Irreversible Warming Tipping Point May Have Been Triggered: Arctic Mission Chief (straitstimes.com) 309
The tipping point for irreversible global warming may have already been triggered, the scientist who led the biggest expedition to the Arctic warned Tuesday. AFP: "The disappearance of summer sea ice in the Arctic is one of the first landmines in this minefield, one of the tipping points that we set off first when we push warming too far," said Dr Markus Rex. "And one can essentially ask if we haven't already stepped on this mine and already set off the beginning of the explosion." Dr Rex led the world's biggest mission to the North Pole, an expedition involving 300 scientists from 20 countries. The expedition returned to Germany in October after 389 days drifting through the North Pole, bringing home devastating proof of a dying Arctic Ocean and warnings of ice-free summers in just decades. The $170 million expedition also brought back 150 terabytes of data and more than 1,000 ice samples.
So can we actually talk about solutions? (Score:3, Insightful)
To repeat myself from a previous article:
So, if we're saying "this is unstoppable" can we finally move to the "how do we mitigate the inevitable changes" stage rather than the "how can we best use the looming changes to increase our political and economic power" bit y'all have been stuck on for the last couple of decades?
Or is the doom screaming by people who fly around on private jets to talk about how everyone other than them needs to live the lifestyle of a character in a Dickens novel just going to ratchet up even further?
Re:So can we actually talk about solutions? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately we are going to get more of the same. Take the G7 meeting for example. Its all 'discussions' at the top levels and than a mess of policy wonks shuffling paper back and forth. Its literally probably the best example of the type of work our telecommuting tools can deliver a good experience for.
Yet 1000s of people probably traveled across the EU and over oceans - so they could give plebs a lecture on decolonization.
Its plain apparent to anyone watching their actual actions the degree of fucks given by any of the current G7 heads of state on issues of climate, freedom, national security, religious tolerance, the pandemic, wealth gap - is DIRECTLY proportional to their ability to personally insulate themselves from the consequences of their policy.
Re: (Score:2)
decolonization - should have been decarbonization
Re: (Score:3)
If you de-carbonize the G7. . . .what do you do with the REST of the bodies ????
Oh, you mean de-carbonize the ECONOMIES, not the Spokesmodels.
Nevermind. . . (grin)
Re: (Score:3)
I like the way you think! Can go ahead and do the former. I am not to worries about the rest of the bodies - it mostly be water, which would probably be vaporized as a side effect of the decarbonization process anyway.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
it's to generate FUD, making people panic and forcing things that create new paradigms of wealth generation for themselves. These are also the same people who fly to Davos each year in $20m+ private jets. #ThinkAboutIt
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So can we actually talk about solutions? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, if we're saying "this is unstoppable" ...
Whoa, whoa there! The summary said "This may have reached a tipping point." Nothing about "this is unstoppable."
This may be a tipping point, but "may be" also implies "may not be". And if it is, it is one of many.
That's what I hate about the public discourse about climate change, people jump to catastrophe. Nobody wants to hear about a slow disaster; it has to be urgent to get attention.
The longer we delay in dealing with it, the more severe the problem will be. But it's not "if we haven't acted by now, it's too late." It's never "too" late, it's just the later it is, the more severe it is.
can we finally move to the "how do we mitigate the inevitable changes" stage
OK, I'll agree with you there. Changes are inevitable (what's not inevitable is how severe). And it's worth looking at how to deal with these inevitable changes.
But it's not an either/or. We can talk about dealing with the changes, and also talk about how mitigate the severity.
rather than the "how can we best use the looming changes to increase our political and economic power" bit y'all have been stuck on for the last couple of decades?
The libertarian fringe is certain that everything is a conspiracy to increase "power" by the government, but really, it isn't. The libertarian fringe is making up draconian proposals that are not actually being proposed. Really, you should go back to protesting the income tax if you want to talk about government power.
Or is the doom screaming by people who fly around on private jets to talk about how everyone other than them needs to live the lifestyle of a character in a Dickens novel just going to ratchet up even further?
Again, straw man. Nobody is proposing that... other than the oil companies saying "we'll kill our standard of living if we deal with climate change!"
