251–260 of 522 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you reduce net CO2 production by 90% you still get record temperatures year after year, but the rate of increase is dramatically smaller.
maybe, maybe not. methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas. So if you reduced CO2 90%, but methane went up by 2X then you would have stronger warming. My point is CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas.
Personally I think that the idea that these trends can ever be revered by some sort of world wide agreement to lower consumption is a pipe dream. People want to eat meat and drive cars and fly on airplanes. As long as they're rich enough to do so you'll never stop them. The only solution to this problem is technology. Some combination of green energy sources plus probably very large scale terraforming.
The problem is that costs are subsidized by basically letting businesses destroy the environment. The solution should be simple: add lots of taxes, let the off-the-shelf cost of meat and gasoline reflect the real cost to our environment, make deforestation a crime, tax the shit out of all polluting industries and if a country is not participating add taxes on imports from said country, or ban those imports altogether…
We've basically imposed the "taxes on imports from said country, or ban those imports" on North Korea, with the result that they use the worst of environmental practices:
• Inefficient small coal-burning fireplaces in outlying areas. (Pyongyang is better.)
• Regulatory environment where factory and vehicle emissions are not even close to a priority.
• Unsafe nuclear testing.
Ok, so that was my straw man :) Hopefully it illustrates something more universal, namely:
Many countries lack the internal political will to put meaningful environmental clean ups in place. Even something as simple as the tax you proposed to pay for environmental clean up of disaster areas is impossible due to politics.
Until we have de-politicized the topic, that probably won't change. New clean tech is one great way of accomplishing this.
The part I find especially frustrating is that, on average, a New Yorker has a lower carbon footprint than the typical American, probably due to the heavy use of the train. So even when I do the (I think) eco-friendly thing by not having a car and using public transit, I'm still being punished for what the rest of the US (and the rest of the world) does.
Personally I think that the idea that these trends can ever be revered by some sort of world wide agreement to lower consumption is a pipe dream. People want to eat meat and drive cars and fly on airplanes. As long as they're rich enough to do so you'll never stop them. The only solution to this problem is technology. Some combination of green energy sources plus probably very large scale terraforming.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you reduce net CO2 production by 90% you still get record temperatures year after year, but the rate of increase is dramatically smaller.
You mean "If you reduce CO2 production by 90% by humans " The analysis that I'm waiting to see is "of the global CO2 production each year, how much of it is due to humans?" If we contribute 90% of CO2 production, then reducing it may change things. If we contribute 10% of CO2 production, then even reducing our portion to zero, the overall change is near-negligible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FUD of what? Generally FUD is used to gain some financial advantage. The only party who has anything to gain from continuing with the economic policies which acerbate climate change are the owners of fossil fuel sources. These constitute billions of dollars of future profit - but only if it's burnt up into the sky. Everyone else is only going to lose in the long term. If one does not understand anything of climate sc…
I am personally acquainted with the dealings of several environmental NGOs. Not climate related, but I extrapolate. And we are talking branches of the biggest NGOs out there. They have a very big incentive to spread FUD and they do it all the time. They are basically extortion and defamation platforms used as a political lever. At least here. But I very much doubt it's much different elsewhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regulation has never fixed anything. Young, inexperienced but passionate fish sometimes have been known to deny the existence of water. Later they're embarrassed.
I can take you to the water, but I can't make you drink it.
Personally I think that the idea that these trends can ever be revered by some sort of world wide agreement to lower consumption is a pipe dream. People want to eat meat and drive cars and fly on airplanes. As long as they're rich enough to do so you'll never stop them. The only solution to this problem is technology. Some combination of green energy sources plus probably very large scale terraforming.
There is another solution: less people.
Personally I think that the idea that these trends can ever be revered by some sort of world wide agreement to lower consumption is a pipe dream. People want to eat meat and drive cars and fly on airplanes. As long as they're rich enough to do so you'll never stop them. The only solution to this problem is technology. Some combination of green energy sources plus probably very large scale terraforming.
Having kids especially in the west is probably the least environmental friendly thing you could do.
Environmental friendly matters only because it is human friendly. Removing all the humans is not environmental friendly since climate change and extinctions happen a lot without humans too. Reducing number of people to half the current population is not environmental friendly since we were cutting down huge forests and driving species to extinction even before the industrial age.
The most environmental friendly thing you can do is have more than 2 children, and make sure they are well educated. There are still lots of deserts on earth that they can make into forests, we just need the science and manpower for that.
Warmer arctic region is not a problem, it gives more livable space. Higher sea level is not a problem, it gives more water to create lakes and fill aquifers in places like Sahara, Iran, and central Asia. 50 bln people on earth is not a problem, it gives more creativity and more workforce to go to Mars.