We're all gonna die (The climate change thread)

[MR2 Fan]

12 years left to turn around the sinking ship they say.

1 million species going extinct they say https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48169783

I'm all for doing individual things to try to fix this, but more and more it seems we're too late and that unless we're in power, we can't do much.

I think the biggest problem is there is no big PLAN, saying this is all of the things we need to do right now to fix this, and on a macro level. We see a lot of smaller things happening that may add up to help out eventually, but I don't expect any radical change to happen in most places.

I'm 40 years old....so I'll be getting old by the time whatever disaster is coming for us, but my fiancee wants kids in a few years after we're married and I don't know how to feel about that.

[Crazed_Insanity]

We’re all gonna die anyway. Problem is that we all dont make the same plan or can’t agree on a plan.

No point fearing such death... or fear having kids because climate might get fucked up or asteroid might hit or some terrorists or aliens might attack us or Jesus might return.

Living how you might want to live in a hopeful and meaningful way to you. We definitely should pay attention to these alarming news and formula some sort of plan, but I just don’t believe we have start living in fear.

Also, one of the things I hate about politics is it gives us the illusion of power or lack of it... If UN isn't doing it, hopefully your country can do something. If your stupid country's not doing it, then hopefully your state is doing it. If your stupid state ain't doing it... hopefully your city is... look, as long as you are still breathing, you are in fucking power mode! Just make sure you don't emit too much carbon as you're powering up! :p

We all can try to come up with plans(and actions), hopefully the smaller scale good plans can eventually catch on and become global. Talk is cheap. Just do something.
Jobs didn't just come up with a 'plan' for apple computer and expect congress to do something about creating silicon valley. Elon Musk was smart enough to get NASA to subsidize his rockets, but he didn't swindle the govt, but actually built rockets that worked! We not only need plans, but we need actions too!

Problem with activisms with no concrete actions is that we just end up with a lot of fighting with absolutely nothing to show for. If I want to do something, no republicans white supremacists can stop me. As we bitch and whine to ask those too big to fail companies to change their ways, why do you think they'll listen to you? Why would our government officials bought and paid for by them listen to you? Wake up and smell the coffee.

[Tom Servo]

The Paris climate agreement was supposed to be that larger plan at a macro level, but thankfully Trump was able to convince his followers that, because it was called the "Paris" agreement, that it was really just meant to benefit France so of course we should pull out of it.

[Rikadyn]

Maybe we should just ramp up climate change so the old fucks that don't care because they will be dead, get to experience it.

[dodint]

I'm going to die anyway and I don't have any kids. brb, off to buy more racecars kthx.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Come up with a workable climate restoring plan that can not only do good but also make money, people will inevitably follow, and everyone will be better well off.

That's how capitalism works. Talk is cheap. Action is much louder.

I think climate scientists and documentary makers definitely can continue the talk, but remember their talks are based on their actions! As for the rest of us, it's time for all of us to think about how we can help and to actually DO something rather than bitch and whine about it and expect big companies and big governments to fix it for us! Rest assured that they won't easily let you cut off their money supply.

In a way you can't really blame those big evil companies. Think about it... imagine our government comes up with a plan to just have all of us breath less so that we can reduce carbon emission... or perhaps ask some folks to just willingly commit suicide... since they want to die anyway, might as well just go and stop emitting carbon dioxide...

Seriously, cuts and bans just won't work. Asking people to stop buying gas and just drive EVs..., well, do we even have enough cheap EVs available for all who want to switch? No we don't.

Even if we do end up with a very green president, after US has been polluting earth for so long and so much, who are we to ask nations such as China to stop developing now?

Our only way out is to develop/promote workable, money making plans. Introducing solutions rather than asking others to change their ways is the only way forward.

[FaultyMario]

Ok billi, show me a picture of your bar of shampoo.

[Tom Servo]

What's the plan if there isn't a money-making one to stop climate change? It's changing whether we find some way to make it compatible with capitalism or not.

[Crazed_Insanity]

For a smoker or alcoholic to quit, something drastic must happen for him/her to wake up and make the change. If such person wants to smoke or drink, nagging at him/her just won't help. We have to help this person find some incentives to make the change, not just to force them to stop cold turkey. If that person wants to stop cold turkey, that's cool. But we can't stop anybody else other than ourselves to stop cold turkey.

If capitalism failed to bring about any significant change that'll help our climate, humanity will of course eventually be faced with something drastic. Then the plan will be to get our asses to Mars. Thank you Elon Musk!

[Cam]

I'm going to die anyway and I don't have any kids. brb, off to buy more racecars kthx.
Aaaaand that's the problem. "It's not going to be MY problem, so I DGAF." :rolleyes:

[FaultyMario]

Radical capitalism doesn't provide incentives for sustainable living.

[Rare White Ape]

There DEFINITELY IS a way to switch to 100% renewable energy right now that doesn’t break the bank and put the economy at a disadvantage or leave people unemployed.

We could easily convert, but…

Those in charge of the dirty fuel industries stand to lose out so therefore they lobby the government to keep them profitable.

Billi you might think you have some flowery idea about how capitalism works but it’s not. THIS is how capitalism works and it won’t change unless the ones in charge do something.

We’ve got a federal election coming up and (since I always vote early to get it out of the way) I voted yesterday. I voted Greens all the way baby.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Not promoting radical BS capitalism of Enron or wall st bankers with too big to fuck schemes.

Dollar speaks.

You won’t wake big energy or car companies up by begging them. GM fucking had a decent EV. But why should it compete with itself?

Now that Tesla is around, GM has been awaken to face the new reality to convert and change and try to lead the market or suffer a slow death.

This is why capitalism works better than socialism. If we’re more socialistic, we’d heavy handedly force GM to change. It might work out, but stupid politicians may also cause GM to fail, or not... because we could bail them out again... and eventually GM doesn’t have to worry about whether product is a success or failure...

Entrepreneurs tend to have better visions and better grasp of actual market demands. Of course, if they don’t, that’s cool, they’ll fail at a smaller scale and nobody will know. Only if they succeed can they scale up to become bigger. But if a government’s social experiment fails, all taxpayers will not only know it, but also feel it. All of our eggs in one government basket is just much more riskier then allowing healthy market competition.

Government can play a role of regulating that market of course... I don’t believe in absolutely free market... for otherwise there wouldn’t the Enron and financial tsunamis that nearly wiped us all out.

[Godson]

There DEFINITELY IS a way to switch to 100% renewable energy right now that doesn’t break the bank and put the economy at a disadvantage or leave people unemployed.

We could easily convert, but…

Those in charge of the dirty fuel industries stand to lose out so therefore they lobby the government to keep them profitable.

Billi you might think you have some flowery idea about how capitalism works but it’s not. THIS is how capitalism works and it won’t change unless the ones in charge do something.

We’ve got a federal election coming up and (since I always vote early to get it out of the way) I voted yesterday. I voted Greens all the way baby.

Honestly, nuclear is our only real hope. But they lack of people wanting to learn about how inherently safe it is, prevents it.

[dodint]

I was watching an interview with Jay Inslee last night where nuclear was brought up. You could tell he wanted nothing of it because he said he'd only go to it if [insert long list of improbable benchmarks here]. Rather than use the cleanest and most efficient fuel available, people want to first go full NIMBY and then hold out hope for radical unicorn farts to be bottled to fulfill our energy needs.

/rant

[Godson]

They can build a reactor in my backyard if I get free energy for life.

[Rare White Ape]

Tyler I know how good nuclear is, but it’s possible to to go even better and use nothing but renewables.

Use a combination of technologies and storage options and you can provide base load power to almost everyone.

For example, in Denmark they’re building so many wind farms that in some areas they’ll have surplus energy available, and they’ll use that to extract hydrogen from water, which can be used to run gas turbine generators that currently use natural gas. Hydrogen when burned emits water, of course.

I’ve heard of a hydroelectric station in the UK that pumps water from the lower reservoir up to a dam during the day using solar, then uses that stored gravitational potential energy to power turbines at night as the water flows back down again. So the dam in the upper reservoir is basically a big solar power battery made of water.

The Western Australian government is funding a pilot program to extract hydrogen using a similar setup to the Denmark scheme, which will then be exported to India and China. Those two countries are some of the biggest polluters in the world, but they’re also the largest customers for renewable electricity because they’re switching over at a massive rate (although still not massive enough to save the world, it dwarfs Australia’s renewables uptake) and they are in the market for big hydrogen supply to feed into the gas turbines.

So it’s not a matter of just using solar or just using wind. It’s a combination of sources, and smart people are working on it and already have the answers. We just need to free our respective policymakers from the shackles of the big business oligarchs that control our energy and our media.

There’s the potential to make a fuckton of money in renewables, but the old businesses have their grip firmly around our necks, ensuring that they and their shareholders still rake in the dough. They’re just relying on the majority of the population to stick to their incorrect belief that renewable energy is for hippies and vote accordingly.

[Dicknose]

The NSW hydro system is a stored energy system, not a power generation. Don’t get enough rain for that.
Currently it’s mostly using excess baseload capacity at very offpeak times, then putting back in at peak.
This could help if we get more solar.

But the “big picture” is more than just climate change, it’s plastic pollution and deforestation. We actually have to change quite a few things. It takes effort, money and a willingness to do it.

Do I think these problems will “wipe out” humans - no.
But it could leave the planet a much shittier place, with a lot less wonder and a lot more suffering.

[Rare White Ape]

If we could get this sorted, as well as cease the blowing up and marginalisation of poor countries, we could be rocketing across the cosmos and exploring the universe together.

[Sad, little man]

Yes, we are too late. We need to be taking massive, sweeping action to stave this off, right now, and we can't even all agree that it's a real problem yet. Worse still, we're all grappling with massive social inequality, which is a more immediate threat that takes a lot of focus away from dealing with climate change.

I estimate that we will either wither away slowly, or more likely, the global struggle for the resources that remain and the refugee crisis this will cause will eventually lead a nuclear armed country to use their weapons, effectively ending organized society much more abruptly.

I'm trying to appreciate the fact that it's at least nice to live at the time when human technology and society is the most advanced it will ever be.

Absolutely not having kids. Having kids at this stage is a cruel act. If you love kids, the most generous thing you can do at this point is to not have them.

[Godson]

If only there was a thanos around to save us.

[Crazed_Insanity]

They can build a reactor in my backyard if I get free energy for life.

That's certainly one good way to possibly get rid of NIMBYs.

As safe as nuclear power is, just like commercial aviation, couple of accidents will be enough to erode public trust completely. Losing hundreds of lives of passengers just isn't acceptable..., not to mention magnitude of the damage a nuclear disasters can cause. We've all seen it... so perhaps we'll have to wait til a new generation of folks who've never been thru it to want to try nuclear again... and they better be sure accidents wont happen, or else NIMBYs will come back to life again.

[Crazed_Insanity]

If we could get this sorted, as well as cease the blowing up and marginalisation of poor countries, we could be rocketing across the cosmos and exploring the universe together.

Yes!

And then we could blow up advanced evil aliens together! But to get there, we absolutely must have kids!!!

At the moment, I think poor marginalized folks have more babies than the well off folks. This is also contributing to the wealth gap!

[FaultyMario]

I don't know how to feel about that.

Problem is, the rational choice is pretty clear, but you know... feelings and all that.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Exactly. If we were truly rational beings, just say no to drugs would be enough to solve our drug problems.

[Godson]

That's certainly one good way to possibly get rid of NIMBYs.

As safe as nuclear power is, just like commercial aviation, couple of accidents will be enough to erode public trust completely. Losing hundreds of lives of passengers just isn't acceptable..., not to mention magnitude of the damage a nuclear disasters can cause. We've all seen it... so perhaps we'll have to wait til a new generation of folks who've never been thru it to want to try nuclear again... and they better be sure accidents wont happen, or else NIMBYs will come back to life again.

Except there hasn't been a scenario where hundreds of people have died from a reactor failure. Ever.

[Godson]

Because mobile.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/05/09/the-reason-they-fictionalize-nuclear-disasters-like-chernobyl-is-because-they-kill-so-few-people/

[George]

It seems to me the only solution to this requires a unified global effort on the scale of how nations fought "total wars" in WWI and WWII - meaning it wasn't just the military fighting the wars, but most of the citizens back on "the home front" participating in the war effort and suffering and sacrificing as necessary.

We need individual, business, and government agreement and action. Just as Detroit stopped making cars and started making guns and tanks and airplanes in WWII, we'll need a huge industrial shift to solar power and wind power and whatever else it takes to stop the pollution and start fixing the environmental damage.

How about a draft or a job opportunity for eligible young men and women to work in programs similar to FDR's Alphabet Agencies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabet_agencies)? These people could spend a year or two each cleaning up the oceans and rivers, planting trees in the rainforests and everywhere else, and all the other stuff that I'm not knowledgeable enough to list, in exchange for college tuition and/or other benefits once they've served their time.

Huge changes to modern life will be required, such as severely limiting the use of gas and diesel engines in automobiles, airplanes, and eliminating their use entirely for non-essential things like auto racing (sorry, guys), power-boating, lawn-mowing, and so forth. I don't know much about the specifics of industrial pollution, but obviously that must be highly reduced as well.

It will also require some strong enforcement of these new and radical policies by more powerful nations or alliances thereof in places that choose to ignore them, such as in countries where rain forests are being destroyed and species are being wiped out.

There are probably a hundred thousand other things like these that I don't know enough about to mention.

What would humans do if threatened by alien invaders or an approaching asteroid? We need that kind of action, starting today.

Otherwise, we might as well just start partying, à la On The Beach (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Beach_(1959_film)).

[Crazed_Insanity]

Except there hasn't been a scenario where hundreds of people have died from a reactor failure. Ever.

Yes, they also need to up the prize money to not only give you free electricity, but also give you free land and housing, possible ocean front properties, after reactor melt down accidents.

These hot properties should be good for those folks who don't really want to have any kids anyway. :p

[Crazed_Insanity]

George, reduction is definitely the right thing to do, just as all addicts know it's not really that good for them to smoke, drink or get high. But...

