Opinion Climate change

[Del165198]

 

[Rising Power]

 

[Ford Fairlane]

 

[edgie]

How is Greta suggesting we achieve those things?

 

[Astronema]

If anyone here is interested Not Good Enough is a good comedy podcast based around Australia’s action on climate change and Australian politics in general. Some of them are former climate scientists, and they are rather direct about the reality of the situation and how little Australia does.

 

[Portology]

On top of theory, and the vast quantity of point scientific measurements of rather obscure and random things like ancient ice and... polar bear waistlines, you can add the weight of "grassroots" bottom up responses from some folks/industries simply responding to "changing conditions" that inevitably show up in their finished products.

Watch the sorts of mid term bets being placed by the wine industry for the last decade or so. More than most land farmers they've a crop that gives a big shizen if things are changing more than just the weather cycle, and to go with that a few hundred years of lets call it received wisdom that's transitioned to scientific understanding of the very sensitive response of their product to different temperature climes, averages, overnight dips, daily maxima, angles of sunshine, the warming character of different soil types, all manner of 3D and 4D notions of temperature. Those guys, overall, have been planting and investing for a "longer term warming trend" for quite some time. Allowing for places that may "dose" to get up to desirable minimums, the generally higher alcohol content in wines all over the globe is no fashion trend. The canary in the bottle, rather than the coal mine, so to speak.

 

[Del165198]

How is Greta suggesting we achieve those things?

Serious?

 

[EskimoPAFC]

"loosing"

I'm no spelling nazi but that's so unbelievably depressing given the people who read her Twitter.

 

[EskimoPAFC]

Except for July 26, 1931 when it was ALSO 48C

 

[Del165198]

"loosing"

I'm no spelling nazi but that's so unbelievably depressing given the people who read her Twitter.

A spelling mistake is not as depressing as decades of global inaction on a solvable problem that will be catastrophic for future generations.

 

[EskimoPAFC]

A spelling mistake is not as depressing as decades of global inaction on a solvable problem that will be catastrophic for future generations.

The question is whether this world would be even be worth living in with "loosing" being thrown around willy nilly

 

[Del165198]

The question is whether this world would be even be worth living in with "loosing" being thrown around willy nilly

True, I hadn't considered that possibility

 

[edgie]

Serious?

mmhmm

The only real way to tackle emission cuts is very simply, to make less shit. Less things, less production, slow consumerism. Then collapse economies.

I'm ok with it, but a lot won't be. What's the solution to it?

 

[EskimoPAFC]

mmhmm

The only real way to tackle emission cuts is very simply, to make less sh*t. Less things, less production, slow consumerism. Then collapse economies.

I'm ok with it, but a lot won't be. What's the solution to it?

There is definitely a need for a slowdown, particularly in unnecessary manufacturing and travel, but this is a massive oversimplification of the calculations in play.

How do you produce with less emissions (more efficiently)? How do you sequester more carbon back in to the earth? How do you source renewable sources of power and nutrients? etc

We could massively increase production while turning climate change if we were doing everything else right.

 

[Del165198]

mmhmm

The only real way to tackle emission cuts is very simply, to make less sh*t. Less things, less production, slow consumerism. Then collapse economies.

I'm ok with it, but a lot won't be. What's the solution to it?

That's a part of it, yes, but not all of it. Energy production and vehicle emissions are the two big ones.

Scrap all fossil fuel subsidies immediately. Divest from any energy producers still launching new coal and gas projects. Redirect that money into renewables. Give subsidies to the recycling of precious metals in electronics equipment and things like lithium ion batteries. Still way too much goes to landfill.

Offer incentives to developing nations to transition away from coal.

Saying Greta needs to spell out what needs to be done is ridiculous. The information is out there already, there's tons of it. All it requires is the political will. Australia is pathetic in that regard with scummo bringing a lump of coal into parliament. 2 years ago he said Labor was killing the ute and the weekend away. Now he's talking about electric cars. I understand we are small fries in terms of global CO2, but per capita we are right up there with the worst. There's no reason for us to be lagging behind, we have unlimited sun, excellent wind resources, thousands of km of coast for wave energy, pumped hydro, etc etc. Instead we are addicted to the idea of digging shit up out of the ground.

 

[1954]

"loosing"

I'm no spelling nazi but that's so unbelievably depressing given the people who read her Twitter.

I can cut Greta some slack as English wasn't her first language, unlike an ex school teacher on here who regularly uses loosing instead of the correct losing.
If he reads this there is no doubt I will be off his xmas card list.

 

[edgie]

I absolutely agree we are in the box seat in this country to lead the world and Morison sucks (and his government killed the ute) but

...

How do you produce with less emissions (more efficiently)? How do you sequester more carbon back in to the earth? How do you source renewable sources of power and nutrients? etc
...

This is a have cake and eat it too approach. If we are all serious we all need to accept less, for a while at least, example the travel you mention, the world's been itching to go backpacking across the globe again and it's been disgusting, ready to undo whatever inroads were made in the last couple years by a pandemic to fill up the insta feed at the earliest availability.

We dig shit up out the ground cause other countries are willing pay the people who do good amounts of money for the work and those people and the revenue from their industries keep economies afloat. Most of the recessions in this country have all been linked to the iron ore market, a market that with any conscious, we would have to withdraw a significant sector of in that coal, cause our own recession.

Also you're dead against nuclear, even as an option in partnership with green renewables.

 

[Del165198]

I absolutely agree we are in the box seat in this country to lead the world and Morison sucks (and his government killed the ute) but



This is a have cake and eat it too approach. If we are all serious we all need to accept less, for a while at least, example the travel you mention, the world's been itching to go backpacking across the globe again and it's been disgusting, ready to undo whatever inroads were made in the last couple years by a pandemic to fill up the insta feed at the earliest availability.

We dig sh*t up out the ground cause other countries are willing pay the people who do good amounts of money for the work and those people and the revenue from their industries keep economies afloat. Most of the recessions in this country have all been linked to the iron ore market, a market that with any conscious, we would have to withdraw a significant sector of in that coal, cause our own recession.

Also you're dead against nuclear, even as an option in partnership with green renewables.

There's no reason to use nuclear. 15 years ago it was a good debate. Now the ramp up time to get one operational is ridiculous. Renewables are moving much faster and have come way down in price. Battery storage technology has evolved massively.

Look at how much it costs to shut down a nuclear plant at the end of its life. We don't need it.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

I can cut Greta some slack as English wasn't her first language, unlike an ex school teacher on here who regularly uses loosing instead of the correct losing.
If he reads this there is no doubt I will be off his xmas card list.

Your looss.

 

[EskimoPAFC]

This is a have cake and eat it too approach. If we are all serious we all need to accept less, for a while at least, example the travel you mention, the world's been itching to go backpacking across the globe again and it's been disgusting, ready to undo whatever inroads were made in the last couple years by a pandemic to fill up the insta feed at the earliest availability.

Its just accepting its a problem that can be looked at from many different angles. I definitely think people underestimate the amount of game-breaking innovation going on in this space because all we hear in the media is "reduce, reduce, reduce". I'm not in any way saying a slow down of sorts isn't a good thing, but its not the only solution to the problem.

Take methane for example. It has 25-35 times the warming impacts of Carbon Dioxide and yet spends far less time in the atmosphere (generally 10-20 years is cited), which means if you turn it you see effects fast. A huge amount of methane is produced by cattle as part of the rumination process.

The CSIRO discovered that if you add a type of seaweed to a cow's diet, red asparagopsis, you bring the amount of methane produced via rumination down by over 80%. It can be easily introduced to any shed-based system which means its ready to go for most of North America's systems. The current challenge to be solved is how to you produce it at scale, in a sustainable way - this part is being solved by a team on Stewart Island right now.

There are thousands of these solutions to problems like this across the emissions sphere being worked on right now by the smartest people on the planet.

 

[edgie]

There's no reason to use nuclear. 15 years ago it was a good debate. Now the ramp up time to get one operational is ridiculous. Renewables are moving much faster and have come way down in price. Battery storage technology has evolved massively.

Look at how much it costs to shut down a nuclear plant at the end of its life. We don't need it.

The ramp up time is artificially inflated due all the hoops one has to jump through because a few incredibly unlikely events occurred in places more unstable than Australia.

Regardless if it did happen 15 years ago we'd still be in a better spot today. And if it starts tomorrow we'll still be in a better spot 15 years from now. If we are ever in a position to complain about how much it costs to shutdown a plant it will still be a win.

 

[Del165198]

The ramp up time is artificially inflated due all the hoops one has to jump through because a few incredibly unlikely events occurred in places more unstable than Australia.

Regardless if it did happen 15 years ago we'd still be in a better spot today. And if it starts tomorrow we'll still be in a better spot 15 years from now. If we are ever in a position to complain about how much it costs to shutdown a plant it will still be a win.

Nuclear power stations are extremely expensive to build. For example, the Hinkley nuclear power station under construction in the UK will cost 20 billion pounds (AU$36 billion). Nuclear cannot compete on a cost basis with wind and solar, which are the cheapest forms of new generation. The cost of energy from the Hinkley Power station is significantly higher than large-scale solar, wind and offshore wind energy in the UK.


all I have to say is sack Hinkley.

 

[tribey]

There's no reason to use nuclear. 15 years ago it was a good debate. Now the ramp up time to get one operational is ridiculous. Renewables are moving much faster and have come way down in price. Battery storage technology has evolved massively.

Look at how much it costs to shut down a nuclear plant at the end of its life. We don't need it.

[Most] Climate Change mitigation advocates: “we need to rid ourselves of our dependence on fossil fuels regardless of cost! you won’t have an economy at all without a habitable planet!”

Also [Most] Climate Change mitigation advocates: “nah, nuclear costs too much”

 

[tribey]

Regardless if it did happen 15 years ago we'd still be in a better spot today. And if it starts tomorrow we'll still be in a better spot 15 years from now.

Bingo. Guaranteed we’ll be hearing the same sh¡t in 2036.

Also, nuclear technological advances that would’ve made it cheaper, safer and more abundant (as with anything with global takeup) have been completely stunted by decades of irrational fears and the active smear campaign by organisations such as Greenpeace.

So we currently enjoy a status quo where the planet is careening towards being irreparably f***ed, with zillions of tons of fossil fuel emissions (including radioactive coal ash) being pumped into our atmosphere and oceans daily, while people have been convinced that how to store the relatively amoebic amount of nuclear waste is the worse problem.

 

[edgie]

Nuclear power stations are extremely expensive to build. For example, the Hinkley nuclear power station under construction in the UK will cost 20 billion pounds (AU$36 billion). Nuclear cannot compete on a cost basis with wind and solar, which are the cheapest forms of new generation. The cost of energy from the Hinkley Power station is significantly higher than large-scale solar, wind and offshore wind energy in the UK.


all I have to say is sack Hinkley.

Again, expenses that are PARTIALLY artificially inflated by regulatory bodies.