We're On a Highway To Climate Hell, UN Boss Says 275
United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres told countries gathered at the start of the COP27 summit in Egypt on Monday they face a stark choice: work together now to cut emissions or condemn future generations to climate catastrophe. From a report: The speech set an urgent tone as governments sit down for two weeks of talks on how to avert the worst of climate change, even as they are distracted by Russia's war in Ukraine, rampant consumer inflation and energy shortages. "Humanity has a choice: cooperate or perish," Guterres told delegates gathered in the seaside resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh. He called for a pact between the world's richest and poorest countries to accelerate the transition from fossil fuels and funding to ensure poorer countries can reduce emissions and cope with the climate impacts that have already occurred. "The two largest economies -- the United States and China -- have a particular responsibility to join efforts to make this pact a reality," he said.
Future Generations? (Score:5, Insightful)
What about current generations? This fool is understating the case to everyone's detriment, that is literally part of how we got here! AGW is already causing crisis and chaos, and pandering to people who will never believe in it by using minimizing language and pretending the problem isn't already upon us is actively harmful.
Re: (Score:2)
But it's just weather! And it doesn't affect us! And it isn't man-made! And ... I'm sure I forgot something.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe stop to consider that these same boomers have been hearing about "the end of the world climate disaster" since they were young adults in the early 60's....they' were just told that the end of the world is in 1975, and then 1980 and then 1995 and so on and so forth. They've simply been conditioned to reject the notion and you will be too, 40 or so years from now.
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest, it seems the solution to every problem in the US seems to be to put more money into the hands of people who already have more money than they can spend in lifetime.
Re:The boomers have more than enough money (Score:5, Insightful)
The meme "let's pit different generations against each other" gets some cheap laughs, but it's actually not in any way helpful to divide people.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about raw numbers, it's about voters (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So "oblivion" is having the Presidency, a 48/50 split in the Senate, 220/212 split in the House, 21/28 state Governors, and 62/28 of the Mayorships in the top 100 US cities by population.
I think your brain is totally fucked.
For one thing, if I were super excited about all of those Democrats being in power, my brain would be totally fucked. The Democrats always seem to manage to squander a good majority. Can't even squeeze out a decent green new deal, because that would require admitting that the unemployment rate is a huge fucking bipartisan scam.
For the other, there are both RINOs and DINOs. I should not have to expand on this at all, we all know who the DINOs are and what they're good for. Same thing as war, making lots of m
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
And the Millenials are slowly inheriting everything from the Boomers.
Yes, too slowly to do any good. The bulk of them will become as embittered as the boomers, but with actual good reason and not despite being the most coddled, spoiled, participation-prize-cradling generation in American history.
Re: (Score:2)
Inheriting? Inheriting what? The whirlwind?
The boomers are blowing their money on feeble attempts to eke out another year or two of their worthless existence, if you think you'll inherit anything from a boomer, you're delusional.
Re: (Score:2)
There will still be boomers around in 30 years, not 10. The biggest wave of them is just hitting 65 now.
Re: (Score:2)
Kettle meet pot. Not to burst your bubble but the generations after the boomers aren't doing much better. There is a lot of talk, but the actions are very similar to the boomer's actions. A lot of waste and everything about consumption. Just look at the waste that we generate. It's growing with every generation.
You're missing the point (Score:2)
Hell, look how much everyone freaks out when I point this out. Nobody wants to hear it. The boomers are desperate to shift the blame for the mess they made even as they double down on making it worse.
Re: (Score:3)
I got into the treehouse just fine, and I'm making it as climate-proof as possible cause this shit is going down.
Your treehouse is in a tree that's dying due to climate change. When the masses lose their shit, they're going to cut your tree down, and probably use it as firewood for cooking cockroaches-on-a-stick. We're already seeing climate refugees, mostly who now have no water.
Re: Shoulda done something 40 years ago (Score:2)
Uh, no. The politicians, scientist, and activist who raised the alarm and tried to do something about it are not equivalent to the oil industry, politicians, and marketing firms who furiously denied it was even happening.
