Fraud Freud wrote: Would someone like to talk to me about the insecurities surrounding these plagiarism issues ?
Come on: you know you want to...
No issues here.
If CB is to be believed I plagiarize all the time and I swear I'm telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help me ###, I'm not insecure about it at all.
Great... so the meltdown over the term was just to distract from the fact that the Declaration of Independence itself (along with many many other examples) disproved your claim that humans are incapable of working together to address a problem until the (perceived) last moment?
In other news...
Wind & Solar could replace 74% of existing US coal plants... at lower cost
We haven't seen new coal plants being built in the US for years because they were no longer economically viable. Now we've reached the point that continuing to just operate coal plants that have already been built costs more than shutting them down and building new wind or solar power to replace them.
People like to make money. If they can generate electricity at a lower cost and sell it at the same price they will make more money. People WILL do things that make them more money.
Granted, at a certain level (~25% I'd estimate based on past experience) the outdated US electrical grid will have problems with the intermittent nature of wind and solar... so that would put a cap on how many coal plants could be shut down in favor of cheaper alternatives. However, by the time we are hitting that cap it will likely cost less to also upgrade the grid and/or add power storage... thus allowing the conversion to cheaper clean energy to continue.
CBDunkerson wrote: Great... so the meltdown over the term was just to distract from the fact that the Declaration of Independence itself (along with many many other examples) disproved your claim that humans are incapable of working together to address a problem until the (perceived) last moment?
In other news...
Wind & Solar could replace 74% of existing US coal plants... at lower cost
We haven't seen new coal plants being built in the US for years because they were no longer economically viable. Now we've reached the point that continuing to just operate coal plants that have already been built costs more than shutting them down and building new wind or solar power to replace them.
People like to make money. If they can generate electricity at a lower cost and sell it at the same price they will make more money. People WILL do things that make them more money.
Granted, at a certain level (~25% I'd estimate based on past experience) the outdated US electrical grid will have problems with the intermittent nature of wind and solar... so that would put a cap on how many coal plants could be shut down in favor of cheaper alternatives. However, by the time we are hitting that cap it will likely cost less to also upgrade the grid and/or add power storage... thus allowing the conversion to cheaper clean energy to continue.
Some of those plants - and other fossil fuel plants can be kept on standby to ramp up when solar/wind aren't sufficiently available.
Like some plants are now for unexpected peak demand.
Solar and wind can cover the baseload and use the dirtier stuff to handle spikes in demand or drops in supply.
This is basically the inevitable result of solar and wind being the cheapest energy once built. They'll be the preferred part of the mix.
The only question is whether coal plants can be converted to work as on demand quick ramp up sources. At least on a cost-effective basis.
CBDunkerson wrote: Great... so the meltdown over the term was just to distract from the fact that the Declaration of Independence itself (along with many many other examples) disproved your claim that humans are incapable of working together to address a problem until the (perceived) last moment?... "Meltdown" is what you do. As proven when thejeff properly shut you down hard. Nice to you see you've listened to him and dropped the plagiarism ####.
As for humans on a large scale incapable of working together. I think the premature death of 2% of the total population in a war over slavery (slavery?!? like that isn't obviously wrong so we had to fight a half-decade war over it) rather makes my case. Declaration or no.
There are now 7.5 billion of us on the planet and we all have to agree to enforced universal austerity for half a century in order to make the world a better place (maybe) in a century or more.
Won't happen without cheap implementation of near-miracle tech.
In other news...*
Sir David Attenborough Totally Agrees With QB
Sir David wrote: It may sound frightening, but the scientific evidence is that if we have not taken dramatic action within the next decade, we could face irreversible damage to the natural world and the collapse of our societies. Thanks David, I appreciate the backup.
* Warning! This phrase may be a plagiarism from a prior post. OMG! OMG! /sarcasm
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Not so oddly, I agree with Sir David and not with you.
Oddly I agree with Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchet.
thejeff wrote: Not so oddly, I agree with Sir David and not with you. I'm agreeable to that.
Sir David is just wailing on our consumerist lifestyle. Of course he can afford to now that he's hopped around the globe popping caviar and sipping campaign for nine decades.
He neither needs to cut back (at this late date what would be the point? ), nor worry that he'll be here to see the consequences. Plus he can feel good about telling us all off... cause, you know, self-righteousness feels good. Like real good.
:D
Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: Not so oddly, I agree with Sir David and not with you. I'm agreeable to that.
Sir David is just wailing on our consumerist lifestyle. Of course he can afford to now that he's hopped around the globe popping caviar and sipping campaign for nine decades.
He neither needs to cut back (at this late date what would be the point? ), nor worry that he'll be here to see the consequences. Plus he can feel good about telling us all off... cause, you know, self-righteousness feels good. Like real good.
:D I haven't seen the documentary he made, but the linked article doesn't talk about "wailing on our consumerist lifestyle" or "telling us all off". It's possible that's not the dramatic action he thinks we need to take.
Quark Blast wrote: CBDunkerson wrote: Great... so the meltdown over the term was just to distract from the fact that the Declaration of Independence itself (along with many many other examples) disproved your claim that humans are incapable of working together to address a problem until the (perceived) last moment?... "Meltdown" is what you do. As proven when thejeff properly shut you down hard. Nice to you see you've listened to him and dropped the plagiarism ####.
As for humans on a large scale incapable of working together. I think the premature death of 2% of the total population in a war over slavery (slavery?!? like that isn't obviously wrong so we had to fight a half-decade war over it) rather makes my case. Declaration or no. Again, you're conflating an example where something didn't happen, and how that means it is impossible. It's almost like you're a lazy intellectual.
Your analysis also completely ignores the fact that slavery had been an acceptable practice for hundreds of years, and yet a large segment of the population was willing to go to war to end it. Really, it's an example that proves the exact opposite of what you're trying to say. A large scale example of human cooperation in order to improve human culture despite great individual and collective cost.
Irontruth wrote: Quark Blast wrote: CBDunkerson wrote: Great... so the meltdown over the term was just to distract from the fact that the Declaration of Independence itself (along with many many other examples) disproved your claim that humans are incapable of working together to address a problem until the (perceived) last moment?... "Meltdown" is what you do. As proven when thejeff properly shut you down hard. Nice to you see you've listened to him and dropped the plagiarism ####.
As for humans on a large scale incapable of working together. I think the premature death of 2% of the total population in a war over slavery (slavery?!? like that isn't obviously wrong so we had to fight a half-decade war over it) rather makes my case. Declaration or no. Again, you're conflating an example where something didn't happen, and how that means it is impossible. It's almost like you're a lazy intellectual.
Your analysis also completely ignores the fact that slavery had been an acceptable practice for hundreds of years, and yet a large segment of the population was willing to go to war to end it. Really, it's an example that proves the exact opposite of what you're trying to say. A large scale example of human cooperation in order to improve human culture despite great individual and collective cost. No, the CSA was minted in defense of ye olde institution. The USA did just about everything they could to avoid war and kick the can down the road. Had the CSA not got all armed and aggressive about it who knows how many more decades it would've lasted. Another 30 years at least before tech made those forms of manual slave labor entirely untenable. You can bet if it weren't for the economics of the institution being eroded by tech/mechanization it would still be going on today.
Today it goes on in a different form. Now it's generally not the person who is owned* but just their labor. You know, like certain electronics factories.
* Exceptions abound of course, in the sex "industry" in particular, and total number of slaves alive at one time has never been higher.
Now you're backpeddling and inventing counterfactuals to support your theory... which is of course only because reality doesn't support conclusion. But hey, when reality doesn't support your argument, you can always turn to your imagination!
As a historian who is literally studying the slave trade, you sound like a buffoon. Technology wouldn't have ended slavery. 20th century manufacturing has always sought out cheap untrained labor, and slavery is the cheapest.
It doesn't matter what the CSA was minted to do, the point is that the Union put together an army to hold the country together, and as the war dragged on the fight against slavery took on an ever greater moral importance to the war. It was literally in the songs soldiers would sing while marching. The reality of the situation is that a great number of people came together to put an end to a horrible situation. It doesn't matter what counterfactual you come up with, because they didn't happen. They did so at great personal cost. If we suffered a similar casualty rate to the modern American population there would be millions of people dead. It didn't end racism, and in many ways made racism worse, but the institution of legal chattel slavery was ended. The whole thing runs directly counter to what you want us to believe about humanity. Your assertion that this type of human endeavor is impossible is demonstrably false. It's so false that you tried to give an example of your point and literally gave an example that proved you wrong.
Irontruth wrote: Now you're backpeddling and inventing counterfactuals to support your theory... which is of course only because reality doesn't support conclusion. But hey, when reality doesn't support your argument, you can always turn to your imagination!
As a historian who is literally studying the slave trade, you sound like a buffoon. Technology wouldn't have ended slavery. 20th century manufacturing has always sought out cheap untrained labor, and slavery is the cheapest.
It doesn't matter what the CSA was minted to do, the point is that the Union put together an army to hold the country together, and as the war dragged on the fight against slavery took on an ever greater moral importance to the war. It was literally in the songs soldiers would sing while marching. The reality of the situation is that a great number of people came together to put an end to a horrible situation. It doesn't matter what counterfactual you come up with, because they didn't happen. They did so at great personal cost. If we suffered a similar casualty rate to the modern American population there would be millions of people dead. It didn't end racism, and in many ways made racism worse, but the institution of legal chattel slavery was ended. The whole thing runs directly counter to what you want us to believe about humanity. Your assertion that this type of human endeavor is impossible is demonstrably false. It's so false that you tried to give an example of your point and literally gave an example that proved you wrong.
Yes, "legal" slavery ended in the USA with the Civil War (lasted another 25 years or so in Brazil*) and since you accidentally-on-purpose missed my point (CB is rubbing off on you!) I make it simpler for you to understand:
1600 - thousands of people all across the Americas knew legal chattel slavery was wrong and did nothing effectual about it. Let's leave Europeans and Middle Easterners out of the discussion on purpose as it doesn't really change my argument and is apt to lead to derailing.
1601 - thousands of people all across the Americas knew legal chattel slavery was wrong and did nothing effectual about it.
...skipping ahead a bit...
1776 - millions of people in the (soon to be) USA knew legal chattel slavery was wrong and did nothing effectual about it.
1777 - etc.
...skipping ahead a bit...
1800 - millions of people in the USA knew legal slavery was wrong and did nothing effectual about it.
1801 - millions of people in the USA knew legal slavery was wrong and did nothing effectual about it.
...skipping ahead a bit...
1860 - A few powerful hotheaded ###### decided secession was the way to go and a good number of #### ####### in the (soon to be CSA) decided to back that power.
1861 - The real shooting begins and millions of anti-slavery types are forced to actually do something effectual about legal chattel slavery.
.
Now for a parallel (truncated for brevity):
Late 1800s: AGW was first calculated to be a likely thing.
100 years later it was known to be a thing, even petrochemical companies knew it was a thing.
After 40 years of lots of heat to avoid considering the light, practical economic considerations are beginning to overtake the heated arguments. With India and China becoming fully developed, and South America and Africa racing to join, it appears that the mess caused by AGW will push the year 2100 at least to +2.5°C.
.
Lesson learned from history:
People, en mass, will sit on their hands every time unless forced to do otherwise.
.
As for your particular point: Irontruth wrote: As a historian who is literally studying the slave trade, you sound like a buffoon. Technology wouldn't have ended slavery. 20th century manufacturing has always sought out cheap untrained labor, and slavery is the cheapest. This buffoon believes there is still effectively tacit chattel slavery on earth today. Possibly in greater numbers than in 1860. Sex slaves, drug cartels, garment factories, tech factories, etc. are only marginally better than ye olde institution for those under the "care" of the bosses. Though it may be better than it was 20 years ago because certain technology (like Twitter) has made hiding this #### a bit harder.
* Yeah, I've read David Brion Davis magnum opus, so my opinion is both considered and informed.
Yes, by going into a diatribe of oversimplification and idiocy, you've definitely convinced me you know what you're talking about.
Irontruth wrote: Yes, by going into a diatribe of oversimplification and idiocy, you've definitely convinced me you know what you're talking about. Yours is nearly one of those responses that isn't even wrong because it's so far off the mark.
For instance, let's take your personal insults to me at face value (the most recent immediately above but also dozens over the past many months on this thread).
When we do that it boarders on the literally incredible that you deign to interact with my posts at all. Though you do. Thus you are not wise in the least.
I've had college professors compliment me on my understanding and presentation of the issues surrounding AGW. Including one who is a lead and contributing author of many peer reviewed journal articles on climate change and author of a chapter in a well respected college text book of the same topic. Your mere insults and other responses to my posts are so pedantic, so often trivial, even occasionally juvenile, it obviates your above average intelligence.
Responses like yours, that neither state the truth fairly nor seek to further conversation, well explains why you have so much time to waste acting thus here in the forums. More's the pity. <sad face here>
thejeff had me pegged three years ago (at least!, though I think his opinion of me could use some improvement in certain areas), and it would be good for your intellectual development to emulate his style. Of course this advice is no more than ####### into the wind.
Quark Blast wrote: Irontruth wrote: Yes, by going into a diatribe of oversimplification and idiocy, you've definitely convinced me you know what you're talking about. Yours is nearly one of those responses that isn't even wrong because it's so far off the mark.
