The Climate thread

[fattyflattie 4636]

On 9/3/2021 at 10:13 AM, brakeman said:

 

I’m in Waverly right now for a project.  The little stream that caused most of this damage is tiny, and reminds me of the million little wet Wx creeks in the hill country. As you can imagine, the lowest part of town there is where the poorest people were (our local content says it was the “projects”). Most of the really fucked up places are all the same little 800ft^2 brick houses that do look like some kind of govt program, next to a set of small apts that look the same.   Trash still lined along the roads because there’s no support to pick it up. I’ve seen one pile they are hauling to to next to a natl guard facility but there is a TON more to go. All the hotels in area, including mine, are full of displaced families.  Church of Christ been coming around daily feeding them.  The local guys saying something backed up then gave way at once but don’t know if thats bullshit or not.  Pretty crazy I saw this post a few months ago then noticed just now it’s where I’ve been hanging out.  Also, TN sucks, even without the flooding. 

[brakeman 28228]

 

[Biff Tannen 45491]

36 minutes ago, brakeman said:

 

We are going to have to pay Brazil to save the Amazon. That’s just a reality. 

[hookem2010 2599]

Can someone else marry Bezos, take more of his billions, and donate it? We need many more MacKenzie Scott's, since DC clearly isn't going to get it done.

[SydneyCarton 47847]

12 hours ago, brakeman said:

 

Hope he's planning on providing security. Because unless there's a guarded presence, I'm guessing those forests will get logged anyway. 

[RomaVicta 29775]

19 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

We are going to have to pay Brazil to save the Amazon. That’s just a reality. 

It has to be that way. The rest of the world paved over forests. I've felt for a long time that it is wrong to criticize Brazil for doing what the whole western world has done. I applaud the billionaire who bought the forest.

I'm beginning to go crazy driving around Austin surrounded by huge pickup trucks that clearly are not needed by the owners. I begin to see the absolute madness of driving cars everywhere and the continued production of big stupid vehicles. 

Yes, I am among the drivers. I'm glad that Covid made my work permanently at home. I use about a tank of gas a month. Still, I'm part of the problem. I'm thinking of making us (just myself and my beloved) a one car family. If we both need the vehicle, I'll Uber or Lyft. That's a car engine that was going to be running anyway.

That the president has to knuckle under to Dems as well as GQP fuckwads over such an existential issue pushes me even closer to insanity. It's sort of like shrugging off Pearl Harbor.

I've come to profoundly hate the GQP for their absolute opposition to addressing crisis. They use fear and lies to muddy clear waters.

I will not be alive for the most profound consequences of climate change. I look at the roads I drive and all the cars, and I imagine the scene frozen into a photograph. Then I imagine the next generation and their children using the photograph as a meme about the reckless, selfish, stupid people who chose to indulge their every pleasure instead of doing anything.

Insanity.

 

[Biff Tannen 45491]

1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

The rest of the world paved over forests. I've felt for a long time that it is wrong to criticize Brazil for doing what the whole western world has done. I applaud the billionaire who bought the forest.

This isn't fully fair.  The Amazon is quite a bit different than temperate forests.  The oxygen, carbon-capture capacity, and general biological richness is unmatched pretty much anywhere else on the planet.  The Amazon is pretty much the planet's lungs.  It behooves the world to stop them from following in our footsteps.  Same could be said about China/India and developing Africa, though I'm sure it's too late for most of that.

While the western world certainly took out a lot of their forests from the 1700-1900s, much of the US and Europe (more US I believe) has been reforested, obviously not entirely, but a good amount. 

[RomaVicta 29775]

12 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

This isn't fully fair.  The Amazon is quite a bit different than temperate forests.  The oxygen, carbon-capture capacity, and general biological richness is unmatched pretty much anywhere else on the planet.  The Amazon is pretty much the planet's lungs.  It behooves the world to stop them from following in our footsteps.  Same could be said about China/India and developing Africa, though I'm sure it's too late for most of that.

While the western world certainly took out a lot of their forests from the 1700-1900s, much of the US and Europe (more US I believe) has been reforested, obviously not entirely, but a good amount. 

The west exploited third world countries for resources. Captialism is rapacious.

The coffee farms of South America regularly stripped away forest to plant coffee. Europeans brought that techinique and appetite to the New World. 

But I get your perspective. I guess on a broader view I might argue our evolution as an animal and the primal drive of DNA leads to this problem.

It's clear there are too many humans cramming into places that were once wild or only lightly settled. Getting married then having children is most everybody's basic plan for happiness. The drive is so strong that I can't see any real way to dissuade people from doing it.

The celebration of weddings and births is maybe the biggest expression of how we are slaves to DNA. The drive is so strong that there will likely be a huge die off at some point if a blight hits the potato crops or a huge drought of America's farmlands throws everything out of whack.

I've lived in what will likely be known as the best times ever for a common (white) man. I'm sick about what will follow my time here.

