|
Are deforestation rates at least going down?
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:08 |
|
|
No, they've picked up something fierce. Asia-Pacific is one big ball of "burn all the loving trees to the ground. ALL THE TREES. BURN THEM."
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
Doopliss posted:There were some extremely binding, fast multinational instruments in dealing with the ozone layer, with economic well-being taking a distant back seat. Granted our dependence on ozone-depleting emissions was way lower than our dependence on GHG emissions, but it was wholly possible for us to be doing better than we are. We're just not. "Our dependence was way lower" is kind of understating it. Getting rid of CFCs was an inconvenience. Getting rid of hydrocarbons means we give up our way of life and have to find a new one. I'm still expecting us to mostly do nothing until civilization hits a brick wall and billions die. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Are deforestation rates at least going down? In the US and a few select countries, but not worldwide.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:The National Review continues their slide into obscurity: They're not even trying anymore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
Rime posted:No, they've picked up something fierce. Asia-Pacific is one big ball of "burn all the loving trees to the ground. ALL THE TREES. BURN THEM."
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:"Our dependence was way lower" is kind of understating it. Getting rid of CFCs was an inconvenience. Getting rid of hydrocarbons means we give up our way of life and have to find a new one. I'm still expecting us to mostly do nothing until civilization hits a brick wall and billions die. Sadly, this is probably the way things will go. In the end, it costs money to make changes to the way we do things today, but if we do nothing? Well, lots of big corporations continue to make lots of money, and the politicians get to line their pockets too. That is the direction we're heading. Same as we ever were. The Paris talks, in my opinion, are nothing more than political theater designed to quell rebellious thoughts and actions. It's basically "See? We're totally on top of this! We'll make sure it stays under control! 2C target baby!" *accepts bribes from lobbyists to ensure status quo is maintained*. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, we're beyond talking about the problem. Nothing short of immediate action has any chance to accomplish anything. What actions came out of those talks? I doubt their ridiculous 2C target could be achieved if we quit using fossil fuels cold turkey today. Also, is it really that hard to resist responding to Arkane? He's a manipulative, capitalist shill denier shitbag, and he contributes nothing to the thread. Responding to him doesn't accomplish anything other than encouraging him to post more, and thereby enables him to continue to poo poo up these threads with the same garbage he's been spewing for years. He's working extra hard right now to saturate the new thread with his brand of bullshit, because there aren't 260 pages of proof that he's a liar in this one yet. If we all just take a deep breath, and resist clicking Reply, he'll slink back to his evil mountain lair, and we'll be able to have a nice discussion about how well and truly hosed we all are without the extra headache.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
quote:hydroelectric is literally the most environmentally destructive way to get electricity there is. but somehow mass destruction of habitats is cool because the alternative is atoms
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
Regarding molten salt reactors: they're great and all and a wonderful next step but as far as safety goes, they're not functionally different from conventional reactors, not by a lot, any way. I think we need to stop trying to highlight safety features which are already in use such as cooling via saturation and instead highlight nuclear pollution. I think one of the beautiful things about MSRs is that, if I understand their fuel (and I should, I went to NNPTC) it should be far easier to contain when spent.icantfindaname posted:hydroelectric is literally the most environmentally destructive way to get electricity there is. but somehow mass destruction of habitats is cool because the alternative is atoms I think you misunderstand, there are hydroelectric dams that don't kill fish. We need to get rid of the ones that do, [kill fish] however. Doopliss posted:Hydroelectric is really bad for greenhouse gases too, since reservoirs wind up emitting an amount of methane on par with fossil fuels. It's sort of bizarre, which is probably why it took people so long to realize, but I guess reality never promised to intuitively make sense. Da gently caress is this? Source pls. Not calling you a liar, need to know moar. Av027 posted:Also, is it really that hard to resist responding to Arkane? My bad, didn't realize I was feeding a known anti-green.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/21/the-siege-of-miami This new yorker article mentioned something I hadn't heard before, raised streets http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/article41141856.html But one corner of Miami Beach stayed perfectly dry. In Sunset Harbour, which has historically flooded during seasonal high tides, the water was held at bay last month by a radically re-engineered streetscape that will be put to the test again this week with another king tide. The design — featuring a street and sidewalk perched on an upper tier, 2 ½ feet above the front doors of roadside businesses, and backed by a hulking nearby pump house — represents what one city engineer called "the street of tomorrow." ....wow.....
