Author Topic: Addressing climate change  (Read 6929 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #45 on: May 25, 2019, 11:26:27 pm »
I grow ice in my freezer.

And you do so by burning electricity

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #46 on: May 25, 2019, 11:48:02 pm »
I have fairly high confidence that by 2100 we will have not only the technological capability to reduce the CO2 level in the atmosphere to anything we want, but we'll be able to geo-engineer most species populations and re-freeze the glaciers etc etc.
Not every problem faced by people in 1919 has been addressed by technology. Disease and old age still kill people. While it is true to say that many of the problems we face today will not be problems for people in 2100 we cannot know which problems will be fixed and which will be still  intractable. Therefore, it is naive to assume that a solution for a specific problem will appear. Maybe it will but it is also possible that it won't.

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8104
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #47 on: May 26, 2019, 12:10:07 am »
Not every problem faced by people in 1919 has been addressed by technology. Disease and old age still kill people. While it is true to say that many of the problems we face today will not be problems for people in 2100 we cannot know which problems will be fixed and which will be still  intractable. Therefore, it is naive to assume that a solution for a specific problem will appear. Maybe it will but it is also possible that it won't.

True, but it's estimated that not long after mid-century we're going to experience a technological explosion with changes so vast and unthinkable it will make most pieces of science fiction ever written look like a joke:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/06/stephen-hawking-ai-could-be-worst-event-in-civilization.html

Immortality may be likely.  We may even become irrelevant as a species.  Meanwhile we're worried about CO2 molecules.
I queef, therefore I am.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #48 on: May 26, 2019, 12:12:06 am »
Not every problem faced by people in 1919 has been addressed by technology. Disease and old age still kill people. While it is true to say that many of the problems we face today will not be problems for people in 2100 we cannot know which problems will be fixed and which will be still  intractable. Therefore, it is naive to assume that a solution for a specific problem will appear. Maybe it will but it is also possible that it won't.

Yet another go nowhere circle.

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #49 on: May 26, 2019, 12:15:34 am »
True, but it's estimated that not long after mid-century we're going to experience a technological explosion with changes so vast and unthinkable it will make most pieces of science fiction ever written look like a joke:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/06/stephen-hawking-ai-could-be-worst-event-in-civilization.html

Immortality may be likely.  We may even become irrelevant as a species.  Meanwhile we're worried about CO2 molecules.

If we want to achieve immortality we better deal with CO2 molecules.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6346
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #50 on: May 26, 2019, 12:54:51 am »
the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate calculated what climate change will cost the world... or conversely, how much humanity would save by becoming more sustainable - tallied the number at $26 trillion in savings by 2030.

Quote
key findings:

    - Time is running out; extreme damages from future climate change are being locked in. If humanity isn’t on a sustainable trajectory by 2030, limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius — the common international target — will be rendered impossible.
    - The developing world needs tons of new infrastructure; the developed world has tons of infrastructure nearing the end of its life span. That means the world is on the verge of an enormous infrastructure boom that will lock in emissions outcomes for the next 50 to 100 years. The next few years are vital: “The world is expected to spend about US$90 trillion on infrastructure in the period up to 2030, more than the entire current stock today. Much of this investment will be programmed in the next few years.”
    - In all five areas the report closely examined — energy, cities, food/land use, water, and industry/innovation/transport — shifting to sustainable technologies and techniques would save trillions of dollars through 2030 in increased productivity, innovation, and reduced health costs. Sustainability costs less.
    - The impacts of climate change and the impacts of a transition to sustainability will both be concentrated in particular countries and communities, so every policy and infrastructure decision needs to be made with equity in mind.
    - Progress is underway in many areas, especially in energy, but it is patchwork, inconsistent, and entirely insufficient to achieve shared long-term goals.
    - Policymakers worldwide need to price carbon, roll back fossil fuel subsidies (and other policies that impede sustainability), invest in sustainable infrastructure, harness the private sector, and protect vulnerable communities.



Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #51 on: May 26, 2019, 01:09:19 am »
I am sure we will be using a mix for a long time to come but that mix will teeter toward renewables as more are developed and come online. We'd have to be rather stupid to continue simply drilling holes in the ground to try to find more pollutants to keep the lights on while the sun gets up every day.

For sure. Renewables have a lot of room to grow, and will in leaps and bounds.
Currently only at 2.2%.

