121–130 of 252 posts
Is there anything I can do with software that would make a difference? Currently, the only things that are coming to mind are simple carbon footprint calculators or infographics/visualization of data, which imo would not be that impactful. I would love to hear ideas
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Granted some people buy gratuitously large vehicles, but for many there is a practical purpose: moving large amounts of stuff. Whether it's multiple bags of mulch, dorm room furniture, sports equipment, more than 3 kids, or just lots of luggage for a family road trip, there's definitely an advantage to a big car there. Not to mention better performance in snow depending on model. In any case, one we get non-luxury el…
I think people delude themselves into thinking they're purchasing an SUV to transport a lot of stuff or to travel with kids, when in reality drivers nonetheless drive alone. Anecdotally, as I've said, SUVs have simply replaced Sedans as the "default" car on the road. And as you may know, the "default" car in America has a single driver. > In any case, one we get non-luxury electric SUVs the point will largely be moot…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>to hear these breathless alarmists talk, they are anti-technology, anti-progress, and apparently want us all to live stacked up in massive cities with no real quality of life at all. I tend to see this as either an exhibition of control-freak tendencies or simply full-on communism. Where is the second half of the article where, after discussing at length many bad possible outcomes, the guy goes on to propose detail…
You're right in that I never made it to the end, it was just that bad. It's like the weekend crap fearmonger articles you get on Zerohedge every weekend, albeit with better graphics. Not trolling.
To be honest I also at times thought the author's alarmism went a bit far and could have scared off serious readers, but as a general principle I still don't think its valid to critique someone on a basis that is non-existent: e.g., the author at no point explicitly endorsed any of the concepts or ideas you mentioned in the GP comment.
I did not realize the physiological effects would be as severe: > The fraction of carbon dioxide is growing: It just crossed 400 parts per million, and high-end estimates extrapolating from current trends suggest it will hit 1,000 ppm by 2100. At that concentration, compared to the air we breathe now, human cognitive ability declines by 21 percent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article has nothing to do with overpopulation
Everything described by the fearmongers has to do with too much human activity. How is that not related to nearly 8 billion people on earth?
> Everything described by the fearmongers has to do with too much human activity
Then should read better, because it is not the case. Or perhaps you can give us links to those "fearmongers".
And by fearmongers youre not talking about climate scientists, isn't?
It's pretty hopeless. I used to think we'd adjust in time, but that was when the decline looked more linear (or at least I thought it looked more linear). Of the many people who I know who are seriously concerned re climate change, I'd say 2 have taken truly meaningful steps . It's not the handful of climate change deniers that's the problem. It's the overwhelming number of people who want to say they're green, but s…
I doubt those two people have actually taken truly meaningful steps, unless they're powerful politicians, business leaders, or high up in a relevant regulatory agency. This is the root of the problem: the actions of most individuals don't matter no matter what they are. Let's say I switch entirely to renewable energy, stop eating meat, buy local food, and do every other thing possible to reduce my footprint. Great, n…
You either care enough to change your behavior or you don't. Don't pass your lack of courage of conviction off onto nameless "...politicians, business leaders or [those] high up in a relevant regulatory agency."
This always reminds me of this cartoon https://uk.pinterest.com/pin/514325219919218393/ "What if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" I think the key point that the article makes is that fossil fuels have enabled much of the industrialisation of the 20th and 21st century but it is also beginning to make certain areas of the world uninhabitable and yet we still seem to want to ignore the warning…
like the hoax of recent satellite observations being remapped upward to show increased heat lead by a member who has no expertise in the area? it was predicted many years ago that even those who were in the field would be forced to change their numbers to be in agreement, instead someone else stepped in and did so. hoax or fraud, some of what both sides qualifies. the trouble is there is so much money at stake that i…
Who has changed the numbers?
Do you have sources for those predictions?
> hoax or fraud, some of what both sides qualifies.
I suppose that you can give some sources for those fraud accusations, isn't?
It's pretty hopeless. I used to think we'd adjust in time, but that was when the decline looked more linear (or at least I thought it looked more linear). Of the many people who I know who are seriously concerned re climate change, I'd say 2 have taken truly meaningful steps . It's not the handful of climate change deniers that's the problem. It's the overwhelming number of people who want to say they're green, but s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What kind of drastic change should one take? Not having kids, OK, drastic but doable. Cutting out meat, driving less, etc, OK. But what about the rest of the production chain that assumes you're the same as everyone else (whom continues to use and depend on that production chain), which is an ocean of waste compared to what any single person can do? We can individually push the needle very slightly, but it does nothi…
The energy consumption (and therefore carbon emissions) per capita in the west/US comes almost entirely from the feedback loop between single-family-detached housing and the car-or-two it takes to live in that kind of sprawled out lifestyle. Put another way, Transportation and Housing (heating & cooling) are the #1 and #2 sources of carbon emissions for suburban, exurban and rural dwellers. People who simply live in…
Complete revolution would be ideal for meaningful change but is highly unlikely. As it stands we have to adapt existing systems to be clean, or at least cleaner. That means LED light bulbs, more solar (rooftop or grid) and wind/hydro/geothermal where possible, and electric vehicles. Which is where we're heading right now. Given the current rate of expansion, I imagine suburban emissions from housing/transportation will drop drastically over the next 50 years. Meanwhile those yards are carbon sinks.