Re: (Score:2)
We should have started some forty years ago, but we didn't.
Twenty years ago would have been fine, particularly with the fracking revolution. Instead, we haven't started yet, unless you want to call "gestures" as "actions". The problem doesn't get fixed with an economy collapsing 5 year plan at the last minute, so we'll just be crabs slowly boiling to death.
Shoulda done something 40 years ago:... AND WE DID (Score:2)
p>We should have started some forty years ago, but we didn't.
But we did. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory was founded in 1977 (as the Solar Energy Research Institute), and was designated a national laboratory (by President George Bush) on September 16, 1991: that's forty one years ago.
The current low-cost solar panels are the direct descendent of the Department of Energy solar initiatives: https://www.energy.gov/eere/so... [energy.gov]
Current understanding of the climate, and understanding of the role of human generated carbon dioxide dates back to the 1979 National Res
Re: (Score:2)
Solar panels could repay their energy investment in under 7 years in the 1970s and most panels even of that time lasted at least 20 years with 80% or more output, if not subjected to excessive physical insult. The longevity and the degradation over time have both gotten better (in their respective directions) steadily over that period. We should not only have been researching better panels, we should have been installing them.
Similarly, the birth of modern wind power was in 1941 [vpr.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately, you and everyone who thinks like you, are wrong
Riiight, you and the oil companies know better than the people whose job it is to study this stuff. It's a conspiracy of scientists who want to pitch us into the dark ages! And it's being paid for by... er, wait. Who'd pay for that? Wait, none of this makes sense. Maybe you're just an idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
By not doing anything we are killing our grandchildren.
I don't have any children or grandchildren, which by the way makes a bigger difference in my lifecycle CO2 emissions than anything else an individual can do. But I am being affected by AGW right now, and so are all of us, so even if I didn't care about anyone else (which a quick perusal of my posting history will show is not the case) I'd still have a reason to care about AGW.
Re: (Score:3)
The biggest question for me is whether or not tan organism can adapt to change and stand the test of time.
They cannot. Biological life is adapted to follow such changes, but 100...10'000 times slower. Most life affected by stronger changes with the speed expected will simply die out. Unfortunately, that will be a lot.
Just another clusterfark (Score:2)
Prior to seeing all this, b
Re: (Score:3)
We keep hitting the snooze button
If you mean we're not doing anything about climate change, that is not true. Not enough, and it should have started much earlier, but actions are being taken.
Re: (Score:2)
We're like the kid that promised he was gonna paint the house today, and as mom and dad are pulling into the driveway he's just getting the ladder out and spilled a bucket of paint on his shiny new overalls to make it look good. We're doing a poor job of putting on a show of making changes, and nobody's buying it.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm more concerned about Texans trying to escape the inhospitable hellhole their country will be.
Unlike Mexicans, they are not only armed, they think they have a right to survive on your expense.
Re: (Score:2)
That Florida and some other Gulf states will become cesspools experiencing disaster after disaster?
What's this "will become" business?
Yeah, right (Score:4, Interesting)
The Beautiful People fly to a posh resort and tell us peasants how to live our lives? Yeah, right.
That the weather is nuts is obvious. We've solved harder problems. Let's solve this one. With answers, not dogma and hypocrisy.
...laura
Re: (Score:2)
That the weather is nuts is obvious. We've solved harder problems.
Name one.
Re: (Score:2)
That the weather is nuts is obvious. We've solved harder problems.
Name one.
The ozone hole and acid rain. There are two for you.
Re: (Score:2)
The ozone hole and acid rain. There are two for you.
The ozone hole was solved by switching away from CFCs to equally cheap to produce and direct replacement HFCs. Acid rain was solved with catalysts to reduce SO2. Those are trivial solutions compared to what it will take to solve AGW. It's not even the same motherfucking sport. Not surprised to see such a gross misunderstanding of the situation from someone who thinks we can solve the problem by taking decades to build power plants with a finite fuel supply and greater lifecycle emissions, though.
