A sobering read. Time is running out regarding climate change.

[spacejamz]

Oh, what evironmentally friendly way?

You're right...there isn't one...I guess we'll just have to appreciate the irony of all of this....you can do that, can't you??

 

[Paratus]

Honest question. Is there technology today we can use to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere and store it underground?

Yes there are. In fact some pilot plants are pulling CO2 out of the air to make fuel carbon neutral fossil fuels.
https://arstechnica.com/science/201...-air-announces-a-new-methane-producing-plant/

 

[ch33zw1z]

You're right...there isn't one...I guess we'll just have to appreciate the irony of all of this....you can do that, can't you??

Just curious what you meant. It certainly is ironic, but I would imagine climate change deniers concern over it isn't sincere.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Maybe we can figure out time travel and go back and kill Rush Limbaugh in his sleep in 1992.

Oh noes, the violent left!!!! Muh guns!!!

 

[Josephus312]

Yes there are. In fact some pilot plants are pulling CO2 out of the air to make fuel carbon neutral fossil fuels.
https://arstechnica.com/science/201...-air-announces-a-new-methane-producing-plant/

Odin bless you for putting a bit of hope into this fucktard of a tread.

Good article.

 

[Stokely]

It's not really a problem, because they're actively looking forward to the end of the world so the rapture can happen. Who cares about 2100 when they're going poof any day now?

Unfortunately, this is not a satirical post. I know this because all my relatives believe this and actually sound happy talking about it. It is their fallback position for anything that can't be defended logically: God is coming to destroy the earth anyway, so why bother.

 

[Josephus312]

Oh noes, the violent left!!!! Muh guns!!!

Hands ch33w1z a musket, you can have this, it's approved by the founding fathers.

 

[Genx87]

Just curious what you meant. It certainly is ironic, but I would imagine climate change deniers concern over it isn't sincere.

I think he is talking about a giant web conference from their homes instead of flying private jets and taking private limos to a green conference to discuss how to lower carbon emissions.

 

[K1052]

This is doable and sacrifices are hardly needed on the line of WWII. Cut the military budget by $300 billion, research, develop and deploy ASAP. Right now this is the equivalent of a world

We already have basically all the requisite technology, just not the will to use it. We will drown with our feet able to touch the bottom while we insist they can't.

 

[Genx87]

Yes there are. In fact some pilot plants are pulling CO2 out of the air to make fuel carbon neutral fossil fuels.
https://arstechnica.com/science/201...-air-announces-a-new-methane-producing-plant/

Great to hear but also a little depressing. 150 tons a year\Unit while we spew gigatons as a species. But hopefully it can be scaled up greatly and made more efficient.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I think he is talking about a giant web conference from their homes instead of flying private jets and taking private limos to a green conference to discuss how to lower carbon emissions.

Ideally, yea....but to ignore what that actually takes to generate and run is also to be addressed

For instance, much of that web traffic would go through some data centers. The data centers I frequent have generators for unplanned street power outages. The sites have tanks that hold 20,000 gallons of diesel fuel, give or take a few thousand. These are for businesses, not emergency services. That's off point, but think of the amount of power running these data centers, and how many do we have.

 

[spacejamz]

Just curious what you meant. It certainly is ironic, but I would imagine climate change deniers concern over it isn't sincere.

It is very concerning that these 'leaders' are blatantly telling you to do as they say, not as they do....If they don't set the proper example, how they expect others to follow?

They can't even do little things like taking the shuttle that was provided which was nearly empty the entire conference or booking a flight on airline instead of taking a private jet. That clearly demonstrates how serious they are about this issue.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

We already have basically all the requisite technology, just not the will to use it. We will drown with our feet able to touch the bottom while we insist they can't.

That's the shame of it. We could deploy technology in a decade and it's not like we haven't run up the deficit for foolishness already. Make it and give it away for a fraction of the cost as profit should not be a consideration. Making the most money for the least investment is a good way to pass the point of no return. Give the stuff away if necessary.

 

[dank69]

It is very concerning that these 'leaders' are blatantly telling you to do as they say, not as they do....If they don't set the proper example, how they expect others to follow?

They can't even do little things like taking the shuttle that was provided which was nearly empty the entire conference or booking a flight on airline instead of taking a private jet. That clearly demonstrates how serious they are about this issue.

And all the people that think taxes should be higher to pay for healthcare and education should voluntarily pay more taxes.

 

[spacejamz]

And all the people that think taxes should be higher to pay for healthcare and education should voluntarily pay more taxes.

You cannot expect these leaders to stay at Holiday Inn (the horrors!!!) or eat at Chili's (more horrors!!!!)....Those $400-500/night hotels (I am probably way under estimating this number since we are talking about San Francisco here) and lobster/cavier dinners won't pay for themselves....

I would love to see an interview of these attendees where they are asked about this hypocrisy and how they justify it.

 

[dank69]

You cannot expect these leaders to stay at Holiday Inn (the horrors!!!) or eat at Chili's (more horrors!!!!)....Those $400-500/night hotels (I am probably way under estimating this number since we are talking about San Francisco here) and lobster/cavier dinners won't pay for themselves....