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
Verge posted:Da gently caress is this? Source pls. Dams create large low oxygen bodies of water. Low oxygen water grows bacteria that release methane and the methane emissions from standing water are probably about half of all global emissions: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/hydropower-as-major-methane-emitter-18246
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Verge posted:I think you misunderstand, there are hydroelectric dams that don't kill fish. We need to get rid of the ones that do, [kill fish] however. A lot can be done by slowly cutting down the number of smaller/older dams that are basically not worth the damage they do in terms of energy they produce, that said ultimately it is probably a better option to improve fish ladders and other workarounds than get rid of the larger dams that are very productive and would be replaced probably with fossil fuels anyway. Ultimately, between dams and wind power, the NW could probably get away with being carbon free in terms of electricity generation pretty easily without too much political controversy. As with everything the ultimate solution is an investment in a multitude of solutions that have their niche somewhere in the formula, this obviously should include nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Rime posted:No, they've picked up something fierce. Asia-Pacific is one big ball of "burn all the loving trees to the ground. ALL THE TREES. BURN THEM."  The European coal lobby produces cartoons. It's my new favorite thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Dams create large low oxygen bodies of water. Low oxygen water grows bacteria that release methane and the methane emissions from standing water are probably about half of all global emissions: Interesting. Are there any viable resolutions to this? Ardennes posted:A lot can be done by slowly cutting down the number of smaller/older dams that are basically not worth the damage they do in terms of energy they produce, that said ultimately it is probably a better option to improve fish ladders and other workarounds than get rid of the larger dams that are very productive and would be replaced probably with fossil fuels anyway. I completely agree. We also have to take the small victories we can moving forward to try and make a colloquial 'slippery slope.' Anosmoman posted:
I like how it looks like they're chucking charcoal (a wood product).
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
I think people are really underestimating the power of peer pressure, especially when non-compliance could adversely affect diplomatic relationships with other countries. Also remember they have to come back in five years with new proposals and showing that they have taken steps to comply to the targets and their already communicated plans. A lot will hinge on the U.S. continuing with their targets (which are almost all driven by executive action that don't need congressional approval). So the effectiveness of this agreement really hinges on whether Democrats keep control of the White House. theblackw0lf fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Inglonias posted:You're starting to make me not want to come to this thread for good news and cheery thoughts, you know that? There's a lot of potential good news, but very little actual news. Another problem with the topic is that there are a ton of things that we could be doing, or which might pay off in a decade, but there's little for it now. All you can do is keep your own backyard as clean as possible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:I think people are really underestimating the power of peer pressure, especially when non-compliance could adversely affect diplomatic relationships with other countries. Also remember they have to come back in five years with new proposals and showing that they have taken steps to comply to the targets and their already communicated plans. lmao, which countries are going to apply "diplomatic" pressure when non-compliance inevitably happens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Verge posted:Interesting. Are there any viable resolutions to this? Methane emissions are dependent on numerous factors, for example that article indicates the reservoir in the study was receiving high nutrient inputs, stimulating emissions. Depth and temperature are also important. So part of it is just picking good locations; more methane is going to escape from a warm, shallow reservoir than from one that is cold and deep. Better managing agricultural runoff from the surrounding area should also reduce emissions. It's not a problem you can eliminate, but certain practices can minimize harm. This also means in some circumstances hydropower just isn't a good solution, which sucks but what can you do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Kurt_Cobain posted:This new yorker article mentioned something I hadn't heard before, raised streets "Building up" is a pretty traditional response to flooding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_of_Chicago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Underground
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Methane emissions are dependent on numerous factors, for example that article indicates the reservoir in the study was receiving high nutrient inputs, stimulating emissions. Depth and temperature are also important. So part of it is just picking good locations; more methane is going to escape from a warm, shallow reservoir than from one that is cold and deep. Better managing agricultural runoff from the surrounding area should also reduce emissions. It's not a problem you can eliminate, but certain practices can minimize harm. This also means in some circumstances hydropower just isn't a good solution, which sucks but what can you do. Is it different from ordinary lakes?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
I haven't read about the subject in several years but the way some reservoirs rapidly fluctuate in depth (filling in the wet season, draining in the dry) can have an effect on emissions. Also the process of creating a reservoir can emit a huge amount of carbon, first through the clearing of trees and later through the release of soil carbon in the new lake bed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Verge posted:Maybe you misunderstand me. I'm not saying burn less coal (although that's a compromise I'll take!) I'm saying reduce energy demand to a point where solar, wind, hydroelectric and the up-and-coming green energies can keep up with the new low demand. Be realistic, do you think a green energy array would be feasible for cities like Portland or Chicago? Of course, we could use nuclear where necessary but we'd still want to severely reduce energy usage in smaller towns since we don't want a nuclear reactor every 100 miles. Demand is going nowhere, and that's a good thing considering energy is probably the most important component in increasing standards of living for poor people across the globe, or even poor/middle class people in developed countries. We need to stop jerking around about all these pie in the sky solutions and just build some loving nuke plants. Because it will be a hell of a lot easier to do that (politically and otherwise) than to have solar and wind supply baseline power. TROIKA CURES GREEK fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Dec 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:Demand is going nowhere, and that's a good thing considering energy is probably the most important component in increasing standards of living for poor people across the globe, or even poor/middle class people in developed countries. The question is how to build them, nuclear power at least in the US is still private and the start up costs of a plant are very costly even with loan subsidies. Ultimately, the easiest political solution would subsidize a variety of power sources across different regions and invest in our grid to minimize the damage of fluctuations in power from wind/solar. The best way to do that is simply federal spending to subsidize everything that is non-fossil fuel related (and viable). About 28% of our grid could be considered "baseline" non-carbon sources, we still have headroom to add wind and solar on top of that. Nevertheless, NG is still going to have to be in the mix if we want to get rid of coal, but eventually the hope is to get rid of NG as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
Nationalize the existing reactors and then build everything under the control of a federal utility, like a modern and civilized country. Since the mandate is to cover operating and upgrade costs, rather than a profit motive, power costs to consumers drop through the floor. Private ownership of power generation is loving dumb, what is this, 1889?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
Verge posted:I think you misunderstand, there are hydroelectric dams that don't kill fish. We need to get rid of the ones that do, [kill fish] however. Rime posted:Nationalize the existing reactors and then build everything under the control of a federal utility, like a modern and civilized country. Since the mandate is to cover operating and upgrade costs, rather than a profit motive, power costs to consumers drop through the floor. 
suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 09:56 on Dec 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 09:52
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Rime posted:Nationalize the existing reactors and then build everything under the control of a federal utility, like a modern and civilized country. Since the mandate is to cover operating and upgrade costs, rather than a profit motive, power costs to consumers drop through the floor. This. Power Companies are so busy chasing cheap power generation methods to make a profit, we need to cut them out of the picture. It'll never happen, but I can dream.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
Rime posted:Nationalize the existing reactors and then build everything under the control of a federal utility, like a modern and civilized country. Since the mandate is to cover operating and upgrade costs, rather than a profit motive, power costs to consumers drop through the floor. Though to be fair in Germany the only effect that seems to have is making it more likely that all the nuclear plants get shut down in favor of coal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Though to be fair in Germany the only effect that seems to have is making it more likely that all the nuclear plants get shut down in favor of coal. Canadian provinces are busy selling off our multi-billion dollar profitable hydro utilities to private operators, for pennies, so I guess I'm not really one to talk. Not that I agree with it, it's pretty much an act of treason IMO.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
blowfish posted:The thing is even with fish passes for dams the only thing you do is make them less terrible for a very limited subset of species. Basically fish that migrate into the upper reaches of the river and know how to cope with very strong flow will get through and little else. All ecological damage done by introducing water stratification to a river ecosystem continues and most species (except flying insects with aquatic larvae) that need to disperse along the river but not as far as the uppermost reaches are still in serious trouble. So is anything dependent on a particular floodplain water regime that now has to survive in a permanent swamp with irregular changes in water level. Yeah messing with dynamic systems like rivers can have weird and unexpected consequences. I worked in a stream in which a dam had actually blocked fish passage to tributaries downstream from the reservoir. Because the dam blocked the flow of sediments that would ordinarily be deposited on the stream bed, the stream started cutting deeper. Cataracts became taller, and fish could no longer pass them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Rime posted:Canadian provinces are busy selling off our multi-billion dollar profitable hydro utilities to private operators, for pennies, so I guess I'm not really one to talk. But why would you possibly sell off unprofitable parts of public enterprise into magically more efficient private ownership? Nobody would buy them!  computer parts posted:Though to be fair in Germany the only effect that seems to have is making it more likely that all the nuclear plants get shut down in favor of coal. Germany isn't exactly a country with mostly state-owned power infrastructure either. It's basically 4 large not-regional-monopolies and a bunch of smaller competitors angling for a bigger share of subsidies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:This. Power Companies are so busy chasing cheap power generation methods to make a profit, we need to cut them out of the picture. Private, vertically integrated power companies in states with favorable regulation would love to build nuclear plants. They get guaranteed loans (or can even start collecting projected costs during planning) and make huge capital expenditures which means more money for shareholders. The issue is that there's not a lot of justifiable need for baseline capacity right now until coal plants actually have to start being shut down. In states without vertically integrated generation there's even less desire to build baseline capacity because it doesn't make money.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
PERPETUAL IDIOT posted:Private, vertically integrated power companies in states with favorable regulation would love to build nuclear plants. They get guaranteed loans (or can even start collecting projected costs during planning) and make huge capital expenditures which means more money for shareholders. The issue is that there's not a lot of justifiable need for baseline capacity right now until coal plants actually have to start being shut down. I don't think that's accurate. Power generation companies can and do get paid for providing baseload and large plants can often provide high margin reactive power and ancillary services. Depending on the pricing market, it can vary from "highest bid-pays all" so that baseload power always gets paid as much as peakers etc, to systems that still provide good incentives to build those plants. Coal plants have actually been retiring recently, but in a bizarre stroke of luck, fracing drove the price of natural gas down in time to have a large chunk of coal plants replaced with natural gas plants, instead of building more coal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
PERPETUAL IDIOT posted:Private, vertically integrated power companies in states with favorable regulation would love to build nuclear plants. They get guaranteed loans (or can even start collecting projected costs during planning) and make huge capital expenditures which means more money for shareholders. The issue is that there's not a lot of justifiable need for baseline capacity right now until coal plants actually have to start being shut down. .....that was my point. In the face of climate change, power companies are still focused on short term profitable needs instead of urgent solutions and cutting out cheap energy solutions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:.....that was my point. In the face of climate change, power companies are still focused on short term profitable needs instead of urgent solutions and cutting out cheap energy solutions. Hey if we quit burning coal the CEO might only be able to afford a 12 bedroom house instead of a 14 bedroom one. THINK OF THE POOR CEOS! How can you expect an executive to survive without a car elevator?!?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 13:28
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Hey if we quit burning coal the CEO might only be able to afford a 12 bedroom house instead of a 14 bedroom one. THINK OF THE POOR CEOS! How can you expect an executive to survive without a car elevator?!? The CEO is contractually obligated to maximize profit, the environment not withstanding. His employees are obligated to follow his orders. Teaching a CEO ethics doesn't help anything, his hands are tied.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
Verge posted:The CEO is contractually obligated to maximize profit, the environment not withstanding. His employees are obligated to follow his orders. Teaching a CEO ethics doesn't help anything, his hands are tied. Again, which was the point of why privatized power generation is an awful idea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:.....that was my point. In the face of climate change, power companies are still focused on short term profitable needs instead of urgent solutions and cutting out cheap energy solutions. The company's CEO (in regulated states) would love more than anything to build nuclear if he could justify it to the comission. It would greatly increase short term profits in absolute terms. Rates are set by giving a rate of return on capital investment and nothing is more capital intensive than nuclear.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
PERPETUAL IDIOT posted:The company's CEO (in regulated states) would love more than anything to build nuclear if he could justify it to the comission. It would greatly increase short term profits in absolute terms. Rates are set by giving a rate of return on capital investment and nothing is more capital intensive than nuclear. I find this incredibly hard to believe. Either way, the issue at hand is allowing essential infrastructure to be governed by organizations with profit being their primary goal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
Is this the thread where we pretend that "greens" are somehow preventing US nuclear development singlehandedly despite being completely irrelevant to every other conceivable issue?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:08 |
|
|
Radbot posted:Is this the thread where we pretend that "greens" are somehow preventing US nuclear development singlehandedly despite being completely irrelevant to every other conceivable issue? .....other countries are doing more in Nuclear development....so, yes. Like China, France, Russia, etc. And no, its not just the greens. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Dec 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 21:20
|
|