- TACD
- Oct 27, 2000
-
|
El Grillo posted:
http://energyfromthorium.com/
http://www.ted.com/talks/kirk_sorensen_thorium_an_alternative_nuclear_fuel.html (ignore the bit about generating fuels, the rest is pretty good though nowhere near as good as the full explanation:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4
I'm very interested in talking to someone (anyone, in this thread or anywhere else) who can really make a good critique of the LFTR concept and design. At the moment all the evidence seems to point to it being an incredible technology which could save the world, but I am naturally sceptical. This is balanced of course by the fact that China's started investing in LFTR development.
Seriously, anyone who can even just play devil's advocate on this subject, it would be really great, as I'm hoping to start giving talks about it around my uni in a few months.
Clearly this isn't a critique of LFTR per se, of which I know only as much as was in the links you posted, but it's worth bearing in mind that even with plentiful cheap electricity we use fossil fuels for enough other things for shortages to be a major concern.
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2012 20:43
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2024 17:27
|
|
- TACD
- Oct 27, 2000
-
|
Smegmatron posted:
Is there any truth to my own personal delusion that fossil fuels will become scarce enough to make them economically unviable to the point where carbon-neutral energy sources (note; I don't necessarily mean renewable) will become the economically preferred option in time to start fixing things?
Even worse, multiple commentators have noted that no single alternative or any combination of alternatives will allow us to continue our 'business as usual', perpetual growth model for an economy. All the current options (when these are even being looked at) are supply-side; with what can we replace oil to let us keep things as they are? And the ultimate answer is none; the solution must be based on / include demand-side changes, i.e. we need to change how much we consume and drive. We need to transition to an economy based on sustainability instead of assuming endless growth.
Here's one article I found with a quick Google, there are many many more making the same points out there. http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-03-22/won%92t-innovation-substitution-and-efficiency-keep-us-growing
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2012 18:53
|
|
- TACD
- Oct 27, 2000
-
|
Are there any climate engineering projects further ahead than theoretical proposals and small-scale testing? I have a hard time imagining the government of any large country accepting the overt hypocrisy in simultaneously not taking drastic action on their industrial sector while also providing funding and support for controversial environmental projects that will by definition affect both their trading partners and enemies.
Which is to say, I don't see any evidence at all that anybody in power is going to take this seriously until a city gets wiped out or something.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2012 16:12
|
|
- TACD
- Oct 27, 2000
-
|
That's perhaps the thing that is most frustrating about this topic - to really solve it is going to require massive change on a cultural level, and the type of change required is not taking place at all. It feels totally helpless. It's like I'm a small insect that's trying to change the direction of a speeding train by buzzing my wings. No amount of "evangelizing" on my part will convince enough people to actually make a real difference, and the alternative is watching in horror as everyone suffers through the catastrophic collapse of the whole system, which is undoubtedly the direction we are headed right now (if the collapse hasn't already begun).
Other than it being the cultural system I've lived in all my life, I have no great feelings for industrial civilization, so I don't think I'll really lament the loss of the system itself all that much. The human suffering that results from a collapse scenario is horrifying and depressing, though, and even more depressing is the realization that even if folks were to willingly give up our destructive lifestyle right now in order to head off collapse, we couldn't support anywhere near 7 billion people without it.
There's no easy way out of this, and if there ever was, we should have been looking 20 or 30 years ago. I fear that all there is to do now is for each of us to mitigate as much suffering as we can and help as many people as we can.
I know I end up coming off all kinds of  whenever I talk about this seriously but I really think we're moving into an age within our lifetimes when the government is simply not going to be able to effectively look after us like we're used to. I'd argue they're already showing that by being unable to think and act on timescales larger than ~20 years (or sometimes even the next election cycle) - so it's up to each of us to do so. Maybe I'm pessimistic but I really think the best plan is to move somewhere with a sustainability-minded community (I've been looking at places like Chew Magna), learn to grow some food and a trade that doesn't require much high-tech stuff. Get independent.
Thought: do you really think we'll all be driving cars with carefree abandon like we do now in say, 50 years? If not, do you see any movement towards restructuring our society (American in particular) to function without such easy car access?
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2012 01:22
|
|
- TACD
- Oct 27, 2000
-
|
I take it that the US differs from this significantly? I know the distances involved are often much larger, urban planning means walking can be difficult and public transport is often very poor. Would a lot of peoples day to day existence be impossible without a car?
Car ownership in America is probably right up there with military dominance and endless growth as an unquestionable assumed fact of life.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2012 06:40
|
|
- TACD
- Oct 27, 2000
-
|
This is the source of what he was talking about, I think.
