-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Climate change report predicts end of human civilisation and climate apocalypse could start by 2050
- Thread starter Falcs
- Start date
RedVIper
Banned
You understand that dialing down energy consumption would also slow down technological progress.
DeleteriousObnoxious
Member
Are you personally in a hurry?
don't you want your children or other future life to be able to have as good a life as you had.
RedVIper
Banned
I want them to have a better life, that's why I don't think we should artificially cripple technological progress.
JareBear: Remastered
Banned
Hopefully my Death Stranding copy ships in nuke-proof packaging. I got radiation shields wrapped around my Pro already
DeleteriousObnoxious
Member
But we are not crippling technological development, we are changing our development structures and we are also making sure that technology developed will be better made with a better understanding of the consequences if we don't make them better.
Beside what better life to have than being a field of green grass or smelling the fresh ocean sea.
In short its not crippling, but its adjusting instead of speeding towards a corner we are slowing down on the pedal or breaking so we can safely turn the corner. but we will still move forward with the same attention and focus needed to live a fulfilling life.
Last edited:
MiyazakiHatesKojima
Banned
Last edited:
DeleteriousObnoxious
Member
Climate change extinction rate is just as much about dealing with the main issues in any human born.
as such i present to you this youtube video that confronts the philosophical issues presented in every brain and how that will be our ultimate destructive nihilisme.
as such i present to you this youtube video that confronts the philosophical issues presented in every brain and how that will be our ultimate destructive nihilisme.
ClanOfNone
Member
I'll just be hitting my 70's so I'm cool with this.
pr0cs
Member
Agreed, trading on problem (carbon generation) for another problem (nuclear waste generation and disposal) isn't a long term solution at all
DunDunDunpachi
Banned
Couldn't it be a short-term (50-100 years) solution, though?
pr0cs
Member
The thought of making waste that we have to babysit for thousands of years just doesn't appeal to me.
Besides, I'm not convinced that power generation is the only problem.
Cattle, vehicles and so on are still a significant problem that won't be affected by nuclear power in any way
DeleteriousObnoxious
Member
In my opinion a dangerous gamble, the issue is that we are in a situation where the effects we do today first really stops after many years. So we really dont know how unstable our environment will get in the future Even if we stopped All fossile. Fuels today. We are still moving towards a very unstable future with increased storms. I can't remember the exact value but it goes something like half the co2 emited today stays for 30 years then 30% of the rest stays for 100 years and 20% of that stays 1000 of years. Do you see where i am heading with this??
Torrent of Pork
Banned
Bore a hole into the bassalt in tectonic plate subduction zones, deposit the waste, cap it over, and let it be subsumed into the mantle.
Or we can just use it as fuel in reactor designs that were dismissed in the 60's, because they didn't produce weapons-grade fissiles as a byproduct.
Or we can just use it as fuel in reactor designs that were dismissed in the 60's, because they didn't produce weapons-grade fissiles as a byproduct.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
Nah, humanity will survive. I mean we are like cockroaches anyway 
DeleteriousObnoxious
Member
Hmm why have we not thought about dumping radioactive waste into volcanoes. Could it be because of the risk that radioactivity will be carried by the air from the volcano.??
Here is a article about it
What If We Took All Nuclear Waste And Dumped It Into An Active Volcano?
If we begin storing or dumping nuclear waste in volcanoes, those titanically massive eruptions will send that radioactive material soaring into the atmosphere and around the world, resulting in mass casualties and environmental destruction.
www.scienceabc.com
Last edited:
DunDunDunpachi
Banned
Cattle can be used for carbon sequestration. The problem isn't cattle but our farming techniques. I agree that power generation isn't the only problem, but it is the most significant one when it comes to replacing oil, coal, natural gas. Interestingly, the cattle that demand the highest price (grass-finished and grass-fed) are excellent at sequestering carbon and rejuvinating the soil. We've been taught that meat = emissions and that's false. High-quality animal meat can be an integral part of a carbon-negative operation.
Carbon sequestration is the answer. Lowering our total emissions is still putting carbon into the atmosphere, but thankfully the planet also sequesters a huge portion of that carbon. The focus has been on lowering total emissions and putting restrictions upon businesses. We tried carbon taxes, but that ends up being a graft unto itself and doesn't necessarily lower emissions. The nice part about lowering emissions -- for the corporation -- is that it does not require businesses to really change their behavior. They just have to do the "bad stuff" less often or with less of an impact.
Carbon sequestration, however, would require us to re-tool our agriculture and begin using regenerative methods on our soils. "Sustainable" is pointless. We need "regenerative", a process that is carbon-negative and helps us pull carbon out of the atmosphere to offset what we've contributed. This is 100% feasible with existing technology and will only become easier as more people innovate.
One can imagine why the business interests among both political arms in the USA would be against this sort of re-tooling, though.
Last edited:
Torrent of Pork
Banned
It's pretty obvious why you wouldn't put nuclear waste in active volcanos, but from the point two plates meet to the point the subsumed plates melt into magma is measured on geological time. 6 million some odd years should be plenty of time for even the hottest of radioactive material to become inert.Hmm why have we not thought about dumping radioactive waste into volcanoes. Could it be because of the risk that radioactivity will be carried by the air from the volcano.??
Here is a article about it
What If We Took All Nuclear Waste And Dumped It Into An Active Volcano?
If we begin storing or dumping nuclear waste in volcanoes, those titanically massive eruptions will send that radioactive material soaring into the atmosphere and around the world, resulting in mass casualties and environmental destruction.
Last edited:
TheGreatYosh
Banned
Sweet.
DeleteriousObnoxious
Member
Do you have a article about this or some type of video that explains the method more detailed?
#Phonepunk#
Banned
the fact the nuclear power is even being considered makes me entirely dismiss any and all such people as environmentalists.
nuclear power is incredibly unsafe & unsustainable and it inevitably produces non-disposable nuclear waste & weapons materials as well. it is madness to entertain the idea of pursuing it. the history of US nuclear plants is abysmal. just read about the Rocky Flat facility.
nuclear power is incredibly unsafe & unsustainable and it inevitably produces non-disposable nuclear waste & weapons materials as well. it is madness to entertain the idea of pursuing it. the history of US nuclear plants is abysmal. just read about the Rocky Flat facility.
FBI/EPA investigation, June 1989 raid
In 1987, plant insiders started to covertly inform the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) about the unsafe conditions. In December 1988, the FBI commenced clandestine flights of light aircraft over the area and confirmed via infrared video recordings that the "outdated and unpermitted" Building 771 incinerator was apparently being used late into the night. After several months of collecting evidence both from workers and via direct measurement, the FBI informed the DOE on June 6, 1989 that they wanted to meet to discuss a potential terrorist threat.
On June 6, 1989, the United States District Court for the District Court of Colorado issued a search warrant to the FBI, based in part on information collected by Colorado Department of Health (now CDPHE) inspectors during the 1980s.
Dubbed "Operation Desert Glow", the raid, sponsored by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), began at 9 a.m. on June 6, 1989. After arriving in the meeting room, the FBI agents revealed the true reason for the meeting to stunned DOE and Rockwell officials, including Dominic Sanchini, Rockwell International's manager of Rocky Flats. (Coincidentally, Sanchini died the next year in Boulder of cancer.). The FBI discovered numerous violations of federal anti-pollution laws, including limited contamination of water and soil. In 1992, Rockwell International was charged with environmental crimes including violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and the Clean Water Act. Rockwell pleaded guilty and paid an $18.5 million fine. This was the largest fine for an environmental crime to that date.
Rocky Flats Plant - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Last edited:
DunDunDunpachi
Banned
Those advocating for nuclear power say the same thing about environmentalists who refuse to use one of our most viable and most powerful sources of energy.
It's not like we're not using nuclear anyway. It's already out there being used, on ships, in spacecraft, and in power plants. The goal should be to invest in safe operation and safe long-term disposal/storage, not to completely dismiss a technology we're already using.
There's also the fact that the nuclear waste itself could be used as fuel.
DeleteriousObnoxious
Member
I agree or in that i think its wise to dial back on energy consumption. Wait for development of the climate change to become stable and then when science gives the go ahead for some peaceful. Period then it might be a Idea to go ahead With a larger scale deployment but honestly unless we figure out how to battle radioactivity and get a weapon to shortage half life of the radioactive matter. Then it seems pretty much suicide to do more of it. But first of all get rid of the insane energy consumption.
V4skunk
Banned
China and India are the most polluting nations by far but sjws don't seem to care.
What is the point in the West crippling its self when we are not even creating the pollution?
Don't get me wrong! I'm all for recycling and reducing emissions but it is becoming a fiasco. Especially with the co2 causing climate change which is a joke.
What is the point in the West crippling its self when we are not even creating the pollution?
Don't get me wrong! I'm all for recycling and reducing emissions but it is becoming a fiasco. Especially with the co2 causing climate change which is a joke.
DeleteriousObnoxious
Member
India produces the clothing that we enjoy in the west for cheap.
China produces everything else we enjoy in the west for cheap.
You can't blame they are polluting, when we are creating the consuming demands.
in short we are all in this its not Them, its Us!
V4skunk
Banned
Try harder comrade. You are a communist.
DeleteriousObnoxious
Member
Wow what a Come back im terrified.
Here is another take that I personally dont agree with, because i believe the market is rigged, and i believe we need a New economic system.
But still a good read.
Conservatives should change how they think about global warming. I did | Climate crisis | The Guardian
The uncertainty of climate change is an argument for – not against – decarbonizing the economy as quickly as possible
amp.theguardian.com
Last edited:
HenkDV
Banned
In terms of carbon dioxide emissions the US actually does about 10 times as bad as India and more than twice as bad as China per capita. Something to consider.
DeleteriousObnoxious
Member
Which is only A logical rational conclusion, when we look at our consumption levels as well as unlimited amount of desire to fill as much space as possible. Due to leaders and Celebrity people we look up to and want something close or same to what they have. it is what fuels our desire for more.
V4skunk
Banned
Climate change is a front for communism.
If they really cared about lowering carbon emissions they would be advocating for nuclear power not for unreliable, but government subsidised and therefore controlled, wind farms and solar panels.
If they really cared about lowering emissions they wouldn't be encouraging mass immigration from low emission developing countries/continents to the high emission West.
If they really cared about lowering emissions they wouldn't be encouraging globalism, through which people in developing countries work as industrial revolution era slaves in high polluting factories to create disposable tat for Western consumers.
If they really cared about lowering emissions they would be compromising on social policies and issues in order to remain in power instead of thumbing their noses at their electorates resulting in the rise of so-called "far right", climate skeptic political parties.
Everything they do is about gaining power, promoting their political ideologies, undermining Western capitalism and implementing communism/socialism
Millions of years ago co2 levels were orders of magnitudes higher than current levels! O2 levels were also way higher! Guess what? Trees were twice as big and animals were fucking monsterous beasts many times larger than today...
Climate change is all down to our sun! Our planet is also off axis by around 10 degrees but you leftists ignore the facts.
If they really cared about lowering carbon emissions they would be advocating for nuclear power not for unreliable, but government subsidised and therefore controlled, wind farms and solar panels.
If they really cared about lowering emissions they wouldn't be encouraging mass immigration from low emission developing countries/continents to the high emission West.
If they really cared about lowering emissions they wouldn't be encouraging globalism, through which people in developing countries work as industrial revolution era slaves in high polluting factories to create disposable tat for Western consumers.
If they really cared about lowering emissions they would be compromising on social policies and issues in order to remain in power instead of thumbing their noses at their electorates resulting in the rise of so-called "far right", climate skeptic political parties.
Everything they do is about gaining power, promoting their political ideologies, undermining Western capitalism and implementing communism/socialism
Co2 is not the cause of climate change. Co2 is essential to life on this planet.
Millions of years ago co2 levels were orders of magnitudes higher than current levels! O2 levels were also way higher! Guess what? Trees were twice as big and animals were fucking monsterous beasts many times larger than today...
Climate change is all down to our sun! Our planet is also off axis by around 10 degrees but you leftists ignore the facts.
DeleteriousObnoxious
Member
All of the things you wrote are lies.
All of it. It has been disput and disproved many years ago.
Check out potholer54 on YouTube if want to figure out how bad All your knowledge is full of lies and nonsense.
Psydonk
Member
This report is basically bunk, but I would recommend reading the OECD next 50 years challenges and what the Pentagon thinks the later 21st century is going to be like and both reports paint a pretty fucking dire picture frankly. The IPCC report should be read as well and actually read the details, it's wildly optimistic and practically limiting ourselves to 1.5C is frankly impossible unless mass action on a scale not seen since WW2 basically takes place now.
manfestival
Member
About time we got another doomsday officially on the clock. Been way too long relying on these meteor counters.
DunDunDunpachi
Banned
They're just following the example of the previous group of ideologues who held sway over society and abused their authority for secular gain:
DeleteriousObnoxious
Member
it might feel like that.. but as the issue is so complex there will always be variations of results..
But Global warming is really nothing new we known about this for many years. which is why people might not take it serious due to it being spilled many times the world is ending.. well its not ending but we are close to making the changes we have caused irreversible and for every new year we gather data. that supports and also makes us able to determine how much closer we are to doomsday.
Its just like weather forecasting. the 1st day after today is nearly always certain but as the week progresses the certainty is a lot harder to guarantee. the same here..
It might look like a joke i am sure many people takes it as a joke, and i don't blame them as if they took it serious they might just want to commit suicide or go down with depression.
But it really pains me that other people that got nothing to say or do on the matter, they have no experience on the field no knowledge what so ever on the matter. Denying real people doing a job they have been specifically selected to do to understand our climate, and then when they don't turn back with "Everything is fine" Then its a big joke, I don't think we should joke about real people multiple countries, zero political agenda just presenting facts/science they are out all summer on the Arctic and Antarctica studying the ice so we can understand what is happening around the globe better.
Look to Venus as another gone wrong Climate change.
While earth won't turn into another Venus for many years. it still helps us to look at Venus as a example of what earth would be like as uninhabitable planet.
RedVIper
Banned
You can look at any planet other than earth as an example of a uninhabitable planet so I'm not sure what your point is there.
DeleteriousObnoxious
Member
The reason why Venus isn't habitable is due to extreme levels of Greenhouse gasses.
Venus is even warmer than Mercury, due to its immense amount of greenhouse gasses, trapping the heat, despite venus being much further away from the sun.
Venus and earth could very well have been close cousins... telling the awful fate that awaits when all life has depleted earth, making it impossible to have oxygen.. those Mad Max movies. are literally not possible without oxygen in the air. and oxygen is only in the air if plants exists. so if you dream about a Wasteland think again..
Venus may once have been habitable. Now it can tell us if other worlds might be as well.
Researchers say studying Venus, which may have once been habitable, could help us understand what makes Earth—and other planets like it—livable.
www.popsci.com
Last edited:
NickFire
Member
So it's so complex that we need to trust the people who have made countless inaccurate predictions because now they predict we are on the verge of becoming Venus? That does not compute for me.
All that said, I don't deny the devastation that humans are causing. But we should stick to the facts without the doom and gloom predictions. People listen (some anyway) when their doctor says you're obesity and diet has you on the verge of diabetes. No one listens when the doctor says your obesity and diet is going to make you explode from the inside out.
DeleteriousObnoxious
Member
is making sure we have a livable place with clean fresh air, less pollution and healthy animals so we can eat healthy. is that a agenda or Necessity? come on.
Tesseract
Banned
hard to say, we've had plenty of bills for those things, it's an ongoing process
thank you nixon and reagan, based gods
Last edited: