Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth Government Politics

The Paris Climate Talks: Negotiating With the Atmosphere 130

Posted by Soulskill from the won't-even-sit-at-the-table-with-us dept.
Lasrick writes: The Paris climate change talks are in December, but what negotiators plan to propose will only be part of non-legally-binding pledges—and they represent only what is achievable without too much difficulty. 2009's Copenhagen Accord say 114 countries agree that global temperature increases should be held below 2 degrees Celsius. "Paradoxically, an accord that should have spurred the world to immediate action instead seemed to offer some breathing room. Two degrees was meant to be a ceiling, but repeated references to an internationally agreed-upon “threshold” led many people to believe that nothing really bad could happen below 2 degrees—or worse yet, that the number itself was negotiable." Dawn Stover writes about alternatives to the meaningless numbers and endless talks: 'The very idea that the Paris conference is a negotiation is ridiculous. You can't negotiate with the atmosphere."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Paris Climate Talks: Negotiating With the Atmosphere More

The Paris Climate Talks: Negotiating With the Atmosphere

Comments Filter:

  • Nobody cares about the climate, aside from the opportunities each disaster presents. In business, profit is the prime, if not the only, motive to be in business at all. Just make it more profitable to be clean.

    • Re:What is there to 'negotiate'? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by umafuckit ( 2980809 ) on Saturday September 05, 2015 @11:10AM (#50462397)

      Nobody cares about the climate, aside from the opportunities each disaster presents. In business, profit is the prime, if not the only, motive to be in business at all. Just make it more profitable to be clean.

      This will only happen by appropriately regulating businesses. Unfortunately our governments at best don't have balls to do it and at worst are in the pockets of the businesses they're supposed to be regulating. So instead they give us bullshit arguments about how regulation hurts our freedoms and nothing is done.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        It doesn't matter at this point anyway. Stopping global warming is a lost cause. The only thing left is to adapt.

      • This will only happen by appropriately regulating businesses. Unfortunately our governments at best don't have balls to do it and at worst are in the pockets of the businesses they're supposed to be regulating.

        Umm...more to the point in the United States at least the government doesn't have the right or the authority to "appropriately regulate business". At least not to the level you seem to want.

        What do you propose as a solution to the problem you are perceiving?

        Secondarily you know of course that other nations don't have the restrictions the United States is fortunate to have. What's stopping them from taking those actions you believe they need "the balls" do do?

        Feret

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Umm...more to the point in the United States at least the government doesn't have the right or the authority to "appropriately regulate business".

          It does, actually, both through interstate commerce and the treaty clause.

          Rick Perry may want to get rid of the EPA, pandering fool that he is, but an honest argument against it? Would never pass through a sane court.

          Secondarily you know of course that other nations don't have the restrictions the United States is fortunate to have. What's stopping them from taking those actions you believe they need "the balls" do do?

          You must have missed this bit:

          Unfortunately our governments at best don't have balls to do it and at worst are in the pockets of the businesses they're supposed to be regulating.

          So that would be the things stopping them.

        • Umm...more to the point in the United States at least the government doesn't have the right or the authority to "appropriately regulate business". At least not to the level you seem to want.

          Of course it has the ability. There are countless things that businesses can not do because they are against the law. New laws can be passed to limit what business can do. Businesses may not like it, but it s possible. The Glass-Steagall act is an example of restrictions placed on large businesses. It's also an example of what goes wrong when you take away the restrictions and allow said large businesses police themselves using the power of the so-called free market.

      • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Crashmarik ( 635988 )

        This will only happen by appropriately regulating businesses.

        If anybody actually wanted to live in a state where success and failure were decided by the government, who your friends were in government we could have just not fought the cold war.

        Here's a little hint for the past 25 years "appropriate government" regulation has done nothing but increase.

        The result smaller middle class, wage stagnation, greater concentration of wealth, and greater income inequality.

        Good job

        • Re:What is there to 'negotiate'? (Score:5, Funny)

          by ColdWetDog ( 752185 ) on Saturday September 05, 2015 @12:19PM (#50462651) Homepage

          While in "free market" Russia and China, the rising tide is lifting all boats, from the oligarch to the oil worker? Say what you like about excessive regulation in the US (which clearly exists and we should work on minimizing it), letting businessmen have free reign is anything but a panacea.