Edited October 20, 2021 by RomaVicta

[Biff Tannen 45491]

A quote from Lord James Bryce, referring to America vs Europe (1888), which seems prescient to the current conversation about Brazil and other developing nations:

Quote

"Gentlemen, why in heaven's name this haste? You have time enough. [...] Ages and ages lie before you. Why sacrifice the present to the future, fancying that you will be happier when your fields teem with wealth and your cities with people? In Europe we have cities wealthier and more populous than yours, and we are not happy. You dream of your posterity; but your posterity will look back to yours as the golden age, and envy those who first burst into this silent, splendid nature, who first lifted up their axes upon these tall trees, and lined these waters with busy wharves. Why, then, seek to complete in a few decades what the other nations of the world took thousands of years over in the older continents? [...] Why, in your hurry to subdue and utilize nature, squander her splendid gifts? [...] Why hasten the advent of that threatening day when the vacant spaces of the continent shall all have been filled, and the poverty or discontent of the older States shall find no outlet? You have opportunities such as mankind has never had before, and may never have again.

 

[bolverk 29397]

Thirty years of denial and here we are.

Climate Change Poses a Widening Threat to National Security
Intelligence and defense agencies issued reports warning that the warming planet will increase strife between countries and spur migration.

WASHINGTON — Worsening conflict within and between nations. Increased dislocation and migration as people flee climate-fueled instability. Heightened military tension and uncertainty.

The Biden administration released several reports Thursday on climate change and national security, laying out in stark terms the ways in which the warming world is beginning to pose significant challenges to stability worldwide.

The documents, issued by the departments of Homeland Security and Defense as well as the National Security Council and director of national intelligence, form the government’s most thorough assessment yet of these and other challenges, as well as how it will address them.

The timing of the release seems intended to give President Biden something to demonstrate that his government is acting on climate change as he prepares to attend a major United Nations climate conference in Glasgow known as COP26. In recent weeks Mr. Biden has struggled to advance his stalled climate agenda in Congress. As a result, he risks having little progress to point to in Glasgow, where the administration had hoped to re-establish United States leadership on addressing warming.

The reports “reinforce the President’s commitment to evidence-based decisions guided by the best available science and data,” the White House said Thursday, and “will serve as a foundation for our critical work on climate and security moving forward.”

Spoiler

Among the documents released was a National Intelligence Estimate, which is meant to collect and distill the views of the country’s intelligence agencies about particular threats. The report, the first such document to look exclusively at the issue of climate, said that risks to American national security will grow in the years to come. After 2030, key countries will face growing risks of instability and need for humanitarian assistance, the report said.

The document makes three key judgments. Global tensions will rise as countries argue about how to accelerate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions; climate change will exacerbate cross-border flash points and amplify strategic competition in the Arctic; and the effects of climate change will be felt most acutely in developing countries that are least equipped to adapt.

The document also states that China and India, with large populations, will play key roles in determining how quickly global temperatures rise.

When it comes to the odds of countries around the world meeting the commitment made at the 2015 climate conference in Paris to keep the rise in global temperatures to less than 2 degrees Celsius, the intelligence report said the odds were not good.

“Given current government policies and trends in technology development, we judge that collectively countries are unlikely to meet the Paris goals,” the report said. “High-emitting countries would have to make rapid progress toward decarbonizing their energy systems by transitioning away from fossil fuels within the next decade, whereas developing countries would need to rely on low-carbon energy sources for their economic development.”

The Pentagon released a report of its own, which looked at how it would incorporate climate-related threats into its planning. That report said the military would begin to spend a significant portion of its next budget on climate analysis in its national security exercises and analysis.

“The Department intends to prioritize funding DOD Components in support of exercises, war games, analyses, and studies of climate change impacts on DOD missions, operations, and global stability,” according to its report. “In coordination with allies and partners, DOD will work to prevent, mitigate, account for, and respond to defense and security risks associated with climate change.”

The department faces numerous climate risks. Its bases are vulnerable to flooding, fires, drought and rising sea levels. Flooding harmed the Navy Base Coronado during a particularly tough hurricane year, the Naval Air Station Key West was hit by severe drought several years ago and a wildfire in 2017 burned 380 acres on Vandenberg Air Force Base in Southern California, among myriad other examples.

Beyond harming its basic infrastructure, droughts, fires and flooding can harm the Pentagon’s the performance of its aircraft, the ability to do testing activities and a host of training exercises.

The report drew praise from experts for recognizing that climate change and national defense are increasingly linked.

“This is the most extensive report DOD has ever produced on climate risk, moving to directly integrate concept of climate change as a threat multiplier into all aspects of defense strategy, planning, force posture and budget,” said Sherri Goodman, a former under secretary of defense for environmental security and now Secretary General for the International Military Council on Climate & Security.

Erin Sikorsky, who led climate and national security analysis across federal intelligence agencies until last year, cited the growing United States rivalry with China as an example of why the two issues are linked. “The Pentagon must bring a climate lens to its strategic assessment of Chinese foreign policy and behavior on the world stage,” said Ms. Sikorsky, who is now director of the Center for Climate and Security. “Otherwise it will get answers to key questions about China’s strength and strategy wrong.”

The Department of Homeland Security, which includes the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the country’s main responder to natural disasters, said in a separate report that it is looking to future technologies and equipment that will be necessary to tackle the changing risks posed by extreme weather.

That could include investing in more energy efficient construction and electric vehicles. As the largest federal law enforcement agency, the department has a significant fleet of vehicles.

According to its strategy, the department will start making climate change a focus of its preparedness grants for state and local governments. It will also incorporate the changing science into the guidance it provides to the public and private sectors on how to manage risk, offering advice for specific communities, as well, such as low-income neighborhoods that are often surrounded by crumbling infrastructure already at risk of weather-induced damage.

And part of the strategy includes hiring more employees with scientific expertise, including in its policymaking and public outreach divisions.

“From extreme weather events to record heat, the D.H.S. work force is on the front lines of the climate emergency every day,” Alejandro N. Mayorkas, the homeland security secretary, said in a statement on Thursday. “With the release of our new climate framework, we are building on our commitment to combat climate change by strategically leveraging relevant resources, authorities, and expertise to maximize sustainability and resilience.”

The department said climate change’s effect on the Northwest Passage, the waters between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans and through the Arctic Ocean, are already apparent. With the ice melting, the area has become easier to navigate and has opened it up to competition with Russia and China.

The country is already seeing the effects of climate change on migration, with deadly and destructive hurricanes driving migrants to leave their homes in Central America and flee to the United States through Mexico. This has overwhelmed border officials at times since 2014 and particularly during the last six months.

The National Security Council released its own report Thursday, looking at how climate change is already pushing people around the world to migrate, both within countries and between them. The report notes one forecast suggesting that climate change could lead to almost three percent of the populations of Latin America, South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa moving within their countries by 2050 — more than 143 million people.

That movement wouldn’t solely be the result of climate change, but rather the interaction of climate change with other challenges, like conflict, it said.

While the report focuses on climate migration overseas, it notes that some Americans are already moving because of the effects of climate change as well. “Even in the United States, one extreme event can result in a relatively high degree of permanent relocation of low-income populations exposed to chronic and worsening conditions over time,” the report says.

In February, Mr. Biden signed an executive order directing the National Security Council to provide options for protecting and resettling people displaced by climate change, as well as how to identify them.

In response, the report released Thursday, which was supposed to be done by August, recommends that the White House “work with Congress to create a new legal pathway for individualized humanitarian protection in the United States for individuals facing serious threats to their life because of climate change.”

The report also calls for setting up a group of staff across government agencies to coordinate American policy on climate migration.

Experts in climate migration said the report could have gone further.

Teevrat Garg, an economics professor at the University of California, San Diego, who specializes in climate migration, welcomed the administration’s attention to the issue. But he said the report could have addressed the deeper question of what the United States and other developed countries owe to climate migrants.

“Much of the carbon emissions driving climate change have come from rich nations but the consequences are being borne disproportionately by the poor,” Dr. Garg said. As a result, wealthy countries have “an obligation to support climate refugees.”

Others were more critical. Kayly Ober, the senior advocate and program manager for the Climate Displacement Program at Refugees International, called the report disappointing — more of a review of the challenges around climate migration than a set of prescriptions for how to address it.

“It’s a huge missed opportunity,” Ms. Ober said. “I think the Biden administration hasn’t quite figured out what they want to do.”

 

[sheeeit 129]

20 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

It has to be that way. The rest of the world paved over forests. I've felt for a long time that it is wrong to criticize Brazil for doing what the whole western world has done. I applaud the billionaire who bought the forest.

I'm beginning to go crazy driving around Austin surrounded by huge pickup trucks that clearly are not needed by the owners. I begin to see the absolute madness of driving cars everywhere and the continued production of big stupid vehicles. 

Yes, I am among the drivers. I'm glad that Covid made my work permanently at home. I use about a tank of gas a month. Still, I'm part of the problem. I'm thinking of making us (just myself and my beloved) a one car family. If we both need the vehicle, I'll Uber or Lyft. That's a car engine that was going to be running anyway.

That the president has to knuckle under to Dems as well as GQP fuckwads over such an existential issue pushes me even closer to insanity. It's sort of like shrugging off Pearl Harbor.

I've come to profoundly hate the GQP for their absolute opposition to addressing crisis. They use fear and lies to muddy clear waters.

I will not be alive for the most profound consequences of climate change. I look at the roads I drive and all the cars, and I imagine the scene frozen into a photograph. Then I imagine the next generation and their children using the photograph as a meme about the reckless, selfish, stupid people who chose to indulge their every pleasure instead of doing anything.

Insanity.

 

The amount of forest in the US has pretty much remained the exact same since 1900.  

[Biff Tannen 45491]

1 hour ago, bolverk said:

Thirty years of denial and here we are.

Climate Change Poses a Widening Threat to National Security
Intelligence and defense agencies issued reports warning that the warming planet will increase strife between countries and spur migration.

WASHINGTON — Worsening conflict within and between nations. Increased dislocation and migration as people flee climate-fueled instability. Heightened military tension and uncertainty.

