Hey /sci/, I'm a student finishing secondary school. I'm currently on track to do a degree in electronic engineering, but I'm getting increasingly worried about climate change so I want to ask you some questions as you're the most knowledgable
>does the Paris accord actually mean anything? I've heard the agreement was a bit weak, but does it mean that in future years there might be stronger resolutions that could lead to the actual solution?
>which degree would best position me to be able to help with climate change?
>is it even possible to help with climate change without being a world leader?
>are there enough people doing something about climate change? I.e could I afford to just do my EE degree and relax about global warming cos theres already a large talent pool working on global warming?
>>7876567
>I'm getting increasingly worried about climate change
Don't be, it's not going to be pleasant bit it's not going to be catastrophically bad. And before it gets that bad it'd imagine that there'll be some large scale Geoengineering projects.
>>7876576
>large scale Geoengineering projects
You mean like massive total war?
>>7876657
I was thinking more along the lines of iron seeding and something with aerosols. But decimating the third world is also an option.
>>7876567
1 world leaders recognize the desire of people to pay lip service to climate change, but change nothing in the end
2 irrelevant
3 irrelevant
4 climate change isnt a problem that can be solved by "working" on it, like most conventional type problems
climate change is a symptom of a much deeper psychological problem found in the vast majority of people. case in point, the following:
>>7876680
>I was thinking more along the lines of iron seeding and something with aerosols. But decimating the third world is also an option.
as such, any attempts a geoengineering our way out of this will only postpone the inevitable, and eventually lead to much worse.
that said, if you want to understand where im coming from, get a degree in physics and study atmospheric science.
>>7876680
>>7876698
My geologist roomate has explained to me at this point there is absolutely no stopping it, only prolonging it save for if some amazing technological breakthroughs occur.
My theory is that humanity will be forced on a mass migration to higher ground as the ice caps melt and the sea rises. We'll see by the end of my life time (currently 22).
>>7876709
>My geologist roomate has explained to me at this point there is absolutely no stopping it, only prolonging it save for if some amazing technological breakthroughs occur.
he's probably right.
but in a way its a self fulfilling prophesy because hes resigned to it, and therefore doing nothing about it, like the vast mjority, so he falls in with the vast majority causing it because of psychology.
the sad part is that its all totally unnecessary if we could get 7 billion people to agree on something, but they never will unfortunately, especially as pressure mounts.
its a fucked up world... im sorry.
really actually coming to terms with how fucked up it really is out there is crushing.
wait till you meet some asshat "climate scientists" pushing for a carbon tax to enrich their banker friends.
>>7876718
The way he explained it to me; Even if we stopped using greenhouse gases and fossil fuels tomorrow and actively made strides in attempting to repair the carbon damage the damage has already progressed too far. The ice caps will still melt.
It gets even scarier when he explained how much of this lines up with some papers being thrown around in his class that suggest we are approaching a magnetic pole switch similar to the ones that happened when all of the earths creatures have died in the past. Things like the oceans oxidizing and the atmosphere slowly dissipating links up with how global warming works and is supposedly a cyclical process from what I understand. I think humans can survive such an event but not en masse.
>>7876724
I'm not going to have children for this very reason. While I am mostly certain that the earth will survive my lifetime, I have absolutely no hope for what would be my children's generation and that makes me more sad than anything. Humanity could be reaching the end of its rope.
>>7876736
Polar caps are gaining more ice than they're losing.
Climate change is a purely political scheme to move the dollar off of oil backing.
The Paris accord was just a nice gesture. It was literally just a bunch of countries saying they'll try to reduce emissions but no time line was set, no discussion on how to specifically reduce emissions and no penalties for failing to reduce emissions
>>7876743
Source? We redrew our world maps recently because they're so much smaller than they used to be.
>>7876736
So even doing something like putting sulphate particles in the atmosphere wouldn't work?
>>7876567
If you care that much
>watch Cowspiracy
>Go vegan
>Get mad pussy
>>7876709
Do you think over population has something to do with it?
I can't wait.
In fact, I hope a nuclear war starts. I hope that's what finally pushes the Earth to its limit, and that the landscape and environment changes dramatically.
I'm not sure I'll live, in all likelihood I won't, but I have better odds than most being that I live in rural Australia.
I hope everything unfolds, and all the mediocre minds are finally forced to either come to terms with their darker nature, or perish.
I hope the frivolous, unaware majority finally realises the importance of mental and physical endurance and resilience. I hope they finally recognise the importance of not relying on their fucking smart phones. I hope a lot of people die slow and painful deaths.
Even if I have to be among the ranks of the dead and dying. I still hope for it. Every night I fall asleep with it on my mind and every morning I'm disappointed to see the world is as stable as ever. Humanity deserves nothing less, and nothing else will inspire a culture sensible enough for interplanetary travel.
Sure, it will set us back in that respect, but whatever rises from the ashes will have certainly learned their fucking lesson, and will prioritise cultural and technological evolution over worshiping celebrities and endlessly consuming fat and sugar.
Can someone explain why the proposal to put a couple thousand ships in the ocean spraying a fine salt-water mist (in order to make ocean clouds thicker) wouldn't work while we as a society transfer to renewable energies?
>>7876756
I'm already vegan, partly for the health part but also because of the environmental stuff. I feel like even though veganism is growing enough people still aren't vegan.
>>7876763
Veganism is a red herring.
Consume less. It's as simple as that. And you don't necessarily achieve that with the veganism meme. Especially since in order to get everything you need you'll often be eating out-of-season fruits and vegetables.
>>7876763
Veganfag here
Definitely will always be a minority and probably never make any real impact but going vegan is still doing more than recycling and having short showers and shit. But as I said, mad pussy
>>7876763
Renewable energy is still very far off because batteries suck.
I have nothing against being vegan, but unless you grow your own food, you're paying for transportation of goods and those people use gas and eat meat so your footprint isn't all that diminished
>>7876762
The Mountain Goats - No Children^1000
>>7876767
Veganfag again,
Incredibly valid point. If we could get all the obese amerifags to realise they only need meat a few times a week we wouldn't need veganism.
But desu the nutritional thing is zero problem for me, I eat in season and get everything. But I'm in Melbourne, Australia so maybe that's not available where you live or whatever.
>>7876771
>but unless you grow your own food
Sorry, no.
The infrastructure set-up is set-up to support billions of people. The planet cannot handle billions of people independently growing their own food.
>>7876749http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/#34ed3c7632da
>>7876767
Animal agriculture is responsible for 51% of greenhouse gas emissions, most of which are methane. Methane has a half life of around eight years so if people stopped eating meat (the worst offender is beef) then there'd be a pretty big reduction in greenhouse gases pretty quickly
>>7876779
That's true, but it still doesn't change what I said. Carbon footprint of vegans is about the same as everyone else
>>7876778
Traralgon.
You're an insomniac too?
