Climate Change: There are no jobs on a dead planet

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change: There are no jobs on a dead planet

friendbot2000: May 1, 2011

Alright Goons, the old climate change thread descended into nihilistic despondency that was driving away all but 7 posters. So I volunteered to start the new thread and recap what we know now, where we are, and what can be done to mitigate the disaster coming our way. But first, we are going to set some ground rules because I have no patience for the nihilism and it kills discussions and positive change quicker than organic mercury.

Rules for the Thread
1. Nihilism is not welcome here. I am not asking you to be a shining beacon of hope and sunshine, but the whole “we are all doomed and nothing matters, so embrace the bloodshed” is not constructive and it is actively hurtful to galvanizing change. There are some people that suffer from depression and other illnesses that are negatively impacted by nihilistic messaging so cut it out and be part of the solution. IK NOTE: THIS WILL BE ENFORCED
2. Sharing stories about what you are doing to help is actively encouraged. Also, if you want to get good squads together for eco-projects or canvassing for eco-policies that is encouraged as well.
3. If possible, make sure to be specific to what region you are referring to in your posts i.e. Virginia or Midwestern USA. SA has users all over the globe so specificity is helpful.
4. Check your bad attitude at the door. I really shouldn't have to ask that people be civil to one another in a thread about a topic that affects everyone. Be kind to one another and make this thread welcoming for newer posters.

Goals for this Thread
The goals of this thread are fourfold: [list]
1. Sharing and discussing relevant and new information about climate change
2. Sharing and discussing information about private/NGO/government initiatives to fight it
3. Mobilizing initiatives for interested Goons in helping combat climate change through political, personal, and community action
4. A repository of useful resources for discussing climate change with the uninformed and uninitiated

And now, a primer on climate change. Uranium Phoenix did an excellent job summarizing with their OP so I am quoting this from the old thread. Also, I don't have the time to comb through the entire thread to pick out all the good bits and type up a brand new OP. If there is any factual information in this OP that needs to be corrected, please let me know and I will do so.

Uranium Phoenix posted:

Climate Change: What is to be Done?

Climate change (or global warming) has several obvious effects. For one, it causes the average global temperature goes up. Many places get hotter and drier, and we see heat waves and droughts. Duh. However, adding more energy to a system as complex as the Earth causes some less intuitive effects. It increases the intensity of storms and weather systems, meaning some places will see more devastating blizzards, and others, larger monsoons. We will also see more frequent tornadoes and more intense hurricanes. These, in turn, cause immense damage, flooding, and death.

In places where there are higher temperatures, heat waves, and droughts, crops are going to be devastated. We’ve seen a preview of that already. Pretty much all of the staple crops the world are sensitive to climate, and would have a much harder time growing in a hotter climate. And, we can’t simply just move them to new more hospitable climate zones in, say, Canada or Russia; the crops also need good soil to be grown, and the inhospitable soil in those regions isn’t going to form overnight. Starvation and malnutrition, which already affect over 800 million people, are going to become much worse.

The problems of flooding, damage, and food shortages will also be exacerbated by rising sea levels and increased ocean acidity. Higher sea levels will make storm surges more devastating, and given that 44% of the population lives near the coasts, this is a huge issue. It also means that many coastal cities will either require massive barricades or huge relocation efforts. More acidic oceans form as carbon dioxide is absorbed by the oceans from the atmosphere, which in turn hurts a lot of organisms like plankton, diatoms, and anything else with a shell. These organisms are the foundation of the food chain. Combined with problems like overfishing and pollution, devastating ocean ecosystems will create yet another shortage of food. We can already see examples of the changing ocean ecosystem.

Melting ice around the world will exacerbate the above problems of droughts and flooding. Warmer temperatures will mean that water isn’t frozen in winter and gradually released as it melts throughout the year, meaning river levels will alternate between too high and too low. Retreating glaciers and mountain snowpack will mean that there is no natural reserve of water during droughts for many areas. As before, problems not caused by climate change make this problem even more difficult to deal with. We are depleting aquifers (underground water) far faster than they are replenishing. These reserves of water are finite. Draining them also causes land subsidence, which could make the river and coastal flooding worse. The melting of major ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica will, obviously, raise sea levels. This flooding is already inevitable.

Shifting and warming climates will also devastate species all over the world--species that are already suffering from habitat destruction and pollution. A new mass extinction has already begun, and the effects will only intensify as global warming progresses. In many areas, forests will become deserts. Desertification is a huge threat; if forests that are currently acting as carbon sinks are removed, burned, or die off, it will add to the climatic feedback. Another problem with the shifting climates will be diseases. Many tropical diseases like malaria will increase, possibly threatening some few hundred million more people with infection.

Finally, the above problems will reverberate throughout society. Taking away shelter and food security is a great way to create conflict and war. As coastal cities are devastated by storms and flooding, the mass displacement of huge populations will cause crises, especially if there is no plan to deal with it.

But if the above already seems like an overwhelming problem not even worth fighting since it’s so massive and intractable, keep this in mind: it can always get worse. Much worse. The longer we don’t act on climate change, the more extreme the damage and death will be. Time is of the essence, but even if we fail to act quickly (and we have), we still need to act.

The point of this thread is not to make you despair. It simply emphasizes why discussing solutions is so important. This is a problem we must solve, because the potential death and devastation is too horrid to contemplate otherwise. Doing nothing is not a neutral position: it simply reinforces the status quo.

Somebody fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Jul 7, 2021

# ? Nov 16, 2018 17:25

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 2, 2024 19:08

friendbot2000: May 1, 2011

Eco-Fascist Goon Squad Station
This is the place any goon activism initiatives will be posted for others to get involved or get informed about

Suspicious Corporate Bedfellows
An ally is an ally, but these corporations are doing good work in combatting climate change. We still give them the side eye though

Climeworks
These guys are very close to getting a cost-effective carbon removal tech up and running. They have a full-sized commercial plant that takes out 900 metric tons annually, built a smaller plant in Iceland that takes out 50 metric tons and turns it into stone, and are building another in Italy that will take our 150 metric tons of C02 out of the atmosphere annually. All together that is 1100 metric tons every year!

