"The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand. It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we’ve ever known." - Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot: A Vision Of The Human Future In Space
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000446/epdf ac.els-cdn.com/S0301420716302665/1-s2.0-S0301420716302665-main.pdf?_tid=b1f404b0-f26f-11e6-a813-00000aacb361&acdnat=1487047402_e88f9e5ee78874cc1fbae78e8d9ffcb3 >Despite its intuitive appeal, however, the historic polluter pays principle suffers serious shortcomings. By focusing on past rather than current production, it allows developing countries and their firms—the world's largest current and future source of greenhouse gas emissions—to use this valuable global resource without fully paying for it. >Of even greater significance, it reduces the incentives in both developing and developed countries to generate new technologies reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In short, the historic polluter pays principle promotes none of the efficiencies that we normally associate with the original polluter pays principle.
So apparently 16 container ships spewed out as much CO2 as every car I'm the world (circa 2009). Is this really necessary? You can't tell me we can't possibly make the damn things work any better than that? Seems like an obvious low hanging fruit.
Alexander Cox
Shit's fucked mate, big time. Worldwide, most everyone agrees there's a problem but far fewer are willing to do anything about it. Emergent technology may be the key to our survival and prosperity; in our case, renewables face patent-hoarding and the increasingly contrived convenience of petroleum.
Percentage of each gas in the total gases emitted -- by ton, or by impact as a greenhouse gas? If not the later, that is somewhat disingenuous. Or at the least is not as useful as it might be, since some gases are stronger greenhouse gases than others.
Camden Evans
>fewer are willing to do anything about it.
I'm surprised at how many people I know who are seriously into worrying about AGW do not in any way change their behavior because oof it. Obviously, "the people I know" do not necessarily constitute a statistically valid sample, just an observation.
But IF so few of the people who are sincerely concerned about it are not willing to make sacrifices to reduce emissions, I am not sure it is surprising that more is not being done.
"Let's you and him go die for the cause" was never a strong pitch.
Dominic Gray
Well It will of course fuck many human societies up, but climate change is no real threat for the earth. It isn't that big, only it's on a short timescale. In a few generations things may be sorted out.
Mason Rogers
That's actually a pretty huge phenomenon that we're trying to deal with, it's not just happening to those you know. Check out the book Navigating Environmental Attitudes for some insight into it.
Caleb James
>N[math]_2[/math]0 8%
What a waste.
Adrian Anderson
From the WRI site >Food: Ensure the world’s food systems reduce their impact on the environment, drive economic opportunity, and sustainably feed 9.6 billion people by 2050. Good Lord, nightmare scenario with conflicting objectives, that is simply not possible.
If you want to see who these people really are, check out their board of directors. wri.org/about/board Bankers, lawyers, economists, ex-CEO's...their individual carbon footprints are probably larger than many countries.
Brody Thomas
Still much better than trump's cabinet.
Justin Mitchell
Stop the burning of fossil fuels. Everything else is wishful thinking.
Joseph Campbell
But getting everybody to freeze to death in the dark is not a realistic goal, either, and that's what stopping the use of fossil fuels would mean in the short term, and in the medium term if we continue to put roadblocks in the way of building more nukes.
Chase Ross
>it's not just happening to those you know
Let me know when warming activists stop jetting off to exotic locations to meet about reducing carbon emissions.
Logan Harris
Wouldn't burying a ton of unsaturated hydrocarbons sequester carbon? And release it into the soil after a few thousand years when it actually decomposes.
Jayden Fisher
Production for profit is going to get us all killed.
Easton Ward
We have sources of power that do not rely on fossil fuels. We need to transition to those.
Remediation is not free. Remediation will require a significant amount of energy, land, water, and/or money. In addition, the longer we emit CO2, the more these costs grow.
Thomas Wood
With remediation, we are simply pushing the cost into the future.
Jacob Bennett
Ok, now do that on a larger scale than we burn hydrocarbons.
Landon Long
If it comes down to it, the continuous advance of re-usable rockets is steadily making space mirror(s) less crazy.
even with cheap transport costs to L1($50/kg). I would like to emphasize the fact that this is the transportation cost to L1 and not low earth orbit. The above paper estimated that it would cost about $5 trillion dollars to do this.
