Climate change and human responsibility

[OMG!WTF!]

I drove by the high school kid climate change protest at city all today. Some of those signs were pretty dark..."Why study for the future if we won't be here anyway"..."We're all doomed"..."The End is Climate Change". Angst has changed since I was that age. Hope they have some fun one day.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I drove by the high school kid climate change protest at city all today. Some of those signs were pretty dark..."Why study for the future if we won't be here anyway"..."We're all doomed"..."The End is Climate Change". Angst has changed since I was that age. Hope they have some fun one day.

They are having fun. Outrage is the new fun thing to do these days.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by octothorp

You just lost your own game. The top one is a copper mine. I mean, you're even using the image url from the snopes article debunking the claim that it's a lithium mine!

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/li...ine-oil-sands/

Ahh damn that was a swell #### up. In any case, I'm assuming you couldn't tell at first glance and had to look it up. That doesn't really change the point of the post at all.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I drove by the high school kid climate change protest at city all today. Some of those signs were pretty dark..."Why study for the future if we won't be here anyway"..."We're all doomed"..."The End is Climate Change". Angst has changed since I was that age. Hope they have some fun one day.

You should probably avoid the comments section of the Guardian, where the consensus is it's monstrously irresponsible to have children and bring them into a world descending into apocalyptic ruin.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I drove by the high school kid climate change protest at city all today. Some of those signs were pretty dark..."Why study for the future if we won't be here anyway"..."We're all doomed"..."The End is Climate Change". Angst has changed since I was that age. Hope they have some fun one day.

Yup, I remember back in the day my generation only had to worry about apocalyptic thermonuclear war, and the craziness that was truly in our control. Now these kids are facing a reality where the damage is likely done and they will be facing a very different planet than the one we inherited, and it's totally beyond their control. Can't see why they would be down at all.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by New Era

Really? There are advances in battery technology happening every single week. Whether it be advances in cathodes and anodes, capacitors, substrate, or chemistry, there are breakthroughs that are happening all the time. The problem is getting those breakthroughs to market.

So what you're saying is there hasn't been any major advancements in mass produced batteries? Also if you could explain how adding capacitors to batteries improves energy storage I'd be interested to hear that. Maybe start by googling DC effect on capacitors

Let's play a game. It's called you post unrelated pictures and look stupid doing so. Ready, GO!!! You win!

No arguement there, bungled that one up. However it doesn't change the point of the post.


I fail to see your point here. What is your point? That production and processing cause pollution? No one said it didn't. No one said there was not a negative cost associated with certain parts of the product development cycle. The gain is on the back end where you are using the product to eliminate pollutants that would ultimately be released by other products that would be pollution generating endpoints.

My point is that if you dont combine emissions to build the vehicle, to maintain the vehicle and expelled by the vehicle, that is pretty worthless info from a climate change perspective.

No doubt that infrastructure needs to improve, but again, ignorance does not work for you. The infrastructure for long trips does exist, and many people already know this.

https://energyhub.org/ev-map-canada/

I'm not sure if that map was meant to be a positive point for your arguement but there but man that's a lot of open space in Alberta.

Yes, and some don't even understand the mining process or are capable of identifying a lithium mine!

You're right. Most consumers are idiots. The average consumer is standing in line with you at Walmart. So that should probably alert you to the imminent demise of our species.

Really odd view you have on Walmart, I'd assume it's easier to appreciate your own farts in a boutique grocery store? Care to weigh in?

But there are plenty of smart ones out there as well. There are people who know quite a bit about this stuff and continue to do their own research and adoption of technologies that make a difference. Change starts with one person and one idea. Adoption happens when enough smart people make the best informed decision and the rest of the herd follows. Remember that the next time you're in Walmart and peering into the shopping cart of the person in front of you seeing what other members of your herd are buying.

This entire post says lots without saying anything at all. Your first paragraph uses a couple electrical buzzwords (some of which dont work with DC). The most effective thing you did was call out my stupid picture. Beyond that you fellated yourself about not shopping at Walmart and said the world should look at electric heat in their homes. Great job.

