nah it's natural
-
Consumer use of private vehicles and air conditioning / heating absolutely have a non-negligible impact.
As a group, yes...per individual not really.
-
I live in an area where it is raining more often than not so unfortunately clothes lines are not really an option for me, though i compensated by going entirely off grid. I have enough solar and battery storage that I am completely self-sufficient. I have a heat pump dryer, heat pump hot water heater, and I still use things like a dishwasher as they do use dramatically less water than doing it by hand
I guess that's one I also forgot to put on the list heat pump hot water heater yes they are more expensive than the standard electric but they will pay for themselves pretty quickly unless you just almost never use hot water. Same for the dryer, it is indeed more expensive than a standard electric one but it will pay for itself pretty quickly with the 1/4th power used
Oh I didn't even mean the outdoors clothes lines (which I also have, but am too lazy to use), I meant an indoor rack like this:
I have 2 of those so I can do like 3 loads of laundry and just set it and forget it.
Won't work with high humidity, but chances are if you have high humidity indoors, you'd want a heat pump to use as AC in the summer and for extra heating in the winter, anyway (game changer IMO)
Heat pump hot water heater - don't think that's even a thing here. Reason being, if you're getting a heat pump to heat your water, you might as well just go full blast and install an air-to-water or even geothermal pump that heats up both your radiators (or floors) AND the boiler. It's a goal of mine for next summer. But in the absence of such an option, I will admit that a straight heat pump water heater is probably good too. Right now I have an electric heater for summertime usage and I'm not the biggest fan.
-
This post did not contain any content.
The rich made the poor ignore it.
-
At what point on this graph is ecoterrorism justified?
Right now it is
-
No, I won't give them the out. This isn't them simply being outgunned on messaging or outmaneuvered by corporate interests.
Theirs is a story of objective dereliction of duty.
Previous generations leveraged the future of their descendants to improve their wealth and economic growth. Those same generations and wealthy twats are now vying for global control as right-wing governments take power.
Yeah, there was corporate propaganda at play. That does not negate the duty of the electorate to stay informed. They could have looked into it, but they didn't because it was an inconvenient truth.
We've had strong indication that CO2 was going to fuck us since 1896 from research by Svante Arrhenius. And if you want to go waaaaayyy back, the idea that a small percentage of atmospheric gases could absorb infrared radiation was 1859 by John Tyndall. Oh, or maybe we can start the clock at 1824 when Joseph Fourier (yes that Fourier) first proposed the idea of greenhouse gases.
So after 200 fucking years of knowing about this, we've still done fuck all.
So yes. Many of our parents were willfully ignorant and didn't prioritize this issue because ... The Mexicans are coming across the border and we can't have that even if we'd really like to kick off a green energy revolution. AREGGHHHH! IF ONLY IT WEREN'T FOR THOSE DAMN ILLEGALS THEY WOULD'VE SOLVED THIS!
You're committing a worse sin. You're fighting the culture war for the powers that be.
-
It is a con from the perspective that it will have a meaningful impact at this time.
Time and focus are finite resources. Yeah, people can make green sacrifices AND protest to lobby for big changes. But if they only could do one because of time, which would you say would have the largest impact?
All the stuff you said or blocking ports to grind economies to a halt?
wrote last edited by [email protected]It would make a meaningful impact, if everyone in America just drove 10% less that would result in a reduction of 110 million metric tons of co2, close to the total emissions of Bangladesh 122 million tons ( population around half the US). The same is true about meat consumption, which is even more feasible to completely stop today for most people.
Sure those two things aren't going to stop climate change, systemic change is needed. But the methods for everyday people to create that systemic change are either illegal ( blocking ports, destroying oil infrastructure), and thus most people aren't going to risk there livelihoods for, or they're ineffectual (peaceful protest, electoral politics) so doing the above choices would make more of a difference.
Yes attention and effort are finite resources, but the choice for most people is not block a port or become vegetarian, it's gonna be go to a peaceful protest / vote for the dems or become a vegetarian. In that choice, becoming a vegetarian is the better use of effort.
-
We aren't putting it off. Already many countries are deploying renewable energy like it's going out of fashion, and have been for years. China, France, the UK, Spain, and India all have significant parts of their energy coming from renewables and nuclear, or are building more as we speak. Here in England our largest source of power is wind. People are already doing stuff about it, just not fast enough or universally enough. Technology for renewables and energy saving has gotten progressively better over the past several decades. Even fossil fuel technologies like cars and natural gas plants have gotten markedly more efficient meaning they produce less CO2 than they did previously, while also emitting lower levels of other pollutants too. It's even possible now to power planes with biofuels.
CO2 levels are still rising pretty much unabated though. Probably mostly due to The Green Paradox and Jevons Paradox..
-
Yeah nuclear isnt the immediate or root problem here.
Note that the "reactors" are, in-game, energy plants that convert literal life force into electricity.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
The scary thing is, this graph is probably far too conservative.
Evidence is now emerging that indicates that warming has accelerated dramatically in the last 2-3 years. As in, we may see more warming in the next 10 years than we have seen in the last 50, with +3℃ happening just after 2035, and +4℃ happening by some time around 2040 to 2050.
You know what happens around +4℃? The extinction of all megafauna - animals larger than 45kg. Like humans. The entire ⅓ of the planet between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn will experience lethally high wet bulb temperatures across all regions for at least several weeks out of every year, rendering it permanently uninhabitable for the 4+ Billion people that currently live there. India is currently flirting with that reality.
And with that heating inertia, 2100 may see +8℃ temps, which essentially means ice-free poles year round (once things calm down), with palm trees and alligators at the North Pole. Of course, by that time chaotic weather and resource exhaustion will have killed off all remaining humans.
And the lovely thing about “moving parts” is that they all have this little thing called inertia… the faster they move, the further they go. And +8℃ is very close to the +12-15℃ that a Venus Scenario would be triggered by.
Past warming events have been “similar” in that they have gotten just as warm, but they took hundreds of thousands of years to get to the same place, allowing entire continent-wide ecosystems to quite literally migrate across thousands of kilometers to adapt. Our changes are happening in less than 0.01% of that time scale, giving ecosystems no time at all in which to react. So our biosphere will get slaughtered along with us, and will be unable to compensate in time.
And with the biosphere becoming overwhelmed by rapid changes, there goes the “friction” that could do something about that “inertia”.
And the worst part is, we still haven’t moved off of the worst-case-possible “business as usual” path. We are swan-diving into the worst possible future. Thanks to billionaires addicted to fat profit margins and who control all of the processes, we are utterly failing to generate the change needed to save ourselves, with CO2e production - purely human sources, excluding the feedback loops in nature!! - CONTINUING TO ACCELERATE.
Fun times. I just might live long enough to see humanity go extinct.
-
I read a stat like 70% of all carbon emissions come from like 10 sources, and our individual efforts is basically like pissing in the sea, its not going do much.
This is like the "both sides" argument in politics.
It resonates with people and encourages apathy supporting the status quo.
Its true that the actions of an individual aren't very impactful. Its also true that large corporations are responsible for the vast majority of the problem.
However, if no one bought products from those companies, or owned their shares, then they would exist.
While "no one" is not possible, what if everyone just used 5% less, or 5% of people switched to an "ethical" 401k / pension funds that didn't invest in these companies.
We dont need a few people doing climate mitigation perfectly, we need everyone doing climate mitigation imperfectly.
It sounds like such a small change, yet we're unable to achieve it.
For example, here in Australia our conservative party is presently trying to discard our pathetic carbon emissions targets saying they're unachievable.
-
So the industrial revolution safed us from temperature going below the level for agriculture?
No, there was just some weather around then that was cold. See the little ice age, by that point we'd already cut down most of the megaforests and the co2 levels were rising so the temperature was going to slowly increase over time
-
Nobody is going fast enough.
The fastest efforts going right now are half assed solutions.
I don't think you understand how urgently fucked we are.
Climate scientists are scientists. They can only tell youbwhat thry know. Science inherently moves slow, moves with certainty. Kind of the best thing about it.
But all these climate models keep getting hit with 'shit we didnt know could happen' and 'feedback effect nobody's ever seen before', even the grim ones.
So however bad the models are, we are more fuckef than that.
