CO2 Emissions Rose for the First Time in 4 Years (vice.com) 317
Human emissions of carbon dioxide have gone up for the first time since 2013, according to the UN's ninth annual Emissions Gap Report, meaning the world isn't on track to mitigate the worst of climate change's already disastrous effects. From the report: The report, published on Tuesday, says that while carbon emissions stayed relatively level between 2014 and 2016, carbon emissions in 2017 went up by 1.2 percent. Composed by climate scientists using the most up-to-date scientific data, the report aims to determine whether we're on track to meet the goals set by international climate agreements, such as the 2015 Paris Climate Accord. The "emissions gap" is the difference between how low our emissions need to be, and where they actually are. The UN report concludes that the world isn't hitting the emissions targets necessary to curb warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. While the goal is not impossible, it's unlikely to be met under current political conditions, which have rendered us unable to take significant action against climate change for more than half a century. "According to the current policy and [Nationally Determined Contributions] scenarios, global emissions are not estimated to peak by 2030, let alone by 2020," the report reads. "As the emissions gap assessment shows, this original level of ambition needs to be roughly tripled for the 2C scenario and increased around fivefold for the 1.5C scenario."
Thanks, Trump! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
How so? Show me that the US actually was the country responsible for the increase. Until then this is a lot of hot air.
Re: (Score:2)
How so? Show me that the US actually was the country responsible for the increase. Until then this is a lot of hot air.
That explains it! There is a LOT of hot air coming out of Washington, DC. Most of it's probably CO2. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know what's really funny. That if Trump's tariffs can slow down China's manufacturing sector growth even a little, it will do more to lessen global CO2 output than if we mandated all new US autos to be EVs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Problems that people have to solve together are hard.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
WERE ALL GOING TO DIE..... (Score:3)
Bananas growing in New Jersey! Mass Hysteria!
Re: (Score:2)
2013 ? We were already dead by then (Score:3, Interesting)
According to Hansen
https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
Still waiting for those 50 million climate refugees predicted by the UN
http://www.spiegel.de/internat... [spiegel.de]
Or how are things on the West Side of Manhattan these days ?
https://www.salon.com/2001/10/... [salon.com]
Then again snow is supposed to be a thing of the past as well
http://www.climatedepot.com/20... [climatedepot.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, stick your head in the sand and pretend things aren't happening...
at this stage you'll drown before long
Re: (Score:3)
If you believe, you will see signs everywhere.
Personally, I have trouble with what these scientists are using as a control for their experiments.
Re: (Score:2)
If you believe, you will see signs everywhere.
Skeptics used to be regularly admonished that "Weather is not climate!".
But now every storm, every fire, every flood, every heat wave and every cold spell is "because of climate change".
Funny how that works.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
99% of scientists don't agree on man made climate change!
It is not even the pathetic fake statistic of 97%.
That Cook paper has been thoroughly discredited.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/03/science-or-science-fiction-97-climate-consensus-crumbles-in-new-survey/
And many more discrediting studies are showing the same.
Science is never done by consensus. It is not a popularity contest.
One small finding can over turn an entire field, Wegner and continental drift for example.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
at this stage you'll drown before long
Been hearing that for the last 30 years.
Before that we were supposed to be killing each other to have something to eat
We were also supposed to be out of energy by now
and we were supposed to be out of almost all natural resources by now as well.
It's almost as if the news is manipulated to fit agendas
https://i.imgur.com/x7C10JP.jp... [imgur.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing in that link was demonstrated as incorrect. In fact, the specific predictions (e.g. accelerated ice melting in Antarctica) have come true. Now, he said we had to act already to avoid a feedback loop, but that' not been resolved.
That article explains what's happened... those islands in the South Pacific have been expanding by adding mass, and staying above the sea level rise that way. That said, I would say t
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing in that link was demonstrated as incorrect.
Hansen said current carbon levels in the atmosphere were already too high to prevent runaway greenhouse warming. Yet the levels are still rising despite all the efforts of politicians and scientists.
Oh so he lied when he said that ? Or are we not doomed if we just invest more money with Al Gore's pet investment scheme of the week ?
Are you not capable of understanding it was a somewhat hyperbolic quote?
So when a climatologist makes a prediction about climate and gets it wrong, it's retroactively hyperbole ?
Tell me can I do that with my stock trades ?