Noteworthy Nonprofits
Here is where we tabulate the efforts of nonprofits to combat climate change

The Ocean Cleanup Project
These lovely people invented an artificial coastline that is going to try to clean up the garbage islands in the oceans. Their first launch has been fully funded and I believe launched to tackle the Pacific Garbage Island. It isnt specifically anthropogenic climate change related, but not having all that microplastic leeching into the ocean is still helpful.

C2CNT
I admit I am not too familiar with the science behind this. Apparently, this group of plucky scientists is turning CO2 into Carbon Nanotubes. Feel free to correct me on this because I am bad at life

Government....good?
Government initiaves on the local/state/province/federal/whatever level to combat climate change are listed here

THE NAUGHTY LIST
This list details the companies or politicians that are not getting a visit from Santa or even coal, because that would encourage them. The primary goal of the "Naughty List" is to enable any suitably impassioned goons to target companies for boycotts or allow for some howler letters to their representatives in their government.

The 100 Companies Responsible for 71% of the World's Emissions
Go Get Em Goons

Related Threads
We have a lot of threads on SA that are tangentially related to Climate Change action

Building Green Minus the Mold and Existential Dread: Home/Garden Edition
Thread on building and living green for both rural and urban lifestyles

State and Local Politics Thread
Remember that all policy change starts at the local level. This thread also as a pretty active canvassing and goon action squad

friendbot2000 fucked around with this message at 15:39 on Nov 19, 2018

# ? Nov 16, 2018 17:25

friendbot2000: May 1, 2011

The last thread's OP had a bunch of great resources. I will continue adding to this list as the thread goes on. If you have any suggestions for good additions, please let me know!

Resources

A. Useful Links
Here are a bunch of useful informational links and resources about climate change for shouting yourself hoarse into the void.

http://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Includes all the scientific evidence you need. The Summary for Policymakers in each section is especially useful. Also a great source of visual aids like graphs and maps.

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/ The report released by the IPCC on what we are potentially facing with Climate Change
This report is harrowing, but is not set in stone yet. We can still have a great effect on mittigating Climate Change if action is taken now.

http://www.withouthotair.com/ - Without Hot Air
This is a free online book that sets aside rhetoric and actually talks about the numbers involved in different energy alternatives. This is a great reference for hard numbers and data.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ - Skeptical Science
This site is great for covering common denier talking points and myths about climate change. Most of these arguments haven�t changed at all, so even if an argument is supposedly �new,� this site likely has a refutation. It also has its own links to follow, and it�s a great place to start if you don�t know a lot about climate science.
An especially useful link they have is the Debunking Handbook, which goes over how to argue if you want to successfully change someone�s mind on a misconception. This is a great resource.

http://www.carbontax.org/services/where-carbon-is-taxed/ - Carbon Tax Center
As the site name implies, this is a pro-carbon tax site with information about carbon taxes and their effects. I�ve barely read it.

Do the Math by Tom Murphy
A blog dealing wih physics and math to assess energy growth options
These posts are worth looking at in particular:

Note: These are all from 2011/2012 so don't account for our increased CO2 or energy, nor do they reckon with the recent IPCC report, but they are nice places to point people to when discussing sequestering schemes or reasonable large scale power alternatives.

Articles
Capitalism vs. the Climate
Naomi Klein tackles why conservatives are so adamant at denying climate change, and why the liberal response is insufficiently radical. Her book This Changes Everything has a broader scope and also has great information.

2015 is Earth's warmest year by widest margin on record
2015 shattered warming records, with December being an especially hot month. This also goes into detail.
This, of course, will be largely ignored or hand-waved away by deniers and delayers who's pet ideology is threatened by the facts of climate change. Years later, it might be used as 1998 was--an anomalously hot year they can compare future years to in order to show the slow rise of global temperatures as an excuse for inaction.

NOAA and NASA Team Up to Investigate Strong El Ni�o
Expect the usual effects of an El Ni�o. The good news is that scientists are well prepared to study the effects on a scope not previously done before.

Over half the world�s population suffers from �severe� water scarcity, scientists say (Scientific article: Four billion people facing severe water scarcity)
A recent article highlighting the present state of water scarcity. Balancing agricultural demand with keeping ecosystems healthy and people fed will increasingly be a challenge, and it's important to know just how many people are vulnerable in this. (Thanks Hello Sailor).

Australia Cuts 110 Climate Scientist Jobs - This loss will negatively affect our progress on understanding of the climate of the entire southern hemisphere. This is a prime example of how seriously most politicians are taking things right now. (Thanks Evil Greven)

Giant holes found in Siberia could be signs of a ticking climate 'time bomb'
Global Warming�s Terrifying New Chemistry (refers to this paper on CH4 emissions)
Two articles on methane's effect on climate change. Methane hydrates in Siberia and other permafrost areas could cause a massive spike in atmospheric methane. Meanwhile, how much methane countries have been releasing has probably been drastically underestimated, and because methane is such a powerful greenhouse gas, we're probably a lot worse off than we thought. These are good articles for debunking the idea that natural gas/fracking is a good idea.
(Thanks CheeseSpawn)

Research Papers
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 - Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - A paper analyzing the scientific consensus on climate change. If you ever need a source for "97% of scientists agree with climate change", here it is.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291datafile.txt - This is the papers analyzed by the above paper. If you ever wanted to look directly for the source of a claim, or are just interested in finding relevant climate research, this is a great resource.
(Thanks totalnewbie and rivetz)
B. Good Effort Posts

Feel free to propose additional links and articles to add to this list.

