example, the global economy grows to 200 trillion dollars of output by 2100, the emissions per million dollars (in year 2000 dollars) would need to be limited to about 10, 25, 40, and 55 tonnes of carbon in order to achieve the 450, 550, 650, and 750ppmv CO2 limits, respectively. If further population and economic growth continues beyond 2100 additional reductions in average emissions per capita and per unit of economic output would be required.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
things that actually matter, roughly in order: - having children (especially more than the replacement rate) - using a car or truck on a daily basis (even if its electric, for now) - living in (and therefore heating, cooling & lighting) single family detached housing - traveling via jet plane - commuting long distances (>10 miles) on a regular basis - eating (particularly red meat) - buying stuff So for instance if you: - only have one kid - don't have a car - live in a 2 or 3br apartment/townhome - fly less than once a year - work from home, or walk, or bike some days a week and public transit others - cut back on red meat (but really chicken & fish are fine from a carbon perspective) - don't buy random plastic and metal things shipped halfway across the world constantly You can not that difficultly cut your household per-capita carbon emissions down to 1 ton/year. There's nothing fantasy or unrealistic about it, plenty of people in europe and north america already live this way quite nicely. The problem is almost entirely people who live in single-family-detached/suburb/exurb & rural areas, spent 100s of kwh on heating and cooling it, burn gasoline by the gallon driving their two cars to and from it, and then have 2 or 3 kids who grow up thinking its normal/ok to live that way. StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Mar 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:I did not claim that permaculture is the sole solution to climate change.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:If you want to drop population growth rates you don't knock on doors or post on forums telling people to have fewer kids, you go advocate for women's rights to contraception and abortion and make them as available as possible. Squalid posted:Also I think you are thinking on too short a time frame. Any effort to address climate change will necessarily be inter-generational, and government policy can have surprisingly swift effects. For example following a concerted effort to implement family planning, Iran drastically reduced its fertility rate after 1989, which today sits at about 1.9, in contrast with other near by countries like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. We must take a long term perspective. There is no other choice. - educating women to a highschool level - providing them access to unbelievably rudimentary healthcare Which are good things anyway! Rarely in history has there been a better two birds with one stone scenario.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
for roughly the cost of the f-35 program we could have built 4 - 500 AP1000* reactors, which is enough capacity to turn off every single coal plant in america. we don't have a tech problem, we have a "how do you get large groups of humans to make good decisions" problem * assuming 3 - 4 billion each, the running cost of the latest ones being built now. presumably building hundreds of them at once could be done a little better.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
yea the point was to use real world price examples not to get into a sperg off over nuke plant design (again, for like the 20th time this thread)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
its really a "simple" question when you think about it... we have to put as much carbon back as we took out. every oil field, every coal mine. trying to put it anywhere else would insanely damaging to that locations environment (just like it was to take out and has been to the atmosphere). I mean if it makes you feel better say we only have to put back like, half. where else but all the oil fields could you store that much liquid carbon? it sure as poo poo can't be gas, the volume math explains itself.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
I wasn't gonna go sci-fi dweebery but since people already mentioned diamond-buildings... can anyone with a materials science background tell us what the current state of artificial diamond technology is? I'm sure its off by at least one if not 10 orders of magnitude, I'm just curious what today's actual reality is (y'know, with numbers).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
Rime posted:Global production was 900,000 kg annual in 2014. But, since this is an energy intensive process, it costs an order of magnitude more carbon to make one than is being trapped within the diamond itself. only if that energy comes from carbon. and yes, its basically a tautology that it takes a lot of energy to make diamond, so that doesn't tell us anything. what I'm getting at here is, lets say you had a magic box that you put in electricity and out came diamonds. we can agree that feeding it shittons of low-carbon electricity is its own challenge, but seperate them for a moment and focus on the box. is it like, 1 megawatt + 1000L of water + one african baby = 1g of diamond? how much control is there over the diamonds shape and size? edit: some explanations of the current methods, but no numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_diamond#Manufacturing_technologies StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Apr 1, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
realistically anyone who isn't 12, bangladeshi, or the owner of beachfront real estate doesn't need to worry about the sea-rise affects on their life. moving would be pointless. your problems will be (are) economic and societal. your children's problems will be sea level rise and varying levels of collapse.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:We all know that Florida property is going to experience "climate effects" and devaluation but we don't know when. At some point the market is going to realize this too. Economic devaluation could happen well before any major or even the worst climate effects. fwiw this is already solidly underway in part. A couple years ago on vacation I was looking into what it would cost to buy the place I was airbnb'ing, and in talking with the realtor he explained that many of his clients are all-cash buyers because the flood insurance that any mortgage lender would require costs almost as much as the mortgage itself. And to my knowledge, thats with fairly heavy federal subsidization (there was a legal reform on that up at the time that I never followed up on). So basically you have rich foreigners who dgaf about the future just want a nice vacation spot, and you have rich-ish baby boomers who don't give a gently caress cuz they'll be dead in 20 years forming most of the market down there right now (in the nice-enough-to-vacation-there spots). Once the boomers are no longer a net-inflow (which should be like now or within 5 years) and there's any sort of flood insurance adjustment (like after the next big hurricaine) florida real estate will plummet (again). So probably within a decade. StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 20:48 on Apr 9, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
eNeMeE posted:Congratulations on being an awful person, I guess? yea but as long as he doesn't *believe* he is its all good
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
y'know in a way I support you. assuming you die in america, your organs could go on to save 2 or 3 people and prolong their lives by decades. decades of unsustainable lifestyles and immoral levels of carbon intensity.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
climate change is super depressing but really its just our generations insane existential threat. the last generation had nuclear winter, the one before that spent most of their adult lives murdering one another by the millions, the one before that would have starved if not for the green revolution. another one or two before that here in the U.S. just loving butchered each other savagely to *improve* the situation w/slavery. the ones before that dealt with famine all the time. before them, the plauges and poxes. the species will survive. life on earth will survive. its just a question of what the bodycount will be for the lessons we need to learn.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:You are out of your god drat mind if you think nuclear winter is no longer an existential threat. good point my point was that there has always been something to freak out over, get depressed about, and wallow in.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
Rime posted:Yes and other people are sane enough to realize that their carbon footprint will never come close to approaching that of Exxon
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
for me at least, the whole debate is just intensely boring hair-splitting between "nuh-uh" and "sure but I'm not lifting a finger". nobody wants to talk about replacing the capitalist ideology of growth with some other thing. nobody wants to talk about the *real* lifestyle changes in the western world it would take to matter. nobody wants to talk about the tricky ethical challenges of population reduction. nobody wants to dwell on the holocaust-times-9-11 bodycount thats already well underway. its just a completely fake debate between "I don't buy it or care" and "I'm smart ur stoopid!" edit: its not about deniers, there will always be a massive portion of the population that is just plain wrong about any given thing. its about the believers being completely fake with an endless trove of excuses. StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 01:16 on Apr 23, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 22:29 |
|
|
Accretionist posted:I'll give that a try. sure if by 'republicans' you mean 'everyone to the right of dennis kucinich'
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 14:01
|
|