Re:So can we actually talk about solutions? (Score:5, Insightful)
I just isn't
Environmentalism is now the story of an obese diabetic man that throws a tantrum if you suggest that either an occasional salad or fewer cigarettes might be a good lifestyle change.
Re:So can we actually talk about solutions? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are good reasons to believe there are tipping points, methane bombs for example. Obviously it's best not to hit those if it can be avoided. Deadlines are goals, which are a good thing to set when you're trying to accomplish a task.
The problem with the conversation isn't either of those things. The problem is when you look at them with a fatalistic attitude [slashdot.org], taking it to mean we should just deal with the destruction, instead of correcting the core issue to what degree is still possible.
You mostly see that attitude from people who were previously AGW deniers. (See link.) They start from the ass-end, with the unshakeable belief that reducing carbon emissions is a bad thing or impossible, as they've been conditioned to think. They work up a solution that isn't dissonant with that. If denial isn't working anymore, well then climate destruction is just inevitable and we have to "deal with it" while continuing unlimited carbon emissions. (I wonder what that means anyway. Move everyone to a mountaintop, grow crops on the moon? Accept persistent worldwide famine until enough people die? They usually don't think that far into it, certainly the poster I linked to didn't.)
Environmentalists generally use the tipping points and deadlines as a means to encourage swift action, not as a fatalistic give-up. Not to say that there aren't problems in "the environmental movement", like hardline anti-nuke guys, but those guys are in the margins among the great mass who recognize that we need to cut emissions however possible.
Re:So can we actually talk about solutions? (Score:5, Insightful)
To further your point, it's not a boolean "things are just fine" or "ok, we screwed it up, no difference if we dump 0 or quadrillions of tons of CO2 into the air".
I hate the 'point of no return' and 'tipping point' rhetoric. We need to curtail our screwing things up best we can, regardless of some arbitrary 'tipping point' nonsense.
The libertarian fringe is certain that everything is a conspiracy to increase "power" by the government, but really, it isn't.
Agreed. If anything, I would complain that there is a lot of empty talk without the political will to *do* anything. I think some fossil fuel companies have told the workforce they screwed over that it's all the government's fault, when the larger global economic situation causes them to throw their employees under the bus to chase more profitable things.
Again, straw man. Nobody is proposing that...
Exactly. In fact, it is likely that we have *more* resources and economic activity to work with as this goes. A focus on fuel efficiency standards translates to the average person having to buy less fuel, meaning they can drive more or redirect their spend elsewhere. 'Green' energy sources may ultimately be supremely abundant energy, and not present as daunting a logistical challenge as moving around carbon fuels. You want us to stop meddling in the middle east so much? Not caring about petroleum would be a very big step in that direction.
Re: So can we actually talk about solutions? (Score:5, Insightful)
But without tipping point rhetoric, how will we know the projections are full of shit?
You could start by paying attention to the projections actually made by scientists who know what they're talking about, instead of paying attention to misinformation from the left or right, or even worse, to the mangled claims from the right mis-stating the projections from the left.
Re: So can we actually talk about solutions? (Score:3)
But scientists don't make climate predictions. Computer models do. That's the problem with science that doesn't have good experimental support. Big data can do some interesting things. It can also generate anomalous feedback loops.
Re: So can we actually talk about solutions? (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't need any of that to understand that survivability of humanity on this planet is dependent on an ecosystem that balances itself. Normally, this is around a stable equilibrium.
However, we poked at it so much that it either has or will become unstable.
We're now at the point where we do not know if it will reach another stable equilibrium near enough that is also viable.
Reach it either spontaneously or with our input.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
You could start by paying attention to the projections actually made by scientists who know what they're talking about, instead of paying attention to misinformation from the left or right, or even worse, to the mangled claims from the right mis-stating the projections from the left.
But scientists don't make climate predictions. Computer models do.
And scientists put together the computer models.
That's the problem with science that doesn't have good experimental support.
Fortunately, climate models are validated against observational evidence.
Big data can do some interesting things. It can also generate anomalous feedback loops.
Fortunately, climate models are validated against observational evidence.
Re: So can we actually talk about solutions? (Score:2)
If you already observed it, it's not that significant of a prediction.
Re: So can we actually talk about solutions? (Score:2)
Re: So can we actually talk about solutions? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I say we nuke it from orbit, just to be sure.