That said, I would say that the hundreds of thousands of people who left Puerto Rico qualify
Maybe qualify as being victims of a hurricane. These things do happen down that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing he said is a lie, that is not logically inconsistent, etc. He said it seems to high to prevent a feedback loop, and you said it keeps rising. That proves his point.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't you read it? When asked what the world will be like he's like "traffic will be worse". And that's clearly rhetorical, because it leads him down the subtle consequences of climate change. I'm not saying it's in hindsight hyperbolic rhetoric, I'm saying that's how people speak when they are making a point, not a well-calibrated prediction.
Yes specific predictions are hyperbole / sarcsm
That's goalpost shifting
No that's what happens with hurricanes. The reason people left was the island had a corrupt and nearly bankrupt government to begin with and couldn't do proper disaster recovery. Lookup the great hurricane of 1780 for just how bad that can be.
Or, what would have to happen to convince you?
Of what ? That climate changes ? That's a given. That we are doomed ? That ones a bit harder, You could start with predictions that at least pass the smell test and then work on from there.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing in that link was demonstrated as incorrect. In fact, the specific predictions (e.g. accelerated ice melting in Antarctica) have come true.
NASA says otherwise [nasa.gov], and explicitly states that Antarctica as a whole is gaining ice.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, technically the snow that's been in Antarctica for 10,000 years is fusing to create new ice. Sorry to be imprecise. I meant: the total amount of frozen water on Antarctica, aggregated across all of its various forms, has increased melting.
BTW, snow fusing to become ice is a process that either requires added pressure (nope) or cycling temperature that goes above a certain point. Gee, I wonder what could be causing Antarctica's temperature to rise above a certain point every year, when it used to no
Lack of Leadership and Lack of Sacrifice (Score:5, Insightful)
Carbon reduction is hard, there are often a lot of steps which are counter intuitive
For example it takes less carbon to ship Apple from China to California then it does from New York to California. Mainly because cargo ships use less fuel per ton of goods then shipping via semi-truck.
Then we have the Automobile guilt. While your home (in most climates) is polluting more then your car.
To fix this solution we need real leadership who is willing to realize the problem is more then just solar panels, wind turbines and electric cars. It is taking a look at all our energy usage finding wastes and inefficiencies. Making sure businesses are playing by the same sets of rules globally just so we don't offset our emissions to an other country, because they will undercut our price.
Such issues is too complex for average Joe Sixpack to deal with, or even an Latte drinking hipster. It will require a global change with everyone playing by the same rules, and firm penalties for anyone who wants to cheat the system.
Re: (Score:2)
I've ordered Apple equipment online and I've seen it be air-shipped from China via Anchorage, even when I chose regular shipping... Apple seems to do "just in time" sales vs warehousing hardware in the USA.
The mode of shipping to brick-and-mortar Apple dealers may be by ship, though.
Re:Lack of Leadership and Lack of Sacrifice (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are you shipping by semi-truck and not by train? Trains are 3x as fuel-efficient as trucks.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on the speed required. Many goods loaded into a standard cargo container can have that container moved from ship to truck to train to truck. There's no reason to not have trains do the cross country part, and trucks do the last mile. However, it works best when time isn't a major concern... the benefits of trains are the pooling of resources to move items, which means compromising on schedules. So, fresh food is probably going to require truc
Re: (Score:2)
But the cost of shipping by train does not always reflect the actual cost. Apparently the rail industry is the subject of some rather unfair tax policies due to it being an absolute cash cow in the past.
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't we use containers on trains, transferred to trucks at the final destination city? Because of the Interstate Highway System. It was created ostensibly to allow Americans to travel across the country at will. But fuel taxes from passenger cars pay fo
Couldn't you fix that with railroads? (Score:2)
Simple fix (Score:2)
Stop breathing, don't try to lose weight, don't stay in shape, or better yet just die. That's the whole goal of this in the long run, isn't it? We have too many people on the planet going after too few resources which means depletion of eco-systems. The planet is fine, the people are fucked at 7 Billion+, we can't sustain that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Simple fix (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Naw, I watched Idiocracy [imdb.com] when it first came out, so I knew what 2018 was going to look like. I also know what 2100 will be like too. Well maybe the Kardashians won't be around by 2100 but I can still hope.
Re: (Score:2)
Naw, I watched Idiocracy [imdb.com] when it first came out, so I knew what 2018 was going to look like. I also know what 2100 will be like too. Well maybe the Kardashians won't be around by 2100 but I can still hope.
