+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 82 1 2 3 11 51 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 1630

Thread: Climate Change     submit to reddit submit to twitter

  1. #1
    BG Content
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    21,105
    BG Level
    10
    FFXI Server
    Lakshmi
    Blog Entries
    1

    Climate Change

    History:

    In Science:
    In the late 80s and early 90s, part of the scientific community became convinced that the earth was getting warmer, hypothesized to be due to increased CO2 production by industrialized societies.

    In Policy:
    This spawns the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, 1992), an international treaty that roughly defined how to negotiate future agreements to control greenhouse gas emissions but itself set no binding targets. It was agreed to and ratified by all UN member nations. This groundwork was built upon by the Kyoto protocol (1997), which did include a binding agreement and attempted to lock carbon emissions at 1990s levels.

    In Politics:
    The Kyoto agreement was, notably, signed by Clinton but not ratified by the Senate because it was Clinton's second term and they thought that the short-term negative economic impacts were too great and too asymmetric (China/India were mostly exempted). They had passed a resolution to this effect during negotiation for the Kyoto protocol, so it was Dead on Arrival (and pre-Arrival, really).

    In Science:
    In 1999, notable climate scientists put out the now-infamous "Hockey Stick" graph:

    They were called before congress, had investigations launched into their personal lives, were slandered in the press, and ultimately were agreed to be almost entirely correct (barring a statistical mistake that didn't impact their results) by a large group of their peers who investigated their work. (That work has since been replicated more than 20 times.)

    In Politics:
    In the year 2000, Al Gore ran for president against George HW Bush and we elected Bush. Gore went on to become a notable climate change supporter, while Bush went on to give riveting lectures on the possibility of peaceful human/fish coexistence and how "it isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it." It is notable, however, that Bush was ostensibly our last prominent pro-Climate Change Republican. He acknowledged we have an energy problem, but failed to support the kind of large-scale change that would have been needed to have any impact on it.

    In Science:
    In 2007, a large review of available global warming research comes out and the scientific community reaches a strong consensus (or at least a quorum) that global warming is both real and man-made (IPCC 2007). The IPCC group has continued to release reports that are increasingly confident, but it's not really worth discussing whether scientists thought global warming was real / man made past this point because the vast majority have already figured it out.

    Four primary models (defined in 2000) were used to predict the effects of climate change between 1990~2000 and 2090~2100, laid out in the IPCC 2007 report.
    A1) No behavior change + Free trade : +7.2F; +16 inches sea level
    A2) No behavior change + Trade barriers : +6.1F; +14 inches sea level
    B1) Try to cut back emissions + Free trade : +3.2F; +11 inches sea level
    B2) Try to cut back emissions + Trade barriers : +4.3F; +12 inches sea level
    Scenario A2 is the "business as usual" model.

    In Politics:
    In 2008, Obama is elected with a Democratic House/Senate and wants to do something about Climate Change. Though he successfully focuses more research funding on it and manages to sneak through some tougher regulations, overall he fails to do anything on the international scale that would have been necessary to avoid global warming. It's interesting to note that at this point many Republicans have started switching to using a "well, it's happening but we don't know whether it's being caused by humans" stream of logic. In 2010, however, the Tea Party rises to prominence and many Senator/House members go back to straight denial.

    In Science:
    The 2014 IPCC report comes out, showing that their previous models were largely accurate.

    You can see that they've changed the terminology, which is now based on the heat-trapping strength of the atmosphere. RCP8.5 is the new "Business as Usual." In doing so, they've divorced these measurements from the forces that create greenhouse gasses. Comparing 2080-2100 period to 1986-2005, they are predicting:
    RCP2.6) +1.8F; +16 inches sea level
    RCP4.5) +3.2F; +18 inches sea level
    RCP6.0) +4.0F; +19 inches sea level
    RCP8.5) +6.6F; +24 inches sea level
    In this case, RCP8.5 is the new "business as usual" model. You can see its prediction is falling between the previous scenario A1 and A2, which corresponds to continued third world industrialization and less protectionism than was in scenario A2. You'll notice that all sea level scenarios have been bumped up about 10 inches from 2007. It turns out that our models of ice melt failed to account for the color of the revealed surface (mostly black on the northern volcanic islands) which absorbs sun, heats up, and leads to runaway melting. That's a foot of sea level rise is pretty much going to happen no matter what we do at this point. We missed our chance to stop it.

