91–100 of 310 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From someone who hasn't read it, can you say why? That's the second time I've seen it referenced here. Cheers.
An Indian heat wave is the premise of the story. I stopped reading it after a couple of chapters.
Instead of relying solely on air conditioning, which often adds to greenhouse gas emissions if run on fossil power, there are a number of passive solar design strategies that work without additional energy: - Solar chimneys draw cool air in when it’s sunny via pressure differential - Building orientation along with natural shading from deciduous trees prevent excessive solar insolation heating the building - Building…
On the other hand you go into a 200+ year old building and you notice it's cool in summer although there is no air conditioning. The building is positioned in such a way that it stays cool for the most of the day, the walls and windows are placed to optimized for this. It's not 100% but if you added a cooling system you would have a perfect setup.
We rely to much on technology to build these ugly boxes instead of also considering the building shape and position itself.
And here in the western world, people still don't like using public transport and their bikes (when they can). It's difficult to be optimistic, but it seems there is nothing that will truly limit fossil fuel consumption. Maybe some oil producing countries could get in some sort of alliance, and artificially limit the amount of oil they extract, in return for subsidies? Those countries could also put a tariff on oil.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Article says this isn’t a record high so what do you mean? This may surprise people, but places near the equator are really god damn hot most of the time and when they have a heat wave it’s even hotter.
Climate change isn't only new record high temperatures. It's also, as described in the article, temperatures consistently being higher than is regular for this time of the year.
I mean, any farmer can tell you some growing seasons are really warm, others cold, some very dry and others very wet. No two seasons are the same.
And here in the western world, people still don't like using public transport and their bikes (when they can). It's difficult to be optimistic, but it seems there is nothing that will truly limit fossil fuel consumption. Maybe some oil producing countries could get in some sort of alliance, and artificially limit the amount of oil they extract, in return for subsidies? Those countries could also put a tariff on oil.…
For starters, I think public transportation should be free for the poor, and low middle class.
All air travel that uses fossil fuel would would be taxed if you are above middle class. Outlaw the private jets. (It just bothers me to see the Elon, or Saturday Night Fever types jetting off to Ibesa. (Too disenfranchised to check the spelling of the party port.)
Give companies federal income tax credits if they can keep their employees at home, and not commuting.
Encourage solar with incentives. Yes--we have been doing that, but in my state (CA) PG&E seems to balk at paying customers for the energy produced.
And more Nuclear power plants, but not on faults.
Bring companies back home if their product is in a county that dosen't care about Carbon. More than just a tariff.
(In the end I'm afraid Global Warming measures will be paid for by the poor, and middleclass. Their will be more taxes on gas. Their will be more effort to keep older cars off the roads. (poor can't afford electric vechicles right now. Those two year smog checks are really getting stringent, and don't make sense. I put 500 miles on my vechicle a year. Why am I paying every two years for a smog check. DMV has our mileage. Same gripe goes for mandatory insurance.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
- paint that has high emissivity in the IR window and high reflectivity in the rest of the spectrum. - thermochromic windows
> - paint that has high emissivity in the IR window and high reflectivity in the rest of the spectrum. Does such thing exist? And, doesn't high emissivity in the IR mean high IR absorption as well ?
[0] https://ceramics.org/ceramic-tech-today/materials-innovation... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_window [2] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Illustration-showing-des...
A grim thought, but in 50 years time when a lot of the planet is uninhabitably hot, does that reduce emissions, by virtue of, you know, there not being people to stoke the fires?
There is a force in the opposite direction, because all the tree carbon and soil carbon currently stored in those areas will likely burn or decay, increasing total atmospheric carbon. Also permafrost melting will release huge amounts of methane. Lots of positive feedback loops that will be going independent of burning fossil fuels.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is nature going to put a stop to our rape of this planet by directly killing millions (maybe billions) through heat, fire, flooding, famine, drought, etc.? Is that what it will take? Am I wrong to be despondent about our capability as a species to prevent this coming catastrophe any other way?
> Is that what it will take? Probably. That said, the brunt will be born by the poor. America may face a deep recession. India, starvation and a political reboot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even in the US, there are some cities with excellent public transit. New York is the land of subways, and was known for its endless taxis at one point. I know other US cities have light rail, elevated tracks, transit. Even SV has things called buses, and rail transit too. I think people just like to shout random ideas sometimes, without thinking.
I don't mean that the US doesn't have cities with good public transit, but that the cities with bad public transit are usually in the US.
Driving from Corporate Woods, Overland Park to Westbottoms Missouri is 19 minutes. The bus takes over an hour including a sixteen minute walk. In other words, nothing has changed in ten years. It takes about three times the time to take a bus as opposed to driving.