Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
timschochet

We’ve got until 2030 to get climate change under control: UPDATE: Trump says he has read latest report; he doesn’t believe it.

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, joffer said:

depends what you're willing to accept.  if a billion people die as a result, is that "adapting"?

Need to know if I have to pay an extra 50 cents to drive my kids to school each day.

Plus I saw snowballs on the floor of the Senate, so I'm pretty sure all of this is fake. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like the debt, we will leave this issue for a our grandchildren and great grandchildren to deal with.  They will curse the Boomers and those generations that came afterward for our shortsightedness and inactivity. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dan Lambskin said:

That’s why I asked for cliffs notes.  That article did an awful job of explaining what the actual risks were, or if it did it had already lost my attention by the time it got to it

im not a climate change denier, but I wonder if the impacts are overstated.  Even if they aren’t, mankind will adapt

Not going to pile on here, but paint me a picture of mankind adapting to our coastlines destroyed, catastrophic changes to our food industry, entire food webs blinked out and the loss of various marine conveyor systems looks like to you. I don't know if humans can overcome one of those issues much less all of them in 100 years. Hell, some countries still haven't adapted to the industrial revolution and that was 150 years ago.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dedfin said:

Not going to pile on here, but paint me a picture of mankind adapting to our coastlines destroyed, catastrophic changes to our food industry, entire food webs blinked out and the loss of various marine conveyor systems looks like to you. I don't know if humans can overcome one of those issues much less all of them in 100 years. Hell, some countries still haven't adapted to the industrial revolution and that was 150 years ago.

So people will have to move and learn to eat different things :shrug:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Dan Lambskin said:

What are they dying from?

The article didn't really dive into the negative consequences very well. There are several factors in play. Rising sea levels could cause massive displacement of peoples. Poor people obviously don't always have the means to pick up and relocate so that is an issue. The loss of coral reefs, rising temperatures, etc. could potentially disrupt sea life which is a major source of food for the world. Increased temperatures also could make the climate more volatile and lead to natural disasters. 

Edited by Ilov80s
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Dan Lambskin said:

What are they dying from?

famine and disease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dan Lambskin said:

So people will have to move and learn to eat different things :shrug:

 

Heatwaves kill people. Natural disasters kill people. Droughts kill people. Economic tension would be created if millions of people have to move away from shores. The economic destruction of the loss of all those beachfront homes, hotels, resorts, etc. would be incredibly high. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dan Lambskin said:

Can I get a cliffs notes of that long and boring article?

what exactly am I worried about happening if we continue down the current path

Feel free to take up smoking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

Heatwaves kill people. Natural disasters kill people. Droughts kill people. Economic tension would be created if millions of people have to move away from shores. The economic destruction of the loss of all those beachfront homes, hotels, resorts, etc. would be incredibly high. 

So there will be hardships and casualties along the way but doesn’t sound like an extinction level event.  Maybe it’s the earths way of telling us the current population growth is unsustainable 

I’m assuming the robots will have taken over before this becomes a real issue anyway 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dan Lambskin said:

So there will be hardships and casualties along the way but doesn’t sound like an extinction level event.  Maybe it’s the earths way of telling us the current population growth is unsustainable 

I’m assuming the robots will have taken over before this becomes a real issue anyway 

It's not instantly going to cause the planet to blow up but it just will get worse and worse to a point where it probably could wipe use all out in a couple generations. Think of it like smoking, a few cigarettes aren't going to kill anyone but a lifetime of smoking continually compounds and causes a ton of health issues that ultimately have deadly consequences. 

Plus the economic and political fall out is likely to be really bad. If food and land become more scarce, it is more likely to make nations more aggressive. 

Edited by Ilov80s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dan Lambskin said:

Mealworms down?

yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Dan Lambskin said:

So people will have to move and learn to eat different things :shrug:

 

Where and how are they moving?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Dan Lambskin said:

Mealworms down?

If you want to discuss seriously, please do. There should definitely be other viewpoints so this doesn't become an echo chamber. But don't just lob stuff for fun. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

If you want to discuss seriously, please do. There should definitely be other viewpoints so this doesn't become an echo chamber. But don't just lob stuff for fun. Thanks.

You're not around a lot but we know Dan is just kidding around.  It's a natural reflex to even horrifying hews. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Insomniac said:

Something like 80% of white evangelicals voted for Trump so disbelief in  climate change among the group is likely to be somewhere around that level.

I don't know the numbers. But I'd be hesitant to assume "Trump Voters" all think the same thing. 

I know on a personal level, I know a lot of Christians who feel very much in line with Dr. Katharine Hayhoe. I do. But that's purely a personal experience thing. To be fair though, I don't know that we're doing very much about it. 

This article says 50% of people overall don't believe and talks about why that might be the case:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/29/17173166/climate-change-perception-gallup-poll-politics-psychology

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sheriff Bart said:

You're not around a lot but we know Dan is just kidding around.  It's a natural reflex to even horrifying hews. 