Re:So can we actually talk about solutions? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, if we're saying "this is unstoppable" can we finally move to the "how do we mitigate the inevitable changes" stage
You may not like it but... the best way to mitigate the changes are to cut our pollution to zero and start pulling CO2 out of the air. This will maximally retard the changes and give everyone time to move or adapt. If we can pull CO2 out of the air fast enough (requires MANY capture sites) then we can actually bring the changes to a virtual standstill.
"how can we best use the looming changes to increase our political and economic power"
Do you think slowing pollution as much as possible is about political and economic power? If so then you have misconstrued the message.
Re: (Score:2)
"Tipping point" suggests runaway change, in which case stopping or reversing the change is no longer an option.
Given that we don't know for sure if we've reached a tipping point, though, I think it's reasonable to assume we haven't and continue efforts to make sure we don't, as you describe.
Re: (Score:2)
"Tipping point" suggests runaway change.
It's a pretty poorly defined term. In this case the claim is: "The tipping point for irreversible global warming may have already been triggered"
That's almost trivially true. The climate change we've already experienced will be with us (effectively) forever. The only thing we're doing by dropping emissions to net 0 is preventing further climate change.
Re:So can we actually talk about solutions? (Score:5, Informative)
If humanity vanished tomorrow and never put another gram of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere it would still be at least a century until nature had processed out the excess that we've already put there.
Re: So can we actually talk about solutions? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know this? I'd like to follow the science.
Re:So can we actually talk about solutions? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, if we're saying "this is unstoppable" can we finally move to the "how do we mitigate the inevitable changes" stage rather than the "how can we best use the looming changes to increase our political and economic power" bit y'all have been stuck on for the last couple of decades?
We still need to stop or slow the changes to the greatest extent possible, which are not about increasing economic and political power. If we've passed an irreversible tipping point then we just have to fall back and work on preventing the next one, not admit defeat and find ways to adapt to an ever-worsening hellworld we can't be assed to prevent. What we might need to do differently is be more open to (more obvious forms of intentional) geoengineering.
talk about how everyone other than them needs to live the lifestyle of a character in a Dickens novel
Citation needed. If anything the problem is that they're telling everyone that they need to live the lifestyle of a 10%er, while at the same time our economies are increasing inequality and making it harder for everyone to afford an EV and a solar roof.
Re:So can we actually talk about solutions? (Score:4)
People *have been* talking about mitigation for decades now, in some cases cities are looking at things like multi-billion dollar tide gates. Or moving water-intensive industries to new locations and cutting off some water uses. It's all very expensive, which was the main economic reason to reverse or slow down climate change: that would be cheaper in the long term than trying to adapt to the *rate* of change under the status quo.
You might not like change, but ignoring the need for it only means you get some good options taken off the table and other bad ones forced on you.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not convinced those "tidal gates" are worthwhile. What they should be doing is reconstructing the shorelines into things that don't mind being flooded occasionally, or even being underwater, and withdrawing the city to higher ground. Yeah, do *some* mitigation to protect really expensive things that have already been built, but no new building except for water friendly structured within 10 vertical feet of the water level. (Perhaps a bit more. Perhaps the rational thing to do is to rebuild the city
Re: So can we actually talk about solutions? (Score:2)
Who says we have a problem in need of solutions?
- Saskatchewan man
Re:So can we actually talk about solutions? (Score:5, Insightful)
To repeat myself from a previous article:
So, if we're saying "this is unstoppable" can we finally move to the "how do we mitigate the inevitable changes" stage rather than the "how can we best use the looming changes to increase our political and economic power" bit y'all have been stuck on for the last couple of decades?
Or is the doom screaming by people who fly around on private jets to talk about how everyone other than them needs to live the lifestyle of a character in a Dickens novel just going to ratchet up even further?
IMO, short of a breakthrough in human immortality, we can't seriously start fixing long-term problems like this until the impact is only 20-30 years out. Until the rich and powerful are facing a serious impact to their own lives, they don't care, and they're happy to maintain the status quo, since they'll be dead by the time it's a "real" problem.
