Climate Change | UN Report: Code Red for humanity

Watching the celebrations of New Year all around the world, I wonder how much bad stuff for the pollution fireworks do for just one night?

It's bad enough how it affects the poor animals, I really don't see the reason why the fireworks aren't banned completely.
 
Amar__ said:
Watching the celebrations of New Year all around the world, I wonder how much bad stuff for the pollution fireworks do for just one night?

It's bad enough how it affects the poor animals, I really don't see the reason why the fireworks aren't banned completely.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if we are to have even small chance of beating climate change, things like these, plus multiple others, will have to go away.

First week of january is coming to a close, and we still haven't had snow in Sarajevo, apart from something that came and was gone in less than an hour couple of weeks ago.

For context, Sarajevo is a city stuck between mountains and well known for snow. Well maybe in future we won't be as well known by that.
 
711 said:
I met an Australian yesterday who said all the fires and floods are because the Greens wouldn't allow proper land management.
Click to expand...
It's maddening how this stuff is couched in terms of political preferences and personal vendettas. It's also for me the most frustrating part about this Tate vs Thunberg twitter thing. Why does Tate think it's funny that his cars emit a lot of carbon, and even more funny to tell Thunberg that? And why is Thunberg's reply considered so awesome although it's only witty and devoid of substance? You can tell me Tate's an idiot (which he is of course) and doesn't deserve better, but I think that conversation was symptomatic for a lot of the discussion and a large part of the reason why far too little happens: it's still not sufficiently seen as a humanitarian emergency but as some kind of political discussion piece, a part of those dumb culture wars that's fit for individual postering.

For me, Thunberg's reply should rather have been something like 'If you want to give humanity the finger, shouldn't you rather be addressing the UN Secretary General rather than an activist?' That wouldn't be as funny of course, but I think any attempt should be made to ground this debate in its actual reality rather than political spats and pissing contests.
 
Last edited:
I'm used to it being so bitterly cold in Ireland in January, usually always feels like the coldest and most depressing month, and yet it's 13 degrees out today, didn't even need a jacket. It's bonkers.

Feels like we're actually living through the proof that we are all completely fecked and still people aren't doing anything about it.
 
Cheimoon said:
It's maddening how this stuff is couched in terms of political preferences and personal vendettas. It's also for me the most frustrating part about this Tate vs Thunberg twitter thing. Why does Tate think it's funny that his cars emit a lot of carbon, and even more funny to tell Thunberg that? And why is Thunberg's reply considered so awesome although it's only witty and devoid of substance?You can tell me Tate's an idiot (which he is of course) and doesn't deserve better, but I think that conversation was symptomatic for a lot of the discussion and a large part of the reason why far too little happens: it's still not sufficiently seen as a humanitarian emergency but as some kind of political discussion piece, a part of those dumb culture wars that's fit for individual postering.

For me, Thunberg's reply should rather have been something like 'If you want to give humanity the finger, shouldn't you rather be addressing the UN Secretary General rather than an activist?' That wouldn't be as funny of course, but I think any attempt should be made to ground this debate in its actual reality rather than political spats and pissing contests.
Click to expand...
I think I follow your gist, it's important to stick to facts and evidence rather than resort to accusations of stupidity and lack of education, which, going by the Brexit arguments, just does not work.
 
Isn’t it strangely warm I mean costa del sol is seeing a daily high of 20 degrees throughout January, is this normal?
 
711 said:
I think I follow your gist, it's important to stick to facts and evidence rather than resort to accusations of stupidity and lack of education, which, going by the Brexit arguments, just does not work.
Click to expand...
Not just that. I was more trying to say that I think it's important at all times to yank people that like the antagonistic/polarization angle back into what this is actually about. I.e., it's not another chapter in their beloved culture wars, but a real thing that affects everyone. People can disagree on solutions, but should agree on the reality and seriousness of the thing, and bring those dumb little spats back to that context whenever we can.

Like, when Tate is boasting about his cars to Thunberg, everyone should be abhorred, like people would be if some asshole were burning blankets and food and piles of money right in front of a bunch of homeless people. All this one-upmanship isn't getting us there, it makes it into a game.
 
It's the single most pressing issue we as a species face in terms of our future being threatened.

What is happening right now was not predicted to happen for decades and yet here we are. If anything scientists have underplayed climate change and the increase in global temperature.

We are currently nearing the end of what should be cooler systems driving the weather as we are in a la Nina event. When this ends and it's expected later this year, the opposite el Nino takes over driving warmer seas and warmer surface temperatures.

The record temperatures we experienced this year were actually cooler than it would have been in an el Nino period. Next year we could very well see temp records broken again, not to mention the rise of more flooding and severe storms, as well as prolonged period of drought. This is just for a UK perspective, I dread to think what temps we could see elsewhere given current average temps are 10 degrees above the normal in Europe for winter, we could see widespread summer temps in excess of 50c this summer which is uninhabitable.
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/12/climate/exxon-mobil-global-warming-climate-change.html

Exxon Scientists Predicted Global Warming, Even as Company Cast Doubts, Study Finds

Starting in the 1970s, scientists working for the oil giant made remarkably accurate projections of just how much burning fossil fuels would warm the planet.