For instance, let's take your personal insults to me at face value (the most recent immediately above but also dozens over the past many months on this thread).
When we do that it boarders on the literally incredible that you deign to interact with my posts at all. Though you do. Thus you are not wise in the least.
I've had college professors compliment me on my understanding and presentation of the issues surrounding AGW. Including one who is a lead and contributing author of many peer reviewed journal articles on climate change and author of a chapter in a well respected college text book of the same topic. Your mere insults and other responses to my posts are so pedantic, so often trivial, even occasionally juvenile, it obviates your above average intelligence.
Responses like yours, that neither state the truth fairly nor seek to further conversation, well explains why you have so much time to waste acting thus here in the forums. More's the pity. <sad face here>
thejeff had me pegged three years ago (at least!, though I think his opinion of me could use some improvement in certain areas), and it would be good for your intellectual development to emulate his style. Of course this advice is no more than ####### into the wind. You've literally already admitted that you take controversial stances in order to garner attention and responses. Based on how frequently you respond to my pedantic, juvenile, trivial responses... they seem to be the exact kind of engagement that you seek and desire.
Also, calling for civility while insulting me makes it obvious that you don't actually care about civility. You're just using it for a cover.
You aren't here to inform. You are here to make yourself out to be superior to others. It's why you have to make fun of what colleges I've gone to. It's why you have to point out how prestigious your professor is. It's why you brag about your grades. None of that is relevant at all to the science of AGW. But you bring it up because you want to prove you're smarter than others.
Oh, and I've tried engaging with you and actually having discourse. But when I do... all you do is dance around and avoid responding to me. You only respond to me when I insult you.
Quark Blast wrote: thejeff had me pegged three years ago (at least!, though I think his opinion of me could use some improvement in certain areas), and it would be good for your intellectual development to emulate his style. Of course this advice is no more than ####### into the wind. Now I wonder what I said 3 years ago.
Was that when I decided it wasn't worth responding to you seriously?
thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote: thejeff had me pegged three years ago (at least!, though I think his opinion of me could use some improvement in certain areas), and it would be good for your intellectual development to emulate his style. Of course this advice is no more than ####### into the wind. Now I wonder what I said 3 years ago.
Was that when I decided it wasn't worth responding to you seriously? Close!
It's when you decided that for you I wasn't worth responding to (hence my acknowledgement of your inordinate (for these forums) wisdom - so many people can't do that). Though you have chimed in helpfully on occasion. Most recently shutting down CB's "plagiarism" nonsense.
:D
Irontruth wrote: You've literally already admitted that you take controversial stances in order to garner attention and responses. Based on how frequently you respond to my pedantic, juvenile, trivial responses... they seem to be the exact kind of engagement that you seek and desire.
Also, calling for civility while insulting me makes it obvious that you don't actually care about civility. You're just using it for a cover.
Now see, it's stuff like that which causes me to state:
Responses like yours, that neither state the truth fairly nor seek to further conversation, well explains why you have so much time to waste acting thus here in the forums. More's the pity. <sad face here>
You think that's sarcasm because you are unable to think any other way about the comments of someone who both disagrees with your faulty thinking and dares to so post it. No, "<sad face here>" is emphatically true in this case.
Irontruth wrote: You aren't here to inform. You are here to make yourself out to be superior to others. It's why you have to make fun of what colleges I've gone to. It's why you have to point out how prestigious your professor is. It's why you brag about your grades. None of that is relevant at all to the science of AGW. But you bring it up because you want to prove you're smarter than others. First, let me reiterate the there is considerable difficulty with informing you of anything. And not just me, others have similar experiences here on the forums, more so IRL I'd wager.
Second, the facts I relate - be they grades, compliments from my professors, etc. - are both relevant to the broader discussion and not exaggerated. I state them not to brag. I state them in contradistinction to your completely uninformed and 'tone deaf' corrections of my supposed errors. I know you're wrong about me, not because I disagree with your tepid insults, but because others who've earned respect (both mine and their colleagues) have stated quite the opposite to me, and they've backed up those compliments with a top grade in the course they were teaching.
Third, in summary: Your problem with me is not my problem. Other than genuflecting to your magnificent posts, there is no way to have a civil exchange with you. I've seen it too many times to believe otherwise.
Irontruth wrote: Oh, and I've tried engaging with you and actually having discourse. But when I do... all you do is dance around and avoid responding to me. You only respond to me when I insult you. I read those words and I understand them. Your consistent actions though compel me to demure. I can't agree with your self-assessment. <sad face here>
Quark Blast wrote:
First, let me reiterate the there is considerable difficulty with informing you of anything. And not just me, others have similar experiences here on the forums, more so IRL I'd wager.
I will use no insults, sarcasm, or snark for as long as you also refrain from them.
What is it you'd like to inform me of? What is the thesis of your argument?
Every time I've asked this you dodge and duck. This is your chance to engage with me honestly and prove that I am the problem.
Irontruth wrote: Quark Blast wrote: First, let me reiterate the there is considerable difficulty with informing you of anything. And not just me, others have similar experiences here on the forums, more so IRL I'd wager.
I will use no insults, sarcasm, or snark for as long as you also refrain from them. Well you shouldn't anyway, excepting sarcasm. What would the world be without sarcasm? Srsly?
And you seem to be missing the point of my third section. Repeated here for your convenience, with emphasis!
Third, in summary: Your problem with me is not my problem. Other than genuflecting to your magnificent posts, there is no way to have a civil exchange with you. I've seen it too many times to believe otherwise.
Irontruth wrote: What is it you'd like to inform me of? What is the thesis of your argument? There's what? 63 pages of posts on this thread. I've contributed multiple posts to most of those pages. I'm not repeating myself solely for your inconstruable reasons.
Irontruth wrote: Every time I've asked this you dodge and duck. This is your chance to engage with me honestly and prove that I am the problem. Look dude, I've seen your interactions with dozens of others on these forums. At best people treat you with detente, even when they are in agreement with you. I'm not dancing to your tune. Go troll someone else. Please!
Back on topic.
I got to see the Sir David Attenborough special that talks about coastal waters. 1/3 of all fisheries in the world ocean are collapsed. Another 1/3 headed that way.
It's interesting watching shows like this. Anything meant for broad public consumption errs on the side of "oh look, this is bad but we still have time to fix things". Numerous times, going back to publications as far as the early 2000's, I've seen publications, even ones written by primary researchers in climatology, say "hey, we got 3-5 years to get things in order people. Let's get crack'n". Then in another 3-5 years a similar warning is repeated. Well it's been "3-5 years" four or five times over now. So when is it too late not to exceed the +1.5°C limit?
Then on top of that, taking at face value that we are now aiming towards a +1.5°C year 2100, what do we do about the fact that once we get air pollution under control (a virtual guaranteed side-effect once we're done with fossil fuels) we'll see a +0.5°C boost from clean air?
That and other factors I've posted up thread make me wonder what the IPCC is thinking. Are they secretly hoping (like me) that near miracle tech will be what actually saves us by scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere?
Quark Blast wrote: Irontruth wrote: Quark Blast wrote: First, let me reiterate the there is considerable difficulty with informing you of anything. And not just me, others have similar experiences here on the forums, more so IRL I'd wager.
I will use no insults, sarcasm, or snark for as long as you also refrain from them. Well you shouldn't anyway, excepting sarcasm. What would the world be without sarcasm? Srsly?
And you seem to be missing the point of my third section. Repeated here for your convenience, with emphasis!
Third, in summary: Your problem with me is not my problem. Other than genuflecting to your magnificent posts, there is no way to have a civil exchange with you. I've seen it too many times to believe otherwise.
Irontruth wrote: What is it you'd like to inform me of? What is the thesis of your argument? There's what? 63 pages of posts on this thread. I've contributed multiple posts to most of those pages. I'm not repeating myself solely for your inconstruable reasons.
Irontruth wrote: Every time I've asked this you dodge and duck. This is your chance to engage with me honestly and prove that I am the problem. Look dude, I've seen your interactions with dozens of others on these forums. At best people treat you with detente, even when they are in agreement with you. I'm not dancing to your tune. Go troll someone else. Please! I've read your posts and responded to them how I felt they should have been responded to.
I'm giving you the opportunity to set the record straight and state the actual thesis that I should be responding to. If you do, then if I misrepresent your posts, that would be purely on me.
I'm offering you the chance to set a trap for me.
Quark Blast wrote: So when is it too late not to exceed the +1.5°C limit? When we've exceeded the +1.5°C limit.
Until then it is, at least theoretically, not too late.
Of course, depending on how we define (and calculate) the baseline... we could already be past that point.
Quote: Then on top of that, taking at face value that we are now aiming towards a +1.5°C year 2100, what do we do about the fact that once we get air pollution under control (a virtual guaranteed side-effect once we're done with fossil fuels) we'll see a +0.5°C boost from clean air? We won't get a +0.5°C temperature boost from clean air... because clean air (i.e. reduced particulate pollution in the atmosphere blocking incoming sunlight) would also mean cleaner land (e.g. less particulate pollution darkening Arctic snow and ice) and thus less warming from solar absorption.
Similarly, if we have really 'cleaned up our act' in this hypothetical future, then we wouldn't be emitting GHGs with short residence times like some of the CFCs and methane... again resulting in cooling as atmospheric levels of these gases fall.
Et cetera.
You are taking one forcing (and an upper end estimate of such at that) out of context while ignoring all the countervailing effects which would result from the same change(s).
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: So when is it too late not to exceed the +1.5°C limit? When we've exceeded the +1.5°C limit.
Until then it is, at least theoretically, not too late.
That is complete nonsense and you know it.
Momentum exists. In climate change as in other things.
pauljathome wrote: CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: So when is it too late not to exceed the +1.5°C limit? When we've exceeded the +1.5°C limit.
Until then it is, at least theoretically, not too late.
That is complete nonsense and you know it.
Momentum exists. In climate change as in other things. Thus "theoretically".
Remember, he's arguing with someone who routinely conflates "We're on track for enough emissions to hit a certain limit and I don't think we'll change" with "We already have enough emissions to hit that level."
pauljathome wrote: CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: So when is it too late not to exceed the +1.5°C limit? When we've exceeded the +1.5°C limit.
Until then it is, at least theoretically, not too late.
That is complete nonsense and you know it.
Momentum exists. In climate change as in other things. Based on the measurements in the quantity of ambient light outside that I took last night (I measured once at 6pm, and again at 11pm), using this concept of momentum, I have concluded that it will never be light outside again.
pauljathome wrote: That is complete nonsense and you know it.
Momentum exists. In climate change as in other things.
Could we not slow down to the point that there was very little momentum and then stop just short of the line?
Could we not RETREAT away from the line by doing things that would cool the climate? (say... nuclear war)
Could we not reach a point where net feedbacks (i.e. climate 'momentum') were actually causing cooling?
So no, it is not 'nonsense'. Momentum can be slowed, stopped, and/or reversed.
Granted, none of those are as likely to happen as momentum carrying us over the limit, but 'it is not too late until it has happened' IS the technically correct answer.
That's one of the reasons the "+1.5°C limit" is usually qualified with 'by 2100'. If you give all the feedbacks centuries (rather than decades) to play out then our current GHG levels would eventually put us well past +1.5°C. We just can't reasonably assume that humans will do nothing else over the subsequent centuries to change the climate in other ways.
Betting on momentum over the short term is reasonable, but not a guarantee... a car with no brakes heading towards a cliff 30' away at 90 mph is probably going over... OR it could hit another car and be stopped short. Over the long term momentum peters out and can be counteracted by any number of things.
thejeff wrote: pauljathome wrote: CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: So when is it too late not to exceed the +1.5°C limit? When we've exceeded the +1.5°C limit.
Until then it is, at least theoretically, not too late. That is complete nonsense and you know it.
Momentum exists. In climate change as in other things. Thus "theoretically".
Remember, he's arguing with someone who routinely conflates "We're on track for enough emissions to hit a certain limit and I don't think we'll change" with "We already have enough emissions to hit that level."
"Theoretically" and, for the argument I'm making, pointlessly theoretically.
You speak as if conflating those ideas is an oxymoron. Because we are "on track" to hit a +2.5°C year 2100 (at least) and, like any railroad, the only way to avoid the destination is to derail the train.
Derailment in this case involves putting into practice exceedingly unlikely global responses that, naturally, will impact the daily actions and standard of living for about 7 billion people (hence the unlikelihood of sufficient response).
So I'm sure you're all aware that this came out today (see following links and quotes). Notice especially the liberal use of the new "it" phrase transformative changes.
Despite progress to conserve nature and implement policies, the Report also finds that global goals for conserving and sustainably using nature and achieving sustainability cannot be met by current trajectories, and goals for 2030 and beyond may only be achieved through transformative changes across economic, social, political and technological factors. With good progress on components of only four of the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets, it is likely that most will be missed by the 2020 deadline. Current negative trends in biodiversity and ecosystems will undermine progress towards 80% (35 out of 44) of the assessed targets of the Sustainable Development Goals... No dice in this game. Or maybe I should say, the die has been cast?
:D
UN Bullets wrote: <> Three-quarters of the land-based environment and about 66% of the marine environment have been significantly altered by human actions. On average these trends have been less severe or avoided in areas held or managed by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities.
<> More than a third of the world’s land surface and nearly 75% of freshwater resources are now devoted to crop or livestock production.
<> The value of agricultural crop production has increased by about 300% since 1970, raw timber harvest has risen by 45% and approximately 60 billion tons of renewable and nonrenewable resources are now extracted globally every year – having nearly doubled since 1980.
<> Land degradation has reduced the productivity of 23% of the global land surface, up to US$577 billion in annual global crops are at risk from pollinator loss and 100-300 million people are at increased risk of floods and hurricanes because of loss of coastal habitats and protection.
<> In 2015, 33% of marine fish stocks were being harvested at unsustainable levels; 60% were maximally sustainably fished, with just 7% harvested at levels lower than what can be sustainably fished.
<> Urban areas have more than doubled since 1992.
<> Plastic pollution has increased tenfold since 1980, 300-400 million tons of heavy metals, solvents, toxic sludge and other wastes from industrial facilities are dumped annually into the world’s waters, and fertilizers entering coastal ecosystems have produced more than 400 ocean ‘dead zones’, totaling more than 245,000 km2 (591-595) - a combined area greater than that of the United Kingdom.
<> Negative trends in nature will continue to 2050 and beyond in all of the policy scenarios explored in the Report, except those that include transformative change – due to the projected impacts of increasing land-use change, exploitation of organisms and climate change, although with significant differences between regions.
Now this is interesting because I see they are tending more towards the "IT'S TOO LATE!" mode rather than the "Hey this is important but we can no longer kick the can down the road" mode most prior broad-consensus reports give.
Worse, while the Aichi agreements and other international environmental accords like the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and the 2015 Paris Agreement at least represent a global consensus on environmental aspirations, even that now seems beyond reach... Time of course wants to politicize this (something I choose not to do here so that this broader discussion may continue) but it is fair to note that with the scale of change needed - we're talking global humanity here over the coming decades - it will indeed take near-miracle tech to solve the issues ID'd in the UN report.
Or transformative change, whichever you think more likely. Based on my study of human history, I'm betting on near-miracle tech.
What specifically changed about the modeling methods that makes you confident about these?
Human society under urgent threat from loss of Earth's natural life
tG wrote: Meat and dairy account for:
83% of farmland
58% of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions
57% of water pollution
56% of air pollution
33% of freshwater withdrawals
Provides 35% of protein
Provides 18% of calories
Guardian graphic. Source: Poore and Nemecek, Science
This is funny because I've been ham-handedly criticized for being alarmist about the potential impacts of AGW (and related actions/causes) to human society in general and for exaggerating the need to move off of a meat based diet in particular. Did I say vegan? No, just something on the order of 3% of our caloric intake being from meat and that mostly from fisheries.
Of course, cynical me must point out that such transformative change will never happen. People aren't going to volunteer for that sort of thing. Tourism too is a major source (if you will) of AGW. And ironically ecotourism is no small part of that, because it usually involves jet travel and otherwise covering long distances.
The Ecuadorian rain forest (e.g.) is a long way away from just about anyone who might go there as a tourist. Are you going to take the train on a vacation to Ecuador? No? No surprise as no one else will either. You know, people simply aren't going to stop hopping down to Cabo San Lucas for spring break because it ups their CO2 count. Nope.
Now multiply that lack of concern, as seen in personal inaction, by 7 billion and you have a real mess by the year 2100.
:D
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark Blast wrote:
Of course, cynical me must point out that such transformative change will never happen. People aren't going to volunteer for that sort of thing. Tourism too is a major source (if you will) of AGW. And ironically ecotourism is no small part of that, because it usually involves jet travel and otherwise covering long distances.
The Ecuadorian rain forest (e.g.) is a long way away from just about anyone who might go there as a tourist. Are you going to take the train on a vacation to Ecuador? No? No surprise as no one else will either. You know, people simply aren't going to stop hopping down to Cabo San Lucas for spring break because it ups their CO2 count. Nope.
Now multiply that lack of concern, as seen in personal inaction, by 7 billion and you have a real mess by the year 2100.
:D How is that position functionally different from denying climate change? I don't really see a practical difference between "not doing anything because it's a hoax" and "not doing anything because it's all pointless". In the end, you are not doing anything and that is going to doom you to be correct.
Quark Blast wrote: Because we are "on track" to hit a +2.5°C year 2100 (at least) and, like any railroad, the only way to avoid the destination is to derail the train.
Derailment in this case involves putting into practice exceedingly unlikely global responses that, naturally, will impact the daily actions and standard of living for about 7 billion people (hence the unlikelihood of sufficient response).
False.
We don't need to derail the train, just switch it over from coal to electric (powered by solar, wind, hydro, etc).
Global warming is primarily caused by GHG emissions. Reduce those emissions by switching to other, less expensive, power sources and global warming stops. That's it. No impact to standard of living required.
Quark Blast wrote: Human society under urgent threat from loss of Earth's natural life
This is funny because I've been ham-handedly criticized for being alarmist about the potential impacts of AGW (and related actions/causes) to human society in general and for exaggerating the need to move off of a meat based diet in particular.
You've been criticized for conflating 'global warming' with 'every other environmental problem in the world'. You're about to be criticized for this again.
In the report you are citing, global warming is specifically listed as a distant third amongst the factors causing biodiversity loss... yet you are claiming it is centrally relevant to the problems and proposed solutions covered in the report. It isn't.
The real problem on this (different) issue is the impact feeding the large human population is having on land and ocean habitats. We may indeed need to "move off a meat based diet" (and/or switch to lab cultured meat, and/or curtail population growth, and/or implement other solutions) to limit biodiversity loss.
Your claim that we need to move off a meat based diet to deal with global warming on the other hand? Flat out nonsense. The entire human race switching to a vegan diet starting tonight would likely have no discernible impact on global warming. Maybe, if rice were the primary replacement food, we might be able to detect the slight increase in warming that would cause.
Devon Northwood wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Of course, cynical me must point out that such transformative change will never happen. People aren't going to volunteer for that sort of thing. Tourism too is a major source (if you will) of AGW. And ironically ecotourism is no small part of that, because it usually involves jet travel and otherwise covering long distances.
The Ecuadorian rain forest (e.g.) is a long way away from just about anyone who might go there as a tourist. Are you going to take the train on a vacation to Ecuador? No? No surprise as no one else will either. You know, people simply aren't going to stop hopping down to Cabo San Lucas for spring break because it ups their CO2 count. Nope.
Now multiply that lack of concern, as seen in personal inaction, by 7 billion and you have a real mess by the year 2100.
:D
How is that position functionally different from denying climate change? I don't really see a practical difference between "not doing anything because it's a hoax" and "not doing anything because it's all pointless". In the end, you are not doing anything and that is going to doom you to be correct. Quite so! and very astute of you to summarize it thus.
Two things to point out though.
First, I don't actually think my posted opinion is going to sway anyone to do anything. People are lame like that. While it's very popular to say the right things, it doesn't matter so much to actually do the right things. That's the culture we live in and it seems to be a global phenomenon. I blame the Internet for connecting everyone in the lowest common denominator sort of way that it does. Why do anything when you can Tweet your good opinion and feel righteous with all re-tweeted favors that cascade from it?
Second, I actually do more than anyone on this thread, so far as I can tell, to mitigate my impact on the global climate. I do so for my own reasons and have learned, both directly and via history, not to expect much of anything out of "everybody", as everyone will net do about what they've always done. And what they've always done, now that there are well over 7 billion of us, is enrich themselves while creating a global mess getting there.
People, meaning societies, do change and sometimes rapidly. However people are really really bad at following through with decisions in a timely manner when, as is the case with mitigating AGW, it requires that they take some pretty big lumps for those decisions. So, in that vein, I believe global humanity will get there vis-a-vis the whole climate change/species dying issue. It's just that we'll get there a little late (+2.5°C year 2100 anyone?) and several hundred thousand species won't get to see the turn of the millennium.
As they said at the Paris Agreement:
C'est la vie
:D
Quark Blast wrote:
Second, I actually do more than anyone on this thread, so far as I can tell, to mitigate my impact on the global climate. I do so for my own reasons and have learned, both directly and via history, not to...
Evidence please.
Quark Blast wrote: Devon Northwood wrote:
How is that position functionally different from denying climate change? I don't really see a practical difference between "not doing anything because it's a hoax" and "not doing anything because it's all pointless". In the end, you are not doing anything and that is going to doom you to be correct. Quite so! and very astute of you to summarize it thus.
Two things to point out though.
First, I don't actually think my posted opinion is going to sway anyone to do anything. People are lame like that. While it's very popular to say the right things, it doesn't matter so much to actually do the right things. That's the culture we live in and it seems to be a global phenomenon. I blame the Internet for connecting everyone in the lowest common denominator sort of way that it does. Why do anything when you can Tweet your good opinion and feel righteous with all re-tweeted favors that cascade from it? I would answer that tweeting about it is more than former generations did. Things like the world hunger and global inequality weren't exactly eradicated 50 years ago. People back then didn't just talk about it, they just didn't care.
And while you may not believe that in this specific forum you can sway anyone, does your opinion radically change once you leave it? And if not, do you believe you can sway people in real life with the way you are talking? Why should people around you do anything if it all doesn't matter?
Quark Blast wrote: Second, I actually do more than anyone on this thread, so far as I can tell, to mitigate my impact on the global climate. I do so for my own reasons and have learned, both directly and via history, not to expect much of anything out of "everybody", as everyone will net do about what they've always done. And what they've always done, now that there are well over 7 billion of us, is enrich themselves while creating a global mess getting there.
People, meaning societies, do change and sometimes rapidly. However people are really really bad at following through with decisions in a timely manner when, as is the case with mitigating AGW, it requires that they take some pretty big lumps for those decisions. So, in that vein, I believe global humanity will get there vis-a-vis the whole climate change/species dying issue. It's just that we'll get there a little late (+2.5°C year 2100 anyone?) and several hundred thousand species won't get to see the turn of the millennium.
As they said at the Paris Agreement:
C'est la vie
I do everything in my power to stop cöimate change.
Also, society will not change, small efforts do nothing, and even IF we all radically change, the whole thing is practically over anyway. And also, it will come a lot worde, we just don't know it yet.
Why exactly do you "do more than anyone [...] to mitigate my impact on the global climate"?
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Irontruth wrote: Quark Blast wrote:
Second, I actually do more than anyone on this thread, so far as I can tell, to mitigate my impact on the global climate.
Evidence please. I actually think QB is probably right on this one. For example, I certainly haven't been able to do much to mitigate >HIS< impact on the global climate.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
CBDunkerson wrote: Irontruth wrote: Quark Blast wrote:
Second, I actually do more than anyone on this thread, so far as I can tell, to mitigate my impact on the global climate.
Evidence please. I actually think QB is probably right on this one. For example, I certainly haven't been able to do much to mitigate >HIS< impact on the global climate. You're right. I was probably reading his statement wrong. I do that a lot.
Devon Northwood wrote: I would answer that tweeting about it is more than former generations did. Things like the world hunger and global inequality weren't exactly eradicated 50 years ago. People back then didn't just talk about it, they just didn't care. Depending on the topic, people still don't care. Tweets for the most part aren't serious action.
There are more tween and teen sex slaves right now than at any other time in human history.
^That is not an obscure fact. What are you doing about it? Same thing as most people I'll wager. Nothing.
Devon Northwood wrote: And while you may not believe that in this specific forum you can sway anyone, does your opinion radically change once you leave it? And if not, do you believe you can sway people in real life with the way you are talking? Why should people around you do anything if it all doesn't matter? Yow! Big questions.
No, my opinions expressed here are the ones I express, as appropriate, everywhere else I give voice to my thoughts.
Sway people? Sorry but I didn't roll that kind of charisma.
People should follow their own compass intentionally. They should reassess their direction often and with serious purpose. Rightly or wrongly people get to do what they want as they can. There's a price to pay for our every thought and action. If you're not prepared to pay the price, think and act differently. You might find you need help with personal change, if you care to make consistent progress.
Devon Northwood wrote: I do everything in my power to stop climate change.
Also, society will not change, small efforts do nothing, and even IF we all radically change, the whole thing is practically over anyway. And also, it will come a lot worse, we just don't know it yet.
Small efforts, either way, do a great deal of harm or good when you multiply those individual efforts by 7 billion. The real problem with large numbers of people is that, on average, the net behavior is rather banal. To mitigate AGW in time we need something far better than the result we are apt to get. A hundred people can do something unexpected. A hundred thousand not so much. A hundred million not at all. A few thousand million? Well, let's just say you can flip a coin 200 times and expect it to land on edge without fail before you'll see that many people make costly individual efforts in the same general direction.
What we need are solutions that are clear, actionable, and "sold" well to the public at large by leaders with out-sized charisma and undersized egos*.
* Not a common conjunction of traits in leader types I must say.
Devon Northwood wrote: Why exactly do you "do more than anyone [...] to mitigate my impact on the global climate"? I consider all my actions carefully, even mundane ones, so that I don't spend inordinate effort on things that really don't matter in my situation.
For example:
If you live in Tempe AZ it might be worthwhile to not let the tap run while you're brushing your teeth. If you live in Seattle WA... meh, not so much does that action matter.
Jared Diamond: There’s a 49 Percent Chance the World As We Know It Will End by 2050
NY Mag wrote: But the story today, nothing has changed. Past societies have destroyed themselves...
Today, the risk that we’re facing is not of societies collapsing one by one, but because of globalization, the risk we are facing is of the collapse of the whole world.
Yeeeh! And you guys thought I was cynical.
NY Mag wrote: How likely do you think that is? That the whole network of civilization would collapse?
I would estimate the chances are about 49 percent that the world as we know it will collapse by about 2050. I’ll be dead by then but my kids will be, what? Sixty-three years old in 2050. So this is a subject of much practical interest to me. At the rate we’re going now, resources that are essential for complex societies are being managed unsustainably. Fisheries around the world, most fisheries are being managed unsustainably, and they’re getting depleted. Farms around the world, most farms are being managed unsustainably. Soil, topsoil around the world. Fresh water around the world is being managed unsustainably.
And I think we'll know by 2030 how bad the next century is going to be. If we develop near-miracle tech we either will have it by then or have proof of concept and be starting to scale things up by then.
NY Mag wrote: As for what we can do about it, whether to deal with it by individual action, or at a middle scale by corporate action, or at a top scale by government action — all three of those. Individually we can do things. We can buy different sorts of cars. We can do less driving. We can vote for public transport. That’s one thing. There are also corporate interests because I’m on the board of directors for the World Wildlife Fund and I was on the board of Conservation International, and on our boards are leaders of really big companies like Walmart and Coca-Cola are their heads, their CEOs, have been on our boards.
I see that corporations, big corporations, while some of them do horrible things, some of them also are doing wonderful things which don’t make the front page. When there was the Exxon Valdez spill off Alaska, you can bet that made the front page. When Chevron was managing its oil field in Papua New Guinea in a utterly rigorous way, better than any national park I’ve ever been in, that certainly did not make the front page because it wasn’t a good picture.
I agree but there are no numbers attached to this summary of actions needed. The scale and the speed of actions needed will in large measure determine how much push-back there is at any of those three levels.
NY Mag wrote: In the book, when you write about the present day — you talk about climate, you talk about resources, but you also talk about the threat of nuclear war and nuclear weapons. It may be kind of a foolish question to ask, but … how do you rank those threats?
I’m repressing a chuckle because I know how people react when I answer that. Whenever somebody tells me, “How should we prioritize our efforts?” My answer is, “We should not be prioritizing our efforts.”... You got to get lots of things right.
So for the state of the world today, how do we prioritize what’s going on in the world? We have to avoid a nuclear holocaust. If we have a nuclear holocaust, we’re finished, even if we solve climate change. We have to solve climate change because if we don’t solve climate change but we deal with a nuclear holocaust, we’re finished. If we solve climate change and don’t have a nuclear holocaust but we continue with unsustainable resource use, we’re finished. And if we deal with the nuclear problem and climate change and sustainable use, but we maintain or increase inequality around the world, we’re finished. So, we can’t prioritize. Just as a couple in a marriage have to agree about sex and children and in-laws and money and religion and politics. We got to solve all four of those problems.
And that's 1/10th of the problem, maybe. That's the technical side, the outline. The real rub us getting 7 billion people working well enough together to make useful progress. I don't see that happening except when there's a metric #### ton of money to be made, relatively short term.
NY Mag wrote: ...{H}ow much faith does that give you that we can find our way to a kind of sustainable, prosperous, and fulfilling future?
That’s an interesting question. If I had stopped the book on the chapter about the world without writing the last six pages, it would have been a pessimistic chapter, because at that point I thought the world does not have a track record of solving difficult problems. The U.N., well bless it, but the U.N. isn’t sufficiently powerful, and therefore I feel pessimistic about our chances of solving big world problems.
But then, fortunately, I learned by talking with friends that the world does have a successful track record in the last 40 years about solving really complex, thorny problems. For example, the coastal economics. So many countries have overlapping coastal economic zones. What a horrible challenge that was to get all the countries in the world to agree with delineating their coastal economic zones. But it worked. They’re delineated.
Or smallpox. To eliminate smallpox it had to be eliminated in every country. That included eliminating it in Ethiopia and Somalia. Boy, was it difficult to eliminate smallpox in Somalia, but it was eliminated.
Smallpox was enlightened self-interest and technically an easy fix and really not that expensive. And because it was given away to those who needed it most the political side of that effort was obviated in large measure.
The coastal economic zones is a better example. With two BIG caveats. One, there will be no small conflict over the Arctic ocean as it opens up in the coming decades. Two, China, as I've pointed out up-thread numerous times, has not really respected other peoples coastal economic zones. Particularly people in the nations around the South China Sea and coastal Africa. In the latter case local people are starving from the industrial fishing perpetrated by Chinese companies.
Another way to look at Mr. Diamond's prediction is that the glass is more than half full. 51%! Of course if 100% is = +5.0°C year 2100, then his 49% = my +2.5°C year 2100.
:D
I've noticed a trend more towards articles like this one.
Carbon dioxide hits a level not seen for 3 million years. Here's what that means for climate change — and humanity.
Scientists are sounding the alarm over the potential for catastrophic changes to our environment.
Sure they sprinkle in a few facts but mostly it's hype. And it's hype in a Doom! Doom! sorta way. Doom has been a thing for at least 30 years in AGW articles but it's starting to get more strident. Which, as I've previously cautioned, is not especially helpful if you actually want to motivate people to action.
There's an opinion piece over at The Guardian.
Has the politics of climate change finally reached a tipping point?
It almost sounds like CB wrote it. The answer of course to the headline is "no". We'll know we've reached the tipping point on public opinion when personal action overtakes personal rhetoric. It's easy to say the right thing, much harder for great masses of people to follow through with action.
Just ask people how they're doing with their diet. Most will give a thumbs-up type of answer. Yet this time next year clinical measures will show either no change or a slightly worse outcome than this year.
Then there's this. A bit alarmist too. Actually this whole issue of of MIT Technology Review is.
India’s surging economy could doom climate efforts—unless richer nations step up
No matter how fast the country builds new solar and wind farms, that alone won’t be enough.
MIT TR wrote: Estimates vary widely, but the IEA expects that carbon emissions from India’s power sector will rise 80% through 2040 even with the renewable generating plants currently planned. By then India could overtake the US as the world’s second largest emitter, undermining efforts to curb global warming. Exactly what I've been saying on this thread for years. People want AC when they can afford it. They want their avocado toast too. It all adds up.
Yeah, who predicted this? Hmmm... Moi? Yes, yes it was!
:D
Tesla’s trumpeted solar shingles are a flop
MIT TR wrote: That product was designed to resemble rooftop shingles with solar cells embedded inside, an effort to differentiate the offering in the commodity solar panel business. But the line appears to have been a flop. California’s utilities have connected only 21 such systems, according to state data obtained by the news service. And just “a few” were installed in the Northeast, Reuters reported, citing an anonymous former employee.
In the more than two years since Tesla acquired SolarCity, its overall solar installations have plummeted by more than 76%.
