advertisement


So that's the climate f****d then

Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
I think the exec summary of the climate change piece is highly simplistic, and considers only the effects on humanity, ignoring concerns over biodiversity, extinctions and risks of a tipping point. I haven't read the full piece, but is everything on that website reduced to consideration of the issues affecting people, or is a wider, more ethical perspective taken at all?
Click to expand...
The main perspective is from doing the most good with the finite resources the world has or is willing to spend. They use economic arguments such as every dollar spent on the Paris agreement only has an impact of 0.4cents on averting its goal of 1.5 degrees temperature rise (I'm going from memory so may be wrong).

The biggest criticism of them is that every dollar spent on the Paris agreement will benefit everyone on the planet, whether rich or poor.

They try to put climate change into perspective with the other main problems of humanity. Nobody rich is going to be drastically affected by climate change, but the poor are dying by the millions now where any money spent would do far more good. Lifting people out of poverty would also protect them from any climate change problems. Building flood defenses is better use of resources than limiting sea level rise by controlling CO2, more people die of cold than heat, renewable energy is too costly and money could be spent improving that directly than increasing the costs of fossil fuels to the poor.....etc, etc.
 
OK, so a purely economic argument (only to be expected, given the premise of the site). But if global warming were to turn out to be an extinction level event, which it could be if a tipping point is reached, that would bugger up the economic analysis a bit, wouldn't it?
 
According to some, the tipping points have already been exceeded. The Paris agreement won't achieve anything, so better to put that money into more worthwhile projects such as reducing the cost of solar and wind.

For me, all that money should be spent on nuclear. Energy is the source of all wealth.
 
timola said:
Nobody rich is going to be drastically affected by climate change, but the poor are dying by the millions now where any money spent would do far more good. Lifting people out of poverty would also protect them from any climate change problems. Building flood defenses is better use of resources than limiting sea level rise by controlling CO2, more people die of cold than heat, renewable energy is too costly and money could be spent improving that directly than increasing the costs of fossil fuels to the poor.....etc, etc.
Click to expand...

it's true that it won't affect the rich but if a country becomes unliveable due to heat stress the number of poor people increase very rapidly, the Himalayas provide hundreds of millions of people with drinking water, remove that and then you have a lot of very poor people, most of the world's population is situated in coastal areas so a flood again reduces people to penury. Solar PV is cheaper in many areas of the world than coal, look at the share price of coal companies over the past ten years, Peabody coal has dropped from 385 dollars to 32 dollars.
 
As far as I know, solar and other renewables are never going to get above 20% of need.

I'm guessing (yes guessing) the price drop of coal is due to political restrictions on its use. India and China can't afford that luxury just yet.
 
We are having a hot spell here, 36C in the shade in KL and my car was at 47C in the car park. The Sky weather still claims 30C.
 
russel said:
it's true that it won't affect the rich but if a country becomes unliveable due to heat stress the number of poor people increase very rapidly, the Himalayas provide hundreds of millions of people with drinking water, remove that and then you have a lot of very poor people, most of the world's population is situated in coastal areas so a flood again reduces people to penury. Solar PV is cheaper in many areas of the world than coal, look at the share price of coal companies over the past ten years, Peabody coal has dropped from 385 dollars to 32 dollars.
Click to expand...
 
Personally, I think we are way past the point of no return considering the world's fast growing population and largely lack of natural selection, their continuing need for product of all kind and gobbling up of resources and space.

Sure, let's do our token recycling, pick up a bit of litter of a few beaches and other do-good gestures but ultimately, we're fxxxd.

Bit like Brexit, everyone's pulling into different direction and has their own agenda only a little more finite.

May just enjoy the little time we have left.

Now, that Valve amp with those lovely rare wood sides I was lusting after ...
 
drummerman said:
Personally, I think we are way past the point of no return considering the world's fast growing population and largely lack of natural selection, their continuing need for product of all kind and gobbling up of resources and space.
Click to expand...

It's not hard to reach this conclusion. I think more so if you tend to examine the similarity of patterns in things. From the simple, such as the appearance of a tree in winter and the backs of its leaves in summer to a human angiogram image, to the complexity of our current predicaments (climate/energy depletion/population/ overshoot), I only need see capitalism and the things you've mentioned (growth-consumption) and I note the similarity of that on a micro level to our rampant retail therapy, obesity, cancers, depression/anxiety/opiate-alcohol abuse and death etc etc., on and on the similarities are inescapable.

And so I conclude that we cannot reverse the current course because the current course is inherent to our nature. At least as it stands now. On a more interesting line of thought, if nothing else it could explain the Fermi paradox. Whether that applies to the state of all beings, and whether those being even exist, or whether it's just humankind ... that's a riddle we'll apparently need help solving.
 
After years of climate change denial we've moved to accepting that it's real and an existential threat but it's now too late to do anything.

My work here is done.

Joe
 
Luckily we have Elon Musk organising Mars Population ...

Can't wait who forms the Guv'ment there ... .

If he has any sense he doesn't put any Brits up there. I can just see the confusion when it comes to sort watch shifts out.
 
Joe P said:
After years of climate change denial we've moved to accepting that it's real and an existential threat but it's now too late to do anything.

My work here is done.

Joe
Click to expand...

Yeah. It's all really weird. Or really cool. Depending on whether you feel pretty good or not.
 
Drummerman, man.

The obvious question is that if we have the technology to terraform a frigid, hostile and lifeless world like Mars into a planet that could support human life, why not take the easy route of trying that amazing terraforming tech on Earth?

Imagine the head start we'd have, what with a climate conducive to life, all that other biota on which we depend having evolved with us, soil, water, and an atmosphere that filters out radiation nasties, not to mention a proper magnetic field that prevents us from being bombarded by cosmic rays.

Granted, Martian sunsets are awesome, but so are the ones on Earth.

pia19400-16.jpg


From https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4581

Joe
 
Joe P said:
Imagine the head start we'd have, what with a climate conducive to life, all that other biota on which we depend having evolved with us, soil, water, and an atmosphere that filters out radiation nasties, not to mention a proper magnetic field that prevents us from being bombarded by cosmic rays.
Click to expand...


Mmmmm. I'm not sure I see it.

Could it still star Sandra Bullock?
 
Swampy,

Likely, given that Earth has a Sandra Bullock and Mars doesn't.

Joe
 
Joe P said:
Drummerman, man.

The obvious question is that if we have the technology to terraform a frigid, hostile and lifeless world like Mars into a planet that could support human life, why not take the easy route of trying that amazing terraforming tech on Earth?

Imagine the head start we'd have, what with a climate conducive to life, all that other biota on which we depend having evolved with us, soil, water, and an atmosphere that filters out radiation nasties, not to mention a proper magnetic field that prevents us from being bombarded by cosmic rays.

Granted, Martian sunsets are awesome, but so are the ones on Earth.

pia19400-16.jpg


From https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4581

Joe
Click to expand...


The problem simply boils down to size.

To accommodate our egos we need a BIG planet.
 
drummerman,

OK, but Mars is smaller than Earth (it has about 11% of the Earth's mass) and — this is the real issue — it's completely and totally hostile to life. It's extremely cold. It has a thin atmosphere with little oxygen. Water is extremely scarce. It has no magnetic field.

Look what we'd be up against — from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars

The atmosphere of the planet Mars is composed mostly of carbon dioxide. The atmospheric pressure on the Martian surface averages 600 pascals (0.087 psi; 6.0 mbar), about 0.6% of Earth's mean sea level pressure of 101.3 kilopascals (14.69 psi; 1.013 bar). ... The Martian atmosphere consists of approximately 96% carbon dioxide, 1.9% argon, 1.9% nitrogen, and traces of free oxygen, carbon monoxide, water and methane, among other gases.
​
This is what your face looks like on Mars.


If I were betting man, I'd say the Earth is a better place for us to make a stand. Heck, the fit is so good if I didn't know better I'd say we evolved on Earth.

Joe
 
Wacko,

The thread has reached the absurdity phase, but at least we've moved on from it ain't happening.

Joe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top