Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Global Warming] : Where will YOU be when we break the planet?

2456713

Posts

  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    I say its a problem but Peak Energy is not the right word to use. If feels like it implies "Sun Burning Out." Solar is there but we have problems producing it into the Work our current society needs. Its more like Peak Usable Energy. Well all be eating each other before we achieve solar plants and cars.

    steam_sig.png
  • CliffCliff Registered User regular
    DoctorArch wrote:
    ElJeffe wrote:
    seabass wrote:
    I'm doing my part by not having children, among other obvious things like recycling, having those fancy power strips that actually let you avoid the passive draw from your electronics, and replacing my light bulbs.

    I have lots of children and then use them to power my giant hamster wheels.

    Isn't the idea of the smart people not having children kinda/sorta the main theme of Idiocracy?

    I want children, I understand the burden they place on the world, but I plan on raising my children to at least not be damned idiots. Ironically, religions have it right, and that if you want to spread your message and beliefs having children is a surefire way to do it.

    This is a pretty horrible view of kids, I'd say. Instead of thinking about them as individuals with their own thoughts and beliefs.

    Wasn't that movie about David Bowie seducing a 16 year old girl while surrounding himself with monsters and rubbing his balls?

    I don't think it was even a movie, it was just some footage of what Bowie does in his day to day life.
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    Cliff wrote:
    DoctorArch wrote:
    ElJeffe wrote:
    seabass wrote:
    I'm doing my part by not having children, among other obvious things like recycling, having those fancy power strips that actually let you avoid the passive draw from your electronics, and replacing my light bulbs.

    I have lots of children and then use them to power my giant hamster wheels.

    Isn't the idea of the smart people not having children kinda/sorta the main theme of Idiocracy?

    I want children, I understand the burden they place on the world, but I plan on raising my children to at least not be damned idiots. Ironically, religions have it right, and that if you want to spread your message and beliefs having children is a surefire way to do it.

    This is a pretty horrible view of kids, I'd say. Instead of thinking about them as individuals with their own thoughts and beliefs.

    No, christian churches, and especially The Vatican, openly say this. They actively put pressure on their members, women in particular, to crank out dem babies, economy, 3rd world and carbon footprint be damned.

    steam_sig.png
  • SanderJKSanderJK Crocodylus Pontifex Sinterklasicus Madrid, 3000 ADRegistered User regular
    It's probably fair to say that we've already passed the point where energy was at it's cheapest. We've burned the most readily available fossile fuels a long time ago. We're getting better and better at getting the harder to reach stuff, but not without cost. The same cost drives much of the investment in alternative methods of energy creation and energy efficiency.

    The fact that more and more people are reaching western levels of energy consumption is causing a lot of issue though. China is already the #1 producer of CO2 (though not by capita). We're on an accelerating scale still, and because we're letting it slide for so long, the actions to stop it become more and more unfathomable.

    And while I see the problem ranging from 'very serious' (Which will mostly result in 'most wildlife + a lot of poor people get fucked, while the rich offset the problems locally') to 'disastrous' (One of the Doomsday scenarios becomes real, and the whole global ecosystem becomes destroyed), I agree that right now there seems to be very little indication that the world is going to act on it at all. And that's because while we are the cause of the problem, it's very hard to get the world to do something about a problem that is probably not going to peak until our children's children reach adulthood. Every single person in power won't see the worst of it. Because the actions have to be so drastic, and everyone has to participate. This is in shrill contrast to the sulphur/smog/ozone layer actions taken earlier, which were focussed on a subset of industry.

    Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    redx wrote:
    We [probably] reached peak energy a while ago, which is why we are dicking with oil sands, shale oil/gas and more aggressive methods of coal production. Energy costs more to produce, but that's not likely to save us from global climate change.

    Peak energy is a bad joke. There's enough thorium to power the world for several millennia.

    sig.png
  • redxredx East Bumblefuck, PARegistered User regular
    edited November 2011
    Peak energy?

    I have a hard time believing that's a thing. We still have huge untapped reserves of fission fuels and nuclear fusion is currently an engineering problem and nothing more--there's nothing fundamental stopping us from generating ten or a hundred times humanity's current power demand, and with much less environmental impact than what we generate now.

    Fission, fusion, and solar all have the potential to provide all of mankind's energy needs for the foreseeable future--solar perhaps less than the others due to the large area required.

