Red Mosquito

Bi_3 wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:It’s gonna be a planet full of heavily armed nations responding out of fear and alarm. Should be fine.

Status quo


But in all seriousness, does anyone here honestly believe that humanity will be wiped out by climate change in their lifetime? (vs. say nuclear war or global pandemic)

You're right. Let's just ignore it.

Do you believe that humanity will be wiped out by climate change in your lifetime?

Jeez! It really IS all about you, huh?!

Iholdthepain wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:It’s gonna be a planet full of heavily armed nations responding out of fear and alarm. Should be fine.

Status quo


But in all seriousness, does anyone here honestly believe that humanity will be wiped out by climate change in their lifetime? (vs. say nuclear war or global pandemic)

You're right. Let's just ignore it.

Do you believe that humanity will be wiped out by climate change in your lifetime?

Jeez! It really IS all about you, huh?!

Yup. But I like the question, I think it’s a good way to understand a person’s belief about how we should be dealing with climate change vs the usual party line

Bi_3 wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:It’s gonna be a planet full of heavily armed nations responding out of fear and alarm. Should be fine.

Status quo


But in all seriousness, does anyone here honestly believe that humanity will be wiped out by climate change in their lifetime? (vs. say nuclear war or global pandemic)

You're right. Let's just ignore it.

Do you believe that humanity will be wiped out by climate change in your lifetime?

No, it will be a long and slow process that will inflict pain and misery upon you and you children, and then your children's children. Climate change will destabilize things in ways that erode at our quality of life for years before any "extinction" takes place. But hey, no big deal, right?

Guys, the department of energy is calling natural gas “freedom gas”

McParadigm wrote:Guys, the department of energy is calling natural gas “freedom gas”

Do you get freedom gas from eating too many freedom fries?

That data is hopelessly misleading. Yes, no shit that that countries that have been industrialized longer have higher cumulative emissions as they operated within the technological understanding and boundaries of their time. That’s not the problem. The problem is illustrated by the red line in this:




You can talk fairness and other such things to till the farting cows come home, but the slope of that line is what has put us in this situation where dramatic action is needed.

Bi is right: his data set, slightly out of date though it may be (our emissions rose by nearly 3.5% last year, and China’s grew by just 1.7% in 2017 after three years of remaining flat), makes it clear that everybody has to chip in. The worst thing we could do now is start a schoolyard game of “I’m not gonna do it if you’re not gonna do it.” That will only delay the remaining necessary actions outright. And as just 4% of the world population but home to 15% of its emissions and 24% of its wealth, we’re in a position to make a huge difference. Is I assume his point.

Look close, see if you can spot the problem children.

I always wonder if stats like these factor in the never ending war in the middle East. War releases tons of emissions.

Bi_3 wrote:

You did a better job of picking your visuals in 2017:

That said, I don't know what you think the big point of this graphic is, that you've been sharing it for two years. Obviously China is the biggest polluter. Nobody needs a graphic to see that. So what? What is the logical conclusion you draw from that? What do you feel the wealthiest nation in the world, with the highest per capita emissions, should be gleaning from this? That it's somebody else's problem to solve?


An infographic from BP that says Carpe Diem in the corner. Amazing.

but again, US emissions fell around 2.5% in 2017 (not as good as previous years), then rose 3.4% in 2018....more than eradicating the entire year's gains. Also, again, China's emissions stopped increasing in 2014-2016, then increased by 1.7% in 2017, and then spiked upwards in 2018.

It's interesting to me that a significant change in volume of emissions occurred for both countries during exactly the time when international leadership was debating, drafting, and signing the Paris Agreement, and that both countries (and others) reversed these success trends as soon as an American president came into office and took the position of "fuck all that, the world is the enemy and we'll do whatever we have to do to get ahead." Especially since, in the case of China, they had a massive government arm efficiently and effectively enforcing coal mine methane capture, and then after Trump made clear that WE wouldn't abide by the agreement they just....stopped.

Narendra Modi's probably going to drive that yellow line in BI's first graph very sharply up.

