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

[Moonbeam]

The

Another leftist talking point that is part of the reason Trump won. You don't know my life story or challenges, to label me with "privilege" is to dismiss any hard work I've done to raise myself up and become something. It isn't privilege because my dad stuck around, that should be the baseline. I'm not privileged in getting minority scholarships or benefiting from affirmative action. Money I have is money I've earned through being a skilled worker that puts in a lot of effort. Don't confuse privilege with effort.

i certainly didn’t mean you as others have surmised but I enjoyed your over amped response. Part of the appeal for somebody like Trump, full of self righteous self made rage, is his fuck everybody attitude. This is the behavior that makes people call you deplorable but I know you were made to be that way so I don’t have for you the contempt others do. I want you to be free of those kinds of demons.

Expressing your anger at me is something I am fine with and feel can be cathartic for you. Fortunately, as a nobody, I’m not easily offended. You are welcome to dump on me. I also feel it’s good to carry your own weight. I’m just less angry, I guess, that many are too emotionally damaged to manage it. I guess it comes down to the fact of being a nobody, I don’t need horn tooting to get by.

One thing I can tell you is that I have a good idea what lies behind rage. I hope you find out too because that’s where the healing begins.

 

[dank69]

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...

Your mistake here is assuming you need to sacrifice quality of life.

 

[Zorba]

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.

Carbon tax is probably the best way to accomplish any type of sequestering technologies. Otherwise there is no economic driver for it.

 

[13Gigatons]

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.

Yes. We need a Logan's Run policy in place, no one lives past 33 years old.

 

[Jaskalas]

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.

A drop in the ocean of emissions. Yes they are fat cats, they consume more. They emit more. And by their own design they'll be taxed more. They want to lay a foundation for us all to do our part. They would not be an exception.

The complaint over people not doing what they preach is in fact an effort to deflect and defeat them. It is not sincere as it is logically inane.

 

[JSt0rm]

they should of fixed it in the 1980's. They didnt. We are ruined.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Carbon tax is probably the best way to accomplish any type of sequestering technologies. Otherwise there is no economic driver for it.

Economics are irrelevant. That's the hardest thing to communicate. Direct investment in infrastructure just like bridges and roads are needed, not to tax people until they build highways. We didn't build an atomic bomb by taxing companies until they made one, nor get to the Moon. The other thing that seems to be missing is the notion that we have decades and when we stop contributing to warming things will reverse and that is untrue. Assuming we don't reach a point where we have a cascading positive feedback the science suggests it may take many decades to go back to where we should be after continuing to warm to a peak then decline. Simply put there's a good chance that there's less time than is commonly understood and if that's the case companies still aren't going to operate at a loss.

 

[woolfe9998]

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.

According to this CNN editorial:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/08/opinions/un-climate-report-decarbonization-steer/index.html

The cheapest solution so far costs $94 per ton of carbon removed. That's $94 billion per gigaton. Since we're putting about 40 gigatons into the atmosphere every year, I'd say we are nowhere close to this being feasible on a wide scale. The author is bullish on the idea though. He points out that just 7 years ago, it cost $600 per ton. Let's hope he's right because the cost will need to be a tenth of the current cheapest method for this to work.

 

[mect]

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, our exploding population is only one component of the problem, and it is the one that is the most difficult to deal with. Even if we could get all the conservatives to stop having huge families, by the time this has an impact it would be too late unless you are in favor of actively killing people off to achieve a sustainable global population. All these other restrictions are policies that can fix the problem now so we don't screw things up so bad that having a smaller world population won't matter any more.

 

[Victorian Gray]

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...

I'm sure that you would be raptly listening to their every word if they traveled the world by donkey cart while wearing hemp shirts and straw sandals. Right?

 

[woolfe9998]

Economics are irrelevant. That's the hardest thing to communicate. Direct investment in infrastructure just like bridges and roads are needed, not to tax people until they build highways. We didn't build an atomic bomb by taxing companies until they made one, nor get to the Moon. The other thing that seems to be missing is the notion that we have decades and when we stop contributing to warming things will reverse and that is untrue. Assuming we don't reach a point where we have a cascading positive feedback the science suggests it may take many decades to go back to where we should be after continuing to warm to a peak then decline. Simply put there's a good chance that there's less time than is commonly understood and if that's the case companies still aren't going to operate at a loss.

