What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Climate Change thread: UN Report: we need to take action (1 Viewer)

Ilov80s said:
According to Guardian, 100 companies are responsible for 71% of emissions. That’s both crazy and a sign of how easily we could reduce emissions. 
Click to expand...
Can you link to that? I'd like to see that list...

 
Dedfin said:
:goodposting:

Im not an expert, but i doubt india with its 1B people will respond to the preaching with nithing but solar farms after the west built their empires on cheap energy.
Click to expand...
From Wiki

India is running one of the largest and most ambitious renewable capacity expansion programs in the world. Newer renewable electricity sources are projected to grow massively by nearer term 2022 targets, including a more than doubling of India's large wind power capacity and an almost 15 fold increase in solar power from April 2016 levels. Such ambitious targets would place India among the world leaders in renewable energy use and place India at the centre of its "Sunshine Countries" International Solar Alliance project promoting the growth and development of solar power internationally to over 120 countries. India set a target of achieving 40% of its total electricity generation from non-fossil fuel sources by 2030, as stated in its Intended Nationally Determined Contributions statement in the Paris Agreement.[4][5] A blueprint draft published by Central Electricity Authority projects that 57% of the total electricity capacity will be from renewable sources by 2027.[6] In the 2027 forecasts, India aims to have a renewable energy installed capacity of 275 GW, in addition to 72 GW of hydro-energy, 15 GW of nuclear energy and nearly 100 GW from “other zero emission” sources.[6]
Click to expand...
But they should do (even) more to phase out coal, that's correct

 
-fish- said:
I never said it was anything but what it was.   But we still have to deal with the fact that the groundwater is polluted and we keep having problems resulting from the cleanup.  Until the answer to nuclear waste is something better than burying it next to a water table, I'm always going to have a problem with it...because we don't manage to learn from our mistakes.   

Is burying over 3 million pounds of waste onsite at San Onofre really a good idea?
Click to expand...
But hey, according to Trump's EPA a little radiation is good for you!

 
From BBC: Five things we've learned from the IPCC report

There is a lot of faith put in technology that it can solve many of our environmental problems, especially climate change.

This report says that the world doesn't have to come up with some magic machines to curb climate change - we've already got all the tech we need.

The report says that carbon will have to be sucked out of the air by machines and stored underground, and that these devices exist already.

Billions of trees will have to be planted - and people may have to make hard choices between using land for food or using it for energy crops.

But really wacky ideas, such as blocking out the Sun, or adding iron to the oceans have been dismissed by this IPCC report.
Click to expand...

 
Ilov80s said:
@jon_mx

I found the link, haven’t read it yet. Just saw the headline before. I’ll you guys make heads or tails of it.

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change
Click to expand...
Thanks.

As I expected it backtracks to the oil companies (with some merit). However, saying that we should just shut down extraction is not particularly realistic the way the world works right now, particularly when it comes to the various types of transport. We have no alternative to oil for sea transport (IIRC carrying two thirds of the worlds internationally traded goods), or air transport or indeed roadtransport of goods - I believe we've only seen prototypes of trucks burning hydrogen (which lacks infrastructure and cheap, clean storage and extraction) or being powered by electricity (more over a lot of the electricity is generated by fossil fuels).

This bit is interesting though (the formatting and sequencing is mine)

Investors should move out of fossil fuels, says Michael Brune, executive director of US environmental organisation the Sierra Club. “Not only is it morally risky, it’s economically risky. The world is moving away from fossil fuels towards clean energy and is doing so at an accelerated pace. Those left holding investments in fossil fuel companies will find their investments becoming more and more risky over time.”

...

A Carbon Tracker study in 2015 found that fossil fuel companies risked wasting more than $2tn over the coming decade by pursuing coal, oil and gas projects that could be worthless in the face of international action on climate change and advances in renewables – in turn posing substantial threats to investor returns.

...

A research paper published last year by Paul Stevens, an academic at think tank Chatham House, said international oil companies were no longer fit for purpose and warned these multinationals that they faced a “nasty, brutish and short” end within the next 10 years if they did not completely change their business models.
Click to expand...
Not sure I see it going that fast.

 
We need to come up with a good cheap efficient way to take salt out of water. Then we could do it on a mass scale, and as the ocean levels rise we simply use it for consumption and commercial use. Or make crops that are salt resistant? Well, I’m out of ideas. 

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Do you find his arguments convincing?
Click to expand...
i really don't know enough about it to comment either way.  It's just not a subject that interests me although I read the comments in here & most of those on the side of global warming are so politically charged they turn me off.   i really do see both sides on this & have not been inclined to draw a line in the sand either way.

 
irishidiot said:
i really don't know enough about it to comment either way.  It's just not a subject that interests me although I read the comments in here & most of those on the side of global warming are so politically charged they turn me off.   i really do see both sides on this & have not been inclined to draw a line in the sand either way.
Click to expand...
I think the only thing you need to know to discount what's in that editorial is how to read critically.

 
irishidiot said:
i really don't know enough about it to comment either way.  It's just not a subject that interests me although I read the comments in here & most of those on the side of global warming are so politically charged they turn me off.   i really do see both sides on this & have not been inclined to draw a line in the sand either way.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that the climate change deniers are apolitical in their takes?

 
jon_mx said:
From the article, it seems they are just looking atf fossil fuel producers, not actual consumers.  So that makes sense.  
Click to expand...
It's an interesting note. The idea that a pretty small group of companies could either be persuaded to drastically cut the use of fossil fuels or  could use their huge power to ensure that there is no reduction. 