Science and Engineering solve the crisis ... (Score:4, Insightful)
That the weather is nuts is obvious. We've solved harder problems.
Name one.
Pick a malthusian crisis from history. Let's say the population crisis of the late 19th century, global famine was predicted. Science and Engineering solved that problem (industrial scale chemical fertilizer), as it had the preceding malthusian crisis, as it will solve the current if we can put the scientists and engineers in charge instead of the politicians and pop stars.
Re: (Score:2)
We've solved harder problems.
I'm skeptical of that claim.
Re: (Score:2)
We've solved harder problems.
I'm skeptical of that claim.
Ex. Population crisis, projected global famine, solved by industrial scale chemical fertilizers.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I'm skeptical that was harder than climate change. That required some engineering that produced a product that didn't need any extra incentives to distribute. It made things better for farmers, food buyers, everyone. Very different situation than fossil fuels.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, after millions died in the famines... but hey, fine by me, I'm one of those that can still afford food. Dance, monkey, for my entertainment and this banana!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
But at least we created lots of shareholder value
https://i.redd.it/yo3qo75qfs56... [i.redd.it]
sounds like an job for nuclear power! (Score:3, Insightful)
sounds like an job for nuclear power!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your ancestor had a sense of humour, which you apparently didn't inherit. I think that would make him sad.
He also had common sense, and an ability to do research, so it's hard to imagine him being a proponent of nuclear power.
Re: (Score:2)
Needs a heavy metal version (Score:3)
you will be Safe In New York City! (Score:2)
you will be Safe In New York City!
No way out (Score:3)
There are three main reasons why the world's population isn't doing enough to solve the problem:
- In terms of intelligence we have not evolved to think globally: "Not my concern".
- We are all mortal. Tackling the issue means sacrifices by those who live now for the sake of those who will inherit this planet from us. "Why should I care?"
- Our entire lifestyle is based on constant population and productivity growth. The planet can sustain only so much. There are already way too many of us for the planet to support.
I won't say we are doomed but entire state ideologies, economies and religions must be changed for the issue to be resolved. Nothing even remotely enough will be done any time soon. It's only when global wars (due to starvation, waves of migration and fights for resources/survival) start raging again, people will reconsider their decision.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What about small problems that are relatively easy to solve? How about microplastics?
What the actual what? That's a massive problem that's nightmarishly difficult to solve. You think modern society couldn't function without fossil fuels? Imagine trying to operate it without plastics. Now explain how you're going to clean up distributed microplastic pollution when plastics can persist in the environment for millennia. It's like trying to clean up the radioactive isotope emissions from coal power, it's just not possible.
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't talking about removing microplastics which is already everywhere in the environment. I meant the issue of minimizing plastics use every-fucking-where even where it's totally unnecessary. It looks like everything is wrapped/packaged in layers of it even stuff which can be safely transferred packaging-free.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are three main reasons why the world's population isn't doing enough to solve the problem:
- In terms of intelligence we have not evolved to think globally: "Not my concern".
- We are all mortal. Tackling the issue means sacrifices by those who live now for the sake of those who will inherit this planet from us. "Why should I care?"
- Our entire lifestyle is based on constant population and productivity growth. The planet can sustain only so much. There are already way too many of us for the planet to support.
I won't say we are doomed but entire state ideologies, economies and religions must be changed for the issue to be resolved. Nothing even remotely enough will be done any time soon. It's only when global wars (due to starvation, waves of migration and fights for resources/survival) start raging again, people will reconsider their decision.
Another one is, what else can I do about it? According to a couple websites, my CO2 generation is way less than average because I hardly drive anywhere, consume way under my means and do what I can to reduce heat and AC usage. Many of the suggestions to fix global warming is way over what I can do as an individual.
The Black Knight. (Score:2)
"Yes I have!" - The Black Knight
Twitter (Score:2, Insightful)
We just learned that Twitter had an office dedicated to suppressing opinions contrary to the UN, based on conference with UN officials.