I think it was David Brin in his book "Earth" who said that humanity is more or less doomed to be on the brink of disaster forever, because that's what it takes to get people motivated enough to do something. IOW, scientific advancement will always be focused on profit until it's an emergency.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not a binary choice. 5 degrees is much worse than 3 degrees which in turn is much worse than 1.5 or 2 degrees (which personally I agree is already a done deal).
As a Canadian I wish our politicians would be much more inclined to mitigation measures rather than virtue signalling about our emissions, though. We could stop using fossil fuels tomorrow and it would be a 1-year speed bump in terms of global warming. Whereas we could be building reservoirs and moving infrastructure away from areas that will be
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So, if we're saying "this is unstoppable" can we finally move to the "how do we mitigate the inevitable changes" stage rather than the "how can we best use the looming changes to increase our political and economic power" bit y'all have been stuck on for the last couple of decades?
What makes you think the two are mutually exclusive? The future economic powerhouses of the world will be those providing solutions to this problem.
Or is the doom screaming by people who fly around on private jets to talk about how everyone other than them needs to live the lifestyle of a character in a Dickens novel just going to ratchet up even further?
Oh fuck off. These people in their private jets through enacting policy have done more than any single person ever would. If it takes a face to face meet for them to argue out the details the result is not a net loss to the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Or conversely what subsection(s) of the population do you expect to survive?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even with optimistic assumptions that amount of surface area that will become more suitable to humans will be considerably smaller than the amount that will become less suitable. A Mercator projection map is grossly misleading in this sense. More of Canada may become suitable for wheat farming, and possibly also parts of Siberia, but that's a really small benefit considering what is going to become less suitable. Expect lots of new deserts. Expect rainfall patterns to change in an unpredictable way. Ex
Re:So can we actually talk about solutions? (Score:4, Informative)
https://www.universetoday.com/... [universetoday.com]
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/a... [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Some peoples answer is that Earth has been hotter plenty of times in the past, but that past is 100's of millions of year ago and the sun has been getting steadily hotter. It's not a matter of if but when will earth become as hot as Venus. Earth has had tipping points in the past, one time it nearly never emerged out of a frozen planet stage. Now we have to hope that we aren't causing Earth to become like Venus sooner rather than later.
Worst-ish case global warming, interesting video:
https://www.youtube.com [youtube.com]
Re:So can we actually talk about solutions? (Score:4, Interesting)
That isn't happening. Evolution takes 100's of thousands of years. Climate change is going to make the world unlivable in the next 10-50 years, and at some point the hydrogen sulfide event kills us all if it gets warm enough. That event already started in 2004.
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/ocean-chemistry-changes-triggered-earths-greatest-extinction-event/2500368.article
This event happens every time the planet gets too hot. When carbon dioxide hits 1,000 ppm.
Re: So can we actually talk about solutions? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: So can we actually talk about solutions? (Score:4, Informative)
Also, irreversible? Build a ship, send it to the Lagrange 1 point between the sun and the earth, have it expand a massive mesh that dims the sun, even by a little bit; and watch the earth cool. Fast.
Yeah, let's not do that. Food crops like warm weather.
Climate change is years from now (Score:4, Insightful)
That's what the green New Deal is supposed to be about. It's supposed to be Jobs first then addressing climate change after. It would work too. But there's a lot of existing players who do not want anything upsetting their apple carts. Try to imagine what would happen to the Middle East if the United States switched completely to renewables. Or what about those Texas oil fields that are worth trillions. What would they be worth if 80% of our power came from solar and wind and the rest from nuclear? How much would those assets devalue?
Re:Climate change is years from now (Score:5, Informative)
That's what the green New Deal is supposed to be about. It's supposed to be Jobs first then addressing climate change after. It would work too. But there's a lot of existing players who do not want anything upsetting their apple carts. Try to imagine what would happen to the Middle East if the United States switched completely to renewables. Or what about those Texas oil fields that are worth trillions. What would they be worth if 80% of our power came from solar and wind and the rest from nuclear? How much would those assets devalue?
