nintendoman58
Member
Are any of you actually reading this article? Or do you people just see "global warming" in the title and immediately start posting nihilistic crap to bring everybody down before they can even think of anything?
-
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.
Scientists made a detailed roadmap for fighting global warming
- Thread starter Lime
- Start date
- Status
Frankfurter
Member
Unfortunately not. We'll probably miss the 2020 target (-40% CO² compared to 1990). Only slightly, though. I think Germany is currently on track for a ~35% reduction.
VenomousCoffee
Gold Member
People actually are reading the article, and they are looking at where the world is (primarily the US and its "Chinese hoax" President and oil baron SoS), and they are posting nihilistic and, imo, accurate responses.
This isn't complicated?
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
why think about complex problems when you can just feel smart?
This issue isn't isolated to this thread, it's literally every single climate change thread that is instantly derailed by people spamming "OMG HUMANITY SUCKS
".I'm sure everyone who was talking about emission pathways seven years ago were thinking the same thing when the idea of three straight years of non-growth (in emissions) in the 2010-2020 period. Yet we just did that.
nintendoman58
Member
Okay, but does that mean people should give up so easily? Like, the fact that people are so easily going to jump to those kinds of posts honestly horrify me.
You don't know what's going to happen in 2018, or 2020. Or for the rest of that decade. As of now, more people than ever believe in climate change.
Do you really, honestly believe, that there will never be a solution to it? Like, ever?
If not, then tell me. What's the point of living? How do you people live with little to no faith in any part of humanity whatsoever?
How can you just casually post things like "We had a bad run, we should all die, kill everybody imo". Honestly, do you even think about what you're saying?
chromatic9
Member
Doesn't burning biomass create double the CO2 though?
Other downsides is the amount of fires happen trying to store the stuff and it's only on a small scale right now.
Biggest problem we had in our area was the awful choking smell that could make you vomit walking a mile away from the plant. It was unbearable and was eventually closed down.
Harnessing solar energy is surely the best way.
Other downsides is the amount of fires happen trying to store the stuff and it's only on a small scale right now.
Biggest problem we had in our area was the awful choking smell that could make you vomit walking a mile away from the plant. It was unbearable and was eventually closed down.
Harnessing solar energy is surely the best way.
Admiting there is a very poor chance of this happening in the time frames that are being put here, is hardly the same thing as giving up.
You might not know the future, but you can certainly guess it is highly unlikely that trump the guy that just issued an executive order taking a massive dump on climate change prevention while spouting about "clean coal", and his republicans "global warming is a chinese hoaxis" are pretty unlikely to do all of of this:
"2017-2020: All countries would prepare for the herculean task ahead by laying vital policy groundwork. Like: scrapping the $500 billion per year in global fossil fuel subsidies. Zeroing out investments in any new coal plants, even in countries like India and Indonesia. All major nations commit to going carbon-neutral by 2050 and put in place policies — like carbon pricing or clean electricity standards — that point down that path. ”By 2020," the paper adds, ”all cities and major corporations in the industrialized world should have decarbonization strategies in place.""
like really really really really unlikely.
The problem with the solution to global warming isn't that there isn't going to be a solution to it ever, in a lot of ways all solutions are within grasp, they have been for a couple of decades really, is implementing the solutions that is the issue, solar, wind and hydro are genuinely viable solutions to a large extent, electric cars are a viable solution, imposing economic sanctions to countries that do not follow environment guidelines are viable solutions, helping said countries financially to implement more green alternatives is a viable solution.
The existence of viable solutions are different than their implementation, and to the best of our scientific knowledge there is a time table on how quickly it needs to be implemented before there is no turning back, implementing these solutions across the entire globe (since its a global problem not just of a few countries) is a problem of a size humanity has never even come close to facing.
If you are only living because you believe that humanity will have a future, then I would advise you to not google heat death of the universe (not that humanity would stay human for that long but what ever).
Biomass only matches coal emissions at 40-50% moisture levels, which is never ever actually burned. Actual burnable biomass ranges from 20-60% less emissions depending on moisture content and material.
Always relevant:
https://view.yahoo.com/show/saturday-night-live/clip/3906636/parallel-universe
We have far too much present-bias.
Another reminder about the March for Science coming up on 4/22:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1337817
https://view.yahoo.com/show/saturday-night-live/clip/3906636/parallel-universe
We have far too much present-bias.
Another reminder about the March for Science coming up on 4/22:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1337817
That's a very detailed and probably well thought-out plan that all the powers that be will completely ignore.
It's good to come up with these plans but I think at this point, the biggest step is making governments actually fucking listen to these warnings. If they start listening, then these plans can start being put into action. If not, then these plans are purely academic.
It's good to come up with these plans but I think at this point, the biggest step is making governments actually fucking listen to these warnings. If they start listening, then these plans can start being put into action. If not, then these plans are purely academic.
It's a wishlist because it won't go anywhere with people like Trump & Bannon existing in this world.
We've built a society on greed, it's hard to make sacrifices for the greater good at this point.
That schedule is off by at least 10 years as Trump wants to bring back coal production in the United States. I do agree that tech will eventually save us with carbon collectors or scrubbers, but I think most low-lying and coast areas are fucked. While far-fetched and falls inside of the conspiracy theory perspective, there are times I like to think that the GOP actively denies Climate Change to eliminate "liberal strongholds" on the coasts of the United States. I don't think anyone in politics looks more than 4 years into the future.
chromatic9
Member
Sorry I meant gas not coal. Biomass and coal are similar but biomass is better but gas is half as much as both.
Anyway, hopefully the measures can also offset 3-4 billion more people on the planet by 2050.
Frankfurter
Member
Barely any improvements? PV capacity grew sth. like 50-fold in 10 years for instance...
Germany alone today has almost 10 times the capacity that the whole world had 10 years ago! Global solar capacity is estimated to triple again between ~2015 and 2025.
I agree that we are still not doing enough, but I don't understand these "nothing will happen, we're doomed" posts.
UnObtainium17
Member
The step one should be make sure America elects the right person in charge 2020 onwards.
nintendoman58
Member
You and many other people need to stop saying this.
This incessant insistence that humanity becoming extinct within the next few decades does absolutely nothing positive or productive. You people cannot live with an utter lack of faith like this.
Maintenance
Member
So basically what most people do before tests.
Blind optimism is hardly a better alternative though.
nintendoman58
Member
Blind pessimism isn't exactly good either. Reading posts like that make my blood boil.
People who post like that don't care about solving this problem, they just want to confirm their own nihilistic viewpoints and scare other people into depression.
You're right and wrong.
It's always a good habit to "expect the best but prepare for the worst". That includes the lens in which you view the world.
Humanity will be around, sans nuclear war, for a decent while but people have a legitimate fear that were already losing the race on curbing severe climate shifts.
Knowing that we'll likely be losing islands and decent amounts of land masses in our lifetime is terrifying.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
That's not remotely true
30% of the UK's electric is currently coming from renewables this at this very moment
14% solar 16% wind, and another 20% coming from nuclear
https://www.solar.sheffield.ac.uk/pvlive
Given this was almost nothing a few years ago it's very impressive.
If we just doubled our renewable capacity we'd be off gas & coal completely during peak times like these.
I know it's just a small part of the puzzle but it's very encouraging.
SolidusDave
Member
Not that it wouldn't be better to eat less meat in general but the impact of cattle on climate change has been a bit overstated compared to the big baddies.
Also it's probably not realistic to dictate all people worldwide how much meat they get to eat. And if you force-reduce the production you make it some sort of luxury good for the super rich only.
Reducing our meat consumption might be coming automatically anyway by making more and more people aware of it.
witchedwiz
Member
ah
ah
ah
ah
ah ah ah ah ah...
given how many transaction in the energy market RIGHT NOW are related to NON-GREEN ENERGY, this seems like a pipe dream, at least in europe.....
Some people in slovenia would have a ball if this would come to pass...
ah
ah
ah
ah ah ah ah ah...
given how many transaction in the energy market RIGHT NOW are related to NON-GREEN ENERGY, this seems like a pipe dream, at least in europe.....
Some people in slovenia would have a ball if this would come to pass...
LegendofJoe
Member
I like this, detailed and specific action plans are essential. And we can all do things on our own to help the cause.
I, for example, plan on turning my family's farm land into a tree orchard farm. I'm also saving money to power my next home with solar energy. I'm going to jump all in on electric self-driving cars and try my best to see if my family can get by on 1 car. We can be the change we want to see by spending our money in areas that will help.
I, for example, plan on turning my family's farm land into a tree orchard farm. I'm also saving money to power my next home with solar energy. I'm going to jump all in on electric self-driving cars and try my best to see if my family can get by on 1 car. We can be the change we want to see by spending our money in areas that will help.
Fallout-NL
Member
Probably not far off though. They account for a lot of damn greenhouse gasses.
It's not blind pessimism to say that we have zero chance of achieving anything near to that plan. It is simply realism. Climate change has been known to be our biggest challenge for decades now, and look what has been done about it so far. So saying that we won't follow a plan that says things like scrap 500 billion worth of fossil fuel subsidies in the next 3 years, or ban combustion engine cars by 2030, isn't the least bit pessimistic. If anything saying that we will do a single thing in that plan on time is being extremely optimistic.
Ya, compared to natural gas it creates up to 50% more emissions, but the argument (and why you hear about biomass being "carbon neutral") is that biomass will naturally decay regardless of if it's burned or not, and if it's NOT burned then there's no carbon scrubbing on the direct emissions ultimately resulting in more emissions if left to decay on it's own. So while it's not technically "carbon neutral" when burned, it's more efficiently handling emissions that would be released anyways and getting bonus energy from it.
nintendoman58
Member
And there you people go again. Using the word "realism" like you know everything that's going to happen.
I'm not saying that this exact plan is how things are going to go down, I'm trying to say that saying there's zero chance of ANY possible solution to this in the near future is the most extreme kind of nihilism that only serves to drive people into unproductive depressions that don't accomplish anything.
Really? How so?
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
It is far off, because agriculture and land use accounts for ~15/20% of global emissions.
Read above.
Yes, I can say with 99.999% certainty that every country in the world won't stop subsidizing fossil fuels in the next 3 years, nor will they ban combustion engine cars by 2030. Sorry that you get depressed by that, but that is about certain as it can be. This plan is full of propositions like those two and is simply completely unrealistic.
PdotMichael
Banned
We are underselling/ignoring the world wide activities of reducong CO2 for another round of whining about Trump.
nintendoman58
Member
You completely ignored what I wasn't posting about. I wasn't talking about following this plan to an exact degree, nor did I say that any of it has a good chance of happening.
I'm just trying to get people to stop saying these ridiculous nihilistic things like they're 100% guarantees.
This is what it always boils down to with every one of these threads. The US isn't the only country in the world.
You don't need to have power to fight every day for a better world. I do, and it's often tiring, but certainly than just giving up.
ShadowSwordmaster
Banned
China and India are going crazy with renewable tech and how they are making it a reality.
Dead_Pixel
Banned
When Trump's behind the wheel we don't read roadmaps.
- Status