The turn radius on this thing is so slow that we may already be past the point of no return. Everything from here on might be a death rattle. Maybe, if you're young, from before you were born. We don't know how bad it is, we have sort of repeatedly proven that we can't know how bad it is, and all we know is how good it isn't.
And babe, its not good enough to be so fucking casual about shit.
Whatever effect you are currently feeling is the effect from our collected fuckedness 30 40 50 years ago. However fucked this summer felt? Thats the damage we had accrued and sent out when your parents were born.
Edit: we need to be at zero cars zero meat zero fossil fuels and decarbonizing as much production as we possibly can by now. We told the timeline where we could switch over gently to fuck off and die 50 years ago. I wasnt even fucking born yet. We told the timeline where we coukd just cut the shit and practice purely technical solutions with little lifestyle change (beyond things that are mostly good for us anyway) to fuck off and die 25 years ago. We let this go untreated, and now that the body is so wracked with cancer it's effecting our range of motion, and the doctors are desperately scrambling to set up a course of radical chemo radiation starvation and cutting to the bone in the desperate hope that there's still room for luck, we have decided that okay, maybe we might feel a little under the weather, and we can finally take the doctor's advice, and treat that upstart henry ford fellow with a baby asprin. But nothing crazy is called for here!
Am i the only one who feels insane when i have to explain this?
No you're correct, the co2 levels act slowly over time to increase temperatures so we haven't even got a tiny fraction of the total warming. The only way to deal with it is to go sharply carbon negative as soon as possible and use Geoengineering to actively cool the planet.
-
At what point on this graph is ecoterrorism justified?
Like 1995
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
I don't think this is gonna be a very popular response but here's my 2 cents after reading a lot of comments.
We are all products of out time. I'm not gonna blame ordinary people for believing what they were told when it was the general consensus at the time.
That doesn't excuse that behavior today. Today we know better.
But when my parents grew up, burning your garbage in the fire pit was considered recycling. It was the norm.
Today my parents and grandparents don't burn plastic in a fire pit. Because today we know better. But I don't think they ignored it 40 years ago. They just didn't know better.
Good thing we educate people on how to do what we can. Unfortunately, what individuals do doesn't matter much.
In school I did a project on climate change and in that research, I found that 1 single coal PowerPlant in Germany, released more co2, sulfur, monoxide and what not, in 1 month. Than every single registered vehicle in Sweden combined, does in a whole year.
So being a good citizen and taking my bike to the store and work instead of car (even during winter). Feels like a fart in the wind knowing that. Not to mention cargo-ships and what they use on international waters.
-
At what point on this graph is ecoterrorism justified?
Remember the weather underground? About then
-
Our parents didn't ignore it.
Our Governments, and the corporations who bribed those governments, just didn't give a shit enough to listen.
...my parents beat me for trying to do something about it: fuck them, they're complicit to this day...
-
It would make a meaningful impact, if everyone in America just drove 10% less that would result in a reduction of 110 million metric tons of co2, close to the total emissions of Bangladesh 122 million tons ( population around half the US). The same is true about meat consumption, which is even more feasible to completely stop today for most people.
Sure those two things aren't going to stop climate change, systemic change is needed. But the methods for everyday people to create that systemic change are either illegal ( blocking ports, destroying oil infrastructure), and thus most people aren't going to risk there livelihoods for, or they're ineffectual (peaceful protest, electoral politics) so doing the above choices would make more of a difference.
Yes attention and effort are finite resources, but the choice for most people is not block a port or become vegetarian, it's gonna be go to a peaceful protest / vote for the dems or become a vegetarian. In that choice, becoming a vegetarian is the better use of effort.
You've definitely given me something to think about - evaluate if even 110 million would have prevented or given us another decade before we hit +1.5c.
However, your Bangladesh stat is absolutely meaningless and misleading. It seems impressive at first glance, but it's not. The proper context is global CO2 production. In 2014, 35,000 million (or 35 billion) tons of CO2 were produced. And that's just fossil fuels. And that's more than a decade ago. I don't have the numbers, but I suspect it's even more.
110 million / 35,000 million = 0.3% reduction
-
The scary thing is, this graph is probably far too conservative.