I am waiting for skyscrapers being fixed with ropes
Re: (Score:2)
Generally people are afraid that in one day the shit'll hit the fan. But in reality this will be a slowly rolled out "situation" where we'll all just loathe things, much like today. I mean, if you told someone back in the year 2000, the state that things will be in by 2018, they'd have pictured that as the end of the world. But here we are.
The last 150 years (ie "since global warming") happens to correspond with the greatest improvements in the global human condition in history. I'm not expecting a reverse in that trend anytime soon.
Cowardly closings... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit.
Waste can be dealt with with reprocessing and storage of what can't be reprocessed at WIPP. Assuming there's the political will to repeal peanut-farmer President era restrictions on reprocessing.
We should be building Mk. 3 reactors, completing several per year on existing Mk. 1 sites.
The cost is doable if we stop throwing away trillions of dollars on military homicide sprees abroad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And yet nuclear power has killed FAR LESS people than ANY other significant form of power, including wind and solar..
No, you are right, nuclear power is SO dangerous, we had better kneejerk ban it...
After all, the more people killed, the better for the planet, right? right?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh? A couple hundred deaths due to nuclear power in all of history, and it's not safe?
We lost more than a hundred times as many people to last year's flu than we have lost due to nuclear accidents since, well, we've had nuclear power.
Hell, New York City had more traffic fatalities last year than nuclear power has caused in all of history....
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly weak Southern states and Park drilling (Score:2)
Look, nobody wants to tell you guys, but most of the US emissions are from two sources:
1. Drilling and extraction of fossil fuels from US National Parks (25 percent of US emissions)
2. Inefficient Southern States. Most of which still use expensive fossil fuels. Wind and solar are both cheaper. yes, cheaper than natural gas.
Look at the actual report, you'll see Texas and the West are already meeting and exceeding the Paris Accord goals. It's not us. It's you.
Re: (Score:2)
What does that have to do with global trends if the US trend has been going down?
Are you saying that the US has to pick up the slack of China, EU, and India?
So much for it being a global problem when it must be solved by the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Who do you think is exporting all those fossil fuels?
It's not Iceland.
Re: (Score:2)
What does that have to do with the emission levels?
Are the countries that export fossil fuels more culpable than the ones that demand and burn it? The countries that are trending in the wrong direction should be called out more so than one part of one country. It's like you are purposefully going out of your way to point the finger at who you don't like. Treating science as a political cudgel really undermines the function and trust of science. Stop it.
Re: (Score:2)
Emissions are being measured worldwide. Exporting them just extends the emissions chain, using the standard cradle (mining/extraction) to grave (use/disposal) methodology.
The article this thread belongs to talks about worldwide emissions increasing. Exporting only increases emissions.
Re: (Score:2)
What would happen to exports if there was no demand? Economics 101 supply and demand. If there were no demand then exports would lower. Emissions require usage of fossil fuels not export of fossil fuels.
I am really confused by your comments. They're retarded.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, if you actually read the report, you'll see that the impact will be most severe in the South. Try actually reading the report.
Re: (Score:2)
US emissions are down (Score:5, Insightful)
According to the chart on page 9 the US is doing pretty well.
Yet somehow China which has 27% of global emissions and went up 17% is marked as "on track to meet the targets under current policies".
Those targets must not be very serious
Re: (Score:2)
Remember all the bitching about how environmentalists wanted the US to be poor and revert to a 3rd world standard of living? Of course it was completely bollocks.
That's why China is still on the increase. They, just like the US, can't be expected to immediately slash their emissions and do themselves economic harm. Instead they have set a target for where the peak will be. Actually there was a previous one but they vastly exceeded it, so the Paris one was much more aggressive. Still not enough, but aggressi
Re: (Score:2)
Re:US emissions are down (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it really means the 23 states that are meeting and exceeding the Kyoto and Paris Accords are doing it well, and growing their GDP fast.
Like the entire West, Texas, and the Northeast.
It's the rest of the country that are failing. Both at job creation and at using much cheaper renewables, which are cheaper than both coal and natural gas are.
Adapt. Because you're the areas that get the greatest negative impacts. Most of us will be fine.
Re: (Score:2)
The targets make some allowances for the fact that that US emits more CO2 per capita than anybody except some middle eastern oil nations, a few Caribbean islands and Luxembourg (for some reason), and many times as much as many.
Re:US emissions are down (Score:4, Interesting)
The targets make some allowances for the fact that that US emits more CO2 per capita than anybody except some middle eastern oil nations, a few Caribbean islands and Luxembourg (for some reason), and many times as much as many.