C. SA Propoganda Office
The people who can be reached by science and reason have already been converted to the reality of climate change. The others will require an approach not with logic and reason, but an approach centered around the heart. This is where art, music, and storytelling comes in. Propoganda can be a force for good and it is time to weaponize it for fighting Climate Change. PM me provocative pieces you find and I will list them here for people to spread.

friendbot2000 fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Dec 31, 2018

# ? Nov 16, 2018 17:26

Conspiratiorist: Nov 12, 2015; 17th Separate Kryvyi Rih Tank Brigade named after Konstantin Pestushko
Look to my coming on the first light of the ~~fifth~~ ~~sixth~~ some day

IPCC SR15 posted:

Scenario 3 [one possible storyline among worst-case scenarios]:

Mitigation: Uncoordinated action, major actions late in the 21st century.

Internal climate variability: First unusual (ca. 10%) best-case scenario for one decade, then normal internal climate variability.

In 2020, despite past pledges, the international support for the Paris Agreement starts to wane. In the years that follow, CO2 emissions are reduced at local and national level but efforts are limited and not always successful.

Radiative forcing increases and, due to chance, the most extreme events tend to happen in less populated regions thus not increasing global concerns. Nonetheless, there are more frequent heatwaves in several cities and less snow in mountain resorts in the Alps, Rockies, and Andes. 1.5�C warming is reached by 2030, but no major changes in policies occur. Starting with an intense El Ni�o-La Ni�a phase in the 2030s, several catastrophic years occur while global temperature warming starts to approach 2�C. There are major heatwaves on all continents, with deadly consequences in tropical regions and Asian megacities, especially for those ill-equipped for protecting themselves and their communities from the effects of extreme temperatures. Droughts occur in regions bordering the Mediterranean Sea, Central North America, the Amazon region and southern Australia, some of which are due to natural variability and others to enhanced greenhouse forcing. Intense floodings occur in high-latitude and tropical regions, in particular in Asia, following increases in heavy precipitation events. Major ecosystems (coral reefs, wetlands, forests) are destroyed over that period with massive disruption to local livelihoods. An unprecedented drought leads to large impacts on the Amazon rain forest, which is also affected by deforestation. A hurricane with intense rainfall and associated with high storm surges destroys a large part of Miami. A 2-year drought in the Great Plains and a concomitant drought in Eastern Europe and Russia decrease global crop production, resulting in major increases in food prices and eroding food security. Poverty levels increase to a very large scale and risk and incidence of starvation increase very significantly as food stores dwindle in most countries; human health suffers.

There are high levels of public unrest and political destabilization due to the increasing climatic pressures, resulting in some countries becoming dysfunctional. The main countries responsible for the CO2 emissions design rapidly conceived mitigation plans and try to install plants for carbon capture and storage, in some cases without sufficient prior testing. Massive investments in renewable energy often happen too late and are uncoordinated; energy prices soar as a result of the high demand and lack of infrastructure. In some cases, demand cannot be met, leading to further delays. Some countries propose to consider sulphate-aerosol based SRM, however intensive international negotiations on the topic take substantial time and are inconclusive, because of overwhelming concerns about potential impacts to monsoon rainfall and risks in case of termination. Global and regional temperatures continue to strongly increase while mitigation solutions are being developed and implemented.

Global mean warming reaches 3�C by 2100 but is not yet stabilized despite major decreases in yearly CO2 emissions, as a net-zero CO2 emissions budget could not yet be achieved and because of the long life-time of CO2 concentrations. The world as it was in 2020 is no longer recognizable, with decreasing life expectancy, reduced outdoor labour productivity, and lower quality of life in many regions because of too frequent heatwaves and other climate extremes. Droughts and water resources stress renders agriculture economically un-viable in some regions and contributes to increases in poverty. Progress on the sustainable development goals is largely undone and poverty rates reach new highs. Major conflicts take place. Almost all ecosystems experience irreversible impacts, species extinction rates are high in all regions, forest fires escalate, and biodiversity strongly decreases, resulting in extensive losses to ecosystem services. These losses exacerbate poverty and reduce quality of life. Life, for many indigenous and rural groups, becomes untenable in their ancestral lands. The retreat of the West Antarctic ice sheet accelerates, leading to more rapid SLR. Several small island states give up hope to survive in their place and look to an increasingly fragmented global community for refuge. Aggregate economic damages are substantial owing to the combined effects of climate changes, political instability, and losses of ecosystem services. The general health and well-being of people substantially decreased compared to the conditions in 2020 and continues to worsen over the following decades.

Also, thread title should be "We're not allowed to talk about the necessary solution."

# ? Nov 16, 2018 17:41

friendbot2000: May 1, 2011

Conspiratiorist posted:

Also, thread title should be "We're not allowed to talk about the necessary solution."

Oh, that reminds me. I forgot to include a link to the IPCC Report.

I think the necessary solution is a multipronged approach of individual/community action and governmental policy, but that is just me. Also, idk if anyone is paying attention, but the freshmen Democrats in the House are making quite a bit of noise on Climate Change and that is pretty big.

# ? Nov 16, 2018 17:48

The Dipshit: Dec 21, 2005; by FactsAreUseless

How about some carbon sequestration technologies coming down the pipe?

Quick rundown of one I like that another goon brought to my attention:

C2CNT: Essentially a way to grow (really large, more useful for mechanical applications over electronic) CNTs out of CO2 in an ambient environment, probably starting off as a fossil fuel scrubber technology that would then ideally go into a kind of passive CO2 removal technology.

https://carbon.xprize.org/prizes/carbon/teams/c2cnt

Having read their papers and having a Phd. that's got some work adjacent to what their doing (I did some CNT synthesis for self assembeled dry spun CNTs) they don't have any obvious showstoppers that I can see, which is encouraging. They essentially use a controlled lithium soup in a narrow temperature band to precipitate CNTs on one of their electrodes. Only real issue is how to operate it continuously, by possibly knocking off the CNTs when they get thick enough to stop the reaction or by constantly switching out electrodes in the same bath or something else cute that I haven't thought of.