          In fact, it's fucking disaster.

          • The people in China would certainly disagree while Putin is hardly a free marketeer.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by tsotha ( 720379 )

            Actually, the average Chinese guy is far wealthier today than he was before economic liberalization. It's come at a cost to the environment in China, to be sure, but that's sort of the natural progression developing countries go through. There used to be rivers in the US that would actually burn, and even as late as the mid '60s when you got up to go to work in Pittsburgh there would be a layer of coal dust on your car.

            The older Chinese people still remember when the government ran everything. That's wh

            • The economic liberalization is the result of technology adoption.
              China has had an industrial revolution.
              The reason old Chinese people know the government ran everything because most old civilizations have an authoritarian structure.

            • Actually, the average Chinese guy is far wealthier today than he was before economic liberalization. It's come at a cost to the environment in China, to be sure, but that's sort of the natural progression developing countries go through. There used to be rivers in the US that would actually burn, and even as late as the mid '60s when you got up to go to work in Pittsburgh there would be a layer of coal dust on your car.

              The older Chinese people still remember when the government ran everything. That's when 30 million of them starved to death.

              China still contains a billion subsistence farmers lurking underneath that thriving industrial revolution.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by tsotha ( 720379 )
                A billion? No, more like 300k. But that's half the number you would have found a generation ago.

                • A billion? No, more like 300k. But that's half the number you would have found a generation ago.

                  OK, let's split the difference and call it 750k. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/C... [atimes.com]

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by tsotha ( 720379 )
                    I guess it depends on where you draw the line. From here [stats.gov.cn]:

                    According to the rural poverty line of annual per capita net income of 2,300 yuan (at 2010 constant prices), the population in poverty in rural areas numbered 82.49 million at the end of the year, or 16.50 million less than that at the end of 2012.

        • This will only happen by appropriately regulating businesses.

          If anybody actually wanted to live in a state where success and failure were decided by the government, who your friends were in government we could have just not fought the cold war.

          Here's a little hint for the past 25 years "appropriate government" regulation has done nothing but increase.

          The result smaller middle class, wage stagnation, greater concentration of wealth, and greater income inequality.

          Good job

          Nice try at obfuscation. Of course, we know that smaller middle class, wage stagnation, greater concentration of wealth, and greater income inequality have been on the increase SINCE YOUR BIRTH!!!! Don't try to palm responsibility off on "appropriate government" regulation. We know it's you.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by dywolf ( 2673597 )

          wow.

          that is Jane Q Public levels of bullshit, admitting the truth of things like "smaller middle class, wage stagnation, greater concentration of wealth, and greater income inequality" but completely missing the mark on their actual cause.

          • wow.

            that is Jane Q Public levels of bullshit, admitting the truth of things like "smaller middle class, wage stagnation, greater concentration of wealth, and greater income inequality" but completely missing the mark on their actual cause.

            Your carefully constructed reasoning is as always devastating in it's impact.
              Please call me a poopy head next, it saves me the trouble of taking apart thoughts other people have put in your head.

      • This will only happen by appropriately regulating businesses.

        So far the big reductions, such as the switch from coal to gas, LED lights, variable speed DC motors, more efficient HVAC, better insulation, have all been driven by the market, not "government regulation". So far, government imposed "solutions" such as carbon credits, shuttering nukes, and subsidy schemes, have accomplished little, or been counter-productive.

        • > So far the big reductions, such as the switch from coal to gas, LED lights, variable speed DC motors, more efficient HVAC, better insulation, have all been driven by the market, not "government regulation".

          Look again, and look more carefully, please. The restrictions on building new coal fired plants with less pollution, coupled with many other factors, have raised electricity prices: that is one of the market forces" involved. Government support of the switch and numerous projects at every level of go

        • So far, government imposed "solutions" such as carbon credits, shuttering nukes, and subsidy schemes, have accomplished little, or been counter-productive.

          Exactly. Because they're for show, not real solutions.

          • So far, government imposed "solutions" such as carbon credits, shuttering nukes, and subsidy schemes, have accomplished little, or been counter-productive.

            Exactly. Because they're for show, not real solutions.