Not everyone knows. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dedfin said:

I wish they would. Nuclear plants are safe and effective. 

Except when they aren’t.   And even then we have to deal with the waste somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

If you want to discuss seriously, please do. There should definitely be other viewpoints so this doesn't become an echo chamber. But don't just lob stuff for fun. Thanks.

I was being serious.  You don’t think mealworms would be a viable food source?  I personally don’t want to eat them but seems if push comes to shove it might be an option

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/mealworms-the-other-other-other-white-meat/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, The General said:

Where and how are they moving?

Where:  Inland or to more hospitable climates would be my guess.

how: electric car, trains, boats, airplanes, horse and buggy, on foot, hot air balloon :shrug:

 

Not saying it will be easy but there will be options 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, quickhands said:

What exactly are you advocating tim?

I dont understand what get "under control" means.    What do we need to do?

I’m repeating what the scientists are saying. I have no idea what we need to do or how to do it. I don’t even know how we would start. And even if we did, I don’t know how much the United States could accomplish on our own without China and a few other nations that are also complicit. 

I don’t have any answers. But the article concerns me greatly and I think we have to do something pretty quick here. Got any ideas? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I’m repeating what the scientists are saying. I have no idea what we need to do or how to do it. I don’t even know how we would start. And even if we did, I don’t know how much the United States could accomplish on our own without China and a few other nations that are also complicit. 

I don’t have any answers. But the article concerns me greatly and I think we have to do something pretty quick here. Got any ideas? 

sure you do. put a price on carbon.  it’s not a mystery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple people here mentioned nuclear energy. It does seem to me that there is at least a possibility that we could achieve some kind of political consensus between conservatives, independents, and moderate liberals on a serious investment into this technology. Even the millions of climate change deniers might go for that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, joffer said:

sure you do. put a price on carbon.  it’s not a mystery.

I’m for it. Didn’t use to be. Is it politically viable? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I’m for it. Didn’t use to be. Is it politically viable? 

not until Jan 2021 at the earliest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, joffer said:

not until Jan 2021 at the earliest

At the state level it may be viable.  Washington has an initiative on the ballot. Heavy opposition and outright lying from the oil companies, though.   They’ve created so much confusion most people think it’s another gas tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, timschochet said:

A couple people here mentioned nuclear energy. It does seem to me that there is at least a possibility that we could achieve some kind of political consensus between conservatives, independents, and moderate liberals on a serious investment into this technology. Even the millions of climate change deniers might go for that. 

Why on earth would you want to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joe Bryant said:

I don't know the numbers. But I'd be hesitant to assume "Trump Voters" all think the same thing. 

I know on a personal level, I know a lot of Christians who feel very much in line with Dr. Katharine Hayhoe. I do. But that's purely a personal experience thing. To be fair though, I don't know that we're doing very much about it. 

This article says 50% of people overall don't believe and talks about why that might be the case:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/29/17173166/climate-change-perception-gallup-poll-politics-psychology

 

It seems a lot of people think it's not going to affect their life that much. I'd be one of those people. The actuary tables don't particularly like my chances to be around in 2050 (or even 2040) and it doesn't seem likely climate change will have any disastrous effects on me in that time period. OTOH when my friends used to go backpacking we always made sure we cleaned up our campsites even though we were probably never going back to that particular site so that other people could enjoy it too. Maybe that type of thinking is out of style in Trump's America on a much larger and more serious scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, the rover said:

At the state level it may be viable.  Washington has an initiative on the ballot. Heavy opposition and outright lying from the oil companies, though.   They’ve created so much confusion most people think it’s another gas tax.

makes a lot less sense at the state level though.  carbon, fee, and dividend at the federal level almost always includes a border adjustment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, msommer said:

Why on earth would you want to?

because its incredibly efficient and low on CO2 emissions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, timschochet said:

A couple people here mentioned nuclear energy. It does seem to me that there is at least a possibility that we could achieve some kind of political consensus between conservatives, independents, and moderate liberals on a serious investment into this technology. Even the millions of climate change deniers might go for that. 

As a practical matter, it depends who would profit.  From an environmental perspective, there are many people opposed to nuclear power.  Fukushima’s effects are still being studied.  The Hanford site will never be cleaned up and waste has gotten into the water table.  Chernobyl, Three Mile Island...more recently San Onofre has reported a problem...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, joffer said:

because its incredibly efficient and low on CO2 emissions?

And who cares about the waste? Amirite?

Also, nuclear power plants cannot be deployed fast enough to make any difference, even if a majority of the (Earth's) population wanted it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How widespread is nuclear energy? 

I live in Knoxville TN and maybe because we're next door to Oak Ridge National Labs and home to TVA, I know a lot of nuclear engineers and we've had nuclear power plants for years here. :shrug:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, msommer said:

And who cares about the waste? Amirite?

