JP Morgan Economists Warn of 'Catastrophic' Climate Change (bbc.com) 186
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the BBC: Human life "as we know it" could be threatened by climate change, economists at JP Morgan have warned. In a hard-hitting report to clients, the economists said that without action being taken there could be "catastrophic outcomes." The bank said the research came from a team that was "wholly independent from the company as a whole." Climate campaigners have previously criticized JP Morgan for its investments in fossil fuels. The firm's stark report was sent to clients and seen by BBC News. While JP Morgan economists have warned about unpredictability in climate change before, the language used in the new report was very forceful.
"We cannot rule out catastrophic outcomes where human life as we know it is threatened," JP Morgan economists David Mackie and Jessica Murray said. Carbon emissions in the coming decades "will continue to affect the climate for centuries to come in a way that is likely to be irreversible," they said, adding that climate change action should be motivated "by the likelihood of extreme events." Climate change could affect economic growth, shares, health, and how long people live, they said. It could put stresses on water, cause famine, and cause people to be displaced or migrate. Climate change could also cause political stress, conflict, and it could hit biodiversity and species survival, the report warned. To mitigate climate change net carbon emissions need to be cut to zero by 2050. To do this, there needed to be a global tax on carbon, the report authors said. But they said that "this is not going to happen anytime soon."
"We cannot rule out catastrophic outcomes where human life as we know it is threatened," JP Morgan economists David Mackie and Jessica Murray said. Carbon emissions in the coming decades "will continue to affect the climate for centuries to come in a way that is likely to be irreversible," they said, adding that climate change action should be motivated "by the likelihood of extreme events." Climate change could affect economic growth, shares, health, and how long people live, they said. It could put stresses on water, cause famine, and cause people to be displaced or migrate. Climate change could also cause political stress, conflict, and it could hit biodiversity and species survival, the report warned. To mitigate climate change net carbon emissions need to be cut to zero by 2050. To do this, there needed to be a global tax on carbon, the report authors said. But they said that "this is not going to happen anytime soon."
Economists? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Economists? (Score:2, Insightful)
They evaluate the economic impact of climate change based on reports from climate scientists.
It's two different things. Climate scientists are not the ones who can predict the economic impact of a 3C average temperature raise.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Economists? (Score:4, Insightful)
Neither are the economists, because they've been listening to all the misinformation coming from the worst of the climate alarmists.
You're probably an American, or Australian conservative.
Buddy, you need to realize that the world has agreed that climate change is a thing, it is a real threat, and that these conclusions based on real data and a global scientific consensus that includes your very own U.S. agencies like NASA, EPA, etc.
As an American or Australian conservative it is YOU who lives in a bubble of science-denial, fostered mostly by a guy named Rupert Murdoch, who happens to own a company named News Corp that dominates conservative media in the U.S. and Australia. This is the real "fake news". By the way, your president, the very stable genius Donald Trump, is part of your conservative disinformation bubble.
While you keep trying to argue the issue away, the rest of the world has moved on and is trying to find solutions.
Regards
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what papers you're referring to. The scientific consensus on climate change is simply overwhelming. This is why insurance companies and investors, hell, even the oil companies [wikipedia.org] are starting to U-turn and beginning to acknowledge it is a problem. There is simply no room any more for scepticism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://skepticalscience.com/a... [skepticalscience.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what papers you're referring to.
Then you haven't been reading the posts you're commenting about. Oops.
The scientific consensus on climate change is simply overwhelming.
It's quite underwhelming, actually. But even if it were oberwhelming, consensus is not science. Consensus doesn't mean a damned thing. Just ask Galileo. Or the guy who first proposed plate tectonics (he was laughed at and called a charlatan).
And your Skeptical Science page's arguments just contain links to other Skeptical Science opinion pieces. There is no actual science there. Try again.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
"The science bears out"
it does? which prediction came true?
I remember when Al Gore and the inconvenient truth bullshit came out... not a single fucking thing came true. But none of you "data" oriented fucks like to talk about that... I wonder why?
There are still famous people smarter than you calling your data inconclusive and your rush to judgement bullshit. O right I keep forgetting, anyone not parroting your rhetoric are not allowed to be scientists these days. Gee... now I wonder why more and more p
Re: Economists? (Score:5, Informative)
which prediction came true?