# ? Nov 16, 2018 17:58

DrSunshine: Mar 23, 2009; Did I just say that out loud~~?!!!

I'm reposting a post I made in the previous thread:

quote:

I majored in atmospheric science in my undergraduate days, where I learned about the Carbonate-Silicate cycle and how CO2 gets removed from the atmosphere long-term. Anyway, the other day I was sort of idly pondering, and came up with an idea for carbon capture. I'll throw it out there, as I'm wondering if folks more knowledgeable than I have already pondered and dismissed it as impracticable or unworkable.

My idea is -- what if we could grind up a huge amount of silicate rock into small pebbles or sand, and put them into rotating hoppers or drums of some kind. These rocks would be constantly washed by aerated water droplets, mimicking the natural action of rain forming carbonic acid in the atmosphere. You could power the drums with renewables or nuclear power or what have you. Construct thousands of such devices across the world, in great big "farms". The idea behind this lies basically in accelerating a natural process, by increasing the surface area of the reactant, and by ensuring that the reaction is constantly happening.

Would it work? Or would it still be too slow for what we need?

One of the responses:

Conspiratiorist posted:

Just guessing the associated construction and operating costs, I think we'd have better luck seeding and sequestering algae.

I think that's a valid point! My quibble regarding sequestering algae is that we'd probably need to take care of drying them out somehow so that they don't undergo anaerobic decomposition. Finding places to sequester them would be another thing, the thing I find elegant about just simply accelerating natural silicate-carbonate weathering is that you could just dump the spent rocks anywhere. Or I dunno, build highly densified megastructure cities or something.

# ? Nov 16, 2018 18:05

friendbot2000: May 1, 2011

The Dipshit posted:

How about some carbon sequestration technologies coming down the pipe?

Quick rundown of one I like that another goon brought to my attention:

C2CNT: Essentially a way to grow (really large, more useful for mechanical applications over electronic) CNTs out of CO2 in an ambient environment, probably starting off as a fossil fuel scrubber technology that would then ideally go into a kind of passive CO2 removal technology.

https://carbon.xprize.org/prizes/carbon/teams/c2cnt

Having read their papers and having a Phd. that's got some work adjacent to what their doing (I did some CNT synthesis for self assembeled dry spun CNTs) they don't have any obvious showstoppers that I can see, which is encouraging. They essentially use a controlled lithium soup in a narrow temperature band to precipitate CNTs on one of their electrodes. Only real issue is how to operate it continuously, by possibly knocking off the CNTs when they get thick enough to stop the reaction or by constantly switching out electrodes in the same bath or something else cute that I haven't thought of.

Nice! As much of a bad rap that Geo-Engineering gets I do believe it is part of the whole solution of mitigating and in the long term potentially reversing climate change. I have been following Climeworks pretty closely as they seem to be getting pretty close to that cost-effective level of carbon capture tech. I will put both of these in the OP as things to watch.

# ? Nov 16, 2018 18:07

Nocturtle: Mar 17, 2007

The Dipshit posted:

How about some carbon sequestration technologies coming down the pipe?

Setting aside whether specific techs are workable or not, the problem in general with converting CO2 from point sources into useful products is that we produce waaaay too much CO2 for it to make any real impact on overall emissions. There just isn't enough demand for stuff that can be made out of CO2 even if you manage to do it efficiently. You would crash the carbon nanotube market with just the output from a handful of powerplants. A recent Nature paper makes that same point:

Nature posted:

The role of CO2 capture and utilization in mitigating climate change
05 April 2017
Abstract
To offset the cost associated with CO2 capture and storage (CCS), there is growing interest in finding commercially viable end-use opportunities for the captured CO2. In this Perspective, we discuss the potential contribution of carbon capture and utilization (CCU). Owing to the scale and rate of CO2 production compared to that of utilization allowing long-term sequestration, it is highly improbable the chemical conversion of CO2 will account for more than 1% of the mitigation challenge, and even a scaled-up enhanced oil recovery (EOR)-CCS industry will likely only account for 4�8%. Therefore, whilst CO2-EOR may be an important economic incentive for some early CCS projects, CCU may prove to be a costly distraction, financially and politically, from the real task of mitigation.

The rationale for these kinds of techs is that might help offset the cost of implementing CCS at fossil fuel generators, but it's not clear whether they will be worthwhile ie what is the EROI? They also don't help with the short-term emissions challenge, as actual implementation of CCS in electricity generators has been negligible.

Nocturtle fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Nov 16, 2018

# ? Nov 16, 2018 18:21

Admiral Ray: May 17, 2014; Proud Musk and Dogecoin fanboy

DrSunshine posted:

I'm reposting a post I made in the previous thread:

One of the responses:

I think that's a valid point! My quibble regarding sequestering algae is that we'd probably need to take care of drying them out somehow so that they don't undergo anaerobic decomposition. Finding places to sequester them would be another thing, the thing I find elegant about just simply accelerating natural silicate-carbonate weathering is that you could just dump the spent rocks anywhere. Or I dunno, build highly densified megastructure cities or something.

One of the better places to get money to look into things like this is the military. If you can convince generals, admirals (or their closest hangers on) that climate change will unpredictably and irreparably harm America's defense posture and your idea is part of an improved action plan to mitigate these the threats after a period of X years, enabling continued US presence in regions A, B, C while keeping expenditures below Y projections. The issue is, as ever, getting contact with them.

Alternatively, using the above language in grant funding can help, but that's more of a competitive process. Military grants, and grants in general, need language with scope and material impact justifying everything. Mil folks especially love poo poo having that include descriptions and somewhat reasonable assertions of saving money (being good stewards of public funds), even if it doesn't end up saving any money. Officers get to put those impacts/numbers on their officer evaluation reports (OER), which is the way they get promoted.

