Climate change and human responsibility

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

More people have died to Hydroelectric power than Nuclear.

True.

Also true: more people have died in oilfield occupational accidents in the past decade in Alberta that have died from nuclear power ever.

[jayswin]

Figured I'd crosspost as the important science thread has little action and it fits here.


This was always coming and here's the easy breakdown...

1. Superpowers have the worst consumption and production and the biggest power and importance to change

2. They use their power to a) not change or b) use their power to manipulate the stats and message, making it out like the medium and small countries are to blame and need to change

3. Lots of people and countries understand the needs and talk big about change, but very few people and countries are willing to do what it takes to make a change, because that means choosing between the well being and prosperity of your people and the greater good.


Saying do it for the greater good is great and all, but who's actually going to do it? Would you sacfrice your country for the greater good? We're being forced into it here in Canada by US manipulation and it's going to be dire in 20 years.


The planet as we know it is going down and it's starting to look like we could actually see some serious downfall to our planet in our lifetime. But like George Carlin says "The planet will be fine, it's the people that are ****ed".

[SeeGeeWhy]

Switching over to an energy supply system that requires greater than 10% of the energy it produces to sustain capturing more energy is a guaranteed recipe for short term economic collapse which will end our species far before climate change ever can.

The rub, as evidenced by consumers being unable to accommodate energy producer’s need to increase prices, is that even our fossil fuel based supply system is starting to reach that point.

Climate change or not, we need to move to higher density fuel sources, and do more with less. Renewables cannot accomplish this.

[chemgear]

For all this talk about changing vehicles, avoiding flights, recycling, etc. the world needs acknowledge that sheer numbers and population growth is outstripping it all.

Literally dozens of people can buy a new Tesla for the rest of their lives or get rid of their cars forever only to have their contribution be completely offset and wiped out by just a single person having another kid.

Forget recycling, is the world ready to have that conversation? To limit reproductive ability?


https://www.theguardian.com/environm...fewer-children

[Azure]

Isn't population growth (having kids) vital to the health and growth of most countries?

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Azure

Isn't population growth (having kids) vital to the health and growth of most countries?

For a growing economy?

Sure, but not for climate change. It's terrible, literally the worst.

[Vedder]

Globalism has already caused populist movements in western countries, without any further wealth redistribution in the form of carbon policy in developed nations, etc.

I don't think the politics of collective action are achievable without major unrest. Fundamentally, a lot of the proposed policies will mean some sort adjustment to people's quality of life and personal wealth.

[Fuzz]

Economic growth is at odds with saving the planet. We have developed a global economic system that is dependant on perpetual growth. Stagnation is seen as bad, contraction is to be avoided at all costs. I don't know how you fix that, but as long as we demand growth we can't seriously tackle population issues, and that makes it impossible to prevent the destruction of our planet. We are pretty good at pretending though.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Economic growth is at odds with saving the planet. We have developed a global economic system that is dependant on perpetual growth. Stagnation is seen as bad, contraction is to be avoided at all costs. I don't know how you fix that, but as long as we demand growth we can't seriously tackle population issues, and that makes it impossible to prevent the destruction of our planet. We are pretty good at pretending though.

David Suzuki has been saying that for 50 years. I know...I know...he is enjoying the good life, just like the rest of us.

Just enjoy the ride while it lasts. Nothing stays the same forever.

[oilyfan]

If we expend the same amount of time, political capital and angst in finding engineered solutions to the higher concentration of greenhouse gases as we do on the futile quest to reduce consumption of fossil fuels we would be far ahead by now.

This is a very good example of the possibilities: https://japantoday.com/category/tech...climate-change

[Fuzz]

Well we are researching stuff like that too. I think one of the problems with that type of solution is it solves one problem while not really addressing all of the other pollution we make. I do sometimes worry that we spend to much time worrying about CO2 to the detriment of addressing more harmful pollution. But an engineered solution is probably the only hope we have of controlling the CO2 issue.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by chemgear

For all this talk about changing vehicles, avoiding flights, recycling, etc. the world needs acknowledge that sheer numbers and population growth is outstripping it all.

Literally dozens of people can buy a new Tesla for the rest of their lives or get rid of their cars forever only to have their contribution be completely offset and wiped out by just a single person having another kid.

Forget recycling, is the world ready to have that conversation? To limit reproductive ability?


https://www.theguardian.com/environm...fewer-children

The figure was calculated by totting up the emissions of the child and all their descendants, then dividing this total by the parent’s lifespan. Each parent was ascribed 50% of the child’s emissions, 25% of their grandchildren’s emissions and so on.

That seems to be a very odd way to do this, and one which doesn't really factor in the pressing importance of short-term reductions, as it's essentially applying future generations' climate impact right now. How much we reduce emissions in the next 10/20/50 years is more important than how much we reduce emissions 120 years down the road.

I'm not arguing that limiting the number of kids you have is a good, ethically responsible choice. But I think the way they've chosen to calculate those generational effects in a way that maximizes them and undersells the importance of other actions that can also be taken.