 
Snorkelson said:
We need to come up with a good cheap efficient way to take salt out of water. Then we could do it on a mass scale, and as the ocean levels rise we simply use it for consumption and commercial use. Or make crops that are salt resistant? Well, I’m out of ideas. 
Click to expand...
Hydrogen as fuel

 
irishidiot said:
Didn't Al Gore predict devastation on earth in 10 years roughly 15 years ago?
Click to expand...
I have no idea. I don’t pay too much attention to Al Gore on this issue. He’s done some good work in terms of increasing awareness, but he’s no scientist. 

On issues of science, I think it’s a bad idea to give the thoughts of politicians and scientists equal weight. 

 
timschochet said:
I have no idea. I don’t pay too much attention to Al Gore on this issue. He’s done some good work in terms of increasing awareness, but he’s no scientist. 

On issues of science, I think it’s a bad idea to give the thoughts of politicians and scientists equal weight. 
Click to expand...
Not a mutually exclusive group.   The IPCC is a political organization.  

 
irishidiot said:
Not up on this subject at all.  I know I was concerned with some pretty important studies that were proven to be fixed in that they inflated the numbers, but realize that recognizing our environment & improving it is a grand thing.  This from American Thinker-wondering whether he has any decent points & if anyone here can look at it objectively?

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/10/4_reasons_why_climate_change_is_a_flatout_hoax.html
Click to expand...
He does not.

 
jiffy said:
Yup.

In 2008 he told an audience in Germany "that “the entire North Polarized cap will disappear in 5 years.”

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2008/12/al-gore-north-pole-will-disappear-in-5/

Limbaugh had a countdown clock on his site since he said that in 2006.
Click to expand...
That's not an entirely accurate depiction of that speech.  What he said was “The entire North polar ice cap may well be completely gone in 5 years."  It was also a poorly stated sentence - it was a reference to the loss of summer glacial ice from a very aggressive prediction by one professor.

Edit: Video.  This statement is at about :40 in.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
So far as I know the information they report, which was the source of my OP, comes directly from scientific research. 
Click to expand...
There is very little science discussed in the article.  It is mainly focuses on a newly-invented arbitrary 1.5 degree limit which was picked to generate scarier headlines to motivate quicker action.  

 
jon_mx said:
There is very little science discussed in the article.  It is mainly focuses on a newly-invented arbitrary 1.5 degree limit which was picked to generate scarier headlines to motivate quicker action.  
Click to expand...
Articles are terrible with scientific discussion.  The report and reasons behind it are available at https://www.ipcc.ch/  It's worth checking out.

The primary reason for the 1.5 degree limit is to find a way to keep the truly catastrophic things from happening quite as catastrophically.  In researching the likely effects of a 2 degree shift, for instance, it's been determined that the shift in temperature would lead to a once per decade full summer loss of arctic ice as well as the death of around 99% of all coral reefs.  Anyone with any marine biology understanding can tell you that's very, very bad for life on Earth.

1.5 degrees would mean that summer ice loss would be once per century and only around 70%-90% of coral reefs would die off.  So they modeled what it would take to limit the change to that.

 
Oh, and everything about climate change effects on life on Earth (not human life, but life in general) is about to change anyway.  This discovery changes the entire world.  I can't imagine it's included in that report.  It gives actual hope that even if we destroy everything, life (again, not ours, but life in general) on this planet may continue indefinitely.

 
Henry Ford said:
Oh, and everything about climate change effects on life on Earth (not human life, but life in general) is about to change anyway.  This discovery changes the entire world.  I can't imagine it's included in that report.  It gives actual hope that even if we destroy everything, life (again, not ours, but life in general) on this planet may continue indefinitely.
Click to expand...
Life....

 
I don't know if climate change has anything to do with it but the weather here in Iowa the last few weeks has been dreadful.  It's been rainy for two weeks now with plenty of flooding.  Tornadoes yesterday and today.  This is not normal Fall weather for us.  As if the farmers weren't struggling enough the way it is they now can't even get in the fields for harvest.

 
Jackstraw said:
We're seeing it right in front of our eyes. Sunny day floods, wildfires, killing heat waves. 
Click to expand...
This has happened throughout the history of the world.  It's just that the news of it is more prevalent and having 8 billion people on the planet makes each natural disaster affect more.  Hell, the southwest US has had droughts that lasted 240 years just barely over a millenium ago.  I get that we need to take better care of the planet, but this alarmist BS is hurting the effort more than helping it.

 
Bronco Billy said:
But we’ve been told with every released report that these are unchallengeable conclusions, proven by consensus - which apparently is vastly superior to scientific method.

.
Click to expand...
You should get that checked.  Those voices might be in your head.

 
Do you guys really believe this? Doesn't the goal post keep getting moved further out on this? If you want to double-down on Al Gore's frivolous prediction, be my guest. By the way, we don't have control over most of the world's emissions. China is the biggest offender and I don't see them slowing down anytime soon.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

timschochet
Republican legislators are threatening to punish corporations that are trying to fight climate change.
Replies
7
Views
484
The Commish
The Commish
GordonGekko
The Atlantic: "Democrats Really Are That Dense About Climate Change" (6/23/22 01:00 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
Maggot Brain
Maggot Brain
Stealthycat
Biden climate change order to tell federal agencies to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies
2 3 4
Replies
173
Views
5K
joffer
joffer

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top