    In Policy:
    UN member nations gather in Paris to hash out the Paris Agreement, which is basically a second attempt at a working Kyoto Protocol (still using the UNFCCC). Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, we do manage to sign/ratify this one (along with another 110 nations to date). Unfortunately, the agreement is binding only in the loosest sense. Each individual country sets its own emission goals and they're basically unenforceable, but that is the nature of the greenhouse gas emitting beast. It relies on the goodwill of the participant countries and their pursuit of policies that will bring down their emissions. Also, dramatic though its targets are, they will only slow climate change. So it is a well-intentioned step in the right direction, but only works if it is supported and will mostly serve to buy us some time.

    In Politics:
    Republicans continue to deny the existence of Global Warming, with one presidential candidate claiming it is a Chinese hoax. Said candidate is elected President in November of 2016. His energy platform reads:
    Quote Originally Posted by https://www.greatagain.gov/policy/energy-independence.html
    Rather than continuing the current path to undermine and block America’s fossil fuel producers, the Trump Administration will encourage the production of these resources by opening onshore and offshore leasing on federal lands and waters. We will streamline the permitting process for all energy projects, including the billions of dollars in projects held up by President Obama, and rescind the job-destroying executive actions under his Administration. We will end the war on coal, and rescind the coal mining lease moratorium, the excessive Interior Department stream rule, and conduct a top-down review of all anti-coal regulations issued by the Obama Administration. We will eliminate the highly invasive "Waters of the US" rule, and scrap the $5 trillion dollar Obama-Clinton Climate Action Plan and the Clean Power Plan and prevent these unilateral plans from increasing monthly electric bills by double-digits without any measurable effect on Earth’s climate. Energy is the lifeblood of modern society. It is the industry that fuels all other industries. We will lift the restrictions on American energy, and allow this wealth to pour into our communities. It’s all upside: more jobs, more revenues, more wealth, higher wages, and lower energy prices.

    Present:
    So Trump's proposal is more or less worse than the "Business as Usual" model (RCP8.5), which predicts that 2046-2065 will be 3.6F warmer than 1986-2005 and sea levels will rise a foot.
    Spoiler: show


    It'll be yours!



    Future:
    Instability. I would say that's the key thing to take away from all predictions of the "business as usual" future. Habitable land will become uninhabitable. Uninhabitable land will become habitable. People will have to move, and there will be more people born in the areas of the world least able to support them.

    Examples:
    * The Gulf Stream as we know it is likely going to die (trade winds are going to move or stagnate). Quebec City is at 46.5 degrees north. Paris is at 48 degrees north. London is at 51 degrees north. The Gulf Stream is the reason there are palm trees on the southern shores of Great Britain. The world on average will warm up, but Europe will substantially colder first. (Canada will likely warm up)

    * The equator is going to warm up, and the arable land will move around. Some dry areas will get more dry. Some will get more wet. This is going to cross country borders and drive migration/conflicts between countries.

    * Sea levels are going to rise. Some islands will end up practically uninhabitable. The low-lying areas of some cities will need to be abandoned. Property values will decrease near the sea but increase everywhere else due to increasing demand (population) and decreasing supply (less habitable property). If you are looking for a good, long-term investment right now, consider land.

    * This will be an ecological disaster. We are entering a great extinction of our own making. Prepare to bid quite a few species goodbye in your lifetime, likely including polar bears and narwhals, along with tons of frogs, coral reefs, fish, etc. We are going to destroy oceanic species with this that we probably haven't even identified yet. This won't impact human life quite as directly, but shrinking biodiversity is not a good thing.


    There is a reason that The Pentagon rates climate change the #1 threat to our national security. It's going to create a ton of unrest and migration all over the world. Not only that, but there will be plenty of justified animosity towards the United States. It will be easy to look at the history and blame the United States, a major emitter, for failing to sufficiently support (and thus destroying) measures that would have reigned in emissions and mitigated this catastrophe.