Lots of them. You have dozens of independent climate models agreeing with each other. When you apply these models to data from a few decades ago, they accurately predict the changes in climate between then and now. The underlying physics is well-understood.
This is not a cabal, this is science working as it should: when multiple groups working independently all come to the same conclusion, it's time to stop going 'lalalalala I can't hear you' and start listening.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
To be fair, that isn't the point the parent poster was making, and so your response doesn't really address his argument.
He is saying that some/lots/most previous predictions about what will happen to the clmate have not come true.
Your response is that our current models can successfully retrodict what has happened in the past.
Both of these point are quite possibly true, and they do not contradict eachother.
My understanding of SirAstral's inplicit point is that since previous predictions have no been upheld,
Re: (Score:3)
My understanding is what they got wrong was the CO2 emissions.
For example, if they made a prediction in 1980 for 2020 based on 500 ppm of CO2, the temperature prediction would be wrong. Correct the CO2 level and rerun the model and it agrees with observations.
Predicting future CO2 levels is the part they got wrong.
They are agreeing with each other _retroactively_ (Score:3)
They are agreeing with each other _retroactively_. A crucial difference which escapes a lot of people. It's like you put together a lot of models of the stock market that predict it for the next year, and at the end of the year pick the ones that worked. Any idiot can do that. Now try doing the same and put your own money into the market in accordance with your models' predictions, and see how that works out for you.
This is what "skeptics" are pointing out, time and time again. This is not how science works
Re: (Score:3)
The models predicted temperature increase as a function of CO2 emissions.
The retroactive aspect is that they plugged in the real CO2 emissions over the recent years, and that made most of the models accurately product the temperatures we've seen.
The average of a large ensemble of models from multiple independent research groups predicted the temperatures quite well.
To say that the models included were cherry-picked is an assumption you're making that is probably based on your bias on th
Re: (Score:2)
Practice what you preach, put your skin in the game: Invest consistent with your beliefs. Stop reproducing. Stop eating meat. Stop driving a car or taking vacations. Etc. If you're right, you'll see these bets pay off well within your lifetime. If you're wrong, though, you'll just feel like an idiot on your deathbed.
Re: Economists? (Score:5, Insightful)
"The science bears out"
it does? which prediction came true?
I remember when Al Gore and the inconvenient truth bullshit came out... not a single fucking thing came true.
Hansen's model for atmospheric warming [wiley.com] predicted the temperature increases we are experiencing now. He made the prediction in 1989, 17 years before Gore's presentation.
So that single fucking thing came true.
But none of you "data" oriented fucks like to talk about that... I wonder why?
Because it's pointless talking to people about facts when they are willfully ignorant, why would anyone bother wasting their time. Despite being given some facts, you'll ignore them so you can maintain an unscientific belief system so you don't have to expend the cognitive effort to absorb the information to see how wrong you are.
You want to criticize people for trying to make the world a better place because you're so fucking fragile you can't stand any more than 30 seconds of discomfort. The truly sad thing is the rest of us are going to suffer for your dithering, aimless, pointless, ignorant, bird brained, shallow, unmindful, witless, uninformed, uneducated, blind, imbecilic, moronic and cretinous blathering. It's one thing to have your opinion, it's quite another to belittle others when it is you who are practicing superstition. Hypocrite.
Here is a Guardian article [theguardian.com] to address the very bullshit you're crapping on about the evidence you ignore. It seems like your outrage and vitriol is to disguise how terrified you are that the people you don't want to listen to have been right all along.
Re: (Score:3)
Hansen is actually one of the most ridiculous alarmists out there. He predicted huge amounts of sea level rise before 2000, for just one small example.
But in the spirit of your own link to opinion, here are some articles about Hansen's failed predictions:
Here's one by Clyde Spencer [wattsupwiththat.com].
Wall Street Journal [wsj.com]
National Post [nationalpost.com]
Realclimate.org [realclimate.org]
I could go on. Some of the things Hansen has said in more recent years have been comp
Re: (Score:2)
A Guardian article is not science.
Hansen's work, published in 1988, was for the Goddard Institute for Space Studies and is cited by 580 studies. I linked that first.
It's someone's opinion about the science.
Well post some credible science to support that not one prediction came true. That was the assertion. I don't know how many other predictions came true because I don't care how many predictions there are.
I more concerned with what I see occurring.
But in the spirit of your own link to opinion, here are some articles about
All I see is assholes burying there heads in the sand pontificating that nothing is happening so they can shirk their responsibil
Re: (Score:2)
Do you read the things you reply to?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what Al Gore claimed.
But I know: Al Gore is not a scientist.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's how it works.
Celebrity who is not a scientists makes outrageous claims. Real scientists never respond because the celebrity is carrying their water for them.
Then when shit goes sideways with the outrageous predictions, they all fall back on, "The celebrities aren't Climate Scientists".
So the AGW community tolerates and even encourages lies and exaggerations knowing they have plausible deniability when the Lies and exaggerations fail.
Re: (Score:2)
Fascism has come to America. In the form of trump, busy populating all levels of the government with people who pledge personal fealty to trump, instead of pledging to support law and order. Guess how Hitler came to power? Hint: he had to work thru the system, until he WAS the system. Same thing is happening in America.
If you doubt me, read the last week's news.
Re: (Score:2)
In 5 years, Trump will leave office.
Then yo will start calling the Next Republican Candidate Hitler.
And people will consider you to be just as ignorant and butthurt as ever.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't read the news much, do you? In fact, the latest evidence is that the climate change crisis is WORSE than predicted.
Re: (Score:2)
Please provide a link to such evidence.
A peer-reviewed science paper, please, not some media outlet.
Re: Economists? (Score:2)
Exactly. Mountains of blind scientist data about the largest elephant that ever existed
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
More to the point, here's Snopes take on notrickzone: https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch... [snopes.com]
It shows no notrickzone to basically be a blog with almost no factual information and much to mislead. In short, your red herring is just that.
Re: (Score:3)
If you want to make a point, you need to refute the actual science papers, not the site that links to them.
Not to mention that this is a pure ad hominem argument anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
No-one needs to refute those papers because those papers themselves don't refute man-made climate change, they gave been mis-represented by the site you linked.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you have reading comprehension issues?
What I said was that they disagreed with GP.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Links to 440 peer-reviewed science papers have been down-modded as "troll".
Hahahahahahahaha! Well, the agenda of some people here on
neither are the economics. but.. (Score:2)
but more specifically the economists shouldn't try to _affect_ the situation they should try to make recommendations about where to put the money so they would have more money.
put on top of that I seriously doubt they have even considered anything like how much spending will be forcibly increased if coastlines move and new buildings need to be made and new embankments need to be made.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a "Heisenberg indeterminacy" issue there. The economic predictions from a corporation like J.P. Morgan themselves affect the economy.
Economic models are much like weather models: they attempt to predict quite large scale systems that have chaotic effects from extremely small and unpredictable factors. The systems both share intense positive and negative feedback loops with "threshold" effects where a few seasons of one effect or another devastate entire sets of other feedback looops.
Re: Economists? (Score:2)
Right. Always respected people who can very logically develop the idea that 2x2 could be 5.
WhatIf.
Re: (Score:2)
They contracted out to researcher to evaluate the environmental impact of climate change. Then use that data to calculate out the economic impact of climate change and then because they are JP Morgan, they compared those losses to losses in the fossil fuel industry from cutting back including the collapse of frackers and worked out that will cost them less, than the losses from climate change.
Also actual Russia propaganda, far more subtle than Russiagate nonsense shows they are also opposed to climate chan
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Because... like Greta Thunberg the easy path is becoming a mindless sheep is finding out some way to out virtue signal the other virtual signalers.
The political solutions to the entire global warming problem is proof they do not even believe in global warming themselves. If they cared, they would be screaming the loudest out of everyone about how their "important issue" has now been co-opted into a wealth redistribution scam.
I personally feel sorry for Greta... she will live long enough to know that she be
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Why is their opinion on a science topic of any more importance than my local dog catcher?
Well, their opinion is more believable for two reasons:
1) They study this kind of thing with lots of data from numerous sources, peer reviewed and based on solid, proven science.
2) Also, because you're a fucking moron who's too stupid to admit that his local dog catcher is way smarter than you.
