nah it's natural
-
@[email protected] When I saw the "Industrial Revolution" label next to the vertical increase in global temperatures, I couldn't help but recall of some text written in 1995 by a certain former math teacher, and how right he was about the Industrial Revolution's consequences...
-
I actually am 70 and remember the "oil crisis". It would be great if there were a major shift in people's thinking, but the vast majority of people don't seem to do squat until they really have to. I think that force has driven a lot of history.
I’m still trying to figure out The timeline of when it switched from ice age to global warming. Most likely after scientists figured out the real reason.
-
I don't use the term whataboutism in my post anywhere. So I don't know who you are quoting.
The not serious person here is you, saying we are all going to die anyway instead of encouraging people to do anything. I had to look this up as I don't know anything about Carter, but it turns out the panels he was installing are for hot water. They don't generate electricity. This makes perfect sense as it took much longer than that to develop photovoltaics and get them ready for mass production. Even now modern photovoltaic panels are fairly inefficient devices.
We already have walk-able cities in much of Europe. It's not a compete solution by itself, we still have cars. You are weirdly fixated on USA history when this is a global problem. It's not all about the USA. Stop pretending it's the only country that exists. India and China are the biggest polluters these days if I remember correctly, you should be focusing on them.
Edit: Carter was also aiming for 20% of energy in the US to be made renewably by 2020. That wouldn't have been anywhere near enough to stop climate change.
Usa was a major turning point. Went worst direction, could have gone best. Not all i brought up.
for hot water
As opposed to the fairy dust and prayers they used before.
walkable cities in
Used to hear a lot of people i knew on that continemt talk about cities getting less walkable, more car.
was aiming for
Renewable. Does not include nuclear. Assuming he wanted some amount of that, given his degree in that. But if we had started, we could have accellerated in the right direction instead of the wrong one.
telling people to not do anything
Okay you clearly can't read.
-
And what were they supposed to do other than go out and vote in their own best interest?
Considering they failed at that too not much.
-
Share a link here
-
I really don't see how slaying the planet in a magical way is so different than slaughtering the planet in a greedy astroturfing way? After giving mass ff7 lore he just convulse into rants about how bad antifa is and nobody even asked. The megacorps and their lobbyists ARE killing our planet and using faschism and world order war.. the fucking boreal is our Mako. If they burn, similarly no new soul will be born.
He also wraps it up with a bit of climate denial, so he thinks the real problem is imaginary.
Extra mental gymnastics as he interpreted reports of significantly improved pollution when we shut down everything as proof, somehow, that humanity didn't really make that much of a difference... So either a difference is observed and that means it's the rest of the way reversible so it can't be that big of a deal or no difference would've been seen and he would have concluded humanity must not make a difference because no difference was seen..
-
Usa was a major turning point. Went worst direction, could have gone best. Not all i brought up.
for hot water
As opposed to the fairy dust and prayers they used before.
walkable cities in
Used to hear a lot of people i knew on that continemt talk about cities getting less walkable, more car.
was aiming for
Renewable. Does not include nuclear. Assuming he wanted some amount of that, given his degree in that. But if we had started, we could have accellerated in the right direction instead of the wrong one.
telling people to not do anything
Okay you clearly can't read.
I can read fine. You can't write. Your messages so far have been full of spelling errors, are hard to understand, and you can't even quote properly. Come on now.
You act like I should know all about this Carter person, when they were in power long before I was born, in a country I don't even live in. It's daft. Most people on this site either wouldn't have been born or would have been small when Carter was talking about this stuff. That happened in the 1970s. If it isn't absolutely clear using renewables for everything in the 1970s wouldn't have been practical. Nuclear would have been great, but it's mainly environmentalists that put a stop to that, as they keep trying to do now. It seems most environmentalists and climate activists even now don't want nuclear, even though it's the obvious choice for certain applications like data centers and AI. The most staunch anti-nuclear people have always been environmentalists. Nuclear also wouldn't have solved any of the problems caused by cars. It doesn't even work without large grid storage or demand management, at least not using the reactor technology available back then. Those are things we are only just figuring out now for goodness sake. It could have at least replaced coal for baseload power, which is much better than nothing.
You can't say in one breath that the planet is already doomed, and in the next say we should make major changes. It's a contradiction. If people believe we are really doomed they aren't even going to try. This should be relatively straight forward to understand. So if you want people to make a change then stop saying we are already dead.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Phew, looks like the industrial revolution just saved us from falling below the safe climate zone! /s
-
And what were they supposed to do other than go out and vote in their own best interest?
In retrospect they'll probably feel violence was justified. How many time machine scenarios will amount to ecoterrorism in the same way that we imagine we'd kill Hitler today
-
And people think I'm crazy for starting an algae farm...
There is no quick fix.
"Science will figure something out"I am part of that science, and I can barely afford to scale beyond what I consider my carbon footprint.
narcimalgae on YouTube, although the algorithm killed it (500 to 6 views on my last video)so I may move to peertube soon.
Can you give a quick elevator pitch for algae farms?
-
I understand your feeling regarding our small action being useless, I feel the same.
What I try to tell myself to keep doing it is: If most of everyone would do it, that fart in the wind would be loud enough to make politician realise they have to take it into account and pass legislation aligned with that.
Deep down though, I know we'll never be enough to do it for it to have an impact
If we all fart in the wind, maybe it'd be enough to actually smell it.
Wait, that can't be right.
-
It's very simple: they don't love their children.
And to anyone who's going to disagree, no. True love is wise. True love is curious. True love wants to seek out the truth. Love without knowledge, love without empathy? That's not true love. That's toxic infatuation. Possessiveness.
true love
Lmao
-
Can you give a quick elevator pitch for algae farms?
Water holds 8 times the gasous CO2 as the atmosphere it is exposed to at a given pressure(altitude). The algae, being carbon-based, pulls the carbon from the water to grow, and releases the oxygen as a biproduct. The algae biomass can then be condensed and stored, or used as a raw agriculture material. Water, sunlight, and a small amount of fertilizer all fed by an air pump.
-
I can read fine. You can't write. Your messages so far have been full of spelling errors, are hard to understand, and you can't even quote properly. Come on now.
You act like I should know all about this Carter person, when they were in power long before I was born, in a country I don't even live in. It's daft. Most people on this site either wouldn't have been born or would have been small when Carter was talking about this stuff. That happened in the 1970s. If it isn't absolutely clear using renewables for everything in the 1970s wouldn't have been practical. Nuclear would have been great, but it's mainly environmentalists that put a stop to that, as they keep trying to do now. It seems most environmentalists and climate activists even now don't want nuclear, even though it's the obvious choice for certain applications like data centers and AI. The most staunch anti-nuclear people have always been environmentalists. Nuclear also wouldn't have solved any of the problems caused by cars. It doesn't even work without large grid storage or demand management, at least not using the reactor technology available back then. Those are things we are only just figuring out now for goodness sake. It could have at least replaced coal for baseload power, which is much better than nothing.
You can't say in one breath that the planet is already doomed, and in the next say we should make major changes. It's a contradiction. If people believe we are really doomed they aren't even going to try. This should be relatively straight forward to understand. So if you want people to make a change then stop saying we are already dead.
Read what i wrote. Or don't, if you can't.
-
I was just thinking about the poor air quality today and yesterday here in the Midwest, and then I see this. I want to be hopeful we can change this in my lifetime, but I am also not optimistic.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I am optimistic. I will get downvoted to oblivion, but I want to share what I honestly observe:
1. AI demand is driving huge investment in production of carbon-free energy at scale.
Yes, AI is sucking up all the immediate term cheap fossil-fuel energy while it can. But it needs more, so it's driving carbon-free investment.
Immediate term with Small Modular fission Reactors (SMRs)
... and immediate term, multiple commercial fusion energy plants are being built.