Have you actually read the green new deal? It's only 5 pages, you might want to take a look. It's not about that at all. It's about racial equity disguised as environmentalism and making sure the people that DARED work in greenhouse gas emitting industries are punished for the remainder of their now-much-shorter lives. This is why we can't make progress at the governmental level on this, nobody with any power is willing to remove the nonsense, and attack the issue and JUST the issue.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's what the green New Deal is supposed to be about. It's supposed to be Jobs first then addressing climate change after. It would work too. But there's a lot of existing players who do not want anything upsetting their apple carts. Try to imagine what would happen to the Middle East if the United States switched completely to renewables. Or what about those Texas oil fields that are worth trillions. What would they be worth if 80% of our power came from solar and wind and the rest from nuclear? How much would those assets devalue?
Have you actually read the green new deal? It's only 5 pages, you might want to take a look. It's not about that at all. It's about racial equity disguised as environmentalism and making sure the people that DARED work in greenhouse gas emitting industries are punished for the remainder of their now-much-shorter lives. This is why we can't make progress at the governmental level on this, nobody with any power is willing to remove the nonsense, and attack the issue and JUST the issue.
Yeah, I've read it. It's full of nonsense. Here is one of the goals to fix the climate:
"(E) to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this resolution as ‘‘frontline and vulnerable communities
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How did you get from "people need to eat" to your proposed solution, "let's create lots of meaningless work for everyone to do"?
I can't speak for everyone, but personally, I don't want a job. I do want income. Preferably, from income derived from my own savings.
Re: Climate change is years from now (Score:2)
Too many people have bought into the lie poor people are told: life satisfaction comes from work.
That's Marxist bullshit. Labor isn't intrinsically rewarding and shouldn't be a goal. Politics should work around the problem of labor instead of trying to put it front and center.
Re: (Score:2)
No ideology can claim a monopoly on stupidity, but a proper capitalist understands that nobody ever got rich by working a day job. Save & invest in the future: become financially independent. No government program needed!
Own, or be owned!
Re: Climate change is years from now (Score:2)
What's Marxist is making labor the organizing principle. The Protestant work ethic just primes those people for the Marxist politics.
Protestantism preceded modern capitalism. Marxism was a reaction to industrialization and capital accumulation and so is much more relevant to our politics than 16th century religious philosophy. It's proximal and it still has major impact on how we discuss politics and class and how we legislate.
Re: (Score:2)
Too many people have bought into the lie poor people are told: life satisfaction comes from work.
That's Marxist bullshit. Labor isn't intrinsically rewarding and shouldn't be a goal. Politics should work around the problem of labor instead of trying to put it front and center.
Marxist? You're talking about the Protestant work ethic there.
Re: (Score:3)
There aren't many industries which are inevitably dirty (at least in the sense we're talking about) and most of those have rival industries. If there was targeted investment to clean up those that can be cleaned up and targeted subsidies to scale up cleaner options where they exist, there should be a net gain in jobs.
It could be that this is the new green deal you refer to, I'm honestly not sure what that refers to these days, but ultimately a net loss of jobs (or indeed the actual loss of any job as oppose
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Two words (Score:5, Insightful)
There's 2 leftish senators, Bernie Sanders and Ed Markey. Even Warren's right of center on a lot of issues, she just wants to regulate Wall Street so the economy stops crashing.
I'm blaming the right wing because their media (which dominates American news) is overwhelmingly hostile to even admitting climate change exists much less addressing it. You can find plenty of coverage of the Green New Deal from them to prove this.
Is trolling like this fun? Are you getting paid? Why do you do it?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Is this some sort of peasant joke that the rest of us are too rich to understand ? /. then at this hour and not working to buy more houses ?
You own A SINGLE HOUSE ? Why are you on
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of guy who cares about Climate Change and the working/lower classes owns THREE HOUSES? Do you own THREE HOUSES?
I would imagine most Senators have at least two homes:
One in the state they represent, and one in DC where they work.
Most of us don't work hundreds or thousands of miles from our homes for years at a stretch, but Senators do.
Sanders has been representing the people of Vermont since 1991. Where did you think he was going to sleep for the past 30 years, an AirBnB?
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong it was perfect example, just like my similar complaint against the G7 leadership. You lead by example. If those jackasses wanted to show us they really care about carbon foot print - they'd have had a virtual conference! Somehow the rest of us were expected to manage that during their lockdowns!
Another example major government support for the Olympics - Huge massive 'waste' of carbon! All of it from travel by spectators to the venues, etc. Insanity.