The Biden administration released several reports Thursday on climate change and national security, laying out in stark terms the ways in which the warming world is beginning to pose significant challenges to stability worldwide.

The documents, issued by the departments of Homeland Security and Defense as well as the National Security Council and director of national intelligence, form the government’s most thorough assessment yet of these and other challenges, as well as how it will address them.

The timing of the release seems intended to give President Biden something to demonstrate that his government is acting on climate change as he prepares to attend a major United Nations climate conference in Glasgow known as COP26. In recent weeks Mr. Biden has struggled to advance his stalled climate agenda in Congress. As a result, he risks having little progress to point to in Glasgow, where the administration had hoped to re-establish United States leadership on addressing warming.

The reports “reinforce the President’s commitment to evidence-based decisions guided by the best available science and data,” the White House said Thursday, and “will serve as a foundation for our critical work on climate and security moving forward.”

  Reveal hidden contents

Among the documents released was a National Intelligence Estimate, which is meant to collect and distill the views of the country’s intelligence agencies about particular threats. The report, the first such document to look exclusively at the issue of climate, said that risks to American national security will grow in the years to come. After 2030, key countries will face growing risks of instability and need for humanitarian assistance, the report said.

The document makes three key judgments. Global tensions will rise as countries argue about how to accelerate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions; climate change will exacerbate cross-border flash points and amplify strategic competition in the Arctic; and the effects of climate change will be felt most acutely in developing countries that are least equipped to adapt.

The document also states that China and India, with large populations, will play key roles in determining how quickly global temperatures rise.

When it comes to the odds of countries around the world meeting the commitment made at the 2015 climate conference in Paris to keep the rise in global temperatures to less than 2 degrees Celsius, the intelligence report said the odds were not good.

“Given current government policies and trends in technology development, we judge that collectively countries are unlikely to meet the Paris goals,” the report said. “High-emitting countries would have to make rapid progress toward decarbonizing their energy systems by transitioning away from fossil fuels within the next decade, whereas developing countries would need to rely on low-carbon energy sources for their economic development.”

The Pentagon released a report of its own, which looked at how it would incorporate climate-related threats into its planning. That report said the military would begin to spend a significant portion of its next budget on climate analysis in its national security exercises and analysis.

“The Department intends to prioritize funding DOD Components in support of exercises, war games, analyses, and studies of climate change impacts on DOD missions, operations, and global stability,” according to its report. “In coordination with allies and partners, DOD will work to prevent, mitigate, account for, and respond to defense and security risks associated with climate change.”

The department faces numerous climate risks. Its bases are vulnerable to flooding, fires, drought and rising sea levels. Flooding harmed the Navy Base Coronado during a particularly tough hurricane year, the Naval Air Station Key West was hit by severe drought several years ago and a wildfire in 2017 burned 380 acres on Vandenberg Air Force Base in Southern California, among myriad other examples.

Beyond harming its basic infrastructure, droughts, fires and flooding can harm the Pentagon’s the performance of its aircraft, the ability to do testing activities and a host of training exercises.

The report drew praise from experts for recognizing that climate change and national defense are increasingly linked.

“This is the most extensive report DOD has ever produced on climate risk, moving to directly integrate concept of climate change as a threat multiplier into all aspects of defense strategy, planning, force posture and budget,” said Sherri Goodman, a former under secretary of defense for environmental security and now Secretary General for the International Military Council on Climate & Security.

Erin Sikorsky, who led climate and national security analysis across federal intelligence agencies until last year, cited the growing United States rivalry with China as an example of why the two issues are linked. “The Pentagon must bring a climate lens to its strategic assessment of Chinese foreign policy and behavior on the world stage,” said Ms. Sikorsky, who is now director of the Center for Climate and Security. “Otherwise it will get answers to key questions about China’s strength and strategy wrong.”

The Department of Homeland Security, which includes the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the country’s main responder to natural disasters, said in a separate report that it is looking to future technologies and equipment that will be necessary to tackle the changing risks posed by extreme weather.

That could include investing in more energy efficient construction and electric vehicles. As the largest federal law enforcement agency, the department has a significant fleet of vehicles.

According to its strategy, the department will start making climate change a focus of its preparedness grants for state and local governments. It will also incorporate the changing science into the guidance it provides to the public and private sectors on how to manage risk, offering advice for specific communities, as well, such as low-income neighborhoods that are often surrounded by crumbling infrastructure already at risk of weather-induced damage.

And part of the strategy includes hiring more employees with scientific expertise, including in its policymaking and public outreach divisions.

“From extreme weather events to record heat, the D.H.S. work force is on the front lines of the climate emergency every day,” Alejandro N. Mayorkas, the homeland security secretary, said in a statement on Thursday. “With the release of our new climate framework, we are building on our commitment to combat climate change by strategically leveraging relevant resources, authorities, and expertise to maximize sustainability and resilience.”

The department said climate change’s effect on the Northwest Passage, the waters between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans and through the Arctic Ocean, are already apparent. With the ice melting, the area has become easier to navigate and has opened it up to competition with Russia and China.

