But it will make the earth warmer & Greenland back to being green. Just think of all the new real estate possibilities.
Climate Change | UN Report: Code Red for humanity
- Thread starter Buster15
- Start date
More so. Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than even CO2.
We're going to need a new name for hyper summer. (That season where everything is too hot and too dry for too long.)
Interesting article on the BBC Science page. The wealthiest 5% are responsible for 37% of global emissions.
It states that frequent flying and the use of big heavy SUV's are the prime reasons, plus the heating of large houses.
To be honest, I really don't see the point of the increased sales of SUV's. Yes some are electric vehicles. But the energy used to manufacture and power them is significantly higher.
Simple physics says that weight is the enemy of efficiency.
There is no excuse for the way humans are knowingly damaging our environment.
After all, we are the first generation who actually understands the consequences of our continued actions.
It states that frequent flying and the use of big heavy SUV's are the prime reasons, plus the heating of large houses.
To be honest, I really don't see the point of the increased sales of SUV's. Yes some are electric vehicles. But the energy used to manufacture and power them is significantly higher.
Simple physics says that weight is the enemy of efficiency.
There is no excuse for the way humans are knowingly damaging our environment.
After all, we are the first generation who actually understands the consequences of our continued actions.
I actively look down on people who drive SUVs. In traffic it's reversed, obviously.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56723560
The world’s wealthy must radically change their lifestyles to tackle climate change, a report says.
It says the world's wealthiest 1% produce double the combined carbon emissions of the poorest 50%, according to the UN.
The wealthiest 5% alone – the so-called “polluter elite” - contributed 37% of emissions growth between 1990 and 2015.
The authors want to deter SUV drivers and frequent fliers – and persuade the wealthy to insulate their homes well.
The report urges the UK government to reverse its decision to scrap air passenger duty on UK return flights.
And it wants ministers to re-instate the Green Homes Grant scheme they also scrapped recently.
The world’s wealthy must radically change their lifestyles to tackle climate change, a report says.
It says the world's wealthiest 1% produce double the combined carbon emissions of the poorest 50%, according to the UN.
The wealthiest 5% alone – the so-called “polluter elite” - contributed 37% of emissions growth between 1990 and 2015.
The authors want to deter SUV drivers and frequent fliers – and persuade the wealthy to insulate their homes well.
The report urges the UK government to reverse its decision to scrap air passenger duty on UK return flights.
And it wants ministers to re-instate the Green Homes Grant scheme they also scrapped recently.
They're bloody everywhere around here, and I hate it. Some people actually do benefit from having an SUV because they cannot fold themselves into a sedan for physical reasons; but everybody else is just going with the luxury and fake sense of safety (maybe your own, but not anybody else's, and certainly not small kids on the road), without regard for the environmental impact. It's like all the super shiny pickup trucks driving around over here. I get their use for companies, and I maybe even get it for certain hobbies; but people just driving a truck around town without having any practical use for them are just basically spitting us all in the face. (It used to actually make me angry, but I guess I'm getting used to it...)
Yes, I'm fun at parties.
From the Scientific American: 'We Are Living in a Climate Emergency, and We’re Going to Say So'.
One might say that it's 'just' language, but once the term 'climate emergency' adopted more widely, this kind of thing might actually prove helpful to change the public mindset (or: change it more quickly) and achieve the global consensus required to get serious on action. Here is the full statement that the article concludes with:
One might say that it's 'just' language, but once the term 'climate emergency' adopted more widely, this kind of thing might actually prove helpful to change the public mindset (or: change it more quickly) and achieve the global consensus required to get serious on action. Here is the full statement that the article concludes with:
Ban yachts, ban SUVs, ban flights for business and leisure reasons for distances that can be covered with 5h train connections. Stop subsidization for aviation business, introduce a heavy CO² tax for businesses and individuals and regulate the fossil fuel industry.
Not gonna happen and would result in a lot of whining and neoliberal babbling of "smart green solutions instead of restrictions or regulations, irrational green hippies just wanna ban everything, where is the spirit of innovation".
The fact that Bill Gates has suddenly become a relevant figure on talking Climate Change says it all.
Not gonna happen and would result in a lot of whining and neoliberal babbling of "smart green solutions instead of restrictions or regulations, irrational green hippies just wanna ban everything, where is the spirit of innovation".
