371–380 of 1001 posts
Anyone who claims to be "following the science" knows that there is no such thing as "code red" in science and lo and behold it's not what the IPCC report says but a UN representative. This is a media and ideologically driven narrative and have absolutely nothing to do with reality yet it's used to scare people who can do absolutely nothing and will only be used to push draconian and anti-human decisions on the energ…
Yeah, no.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There were a study done in Sweden a few years ago that looked at the question about an individuals actions and the corresponding CO2 production. No car > skipping flight > buy green energy > Get a electric car > diet. https://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/article/four-lifestyle-choi...
How could you leave out the one with the biggest impact, which is basically "less humans"?
The nuclear solution has been there this whole time. Too many solar / wind dummies getting in the way of this being a viable replacement claiming 'oh yeah these green sources can cleanly swap into coal/gas plants' while completely ignoring base load / growth requirements which nuclear can fill without being dependent on external variables.
Yes, but it's more subtle than that.
Despite the naysayers, and those that don't accept science and fact, nuclear, is clean, is safe, and is available right now. Deaths due to nuclear power station (construction, accidents,
Amongst the many problems with uranium-based nuclear power is: government legislation and control, government obsession with also producing weapons grade fuel, preventing other countries (Iran, North Korea) from having it, and lastly cost, as a consequence of all of these things.
And because of the weapons grade part, and other reasons, thorium has never been pursued. But China is, https://www.livescience.com/china-creates-new-thorium-reacto..., and it seems like the West is going to be in China's pocket again, if it is successful.
As for fusion. That's still 30 years away as usual.
I'm still very skeptical how the measures will take into effect if they ever happen. In france the yellow vests protest was caused by a planned carbon tax increase on gas. Car dependent citizens rioted. A carbon tax will reduce the living standard of everyone, and it will take time for society to readjust. I really think the economy will tank and take a lot of time to adjust to a green economy, as it's not only elect…
It's reductive. The protest was not just on the carbon tax, but that the carbon tax was used to finance the cancellation of the wealth tax (aka ISF for "Impot sur la Fortune"). Source: https://wikileaks.org/macron-emails/emailid/50207
I'm French and I've had my tax rate almost cut in half since Macron has become President... because I gained millions on the stock markets. The more I earn from capital gains, the less I'm taxed (relative to my wealth). Each extra € is taxed at 30% (all included), which is less than my far-less-rich coworkers (who only earn salaries, which can be taxed at 45%... 1.5x my tax rate!). And this is wihout even talking about the ISF!
This is soooo unfair and the Gilets Jaunes are simply aware of that, even if they don't know all the little details, and despite the media not describing what's really going on.
It’s just so hard to know what actions have what impact on CO2 production. Some are high-pain, low-gain (switching devices off instead of standby?), some are opposite (cycling instead of driving when possible etc). For that if for no other reason, I’d rather if consumer prices included an explicit CO2 tax. The here can be a rebate for poorer people, or personal allowance, whatever, but there would be a fixed yardstic…
There were a study done in Sweden a few years ago that looked at the question about an individuals actions and the corresponding CO2 production. No car > skipping flight > buy green energy > Get a electric car > diet. https://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/article/four-lifestyle-choi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There were a study done in Sweden a few years ago that looked at the question about an individuals actions and the corresponding CO2 production. No car > skipping flight > buy green energy > Get a electric car > diet. https://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/article/four-lifestyle-choi...
How could you leave out the one with the biggest impact, which is basically "less humans"?
Humans tend to be on their own barring social pressures carbon neutral. The biggest expenses being food and water, if these aforementioned practices are applied. It gets even better if these young can work to reduce the impact of the warming.
We'll need a lot of manpower to pull off the necessary changes. Just due to the scale of it. Well educated people too. We're on at least one to two generations of lag in education related to physics, chemistry, agriculture, material science, civil engineering, process engineering, general ecology, social engineering... And the old will start to wear down and think in old patterns.
Additionally further down the list is "live together in higher density" and "buy locally made things" bits.
It’s just so hard to know what actions have what impact on CO2 production. Some are high-pain, low-gain (switching devices off instead of standby?), some are opposite (cycling instead of driving when possible etc). For that if for no other reason, I’d rather if consumer prices included an explicit CO2 tax. The here can be a rebate for poorer people, or personal allowance, whatever, but there would be a fixed yardstic…
There were a study done in Sweden a few years ago that looked at the question about an individuals actions and the corresponding CO2 production. No car > skipping flight > buy green energy > Get a electric car > diet. https://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/article/four-lifestyle-choi...
Coal electricity is 60% of emissions. Aviation is less than 5%. How is skipping a flight that highly ranked of you are burning a ton of carbon just being at home (if you have coal fired power).
Actual rankings have to be energy mix dependent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There were a study done in Sweden a few years ago that looked at the question about an individuals actions and the corresponding CO2 production. No car > skipping flight > buy green energy > Get a electric car > diet. https://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/article/four-lifestyle-choi...
How could you leave out the one with the biggest impact, which is basically "less humans"?
It’s just so hard to know what actions have what impact on CO2 production. Some are high-pain, low-gain (switching devices off instead of standby?), some are opposite (cycling instead of driving when possible etc). For that if for no other reason, I’d rather if consumer prices included an explicit CO2 tax. The here can be a rebate for poorer people, or personal allowance, whatever, but there would be a fixed yardstic…
There were a study done in Sweden a few years ago that looked at the question about an individuals actions and the corresponding CO2 production. No car > skipping flight > buy green energy > Get a electric car > diet. https://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/article/four-lifestyle-choi...
[0] https://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/drimage/1120/630/4832/fourc...
The article, and many like it, does a poor job of explaining the consequences we will face. 1.5°C doesn't mean much to the lay man. Explain that uncertain harvests, tied to speculation on risks, will much likely lead to an increase in the price of bread. Add to that an increase in oil will also lead to a price increase. Heatwave in Greece ? Greece is usually hot in summer so one doesn't care. Now explain how many hou…
There is no sign of "uncertain harvests" in all the years people have been speculating about this as a potential consequence of global warming. Crop yields are breaking one record after another: https://www.agriculture.com/news/business/record-high-world-...