AOC's green new deal is very much in line with what you're suggesting. I'm kinda on the fence about her ambitious deal even if it's not killed by the republicans.

Personally I'd like to have another space race to Mars. Mission to Mars should also need to further develop renewable tech, so that we can use it on mars colony, and it'll also give humanity a possible escape plan. Plus, there'll probably be less political opposition.

[MR2 Fan]

It seems to me the only solution to this requires a unified global effort on the scale of how nations fought "total wars" in WWI and WWII - meaning it wasn't just the military fighting the wars, but most of the citizens back on "the home front" participating in the war effort and suffering and sacrificing as necessary.

We need individual, business, and government agreement and action. Just as Detroit stopped making cars and started making guns and tanks and airplanes in WWII, we'll need a huge industrial shift to solar power and wind power and whatever else it takes to stop the pollution and start fixing the environmental damage.

How about a draft or a job opportunity for eligible young men and women to work in programs similar to FDR's Alphabet Agencies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabet_agencies)? These people could spend a year or two each cleaning up the oceans and rivers, planting trees in the rainforests and everywhere else, and all the other stuff that I'm not knowledgeable enough to list, in exchange for college tuition and/or other benefits once they've served their time.

Huge changes to modern life will be required, such as severely limiting the use of gas and diesel engines in automobiles, airplanes, and eliminating their use entirely for non-essential things like auto racing (sorry, guys), power-boating, lawn-mowing, and so forth. I don't know much about the specifics of industrial pollution, but obviously that must be highly reduced as well.

It will also require some strong enforcement of these new and radical policies by more powerful nations or alliances thereof in places that choose to ignore them, such as in countries where rain forests are being destroyed and species are being wiped out.

There are probably a hundred thousand other things like these that I don't know enough about to mention.

What would humans do if threatened by alien invaders or an approaching asteroid? We need that kind of action, starting today.

Otherwise, we might as well just start partying, à la On The Beach (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Beach_(1959_film)).



Agreed. I think we should just call it World War III, but the war is against climate change and not each other

[Rare White Ape]

Worse still, we're all grappling with massive social inequality, which is a more immediate threat that takes a lot of focus away from dealing with climate change.

I don’t know about you but I think a lot of social issues would be helped naturally just by changing up the way we create, store, and distribute electricity.

Take Southeast Asia for example. Some of the poorest people on earth live there, with the worst infrastructure. But imagine massive worldwide government action to fund the installation of localised solar and battery storage over the next 20 years.

The number of jobs that would create, and the amount of money it would pump into their economies. It could set them up for the next thousand years.

[Rare White Ape]

Huge changes to modern life will be required, such as severely limiting the use of gas and diesel engines in automobiles, airplanes, and eliminating their use entirely for non-essential things like auto racing (sorry, guys), power-boating, lawn-mowing, and so forth. I don't know much about the specifics of industrial pollution, but obviously that must be highly reduced as well.

Targeting industry is an obvious place to start, but you need to be careful otherwise it would skew the economy, which is where government subsidies come in - to cushion the impact.

And I’ve actually put some thought into the use of petrol (mostly to justify my love of guzzling gas for sport and recreation :p ) and figured that if half of our passenger vehicles were swapped out for electric ones, then the fuel thing wouldn’t be an issue.

For instance in Australia:
We start by rapidly increasing taxes on petrol and diesel. Australia has a fuel excise of 41.2c per litre (about 1/3 of the overall fuel cost). That immediately goes up to 50c/L, then over the next 10 years it is stepped up to $1/L. That extra money goes towards subsidising the purchase of electric cars and installing fast chargers at petrol stations and car parks. To avoid impacting the cost of shipping goods, businesses who use diesel trucks are exempt, but are still given money to switch to electric trucks when they become available.

Next, anyone who still uses a petrol vehicle may continue to do so, as the overall impact on the environment is massively reduced, but they will be paying more for registration and fuel.

The reduction in fuel use leads to there being a surplus of it, and greatly delays the arrival of ‘peak oil’ meaning that historic road and race vehicles can be used into the future.

We just have to work out the big ocean vessels and air travel part.

It’s a no-brainer to convert cruise ships and big tankers to electric (cruise ships being one of the worst things you can do in terms of generating CO2 for recreation) but it costs a lot of money to cut a boat in half and swap the motor and fuel tanks out. Maybe just ban the construction of new dirty-fuel-powered ships. Could take 40 years to phase out the old ones. Dunno.

And how do you propel a huge airplane without the use of kerosene? That will be the challenging one.

[Rare White Ape]

To give you all terms of reference on air travel, one Sydney to LA flight uses more fuel than an entire year of Formula 1 racing.

There are hundreds of SYD-LAX flights per year and thousands of other flights. That’s a lot of kero!

[Crazed_Insanity]

And how do you propel a huge airplane without the use of kerosene? That will be the challenging one.

BFR or hypersonic vehicles using liquid hydrogen as fuel for ICBT(intercontinental ballistic travel;))

Electric planes are probably out of the question... we might be able to have these electric drone type vehicles for local air travel...

[Godson]

Boats are easy, our submarines are have done it for years...

[tigeraid]

To give you all terms of reference on air travel, one Sydney to LA flight uses more fuel than an entire year of Formula 1 racing.


Yup, this is the part of the argument that continues to frustrate me. I'm as leftie as it gets, as pro-save-the-earth as anyone, but I think cars have gotten about as clean as they can possibly get without going all-electric. The average car owner and consumer continues to suffer the costs of improving THAT technology to be cleaner, and yet boats and aircraft, which are LEAGUES worse, continue to get a free pass.

Like, why not austerity measures for flights? Except for business. Like hey, the average American can only fly 3 times a year. Or something, y'know?

And ocean-going cruise ships should just disappear. From the Earth. Forever. They're filthy fucking cesspools and a complete waste of time.

[George]

2012 CNN Business article: Are traditional sail boats the future of trade? (https://www.cnn.com/2012/10/12/tech/sailing-green-merchant-ship/index.html)

[Tom Servo]

There are *some* measures of planes getting better, newer planes like the 787 are significantly more fuel efficient than older models. I think airlines overall are more sensitive to fuel costs than your average driver as it's a huge part of the bottom line of the business, so there's a big incentive to invest in more fuel efficient aircraft. Conversely, everyone out here in CA freaked out when they raised taxes on gas about $0.18 a gallon, yet nobody's giving up their SUVs just yet.

I wonder if anyone's ever done a comparison in the amount of fuel consumption/emissions between a fully packed aircraft traveling coast-to-coast vs. if all of those people drove single-occupancy vehicles coast-to-coast.

[Crazed_Insanity]

See, this is it.

I can't believe it's all just the conservative climate change deniers who are driving SUVs, going on cruise ships and taking commercial flights.

If all lefties do what they believe is good for the climate, we can cut SUV sales, Cruise ships and all flights by at least 50%!

That would be a significant reduction in carbon emissions!

But guess what?

Unlikely to happen.

So it's easier to just blame it on the stupid ass conservatives and Trump and China and Russia. We're all gonna die because of THEM!!!!

Take a look in the mirror. And just do what YOU gotta do. You are the only person who YOU can control. Blaming others and voting people into government to force others to change just isn't the right solution. If we all change, those stupid politicians who wish to represent us should also change... Point is everything starts from within each of us. Not by changing others.

[Rikadyn]

Aaaaand that's the problem. "It's not going to be MY problem, so I DGAF." :rolleyes:

Hence my reason for arguing to speed things up, if we can get a 10deg jump in the next ten years we should, then only handful get to run out the clock

[Rikadyn]

3252

[Tom Servo]

See, this is it.

I can't believe it's all just the conservative climate change deniers who are driving SUVs, going on cruise ships and taking commercial flights.

If all lefties do what they believe is good for the climate, we can cut SUV sales, Cruise ships and all flights by at least 50%!


I gave up my car and ride my bike pretty much everywhere, so :finger:

[Crazed_Insanity]

Ride you bike to Mexico City! :hard:

[MR2 Fan]

3252

Pretty much

[Dicknose]

There is starting to be a push to biofuel for aviation.
Aviation is about 2% of total emissions and while biofuel doesnt reduce the emissions it does at least source a percentage of it from a renewable (mostly plants).
Newer planes are improving efficiency (which does cut emissions) but that is driven mostly by cost.

At the moment only a few airports (including LAX and Brisbane) have biofuel. And we do need to be careful about just assuming this can ramp up - dont want to deforest large areas to grow fuel.

As for ships - one answer would be to allow large ships to go nuclear. Lots of big risks but it might help. Heck - maybe a new nuclear ship could even be made to tow another ship. Travel carbon free for most of the journey, then the other ship uses its own engines to navigate in/out of port. Tossing ideas out there!
Cruise ships - I dont know. Yes its a waste in that they basically go in a circle (not all - but the vast majority its an out and back cruise). But as long as its costed properly, people should be able to spend their carbon how they want. Again they could start using a biofuel to reduce the issue.

[Dicknose]

I wonder if anyone's ever done a comparison in the amount of fuel consumption/emissions between a fully packed aircraft traveling coast-to-coast vs. if all of those people drove single-occupancy vehicles coast-to-coast.

It is probably close.. the plane might have it
just found something claiming 22 gallons per 1000 passenger miles, which equals about 45mpg.
Although it didnt claim where that number came from, it would change greatly depending on plane capacity, percentage full and length of flight (longer = more efficient)
Hmm - another google search had driving between Boston and San Fran producing about 3/4 the CO2 than a flight, a win for the car.

Basically they are fairly close. Probably more variables on the plane (esp capacity and percentage of seats used)
But the car numbers are for 1 person. Put 2 or more and you are definitely better. Certainly a bus with 20 people onboard would smash it.

[Rare White Ape]

There's always a benefit to using mass transit, which is why local governments push for it, so it makes sense that a plane with 200 people in it would be more efficient than 200 cars. Just manufacturing cost alone (both in $$$ and in enviro impact) to build 200 cars vs. just one airplane would kill it.

Imagine if nobody drove coast-to-coast and all freight was shipped by rail. There would be one airport in the east and one in the west and we wouldn't need to build highways, and that environmental saving would be massive!

-inb4
It's a huge hypothetical of course, and it wouldn't realistically happen.

[Rare White Ape]

Yup, this is the part of the argument that continues to frustrate me. I'm as leftie as it gets, as pro-save-the-earth as anyone, but I think cars have gotten about as clean as they can possibly get without going all-electric.

Here's one factor to consider (if we're talking about F1 racing): if it wasn't for technological development over the last 50 years in motorsport like F1 and endurance racing, then road cars would be spewing out heaps more emissions than they have been. It's definitely a net positive gain to have F1 each year, because the overall savings are way more than the amount of carbon pollution than one 747 flight across the Pacific Ocean.


And ocean-going cruise ships should just disappear. From the Earth. Forever. They're filthy fucking cesspools and a complete waste of time.

And this is a tricky one. Some small island nations rely heavily on tourist dollars from wealthy weterners to survive. I say keep the cruise ships coming for now, but seriously push for electric cruise ships as soon as its possible.

Which is now.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Boeing 777 can be filled with 47890 gallons of fuel and will be able to go 8690 nmi or 10000 miles with 365 people.

Now, assume all those folks drive a 25mpg cars for a distance of 10000 miles...

10000/25=400 gallons of fuel/car

400*365=146000 gallons of fuel total if they each drive a car.

If each car carries 3 people, amount of fuel burnt would be about the same.

If each car carries 4 or more, then 25 mpg cars are greener than 777. But it’d take 5.5 days straight non stop at 75 mph to cover 10000 miles!

[Rare White Ape]

So it's easier to just blame it on the stupid ass conservatives and Trump and China and Russia. We're all gonna die because of THEM!!!!

Take a look in the mirror. And just do what YOU gotta do. You are the only person who YOU can control. Blaming others and voting people into government to force others to change just isn't the right solution. If we all change, those stupid politicians who wish to represent us should also change... Point is everything starts from within each of us. Not by changing others.

You're looking at it the wrong way.

Yes it's nice to change yourself and fix the problem that you create. How wonderful. But you've fixed the problem of just one person.

Be realistic. You're living in a society who's entire economic structure is built around profit. It's not you who's the problem.

All countries already have laws in place to protect the environment, simply because the free market can't be trusted to carry out its activities without polluting so much that it damages the very environment that it makes its living from. But now we know more about how much pollution we create and how much damage it causes, and how to fix it, the trouble is that the laws haven't kept up with what we know.

Which is why we need legislation to force society to update itself.

Which is why we need to vote for people who will act accordingly.

Because the simple fact is that the free market will not do that all by itself. It'll always go for the easiest way to make money, and the free market AND THE GOVERNMENT is heavily influenced by the big companies that make lots of money off fossil fuels.

There are just 15-20 countries in the world that need to really act in a hurry to reduce their emissions. USA is #2 - think about that.

Plus it's always nice to blame stupid-ass conservatives and Trump and China and Russia. Together they make up something like 50% of the world's total CO2 emissions.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Every movement starts with one person. Every viral video, starts with 1 click.

I’m not placing all my faith on capitalistic free market, I was just saying that has a higher chance of success than government regulations. Think about it, if you have a bad habit that needs to be corrected, would you rather outside forces forcing you to change or would you rather make an internal decision to change yourself? Which change will be more effective?

Plus, I’ve already stated, pretty much all government officials are already bought and paid for by those big companies. We cannot fight money with morals, we can only fight money by offering them more money! (Hopefully we can think of a cleaner way of making money)

[Dicknose]

I’m not placing all my faith on capitalistic free market, I was just saying that has a higher chance of success than government regulations. Think about it, if you have a bad habit that needs to be corrected, would you rather outside forces forcing you to change or would you rather make an internal decision to change yourself?

That assumes you want to change.
If you are a company (or a whole industry) you probably wont change for reasons like "it will save the planet" if it loses you money.
The consumers/customers can change and force a change in the industry (have seen that) but you need a decent percentage onboard. In some cases you need the vast majority onboard.

Thats why we have govts that tax and subsidise things, to balance out the "free market", especially when there are indirect costs - like pollution or health impacts.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Yeah, I totally agree.

My EV and my solar panels were only financially feasible thru government subsidies or tax credits. I certainly don’t hate my government this way when then interfered with ‘free market’ like that.

Tax dollars certainly could or should be used to ‘direct’ the market sometimes... but of course if governments merely blindly increasing taxes without offering viable substitutes, people will eventually revolt like what happened in France.

Btw, I also believe we do have decent percentage onboard already, but we can always have more onboard. Further, earth doesn’t need more social justice warriors who can fight the conservatives, but real warriors who will actually fight climate change.

[Godson]

Yup, this is the part of the argument that continues to frustrate me. I'm as leftie as it gets, as pro-save-the-earth as anyone, but I think cars have gotten about as clean as they can possibly get without going all-electric. The average car owner and consumer continues to suffer the costs of improving THAT technology to be cleaner, and yet boats and aircraft, which are LEAGUES worse, continue to get a free pass.

Like, why not austerity measures for flights? Except for business. Like hey, the average American can only fly 3 times a year. Or something, y'know?

And ocean-going cruise ships should just disappear. From the Earth. Forever. They're filthy fucking cesspools and a complete waste of time.

I'll tell you why your ideas won't work.

I have friends that fly at least twice a week for work, to provide clean energy options for everyone, and power lines, and safer methods to which to receive those powers. Prohibiting people from flying would be inane at best, and would decimate most economies due to lack of tourism. I'm not even talking about the small cities and island that are secluded. I'm talking everywhere.

If the economies get trashed from lack of ease of access, globalization of renewable energy sources, and the support structure for them, gets slowed massively.

As RWA pointed out, if you eliminated large ships, you would do way more damage than you could imagine. A massive majority of goods transportation is done by ships, from foods, to automobiles, to oil, etc. Simply removing them is massively short sited.

Honestly, biofuels are still not good enough, for planes. They are getting there, but not yet. Nuclear boats would be amazing at reducing a large part of the carbon foot print.

Also, ICE engines are still getting more efficient everyday. Making more power, better economy, and lower emissions.

[tigeraid]

I wasn't advocating for eliminating large ships--that is, absolutely, very short-sited. I was referring mostly to cruise liners.

Obviously, moving goods is moving goods, though I hope the improvement in efficiencies continue.

As for flying, as I said, I'm referring more to personal flights, not for business. I'd be interested in seeing the percentage of individuals that fly for business vs pleasure. I'm suggesting limiting the number of flights for pleasure. If it could make, even, say, a 30% decrease in aircraft emissions, would that not be worthwhile?

[dodint]

Off the top of my head the freedom of movement doctrine granted by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution and, separately, the Commerce Clause of the same Constitution will prevent any effort to put a cap on a traveler's liberty in the way that you propose.

Maybe we can eliminate global travel by boring a hole directly through the center of the earth. Once propelled into the hole gravity will do most of the work until halfway, once you begin to decelerate partially through the second half thrusters take over and get you back to the surface. From there you debark and fly a much shorter regional trip, saving considerable emissions. I propose this because it is much more achievable than your idea of evading American Constitutional protections to suppress personal travel.

[Tom Servo]

I'm definitely not a lawyer, but I thought part of the reason we can have things like no-fly lists and the TSA were because flying commercial isn't protected by that - similar to how you don't have a constitutional right to drive?

(Also of note, Canada is not subject to the US constitution)

[Crazed_Insanity]

Travelers will have to make their own choices bear in mind how they're impacting earth's climate.

Constitutional right or not, it's better for us to choose to meditate and slow down our breathing to emit less carbon, rather than having governments come to agreements to force us to breath less.

I still think the best way to fight carbon emissions is probably to find out ways to increase population of things that can help absorb them like phytoplanktons and trees. It will just be so hard to significantly reduce carbon emission even if earth is only populated by liberals.

I'm also not really sure if bio fuels would work because they're mostly plant based, right? Dosen't make sense killing plants unless we're sure we have plenty of them working for us....

Maybe we can figure out a way to make animal based biofuel out of conservatives! ;)

[dodint]

I'm definitely not a lawyer, but I thought part of the reason we can have things like no-fly lists and the TSA were because flying commercial isn't protected by that - similar to how you don't have a constitutional right to drive?

(Also of note, Canada is not subject to the US constitution)

If you're going to bust out the snark at least pay attention to the conversation.




Like, why not austerity measures for flights? Except for business. Like hey, the average American can only fly 3 times a year. Or something, y'know?


I don't go to Harvard but my law school isn't that bad.

[Tom Servo]

Not sure how that was the way I came across, but okay.

[dodint]

I took it as you either thought I was too stupid to know the US Constitution doesn't apply to Canadians or that I didn't know Muskoka is in Canada. I have one semester of law school left so the former is pretty insulting and the latter doesn't actually matter because the issue was introduced initially as a cap on American travelers. Why would you make the 'note' for any other reason?

I'm not losing sleep over here or anything but I didn't even bother acknowledging your legal questions because I was put off by your dismissive posture. And yes, I fully acknowledge my bore-hole theory was dismissive but that was a purposeful intent to discredit a public policy argument whereas yours was an attack on proficiency (to me).

[Tom Servo]

I thought I was pointing out that there wasn't anything US specific about what he was saying, and that while what you mentioned could apply specifically to travel within the US by US citizens, that was unnecessarily limiting.

I'm sorry you took it that way. That wasn't my intention.

[Dicknose]

As for flying, as I said, I'm referring more to personal flights, not for business. I'd be interested in seeing the percentage of individuals that fly for business vs pleasure. I'm suggesting limiting the number of flights for pleasure. If it could make, even, say, a 30% decrease in aircraft emissions, would that not be worthwhile?

Id guess that personal flights, esp for short haul, is probably only 30%. The busiest flights between cities are usually between big commercial centres and they have more flights, fuller (and more expensive) when its for travelling around peak hours (morning and evening). Business will pay that premium for people to do a day trip for a meeting. Leisure travellers will pay half that and travel at less convenient times.

These days I dont do business flights - just personal.
But that means tourist money being spent etc

Probably the only way to do this is financial - put a fee/tax on jet fuel or charge flights more for access. The down side is international flights are that - involving more than one country. So its hard to do unless you get a number of countries involved. Even then it could have a very direct impact if tourist travel drops to your country due to flights being more expensive.
I doubt any govt would put a limit on travel, not and still want to remain in government.

[Dicknose]

I'm also not really sure if bio fuels would work because they're mostly plant based, right? Dosen't make sense killing plants unless we're sure we have plenty of them working for us....

They are plant based - but you grow the plants and then make them into fuel.
This carbon has been cycled in the short term ie pulled from the air, plant, fuel, burnt, back to air.

Most other fuels are fossil fuels, this is carbon thats been out of circulation for many millions of years. So its adding to the atmospheric carbon.

As I said above, the big danger with biofuel is that we clear forests for land to grow biofuel. This might not make a huge impact on carbon, but can on biodiversity.

[dodint]

I thought I was pointing out that there wasn't anything US specific about what he was saying, and that while what you mentioned could apply specifically to travel within the US by US citizens, that was unnecessarily limiting.

I'm sorry you took it that way. That wasn't my intention.

Thanks. I could have taken it better by assuming you missed the premise of the conversation as it started on the prior page. I didn't jump in at that point because the idea seemed so wrong I thought it would die on its own.

Anyway, you're right that the Privileges and Immunities Clause would be a tough sell. I think the argument could be made there that a cap wouldn't allow for a person to have the ability to relocate to another state which is the basis for most P&I caselaw. Picture someone adopting a child. The child is in California and the family is in Florida. The adoption process is lengthy and would require several plane trips as there is no other feasible way to make that journey repeatedly. I think you're arguing that P&I isn't restricting their decision to make the travel, but rather the mode. If the cost of repeated trips for a valid public policy purpose becomes too high because of a cap I can absolutely see a court finding for the traveler. As for mode, that is where the 'I don't need a drivers license' crowd gets confused. There are a number of ways to conduct interstate travel that are analogous to driving a car so the P&I argument there doesn't hold up.

As for the Commerce Clause a cap would restrict commerce in so many ways I just can't see how a cap would be held Constitutional. The Commerce Clause was used to desegregate the South because SCOTUS held that if one hotel could discriminate, all hotels could discriminate and black people would not have anywhere to sleep on road trips. I think that same principle carries to a flight cap; aggregation matters.

The No-Fly List argument is interesting. I've never heard it argued from that perspective; it has always been a Due Process problem because conceivably the stay on the NFL is a temporary state but the process takes forever and is not very transparent, thus the Due Process concerns.

[Tom Servo]

I had seen other similar arguments brought up about the constitutionality of the RealID act and that you basically have to submit to a search (either physical or via a metal detector/backscatter X-ray), which was what lead me to believe that your constitutional right to travel didn't protect your right to travel by airplane, but your adoption example brings up a good point.

I don't have any strong feelings about it, but I feel like the government has repeatedly passed laws, especially after 9/11, that rely on the idea that you don't have a constitutional right to fly commercial.

[Crazed_Insanity]

They are plant based - but you grow the plants and then make them into fuel.
This carbon has been cycled in the short term ie pulled from the air, plant, fuel, burnt, back to air.

Most other fuels are fossil fuels, this is carbon thats been out of circulation for many millions of years. So its adding to the atmospheric carbon.

As I said above, the big danger with biofuel is that we clear forests for land to grow biofuel. This might not make a huge impact on carbon, but can on biodiversity.

Hydrogen is probably the most 'renewable', right? We already have hydrogen rockets to hydrogen cars... hydrogen will probably impact the environment way less than lithium-ion battery packs too. As these vehicles go, they'll only pollute the world with water... and when we create these hydrogen fuels from water..., we'll also end up creating more oxygen as well...

So ideally, I think we need a nuclear reactor in geo synchronous orbit so that it can suck up water from the ocean thru a very long straw and then send back hydrogen and oxygen back to earth for us to use and breath... ;) If something goes wrong with the reactor, we can just move it into deep space or toward the sun and replace it with another one. Likewise with its nuclear wastes.

[dodint]

When I was looking into your NFL concern I saw the judge referred to it as a"sacred liberty." She had ruled on the case that made the government inform people they were on the list and make it easier for them to receive due process and get off the list. That's obviously just one jurist's opinion but I found the wording interesting. The case there had to do with international travel and the NFL but I think the sentiment is the same, here is the full quote: "international travel is not a mere convenience or luxury in this modern world. Indeed, for many, international travel is a necessary aspect of liberties sacred to members of a free society."

But, yeah. I'd be happier without the PATRIOT Act, USA Freedom Act, etc. Basically all acts with cutesy titles. ;)

[Crazed_Insanity]

I kinda like the Sister Act.

[Tom Servo]

Interesting, and agreed about the cutesy acts. I'm the kind of person who is okay turning over a bunch of biometric data in exchange for the convenience of Global Entry, but I also would prefer not to have to do that in the first place and realize how problematic the idea of "If you're not doing anything wrong, then why would that bother you?" is.

I wonder if they'd find a difference between intranational and international, all the things I found as well were specifically about international travel.

[dodint]

Maybe Americans are just really good at giving up liberty for convenience. ;)

[Tom Servo]

Fair - but *man* is it convenient.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Who wouldn't sacrifice liberty for a false sense of convenience and security? Maybe Roofer.

But anyway, you guys are going off topics into the political realm. Mother nature couldn't care less where in the political spectrum you stand, carbon is carbon. Not to mention all the other toxic crap we've all generated.

What kind of restrictions are you going to restrict yourself with? I hope it is now becoming clearer that restricting others approach is kinda hard to implement.

[MR2 Fan]

so, we need to get rid of lots of cows I think, meaning not having them on farms for dairy, beef, etc.

I want to do my part.

I can easily eat vegan "impossible" burgers and drink soy milk......then I realized I'd have to give up cheese............. :(

[Tom Servo]

I definitely eat too much meat, but I can't hang with Impossible burgers and the like. Every time I have one of those, it's always "that's quite good for a vegan burger, but I can still tell it's a vegan burger."

I'd be curious to find out how I stack up against the average American when it comes to making this whole situation worse. I don't fly a lot, I rarely drive/use Uber or Lyft, most of my public transportation is done on electric trains, and I try to be pretty good about recycling. I use the same couple re-usable bags when shopping until they break. I grab actual plates at work when grabbing food as opposed to the disposable paper plates that are set up next to the food. I also eat too much meat, have about 18 million electronic devices that are all drawing at least some amount of power all the time, and really like long showers.

I mostly wonder if I've "done my part", so to speak.

[tigeraid]

The beef emissions thing is another area that we could easily take a big bite out of, but again personal liberties and free market capitalism get in the way. People like beef, farmers produce the beef, and so the cycle goes. And because beef also employs millions of people worldwide, they will always have an argument for keeping production going because of jobs. Not to mention the propaganda the industry puts forth.

I absolutely love beef, but it's very, very obvious that we could feed at least FIRST world countries with way way less of it. Not to mention the science is still inconclusive as to whether a majority-beef diet is safe. I choose to eat beef once or twice a week at most, the rest chicken and fish, for that reason. As much as I love it, I could totally see myself cutting it out entirely.

But you're not just fighting industry, you're fighting hundreds of thousands of people who feel it is their RIGHT to consume something, regardless of its harm.

I would also be interested in the statistics in terms of populations that kinda "NEED" beef, or rely on it as their major source of protein because they don't HAVE access to any others. But I'm struggling to think of a society off the top of my head. Places like Argentina are very big on beef, but they're prosperous enough that they could switch to other protein sources. As opposed to, say, Inuit, who have to rely on seals/whales/polar bear/occasional caribou where they live.

[FaultyMario]

[Eurocentric liberalism] gets in the way.

Yup.

[Dicknose]

Hydrogen is probably the most 'renewable', right? We already have hydrogen rockets to hydrogen cars... hydrogen will probably impact the environment way less than lithium-ion battery packs too. As these vehicles go, they'll only pollute the world with water... and when we create these hydrogen fuels from water..., we'll also end up creating more oxygen as well...

So ideally, I think we need a nuclear reactor in geo synchronous orbit so that it can suck up water from the ocean thru a very long straw and then send back hydrogen and oxygen back to earth for us to use and breath... ;) If something goes wrong with the reactor, we can just move it into deep space or toward the sun and replace it with another one. Likewise with its nuclear wastes.

Firstly - where does the energy come from to split water? If that from fossil fuel then its not a great solution.
Hydrogen from water is more of a "battery" in that it takes more energy than you get back, so its not a fuel, just a convenient way to store energy.
Currently most hydrogen comes from hydrocarbons (ie fossil fuels!)

As for reactor in geostationary orbit... you do know how far up that is?? It would be a lot more energy to pull the water up than you would need to split it.

[Crazed_Insanity]

I mostly wonder if I've "done my part", so to speak.

I'm pretty sure we average americans have not. No matter how we conserve with riding bikes, driving EVs, not eating meat... one vacation flying to another country, we'd probably polluted more carbon than somebody in a less developed country for his whole life time... but of course, we should still try to do our part.

[Rare White Ape]

Nope, sorry to say, Americans have not done their part.

The USA sits 2nd to China in terms of overall CO2 emissions, but totally eats China with per capita emissions, with 15.5 vs 6.5 metric tonnes.

Here's a lovely graph.

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/images/2017/11/gw-graphic-pie-chart-co2-emissions-by-country-2015.png

Per capita emissions are up there with Australia, Canada and Saudi Arabia, but those three countries each account for 1% or 2% overall emissions.

That's not to say that the countries on 2% don't need to look at their carbon emissions. If you add them all up they account for over 20% of global CO2 emissions, which is more than USA and Russia combined.

[MR2 Fan]

one potentially positive thing:

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/planting-1-2-trillion-trees-could-cancel-out-a-decade-of-co2-emissions-scientists-find

[Crazed_Insanity]

one potentially positive thing:

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/planting-1-2-trillion-trees-could-cancel-out-a-decade-of-co2-emissions-scientists-find

Yeah, rather than trying to collectively breath less to reduce carbon, better way would be to increase carbon absorbing plants to help us out! Phytoplanktons on sea surfaces as well! But there are news of declining phytoplankton population due to climate change, so I wonder if our climate has changed sufficiently that the baby trees we planted might not survive too? Also, even if our planted trees grew abundantly, we now have to be careful of crazy wild fires... so there needs to be quite a bit of planning on public lands. This is something government can do. Individually, we can just plant as many things as we can on our property and try not to chop down existing trees... Anyway, this is probably the path of least resistance regarding this issue.

[MR2 Fan]

Yeah, rather than trying to collectively breath less to reduce carbon, better way would be to increase carbon absorbing plants to help us out! Phytoplanktons on sea surfaces as well! But there are news of declining phytoplankton population due to climate change, so I wonder if our climate has changed sufficiently that the baby trees we planted might not survive too? Also, even if our planted trees grew abundantly, we now have to be careful of crazy wild fires... so there needs to be quite a bit of planning on public lands. This is something government can do. Individually, we can just plant as many things as we can on our property and try not to chop down existing trees... Anyway, this is probably the path of least resistance regarding this issue.

Newsflash: wildfires are supposed to happen, it's part of the cycle of forests. We've just been screwing it up in one way or another as humans

[Crazed_Insanity]

How can we possibly screw it up if it suppose to happen, huh?

Every time it happens, we can just say, no worries, it's suppose to happen?

Anyway, I hope you understand my concern? I also do know wild fires can be naturally occurring. I have no problems with government working with climate scientists taking over forest management tasks. Where, what, how to plant and where, when, how to have control burns to minimize carbon and maximize oxygen.

Better that than governments choking us so that we can all emit less carbon.

[MR2 Fan]

It's called the Smokey Bear effect:

http://mentalfloss.com/article/12492/smokey-bear-effect

[Rare White Ape]

Billi I swear every one of your posts is a fucking word salad.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Yes, salad is better than ape meat. :p

[Tom Servo]

Oh, I know, all of his posts are this odd word-association game. I think he might have ADD.

Also, since I know a few of the people here are from the LA area, LADWP has a spot on their website to "Go Green" where you can sign up to pay a little extra for your power (about 3 cents per KwH) to have it be supplied by sources like wind and solar. I figure that's another little bit of the "trying to do your part".

[Rare White Ape]

That’s probably the best way to individually do your part.

Speaking of which, I need to look into it myself.

Any more requires governmental action.

[FaultyMario]

Life without plastic is fantastic, albeit very hard (https://t.co/btVcrVfR9D).

[Crazed_Insanity]

Oh, I know, all of his posts are this odd word-association game. I think he might have ADD.

Also, since I know a few of the people here are from the LA area, LADWP has a spot on their website to "Go Green" where you can sign up to pay a little extra for your power (about 3 cents per KwH) to have it be supplied by sources like wind and solar. I figure that's another little bit of the "trying to do your part".

I probably do have ADD. Other than playing GT, I do find it difficult to focus...

Anyway, focusing on topic, I think DWP should just ask users to donate money that'll specifically be used to add more wind turbines and solar panels. Energy in the grid is energy in the grid, how can you really be sure your additional 3cents is really being put to use? You can't! But if you donated certain amount for that specific purpose, it should be more easily trackable. Best way is probably to just get panels of your own if you can. There should still be government subsidies to make it worth your while, but of course if you live in a condo and association won't let you install unsightly panels, then I suppose that is the best you can do at the moment.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Life without plastic is fantastic, albeit very hard (https://t.co/btVcrVfR9D).

We're definitely spoiled by convenient cheap plastics...

This Thai supermarket is doing its part though:
https://www.worldofbuzz.com/thai-supermarket-goes-viral-for-simple-environmentally-friendly-banana-leaf-packaging/

[Crazed_Insanity]

Another alarming thing that's happening along US West coast... more than usual dead whales!!!
https://crosscut.com/2019/05/why-are-so-many-gray-whales-dying-wa

Bunch were found in SF and Washington State. Wonder if it's climate or over fishing of krill or what? Of course some experts are saying perhaps we just have a much healthier population; therefore, higher than usual accidental deaths?

[Tom Servo]

I probably do have ADD. Other than playing GT, I do find it difficult to focus...

Anyway, focusing on topic, I think DWP should just ask users to donate money that'll specifically be used to add more wind turbines and solar panels. Energy in the grid is energy in the grid, how can you really be sure your additional 3cents is really being put to use? You can't! But if you donated certain amount for that specific purpose, it should be more easily trackable. Best way is probably to just get panels of your own if you can. There should still be government subsidies to make it worth your while, but of course if you live in a condo and association won't let you install unsightly panels, then I suppose that is the best you can do at the moment.

I'm pretty sure you can consider signing up to spend more to fund green energy a donation if you feel like it. I'm agreeing to pay more to help fund that, and I'm sure it's 100% trackable since it'll be part of my itemized bill.

Interesting point about solar. Increasing density/building up is generally better use of land and encourages people to live closer to where they work, which is undoubtedly better for the environment. On the other hand, it means a lot less surface area to put up panels.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Yeah, it's just not practical to put up panels in dense cities, likewise with wind turbines! :p

But it's okay, we'll just have to install panels in somebody else's backyard or whatever empty desert spaces. There should be less NIMBYism push backs, right? I think if we build a huge patio that covers about 1/4 of state of Arizona, we could generate enough electricity for the entire nation. Arizonians get to enjoy cool shades too...

https://www.freeingenergy.com/how-much-solar-would-it-take-to-power-the-u-s/

[Tom Servo]

I do like one move that I'm seeing more often out here, at least. The local VA hospital/administration grounds has tons of parking lots, so they've started building shades over all of the parking spots that have solar panels on top. Win-win, people get to park in the shade and they're generating power.

[dodint]

Bad for auto-x.

;)

[Crazed_Insanity]

Just do slaloms around those posts... and make sure you auto-x with EVs please.

[FaultyMario]

As was mentioned in the travel thread, Mexico City is suffering from a bad case of suspended particles in its air. It's a consequence mostly from terrible car ownership and mass-transit policies but there were some contribuiting factors, like forest fires. Yesterday they finally caught a break when rain fell; hell, it was a hail storm in parts of the city. Anyway, city dwellers were expecting to wake up clear skies today but Don Goyo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popocat%C3%A9petl#Name) had other plans. There's now a cloud of volcanic ash covering the city.

https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/288/irony.jpg

[dodint]

Just do slaloms around those posts... and make sure you auto-x with EVs please.

A team die One Lap of America in a Tesla this year.

[Rare White Ape]

Our federal election is happening tomorrow.

I’ll let you know if the right-wing conservative government retains the leadership or if the left-wing unionists get in.

The conservatives implemented a direct action policy on carbon emissions. Basically, the government pays mining companies and large polluters billions of dollars a year to destroy the environment. Also our contribution to the Paris Accord is to not cut down as many trees. Yes, our carbon emissions have been skyrocketing, but we’re cutting down slightly less trees than before.

The left-wing party promises to cut carbon emissions and increase renewables to 50%, and ensure 50% of passenger cars are EVs by 2030.

I voted for The Greens. They’re pushing for 100% renewables.

[dodint]

How do they intend to 'ensure 50% of passenger cars are EV by 2030'?

[Crazed_Insanity]

There’s an Aussie version of AOC! :D

Anyway, it is always good to aim high.

[Rare White Ape]

How do they intend to 'ensure 50% of passenger cars are EV by 2030'?

Probably through the methods I’ve discussed previously in this thread. Plus others.

Here’s a good start to proceedings, even before the results of the election are known:

https://thedriven.io/2019/05/16/australian-ev-firm-inks-landmark-mou-with-byd/

It would be naive to suggest that they won’t be incentivising their uptake through tax rebates and discounted registration or electricity bills.

[dodint]

Yeah, I saw your plan. Cripple the market through government intervention and trust the same government to allocate the money they take in to help citizens chose to buy more EVs. That's a policy, fine.

'Ensure' is a soft word for a guarantee. I thought you might know of some tangible way they would drastically alter the actual ratio of ICE/EV cars registered in the next 11 years. Everything I can think of to 'ensure' that is fairly authoritarian. From what I can see is that it's more if a wish than a plan.

That's okay. We have a lawmaker here who is popular and has more ideas than experience; she has proposed upgrading every single building in the US in a 10 year period as part of her Green Initiative. Bless her heart.

[George]

How do they intend to 'ensure 50% of passenger cars are EV by 2030'?

With gleaming alloy air cars.

[dodint]

Heh.

I just have a hard time with one issue parties. Their plan is usually to take something from a group; or there is no plan at all. I am not even against EVs but I do bristle at mandates. I routinely drive 885mi in a sitting in my 2002 BMW, spending 5 minutes to fill up each time. A feat completely impossible for an EV now and for the forseeable future. If EVs are a true ICE replacement the market will provide for that organically. I would much rather have an EV for DD duties, so much less care and maintenance.

[Tom Servo]

With gleaming alloy air cars.

Never work, those assholes are two lanes wide.

[drew]

I'm toying with the idea of getting something that would probably get single-digit mileage, or just barely double-digit.

[Dicknose]

Heh.

I just have a hard time with one issue parties. Their plan is usually to take something from a group; or there is no plan at all. I am not even against EVs but I do bristle at mandates. I routinely drive 885mi in a sitting in my 2002 BMW, spending 5 minutes to fill up each time. A feat completely impossible for an EV now and for the forseeable future. If EVs are a true ICE replacement the market will provide for that organically. I would much rather have an EV for DD duties, so much less care and maintenance.

Most places that talk about these changes are mostly about new car sales.
So stop ICE sales by 2030, you can still be driving a 20 year old car in 2050.

Ok some places are going to ban them from areas (like city centres eg Paris) but thats probably not a big deal - you keep your old school car for some road trips or fun driving, need to go into the city, take an electric self driving uber.

I havent heard of anywhere that says they will completely phase out the USE of ice vehicles.

[FaultyMario]

In a way you can't really blame those big evil companies. Think about it... imagine our government comes up with a plan to just have all of us breath less so that we can reduce carbon emission... or perhaps ask some folks to just willingly commit suicide... since they want to die anyway, might as well just go and stop emitting carbon dioxide...

Seriously, cuts and bans just won't work. Asking people to stop buying gas and just drive EVs..., well, do we even have enough cheap EVs available for all who want to switch? No we don't.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlAfFgKQ5r8

[Crazed_Insanity]

Thanks for the crash course, but not sure if I learned anything new though.

I don't disagree with the need to reduce carbon emissions and incentivizing renewable tech... CA is doing that and I'm greener and even saving gas money and utility money by having solar and EV thanks to government subsidies and Honda. Every Californian really should've been on board just like me. You're saving not only just the environment, but you're also saving MONEY!!! But guess what? Majority of Californians who could have solar still don't have solar yet. As for the EV, I guess Honda's just not willing to make too many of them. Even Tesla at full capacity probably won't be taking over the market anytime soon... so some Californians are fighting this battle, but it's obvious that we're losing the war at the moment. So you really believe additional pressures from the government will make things better for everybody?

My angle on this is that besides fighting this battle thru reduction of carbon emissions, could we fight carbon by absorbing more of them? What can we do to increase phytoplankton or tree population? There may be more options than just reduction. (Again, I'm not against reductions, just want more ammo to win this war) See this idea from MIT for example: http://news.mit.edu/2015/fertilize-ocean-cool-planet-0908

There could be a number of different ways to fight this rather than relying on majority of humanity to just wake up and conserve or relying on government to crack down on us because we're just so lame...

You guys tend to see me as the dumbass enemy due to political differences, but we're really on the same side. If this reductionist approach isn't really working, should we double down on it and expect better result? Or should we also try something different?

[Dicknose]

Not everyone can afford the initial capital costs to move greener - how much do solar panels costs? how many years before you break even? Ditto cars - many people dont buy new cars they buy cheap older cars that are not EV - sure the running costs are higher, but they spend a few thousand on a car, not 100k.

As for "just plant more trees" - we are probably still losing trees to land clearing quicker than re-plant. Heck do you think we could even back to the level of trees from say 100 years ago? What about 200 years?
How are we going to reverse the damage if we cant get back to what was already on the wrong side of "stable"

I dont think a single approach is the answer - we need to reduce output and do carbon capture. But its a bit like losing weight, were the diet/input side is more important than the amount of exercise - at the moment the side of the equation that is easier to adjust is how much we output. We should start there, while still working on the other bits.

[Crazed_Insanity]

That’s right, we can’t focus on any single approach. To lose weight, we can’t just focus on restricting dietary intake..., especially if we’re dealing with a ‘growing’ kid. Yeah, human population has been growing pretty rapidly, but surely we won’t continue to grow... most countries have low birth rate now... and China doesn’t even have enough girls... so pretty sure we’ll see a global population drop soon. Then it’ll be much easier to reduce pollution!

You’re also right about solar panels and EVs, so you’re more willing to give consumers passes for their unwillingness to cut down carbon emissions even when Trump isn’t taking away these subsidies for solar panels or EVs...

But if companies were dragging their feet like that, then we need govt to crack down on them? Why the double standard?

It’s okay to inflict pain on companies but not individuals?

If companies were forced into doing business in a more expensive way in the name of saving earth, you don’t think they’ll inevitably find ways to cut cost and then you’ll still be hurting the individuals who end up losing their jobs?

If govt can afford it, for sure they need to incentivize or subsidize green tech or nuclear or cold fusion or whatever. Help develop viable new ways to do away with fossil fuel. That shit is going to run out even if climate change were a hoax. Whatever the situation, we need to wean us off that fossil fuel and it will have to be done using multiple strategies. Reduction is one, but can’t be the only way to go. Unless you really want to crumble global economy. That’ll certainly help save planet earth.

[FaultyMario]

not sure if I learned anything new though

Yeah, I could see that.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Of course you could. Just hope that you won’t be blinded by ideology.

[sandydandy]

I used to be a huge skeptic about climate change. I generally disregard mass hysteria of any kind, but in this case it’s hard to ignore the real science. I don’t know the ins and outs of it, but do believe it’s real. You can feel things changing when you go outside. For example it’s been a LOT more windier around here in recent years. High winds. Stuff I’ve never seen before. Plus thunderstorms are becoming more torrential with more regularity. Is it due to climate change? Could be. Like I said, I don’t fully know all of the facts but I’m not about to dismiss them. I can sense the climate is changing.

The saddest thing around here is the Toronto Islands are flooding every year now as Lake Ontario rises. I fear they may disappear in the next few years. I used to love getting on the ferry and going there, especially as a kid.

I wish I knew what the solution was. I can only regulate my own behavior. Recycle more, pollute less. But is it enough?

Society needs a major paradigm shift. It’s impossible when cash is king and big oil companies are doing their best to suppress clean technology. Even a hundred years ago Tesla was prevented from completing Wardenclyffe Tower, which supposedly could’ve harnessed electricity from the atmosphere, making it free for everyone. Imagine how different the world would be today if JP Morgan didn’t shut him down. I don’t know for sure if the science behind it was solid, or if he was bordering on pseudoscience, but if it was legit then we certainly wouldn’t have this huge problem we’re facing right now.

[Crazed_Insanity]

2 Russian bros Leonid and Sergey Plekhanov were trying to duplicate Tesla’s effort back in 2014, but haven’t heard any new developments...

[sandydandy]

It’s a little tough to replicate without his notes that were confiscated and probably under lock and key, or maybe destroyed.

[Tom Servo]

I wish I knew what the solution was. I can only regulate my own behavior. Recycle more, pollute less. But is it enough?

This is true to an extent, but you can also vote for people that will regulate others' behaviour as well. I try to do my part, but I also know that in a world where companies are driven by quarterly reports and shareholders, long-term goals aren't really a thing anymore, which is why you need some governmental regulation as well. I always think of the free market as springs and governmental regulation as dampers. You need both, and the job is to fine tune the two to work together.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Good analogy, spring and dampers, we most definitely need both to have a good suspension system.

[Crazed_Insanity]

It’s a little tough to replicate without his notes that were confiscated and probably under lock and key, or maybe destroyed.
Science is in the business of revealing what’s true. We’ll figure it out eventually. Corrupt bankers and government can only suppress the truth temporarily. If it’s not pseudoscience, surely somebody will eventually figure it out.

[Dicknose]

That’s right, we can’t focus on any single approach. To lose weight, we can’t just focus on restricting dietary intake..., especially if we’re dealing with a ‘growing’ kid. Yeah, human population has been growing pretty rapidly, but surely we won’t continue to grow... most countries have low birth rate now... and China doesn’t even have enough girls... so pretty sure we’ll see a global population drop soon. Then it’ll be much easier to reduce pollution!

Dont agree with your logic...
even with dropping birth rate, increases in life expectancy in China and India could mean population increases over the next 20 years even just with "replacement" (ie 2 kids per couple). Basically the number of generations alive increases. Its not till the average age of having kids increases (which happens with more women doing post-highschool education) that this will go down.

Also the living standard, energy use and CO2 generation can easily increase in many 3rd world countries. Large sections of Asia (think Indonesia) and most of Africa. If they even got to half what the 1st world countries are doing then its going to be catastrophic. When a billion people want to double/triple their energy requirements its hard for us to say "no" when we have enjoyed that for the last 50 years.

[Yw-slayer]

When a billion people want to double/triple their energy requirements its hard for us to say "no" when we have enjoyed that for the last 50 years.

Not exactly the same, but this push for bullshit "not-meat meat" really pisses me off. Great, now people have suddenly and conveniently developed a conscience and advocate a return to processed food which, conveniently, can be used to make corporations which YOU control a ton of money? Go fly a kite. Or else they can eat their processed meat while everyone else who's been deprived of it can have some for a change.

[FaultyMario]

My feelings exactly Ydubs. It's not a problem of consumption or production or distribution; it's all three at the same time!

[Crazed_Insanity]

DN, I think it’s not very likely that we’ll be able to reverse climate change significantly within the next 20 years. My point is sooner or later, population will dwindle, perhaps even due to climate change itself..., then humans will naturally emit less carbon. One way or another, we’ll have to change...

I also think it’s fine if each nation wish to reduce carbon emissions if they want, but why should we deny 3rd world nations the same path we ourselves took?

Same with nukes. We have them and use them and threaten other nations who want to develop them. Why don’t we destroy our nukes 1st and lead by example?

Once we develop an even superior weapon, we’ll be able to lead by example. Likewise, once we developed a more viable tech that can put away fossil fuel for good, we won’t be needing that Paris accord.

Money and power talks. Morality is only good on paper.

If humanity lives only by morals, there would be no need for God to send Jesus this way.

[FaultyMario]

We do live by morals, it's only that you seem to forget that some of the principles for morality in the western world come from the 18th Century European tradition of liberalism. It's not just Mediterranean Abrahamic religion that which underpins our relations for commerce and power.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (i.e. the ability to own goods) often come into conflict with each other, specially because western legal frameworks favor the individual's rights over rights of the collective, and the environment is one of those things that can't be owned by individuals and its benefits and burdens are very fucking difficult to distribute fairly among the members of the collective.

[Crazed_Insanity]

You seem very eager to educate me as if I’m some sort of dumbass. Okay, I can admit I’m a dumbass.

So can you explain to me who gets to decide how it’s fairly distributed? The moral liberal politicians in our governments? Are you sure liberal politicians cannot be bought by big corporations and they operate on morals alone?

As you said, it fucking difficult, so under such circumstances, do you believe most people will choose to do what’s morally right or what’s good for them financially?

I really don’t understand what is there to argue about.

[FaultyMario]

States.

On the side of consumption you find what you've described above as a moral issue. Each individual ought to look at their own personal compass to decide whether they want to live a 'good' life. Persons are motivated not just by the value of wealth, and those values are reinforced by their communities. Look at us, we give each other shit because we tend to hold each other in high regards, and we want our discussions to be above the usual shitslinging of social media.

Then on the side of production, we've learnt that since business are only motivated by profits you can't rely on them to do anything other than actions to benefit the income of their shareholders. So instead of ethical principles for them, we impose regulation. That's the only way to make it work. And that's what YW was saying, the impulse behind non-animal meats is profit. Plain an simple. so: "Go fly a kite", if you're putting forward a business expect it to be treated and taxed as a business. Because regulatiio, taxation and control are the only things that work in the relationship between governments (the representatives of the collective) and money-making enterprises.

Distribution is a whole other mess. Who gets to decide that the billions of poor people in the global south should eat "not-meat meat"? If the argument is that since there are billions of them and producing and consuming "meat meat" is costly for the collective, giving meat to billions of people would be worse for the whole than allowing rich folk to eat their cowboys and their tomahawks. That is not solved at the community level or with taxation like the other two problems. This one requires solutions we haven't yet figured out. And this needs universal principles. Whatever is going to solve that problem goes deeper than the morals of the god of Abraham or any other societal principle, this requires a global compact, one which we've never had before.

[FaultyMario]

You're not a dumbass. You're important to us. Your annoying habit is turning our writings onto what you want to understand. That makes it difficult to argue with you, because we always have to go back to a "but that's not what I said" position.

TL;DR - Annoying, not dumb.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Anyway, Trying not to be annoying, also let’s just try to stay on topic.

Regardless of consumption, production or distribution, I think governments can discourage with additional taxes or encourage with tax credits. They can certainly specify more strict greener conditions if governments themselves are the buyers... whether it’s for building infrastructure or defense purchases or humanitarian aid.

When it comes to burning fossil fuel or eating non-meat meat, I just think governments or whatever agencies actually dictating how people should consume, how companies should produce and distribute products is over reaching.

Governments certainly need to regulate dishonest companies, but relatively honest companies making honest bucks by burning fossil fuels shouldn’t be penalized too harshly. Likewise non-meat meat producers shouldn’t all of a sudden dominate the market due to government manipulation... perhaps governments can help by buying such ‘green’ meats for their soldiers to eat 1st to help such company to be able to stand on its own at 1st. If such renewable meat is really tasty and healthy and cheap, it should catch on eventually.

Point is government bureaucracies shouldn’t be the ones telling businesses how to conduct their business. Governments also shouldn’t deny consumer choices. Help people make the right choices thru education or taxes(credits), otherwise don’t call yourself a democracy.

[Rare White Ape]

Here’s a good video.


https://youtu.be/h5cm7HOAqZY

[Rare White Ape]

Billi, governments do need to tell businesses how to operate.

Otherwise, without controls, businesses would cause real harm to people and the environment in order to keep making a profit.

Perhaps you’re wondering where you draw the line?

1. Science says that the world is heating up and recommends stopping at 2 (or something) degrees, and they give us 10 years before that threshold is reached.

2. And economists say many things about the state of the economy if we keep going as we are.

Government needs to make its decisions based on these.

But will the government do it?

No, not right now, because the elected people who run the government have got too many fingers in too many pockets. Tell me how that works as a functioning democracy.

Will people make the government change?

No, because they remain uneducated to the many issues that face them, and probably will remain so. You can’t have expertise on every subject.

Can people trust experts to tell them how to act?

Of course not. You’ve seen people rail against scientists on so many issues that it’s hard to keep track of them all.

So what’s the solution?

Well, one of them is to drive oil and coal companies, and the Murdoch media out of town with baseball bats and pitchforks.

[Dicknose]

Point is government bureaucracies shouldn’t be the ones telling businesses how to conduct their business. Governments also shouldn’t deny consumer choices. Help people make the right choices thru education or taxes(credits), otherwise don’t call yourself a democracy.
Hmm - so opium is ok??

Govt do restrict things for "the greater good". I dont always agree with the decisions, but I think the concept is ok.
And sometimes they dont restrict, but tax the buggery out of it (tobacco, alcohol, fuel) and again I think thats not a bad way to balance equations.

If they are going to outright ban something, I think as long as there is a window to "wind down" its probably ok. Businesses can adapt.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Take the very simple FAA vs 737Max case.

FAA was caught with pants down. You’ll continue to trust regulatory agencies to be able to always do the moral thing let alone drawing lines...?

As for Boeing, I don’t think it was being completely greedy and evil and completely ignored safety for the sake of profits..., but clearly some shortcuts were made in the name of meeting ‘regulations’, trying to do whatever it can to make the Max like other 737s...

Anyway, my point is that if regulators cannot do its job in that case, what hope will there be for government to tell Boeing to stop making planes that burn fossil fuel?

I honestly think we’ll have a better chance at waiting for the Tesla’s of airplanes to come to the scene and disrupt the aviation industry. Yeah, without Tesla, how effective will government regulation be to help me get an EV? Sure we could also have a nazi govt banning ICE cars and jet planes too prematurely, but that kind of disruption might end up being greater than global warming itself.

You guys are definitely more morally right, but I just don’t think governments are that trustworthy or effective enough. Waiting for all the governments of the world to reach an agreement on climate change will probably happen after the return of Jesus.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Here’s a good video.


https://youtu.be/h5cm7HOAqZY

Just finished watching this video. I always thought batteries will eventually come in and save the day, but guess not? Perhaps as EVs becoming more popular, they could be utilized to power up the grid when needed?

Anyway, I think it's kinda obvious now that renewable energy alone won't solve CA's energy problems in the next few decades. We have rich tech companies, we have Tesla... we don't have that many climate change deniers nor Trump supporters blocking our efforts, but the reality is that there are still economic challenges to overcome using renewable tech.

As a state, it'll be better for us to come up with a viable solution that works for us first, rather than spending political resources fighting the Trump federal government over climate change.

If we can get it to work affordably, then naturally others will follow our lead much more willingly. What would be the point of fighting climate change politically? Even if we do get all the governments of the world to agree, then what? What will be the viable solution that we all can afford to implement?

That's my main point of argument. GM was inspired to build the Volt and the Bolt not because of government regulations, but because of Tesla. We need to fight climate change directly by coming up with practical solutions rather than just making it a political fight. Having more of these heated political debates will only result in more carbon emissions making our climate warmer! ;)

[Tom Servo]

but clearly some shortcuts were made in the name of meeting ‘regulations’, trying to do whatever it can to make the Max like other 737s

That wasn't my take on that at all. Everything I've heard was shortcuts were made in an effort to get it out the door and into the hands of customers, just like the the 787 Dreamliner. There have been a few ex engineers talking about the shortcuts they were asked to me and the problems they were ordered to ignore as the launch dates were slipping and more and more airlines were turning to Airbus.

[Crazed_Insanity]

I think we meant the same just that my wording is confusing...

Boeing introduced a software fix to make the Max behave more like regular 737s... that way airlines don’t have to retrain pilots, otherwise per regulation, airlines need additional training. Anyway, I don’t know the details but suffice to say that Boeing want to minimize advertising any new features on Max planes in order to avoid possible additional scrutiny that might cause further delays. If we make the Max just like any other 737, then FAA can rest assured that everything will be just fine. But of course Max isn’t quite exactly the same.

I think I probably should've wrote the following:
"but clearly some shortcuts were made in the name of avoiding recertification, trying to do whatever it can to make the Max like other 737s"

BTW, just because bad things happen, by no means do I want us to abolish regulatory agencies. It'd be crazy for us to abolish the FAA because of Max or SEC because of financial crisis. When failures occurred, it'll be easier for these regulatory agencies to figure out how to prevent these failures in the future. They are just not very good a predicting future never before seen failures and preventing them from happening. (I suppose if that were to really happen, then I'll never know so I could be wrong.)

Climate change is clearly some sort of failure that's going to happen in the future. Will bureaucrats be our best choice at predicting future new airplane accidents and new financial tsunamis or climate issues and be able to pre-emptively prevent them? Maybe, but I personally highly doubt that.

If we were to try that by playing super safe and make it hard for companies to try new things, Boeing most likely won't be able to afford to design brand new airplanes. Economy will probably grind to a halt, but at least earth probably will become few degrees cooler.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Randomly saw this TED video on youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k2-SzlDGko

It's old and was posted back in 2014!

Anyway, I kinda like his idea. Collect carbon tax, but then redistribute all that's collected and give it to everyone evenly. If gas prices are going to increase, at least give the mass some money to offset this increase. Should minimize riots.

IMHO, cap and trade is kinda bogus. Why should Tesla benefit off of GM like that? Rather than making it some sort of artificial money game amongst the rich or the big corporations, that additional tax should just be given to everyone to help offset the additional cost of going green. As things become greener, these additional costs will become no more and we end up receiving no more additional money and things go back to normal.

It'll be harder harder for GM to sell gas guzzling trucks and easier for Tesla to sell EVs and all this will be decided thru 'free market' rather than just big companies playing the cap and trade game just between themselves.

Seriously, if Tesla goes belly up, who will GM trade with? Other less greener companies?

[FaultyMario]

google dot com, how does cap and trade work.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Cap and trade doesn't really involve average people, right? As far as I know, it's all between companies, right Google?

So if prices of goods increase due to cap and trade, too bad for the people, right Google?

[Tom Servo]

Well, ideally the prices of goods that result in more emissions would increase while the prices of goods that result in fewer would decrease, right?

[MR2 Fan]

One of the big problems is media attention to issues....as seen in a nutshell in this Apple news feed (via Veronica Belmont on Twitter):

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D8OdO27U0AEGgZA.jpg

[tigeraid]

:lol:






:(

[Tom Servo]

Sadly, that basically all comes down to the internet advertising model and analytics. The only thing that matters is that engagement graphs move up and to the right, because that means increased ad revenue.

[FaultyMario]

Cap and trade doesn't really involve average people, right? As far as I know, it's all between companies, right Google?

So if prices of goods increase due to cap and trade, too bad for the people, right Google?

The principle of cap and trade was just amounting for positive externalities in private industry, uncovering hidden costs (which were making goods artificially cost less) whilst the general public was paying for those costs, not the producers or consumers of that particular industry. So, You're right in that C&T doesn't involve indivual consumers, but the point of taxation has always been the common good.

IMHO good policy should provide incentives or penalties for industries, and not banning or imposing certain activities. For example, to make transportation less energy-intensive it's good to make ICE powered vehicles less appealing, to build safer cycling infraestructure, make rules that allow businesses to telecommute and such.

Because if we don't let experts categorize and weigh and tax those human activities that consume our common resourcers according to a common good and we let self-interested individuals decide we end up with shit like what Chris posted.

[Crazed_Insanity]

I'm not saying we should prevent experts from weighing in, I'm just saying if we're going to play this 'game', it ought to be all inclusive.

Why should only companies like Tesla stand to gain from cap and trade? Why shouldn't Swervo who bikes to work also receive some benefits as well? And price of goods will inevitably rise when we play this 'game', and we need to compensate people who actually need to buy gas to get to work because biking isn't an option! Riots are not just a possibility anymore. It actually happened in Paris! It's not just Trump who's not happy about it. There's no real accord even in Paris.

Similar to financial crisis. I don't know, perhaps bailing out the banks was the most effective way of rescuing the economy. I don't know that for sure, but let's just pretend that's true. In the end, regular folks still lost their jobs, their houses, but those mother fucking bankers still got rich and not one went to jail. Even if that solution IS the most effective way to rescue the situation, but it simply doesn't feel fair. I don't want cap and trade end up in a similar boat.

You regular Joes are just too dumb to understand, let's let the 'experts' figure this out and save the planet. Trust me, when there's huge load of money involved, experts can be bought. Games could be rigged. In the end, planet won't be saved, rich get richer, poor get fucked more and that's my fear for the current cap and trade game.

I just think we need a more inclusive plan that involves everyone. Not just big companies.

We are all emitting CO2 here. We all need to be able to make sometimes hard choices. We all need to be playing this 'game' and win it. Forgive me if I don't trust politicians and big corporations to be able to save our planet all by themselves. I have nothing against experts, but experts are not the ones running governments nor companies.

[Tom Servo]

Why shouldn't Swervo who bikes to work also receive some benefits as well?

Well, I mean, I do. I save a ton in not buying gas. I still pay for insurance, but the amount of miles I drive is so low that my insurance is pretty inconsequential. I also get $200 a month from my work for not using a parking space. On the other hand, people moving off fossil fuels for their transportation ends up also helping me in that I'm breathing in fewer pollutants while I ride, so that's a nice side benefit.

I haven't watched the Ted talk because ain't nobody got time for that, but giving benefits to people to make it easier to buy more expensive gas that, by all rights, should be more expensive seems like a huge footgun if you're trying to reduce dependency on fossil fuels.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Either way, cost of living is going to rise if we choose to fight carbon emission.

When costs increase too much, people will whine and possibly start riots.

This extra cash is simply to help keep people somewhat happy. If you insist on using fossil fuels as usually, I'm sure this 'benefit' won't cover all of the price increases. Only if you make wiser choices, then perhaps your benefits check might help you net some extra cash.

Anyway, if you think cap and trade will work for big greedy companies, I'm pretty sure this all inclusive cap and trade will work for everybody too.

If you really think average person will just blow the money and buy more fossil fuel, what do you think GM will do when SUV sales go thru the roof? Just keep on paying Elon Musk more money will help save the planet?

[Tom Servo]

Well, the cost of living is going to rise if we choose not to as well. Like....a lot more. Right now we're talking about raising the prices of fossil fuels, but when the climate changes enough that droughts and floods become more commonplace, now your *food* will cost more.

I also don't necessarily think cap & trade works all that well. My only point there was a counterpoint to your "So if prices of goods increase due to cap and trade, too bad for the people, right Google?" point. Some goods go up, some goods go down. Theoretically, that should end up in the consumer buying the goods whose prices have gone down and help guide the economy towards sustainable solutions. (Note that I said theoretically - again, I don't actually think that cap & trade is the greatest solution, but I don't know that I've heard a better one at this point). I think it ultimately would be more successful than the gist of what I got from your description of the ted talk, because when you make gas prices artificially low, be it in the form of money-back-to-help-with-rising-costs or just subsidizing fossil fuel companies as we do now, people will ultimately buy a bunch of giant SUVs they don't need that use up more gas than they need. When gas prices go up, SUV and truck sales go down. When gas prices are lower, we get to the point now where companies like Ford are phasing out almost all passenger cars for the market, because apparently none of them remember big gas price spikes 10 years ago. Heck, a quick search just found a CNN Money article from 2008 saying "Why gas prices spiked from 90 cents to $4", and that's what it's at now, but at the time, that caused a big decrease in the market for SUVs and trucks.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Anyway, I don't know the right answer, just like I don't know what's the best way to save us from that financial tsunami...

I just know that the way they approached that felt unfair. Current cap and trade doesn't involve rest of the population enough too. It's as if us tiny people don't matter. We just need to focus on these big companies with lots of money because they're too big and too important to fail... as for you, who cares if Tom, Dick or Stanley lose their houses or your jobs or your planet? I just don't know about the focus on the big company approach. Seriously, why should I trust typical politicians and businessmen to be able to fight climate change? Even if all conservatives are dead, will you guys seriously trust them to heed to 'expert' advise?

Everyone needs to be making wiser decisions to win it. Giving people some financial motivation should be better than giving people absolutely nothing. That's my point with that TED video.

[Tom Servo]

I mean, you're right, but people don't get absolutely nothing. Teslas would likely be more expensive if they weren't able to trade part of their cost off to companies like GM so they can keep making Escalades. You get a pretty significant tax credit and can drive in the carpool lane by yourself if you get an EV. You get money back from your utility companies when you buy energy efficient stuff - I got a rebate for my washer, dryer, and thermostat, all of which then use less energy so I save even more. As much as I don't believe in trickle-down economics, that's basically the best proof I've seen of it. Yeah, you don't get to partake in the cap and trade market directly, but you absolutely benefit indirectly. I'll try to watch the video, but just by going for anything that uses less fuel you get an immediate benefit at the gas pump, and I'm wary of something that helps offset that so you can keep using more fuel than you need to.

[Crazed_Insanity]

No disagreement there. As for current benefits, yeah, free thermostat would be a no brainer. Solar took a bit of guts since it was a brand new frontier for me. After few years, I do believe I am financially ahead. After the 15 year payments, I’d be really ahead! ( but that’s assuming my panels won’t encounter any sort of accidents...) as for EV, without Honda’s cheap lease deal, it just doesn’t make financial sense yet.

Anyway, benefits or not, these decisions were made once in a blue moon and not really market driven. (Honda EV just isn’t available for all who want one) I do believe we all need to make greener decisions more frequently. Having that check and be able to make your own wiser greener choice or a dumber dirtier one will be up to each of us.

That video doesn’t have detailed math, but I’m pretty sure the check you end up getting will not end up allowing you to buy more fuel than before. If that happens, then obviously the rules need to be revised.

[FaultyMario]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D8zT-dJW4AAzoGo.jpg

https://static1.cbrimages.com/wp-content/uploads/goodcomics/2015/07/greatpowergreatresponsibility9a.jpg

[Crazed_Insanity]

ZAF is Zouth AFrika? Had to look that one up...

BTW, how can Australia not show up on the list? DN polluting the world with his bike and his nice red Porscha and IMOA flying all over the world on a daily basis... it's impossible to not have Australia on the list. They must've forgotten about that country down under? Or did the Aussies pulled out of the G20?

Anyway, India and China looks so clean on paper(/capita basis).

[IMOA]

Have to admit, I was thinking exactly the same thing (as I read this from the lounge in Taipei). I can only assume that for whatever reason the data isn’t available and I think that can only be the split of consumption by household. I’m pretty sure Aus is up there around number 2 or 3 partly because of the travel because we’re very spread out and a long way from anywhere (I’ve had to do a 9 hour and 3 hour flight just to get to work today)

[Crazed_Insanity]

You, sir, are an earth killer!!! :p

[Rare White Ape]

G20 is also 20 countries (if you include Europe) and I only count 17 there. We must be one of the few where data is not available.

[Dicknose]

South Africa stands out with a bigger difference between top and bottom. Not surprising.
Yeah Australia must be missing the demographic breakdown.

[FaultyMario]

ZAF is 21:2
USA is 50:8

All approximate values.

[FaultyMario]

Question more to the euros on the board, is Greta some white-nationalist Messianic weirdo?

[MR2 Fan]

Question more to the euros on the board, is Greta some white-nationalist Messianic weirdo?

What would make her white nationalist? I saw she had a photo with an anti-fascism t-shirt on and got criticized for it

[Crazed_Insanity]

https://apple.news/ALWbmXPJJRweVtB7ppM9owg

Wow! We came up with a whopping $22 million from the world’s richest nations to help fight fires in Amazon.

To put it into perspective, people collectively raise nearly a billion to help restore a burnt church in France.

I guess God could always restore the rain forests for free later...

To make matters worse, Brazil doesn’t even want help fighting that fire...

Fighting climate change will be an uphill battle...

[Crazed_Insanity]

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/27/754687137/brazil-rejects-g-7s-offer-of-22-million-to-fight-amazon-fires

As expected, Brazil refused the little bit of the money raised... well, unless the Frenchie president apologize. Then maybe Brazil will take the money. :lol:

I think nations should just each try to cut their own carbon emissions and reforest their own lands and do all that without your own people rioting against you. If which ever nation could successfully do all that, then perhaps we can tell others what to do?

All the rich developed nations started polluting way before everyone else... so I suppose it's fair that these countries can perhaps try to be carbon "negative" to help clean up those other countries who don't want to give up fossil fuel yet? US really should be the one taking the lead... Anyway, who would've thought trying to save the planet could be this controversial...

[Yw-slayer]

Yes, the star contrast between "OMG INSTA NOTRE DAME IS A DYING" and "Amazon burns ok" is incredibly sad.

[Rare White Ape]

Stupid hypothetical:

If the Yanks can send the CIA into a country to assassinate a leader and install a friendly government, then why not send the CIA to fly firefighting aircraft over the rainforest?