[woob]

Not sure if this has been posted before, but interesting look at upcoming power plant pollution tracking via satellite data.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envir...pollution-data

[transplant99]

The Reason Renewables Can't Power Modern Civilization Is Because They Were Never Meant To

Over the last decade, journalists have held up Germany’s renewables energy transition, the Energiewende, as an environmental model for the world.

“Many poor countries, once intent on building coal-fired power plants to bring electricity to their people, are discussing whether they might leapfrog the fossil age and build clean grids from the outset,” thanks to the Energiewende, wrote a New York Times reporter in 2014.

With Germany as inspiration, the United Nations and World Bank poured billions into renewables like wind, solar, and hydro in developing nations like Kenya.

But Germany didn’t just fall short of its climate targets. Its emissions have flat-lined since 2009.

Now comes a major article in the country’s largest newsweekly magazine, Der Spiegel, titled, “A Botched Job in Germany” (“Murks in Germany“). The magazine’s cover shows broken wind turbines and incomplete electrical transmission towers against a dark silhouette of Berlin.

“The Energiewende — the biggest political project since reunification — threatens to fail,” write Der Spiegel’s Frank Dohmen, Alexander Jung, Stefan Schultz, Gerald Traufetter in their a 5,700-word investigative story (the article can be read in English here).

Over the past five years alone, the Energiewende has cost Germany €32 billion ($36 billion) annually, and opposition to renewables is growing in the German countryside.

Germans, who will have spent $580 billion on renewables and related infrastructure by 2025, express great pride in the Energiewende. “It’s our gift to the world,” a renewables advocate told The Times.

Tragically, many Germans appear to have believed that the billions they spent on renewables would redeem them. “Germans would then at last feel that they have gone from being world-destroyers in the 20th century to world-saviors in the 21st,” noted a reporter.

Many Germans will, like Der Spiegel, claim the renewables transition was merely “botched,” but it wasn’t. The transition to renewables was doomed because modern industrial people, no matter how Romantic they are, do not want to return to pre-modern life.

The reason renewables can’t power modern civilization is because they were never meant to. One interesting question is why anybody ever thought they could.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael...mpression=true

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

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.

The current state of the planet and the future of it was certainly a factor I considered when I decided to get snipped. Primarily the decision revolved around the cost and personal sacrifices that go into having kids, and the fact that kids are generally irritating little ####s, but environmental concerns definitely played a part.

[Fuzz]

Germany is a great example.








Of how not to do energy policy.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

David Suzuki has been saying that for 50 years. I know...I know...he is enjoying the good life, just like the rest of us.

Just enjoy the ride while it lasts. Nothing stays the same forever.

That's what I'm doing. I'm mindful of recycling, not wasting, etc and probably have a slightly smaller than average carbon footprint compared to your average Albertan but for the most part I'm simply not going to spend a lot of time worrying about things that are out of my control. I feel too many people in these times are letting declinism interfere with enjoying their short time on this planet.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

That's what I'm doing. I'm mindful of recycling, not wasting, etc and probably have a slightly smaller than average carbon footprint compared to your average Albertan but for the most part I'm simply not going to spend a lot of time worrying about things that are out of my control. I feel too many people in these times are letting declinism interfere with enjoying their short time on this planet.

Don't you have kids? Do you not worry about the planet you're leaving behind for them?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Don't you have kids? Do you not worry about the planet you're leaving behind for them?

Yes I have two. What exactly am I leaving behind outside of my personal assets? I have no control over the planet or the environment. As I said before I do my part and that's all I can do. I'm certainly not going to waste my short time on this planet worrying about what is out of my hands. The planet is going to be around long after you, I, and my children are dead and buried. Climate change isn't really a big priority for me anyway as I feel overpopulation is the real issue and that's not getting addressed so I'm not going to waste my time getting behind the hypocrites like David Suzuki, McKenna, Trudeau, and every other politician and celebrity that speaks out on the climate change while owning five houses around the world and private jets to all of them. Unlike all (and I mean all) of them, on my last day I can at least rest comfortably knowing carbon footprint on this planet was sensible. They will not be able to do that.

[Ark2]

Is over population really a problem?

Today the population is at a record high, and famines have all but vanished outside of war zones. Even in Sub Saharan Africa, the poorest area on the planet, the food supply now exceeds the recommended 2,000 calories per person per day. Yet overpopulation fears still exert a powerful hold on the public imagination.

Even if overpopulation were to prove to be a problem, it is one with an expiration date: due to falling global birth rates, demographers estimate the world population will decrease in the long run, after peaking around the year 2070. It is now well-documented that as countries grow richer, and people escape poverty, they opt for smaller families — a phenomenon called the fertility transition. It is almost unheard of for a country to maintain a high fertility rate after it passes about $5,000 in per-person annual income. Alarmism and extreme measures to combat “overpopulation” are entirely unnecessary.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2.../#4148f9b5216a