In the late 1970s, scientists at Exxon fitted one of the company’s supertankers with state-of-the-art equipment to measure carbon dioxide in the ocean and in the air, an early example of substantial research the oil giant conducted into the science of climate change.

A new study published Thursday in the journal Science found that over the next decades, Exxon’s scientists made remarkably accurate projections of just how much burning fossil fuels would warm the planet. Their projections were as accurate, and sometimes even more so, as those of independent academic and government models.
 
A modern, moderate, Green party gets into government in the most powerful state in Europe, unlike the hippy freaks and losers in the US and UK. They then take decisive climate action that will save humanity in the best Green tradition: clear land for a coal mine. Thank god for moderation and electability!

 
berbatrick said:
A modern, moderate, Green party gets into government in the most powerful state in Europe, unlike the hippy freaks and losers in the US and UK. They then take decisive climate action that will save humanity in the best Green tradition: clear land for a coal mine. Thank god for moderation and electability!

Click to expand...


Being able to switch on your lights is a bit of a vote winner. If you don't want to use nuclear, and you cant use gas, it doesn't leave many options. Germany isn't a country that can rely on renewables. They don't really have much choice and this project is already a big reduction from the original plan.
 
11101 said:
Being able to switch on your lights is a bit of a vote winner. If you don't want to use nuclear, and you cant use gas, it doesn't leave many options. Germany isn't a country that can rely on renewables. They don't really have much choice and this project is already a big reduction from the original plan.
Click to expand...

Sorry, nothing that spins a *green* party expanding a *coal* mine works. it is no better that the green party is in power, compared to the cdu or spd. history and capital have already thrown meaningful green parties in the bin, what is left now is a name and a colour.
and the nuclear thing is a self-inflicted wound, supported by this same party and the cdu! again, no difference.

...



bank pledges will save us!
 
berbatrick said:
Sorry, nothing that spins a *green* party expanding a *coal* mine works. it is no better that the green party is in power, compared to the cdu or spd. history and capital have already thrown meaningful green parties in the bin, what is left now is a name and a colour.
and the nuclear thing is a self-inflicted wound, supported by this same party and the cdu! again, no difference.
Click to expand...

People don't want coal, because it's bad for the environment, they don't want nuclear energy, because it's too dangerous and they don't want LNG, because it's too Russian. Oh and they also demand that energy prices be lower. There is no good option for the greens, the great irony about their party is that they have been in power twice, the first time around there was 9/11 and this time it's Ukraine and the energy crisis that's forcing them to compromise. I genuinely don't know whether this was a sensible deal or corruption, but your stance is completely ignoring the political reality the party is facing.
 
Literal insanity.

Senate JOINT RESOLUTION NO. SJ0004


Phasing out new electric vehicle sales by 2035.

Sponsored by: Senator(s) Anderson, Boner, Cooper and Dockstader and Representative(s) Burkhart and Henderson


A JOINT RESOLUTION

for

A JOINT RESOLUTION expressing support for phasing out the sale of new electric vehicles in Wyoming by 2035.

...

WHEREAS, the proliferation of electric vehicles at the expense of gas-powered vehicles will have deleterious impacts on Wyoming's communities and will be detrimental to Wyoming's economy and the ability for the country to efficiently engage in commerce; and

WHEREAS, phasing out the sale of new electric vehicles in Wyoming by 2035 will ensure the stability of Wyoming's oil and gas industry and will help preserve the country's critical minerals for vital purposes.



https://wyoleg.gov/Legislation/2023/SJ0004
 
nimic said:
Literal insanity.

Senate JOINT RESOLUTION NO. SJ0004


Phasing out new electric vehicle sales by 2035.

Sponsored by: Senator(s) Anderson, Boner, Cooper and Dockstader and Representative(s) Burkhart and Henderson


A JOINT RESOLUTION

for

A JOINT RESOLUTION expressing support for phasing out the sale of new electric vehicles in Wyoming by 2035.

...

WHEREAS, the proliferation of electric vehicles at the expense of gas-powered vehicles will have deleterious impacts on Wyoming's communities and will be detrimental to Wyoming's economy and the ability for the country to efficiently engage in commerce; and

WHEREAS, phasing out the sale of new electric vehicles in Wyoming by 2035 will ensure the stability of Wyoming's oil and gas industry and will help preserve the country's critical minerals for vital purposes.



https://wyoleg.gov/Legislation/2023/SJ0004
Click to expand...

Well, they can phase out waterver they want. Is not their choice. Europe, California and other populated states will make mandatory that all the new vehicles will be electric by 2035, so the car manufacturers will make all their car lines electric as it would be stupid to have 2 lines (EV and ICE) to accommodate Wyoming and other minor places. The majority of car manufacturers already said so that will get all productions before 2035-40. So Wyoming will get new EV by 2035-40 or will get none at all.

Brussels effect will prevail once more
 
calodo2003 said:
Click to expand...

Places like Tucson and Phoenix also have serious issues with long-term sustainability: their kind of urban sprawl is difficult to support under the current circumstances already and it will only get worse.