The country is already seeing the effects of climate change on migration, with deadly and destructive hurricanes driving migrants to leave their homes in Central America and flee to the United States through Mexico. This has overwhelmed border officials at times since 2014 and particularly during the last six months.

The National Security Council released its own report Thursday, looking at how climate change is already pushing people around the world to migrate, both within countries and between them. The report notes one forecast suggesting that climate change could lead to almost three percent of the populations of Latin America, South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa moving within their countries by 2050 — more than 143 million people.

That movement wouldn’t solely be the result of climate change, but rather the interaction of climate change with other challenges, like conflict, it said.

While the report focuses on climate migration overseas, it notes that some Americans are already moving because of the effects of climate change as well. “Even in the United States, one extreme event can result in a relatively high degree of permanent relocation of low-income populations exposed to chronic and worsening conditions over time,” the report says.

In February, Mr. Biden signed an executive order directing the National Security Council to provide options for protecting and resettling people displaced by climate change, as well as how to identify them.

In response, the report released Thursday, which was supposed to be done by August, recommends that the White House “work with Congress to create a new legal pathway for individualized humanitarian protection in the United States for individuals facing serious threats to their life because of climate change.”

The report also calls for setting up a group of staff across government agencies to coordinate American policy on climate migration.

Experts in climate migration said the report could have gone further.

Teevrat Garg, an economics professor at the University of California, San Diego, who specializes in climate migration, welcomed the administration’s attention to the issue. But he said the report could have addressed the deeper question of what the United States and other developed countries owe to climate migrants.

“Much of the carbon emissions driving climate change have come from rich nations but the consequences are being borne disproportionately by the poor,” Dr. Garg said. As a result, wealthy countries have “an obligation to support climate refugees.”

Others were more critical. Kayly Ober, the senior advocate and program manager for the Climate Displacement Program at Refugees International, called the report disappointing — more of a review of the challenges around climate migration than a set of prescriptions for how to address it.

“It’s a huge missed opportunity,” Ms. Ober said. “I think the Biden administration hasn’t quite figured out what they want to do.”

 

[SydneyCarton 47847]

7 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I mean, that's the reaction, but they're saying what most of us here already knew. 

My wife thinks I'm going mildly older person insane because I've added land around the Great Lakes as potential investment vehicles, not so much but for our son's lifetime. 

Edited October 21, 2021 by SydneyCarton

[Biff Tannen 45491]

3 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I mean, that's the reaction, but they're saying what most of us here already knew. 

My wife thinks I'm going mildly older person insane because I've added land around the Great Lakes as potential investment vehicles, not so much but for our son's lifetime. 

Austin could be beachfront property!

[SydneyCarton 47847]

Just now, Biff Tannen said:

Austin could be beachfront property!

Lol. I've actually looked quite a bit at the interactive ice cap melting maps they have online. It actually looks like not much of Houston will be effected (assuming those maps are even remotely accurate).

I'd say the more likely outcome is that Texas will be incapable of supporting most crops, have a massive shortage of water, and will average over 100 degrees for 2-3 months a year by 2070 or such. 

https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/#/layer/slr/0/-11581024.663779823/5095888.569004184/4/satellite/none/0.8/2050/interHigh/midAccretion

 

[Foosters 17727]

7 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I mean, that's the reaction, but they're saying what most of us here already knew. 

My wife thinks I'm going mildly older person insane because I've added land around the Great Lakes as potential investment vehicles, not so much but for our son's lifetime. 

This is the source of my anger. Watching my 5 year old daughter, knowing that she gets to deal with a world on fire because of the greed of others.

This planet was wasted on us.

[RomaVicta 29775]

13 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

The amount of forest in the US has pretty much remained the exact same since 1900.  

Is that kind of like A&M claiming parity with UT since 1980?

One, what is your source, please. In my lifetime, the forests around and way north of Houston have been quite altered. 

Second, isn't 1900 sort of after industialization?

I may be wrong about all of that. I'd like to see a source.

Actually I google American forest acreage over time to find an article that supports your claim. However, a graph in the same article shows forest decline prior to 1900. 

ThoughtCo. US Forest Facts

Quote

Original forests in what is now the U.S. totaled about 1.05 billion acres (including what is now the State of AK and HI). Clearing of forest land in the East between 1850 and 1900 averaged 13 square miles every day for 50 years; the most prolific period of a forest clearing in U.S. history. This coincides with one of the most prolific periods of U.S. immigration. Currently, forests cover about 749 million acres of the U.S. or about 33 percent of all land.

 

[SydneyCarton 47847]

1 minute ago, Foosters said:

This is the source of my anger. Watching my 5 year old daughter, knowing that she gets to deal with a world on fire because of the greed of others.

This planet was wasted on us.

My son turns 4 in about a month or so. Right there with you. And a fundamental driver is that our fragile psyche's can't comprehend the concept of climate change, so we just deny it and move onward. 

[RomaVicta 29775]

18 hours ago, Foosters said:

This is the source of my anger. Watching my 5 year old daughter, knowing that she gets to deal with a world on fire because of the greed of others.

This planet was wasted on us.