For what it's worth, I think that requires a lot of assumptions of certain things such as particulate size if there even was some kind of fire. Assuming the coolant does run out of the pool, assuming the fuel rods do catch fire, assuming what's in there is still potent enough to maintain that fire, assuming nobody does anything about it, and assuming the particles listed into the atmosphere stay aloft and end up all over the place, then sure, ok, you might have a tremendous problem on your hands.
Basically the potential is there in absolute terms, but getting from "potential" to "reality" requires a very Rube Goldberg-esque sequence of events under the assumption nobody tries to stop it in the first place.
There's a reasonable amount of worry and preparations to be done for rare events that have enormous consequences, but we should be doing a lot more worrying about predictable, highly likely events with consequences that will just keep steadily ramping up for as long as any of us are alive.
Basically I agree with you 
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2012 15:54
|
|
- TACD
- Oct 27, 2000
-
|
The nearest big supermarket is 2 miles away. While most people do drive to this one (as I used to when I still had a car), there are good links: buses and trams stop right outside. Not owning a car is only a mild inconvenience for single people, and while a family shop would be harder to fit on the bus, there are delivery services from almost all the major supermarkets.
That second sentence is a bit inconvenient for the angries. Its not saying denialists are MORE scientific, its saying that scientific literacy merely polarized the debate further. Implication being that the dunning kurger effect is not as large here as previously anticipated and lower scientific literacy folks appear to be aware that they dont have the full capacity to assess the data.
It sure as gently caress doesnt mean "only dummies believe in climate change!", it means "education isn't a defence against being wrong".
Alternative study conclusion I propose: The people might be bad at gauging scientific consensus and forming opinions at it, but the media are blatantly loving horrible at reporting science and in some cases blatantly lying.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2012 18:54
|
|
- TACD
- Oct 27, 2000
-
|
I see the peapod by Giant trucks everywhere, someone must be using them.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2012 20:08
|
|
- TACD
- Oct 27, 2000
-
|
quote:O'Brien silenced him by a movement of his hand. "We control matter because we control the mind. Reality is inside the skull. You will learn by degrees, Winston. There is nothing that we could not do. Invisibility, levitation - anything. I could float off this floor like a soap bubble if I wish to. I do not wish to, because the Party does not wish it. You must get rid of these nineteenth-century ideas about the laws of Nature. We make the laws of Nature.' TACD fucked around with this message at 00:41 on Jun 1, 2012
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2012 00:32
|
|
- TACD
- Oct 27, 2000
-
|
"Sustainable" is a marketing buzzword used to sell tomatoes and no one interested in serious discussion about reducing energy density and overall energy use should use it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2012 03:38
|
|
- TACD
- Oct 27, 2000
-
|
Society was sustainable, until 10,000 years later when population growth exploded, so where did the fuckup happen? I think defining all human endeavor past the pre-historic period as unsustainable proves my point very well.
How often do you hear politicians talking about a 'return to growth' as if it's the most natural thing in a world for something to keep growing without end, forever? That growth is fundamentally based on oil. We don't have infinite oil. End of story.
I can't find a better chart that plots the two quantities right now, but check out http://www.oilposter.org/posterlarge.html - the main bulk of the chart is oil production over time. That thin yellow line is global population tracking it very nicely.
Check out this paper arguing that the interaction Hubbert Curve can be modelled with a simple Lotka-Volterra equation; you know, that classic of biology textbooks showing how predator / prey numbers oscillate over time and get all hosed if the prey is removed or (in the case of a species with no predators) if an abundance of resources is suddenly introduced. We're nothing different. A vast abundance of resources was 'introduced' into our system when oil was discovered, we've consumed it and increased our number rapidly, and the result is now unsustainable.
What needs to happen, and will happen one way or another, is a return to balance and a population that lives within its means.
TACD fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Jun 1, 2012
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2012 17:38
|
|
- TACD
- Oct 27, 2000
-
|
Not when we started burning coal?
e:"What needs to happen, and will happen one way or another, is a return to balance and a population that lives within its means."
That's fine, sure I agree, for whatever that means. I guess I just don't see it as a useful conversation when you're bogged down in how to reduce energy dense activities and drive people to voluntarily choose investments that will reduce industrial, commercial, and personal energy use on a daily basis.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2012 00:29
|
|
- TACD
- Oct 27, 2000
-
|
That said, they have been saying "We only have (insert arbitrary #) years of oil left!" for the last 50 years, so it's probably not going anywhere, anytime soon.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2012 22:11
|
|
- TACD
- Oct 27, 2000
-
|
Apologies in advance since this isn't directly related to climate change, but I recently found a (what appears to be fairly old) video that I feel does an outstanding job of summarising and presenting the issues with current reliance on fossil fuels and endless growth, so I thought I'd share.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOMWzjrRiBg
Strangely, climate change is the one piece of the puzzle it doesn't address, but since I hope everybody can agree these issues are all pretty tightly interrelated I thought it would still be relevant.
