It's Good News Friday! (CLIMATE CHANGE)

Big if true? https://www.carbonbrief.org/global-co2-emissions-have-been-flat-for-a-decade-new-data-reveals

And it's friday!

This part is key

What they're basically saying is that they might have gotten the math wrong on how much CO2 was being emitted from agricultural lands. For the sake of argument, let's assume that this is correct. There's a couple of things to keep in mind. 1.) It ain't getting any cooler. 2.) There's nothing in the article talking about emissions from melting permafrost or methane seeps. Guess what's been increasing as things have gotten warmer? 3.) This is something to note:

Remember, as bad as the fires were in Brazil, there were worse (or nearly worse) fires in places like Africa and Australia, as well as other parts of South America, and the West Coast of the US. There's no mention of those in the article.
4.) The Earth is a big system, and big systems take a long time to respond to changes in inputs. We could cut our CO2 emissions to zero tomorrow, and it would take years, if not decades, before weather patterns returned to pre-Industrial Revolution ones. I goddamn guarantee you that whenever we hit "Net Zero" carbon emissions, people are going to realize that this isn't enough, and we need to go Carbon Negative because shit is still going to be bad. (Seriously, did these people never play SimEarth?)

Keep in mind the difference between mean and median when you see stats about America’s per capita CO2 emissions.

Would that be the sort of wealthy people, some of whom being elected officials, taking private jets and limousine convoys to climate conferences, or some other variety?

yes...

also shown as 0.00000000000000003% of the issue.

But the only 0.00000000000000003% that some people are interested in. For some mysterious reason.

I don't take orders or "advice" from hypocrites.

What a wonderful way to avoid accountability.

By all means, hold me and "AOC" proportionately accountable for our carbon footprints.

not even the other 99.99999999999999999999999999997 that you usually suck up for?
I mean, I'd think you'd be comfortable only following orders?

na, your shit assed jeep probably puts out a 707 worth of exhaust just starting it up...

I don't suck up for anyone, and I doubt you will bother with even a half assed attempt at proving it.

I think we first have to weigh whether your opinion on policy is worth getting you to Glasgow. Hers is.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, we gave a shit about your take on the matter (we don't), how would you propose we get you to Glasgow?

Online attendance doesn't work as you need to be able to gladhand the various attendees to strike deals. Also, internet in the UK needs a lot of that Commie gub'mint subsidisation or outright "taxation" (TV licence) you really don't like.[/quote]

read your own damn posts...
all the evidence is there if you dig your head out of whomever's ass you have it up.

I agree we should be honest about climate change. Let’s start with the fact that solar and wind power is not enough. Let’s also acknowledge that natural gas is offsetting oil.

Let's acknowledge that energy storage would make solar, wind, tidal, hydro (which is already a form of storage) enough.

Natural gas is better than burning coal or oil, but not enough; it still emits copious amounts of CO2. We have to be off fossil fuels.

Nuclear is not really feasible, except for where it is already in place.

Keep reposting that shit. Keep pretending it's always someone else's problem to solve. And when nothing ever changes for the better, pretend it's someone else's blame to shoulder.

I'm guessing you were apathetic about water main replacements other than the $3.50 it would've represented on your annual taxes?

Guess it's safer not to hold anyone responsible, let alone take action to improve anything.

If anything it should be Apple who should stop doing business in China instead of pushing agendas.

Where did I pretend that?

The point of most of these discussions is that structural change is needed.

You'd have a point if these attendees were mostly calling for the abolition of vehicles and travel.

They're not. The discussion is about how we can adapt our civilisation so it can keep going. One of the big parts of that is the acknowledgement that areas like aviation will be some of the hardest and last to decarbonise.

Your cries of hypocrisy are shallow and as naive as that cartoon, so that's what they get in response.

How is Nuclear not feasible? Regulations? Are these the same regulations used for the reactors we build for the Navy that are considered safe enough to survive combat? That we test by setting off fucking 40,000 pound bombs right next to them?

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2...s-final-blast-in-ford-full-ship-shock-trials/

From what I understand the danger of a meltdown explosion on land is due to the core reaching the water table and causing a pressure explosion when it vaporizes the water underground. I would imagine things are quite different on an enclosed ship floating on the water as opposed to a fixed plant on solid earth with a water table it can melt down to.

I also do not know if nuclear navel vessels use plutonium/uranium or thorium in their design which might make a difference.

Yeah, but you see, we don't know because it's never happened. The US Navy has been operating nuclear powered ships for almost three quarters of a century and they've never had an accident. Let alone a full on meltdown. Why can't we build and operate them on land the way the Navy does it at sea? Is it because the way the Navy does it is so expensive that they wouldn't be able to make a profit?

Also lots of small leaks in the natural gas network, which add up to a lot of methane in addition to the CO2 produced from combustion.

We can produce more "clean" energy or use less energy in general. We ought to be doing both. That includes things like driving less, but also things like re-insulating Meemaw's 100-year-old house so it doesn't leak heat in the winter.