2. Commercially viable carbon-free energy at scale is coming online in < 10 years
SMR is real, exists today, and just needs economies of scale ... and stable regulation. AI datacenters are driving the orders now and even if MAGA cultists keep USA out a few more years, science-accepting countries will be investing in clusters of those, rather than coal plants, when they see working examples and so less risk.
The Fusion plants this decade will not be just prototypes, but plants that produce more energy as a whole than they take in, multiple times over, and ofc don't produce nuclear waste. This is largely made possible by high temperature superconductors (which didn't exist commercially when ITER was built) and a demo plant fully online in 2027
EDIT: ofc we should reduce excess CO2 emissions immediate term, don't misconstrue long term optimism for polyannish denial of imemdiate term emergency
-
This post did not contain any content.
Fortunately for them, I flushed my kids.
-
I am optimistic. I will get downvoted to oblivion, but I want to share what I honestly observe:
1. AI demand is driving huge investment in production of carbon-free energy at scale.
Yes, AI is sucking up all the immediate term cheap fossil-fuel energy while it can. But it needs more, so it's driving carbon-free investment.
Immediate term with Small Modular fission Reactors (SMRs)
... and immediate term, multiple commercial fusion energy plants are being built.
2. Commercially viable carbon-free energy at scale is coming online in < 10 years
SMR is real, exists today, and just needs economies of scale ... and stable regulation. AI datacenters are driving the orders now and even if MAGA cultists keep USA out a few more years, science-accepting countries will be investing in clusters of those, rather than coal plants, when they see working examples and so less risk.
The Fusion plants this decade will not be just prototypes, but plants that produce more energy as a whole than they take in, multiple times over, and ofc don't produce nuclear waste. This is largely made possible by high temperature superconductors (which didn't exist commercially when ITER was built) and a demo plant fully online in 2027
EDIT: ofc we should reduce excess CO2 emissions immediate term, don't misconstrue long term optimism for polyannish denial of imemdiate term emergency
wrote last edited by [email protected]AI as it now stands gives me quite the opposite of hope. It's only intended to enslave the working class and further transfer wealth to the top 0.01%, as is fusion.
Solarpunk gives me hope.
-
I understand your feeling regarding our small action being useless, I feel the same.
What I try to tell myself to keep doing it is: If most of everyone would do it, that fart in the wind would be loud enough to make politician realise they have to take it into account and pass legislation aligned with that.
Deep down though, I know we'll never be enough to do it for it to have an impact
Yeah. It just feel really pissy, that we're guilted into not taking the car to work. While coal plants are just spewing out all day.
I'm not saying we shouldn't do what we can. That's what the individual can do. I'm just really pissed on all the shit talk from politicians.
There's 256 coal power plants in Europe. Until politicians have made sure they've all closed down, THEN they can start talking about raising tax on fuel for ordinary people, on an environmental basis.
Until such time. They have not done enough themselves. It feels like I'm scooping out water from a boat, and instead of fixing the leak, I'm told I'm not scooping out enough water.
-
AI as it now stands gives me quite the opposite of hope. It's only intended to enslave the working class and further transfer wealth to the top 0.01%, as is fusion.
Solarpunk gives me hope.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Well, maybe you aren't aware of how it's being used to design proteins to create therapies for pretty much... everything, from cancer to Crohn's. Another 2-3 years before you see products in human trials.
Or how it's revolutionized climate science and weather forecasting.
If all you see is the hype Grok images and SEO slop, it's reasonable to reject the technology. But that would be deeply misguided.
-
Well, maybe you aren't aware of how it's being used to design proteins to create therapies for pretty much... everything, from cancer to Crohn's. Another 2-3 years before you see products in human trials.
Or how it's revolutionized climate science and weather forecasting.
If all you see is the hype Grok images and SEO slop, it's reasonable to reject the technology. But that would be deeply misguided.
I'm aware of the promises of AI, yes. LLMs are trash. Folding proteins is awesome. Nonetheless, it's all controlled by the ultrawealthy, and that is THE problem today, which AI ain't solving for us.
