211–220 of 387 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone has always had the option to vote with their dollars. If we allow ourself to be eco-capital-realists for a moment, we have to conclude that living on a habitable planet is simply not that important for most people.
That's not what people think. They don't care because it won't effect them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For a brief moment before civilization-wide collapse, we'll be able to generate a lot of shareholder value.
I don't see how that's related. My point is that not everyone has the luxury of choosing to buy more expensive, eco friendly, goods. Some people have to pull from the bin of mass produced garbage food, rather than going down the street and paying 4x for something sustainably sourced. The very first consequence of being poor is that you have to live further from work. Burning up 4 extra hours a day, on a bus, isn't po…
Since Turkmenistan was mentioned, mandatory link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darvaza_gas_crater > One of the more popular theories is that Soviet geologists intentionally set it on fire in 1971 to prevent the spread of methane gas, and it is thought to have been burning continuously ever since.
Was there not some point where someone might have thought it a good idea to sink a gas wellhead half a mile away to drink that milkshake instead of letting it burn for 50 years?
Will be interesting to see how this capability unfolds. They’ve proven this can be done using an instrument not even designed for the task. A specialized instrument may be able to detect other greenhouse emissions. Imagine the kind of high resolution accountability that might be possible. But does the political will exist in the US to expose ourselves that way? Our political donors that way? Our country as one of the…
What would happen if this information was public?
Due to the toxic nature, I still wouldn't recommend sunscreen without knowing exactly what is in it.
YouTube is full of trash burning tutorials. Some of them are exceptionally stupid and talk about "clean burners", which is essentially a burn barrel connected to a leaf blower, such that the smoke is dispersed, creating the illusion of "clean" air. Such dumb tutorials have hundreds of hundreds of thousands of views. Each video has dumb comments on them like "Oh yeah this burner is awesome, I made the same thing at ho…
While I sympathize with the sentiment, that creating some kind of censorship dystopia will magically solve the problem, the idea has no traction when most of the people doing so make less than $1 a day somewhere in a remote corner of the world. This is the problem I have with climate activism. The best way to reduce pollution is to raise the standard of living for people around the world. People who are wealthy can a…
And not having money is not a excuse for burning trash. In part, because burning some types of trash (pretty much anything other than yard trimmings, including food) will make you and your community incredibly sick, causing you to spend more money in the end.
It's already illegal to burn trash in almost every jurisdiction on earth. I am just calling for the removal of content featuring activities that are already illegal.
https://archive.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/web/html/i...
Then, is censorship a solution here? fuck yes. Let's fucking do it. I am all for the censorship of that content. The less of it, the better. Will that inconvenience some people? Fucking fantastic. No ad revenue for the morons working against society, making residential super-polluting videos. They should be in jail, not on YouTube.
Several questions ask to contextualize this measurement. Here's a highly-cited paper in Nature (including some of the researchers quoted in the OP) that describes how an earlier survey of California methane emissions went: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1720-3 If I remember right, the state of CA asked for this survey. It was carried out by an instrument similar to that of the OP, but airborne, not on ISS…
Who are they selling them to, and how will they get out from the responsibility?
Will be interesting to see how this capability unfolds. They’ve proven this can be done using an instrument not even designed for the task. A specialized instrument may be able to detect other greenhouse emissions. Imagine the kind of high resolution accountability that might be possible. But does the political will exist in the US to expose ourselves that way? Our political donors that way? Our country as one of the…
-Sensor system is designed and launched for specific mission goal
-Someone finds an unexpected and important use for the data, completely unrelated to the original mission goal
-Eventually a specialized platform for the unexpected use case is developed and launched
-Someone finds a new use case for this data
And the process repeats. LANDSAT 1 (formerly ERTS-A) was originally conceived to find undiscovered deposits of minerals. Turned out it was useful for a hell of a lot more than that.
Several questions ask to contextualize this measurement. Here's a highly-cited paper in Nature (including some of the researchers quoted in the OP) that describes how an earlier survey of California methane emissions went: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1720-3 If I remember right, the state of CA asked for this survey. It was carried out by an instrument similar to that of the OP, but airborne, not on ISS…
Moved to SF from LA area. Sf does the green bins and it’s actually surprisingly nice to separate the compostable scraps out of the other trash. It keeps the trash bin much cleaner and much less stinky.
If I moved back to an area that didn’t require it, I’d still keep them separate and only re-combine at the curbside bin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My Orange County suburb recently mandated putting food waste into a separate can.
Quoted post unavailable.
yeah this guy is right. if we can’t fix it in a single swift stroke, it can’t be fixed. (i just gave myself a headache from rolling my eyes so hard.)
think of it differently, at least for a few seconds. what is significant change if not lots of small changes measured cumulatively? lots of individual people wanting gas for their cars contributed to oil companies (and others) polluting for profit; why can’t individual changes also contribute to a solution?