- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2024 22:44
|
|
- Toph Bei Fong
- Feb 29, 2008
-
|
How long until climate change killing a better tomorrow starts appearing in popular culture?
I could see them making a version of Remember Me, keeping all the same plot beats, but instead of dying in 9/11, Robert Pattinson goes to Siberia to work on a oil rig with his father, and dies when a hole in the ozone layer opens up and roasts him and the rest of the rig, or methane gas explodes and sinks the rig, or... You know, whatever. Lots of ways for that to happen these days.
Film ends with Emilie de Ravin stockpiling guns and beans in the same subway station where her mother was killed at the beginning of the film. Pan away to show that the subway tunnels have collapsed due to a lack of proper repairs from the last hurricane that flooded them, some "warning corpses" strewn across the stairway down.
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2020 18:08
|
|
- Toph Bei Fong
- Feb 29, 2008
-
|
lmao, the next 30 years is going to deliver tremendous content. also refugees/corpses.
Institute for Economics & Peace
ECOLOGICAL THREAT REGISTER 2020: UNDERSTANDING ECOLOGICAL THREATS, RESILIENCE AND PEACE
http://visionofhumanity.org/app/uploads/2020/09/ETR_2020_web-1.pdf
- 6.4 billion people live in countries which are exposed to medium to high ecological threats.
- Of the 157 countries covered in the ETR, 34 per cent will face catastrophic water stress and 22 per cent catastrophic food insecurity by 2050. A catastrophic threat would result in substantial displacement of people or substantial increase in undernourishment.
- Over a billion people could be displaced by 2050 due to ecological threats and armed conflict.
- The global population is projected to reach ten billion by 2050.
- By 2050, the 40 least peaceful countries will have an additional 1.3 billion people and will be home to more than half of the world’s population.
- By 2050, estimates indicate that the global demand for food will increase by 50 per cent
- An estimated two billion people currently face moderate or severe food insecurity. By 2050, this figure is expected to increase to 3.5 billion people
- The number of people experiencing undernutrition has increased by 36 million in the three years to 2018. Today, 822 million people are suffering from undernutrition globally, leaving them at the highest risk of starvation.
- By 2040, a total of 5.4 billion people – or more than half of the world’s projected population – will live in the 59 countries experiencing high or extreme water stress. India and China will be among these countries
- There is now 60 per cent less freshwater available per person today than there was in the early 1960s. The population is increasing faster than water availability.
- Globally, the frequency of natural disasters increased ten-fold since 1960, increasing from 39 incidents in 1960 to 396 in 2019.
- Natural disasters displaced 25 million people in 2019. This is three times higher than the 8.6 million displaced by armed conflict.
- India had the largest population displacement due to natural disasters, at five million people in 2019.
- Nearly 25 million people were displaced by ecological threats in 2019. IEP estimates that by 2050 1.2 billion people will be displaced.
- Natural disasters kill seven times more people in the least developed countries than in highly developed ones. This is despite such disasters being comparatively less frequent in the least developed nations.
 But this can't be right. Overpopulation is racist.
Why don't we just redistribute resources from those at the top consuming the most and give them ahahahah I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I can't help it, I'm trying to take this seriously...
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2020 18:52
|
|
- Toph Bei Fong
- Feb 29, 2008
-
|
Today, things aren't going so well for American understanding of the climate crisis as it relates to energy
quote:
In response to our question about what lies ahead for the coal industry:
John Segal, Connecticut
Regardless of what path we go down—carbon reduction or not—the role of coal in power will decline. The primary use of coal is going to be in industrial use like coking coal in the steel industry; and these uses will center around anthracite.
Pat Draughon, Texas
The U.S. should be promoting coal-to-natural gas conversions as quickly and painlessly as possible. Natural gas is an ideal “transition” fuel. In the U.S., it’s abundant and cheap. One consequence of the oil-fracking bonanza has been the natural gas produced along with the oil. This should greatly reduce the need for coal, which is less environmentally friendly. Maybe the only advantage for coal is the ability to store fuel on site to accommodate seasonal demand.
Kathryn Hasselblad Pascale, Wisconsin
For power generation, coal is on the decline. Having said that, there is always the possibility of new and even disruptive technologies surfacing that would put coal to uses that wouldn’t require the production of greenhouse gasses (or could bring about utility scale carbon capture and sequestration). As long as science and technology are the drivers, the possibilities seem endless.