When you have the truth on your side you don't need censorship. Their Malthuaianism is now on display for all to see.
And, yeah, lots of maladjusted Malthusians here too.
Re: (Score:3)
What really actually happened: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press... [ohchr.org]
Hmmm (Score:2)
UN is pushing global socialism with green panic. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The current administration is doing everything possible (and Biden is doubling down on this in recent speeches) to keep us from attaining and processing fossil fuels before we are ready as a country to go full on alternative, renewable energy sources.
What actions are you referring to?
Re: (Score:2)
Again, of course we want to move more to renewables and cleaner energy. BUT, we need to develop those and the infrastructure to use and support them in parallel to producing enough fossil fuel domestic energy that we are so fully dependent upon in current society, till we are ready to switch over.
For years now we've been subsidizing oil. It's the main argument that's been preventing the adoption of cleaner energy. The sad part is you think that Biden or Trump will make a difference. Politicians are bought and paid for. There is no way that someone can get elected on policy alone. You need the cash to push the policy forward. You need the cash to push the agenda. We've been talking about this for over 50 years. No you don't want to move to renewables and cleaner energy because if you did we wouldn't
Re:Cart before the horse... (Score:4, Informative)
Nope, turns out not. Biden is talking about reducing our fossil fuel use in the long term, but nothing he's actually done has reduced our attaining nor processing fossil fuels
Well, here he is talking about shutting down all coal plants
Exactly. Talking.
And here, at about 2:50 where Biden orders halting oil and gas leases.
Two errors here. First, turns out Biden didn't halt oil and gas leases on federal land. What he did is order a pause to make an assessment, but after the assessment (which was completed a year ago), the result was "continue to make such leases," which he did.
Second... oil and gas leases produce oil and gas many years in the future. It takes time to produce oil and gas from a new start.
Here's a good speech on it, by Senator Capito on how Biden admin has raised gas prices ...skip in to about 1 minute in.
Gosh, you want us to rely on a youtoob speech by a politician saying that politicians from the opposition party are doing bad things. Who would have thought a politician would say such things.
... Again, of course we want to move more to renewables and cleaner energy. BUT, we need to develop those and the infrastructure to use and support them in parallel to producing enough fossil fuel domestic energy that we are so fully dependent upon in current society, till we are ready to switch over.
And nothing Biden has said or done disagrees with that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Give it a few months to get much worse.
Yes, that is certainly the right-wing plan for AGW. And a few more months after that, and some more after that...
Re: (Score:2)
We have to keep the energy sources we depend upon as a country and society until we are ready with the plentiful renewable and cleaner energy AND the infrastructure to support it.
You do know that nobody is doing otherwise, right? Despite all the scaremongering you fell for, nobody is having to force coal plants to shut down, oil companies are sitting on thousands of leases they're choosing not to exploit because they want them to be more profitable first... none of the things you think are happening are happening. But what is happening is that AGW is already bad and getting worse, and we already have the technology to do something about it. We have more than enough people out of wor
Re: (Score:2)
But we are simply NOT at the point to where we can transition...
The key point here is: Why aren't you? It's not like this -- all of this, the climate catastrophe, the role CO2 plays, forecasts on how it will go down etc -- are news. Not by any stretch of the imagination. We've known this since the '70s of the last millenium. USA, of all countries, the most advanced, powerful and rich economy on the planet, have had plenty of time.
So, again: why are you yet still "NOT the point where [you] can transition"?
What exactly have you been waiting for?
What makes you -- actually,
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The only sensible solution to AGW for the grid is nuclear. There is no plan anywhere for how to run a reliable grid solely on "renewables". It's fantasy. Adults need to take over to actually solve this problem.
Transport; electric cars are still too expensive and have limitations that make them a worse choice for many people than gas-powered vehicles. They're finally getting close, though. But that doesn't solve air travel, heavy machinery, trucking, rail and shipping, all of which need more power than any b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Scottish Government estimates that, in 2020, 56% of the electricity consumed in Scotland came from renewable sources, 30% from nuclear and 13% from fossil fuels.