Per capita is meaningless.
The goal was overall reduction, and the US is achieving it. China and India are increasing a lot.
Let's parse this, shall we? (Score:3, Interesting)
" While the goal is not impossible, it's unlikely to be met under current political conditions, which have rendered us unable to take significant action against climate change for more than half a century."
That sounds very sad....but let's be clear on this.
"Current political conditions" sounds an awful like "Those fucking stupid Republicans and Trump won't go along with the plan!" ...when in reality the facts or the "current political conditions" and "political conditions for the last half century" are/have been:
- Kyoto ENTIRELY failed to address/regulate China or India (for...reasons).
- the world's largest emitter is CHINA - double that of the US* - and it is growing the fastest as well. China's increase over the last decade alone was 60% of the world's increase.
- the US has - despite disregarding International Kum-Bay-Yah handholding promise-sessions - decreased it's CO2 emissions. In fact the US leads other countries (it's just behind the EU collectively) in reductions. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/yes-the-u-s-leads-all-countries-in-reducing-carbon-emissions/#4a376eb73535)
- the countries that HAVE signed such agreements are largely failing to reach the goals they promise, even though the Paris agreement had the most modest targets ever.
Essentially, the "political conditions" are that the Climate Agreements are do-nothing SJW virtue-signaling, while the country pointed at as an international pariah is ACTUALLY improving significantly. The worst emitter in the world is now hailed as "leading the fight against climate change!"
cf The Emperor's New Clothes, I guess?
*don't give me "but...but...per capita emissions are lower in China!" First, it's an absolute problem, not a per capita problem. We don't talk about per capita CO2 levels. Per capita is West-hating ecomarxist apologists' desperate to find a way to blame the US for everything. If you want to talk about per capita CO2 output, then let's compare per capita PRODUCTIVITY (PPP) vs per capita CO2 production. Hint: China's an even-worse culprit in that context.
Re:Let's parse this, shall we? (Score:4, Insightful)
*don't give me "but...but...per capita emissions are lower in China!" First, it's an absolute problem, not a per capita problem. We don't talk about per capita CO2 levels. Per capita is West-hating ecomarxist apologists' desperate to find a way to blame the US for everything.
If you have, say, 100 in group A generating a total of 500x pollutants, and you have 1000 people in group B generating a total of 1000x pollutants, if A tells B that 1000 is more than 500, so group B needs to cut their outputs more than group A... why should B listen? Group A sounds like a group of greedy hypocrites, having a much higher standard of living that energy use brings while denying it to others.
Per-capita is extremely important unless you want to argue that one group of people is just far more important than another, and thus entitled to pollute more. If you go down that path, don't expect that the other people are going to pay much heed to your demands that they cut their emissions. Lack of per-capita controls is why I opposed climate treaties that put big caps on the US, but was fine with allowing, say, India to greatly increase their own per-capita pollution.
No, you are wrong. (Score:2)
Why the hell SHOULDNT we give you a per capita figure? hmm?.
Because Americans have a natural right to personally pollute more than others? Head buried in the sand much?
Perhaps we should therefore hold america up the the emission levels of say New Zealand, because the problem is absolute, right?
Lets see: 2014 figures (easily on hand)
USA: 6673Mt, New Zealand: 75Mt
I hope you are ready to drop your use by 90 times...
Hell, why not Fiji? 2.7Mt,
I doubt you can have cooking fires by now, but hey, its an ABSOLUTE pr
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is a bit disingenuous not to mention that a big part of the US's recent reduction in emissions have been due to the 2008 financial crisis, and the temporary losses in production that resulted from it, and were not necessarily due to any particular nobility of purpose or deliberate action of the US government. When China suffers a big recession or depression (which seems likely in the near future, from what I have been reading), the same thing will happen to them.
Also, the Trump administration has repeate
Who you gonna believe? (Score:2)
The Real Problem Is... (Score:3)
People treating the associated costs of converting away from cheap coal and other dirty sources of energy as an inconvenience and people who don't like the inconvenience or additional expense as simply selfish.
No, no, no.