So, here's what I see in America: I see a lot of obese people who really don't have much of an impact, they tend to be impoverished and thus necessarily can't do as much damage.
Then I see rich people who practise veganism and preach about climate change while owning property all over the world and their own private jet.
>>7876782
Sure, if you just want to ignore globalisation.
>>7876787
How do you mean ignore globalisation? I know I'm eating some food which is transported but its still less emissions than if I ate beef
>>7876771
Renewables are only so held back because of available funding. If they put tonnes of funding in about 10 years ago, we would probably have renewables at some decent level of efficiency
And yeah man, I'm a vegan but I fucking hate vegans. If you don't buy locally/grow your own you're defeating the point of the environment argument.
Paris accords are weak but at least it's something
get a degree in geosci, preferably focused on atmospheric science or climatology
it's possible to help, but kinda unlikely, but rest assured that world leaders are having trouble also
the biggest obstacle right now is political will
>>7876794
> I know I'm eating some food which is transported but its still less emissions than if I ate beef
You really don't know that. That's the point.
People tend to practice moral balancing. In the case of veganism, you're likely to overestimate the impact meat has on the environment.
I'm not saying it's a "bad idea", it's just not productive. Consuming less in general is a good idea, but when people do that through an 'ism' they tend to end up being misguided.
>>7876762
haha what a fag
"i want everyone to die becuase in the billions of people out the evyerone is an asshole and dumb and petty and blah blah blah"
get a fucking life man
>>7876805
Why hello there, argument for compulsory sterilisation, I know you're completely unaware of this but you've chosen the perfect thread to shitpost in.
>>7876787
Inner eastern suburbs actually
And nah just a night owl lol
And yeah, there's too many hypocrite dickhead vegans. I'm a poor student vegan who doesn't even own a car
>>7876801
I'm not overestimating the impact meat has on the environment, I'm on mobile rn so I cant source it but animal agriculture is responsible for 51% of emissions, compared to the 13% of emissions coming from transport. So what I'm saying is, having food that is transported is a constant, whether I was vegan or ate meat that'd be the case. But if I don't eat meat then I'm not adding the extra methane emissions on top of the carbon emissions behind my food. Also as far as consuming less goes, cattle are fed enough grain to feed 800 million people just in the US. Going vegan massively cuts down your consumption
>>7876811
No, I'm from Traralgon.
I used to live in Caulfield, though. I've probably stared you down on public transport before.
>>7876810
grow up man, why cant you realise there is good people in the world and people that are trying to change shit?
some people grow up some dont, such is life, live with it
>>7876813
http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/
Animal agriculture is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, more than the combined exhaust from all transportation.
you really couldnt look that up on your phone? but you can post on the chans?
>>7876816
I can recognise the good in people, it's just too myopic for the problems the world faces.
The good in people is what's led us to the situation we're in, or are you simple enough to believe in the 'good/evil' dichotomy? Are you honestly going to say you think people are intentionally doing things to destroy the Earth and end civilisation rather than doing things to help their community and families?
Go back to watching Captain Planet, dipshit.
>>7876801
I think what that other guy is referring to is the research quoted by this documentary. I'm personally skeptical of its validity, but I get its point.
>>7876815
Haha me too, man
I'm in Oakleih atm actually
You moved so far lol
>>7876823
i linked the same site...now im having an even harder time trusting anything on it if their facts are completely off
>>7876832
Well the sources are from actual scientific research. But of course it is recent and hasn't been reviewed within the scientific community yet. Including repeated results and validation.
But of course who wants to fund the research to validate this research when the meat/dairy industry has so much influence.
>>7876821
fuck good and evil and
im not going to say that people are doing it on purpose they are just ignorant
but what you already said was
"I hope a nuclear war starts"
"and all the mediocre minds are finally forced to either come to terms with their darker nature, or perish."
" I hope a lot of people die slow and painful deaths"
actually calling for global genocide, such a productive idea!
watch you dont cut yourself on that edge m8
>>7876847
regardless of who wants to fund it or not is another debate, im just saying they are providing incorrect information on atelast one of those entries and that makes me feel like they could do it with other things aswell
>>7876847
>>7876832
Most government websites are still quoting the "18% of greenhouse gas is livestock" but of course when you consider that 80-90% of deforestation is FOR cattle farming that's already at least 30-35% and then there are so many other factors.
But as I said previously, we will never make the world vegan and we will never stop the world from being greedy cunts.
I'm pretty much depending on making a 6-digit salary out of my academic career and buying my way into not being drowned by rising water levels.
>>7876855
I don't think the site you referenced States any incorrect information, no.
Most of those facts are well established, it's the "51% of greenhouse gas emissions" that I'd consider questionable. But it's getting plenty of media attention so they're going to have to run validation studies on it, so we'll wait and see.
>>7876657
Reflective particles (like nontoxic titanium dioxide) can be continuously spread in upper atmosphere. They will fall really really slowly and reflect light partially away from the earth. This is really good idea because it has good control over everything and it can be stopped whenever. The one plan involves using high-altitude balloons. (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/05/120529-global-warming-titanium-dioxide-balloons-earth-environment-science/)
>>7876781
https://www.atmos.illinois.edu/~wlchapma/Forbes.article.response.pdf
>>7876781
http://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/forbes-james-taylor-updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/
>>7876782
http://www.skepticalscience.com/animal-agriculture-meat-global-warming.htm
Also, methane is definitely not the majority of greenhouse gasses. While more potent than CO2, there's 200 times more CO2 than methane in the atmosphere and the total CO2 emitted by man has a much larger effect than the methane released by man.
>>7876823
>3000 liters
>showering for 2 months
>>7876805
I second that. Complains about smartphone users as he sits there typing on the Internet. Sounds like someone can't get a woman.
>>7876861
You sound like a true survivor but don't be retarded about it. Climate change is the least of your worries, a red herring to distract you from very real threats to your life, like walking across a busy intersection, resource depletion and resource wars, another Black Death, maybe a large scale famine, who knows, maybe even some violent weather will fuck you up, but climate? wew lad.
Climate change is overrated, if there was an actual problem going on we would do something about it.
You think that powerful businessmen, the "evil 1%" want the world to die?
About to sleep but I don't want this thread to die. Its been an interesting one, keep it up lads
>>7876781
As a user of Forbes I feel conflicted; On one hand they're generally pretty reliable. On the other hand this article doesn't use any citations; only the opposite.
>>7876736
>The way he explained it to me; Even if we stopped using greenhouse gases and fossil fuels tomorrow and actively made strides in attempting to repair the carbon damage the damage has already progressed too far. The ice caps will still melt.
what hes talking about is the fact that it takes decades for the oceans to adjust to changes in the radiation properties of the atmosphere, because the ocean has so much heat capacity.
its actually not certain that the icecaps will melt completely. greenland and the west antarctic ice sheet are the most vulnerable, but there are places on those icesheets (especially the east antarctic) where it literally never gets above -30 C, so even if earths temperatures rise 20 degrees they still wont melt.
i dont think sea level rise is a huge long term threat. i mean, some low lying nations and islands are sure to go under, but people will just move inland. the ipcc has just chosen that issue (among many others) to hype the fear. the real threats are changing ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns - which could lead to more deserts - and more severe storms.
>>7877886
If there is an evil 1%, I expect they don't care about tragedies that will occur after they're dead.
I also think that while wealth is extremely concentrated, it's unlikely that everything unfolds according to some master plan. Reality is ultimately extremely chaotic. You know what they say about the best laid plans of mice and men...
>>7878309
Dr. Strangelove.
Life imitates art
>>7876782
>Animal agriculture is responsible for 51% of greenhouse gas emissions
Wrong. It's more like 9%.
>U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report: 1990-2013
>>7876736
>Even if we stopped using greenhouse gases and fossil fuels tomorrow and actively made strides in attempting to repair the carbon damage the damage has already progressed too far.
In this case it is important to consider not only mitigating GHG emissions, but also to actively remove them from the atmosphere. I don't mean methods like Carbon Capture & Storage in old oil well, mines, etc.. but instead in terrestrial/ biological storage. Forests are quite good at this, and mires are especially good at this (by the storage of Carbon indefinitely in peat). If you combined these 'storage' methods with reducing GHG emissions, there could even be a negative change in atmospheric carbon concentrations.
>>7879392
So does it look dire or no?
>>7880137
Yes, but we can still make it less bad.
>>7880137
I wouldn't say it's necessarily dire, but unless people start to get their acts together, then it could get dire. The fact that more people (like you) care to ask is a good sign though.
>retards who believe in "the world is doomed!" global warming nonsense
>Leave /sci/ for a year to get my degree
>Come back
>Retards from /pol/ making climate change conspiracy threads 10 times a day
Your dumb ass conspiracy theories aren't science.
>>7878499
>">Animal agriculture is responsible for 51% of greenhouse gas emissions
>Wrong. It's more like 9%.
>U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report: 1990-2013
Actually if you read this animal agriculture is much more than 9%, in fact, it is a major contributor of CH4 (25x CO2eq) (similar to landfills and natural gas production and N2O (300x CO2eq) similar to internal combustion.
Go ahead and look at the pic (related)
>>7876576
>I'm sure we will think of a solution
>No idea what it is
>>7880633
This. The first world will barely be affected. The worst thing is "climatefugees" who will be attempt to get into our nations.
>but the poor third worlders
Their nations are awful and always will be awful with or without climate change because they themselves are awful.
>>7879392
>In this case it is important to consider not only mitigating GHG emissions, but also to actively remove them from the atmosphere. I don't mean methods like Carbon Capture & Storage in old oil well, mines, etc.. but instead in terrestrial/ biological storage. Forests are quite good at this, and mires are especially good at this (by the storage of Carbon indefinitely in peat). If you combined these 'storage' methods with reducing GHG emissions, there could even be a negative change in atmospheric carbon concentrations.
Beware of the "easy answer" fallacy.
2nd law of thermodynamics and entropy notwithstanding, the best we can do at this point is stop cutting down trees, expanding populations and agriculture, and minimize human development.
Right, not going to happen. Everyone today is fully onboard with the idea that what they deserve is the suburban lifestyle of the American 1950s. Even though it will never happen for most of them, most alive today will barely get clean water and regular sustenance.
Thats my prediction, but I'm a pessimist. Optimists are deluded fools deluding fools. The ecologists of the 1960-80s were right. The global economy is the death shot to the atmosphere. Sayonara, we had one chance to make it work on this rock.
>>7880649
>Doesn't know about ocean acidification
>Ecology destruction
>The effect it has on growing crops
Fuck off retard.
>>7880643
You don't understand. The report I cited clearly states that agriculture emissions calculated in co2 only make up 9% of all emissions.
>>7880662
>The report I cited clearly states that agriculture emissions calculated in co2 only make up 9% of all emissions.
But it doesn't really tell us the difference due to animal agriculture.
http://www.unep.org/pdf/unep-geas_oct_2012.pdf
> Most studies attribute 10-35 per cent of all global GHG emissions to agriculture (Denman et al. 2007, EPA 2006, McMichael 2007, Stern 2006). Large differences are mainly based on the exclusion or inclusion of emissions due to deforestation and land use change.Recent estimates concerning animal agriculture’s share of total global GHG emissions range mainly between 10-25per cent(Steinfeld et al. 2006, Fiala 2008, UNEP 2009, Gill et al. 2010, Barclay 2012), where again the higher figure includes the effects of deforestation and other land use changes and the lower one does not. According to Steinfeld et al. (2006) and McMichael et al. (2007), emissions from livestock constitute nearly 80 per cent of all agricultural emissions.
The point I think it was, was difference between animal and non-animal Ag.
>>7880694
Even including effects of deforestation does not give you the 51% mark that the documentary cites. It was my point that the effects of agriculture is much lower than that.
>>7877886
They're all 60+, they are going to die before it becomes a problem for them anyway.
>>7880633
>It's NONSENSE
>Sure it has scientific backing
>BUT IT'S NONSENSE CAUSE I DON'T LIKE IT
Fuck off /pol/.
Bumping interesting bread
>>7880994
> sure it has science backing
> /pol/ boogeyman
oh look he used the sentence "science". he just proved global warming :D
>>7876567
Immigrants traveling to ue...
>>7876567
You are to fucking retarded to get a degree in anything other than spitting in a trash can from 2 inches above it.
>>7876567
If you are seriously so concerned about climate change you need to kill of Nigeria
Those fuckers breed like rates.
180 million who contribute nothing to the civilized society just gone right there and we could colonize the area in eco-friendly power structures.
>>7876567
watch COWSPIRACY it's an eye opener mate
>>7883367
>If you are seriously so concerned about climate change you need to kill of Nigeria
That doesn't remotely follow.
Nigeria's per-capita CO2 emissions are tiny. We could have another dozen Nigerias without too much harm to the climate.
The countries doing real harm are places like the USA or Australia.
>>7876823
>sources from a different decade
seems updated af
>>7876567
>>which degree would best position me to be able to help with climate change?
Nuclear engineering, probably some chemical engineering, and definitely something regarding engineering public opinion, aka propaganda, in order to make the public not so fucking stupid regarding nuclear.
>>7876709
It's really rather simple. We have most of the necessary technologies pretty well demonstrated, and one or two more that are still in the lab scale but that look promising.
We just need to convince the public to not be so fucking damn about nuclear power.
>>7876736
If we're serious about it, we can pull CO2 out of the air and water and reverse the process. It won't be cheap, but it's not out of the realm of plausibility. The best plan that I've heard is the lime process and dumping the excess CO2 into basalt deposits, all powered by nuclear energy.
>>7876797
No, it's held back by fundamental physics problems. No amount of funding can violate the laws of thermodynamics.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/
>>7879392
>Forests are quite good at this, and mires are especially good at this (by the storage of Carbon indefinitely in peat).
Not all all. The problem is that trees eventually die, and the decomposition process releases that CO2 back. Covering the world in trees is not good enough. We need to sequester way more CO2 than that.
Again, the best plan that I've seen is the lime process and pumping the resulting CO2 into basalt deposits where it will form chemically stable bonds over geological timescales, powered by nuclear energy.
>>7884283
>If we're serious about it, we can pull CO2 out of the air and water and reverse the process
And if CO2 was killing the planet we would have started building them in the 1980s and the problem would be solved by now. It took less than 30 years to get man to the moon, compared to that building mas CO2 converters is quite simple.
You do not have to go vegan. If you stop to eat meat and reducing milk you will be doing your part.
>>7877886
The "evil 1%" are the economic elite, not the intelectual elite. Those fuckers do not think in nothing but short term. We see them in big cars with fancy clothes and we think they are fucking brilliant, but they are as retard as an redneck or a nigger.
They are not worried with dying becouse they are unable to forecast one fucking day ahead in anything different of their fucking bussines.
Yes we are fucked up. Today I am more worried with an eminent social collapse than the climate collapse.
>>7884612
sure m8 because climate "scientists" making 6 figures and pushing government policy based on lies certainly aren't any 1% right?
>>7884289
>trees eventually die, and the decomposition process releases that CO2 back
Dumbest fucking post.
The CO2 isn't stored as CO2 in the trees. It's transformed into other molecules. Ever heard of photosynthesis? Take a 7th grade bio class ffs.
>>7876567
Paris was an incredible agreement, providing stern but attainable goals and an in-built capacity to ratchet up the targets as they're met. It's exactly what we needed... 20 years ago.
You can't do anything OP. The ship is sinking.
>>7884760
>"Paris was an incredible agreement"
That changed no laws or regulations in any country. More feel good bullshit. Oh !!!!!! Yea !!!!!!
>>7884550
Strange, but true.
>>7885324
Didn't they - the Pope of Rome and Kimbungsungun of the UN - implement a binding trillion dollar global tax scheme or something? Christ, how many more climate scientists and super computer simulations will they create with that sort of wealth anyway?
>>7876680
They're thinking of throwing salt seeds into the atmosphere from a big ship in the artic. These geoengineering projects are the only hope we have because reducing our footprint will no longer work. We're way past that point.
Animal agriculture does not make 51% of greenhouse gases. The largest offender is human.
>>7884760
Everyone knows the root cause is the all important 'economic growth' that politicians and businesses covet.
No one is ever going to address the real issue - not politicians, not people. All they're going to do with their new taxes is shift who burns what and where. More accounting games while the world burns. Typical.
> ah yes, the daily climate change thread
>>7885773
>not people
What are you 12?
7+ billion top predators and the Pope of Rome who still bans birth control and spreads the ignorance dogma is part of the climate meme along with a world government front shop like the UN? Do you not harbor an ounce of suspicion it is nothing more than a new age religion backed by mountains of propaganda - propagation of church dogma masquerading as "science"? They won't bend on their end an inch but you and I must bend right over and hand over all the hydrocarbons that belong to everyone, not just the despots? Do you even comprehend the role energy plays in modern life? It is modern life, of course some despots want to control it, to control life. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
So is the world just gunna be different, or will it be a lot worse for everyone? Also what sort of time scales are we looking at with this?
>>7885868
>Do you not harbor an ounce of suspicion it is nothing more than a new age religion backed by mountains of propaganda - propagation of church dogma masquerading as "science"?
Well, yeah... I think I just said opportunists see an angle, and are gonna exploit it for all its worth. And that's just gross. But hey, more work for bureaucrats and accountants right? Dey took er jabs!
>>7885894
>So is the world just gunna be different, or will it be a lot worse for everyone? Also what sort of time scales are we looking at with this?
The world will be a shithole with drastically reduced human population and biodiversity within the next 500 years, probably within less than a 100 years... mostly because humans are retarded, violent primates that think they're really really smart. (check the retards elected the boosh dynasty, 5 times almost, lol, /pol/)
I and others like me might have been able to do something if smooth talking silver tongued asshats hadnt been selling lies to the retarded public for 50+ years.... but you sidelined people like me because you didnt want to hear the truth.
>>7876567
>Electronic Engineering
Climate change isn't real, it's a ploy by liberal media to destroy earth with Big Green, stop being a sheep before it's too late.
>>7884639
You're an idiot. Decomposition is going to chemically transform the carbon back into CO2. Did you even take a basic bio course in high school?
>>7884639
What do you think will happen with those transformed molecules after the death of the tree?
You need to take a 7th grade bio class.
>>7884550
Sort of. It will take a massive investment, on the order of 1% GDP. Considering that's about what we already spend on oil and military, it's not all that unreasonable. I don't think the man to the moon took that much money and human effort.
>>7885773
The amount of energy is one of the primary factors in determining quality of life. Poor people have lots of kids. Rich people barely have enough kids to reach steady state population growth rate. We need to increase economic growth in order to stop population growth.
Further, excluding fossil fuel use which could be transitioned to nuclear, rich countries do much better with the environment than poor countries. That's because rich countries have enough energy to do so. Because they're rich with lots of spare energy, they can afford to do things like the EPA, the clean water act, the endangered species act, etc. Poor countries can't do that shit. Again, we need to drastically increase energy consumption in order to save the environment.
>>7886105
>I and others like me might have been able to do something if smooth talking silver tongued asshats hadnt been selling lies to the retarded public for 50+ years.... but you sidelined people like me because you didnt want to hear the truth.
If you're pro-nuclear, then yes. Otherwise no, and you're a deluded fool.
>>7877886
I honestly don't know. I suspect there's lots of problems.
Their time horizon is too short, they'll die before the real problems hit.
They're part of the rich class, so when the real problems hit, it might not be that bad for them.
Some of them are religious fanatics who honestly believe that it cannot happen because god said so in some book.
Some of them are religious fanatics, i.e. libertarians, who believe that all government regulation is bad, and either would rather the world burn than have government regulations, or they stupidly believe that the free market will fix it.
And then your standard conspiracy idiots who think that global warming isn't real. Part of this stems from the general anti-intellectual attitude that is IMHO largely driven by the advance of science causing it to be more and more impossible to be honest, informed, and religious. Some people would rather be religious than be honest and informed.
>>7886947
fukushima, you fucking retard
(i am a deluded fool btw, but so is everyone else) (just realized how douchy my previous post is... but whatever, the point remains, dick weed.)
>>7876763
>I'm already vegan, partly for the health
Climate change was around before man and will be here after he is extinct. The planet will be fine without man as it was before him. If CO2 was killing the planet and all life on it, we would not be here today.
>>7876567
Hey OP, a lot of these anons in this thread are really exaggerrating this topic because it's become such a meme now that people are recognizing it as an actual profession.
Don't freak out. Don't be worried. Just continue on with life and do whatever you want because nothing really matters. I'm studying environmental engineering because I've always been interested in ways to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, as well as the whole concept of sustainability.
>>7887048
What about it? Coal and other fossil fuels kill millions of people every year from the airborne particulate pollution alone. No one died from Fukushima, especially no one outside the plant. (A few workers who went inside afterwards may die later from cancer.) Compare and contrast - a few dozens years over 40 years - or millions of deaths per 1 year. Do the math.
>>7887855
>Do the math.
Do you know the tonnage of DU munitions unleashed in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan? Humanity is not really responsible enough for nuclear yet, also the NIMBY problem with waste that is piling up, can also be depleted like any natural resource. Was only refined for weaponry originally. Coal can be clean now.
>>7887855
youre no scientist.
youre a paid nuclear shill.
A fukushima per 35 years for the next millennia doesnt leave a lot of habitable land left, and raises Earth's ambient radiation levels by god knows how much.
Not to mention uraniam, like fossil fuels, is non renewable.
But clearly you arent paid to think long term, just like the fossil fuel shills of the 50s and 60s.
You want your economic growth at any cost, fossil fuels aren't gonna cut it because they're literally running out (you don't really give a fuck about global warming, let's be honest here), so now you and your banker buddies are shilling an even more risky non renewable resource.
You and your kind live in a bubble, both metaphorically and literally, your greed is a sickness, and you'll be the death of us all.
>>7887269
>Just continue on with life and do whatever you want because nothing really matters
i cant tell if you're being nihilistic or if you mean it won't be that bad
>>7888378
>youre a paid nuclear shill.
You just lost the debate immediately.
>A fukushima per 35 years for the next millennia doesnt leave a lot of habitable land left
Absolute nonsense. If you had a fukushima every 35 years (which is retarded) for a millenium you would lose 0.05% of the total habitable land on earth.
>and raises Earth's ambient radiation levels by god knows how much.
Literally a negligible amount.
>Not to mention uraniam, like fossil fuels, is non renewable.
Irrelevant. The point is that it should replace fossil fuels, not that it can fuel everything forever.
>But clearly you arent paid to think long term
At least he's thinking. The same can't be said for you.
>>7888438
>Absolute nonsense. If you had a fukushima every 35 years (which is retarded) for a millenium you would lose 0.05% of the total habitable land on earth.
>and raises Earth's ambient radiation levels by god knows how much Literally a negligible amount
Go.ahead and show us your math then.
>>7888452
different anon here
US advisory exclution zone for fukushima was a circle with 80 km radius, which makes 20096 km2
total arable land on earth is 13962000 km2 according to wiki.
13962000/20096=964
1000/35=28.5
so we would still have arable land left
>>7888465
The exclusion zone is actually 20 km or 12.4 mile radius. And habitable land is 24642757 square miles
>>7888452
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/332/6032/908.full
Outside of the exclusion zone there is literally no measurable increase from background radiation. Fukushima added nothing measurable to Japan's background radiation, let alone the world's background radiation.
>>7888465
nice how not anon was so close with his "guess". youve got a whole team of paid shills working away editing wikipedia spouting your lines.
arable land is actually more like 5000000 km^2
(4/3)*pi*6370^2*0.29*(0.3 desert+0.2 mtn/glacier+0.4 tundra/boreal forest)
and probably closer to 1.5 when icluding marsh land
and if nuclear replaces fossil fuels we can expect a fukushima about every 3 years (nuclear currently about 10% of energy), more if economic growth occurs dependent on nuclear
so by my estimate a minimum of 5% of earths arable land will be irradiated in 1000 years, assuming there are no wars where power plants are targets.
also theres a reason they abandoned above ground testing in the 60s. its because it was raising ambient radiation levels.
NOW PISS OFF PAID SHILLS
Its garbage.
They were predicting most of the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Part of Australia and most of the pacific would be submerged, none of that has occurred.
>>7888582
>wow, different anon was pretty spot on with that guess then, for someone who isnt a paid shill. came prepared for a debate did yall?
It's called google, retard. You should use it some time.
>And that number obviously doesnt include the increase in the number of expected meltdowns, if paid shill gets his way and nuclear replaces fossil fuels and expands, we can expect a fukushima bout every 3 years minimum.
New plants would be safer than Fukushima, so you are just pulling numbers out of your ass. But I'll be generous and let you move the goalposts just to show how wrong you are.
>In addition, your arable land number is flat out wrong. Its more like 1500000 km^2.
You originally said habitable land, and now you are not only moving the goalposts again, you are using a figure for arable land that is an order of magnitude off from reality. Who exactly is the shill here?
3% of arable land with all of your dishonest goalpost moves. So you are still dead fucking wrong.
>also theres a reason they abandoned above ground testing in the 60s. its because it was raising ambient radiation levels.
Comparing meltdowns to nuclear bomb testing is retarded.
>>7888609
wow that post was up all of 3 seconds. you caught me. because you are paid to
i am not paid
>>7888609
>New plants would be safer than Fukushima
an assumption
youre the one who wanted to use arable land, so i obliged... and now im moving goal posts??
FUCK YOU, ASSHAT
>>7888465
nice how not anon was so close with his "guess". youve got a whole team of paid shills working away editing wikipedia spouting your lines.
arable land is actually more like 5000000 km^2
(4/3)*pi*6370^2*0.29*(0.3 desert+0.2 mtn/glacier+0.4 tundra/boreal forest)
and probably closer to 1.5 when icluding marsh land
and if nuclear replaces fossil fuels we can expect a fukushima about every 3 years (nuclear currently about 10% of energy), more if economic growth occurs dependent on nuclear
so by my estimate a minimum of 5% of earths arable land will be irradiated in 1000 years, assuming there are no wars where power plants are targets.
also theres a reason they abandoned above ground testing in the 60s. its because it was raising ambient radiation levels.
NOW PISS OFF PAID SHILLS
People are too retarded not to fuck up at some point with nuclear.
Even the scientists who invented nuclear in the 60s are against it.
Its business types and politicians who are shilling. And they dont know fuck all about anything except how to make money.
>>7888613
>an assumption
A reality. You are saying new plants would have the same failrate as one made in the 60s. Actually that's not even what you're saying, because you just made up a number of years between meltdowns with no basis. That's not even an assumption, it's just making shit up.
>youre the one who wanted to use arable land, so i obliged... and now im moving goal posts??
Wrong again, dumbass. I'm the guy whose post you ignored because it was too embarrassing for you.
>>7888609
>Comparing meltdowns to nuclear bomb testing is retarded.