    Mostly I am just saying the cost of creating energy is increasing[and that this trend is likely to continue], so we are moving to sources that were less attractive in the past. A lot of hyperbolic bullshit was spewed around about peak oil being leading to the end of civilization, so it's loaded term with a much more extreme connotation than I actually mean.

    Though, when it comes to nuclear fission, there is a lot of left over cold war fears that shape the political climate, and those are a non-technical issues that are standing between us and making full use of nuclear resources. Fear is fundamentally stopping us from generating more power from nuclear energy, and in a lot of ways that's a more difficult thing to overcome than an engineering problem.

    redx on
    All I've got is a snuggle hammer.
  • zepherinzepherin Registered User regular
    edited November 2011
    This is depressing me. I'm going to get drunk and contemplate my own mortality.

    zepherin on
  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited November 2011
    Pi-r8 wrote:
    Really though, in my opinion one of the quickest way to start resolving this issue is to start really talking about getting over the NIMBA bullshit and really embrace nuclear power. It's clean as hell these days, it's highly efficient, and reduces this whole global warming thing by orders of magnitude (if we use it en mass, as well as other issues). I say ignore Canadian oil (especially the sands, since that's just huge waste and shouldn't even be talked about), and start building reactors across the world.

    Edit: Sorry to talk about energy so much, but I really feel that the energy crisis is very closely tied to the climate crisis. If we can get over our own ignorant and dated beliefs, one will solve the other.

    The really scary economic point seems to be when does fertilizer become cripplingly expensive. The Green Revolution exploded our population from 1.1 billion in 1940 to 7 billion today and estimated to top a trillion by 2025. What happens when scarcity makes it too expensive to manufacture the amount of fertilizer needed to feed 1 trillion people.

    That's going to be a fun world to live in.

    pretty sure we won't have 1 trillion people lol...
    but yeah, we're going to have to learn how to farm again, instead of just dumping seeds into fertilizer.

    Not really, you can make fertilizer out of coal, Illinois has been doing that for years now.

    Furthermore, farming only uses a tiny fraction of all oil usage, and peak oil (which we've almost certainly hit a few years ago, by the way) doesn't mean it's all gone, it just means there's less of it. Unless something fucking crazy happens like a nuclear war in the middle east, we'll have enough for food.

    The biggest paradigm shift in farming will come from having to be more water efficient.

    override367 on
    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • EupfhoriaEupfhoria Registered User regular
    JebusUD wrote:

    I also wonder in what way insect predator depopulation is related to forest fires?

    Probably referencing pine beetles, which are a serious problem in the western US (where I live). There are sections of entire forests where up to something like 90% of trees are dead already.

    Less predators (mostly birds, AFAIK) = more beetles. More beetles = more dead trees. More dead trees = more forest fires.


    PSN/MGO- Eupfhoria
    XBL- Eupfhoric
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    Pi-r8 wrote:
    Really though, in my opinion one of the quickest way to start resolving this issue is to start really talking about getting over the NIMBA bullshit and really embrace nuclear power. It's clean as hell these days, it's highly efficient, and reduces this whole global warming thing by orders of magnitude (if we use it en mass, as well as other issues). I say ignore Canadian oil (especially the sands, since that's just huge waste and shouldn't even be talked about), and start building reactors across the world.

    Edit: Sorry to talk about energy so much, but I really feel that the energy crisis is very closely tied to the climate crisis. If we can get over our own ignorant and dated beliefs, one will solve the other.

    The really scary economic point seems to be when does fertilizer become cripplingly expensive. The Green Revolution exploded our population from 1.1 billion in 1940 to 7 billion today and estimated to top a trillion by 2025. What happens when scarcity makes it too expensive to manufacture the amount of fertilizer needed to feed 1 trillion people.

    That's going to be a fun world to live in.

    pretty sure we won't have 1 trillion people lol...
    but yeah, we're going to have to learn how to farm again, instead of just dumping seeds into fertilizer.

    Not really, you can make fertilizer out of coal, Illinois has been doing that for years now.

    Furthermore, farming only uses a tiny fraction of all oil usage, and peak oil (which we've almost certainly hit a few years ago, by the way) doesn't mean it's all gone, it just means there's less of it. Unless something fucking crazy happens like a nuclear war in the middle east, we'll have enough for food.

    The biggest paradigm shift in farming will come from having to be more water efficient.