Best to stick your head in the sand though. We wouldn't want to be upsetting anyone's way of life, now would we!
 
Sarcasm aside, I actually also read some really good news today:
Nature Briefing said:
Hydrogen might be hiding underground
There might be vast natural reserves of clean-burning hydrogen gas hidden underground. Researchers at the US Geological Survey estimate that there might be enough to meet rising global demand for thousands of years. An added benefit of underground hydrogen is that it’s renewable, being constantly replenished by reactions between water and rock deep below Earth’s surface. Why didn’t anyone spot it before? It’s not found in the same places as oil and gas reservoirs, and no one was looking for it, say proponents.
Click to expand...
Here is the full article on the subject: Hidden hydrogen: Earth may hold vast stores of a renewable, carbon-free fuel | Science | AAAS

So awesome that I worry it's too good to be true... Or am I missing something?
 
calodo2003 said:
Click to expand...

Cheimoon said:
Places like Tucson and Phoenix also have serious issues with long-term sustainability: their kind of urban sprawl is difficult to support under the current circumstances already and it will only get worse.
Click to expand...
Speaking of which, there's an article on CBC just today about the water wars (my term) in Mariposa County, and along the Colorado River more generally:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/rio-verde-water-access-1.6749754

As well as another article about farmers in Canada and the US selling off cattle because draughts mean they can't maintain them:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sask...t-weather-beef-cattle-farmers-herds-1.6754806

Climate change is coming after our burgers folks!
 
Cheimoon said:
Sarcasm aside, I actually also read some really good news today:

Here is the full article on the subject: Hidden hydrogen: Earth may hold vast stores of a renewable, carbon-free fuel | Science | AAAS

So awesome that I worry it's too good to be true... Or am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Wow. How interesting is that. I had always thought that we were told that the problem with hydrogen was that while it was the most abundant atom in the universe, it was not available on earth in its free state.
 
Buster15 said:
Wow. How interesting is that. I had always thought that we were told that the problem with hydrogen was that while it was the most abundant atom in the universe, it was not available on earth in its free state.
Click to expand...
Never cared enough, nor looked in the right places it seems! But this looks REALLY positive.

Some good news for a change! Now to get that energy transition going pronto...
 
All the tourists here are gaga over the azaleas being in bloom. They bloomed over two weeks ago. Typically they bloom at the end of March or later.
 
BD said:
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/27/speculative-tech-to-reflect-sun-away-from-earth-needs-focus-un.html



Oh, good
Click to expand...

It's where we were always going to end up. There's already been commercial firms trying do low level testing so I don't think we're far from the rogue element being discussed in that article.

I expect we'll feck ourselves over even worse. With the dinosaurs we always assumed global cooling occurred after volcanic and asteroid events that blocked the sun out, now they think after the cooling came a runaway heating from infrared impacts and ozone damage.

Considering the harm global warming will do to certain countries some are going to take action out of self preservation before we understand all the consequences.
 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64815875

Founder of Greenpeace says that he believes that the fight against manmade climate change is lost.
Hopefully he is wrong but I do think that we are simply trying to mitigate the worst effects as opposed to actually limiting the temperature rise to+ 1.5C.
 
Buster15 said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64815875

Founder of Greenpeace says that he believes that the fight against manmade climate change is lost.
Hopefully he is wrong but I do think that we are simply trying to mitigate the worst effects as opposed to actually limiting the temperature rise to+ 1.5C.
Click to expand...

My recommendations for understanding and processing this side of humans:
  • Merchants of Doubt (book)
  • Losing Earth (book)
  • Drilled - Podcast series.
The mixture of strict ideology (conservatism extremism) in the early years and still present today, was the driving force for arguing that government/supranational action was essentially communism/soviet policy. On top of this, you had the short-termism voices that argued that you could not model future economic catastrophe so it was better to get stinking rich now and let "hypothetical humans" deal with "hypothetical problems" in the future. The reason we are where we are now is that extreme conservatism and short-term people won the war inside corporations and government over the last 50 years. Government officials that screamed governmental policy was "communism" won the policy debate. The short-termists argued and won the argument that the stock price was the only thing they had to care about. When you get to right now, these voices are still dominate because their ideology and short-termism achieved their intended goal, it made them filthy rich. This enabled them to dominate the popular and governmental discourse, and conservatism extremism has created an unmovable power-base which disproportionately controls policy compared to their actual political adherents/base which is disproportionately funded by status-quo short-termists.

In particular, I would have a listen to the last ~10 episodes of Drilled which goes into great detail about how the oil companies had seriously fantastic scientific research on global warming and certain parts of the businesses actually led the charge on framing global warming science as the potential source of vast riches for these companies (as in, "ok we have the science, lets become the leaders of renewable energy first and dominate a new market"). This is when the mixture of those two things noted above overwhelmed this progressive view of solving the problem. And I would say its only been within the last 10-15 years that potentially the first weaknesses in the dominate structures have become visible. By no means is the prevailing dominate ideology or economic narrative in threat of being replaced, but their arguments are losing weight. If you think about it like that, maybe within the last 10-15 years have seen seen a weakness in the prevailing narrative, I think could be one possible explanation for where we are now.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.