The Climate Change Thread: Or The Perils of Carbon

[Novus America]

I think we need to incentivize not only people but also companies to make changes. We need to make it worth their while. We particularly need to look into things like nuclear. Solar farms and panels are great and all, in the right locations,but there are far to many places where they are simply too inefficient. In addition we need to make things like recycling easier. One of the reasons people don;t is partially because it is simply way to easy to throw things out. Many places do not have recycling bins and the such. Further, it would be nice if we had bins for compost, where people can throw away food. I do not know the regulations on restaurants giving away unused food at the end of the day, but it would be nice if we could incentivize them giving it to various shelters.

What we should do (and should have done decades ago) is ban the construction or expansion of fossil fuel power plants. Then the worse polluting ones would be converted to nuclear, as rapidly as possible until none are left.

Also ban the importation of internal combustion engines, to encourage a switch to electric.

[Neutraligon]

I think we need to incentivize not only people but also companies to make changes. We need to make it worth their while. We particularly need to look into things like nuclear. Solar farms and panels are great and all, in the right locations,but there are far to many places where they are simply too inefficient. In addition we need to make things like recycling easier. One of the reasons people don;t is partially because it is simply way to easy to throw things out. Many places do not have recycling bins and the such. Further, it would be nice if we had bins for compost, where people can throw away food. I do not know the regulations on restaurants giving away unused food at the end of the day, but it would be nice if we could incentivize them giving it to various shelters.

What we should do (and should have done decades ago) is ban the construction or expansion of fossil fuel power plants. Then the worse polluting ones would be converted to nuclear, as rapidly as possible until none are left.

Also ban the importation of internal combustion engines, to encourage a switch to electric.

I think a better idea then banning the engines is to first build up the infrastructure for the cars. Also I am pretty sure converting existing plants to nuclear would be more expensive then simply demolishing and rebuilding a nuclear plants. I would also push for things like automatic lights in office buildings. I see so many office buildings with the lights on late and no one there. There are a lot of cities that are not biker friendly that I think can be. Sure the more spread out ones won't work but for more compact cities adding bike lanes and places to lock up bikes would be great.

Apparently back in 2018, renewable energy costs fell below coal power plants https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinno ... d2825131f3

[Washington Resistance Army]

I'm not a doomer by any means. I think things will get bad for sure but humanity isn't going to extinct or some other such nonsense.

We're never going to be able to respond to climate change effectively though, our capitalist democratic system prevents it. To do the kind of change you'd need to at this point you'd need to strip people of most any political rights to do it because there's too many morons out there who have too much of a say in the system and can thus prevent it. We're just gonna have to roll with climate change and adapt at this point.

[Highever]

Just start growing green stuff on all of our surfaces.

Were it so easy.

[Novus America]

What we should do (and should have done decades ago) is ban the construction or expansion of fossil fuel power plants. Then the worse polluting ones would be converted to nuclear, as rapidly as possible until none are left.

Also ban the importation of internal combustion engines, to encourage a switch to electric.

I think a better idea then banning the engines is to first build up the infrastructure for the cars. Also I am pretty sure converting existing plants to nuclear would be more expensive then simply demolishing and rebuilding a nuclear plants. I would also push for things like automatic lights in office buildings. I see so many office buildings with the lights on late and no one there. There are a lot of cities that are not biker friendly that I think can be. Sure the more spread out ones won't work but for more compact cities adding bike lanes and places to lock up bikes would be great.

Apparently back in 2018, renewable energy costs fell below coal power plants https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinno ... d2825131f3

Well by converting most buildings would be torn down, but many things like the electrical transformers, cooling towers and the water intakes could be preserved.

Still saves money.

And I would only ban the import of the engines. People could still buy domestically made engines.
But if they want their imports to those will be electric.

While superior to coal, wind and solar take up far more space and resources then nuclear, and are unreliable. Fine for peak loads, not great for base loads.

[Costa Fierro]

I'm skeptical that Western will meet their climate goals given substantial chunks of their population either don't believe it's happening or won't do anything about it. Short of a collective recognition that climate change and democracy are not compatible, nothing substantial will change.

[Saiwania]

I'm skeptical that Western will meet their climate goals given substantial chunks of their population either don't believe it's happening or won't do anything about it. Short of a collective recognition that climate change and democracy are not compatible, nothing substantial will change.

So is this a concession that authoritarian leadership if not Fascism is the future? Only a strong leader or centalized power can deliver overnight change in my mind.

[Costa Fierro]

I'm skeptical that Western will meet their climate goals given substantial chunks of their population either don't believe it's happening or won't do anything about it. Short of a collective recognition that climate change and democracy are not compatible, nothing substantial will change.

So is this a concession that authoritarian leadership if not Fascism is the future? Only a strong leader or centalized power can deliver overnight change in my mind.

Not fascism. Fascism would be regressive.

[EastKekistan]

I'm skeptical that Western will meet their climate goals given substantial chunks of their population either don't believe it's happening or won't do anything about it. Short of a collective recognition that climate change and democracy are not compatible, nothing substantial will change.

So is this a concession that authoritarian leadership if not Fascism is the future? Only a strong leader or centalized power can deliver overnight change in my mind.

Uh..let's don't go down that route unless it's absolutely necessary.

[Dooom35796821595]

Just a reminder Richard Nixon had a plan for the US to be air pollution free by 19 fucking 80!
Seriously fuck the anti nuclear fanatics. Hope the feel good knowing this is all their fault.

We had the technology and ability to resolve this for decades.

But nah, fuck the environment in the name of radiophobia.

Oh and check this out.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... power/amp/

Had California invested in nuclear instead of “renewables” they would be air pollution free too.

But again fuck the environment because nuclear scary.

It’s the problem with environmentalists, they say they want clean renewable alternatives to fossil fuels, but reject the best option, Nuclear.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Climate doomerism is nothing but a cult, in which Humanity will undergo Armaggedon if we don't self-flagellate ourselves NOW.

Climate change is happening, and there will be unfortunate-side effects, but I'm confident that most developed countries will adapt and introduce measures mitigating the impacts of climate change.

[Neutraligon]

I think a better idea then banning the engines is to first build up the infrastructure for the cars. Also I am pretty sure converting existing plants to nuclear would be more expensive then simply demolishing and rebuilding a nuclear plants. I would also push for things like automatic lights in office buildings. I see so many office buildings with the lights on late and no one there. There are a lot of cities that are not biker friendly that I think can be. Sure the more spread out ones won't work but for more compact cities adding bike lanes and places to lock up bikes would be great.

Apparently back in 2018, renewable energy costs fell below coal power plants https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinno ... d2825131f3

Well by converting most buildings would be torn down, but many things like the electrical transformers, cooling towers and the water intakes could be preserved.

Still saves money.

And I would only ban the import of the engines. People could still buy domestically made engines.
But if they want their imports to those will be electric.

While superior to coal, wind and solar take up far more space and resources then nuclear, and are unreliable. Fine for peak loads, not great for base loads.

Oh I agree about wind a solar. Solar at least can be placed on rooftops in sunny areas so that high loads can be mitigated at homes. There are also some places in the deserts that are useless for anything else, and are not pretty enough/have the animals to be made into national parks. Plus I recently heard an interesting idea that could allow solar to work with cattle/goat/sheep farms. Basically you get you large solar farm, and then rotate the cattle through various sections of the farm eating the grass that you do not want growing up around the panels. By doing that you get the nice power supply without losing too much space for farms. Plus if farmers do that and then sell the excess electricity (if they have) or rent the space to the power company (with a contract to let the animals graze there) they will manage to get a rather steady income. Wind has the issue of needing to be in large areas and putting the wildlife in danger, so I don't really see the need to increase it.

Like I said before banning imports you need to improve the infrastructure for electric.

[Novus America]

Well by converting most buildings would be torn down, but many things like the electrical transformers, cooling towers and the water intakes could be preserved.

Still saves money.

And I would only ban the import of the engines. People could still buy domestically made engines.
But if they want their imports to those will be electric.

While superior to coal, wind and solar take up far more space and resources then nuclear, and are unreliable. Fine for peak loads, not great for base loads.

Oh I agree about wind a solar. Solar at least can be placed on rooftops in sunny areas so that high loads can be mitigated at homes. There are also some places in the deserts that are useless for anything else, and are not pretty enough/have the animals to be made into national parks. Plus I recently heard an interesting idea that could allow solar to work with cattle/goat/sheep farms. Basically you get you large solar farm, and then rotate the cattle through various sections of the farm eating the grass that you do not want growing up around the panels. By doing that you get the nice power supply without losing too much space for farms. Plus if farmers do that and then sell the excess electricity (if they have) or rent the space to the power company (with a contract to let the animals graze there) they will manage to get a rather steady income. Wind has the issue of needing to be in large areas and putting the wildlife in danger, so I don't really see the need to increase it.