Without economic incentive in the private sector, I am assuming the "direct investment" you refer to is the government doing it. Which means taxing everyone, instead of just taxing the carbon producers. Which is really the same difference, since those taxes get passed on to us in the form of higher energy bills.

I can't agree that economics are irrelevant here. This will be expensive no matter how we do it.

 

[Mai72]

A smaller world population would greatly help. We are on the road to a pandemic. The world will find a way to take care of the population. If that means a 2025 version of the Spanish Flu then so be it.

 

[brycejones]

A smaller world population would greatly help. We are on the road to a pandemic. The world will find a way to take care of the population. If that means a 2025 version of the Spanish Flu then so be it.

You volunteering to be infected?

 

[spacejamz]

A drop in the ocean of emissions. Yes they are fat cats, they consume more. They emit more. And by their own design they'll be taxed more. They want to lay a foundation for us all to do our part. They would not be an exception.

The complaint over people not doing what they preach is in fact an effort to deflect and defeat them. It is not sincere as it is logically inane.

and the award for best sheeple goes to....

are you really parroting this shit? they want to lay a foundation for us to do our part...you probably typed that entire sentence with a straight face...classic...

You can call it deflection or whatever you want to make yourself feel better...it is hypocrisy plain and simple...

What was your explanation for these attendees to not use the eco-friendly shuttle to get around during their stay and instead use their their personal limos? The shuttle was pretty much empty for the entire event that had 4,000 people. Save the planet my ass....

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I believe we have the capability of altering our climate. No doubt about it. I think the consequences to humanity are overblown, though. Our real issue is our population explosion, climate change is but window dressing.

hmmm you almost, maybe, but not really, not in any sane or rational way, sound like you know the science behind climate change. You fucking moron.

 

[fskimospy]

and the award for best sheeple goes to....

are you really parroting this shit? they want to lay a foundation for us to do our part...you probably typed that entire sentence with a straight face...classic...

You can call it deflection or whatever you want to make yourself feel better...it is hypocrisy plain and simple...

What was your explanation for these attendees to not use the eco-friendly shuttle to get around during their stay and instead use their their personal limos? The shuttle was pretty much empty for the entire event that had 4,000 people. Save the planet my ass....

Except that he’s completely right. If a person takes a shuttle or not has absolutely no bearing on if climate change is real or what we should do about it.

It’s an attempt to deflect because conservatives have lost the debate.

 

[Jaskalas]

and the award for best sheeple goes to....

The shuttle was pretty much empty for the entire event that had 4,000 people. Save the planet my ass....

If you eliminated the ENTIRE PLANET except for China, catastrophic CO2 emissions would still be occurring.
Oh no, a bunch of people traveled to a conference. The horror!
By comparison to the real issue, they are nothing. That you apply meaning to it is inane. It is illogical. Except for use as propaganda.

Don't sell yourself short by falling for that petty crap. As I said, they want to lay the foundation for a meaningful change, for which they would not be an exception. Change the rules and we all play by them. We all emit less. Then America can lead by example and help other nations do the same. And then maybe we won't end up cannibalizing each other after sea level rise makes a joke out of our existing infrastructure and low laying areas.

Actually though, if Hayabusa is correct and a 5c increase in temp can kill off a significant chunk of life in the ocean - then the real concern is nothing that has been publicly discussed yet. See, at present course global CO2 emissions are still accelerating. Even if we stopped today a lot of the warming has yet to occur. It'd still be... baked in. But if we don't stop, maybe an extinction level event is possible. Do we really want to tip the balance and find out? Once done it'd be impossible to prevent. No going back. That's not the sort of scenario you bargain with.