I don't know poo poo about atmospheric science, but if you do a back-of-the-envelope calculation comparing current reaction area and the resultant amplified reaction area per hopper and the resultant sequestered CO2 then you can get a rough idea of the effectiveness of the process.

ETA: It's especially relevant right now because hurricane Irma completely took the Air Force by surprise and destroyed/disabled a tenth of our F-22 fleet and $5 billion in military hardware that wasn't able to be moved in time.

Admiral Ray fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Nov 16, 2018

# ? Nov 16, 2018 18:28

friendbot2000: May 1, 2011

Nocturtle posted:

Setting aside whether specific techs are workable or not, the problem in general with converting CO2 from point sources into useful products is that we produce waaaay too much CO2 for it to make any real impact on overall emissions. There just isn't enough demand for stuff that can be made out of CO2 even if you manage to do it efficiently. You would crash the carbon nanotube market with just the output from a handful of powerplants. A recent Nature paper makes that same point:

The rationale for these kinds of techs is that might help offset the cost of implementing CCS at fossil fuel generators, but it's not clear whether they will be worthwhile ie what is the EROI? They also don't help with the short-term emissions challenge, as actual implementation of CCS in electricity generators has been negligible.

I mean, pressurized CO2 is used in a lot of things and one of the things Climeworks has been doing is partnering with agricultural research and using the excess in greenhouses. I can see CO2 capture being used heavy with greenhouses to do research and granted this is the idealist in me talking, increase food production. Hmmm, I wonder what it would take to have a massive hydroponic greenhouse situation to just grow food and poo poo. What would the power costs be with that?

# ? Nov 16, 2018 18:29

The Dipshit: Dec 21, 2005; by FactsAreUseless

Nocturtle posted:

Setting aside whether specific techs are workable or not, the problem in general with converting CO2 from point sources into useful products is that we produce waaaay too much CO2 for it to make any real impact on overall emissions. There just isn't enough demand for stuff that can be made out of CO2 even if you manage to do it efficiently. You would crash the carbon nanotube market with just the output from a handful of powerplants. A recent Nature paper makes that same point:

The rationale for these kinds of techs is that might help offset the cost of implementing CCS at fossil fuel generators, but it's not clear whether they will be worthwhile ie what is the EROI? They also don't help with the short-term emissions challenge, as actual implementation of CCS in electricity generators has been negligible.

Agreed, but I'd be totally stoked for super cheap CNT/Epoxy structural materials, and with them as cheap as garbage, you'd be able to expand the market super large.

Also, I think I could see people do chemical unzipping to make absoulte gobs of high quality super-capacitors as well, which would help with electric buses and the like.

And dare I say, 10% here, 10% there with mass afforestation/biochar sequestration, and things start adding up. We'll probably need to do the whole "All of the above" of technically feasible things to get this beast under control.

The Dipshit fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Nov 16, 2018

# ? Nov 16, 2018 18:34

friendbot2000: May 1, 2011

The Dipshit posted:

Agreed, but I'd be totally stoked for super cheap CNT/Epoxy structural materials, and with them as cheap as garbage, you'd be able to expand the market super large.

Also, I think I could see people do chemical unzipping to make absoulte gobs of high quality super-capacitors as well, which would help with electric buses and the like.

And dare I say, 10% here, 10% there with mass afforestation/biochar sequestration, and things start adding up. We'll probably need to do the whole "All of the above" of technically feasible things to get this beast under control.

I added this to the OP, but Climeworks is building a 3rd carbon capture facility in Italy that will take out 150 metric tons annually. So all together they are taking 1100 metric tons out of the atmosphere annually with 3 facilities: 1 full-scale(900) and two small scale (200)

# ? Nov 16, 2018 18:38

ChairMaster: Aug 22, 2009; by R. Guyovich

Does this OP mean nihilism as in "individual action is completely meaningless and we're not allowed to talk about the only actual solutions on SA" or do you mean like "AceofFlames having a nervous breakdown every 5 pages about how we're all going to die and we all try to tell him that nothing matters anyways and to just be cool"? (AoF I know you're reading this, get out of this thread and go to therapy or at least e/n or something)

Anyways, please everyone just read the most recent IPCC reports, and take into account that things are getting worse every day and even the most recent one is still not quite representing the situation as bad as it actually is before you start thinking that you're saving the world by slightly lowering your carbon footprint. There are billions of people in the world with an exponentially lower carbon footprint than yours, and having one more person with a slightly lower footprint is not meaningful in any way.

Also keep in mind that climate change is only half of what you should be worried about, because human civilization's response to climate change is what's actually going to kill you. The rise of fascism and the eventual loss of political and ecological stability all over the world will affect your life directly, and depending on where you live, your actual course of action does not include buying better light bulbs or eating less meat and pretending like that's going to make a difference (eat less meat anyways though, you'll feel better overall). Because we are not allowed to talk about the action that would actually make a difference regarding climate change, your actual course of action should be something along the lines of learning how to grow food, and strengthening your community, making friends, and having a survival plan for when things get bad in your part of the world.

The old climate change thread a few years ago was part of what got me to go back to school to get a degree so that I can move out of my doomed country and get to New Zealand (they're not guaranteed to survive but their chances are a lot better than Canada) before it's too late.

friendbot2000 posted:

I added this to the OP, but Climeworks is building a 3rd carbon capture facility in Italy that will take out 150 metric tons annually. So all together they are taking 1100 metric tons out of the atmosphere annually with 3 facilities: 1 full-scale(900) and two small scale (200)

So 1100 tons out of an annual 35,900,000,000 tons of CO2 put into the atmosphere.

e: also I didn't see this link in the thread yet, and it's a pretty important one

http://fortune.com/2017/07/10/climate-change-green-house-gases/

It's about how 71% of the world's emissions from from 100 specific companies.