I would love to see an interview of these attendees where they are asked about this hypocrisy and how they justify it.

They usually just thank the journalist for their concern.

 

[Paratus]

Great to hear but also a little depressing. 150 tons a year\Unit while we spew gigatons as a species. But hopefully it can be scaled up greatly and made more efficient.

Mostly I’m trying to point out there are no basic scientific problems to solve to replace fossil fuels.

For space flight we use technology readiness levels to rate new technologies for use:

So I’d rate these at a 6-7.

Basically the remaining problems are all scale and political will not technical.

With the above technology, renewable power (solar wind hydro etc), energy storage, and nuclear we could support 7B first worlders for 0 carbon emissions if the effort was made.

With the stoppage in global population from poverty reduction policies could be put in place to allow recovery of the rainforests. A back of the envelope calculation I did shows an 80% increase in equatorial rainforest would use an equivalent amount of carbon to 50PPM of CO2.

So there’s options out there were we could maintain our lifestyle, reduce poverty, reign in climate change, and even give businesses a market of 7B first worlders to sell too IF we had the political will to work towards those goals over the next several decades.

 

[ch33zw1z]

It is very concerning that these 'leaders' are blatantly telling you to do as they say, not as they do....If they don't set the proper example, how they expect others to follow?

They can't even do little things like taking the shuttle that was provided which was nearly empty the entire conference or booking a flight on airline instead of taking a private jet. That clearly demonstrates how serious they are about this issue.

You seem very concerned when others have the "do-as-i-say-not-as-i-do" attitude. Interesting.

 

[dank69]

Mostly I’m trying to point out there are no basic scientific problems to solve to replace fossil fuels.

For space flight we use technology readiness levels to rate new technologies for use:

So I’d rate these at a 6-7.

Basically the remaining problems are all scale and political will not technical.

With the above technology, renewable power (solar wind hydro etc), energy storage, and nuclear we could support 7B first worlders for 0 carbon emissions if the effort was made.

With the stoppage in global population from poverty reduction policies could be put in place to allow recovery of the rainforests. A back of the envelope calculation I did shows an 80% increase in equatorial rainforest would use an equivalent amount of carbon to 50PPM of CO2.

So there’s options out there were we could maintain our lifestyle, reduce poverty, reign in climate change, and even give businesses a market of 7B first worlders to sell too IF we had the political will to work towards those goals over the next several decades.

I bet we could create a few well-paying jobs along the way but what do I know? I'm just a filthy freedom hating liberal.

 

[woolfe9998]

What do you think will happen due to climate change? Please see my post right below your quoted post.

Why don't you just read the article linked by the OP? It's covered in detail. Why ask us?

 

[Ken g6]

I don't understand what the problem is? Just tell Chinese people to "cut it out!"

/s

I suppose surgical strikes by China on our fossil fuel generating stations would have an effect. The ensuing nuclear war would have even more of an effect.

There's got to be an easier way.

 

[spacejamz]

You seem very concerned when others have the "do-as-i-say-not-as-i-do" attitude. Interesting.

You don't seem not be concerned when other have a "do-as-i-say-not-as-i-do" attitude. Interesting.

The fact of the matter is that you have a bunch of hypocrites who expect you to sacrifice the quality of your life while they continue to live a life of luxury at your expense. Does that bother you at all?

And all you can do is try to pick my posts apart on an internet forum...

 

[SlowSpyder]

You are correct on both accounts. 1st world birth rates are at replacement or below. So what do you suppose would happen to third world birth rates if their quality of living was no longer third world?

Now do you think it’s possible for them to improve their quality of living without using as much resources as first worlders had to?

So as our population explodes and quality of life improves around the globe, we fuck the earth more. That's kind of been my entire point, all these restrictions are feel good nonsense. Ultimately the problem lies with our exploding population, no getting around it.

 

[ch33zw1z]

You don't seem not be concerned when other have a "do-as-i-say-not-as-i-do" attitude. Interesting.

The fact of the matter is that you have a bunch of hypocrites who expect you to sacrifice the quality of your life while they continue to live a life of luxury at your expense. Does that bother you at all?

And all you can do is try to pick my posts apart on an internet forum...

Do-as-i-say-not-as-i-do bothers me from anyone. It's why, even at a young age, I saw religion for what it is. It's why I won't vote republican. It's why I don't support top down class warfare, or when we hand piles of money to people who already have piles of money while hard working people scrape by. But you don't either I'm sure.

Your posts don't need picking apart. I'm not sure you even know what that means.

 

[Paratus]

So as our population explodes and quality of life improves around the globe, we fuck the earth more. That's kind of been my entire point, all these restrictions are feel good nonsense. Ultimately the problem lies with our exploding population, no getting around it.

No. My point is population decreases as quality of life goes up. Birth rates slow and eventually drop below replacement rate.

So if Total Pollution = Population X per Capita pollution then quality of life decreases population.

You are right that if nothing else was done per capita pollution would increase. However global GDP has begun divorcing itself from carbon pollution. Ie more wealth is created for less CO2 expended.

My point is to put policies in place to accelerate that effect.

We need the environment AND the economy. There’s no technical impediment to have both.