Re: (Score:2)
A scientist, an engineer, and an economist who were on a recently deserted island starving slowly to death after the last boat had left. They dug through the debris left and found three cans of beans. But they had no can openers or tools of any kind to open the cans.
The scientist knew he could solve this. He scratched in the sand for hours and hours making calculations. He figured out that if he struck the can with a rock of just "this" size in just the right place it would pop open and he could eat. He sea
Re: (Score:2)
Keep babying idiots and humoring the evil. That's sure to solve our problems.
Re: (Score:3)
No, these are financial people relying upon science people for their climate predictions and then estimating the economic fallout. You sound like one of those nimnods who wants to eliminate the "elites" because, being more qualified than you in their areas of expertise, they come to conclusions you have no valid reasons to oppose.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is their opinion on a science topic of any more importance than my local dog catcher?
Stock market analysts are not scientists, and athough many are educated as economists, they are not acting as economists either. Rather, they are marketing-psych types who are trying to guess what the upcoming trends in public interest will be. This determines what stocks people will buy and sell.
Re: (Score:2)
Making decisions on where to invest billions "directly" steers the economy.
This is where my socialist side comes out... I would absolutely support a law the makes things like this illegal. No business or human should have this kind of influence.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that governments aren't any more responsible. Nobody wants to notice things that make what they want to do more difficult.
Re: (Score:2)
I did say nobody...and no... not even government should be allowed to be an exception either.
The rules are simple. Free-Market Capitalism with laws that block the upper and lower bounds of what can get out of hand. That means strong anti-monopoly and anti-trust laws, much stronger than we have now. Anything classified as a "natural monopoly" becomes public property and cannot be privately owned or privately managed at all, no exceptions.
No one gets more than X amount of the GDP, and the moment a business
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If that person surrenders the 165 million dollar mansion, what happens to it?
Does it go to the public trust? Is it turned into 165 separate million dollar condos?
If the mansion is owned in the name of a corporation do the same rules apply?
If so, then how do we handle large corporate HQs?
Are non-tangible goods considered property? For example, Paul McCartney's song catalog.
Would he have to forfeit it?
Having hi-lo watermarks is interesting but it gets into the weeds quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, let's make those decisions by government which....uh....must rely upon scientific and economic analysis and then pervert it because some pol decided his/her/its district wasn't going to profit by whatever "policy" is the result.
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change (Score:2)
Catastrophic? (Score:2)
To their profits most likely.
When corporations care it is always about profit or the lack thereof.
The leaked paper itself is up. (Score:4, Informative)
It is an climate change report from a bank heavily invested in fossil fuels. They use Richard Tol's research for the cost to the economy. A consequence of Richard's recommended approach to policy would be a cost on carbon that is way too small to limit warming to the 2C that was hoped to be safe.
Mandatory Dilbert (Score:2, Interesting)
https://dilbert.com/strip/2017... [dilbert.com]
Anyone know if all these climate change deniers (Score:2)
I mean, Jesus Christ, how powerful are these number fudging scien
Re: (Score:2)
I think most of them are just trying to sleep at night, so they're telling themselves comforting lies, and that's spilling out onto the rest of us. They need to believe that they are good people with a future, so they downplay their impact on the climate, and climate change itself. That way they don't have to make any changes, and nothing they do matters.
taxes apparently... (Score:4, Insightful)
...solve any problem.
What a coincidence how that always benefits those proposing them.
Solar, Wind and, Geothermal power (Score:2, Insightful)
I suggest that a radical investment in these technologies would not only go a long way to slowing down the rate of global warming, it would create an employment boom of the magnitude we have never seen before.
One option for doing this is to end some of the massive subsidies that Oil/Coal and Nuclear power receives and put that capital into climate objectives that are proven to work. This is something that can be achieved by an act of law in many countries.
That's not to say that many of the issues these l
Re: (Score:2)
>"I suggest that a radical investment in these technologies would not only go a long way to slowing down the rate of global warming"
It might. But only if:
1) Most of the industrialized world does it.
2) It can be done rapidly enough.
3) It can be done without destroying the economies, in which case things could slide backwards very quickly.