The fact that Bill Gates has suddenly become a relevant figure on talking Climate Change says it all.
You should not put yourself down because what you say is totally correct.
We are all responsible for man made climate change. But to a greater or lesser degree. And it sounds like you are on the lesser end.
I have been saying for ages that for humans to really take man made climate change seriously, it needs to become personal.
And one way of doing that would be to start to give each family or each adult a Carbon Budget and and the means of monitoring their output.
This initially could be an educational process.
But as it develops, this could ultimately become a process by which we use to restrict the most damaging sources of CO2 and by which we are rewarded for staying below our limits.
I accept that initially, this could be a difficult sell.
But if it is sufficiently creative, it just might be what is needed to focus public attention.
And of course something similar could be done for businesses.
Heaps of people have been saying that for ages. For the current world, the trouble is that the rise of the internet bred and rewarded (or rewarded and will now breed) a very specific type of person diametrically opposed to all of that and keenly keyed towards the opposite: siphoning the most energy from as many people as possible while also spending the most energy and being lauded for it. And now we have a generation of kids largely bred to aspire to that 'ideal'.
Legislation always lags behind innovation by around twenty years. AKA when someone invents something world-altering it takes around twenty years to try and understand/legislate for its effects. Been that way for thousands of years. We're right around that time regarding the internet and the energy expenditure distribution dynamic it's enabled.
To be fair, lads, in countries like Canada and Norway (probably Finland, Sweden, Russia and parts of America as well) I wouldn't buy any vehicle that didn't at least have all wheel drive and in some places you even need four wheel drive capability. Yes there are plenty of sedans that offer AWD but if your vehicle doesn't have enough clearance it can still get stuck in deep snow, so the utility is genuine there. Granted, as Chiemoon says a lot of people just go for the luxe or 'me big man with big truck' angle but other considerations like family size and activities may also be a factor. As for pick-ups they are one of the only class of vehicle where you can still get true 4x4 capability (unless you want something stupid like a Jeep).
Same argument is used for gun control here. Unfortunately it is met with the same level of intransigence.
I've got a 2005 Golf, you really don't need all wheel drive in Norway. I guess for a very, very few it would be required. How often do you get stuck in snow?
Yeah, I'm not super familiar with how you guys are impacted by the gulf stream, etc. I'm sure in the more northern parts of Norway it's a must have. Here in Canada we can get snowed on 5-6 months of the year so it's almost a necessity. Not to mention folks who live in the countryside needing to navigate dirt/gravel roads during the rainy months in the spring and fall.
But I'm in Canada and Ottawa tends to get quite a lot of snow. We used to go out of town fairly regularly for visits to family and day trips, we have a hybrid Toyota Camry (standard edition) without 4WD, and I see absolutely no reason to get anything else. I know some people with SUVs and trucks, and almost none of them need them for any practical purpose that I'm aware of. I mean, for people that live in cities (including small cities) - what are the chances of actually getting stuck in deep snow? In reality, it's next to zero.
As I said already, some people need trucks for their work and do off-road stuff for fun. And you're right, big families need a minivan (SUV or not). Also, if you live in rural Canada, it's not the same with snow plowing. But in practice, that's a small fraction of the total population, and includes very few people among everyone here in Ottawa who drives around in SUVs and trucks.
I've lived in Northern Norway all my life, admittedly not in the most rural places. Last year it started snowing in October and the last snow wasn't gone before June, but it still wasn't really an issue as far as making it from A to B. The roads are diligently cleared, after all. Further inland it might be different, with worse roads. Or if you live up a particularly icy hill, but that's why we have studded snow tyres.
Understood.
I guess we will tend to look at things from our own standpoint.
But I have to say that gun control and climate change are quite different.
Nobody would expect everyone and every country to make a start. We only have to look at covid to see that.
But if a few countries start, I am convinced that climate change is such an important issue to the majority that others would follow.
This would not be the solution. But any journey has to start with small steps.
My opinion on AWD is also based on seeing people who have RWD BMWs struggling to make it up a small incline in a snowstorm or simply abandoning their car on a hillside in Toronto because they can't make it up.
We have somewhat strict regulations about studded tires so most people don't use them. In southern Ontario, where a large percentage of Canadians live, they are banned but this might be due to an archaic view.
