41–50 of 114 posts
Honest question. If during the warmest periods ice melts all over the planet, wouldn't ice cores lack carbon measurements for those periods? I'd love an answer from someone with some expertise.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/record-shattering-27...
in the 2007 time-frame, the US National Snow and Ice Science Center showed up en-masse in California and were flipping out about ice changes, semi-desperate to find some way to communicate to the public about it. Post-"Inconvenient Truth" and early days of Twitter, the idea that if "somehow, someway, people could know about this" things would get better faster, was the knee-jerk idea amongst people who were immersed…
The trouble is that if the "we" who are doing something does not include China and the rest of the world in coordination, then it is just sacrificing local economics in vain. The idea that the rest of the world is going to follow suit automatically based only on morals is far from obvious. It doesn't seem that anyone in the mainstream has really found a way to come to grips with this, that at its core any solution is…
Make the carbon tax revenue neutral, and pitch it as leveling the playing field and a boon to the local economy.
Sure, there are tons of details to work out, but I think this should be doable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We could just build fission power plants, they're reasonably safe, not too expensive and we know how to store the waste safely, heck - we've built a place to store it, but until there is political will to overcome the NIMBYism of not wanting to live in the next potential Pripyat (no matter how remote that risk is) nothing will change, except the climate of course.
We could also just build renewables.
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/hawaiian-electric-finalizes... (Hawaiian Electric finalizes largest-ever renewables procurement)
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/new-york-awards-record-1700... (New York awards record 1,700 MW offshore wind contracts)
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/regulators-unanimously-appr... (Regulators unanimously approve Georgia Power plan, increasing renewables 72% by 2024)
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/aep-plans-2b-15-gw-wind-pur... (AEP plans $2B, 1.5 GW wind purchase in Oklahoma)
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/12/5/1812692... (Xcel Energy, one of the biggest utilities in the US, committed to going completely carbon-free by 2050 (and 80 percent carbon-free by 2030).)
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/09/eon-uk-to-s... (E.ON UK to supply 3.3m customers with 100% renewable electricity)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many big impacts are controlled at the local level: infill development, for example, is one of the best ways for the Bay Area to reduce its emissions. Statewide, 41% of California emissions come from transportation, more than any other source. https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/06/climate-chan... That is only going to change through local action, which means going to city council and planning meetings and b…
Reducing emissions isn't enough. ZERO emissions isn't enough.
But we also need to change the local as much as possible. Every single ton of CO2 we can avoid now is one less that we'll have to pull out later.
in the 2007 time-frame, the US National Snow and Ice Science Center showed up en-masse in California and were flipping out about ice changes, semi-desperate to find some way to communicate to the public about it. Post-"Inconvenient Truth" and early days of Twitter, the idea that if "somehow, someway, people could know about this" things would get better faster, was the knee-jerk idea amongst people who were immersed…
The trouble is that if the "we" who are doing something does not include China and the rest of the world in coordination, then it is just sacrificing local economics in vain. The idea that the rest of the world is going to follow suit automatically based only on morals is far from obvious. It doesn't seem that anyone in the mainstream has really found a way to come to grips with this, that at its core any solution is…
It's scary, but there's nothing I can do. We need approachingly authoritarian action on this issue by world leaders. They've had the data for decades. And the longer they wait, the more dramatic the changes to everything will be. Certainly economic freedoms taken for today will be a thing of legend (and possibly horror.)
Like what?
There is something that you can do. Advocate that governments cut down on soot emissions. This accounts for a significant portion of the current temperature rise in the Arctic -- but, most importantly -- an unknown amount of the loss of snow and ice cover. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-track-... Unfortunately, this form of carbon (soot) is not as useful for funds transfer... Between cutting do…
i.e. vote. There are extremely important elections coming up in several states in November that will indirectly decide who controls Congress for the next ten years. Voting in this off-year election, especially if you live in Virginia can make a material difference in how the United States responds to this crisis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The trouble is that if the "we" who are doing something does not include China and the rest of the world in coordination, then it is just sacrificing local economics in vain. The idea that the rest of the world is going to follow suit automatically based only on morals is far from obvious. It doesn't seem that anyone in the mainstream has really found a way to come to grips with this, that at its core any solution is…
This sounds entirely tractable. Institute a carbon tax. In addition, create a tariff on all imports from countries that don’t have an equivalent bona fide carbon tax at the same or higher rate, and set the tariff such that it recovers 150% of the deficiency in taxes vs emissions. The tax needs to be transitive: if countries A and B don’t cooperate and country A reexports something from country B, the tariff needs to…
How, roughly, could this work politically at a global level, in a way that also works within the politics of each individual country?
in the 2007 time-frame, the US National Snow and Ice Science Center showed up en-masse in California and were flipping out about ice changes, semi-desperate to find some way to communicate to the public about it. Post-"Inconvenient Truth" and early days of Twitter, the idea that if "somehow, someway, people could know about this" things would get better faster, was the knee-jerk idea amongst people who were immersed…
The trouble is that if the "we" who are doing something does not include China and the rest of the world in coordination, then it is just sacrificing local economics in vain. The idea that the rest of the world is going to follow suit automatically based only on morals is far from obvious. It doesn't seem that anyone in the mainstream has really found a way to come to grips with this, that at its core any solution is…
In New Zealand, people with high carbon lifestyles say "well regardless of what we do, nothing matters if Americans don't change"
Now I live in America, where people with high carbon lifestyles say "well regardless of what we do, nothing matters if the Chinese don't change"
And I'm sure in China they say the same thing back to the US.
It's fun shifting the blame.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It won't be effective rapidly but: - walk as much as possible - buy as less as possible (if the sales plummet, less sending products overseas I suppose) or local - plant trees
I'm in a lucky position where I can walk to work, bike for local shopping, buy an electric car for the few times that I go on trips, etc. IMHO, the problem isn't as much individuals not choosing to do that, but a system that prevents these choices from ever being made. Also, not all spending is equal; buying propane or gasoline or airline tickets are clearly worse than buying a share of community solar; or buying new…