>"If people are given a choice between adapting to using less energy and the survival of the human race"
And if they are given then choice between possibly making a po
Re: (Score:2)
3) It can be done without destroying the economies, in which case things could slide backwards very quickly.
If you haven't already noticed economies are changing. Adaptation means adapting and leaving behind legacy industries like coal/oil and nuclear for new industries like wind, solar, geothermal, wave power and, anything else we can think of that extracts energy from the abundant energy we have around us.
The way to make sure things don't slide backwards is to implement enough of these technologies whilst we can still use coal/oil and nuclear power so we can transition to a new energy economy.
And if they are given then choice between possibly making a positive impact now for "some day" or starving now/having no retirement options/not affording transportation now/etc, the choice is just as clear.
People are give
are your sure... (Score:2)
Predictions (Score:2)
If you can predict climate (not weather) with a reasonable degree of accuracy and granularity, it could make you very rich whether you are a scientist or an economist. Knowing even over the medium term when and where conditions will bring high crop yields or destroy them, which places will have more or less snow, fire risks, ocean currents and fish migration..... The potential to make money from knowledge of the future is endless.
But most of them seem content with their day jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
Knowing even over the medium term when and where conditions will bring high crop yields or destroy them
That is actually not so easy.
I live mostly in Isaan, east Thailand. Last year we had record rain - on paper. Actually 5 times more than the previous years. Nevertheless close to half of Isaan had a drought. The rain was so much and so long that many parts feared about the rice harvest, it mostly barely survived. My wife had a record harvest. 1km away lots of rice drowned. 50km away is draught they had no
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough, but you don't need to be able to predict farm by farm. An accurate long term trend for Thailand as a whole would be adequate for speculative investment purposes.
Read... (Score:2)
They're long carbon futures, have and excess position or have been shorting oil and figure it's time to make some orderflow.
The fact of the matter is that if they're releasing news, they are already are in a position to sell or buy the mania the news is designed to create. Once a broker makes a recommendation, you can be assured you're already on the wrong side or are too late to participate.
Ever wonder how a positive earnings report results in shares worth less [outside a bubble]. They sell the news and bu
A bit late to the game (Score:2)
At this time a global catastrophe is assured. The only question is whether it will kill billions and destroy a large part of the basis for human life or whether it will take all of it. If we act decisively now, we should be able to make it the former, but this is far from assured.
We are screwed. I'm wondering how hard. (Score:4, Interesting)
I like to think of it in three levels:
Screwage Level 1 is something like Neal Stephensons Snow Crash combined with Cory Doctorows Walkway. It's a mess, but those that aren't killed live a decent or better life through technology and a post scarcity economy.
Screwage level 2 is something like Bladerunner 2049 or 'The windup girl'. A modern civilisation still exists, but it largely sucks and regular people can only get by by being dependant on some sort of tightly controlled Co-dependency with megacorps who provide short of clean water, food or some sort of drug one needs to survive.
Level 3 is "Scary Stalenhag Picture" level where society as we know it can't go on and a few finds some way to transcend todays civilisation or we go extinct or back into some stone age.
Level 1 I'd say is pretty much given in 3 decades or so. I'm not sure if we can avoid 2 or 3.
My 2 cents.
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny how Strange Days was suppose to be a dystopia of the millennium turn, and we're pretty much into it right now. 2049 is in 30 years, so by some dumb analogy, I'd say level 2 is coming in 50 years.
Change (Score:2)
"Centuries to come". We can less predict tech in 100 years than 1900 could today. Should 1900 bust their economy to leave us with a pristine environment and 1972 technology? Thanks for nothing mass murderers.
"Could??" It already does! (Score:2)
The majority of animals in the nature we maintain in a team I work with, are already gone! Many of them extinct!
We keep a chart of them. It is mostly white space now!
And hadn't we worked our asses off in the European summer of 2018, we'd now have many more lost species!
It's seriously not fuckin funny anymore!
Add exponential changes to that, and the apocalypse is less than 10 years away! (People always underestimate exponential effects. If you watch exponential changes step by step the step, then where it is
Not economists (Score:2)
Futurists.
Real or fake it's still news (Score:3, Insightful)
We all expect that any announcement from a large financial firm is carefully calculated. Even if it is 100% accurate, that it is even being discussed is done out of obtaining the most advantageous position. You're falling for a false dichotomy, or at least overlooking something obvious. It's not an either-or that JPMorgan is seeking advantage OR global warming is true. Both can also be true.