Like I said before banning imports you need to improve the infrastructure for electric.

In addition to space, both wind an solar require more materials to be mined as well.
While I do believe they should play a role, nuclear is needed to replace the big baseload stations

Well banning imports would create an impetus for the infrastructure to develop.
Normal cars would still be available. Just not imported non electric ones. So it provides time for a shift and a reason to do so.

[Saiwania]

People aren't wrong to not want another Chernobyl. Only the worst scenario for nuclear nowadays is more likely to be a meltdown as opposed to a reactor steam explosion that destroys all containment for the radiation. The waste produced is too long term as to be a tremendous hassle to store and maintain. There are perhaps future reactors which can use nuclear waste for power to break it down even more in terms of half life, but the fact remains that nuclear waste is still there overall as a burden.

I'm not opposed to more nuclear fission, but it takes a long time to get even a single power plant off the ground because it requires so many safeguards to do it right, mainly keeping the reactor cool regardless of anything that could or might happen in terms of loss of power or disasters natural or man made.

[Novus America]

People aren't wrong to not want another Chernobyl. Only the worst scenario for nuclear nowadays is more likely to be a meltdown as opposed to a reactor steam explosion that destroys all containment for the radiation. The waste produced is too long term as to be a tremendous hassle to store and maintain. There are perhaps future reactors which can use nuclear waste for power to break it down even more in terms of half life, but the fact remains that nuclear waste is still there overall as a burden.

I'm not opposed to more nuclear fission, but it takes a long time to get even a single power plant off the ground because it requires so many safeguards to do it right, mainly keeping the reactor cool regardless of anything that could or might happen in terms of loss of power or disasters natural or man made.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fool.c ... -fear.aspx
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... lanet/amp/

These fears are not based in proper data.
Nuclear is the safest least environmentally harmful source of power.

[Kowani]

People aren't wrong to not want another Chernobyl. Only the worst scenario for nuclear nowadays is more likely to be a meltdown as opposed to a reactor steam explosion that destroys all containment for the radiation. The waste produced is too long term as to be a tremendous hassle to store and maintain. There are perhaps future reactors which can use nuclear waste for power to break it down even more in terms of half life, but the fact remains that nuclear waste is still there overall as a burden.

I'm not opposed to more nuclear fission, but it takes a long time to get even a single power plant off the ground because it requires so many safeguards to do it right, mainly keeping the reactor cool regardless of anything that could or might happen in terms of loss of power or disasters natural or man made.

Actually, nuclear has killed less people than any other power source. And Chernobyl only happened because the USSR built sloppy reactors.

[Saiwania]

Actually, nuclear has killed less people than any other power source. And Chernobyl only happened because the USSR built sloppy reactors.

I don't disagree that Nuclear power is good, but not enough has been done in my view to manage nuclear waste so that it isn't so long lasting and such a hassle to store and transport. If anyone was dumb enough to try sending it into space and the rocket it was on exploded, the radiation spread could be equivalent to if not worse than Chernobyl was, so the waste has to remain on Earth once its been produced.

The more nuclear waste there is, the more it has to be managed or stockpiled. Ideally, it can eventually be used in other reactors until there is almost none left. But I don't yet see this happening very much.

Most regrettable about Chernobyl is that it wouldn't have happened if the safety test was cancelled, it didn't need to happen in spite of the design flaws.

[Novus America]

Actually, nuclear has killed less people than any other power source. And Chernobyl only happened because the USSR built sloppy reactors.

I don't disagree that Nuclear power is good, but not enough has been done in my view to manage nuclear waste so that it isn't so long lasting and such a hassle to store and transport. If anyone was dumb enough to try sending it into space and the rocket it was on exploded, the radiation spread could be equivalent to if not worse than Chernobyl was, so the waste has to remain on Earth once its been produced.

The more nuclear waste there is, the more it has to be managed or stockpiled. Ideally, it can eventually be used in other reactors until there is almost none left. But I don't yet see this happening very much.

Most regrettable about Chernobyl is that it wouldn't have happened if the safety test was cancelled, it didn't need to happen in spite of the design flaws.

Nuclear produces much less waste than any other source.
It is really not that big an issue.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... lanet/amp/

[Senkaku]

We're hosed. I mean, we won't go extinct, but modern industrial civilization might be in deep shit. We'll see what happens, but I am really, really not optimistic. If we're not gonna get cracking on nuclear and solar power and carbon pricing and capture and desalination and the whole nine yards like now, then I'd say put all our chips on space-- if we can mine some asteroids or whatever for some resources, we might be able to ride out the absolute shitstorm that we're entering without our entire civilization breaking down.