But, of course, I am discussing this as if you could understand and already agree to the underlying science behind it. That you are a reasonable person who'd apply the scientific method and come to a reasonable conclusion as to what is occurring on our planet. I had an alternative theory.... for a while, when the pause had occurred. That concept was met with a crushing defeat as El Nino spiked the ball once more. Step by step, CO2 is increasing our planet's heat intake. The first step in wanting to address it, is recognizing it.

I'm getting the impression you don't care about any of that. Reason, or logic. Between your sheeple line and deciding the scientists are the real problem... you might be more interested in whether black helicopters are outside your window. To each their own, I'll take my chances with people who can use and apply information in a reasonable manner.

 

[MixMasterTang]

Always helpful. What's your thermostat set at?

Why does it matter what people's thermostats are set at? My apartment does not have heat nor does it have A/C. I open the windows or leave them closed but that should have no bearing on ones opinions of global warming.

 

[Paratus]

According to this CNN editorial:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/08/opinions/un-climate-report-decarbonization-steer/index.html

The cheapest solution so far costs $94 per ton of carbon removed. That's $94 billion per gigaton. Since we're putting about 40 gigatons into the atmosphere every year, I'd say we are nowhere close to this being feasible on a wide scale. The author is bullish on the idea though. He points out that just 7 years ago, it cost $600 per ton. Let's hope he's right because the cost will need to be a tenth of the current cheapest method for this to work.

Well both wind and solar followed similar cost reduction curves so I’d have some hope:

That’s a decrease of 258 times over 40 years

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Without economic incentive in the private sector, I am assuming the "direct investment" you refer to is the government doing it. Which means taxing everyone, instead of just taxing the carbon producers. Which is really the same difference, since those taxes get passed on to us in the form of higher energy bills.

I can't agree that economics are irrelevant here. This will be expensive no matter how we do it.

We spend 700 billion on defense. 300 billion from that is a small investment. Deficits are a bargain. Exactly how much is too much to avert an extinction level event?

 

[umbrella39]

Except that he’s completely right. If a person takes a shuttle or not has absolutely no bearing on if climate change is real or what we should do about it.

It’s an attempt to deflect because conservatives have lost the debate.

I'm not sure why anyone even bothers replying to idiots like him... He's the typical nothing is real because my feelz tell me otherwise. Nothing will change that fact or his defective mind... fuck him.

 

[JSt0rm]

We spend 700 billion on defense. 300 billion from that is a small investment. Deficits are a bargain. Exactly how much is too much to avert an extinction level event?

trump has maybe 10 more years. You think he cares?

 

[Zorba]

Economics are irrelevant. That's the hardest thing to communicate. Direct investment in infrastructure just like bridges and roads are needed, not to tax people until they build highways. We didn't build an atomic bomb by taxing companies until they made one, nor get to the Moon. The other thing that seems to be missing is the notion that we have decades and when we stop contributing to warming things will reverse and that is untrue. Assuming we don't reach a point where we have a cascading positive feedback the science suggests it may take many decades to go back to where we should be after continuing to warm to a peak then decline. Simply put there's a good chance that there's less time than is commonly understood and if that's the case companies still aren't going to operate at a loss.

I agree that works and should be done for the research and development side of the house. But I don't think in the current political environment you could even get people to agree to spend billions running CO2 scrubbers. I think the quickest and easiest solution is an economic one for the operation of systems.

I do completely agree with you that we should be dropping massive coin on the pure research needed to bring new generation, storage, distribution, efficiency and sequestering technologies online.

 

[Zorba]

Without economic incentive in the private sector, I am assuming the "direct investment" you refer to is the government doing it. Which means taxing everyone, instead of just taxing the carbon producers. Which is really the same difference, since those taxes get passed on to us in the form of higher energy bills.

I can't agree that economics are irrelevant here. This will be expensive no matter how we do it.

Don't fall for the republican talking point that these taxes would be passed straight through. If you slap a huge carbon tax on generation, utilities would more quickly more to move to carbon free generation. Consumers will also be drawn to higher efficiency and co-generation.

The good thing about a carbon tax is it directly internalizes external costs back to the producers of them.

 

[JSt0rm]

we are fucked. We evolved wrong. Hopefully some other sentient being gets it right out there.