Related Posts
Conversation Starter
Pro
Bowl Leader
Any thoughts on xy planning network?
Current mood: 😴
When the lunch crew is all associates
Additional Posts in Politics
Rising Star
Conversation Starter
Chief
Pro
Conversation Starter
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Conversation Starter
Rising Star
Pro
Visual Storyteller
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
*looks at some responses, shakes head*
It’s unbelievable we have skeptics on this, especially in a profession that encourages critical thinking and reasoning.
I won’t bother to post a list of the myriad scientific, peer-reviewed studies, or links to climate change impact assessments by prestigious organizations (like NASA, or the DoD) because I know some people are so thick-headed that reason has a particularly tough time getting in.
The only hope I have when arguing this with some folks, is to ask: do you agree that humans are polluting the environment at the highest levels in human history? Do you believe that we are over-fishing the oceans? Do you believe we are de-foresting the Amazon at an alarming rate? Do you believe that the population is growing at an unsustainable rate?
Do you believe it makes sense to at least look at these issues, and not simply ignore them because “liberals are just chicken littles and alarmists and nothing is happening”? I think we need to fix this - it’s so obvious these practices are screwing up with our global ecosystem, or do you not believe in your elementary-grade level knowledge about how ecosystems work?
Do you understand that, humanity has never faced this issue before, and therefore, cannot predict with 100% accuracy what every symptom will be? Do you understand that many scientists - people waaaaaay smarter than you on this issue - agree that this shit is a tipping-point situation and that when it starts impacting it’ll be unstoppable and with increasingly horrible issues?
Problem with fission - we have a limited supply of fission material, so until we start mining this material from asteroids the solution is not feasible as a long-term & holistic replacement for humanity's energy needs. Though I'll look into Thorium to see if this is a different solution.
Imho, The solution will come from one of two avenues:
1) Off-planet harvesting of Sol's energy, e.g. near earth orbit collection arrays (on-planet takes up arable land that would be put to better use growing crops)
2) Undiscovered energy in the 'ether' - Tesla may have been on to something when Westinghouse took out his legs
Can we have more nuclear plants? Thorium reactor is also going to be game changing
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/07/01/china-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-than-the-u-s-and-eu-combined/amp/
The RBMK-1000 at Chernobyl is a massively flawed reactor design. Doesn’t take much human error to screw it up. Current Gen III+ reactors are massively safer, and we’re not far from Gen IV reactors which improve upon the Gen III+ considerably.
If we can ever crack the code on fusion reactors, meltdowns are impossible altogether.
Any day now
I have a pretty good grip on reality, E1.
Maybe the city you live in will experience this someday soon. When your neighbors start choking on dirty air I’m guessing your attitude will shift like everyone else’s.
BTW, you know the IPCC isn’t blaming events like this on climate change?
Carbon emissions are a very real issue, but blaming normal events on them is counter productive.
Google: what are solar cycles?
Give Trump a break. He is busy stopping people from flushing the toilets 10x or 15x. He is a true tree hugger.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-says-epa-looking-toilets-my-suggestion-n1097511
We wouldn’t need to flush this often if his administration wasn’t spewing BS all the time.
How many of Al Gores “an inconvenient documentary” and other statements from the mid aughts come true?
Australia’s population is also less than 10% of the US.
My point is simply that “prudent” and incremental change isn’t going to address this in a safe timeframe. This is a perspective shared by the overwhelming majority of experts.
We can do a lot better, and if it means sacrificing a couple of points of GDP growth, I doubt we’ll notice in a few decades if it means we have cleaner air and a stable rate of natural disasters.
If reducing CO2 in the atmosphere to a level that will not cause massive changes in our environment is the goal we have barely begun to achieve any progress and are failing badly. CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing every year and not decreasing. We first need to make carbon free electric power and then electrify transport, buildings, and industry. Where CO2 is now a pollutant we should be penalized for emitting it, and the carbon tax is widely acknowledged by economists and even leading oil companies as the most effect way. We also need to recognized and adjust various subsidies to CO2 producing industries. Yes OIL and GAS get massive investment tax credits. Having worked extensively in these industries I know there is a lot of lobbying to protect business models that must change. While it is hard to give up our addiction to carbon and hydrocarbons, and it will be hard to make an electric grid that is powered by mostly renewable generation we do need to start and make a serious effort and the US can be a world leader. The cost reductions for wind and solar are remarkable, but we are way to slow. Energy storage is partly solved for the 4 hour time window with lithium batteries but longer term storage is unsolved and rampable carbon free generation is still an unsolved problem. New lower cost Gen III and IV nuclear may play a role, but assuming we don't need more nuclear weapons the thorium fuel cycle along the lines of the power reactor that ran at Oak Ridge for 5 years might be revisited with the funding it would need to make it commercial. It is pretty clear we could achieve this CO2 goal if we were trying to.