Evidence is now emerging that indicates that warming has accelerated dramatically in the last 2-3 years. As in, we may see more warming in the next 10 years than we have seen in the last 50, with +3℃ happening just after 2035, and +4℃ happening by some time around 2040 to 2050.
You know what happens around +4℃? The extinction of all megafauna - animals larger than 45kg. Like humans. The entire ⅓ of the planet between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn will experience lethally high wet bulb temperatures across all regions for at least several weeks out of every year, rendering it permanently uninhabitable for the 4+ Billion people that currently live there. India is currently flirting with that reality.
And with that heating inertia, 2100 may see +8℃ temps, which essentially means ice-free poles year round (once things calm down), with palm trees and alligators at the North Pole. Of course, by that time chaotic weather and resource exhaustion will have killed off all remaining humans.
And the lovely thing about “moving parts” is that they all have this little thing called inertia… the faster they move, the further they go. And +8℃ is very close to the +12-15℃ that a Venus Scenario would be triggered by.
Past warming events have been “similar” in that they have gotten just as warm, but they took hundreds of thousands of years to get to the same place, allowing entire continent-wide ecosystems to quite literally migrate across thousands of kilometers to adapt. Our changes are happening in less than 0.01% of that time scale, giving ecosystems no time at all in which to react. So our biosphere will get slaughtered along with us, and will be unable to compensate in time.
And with the biosphere becoming overwhelmed by rapid changes, there goes the “friction” that could do something about that “inertia”.
And the worst part is, we still haven’t moved off of the worst-case-possible “business as usual” path. We are swan-diving into the worst possible future. Thanks to billionaires addicted to fat profit margins and who control all of the processes, we are utterly failing to generate the change needed to save ourselves, with CO2e production - purely human sources, excluding the feedback loops in nature!! - CONTINUING TO ACCELERATE.
Fun times. I just might live long enough to see humanity go extinct.
Can you back up these claims? Not doubting, just curious/terrified to learn more.
-
I don't think this is gonna be a very popular response but here's my 2 cents after reading a lot of comments.
We are all products of out time. I'm not gonna blame ordinary people for believing what they were told when it was the general consensus at the time.
That doesn't excuse that behavior today. Today we know better.
But when my parents grew up, burning your garbage in the fire pit was considered recycling. It was the norm.
Today my parents and grandparents don't burn plastic in a fire pit. Because today we know better. But I don't think they ignored it 40 years ago. They just didn't know better.
Good thing we educate people on how to do what we can. Unfortunately, what individuals do doesn't matter much.
In school I did a project on climate change and in that research, I found that 1 single coal PowerPlant in Germany, released more co2, sulfur, monoxide and what not, in 1 month. Than every single registered vehicle in Sweden combined, does in a whole year.
So being a good citizen and taking my bike to the store and work instead of car (even during winter). Feels like a fart in the wind knowing that. Not to mention cargo-ships and what they use on international waters.
We did manage to change some things for the better - acid rain, ozone depletion, lead in everything. However with conflicting information and some corporations doing everything they can to muddy the consensus, it is hard to do the right thing. It is especially difficult if for years you think you've been doing the right thing and find out it was all fake - recycling.
-
You've definitely given me something to think about - evaluate if even 110 million would have prevented or given us another decade before we hit +1.5c.
However, your Bangladesh stat is absolutely meaningless and misleading. It seems impressive at first glance, but it's not. The proper context is global CO2 production. In 2014, 35,000 million (or 35 billion) tons of CO2 were produced. And that's just fossil fuels. And that's more than a decade ago. I don't have the numbers, but I suspect it's even more.
110 million / 35,000 million = 0.3% reduction
Fair enough, the figure you're looking for / what I based on the Bangladesh claim is here, 39 billion tonnes total so even less, 0.28% reduction. But that is for only 10% reduction in one country. Increase that to 20% and do it for all countries and your probably getting a couple percent reduction. Again not going to stop climate change or give us another decade before 1.5c, which we've already passed in 2025.
Were going to need every percent we can get though and any sort of reduction helps. If we're going to have a carbon neutral future it's going to require these sacrifices, and the earlier we make them the better. Delaying them is only hurting the cause for some temporary comfort.
