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

[Hayabusa Rider]

We already know the GOP will do nothing about this, and actually have gone out of their way to hide data and prevent honest discussion.

Sadly, even if the Democrats get back into power, asking the public to make sacrifices about anything, let alone on the scale that studies are suggesting is needed is a quick way to just get voted back to oblivion again.

We'd all better hope that the scientists are wrong, or that some miracle solution based on future tech comes out of nowhere to save us. The country was willing to sacrifice during WWII, I have a hard time seeing it happen for this, when half the country just thinks all the scientists have some kind of leftist agenda sponsored by Soros or something. In other words, we are probably fucked.

This is doable and sacrifices are hardly needed on the line of WWII. Cut the military budget by $300 billion, research, develop and deploy ASAP. Right now this is the equivalent of a world

LOL. FUD.

I don't mind if you wish to commit suicide, but choose a method which leaves other the option to live.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I do turn off my computer when I'm not using it. I ride my bike to work. I keep my thermostat set at 60 F in the winter. No, I don't want the feel good social justice warrior high. I realize that my individual actions are not enough to correct for this. Only collective action taken through legislation is going to avert a serious future crisis. There is vast consensus for this among experts.

Well aren't you the hero, you put some arbitrary comfort level ever so slightly lower than the average. Carry on having to sacrifice so much for humanity, having to wear long sleeves in the winter and turning off your PC (I turn mine off too, but that's only to save pump life). Preach it on the internet.

Neither here nor there.

Did you look up the different birth rates?

No, don't have to. I'm sure they are significantly higher in the third world. I'm also sure someone in American (or other first world citizen) uses comparatively a lot more resources than someone in the third world.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Slow is well, slow, but the best way to fight climate change (and all other forms of environmental damage) is to have fewer kids. Here is one of many links discussing it: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children

Insult aside, I think the ultimate issue is our population boom more than anything.

Bill Burr gets it. (NSFW language)

 

[Moonbeam]

The decision-makers are people whose privilege makes them immune to threats. They are used to being able to solve their personal problems with money.

 

[Jaskalas]

Emission have to pretty much go to preindustrial levels between one and two decades because the oxygen producing plankton will die off and we'll suffocate.

Citation?

No one, and I mean NO ONE, would be campaigning on weather, melting ice, or sea level rise if they thought such a mass extinction event was occurring as a result on CO2. There'd be nothing more important or critical than to focus on that. Thus far, scientists and activists have not made your narrative a central issue. Why is that?

 

[umbrella39]

Yeah, those scientists don't know what the hell they're talking about. Conservatives, champions of ignorance.

Ignore sock puppet terrorists...

 

[balloonshark]

I would rather take drastic steps now rather than spray stuff in the sky later to try and fix the problem.

So what's the deal with that CO2 scrubber company in Canada that turns CO2 into fuel? Is it a viable option for mass production?

 

[SlowSpyder]

The decision-makers are people whose privilege makes them immune to threats. They are used to being able to solve their personal problems with money.

Another leftist talking point that is part of the reason Trump won. You don't know my life story or challenges, to label me with "privilege" is to dismiss any hard work I've done to raise myself up and become something. It isn't privilege because my dad stuck around, that should be the baseline. I'm not privileged in getting minority scholarships or benefiting from affirmative action. Money I have is money I've earned through being a skilled worker that puts in a lot of effort. Don't confuse privilege with effort.

 

[dank69]

Another leftist talking point that is part of the reason Trump won. You don't know my life story or challenges, to label me with "privilege" is to dismiss any hard work I've done to raise myself up and become something. It isn't privilege because my dad stuck around, that should be the baseline. I'm not privileged in getting minority scholarships or benefiting from affirmative action. Money I have is money I've earned through being a skilled worker that puts in a lot of effort.

Didn't realize you were a decision maker. Which district do you represent?

 

[repoman0]

Another leftist talking point that is part of the reason Trump won. You don't know my life story or challenges, to label me with "privilege" is to dismiss any hard work I've done to raise myself up and become something. It isn't privilege because my dad stuck around, that should be the baseline. I'm not privileged in getting minority scholarships or benefiting from affirmative action. Money I have is money I've earned through being a skilled worker that puts in a lot of effort. Don't confuse privilege with effort.

lol that you think he was referring to you, a brainwashed peasant.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Didn't realize you were a decision maker. Which district do you represent?

lol that you think he was referring to you, a brainwashed peasant.

He's said the same mumbo jumbo before. I vote, I donate to Trump (my MAGA hat is boss), NRA has some of my money will continue to get more. I am not an elected official, but I'm active in our Democratic process.

 

[mect]

Well aren't you the hero, you put some arbitrary comfort level ever so slightly lower than the average. Carry on having to sacrifice so much for humanity, having to wear long sleeves in the winter and turning off your PC (I turn mine off too, but that's only to save pump life). Preach it on the internet.

That's the fucking point if you weren't too dumb and ignorant to catch it. Until we pass legislation that sets specific goals and targets for a collected group of individuals to make a concerted effort towards the problem, the only thing individuals can do is make token gestures that don't really make any significant difference. This is why it needs to be handled at a policy level, but ignorant cry babies like you that are more worried about the social injustices white men are experiencing are hanging up that process buy electing morons like Trump that promote the increased consumption of fossil fuels. But hey, the financial numbers are up! Who cares if we burn the world down in the process (quite literally if fire seasons continue on the same trend they've been on). I prefer my preaching of science to your preaching of ignorance. But go ahead, go back to your focus on all the injustices you face in life as a white male. Go back to worrying about the PC of the left. I don't really hope to get through to the willfully ignorant, but there might be some people that are actually interested in learning something, that trust actual scientists over "common sense", and that care about preserving the planet for future generations without the planet going through a cycle of mother nature implement population reduction. All because we can't stomach focusing 2.5% of our GDP to solve this problem.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I don't mind if you wish to commit suicide, but choose a method which leaves other the option to live.

You're misunderstanding, that's his fix for over population, Fuck the earth, reset.

 

[nakedfrog]

You're misunderstanding, that's his fix for over population, Fuck the earth, reset.

Hey, he got his, and that's what's important here.

 

[Genx87]

Honest question. Is there technology today we can use to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere and store it underground?

 

[mect]

Honest question. Is there technology today we can use to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere and store it underground?

Yes and no. I'm not aware of any large scale deployments of such technology, but it has been done at smaller levels. The challenge with implementing something like this is that the flue gas emissions from a typical power plant are absolutely staggering (which is where you would optimally remove the CO2 because its at the highest concentration). Just dealing with gas flows that are that large is a significant technological challenge.

 

[Commodus]

Honest question. Is there technology today we can use to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere and store it underground?

There are technologies that capture CO2 from factories and power plants. They're still young, but if this report is even vaguely on the mark, we need them everywhere.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Honest question. Is there technology today we can use to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere and store it underground?

Yeah, we call 'em trees where I'm from. Unfortunately we're killing them faster than they're growing, too.

EDIT: Oh, also, we dug up all the stored CO2 and burned that, too. Because reasons.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Honest question. Is there technology today we can use to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere and store it underground?

Save the rain forest.

 

[Genx87]

Yeah, we call 'em trees where I'm from. Unfortunately we're killing them faster than they're growing, too.

EDIT: Oh, also, we dug up all the stored CO2 and burned that, too. Because reasons.

I understand trees. But I am curious about something that can sit out in the open pulling CO2 out of the air. I know they have scrubbers on power plants. But something that actually pulls it out vs reducing it from a large source. To me that seems like a more feasible approach to this problem than whole scale curbing entire economies. We know China wont sign on and neither will India or Russia. And the majority of the world is just developing.

I did a quick search and found this technology is early. But one that caught my attention if it actually works. An artificial tree that pulls 1 ton of carbon out of the atmosphere a day.

 

[Stokely]

Citation?