Sorry but I had to save my best bit of reality for last. Pardon my gloat.
:D
Oh, I agree with the take on Elon Musk. He's a hack who happens to be wealthy. He didn't get rich by being good at his job. He started rich, and got lucky in the tech boom.
Tesla doesn't actually innovate that much. In a couple of small areas, maybe, but not near as much as people give them credit for.
Quark Blast wrote: Yeah, who predicted this? Hmmm... Moi? Yes, yes it was!
:D
Tesla’s trumpeted solar shingles are a flop
As I believe I pointed out when they were first released, Tesla's solar shingles not selling well doesn't change the fact that you were wrong about the technology being decades away. In short, it has been proven that we CAN make cost effective solar cells that integrate aesthetically with existing roofing. Also, Solar City's installations of even regular solar tiles having fallen 76% shows that the company is having massive problems beyond just the shingles.
In the meantime; CertainTeed, SunTegra, GAF, RGS Energy, Sunflare, Luma Solar, DeSol Power Tiles, Hanergy, Forward and other companies have all started selling various types of solar roofing systems that integrate directly into the roof rather than using the older 'rack mounted' style. In short, far from being a flop, the technology is taking off and generating fierce competition. SolarCity is failing, the technology (which you suggested was impossible) is not.
As to Tesla in general... they've made great strides in improving battery technology and I suspect that the kind of over-the-air software updates for vehicles they pioneered will eventually become standard, but otherwise yeah... Musk is a buffoon. Their approach to self-driving vehicles has been reckless (to the point of killing people), and will likely either make the company a pariah or ridiculously profitable. Possibly both.
CBDunkerson wrote: As to Tesla in general... they've made great strides in improving battery technology and I suspect that the kind of over-the-air software updates for vehicles they pioneered will eventually become standard, but otherwise yeah... Musk is a buffoon. Their approach to self-driving vehicles has been reckless (to the point of killing people), and will likely either make the company a pariah or ridiculously profitable. Possibly both. The problem with self-driving vehicles is that they will kill people.
Much like people driven vehicles do regularly.
It's just that we've come to accept that with human drivers and yet there's a huge backlash when self-driving ones do the same. It's likely for the foreseeable future we'll demand perfection from autonomous vehicles and any serious accidents will cripple programs - even if their overall safety is higher than human driven vehicles.
thejeff wrote: The problem with self-driving vehicles is that they will kill people.
Much like people driven vehicles do regularly.
It's just that we've come to accept that with human drivers and yet there's a huge backlash when self-driving ones do the same.
Yes, but in Tesla's case it isn't JUST an issue of some deaths being inevitable. Rather, they have been obscenely reckless in pursuit of profits. For example, Musk disparages LIDAR and refuses to include the somewhat expensive technology in Tesla's self-driving design. LIDAR detects physical objects by bouncing light off them, and thus can tell the difference between the side of a white truck trailer and a brightly lit sky... unlike the image recognition software in the two Teslas (so far) which have slammed into such trucks at full speed and killed their occupants.
Similarly, Tesla relies on the driver to pay attention to the road at all times and thus (with state and federal government blessing) absolves themselves of blame for accidents. More ethical (or risk averse) companies have taken into account studies showing that humans just aren't capable of remaining indefinitely vigilant while doing nothing and thus haven't enabled high speed self driving and/or have systems which track eye movement to VERIFY that the driver is paying attention to the road.
Self-driving Tesla's have killed four people and counting... making it questionable whether they even ARE safer than human drivers yet. However, even if we assume they HAVE reached that level of safety, it remains clear that they could have been made safer than they have been... it just wasn't as potentially profitable to do it that way.
CBDunkerson wrote: As I believe I pointed out when they were first released, Tesla's solar shingles not selling well doesn't change the fact that you were wrong about the technology being decades away. In short, it has been proven that we CAN make cost effective solar cells that integrate aesthetically with existing roofing. Also, Solar City's installations of even regular solar tiles having fallen 76% shows that the company is having massive problems beyond just the shingles. They also proved you can waste a ####-ton of $$ while being satisfied with aesthetics.
And my "decades away" prediction also includes the fact that last year's 30-year architectural 3-tab still have 29 years to go before they're replaced. Even cheap asphalt shingles are typically given 20-year "guarantees".
You forgot that^ part of my argument. I must say, your memory is very selective.
CBDunkerson wrote: In the meantime; CertainTeed, SunTegra, GAF, RGS Energy, Sunflare, Luma Solar, DeSol Power Tiles, Hanergy, Forward and other companies have all started selling various types of solar roofing systems that integrate directly into the roof rather than using the older 'rack mounted' style. In short, far from being a flop, the technology is taking off and generating fierce competition. SolarCity is failing, the technology (which you suggested was impossible) is not. Roofs are a part of a house that otherwise needs maintenance. People will have to walk on these solar tiles for decades. Not to mention hail and other physical strikes.
Is that doable? Oh yes!
Is that doable for a price that will make people buy solar shingles? Not for another 8 years or more. Or some really good subsidies.
Mysterious spike of ozone-destroying chemical is traced to east China
They say "ozone-destroying" but these chemicals are also very potent GHG, like 5k times more powerful than CO2. If you want to argue that they are also short-lived GHG I'll just point out that there are still significant effects to be had from that. For example see here --> Melting small glaciers could add 10 inches to sea levels
China knows better but short term profits got in the road. India knows better too and they're still going nuts with coal fired power plants. Everybody knows better but you multiply all these little "oops I shouldn't have done that" by 7 billion and you have a virtual guarantee for a +2.5°C year 2100. Over on the DM Cal's House of Respite thread they were recently lamenting how their friends and relatives can't figure out home recycling protocol. I pointed this out up thread regarding the college educated residents at my cousin's apartment complex. The recycling area there is a mess every week. People are lazy and selfish and it all adds up.
Over the weekend one of my friends had NPR on and they were interviewing a modern 'western' woman who's "making a difference" by being an unwavering advocate/educator for everyone doing their part for the planet in every little way, all day, everyday. It was a nice bit of Propo until near the end when the interviewer let go with how this woman is walking her talk by ensuring her family follows this green way.
So? you ask.
Yes, her family and without irony the interviewer lets us know this woman has 7 kids!
You add up all the good this family is doing relative to a "typical" family and if she'd only had 6 kids her "greenness" would've gone up at least an order of magnitude.
People! OMG they are ####### clueless!
Documenting Climate Change by Air, Land and Sea
Comments attached to the article talk about "trip of a lifetime" to the Galapagos islands, or similar sentiments. Well it's nice they can afford these kinds of vacations but I seriously doubt they offset that massive increase to their annual carbon footprint. Ahhh... to be rich and woke. So many things to signal, so many things not to actually do right.
:D
|