Also, nuclear power plants cannot be deployed fast enough to make any difference, even if a majority of the (Earth's) population wanted it

its a part of a solution, not the solution.  as far as waste, the CO2 we're pumping into the atmosphere will be far more costly long term than nuclear waste properly stored underground.  and newer technologies produce less waste.

Edited by joffer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, joffer said:

its a part of a solution, not the solution.  as far as waste, the CO2 we're pumping into the atmosphere will be far more costly than nuclear waste stored underground.  and newer technologies produce less waste.

I have to disagree. The nuclear waste that fission produces is far more damaging and renders the site unusable. The waste from fission coupled with the extreme danger of potential reactor meltdowns, does make it not a great alternative to CO2 Fossil Fuel waste.

Nuclear Fusion is a viable and unlimited source of power and the scientific community is getting close to making it a reality. This would be an amazing solution to the fossil fuel burning that is slowly but surely hurting our planet.

Edited by Todem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, timschochet said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/energy-environment/2018/10/08/world-has-only-years-get-climate-change-under-control-un-scientists-say/

There is no other issue that is more important than this one. 

I had figured that we had another 50-70 years to figure this out. Apparently not. 

We could write a song about this, wait that’s been done and we still alive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, joffer said:

its a part of a solution, not the solution.  as far as waste, the CO2 we're pumping into the atmosphere will be far more costly long term than nuclear waste properly stored underground.  and newer technologies produce less waste.

Why replace one problem with another?

The capital and environmental requirements means nuclear will not be a major part of the future global energy mix anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the UN is further propagating this Ponzi scheme.  In other words, "Give us more money".  Funny how every 10 years, the climate change alarmists come along and tell us we only have 10 years or so to get our act together or else.  Only they never specify what the "or else" is.  We're about to go through a cold period.  The solar minimum is in full effect.  Don't be fooled by this long con.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Todem said:

I have to disagree. The nuclear waste that fission produces is far more damaging and renders the site unusable. The waste from fission coupled with the extreme danger of potential reactor meltdowns, does make it not a great alternative to CO2 Fossil Fuel waste.

Nuclear Fusion is a viable and unlimited source of power and the scientific community is getting close to making it a reality. This would be an amazing solution to the fossil fuel burning that is slowly but surely hurting our planet.

But not deployable now which seems to make it less of a factor.

If significant reductions in CO2 emissions are required by 2030 you need technology that is available and economically close to parity with fossil fuels now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, msommer said:

But not deployable now which seems to make it less of a factor.

If significant reductions in CO2 emissions are required by 2030 you need technology that is available and economically close to parity with fossil fuels now.

I know.....total bummer. But hopefully they will still get this up and running one day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

How widespread is nuclear energy? 

I live in Knoxville TN and maybe because we're next door to Oak Ridge National Labs and home to TVA, I know a lot of nuclear engineers and we've had nuclear power plants for years here. :shrug:

 

China dominates the landscape with 5 new plants coming online this year and more planned for the future.  Fukushima pretty much killed it in the rest of the world though.  It was starting to see a renaissance until that happened.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, msommer said:

Why replace one problem with another?

The capital and environmental requirements means nuclear will not be a major part of the future global energy mix anyway.

some locations aren't great for wind or solar.  it doesn't have to be a major part.  i'm just not discounting it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Sheriff Bart said:

China dominates the landscape with 5 new plants coming online this year and more planned for the future.  Fukushima pretty much killed it in the rest of the world though.  It was starting to see a renaissance until that happened.  

Yeah, nuclear power is great until we remember why it isn’t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, butcher boy said:

I don't think those are proof of climate change being fake or overly exaggerated. I think many scientists would agree we have gone past a point of no return and now it's just a matter of salvaging what we can. The polar ice caps and coral reefs aren't ever going to be what they were. The question now is if they will even exist at all.  There is a lot of serious irreversible changes that have happened to the ecosystem. Certainly some rhetoric is more extreme than others with the hope of spurring action. Some of it is from politicians or people who aren't scientists and are clearly trying to spur a response. I think the evidence shows climate change is definitely happening, it's getting out of our control and since we have allowed so many "tipping point" warnings to go by, we are now likely at a point where only the most extreme solutions have a chance of making a noticeable difference.

It's like if a doctor keeps warning a patient that they need to make major lifestyle changes or they will die. Every year the doctor says stop drinking, stop smoking, change your diet, get excercise. Every year the patient ignores it. The doctor keeps warning that a tipping point is coming and if major changes aren't made soon, it will too late to save the person. This goes on for 5years and now the patient knows the doctor is full of #### because the doctor has been warning him for 5 years and the patient is still alive. Therefore it is quite clear the doctor is wrong. Now maybe the doctor was wrong about how imminent the decline is but the doctor is not necesarily wrong that years of life have been lost and a quality of life that once was possible is now impossible. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.