Toronto might be different to Ottawa because our temperatures are milder and our snow is usually quite wet, which makes for more slippery conditions. We also get significant snowfall in short bursts due to the lake effect. I'll agree that colder, drier snow is easier to navigate and these areas tend to use grit rather than salt on the roads which also improves driving conditions. Still, though, in Canda the smart choice for getting around involves AWD at a minimum imo. For me engine displacement is a more significant factor in pollution than drivetrain, although the two often intersect.
I'm a climate change novice so pardon the simple questions. One TV programme I saw about this topic was that the earth was heating up due to polar snow melting, ironically due to the earth heating up, which was causing more snow to melt, etc. Basically, there wasn't enough snow to reflect the sun's rays.
So we need to break this cycle artificially by introducing reflectors in these polar areas, right? I just read Purdue University has come up with the brightest ever white paint which can reflect 98% of the sun's rays rather than the usual 80-90% of other white paints. Are the world's powers on it? Obviously it will cost money but I doubt it will be that much for a reasonable set up. We're not looking to replace the snow, just give it a hand where it's needed most.
So we need to break this cycle artificially by introducing reflectors in these polar areas, right? I just read Purdue University has come up with the brightest ever white paint which can reflect 98% of the sun's rays rather than the usual 80-90% of other white paints. Are the world's powers on it? Obviously it will cost money but I doubt it will be that much for a reasonable set up. We're not looking to replace the snow, just give it a hand where it's needed most.
Snow and ice, yes. It's part of the feedback loop we're going to make happen if we don't cut our emissions fast. Polar snow and ice reflect sunlight, so the less there is of it (due to melting due to climate change), the more sunlight will be absorbed and add to global warming. Edit: not just arctic snow and ice - all of it. There is an enormous surface of it in the Himalayas as well, for example, but melting Glazers aren't helping - while also endangering water supplies for the millions (billions?) of people who depend on that snow and ice for their water supply down the rivers coming out of the Himalayas.
I imagine this is being looked at, although I had not heard of it before. Painting an enormous natural surface white would not be easy though. I mean, a lot of the ice around the poles is on top of waters, and that's what's melting first. So you can't paint there. And painting land only makes sense on rocky surfaces, as otherwise plants (including grasses and mosses in arctic zones) will cover the paint. And even rocky surfaces - how do you really paint that lastingly?
Or maybe you were kidding.
But people are quite serious about geoengineering - or more generally all attempts to stop what's happening that are unrelated to reducing emissions. (Like carbon capture methods.)
Last edited:
Snow and ice, yes. It's part of the feedback loop we're going to make happen if we don't our emissions fast. Polar snow and ice reflect sunlight, so the less there is of it (due to melting due to climate change), the more sunlight will be absorbed and add to global warming.
I imagine this is being looked at, although I had not heard of it before. Painting an enormous natural surface white would not be easy though. I mean, a lot of the ice around the poles is on top of waters, and that's what's melting first. So you can't paint there. And painting land only makes sense on rocky surfaces, as otherwise plants (including grasses and mosses in arctic zones) will cover the paint. And even rocky surfaces - how do you really paint that lastingly?
Or maybe you were kidding.
One of the biggest problems is that due to forests burning and putting lots of carbon back into the atmosphere, the soot, which is obviously black lands on the snow causing it to absorb more heat.
Everything seems to be going the wrong way, indicating that we have reached the so called tipping point.
Samples from both Arctic and Antarctic show the snow contaminated with black soot instead of pristine white snow.
And I did not realise that China has well over 1000 coal fired power stations.
So when we think we are getting a bargain by buying cheap goods made in China, remember the damage this is doing....
Snow and ice, yes. It's part of the feedback loop we're going to make happen if we don't cut our emissions fast. Polar snow and ice reflect sunlight, so the less there is of it (due to melting due to climate change), the more sunlight will be absorbed and add to global warming. Edit: not just arctic snow and ice - all of it. There is an enormous surface of it in the Himalayas as well, for example, but melting Glazers aren't helping - while also endangering water supplies for the millions (billions?) of people who depend on that snow and ice for their water supply down the rivers coming out of the Himalayas.