No one, and I mean NO ONE, would be campaigning on weather, melting ice, or sea level rise if they thought such a mass extinction event was occurring as a result on CO2. There'd be nothing more important or critical than to focus on that. Thus far, scientists and activists have not made your narrative a central issue. Why is that?

Scientists have been warning about Climate Change for a long time now, some earlier than others. The public largely could give a shit what they have to say, so the politicians won't either. Besides, this is less about what "definitely will" happen than what "could happen"--politicians would far rather punt on this issue than stake their careers on what scientists say, because it's not a certain thing. To me, "Conservative" means we play things safely and take preventive measures just in case, not the exact opposite. We buy insurance, we board up our houses when a hurricane nears, and sometimes it isn't needed. But if you are wrong, it's bad.

Scientists look at possibilities and ranges, nobody knows how "bad" Climate Change will be or how hot it can get and still support our societies for that matter. We can choose to have honest discussions about the data, or we can just put our team hats on and put our heads in the sand...who knows, maybe we'll get lucky.

 

[dank69]

Yes and no. I'm not aware of any large scale deployments of such technology, but it has been done at smaller levels. The challenge with implementing something like this is that the flue gas emissions from a typical power plant are absolutely staggering (which is where you would optimally remove the CO2 because its at the highest concentration). Just dealing with gas flows that are that large is a significant technological challenge.

It kills the efficiency to the point that it is counterproductive.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Citation?

No one, and I mean NO ONE, would be campaigning on weather, melting ice, or sea level rise if they thought such a mass extinction event was occurring as a result on CO2. There'd be nothing more important or critical than to focus on that. Thus far, scientists and activists have not made your narrative a central issue. Why is that?

Here's a primer.

https://web.uri.edu/smile/files/Save-the-Plankton-Breathe-Freely1.pdf

The popular press and others aren't very good at looking ahead. As far as scientists they already know that phytoplankton cannot evolve quickly enough to adapt and if you don't believe that temperature matters then I suggest you study the migratory and breeding behaviors of the Great Whales. They move to colder waters because that's where the food is. Warmer waters are virtual deserts.

It's not going to happen at 1.5C, current thought is close to 5C. Why don't scientists fret about that? Some I've asked say that if steps are takes to prevent a 2 degree rise or so then phytoplankton death isn't a people killer and face it that's all we give a shit about. Of course there's an inherent inertia so waiting long to take drastic actions means that even with zero carbon emissions temps will climb. One thing to think about is what's happening in the polar regions. Lakes are thawing and amounts of methane are being released at far greater rates that expected, and of course that creates a positive feedback. That's another concern about killing temps, when does feedback exceed the ability to compensate for increased greenhouse gasses? Things look worse year after year if one keeps up with the literature.

 

[dank69]

I understand trees. But I am curious about something that can sit out in the open pulling CO2 out of the air. I know they have scrubbers on power plants. But something that actually pulls it out vs reducing it from a large source. To me that seems like a more feasible approach to this problem than whole scale curbing entire economies. We know China wont sign on and neither will India or Russia. And the majority of the world is just developing.

I did a quick search and found this technology is early. But one that caught my attention if it actually works. An artificial tree that pulls 1 ton of carbon out of the atmosphere a day.

China is pumping tons of money into renewables.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I understand trees. But I am curious about something that can sit out in the open pulling CO2 out of the air. I know they have scrubbers on power plants. But something that actually pulls it out vs reducing it from a large source. To me that seems like a more feasible approach to this problem than whole scale curbing entire economies. We know China wont sign on and neither will India or Russia. And the majority of the world is just developing.

I did a quick search and found this technology is early. But one that caught my attention if it actually works. An artificial tree that pulls 1 ton of carbon out of the atmosphere a day.

Sometimes there isn't a free lunch. We've ripped millions (billions?) of tons of CO2 out of the planet's crust and freed it into the atmosphere. It took the earth millions of years to sequester that, and we've re-released it in about 300. Really really hard to shove that particular genie back in the bottle.