            Because any party having the honesty to remove the direct and indirect subsidies for fossil fuels and adding a surcharge for the externalized costs (just include the adverse effects on health and agriculture) would be voted out instantly and never see the light of day again.

        • This will only happen by appropriately regulating businesses.

          So far the big reductions, such as the switch from coal to gas, LED lights, variable speed DC motors, more efficient HVAC, better insulation, have all been driven by the market, not "government regulation". So far, government imposed "solutions" such as carbon credits, shuttering nukes, and subsidy schemes, have accomplished little, or been counter-productive.

          Abraham Lincoln was a big proponent of government backing high-speed rail, and that turned out pretty well for the country.

      • 'Appropriately regulating businesses' is a concept diametrically opposed to the way capitalism works, though, and the organism of the genus capitalism, like any life-form, will fight tooth and nail to it's dying breath trying to preserve itself -- and it doesn't care how much collateral damage it causes in the process. We'd have to do away with capitalism entirely. But doing that starts people pointing fingers and yelling 'socialism!' or 'communism!', which while they're not terrible concepts on paper, they

        • 'Appropriately regulating businesses' is a concept diametrically opposed to the way capitalism works, though, and the organism of the genus capitalism,

          Capitalism, like democracy, is not a single thing. There are different ways we can structure capitalism just like there are different ways we can structure democracies. The capitalism we have ended up with is is virulent, but it doesn't need to be that way. You don't need to resort to "communism" to achieve this. The cries of "communism" that we hear from right wingers is just a way of diverting the discussion.

          • I'm not advocating socialism or communism, mind you, and I agree that capitalism, at least here in the United States, is running out of control at the moment. If I had all the answers I'd be running for public office myself, not just being a nigh-unto anonymous commenter on an obscure Internet website. Part of the problem is the world is effectively significantly smaller than it was even, say, 50 years ago, because fast tranport to the other side of the planet is relatively cheap, and even more so, instanta

        • 'Appropriately regulating businesses' is a concept diametrically opposed to the way capitalism works, though, and the organism of the genus capitalism, like any life-form, will fight tooth and nail to it's dying breath trying to preserve itself -- and it doesn't care how much collateral damage it causes in the process. We'd have to do away with capitalism entirely. But doing that starts people pointing fingers and yelling 'socialism!' or 'communism!', which while they're not terrible concepts on paper, they, like most all things involving humans, overlooks a fundamental fact: Humans can't be trusted with the sort of power that leading a socialist or communist society gives them; power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We need to evolve further as a race before many of the problems we have as a race will be solved. I fear that won't happen before it's too late, though.

          there are plenty of european countries which have neither done away with capitalism entirely, nor become absolutely corrupt.

      • This will only happen by appropriately regulating businesses.

        That's nonsense. Businesses already have a strong incentive for reducing energy consumption because energy is already expensive, even without regulation.

        Unfortunately our governments at best don't have balls to do it and at worst are in the pockets of the businesses they're supposed to be regulating. So instead they give us bullshit arguments about how regulation hurts our freedoms and nothing is done.

        Given the regulatory binge that the US governm

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tsotha ( 720379 )

        Unfortunately our governments at best don't have balls to do it and at worst are in the pockets of the businesses they're supposed to be regulating.

        That's only a tiny part of it. Public enthusiasm for CO2 reduction wilts pretty quickly when the public is asked to make sacrifices.

        • Unfortunately our governments at best don't have balls to do it and at worst are in the pockets of the businesses they're supposed to be regulating.

          That's only a tiny part of it. Public enthusiasm for CO2 reduction wilts pretty quickly when the public is asked to make sacrifices.

          that's why you point out to them after 9/11 that stopping our dependency on oil would get us out from being stuck with the Middle East, and they see that the "sacrifice" is worth it. Instead, in typical Republican fashion, we double down on the bad idea, recommit to fossil fuels, and send troops into the Middle East.

    • Just make it more profitable to be clean.

      Since energy is probably the single largest input into most products, businesses already have a strong incentive to reduce energy usage, and have had that incentive since long before carbon taxes and government subsidies for "clean energy".

      • Since energy is probably the single largest input into most products, businesses already have a strong incentive to reduce energy usage, and have had that incentive since long before carbon taxes and government subsidies for "clean energy".

        Sure, but that usage isn't zero...

        The trick is, clean energy costs more than dirty energy... that is what he was talking about...

        I can get clean power for my business, but it costs about 3 cents more per kWh than dirty energy.

        • The trick is, clean energy costs more than dirty energy.

          Indeed, it does. And that's what I'm getting it. Fustakrakich said "Just make it more profitable to be clean.", as if everybody wins: businesses make more profits, we all get clean energy, and nothing else changes. But in reality, since you observe that "clean energy" is 3 cents more expensive per kWh, imposing the requirement to use "clean" energy through regulation raises prices, reduces demand, and probably reduces profits. It also reduces actual ec

          • Dirty energy is 'cheap' because the environmental and social costs are all but ignored by traditional economists. The environment is the source of all our material wealth, degrading the free and fundamental services it provides to human economic activity to save 3c/kwh simply does not make sense, let alone economic sense.

            The war in Syria is a contemporary example of those (admittedly difficult to quantify) costs. The unprecedented "once in 10,000 years" drought in the fertile crescent prior to the "arab

            • Dirty energy is 'cheap' because the environmental and social costs are all but ignored by traditional economists.

              Traditional economists are quite aware that externalities exist; they are simply honest enough to admit that they can't quantify them or who is actually bearing those costs. Progressive economists delude themselves into believing that they can quantify these costs, but in the end, they just end up being crony capitalists, forcefully extracting money from the population and giving it to politicall

        • Since energy is probably the single largest input into most products, businesses already have a strong incentive to reduce energy usage, and have had that incentive since long before carbon taxes and government subsidies for "clean energy".

          Sure, but that usage isn't zero...

          The trick is, clean energy costs more than dirty energy... that is what he was talking about...

          I can get clean power for my business, but it costs about 3 cents more per kWh than dirty energy.

          \ clean energy costs more, if you don't count the externalized costs of dirty energy. it's like saying crapping on my neighbor's lawn is cheaper than using my toilet and paying the water and sewer bills. if you count the costs of pollution simply on human health and agricultural production, the costs of coal in particular would make it prohibitive.

          • clean energy costs more, if you don't count the externalized costs of dirty energy. it's like saying crapping on my neighbor's lawn is cheaper than using my toilet and paying the water and sewer bills. if you count the costs of pollution simply on human health and agricultural production, the costs of coal in particular would make it prohibitive.

            That is a fair point, one that I don't actually have a big problem with.

            What doesn't work is the "carbon credits" or "cap and trade" nonsense that just allows people to go on polluting and creating a marketplace for "carbon".

            What DOES make sense is a straight carbon tax. You can burn all the gas, coal, and oil you want, but there is a cost to that, paid to the government in the form of taxes. This compensates everyone for the mess you're making.

            That is how you instantly make clean energy make sense, witho

  • I think, by and large, there is enough intelligence amongst World leaders that they are mostly for reducing anthropogenic contributions to climate change.

    Unfortunately, like each nation that would like to see crude production restricted in OPEC, it would be better for them if the other members could make the sacrifice(s).

    • Unfortunately, like each nation that would like to see crude production restricted in OPEC, it would be better for them if the other members could make the sacrifice(s).

      Most politicians are at an age where AGW simply isn't an issue to them at all, since they are going to be long dead by the time it matters.

      So, the questions they are asking are: (1) does this issue bring me votes (or political support in non-democratic nations), and (2) will history remember me for taking on this issue.

      As far as (1) is conce

      • Good point.

        The lack of political will, the courage to do the right thing despite negative personal consequence, is the hallmark of the modern, career politician.

        Don't you think term limits could fix that quite rapidly?

        • The lack of political will, the courage to do the right thing despite negative personal consequence, is the hallmark of the modern, career politician. Don't you think term limits could fix that quite rapidly?

          I don't see why. With term limits, politicians simply are going to shift their motivations from getting votes to getting cushy private sector jobs when they get out.

  • Politics Feh (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nefus ( 952656 ) on Saturday September 05, 2015 @11:19AM (#50462439) Homepage
    I remember when nobody posted politics on Slashdot. You guys have ruined a perfectly good site by trying to turn it into a political evangelism site. Can we stick to technology related issues please? I'm sure a lot of you will vote me down for saying these things but how many people have stopped coming here because Slashdot isn't a great place to see cutting edge information any more. There is far too much political demagoguery here, it is depressing.

    • Look at the name of the editor that posted this.

      If that isn't a giant warning sign what is ?

    • Re:Politics Feh (Score:4, Informative)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Saturday September 05, 2015 @12:21PM (#50462661)

      I remember when nobody posted politics on Slashdot.

      No you don't. Slashdot has always had some articles with a political slant.

      • And people have always complained about it and wished it didn't happen. Remember Jon Katz and his idiot stories? Look at the site, comments are down globally, it's not uncommon to have 20-50 comments when there used to be 150-300. You see the same damn people modded up everywhere, diversity of opinion is lost as other people get disgusted with the situation and leave. It's going to happen to me, too, one of these days, and I've been around since this site was a weblog, high userid notwithstanding.

        • Re:Politics Feh (Score:5, Insightful)

          by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Saturday September 05, 2015 @01:17PM (#50462903)

          And people have always complained about it and wished it didn't happen.

          Some people complain. Others have figured out that if an article doesn't interest them, they can NOT CLICK ON IT. Others, including me, think it is interesting to read about politics from a nerdy point of view.

          it's not uncommon to have 20-50 comments when there used to be 150-300.

          Slashdot is dying, but I am not sure that is because of "politics". Political stories tend to have the most comments.

          • The endless drumbeat of politics stories, almost always carrying the same bias, acts to create disgust and drive people away. There used to be a whole lot less of them. The fact that some seem to like it now? It means the old users have all left and new asswipes have come in to establish the new normal. That's how it usually works in web forums.

    • While the level of political discourse usually is just a tad better than on Fox News or Slate, it is probably a good idea that the technologically inclined start thinking about something more relevant than the next processor tick or the personal hygiene of free software zealots.

      The real work is complicated and ugly, frustrating and annoying but it is there and most of us will have to deal with at some point.

    • There's too much science here. Who really cares about 2 degrees? Lots of predictions, statistical projections, meaningless numbers and scientific papers... I want blood and gore! I want great debates and powerful forces aligned with questionable business practices. Face it people, there is no life in science, the life is in the arguments that come after. More politics, please!

      And no, facetious is not the same as feces.

    • Ever notice how small children, playing with their toys, are just very simply happy, without a care in the world? That's because they're small children, living in their child-sized world, with mom and dad taking care of all the big, grown-up things and decisions for them. That's what you sound like: You want to go back to being a child, and just playing with your toys, and leaving all the big grown-up stuff to someone else to worry about. Honestly I don't blame you; I do things to escape being an adult when

      • Ever notice how people wanting to hector other people think that arguing about politics/policies 24/7/everywhere wants everyone to think that's a grownup adult activity?

        • Leaving politics up to politicians has created most of the messes we've all got to deal with now. It's like allowing marketing people to make engineering decisions: coming to a bad end is inevitable. Also, I'm not 'hectoring' anyone, I actually understand where that fellow is coming from and made a suggestion to give him some relief. However we do have a responsibility, unfortunately, to clean up the messes that politicians have made because we were actually stupid enough to trust them in the first place. I

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by khelms ( 772692 )

      It does seem that any article related to "global warming" tends to results in the same endless arguments by both sides being posted yet again - "the 10 hottest years in history were within the last 18 years", "there has been no warming trend over the last 20 years", "yeah, but, a lot of the heat is going into the ocean", etc., etc.

      Everyone appears to have divided up into camps on this issue and no one is going to change their "beliefs" and switch sides, so any "discussion" is about on the level of 2 gr

      • Are you fracking kidding me? You're equating the group of people refuting the nonsensical anti-AGW claims with science ( "10 of the hottest years occured in the last 18", "oceeans are absorbing some of the heat") with the camp that trots out the same fracking tired arguments that have been refuted over and over again in every fracking thread? Science isn't a "camp", it's the conclusion you reach after looking at the data.

        The problem with these threads is there are too many idiot trolls who think themselve

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by khelms ( 772692 )
          No, I'm not equating the two arguments. I'm pointing out that neither side appears to be convincing anyone who believes otherwise and we just see the same points posted over and over again. I was not making any judgement about which side has the stronger case.