We just patted her on the head then moved ahead with our lives. Well, some people heaped ridicule on her, too.

She's the pioneering voice of her generation regarding this subject. I cared about climate change. She moved me emotionally to really think of it as an immediate problem for people her age instead of some aggregate set of scientific facts.

Better hurry up and get that Dodge Ram or Range Rover SUV before they're banned by the socialist libs trying to kill our country! It's madness.

The jobs lost from the automobile companies who can't meet the standards necessary will be picked up by new companies who can. 

Stop cities sprawling uncontrollably in every direction. Create linear growth that will support mass transit. 

Build nukes if necessary while we transform to cleaner systems.

Drop nukes on the GQP so they can't, by obstruction, prevent civilization from extending its existence beyond negligent suicide.

I'm worked up over this. I'll corral my posts. I've said everything I need to say.

Kudoi for those already taking steps to cut down our production of atmospheric sewage.

Edited October 22, 2021 by RomaVicta

[Cacti 191]

In July, US climate envoy John Kerry said:  

Quote

"If China sticks with its current plan(s) and does not peak its emissions until 2030, then the entire rest of the world must go to zero by 2040 or even 2035," … “without sufficient reduction by China, the goal of 1.5C is essentially impossible.”

China isn’t going to cut its emissions anytime soon and the rest of the world combined isn’t going to zero in 15 or 20 years. In fact, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, worldwide consumption (measured in quadrillion British thermal units) for liquid fuels, natural gas, and coal, will increase in the next 30 years from 182 to 248, 147 to 193, and 155 to 176, respectively.

So, Instead of us and some European countries spending trillions trying to prevent what seems to be inevitable, maybe we should instead concentrate on how best to mitigate the inevitable.   

[hookem2010 2599]

It's not really an all-or-none proposition. Even if we don't cap warming at 1.5 degrees C (we won't), it certainly doesn't mean we shouldn't try to prevent 3+ degrees of warming.

[DigglerontheHoof 21053]

11 hours ago, Cacti said:

In July, US climate envoy John Kerry said:  

China isn’t going to cut its emissions anytime soon and the rest of the world combined isn’t going to zero in 15 or 20 years. In fact, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, worldwide consumption (measured in quadrillion British thermal units) for liquid fuels, natural gas, and coal, will increase in the next 30 years from 182 to 248, 147 to 193, and 155 to 176, respectively.

So, Instead of us and some European countries spending trillions trying to prevent what seems to be inevitable, maybe we should instead concentrate on how best to mitigate the inevitable.   

IOW, just lay back and enjoy it?

[wildcat09 29226]

11 hours ago, Cacti said:

In July, US climate envoy John Kerry said:  

China isn’t going to cut its emissions anytime soon and the rest of the world combined isn’t going to zero in 15 or 20 years. In fact, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, worldwide consumption (measured in quadrillion British thermal units) for liquid fuels, natural gas, and coal, will increase in the next 30 years from 182 to 248, 147 to 193, and 155 to 176, respectively.

So, Instead of us and some European countries spending trillions trying to prevent what seems to be inevitable, maybe we should instead concentrate on how best to mitigate the inevitable.   

Taking action now to limit our carbon emissions is mitigating the inevitable.

[hookem2010 2599]

I feel like this is as good a place as any to discuss the biodiversity crisis, as it often overlaps with climate change, although not in this instance.

https://www.npr.org/2021/10/22/1048336907/elephants-tuskless-ivory-poaching-africa

[Dahobbs 17437]

22 hours ago, Cacti said:

In July, US climate envoy John Kerry said:  

China isn’t going to cut its emissions anytime soon and the rest of the world combined isn’t going to zero in 15 or 20 years. In fact, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, worldwide consumption (measured in quadrillion British thermal units) for liquid fuels, natural gas, and coal, will increase in the next 30 years from 182 to 248, 147 to 193, and 155 to 176, respectively.

So, Instead of us and some European countries spending trillions trying to prevent what seems to be inevitable, maybe we should instead concentrate on how best to mitigate the inevitable.   

What does that even mean? What are you suggesting people do? 

[Dahobbs 17437]

10 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Taking action now to limit our carbon emissions is mitigating the inevitable.

Yeah. What a fucking idiot. 

[berlinerbaer 670]

56 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

What does that even mean? What are you suggesting people do? 

He is making an argument that is growing among the Right. Climate change denial is becoming unpopular, so the next argument isn't whether it's occurring, or even if we are responsible. The next few decades are instead going to be spent arguing about whether we make all cars electric and go to renewables by 2040 or just surround Florida with a giant seawall. Or if not all of Florida, at least The Villages. 

The argument is that it will all be a black swan that nobody saw coming, and that all we can do now is hold back the sea and install bigger air conditioners in our F550s, at least for the people who can afford them, while sticking with coal since at least now a whopping 5% of the emissions are successfully being captured.

 

[Bateshorn 9898]

On 10/21/2021 at 11:05 PM, Cacti said:

In July, US climate envoy John Kerry said:  

China isn’t going to cut its emissions anytime soon and the rest of the world combined isn’t going to zero in 15 or 20 years. In fact, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, worldwide consumption (measured in quadrillion British thermal units) for liquid fuels, natural gas, and coal, will increase in the next 30 years from 182 to 248, 147 to 193, and 155 to 176, respectively.

