131–140 of 209 posts
Germany just shut down several perfectly fine nuclear reactors and has some of the dirtiest electricity generation in the entire world They need to look inward before pointing outward.
Just not true https://www.destatis.de/Europa/DE/Thema/Umwelt-Energie/Ausba...
One of the most important solutions is never taken seriously enough, because most people are just big children: eat less meat.
Consumer choices are only going to get you so far
I wouldn't be too worried about it this century at least. if things look like they are going to get bad we will resort to geoengineering, and once we get a taste for it we will further optimize global temperatures to our liking. perversely, global warming earlier than expected is a good thing [for us] as it will wipe away all meaningful opposition to geoengineering. note how according to them having 50C days is a lik…
I'm not convinced that geoengineering is feasible when we can't even seem to stop churning CO2 into the atmosphere. It's far easier to stop the fossil fuel burning than to scrub the atmosphere or set up huge space mirrors, so why do you think that we'll manage to fix the climate? Far more likely is a massive population die off and a collapse of our modern society. At least some people made a lot of money from burning…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We'll know European Greens are serious about climate change when they stop decommissioning nuclear plants and replacing them with coal.
I recently wrote a reply to someone else with the same argument about the German greens, which I'll recycle here: "It's bad enough that nuclear proponents ignore the massive cost of nuclear compared to renewables once you factor in building costs, insurance and storage imho. But then to pretend like the conservatives didn't have a choice but to bungle the nuclear exit really is too much. The CDU never listened to the…
I know what the Swedish green party has on their platform, open to be read at any time on their website or in paper materials, or heard by their political representatives. Their position is that thermal power plants are critical to the energy grid in order to enable renewable energy and keeping costs down. They wish to use either bio fuels or green hydrogen to fuel those power plants.
The issue I got with that plan is that current thermal power plants in practice do not use exclusively bio fuels or green hydrogen, and that the environmental science around bio fuels are poor at best and full of green washing and practices that are extremely bad for the environment. The costs of bio fuels and green hydrogen has also demonstrated to be massively expensive, making the cost of nuclear cheap in comparison.
My views of the green will change when/if the green drops their support of thermal power plants, and their overwhelming dependency of using biofuels produced from corn as a way to reduce emissions. Biofuels need to be produced without using artificial fertilizers (natural gas), and without burning down forests to make space for the farming. It also need to be cheaper than nuclear, which disqualify green hydrogen as it is produced, stored and handled currently. Carbon capture and artificial fuels are disqualified on the same point, being overwhelming more expensive than nuclear.
As an anecdote, the Swedish green party leader and a right wing party had a political debate during last election. The Right wing party wanted to demolish an oil fueled thermal power plant that is currently operated in south of Sweden, and replace with new nuclear power plant. Paraphrasing what the green party leader said: "Thermal power plants are a natural part of the Swedish grid, and nuclear energy is way to expensive. We need those plants to keep the grid stable and prices low."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We'll know European Greens are serious about climate change when they stop decommissioning nuclear plants and replacing them with coal.
I recently wrote a reply to someone else with the same argument about the German greens, which I'll recycle here: "It's bad enough that nuclear proponents ignore the massive cost of nuclear compared to renewables once you factor in building costs, insurance and storage imho. But then to pretend like the conservatives didn't have a choice but to bungle the nuclear exit really is too much. The CDU never listened to the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
…and what do those data say about China’s emissions?
I'd love to know- ATM I've been on the hop all day and haven't had the time or the access to have a look see .. NASA datasets have less live website presentation this last year. The main point to be landed by that terse comment was that the world isn't merely reliant on CCP statements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You conveniently left the US out of that and the US's role in driving global emissions. China is also likely rapidly de-carbonizing right now just like they rapidly spun up. They are an issue, but the US and its policies have a massive impact on this problem. Same with Europe. Rapidly adopting renewables and not externalizing our emissions to other countries would go a long way. I have seen the argument shift from 'T…
China is not rapidly de-carbonizing. They've put off even starting to transition to clean energy by 15 years and they lag behind the other nations. They shouldnt be where the US is as the US has done an awful job. They should be where the EU is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I recently wrote a reply to someone else with the same argument about the German greens, which I'll recycle here: "It's bad enough that nuclear proponents ignore the massive cost of nuclear compared to renewables once you factor in building costs, insurance and storage imho. But then to pretend like the conservatives didn't have a choice but to bungle the nuclear exit really is too much. The CDU never listened to the…
What does the German Green Party say in their own political platform today about the use of thermal power plants? Are they in favor of them, to be used to balance the grid when renewable energy fails to meet demand, or are they against the construction and continued use? I know what the Swedish green party has on their platform, open to be read at any time on their website or in paper materials, or heard by their pol…
Doesn't matter, at least in Germany. Maybe it's different in other countries, though this would surprise me. Here, nobody reads the party platforms, as they do not correlate with the actions of our political parties.
If you vote according to party platform, then you should probably vote for the conservatives or the reds, as they pretend to be good for the economy and the workers.
I think it's better to judge a party by their actions, instead.
UK official body of actuaries basically says we are on trajectory of "Extreme" rating: > 3°C or more by 2050. Multiple climate tipping points triggered, tipping cascade. > over 4 billion deaths If so, big shifts would already be imminently felt within next 5-10 years. Remember that there would basically be no place to hide from these direct or knock-on effects. Not for any self sufficient "prepper with a Mac Studio"…
> there will basically no place to hide from these direct or any knock-on effects This is nonsense. (And your own source doesn't support the claim that the consequences of global warming will be unmitigable for anyone.) Many parts of the world will become milder for human occupation as a result of climate change. And nothing realistically forecast is unavoidable with wealth–rich countries will A/C and seawall their w…
If we don’t do something about this, I fear future generations will not view us in a positive light.
I have already accepted that there is nothing plebs can do about climate change. I can try hard by using public transport, using less plastic, and using less air conditioning, but all of those efforts are rendered useless by rich people going on vacation in yachts or private planes. And if you talk about reducing meat consumption, Americans will go mad, lol. Ordinary plebs trying to prevent climate change is like sub…
It stops making any difference if everyone stops trying. You compare this to subtracting $100 from a billion, but a billion dollars is composed of 10 million $100, and there's only a few rich people in those 10 million.