ChairMaster fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Nov 16, 2018

# ? Nov 16, 2018 18:48

friendbot2000: May 1, 2011

ChairMaster posted:

Does this OP mean nihilism as in "individual action is completely meaningless and we're not allowed to talk about the only actual solutions on SA" or do you mean like "AceofFlames having a nervous breakdown every 5 pages about how we're all going to die and we all try to tell him that nothing matters anyways and to just be cool"? (AoF I know you're reading this, get out of this thread and go to therapy or at least e/n or something)

Anyways, please everyone just read the most recent IPCC reports, and take into account that things are getting worse every day and even the most recent one is still not quite representing the situation as bad as it actually is before you start thinking that you're saving the world by slightly lowering your carbon footprint. There are billions of people in the world with an exponentially lower carbon footprint than yours, and having one more person with a slightly lower footprint is not meaningful in any way.

Also keep in mind that climate change is only half of what you should be worried about, because human civilization's response to climate change is what's actually going to kill you. The rise of fascism and the eventual loss of political and ecological stability all over the world will affect your life directly, and depending on where you live, your actual course of action does not include buying better light bulbs or eating less meat and pretending like that's going to make a difference (eat less meat anyways though, you'll feel better overall). Because we are not allowed to talk about the action that would actually make a difference regarding climate change, your actual course of action should be something along the lines of learning how to grow food, and strengthening your community, making friends, and having a survival plan for when things get bad in your part of the world.

The old climate change thread a few years ago was part of what got me to go back to school to get a degree so that I can move out of my doomed country and get to New Zealand (they're not guaranteed to survive but their chances are a lot better than Canada) before it's too late.

So 1100 tons out of an annual 35,900,000,000 tons of CO2 put into the atmosphere.

e: also I didn't see this link in the thread yet, and it's a pretty important one

http://fortune.com/2017/07/10/climate-change-green-house-gases/

It's about how 71% of the world's emissions from from 100 specific companies.

The nihilism rule is in reference to the breakdowns and to a lesser but not prohibitive extent on the serious hatred, people have for individual/community action as well as the general font of negativity and nothing matters that overall killed all discourse and calls to action. The goal is for this thread to be about solutions and hopefully get goons together to start working within their own communities and effecting change in a variety of ways. Combatting climate change will not be successful without individual action because without a cultural shift, unilateral actions will fail or reverse their course once people get complacent. Unilateral Policy Action AND Individual/Community action are all part of the solution.

Another goal is to shift the primary tone because the old thread was frankly toxic and acerbic. I know a lot of us are internet malcontents, but it actively drove people away from the thread and that is not helpful to the cause.

Also, 1100 is a drop in the bucket, sure, but a rainstorm always starts with a few drops. And buddy, it is starting to rain.

I will add the report mentioned in the article as it is much more detailed than the article itself.

friendbot2000 fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Nov 16, 2018

# ? Nov 16, 2018 19:11

Oracle: Oct 9, 2004

Admiral Ray posted:

One of the better places to get money to look into things like this is the military. If you can convince generals, admirals (or their closest hangers on) that climate change will unpredictably and irreparably harm America's defense posture and your idea is part of an improved action plan to mitigate these the threats after a period of X years, enabling continued US presence in regions A, B, C while keeping expenditures below Y projections. The issue is, as ever, getting contact with them.

I thought the military was already on board with the threats of climate change and it is, as ever, (the Republican-held) Congress that is brushing it off.
Yeah, see here:

quote:

Climate change poses �immediate risks� to national security and will have broad and costly impacts on the way the US military carries out its missions, the Pentagon said in a new report on the impact of climate change released on 13 October.

The Defense Department said in the report, described as a �Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap," that it has begun to boost its "resilience" and ensure mission readiness is not compromised in the face of rising sea levels, increasing regularity of natural disasters, and food and water shortages in the developing world.

In a statement, US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel called global warming a �threat multiplier,� saying rising seas and increasing numbers of severe weather events could exacerbate the dangers posed by threats ranging from infectious disease to terrorism...

The Center for Climate and Security, a policy institute with an advisory board of retired senior military officers and national security experts, said in a statement it concurred with the roadmap's assessment and urged policymakers to follow the military's lead.

In November 2013, Defense Secretary Hagel also released a new Defense Department strategy for the Arctic, identifying climate change and rising seas as key issues in changes there.

In May, the CNA Military Advisory Board issued a report highlighting the accelerating risks of climate change for national security. This was an update of the Board's 2007 report, the first major study to draw the link between climate change and national security. The report�s authors said the biggest change in the seven years between the two studies was the increase in scientific certainty about global warming, and of the link between global warming and security disruptions.

That was back in 2014. Article from January of this year:

quote:

While the Trump administration has largely rejected climate change as an issue, the Department of Defense and Congress have identified it as a major potential threat to national security.

# ? Nov 16, 2018 19:17

friendbot2000: May 1, 2011

Oracle posted:

I thought the military was already on board with the threats of climate change and it is, as ever, (the Republican-held) Congress that is brushing it off.
Yeah, see here:

That was back in 2014. Article from January of this year:

We are seeing some exciting things happening with the Democratic Freshmen Class. AOC is making a lot of noise about climate change and she makes no sign of backing down.

# ? Nov 16, 2018 19:20

The Dipshit: Dec 21, 2005; by FactsAreUseless

Could we add one thing from the old thread's favorite racist curmudgeon?

Rime posted:

StabbinHobo posted:
could it be... a shred... an inkling... a glimmer, of hope?

https://ocasio2018.com/green-new-deal

If that gets to the voting stage, let alone passes, let alone achieves a single one of those bullet points in under ten years, I will eat a leather shoe on live streamed video.

Because I'd love to see a :toxx:

on that.

# ? Nov 16, 2018 19:34

Cythereal: Nov 8, 2009; I love the potoo,
and the potoo loves you.

Floridian here, when I was polled leading to the midterms about which party I supported (Democrats) and what my most important issues were, I listed the environment as my number one issue. Big Agriculture can go gently caress itself in the rear end with a rusty jackhammer.

# ? Nov 16, 2018 19:53

Accretionist: Nov 7, 2012; I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES

Any interest in hashing out a framework? This has been on my mind because my CC thinking's pretty disorganized and it feels helpful.

I've been trying to keep it small. These are intended as top-level categories. Parses the issue along lines of problem, mitigation and adaptation.

Climate Change is a problem to humanity along two lines:
1. Geographic Changes - Our human geography is built atop a physical geography which will change faster than the former comfortably can.
2. Environmental Breakdown - Civilization requires ecological goods and services. Breakdown in availability of ecological goods and services will cause breakdown in civilization.
Mitigation should target:
1. length of involved timelines.
2. environmental remediation in general.
3. (Note: Deliberately assumes 'control = good' and 'change = bad')
Adaptation should concern:
1. preserving access to modernity for as many as possible.
2. preserving quality-of-life amid new resource constraints.

As for a general comment, as per 3(b), I think we need to start changing our culture. This is something where I see individual-action being immediately practicable. How happy could you be with 1/10th your present material affluence and with a substantially vegetarian diet? That's a question which consumption-obsessed westerners will be facing writ large very soon. People are 'doing culture' today which will be prohibitively expensive in 20 years. What will they do instead? We can get cracking on that now as individuals.

Accretionist fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Nov 16, 2018

# ? Nov 16, 2018 20:21

Rime: Nov 2, 2011; by Games Forum

The Dipshit posted:

Could we add one thing from the old thread's favorite racist curmudgeon?

If that gets to the voting stage, let alone passes, let alone achieves a single one of those bullet points in under ten years, I will eat a leather shoe on live streamed video.

Because I'd love to see a :toxx:

on that.
[/quote]

I already toxxed for better reasons pages earlier, dipshit.

# ? Nov 16, 2018 20:30

Macasaurus: Oct 12, 2012

hi sad person trying to read this thread in 8 months, enjoy all 400 pages of nihilism

# ? Nov 16, 2018 20:30

Libluini: May 18, 2012; I gravitated towards the Greens, eventually even joining the party itself.

The Linke is a party I grudgingly accept exists, but I've learned enough about DDR-history I can't bring myself to trust a party that was once the SED, a party leading the corrupt state apparatus ...; Grimey Drawer

Macasaurus posted:

hi sad person trying to read this thread in 8 months, enjoy all 400 pages of nihilism

Man, I hope not. I hope not. The last thread was like a freak show at the end.

# ? Nov 16, 2018 20:39

The Dipshit: Dec 21, 2005; by FactsAreUseless

Rime posted:

Because I'd love to see a on that.

I already toxxed for better reasons pages earlier, dipshit.
[/quote]

Ah, missed it. Where's your other boot eating toxx? I can proved a pair if one or both come to pass.

# ? Nov 16, 2018 20:39

Morbus: May 18, 2004

DrSunshine posted:

I'm reposting a post I made in the previous thread:
...

Your idea is already a thing, look up "enhanced weathering". The most efficient proposal seems to be just dumping lime into the oceans. This seems to be one of the most cost effective atmospheric CO2 removal schemes proposed, however even then the limitation is indeed the huge amount of e.g. calcium carbonate you'd need to remove the ungodly vast amount of CO2 we need to.

Compared to e.g. direct air capture, or other CO2 capture proposals, it is probably (by far) the cheapest option, though.

# ? Nov 16, 2018 21:07

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

The Dipshit posted:

Could we add one thing from the old thread's favorite racist curmudgeon?

If that gets to the voting stage, let alone passes, let alone achieves a single one of those bullet points in under ten years, I will eat a leather shoe on live streamed video.

Because I'd love to see a :toxx:

on that.
[/quote]

Seems like a pretty safe toxx when in 2-4 years the goldfish-brained American electorate massively swings back to voting R because the other guys haven't magically fixed every single problem with society.

# ? Nov 16, 2018 21:34

Squalid: Nov 4, 2008

I hope carbon capture will be important in the future, but at least in the near and medium term I doubt it will be of much use. This is because any carbon capture process is still going to require energy, and until we have achieved net zero emissions it will be more efficient to use that energy to replace carbon emitting sources.

# ? Nov 16, 2018 21:43

Lampsacus: Oct 21, 2008

Ah, the morning of a new CC thread. Do we have to call it eco-fascism?

# ? Nov 16, 2018 22:25

Wakko: Jun 9, 2002; Faboo!

It's a little bit off-putting for sure. How about eco-Stalinism?

# ? Nov 16, 2018 22:43

friendbot2000: May 1, 2011

Lampsacus posted:

Ah, the morning of a new CC thread. Do we have to call it eco-fascism?

I am open to suggestions. I chose eco-fascism because it was a call back to some jokes in the old thread.

# ? Nov 16, 2018 23:02

Accretionist: Nov 7, 2012; I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES

Climate Change: The Greatest Show On Earth

Accretionist fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Nov 16, 2018

# ? Nov 16, 2018 23:17

Admiral Bosch: Apr 19, 2007; Who is Admiral Aken Bosch, and what is that old scoundrel up to?

friendbot2000 posted:

I am open to suggestions. I chose eco-fascism because it was a call back to some jokes in the old thread.

Some jokes just never land... or shouldn't, if they do. If you ask me, anyway.

# ? Nov 16, 2018 23:25

Lampsacus: Oct 21, 2008

friendbot2000 posted:

I am open to suggestions. I chose eco-fascism because it was a call back to some jokes in the old thread.

Oh righto! Jokes aside, it will a growing faction in the next couple decades. Because of the conflation of Nationalism, Fascism and climate breakdown mass migration of the developing world.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-07223-9
If we all acted like China, we'd hit 5.1 �C. If we all acted like the EU, 3.2 �C.

I've always talked about climate breakdown in questions and with hesitation. But I'm going to posit a little argument for myself.
1. Climate migration incites nationalism.
2. Nationalism gives way to fascism.
3. The mass intelligentsia are wise but placated through brain short circuiting smart devices. They see themselves as actors but their energy is wasted. Everything is said. Nothing is torched.
4. !!!!
5. Entrenchment of inequality along 19th Century European empire colonial borders. Also, The Spanish Flu Strikes Back.

Lampsacus fucked around with this message at 00:06 on Nov 17, 2018

# ? Nov 16, 2018 23:58

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Well, environmentalism is no joke.

Anzway, calling the thread eco-fascism primer is darkly humorous, because that's what you should expect to be called if you talk about this stuff in public. Don't read beyond that.

# ? Nov 16, 2018 23:59

Dreylad: Jun 19, 2001

I've been fighting an airport project that would threaten to destroy prime farmland and watersheds. Small stuff, but there's been dozens of airport projects that have been planned since the early 1970s, some built, some cancelled, most met with resistance of some kind.

I'm fairly new to the scene since the fight's been going on for 46 years, beginning with my grandparents and their community down to me and the people still living in the area in the present day. Bit by bit more and more of the expropriated land gets shuffled into an adjacent national park, but it's a slow, grueling fight. A lot of these environmental battles end up that way.

# ? Nov 17, 2018 00:24

friendbot2000: May 1, 2011

steinrokkan posted:

Well, environmentalism is no joke.

Anzway, calling the thread eco-fascism primer is darkly humorous, because that's what you should expect to be called if you talk about this stuff in public. Don't read beyond that.

That's pretty much what I was going for. I have been accused of being a fascist by talking about climate change and how everything I was proposing reduces "muh freedoms".

# ? Nov 17, 2018 00:39

DrSunshine: Mar 23, 2009; Did I just say that out loud~~?!!!

Morbus posted:

Your idea is already a thing, look up "enhanced weathering". The most efficient proposal seems to be just dumping lime into the oceans. This seems to be one of the most cost effective atmospheric CO2 removal schemes proposed, however even then the limitation is indeed the huge amount of e.g. calcium carbonate you'd need to remove the ungodly vast amount of CO2 we need to.

Compared to e.g. direct air capture, or other CO2 capture proposals, it is probably (by far) the cheapest option, though.

Ah, I thought it was. I just didn't know what the term was! Thanks!

# ? Nov 17, 2018 00:54

friendbot2000: May 1, 2011

Dreylad posted:

I've been fighting an airport project that would threaten to destroy prime farmland and watersheds. Small stuff, but there's been dozens of airport projects that have been planned since the early 1970s, some built, some cancelled, most met with resistance of some kind.

I'm fairly new to the scene since the fight's been going on for 46 years, beginning with my grandparents and their community down to me and the people still living in the area in the present day. Bit by bit more and more of the expropriated land gets shuffled into an adjacent national park, but it's a slow, grueling fight. A lot of these environmental battles end up that way.

This sounds like a good goon project my friend. You want to write up some info on it so I can post it to the community initiative section of the OP.

# ? Nov 17, 2018 00:58

Dreylad: Jun 19, 2001

friendbot2000 posted:

This sounds like a good goon project my friend. You want to write up some info on it so I can post it to the community initiative section of the OP.

Yeah, I'll try to write up something longer soon.

# ? Nov 17, 2018 01:15

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 2, 2024 19:08

Rime: Nov 2, 2011; by Games Forum

US groundwater reserves are depleting faster than expected.

quote:

The U.S. fresh groundwater supply is depleting faster than originally thought due to stresses to critical resources from both the top down and the bottom up, says a USask-led research study involving colleagues in Arizona and California.
Their findings illustrate that groundwater stores are being depleted not only by excessive withdrawals, but due to injection, and potentially contamination, from the oil and gas industry in areas of deep fresh and brackish groundwater.
Published this week in Environmental Research Letters, the findings from the Global Water Futures project on sub-surface freshwater provide the first estimates of underground fresh and brackish water depths in some of the most prominent sedimentary basins across the U.S.
The authors note that the increase in pressure associated with injection of water, chemicals or sand (as in hydraulic fracturing or “fracking”) or of wastewater may drive waters containing hydrocarbons into adjacent areas that contain potable water.
Areas where potable groundwater resources have little to no vertical separation from oil and gas production or disposal wells may be particularly vulnerable to contamination and warrant additional attention, according to the study.
Until now, the focus has been on monitoring groundwater at the ground level or through other “top down” techniques such as NASA satellite observations of Earth, said Grant Ferguson, principal investigator of the GWF project and a member of the USask Global Institute for Water Security.
“What has been missing from this picture is just how deep those groundwater resources extend, and it is a little bit trickier to get at that question,” said Ferguson, also an associate professor in the USask College of Engineering.
To find out, Ferguson’s team analyzed water well data from the U.S. Geological Survey for 28 key sedimentary basins looking at the correlation between water well depths and the depth to the transition between fresh and brackish water.
Their results—that the average depth of transition zones is only around 550 metres—contradict previous studies suggesting that groundwater extends one to two kilometres.
“There are a number of cases where potentially you could go a kilometre or so deep for fresh groundwater, but there are other areas of the United States where in maybe a maximum of 200 or 300 metres you would run into saline groundwater—essentially you would be done in terms of water resources,” said Ferguson.
He noted that declining water tables and near-surface contamination are driving groundwater users to construct deeper wells in many U.S. aquifer systems. But given the salinity distribution revealed in the study, drilling deeper wells to access fresh groundwater resources in depleted areas is “not feasible extensively” across the continent.
“We found that potable groundwater supplies in the U.S. do not go as deep as previously reported, meaning there is less groundwater for human and agricultural uses,” said Jennifer McIntosh, professor of hydrology and atmospheric sciences at the University of Arizona and a USask adjunct professor.

# ? Nov 17, 2018 01:27

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change: There are no jobs on a dead planet

«‹›546 »