491–500 of 522 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pigs are actually a lot better than cows because they are monogastric. So we can cut CO2 emissions by eating more pork and less beef. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruminant#Ruminants_and_climate...
Or how about not eating animals at all, since it's cruel and unnecessary altogether? Difficult mental and emotional leap for most people, I know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Consider: all of environment protection legislation that we take for granted now was once "hippie bullshit". No, all the environmental damage we now defend and wish we could take for granted was once, and remains, valid science . Bio-time, bio-space, and the folding and unfolding of DNA across the ages are in fact hippie bullshit.
I get what you're trying to say but you're probably not old enough to remember (or weren't born yet), however environmental protection legislation was considered "hippie bullshit" well into the late 20th century.
[1]http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richa...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Water is one of the strongest greenhouse gases around, and there's plenty of it in the oceans that can evaporate in a runaway process. Once that happens, we're the next Venus. Reaching that tipping point is quite difficult though, and would require additional warming besides fossil fuels. Methane-based runaway warming maybe? Or even basic thermodynamic heat sink effects (which we'll reach in about 200 years at the cu…
Can you find a "serious climate scientist" who is claiming this "oceans boiling away" scenario is plausible? Alternatively, can you put some basic numbers on that? What will the surface temp need to be to initiate the boiling away? It looks like currently the TSI at Earth varies between 1315 and 1405 w/m^2 (a range of 90 w/m^2), which apparently has less effect on the temperature than the tilt of the earth. http://la…
Is James Hanson not "serious"? I agree that the consensus view seems to be that this is still an unlikely scenario.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130729-runaw...
As far as numbers go, I'm not a climate scientist, but I have done these kind of calculations before. If I figure out the tipover temperature, I'll post it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The planet is going to be just fine, the only thing that we can screw up is our ability to live on it in large numbers - which matters a lot to me for obvious reasons. Unless we're speaking about things that literally are extinction events for us , the larger organism doesn't really care about extremely short term fluctuations; in the scale of a few hundred million years the current climate change (or the temporary e…
People keep saying that. Lots and lots of species will go extinct before we do. And it will be our fault . Sure, the hunk of rock we call a planet will go on, and life will go on, but claiming we are the only casualty here is profoundly wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
As for meat replacement alternatives to help people adjust to a diet with less/no meat: Plant-based meat substitutes (these have become a lot better in recent years), in vitro meat production (still a few years off), or just more beans/lentils in the diet to replace the lost protein.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If both temperature and CO2 levels set new records every single year, then it's stoping sensational - it becomes expected. I'm still hoping to hear solid solutions that will work on a global level, and so far, there aren't any. As a matter of fact, with the global rise of populism it looks like in some areas, the world is going backwards. Leaked UK government memo says the environmental protections and pollution limi…
It's really is depressing seeing the stuff about the great barrier reef etc. Hard to hopeful that we can change course when every indication is that we as a species are not capable of cooperating on such a level. And even if everyone on earth agreed, who's going to enforce such policies? Would probably require a literal New World Order. Have fun getting the conspiritards (who would have been proven right) to go along…
We 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...
In France we have much nuclear energy, yes it doesn't create much CO2 but the downsides are severe: expensive, long cycles, energy has to be stored in dams anyway. Nuclear incidents get concealed regularly. Leaving nuclear energy is expensive itself. It seems solar and wind are better investments.
If all the money that were poured into anti-nuclear propaganda and research of unstable and extremely low-yield [1] sources like wind and solar we might have had clean nuclear power by now.
[1] http://www.rebresearch.com/blog/nuclear-vs-wind-and-solar-la...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yet the reality is self-actualisation / spirituality are as out of reach for many now as they were years ago when we were 'poorer'.
Well then I guess I'm a bit lost. What exactly is being suggested here? We seem to have established that, for 'many', there's no relationship between material wealth and spirituality (although the people replying to you appear to disagree, but I'm going with your notion). And I think the original post was suggesting that climate change is a consequence of a lack of spirituality. If we take all the above as true, woul…
To me it is clear we should do something about it but that is unpalatable to many or even most people because they think their lives will be worse without cheap abundant energy. I think they are wrong.