  • I don't mean to suggest that global warming is no big deal, but before we do much more shocked swooning, let's compare this to the "existential crisis" fears of previous generations. That's a nice way to remind ourselves of the fact that never before in the history of humanity have our biggest problems been smaller. The levels of peace, prosperity, human health, human happiness, and every other measurable indicator are at historical highs. Yes, we will eventually need to build some new sea walls and levies,

  • Controlling climate change and losing weight (Score:4, Interesting)

    by kheldan ( 1460303 ) on Saturday September 05, 2015 @01:10PM (#50462873) Journal
    "You're right, doc, I really need to lose weight", someone will say. "I'll start on that tomorrow." Then they never do. It's called 'paying lip service' to something, and that's what most nations are doing. It's like they need glasses, or the prescription on their current glasses updated: They can't see past the end of their own noses. Something that's going to happen 100 years or more from now? Nah, that's too far off to worry about, after all they'll be out of office by then and likely dead, so why should they care? To be fair, while that's the way the average person also thinks, the average person (representing 99% of the population, mind you) really is rather busy making sure they have a roof over their heads, clothes on their backs, and enough food to eat, and all this high-concept science stuff is way over their heads, and why again should they care about what's happening halfway around the planet? Sadly short-sightedness on everyone's part is what's going to turn the Earth into a clone of what Venus looks like right now: a searing black calm, devoid of life.

    I don't know what the hell to do about this any more than I have a solution for, say, the problem that the homeless represent here in the United States. What I do know is that the solutions to these problems has to come from the top, down, to start with, not from the bottom, up, but getting the people at the 'top' to give a damn enough to actually do something about it, while also getting people on down from there to go along with it, is tougher than herding caffeine-enhanced ferrets.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      "Sadly short-sightedness on everyone's part is what's going to turn the Earth into a clone of what Venus looks like right now: a searing black calm, devoid of life."

      Total mass of atmosphere: ~4.8 x 10^20 kg
      http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/venusfact.html

      Total mass of atmosphere: 5.1 x 10^18 kg
      http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html

      The earth's has 1% the atmosphere of Venus. Where is that other 99% going to come from? I'm not saying your wrong, but if your theory requires

      • Sadly short-sightedness on everyone's part is what's going to turn the Earth into an approximation of what Venus looks like right now: a searing black calm, devoid of life.

        There, is that better? Please, don't be pedantic. Nit-picking choice of single words is precisely that; the meaning being conveyed is what counts, k?

  • The reality of the situation... (Score:3)

    by FlyHelicopters ( 1540845 ) on Saturday September 05, 2015 @02:00PM (#50463095)

    negotiators plan to propose will only be part of non-legally-binding pledgesâ"and they represent only what is achievable without too much difficulty.

    ^ This right here is the key point to take away from all this...

    For all the hot air our "leaders" are giving this issue, the reality is they don't intend to do anything about it. Notice the "without too much difficulty" part of that.

    Non-binding, not too hard, not too expensive...

    To actually stop the rise of CO2, we need to take drastic measures, and the fact is, while people SAY they care about global warming, what they really mean is "I care about global warming so long as it doesn't impact my lifestyle".

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by cbeaudry ( 706335 )

      Its simple.

      They don't actually believe its a problem.
      Not many people do.
      They just follow the bandwagon, because its the IN thing to do now, and say "Oh that climate change thing, baaaaad! We should do something about it."

      No one likes being the odd one out at the table, so they lie.

  • The last thing I want to read about on a technology web site is politics and global warming nonsense. I personally am carbon negative with my solar panels and electric car. That doesn't mean I want to read about every idiot's plan to tax and spend and go technologically backwards to "fix" an already paused state of global warming. Lets keep slashdot to nerd-worthy stories...
  • For comparison, the Little Ice Age --- frozen rivers, advancing glaciers, and famine --- was a cooling of less than 1 degree C (if you can believe Wikipedia).
  • Old man yells at cloud.

  • What we need is for someone to invent an energy source that is cheaper than coal and can scale to tens of TW (current use is around 15 TW).

    Power satellites will certainly scale to that size, and at a high rate of production it looks like they could undercut coal.

    But the powers that be have forgotten what engineers are good for.

Slashdot Top Deals

Without life, Biology itself would be impossible.

Close