[drew]

Because brown people, and fuck trees.

The current "leadership" doesn't give a fuck about the environment. They give even less of a fuck about people that aren't white.

So, sorry Amazon, your fucked. Twice.

Add to that, Trump wants to nuke hurricanes, and there you have it.

[Rare White Ape]

Thus:

https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2018/08/08/30459308/the-fact-is-nothing-is-going-to-done-about-climate-change-until-it-kills-lots-of-white-people

Climate inaction is a racist and classist status-quo. As is health care and welfare.

[MR2 Fan]

I've been thinking lately about these climate crises and how they will manifest themselves.

I know that we're inching toward 10 billion people worldwide and due to birth rates and statistics, it is going to start dropping after that, but the question remained about if we could support 10 billion people. The answer is yes if we all cut down our usage of resources and be overall smarter, but developing countries are starting to adopt our bad habits.

I have a feeling what we're going to potentially see, and as much as I hate to say this, because it feeds right into the narrative of these rich a-holes is that a lot of poor people in less developed areas will die off, and somehow after a major "correction" in the environment, the rest of us will still be alive. The international markets and the way business gets done meanwhile will be absolutely devastated possibly and that "correction" may also take into account how we do trade and interact with each other.

It is going to be a very unstable time in the best case scenario.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Climate crisis is being stuck in between a rock and a hard place.

You don't address it, people will suffer. You do address it, the cost of fighting climate change will also likely cause people to suffer too. It's not like France is expert at fighting their own fires and calming its own people...

I do believe poorer people will suffer the most regardless of what we do. I'm not sure how climate inaction is racist. White people are only less affected by climate change because most white people are richer, just like healthcare and welfare. Effects of climate change will be felt by all races. The only racist part of climate change issue is that this is an issue brought forth by certain group of white people and then other group of white people chose to ignore it. Am I right with this observation? It wasn't the chinese nor indians nor arabs nor africans who warned the world of climate change, right?

So, which group of white people will win? If history is any indication, hopefully the Northern white people will once again win. The southern group didn't want to let slaves go because of financial reasons. Likewise now they don't want to let fossil fuel go for financial reasons..., but hopefully white people will wise up and do the right thing quickly so that we can minimize bloodshed and suffering.

Moral of the story is money is the main issue. Even US civil war was not really all about freeing the slaves.

Without some sort of financial incentive for almost everyone, yeah, it'll be pretty hard to fight climate change.

[Rare White Ape]

Woah man you’re so off piste here that we have to send a rescue team.

The bit you missed is the status quo.

Doing nothing is what protects the wealthy upper class from losing its wealth. They will fight to maintain the status quo at the expense of those who have no power.

[Rare White Ape]

Also: poor people in poor countries already have nothing. So why will addressing climate change make them suffer?

They will suffer the most if a climate catastrophe hits, so they stand to benefit the most from actions that limit climate change.

And who is it that keeps telling us that the “cost” of addressing climate change will cause poor people to suffer more?

Hey?

Think about it.

[drew]

Ah...Dorian. We shall see.


During Michael, I chalked up 515 hours in 45 days during our recovery effort. Fuck that shit. I'll do it again this year, if needed, but for a price. #PayMyAss

[Dicknose]

I do believe poorer people will suffer the most regardless of what we do. I'm not sure how climate inaction is racist. White people are only less affected by climate change because most white people are richer, just like healthcare and welfare. Effects of climate change will be felt by all races.

Um no - the effects can be mitigated locally.
Droughts and not enough water - build a desalination plant.
Rising water levels - build walls, barriers etc

Money and resources can overcome issues. Yes its expensive, but if you can afford it then the effects become more of a pain and an expense rather than loss of standard of life or even loss of life.

Racist is probably the wrong term - its just that most of the world power (and money) is with richer predominately white countries.
Can be hard to rally people when they know it wont really affect them and the people who is will affect are "not like us"

[Crazed_Insanity]

Also: poor people in poor countries already have nothing. So why will addressing climate change make them suffer?

They will suffer the most if a climate catastrophe hits, so they stand to benefit the most from actions that limit climate change.

And who is it that keeps telling us that the “cost” of addressing climate change will cause poor people to suffer more?

Hey?

Think about it.

Of course I’m talking about the poor people in rich nations.

Poor Africans’ not gonna be able to riot in Paris, only poor French people can do that.

Why do poor people in rich nations riot? Because their lives will be squeezed by the added cost. Most of our food is transported using fossil fuel. That cost will go up.

When will we have electric trucks as cheap as existing trucks?

We don’t have regular EVs that are affordable and readily available yet. Tesla is dominating the EV market with nearly 70% market share... and total EV market is still tiny.

I do wonder why no major auto manufacturers can even come close to Tesla...

Take the Honda Clarity PHEV, after tax credits, it becomes cheaper than Accord! Same size, better MPG, if batteries are depleted, okay, it’s just a bit uglier..., but Honda just couldn’t sell them for some reason.

Is the public afraid of change or is there conspiracy that Honda’s purposely limiting production?

I don’t know.

Removing fossil fuel from rich nations will be very very hard... hopefully we can soon reach bipartisan accord on this issue. Otherwise we’ll probably get nowhere.

[Rare White Ape]

Things are very hard to explain to you.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Yeah, that’s okay. It’s not like situation will improve once you explained it to me in ways that I can fully understand.

[MR2 Fan]

Some good-ish news?

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/is-the-modern-mass-extinction-overrated?utm_source=pocket-newtab

[Crazed_Insanity]

Yeah, with regard to taking care of our planet, we need to expect the worst(so that we do things responsibly), but also hope for the best(for things out of our hands).

[Dicknose]

Yeah I wouldnt say "whales making comeback - well done" when we pushed them to the brink.

Yes some new species maybe happening, but it would be at a tiny rate. Especially in larger mammals - which we are managing to wipe out.
And is it a big deal if domesticated animals are on the rise? More chicken, cattle, pigs, dogs, cats than ever in the history of the planet. Thats volume, not diversity.
Ditto with plants.

And wow - we might double the number of species in the next million years. And lets be honest - in a million years we would have the technology to just gene-make new species. Or have been replaced by AI and maybe no organics.
We also might greatly reduce it. Again especially at the "large end of town". A hundred new insects probably doesnt really make up for losing primates.


Ahh in the end he does say that counting/estimating new species needs to be studied.
But I think its a long way from "she'll be right"

[Rare White Ape]

Once again, DN, you're absolutely on the money. Biodiversity is critical, and in their native habitats.

South American cane toads might be thriving in Australia, but that's at the expense of small native mammals and can cause partial collapse of their ecosystems. It might be one of the greatest pest control mistakes in the world.

Although, one thing that might be of benefit is the rise of biodiversity after this Holocene extinction has played its course. It will be an amazing time for nature to rise up in the gap left by the loss we are creating now. Just gotta wait for humans to drive themselves to extinction first. Give it 100,000 or a million years.

[Dicknose]

In 10,000 years (a huge amount at the rate of technology) I could easily see us having mostly left Earth and keeping it as a tourist destination/natural park.

[Rare White Ape]

Yeah it's a nice idea but to do that we'd first have to stop moaning about immigrants and welfare recipients.

Could we do that in the next 10,000 years?

[Crazed_Insanity]

America didn't completely stop immigrants and welfare while shooting for the moon.

Anyway, who cares what we could do in 10k years. We only need to care about doing the right things NOW so that in 10k years, people don't have to deal with the crap we left behind, instead enjoy the fruits of our labor.

[dodint]

Yeah it's a nice idea but to do that we'd first have to stop moaning about immigrants and welfare recipients.

Could we do that in the next 10,000 years?

I'm excited for galactic transport vouchers for the non-working funded by payroll taxes. :lol:

--OR--

No, of course not, that's why we're leaving them here in the first place.

;)

[Rare White Ape]

Big week in enviro-activism.

You know who's going to die?

Right-wingers, if the blood vessels in their brains don't stop exploding.

[FaultyMario]

Question more to the euros on the board, is Greta some white-nationalist Messianic weirdo?

I fell for a trope, sorry.

[FaultyMario]

”People are suffering, people are dying, entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is money and fairytales of eternal economic growth.” Watch Greta Thunberg speak at the UN Monday morning.

↓

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EFMz6g6UcAAhzME.png

↓

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EFPT2YAUcAA1aXR.jpg

↓

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/CdqMZ_s7Y6k/hqdefault.jpg

[Tom Servo]

I'm so torn on this Greta Thunberg thing. On one hand, she appears to be a smart woman who is passionate about the environment and willing to stand up to a lot of powerful people when it comes to that.

On the other hand, she's a Swede. Yech.

[SportWagon]

You are saying that, jokingly, because you, IIRC, hail from a different Scandinavian nation?

[Crazed_Insanity]

IHEA! (I Hear Ya)

Anyway, she has an awesome boat!

https://i.cbc.ca/1.5246502.1565792456!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_780/greta-thunberg-yacht.jpg

[Tom Servo]

You are saying that, jokingly, because you, IIRC, hail from a different Scandinavian nation?

Yeah, people of Norwegian descent are required by law to mock Swedes.

[Rare White Ape]

So it’s like the USA-Canada thing, or the Australia-NZ thing?

[SportWagon]

Yeah, people of Norwegian descent are required by law to mock Swedes.You will also be horrified to know that I could not positively remember whether you were of Norwegian or Danish descent.

[Tom Servo]

Never speak to me again.

[Tom Servo]

So it’s like the USA-Canada thing, or the Australia-NZ thing?

Probably closer to the Australia-NZ thing. I've never found the USA-Canada one to be as antagonistic, but I get the distinct impression that the Australia-NZ one involves a lot more direct teasing.

[George]

But isn't Servo an Italian name? And Tom surely is short for Tomassino...

:?

[Tom Servo]

It's my secret identity. Shh.

[mk]

Sweden is in better position.
It has good neighbours.

The girl has aspergers.
She's clearly used.

[Rare White Ape]

I’m going to completely disregard anyone’s assertion that she is being ‘used’ unless they can provide irrefutable evidence.

Otherwise, it’ll mean we go down the conspiracy rabbit hole. I’ve not often had to mention my all-encompassing disdain for conspiracy theories in the past.

[MR2 Fan]

it's what happens when they can't attack someone on the merits of their position so they use other tactics instead

[Rare White Ape]

Yeah... I know...

And it is tiring...

It's not even an original tactic. Someone thought of it, then it has blown up, and I've seen it repeated about 20 times on Facebook.

[Tom Servo]

Sweden is in better position.
It has good neighbours.

Norway is also neighbors with Finland. I seem to remember Norway gave you a mountain over at that border not that long ago since you don't have all that many.



The girl has aspergers.
She's clearly used.

I take it you've never met anyone with Asperger's.

[Fiat500]

Norway is also neighbors with Finland.

I think the implication was that Sweden is not a good neighbour. 😉

[Tom Servo]

Ahh, I read it as "Sweden's better off than Norway because it has good neighbors, those neighbors being Finland." Entirely possible I misread that.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Swervo was just joking.

Although I can never tell when mk is joking or not... often times I don't even get what his point is..., nevertheless, I just don't think he is a non-believer of climate change.

Whatever her condition is, she is very determined and single minded. As for who is using her? Well, we are ALL using her to send a message to the likes of Trump, aren't we?

No need to be so upset about what mk said IMHO. She is very special/weird for a teenager, right? She's pushing a great message, but if I were her dad, I'd only agree to let her do this after she's 18. I most certainly won't let my kid being 'used' this way.

Anyway, would you like to clear yourself up mk? :p Are you really 'attacking' her because you really want to derail her message?

[FaultyMario]

I think the implication was that Sweden is not a good neighbour. ��

At least their flag is prettier.

I know, that's the punchline!

[Drachen596]

Shes a 16 year old girl. If she was a 40 year old man do you think there would be the same amount of media coverage? Allowed to speak at the UN?


The message is fine but they're definitely using her in order to put it front and center in the media. Her family knows that, her parents are in the entertainment business.

[Tom Servo]

Well, admittedly a 40 year old man demanding everyone listen to him isn't exactly notable.

[FaultyMario]

:snap:

[Rare White Ape]

All of this is sounding like excuses to not listen to her.

[Drachen596]

Call it what you want. I don't disagree with the message that something needs to be done about climate change.

I'm just saying she is being used by the people wanting it in the news as much as possible. Anyone claiming otherwise isn't being completely honest.

Still feel like getting peoe to go green is going to be more about the impact on their wallet than people pleading to government. Id love to be all solar panels and electric car but i can't afford it at this point.

[Rare White Ape]

Call it what you want. I don't disagree with the message that something needs to be done about climate change.

I'm just saying she is being used by the people wanting it in the news as much as possible. Anyone claiming otherwise isn't being completely honest.

That's a fair call. If you're not looking at things somewhat critically then you're potentially bound to fall towards a biased view.

Which harks back to what she's saying: don't listen to me, listen to the scientists. In other words, we should be paying attention to the experts who have already looked at the subject critically.

The scientific process is a self-correcting process. It is inherently critical of itself. Makes me wonder why we are not falling over ourselves to adopt the scientist's recommendations.


Still feel like getting peoe to go green is going to be more about the impact on their wallet than people pleading to government. Id love to be all solar panels and electric car but i can't afford it at this point.

This is a curly one, and where I have a different point of view. I think it's a nation-wide thing, not a personal thing.

You've got to look where the money goes, which is usually through the pockets of giant corporations who've made their fortune through being the lucky owners of resource-rich land and (probably) slavery to extract minerals in the early days of our respective countries. Of course they want to protect their interest, so they lobby the governments and donate huge sums of money to the political parties in exchange for favourable political conditions.

(On this note, the Australian government would fall down pretty quickly if we had an independent corruption watchdog* but that's another story)

The impact on the wallet would actually be very minuscule, I think. Maybe a couple of bucks a week, if that. Yes it might make an impact on families on low income, but it's not the doom and gloom we keep being told about. I myself have managed to negotiate a deal with my electricity retailer to give me a 100% carbon offset for only a few extra cents per kilowatt. I can only imagine what would happen if everyone did this en masse - renewable electricity would become ubiquitous and a whole lot cheaper very quickly, and there would be lots of former dirty power employees finding work in clean power companies.

And I wouldn't expect anyone to have to fork out money to switch a petrol car for a new electric car right away. The environmental and economic impact of replacing them all right now would be massive. No. It's a silly proposition. What will happen is a gradual shift as people normally replace their cars and be presented with more affordable options over the next 10-15 years, in-line with the availability of greener electricity options to juice them up.

For car, bike and motorsport enthusiasts like us, I think an ASAP shift to renewables and electric cars will actually preserve our ability to enjoy using petrol-powered vehicles for centuries to come. At first it'll be necessity, but it will move more and more to a recreational basis over the decades. Fuel supply will always be there, but there will be added cost and restriction in it's use. But the key factor is how much CO2 will be saved if 90% of the cars in the world being driven by non-enthusiasts shift to electric, leaving the door open for car lovers to drive their gas guzzlers every now and then, and displays of historic open exhaust V12 grand prix cars for many years to come.





*The introduction of an independent corruption watchdog was voted down (again) only last week.

[FaultyMario]

I'm just saying she is being used by the people wanting it in the news as much as possible. Anyone claiming otherwise isn't being completely honest.


I want it in the news as much as possible, why is that a bad thing?


In addition to the overall increase in GMST, it is important to consider the
size and duration of potential overshoots in temperature. Furthermore,
there are questions on how the stabilization of an increase in GMST of
1.5°C can be achieved, and how policies might be able to influence the
resilience of human and natural systems, and the nature of regional
and subregional risks. Overshooting poses large risks for natural and
human systems, especially if the temperature at peak warming is
high, because some risks may be long-lasting and irreversible, such
as the loss of some ecosystems (high confidence). The rate of change
for several types of risks may also have relevance, with potentially
large risks in the case of a rapid rise to overshooting temperatures,
even if a decrease to 1.5°C can be achieved at the end of the 21st
century or later (medium confidence). If overshoot is to be minimized,
the remaining equivalent CO2
budget available for emissions is very
small, which implies that large, immediate and unprecedented global
efforts to mitigate greenhouse gases are required (high confidence).

That's from the IPCC's report. Ch. 3 focuses on the likelihood of effects of mean global temperatures rise. Bold mine.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/06/SR15_Chapter3_Low_Res.pdf
https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf

[Cam]

My wife's going on local TV today to talk about climate.

[mk]

I’m going to completely disregard anyone’s assertion that she is being ‘used’ unless they can provide irrefutable evidence.

What kind of evidence you accept?
I'm not infected by socme, or latest any media of the issue, few headlines tops.
My comment was based on time and wordings before her stardom, but obviously affected by those headlines.
And my opinion still stays, and her parents are extending their lives thru her.

If you could ask late Jim Jones followers I'm sure they also had very good lives.


I take it you've never met anyone with Asperger's.

Never asked anybody what kind of mental disorder they might have.
Clearly should have kept the scale wider, or narrower but without named thing.

Generally the climate thing here is a bit academic.
I put my waste in the bin.
Recycle those that the state have given an option.
Buy gas despite its cost.
Drive those distances despite the weather.
etc.

[Tom Servo]

If you could ask late Jim Jones followers I'm sure they also had very good lives.

Wow, WTF.

Also, I don't make a habit of asking people if they have been diagnosed with Asperger's, but I have worked with more than one person that's volunteered that information. It's not exactly uncommon in tech. I would not characterize any of those people as easily controlled or used, and that's not known as a characteristic of Asperger's. That's why I said that.

[MR2 Fan]

I sincerely do not believe that some environmental groups "hired" or her parents "recruited" her to be the spokesperson against climate change which is what seems to be the way some (in other places) are claiming it.

More like she was a strong voice in the movement, on her own, and others who are inspired by her are pushing her along with funding and support, suggestions, etc.

I apologize if I don't see a negative side to this. We KNOW for a FACT that major corporations in the fossil fuel industry have worked against environmental protection and cleanup for decades, and suddenly a voice from the other side starts speaking up, and it's all because there's a BIG AGENDA? OF F***ING COURSE THERE'S AN AGENDA!! Except this agenda is to try to undo the harm that other companies are doing.

So eco-friendly and "green" companies make money from this type of agenda....GREAT FOR THEM!! Excuse me while right-wingers clutch their pearls at the thought of other companies making money pushing green energy, banning some plastics, planting trees, etc.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Also, I don't make a habit of asking people if they have been diagnosed with Asperger's, but I have worked with more than one person that's volunteered that information. It's not exactly uncommon in tech. I would not characterize any of those people as easily controlled or used, and that's not known as a characteristic of Asperger's. That's why I said that.

Asperger’s syndromes:
“ People with this condition may be socially awkward and have an all-absorbing interest in specific topics.”

Whether she truly has it or not, I think this description fits and works to her advantage. Well socialized teens would never do what shes doing... they’d all be trying to fit in. normal kids probably could barely handle bullying by peers, and she had to endure cyber bullying by Trump and his base... and she handled that remarkably well! Unlike normal teens.

Anyway, it’s too bad climate change has been so politicized.

Best way to fight climate change is to vote in somebody other than trump into office rather than relying on Greta.

Also the ‘right’ isn’t completely wrong either. Are you guys as committed to give up flying as her? :p one flight to Europe or Asia would probably nullify all the good my solar panels and EV are doing...

I do think it’s kinda sad that we adults need to ‘use’ her, a kid, to try to settle an issue we ourselves couldn’t.

[Tom Servo]

I shared an office with a guy who had Asperger's. He exhibited pretty much all of those characteristics - he never made eye contact, had a very hard time knowing when a conversation was over (I had to learn to get over thinking it was rude to literally say to him "Great, thanks for that, and our conversation is done."), and also had that all-absorbing interest in specific topics. Specifically the things he worked on, and the guy was like an encyclopedia. You didn't need Google to find out some esoteric thing about DNS servers, he just knew it.

But yeah, he also wasn't easily swayed or particularly susceptible to people telling him what to do. Brilliant and awkward is pretty much how I'd put it.

Also, I'd say we're far from relying on her. She spoke in front of the people who are still actually in positions of power. That's a long way from actually putting her in a position of power.

[Crazed_Insanity]

I actually don’t mind putting her in position of power... I’m sure she would be able to do an awesome job... no lobbyists will be able to sway her... as long as the subject matters are in her area of interests...

Bernie Sanders probably have the same issue... focused on narrowing the wealth gap since the beginning of his career and is kinda socially awkward... ;)

Anyway, just saying it’s sad that we need to be lectured by a kid. She also tweets way better than most adults!

[Dicknose]

I'm just saying she is being used by the people wanting it in the news as much as possible. Anyone claiming otherwise isn't being completely honest.

Is she being used, or is she using them?

Used implies she is doing something she doesnt want or not for her benefit.
So her goals match some of the media and they latch onto her. She is a good role model, as pointed out, she is not a boring old white guy.
None of that means she is "used".

[Crazed_Insanity]

We all use one another.

Just take any child prodigy/star/athletes..., who’s using who? Hard to say...

However, statistically, most child celebs don’t end up well. That’s why I wouldn’t allow my underage daughter become what Greta has become.

Greta has been admirable and I’m grateful for her activism, and I do hope her parents are also actively looking after Greta’s interests so that she can beat the odds and also have a fulfilling adult life.

Of course I’m assuming we don’t extinct ourselves first! :p

[Rare White Ape]

CLICK HERE READ THIS

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/27/the-greta-thunberg-problem-so-many-men-freaking-out-about-the-tiny-swedish-climate-demon

It is a comic strip so the information is passed along very easliy.

[mk]

I didn't see the cartoon but after empty space The Guardian asked money.


Wow, WTF.
You seem to have a moral issue here.
My bet is that this time your polaroid shades are special.


I apologize if I don't see a negative side to this.
Must hope it stays that way.


Is she being used, or is she using them?
I'd say that her parents are using them thru her.
And that she's most likely happy with it.

[Tom Servo]

You seem to have a moral issue here.
My bet is that this time your polaroid shades are special.

Yes, I have a moral issue with someone equating this situation with a cult that lead to the deaths of 918 people. I'm actually a little shocked that you don't.

BTW, if you ever read anything about Jim Jones and his cult, you'd know that they actually *had* been asked and many did not say that they had "very good lives". In fact, enough expressed that they felt trapped and wanted out, which is what lead to Congressman Ryan being there in the first place and his eventual murder as well. So your analogy doesn't even fit while simultaneously being pretty damned offensive.

[mk]

My bad if I've left amount adjusting words out.

The argument is that you accept more bad when it's our cause.

For to thread issue,
it seems to be a somewhat an accepted cheat to add climate to your study to get it funded.

[Tom Servo]

That's definitely true, we're always more forgiving if we're happier with the outcome.

[Cam]

My gal talkin' shop. I am always genuinely impressed with her screen presence.

https://video.scetv.org/video/climate-change-in-sc-mfbv39/

[tigeraid]

Following in the footsteps of Sagan.

It's shocking to me the deep vastness of the conspiracy theories about Greta Thunberg. I guess I shouldn't be surprised though. Young, well-educated girl takes a stand and speaks up for science and reason? Must be bought and paid for by <insert leftist government here>.

Of course, those are the same wingnuts who believe dubious or thoroughly discredited global cooling or climate-change-is-a-hoax "scientists" who are on the payroll of big oil and transportation companies.

[Rare White Ape]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWo65Uhekjs

[MR2 Fan]

There's a few factors at work:

- Those who are incredibly corrupt and either can't understand or can't believe that there's people out there who ACTUALLY want to do positive things in the world, without having a profit motivation, etc.

- Those who are incredibly corrupt and want to convince other people that those who are trying to save the planet are the ones who are corrupt, to deflect from their own actions

- A combination of the two

[Crazed_Insanity]

I thought Greta handled everything thrown at her quite well. I don't think she'd want people to defend 'her', she'd rather people save ourselves from extinction.

Don't get so worked up over this. Save our political energies to actually do something helpful for the planet. Start it one person at a time. Shouting at people who rejects Greta's message won't do us any good. Action speaks louder than words. Greta also was asking people to vote wisely, that's another action... I'm sure she wasn't asking for our help to save 'her'. She's more interested in saving the planet.


My gal talkin' shop. I am always genuinely impressed with her screen presence.

https://video.scetv.org/video/climate-change-in-sc-mfbv39/

Just finished watching this... my goodness... Lori really looks like she knows what she's talking about. I'm not sure I'd argue with her about climate change. Well, you probably don't want to argue with your wife about anything in general. ;)

[Cam]

My gal was interviewed on the local Fox affiliate today. She is doing an interview for the local paper as well tomorrow morning. Media super-star!

[Leon]

Nice going :)

[Rare White Ape]

Extinction Rebellion protesters have been regularly disrupting peak hour traffic (but not bus lanes) in Brisbane recently - which I fucking love because it’s hilarious - by gluing themselves to roads and hanging from bridges etc.

This week one of the mad dogs was picked up by the police after setting himself up in a little barricade. He had set his phone to live stream everything, then glued his hand to the phone, with his thumb glued to the screen so that the police couldn’t turn it off!

Link to post on Facebook here: https://www.facebook.com/243838989838892/posts/374566176766172?substory_index=13&sfns=mo

[Leon]

I think Wellington might be due a visit from them on Monday. Might be interesting.

[Rare White Ape]

Yeah, October 7-11 is Rebellion Week starting Monday. Increased protests for five days in all the major cities everywhere.

Good on them. I really mean it.

The Qld cops are holding press conferences warning people in Brisbane to plan ahead. They're treading the fine line between respecting people's right to protest and calling them useless hippies who just get in everyone's way. They're much more subtle about it than our federal government is this week.

[dodint]

My gal was interviewed on the local Fox affiliate today. She is doing an interview for the local paper as well tomorrow morning. Media super-star!

I hope she was able to work in some CG plugs, too. ;)

[Cam]

:lol:

[FaultyMario]

There's a few reports claiming that dozen or so of bee species became regionally extinct. There's worries that previously dormant (or less lethal) diseases could drive European predators into extinction, AFAIU some cats and birds are at risk because they feed on rabbits and smaller birds that can be infected by these virii and parasites and that then leads to lack of food sources for the predators or outright contagion.

[Rare White Ape]

Here’s a nice and succinct rundown of the state of affairs in Australia right now.

Sometimes it’s instructive to get the perspective of an outside source, in this case it’s the Beeb from Old Blighty telling it how it is.


https://youtu.be/SFAk16n7RCg

[Cam]

Sorry to hear about the Aussies' struggle. :(

[Rare White Ape]

Thanks Cam.

They’ve been in charge for nearly ten years and they’re driving the country into the ground. We just had an election earlier this year and Labor looked dead-certain to win and remove these fucks from office, but nope, the voting public had other ideas (mostly programmed into them by the Murdoch news empire).

If the elections happened in September instead of May, right when the climate strike protests were kicking off, AND if Labor (left wing) and the Greens (very left wing) could for once put their differences aside and work together, we’d be dealing with a different Prime Minister who’s not off in New York at the opening of a fucking happy-clapper Hillsong church.

The light is at the end of a very long tunnel here.

[Tom Servo]

It's oddly impressive how much damage Murdoch has done. I mean, on top of all the politics, there was MySpace.

[Rare White Ape]

I never knew he owned that. Must've used it as a proto-propaganda platform before figuring out it was better to do it via Facebook and Twitter.

[Tom Servo]

Yeah, NewsCorp bought MySpace when it was nearing its peak and owned it the entire time I worked there. We usually referred to him as "uncle Rupert" when we'd see him wandering the halls.

On the plus side, he lost a ton of money on it.

[Tom Servo]

Now that I've dispatched with making the dickheaded jokes about Murdoch..

https://twitter.com/dansran/status/1208330860547567616

Holy shit.

[Rare White Ape]

Oooooof