That's net 86% from low carbon production. Nuclear is above 20%. Renewable production alone is 97% of generation (excludes nuclear), but some is exported when there is an excess. Some of the 13% is domestic, some from England. 13% is low. Trading and over capacity will see that fall further. But that should give an idea of how it works with high levels of renewables - there's actually little reliance on gas.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A real solution. I will believe folks like you are serious about AGW when you approve building of nuclear at scale.
We know you're not serious about AGW because you keep rambling about nuclear when it's cheaper, faster, easier, and there are lower lifecycle emissions with renewables.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nuclear has had greater subsidy but conttibutes less.
That's the root of the situation. Money spent on renewables produces greater dividends than on any other kind of generation, whether we're talking about building plants or doing research. Yet the nuclear fanboys want us to believe that their slower to build plants, which produce greater lifetime CO2 emissions, are somehow the answer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly have you been waiting for?
A real solution.
You'd have a point if nuclear power had been invented yesterday. But it's been around for even longer than the fossil industry demonstrably knew about the climate impact of its own industry. It, too, has had 50 years at its disposal to displace the fossil fuel industry. It hasn't.
At this point, all talking points in this direction are just: deflection, excuses and political populism.
Re: (Score:2)
I will believe folks like you are serious about AGW when you approve building of nuclear at scale.
No thanks. We have the AGW problem to solve. No time to waste approving something that even in best cases assuming on time construction (none of these projects finish on time) will arrive way too late to stop global warming.
You need to let go. Nuclear was a solution to AGW 15 years ago. Now it's just a distraction.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you referring to Biden's IRA act which allocates massive amounts of money for renewable energy, renewable energy transportation, grid updates, manufacturing infrastructure for renewable energy, etc.?
Re: (Score:2)
And that will start to come online in any meaningful way in oh, let's be optimistic and say 8-10years.....
Are we supposed to suffer for lack of current energy needs supplied fossil fuels which we are completely dependent upon at this time?
Sure we're starting to invest and move to renewables....but this do
Re: (Score:2)
Are we supposed to suffer for lack of current energy needs supplied fossil fuels which we are completely dependent upon at this time?
Nobody, not even Joe Biden, is asking you to do that. Coal plants are closing down already because they're unprofitable, and investment is in wind and solar because they have low recurring costs and high profits — they are the cheapest way to produce more power! You are literally not being asked to change your habits. You will still be able to drive a fossil fuel powered vehicle with no emissions equipment for the foreseeable future, although you might wind up having to run it on a gaseous fuel like L
Re:Cart before the horse... (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the big reasons in the US we're having so many problems is...
The current administration is doing everything possible (and Biden is doubling down on this in recent speeches) to keep us from attaining and processing fossil fuels
Like allowing more drilling and pipeline construction [nytimes.com]?
Democrats have never really tried to suppress production. The playbook has always been promote new production while funding renewables at the same time.
Shutting down Keystone is a notable exception, but that's because the victim was the Canadian Oil industry, not the US.
But we are simply NOT at the point to where we can transition...our grid isn't ready, the rest of the infrastructure isn't here....and because our govt is actively trying to keep the US from full on production and processing of fossil fuels we have access to in the ground domestically before we are ready to do the major switch.....
Oil companies have lots of land to drill on. To the extent they aren't drilling as much as they could is because they're worried about long term future of oil.
Well, there's likely to be a LOT of cold people in the NE and midwest this winter.
Not to mention other shortages due to coming diesel fuel shortage coming at us full bore.
You really think that in under 2 years Biden managed to depress the fuel supply?
Pipelines take years to build.
You think prices are bad now and some shelves are looking less that fully stocked?
Give it a few months to get much worse.
Doing your bit for the midterm elections?
Re: (Score:2)
Shutting down Keystone is a notable exception, but that's because the victim was the Canadian Oil industry, not the US.
It also didn't stop anything. All it did was make some oil less profitable, not unprofitable. If that means the oil doesn't get pumped, it's not because it's not worth money, or because an industry was shut down.