TACD fucked around with this message at 05:23 on Jul 6, 2012
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2012 05:01
|
|
- TACD
- Oct 27, 2000
-
|
Its not a happy thought, but at what point do you just accept that you can't do anything, and go about your life?
There's far too many people on the planet and not only do I not have any idea (and have not read even one plausible idea) of how to manage the transition to a globally contracting economy, but there is zero mainstream awareness of the very concept of an economy not in continual growth. Every time I read an article eagerly anticipating a 'return to growth' my heart sinks slightly.
I can't fix the world. All I can do is try to plan and anticipate where I should live and what my situation should be as things get worse, and try to encourage friends and family to think about the same kinds of things. I genuinely believe we are at the beginning of an era where national governments will become increasingly irrelevant in terms of looking after their population, and it's a good time to start looking at how to be more self-sufficient. Move somewhere smallish with a strong community, keep fit, learn to grow food or ply a trade. What else can you do?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2012 23:23
|
|
- TACD
- Oct 27, 2000
-
|
Assuming this is true, I no longer find this surprising. If one part of the nation thinks it can legislate away sea-level rise it makes sense for another to attempt to legislate the needed / expected technological fixes into existence.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2012 05:46
|
|
- TACD
- Oct 27, 2000
-
|
The Register is basically a tech tabloid so expecting to get sensible articles about climate science from there is laughable. You're probably going to want to get your friend to explicitly say what he thinks that article is proving because I can't see how it is relevant in any way to modern climate change.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2012 23:05
|
|
- TACD
- Oct 27, 2000
-
|
A conservative friend of mine posted the same story, only he used a link to Nature. He thinks that because this suggests that it was warmer in the Roman and Medieval periods, that "in layman's terms, global warming is bullshit". To my dumb non-scientist brain, this is a single study to add to the pile of many; we can't use it by itself to really draw a conclusion one way or the other, like my friend really wants to do, and it certainly doesn't invalidate other climate reconstructions or instrumental data.
It's also funny to contrast his response to this paper with his comment from last week: "Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”" (Quoting James Lovelock, and trying to suggest that since we can't know the truth, we don't have to do anything; my friend is a corporate lawyer, not a scientist.)
Science can never be certain, but this time, this time it is certain, and all that global warming business is just a bunch of baloney.
As for science not being certain - that's essentially laypeople trying to be smart because scientists like to be pedantically accurate. No, technically we can't be 100% absolutely guaranteed certain of anything beyond mathematical axioms. But science is far more confident in its evidence-based knowledge of human-caused climate change than your friend imagines.
It really boggles the mind that some people still have trouble getting this stuff. Did news reports of the goddamn Northwest Passage opening up not make him think something was up? Is he going to be scoffing at them durned librals when the Maldives are literally underwater?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2012 08:32
|
|
- TACD
- Oct 27, 2000
-
|
Don't worry, most of the fish we eat are well on their way to extinction. With any luck they won't have to suffer through ocean acidification.
I've also seen a composite image of like 20-30 graphs with the fish we eat and they are already at fractions of what they used to be and are headed to zero. Don't remember where I saw it but that film gives you a pretty good overview of where we're at, which is pretty much hosed.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2012 01:48
|
|
- TACD
- Oct 27, 2000
-
|
It's an incredibly frightening article, and makes any other information about climate change I've read seem positively optimistic. Wondering what you guys think.
That Rolling Stone article posted:You can have a healthy fossil-fuel balance sheet, or a relatively healthy planet – but now that we know the numbers, it looks like you can't have both.
Do what you can to move to somewhere out of the way with a close-knit community and become collectively self-sufficent. I'm open to better ideas.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2012 13:46
|
|
- TACD
- Oct 27, 2000
-
|
The NOAA measurements for CO2 concentration were about 391.5~ PPM for 2011.
Here are the various trend models used by the IPCC - and bear in mind, the IPCC's numbers are optimistic:
We're not 'on track' for the A1B model, which what we need to trend with if we wanted to aim for a 'mere' 2-6 degree increase. And, rather than reducing our output, we're actually increasing our output - and we're doing so much more rapidly than any of these pretty 'tame' models calculates for.
The worst case model, A1Fl (which is considered an end-game, extinction-level scenario, by the way), is what we're most closely tracking to right now - and that one suggests 5-6 degrees worth of warming by 2100, and we can assume that things only get worse from there due to feedback.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2012 14:44
|
|
- TACD
- Oct 27, 2000
-
|
Mixing our apocalyptic scenarios for a moment: one nice aspect of reaching a global peak in oil production is that it's unlikely we'll be able to pump out much of remaining fossil fuels in the ground. The big oil exporters are going to start depleting their fields before we can get at that sweet arctic crude, and hopefully global civilization will experience a cascading failure of organization much sooner. Not to say we may not hit 2C anyway, but our current economic organization has set us up to be largely self-limiting.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2012 08:41
|
|
- TACD
- Oct 27, 2000
-
|
The article it's attached to (http://energybulletin.net/stories/2012-09-20/arctic-death-spiral-new-local-shipping-and-drilling-pollution-may-speed-polar-war) doesn't contain much new information, but I thought you guys might enjoy this horrifying graph:
Won't it be fun to tell the grandchildren about the days when there used to be two polar ice caps?
Only registered members can see post attachments!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2012 13:36
|
|
- TACD
- Oct 27, 2000
-
|
I hope people like that dude will be around when the cracks really start to show. I mean, they're on display right now, but they will become too big to ignore. How will they keep up their cognitive dissonance then?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2012 19:39
|
|
- TACD
- Oct 27, 2000
-
|
Just in case you were still tempted to feel the slightest bit optimistic about any of this:
An Illustrated Guide to the Science of Global Warming Impacts: How We Know Inaction Is the Gravest Threat Humanity Facesquote:In this post, I will summarize what the recent scientific literature says are the key impacts we face in the coming decades if we stay anywhere near our current emissions path. These include:
Staggeringly high temperature rise, especially over land — some 10°F over much of the United States
Permanent Dust Bowl conditions over the U.S. Southwest and many other regions around the globe that are heavily populated and/or heavily farmed.
Sea level rise of some 1 foot by 2050, then 4 to 6 feet (or more) by 2100, rising some 6 to 12 inches (or more) each decade thereafter
Massive species loss on land and sea — perhaps 50% or more of all biodiversity.
Unexpected impacts — the fearsome “unknown unknowns”
Much more extreme weather
Food insecurity — the increasing difficulty of feeding 7 billion, then 8 billion, and then 9 billion people in a world with an ever-worsening climate.
Myriad direct health impacts
Remember, these will all be happening simultaneously and getting worse decade after decade. Equally tragic, a 2009 NOAA-led study found the worst impacts would be “largely irreversible for 1000 years.”
I'm not going to quote the whole thing because it's goddamn long and has charts and links out the wazoo, but if you wanted a roundup of just how hosed we are in every arena then this should really brighten your day.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2012 23:55
|
|
- TACD
- Oct 27, 2000
-
|
On this topic, 'Radio Ecoshock' (who I have never heard of before) have done a show (with transcript) that appears to go into this issue and Russ George's motivations a bit more. I'll be honest, I haven't had time to read through the transcript yet but here's a choice quote from the end:
quote:Saying the ocean is dying, George tells us humans must take over these last wild places on Earth. We'll convert the open ocean into "pastures" like agribusiness on the seas, farming plankton and the fish. We'll dump iron every year. I'm thinking maybe we'll introduce new genetically modified species, who knows? The dying ocean is ours to play with and command.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2012 19:23
|
|
- TACD
- Oct 27, 2000
-
|
From reading this thread I've gathered (please tell me if this is inaccurate) that our best-case scenario for avoiding Atheist Rapture is a revolution of awareness on the local scale, destabilizing the grip of oil companies on the government, and putting into practice a combined bunch of bizarre schemes that hopefully don't have any negative side effects (filling the Sahara with eucalyptus, manufacturing engineered carbon algae, setting up thorium reactors).
But I'm just seventeen. Is there anything I can do to help mitigate the crushing monolith of despair weighing on our hearts? Take a bicycle trip across the country and plant bamboo everywhere I go? Promote the growth of kudzu and hope that it ends up eating our CO2 before it eats all our other plants? Convince people to wear more white?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2012 12:11
|
|
- TACD
- Oct 27, 2000
-
|
Yea, I was going to post this yesterday. But of course while this is going on there's a steady stream of bad news from elsewhere:
World Bank Climate Change Report Warns of Dramatically Warmer World This Century (You can download the full report towards the top right of the page)
quote:Rising Sea Levels
The report says sea levels have been rising faster in the last two decades than previously, and this rise is being seen in many tropical regions of the world. This phenomenon is partly due to melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets; the rapid growth in melt area observed since the 1970s in Greenland’s ice sheet is a clear illustration of its increasing vulnerability. Arctic sea ice also reached a record minimum in September 2012. "There are indications that the greatest melt extent in the past 225 years has occurred in the last decade," says the report.
"It’s early yet but clearly some of the small island states and coastal communities are beginning to take a hard look at their options," said Erick Fernandes, co-lead of the Bank’s Global Expert Team on Climate Change Adaptation. "The need to adapt to climate change will increase as global population reaches 9 billion in 2050," he added.
Ocean Acidification
Coral reefs are acutely sensitive to changes in water temperature and acidity levels. The report warns that by the time the warming levels reach 1.4° C in 2030s, coral reefs may stop growing. This would be a result of oceans becoming more acidic as a result of higher CO2 concentrations. And with 2.4° C, coral reefs in several areas may actually start to dissolve. This is likely to have profound consequences for people who depend on them for food, income, tourism and shoreline protection.
Heat Extremes
A 4°C warmer world would also suffer more extreme heat waves, and these events will not be evenly distributed across the world, according to the report.
Sub-tropical Mediterranean, northern Africa, the Middle East, and the contiguous United States are likely to see monthly summer temperatures rise by more than 6°C. Temperatures of the warmest July between 2080-2100 in the Mediterranean are expected to approach 35°C – about 9°C warmer than the warmest July estimated for the present day. The warmest July month in the Sahara and the Middle East will see temperatures as high as 45°C, or 6-7°C above the warmest July simulated for the present day.
Lower agricultural yields
Hotter weather could in turn lower crop yields in a 4°C world—raising concerns about future food security. Field experiments have shown that crops are highly sensitive to temperatures above certain thresholds. One study cited in the report found that each “growing degree day” spent at a temperature of 30 degrees decreases yields by 1% under drought-free rain-fed conditions.
The report also says drought-affected areas would increase from 15.4% of global cropland today, to around 44% by 2100. The most severely affected regions in the next 30 to 90 years will likely be in southern Africa, the United States, southern Europe and Southeast Asia, says the report. In Africa, the report predicts 35% of cropland will become unsuitable for cultivation in a 5°C world.
Risks to Human Support Systems
The report identifies severe risks related to adverse impacts on water availability, particularly in northern and eastern Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. River basins like the Ganges and the Nile are particularly vulnerable. In Amazonia, forest fires could as much double by 2050. The world could lose several habitats and species with a 4°C warming.
Non-linear impacts
As global warming approaches and exceeds 2°C, there is a risk of triggering nonlinear tipping elements. Examples include the disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet leading to more rapid sea-level rise, or large-scale Amazon dieback drastically affecting ecosystems, rivers, agriculture, energy production, and livelihoods. This would further add to 21st-century global warming and impact entire continents.
Also:
European Environment Agency - Climate change, impacts and vulnerability in Europe 2012 (Even the summary for this one is 34 pages long so I'm not going to bore everybody with more quotes. I think we're all familiar with the content of this sort of thing by now.)
Honestly? At this point I'm just completely fatigued and fatalistic. It's a joke to think that keeping below 2°C is at all plausible and the reports coming out seem to be pleading to at least try to remain below 4°C as an absolute last resort. As far as I can see there are still no credible ongoing efforts to make a serious effort to reduce emissions, and I feel like we'd need an absolute paradigm shift in what modern society is about in order to start making the radical changes needed. People still think that turning off the lights and walking to the shops is going to save the planet.
Reading all these reports feels like reading news reports of horrific natural disasters, counting up the dead bodies and recounting the suffering and damage. I can't shake the feeling that using any means necessary to depose the braindead fucks still somehow denying that this is even an issue is now a rational course of action in the long-term, and that holy poo poo, I'm mentally becoming an eco-terrorist. And I can't convince myself that that's an irrational mindset any more 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2012 17:32
|
|
- TACD
- Oct 27, 2000
-
|
Whenever I get stupidly angry about this issue, to the point of fantasizing about some violent 'solution', I try to remind myself that avoiding a really violent future is exactly why I bother to get emotionally invested in the first place.
What do we do? The current approach isn't working and if nothing gets done then literally millions (if not billions) of people are going to actually die. We just don't have time to continue to have some farcical 'debate' about this with people who disagree. It's imperative that anybody who doesn't think this is an issue is ignored or pushed aside so that drastic measures can be taken.
Please, convince me that this is wrong somehow, because I am very aware that this sounds like a completely overboard fringe opinion, but I just don't see how the current approach to this is getting any results.
To be honest, given that pretty much every report I've read about climate change reports changes 'worse than expected' on most metrics, I suspect that in the next few years the scientific community will shift focus from 'attempting to avoid catastrophic climate change' to 'mitigating damage from the now-unstoppable catastrophic climate change'.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2012 18:18
|
|
- TACD
- Oct 27, 2000
-
|
It doesn't sound overboard to me. There's just no reason to suppose eco-terrorism would do any good, either - is there?