I imagine this is being looked at, although I had not heard of it before. Painting an enormous natural surface white would not be easy though. I mean, a lot of the ice around the poles is on top of waters, and that's what's melting first. So you can't paint there. And painting land only makes sense on rocky surfaces, as otherwise plants (including grasses and mosses in arctic zones) will cover the paint. And even rocky surfaces - how do you really paint that lastingly?
Or maybe you were kidding.
No I'm serious. Apparently this paint can be used to lower or even replace air conditioners in hot countries due to its ability to not only reflect sunlight but also different ultra violets that produce heat.
You're right snow/ice on water is badly affected, maybe we could spend a few billion making floats painted with this stuff? The paint would need to be ridiculously waterproof obviously. Don't want to be poisoning the water, etc.
In addition to those ideas, what would also help enormously is to use green roofs. Urban areas are heat island, because the ubiquitous asphalt and buildings all absorb heat, making the areas very hot. Using white buildings would help, but so would creating green roofs. They don't even necessarily have to be green with deeper use (e.g., plant stuff that produces food), just covering the roof in a bit of sand with hardy mosses and lichens would already help. That's actually very easy and achievable, and is also great for insects (which people don't like, but without insects, you can forget about pollination, and you won't have all those pretty birds anymore either) - if only people would care to work on this.
This deserves a mention here & in the dwarf’s thread...
A new studying is showing that glacier melt is accelerating. Here is a summary of the CBC article I read (the summary consists of lines from the article that I rearranged):
And here is the abstract of the relevant scientific article, which was published in Nature:
And here is the abstract of the relevant scientific article, which was published in Nature:
this article on it's own isn't depressing. but the logic in it is going to kill everybody. since people are anticipating curbs on chinese emission-making industries, indian steel-makers are gearing up to meet global demand. i'm guessing net emissions stay exactly where they are in that case. it's all so meaningless.
https://www.businessinsider.in/busi...dian-steel-companies/articleshow/82451127.cms
https://www.businessinsider.in/busi...dian-steel-companies/articleshow/82451127.cms
Two very interesting articles in the BBC Science section.
1. An area the size of France of natural forest has regenerated since 2000. These are not new planted forests. Rather existing forests which have regrown. And a good part of that is the Brazilian Atlantic Coast forest.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57065612
2. There is an article about the development of a new magnet which should soon be used in a trial to make electricity from Nuclear Fusion.
Nuclear Fusion is the process by which our Sun and all the stars use for energy. The massive temperature and pressure at the centre of the Sun force two positively charged Hydrogen Protons together to produce one Helium atom. A tiny amount of mass is lost in the Fusion process. And mass = energy.
There are a number of international efforts taking place to be able to operate a commercial Nuclear Fusion process, with 2030 as a target date.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56843149.
1. An area the size of France of natural forest has regenerated since 2000. These are not new planted forests. Rather existing forests which have regrown. And a good part of that is the Brazilian Atlantic Coast forest.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57065612
2. There is an article about the development of a new magnet which should soon be used in a trial to make electricity from Nuclear Fusion.
Nuclear Fusion is the process by which our Sun and all the stars use for energy. The massive temperature and pressure at the centre of the Sun force two positively charged Hydrogen Protons together to produce one Helium atom. A tiny amount of mass is lost in the Fusion process. And mass = energy.
There are a number of international efforts taking place to be able to operate a commercial Nuclear Fusion process, with 2030 as a target date.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56843149.
We haven't really got anywhere with fusion for decades. The hope for the 2030s is to have finally made a fusion reaction that can sustain itself, but the first actual power plant is slated for the 2050s at the earliest.
Understood. It is hoped that the competition between the different organisations might bring that date forward.
But recreating the right temperature and pressure conditions here on earth is obviously going to be a huge challenge.
It's been "a decade away" for decades now. There's many other important challenges outside the high temperature requirements.
Please carry on. I am interested.
My impression was it was centuries away, and were a million miles from actually achieving it.
Take a look at this article below, granted it's from 2017, but it's actual at the moment:
https://thebulletin.org/2017/04/fusion-reactors-not-what-theyre-cracked-up-to-be/
A solution to this would be to have aneutronic fusion, like proton-boron, but it requires a lot more temperature and pressure to fuse.
The article below is about the TAE Technologies, who plan on developing proton-boron fusion reactor.
Add to that the severe underfunding and the public fear of anything that contains "nuclear" in it.
Very interesting. Thank you for your response.