Oil companies have lots of land to drill on. To the extent they aren't drilling as much as they could is because they're worried about long term future of oil.
And that really brings us to our central point, they're afraid they're not going to be allowed to produce more oil, and that's because producing more oil is an existential threat. The people ranting about how we need to stop being mean to big oil so they can produce more pollution apparently want to
Re: (Score:2)
Shutting down Keystone is a notable exception, but that's because the victim was the Canadian Oil industry, not the US.
It also didn't stop anything. All it did was make some oil less profitable, not unprofitable. If that means the oil doesn't get pumped, it's not because it's not worth money, or because an industry was shut down.
Well making it unprofitable is shutting it down.
But the actual issue is that Alberta doesn't have enough pipeline capacity to ship oil out of the province. One consequence is that less oil is extracted in Alberta which is overall good for the environment. The other consequence is that the oil that is extracted gets transported by truck or rail, which is bad in every way possible (including the environment).
We want to reduce oil extraction / consumption, but if we do produce it we should really move it aroun
Re: (Score:2)
Shutting down Keystone is a notable exception, but that's because the victim was the Canadian Oil industry, not the US.
With you everywhere except for here. The sole victims are not just the producers. There's a reason much of the *US oil industry* was pushing to have this pipeline built. There's a significantly larger economic process at work than just getting it out of the ground, including transportation, refining, working into sundry products, and selling refined fuel.
Re: (Score:2)
People love to focus on the per capita emissions in the U.S....but there's "only" 330 million people in the U.S....that leaves 7.5 billion people in the rest of the world that aren't exactly saints.
Yeah? Who's buying the stuff they are producing, which causes the bulk of the pollution?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah? Who's buying the stuff they are producing, which causes the bulk of the pollution?
Pfff...like, everyone? Everywhere...worldwide? It's not like the U.S. is the sole buyer of things produced in other countries. This may be shocking to you, but "developing countries" also import goods (from China and elsewhere). Nevermind the "pollution producing production' of goods in the U.S., that get shipped to other countries...or should the U.S. stop exporting goods to other countries? I'm sure if the U.S. stopped producing all those excess agricultural products, they could make a substantial den
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah? Who's buying the stuff they are producing, which causes the bulk of the pollution?
Pfff...like, everyone? Everywhere...worldwide? It's not like the U.S. is the sole buyer of things produced in other countries. This may be shocking to you, but "developing countries" also import goods (from China and elsewhere).
I'm not shocked that you're using that argument, because it's bad. Through most of its history, the US purchased the bulk of goods from China. Even today it's still about 20%. If you assigned the pollution from exported goods to the nations buying them, China would drop at least a couple of places.
Re: (Score:2)
The only country that emits more than the US is China. Even India with their 1.4 billion is not even close (like half of US emissions).
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks to bullshit accounting anyway.
The US still produces a LOT of exports and those get sold and consumed heavily in the EU; then there issues like wood for heating fuel, placed on the US account where its harvested vs the EU where it gets burned...
ALL client accounting should be at consumption time if you want to be fair. Which I readily admit if you did/could accomplish might not leave the US looking any better but it will definitely make a lot of green-washers out there look a whole lot worse.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh we should definitely be building a lot more nukes. I'm a big fan of reliable electricity and we're going to need a lot of it to try to preserve our quality of life.
Not sure how much sea walls will help in the long run. The last time CO2 exceeded 400ppm sea levels were 100 ft higher than they are now. It'd be a good bet we've already locked in that much sea level rise over the next few hundred years.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The majority of what people are concerned about is happening naturally
[citation needed]
with our fossil fuel burning adding a certain percentage on top of all of it.
Even if you were right about it happening naturally, which is very far from a given, the fact that we are adding enough strain on top of it to cause problems would still be the problem.
We simply don't have the infrastructure in place, globally, to reduce our emissions to the levels desired.