It's not wrong, but it is somewhat fantastical, as though every key political actor who has a lot to lose in the immediate short-term by supporting policy that is essentially focused on deindustrialization can simply be "ignored" and not debated with when they are the ones holding all the cards.
...
As for eco-terrorism, it won't do a drat thing. Radical anti-Western groups - who are far more well-organized, well-funded, etc. than any current radical eco-terrorist groups - haven't accomplished a great deal of their agenda (Israel still exists; American incursions into the Middle East increased instead of decreased; etc.). The concept that bombing coal-fired plants or whatever would create effective political change - especially on a worldwide scale (because this is simply not a local issue anymore) - is a liberal revolutionary fantasy.
The best possible thing to do is to actively pursue and support policy options that are tenable in the current political/economic environment, because we simply do not have the time for a worldwide eco-socialist revolution with how things are accelerating. Something like the development of a solid nuclear infrastructure would help to ameliorate emissions from coal-fired plants, at the least, as well as being relatively tenable due to the massive amount of employment that would be required in order to build and operate it.
Edit:
Focusing on helping to develop local resiliency - creating secondary food sources via personal or community gardens, for example - is probably the best "effective" thing that you can do at the moment, quite frankly.
TACD fucked around with this message at 01:31 on Nov 23, 2012
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2012 01:22
|
|
- TACD
- Oct 27, 2000
-
|
quote:New Scientist Special Report: 7 Reasons Climate Change Is 'Even Worse Than We Thought'
Nearly 3 years ago, the late William R. Freudenburg discussed in a AAAS presentation how new scientific findings since the 2007 IPCC report are found to be more than twenty times as likely to indicate that global climate disruption is “worse than previously expected,” rather than “not as bad as previously expected.” As he said at the time:
Reporters need to learn that, if they wish to discuss ‘both sides’ of the climate issue, the scientifically legitimate ‘other side’ is that, if anything, global climate disruption is likely to be significantly worse than has been suggested in scientific consensus estimates to date.
So it’s good to see New Scientist make just that point in its special issue on climate change:
Five years ago, the last report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change painted a gloomy picture of our planet’s future. As climate scientists gather evidence for the next report, due in 2014, Michael Le Page gives seven reasons why things are looking even grimmer
The 7 reasons are below, with links to their respective articles. Since they are all behind a paywall, I’ll provide links to Climate Progress articles on the same subject:
The thick sea ice in the Arctic Ocean was not expected to melt until the end of the century. If current trends continue, summer ice could be gone in a decade or two. Read more (or see “Death Spiral Watch: Experts Warn ‘Near Ice-Free Arctic In Summer’ In A Decade If Volume Trends Continue“).
We knew global warming was going to make the weather more extreme. But it’s becoming even more extreme than anyone predicted. Read more (or see “NOAA Bombshell: Warming-Driven Arctic Ice Loss Is Boosting Chance of Extreme U.S. Weather“).
Global warming was expected to boost food production. Instead, food prices are soaring as the effects of extreme weather kick in. Read more (or see “Oxfam Warns Climate Change And Extreme Weather Will Cause Food Prices To Soar” and links therein).
Greenland’s rapid loss of ice mean we’re in for a rise of at least 1 metre by 2100, and possibly much more. Read more (or see “Greenland Ice Sheet Melt Nearing Critical ‘Tipping Point’” and links therein).
The planet currently absorbs half our CO2emissions. All the signs are it won’t for much longer. Read more (or see “Carbon Feedback From Thawing Permafrost Will Likely Add 0.4°F – 1.5°F To Total Global Warming By 2100” and “Drying Peatlands and Intensifying Wildfires Boost Carbon Release Ninefold“).
If we stopped emitting CO2 tomorrow, we might be able to avoid climate disaster. In fact we are still increasing emissions. Read more (or see “The IEA And Others Warn Of Some 11°F Warming by 2100 on current emissions path”)
If the worst climate predictions are realised, vast swathes of the globe could become too hot for humans to survive. Read more (or see “An Illustrated Guide to the Science of Global Warming Impacts“)
And meanwhile...
quote:Gas tanker Ob River attempts first winter Arctic crossing
A large tanker carrying liquified natural gas (LNG) is set to become the first ship of its type to sail across the Arctic.
The carrier, Ob River, left Norway in November and has sailed north of Russia on its way to Japan.
The specially equipped tanker is due to arrive in early December and will shave 20 days off the regular journey.
The owners say that changing climate conditions and a volatile gas market make the Arctic transit profitable.
