181–190 of 325 posts
We have nuclear power, but people are bad at evaluating risks, so here we are.
We were told that Fukushima will NEVER happen. So yeah, some people are very bad at evaluating risks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The politicians largely reflect the people they govern. I don't think we can expect much better from them as compared to the general population...not to mention of course the vested interests and lobbying capability of corporations. And again corporations have shareholders, employees, etc...
> The politicians largely reflect the people they govern. Someday I'd like to visit the universe you live in. It sounds nice.
The war is unwinnable. Global warming can only be reversed if we stop all Co2 and methane emissions, and then start net carbon capture to reduce current co2 levels. Its just not going to happen. No one ever says that out loud. There is noise about reducing carbon emissions - in reality this is a lot of argument about reducing carbon emissions in wealthy countries. We can't even do that. Meanwhile even my greeny-lefty…
The war is unwinnable. Global warming can only be reversed if we stop all Co2 and methane emissions, and then start net carbon capture to reduce current co2 levels. Its just not going to happen. No one ever says that out loud. There is noise about reducing carbon emissions - in reality this is a lot of argument about reducing carbon emissions in wealthy countries. We can't even do that. Meanwhile even my greeny-lefty…
On the other hand, defeatist attitude is not going to help anyone. Reversing the climate change may be the moonshot, but unless we have an objective we cannot convince anyone outside the "greeny-lefty" minority. At a minimum, we should be good examples to our children who are in greater danger of suffering from this than we currently are. I, for one, am teaching my child respect for nature and its resources. If we all did this, world would be a better place nonetheless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been looking into carbon capture recently because it's going to be vital to slowing down the warming (and buying us another 50 years for the transition). What surprised me is that I can cover double my two-car-owning European family's carbon footprint via planting trees in the UK at an annual cost of around $400. It'll cost half that to do the same in a developing country. We need a global carbon tax and we need…
Exactly, it's stupidly cheap, "so you destroyed the world because you couldn't be bothered to pay 5% extra for clean energy? Thanks Grandpa"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been looking into carbon capture recently because it's going to be vital to slowing down the warming (and buying us another 50 years for the transition). What surprised me is that I can cover double my two-car-owning European family's carbon footprint via planting trees in the UK at an annual cost of around $400. It'll cost half that to do the same in a developing country. We need a global carbon tax and we need…
I was curious about this and wanted to share some quick calculations on how viable this is: A tree can absorb as much as 48 lbs of CO2 per year [1]. This is pretty vague cause this can vary by tree age and size, but let's use this arbitrary number In 2014 the United States generated 6,870 million metric tonnes of CO2 [2]. 48 lbs is about 0.021 metric tonnes [3]. So... 6,870,000,000 / .021 = 327,142,857,142.85 327 tri…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/20...
The US has 716 per person. Sadly, it looks like China and India are the worst culprits: "Brazil had 301 billion trees (1,494 per person), Canada 318 billion (8,953 per person), and China 139 billion (102 trees per person). Among highly populous countries, India (population, 1.267 billion) had a tree population of only 35 billion, leading to just 28 trees per person."
By comparison, the US won't take that long to get to carbon-neutrality. India and China are going to be a burden on the planet for the next century at least.
Note that you don't need to plant an additional 1000 trees per person, you just need to have 1000 trees per person to cancel out their emissions.
The war is unwinnable. Global warming can only be reversed if we stop all Co2 and methane emissions, and then start net carbon capture to reduce current co2 levels. Its just not going to happen. No one ever says that out loud. There is noise about reducing carbon emissions - in reality this is a lot of argument about reducing carbon emissions in wealthy countries. We can't even do that. Meanwhile even my greeny-lefty…
The war is unwinnable. Global warming can only be reversed if we stop all Co2 and methane emissions, and then start net carbon capture to reduce current co2 levels. Its just not going to happen. No one ever says that out loud. There is noise about reducing carbon emissions - in reality this is a lot of argument about reducing carbon emissions in wealthy countries. We can't even do that. Meanwhile even my greeny-lefty…