I completely agree. Every home in the world should using electricity to heat and power their homes. There are many different ways to get there, including using natural gas as a means to generate electricity. Fuel cell technology can make great use of natural gas and do so in a very clean way that has a very small impact to our environment. The potential is there, people just need to adapt. For that to happen, builders also need to offer these options and provide choice. To make that happen manufacturers need to start stepping up production of these products, but they won't until there is demand, and demand won't come until there is broad understanding. The vicious cycle continues.

There ya go.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by New Era

Yup, I remember back in the day my generation only had to worry about apocalyptic thermonuclear war, and the craziness that was truly in our control. Now these kids are facing a reality where the damage is likely done and they will be facing a very different planet than the one we inherited, and it's totally beyond their control. Can't see why they would be down at all.

But who really thought the likelihood of nuclear war was in our control? It certainly wasn't in the control of kids scared out of their wits watching The Day After. Or people watching increasing geopolitical tension on their TV knowing that with no warning the 200 largest cities in the world could be vaporized and 80 per cent of the rest of the population of the planet would die in the following months from radiation poisoning and nuclear winter. That's a more nightmarish prospect than draughts and extreme weather gradually increasing decade by decade.

And yet with no reason to believe the Cold War would end, we got on with our lives. As will the young people freaking out about global warming today.

[icecube]

After seeing headlines this week that the worlds population of salt water fish are expected to be extinct by 2048, the whole apocalypse thing doesn't seem far off. But, sure, the kids are overreacting and everything is hunky dory.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by icecube

After seeing headlines this week that the worlds population of salt water fish are expected to be extinct by 2048, the whole apocalypse thing doesn't seem far off. But, sure, the kids are overreacting and everything is hunky dory.

I'm not denying there will be bad consequences from global warming. I'm challenging the narrative that it's deterring young people from pursuing an education, having children, etc. Humans are remarkably adaptive to adversity. Aside from a few anxious neurotics, they'll carry on as they always have.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by icecube

After seeing headlines this week that the worlds population of salt water fish are expected to be extinct by 2048, the whole apocalypse thing doesn't seem far off. But, sure, the kids are overreacting and everything is hunky dory.

You just saw that this week? That one has had people upset for the last 15 years.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by icecube

After seeing headlines this week that the worlds population of salt water fish are expected to be extinct by 2048, the whole apocalypse thing doesn't seem far off. But, sure, the kids are overreacting and everything is hunky dory.

If experts say it, it must be true. Never swayed by opinion and never funded by special interest groups.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

If experts say it, it must be true. Never swayed by opinion and never funded by special interest groups.

Research for this comment was provided by by the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

But who really thought the likelihood of nuclear war was in our control? It certainly wasn't in the control of kids scared out of their wits watching The Day After. Or people watching increasing geopolitical tension on their TV knowing that with no warning the 200 largest cities in the world could be vaporized and 80 per cent of the rest of the population of the planet would die in the following months from radiation poisoning and nuclear winter. That's a more nightmarish prospect than draughts and extreme weather gradually increasing decade by decade.

And yet with no reason to believe the Cold War would end, we got on with our lives. As will the young people freaking out about global warming today.

Destruction through nuclear war was always within "our" (mankind's) control. It would have taken a series of conscious acts to begin the end.

You might consider nuclear winter to be more terrifying, but I think the gradual decay of society and the rapid changes that are coming are going to be much more terrifying. The acidification of the ocean is going to kill off the fisheries. Almost half of the world rely on the oceans for their primary source of protein. People will then have to fight for other food sources. Disease is going to become a massive problem and we're going to see a battle between the haves and the have-nots for life saving treatments. Water sources are going to become that more important, and people will fight for access to those. The dominoes for the downfall of society have long been setup, we've just been waiting for something to push that first domino over. Climate change may push them all over all at once. That is way more terrifying than the thought of being instantly vaporized.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by New Era

Destruction through nuclear war was always within "our" (mankind's) control. It would have taken a series of conscious acts to begin the end.

You might consider nuclear winter to be more terrifying, but I think the gradual decay of society and the rapid changes that are coming are going to be much more terrifying. The acidification of the ocean is going to kill off the fisheries. Almost half of the world rely on the oceans for their primary source of protein. People will then have to fight for other food sources. Disease is going to become a massive problem and we're going to see a battle between the haves and the have-nots for life saving treatments. Water sources are going to become that more important, and people will fight for access to those. The dominoes for the downfall of society have long been setup, we've just been waiting for something to push that first domino over. Climate change may push them all over all at once. That is way more terrifying than the thought of being instantly vaporized.