If Smash & Grab is the rights politics than "ru
Re: (Score:2)
Is this like Tucker Carlson, the guy who went to a private boarding school, going on and on about "elites" while he's the heir to the Swanson frozen dinner fortune?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Climate change is years from now (Score:5, Insightful)
I see the point you are trying to make but it falls a bit flat against reality.
If we were at the point of "everyone acknowledges the problem but have differing opinions on solutions" then there might be a case to be made but Republicans refuse to acknowledge the climate issue. The same few arguments get tossed around when this is brought up.
"No proof the climate is warming"
"If it is warming it's not man made"
"If it is warming we cannot make any change"
"If it is warming no point trying to change since China/India will just pollute more"
Now I am not so naïve to believe that if there was 62 Democrat Senators all this would magically be fixed but I imagine in that scenario something would be happening on the federal level as opposed to the close to nothing we have gotten for the last 30 years.
Democrats don't get a free pass for being feckless and ineffective at governance but Republicans certainly have cemented themselves as the party of obstruction and denial of all issues.
The Green New Deal is not policy yet, it's purely an aspirational document at this point. If it were ever to start being entertained seriously it would have to go through the process of being actually turned into a bill, thusly it's heavy on goals and not specifics.
Pointing out the 4 most difficult fossil fuel issues to solve doesn't make up for the more straightforward ones we can in fact solve over the next decades, namely transportation, power generation, heating and cooling efficiency and insulation, lighting and heavy industry processes. Not to mention there are also gains to be made in all those sectors that may not eliminate fossil fuels but reduce consumption (IE, better public transport will reduce aviation fuel usage. An abundance of cheap renewable energy opens possibilities for alternative fuel production. The military is in need of budget and equipment cuts which would also reduce usage, etc etc)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean welcome to how government works and getting "something" is really the best you can hope for many of the times? Especially in the US the system itself is built to roadblock big sweeping paradigm shifts and expecting them is just a recipe for disappointment.
The ACA did not solve the healthcare issues we have in the country but it did something and made some much needed changes for the better even though it really did not solve for the larger issues (primarily cost controls). That said it's hard to arg
Re: (Score:3)
It was pushed heavily because the healthcare system was on a trajectory to disaster for those of us who had to interact with it before the ACA. It did accomplish some important things
Pre-existing condition coverage
Healthcare marketplace for those without access to employer insurance
Maximum out of pocket caps
Premiums and cost increases have slowed versus the rates they were climbing beforehand but admittedly they are still climbing.
It cannot be denied these are positive changes even if on a whole it did not
Re: (Score:2)
"Skewered for it?" It went into affect this year. I suppose we will see in the next few years if it has the effect folks think it will.
Personally I think it's a good thing in and of itself but it will not solve the issue as healthcare is a market failure and transparency in a market that has an infinite demand curve cannot solve that issue at the core, but I see no issue with it as policy and apparently neither does the current administration as there are no plans to stop it. Having transparency just mean
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What do you mean "the left"? The Democrats were always a right-wing party. A few decades ago, the more center-left Republican party leapt over to the far right, so there are now two right-wing parties. Any sensible centrists left are part of the least right-wing party, the Democrats, but the party as a whole doesn't work very well as they don't have a very concrete vision (remember the part is still right-wing in general, progressive ideas are often considered too "leftist" or even "commie" by many Democrat
Re: (Score:2)
From the fact that you quote climate change and put it next to "SJW issues" (quotes intended there), I get that you have a poor understanding of the world around you.
Climate Change and SJW issues have been conflated already many many times. PROOF of what I say (one example): https://e360.yale.edu/features... [yale.edu]
So don't even start with that nonsense.
Continuing, whoever thinks that a born in riches, demonstrably super-egotistical, poor excuse for a human being is the answer for "normal people", has a serious cognitive impairment in my book. If there ever was a man who did not care AT ALL about the "normal people" it is him.
I am assuming you are talking about Trump. Fuck Trump. I didn't vote for Trump. I never will. I am also not "right wing" or "racist" or whatever the fuck you people come up with next. You people are brainwashed into believing there are two "sides". There are no sides.
have to tell you that's the problem with the US, those things SHOULD NOT "affect the world", or even just the US (stereotypical American, you were using "the world", while meaning the US). What does immediately affect "the world" and should concern you are things like the widening rich/poor gap, healthcare, education.