Good thing people like you are here for big energy. Oh wait, people like you caused this by supporting them. And you're still doing it now:
We simply don't have the infrastructure in place, globally, to reduce our emissions to the levels desired. We need reliably, high output base-load power generation everywhere that doesn't pollute. Nuclear is the only option we've really come up with for this
Pathetically wrong on every level. We do not need base-load generation, we need load-following generation. Nuclear is shit at that. The best solution either way is to have
Re: (Score:2)
You still haven't given a solution.
The carbon emission of solar/wind during its lifecycle is ~1/4th that of natural gas fuel plants https://www.sciencedirect.com/... [sciencedirect.com] with nuclear being just 1/10th the carbon emissions of solar plants. Biofuel on the other hands, which is what parts of Europe is currently switching to as their solar/wind failure mounts is ~200-400% higher than natural gas, 150% higher than coal.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You still haven't given a solution.
Feel free to ignore drinkypoo. He is a well known anti-nuclear shill without any real knowledge or understanding of power generation. He has been told about the research and data and does not care. He only cares about wagging his finger at others. Just about everything he says is hyperbole or outright lies. He doesn't understand that renewables need natural gas to be useful. He tries to deny that baseload power is a thing. He does not understand that solar panels need lots of thermal coal to be produ
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What we need is a plan.
What we need is the will to override the increasing rule of for-profit corporations (i.e. actual fascism) in order to carry out a positive, beneficial plan to actually solve this problem. When we go to war we mobilize the whole nation's production to an end. We can pull together for the purpose of facing an existential threat, and/or becoming one, in principle — but the problem is too abstract for many people to grasp under the current conditions.
To wit, the problem is not sufficiently immediate to be
Re: (Score:2)
At this point we're getting the shared misery no matter what.
The only question is how bad it will get. 4 degrees is much worse than 2, which itself will be pretty bad.
Re: (Score:3)
With "pretty bad" being 100's of millions dead and billions on the run and "much worse" being billions dead and civilization likely gone.
This is not some tiny catastrophe like Covid or a hurricane season or a big earthquake that strikes and then is under control a few years later. This is an ongoing planet-scale catastrophe where things will get worse for a few centuries.
Re: (Score:2)
Shared misery it is, either way. Well, for you and your kids. Not me. I'll be dead before that really matters and I don't have kids. So go ahead, blow up the planet, I don't care.
It tried to make sure your kids can survive in this world. 'til I notice that you yourself don't give a fuck about your kids, so why the hell should I?
Re: (Score:2)
No. Reading for comprehension, what a concept; you should try it some time. My position is that not only have their been climate changes, such as the Ice Ages, over geological timelines, they're still going on, and currently they're making the Earth warmer. There's no doubt that mankind is helping the warming along, but it isn't the only sour
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Two of the biggest violators are conspicuous by their absence from these proceedings: China and India.
India recently made the news that Delhi now has polluted air that is so bad that you should not breathe it.
Some Chinese cities, notably Beijing (Peking) have been documented in past news reports showing polluted smoggy air and people wearing masks LONG BEFORE the Covid outbreak happened.
Re: (Score:2)
Update: Chinese leader Xi will not be present. He sent a lower level flunky in his place.
India's leader Modi will not be present either. No idea if he sent a lower level (caste?) flunky in his place.
But 100+ other Heads of State are present at COP27.
https://www.reuters.com/busine... [reuters.com]
Re: (Score:2)
We need to implement drastic population control and right now, if we want to make a dent in the climate crisis any time soon. We need to at least halve the world population over then next 50-100 years, which basically means one child per couple, globally.
Without fossil fuels, we couldn't feed more than 1b people. That is way less than half. And the earth can absolutely support 8b people, we just can't get most of our energy from fossil fuels no matter the population (above 1b). Having 4b people instead of 8b changes nothing as we still require some large scale energy source to feed everyone. That can be nuclear or fossil fuels. Your choice. One makes CO2, one does not. You know which one is which.
Re: (Score:2)
Having 4b people instead of 8b changes nothing as we still require some large scale energy source to feed everyone. That can be nuclear or fossil fuels.
False dichotomy is false