So, Instead of us and some European countries spending trillions trying to prevent what seems to be inevitable, maybe we should instead concentrate on how best to mitigate the inevitable.   

You mean adapt, dumbass. Mitigate literally means to make less severe.  To mitigate you must cut emissions.  You can’t even get your climate change minimization/cynicism right.
 

“we should concentrate on how best to adapt to the inevitable”

[Cacti 191]

9 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

You mean adapt, dumbass. Mitigate literally means to make less severe.  To mitigate you must cut emissions.  You can’t even get your climate change minimization/cynicism right.

You’re right, of course. Mitigate was a poor choice of words, but substituting adapt for mitigate doesn’t quite work either. So let me rephrase: While it’s inevitable that we must adapt to a warmer Earth (we already are), it doesn’t follow that we must adapt to some of the negative consequences associated with a warming planet. There are steps we can take to lessen, or mitigate, those consequences.

Take water, for example. A warmer U.S. will certainly exacerbate current and expected future water shortages. But if a certain temperature rise is already baked in (I believe it is), then we will have to adapt to the new normal, but we don’t necessarily have to adapt to the logical and expected drought-like consequences. Maybe there’s a way to mitigate those consequences.

To state the obvious, the U.S. needs to find additional water sources in the coming years. And that’s true even if the temperature stabilizes at the current rate. If temperatures rise by 1.5, 2, or even 3 degrees, then obviously our water situation—especially in the west and southwest—goes from bad to worse to critical.

This is where Canada comes in. They have more than 20% of the world’s fresh water and 7% of the planet’s renewable water supply - all to satisfy the needs of just 0.5 per cent of the world's population. In other words, they have vast amounts of surplus water that can be routed south to the U.S.

This is not a novel idea; it’s been considered before. Naturally, most Canadians are against it, but public opinion and government cooperation can be influenced by money. And rest assured, it would cost a lot of money: tens of billions for the water and an enormous amount of money to get it where it is needed.

So what does this have to do with lowering emissions? Nothing at all. But it does have to do with mitigating some of the consequences of an inevitable warming. And if there is a finite amount of money to spend on environmental issues (and there is), then assuring critical regions of our nation of an adequate water supply should take priority over measures that have little chance of success (reread Kerry’s quote).

[Neonmoon 38127]

We’re probably fucked either way. So if I were a parent, I would move to a state that will see minimal impacts of climate change due to geography. For example, I would move away from California and the Gulf Coast. 

[Dahobbs 17437]

2 hours ago, Cacti said:

You’re right, of course. Mitigate was a poor choice of words, but substituting adapt for mitigate doesn’t quite work either. So let me rephrase: While it’s inevitable that we must adapt to a warmer Earth (we already are), it doesn’t follow that we must adapt to some of the negative consequences associated with a warming planet. There are steps we can take to lessen, or mitigate, those consequences.

Take water, for example. A warmer U.S. will certainly exacerbate current and expected future water shortages. But if a certain temperature rise is already baked in (I believe it is), then we will have to adapt to the new normal, but we don’t necessarily have to adapt to the logical and expected drought-like consequences. Maybe there’s a way to mitigate those consequences.

To state the obvious, the U.S. needs to find additional water sources in the coming years. And that’s true even if the temperature stabilizes at the current rate. If temperatures rise by 1.5, 2, or even 3 degrees, then obviously our water situation—especially in the west and southwest—goes from bad to worse to critical.

This is where Canada comes in. They have more than 20% of the world’s fresh water and 7% of the planet’s renewable water supply - all to satisfy the needs of just 0.5 per cent of the world's population. In other words, they have vast amounts of surplus water that can be routed south to the U.S.

This is not a novel idea; it’s been considered before. Naturally, most Canadians are against it, but public opinion and government cooperation can be influenced by money. And rest assured, it would cost a lot of money: tens of billions for the water and an enormous amount of money to get it where it is needed.

So what does this have to do with lowering emissions? Nothing at all. But it does have to do with mitigating some of the consequences of an inevitable warming. And if there is a finite amount of money to spend on environmental issues (and there is), then assuring critical regions of our nation of an adequate water supply should take priority over measures that have little chance of success (reread Kerry’s quote).

You're an idiot. 

[brakeman 28228]

On 10/20/2021 at 6:56 PM, RomaVicta said:

It has to be that way. The rest of the world paved over forests. I've felt for a long time that it is wrong to criticize Brazil for doing what the whole western world has done. I applaud the billionaire who bought the forest.

I'm beginning to go crazy driving around Austin surrounded by huge pickup trucks that clearly are not needed by the owners. I begin to see the absolute madness of driving cars everywhere and the continued production of big stupid vehicles. 

Yes, I am among the drivers. I'm glad that Covid made my work permanently at home. I use about a tank of gas a month. Still, I'm part of the problem. I'm thinking of making us (just myself and my beloved) a one car family. If we both need the vehicle, I'll Uber or Lyft. That's a car engine that was going to be running anyway.

That the president has to knuckle under to Dems as well as GQP fuckwads over such an existential issue pushes me even closer to insanity. It's sort of like shrugging off Pearl Harbor.

I've come to profoundly hate the GQP for their absolute opposition to addressing crisis. They use fear and lies to muddy clear waters.

I will not be alive for the most profound consequences of climate change. I look at the roads I drive and all the cars, and I imagine the scene frozen into a photograph. Then I imagine the next generation and their children using the photograph as a meme about the reckless, selfish, stupid people who chose to indulge their every pleasure instead of doing anything.

Insanity.

 

I've been driving mostly electric since 2014. Best little car ever. Bonus, I just reached 100K, original brake pads. About 300 miles to the gallon.

Edited October 28, 2021 by brakeman
Post 3 year note, I write off about 3k a year as business travel expense that little fucker has paid me to drive it.

[brakeman 28228]

 

Humans are dumb.

[elfenix 34171]

Grandfather clock energy storage on a grid scale:

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2021/10/27/gravity-based-energy-storage-tower-developer-notches-a-customer-order/

[RomaVicta 29775]

9 hours ago, elfenix said:

Grandfather clock energy storage on a grid scale:

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2021/10/27/gravity-based-energy-storage-tower-developer-notches-a-customer-order/

Ugly, but ingenius. I recall seeing a PSA in London about their plan to electrically pump water to the top of a tower at night when demand was low and then let it flow down to generate energy during the day when demand was high.

I hope this thing works as promised.

[drt 637]

Shiiiit, at some point someone on this or the other site posted a strategy to do it grid scale on the highland lakes or similar.  That would be something.

[EuroHorn 3204]

7 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

Ugly, but ingenius. I recall seeing a PSA in London about their plan to electrically pump water to the top of a tower at night when demand was low and then let it flow down to generate energy during the day when demand was high.

I hope this thing works as promised.

That’s called pumped storage. They’ve been doing it with dams for decades. 

[washparkhorn 9935]

Energy storage is a fundamental problem - but their are promising solutions.

Simple overview of the issue.

Pumped storage overview at 2:11:

 

[brakeman 28228]

 

Trees, pay me.

[Brisketexan 104561]

 
Trees, pay me.

I mean….seriously. This.

[Biff Tannen 45491]

6 minutes ago, brakeman said:

 

Trees, pay me.

[elfenix 34171]

trees don't sequester durably.  it's only sequestered for the life cycle of the tree.  building stick frame housing sequesters for longer, but us and japan are the only places that do a lot of that. 

[Gap03 3278]

Not great, Bob ...

 

[Hagbard Celine 10752]

it's the size of florida

[Biff Tannen 45491]

40 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

it's the size of florida

Is that bad?   Seems bad. 

[High Plains Drifter 10970]

10 hours ago, Hagbard Celine said:

it's the size of florida

 

dammit, why can't it be florida that's melting and breaking up?

 

[Biff Tannen 45491]

11 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

dammit, why can't it be florida that's melting and breaking up?

 

well they'll be underwater at least

[GreenspointTexas 9559]

Well thats not ideal

[Willfully Horn 7913]

The ‘doomsday’’ ice shelf is fractured and disintegrating. The glacier it buttresses would be next. Two foot rise in sea levels changing the horizon? Yeah. 
 

What the collapse of Antarctica’s ‘doomsday’ glacier could mean for the world

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/donations?itm_channel=native&itm_campaign=top_right_contribute&authId=1*iv31pe*_a*NHNQOS15aVhpM1BTNEEyeWFJcVU0MWFaRWlMSFBSdG0yanNGeFVST3BzODhaZGtwZS1fLVpFenFhZjZFdkNldw..&_gl=1*gfj22c*_ga*YW1wLXY0ckpTTEZJTlh1ZEo5UmdsaUFhRU43bVA2NER1YjE2OHQwRzVWM0h1SDM4Tlp5TTg2MHphRXJQSWU5dm9ISFQ.

[Biff Tannen 45491]

2 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

The ‘doomsday’’ ice shelf is fractured and disintegrating. The glacier it buttresses would be next. Two foot rise in sea levels changing the horizon? Yeah. 
 

What the collapse of Antarctica’s ‘doomsday’ glacier could mean for the world

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/donations?itm_channel=native&itm_campaign=top_right_contribute&authId=1*iv31pe*_a*NHNQOS15aVhpM1BTNEEyeWFJcVU0MWFaRWlMSFBSdG0yanNGeFVST3BzODhaZGtwZS1fLVpFenFhZjZFdkNldw..&_gl=1*gfj22c*_ga*YW1wLXY0ckpTTEZJTlh1ZEo5UmdsaUFhRU43bVA2NER1YjE2OHQwRzVWM0h1SDM4Tlp5TTg2MHphRXJQSWU5dm9ISFQ.

Can’t wait. Honestly at this point, maybe it’s just as well. We won’t do anything until something catastrophic happens, so might as well speed it up.