I have an idea, if there is something in the news that is a blatant lie, then it should be pretty easy to either dispr
Re: (Score:2)
"I have an idea, if there is something in the news that is a blatant lie, then it should be pretty easy to either disprove or at least logically work out why the claims made are unsupported."
Don't go around being logical here, people don't like that. But do keep in mind that things like this are often difficult to accomplish in some cases. Imagine if 3 well qualified people have 3 competing theories on what happened and the cause. Each have compelling evidence... sprinkle a little "political crack" on on
Re: (Score:2)
I have an idea, if there is something in the news that is a blatant lie, then it should be pretty easy to either disprove or at least logically work out why the claims made are unsupported.
Lately with fake news, the problem isn't logic, it's filtering out the facts from the noise (and lies). Too often these days I have to throw my hands up and say, "I don't know what happened."
Firehood of Falsehood [Re:Real or fake it's st...] (Score:2)
Lately with fake news, the problem isn't logic, it's filtering out the facts from the noise (and lies). Too often these days I have to throw my hands up and say, "I don't know what happened."
Exactly!! That's the "Firehood of Falsehood [rand.org]" technique: you don't need to address facts or make better arguments, you just flood the discourse with bullshit until people throw up their hands.
Re: Fake news (Score:2)
Silly rabbit, slashfail has not amplified anything in a long time. Maybe the scent of decay and death is stronger near the domain.
Now go turn some trix before I burn you with a coat hanger.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm....if you have such a low opinion of slashdot, how come you are here? You just like seeing your words in print, don't you?
Re: (Score:2)
"Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them."
https://www.change.org/p/charl... [change.org]
I wanted to past the Tax Poem here but cocksucking slashdot bitched about too few characters per line. Oh well... its in the link anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
There isn't any problem that can't be fixed by a good old tax.
Remember that tax is just money going in the other direction. Money makes the world go round. We typically like it going in one direction, but there's always someone else who'd like it going in a different direction.
Re: (Score:2)
A Carbon tax could be far superior to the "Cap and Trade" agreements that are basically scams. (There may be some that aren't, but they are rare. Often they just pay people to do what they would have done anyway. Other times either there's no verification that they actually did the mitigation, or the results are improperly calculated.)
Re: (Score:2)
So who decides how much this tax is
The tax should be so high that someone is willing to undo the damage for the same amount.
As for the damage already done how about taxing everyone on the planet for 30% of their wealth and then use that money to fix it. Some have benefitted more from industrialization and cheap energy than others.
Racism? (Score:4, Insightful)
There isn't any problem that can't be fixed by a good old tax.
How would you fix racism, homophobia or mental health with a good old tax?
If greenhouse emissions are damaging the planet, including the return possible from land, then there's an externality that it makes sense to price.
But it's not true of any problem.
Re: (Score:2)
How would you fix racism... with a good old tax?
Just have a N-word jar.
Re: (Score:3)
Nuclear power is a threat, not because of 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, but because the only way to economically get enough fuel is to use Plutonium (made from U238) and if you can do that, you can make it into warheads.
Thorium power? (Score:4, Informative)
There is only one way we know of to destroy plutonium, that is neutron bombardment. This bombardment produces incredible amounts of energy, useful energy that is low in CO2 emissions when done in a power plant. Nuclear fission is the lowest CO2 emitting source of energy we know of, and it is also the only known means we have to destroy the plutonium cores of existing nuclear weapons.
You want to rid the world of nuclear weapons? You want low CO2 energy? Then you want nuclear fission power plants.
What is also produced from this fission of plutonium is a lot of neutrons, neutrons we can use to destroy more plutonium and to produce U-233 from thorium. We know how to use U-233 to produce energy. We also know U-233 is worthless for making nuclear weapons because inherent contamination from U-232 and U-234 produces too much heat, gamma radiation, and spontaneous fission for a stable weapon core.