This is a matter of life and death. If you raise the price of energy, you plunge more people into poverty. Poverty kills. Smoking can take up to 7 years off your life, but living in poverty can take 10. People in poverty get poor nutrition, little or no preventive medical care, exposure to both the elements and criminal attacks because they're sleeping on a steam grate in an alley and freezing or getting beaten up by another person in poverty that wants to steal their shoes, and so forth. It isn't just that you might have to choose to carpool in order to afford to get to work 50 miles away each day, its that some poor schmuck died today because electricity went from 12.5 cents per KwH to 25 cents per KwH and they couldn't afford that and the rent too, and so were out living on the street and got mugged by a guy with a big knife, and bled to death in minutes. Yes, that's a death from poverty, because otherwise he would have been inside his house with a locked door between himself and the guy with the knife.
I actually wonder if ANY of the proponents of the pain and suffering of "doing something" about global warming stop to calculate how many people they'll kill doing it, and whether those people they kill will exceed in number the people that would be killed by the global warming if we instead did nothing.
OBTW I saw a headline a day or 2 ago that USA carbon emissions went down again for 2017, while the rest of the world's went up. Just sayin'...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
These same wealthy people also control much of the US political system, so what they want, they get.
We should treat them with the contempt they deserve, but they have power and are not afraid to use it.
Re: (Score:3)
We need to ignore them for the sake of life on Earth as we know it, and get back to science and scholastic veritas.
It's difficult to ignore people that we keep electing to office.
Denialists will always be there, chortling and being pests of no value.
I guess if things get really bad the denialists might be exiled or killed. Too late to matter by that point, but at least we can feel superior while we starve to death.
We need to cut them right out of the argument at the first lie they begin with.
I've given up debating them. The debate is over, and they failed to convince me. Even if they don't realize or accept that they lost, I've moved on.
I understand some denialists believe they are simply being skeptics. But at the same time so much information has been presented and
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
People who are ignorant of science are not "skeptics", they are "ignoramuses"
Flat Earthers, for instance, are not skeptical, They are willingly uninformed.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you teach? :-/
Re: (Score:2)
You're dropping the ball at the apex of the curve. And indeed if you move 1 inch over, you're still at the apex relative to the force of gravity. Because the center of mass is described as a point, and the force to the center does not form parallel lines. You can consider it perpendicular to the tangent of the surface of a sphere.
If you don't believe in gravity, or in mass. Then sure you can claim whatever you'd like. We'll think you're a crackpot, and many of your "students" probably make jokes about their
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, the cause of so much strife in the world:
1. Describe some perfectly reasonable/believable/true observation.
2. Come up with some crazy and unsupported statement that (1) supports some claim.
3. Profit?
Re: (Score:2)
I've never met a flatard that only held a single wacky idea. They're always excited to share a whole set of weird ideas with anyone who'd listen. The most entertaining people are the ones where a flat Earth is their least weird idea.
Re: Denialists will not be convinced by science (Score:5, Insightful)
No one is skeptical about the science behind the Earth' s climate changing.
This isn't true. You see "CO isn't a pollutant, it's plant food" across the denialosphere.
People are skeptical of the completely off-the-rails scenarios that science proposes if we don't stop the warming.
If science proposes it then theres a line of reasoning to it from evidence.
Doomsday scenarios have been sold to the public since the beginning of time, and the solutions are always the same: Give the government more money and control over your life.
This is the fearmongering that fossil fuel interests are engaging in. But some things are taxed, and freedoms don't end.
Have you ever read up on the bullshit that "scientists" predicted at the first Earth day back in the 70s? 4 billion people were supposed to die from starvation by 1985.
Have you ever read up on the theory of Relativity? Scientists predicted gravitation and time dilations precise to the limits of measurement. And the predicted gravity waves have now been observed kicking off a new era in astronomy. Have you ever read up on medical science? Vaccinations? Germ theory and antibiotics? Life expectancy at birth has increased 60% in the USA in the years 1900 to 2000.
Scientists are nothing more than political mouthpieces.
Really. You don't believe in the medical advances or technological advances that have been made.
Do you remember networking before Wi-Fi?
Remember when it was Global cooling?
A misperception. The science was at best equivocal on coming global cooling.
The ozone layer?
Yes. We got rid of CFC emissions, but the ozone hole is still very extensive. It contributes to blindness and skin cancer especially in the southern hemisphere.
Overpopulation?
Yes. The world uses about 30% more resources that it produces every year. They are being depleted, and if it crashes it will get nasty.
Global warming? Anthropogenic global warming?
Yes. It's warming. [nasa.gov]
They've literally been wrong about the consequences of this shit every time.
They really haven't.
Stfu and face the facts that humanity doesn't understand shit about this world.
This shouldn't be a source of comfort. It means that there will be impacts of climate change that no one has yet realised.
Re:Denialists will not be convinced by science (Score:5, Insightful)
Skepticism would be asking questions and then listening to the answers.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Look at that link, do you see any change in slope 2013-2016?
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_full_record.png
And emissions of CO2 stalled? Hmmm?
Re: (Score:2)
re: political issue (Score:5, Insightful)
But it IS a political issue, as soon as we start talking about legislation mandating behaviors!
The true "denialists" aren't that relevant, if the science is solid enough to prove them wrong. You'll never get everyone to accept almost anything. We still have a Flat Earth Society and a number of people refuse to accept the theory of evolution.
What DOES matter is what you propose to do about the issue. If you want to research machines that could efficiently extract excess CO2 from the air? That's VERY different than trying to implement "carbon taxes" or imposing Federal regulations demanding a halt to the use of a particular fossil fuel (like coal).
Just because researchers come to a consensus that the planet's climate is slowly increasing in temperature doesn't mean they need to become political - advocating taxation and regulation. If our technological advances are what got us into this mess, they can get us back out too. People will always go with the options that cost them the least money, and give them the most benefit. Improve cleaner energy alternatives so they're cheaper and better, and people will gladly stop burning oil, natural gas and coal!
Re: political issue (Score:4, Insightful)
But it IS a political issue, as soon as we start talking about legislation mandating behaviors!
Whether the science is correct is not a political issue. The facts are the way they are regardless of your political viewpoint.
What we chose to do about it (or even, whether we should chose to do anything about it) is a political issue. But that is completely different from the science question.
When I hear people denying the validity of the science, and when you question them they say the science is wrong because they don't agree politically with some of the proposed solutions: this is denialism. (You can tell these people because within about one minute of opening their mouth they start talking about Al Gore. Deniers are obsessed with Al Gore.) The validity of the science doesn't depend on whether your political ideology is able to solve problems or not.
Explain the CRU (Score:2, Insightful)
Show me the CRU data used in the IPCC reports, unaltered, along with the methods they used to alter the data and reasons why.
Oh, you can't? You don't like peer review? You want to hide the data and delete a few weeks before a judge forces you to release it via a FOIA request?
The science IS political when you literally break the law to prevent peer review, and then claim since you weren't charged you did nothing wrong (which just shows the prosecutors are politically corrupt as well).
Not a single person ca
Re: (Score:2)
People will always go with the options that cost them the least money, and give them the most benefit. Improve cleaner energy alternatives so they're cheaper and better, and people will gladly stop burning oil, natural gas and coal!
It's not always obvious and many if not most people will go with what is cheapest now rather than what's cheapest in the long term.
My lights are out, I can (or could before gov't intervention) get a whole box of incandescent bulbs that use 4-8x more electricity than modern options and only last about a year for like $8.
Or I could buy a single LED bulb for $10 that uses 1/8th the electric and will last 5+ years.
My house is cold, electric resistive heating equipment is cheap to buy.
Costs roughly 4x more to ru
re: addressing costs (Score:2)
I agree with you. Most people are primarily concerned with what's cheapest when they need it. They're not so worried about a long-term environmental cost that's more of an abstract and may not even noticeably affect them during the rest of their lifetime.
BUT, people are also generally smart enough to know that "you get what you pay for", and will pay a bit more for a superior option,if it's still in their price range.
Government intervention is, IMO, your worst possible way to try to change behavior. Your l
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This report just means that the global economy is finally recovering in a decent manner. So it's actually good news.
Re:Denialists will not be convinced by science (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Like it or not, climate change will force you to make those changes sooner or later. The American Dream says we should do them now so that our children and grandchildren will have better lives.
Do you have children, or plan to?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'm all for helping out, if it doesn't inconvenience me or alter my lifestyle in any major way.
But I am a bit older these days, and I'm also weighing how much longer I'll live before the earth gets bad.....I doubt it will get that bad before I'm done with it.
I don't have any k
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Energy intensity is not a constant.
Re:China, India fail the Paris accords (Score:5, Insightful)
You want to fix climate change, bulldoze the suburbs with your politicians still there.
Re:Hmmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
You missed one of the options -
3. Stop spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year on polluting the air and propping up corrupt middle eastern dictatorships and fix the problem of fossil fuel reliance today.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be even worse if somebody hadn't been building "huge numbers of wind turbines and installing huge amounts of solar"
Re: (Score:2)