Correct. That is what i mentioned: "Some people are actually
Re: (Score:2)
Climate Change and SJW issues have been conflated already many many times. PROOF of what I say (one example): https://e360.yale.edu/features... [yale.edu]
So don't even start with that nonsense.
Sorry, but I personally think that people who conflate these issues are idiots, hence I called you out when you conflated them. The fact that other people conflate them is no proof of anything. But of course it's just my opinion, climate change is a real issue, SJW is a huge waste of time and resources that's missing the point. And I am all for LGBTQ rights etc, but that's not what SJW has become.
I am assuming you are talking about Trump. Fuck Trump. I didn't vote for Trump. I never will. I am also not "right wing" or "racist" or whatever the fuck you people come up with next. You people are brainwashed into believing there are two "sides". There are no sides.
Well we agree in one part, I mean I was saying that Trump is probably the worst person for everyone, but Hillary
Re:Climate change is years from now (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no need for central planning, Ivan. Just internalize CO2's negative externalities [investopedia.com] and let the market decide how to do those things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably one who doesn't like sitting in traffic. And if they're smart, they'll use the carbon tax revenue to periodically send everyone a dividend [wikipedia.org].
Re:Climate change is years from now (Score:4, Insightful)
That's the problem with the USA. People too keen to vote for their own demise. $8/gallon? What's that $8/3.78L. Which is $2.1/L which is 1.7EUR/L
LOL that's cheaper than what I pay normally. The fact you think *THAT* is problem is why the rest of the world hates you. Can't even pay a real petrol price without complaining.
Re: (Score:2)
In America, you only control a branch when you've a 60% majority. A simple majority is useless, as it cannot survive fillibuster by even a single bribed individual.
Re: (Score:2)
That's just silly (Score:3, Interesting)
And the middle class doesn't have any money to tax. They already pay the majority of taxes unless you play games with income tax and pretend property tax and sale tax and liquor tax and gas tax and the dozens of other regressive taxes don't exist. You can't squeeze blood from a stone. If the
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Only one of the points is infrastructure. Here are some other gems (you can read it yourself from the ACUTAL LINK TO THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT:
promoting justice and equality.
ensuring businesspersons are free from unfair competition; and
providing higher education, high-quality health care, and affordable, safe, and adequate housing to all.
So obviously none of
Re: (Score:2)
rsilvergun is a liar. The evidence is in black and white right here, right now.
If rsilvergun is typing, rsilvergun in lying.
Old News (Score:3, Informative)
We past the tipping point in 2012.... there is some evidence we can still go back if we take this seriously.. however world governments are doing nothing so I am just watching as all of humanity destroys the earth. No one takes the issue seriously.
This is just another event leading up to the end.
Re: (Score:2)
I am just watching as all of humanity destroys the earth
destroys itself is a more accurate message. The earth will be fine either way, and phrasing that sounds like we care about the 'Earth' in and of itself rather than 'Our ability to live on Earth' is part of why the message falls short in some audiences. They think saving the earth is some sort of misguided altruism rather than a self-serving interest, and mostly we are about the self-serving interests.
Then we'd better get hot ... (Score:2)
No shit, Sherlock. (Score:2)
Decisive action was due mid-80ies. It's 2021 and we're still slow poking about. That a tipping point has been crossed its just about common knowledge with climate scientist.
We need a global eco balance tax and real research into eco repair technologies and strategies within the decade. Anyone capable of basic math is aware of this. Sadly, most people insist on driving SUVs and eating cheap meat every day, so things aren't looking to good right now.
And so (Score:2)
Oh, cool. Then there's nothing we can do about it.
THAT'S NOT WHAT WE MEAN!
So now it is the time... (Score:2)
Re:800 lb elephant in the room (Score:4, Insightful)
Except all demographic indicators suggest the population is likely to start shrinking by 2070, if not by 2050. The rate of growth likely turns negative by as early as 2035.
Population is a problem that solves itself. Once society advances to a point where more children no longer results in more personal wealth accumulation people seem to stop having children much beyond the replacement rate. They procreate to satisfy the vanity of their families continued existence, but one-three kids does that, you don't need eight to work the farm.
