New US government report on climate change and it's scary

[Kowani]

Oh look, we're all doomed. I'm building a bunker, who wants to help?

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Anyway, we're all gonna die unless Musk builds a Space Ark and ferries humanity to Mars.

[Great Minarchistan]

Global carbon efficiency is growing at a constant rate (doubling every ~25 years), so on a business-as-usual scenario the endpoint of atmospheric co2 would cause a stabilization of global temps at +2c [compared to pre-industrial], which is a pretty average outcome, tbh. We aren't doomed, it's just a matter on how much can we go to stray from the tipping point of 2.5c

[Novus America]

Fallout fans are gonna fap so hard

Until Bethesda ruins it with shoddy writing and buggy gameplay.

Honestly RL has shoddy writing and buggy gameplay...

[New Kvenland]

god i'd get banned for some of my opinions on this subject, but suffice it to say watching my grandparents' village slowly sink into the ocean because of a couple of rich fucks radicalized me a bit

hoping for a massive socialist revolution in the next 10 years in at least a few of the G20 countries because that seems like the only meaningful option at this point

[Great Minarchistan]

god i'd get banned for some of my opinions on this subject, but suffice it to say watching my grandparents' village slowly sink into the ocean because of a couple of rich fucks radicalized me a bit

hoping for a massive socialist revolution in the next 10 years in at least a few of the G20 countries because that seems like the only meaningful option at this point

Yes, because the rich and profit-seeking are doing this /s

[Novus America]

The biggest problem is radiophobia.
Germany is actually polluting MORE by trying to phase out nuclear power, when wind and solar are failing to make up for it and destroy more land.
http://environmentalprogress.org/why-cl ... in-crisis/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... 15c58949cf
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... f143e6ae19
https://www.politico.eu/article/germany ... y-nuclear/

Nuclear is the only solution but people are against it.

Interesting fact. Nixon had a plan to build 1,000 nuclear reactors by the year 1980.
Had we done so we would have emission free electric power.

Ironically environmentalists killed the environment.

Thanks a lot Jill Stein

(Vomits). Please spoiler that name or something... My cat has a better understanding of environmental issues then she who shall not be named.

Seriously though, how can anybody take green parties seriously when led by people like that?
Green politics killed the environment. They certainly will not help it.

[Mystic Warriors]

The biggest problem is radiophobia.
Germany is actually polluting MORE by trying to phase out nuclear power, when wind and solar are failing to make up for it and destroy more land.
http://environmentalprogress.org/why-cl ... in-crisis/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... 15c58949cf
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... f143e6ae19
https://www.politico.eu/article/germany ... y-nuclear/

Nuclear is the only solution but people are against it.

Interesting fact. Nixon had a plan to build 1,000 nuclear reactors by the year 1980.
Had we done so we would have emission free electric power.

Ironically environmentalists killed the environment.

Thanks a lot Jill Stein

She is awesome.

[New Kvenland]

god i'd get banned for some of my opinions on this subject, but suffice it to say watching my grandparents' village slowly sink into the ocean because of a couple of rich fucks radicalized me a bit

hoping for a massive socialist revolution in the next 10 years in at least a few of the G20 countries because that seems like the only meaningful option at this point

Yes, because the rich and profit-seeking are doing this /s

yes that's genuinely exactly what i'm saying

[Napkiraly]

Fallout fans are gonna fap so hard

Until Bethesda ruins it with shoddy writing and buggy gameplay.

So half their games for the former and all of them for the latter?

[Great Minarchistan]

Yes, because the rich and profit-seeking are doing this /s

yes that's genuinely exactly what i'm saying

It's lovely to see your sheer ignorance since pretty much everyone is embarked in the consumerist wave, not only the rich. Nonetheless, sorry to break your bubble but economic development necessarily passes through an increase in carbon emissions, even if primarily so. However, thanks to the evil profit-seeking motives you have enough capital in the society for green alternatives to be built around energy production (which answer for approx. half of the human carbon emissions).

[Dark Socialism]

There are more pressing matters than a potential apocalypse like woman's rights and Donald Drumpf.

[Novus America]

god i'd get banned for some of my opinions on this subject, but suffice it to say watching my grandparents' village slowly sink into the ocean because of a couple of rich fucks radicalized me a bit

hoping for a massive socialist revolution in the next 10 years in at least a few of the G20 countries because that seems like the only meaningful option at this point

Because socialist countries had such a good record on the environment...
Seriously though we need properly directed and regulated capitalism. Without capitalism we would not have the energy options we have.

