• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

A sobering read. Time is running out regarding climate change.

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

rise

Diamond Member
Dec 13, 2004
9,114
44
91
That's why the investment in alternatives and deployment matters. Give the stuff away if necessary.
And that's why trump's first trade targets included solar panels. He does everything he can to destroy the environment, mostly behind the scenes with his assault on the EPA but the solar tariffs were just like a public 'piss off' to anyone concerned with the environment.
 

Puffnstuff

Lifer
Mar 9, 2005
14,946
3,701
136
Well I can confess to you fine gentlemen that I had chili cheese dogs two days in a row and my immediate climate changed dramatically during that time frame.:p
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
28,024
2,540
126
... with his assault on the EPA but the solar tariffs were just like a public 'piss off' to anyone concerned with the environment.
My enmity for that man is just incalculable. "If my thought dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine, but it's alright Ma, it's life and life only." - Bob Dylan
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thebobo

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,632
7,694
126
Being a gullible and unquestioning herd animal makes you a sheep. As i've said before, it's about money and control. The money is the 10 -12 Trillion dollars the cause demands, your diet and political policy authority is what they want control over.


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/10/huge-reduction-in-meat-eating-essential-to-avoid-climate-breakdown

"Huge reductions in meat-eating are essential to avoid dangerous climate change, according to the most comprehensive analysis yet of the food system’s impact on the environment. In western countries, beef consumption needs to fall by 90% and be replaced by five times more beans and pulses."
These are 2 separate issues. That anthropogenic global warming is occurring is a separate issue from how some people propose to deal with the problem. You appear not to understand that and are conflating one person's opinion of a solution as evidence that anthropogenic global warming itself is a grand conspiracy.
With that "logic," you probably believe in chemtrails too.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,632
7,694
126
The cost of doing nothing will dwarf the cost of doing something.
Doing something won't cost us anything besides better more efficient energy technologies and a higher standard of living.
Doing nothing will cost America its place as the worlds leader as other countries do something and develop those new technologies before we do.
 

Josephus312

Senior member
Aug 10, 2018
586
172
71
Doing something won't cost us anything besides better more efficient energy technologies and a higher standard of living.
Doing nothing will cost America its place as the worlds leader as other countries do something and develop those new technologies before we do.
Exactly, progress that absolutely NEEDS to come brought in early is a business advantage and carrying costs will pay off greatly.

We used to get this but now... we don't? Why? Because the oligarch friends of Dear Leader own coal and oil.
 

spacejamz

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
10,256
554
126
we don't? Why? Because the oligarch friends of Dear Leader own coal and oil.
Why don't you ask your pal Governor Brown why he has approved so many oil well permits off the coast of California or why he isn't trying to shut the ones under his control down? or is he one of Dear Leader's buddies?
 
  • Like
Reactions: imported_tajmahal

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,632
7,694
126
Why don't you ask your pal Governor Brown why he has approved so many oil well permits off the coast of California or why he isn't trying to shut the ones under his control down? or is he one of Dear Leader's buddies?
There is no legitimate agenda to stop using fossil fuels. That is a myth. Just like no one is going to take away your steak either. The agenda is to use those fuels more efficiently. So there's your answer about Brown.
Now the reason why some groups are fighting against efficiency is because efficiency drives prices down and when you're the owner of a finite depleting asset, the last thing you want is lower prices.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Muse

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
28,024
2,540
126
Why don't you ask your pal Governor Brown why he has approved so many oil well permits off the coast of California or why he isn't trying to shut the ones under his control down? or is he one of Dear Leader's buddies?
No he's not, far from it, but he is laggard in blocking the oil interests in some degree, in particular the offshore drilling. He's made some enemies by virtue of this.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,632
7,694
126
No he's not, far from it, but he is laggard in blocking the oil interests in some degree, in particular the offshore drilling. He's made some enemies by virtue of this.
And those people are wrong. We're always going to need oil. It's a tremendously valuable resource. The only regret that we're going to have about oil in the future is that we wasted so much of it by burning it.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
11,827
6,286
136
Solar installed capacity has increased by ~40% year over year since 2009. Utility solar has gone up 55x from 893 GWh to 52,958 GWh while rooftop solar has gone up 36x from 2,092 GWh to 77,097 GWh. This trend has continued year over year even up through the first half of this year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_the_United_States

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if this +40% yearly cumulative increase continues, solar will be a quarter of our electricity generation by 2027, in just 9 years? It looks like this is being sorted out by the market plus some state level tax subsidies.

With the grid getting cleaned up fast, the major issue to address is getting people into electric cars.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
27,119
1,895
126
Solar installed capacity has increased by ~40% year over year since 2009. Utility solar has gone up 55x from 893 GWh to 52,958 GWh while rooftop solar has gone up 36x from 2,092 GWh to 77,097 GWh. This trend has continued year over year even up through the first half of this year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_the_United_States

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if this +40% yearly cumulative increase continues, solar will be a quarter of our electricity generation by 2027, in just 9 years? It looks like this is being sorted out by the market plus some state level tax subsidies.

With the grid getting cleaned up fast, the major issue to address is getting people into electric cars.


while i agree getting people to cleaner cars is important, we also need to address one of the heaviest hitters - cargo freighters.

the 15 largest freighters in the world emit more CO2 than all the cars in the world. (daily mail was the most reputable link i could find from quick google fu). imagine if we could overhaul these ships....the impact would be massive.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
11,827
6,286
136
while i agree getting people to cleaner cars is important, we also need to address one of the heaviest hitters - cargo freighters.

the 15 largest freighters in the world emit more CO2 than all the cars in the world. (daily mail was the most reputable link i could find from quick google fu). imagine if we could overhaul these ships....the impact would be massive.
Actually if you look closely that is not what your article says. It says they "pollute" 15 times more, which isn't accurate either. What they meant was that they release 15 times more sulfur than all the cars combined, because auto gas contains almost no sulfur. Also, the standards for this ship fuel have been greatly increased since 2009 when your article was written so that they are not allowed to have nearly so much sulfur dioxide.

Ships are way more fuel efficient than cars for a given mass and distance.

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-15-biggest-ships-in-the-world-produce-more-pollution-than-all-the-cars
 
  • Like
Reactions: Josephus312

Josephus312

Senior member
Aug 10, 2018
586
172
71
while i agree getting people to cleaner cars is important, we also need to address one of the heaviest hitters - cargo freighters.

the 15 largest freighters in the world emit more CO2 than all the cars in the world. (daily mail was the most reputable link i could find from quick google fu). imagine if we could overhaul these ships....the impact would be massive.
Yeah, it doesn't say that in your link. There is more to pollution than CO2, in fact CO2 is about to get unregulated as a source of pollution by the EPA so it will be soon be undeclared.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
14,360
7,124
146
while i agree getting people to cleaner cars is important, we also need to address one of the heaviest hitters - cargo freighters.

the 15 largest freighters in the world emit more CO2 than all the cars in the world. (daily mail was the most reputable link i could find from quick google fu). imagine if we could overhaul these ships....the impact would be massive.
Actually if you look closely that is not what your article says. It says they "pollute" 15 times more, which isn't accurate either. What they meant was that they release 15 times more sulfur than all the cars combined, because auto gas contains almost no sulfur. Also, the standards for this ship fuel have been greatly increased since 2009 when your article was written so that they are not allowed to have nearly so much sulfur dioxide.

Ships are way more fuel efficient than cars for a given mass and distance.

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-15-biggest-ships-in-the-world-produce-more-pollution-than-all-the-cars
And fundamentally there are CO2 neutral power sources for freighters.

The NS Savannah was a prototype nuclear freighter.

Or the waste gas / CO2 to liquid fuel process could replace bunker fuel.
 

1sikbITCH

Diamond Member
Jan 3, 2001
4,194
573
126
I believe we have the capability of altering our climate. No doubt about it. I think the consequences to humanity are overblown, though. Our real issue is our population explosion, climate change is but window dressing.
The consequences to humanity are irrelevant. As a conservative your first duty is to The Lord. The Lord created Earth for all of his creatures, not just humans, and God bids us to protect his planet and his creatures. Yet conservatives, who you would think would be the most God-fearing of all, just tell God to fuck off. This planet is just a car for the GOP to run into the ground and then ditch on the side of the road. Haha I got rich now stop breathing what's left of my air.

If you are a conservative in America you know you are on the wrong side of God. God will not forget what you have done to His Planet. Humans are but one species on God's Earth among however many animals we have not yet completely erased to build more water parks for the rich and famous. God created the entire earth and all of its creatures, not just stupid inbred hillfucks and evangelicals. You are going to burn in Hell.

Cya there.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
28,024
2,540
126
And those people are wrong. We're always going to need oil. It's a tremendously valuable resource. The only regret that we're going to have about oil in the future is that we wasted so much of it by burning it.
There was a terrible oil spill off the Santa Barbara coast some years ago. That's one reason there's big opposition to off-shore oil drilling in CA.

It's important to ween ourselves off of oil before we deplete what's there. We aren't going to be able to make more unless we figure out a way to produce some kind of synthetic from plant materials, and that might happen some day, maybe not. Yes, we have to stop burning oil. It's a waste, pollutes the air and is a huge contributor to global warming, which is evidently the greatest challenge we face right now.
 

imported_tajmahal

Diamond Member
Jul 9, 2009
9,093
1,048
136
Oooops, looks like that clock just got turned back a bit.


"Supreme Court Justice John Roberts granted the Trump administration a stay Friday night in a climate lawsuit several young people leveled against the government.

The Trump administration repeatedly asked both the SCOTUS and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to stop the trial through a writ of mandamus, a rarely used judicial tool allowing a higher court to overrule a lower court before a verdict is made. Roberts granted mandamus after the 9th Circuit twice turned down the writ.

The 21 plaintiffs, all between the ages of 11 and 22, are arguing that federal officials violated their due process rights by allowing the fossil fuel industry to release greenhouse gas emissions, despite knowing for years that such emissions can cause climate change. (RELATED: Washington Throws Out Climate Lawsuit Brought By Environmentalists Using Children As Props)

The plaintiffs are seeking a court order requiring the federal government to implement an “enforceable national remedial plan” phasing out carbon emissions in an effort to stabilize the climate and protect the environment. Their case — Juliana v. United States — has survived several attempts by the government to torpedo the case after it was originally filed in 2015."


https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/20/supreme-court-kids-climate/
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY