Climate Change: Why aren't more people concerned about it?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 2721 - 2740 of total 3058 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
WBraun

climber
Dec 6, 2018 - 09:30am PT
As more water runs off the ice sheet, it drives sea level rise,

Yes all that water will go into the ocean and then sun will take it and make clouds, rain will fall everywhere and make crops grow everywhere and everyone will live happily ever after .....
TradMike

Trad climber
Cincinnati, Ohio
Dec 7, 2018 - 09:55am PT
I think the big thing that people are not seeing is the collapse of the oceans and what impact that would have. Once the ocean gets too acidic due to all the carbon we are dumping into it and add to it all fertilizer aka the nitrogen we are dumping into it and then add some more heat, you get a toxic mess. It will take the forms of red tides, algae, seaweed as the foreshadowing. Then everything collapses and all oxygen disappears. Anyone who has dabbled with a saltwater fish tanks knows the cycle and what happens when the nitrates build up too much. You can do a water change in a fish tank to reduce nitrates but who will do an Ocean water change before it collapses? Everyone thought the oceans were soo vast that it wouldn't happen but it is starting and this is what scares me the most. Forget about climate change, we won't be able to breath since most of our oxygen comes from the oceans. Global population is the blame. Whoever said that the Nitrogen cycle is the problem is correct. Carbon is just a side problem to our bigger problem.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141127212346.htm
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Dec 7, 2018 - 10:25am PT
[Click to View Linked Image]

I don't see a problem.
clifff

Mountain climber
golden, rollin hills of California
Dec 7, 2018 - 01:36pm PT
Abrupt Warming - How Much And How Fast?

How much could temperatures rise? As the image shows, a rise of more than 10°C (18°F) could take place, resulting in mass extinction of man...

[Click to View Linked Image]

http://arctic-news.blogspot.com
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Dec 7, 2018 - 11:15pm PT
No one is really talking about "killing the planet" or the end of the world.
The issue is changing it very significantly, enough to change society as we know it, in which case the impacts and costs of adapting are more than the cost of reducing GHGs in the first place.


Punitive action is a good term for those who spew lots of GHGs imposing huge impacts on other people who don't.
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Dec 8, 2018 - 07:42am PT
^ wrong
See the constantly increasing Keeling curve above.

The Planet Has Seen Sudden Warming Before. It Wiped Out Almost Everything.
In some ways, the planet's worst mass extinction — 250 million years ago, at the end of the Permian Period — may parallel climate change today.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/07/science/climate-change-mass-extinction.html

Temperature-dependent hypoxia explains biogeography and severity of end-Permian marine mass extinction
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6419/eaat1327



the rate of CO2 growth has not decreased
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/04/17/co2-status-report/

[Click to View Linked Image]
Fun with (Keeling) curve fitting
https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x202145
^ note that the 2008 prediction for 2018 is good

[Click to View Linked Image]
^ does this look like it is decreasing? No
maybe the rate of change is decreasing? No



[Click to View Linked Image]
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=11453
clifff

Mountain climber
golden, rollin hills of California
Dec 8, 2018 - 09:07am PT
Awakening the Horrors of the Ancient Hothouse — Hydrogen Sulfide in the World’s Warming Oceans

“Dead Cthulu waits dreaming…” H.P. Lovecraft

In the 1930s, pulp horror writer H.P. Lovecraft penned tales of ancient monsters called Old Ones that, if awakened, would emerge to devour the world. One of these horrors, Cthulu, lay in death’s sleep in his house called R’lyeh at the bottom of the Baltic Sea (Charles Stross) awaiting some impetus to disturb him from necrotic slumber (ironically, the Baltic sea bed contains one of the world’s highest concentrations of the deadly hydrogen-sulfide producing bacteria that are a focus of this article).

https://robertscribbler.com/2014/01/21/awakening-the-horrors-of-the-ancient-hothouse-hydrogen-sulfide-in-the-worlds-warming-oceans/
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Dec 9, 2018 - 10:42am PT
United States sided with Russia, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in blocking endorsement of a landmark study on global warming.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/climate-talks-break-as-u-s-russia-block-endorsement-of-key-report-1.4210835

Lituya

Mountain climber
Dec 9, 2018 - 11:23am PT
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/who-pays-for-a-carbon-tax-no-one-knows-e2-80-94-thats-the-problem/ar-BBQI7FG

The popularity of carbon taxes on the green left is understandable, if naïve. Imposing a tax on the consumption of anything predictably reduces the quantity of the taxed thing that people are willing to consume. The trouble is that no one knows who will bear the burden of a carbon tax; what economists call tax "incidence."
TLP

climber
Dec 9, 2018 - 02:09pm PT
It's a huge digression to sidetrack into the many flaws in that piece, so how about starting off by advocating instantly eliminating all of the huge subsidies, depletion allowances, cheap sole source deals for public land, get-out-of-jail-free cards for environmental and health costs from air and water pollution, public costs for inadequately disposed coal wastes, and other bogus anti-free-market cash cows that the fossil fuel industries benefit from. Why do we just about never hear any "conservative" outcry about those? Gross hypocrisy for sure, and obviously being in on the cash take (at a minimum in terms of political campaign expenditures) is why.