And we have to wind down nuclear too.
And there's the damming issue with hydro power, counted as a renewable, but iffy.

And transmission.

We have challenges.
But I believe scientists love challenges.
And capitalists will follow the money as investment shifts.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #52 on: May 26, 2019, 01:10:01 am »
True, but it's estimated that not long after mid-century we're going to experience a technological explosion with changes so vast and unthinkable it will make most pieces of science fiction ever written look like a joke:
They said the same kind of thing about 2000s in the 1970s (e.g. unlimited energy with nuclear/fusion power). There is no reason to assume it will actually happen. It might happen or we may find out that, like fusion power, the technical details make it a lot less revolutionary than people assume today.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #53 on: May 26, 2019, 01:13:41 am »
the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate calculated what climate change will cost the world... or conversely, how much humanity would save by becoming more sustainable - tallied the number at $26 trillion in savings by 2030.
Why would anyone take an economic prediction for 100 years from now seriously when the same kinds of economic models can't predict the economy over a decade.

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #54 on: May 26, 2019, 01:18:15 am »
They said the same kind of thing about 2000s in the 1970s (e.g. unlimited energy with nuclear/fusion power). There is no reason to assume it will actually happen. It might happen or we may find out that, like fusion power, the technical details make it a lot less revolutionary than people assume today.

Fission will have to do for now.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6346
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #55 on: May 26, 2019, 01:20:56 am »
Why would anyone take an economic prediction for 100 years from now seriously when the same kinds of economic models can't predict the economy over a decade.

notwithstanding the quote you're replying to references calculated cost savings by 2030, what are YOUR PREFERRED economic models  and what do they predict as the cost of climate change by 2030?

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #56 on: May 26, 2019, 01:21:24 am »
And we have to wind down nuclear too.
I guess you are just another one of those deniers that does not really care about CO2 emissions but just sees it as a tool to push your left wing policy choices. Because if you really cared about CO2 emission you would realize that the problems with nuclear power are far smaller than the alleged catastrophic consequences from CO2 therefore it makes no sense to discard the one option we have for reliable CO2 free power.  We should be expanding nuclear power as fast as can be done.

So go ahead, make your excuses to rationalize why we should shut down nuclear plants in the face of an alleged "climate crisis". While you are doing then try explaining why people who do not agree with you should make any sacrifices or compromise to reduce CO2 emissions when you clearly have no interested in compromise.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2019, 01:50:11 am by TimG »
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6346
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #57 on: May 26, 2019, 01:30:17 am »
We should be expanding nuclear power as fast as can be done.

So go ahead, make your excuses to rationalize why we should shut down nuclear plants in the face of an alleged "climate crisis". While you are doing then try explaining why people who do agree with you should make any sacrifices or compromise to reduce CO2 emissions when you clearly have no interested in compromise.

hey now! Nothing like the currently running HBO series 'Chernobyl' to refocus on the cautionary side being taken by those scientists/engineers working on/towards the next iteration of nuclear reactors... something about, "advances in sustainability, economics, safety, reliability, proliferation-resistance, etc..". And, by the by, how do you pronounce, "Fukushima"
« Last Edit: May 26, 2019, 01:32:16 am by waldo »

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #58 on: May 26, 2019, 01:32:13 am »
notwithstanding the quote you're replying to references calculated cost savings by 2030, what are YOUR PREFERRED economic models  and what do they predict as the cost of climate change by 2030?
Any economic model that claims to make predictions for 5 years or more is creative fiction. Such claims can't be treated as fact or even as a likely probability. We need to make decisions based on the assumption that anything could happen from a disaster that has nothing to do with climate to CO2 induced warming turning out to be a complete non-issue to it being a big problem as claimed.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2019, 01:37:14 am by TimG »

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #59 on: May 26, 2019, 01:36:16 am »
hey now! Nothing like the currently running HBO series 'Chernobyl' to refocus on the cautionary side being taken by those scientists/engineers working on/towards the next iteration of nuclear reactors... something about, "advances in sustainability, economics, safety, reliability, proliferation-resistance, etc..". And, by the by, how do you pronounce, "Fukushima"
Such things are a price that needs to be paid if we do indeed face a "climate crisis". However, your refusal to accept all available options is noted and it means you can't really complain if other people refuse to consider options you prefer.