UN chief warns Nepal's mountains have lost one-third of their ice
euronews.com
euronews.com
I am tired of green washing and scary climate change. If this problem would be serious the governments would mandate by law to put everybody who can work from home to the home office. Low hanging fruit to save 10% emissions.
The democratic governments are stuck, they're too afraid to take action because these might lose votes, something that happens more if their voters become unemployed/feel some economic hardship coming.
But first get a refrigerator on Mount Everest to freeze the water. /s
Yes. And the rest just sell CO2 certificates, eat popcorn and enjoy the drama. /s
> Not many will read this far, and that's OK. I can't force anyone.
> try to make your software use less energy?
I mean this in the best way, because I believe you want to solve the problem: That is the message of a quitter, and you are spreading your despair to the rest of the locker room. The enemy is celebrating your bizarre embrace and spread of their message. Nobody needs that cancer on a team. Lots of people are doing what you are - that's probably where you got the cancer, but that makes it worse, not better. That makes it more important to lead in a different direction.
The other option is to stand up and start contributing and leading. Our position is good: The good people outnumber the bad, by a lot; we've just been convinced to quit and spread that message among us. Stand up, get to work, get organized, like all the prior generations have done. What will be our legacy to future generations?: 'We quit. We didn't do anything. It was hard. We felt hopeless.' Imagine if our predecessors had done that.
Are we going to be the worst generation, or the best?
You don't watch the news ? Don't you ? /s
Why not something like cloud seeding with sulfates?
https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2023/altering-our-clouds-...
Why not the easy technical solution that doesn't relegate people to use less of a basic resource required for human development?
I have so many questions like what are the actual projections and how do we know it's effects. What of past projections that failed. Where are we getting this claim of mass death, when is it expected. Does it account for changes like the fact that we phased out coal. Does it account for the fact that we recently reduced cooling sulphate in the atmosphere.
The answer seems to be don't ask questions and if you do lots of people will die. That doesn't sound like science or good policy.
Same reason we don’t reach for surgery every time anything in our body hurts: we want a least intrusive (for the planet) method rather than crazy ideas that we don’t know the consequence of. We know very well what happens when people use less carbon, there are plenty of countries on the world right now who are doing that. But no, if it’s not out of sci-fi it doesn’t tickle your fancy enough to try.
From the perspective of what countries are willing to do, spending some billions of dollars on some technology is far more feasible than large cuts to energy consumption or restricting beef consumption.
That would mean an outright ban on Electron Apps. But yes hopefully this sentiment will move forward. Optimising App is no longer just about performance.
Those who will point it out and will dare to say we don't live in the best of times, will be mocked and accused of seeing the past with rose-tinted glasses.
Instead of making your software use less energy, help advocate for clean abundant cheap electricity.
How is WW I judged by people living today? Or the industrial revolution (both good and bad parts)?
I suppose once there's no living memory of this event, it will be seen as "just humans being humans".
Personally I think humanity will survive, but many of us - including me - will have a much lower lifespan and die of preventable (at least today) causes.
The first modern heatwave in Europe killed in excess of 70k people. Subsequent ones didn't. I see myself as one of those poor bastards that will be caught in a new type of calamity before we adapt.
any individual person considering only themselves, would be correct to choose filament over LED because of cost and very little electricity savings. However, every light socket in the country switching to LED in aggregate represents a significant amount of energy savings for power plants and therefore less carbon output. this is a basic complication.
going one level deeper, there is the supply chain of LEDs vs filament bulbs and the relative impact of their carbon footprints and mining of rare earth minerals. This is where it starts getting difficult to parse which is a net gain for the planet.
another level below that is what you cite, the costs associated with the transition itself. A lot of energy (both electrical and human) is wasted by both supporters and detractors arguing in the public sphere, spending entire global broadcasts on the subject, flying around in private jets, etc. How much of this is necessary depends on the net savings from the first two levels, which is pretty hard to calculate accurately.
