271–280 of 441 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or, redesign houses to not need nearly as much energy for heating and cooling, preferring natural heating via the sun and cooling via breeze. https://www.codylundin.com/codys_house.html
> and cooling via breeze This makes many assumption that do not fit very large parts of the inhabited earth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>In order to reach 1.61 metric tons an individual would not be able to own a gas-powered car, could not regularly consume meat, could not live in remote areas only visitable by plane etc. Many things people don't even consider "luxuries" (like visiting family overseas) would be a non-starter. So literally what was normal life in Europe up to the 80's, even 90s for some regions. It's not difficult to imagine how to ac…
Are electric planes physically impossible or just not realistic with current oil prices and no carbon tax?
You can use some biofuels (limonene) as a near-direct substitute for jet fuel though. I think maybe you need to change a few o-rings but the vapor pressure, combustion point, etc are all there and it's been demonstrated in Australia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not necessarily obvious. Planetary weather is a chaotic system and even for somewhat stable phenomenon like the gulf stream it's not a question of if it will collapse but when. Humans are likely speeding up the collapse but it will eventually happen regardless. If I had to choose between technological progress and stewardship, I'd pick technological progress because that's our only real chance at long-term survi…
The number of dimensions along which we are destroying the habitat we depend on is staggering. Deforestation (killing off one of the most efficient carbon sinks, causing soil erosion, changing the albedo, habitat destruction, change in water management), CO2 emissions, methane emissions, a ridiculously high per-capita energy budget in the western world where the only cap is how much money you are willing to spend, ki…
I thought forests tended to be pretty much neutral once they get old enough for trees to start dying and decomposing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, humanity is just not equipped to deal with this crisis. We are not organized or disciplined enough. There are too many competing interests and whats worse, the problems are not human scale. (Meaning that people won't see the benefits of their sacrifices in their own lifetimes) If I were a wealthy silicon valley type guy I would be looking closely at the Biosphere 2 project from the 80s and other closed ecosy…
I'd be surprised if any 'secret ecosystem projects' don't suffer the same fate as the Biospheres. Namely, catastrophic systemic collapse within a relativity short timescale brought on by an unmitigated pathogen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Per capita figures are meaningless. You're discussing imaginary lines in the dirt. The only way to tackle climate change is to bring down global emissions.
To bring down global emissions without first imposing a one-world government, we have to get each country to bring down emissions to its fair share. The best fair first approximation to this is for each country's share to be proportional to its population. That can then be refined with some sort of emissions trading system so that countries that want to outsource high emission industries to others can provide the emi…
At projected 2050 population levels of 10b, and 25GT/year emissions, per capita emissions allowance is 2.5t/year. There is no industrialized country with this level of emissions, the lowest being Sweden, Switzerland and France at 4.5, 4.7 and 5.13. These countries have moved >90% of their electrical production to nuclear and renewables and cut their emissions in half compared to the 1990s. Possibly they are also externalizing their food and industrials production.
B. What is 'fair' share? Population as of 2020? 2050? 1950? Land area? Forest mass?
The most obvious issue is population. Hard to believe, but in 1950, at the beginning of the current Golden Era, world population was a mere 2.5 billion people. At those population levels everybody on Earth could have had afforded the industrialized lifestyle of Japan, Germany or Netherlands, with about 10 CO2t/capita emissions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That is a luxury, whether you consider it one or not is irrelevant. When you emigrate there are certain consequences. Interesting. Why are you (or your political affiliates) the ones who get to decide what is a luxury and what is “essential”? Were you ordained with some divine moral authority? I can’t speak for the rest of the world, but that kind of authoritarian thinking will thankfully never be allowed to prevai…
It's not me who will decide, it will be your wallet. > but that kind of authoritarian thinking will thankfully never be allowed to prevail in the United States. That's a very funny statement.
https://morningconsult.com/2021/06/28/global-right-wing-auth...
Nuclear power is needed everywhere. All major grids. And all containerships. Doable in 20-40 years with some serious effort.
Fission? Not so much - we don't have time, appetite, budget, or (politically) the governance/control needed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>A few degrees over a hundred years is easily manageable. No it's not.
It’s already happened. The last 100 years.
> Human-caused climate change is occurring too rapidly for species to be able to adapt. Plants and animals are currently dying off at a rate that is 100 to 1000 times faster than the average rate of extinction over geological timescales. Because of this, there is mounting evidence that we are heading towards a mass extinction event.
https://skepticalscience.com/Can-animals-and-plants-adapt-to...
After seeing the global chaotic response to COVID I'm convinced that climate change will not receive a meaningful response until it is way too late. It apparently needs to hit the majority of the planet right in the gut (and then preferably the wealthy part) for people to get off their collective asses and do something about it. I'm just about ready to pack it in and hope the next generation is smarter than this one…
Coastal flooding...move to your vacation home in Vail, CO.
120F heat? Fit your house with 100000W AC units...the electric bill is pocket money.
Civil unrest from effects of climate change? Hire a private army to protect you.
Before someone makes the inevitable joke, no this will not help offset climate change temperature gains and neutralize the risk of heat-waves. The summer temperatures will continue to get hotter. It's the winter temperatures that will get colder. Both require energy use to keep housing liveable. Which, unless we dramatically transition our energy generation to renewables, will just continue exacerbating the climate p…
Or, redesign houses to not need nearly as much energy for heating and cooling, preferring natural heating via the sun and cooling via breeze. https://www.codylundin.com/codys_house.html
The building I live in in London was built in the mid 1800’s there are many others like it, Edwardian buildings aren’t much better not to mention the 50’s - 70’s council built blocks.
Rebuilding buildings would also have a major carbon footprint not to mention cost.