Rich Irwin, Ohio
I think the coal industry will continue to downsize until it finds its place in the energy basket. We need reliable sources of electricity, and solar and wind simply are not. A lot of work needs to be done about nuclear power plants as to safety, and gas-fired power plants don’t seem to be catching on.
Nancy Dunn, Tennessee
I don’t know...ask the state of California! Is the trade-off of renewables that are not reliable 24/7 worth it?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2020 16:58
|
|
- Toph Bei Fong
- Feb 29, 2008
-
|
this article loving sucks, there’s some good intentions there and a good heart, but goddamn
Yeah, like, I get it, we should have more BIPOC in the big dance performance, but the construction company is all set up outside, prepped to knock down the rec center, and a bulldozer just went through the front door. Peter MacLean is laughing as he climbs into his rocket to fly away to the moon. The mall is going up. No matter how hard we breakdance, we've lost.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2021 22:13
|
|
- Toph Bei Fong
- Feb 29, 2008
-
|
How would you even know this
I dont remember what life was like in 2007, for example. I was 18 years old and I dont remember poo poo of the "state of society" compared to today. There is no quantifiable way to really realize your quality of life has degraded beyond basic bullshit like peasant -> middle class poo poo or whatever if the timescale is long enough, or if it the change isn't overnight. If you stretch the degradation across years nobody will notice as long as Netflix and Tiktok still works on your TV and phone.
Not sure I agree here. If you start thinking about things you used to do, or ways you used to do things, but now either don't or can't, or things you now do, and have to or must, when you didn't before, it's actually pretty easy. For example, as a child, the computer was something odd my dad would bring home from work sometimes. When I went to college, not everyone had one. Now, I own about seven laptops of various ages, two desktops, multiple tablets and phones... and I am the opposite of a rich person, by US standards.
You're correct that media consumption can help forestall reminiscing, but even watching older shows like Friends or Seinfeld, the lack of computers and portable phones everywhere is glaringly obvious.
And when they do show computers or the internet...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGb7sC4mpk0
quote:Just for the kids, this translates to: 0.012GB of memory, 0.5GB hard drive space, and 0.0288 MB/second modem speed (over a landline telephone cord).
Or, just looking at the office culture displayed in episodes like this one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sCJMjuEkpw
George is just... hired... because the boss likes him. Sure, they're playing it up a bit for effect, but he's just working there now. Work that consists of being left alone in his private office all day. No computer. Just a folder of papers.
This is, of course, just one example
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2021 15:02
|
|
- Toph Bei Fong
- Feb 29, 2008
-
|
ah well there is your problem. my professor was an actual scientist
This is a problem I'm discovering a lot with economics. As much as I find Yoram Bauman interesting, he's as broke brained as many other economists are. And he's considered an expert in environmental economics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7u6Os0TDR6o
In the above video, he goes along very well, up until about 5:30, when he assumes ("for the sake of argument") that we can assign a negative monetary value to air pollution. Obviously, in the real world, one does not receive $80 worth of dis-utility from the community's air being polluted. Assigning a dollar value to bad things is one way to think about it in abstract, as a way to demonstrate that trade is not necessarily good, but to follow through any on actual policy recommendations based on that idea... He clearly cares about the subject, and is concerned with how to avoid the negative outcomes, but his solution is just kinda brokebrained in that 1. it won't do enough fast enough and 2. there's no way to pass such legislation in the current political environment. His championing of British Columbia's carbon tax policy just looks kinda sad in 2021. The idea that we can financially incentivize making the right decisions and penalize the wrong decisions isn't bad in theory, assuming people care about money, but in practice?
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2021 19:59
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2024 22:44
|
|
- Toph Bei Fong
- Feb 29, 2008
-
|
dude you are making it seem like only 7.5% of co2 emissions are due to normal people with your weird math
It's not quite that, but it's still very bad. 100 entities are responsible for ~70% of greenhouse gas emissions.
https://www.theguardian.com/sustain...-climate-change
quote:
Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says
A relatively small number of fossil fuel producers and their investors could hold the key to tackling climate change
Tess Riley
@tess_riley
Mon 10 Jul 2017 01.26 EDT
Just 100 companies have been the source of more than 70% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions since 1988, according to a new report.
The Carbon Majors Report (pdf) “pinpoints how a relatively small set of fossil fuel producers may hold the key to systemic change on carbon emissions,” says Pedro Faria, technical director at environmental non-profit CDP, which published the report in collaboration with the Climate Accountability Institute.
Traditionally, large scale greenhouse gas emissions data is collected at a national level but this report focuses on fossil fuel producers. Compiled from a database of publicly available emissions figures, it is intended as the first in a series of publications to highlight the role companies and their investors could play in tackling climate change.
The dried up bed of the river Po in northern Italy due to an exceptional drought, 23 June 2017
Hopes of mild climate change dashed by new research
Read more
The report found that more than half of global industrial emissions since 1988 – the year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established – can be traced to just 25 corporate and state-owned entities. The scale of historical emissions associated with these fossil fuel producers is large enough to have contributed significantly to climate change, according to the report.
ExxonMobil, Shell, BP and Chevron are identified as among the highest emitting investor-owned companies since 1988. If fossil fuels continue to be extracted at the same rate over the next 28 years as they were between 1988 and 2017, says the report, global average temperatures would be on course to rise by 4C by the end of the century. This is likely to have catastrophic consequences including substantial species extinction and global food scarcity risks.
While companies have a huge role to play in driving climate change, says Faria, the barrier is the “absolute tension” between short-term profitability and the urgent need to reduce emissions.
A Carbon Tracker study in 2015 found that fossil fuel companies risked wasting more than $2tn over the coming decade by pursuing coal, oil and gas projects that could be worthless in the face of international action on climate change and advances in renewables – in turn posing substantial threats to investor returns.
CDP says its aims with the carbon majors project are both to improve transparency among fossil fuel producers and to help investors understand the emissions associated with their fossil fuel holdings.
A fifth of global industrial greenhouse gas emissions are backed by public investment, according to the report. “That puts a significant responsibility on those investors to engage with carbon majors and urge them to disclose climate risk,” says Faria.
Investors should move out of fossil fuels, says Michael Brune, executive director of US environmental organisation the Sierra Club. “Not only is it morally risky, it’s economically risky. The world is moving away from fossil fuels towards clean energy and is doing so at an accelerated pace. Those left holding investments in fossil fuel companies will find their investments becoming more and more risky over time.”
Climate protesters at the venue for the G20 summit in Hamburg, which begins on Friday.
G20 public finance for fossil fuels 'is four times more than renewables'
Read more
There is a “growing wave of companies that are acting in the opposite manner to the companies in this report,” says Brune. Nearly 100 companies including Apple, Facebook, Google and Ikea have committed to 100% renewable power under the RE100 initiative. Volvo recently announced that all its cars would be electric or hybrid from 2019.
And oil and gas companies are also embarking on green investments. Shell set up a renewables arm in 2015 with a $1.7bn investment attached and a spokesperson for Chevron says it’s “committed to managing its [greenhouse gas] emissions” and is investing in two of the world’s largest carbon dioxide injection projects to capture and store carbon. A BP spokesperson says its “determined to be part of the solution” for climate change and is “investing in renewables and low-carbon innovation.” And ExxonMobil, which has faced heavy criticism for its environmental record, has been exploring carbon capture and storage.
But for many the sums involved and pace of change are nowhere near enough. A research paper published last year by Paul Stevens, an academic at think tank Chatham House, said international oil companies were no longer fit for purpose and warned these multinationals that they faced a “nasty, brutish and short” end within the next 10 years if they did not completely change their business models.
Investors now have a choice, according to Charlie Kronick, senior programme advisor at Greenpeace UK. “The future of the oil industry has already been written: the choice is will its decline be managed, returning capital to shareholders to be reinvested in the genuine industries of the future, or will they hold on, hoping not be the last one standing when the music stops?”
Top 100 producers and their cumulative greenhouse gas emissions from 1988-2015
Count Company Percentage of global industrial greenhouse gas emissions
1 China (Coal) 14.32%
2 Saudi Arabian Oil Company (Aramco) 4.50%
3 Gazprom OAO 3.91%
4 National Iranian Oil Co 2.28%
5 ExxonMobil Corp 1.98%
6 Coal India 1.87%
7 Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex) 1.87%
8 Russia (Coal) 1.86%
9 Royal Dutch Shell PLC 1.67%
10 China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC) 1.56%
11 BP PLC 1.53%
12 Chevron Corp 1.31%
13 Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA) 1.23%
14 Abu Dhabi National Oil Co 1.20%
15 Poland Coal 1.16%
16 Peabody Energy Corp 1.15%
17 Sonatrach SPA 1.00%
18 Kuwait Petroleum Corp 1.00%
19 Total SA 0.95%
20 BHP Billiton Ltd 0.91%
21 ConocoPhillips 0.91%
22 Petroleo Brasileiro SA (Petrobras) 0.77%
23 Lukoil OAO 0.75%
24 Rio Tinto 0.75%
25 Nigerian National Petroleum Corp 0.72%
26 Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas) 0.69%
27 Rosneft OAO 0.65%
28 Arch Coal Inc 0.63%
29 Iraq National Oil Co 0.60%
30 Eni SPA 0.59%
31 Anglo American 0.59%
32 Surgutneftegas OAO 0.57%
33 Alpha Natural Resources Inc 0.54%
34 Qatar Petroleum Corp 0.54%
35 PT Pertamina 0.54%
36 Kazakhstan Coal 0.53%
37 Statoil ASA 0.52%
38 National Oil Corporation of Libya 0.50%
39 Consol Energy Inc 0.50%
40 Ukraine Coal 0.49%
41 RWE AG 0.47%
42 Oil & Natural Gas Corp Ltd 0.40%
43 Glencore PLC 0.38%
44 TurkmenGaz 0.36%
45 Sasol Ltd 0.35%
46 Repsol SA 0.33%
47 Anadarko Petroleum Corp 0.33%
48 Egyptian General Petroleum Corp 0.31%
49 Petroleum Development Oman LLC 0.31%
50 Czech Republic Coal 0.30%
51 China Petrochemical Corp (Sinopec) 0.29%
52 China National Offshore Oil Corp Ltd (CNOOC) 0.28%
53 Ecopetrol SA 0.27%
54 Singareni Collieries Company 0.27%
55 Occidental Petroleum Corp 0.26%
56 Sonangol EP 0.26%
57 Tatneft OAO 0.23%
58 North Korea Coal 0.23%
59 Bumi Resources 0.23%
60 Suncor Energy Inc 0.22%
61 Petoro AS 0.21%
62 Devon Energy Corp 0.20%
63 Natural Resource Partners LP 0.19%
64 Marathon Oil Corp 0.19%
65 Vistra Energy 0.19%
66 Encana Corp 0.18%
67 Canadian Natural Resources Ltd 0.17%
68 Hess Corp 0.16%
69 Exxaro Resources Ltd 0.16%
70 YPF SA 0.15%
71 Apache Corp 0.15%
72 Murray Coal 0.15%
73 Alliance Resource Partners LP 0.15%
74 Syrian Petroleum Co 0.15%
75 Novatek OAO 0.14%
76 NACCO Industries Inc 0.13%
77 KazMunayGas 0.13%
78 Adaro Energy PT 0.13%
79 Petroleos del Ecuador 0.12%
80 Inpex Corp 0.12%
81 Kiewit Mining Group 0.12%
82 AP Moller (Maersk) 0.11%
83 Banpu Public Co Ltd 0.11%
84 EOG Resources Inc 0.11%
85 Husky Energy Inc 0.11%
86 Kideco Jaya Agung PT 0.10%
87 Bahrain Petroleum Co (BAPCO) 0.10%
88 Westmoreland Coal Co 0.10%
89 Cloud Peak Energy Inc 0.10%
90 Chesapeake Energy Corp 0.10%
91 Drummond Co 0.09%
92 Teck Resources Ltd 0.09%
93 Turkmennebit 0.07%
94 OMV AG 0.06%
95 Noble Energy Inc 0.06%
96 Murphy Oil Corp 0.06%
97 Berau Coal Energy Tbk PT 0.06%
98 Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk PT 0.05%
99 Indika Energy Tbk PT 0.04%
100 Southwestern Energy Co 0.04%
https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c70d8e....pdf?1499691240
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2021 19:45
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2020 05:54