    Are we referring to no more Haber Process? As in, no more Nitrogen-> Ammonia?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process

    steam_sig.png
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    Pi-r8 wrote:
    Really though, in my opinion one of the quickest way to start resolving this issue is to start really talking about getting over the NIMBA bullshit and really embrace nuclear power. It's clean as hell these days, it's highly efficient, and reduces this whole global warming thing by orders of magnitude (if we use it en mass, as well as other issues). I say ignore Canadian oil (especially the sands, since that's just huge waste and shouldn't even be talked about), and start building reactors across the world.

    Edit: Sorry to talk about energy so much, but I really feel that the energy crisis is very closely tied to the climate crisis. If we can get over our own ignorant and dated beliefs, one will solve the other.

    The really scary economic point seems to be when does fertilizer become cripplingly expensive. The Green Revolution exploded our population from 1.1 billion in 1940 to 7 billion today and estimated to top a trillion by 2025. What happens when scarcity makes it too expensive to manufacture the amount of fertilizer needed to feed 1 trillion people.

    That's going to be a fun world to live in.

    pretty sure we won't have 1 trillion people lol...
    but yeah, we're going to have to learn how to farm again, instead of just dumping seeds into fertilizer.

    Not really, you can make fertilizer out of coal, Illinois has been doing that for years now.

    Furthermore, farming only uses a tiny fraction of all oil usage, and peak oil (which we've almost certainly hit a few years ago, by the way) doesn't mean it's all gone, it just means there's less of it. Unless something fucking crazy happens like a nuclear war in the middle east, we'll have enough for food.

    The biggest paradigm shift in farming will come from having to be more water efficient.

    'All' fertilizer is made from fossil fuels.

    That.....isn't a good thing.

  • Void SlayerVoid Slayer Very Suspicious Registered User regular
    edited November 2011
    So is ending coal use as important as I think it is compared to oil/gas?

    It seems like oil and gas has it's main use as portability for use in vehicles or generator backups, while coal is used in industrial processes and power stations.

    Coal should be the easiest to replace, is it just because it is so damn cheap that it is still being used?

    Would reducing the amount of meat eaten help in any way? I know factory farming of animals can't be good for the environment but from a practical standpoint how much of an effect does it really have?

    Void Slayer on
    He's a superhumanly strong soccer-playing romance novelist possessed of the uncanny powers of an insect. She's a beautiful African-American doctor with her own daytime radio talk show. They fight crime!
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    So is ending coal use as important as I think it is compared to oil/gas?

    It seems like oil and gas has it's main use as portability for use in vehicles or generator backups, while coal is used in industrial processes and power stations.

    Coal should be the easiest to replace, is it just because it is so damn cheap that it is still being used?

    Would reducing the amount of meat eaten help in any way? I know factory farming of animals can't be good for the environment but from a practical standpoint how much of an effect does it really have?

    EPA.gov wrote:
    Globally, ruminant livestock produce about 80 million metric tons of methane annually, accounting for about 28% of global methane emissions from human-related activities. An adult cow may be a very small source by itself, emitting only 80-110 kgs of methane, but with about 100 million cattle in the U.S. and 1.2 billion large ruminants in the world, ruminants are one of the largest methane sources. In the U.S., cattle emit about 5.5 million metric tons of methane per year into the atmosphere, accounting for 20% of U.S. methane emissions.

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    zepherin wrote:
    Peak energy?

    I have a hard time believing that's a thing. We still have huge untapped reserves of fission fuels and nuclear fusion is currently an engineering problem and nothing more--there's nothing fundamental stopping us from generating ten or a hundred times humanity's current power demand, and with much less environmental impact than what we generate now.

    Fission, fusion, and solar all have the potential to provide all of mankind's energy needs for the foreseeable future--solar perhaps less than the others due to the large area required.
    Don't get me wrong I love nuclear power as a solution. It is relatively clean and some of the reactors in the works are going to be fantastic. The only issue I have is that we need vehicles with power, and nuclear power is hard to put in a car. We need better batteries, but I do like the idea of nuclear power and I have been following a company with an ingenious nuclear power scheme. Essentially small modular reactors that they in essence bury and hook up to the grid, after 5-10 years they dig up the reactor replace it and take the old one back to the facility reprocess the nuclear material and do it again.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_Moderated_Self-regulating_Nuclear_Power_Module

    You'll have better batteries.

    When you get right down to it, compressed tanks of hydrogen aren't really much more dangerous then a tank of petroleum. The pressure is what kills you, not the flammability and that can be engineered against - any punctures benefit from the fact that hydrogen is so light that is disperses rapidly.

    The thing we're waiting on at the moment is a cheap, efficient air-breathing cathode for fuel cells. There's no real indication this is a thing that can't be had, since there are lots of potential paths to one (polymer wrapped nanotubes, boron-based molecules etc.). Presuming I ever finish my Ph D, I'm going to applying like hell to get attached to a research project for such a thing.

    It's also worth noting that solving that particular problem solves other problems - for example, you can build large stationary batteries if you can use an air-cathode (my particular interest - find a way to use a solution of iron, for about $3000, to store 100 kWh of energy - or enough to run a large house for a day or 2). This would solve pretty much all the problems with personal PV or larger solar power projects.

    Of course, we don't even need to do that - the technology exists today to build grid-scale base-load solar power plants, it just requires the political will to implement it. Molten NaCl thermal storage is 80% efficient over night, and can be built using regular steam turbines like those in coal-fired power stations. Nuclear is a bit of red herring in this regard - if you have it then you should keep using it (looking at you Germany) - but a country like Australia with plentiful sunshine should be pushing hard on baseload solar, since the nuclear debate basically is how the coal companies and conservatives end up justifying doing nothing.

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    Burtletoy wrote:
    So is ending coal use as important as I think it is compared to oil/gas?

    It seems like oil and gas has it's main use as portability for use in vehicles or generator backups, while coal is used in industrial processes and power stations.

    Coal should be the easiest to replace, is it just because it is so damn cheap that it is still being used?

    Would reducing the amount of meat eaten help in any way? I know factory farming of animals can't be good for the environment but from a practical standpoint how much of an effect does it really have?

    EPA.gov wrote:
    Globally, ruminant livestock produce about 80 million metric tons of methane annually, accounting for about 28% of global methane emissions from human-related activities. An adult cow may be a very small source by itself, emitting only 80-110 kgs of methane, but with about 100 million cattle in the U.S. and 1.2 billion large ruminants in the world, ruminants are one of the largest methane sources. In the U.S., cattle emit about 5.5 million metric tons of methane per year into the atmosphere, accounting for 20% of U.S. methane emissions.

    The thing is though that methane doesn't have a particularly long-lifespan in the atmosphere - according to wikipedia 8.4 years mean. CO2 has a lifespan of over 100 years, so there's a massive difference in how much specific emissions matter (i.e. CO2 quite literally will just keep piling up, whereas a lot of methane is exchanged out quite quickly).

  • Magus`Magus` Registered User regular
    Look, global warming is a lie since God said he wouldn't flood the earth again.

    - Brought to you by an elected official

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    So... do you have some kind of evidence for the claim that 70% of species will go extinct?

    I also wonder in what way insect predator depopulation is related to forest fires?

    I didn't say that a flat 70% of species would go extinct. I said that it's difficult to assess how many would go extinct, and that current models range from 40% to 70% (page 221).


    Pest population explosions can be expected to kill a lot of forest (as well as do a lot of other damage). When a lot of dead plant matter, and especially dead wood, has collected in a forest and conditions are both warm & dry, fires - especially large fires - can be expected to be much more common.

    Again, we're talking about models, not certainties - there might be some unknown factor that would, say, prevent tree parasites from exploding in population, or perhaps rainfall patterns would adjust in such a way that most of the dying forests become wet for most of the year.

    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Would reducing the amount of meat eaten help in any way? I know factory farming of animals can't be good for the environment but from a practical standpoint how much of an effect does it really have?

    Not in any meaningful way. Cattle ranching, and even factory slaughterhouses, aren't a very significant source of CO2. Cattle do emit a significant amount of methane (as Burtleboy pointed-out), but methane doesn't stay in the atmosphere very long (as ELM pointed-out); the only reason methane (and later, perhaps water vapor) is a significant danger in some of the models is that CO2 may thaw out so much marshland so quickly that we have a large spike in methane at the same time that we have a high concentration of CO2, causing a chain reaction known as a 'positive feedback loop' that causes a runaway greenhouse effect, somewhat akin to what happened on Venus.

    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
  • JebusUDJebusUD Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote:
    So... do you have some kind of evidence for the claim that 70% of species will go extinct?

    I also wonder in what way insect predator depopulation is related to forest fires?

    I didn't say that a flat 70% of species would go extinct. I said that it's difficult to assess how many would go extinct, and that current models range from 40% to 70% (page 221).


    Pest population explosions can be expected to kill a lot of forest (as well as do a lot of other damage). When a lot of dead plant matter, and especially dead wood, has collected in a forest and conditions are both warm & dry, fires - especially large fires - can be expected to be much more common.