McParadigm wrote:
That said, I don't know what you think the big point of this graphic is, that you've been sharing it for two years. Obviously China is the biggest polluter. Nobody needs a graphic to see that. So what? What is the logical conclusion you draw from that? What do you feel the wealthiest nation in the world, with the highest per capita emissions, should be gleaning from this? That it's somebody else's problem to solve?

1.) the rate of change of CO2 emissions is more significant than is usually currently discussed
2.) to affect policy today to avoid the 2C cliff we are warned about, the current levels of emissions matter more than say what happened in 1950s
3.) a 50% reduction in yearly US emissions would offset only the growth in China's emissions this decade (with the actual tonnage of emissions being more important than a percentage change)
4.) if we are serious about stopping climate change via reductions in CO2 and GHG emissions, the biggest emitter must bare the brunt of it AND those nations with rapidly accelerating emissions profiles must be forced to change (India for example) which will certainly not be perceived as "fair".

Nothing there says the US should not take action, only that globally action should be understood in it's net effects on the problem of emissions.

If you dont like those graphs, i find this site helpful:

https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/usa/
https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/

Bi_3 wrote:1.) the rate of change of CO2 emissions is more significant than is usually currently discussed

By whom?

2.) to affect policy today to avoid the 2C cliff we are warned about, the current levels of emissions matter more than say what happened in 1950s

Maybe I should clarify: I don’t really care about contamination’s bar chart animation either. You will note that above I only discussed trends from the last few years.

3.) a 50% reduction in yearly US emissions would offset only the growth in China's emissions this decade (with the actual tonnage of emissions being more important than a percentage change)

I still don’t know what you think the actionable byproduct of this point is. If it accompanied some set of “here’s what America should do“ proposals, perhaps as a caveat (“we should...but also keep in mind that China”), then ok. If it was pointed out in support of a proposal that environmental controls/goals should play a part in our trade negotiations with China, OK. But “your side of the boat is taking in more water than my side of the boat“ should be the impetus for a strategy, not a conclusion unto itself, and both leaks have to get addressed in the end if you want to stay afloat.

4.) if we are serious about stopping climate change via reductions in CO2 and GHG emissions, the biggest emitter must bare the brunt of it AND those nations with rapidly accelerating emissions profiles must be forced to change (India for example) which will certainly not be perceived as "fair".

So....what, then? The US, as the second biggest emitter, must bear the second biggest brunt, right? Isn’t that the logic being deployed here?

Nothing there says the US should not take action

Oh.

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote: 4.) if we are serious about stopping climate change via reductions in CO2 and GHG emissions, the biggest emitter must bare the brunt of it AND those nations with rapidly accelerating emissions profiles must be forced to change (India for example) which will certainly not be perceived as "fair".

So....what, then? The US, as the second biggest emitter, must bear the second biggest brunt, right? Isn’t that the logic being deployed here?

Likely, but not necessarily, because mitigations are not equal in effectiveness and timeliness. For example, assuming per plant emissions are equal, if China can convert coal plants to emissions capture faster than the US can it's plants, wouldn't it be the better path for the planet as a whole to force China to convert more despite the uneven impact on nation economies (China emits more carbon from it's coal industry alone than the US's total emissions)? Maybe target sites that produce higher impact gases like SF6 vs. just CO2? The analysis would probably have to be done on a plant by plant basis globally to determine make a 'quick wins' list for the climate.

Stickman wrote:Cigarette butts are the single greatest source of ocean trash

Don't limit it to the ocean; smokers have always struck me as the worst litterers by far, anywhere.

Bi_3 wrote:That data is hopelessly misleading. Yes, no shit that that countries that have been industrialized longer have higher cumulative emissions as they operated within the technological understanding and boundaries of their time. That’s not the problem. The problem is illustrated by the red line in this:




You can talk fairness and other such things to till the farting cows come home, but the slope of that line is what has put us in this situation where dramatic action is needed.

Lmao at "Communist East Asia"

Really saying the quiet part loud with that not-at-all arbitrary grouping.