There would be flaws in implementation, incidence, and so on of a carbon tax, but what we already have in terms of sweetheart deals for the fossil fuel industry is so totally corrupt, fraudulent, hypocritical, and costly to the public as it is, it could hardly be any worse. Fix those, or even if we just saw a lot of loud advocacy for fixing them from supposed free market advocates, and you'd see less of a clamor for carbon tax.
EdwardT

Trad climber
Retired
Dec 10, 2018 - 06:25am PT
CoalSwarm published a report on September 26 warning that 259 gigawatts of coal power capacity – equivalent to the entire coal power fleet of the United States – is being built in China despite government policies restricting new builds.

This blog reported last month that China was building 46 gigawatts of coal power that had been shelved or suspended, and which was discovered by CoalSwarm through an analysis of satellite imagery.

The new estimate by CoalSwarm takes the 46 gigawatts found by satellite imagery and adds other projects in the pre-construction/construction phase, as well as 57 gigawatts of shelved projects that seem likely to go online in the near future.

Professor Yuan Jiahai of North China Electric Power University told chinadialogue that China loosened its restrictions on new coal-fired power construction in five provinces earlier this year. He is confident that China can keep its total coal power capacity within the 1100-gigawatt ceiling announced in the 13th Five-Year Plan, which runs through to 2020.

However, China’s coal power capacity already stands at 993 gigawatts, leading CoalSwarm to warn that the sector’s resurgence is wildly out of line with the Paris Agreement, which commits countries to limiting the average global temperature rise from climate change by 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial period.

Facts on the ground

Satellite imagery reveals that many coal-fired power projects that were halted by the Chinese government have quietly restarted.

Analysis by CoalSwarm estimates that 46.7 gigawatts of new and restarted coal-fired power construction is visible based on satellite imagery supplied by Planet Labs. The coal-fired power plants are either generating power or will soon be operational. If all the plants reach completion they would increase China’s coal-fired power capacity by 4%.

https://www.chinadialogue.net/blog/10761-China-is-building-coal-power-again/en?fbclid=IwAR3VotOwyRDS-calIGhGCU6A34aEq4p4PlgrqyitbXBWmLGCjpfBnB5VxaY
Bad Climber

Trad climber
The Lawless Border Regions
Dec 10, 2018 - 08:08am PT
Didn't China sign on to the Paris climate change dealio? This is hilarious and totally predictable and, whether you like it or not, why Trump pulled out. The agreement is a joke, and the Chi-coms are laughing their asses off. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but anyone who thought differently, well, time to wake up and smell the climate change coffee. Bummer. #VANLIFE!

BAd
clifff

Mountain climber
golden, rollin hills of California
Dec 10, 2018 - 09:29am PT
Much of the mercury we're poisoned with comes from coal burning:

Mercury, the other geologically persistent planetary poison

Because of mercury’s tendency to recycle after it deposits, today there is more mercury deposition called “legacy anthropogenic”, meaning recycled from emission decades ago, than there is deposition of mercury we are emitting now. So just like for carbon, we are creating an accumulating load in the mercury cycle.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/10/mercury-the-other-geologically-persistent-planetary-poison/#more-21951
Lituya

Mountain climber
Dec 10, 2018 - 09:52am PT
Fix those, or even if we just saw a lot of loud advocacy for fixing them from supposed free market advocates, and you'd see less of a clamor for carbon tax.

There is no clamor for a carbon tax--except, maybe, among elites. Even here in liberal Washington State, I-1631 carbon tax at $15/ton was recently shot down overwhelmingly. And in France, the imposition of new fuel taxes to pay for alternative energy has opened up a whole can of anti-govt fervor. So, if you want nothing to get done about a very real problem, well, keep up with the whole govt carbon tax scheme.

photo not found
Missing photo ID#545950

Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Dec 10, 2018 - 01:55pm PT
Actually the carbon fee was defeated in Washington 56% to 44%, decisive but not a landslide, even though it was actually a minor fee.

What this says to me:
Most people are too selfish and apparently expect some magical policy to fix this problem. It will be magic because they will never have to do anything until after everyone else has already complied.
This is actually the same thing I said on the first ST thread on this subject around 14 years ago. (A long-ago deleted thread).

Also, unless there is a USA federal push to limit GHGs, including an international enforcement mechanism, state unilateral policies such as this will only make a minor dent in slowing climate change.


https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/9/28/17899804/washington-1631-results-carbon-fee-green-new-deal

732 was the previous initiative in Washington a few years ago.
732 was a “revenue neutral” carbon tax, which means all the revenue raised by the tax would have been automatically returned as cuts in other taxes; the government would receive no new discretionary revenue to spend on carbon reductions or anything else. This is a longtime favorite climate policy among economists and wonks. It “taxes bads” and reduces distortionary taxes at once, all with no net increase in taxes, thus improving economic efficiency.