    Very few people argue that fossil fuels aren't the cheapest way to generate energy (and thus the best short-term option for our economy.) The argument is that burning fossil fuels has consequences that can be measured on a geological time scale, and waiting until they present a short-term cost (which arguably they do now) that directly offsets their short-term benefit is just stupid thing to do. This problem should have been addressed and solved under Clinton. This problem could have been addressed and solved under HW Bush. This problem could have been addressed under Obama. This problem could be good-faith "it's almost too late anyway but lets give it a shot for good form" addressed under Trump, but it probably won't be. After 2020, we need to not only elect leaders committed to reducing emissions, but also to positioning us well for the coming global instability.



    What you can do:
    Look, the idealistic "don't drive/eat animals and live off the grid :D" hippy solutions are impractical for American society. Our country is huge and sparsely populated, which makes the creation of a useful public transit system a daunting problem. We're also not going to be able to churn out a generation of electricity-free vegetarians just like that. There are some things that you can try, though:

    * Eat less meat, and specifically eat less beef - Cows are currently fed corn because it's a high-sugar, subsidized, waste-product of our political process, but their stomachs suck at digesting it and they fart a lot. Methane is 30x worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Chicken is terrible for ethical reasons at the moment (treatment of the farmers, not the chickens), but it is a less environmentally costly source of protein.

    * Try to reduce the amount you drive or increase the efficiency of your driving - Carpool, move nearer to work, and/or work remotely when possible.

    * Try to be more efficient and generate less waste in everything you do - Less food waste. Less container waste. Recycle aluminum containers. Don't buy shit you don't want.

    * Communicate with your representatives - Do you know who drives our government at the moment? The people with money and the people who annoy their reps the most. Even if you don't have money, you can still be that annoying guy. Whether you are from your rep's party or not, your representatives in Washington are representing you.

  2. #2

    Sweaty Dick Punching Enthusiast

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    19,316
    BG Level
    9

    you missed the part where the Chinese invented it

  3. #3
    BG Content
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    21,105
    BG Level
    10
    FFXI Server
    Lakshmi
    Blog Entries
    1

    Joke is on you because I hit that part.

  4. #4

    Sweaty Dick Punching Enthusiast

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    19,316
    BG Level
    9


  5. #5
    Ridill
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    23,736
    BG Level
    10
    FFXI Server
    Bahamut

    Fuck you I love cows!

    Anyways should consider the source of your beef/dairy (or really any product). Like living in a semi agricultural area that is big on natural and organic yada yada most the cows here are pasture fed supplemented with some grains and hay not corn. And if those cows weren't there they would definitely be paved over or turned into vineyards. So much less cow farts

  6. #6
    Relic Horn
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    3,204
    BG Level
    7
    FFXI Server
    Titan

    Cow problem solved.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/...-will-regulate

    Nothing could go wrong......

  7. #7
    Tekki's Bitch
    Sweaty Dick Punching Enthusiast

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    8,681
    BG Level
    8

    At what point does it become a moral imperative to cull the population for the greater good of humanity?

  8. #8
    Relic Horn
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    3,204
    BG Level
    7
    FFXI Server
    Titan

    Quote Originally Posted by thetruepandagod View Post
    At what point does it become a moral imperative to cull the population for the greater good of humanity?
    Never going to happen, would need something like the scientist from the "Inferno" book to create a virus that sterilizes a 3rd of the world.

  9. #9
    Tekki's Bitch
    Sweaty Dick Punching Enthusiast

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    8,681
    BG Level
    8

    If it's not worth culling people for it's not worth worrying about. Enjoy your bug protein.

  10. #10
    Relic Horn
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    3,204
    BG Level
    7
    FFXI Server
    Titan

    Quote Originally Posted by thetruepandagod View Post
    If it's not worth culling people for it's not worth worrying about. Enjoy your bug protein.
    You gonna volunteer to be an example to all others?

  11. #11
    Ridill
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    23,736
    BG Level
    10
    FFXI Server
    Bahamut

    Quote Originally Posted by thetruepandagod View Post
    At what point does it become a moral imperative to cull the population for the greater good of humanity?
    Well if we are lucky Trump will become a new founding father and we can start annual purges that way we can get rid of the poors too

  12. #12
    Tekki's Bitch
    Sweaty Dick Punching Enthusiast

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    8,681
    BG Level
    8

    Quote Originally Posted by myreality View Post
    You gonna volunteer to be an example to all others?
    Yeah. But we should probably start with high density over populated poor areas first, I doubt anyone would choose to cull all of Iceland's 340,000 people vs 10s of millions of kids in India/africa born into slums and hunger. Then purge countries that are too far above replacement rate. Instead of a 1 child policy you get a retroactive -1 child policy.

  13. #13
    BG Content
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    21,105
    BG Level
    10
    FFXI Server
    Lakshmi
    Blog Entries
    1

    Per capita, people in developing nations are personally responsible for much less greenhouse gas emissions than those in industrialized nations. India, for instance, emits ~10x less greenhouse gas equivalents per capita compared to Americans. Also, a lot of the emissions in those countries are not related to personal use (ie transportation) the way they are in the US. They tend to be industrially dirtier but live lower carbon footprint lives.

  14. #14
    Relic Horn
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    3,204
    BG Level
    7
    FFXI Server
    Titan

    Quote Originally Posted by thetruepandagod View Post
    Yeah. But we should probably start with high density over populated poor areas first, I doubt anyone would choose to cull all of Iceland's 340,000 people vs 10s of millions of kids in India/africa born into slums and hunger. Then purge countries that are too far above replacement rate. Instead of a 1 child policy you get a retroactive -1 child policy.
    Welp, be the example and show the world, the rest will be right behind you. Promise

    Child limit laws like the one in China would work. The male to female ration will be so unbalanced that in a 100 years from its implementation we could get to easily sustainable numbers.

  15. #15
    Tekki's Bitch
    Sweaty Dick Punching Enthusiast

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    8,681
    BG Level
    8

    Quote Originally Posted by myreality View Post
    Welp, be the example and show the world, the rest will be right behind you. Promise

    Child limit laws like the one in China would work. The male to female ration will be so unbalanced that in a 100 years from its implementation we could get to easily sustainable numbers.
    Doesn't really work since so many chinese men are going to africa to find wives. They are still breeding on a global scale and must be stopped.

    Quote Originally Posted by Byrthnoth View Post
    Also, a lot of the emissions in those countries are not related to personal use (ie transportation) the way they are in the US.
    California's existence is a slap in the face to city planning and environmental friendliness in general. Let me tell you about our 2x2 hour commutes and beautiful almonds.

  16. #16
    BG Content
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    21,105
    BG Level
    10
    FFXI Server
    Lakshmi
    Blog Entries
    1

    https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sou...-gas-emissions

    Electricity: 30% (all other categories exclude electricity)
    Transportation: 26%
    Industry: 21%
    Commercial/Residential: 12% (burning wood/coal/gas for heat)
    Agriculture: 9% (probably includes people driving their tractors around)

  17. #17

    Quote Originally Posted by thetruepandagod View Post
    California's existence is a slap in the face to city planning and environmental friendliness in general. Let me tell you about our 2x2 hour commutes and beautiful almonds.
    While California might be the worst offender in that department, aside from a few particular urban centers, most of the country is (poorly) designed in such a way.

    That is: way too spread out and requiring a car to get fucking anywhere.

    The mere ubiquity of cars as the default means of transportation only makes this worse as so much land area has to be set aside for parking, spreading things out even further (and generally being a massively wasteful use of space).

  18. #18
    BG Content
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    21,105
    BG Level
    10
    FFXI Server
    Lakshmi
    Blog Entries
    1

    http://www.eia.gov/environment/emiss...tate/analysis/

    Texas actually beats California because everything is a 2 hour drive away there.

  19. #19
    Tekki's Bitch
    Sweaty Dick Punching Enthusiast

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    8,681
    BG Level
    8

    Quote Originally Posted by Byrthnoth View Post
    http://www.eia.gov/environment/emiss...tate/analysis/

    Texas actually beats California because everything is a 2 hour drive away there.
    Impressive.

  20. #20

    [Insert "everything's bigger in Texas" joke here.]

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 82 1 2 3 11 51 ... LastLast

Quick Reply Quick Reply

  • Decrease Size
    Increase Size
  • Remove Text Formatting
  • Insert Link Insert Image Insert Video
  • Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
  • Insert NSFW Tag
  • Insert Spoiler Tag

Similar Threads

  1. Christians and Climate Change
    By Vinto in forum Politics: Advanced Shitposting
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 2013-01-12, 11:16