So you do you, but personally I try not to commit to blanket statements that erase all nuance and subtlety - generally that leads to missing important context.
The government doesn’t need to force people to use green technologies, they are usually better.
Lawn care products are a good example as well. Gas powered mowers, edgers, blowers etc are being phased out because their electric counterparts are simpler, quieter, and cheaper. Not because the government forces people to use them.
A first principles understanding would suggest that more efficient technologies will win in the market usually because of reduced cost.
The same is happening with cars as more companies invest and scale up their technology. Government incentives are accelerating this of course, which is good.
In theory, yes. In practice, they just seem to be more expensive.
It is amazing how the luminous intensity of an LED bulb can decrease over time.
Any consumer would choose flourescent given the chouxe in a vacuum
I think I would be unable to function in the modern society if I wouldn't trust experts (in their fields).
Is this whole trust the expert thing some new phenomenon? Because I feel confident scientists were very keen to provide the reason and evidence for their beliefs. Saying someone should be trusted just because they are an expert seems against the spirit of science
So is there reasons to believe in man made global warming? Is there is lots of reliable evidence. We should focus in that instead of who is making the claims.
You and the parent are making different versions of a similar fallacy - his is ad hominem and yours is appeal to authority. The flaw in both is they focus on the identity of the speaker rather than evaluating the validity of what is said
It's not appeal to authority when I go to Einstein and ask about quantum mechanics and then reference his answer that light manifest a wave-particle duality; he is after all an worldwide recognised expert in quantum mechanics. But! If I were to ask him about whether abortion and then say: Abortion is so and so because Einstein says it's so and so and he's worldwide recognised expert -- that is appeal to authority.
Indeed: declare RTO unlawful. What can be done from home, must be done from home (or anywhere else, for that matter).
This appeal is merely Guterres putting head in sand. The problem isn't knowledge of the catastrophe, it isn't science, it's simply a socio-political force: The reactionary right - the right-wing movement, in the US, Europe, etc., that embraces extremism, demonizes (literally at times) anything liberal, including classical liberalism like human rights and freedom.[0]
Everyone knows that they are the obstacle to solving climate change, that unless they are dealt with then nothing will happen. If Guterres, the UN, leaders, activists, etc. - and you and I - are not dealing with that problem explicitly and directly, we're hiding from it. And that spreads like a cancer; others see you and I, and especially leaders hiding, and they despair and give up too. Worse, they see where the power lies and for safety and conformity, follow it.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/04/opinion/sunday/conservati...
Your extremism is doing an awesome job at reaffirming my political decisions.
But i don't have an airplane. /s
If the proportionally tiny amounts of anthropogenic CO2 are really that big a factor we are already sunk.
I'm starting to wonder if there's an unconscious death cult in the developed world that fetishizes planetary doom. That is the logical endpoint for the nihilism that has overtaken developed countries.
No. It is just plain propaganda. People who are afraid are much easier to manipulate. That's all.
Like what?!? is this person's mental model such that they would think/utter such a thing. Breaks my mental model.
Some people really can't understand that. They see the works as two sides, good vs evil, themselves having chosen good.
But I agree there is also a lot of unnessary fear mongering and accusations at ordinary people and doomsdayism.
I hope what is essentially a positive thing (wanting sustainability) doesn't get overtaken and misused by fanaticism or people with other agendas.
Maldives are already lost due to our actions, it just will take quite a few decades to materialize. The current actions will determine how large the change will be, nobody is really discussing ways to stop or prevent it (the time for that was in the last century), the discussion now is about limiting the growth of the change.
"By 2021, 90% of islands in the Maldives experienced severe erosion, 97% of the country no longer had fresh groundwater, and more than 50% of the national budget was being spent on efforts to adapt to the effects of climate change" [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_the_Maldives
Must be curb consumption nothing‘s gonna change, not that we can do anything at this point anyway. So maybe we should do nothing about climate change and let climate change do it it needs to do.
