Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
spectreman
Trad climber
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2017 - 12:01pm PT
|
Yeah, sue the oil companies, what a cop out. It surely doesn't have anything to do with all of us consumers who use the oil for just about every aspect of our lives.
|
|
Bushman
climber
The state of quantum flux
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2017 - 12:21pm PT
|
Oil is the drug, and the oil companies are business people. As long as we keep paying for it they'll keep drilling, refining, and supplying it to us. We are killing life on this planet with every flick of the switch and turn of the key. We are all guilty.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2017 - 07:13am PT
|
It does seem like something needs to be done, but maybe the most cost effective way to deal with climate change would be to dig giant trenches so that flood water can drain out more quickly, or do whatever they do in the Netherlands to stop flooding?
Remember there's nothing that can be done about China, Russia, India, and other countries emitting huge amounts of CO2, so the best thing seems to be to try to adapt. (I was surprised to see that China emits 30% of CO2--we're still much higher per capita, but nature doesn't care about per capita.)
Oh and I see that Canada emits just about the same amount of CO2 per capita as the US. It's very slightly lower, but not significant, and if you adjust for rural/urban mix, my guess Canada may be substantially higher.
|
|
skcreidc
Social climber
SD, CA
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2017 - 07:19am PT
|
That's an interesting data set Malemute. How about per capita methane (and heavier) gas release? I wonder if that data is available. Might have to cut Alaska some slack since they should be getting a bump from melting permafrost.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2017 - 11:56am PT
|
The only thing you can do about China, Russia, etc. is to lead by example and enter treaties where we keep up our part.
The most cost effective way to deal with climate change in the long term is to reduce emissions. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. However there may be after the fact things like carbon sequestration that are economically and politically feasible.
I don't think we should have drastic reductions in fossil fuels if it comes at a big economic cost. That wouldn't fly politically anyway. But we should be doing everything we can to lower our emissions without really negatively impacting the overall economy. Such as investing in renewable energy, requiring better mpg in new vehicles, better energy efficiency in new buildings, etc. Many of these things will make us more competitive in the global economy anyway. The problem with that is it does often impact the bottom line of oil companies who make a ton of money off the status quo so they are using very underhanded tactics to sow doubt that there really is a problem and that fossil fuel emissions are a big part of it.
The climate is an incredibly complex system with a lot of factors we don't fully understand. But just the facts that atmospheric CO2 has jumped 40% higher than it's been for at least a half a million years and that coincides with humans emitting CO2 and temperatures rising more rapidly than natural factors would likely cause shows it's VERY likely fossil fuels are contributing to climate change and are perhaps the biggest factor in it. It just makes economic sense to deal with it now instead of pretending there's not a problem and having much more severe economic and other impacts later.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2017 - 01:41pm PT
|
"maybe the most cost effective way to deal with climate change would be to dig giant trenches so that flood water can drain out more quickly, or do whatever they do in the Netherlands to stop flooding?"
Do you understand the concept of "sea level"?
Not especially well, no.
That's why I said we should consider doing what they do in NL.
For anyone who's interested in learning anything and not just making snarky comments, check out https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/15/world/europe/climate-change-rotterdam.html
although I've seen similar articles in the past few years
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2017 - 02:16pm PT
|
Pay now, or pay a helluva lot more later. In lives, in destruction.
How much do you pay now vs. later?
Sea level is projected to rise 1-4 feet by 2100. That's a 400% range. Do you weigh today's economic impact against 1 foot or 4 feet? Politically we'd be lucky to consider 1 foot.
Also what do you consider drastic. I went from a vehicle in the 90s that got about 20 mpg to one that gets 45 mpg today. A 125% improvement which is great, but I wouldn't call it a drastic impact to me because I can still go where I want.
We are working towards solar panels and electric cars with a huge reduction in lifetime emissions. But we'll have to use existing energy sources until we get there, otherwise there could be a big economic collapse which would also cost many human lives (although the natural world would be better for it).
|
|
AidanPunts
Sport climber
Victoria, BC
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2017 - 04:29pm PT
|
For anyone really interested, Learning to Die in the Anthropocene is a really cool book about Climate Change. Interestingly, the book argues that we've already missed the chance to save our civilization, and presents a well sourced and disturbingly convincing case. Basically there's two scenarios ahead of us.
#1 We do exactly what we're doing now. Gradually altering infrastructure at a rate far too slow to stop the effects of climate change, and signing essentially meaningless longterm agreements. The effects of climate change will come since we're clearly not doing enough to change its course, water levels will rise significantly, which will cause a global refugee crisis on a scale we cannot even really imagine. There is not enough infrastructure to provide for the number of people displaced from their homes and there will be global famine, and rioting as people fight to save themselves and their families. Global civilization will collapse and millions if not billions of people will die. Followed by the inevitable result of a runaway greenhouse effect which is demonstrated perfectly by our celestial neighbour Venus. As the carbon dioxide cooks from the arctic ice sheets the heat from the sun will prompt even further evaporation of water creating even more greenhouse effect. This will continue in this cycle until the atmosphere begins cooking the carbon dioxide out of the very rocks themselves and shortly thereafter we'll be left with a planet of hydrosulfuric acid rain, and an atmosphere hot enough to melt lead.
I had always thought that this just meant that we needed to completely shift to a carbon negative society and we could fix it but as people opposed to these measures are ready to point out its not that simple.
#2
The world collectively goes carbon negative averting the climate disaster and ensuring the survival of the planet. However, the costs to switching the entirety of the planet's infrastructure from Hydrocarbons to renewables on a dime would trigger a global economic collapse that would make the great depression seem like child's play. The world economy cannot sustain such a massive shift in infrastructure, and like in scenario #1. People will starve, unable to provide for their families, social unrest will explode into massive riots, and likely again, the collapse of global civilization as we know it.
Either way we're f*#ked.
|
|
Jon Beck
Trad climber
Oceanside
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2017 - 04:38pm PT
|
good opportunity to thank everyone who helped elect a climate denier president. You have blood on your hands.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2017 - 12:21pm PT
|
"What would be different..?"
already in 6 months the ignorant Donny has put industry puppets in charge of the EPA, ruined NASA climate projects, trying to alter scientific reports about renewables, is killing the CAFE future rules, propping up the coal industry whenever possible, subsidizing oil pipelines to tar sands (this is not just approval - whenever a pipeline crosses public land, an easement is given away for free, which is a subsidy.)
MORE IMPORTANTLY,
It's not just this election. The same thing has happened in every election for DECADES. The denialist liars have won enough votes to prevent significant policy change. First they denied climate change. Now they blame China. But WE rich countries are the leaders and have to set the example; only then can we get others to follow. Bush Jr was a key denier in opposing all needed actions, installing oil and coal pigs to rewrite major scientific climate reports. He opposed even getting started on enforceable Global Treaties. All such global policies would of course evolve and be updated every few years. But we instead complained that the first steps were not perfect enough, as if that is an excuse to do nothing. We failed to enact any meaningful carbon taxes. This should have started in 1980 when first proposed by John Anderson. Any little thing proposed by Obama was immediately proclaimed as communist by the republican corrupticians, led by fossil fuel industry bribes and fake reports from Koch, ALEC, Heartland, CATO, AEI, Exxon, etc. By now we should be on the FIFTH round of Global Climate control. Instead we've done next to nothing.
ha ha ha isn't that just funny giggles
edit: I see the denier/troll/kook who I was replying to has already deleted their ignorant post.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2017 - 02:18pm PT
|
The Hypocrite Card has been pulled.
Typical,you cannot be against something if you are part of the problem.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
I'm getting closer and closer to quitting my job to work on this problem in some capacity (for pay). There are so many parts to the problem that, although your first reaction might be to just throw up your hands, humans working together can accomplish quite a lot. The main goal has to be to reduce human suffering to the extent possible. The climate changes themselves, at this point, are likely unavoidable. The reduction of human suffering is not. It will require a lot of effort and ingenuity.
|
|
mynameismud
climber
backseat
|
|
#2
The world collectively goes carbon negative averting the climate disaster and ensuring the survival of the planet. However, the costs to switching the entirety of the planet's infrastructure from Hydrocarbons to renewables on a dime would trigger a global economic collapse that would make the great depression seem like child's play. The world economy cannot sustain such a massive shift in infrastructure, and like in scenario #1. People will starve, unable to provide for their families, social unrest will explode into massive riots, and likely again, the collapse of global civilization as we know it.
I do not agree with this. Instead of creating global collapse in my opinion it will do the opposite. It will create a ton of jobs as new technologies are created plus the jobs needed to create the new infrastructure. Instead of a collapse it will be an economic boom. Just look at how many new jobs there are in CA for solar implementation and maintenance. Solar has the potential to replace jobs lost to automation.
|
|
skcreidc
Social climber
SD, CA
|
|
Irma is a real beauty from space. But having her bearing down on you would be ugly. Very ugly.
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
Funny thing how Gov. Scott of Florida can't abide anyone even MENTIONING atmospheric sciences in one context....but he's happy to urge millions of people to evacuate when the very same science says there's a hurricane coming, and, with relatively high probability, where it will likely arrive. That microscopic fraction of deniers is not even as rigorous as one of the spaghetti modeling tracks that shows Irma heading harmlessly way out into the Atlantic. Why didn't he just tell everyone, maybe it won't hit us at all, just stay home and chill out??
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!