    Again, we're talking about models, not certainties - there might be some unknown factor that would, say, prevent tree parasites from exploding in population, or perhaps rainfall patterns would adjust in such a way that most of the dying forests become wet for most of the year.

    I'm only seeing 40% on page 221.

    You haven't given me a reason to steer clear of you!
  • JebusUDJebusUD Registered User regular
    Actually, I think I see now on the other link. Do you know of any papers which would outlay projections of species extinction on a normal trajectory instead of an increased temperature trajectory?

    You haven't given me a reason to steer clear of you!
  • lonelyahavalonelyahava One day, I will be able to say to myself "I am beautiful and I am perfect just the way I am"Registered User regular
    BSoB wrote:
    2. The 90's. In the 90's we were constantly bombarded by warnings about impending environmental doom. The ozone layer, running out of oxygen due to massive deforestation, etc. In the public's mind these were all solved fairly easily/went away without them actually having to do anything. "oh the stores stopped selling the brand of hairspray? i'll buy this one! i'm an environmentalist!"

    People distrust the scientific community and expect an easy answer. That's the hill that has to be climbed.

    We won on the ozone layer! CFCs were largely banned in the First World years ago. They've been banned in the Third World as of this year. The levels in the atmosphere are going down.

    If anything, the ozone layer efforts are a symbol that we can divert disaster if we pull together and make the effort.

    Tell me that we've won the ozone layer when my skin doesn't turn crispy when i'm outside in the sun for longer than 30 minutes in the summer.

    Our weather reports down here include times of day when you are STRONGLY advised to wear sunscreen or sun protection of some form or another when outside for any length of time. This usually covers times from 9am-5pm. That is pretty much the entire day. Why? because we have no ozone layer. It's a hole. It has apparently been getting better, but i could show you photographic evidence of what just about 40 minutes outside did to me when i didn't have sunscreen on.

    Lets just say that I went crunch for a few days.

    My Little Corner of the World || I am ravelried! || My Steam!
    You have to fight through some bad days, to earn the best days of your life.
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited November 2011
    Do you know of any papers which would outlay projections of species extinction on a normal trajectory instead of an increased temperature trajectory?

    There is the well-known University of Bristol study that indicates biodiversity could be expected to sharply increase if human activity ceased (though 'human activity' encompasses more than just climate change).


    You probably won't find an academic peer-reviewed study where the researchers test the possibility that a 40-70% reduction in known species is a normal trend, for the same reason you won't find a peer-reviewed study that tests the possibility that pulling up really hard on your shoelaces is a better means of reaching the moon than traveling in a rocket. It's well outside the domain of rational speculation.

    The Ender on
    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
  • Muse Among MenMuse Among Men Suburban Bunny Princess? Its time for a new shtick Registered User regular
    redx wrote:
    We [probably] reached peak energy a while ago, which is why we are dicking with oil sands, shale oil/gas and more aggressive methods of coal production. Energy costs more to produce, but that's not likely to save us from global climate change.

    Peak energy is a bad joke. There's enough thorium to power the world for several millennia.

    Wired had a really great article on thorium maybe two years back? http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/all/1 Good read if you haven't seen it before, I think you will like it.

    I like to think I am fairly green, there isn't too much I can do to my living situation because I live in dorms aside from recycling and walking/biking. Back at home though we were pretty good; there are a lot of 'green' things we would do because they actually saved money and my parents had grown up poor so 'reduce reuse recycle' was something they were already quite familiar with. At our hokiest we had a compost heap and grew some of our own fruits and veggies, which in some cases ended disastrously because we could just not keep up with how quickly the plants were growing (and they pretty much got nothing but compost and water). We continue to have a problem with things going to waste because my gosh it is just too much food (my mom now just gives away most of the fruits and vegetables).

  • themightypuckthemightypuck MontanaRegistered User regular
    Peak Oil is real. Just look at oil prices. No way anyone is fracking if Saudi Arabia can just ramp up production. Given the already high price of oil, adding more to the price with a carbon tax is going to be a political nightmare. We need a plan B. Not sure what it is, but if all your eggs are in the stop making CO2 camp, the only impact you'll have is making the Guinness Book of World Records for Most Righteous I Told You So.

    “Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Wired had a really great article on thorium maybe two years back? http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/all/1 Good read if you haven't seen it before, I think you will like it.

    Aside from Thorium, there's the ability to use deuterium & tritium to create a stable nuclear fusion reaction, which is what we'll be attempting with ITER in 2019-2020.

    And then there's the fact that the Earth intercepts enough solar radiation to produce a hilarious amount of energy.


    Energy isn't a problem. Even storage (the main foot-stomping argument posed by fossil fuel proponents) isn't as large a problem as some people seem to think. The problem is that we're a bunch of idiot monkeys who are too short-sighted to comprehend what our actions are going to result in.
    I like to think I am fairly green, there isn't too much I can do to my living situation because I live in dorms aside from recycling and walking/biking. Back at home though we were pretty good; there are a lot of 'green' things we would do because they actually saved money and my parents had grown up poor so 'reduce reuse recycle' was something they were already quite familiar with. At our hokiest we had a compost heap and grew some of our own fruits and veggies, which in some cases ended disastrously because we could just not keep up with how quickly the plants were growing (and they pretty much got nothing but compost and water). We continue to have a problem with things going to waste because my gosh it is just too much food (my mom now just gives away most of the fruits and vegetables).

    A lot of the western population is effectively carbon neutral. All you have to do is conserve power & water, and drive less frequently (that last one is the stickiest issue within the United States & Canada, due to suburban sprawl), which most people do out just to save money anyway. The western world's population growth has also plateaued.


    The problem is that we did a lot of damage before the population became conscious of the problem, and now we have developing nations trying to get off of their knees with our oil & gas model helping them make all of the wrong choices in doing so.

    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
  • themightypuckthemightypuck MontanaRegistered User regular
    The trick to progress is outgrowing your externalities.

    “Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius
  • Void SlayerVoid Slayer Very Suspicious Registered User regular
    The trick to progress is outgrowing your externalities.

    Part of the problem here though is that people thought we outgrew our externalizes but it turned out we just created/discovered a bunch of new ones.

    The ozone problem is a good example of how even if everyone understand the problem and a fix is created at a significant cost, it will still have long term adverse effects and some people will still contribute to the problem because it is cheaper.

    He's a superhumanly strong soccer-playing romance novelist possessed of the uncanny powers of an insect. She's a beautiful African-American doctor with her own daytime radio talk show. They fight crime!
  • Alistair HuttonAlistair Hutton Dr EdinburghRegistered User regular
    Kelzor wrote:
    cooling of the 1970s and the other global warming scare before that?

    Citation needed. No seriously. There was no scientific consensus on "global cooling" a systematic review of the literature for the 70's found that there were people who posited that particulate pollution would lead to dimming and thus cooling but that wasn't in the context of a full atmospheric model. Overall the warming effects of pollution out weight the cooling effects, And lets be clear here, particulate pollution does cause cooling. Without all the particulate shit being pumped into the atmosphere and reflecting sunlight the planet would be warmer.

    I have a thoughful and infrequently updated blog about games http://whatithinkaboutwhenithinkaboutgames.wordpress.com/
    I made a game, it has penguins in it. WANG gets you money off.
    Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
  • TofystedethTofystedeth veni, veneri, vamoosi Registered User regular
    emnmnme wrote:
    Let's all watch the movie Soylent Green together. In that movie, all trees and vegetation in urban areas died off due to the Greenhouse effect, the weather was 110 degrees at night, etc.
    But if it was that hot, how could they have harvested enough plankton to feed everybody?

    steam_sig.png
  • Void SlayerVoid Slayer Very Suspicious Registered User regular
    emnmnme wrote:
    Let's all watch the movie Soylent Green together. In that movie, all trees and vegetation in urban areas died off due to the Greenhouse effect, the weather was 110 degrees at night, etc.
    But if it was that hot, how could they have harvested enough plankton to feed everybody?
    Spoiler:

    He's a superhumanly strong soccer-playing romance novelist possessed of the uncanny powers of an insect. She's a beautiful African-American doctor with her own daytime radio talk show. They fight crime!
  • SanderJKSanderJK Crocodylus Pontifex Sinterklasicus Madrid, 3000 ADRegistered User regular
    The ozone layer has stabilized, and is perhaps slowly getting better (but it'll be slow). China is still using cfc's though.

    That problem consisted mostly of changing aerosol cans and refridgerators though, while changing our Climate Change prognosis to something less problematic would mean cutting all our energy use in half in the next decade.

    Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
  • seabassseabass Doctor MassachusettsRegistered User regular
    edited November 2011
    JebusUD wrote:
    seabass wrote:
    I'm doing my part by not having children, among other obvious things like recycling, having those fancy power strips that actually let you avoid the passive draw from your electronics, and replacing my light bulbs.
    Where does one find those strips?

    I use these,
    although pulling the strip out of the wall at night / when you go on a trip is almost as easy and a good 15 dollars cheaper.

    seabass on
    Run you pigeons, it's Robert Frost!
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular

    emnmnme wrote:
    Let's all watch the movie Soylent Green together. In that movie, all trees and vegetation in urban areas died off due to the Greenhouse effect, the weather was 110 degrees at night, etc.
    But if it was that hot, how could they have harvested enough plankton to feed everybody?
    Spoiler:

    Oh my God.

    Oh my God, guys...
    Spoiler:

    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
  • JohnnyCacheJohnnyCache Starting Defense Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote:
    Wired had a really great article on thorium maybe two years back? http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/all/1 Good read if you haven't seen it before, I think you will like it.

    Aside from Thorium, there's the ability to use deuterium & tritium to create a stable nuclear fusion reaction, which is what we'll be attempting with ITER in 2019-2020.

    And then there's the fact that the Earth intercepts enough solar radiation to produce a hilarious amount of energy.


    Energy isn't a problem. Even storage (the main foot-stomping argument posed by fossil fuel proponents) isn't as large a problem as some people seem to think. The problem is that we're a bunch of idiot monkeys who are too short-sighted to comprehend what our actions are going to result in.
    I like to think I am fairly green, there isn't too much I can do to my living situation because I live in dorms aside from recycling and walking/biking. Back at home though we were pretty good; there are a lot of 'green' things we would do because they actually saved money and my parents had grown up poor so 'reduce reuse recycle' was something they were already quite familiar with. At our hokiest we had a compost heap and grew some of our own fruits and veggies, which in some cases ended disastrously because we could just not keep up with how quickly the plants were growing (and they pretty much got nothing but compost and water). We continue to have a problem with things going to waste because my gosh it is just too much food (my mom now just gives away most of the fruits and vegetables).

    A lot of the western population is effectively carbon neutral. All you have to do is conserve power & water, and drive less frequently (that last one is the stickiest issue within the United States & Canada, due to suburban sprawl), which most people do out just to save money anyway. The western world's population growth has also plateaued.


    The problem is that we did a lot of damage before the population became conscious of the problem, and now we have developing nations trying to get off of their knees with our oil & gas model helping them make all of the wrong choices in doing so.

    You aren't really "carbon neutral" if you don't drive because everything is trucked to you by amazon and grocery chains.

    Something that frustrates me is ... I live in the reddest of red states. All I hear about is how fake global warming is and how it's a buncha bullshit.

    EVEN IF these beliefs weren't entrenched on a theophilosophical level with my family and neighbors and they were still opened minded there still wouldn't be time to educate each one of them

    How can people be whittled down on these issues?

    "Maybe we're here to eat the sandwich." -- Joe Rogan
  • themightypuckthemightypuck MontanaRegistered User regular
    Civilization is a bubble.

    “Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius
  • a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    edited November 2011
    The Ender wrote:
    Wired had a really great article on thorium maybe two years back? http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/all/1 Good read if you haven't seen it before, I think you will like it.

    Aside from Thorium, there's the ability to use deuterium & tritium to create a stable nuclear fusion reaction, which is what we'll be attempting with ITER in 2019-2020.

    And then there's the fact that the Earth intercepts enough solar radiation to produce a hilarious amount of energy.


    Energy isn't a problem. Even storage (the main foot-stomping argument posed by fossil fuel proponents) isn't as large a problem as some people seem to think. The problem is that we're a bunch of idiot monkeys who are too short-sighted to comprehend what our actions are going to result in.
    I like to think I am fairly green, there isn't too much I can do to my living situation because I live in dorms aside from recycling and walking/biking. Back at home though we were pretty good; there are a lot of 'green' things we would do because they actually saved money and my parents had grown up poor so 'reduce reuse recycle' was something they were already quite familiar with. At our hokiest we had a compost heap and grew some of our own fruits and veggies, which in some cases ended disastrously because we could just not keep up with how quickly the plants were growing (and they pretty much got nothing but compost and water). We continue to have a problem with things going to waste because my gosh it is just too much food (my mom now just gives away most of the fruits and vegetables).

    A lot of the western population is effectively carbon neutral. All you have to do is conserve power & water, and drive less frequently (that last one is the stickiest issue within the United States & Canada, due to suburban sprawl), which most people do out just to save money anyway. The western world's population growth has also plateaued.