And I’m 100% sure my climate footprint is smaller than that guys.
So no, nothing of any great significance is going to happen with preventing climate change.
"Despite further strong growth in wind and solar in the power sector, overall global energy-related greenhouse gas emissions increased again," said the president of the UK-based global industry body Energy Institute, Juliet Davenport.
https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/06/26/wrong-direction-fo...
That was some quick googling on my part, it seems not?
You can produce more energy via renewables and people will simply expand demand to absorb it, in much the same way you can build more roads and car usage will expand to congest it.
But certainly I'm not saying we should stop building more renewables, I just think people will happily use fossil fuels and renewables as much as possible because cheaper energy allows for better standard of living.
Where exactly ? On the moon ? Because around here, (from central to eastern europe) i haven't seen any "strong growth in wind".
Methane (the primary component of natural gas) has a global warming potential 21 times higher than carbon dioxide over a 100-year period, though methane persists in the atmosphere for much less time (around a dozen years) than carbon dioxide (many decades).
Most of what I changed were things I just did based on habit - habits probably formed by my parents when they thought energy was basically free. It's not hard at all. For example, I kept changing my thermostat until I found the minimum needed to be comfortable - it turns out I could cut energy consumption there by ~75% with zero impact on comfort, and enjoy much more fresh air.
The issue is politics. The reactionary right, which seems to be the most influential power in the world right now (the only one not wallowing in despair), portrays liberalism of any sort as a catastrophic, demonic threat (no exaggeration) and otherwise has the characteristics of an angry mob. They are going to attack anything associated with liberalism, including climate change knowledge, action, discussion, etc. Until that problem is solved, nothing will happen.
We should have been working on this problem 30, 40 years ago. But on the upside, I guess I have the internet in my pocket.
As a species, we seemed to have handled nuclear weapons relatively well. But it looks like we really fucked this one up.
Humanity has been doing those things for centuries. Stop talking and go.
This is necessary and indeed admirable. A family member saying they’ve given up on using gas/electric clothes dryer has convinced me to take the baby step of reducing my own use. I do t put towels in the dryer anymore. I hang them dry. Baby steps.
Cutting your own footprint is good but not enough.
Even people I know who claim to care about climate change don't care to change. AC set to 72. Heating set to 70. New laptops every year. Driving to save 5 minutes. 6k square foot house full of crap.
I have had some neighbors notice and comment that "it's great" that we do some of these things (mainly not using the car very much). But they still don't care enough to change. Bleh.
> don't care
> don't care
> Bleh.
Look at how far you've gone down the despair rabbit hole; look at the endless rhetoric - fashionable these days. It's like a religion; people will debate for it and insist on it. People fighting for despair!
You are a leader, you just don't realize it. What you do, how you do it, what you say, it moves others. Let's stop debating this absurdity and let's get to work.
I wouldn't held my breath. We are just at the beginning.
That's not true. Politics is the distribution of power; to politicize something is to turn it into a power struggle. People have lots of interests, relationships, and motivations sans power struggles.
People have discussed what it looks like for decades.
For example. I don’t have to say a word, or do anything to not buy consumer products.
Instead of wasting time on this pointless conversation, do something.
That's why killing other people was always the best option. /s
Why not? This isn't an absolute, so don't present it as one. Argue your point with something better than a false dichotomy, please.
I understand that this shouldn't happen for moral reasons, but at least some aspects of that are very likely - if anything, it seems totally fictional to expect that the unequal burdens and harms of the climate changes will be shared equally by the world offering all the support, all our history and sociology demonstrates that while there will definitely be some charity and support, on the grand scale the self-interest of various groups will be a dominating factor.
Well, you can and even much worse. Depending on how bad the migrant crisis get, we might well see that much worse. Those boats that the coastguard don't get to in time... yeah.
A modern CPU still uses 100W of power and this is ok.