Advantages in electric cars and nuclear power are being driven by a governments and private companies working together.

We can within the capitalist framework place a moratorium on the construction of fossil power plants, use public private parternerships and grants and subsidies to convert existing fossil plants to nuclear power.

Also place a moratorium on the importation of internal combustion engines.

[Great Minarchistan]

god i'd get banned for some of my opinions on this subject, but suffice it to say watching my grandparents' village slowly sink into the ocean because of a couple of rich fucks radicalized me a bit

hoping for a massive socialist revolution in the next 10 years in at least a few of the G20 countries because that seems like the only meaningful option at this point

Because socialist countries had such a good record on the environment...
Seriously though we need properly directed and regulated capitalism. Without capitalism we would not have the energy options we have.

Advantages in electric cars and nuclear power are being driven by a governments and private companies working together.

We can within the capitalist framework place a moratorium on the construction of fossil power plants, use public private parternerships and grants and subsidies to convert existing fossil plants to nuclear power.

Also place a moratorium on the importation of internal combustion engines.

There's no need for this sort of regulatory bullshit as clean energy is getting cheaper by the second.

[New Rogernomics]

god i'd get banned for some of my opinions on this subject, but suffice it to say watching my grandparents' village slowly sink into the ocean because of a couple of rich fucks radicalized me a bit

hoping for a massive socialist revolution in the next 10 years in at least a few of the G20 countries because that seems like the only meaningful option at this point

Well, it is certainly already here.

New Zealand has been accepting climate refugees for a while now from sinking Pacific island nations, especially Kiribati.

The wealthier the country, the more resources are available to deal with climate change. Though those costs will continue to escalate, till even 'first world' nations can no longer hide that they aren't coping.

Climate change denial will hold back the response, but eventually even the most conservative political parties will have to recognize it exists.

[Novus America]

Because socialist countries had such a good record on the environment...
Seriously though we need properly directed and regulated capitalism. Without capitalism we would not have the energy options we have.

Advantages in electric cars and nuclear power are being driven by a governments and private companies working together.

We can within the capitalist framework place a moratorium on the construction of fossil power plants, use public private parternerships and grants and subsidies to convert existing fossil plants to nuclear power.

Also place a moratorium on the importation of internal combustion engines.

There's no need for this sort of regulatory bullshit as clean energy is getting cheaper by the second.

Not at the rate we need. And nuclear is still difficult, largely due to government restrictions but still.

We cannot just hope the problem fixes itself. Also our current pricing structure does not account for externalities.

[Great Minarchistan]

Not at the rate we need.

Yes, at the rate we need. Unless there's a (catastrophic!) change in structural long-run factors, we're set to have a pattern in carbon emissions akin to RCP4.5, a scenario of which predicts a total temperature change of 1.7ish celsius relative to preindustrial levels [by 2100], which is followed by stabilization/slight reduction over time.

[Novus America]

Not at the rate we need.

Yes, at the rate we need. Unless there's a (catastrophic!) change in structural long-run factors, we're set to have a pattern in carbon emissions akin to RCP4.5, a scenario of which predicts a total temperature change of 1.7ish celsius relative to preindustrial levels [by 2100], which is followed by stabilization/slight reduction over time.

Given the worsening situation in Asia and Europe, I would not rely on that.
Nuclear bans in Europe will keep them from reducing emissions.

Plus that is still risky, and climate change is not the only environmental issue.
Habitat destruction and environmental toxins are also a problem.

[Great Minarchistan]

Given the worsening situation in Asia and Europe, I would not rely on that.

Higher carbon efficiency, declining pop growth, declining/stabilizing gdp/c growth... Surely a "worsening" frame, heh.

Nuclear bans in Europe will keep them from reducing emissions.

Hey wind and solar!

Plus that is still risky, and climate change is not the only environmental issue.
Habitat destruction and environmental toxins are also a problem.

That's rather a hundred miles far from the current topic so its better to reserve it to another discussion thread.

[Fartsniffage]

There are apparently private companies getting into fusion now. One that thinks it can get a working reactor by 2025 with commercial production of reactors by 2030. Spherical reactors rather than torus reactors so less power per reactor but still positive power production.

In the 50s they said it would be up and running by the 60s.
I would be thrilled if this proves true this time, but we cannot bet the fate of the environment on it.

I'm taking that fact that private industry is getting involved as evidence that the science is proved and people can now see a way to make money out of the technology.