Long-term preparation
Built in 2007 with a strengthened hull, the Ob River can carry up to 150,000 cubic metres of gas. The tanker was loaded with LNG at Hammerfest in the north of Norway on 7 November and set sail across the Barents Sea. It has been accompanied by a Russian nuclear-powered icebreaker for much of its voyage.
The ship, with an international crew of 40, has been chartered from its Greek owners Dynagas by the Russian Gazprom energy giant. It says it has been preparing for the trip for over a year.
"It's an extraordinarily interesting adventure," Tony Lauritzen, commercial director at Dynagas, told BBC News.
"The people on board have been seeing polar bears on the route. We've had the plans for a long time and everything has gone well."
Mr Lauritzen says that a key factor in the decision to use the northern route was the recent scientific record on melting in the Arctic.
"We have studied lots of observation data - there is an observable trend that the ice conditions are becoming more and more favourable for transiting this route. You are able to reach a highly profitable market by saving 40% of the distance, that's 40% less fuel used as well."
But melting ice is not the only factor. A major element is the emergence of shale gas in the US.
The Norwegian LNG plant at Hammerfest was developed with exports to the US in mind. But the rapid uptake of shale in America has curbed the demand for imported gas.
Meanwhile in Japan, in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, there has been a growing interest in alternative power sources, especially gas.
The retreating ice is opening up new sea routes from the Atlantic to the Pacific
"The major point about gas is that it now goes east and not west," says Gunnar Sander, senior adviser at the Norwegian Polar Institute and an expert on how climate change impacts economic activity in the Arctic.
"The shale gas revolution has turned the market upside down; that plus the rapid melting of the polar ice."
He stresses that the changes in climate are less important than the growing demand for oil and gas.
"The major driver is the export of resources from the Arctic region, not the fact that you can transit across the Arctic sea."
There is an expectation that because of changing climactic conditions, sea traffic across the northern sea route will increase rapidly. 2012 has been a record year both for the length of the sailing season and also for the amount of cargo that has been shipped.
But Gunnar Sander says there are limits to the growth and some perspective is required.
"Nineteen thousand ships went through the Suez canal last year; around 40 went through the northern sea route. There's a huge difference."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2012 02:37
|
|
- TACD
- Oct 27, 2000
-
|
Hopefully America is disabused of its infinite growth fairytale soon, because judging just from the rhetoric of the 2012 election there is very little clarity on this issue to most of America, and the mainstream media completely ignores it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2012 02:51
|
|
- TACD
- Oct 27, 2000
-
|
Terrifying news, everybody!
quote:Global carbon dioxide emissions are set to rise again this year, putting the world on a path toward dangerous climate change and making the internationally-accepted warming target of 2 degrees Celsius nearly “unachievable,” say researchers.
According to a new paper published yesterday in the journal Nature Climate Change, carbon dioxide emissions will rise by 2.6 percent this year, fueled by major increases in China and India. This follows a record year in 2011, when countries pumped 3.1 percent more global warming pollution into the atmosphere — making it very likely that the world will blow past the 2 degree C warming threshold that scientists and international negotiators agree is needed to avoid catastrophic consequences.
Some even call global warming of 2 degrees C, which is on the lowest end of projections, a “prescription for disaster.”
Here’s how one of the report’s authors characterized the problem when talking to The Guardian:
“I am worried that the risks of dangerous climate change are too high on our current emissions trajectory. We need a radical plan,” said co-author Corinne Le Quéré, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in Britain and professor at the University of East Anglia.
Current emissions growth is placing the world on a path to warm between 4C and 6C, says the study, with global emissions jumping 58% between 1990 and this year. The study focuses on emissions from burning fossil fuels and cement production.
“Unless large and concerted global mitigation efforts are initiated soon, the goal of remaining below 2C will soon become unachievable,” say the authors.
The findings come during the COP18 international climate talks in Doha, Qatar, where observers have low expectations for any agreements to reduce carbon emissions. The world’s two biggest emitters — China and the U.S. — are quietly setting up a framework for a possible international climate treaty after 2015. In the meantime, global warming pollution continues unabated and scientists warn that the window for action is closing fast.
“We are losing control of our ability to get a handle on the global warming problem,” said Canadian Climate Scientist Andrew Weaver, responding to the latest data on carbon emissions.
Last week, the World Bank issued a report sumarizing the latest climate science. It concluded that the world is on track for 4 degrees Celsius warming by the end of the century — an extremely dangerous rise in temperature that ensure “extreme heat-waves, declining global food stocks, loss of ecosystems and biodiversity, and life-threatening sea level rise.”
Well, maybe not news, I don't think this is a surprise to anybody. But I'm going to change the way I frame this conversation to people now; there's no point in talking about trying to avoid this catastrophe.
TACD fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Dec 4, 2012
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2012 03:45
|
|
- TACD
- Oct 27, 2000
-
|
It's been said before, but I wonder if in 30-50 years we will be facing the results of these models or the results of whatever half-baked geoengineering scheme gets launched in the meantime. Or both, assuming said scheme fails to lower temperatures and just has some other terrible effect on the environment.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 02:59
|
|
- TACD
- Oct 27, 2000
-
|
I don't know if anybody else has been following the live coverage of the Doha climate talks, but there's some choice quotes in there (and hold on to your hats, but it looks like it's been pretty disappointing overall).
Asad Rehman, spokesperson for Friends of the Earth International posted:It's an empty shell, an insult to our futures. There is literally no point in countries signing up to this sham of a deal, which will lock the planet in to many more years of inaction. What the world and its people need is more urgent action on cutting climate pollution, more help to those transforming their economies and more help to those already facing climate impacts. This text fails on every count.
LIdy Nacpil of Jubilee South Asia Pacific posted:[The Doha texts are] a million miles from where we need to be to even have a small chance of preventing runaway climate change. As civil society movements, we are saying that this is not acceptable.
The Philippines' negotiator almost broke down in tears during his speech - later followed by goggle-eyed chump Christopher Monckton giving this short speech and being subsequently kicked out of the talks and apparently permabanned from the UNFCCC.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwjC-MMKwRY
Plenty of blame to go around but many people are apparently not happy with how the event has been organised.
quote:...A source at the talks, who asked not to be named, accused the Qatari's of treating the event like they were hosting a World Cup instead of a climate conference.
"It's total chaos," they told BusinessGreen. "The Qataris have lost control of what's going on and it's a car crash.
"The COP president didn't take control of the talks in the last three days, so we don't have agreements on a couple of the really difficult technicalities that should have been sorted by now."
Fears are now mounting that, at best, COP18 will result in a weak draft text being agreed or, at worst, no deal being reached at all...
Guardian environment correspondent Fiona Harvey posted:Haven't spoken to a single delegate who thinks the Qataris are doing a good job. They don't seem to mind people being here all night and have failed to force countries to make a decision. They need to get a grip, I'm told, perhaps with the aid of other countries.
And further confirmation that we're as good as locked in to 2°C at this point.
Prof Nigel Arnell, Director of the Walker Institute at the University of Reading posted:The talks in Doha are trying hard to set the agenda for a new global treaty in 2015 binding countries to reductions in emissions. However, to have even a 50% chance of limiting warming to 2C, global greenhouse emissions need to peak by 2020 and then come down at several percent per year. It’s hard to see how this can be achieved now, even if a new global emissions deal is agreed by 2015.
Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics and Political Science posted:This meeting is making excruciatingly slow progress on tying up issues left over from last year, including formal agreement on a second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol and on the provision of financial support from rich countries to developing countries between 2013 and 2020. It is important that these issues are resolved during this summit, even though the negotiations are running on beyond their scheduled finish.
There remains an enormous mismatch between the scale and pace of the action under discussion at these talks and that which is required to manage the huge risks of climate change. In particular, there has been no real progress in strengthening current pledges to reduce emissions by 2020. The prospects of avoiding global warming of more than 2C now look increasingly remote without a rapid and substantial injection political will at both domestic and international levels.
This is all just from today's session. They're running over into an extra day of negotiations tomorrow and I'm sure there will be plenty of good summary coverage afterwards, but... yeah.
Also: diagrams!
(From http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/dec/07/carbon-dioxide-doha-information-beautiful)
TACD fucked around with this message at 17:50 on Dec 7, 2012
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 17:42
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2024 17:27
|
|
- TACD
- Oct 27, 2000
-
|
Yea, I saw that and thought immediately of this news item from a few days ago:
quote:...the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, due for release in stages between September 2013 and October 2014, will not include the potential effects of the permafrost carbon feedback on global climate.
So basically even though the next IPCC report isn't due until 2014 (at which point the deniers will inevitably start up their banshee shriek about alarmism) we already know it's going to ignore at least this one significant feedback effect entirely. Which will mean all their estimates downplay the actual risks / effects by some unknown enormous amount.
TACD fucked around with this message at 03:08 on Dec 9, 2012
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2012 03:05
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2012 20:43
I'm pretty sure society was pretty sustainable when there were ~1 billion people on the planet, aka most of history. Whether it's possible to recapture that sustainability now that there's ~7 billion is debatable but it's kind of silly to say that there's no possible living arrangement for humans that isn't doomed to overflow the planet.
MY PROFITS 