    The problem is that we did a lot of damage before the population became conscious of the problem, and now we have developing nations trying to get off of their knees with our oil & gas model helping them make all of the wrong choices in doing so.

    You aren't really "carbon neutral" if you don't drive because everything is trucked to you by amazon and grocery chains.

    Something that frustrates me is ... I live in the reddest of red states. All I hear about is how fake global warming is and how it's a buncha bullshit.

    EVEN IF these beliefs weren't entrenched on a theophilosophical level with my family and neighbors and they were still opened minded there still wouldn't be time to educate each one of them

    How can people be whittled down on these issues?

    Honestly? Have "green" energy concerns donate more to the Republican party than companies with a vested interest in the status quo. Not much an individual can do on the education front.

    a5ehren on
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    Red State environmental policy is "wait for Jesus to come back and whisk away all the whities to an unpollutable paradise."

    steam_sig.png
  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited November 2011
    Burtletoy wrote:
    Pi-r8 wrote:
    Really though, in my opinion one of the quickest way to start resolving this issue is to start really talking about getting over the NIMBA bullshit and really embrace nuclear power. It's clean as hell these days, it's highly efficient, and reduces this whole global warming thing by orders of magnitude (if we use it en mass, as well as other issues). I say ignore Canadian oil (especially the sands, since that's just huge waste and shouldn't even be talked about), and start building reactors across the world.

    Edit: Sorry to talk about energy so much, but I really feel that the energy crisis is very closely tied to the climate crisis. If we can get over our own ignorant and dated beliefs, one will solve the other.

    The really scary economic point seems to be when does fertilizer become cripplingly expensive. The Green Revolution exploded our population from 1.1 billion in 1940 to 7 billion today and estimated to top a trillion by 2025. What happens when scarcity makes it too expensive to manufacture the amount of fertilizer needed to feed 1 trillion people.

    That's going to be a fun world to live in.

    pretty sure we won't have 1 trillion people lol...
    but yeah, we're going to have to learn how to farm again, instead of just dumping seeds into fertilizer.

    Not really, you can make fertilizer out of coal, Illinois has been doing that for years now.

    Furthermore, farming only uses a tiny fraction of all oil usage, and peak oil (which we've almost certainly hit a few years ago, by the way) doesn't mean it's all gone, it just means there's less of it. Unless something fucking crazy happens like a nuclear war in the middle east, we'll have enough for food.

    The biggest paradigm shift in farming will come from having to be more water efficient.

    'All' fertilizer is made from fossil fuels.

    That.....isn't a good thing.

    Yes but making fertilizer doesn't need to be anywhere near as environmentally destructive as burning it. With coal, almost anything except burning it is more friendly than burning it (for example, you can actually make diesel out of coal and it burns relatively clean, it just depends how much money you want to spend along the way to be environmentally friendly).

    Besides, there's plenty of fossil fuels for fertilizer. North America could cover the entire world's need for thousands of years at current usage rates - it's personal transportation that's fucking us, and coal power that's fucking us for global warming (hey, thanks anti-nuclear movement of the 1970s!)

    I'm not too worried, after all Congo never had a green revolution and they have something like eighty million people and very little in the way of money or technology comparatively. Almost all malthusian die off scenarios imagine that nobody changes their behavior, that we keep driving the same amount with $40/gallon gas and megafarms keep fucking that chicken with fertilizer and water prices triple what they are. The last major oil shock took nearly a decade for the US to resume previous usage levels of oil - so society can change. They just won't until things are likely irreversibly bad and all the poor get fucked.

    override367 on
    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    You aren't really "carbon neutral" if you don't drive because everything is trucked to you by amazon and grocery chains.

    Well, that's true, but the idea behind individual carbon footprints is that you're just tracking your own direct energy consumption. In theory, the grocer should be tracking their own carbon footprint, and attempting to minimize it as best they can (in reality, of course, most grocers have no interest in that or are part of a corporate entity that legally cannot mitigate their carbon footprint because it would slice into their profits to do so.


    If you had to track absolutely everything you did that indirectly results in emissions, you could never realistically achieve carbon neutrality, which would defeat the purpose of initiative.

    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
  • NightslyrNightslyr Registered User regular
    Sorry to bump this up again, but the following graph is too good not to share:

    SkepticsvRealists_500.gif

    My PA, PSN, XBL, Origin, and Steam names are the same. 3DS Friend Code: 1607-1682-2948
    steam_sig-400.png
    Stack Exchange | http://www.mpdevblog.blogspot.com
Sign In or Register to comment.