Secondly pressure and poverty also reduce the birthrate often pushing it way below the replacement rate. People don't have kids when they are afraid they can't offer them any kind of life. Everyone expected COVID baby boom at the start - but turns out its a baby bust!
Re: (Score:2)
Population is a problem that solves itself. Once the population exceeds the carrying capacity of where it resides, die-offs result. Of course, before that, there are endless wars and migrations.
Re: (Score:3)
Shrinking population would be a disaster for a global economy that depends on inflation and a rising population.
Not as bad a disaster as exponentially rising population. This is an inescapable fact: exponential growth cannot continue forever. No exceptions: cannot. Therefore, we already know that the population rise will stop. The questions are, when? and how?
Re: 800 lb elephant in the room (Score:2)
Not really that big a problem. The first world economies rely on population growth (or at least economic growth). Third world countries without obvious resources could do with a few people leaving.
The problem basically solves itself.
The trick is getting around the racists.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet there are declining [bbc.com] birth [slashdot.org] rates. Sounds like we are on our way to the opposite problem.
Re: 800 lb elephant in the room (Score:2)
Nigeria at least is a temporary situation. Infant mortality has dropped, but the child bearing lags by a generation. In addition, women are becoming more educated which is strongly correlated to drops in birth rates.
Re: (Score:2)
Who is saying that besides you?
Tedious trollery[Re:Global warming...or carbon...] (Score:2)
So global warming is a problem, but all I see is people obsessed by emissions.
I'm sorry, but pretending to be stupid really isn't helping. You are undoubtably laughing your ass off by all the people who respond to your trolling that "I'm really stupid, tell me again how reducing greenhouse gas emissions could possibly reduce greenhouse-effect warming," but it's tedious.
Learn enough to contribute, or else please go somewhere else.
Re: (Score:2)
I had your reaction at first, but re-reading GP's comment I think he was actually raising an interesting question. Yes, reducing emissions is one way to address global warming, but perhaps there is a better way. After all, even if we cut emissions to zero today, we would still be left with current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and its associated effects for at least one hundred years, if not more.
So the question GP was raising is pretty pertinent -- namely, are there ways we can address global warming in
we can do both [Re:Tedious trollery] (Score:2)
Well, first, we can do both; they are not mutually exclusive.
Second, greenhouse emissions are a cumulative problem: if you don't solve the problem of continuing to emit greenhouse gasses, you're chasing a problem that keeps on getting worse.
Third, geoengineering proposals tend to be short-term fixes to a long-term problem: yes, you be able to come up with a way to reduce solar absorption by, for example, injecting sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere, but these aerosols drop out of the atmosphere on a tim
Re: (Score:2)
I'll ignore your ad hominems and respond. Yes, reducing emissions will help reduce global warming. Just as wearing masks will reduce covid transmission, as in my analogy.
Good. So quit pretending you're stupid by asking why people think reducing greenhouse emissions will reduce greenhouse warming.
Re: (Score:2)
Reduce, not reverse. Try harder.
One day you will be forced to admit that attempts to reverse warming by reducing emissions has failed. When that happens I hope you will remember your juvenalia and repent.
This correspondence is concluded.
Re: (Score:2)
So global warming is a problem, but all I see is people obsessed by emissions.
You'd be obsessed too if you worked at a Taco Bell.
Besides I wouldn't call it "ineffective" [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Gotta keep that panic going.
Of course you do, because humans are selfish, shortsighted people that won't take meaningful action about something unless it is both urgent and life threatening, and maybe not even then. If we were all rational, objective, disciplined beings that valued the lives and happiness of others as much as our own, panic mongering wouldn't be a thing, but unfortunately, that's not how it works. So, you get politicians and advertisers scaremongering to try to manipulate people into doing things. The question isn't t
Re: (Score:3)
You're right, as far as humans being irrational, short-term thinkers. However, we are also treated to a continual drone of doomsday predictions, none of which ever pan out. That doesn't exactly encourage people to take them seriously. As in this case - yet another doomsday prediction, which is total BS.
Cities underwater? No one said a warming planet was going to respect our building zones. But the underwater cities are yet another doomsday prediction, because people talk like it will be tomorrow, when 3mm
Re: (Score:2)
Racist teeter-totter factories.