The Environment Thread

[spike]

oh right this is just nature managing the amount of humans

[Bi_3]

so the green initiative isn't worth it? climate change is a hoax?

Watch the video.

[spike]

so the green initiative isn't worth it? climate change is a hoax?

Watch the video.

i did

[B]

so the green initiative isn't worth it? climate change is a hoax?

I think the message was that climate change is inevitable. Invest in rare earth, cobalt, and lithium, and you might just end up leading your post-apocalyptic tribe.

[Bi_3]

so the green initiative isn't worth it? climate change is a hoax?

I think the message was that climate change is inevitable. Invest in rare earth, cobalt, and lithium, and you might just end up leading your post-apocalyptic tribe.

Yeah… but facts are facts. There simply aren’t enough accessible resources on earth to switch to todays green tech without unprecedented deindustrialization and quality of life regression. If we center climate change discussions around unrealistic solutions we are setting up failure

[96583UP]

so the green initiative isn't worth it? climate change is a hoax?

I think the message was that climate change is inevitable. Invest in rare earth, cobalt, and lithium, and you might just end up leading your post-apocalyptic tribe.

Yeah… but facts are facts. There simply aren’t enough accessible resources on earth to switch to todays green tech without unprecedented deindustrialization and quality of life regression. If we center climate change discussions around unrealistic solutions we are setting up failure

i recall seeing a report on how even if all the IRA pipeline green energy stuff comes online it is still just a fraction of the US energy needs

we prob need to build more nuclear plants

until fusion is figured out

[B]

so the green initiative isn't worth it? climate change is a hoax?

I think the message was that climate change is inevitable. Invest in rare earth, cobalt, and lithium, and you might just end up leading your post-apocalyptic tribe.

Yeah… but facts are facts. There simply aren’t enough accessible resources on earth to switch to todays green tech without unprecedented deindustrialization and quality of life regression. If we center climate change discussions around unrealistic solutions we are setting up failure

Is anyone doing it right? Or are we still waiting for a realistic solution?

[blueviper]

I think we need to try all types of energy solutions. That’s how we learn which ones work and which ones don’t. Going through alternative energy growing pains will inevitably uncover the options that will be “normal” 100+ years from now.

[spike]

No green energy is too politically progressive and must be abandoned immediately for the sake of our country’s soul.

[blueviper]

Sticking to coal only is like declining to use a calculator because the abacus ain’t broke so why mess with it.

[simple schoolboy]

so the green initiative isn't worth it? climate change is a hoax?

I think the message was that climate change is inevitable. Invest in rare earth, cobalt, and lithium, and you might just end up leading your post-apocalyptic tribe.

Yeah… but facts are facts. There simply aren’t enough accessible resources on earth to switch to todays green tech without unprecedented deindustrialization and quality of life regression. If we center climate change discussions around unrealistic solutions we are setting up failure

Is anyone doing it right? Or are we still waiting for a realistic solution?

France is one of the countries closest to doing it right. 70% nuclear. Do whatever the opposite of what Germany is doing is directionally correct

[elliseamos]

Give me fusion or give me de...

(Too late)

[B]

A nuclear car would be awesome!

[Bi_3]

so the green initiative isn't worth it? climate change is a hoax?

I think the message was that climate change is inevitable. Invest in rare earth, cobalt, and lithium, and you might just end up leading your post-apocalyptic tribe.

Yeah… but facts are facts. There simply aren’t enough accessible resources on earth to switch to todays green tech without unprecedented deindustrialization and quality of life regression. If we center climate change discussions around unrealistic solutions we are setting up failure

Is anyone doing it right? Or are we still waiting for a realistic solution?

I honestly don't know, I don't even know where to look for that type of assessment. But counting on a miracle of scientific advancement is like counting on winning the lottery. China has built a prototype thorium reactor, and that makes sense for most nations to try given that thorium is pretty evenly distributed across the globe and does not have the same meltdown/weaponization risks that uranium reactors have, but those reactors cannot produce the same amount of energy that a uranium reactor can and thus we would need a lot of them. Like thousands. So a multi-trillion dollar investment for the US alone. But I suppose starting with just one is a step in the right direction.

[Bi_3]

So this is how California will try and address grid level storage:

https://mises.org/wire/power-vacuum-how ... quired-buy

[simple schoolboy]

So this is how California will try and address grid level storage:

https://mises.org/wire/power-vacuum-how ... quired-buy

Grid level storage does not exist in any meaningful way nor is it on the horizon. Hoping that technology improves and costs come down is worse than whatever this is. Makes California regulators seem slightly more serious than normal.

No way the passenger car fleet (and especially not the semi fleet) are going to transition on their proposed time frame.

They are keeping the last nuclear plant open, which may relate to the rumor I read about the water transfer system over the grapevine breaking down without that baseload power.

[McParadigm]

Unavoidable future increase in West Antarctic ice-shelf melting over the twenty-first century

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01818-x

Ocean-driven melting of floating ice-shelves in the Amundsen Sea is currently the main process controlling Antarctica’s contribution to sea-level rise. Using a regional ocean model, we present a comprehensive suite of future projections of ice-shelf melting in the Amundsen Sea. We find that rapid ocean warming, at approximately triple the historical rate, is likely committed over the twenty-first century, with widespread increases in ice-shelf melting, including in regions crucial for ice-sheet stability. When internal climate variability is considered, there is no significant difference between mid-range emissions scenarios and the most ambitious targets of the Paris Agreement. These results suggest that mitigation of greenhouse gases now has limited power to prevent ocean warming that could lead to the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.

[Strat]

Unavoidable future increase in West Antarctic ice-shelf melting over the twenty-first century

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01818-x

Ocean-driven melting of floating ice-shelves in the Amundsen Sea is currently the main process controlling Antarctica’s contribution to sea-level rise. Using a regional ocean model, we present a comprehensive suite of future projections of ice-shelf melting in the Amundsen Sea. We find that rapid ocean warming, at approximately triple the historical rate, is likely committed over the twenty-first century, with widespread increases in ice-shelf melting, including in regions crucial for ice-sheet stability. When internal climate variability is considered, there is no significant difference between mid-range emissions scenarios and the most ambitious targets of the Paris Agreement. These results suggest that mitigation of greenhouse gases now has limited power to prevent ocean warming that could lead to the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.

Good timing. Living in this world is becoming increasingly unbearable!

[96583UP]

should have listened to James Hansen!

[McParadigm]

Tensions are bubbling up at thirsty Arizona alfalfa farms as foreign firms exploit unregulated water

https://apnews.com/article/climate-uae- ... b2af6b04df

La Paz County Supervisor Holly Irwin welcomes a recent crackdown by Arizona officials on unfettered groundwater pumping long allowed in rural areas, noting local concerns about dried up wells and subsidence that’s created ground fissures and flooding during heavy rains.

“You’re starting to see the effects of lack of regulation,” she said. “Number one, we don’t know how much water we have in these aquifers, and we don’t know how much is being pumped out.”

Irwin laments that foreign firms are “mining our natural resource to grow crops such as alfalfa ... and they’re shipping it overseas back to their country where they’ve depleted their water source.”

Gary Saiter, board chairman and general manager of the Wenden Domestic Water Improvement District, said utility records showed the surface-to-water depth at its headquarters was a little over 100 feet (30 meters) in the 1950s, but it’s now now about 540 feet (160 meters).

Saiter said that over those years, food crops like cantaloupe have been replaced with forage like alfalfa, which is water intensive.

“I believe that the legislature in the state needs to step up and actually put some control, start measuring the water that the farms use,” Saiter said.

In Arizona’s Cochise County that relies on groundwater, residents worry that the mega-dairy operated there by Riverview LLP of Minnesota could deplete their water supplies. The company did not respond to a request for comment about its water use.

“The problem is not who is doing it, but that we are allowing it to be done,” said Kathleen Ferris, a senior research fellow at the Kyl Center for Water Policy at Arizona State University. “We need to pass laws giving more control over groundwater uses in these unregulated areas.”

A former director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources, Ferris helped draw up the state’s 1980 Groundwater Management Act that protects aquifers in urban areas like Phoenix but not in rural agricultural areas.

Many people mistakenly believe groundwater is a personal property right, Ferris said, noting that the Arizona Supreme Court has ruled there’s only a property right to water once it has been pumped.

Rural Arizona is “the wild West” when it comes to groundwater, said Kathryn Sorensen, research director at the Kyl Center. “Whoever has the biggest well and pumps the most groundwater wins.”