The tax under 732 would have started at $15 per ton in 2017, rising to $25 per ton in 2018, and then rising every year thereafter at 3.5 percent plus inflation, topping out at $100 a ton (in 2016 dollars). 732 was progressive — strongly so, maybe more so than the policy now being proposed in its stead. Its tax shifts (a cut in the state sales tax and full funding of the state’s working families tax rebate) were specifically designed to offset the regressive nature of the carbon tax. The net result would have left those lower on the income scale better off.

By contrast, 1631’s carbon fee would start at $15 per ton in 2020 and rise $2 a year (plus inflation) until 2035, where it would reach, depending on inflation, around $55. As long as the state is on track to hit its carbon targets, that’s where it will stay. After 732 failed, the 1631 coalition went all the way in the other direction from 732. Rather than returning all the carbon revenue in tax cuts, 1631 would return none of it in tax cuts. It would invest all of it. 1631’s lower carbon price means that it will rely a great deal on investment of the carbon revenue to achieve similar emission reductions.

“Frankly, this is an investment vehicle much more than a price signal,” said Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, who publicly backed 1631. “It’s a relatively low price signal, well below the real social cost of carbon. But you get the [carbon] savings from the investment side..."
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Dec 10, 2018 - 02:11pm PT
Didn't China sign on to the Paris climate change dealio? This is hilarious and totally predictable and, whether you like it or not, why Trump pulled out.

No, it is not why he pulled out. He completely denies climate change and would have pulled out even if every other country in the world were doing their part.

That was also the excuse given by Bush 43 why he pulled out of climate treaties. Pure rationalization. If Bush 43 had wanted an international agreement to work, he would have worked to improve it. Instead he ran away.

Some places such as the EU have been doing their part. Other rising countries like China and India are still greatly increasing coal usage.

If we want international policy on GHGs, there will have to be an enforcement mechanism. The west would have to gang up on China and India if they continue to build these coal plants, as they are doing. (This theoretical exercise assumes that the USA would do its part).

A very similar analog would be the WTO which is supposed to regulate free trade. China should never have been allowed into the WTO. It does not practice free trade. For 30 years they have promised to reduce all their protectionist policies and have extremely consistently failed to live up to their promises. The west has failed to agree as a whole on enforcement mechanisms. Trump is now attempting this, but he has made enemies everywhere and is mostly incompetent.
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Dec 10, 2018 - 02:26pm PT
I said "No one is really talking about "killing the planet" or the end of the world.
The issue is changing it very significantly, enough to change society as we know it, in which case the impacts and costs of adapting are more than the cost of reducing GHGs in the first place."

Malemute replied
^ wrong ...


Correct - there are possible truly catastrophic impacts that could wipe out much of civilization.
But those are not the consensus at this point.
The consensus is that we will only wipe out 10-20% of civilization if we continue on our present path. You would think that would be enough incentive to act, since it will be by far the biggest calamity ever. I'm just saying that to me killing the planet is more on the order of wiping out at least 40-50% of civilization. Shades of gray.
TLP

climber
Dec 10, 2018 - 02:43pm PT
So, Lituya, you don't advocate eliminating fossil fuel industry subsidies and other financial breaks that the rest of us pay for out of our pockets (or future pockets in the case of deficit spending that the Republican party has been wildly enthusiastic about starting with Reagan through Bush Jr. and now even worse with Trump)?

Seems to me that removing unfair and unjustified positive incentives to develop and burn ever more fossil fuels ought to be a popular idea on all sides, but I guess not since the so-called "conservative" political wing is actually in reality just the owned-by-the-fossil-fuel-industry political wing.

Edit to add: Splater is spot on, up a post or two. China and India are greatly increasing coal use (all the while China saying, but we're doing what we committed to). Bunch of BS, frankly. It is absolutely correct that it would take concerted trade action on the part of a lot of significant countries to reverse this suicide-by-coal, and the current regime in the U.S. is doing everything it possibly can to prevent such action and show by example that there is no hope for collective action, supporting increased fossil fuel use in every possible way. Personally, the one thing that's the most negative is the U-turn on vehicle fuel use standards, because had they remained, there would be a better chance of an electric or electric/on-board generator work vehicle of the type that I need to appear on the market.

The prognosis is extremely grim unless severe enough climate consequences occur in those super populous countries to be a reality check that they are screwing their own people worst in pursuit of a coal future. Even then, behind closed doors those leaders might very well be saying, oh well, we have too many people anyway, this megadisaster or annual toll of heat related deaths (in India) is kind of good for us.
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Dec 10, 2018 - 07:22pm PT
Tackle climate or face financial crash, say world's biggest investors

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/10/tackle-climate-or-face-financial-crash-say-worlds-biggest-investors



Splater, I think the extent of the consequences depends on the timescale.

And whether man's ability to burn fossil fuels is exterminated.
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Dec 11, 2018 - 10:08am PT
[Click to View Linked Image]

Unparalleled warmth is changing the Arctic and affecting weather in US, Europe

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/11/world/climate-change-arctic-report-card-2018-wxc/index.html
Messages 2721 - 2740 of total 3058 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta