I just started using http://ecosia.org/
Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards
151–160 of 522 posts
Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards
#152Russians fail to manage their swamps and forests. They burn regularly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Russian_wildfires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_wildfires I bet that contributed a lot to the 2010-s CO2.
Deforestation of Argentinian and Brazilian agriculture tops that any day. Phytoplankton loss does that too.
There’re important differences.
When you just burn a forest, you release carbon that was in the atmosphere a few years or decades ago. Those trees would die eventually, and most of the carbon would go to the atmosphere anyway.
When you dry a swamp and burn a peat bog, you release carbon that was in the atmosphere centuries ago. Under normal circumstances, that carbon would stay underground for millennia.
Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
When debugging performance problems you always search for the biggest bottlenecks not the minor ones, so what are the biggest contributors to CO2? I don't think the problem is the number of people living on earth but how modern society is making people live, for example some big contributors are high meat consumption (cattle methane) inefficient transportation (big suvs with just the driver inside sitting in traffic…
Agreed, we should tackle the biggest sources first. And meat production in particular is one of the biggest contributors. Scale back the subsidies for these types of farms and replace them instead with taxes. Consumers will change their habits once they are faced with the "real" cost of meat.
Ok, meat calories will need to be replaced with something.
Or are we going to eat grass?
Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards
#154How does animal agriculture affect this? Are there any authorities on the subject on HN? Everything I've heard suggests the greenhouse gas emissions in support of animal agriculture far outstrip those of pretty much anything else, but nobody seems to really talk about it. Pre-empting a couple of replies here - I already don't eat meat, and yes I've seen "Cowspiracy". :)
This UN site says 5% of actual CO2 and 14% of CO2-equivalent emissions. Cow and pig production emit mostly methane and nitrogen oxide.
Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards
#155I generally get funny looks and the feeling that people are imagining me with a toothbrush mustache and a comb-over when I suggest this: Wouldn't population control to an extent help slow the rate of emissions? Caps on births or higher taxes on family sizes, etc. I know political/moral/ethical issues would make it impractical but I don't think any potential solution is worth ignoring.
Plus--once you tell someone they can't have something.
They will do whatever they can to get it.
(Groucho Marx's was the first to notice this human traight, I believe? It's just so true though. Hell, I can have stuff on CL for months. The minute I tell a customer it's awaiting a pick-up, so many will email me back with more money. I don't take it because I'm not a filthy Looker. I once had a girlfriend who was always yacking about having a family later in life. I didn't even like her that much--sue me. She was beautiful though. The rap about the kids was getting old. We were getting tedious. Most it it was my emotional issues, but she was just irritating me. One night, after hearing about what our life will be after she got her PhD, and finished med school(didn't even have a Bachelor's degree yet). I slowly ended the relationship. I started with, "You're wonderful, but I don't ever want kids." Crickets on the room. "What?" Me, "I just don't want the little rug rats?". The next few weeks, I had a feeling she told all her friends, and she had so many. After a few months of weirdness, I got the talk.)
Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards
#156I generally get funny looks and the feeling that people are imagining me with a toothbrush mustache and a comb-over when I suggest this: Wouldn't population control to an extent help slow the rate of emissions? Caps on births or higher taxes on family sizes, etc. I know political/moral/ethical issues would make it impractical but I don't think any potential solution is worth ignoring.
In 1950 global population was 2.5 billion people, now 7.5. That's 3x in 67 years. Technological advances can help us increase the amount of people we can sustain, but eventually there is going to be a limit. The limit will not only be because of CO2. There are other situations that need to be managed. Population is increasing, and the lifestyle of individuals is rising, making each person have a larger cost on the en…
We are already past the peak child. Fish will no go anywhere, it will just be farmed more.
Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
When debugging performance problems you always search for the biggest bottlenecks not the minor ones, so what are the biggest contributors to CO2? I don't think the problem is the number of people living on earth but how modern society is making people live, for example some big contributors are high meat consumption (cattle methane) inefficient transportation (big suvs with just the driver inside sitting in traffic…
Agreed, we should tackle the biggest sources first. And meat production in particular is one of the biggest contributors. Scale back the subsidies for these types of farms and replace them instead with taxes. Consumers will change their habits once they are faced with the "real" cost of meat.
If meat is taxed extra, then it is not the real cost is it?
Anyway consumers would stop purchasing organic meat or meat from places that cared about animal welfare before they stop eating meat.
Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards
#158We have to expand nuclear power. Many don't like it but at this point we have no other choice. Let solar drive the phasing out of nuclear reactors instead of coal power plants! Sadly in my country (Sweden) nuclear is not only taboo but it's illegal to perform research of the subject.. Laws passed by a severely misinformed "green" movement...
Is the radioactive waste problem solved?
It's a non-problem, compared to various other chemicals we deal with in industry. Nuclear waste is relatively easy to store and there isn't a lot of it. Yes - it's nasty, toxic stuff, but we know how to handle it.
Having to store some of it isolated for 10000 years is a concern, yes, especially if you look at the average lifespan of human civilizations. But we already have ways to reuse the waste (fast breeder reactors), and we could likely figure out many more - but reluctance to fund nuclear research and applications, driven partly by the fear of "the waste", is not helping here.
Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please read up on the scientific consensus. No respectable scientist believes that a meter or 2 of sea level rise over the next 200 years is going to literally cause the world to end. Read the science. Go with the facts. Not the fake consequences that no scientist believes is going to happen.
I don't understand your point, you're saying the scientific consensus is that we're not going to die, but I see a scientific consensus that keeps alerting us: Tornadoes are already here and we believe they're more frequent because of GW. Epidemics are often quoted as a consequence of a warmer, more welcoming climate, along with the decay of bees, hence the famines. NYC is expected to be flooded several times before 2…
> we believe they're more frequent because of GW
Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I vote we kill you first" If you're going to troll, at least get your science right. Breathing out CO2 adds zero net CO2 to the atmosphere, because it comes from food you ate, which itself came from CO2 in the atmosphere. The oil and gas that an individual uses to survive, on the other hand, is literally deadly. So you are at the verge of having a point: we could lower CO2 usage by killing people. However, a much mo…
I'm not trolling. I am feeding back to this person calling for outright violence their own attitude. It's attitudes like vesak's that will lead us to blood filled streets. Hate breeds hate. And eye for an eye leaving the whole world blind.
[deleted]