I'll also go back to my earlier point, if you believe nuclear power to be a greater threat than global warming then you have seriously mistaken the relative threats they pose. This threat of nuclear weapons because of nuclear power is seriously misplaced. Civilian nuclear power plants are worthless for making weapons, even if they use U-238 in the fuel rods. If you want to argue this is a threat then fine, we can use a plutonium-thorium mix of fuel. By the time all the plutonium is gone then we will be able to fuel our reactors on a mix of U-233 and thorium.
Thorium as fuel is not an unproven technology, this was demonstrated to work decades ago. One example of this was at Shippingport.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
We've learned a lot since then and if we were serious about lowering CO2 emissions then we'd be building prototypes now refine this technology so it can be mass produced.
Re: (Score:2)
We've learned a lot since then and if we were serious about lowering CO2 emissions then we'd be building prototypes now refine this technology so it can be mass produced.
The issue with that is. Who's even got a platform for the kind of nuclear program we ACTUALLY need? Refining the technology isn't just pouring funds back into research. We're so behind at this point, we need a moonshot level of funding to get to where we can mass produce Thorium reactors and have the processing plants in place to go from Th-232 to U-233 at scale. Like even Trump is just about extending the permits out on current reactors. Actual funding into the science, research, and infrastructure fo
Re: (Score:3)
Denying nuclear power as part of the solution is denying the reality that science exposed to us
I don't see any problem with nuclear other than it being super expensive. In the cost of building one reactor we could build a lot of something else. If there's something to change that cost factor, I think we'd all have a winning argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Not just building that reactor, but also decommissioning it. It always costs more than estimated, and The People wind up having to pay for that. Nuclear power was supposed to be "too cheap to meter" but if you calculate the lifetime costs it winds up being one of the most expensive ways to generate power, even more than building renewables AND battery storage.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear energy is so expensive that it would better to risk ending "life as we know it" than to build any nuclear energy? That would be news to the countries that are building nuclear right now!
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear energy is so expensive that it would better to risk ending "life as we know it" than to build any nuclear energy?
That's a false dichotomy. The choices are not solely nuclear energy or the end of life. Cost of bringing online a nuclear plant are in the tens of billions in the US and that's not even lifetime cost such as decomissioning. With that same money solar arrays can be cheaply purchased and pumped water storage solutions employed and not by some slim margin. The reason the countries that continue to build nuclear today are mostly political and not financial. Case in point, the vast majority of the French nu
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with nuclear power isn't technical, it's managerial. Management cuts corners without being willing to understand the long term effects.
There's a secondary problem that the entire lifecycle cost isn't included in the calculated cost. That includes eventual decommissioning and handling waste. This is really a part of the managerial problem but is significant enough that it needs to be considered separately.
That said, if costs were properly allocated and management were good, nuclear power would
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear is low emissions, safe and a good source of baseload.
But it's too late to turn to it as the core of the solution now.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you have failed to understand the problem.
The problem is to keep warming below 2C ... preferably 1.5C.
How have you managed to understand that?
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear is not the answer. The answer is elsewhere. The problem is western states are denying climate change by continuing to depend on dams, and the water is going
Re: (Score:3)
Looking at past experiences of the earth’s climate, a sustained rise in CO2 concentrations to 1000ppm or more would ultimately make the earth uninhabitable to human life as we know it now. In the Eocene and Late Cretaceous periods—35 to 90 million years ago—CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were similar to where we will reach in 2100 with a business-as-usual approach. But back in the Eocene and Late Cretaceous periods, temperatures were around 5-8C warmer than pre-industrial times and the sea level was 60-170 meters higher than today (Table 10).
- pp10 of the report. [rebellion.earth]
The temperature increase and the sea level rise are falsifiable.
Re: (Score:2)
1000 ppm will only make me drowsy.
How do you go to work, as in: farming the fields, baking bread, brewing beer if you are drowsy all day long?
Re: (Score:2)
This is the sort of the hard scientific analysis we have come to expect from Slahsdot posters, and autistic 16-year-olds, if in fact those are separate sets.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you just jump past the hard science to criticize a snarky post?
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly all 17 US intelligence Agencies are wrong and Dear Leader is right.
And don't forget, windmills cause cancer.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm too lazy to check. Are they anti-racist or pro-healthcare?
Re: (Score:2)
I looked it up. Their agenda is "survival of the human species." So I guess, pro-healthcare? In a sense.