11–20 of 89 posts
The problem is that most people will look at them, quickly find "another" large source of CO2 emissions (be it another country, another industry), point fingers and say "it's them!" without doing anything else. Which in the long term (as in, our children and grandchildren will suffer) will destroy our planet.
It is always interesting to see graphs like this, I am curious how much something like a new green deal would move the 2100 temperature line. A common argument against it is that everything depends on China and India. I don't suspect this is true. The USA is one of the highest per capita emitters, it doesn't seem right that we would get to live like that while we take away resources from these other countries who are…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd say at this point, "radical" is the key term here.
Pragmatically its more a return to old-style living in many ways but will seem radical to groups addicted to modern lifestyles.
Global warming is here to stay: better learn to cope with it!
the people pushing the green new deal are doomsday Sayers predicting "crisis" in 12 years. they are more religious than some religious people about their science. however their 6000 scientists don't appear to look at satellite imagery, or choose not to: "The world is literally a greener place than it was 20 years ago, and data from NASA satellites has revealed a counterintuitive source for much of this new foliage: C…
There is no correlation between people concerned about high estimated damage using the current best effort science (warming of 3-4'C) and dogma without evidence.
If you have evidence to the contrary you will have definitely earned that Nobel prize and million bucks.
It is always interesting to see graphs like this, I am curious how much something like a new green deal would move the 2100 temperature line. A common argument against it is that everything depends on China and India. I don't suspect this is true. The USA is one of the highest per capita emitters, it doesn't seem right that we would get to live like that while we take away resources from these other countries who are…
And since we outsourced our industry to China, a fair share of China's emissions are also our emissions.
And the vast majority of it comes from energy production! Electric cars don't solve the problem if we are switching from high-efficiency gas engines to coal-fired electric.
the people pushing the green new deal are doomsday Sayers predicting "crisis" in 12 years. they are more religious than some religious people about their science. however their 6000 scientists don't appear to look at satellite imagery, or choose not to: "The world is literally a greener place than it was 20 years ago, and data from NASA satellites has revealed a counterintuitive source for much of this new foliage: C…
They are saying we have 12 years to drastically reduce carbon emissions. If we don't the results of which will be seen in the following decades. I would expect NASA would agree with this just like every other reputable scientific organization.
[edit] Formatting
It's super depressing to see the acceleration of coal energy in 2000. Despite the rise of renewables, they haven't even been able to keep up with the rise of coal! And the vast majority of it comes from energy production! Electric cars don't solve the problem if we are switching from high-efficiency gas engines to coal-fired electric.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jan/17/bitcoin-e...
>Bitcoin’s electricity usage is enormous. In November, the power consumed by the entire bitcoin network was estimated to be higher than that of the Republic of Ireland. Since then, its demands have only grown. It’s now on pace to use just over 42TWh of electricity in a year, placing it ahead of New Zealand and Hungary and just behind Peru, according to estimates from Digiconomist. That’s commensurate with CO2 emissions of 20 megatonnes – or roughly 1m transatlantic flights.
It is always interesting to see graphs like this, I am curious how much something like a new green deal would move the 2100 temperature line. A common argument against it is that everything depends on China and India. I don't suspect this is true. The USA is one of the highest per capita emitters, it doesn't seem right that we would get to live like that while we take away resources from these other countries who are…