Of course, no one is doing that either... so enjoy guess I'll just resign myself to getting murdered in a water riot in 2045 or whatever.

[The Realm of Platinum]

Just a reminder Richard Nixon had a plan for the US to be air pollution free by 19 fucking 80!
Seriously fuck the anti nuclear fanatics. Hope the feel good knowing this is all their fault.

We had the technology and ability to resolve this for decades.

But nah, fuck the environment in the name of radiophobia.

Oh and check this out.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... power/amp/

Had California invested in nuclear instead of “renewables” they would be air pollution free too.

But again fuck the environment because nuclear scary.

ikr?

[Novus America]

We're hosed. I mean, we won't go extinct, but modern industrial civilization might be in deep shit. We'll see what happens, but I am really, really not optimistic. If we're not gonna get cracking on nuclear and solar power and carbon pricing and capture and desalination and the whole nine yards like now, then I'd say put all our chips on space-- if we can mine some asteroids or whatever for some resources, we might be able to ride out the absolute shitstorm that we're entering without our entire civilization breaking down.

Of course, no one is doing that either... so enjoy guess I'll just resign myself to getting murdered in a water riot in 2045 or whatever.

Again we could have dealt with this literally decades ago.
We did nothing, because nuclear scary.

[GrarG]

100% Doomer

Due to our ever expanding population and the 'growth' of more sustainable subsistence economies into modern industrial and post industrial economies, the trend for destruction of carbon traps and for the release of CO2 will only increase, regardless of unenforced international 'treaties' not worth the paper they are printed on.

Let me tell you what will happen next:

Current systematic annihilation of the natural world and pollution of the atmosphere will continue unabated. The oceans will continue to rise and at greater pace. Low lying cities across the world will face frequent floods (some already are) that will become constant floods, forcing them to be abandoned. This will trigger a global refugee crisis the likes of which the world has never seen.

As our saltwater oceans expand our freshwater reserves will shrink, through evaporation and overuse. This is already seen in many cities, right now most famously in Chennai but this is a growing problem for cities. Fresh water will become our most precious resource and will almost certainly be rationed, and with glaciers and mountain snows gone freshwater systems will collapse entirely within 50 years. Even if we manage to keep food supplies strong under these conditions (doubtful) we need fresh water more than we need food.

Unable to feed their populations, governments will resort to brutal means to control their starving populations. Massacres and even genocides will be common. Rioters will be machine-gunned or gassed. Human and civil rights will go out the window as all nations enter 'state of emergency' situations one by one. Borders will close and refugees will be shot at the gate. All human compassion will die as we desperately try to preserve what little we have left.

Only a few pockets of highly authoritarian order will remain surrounded by Mad Mad style wasteland, by 2100 human population will plummet down to, I'd say, 100 Million, globally, and those that survive will envy the dead as they sift through the scraps of civilisation for another rancid meal that will let them live through another wretched day on the giant toxic dustbowl that was once called Earth.

So yeah, good times ahead.

[GrarG]

If I may weight in on the nuclear power discussion too, 100% with Novus that we should have moved to nuclear decades ago, the fact that we still build coal fire power plants is literally insane.

edit; renewables are great and should be the future but as a stop-gap measure to stop with all the fossil fuel burning nuclear is utterly unchallengable

[Bluelight-R006]

I doubt there exists a technology that can reverse climate change altogether. But there are technologies that can prevent it from getting worser: Renewable energy, for example.

It’s just whether we want to use it or not. After all, economic profit is gained from the sales of the more common energy source: Fossil fuel.

[Novus America]

I doubt there exists a technology that can reverse climate change altogether. But there are technologies that can prevent it from getting worser: Renewable energy, for example.

It’s just whether we want to use it or not. After all, economic profit is gained from the sales of the more common energy source: Fossil fuel.

Unless you count nuclear as a renewable (as we probably should, we have enough to last thousands of years) nuclear is absolutely vital.
It actually would cost less to build.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... power/amp/

It uses up less land and resources,
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/cont ... ormat=750w

And is far more reliable.
Geothermal and hydro only work in certain places. Wind and solar are too unreliable to be baseloads.
Nuclear providing the baseload with renewables the peaking is the only really viable option.