[Novus America]

Given the worsening situation in Asia and Europe, I would not rely on that.

Higher carbon efficiency, declining pop growth, declining/stabilizing gdp/c growth... Surely a "worsening" frame, heh.

Nuclear bans in Europe will keep them from reducing emissions.

Hey wind and solar!

Plus that is still risky, and climate change is not the only environmental issue.
Habitat destruction and environmental toxins are also a problem.

That's rather a hundred miles far from the current topic so its better to reserve it to another discussion thread.

Wind and solar will not cut it.
https://www.politico.eu/article/germany ... y-nuclear/

They are too unreliable and land use intensive.
As Europe denuclearizes their coal use is increasing.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Higher carbon efficiency, declining pop growth, declining/stabilizing gdp/c growth... Surely a "worsening" frame, heh.


Hey wind and solar!


That's rather a hundred miles far from the current topic so its better to reserve it to another discussion thread.

Wind and solar will not cut it.
https://www.politico.eu/article/germany ... y-nuclear/

They are too unreliable and land use intensive.
As Europe denuclearizes their coal use is increasing.

Ironic how they are shooting themselves in the foot by rejecting nuclear power (while hydroelectric power in Europe is largely confined to the Alps), thus leading to the failure of solar/wind projects because they just cannot keep up with demand.

France has the right idea with almost 75% of its energy coming from nuclear power plants and a sizeable portion of the remaining percentage being Alpine hydroelectricity.

Canada, especially Quebec, is also quite smart, having enormous amounts of land and a bazillion largely commercially unviable rivers for that sweet, sweet hydroelectric power (the only major thorn being from the natives, who can be calmed with the promise of jobs and retaining their rights on the lands and newly formed reservoirs).

[Great Minarchistan]

Higher carbon efficiency, declining pop growth, declining/stabilizing gdp/c growth... Surely a "worsening" frame, heh.


Hey wind and solar!


That's rather a hundred miles far from the current topic so its better to reserve it to another discussion thread.

Wind and solar will not cut it.
https://www.politico.eu/article/germany ... y-nuclear/

They are too unreliable and land use intensive.
As Europe denuclearizes their coal use is increasing.

Thats rather right on wind, but solar is pretty efficient (esp on places near to the equator, e.g. Iberia for Europe's case) and it has been going through a neat trimming on prod. costs.

I agree that withdrawal of nuclear powerplants is a terrible policy, but its bs to believe that green energy has no alternative other than it.

[Kowani]

Wind and solar will not cut it.
https://www.politico.eu/article/germany ... y-nuclear/

They are too unreliable and land use intensive.
As Europe denuclearizes their coal use is increasing.

Ironic how they are shooting themselves in the foot by rejecting nuclear power (while hydroelectric power in Europe is largely confined to the Alps), thus leading to the failure of solar/wind projects because they just cannot keep up with demand.

France has the right idea with almost 75% of its energy coming from nuclear power plants and a sizeable portion of the remaining percentage being Alpine hydroelectricity.

Canada, especially Quebec, is also quite smart, having enormous amounts of land and a bazillion largely commercially unviable rivers for that sweet, sweet hydroelectric power (the only major thorn being from the natives, who can be calmed with the promise of jobs and retaining their rights on the lands and newly formed reservoirs).

Trail of Tears 2 when?

[Trumptonium1]

This is one of the main reasons why I'm not very fond of a lot of green parties. Yes, Fukushima was terrifying, as were past incidents, but if we want a viable, major solution now, we're gonna need nuclear power.

The thing about Fukushima and others is they only happened due to poor designs.
Modern designs do not have the same problems.

And even with those included nuclear is still the SAFEST form of power.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... -paid/amp/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fool.c ... -fear.aspx

Nuclear power is not perfect but it is the best we have.
We need to start massively subsidizing the construction and operation of nuclear plants built to modern standards.

There is simply no other way.

Again we could have had emission free electric power in 1980!
I agree with you.

While I care about the environment I could never call my self an “environmentalist” or a “green” as those using those titles are the reason we are in this mess.

All green parties and environmentalist groups should apologize, embrace nuclear power or disband.

Not that this would absolve them for 50 years of environmental derestruction.
It is probably too late now.

You're putting too much focus on electricity and ignoring the pollution effects of gas (inc. heating) and transport, neither of which can be solved by nuclear power.

Nuclear power can't even be used on commercial ships and planes because its simply uneconomical, let alone cars and buses.