Why is it retarded? the radiation either goes into ground water and the oceans, or the atmosphere?
You people literally sicken me. You are evil beyond the pail. Worse than the fucking inquisition
>>7888629
>Why is it retarded?
Because one is a bomb that vaporizes the material into the air and the other is just that material melting into the ground. But go ahead, show a scientific source that gives a nonzero amount of global background radiation added by Fukushima. Hint: you won't find one because it's 0 mSv
>>7888626
>because you just made up a number of years between meltdowns with no basis. That's not even an assumption, it's just making shit up.
chernobyl 1986. fukushima 2011. about 35 years, actually 25, my mistake, so the percentage increases again....
seriously?
god, you people are so fucking sick. get your head checked man.
>>7888645
>chernobyl 1986. fukushima 2011. about 35 years, actually 25, my mistake, so the percentage increases again....
You can't extrapolate a failrate from two data points you retard. That doesn't even take into account the total reactor years in which the accidents occurred.
oh ok,
all of the sudden this whole debate were having isnt an exercise in extrapolating into the future??
fair enough dude.... you win.
im convinced
nuclear will be our salvation. a gift bestowed upon man by the almighty because of humanity's inherent awesomeness..
>>7888645
The sick one is you, you make up lies about nuclear power just to scare people and completely ignore that fossil fuels directly cause tends of thousands of deaths every year in addition to global warming while nuclear power in its entire history has caused less than a hundred.
>>7888665
actually youre the one who lies.
its already been pointed out more than once in this thread.
>and completely ignore that fossil fuels directly cause tends of thousands of deaths every year
i think you meant indirectly, but im gonna go ahead and call you a liar anyway, lol
and i never said fossil fuels werent a threat.
the real threat is attitudes like yours. the arrogant belief that humans are infallible super beings, because god made us that way
>>7888678
>its already been pointed out more than once in this thread.
Where did I lie?
Your lies: "A fukushima per 35 years for the next millennia doesnt leave a lot of habitable land left, and raises Earth's ambient radiation levels by god knows how much."
"and if nuclear replaces fossil fuels we can expect a fukushima about every 3 years"
>i think you meant indirectly, but im gonna go ahead and call you a liar anyway, lol
No, directly. Mining accidents and pollution from fossil fuels directly causes deaths.
>and i never said fossil fuels werent a threat.
You argued as if nuclear isn't a much safer alternative to fossil fuels, like it would wreck the world. That's just insane.
>the real threat is attitudes like yours. the arrogant belief that humans are infallible super beings, because god made us that way
Yeah and I have fangs and a tail also. LOL I can't tell if you're trolling or just extremely delusional.
>>7888690
>Where did I lie?
you pulled your arable land figure out of your ass.
>>7888690
>Your lies: "A fukushima per 35 years for the next millennia doesnt leave a lot of habitable land left, and raises Earth's ambient radiation levels by god knows how much."
Ok, let me fix it then
A nuclear disaster every 25 years for the next millennia doesnt leave a lot of habitable land left, and raises Earth's ambient radiation levels by god knows how much.
Happy?
>>7888690
you guys are whats called asshats.
youll play your little word games forever and ever, even after its clear to even the most retarded that youve lost.
You will not be alive 100 years from now. If you were and the average global temp was 1.5 degrees higher than it is now you would not be able to tell that anything had changed. Global warming is not going to effect you, your children or your grandchildren in any appreciable manner according to the worse doomsday predictions currently referred to as science.
Giving a fuck about this should be a very low priority for most sane people. For the vast majority of affluent westerners, saying they give a fuck makes them feel good but they are not going to alter their life style in any manner that makes them give up anything they like.
>>7888690
>No, directly. Mining accidents and pollution from fossil fuels directly causes deaths.
Oh and uranium isnt mined?
And i guess radiation exposure down wind of meldowns that causes cancer 10 years down the line isnt direct?
>>7888690
you guys arent even very good at shilling, because youre not very smart.
but i bet its lucrative for you.
confirms my theory that stupidity and lack of empathy are correlated.
>>7888721
>you pulled your arable land figure out of your ass.
No, that was you. I didn't even give an arable land figure, the other guy did and his was from wikipedia.
>>7888727
>A nuclear disaster every 25 years for the next millennia doesnt leave a lot of habitable land left, and raises Earth's ambient radiation levels by god knows how much.
Another fucking lie. Every 25 years would make 0.07% of habitable land exclusion zones.
>>7888737
You lost the moment you resorted to calling your opponent shills and making them into strawmen who believe "humans are infallible".]
>>7888745
>Oh and uranium isnt mined?
And?
>And i guess radiation exposure down wind of meldowns that causes cancer 10 years down the line isnt direct?
How many cancer cases did Fukushima cause?
>>7888745
The radiation doses from Fukushima were so low the UN doesn't even think it affected cancer rates.
>>7888375
>DU munitions
What does that have to do with nuclear power?
>waste
There is no waste problem.
http://thorconpower.com/docs/ct_yankee.pdf
>can run out of nuclear fuel
The most common kind of rock of the (continental) crust of this planet is granite. Granite rock contains a few ppm thorium and uranium. It can be extracted from the rock efficiency enough that this amount of thorium or uranium means that a piece of granite has the same amount of usable energy as the same volume of coal. Times twenty. (Assuming a fuel efficient reactor, i.e. a breeder reactor.) We are never going to run out of rock. The sun will run out of fuel before we on Earth run out of rock.
>>7888378
>A fukushima per 35 years for the next millennia doesnt leave a lot of habitable land left,
And letting global warming and ocean acidification run amok is worse. Also, that's why I advocate for safer designs, such as the IFR and various MSRs.
>and raises Earth's ambient radiation levels by god knows how much.
Actually, we know how much. The answer is very, very little.
>You want your economic growth at any cost
That is correct. The alternative is runaway population growth and the destruction of human civilization.
>you don't really give a fuck about global warming, let's be honest here
I very much do. I will admit that I am much more concerned about ocean acidification. We're going to get mass ocean extinctions if we continue on course. Maybe it'll be at 8.0 pH which IIRC is projected to happen by 2050. Or maybe it'll require a little bit more acidity, and so it'll be 2100, or 2150. Either way, it's coming fast.
>an even more risky non renewable resource.
More people have died choking on sliced bread than have died from nuclear power.
Also, as I argue above, if solar power is considered renewable, then so should nuclear. Nuclear power will outlast solar power.
>>7888625
>Even the scientists who invented nuclear in the 60s are against it.
I doubt it. I'm pretty sure most of them alive today and who died recently who worked on the early nuclear power plant designs are still for nuclear power. They're against nuclear weapons, which is an entirely different thing.
>>7888629
Protip: Radiation is not infinitely dangerous. All industrial processes produce waste. Nuclear waste is but one form of nuclear waste. Diluting toxic waste makes it less dangerous. Eventually, there are safe levels of any waste. At the very least, we need to do proper cost benefits analysis, and therefore there will be acceptable levels of any kind of toxic waste. The facts of the matter are that there is so little nuclear waste that it's entirely a non-problem. I encourage people to read the links above.
>>7889128
>>You want your economic growth at any cost
>That is correct. The alternative is runaway population growth and the destruction of human civilization.
And the deaths of 90%+ of the human population. I generally consider that to be a very bad thing(TM).
>>7889128
>That is correct. The alternative is runaway population growth and the destruction of human civilization.
Oh? Please explain. (This oughta be rich) Last I heard population growth and economic growth were basically identical.
You are no scientist. You're a poser/shill. Scientist know that infinite growth on a fiinite planet is impossible.
>>7888772
>How many cancer cases did Fukushima cause?
How many downwind of chernobyl?
>>7889128
We will eventually hear about the top secret public/private partnership that pays people like you to influence people's opinion.
You will be exposed one day.
>>7889159
>Last I heard population growth and economic growth were basically identical.
Getting your information from 200 years ago is not a good plan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism
Here's some more up to date information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility
Obviously, there are other factors too, such as emancipation and empowerment of women, especially over their own reproduction via ready access to birth control. Prosperity is still an import metric for lowering birth rates and population growth. It's the dirt poor nations of the world that are reproducing. Most wealthy nations are below the steady-state population growth rate when you factor-out immigration and account for life expectancy increases.
>>7889165
What a sad little conspiracy world you must live in. Do you believe that vaccines cause autism too? GMOs are universally bad?
>>7889128
I agree, ocean acidification is scary.
however, fossil fuels will always be needed to mine things (including uranium), and world shipping/flights.
Unless you abandon your dreams of economic growth (and soon), we can forget about future generations.
>>7889162
About 4000 cancer deaths are the estimates from real health organizations, such as the WHO.
Part of the problem is that you understand all things nuclear as one single monolithic thing. Whereas, there are vast differences in designs between Chernobyl and any reactor built in the west. Chernobyl had a positive temperature coefficient of reactivity. Never in the west have we ever built a ridiculous reactor like that.
There are also vast differences between those and next-gen reactor designs like IFR and MSR. For example, in several of the MSR designs, what happened in Chernobyl is simply impossible. The physics and chemistry is entirely different. Even if you dropped a bunker buster missile on a MSR, the worst that happens is a bunch of radioactive salt that cools in the immediate area. Because of the difference in chemistry, there is no vector to get any of the radiation airborne, unlike conventional nuclear reactors.
>>7889166
A scientist who doesn't think there is any validity to Malthus....
Now I've seen it all.
>>7889171
About transport and other portable fuels:
http://www.zmescience.com/research/us-navy-synthetic-jet-fuel-seawater-0423432/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-diesel
These technologies look promising.
And again, the alternative is runaway population growth and the deaths of billions of people. Your deinstrustrialization Earth-worship dreams are pipedreams, incredible pipedreams.
>>7889174
Well, unlike you, I don't do ancestor worship. Instead, it is better said that I worship the data, which shows that Malthus is clearly wrong.
>>7889177
See my reply to your earlier double-post.
And if you don't want to engage rational arguments, then your loss. Others know who looks like the fool here.
>>7889176
>Well, unlike you, I don't do ancestor worship. Instead, it is better said that I worship the data, which shows that Malthus is clearly wrong.
You call it ancestor worship but Its really called conservation of mass, momentum, and energy.... coupled with the 2nd law.
What kind of scientist are you exactly?
>>7889181
One who values data more than armchair reasoning when the two contradict. Did you even open the wiki page? Here it is again, with a nice graph showing the anti-correlation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility
Here, let me include the picture directly.
>>7889184
well you sure are tenacious.
you might fool the average voter, which should be enough for your kind to destroy the world.
but you are not fooling anyone with a degree in physics/engineering.
you are not a scientist. you are a poser/shill being paid by bankers. which makes you a dirty rotten liar.
>>7889189
A reasonable and proper person at this point would say "Damn, I was wrong about prosperity and fertility. Thank you for correcting me!".
Are you a troll? I assume you're a troll.
>>7889192
>A reasonable and proper person at this point would say "conservation of copper hey. damn when my consumption goes up, some of it is gone forever"
Are you a paid shill? I assume you're a paid shill.
>>7889197
You know what else increases consumption? Population growth. Wanna guess which increases consumption more?
>>7889192
The fact that you ignore basic 2nd year physics (which is the basis for malthus)
and ignore facts that are contradictory to your argument makes you an asshat.
youre playing games with words to win something at everyone else expense.
>>7889201
Protip: As a general rule, when a real scientist encounters a contradiction between their model and the data, the real scientist does not keep the model and throw out the data. The data flatly contradicts your conclusions. The data is king. You are wrong.
>>7889199
Oh so I should go ahead and buy that audi then to reduce consumption?
you sure have deluded yourself
>>7889199
im gonna buy a porche to do my part for prosperity,
you know, to keep the 3rd world from growiing too much population.
makes perfect sense.
>>7889199
as long as some of the parts for my lambo are made in bangladesh and shipped half way around the world, im doing my part for prosperity and saving the planet!!
lol
>>7889207
Uhh, no. Your prosperity reduces your fertility, not the fertility of strangers in another country. /Their/ prosperity lowers their fertility.
>>7889211
1st world still consumes more, way way more.
3rd world is living more sustainably, and you're trying to blame them.
you sure are a sicko indeed.
>>7889211
You are in favour of globalization, right?
Why?
>>7889222
>They're not living sustainably. They're overpopulating. The western world is much closer to living sustainably.
Now that is total fucking hogwash, and everyone knows it.
You're probably also a closet racist, and I'm not wasting any more time trying to talk reason into a madman.
>>7889227
I'm the one advocating for their continued economic development. You're the one condemning them to a lifetime of poverty and misery, while you sit here comfortably. I suggest you rethink your position.
>>7889229
>You're the one condemning them to a lifetime of poverty and misery
I guess the indians isolated in the amazon jungle hunting with spears must be quite miserable and impoverished... might as well put them to work building parts for my lambo in the factory, you know so they prosper and stop overpopulating.
Right??
You sick, racist fuck.
>>7889233
I'm not endorsing economic colonialism. I'm endorsing true economic development for their own benefit, and for the benefit of everyone on the planet by stopping population growth.
>>7889233
In response to your earlier question about globalism. I am generally quite against free trade agreements. Free trade agreements are generally quite exploitative in practice, and bad for the general population of both countries.
Free trade makes sense amongst equals under equal political and economic systems. Free trade is generally exploitative otherwise IMHO.
>>7889235
>I'm not endorsing economic colonialism.
Yes you are. You're endorsing increased world trade and globalization.
And youre endorsing increased consumption to reduce population growth.
Somehow that is supposed to save the planet i guess
>>7889235
you already endorsed economic growth.
what do you think the long term consequences of that are, globally?
>>7889241
>Yes you are. You're endorsing increased world trade and globalization.
I never said that.
>And youre endorsing increased consumption to reduce population growth.
That is correct.
>Somehow that is supposed to save the planet i guess
Reducing population is the best way to reduce consumption.
Compare and contrast:
(small consumption per person) (lots of people)
(a bit more consumption per person) (lots less people)
Eventually, as population increases without bound, the bigger population is going to consume more.
And again, I'm not telling you to consume more. Look at the wiki picture again. Fertility drops below break-even after a certain point, after which further consumption does seem to do much. I'm not telling you to consume more. I'm telling the poor people in poor countries to consume more.
>>7889242
>you already endorsed economic growth.
Which is totally not the same thing as free trade agreements.
>>7889239
>In response to your earlier question about globalism. I am generally quite against free trade agreements. Free trade agreements are generally quite exploitative in practice, and bad for the general population of both countries.
>Free trade makes sense amongst equals under equal political and economic systems. Free trade is generally exploitative otherwise IMHO.
we agree on one thing at least...
>>7889242
>what do you think the long term consequences of that are, globally?
Less net consumption. A population of people whose numbers are steady or declining. A population of people across the world that live happier, healthier, better lives, free from resource wars, wars for land, etc.
>>7889244
>And again, I'm not telling you to consume more. Look at the wiki picture again. Fertility drops below break-even after a certain point, after which further consumption does seem to do much. I'm not telling you to consume more. I'm telling the poor people in poor countries to consume more.
So youre not actually advocating for economic growth in the west, just in the 3rd world.
How is that achieved?
>>7889248 (You)
>How is that achieved?
I'll answer for you (same anon)..
Generally those who come from your school of thought say economic growth in the 3rd world is achieved through globalisation.
You see? You're a walking contradiction.
>>7889248
>How is that achieved?
That is a good question. I do not know. Surely it is possible without being exploitative, as long as there is a cheap, clean, safe, abundant energy source, aka nuclear. I'm not sure what an answer to that question would even look like. Are you asking for specific policies that the US can do? Specific policies that poor countries can do?
In the meantime, the west needs to move closer to green and sustainable by moving away from fossil fuels and towards nuclear.
>>7889252
>>7889254
I don't know why you're saddling me with opinions that are not my own. Knock it off already.
>>7889255
we agree to disagree.
i will never be convinced the economic growth isnt the root cause of all our problems
(one last thought. lets build a whole bunch of thorium molten salt reactors for the nigerians to operate, so they prosper and stop overpopulating. thatll definitely end well for planet earth)
>>7889256
>i will never be convinced the economic growth isnt the root cause of all our problems
Spoken like a true religious person. I would never say something so foolish.
>>7889258
youre the religious fanatic here.
you worship ever increasing consumption through economic growth
you talk about it like its our saviour.
consumption IS the problem. increasing it solves nothing.
>>7889262
I'm not the one claiming absolute certainty. I'm not the one dismissing evidence because it contradicts my preconceived dogma.
>>7889263
>I'm not the one claiming absolute certainty. I'm not the one dismissing evidence because it contradicts my preconceived dogma.
Look. I get what youre saying.
Growth leads to reduced consumption, in a roundabout sort of way. Its counterintuitive but that data supports the notion.
I'm not buying it though.
I think we need a radical change in our thinking to avert disaster, but I doubt that will ever happen
I dont think technology will save us - its a large part of the problem.
People all just need to stop with their friggin games, basically, but itll never happen. People are people.
>>7889269
Do you know that without modern fertilizer, the planet could only support about a billion humans? Do you know that there are about 7 billion humans? It's only going to go up. Conservative estimates are 10 billion people. I've seen 11 billion. Do you know some obscenely high fraction of global energy production goes directly towards making fertilizer? IIRC like 1% or 2%. There is no turning back now, not without the starvation of billions of people, and wars that would end human civilization as we know it.
And turning back on industrialization would just increase population further.
>>7889276
>Do you know that without modern fertilizer, the planet could only support about a billion humans? Do you know that there are about 7 billion humans? It's only going to go up. Conservative estimates are 10 billion people. I've seen 11 billion. Do you know some obscenely high fraction of global energy production goes directly towards making fertilizer? IIRC like 1% or 2%. There is no turning back now, not without the starvation of billions of people, and wars that would end human civilization as we know it.
>And turning back on industrialization would just increase population further.
You forget that people simply grow old and die. No one needs to starve.
>>7889278
And how do you propose to stop overpopulation then of third world countries?
Oh, China's One Child Policy worked great ~sarcasm~. That country might experience social unrest like we've never seen because of the disproportionate gender populations as a result of the One Child Policy.
Forced sterilization programs? And who's the racist now?
The planet cannot support the current population without modern industry.
>>7889286
its not up to us to tell anyone what to do.
we can only decide what we do. hopefully they will follow our example.
who are we to force anyone to do anything.
and besides, their consumption per capita is not as high as ours.
(the racism is passive. its in that we think we have the right to tell others what to do. doing so assumes that we know better, and therefore are better)
>>7889172
>Chernobyl had a positive temperature coefficient of reactivity. Never in the west have we ever built a ridiculous reactor like that.
Technically CANDUs have a positive coefficient. It's supposedly too small to matter though.
Overpopulation is killing the planet.
We know this song well......Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Mao........and this is just a few of the better known singers.
>>7889821
Heh, Castro, Cuba and Communism is mildly interesting because of the small scale, I suppose it could easily be built right up like a Japan infrastructure but that requires massive inputs from the external world. With all their sanctions they are almost a self sufficient island operation, but they still get a lot of tourism.
Anyway, can't kill a planet, planet doesn't care and has been around for billions of years but overpopulation is certainly the source of all serious human problems, and there will always be problems no matter the population.
As a species we've always thrived on adversity, I welcome the coming changes to the climate and biodiversity, a brand new frontier will be forged for coming generations to conquer a new setting full of opportunities for those willing to meet the challenge.
Why move to Mars when we can make this planet into a barren wasteland devoid of complex life and sustainable atmosphere ?
>>7889947
You Fail.
Embargo is a U S thing. Eastern Europe never had one and most of the rest of the world have been selling stuff to Cuba during the U S embargo.
>>7876823
>3000 liters =showering for 2 month
Ideally I shower once every 2 days and I use a bidet when taking a shit, but I certaintly do not use 100 litres per shower.
>>7886943
I am fairly sure that NASA foundings take 1% of the US budget.
Why, why couldnt CO2 be like Helium and fly away from the atmosphere.
>>7876567
I'm way more worried about a comet or asteroid impact tbqh familia
>>7876567
>does the Paris accord actually mean anything?
It was disguised promise of bailout for fossil fuel companies.
>>7892096
Fuck no