Solar mirrors do nothing to combat ocean acidification. It would probably be much better to use the money to construct power sources that do not use CO2.
In 2012 the world used 20.9 PWh of electricity. Solar currently costs 12.2 cents per kilowatt hour on average. Assuming a capacity factor of 12%, it would cost about: 20.9 PWh * (1/12) * ($0.122 /KWh)=21 trillion dollars to replace pretty much all electrical production with solar power. There is a fair amount of uncertainty in this calculation. Similar or lesser costs might be expected for a massive build up of nuclear power.
We shouldn't rely on speculative future technology, we need to start transitioning to emission free energy sources now.
Dominic Ortiz
I wouldn't worry about Trumps cabinet. As an inept businessman born into obscene wealth he will soon be on board, gradually as to not ruffle his flocks feathers, feigning the good fight because even a dolt like that recognizes money for nothing which is what carbon taxation is.
Robert Ortiz
Bump goddamit
Cooper Gomez
OK, so what is "Unallocated Fuel Combustion"? Or "Fugitive Emisssions"?
Aiden Rivera
There are plenty who live very modest lives. You never hear about them because they're always called hippies who should get a job and are ridiculed for trying to help. Politics and media require you to be wasteful to get any attention so you're just complaining about people who disagree with you. Let me know when deniers actually get something published in a scientific journal.
Jason Ward
REKT
Nathan Watson
what about algae seeding?
We need to find a way to recapture all this carbon
That is controversial. Someone did a secret iron seeding and the envirodudes threw a fit.
Essentially all solutions that do not bring us all back into the paleolithic are considered dangerous/unworkable/illegal/immoral/gruesome etc.
Leo Lee
This is ultimately the problem: the majority of people who believe in climate change are fucking retards who use "do what I say or the planet will heat up" as a way to bully others into supporting political objectives that have nothing to do with the climate.
You do not support stopping climate change if you do not support nuclear power and the remove of the Saudis from power.
Parker Cox
Without remediation, we're pushing the cost onto the future.
Jeremiah Reed
> rants about the Saudis > pumps shale oil and gas
The truth is, we're going to pump and burn all the oil we can get, no matter what happens. Oil is just way too sweet to give it up.
All the actions we take to simingly curb oil use are only here to allow us to transition smoothly in an oilless world.
The only thing that impacts oil use is growth, so the real solution to curb oil use, polution and environmental destruction is degrowth, but shareholders will not allow that to happen.
Justin Richardson
>The truth is, we're going to pump and burn all the oil we can get, no matter what happens. Electrification is going great guns and oil use for transport, heating and electricity generation is expected to decline.
There are however a few very important uses that are hard to do much about: - fertilizer - without this billions will die of starvation - plastic - this is everywhere from clothing to electronics, yet media attention is on plastic bags - jet fuel - the energy density vs. safety is really hard to beat.
Logan Ward
How do the Bogs factor into this??
James Clark
In fact, America have more budget for preserving oil economy than for keeping it green. Solar is possible. Container ships can run on hydrogen.
Joshua Phillips
We have railguns protecting fossil fuels...
Many die starvation... EAT FISH
Brayden Barnes
Fish are polluted by radiation from nuclear powerplant... Better go solar. It can give imigrants in america jobs.
Daniel Brown
Anaerobic bacteria release methane under anoxic conditions eg standing water.
Wetlands are really important to flood prevention and clean groundwater. Many in the USA don't have charismatic megafauna, so they get drained, paved and turned into condos.
>what are corn-based hydrocarbons
Jace Nelson
>>what are corn-based hydrocarbons A tiny, tiny niche for making plastic that very easily tears.
Around here we once got corn based plastic bags for organic waste recycling. The bags were so fragile that most people used two bags inside each other to avoid messy leaks and even then there were problems.
David White
> Everyone competing with others in the world economic market > Sorry avoiding the emission of warmhouse gases in the in the interests of my investors. You can go fuck yourself > I'll transition when it is economically profitable for me to do so
AGW will not be adressed. Some politics pretend to care, nothing will ever be done. All we'll do is cope with it.