Climate change is much easier for the first world to deal with. Especially North America. I’d still bet on Nuclear war being the end of the current society than Global warming. The consequences of global warming have economic and technological solutions.

Overfishing /Habitat loss is a greater threat to the worlds oceans and the primary cause of loss of fish supply which is down 90% from peak. This occurs with or without global warming. The water access issues can be mitigated with Desalination. The current disparity between rich and poor will continue with or without global warming. Global warming makes things worse but will not be the cause of societal instability.

Populism right now and the rise of Authoritarianism is what I fear right now.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

Ahh damn that was a swell #### up. In any case, I'm assuming you couldn't tell at first glance and had to look it up. That doesn't really change the point of the post at all.

Well it immediately jumped out at me because I knew I had read about lithium mines being misrepresented in a meme; I did need to search to confirm that it was that actual photo.

But the bigger point is that the actual surface mining isn't a huge deal unless it's in a particularly sensitive environment or there's risk of contaminating water supplies. The physical impact of coal pit mine is a relatively minor concern compared to the environmental impact of burning that coal. So it's a bit of a strawman to compare coal mines with lithium mines, as though a coal mine pit is the main harm of a fossil-fuel reliant society.

Even on a local, ecological level, we shouldn't be sucked into the debate of 'how ugly does this photo look', and instead focus on the sensitivity of the local environment, whether the local water supply is protected, whether water is diverted from local communities, or those communities are harmed in other ways. These are things that mining companies (whether fossil fuel or mineral) aren't great at, regardless of industry.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

You just saw that this week? That one has had people upset for the last 15 years.

That story was from 2006, and a friend just posted it on Facebook today.

As far as I can tell, new predictions suggest a collapse of the marine ecosystem by 2100 if improvements are not made.

https://phys.org/news/2019-03-biodiv...oUZzFwXI5dfM2s

Without action, more than half of the world's marine species could be on the brink of extinction by the year 2100, according to UNESCO.

Marine biodiversity loss hinders the ocean's ability to provide food for our growing population, with an estimated three billion people dependent on fish as their primary source of dietary protein.

We're also economically dependent on healthy oceans. According to the World Wide Fund for Nature, the ocean provides the world with goods and services worth at least €2.2 trillion every year.

Some effects of biodiversity loss are less tangible. Many of the chemicals used in medical drugs and industrial compounds today came from marine plants and animals. With less known about the oceans than the moon, potentially useful marine organisms could be wiped out or seriously depleted before they are even discovered.

"If we lose biodiversity, we lose the opportunity to discover these crucially important compounds," said Professor Roberto Danovaro, president of the Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn in Naples, Italy.

Restoration

The good news is that in the oceans, ecosystem restoration can cause species that disappeared from a particular region to return.

[Muta]

CO2-sniffing plane finds oilsands emissions higher than industry reported

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/apri...rted-1.5111323

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Muta

CO2-sniffing plane finds oilsands emissions higher than industry reported

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/apri...rted-1.5111323

Wasn't there issues with the collection of this data and one of the researchers on the team quit over it?

I seem to recall reading that somewhere (here or elesewhere). Trying to find a link.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Muta

CO2-sniffing plane finds oilsands emissions higher than industry reported

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/apri...rted-1.5111323

Again? We talked about this like 2 weeks ago.

The industry uses international standards for emissions measurement. The sniffing plane took 13 measurements over a year and extrapolated based on those measurements.

Measurements are likely not wrong, but emissions are variable day by day. They could've been venting gas for maintenance on a specific day that the plane flew over. This would've been averaged out from the company's daily measurements.

I would recommend that the researchers should take it up with the UN against their methodology and not single out the oilsands.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Originally Posted by troutman

snip
As far as I can tell, new predictions suggest a collapse of the marine ecosystem by 2100 if improvements are not made.

https://phys.org/news/2019-03-biodiv...oUZzFwXI5dfM2s

With global population rising as it as, this should be of no surprise. I like to sprinkle a bit of "bright side" onto things.....



This just demonstrates, in my mind, there is action happening. Still have a ways to go.