Climate Change

[AirheadD8]

I need a uniform.
Does it come with epaulettes?

Yes but nothing else because only dumbasses recognize the king has no clothes . This thread is a train wreck LOL . People who drive hundreds of miles and using lots of energy to be pulled uphill to ski are whining about climate change . Driving to your psychologists office to vent about being stressed out then posting ( using energy ) about how other people don't get it . Trying to enlist politicians to help ....HAHA the energy companies own them LOL . Advocating buying solar panels ( made in china with coal ) then no lets use wind!
We can eat all the birds they kill...... But as long as your friends know you care you can feel good LOL
As the biggest environmentalist I know hit menopause ....."Fuck global warming I'm getting air conditioning" ...

Plant lots of trees and enjoy the shade and chill out .

[jonesy]

My golf course better be green when I drive there in my 14 mpg Sprinter van.

[ex-powderbroker]

there’s a lot of interesting stuff in this thread, i’m trying to work my way through it. thanks all.

[Garfield3d]

I’d love to think we could accomplish all this but I pessimistically just don’t see if happening, when we can’t even come together and wear a fucking mask during a pandemic.

This makes my head hurt.

For some reason, your pessimism reminds me of this blip from the Newsroom - https://youtu.be/6CXRaTnKDXA?t=231

[Core Shot]

Well old goat, according to your rules skiing is cancelled and your Tahoe ski house needs to be destroyed so you can live in the big cities.
Unless you ride your bicycle to Tahoe and hike to ski.
#agenda 2030

[PB]

OK, not Boomer.

[WMD]

Tahoe area towns at risk of future flooding
https://www.sacbee.com/news/californ...ainstage_card4
Increasing winter rain instead of snow likely to result in frequent overtopping of the Lake Tahoe dam and flooding downstream, as has happened in the past.
In addition to the loss of water stored as snow which we all know about, and of course the end of skiing in the area.

I wasn't going to say more on the subject but since I was challenged to say what I would do about it I would say this--
1) organize get out the vote, ala Stacy Abrams. Convince people, especially young people, that it matters. (We've got a recall election in CA coming up, voters are apathetic, we could easily wind up with a right wing ideologue with 15% or less of the vote as governor, due to CA's stupid recall law. It will make a huge difference for the next couple of years and beyond if people don't vote.)

2) repeated, massive protests

3) based on success in 1) and 2), pass a stiff carbon tax, subsidies for carbon free energy,

4) emphasize reduction in consumption, change in lifestyle over tech solutions. We will still need solar, wind, batteries, etc. to eliminate carbon based electricity, but we need to limit the new infrastructure as much as possible to minimize the negatives. All this will take time--which we don't really have--but we need to make it increasingly unfashionable to jet to Europe or import food from abroad, and then from across the country. We need to make people reconsider migrating far from their families. We need to transform our lives to be simpler, less consumptive, and closer to home. The best tool to accomplish that is social pressure to change attitudes over time. We need to mandate dense, transit oriented communities and eventually enact policies which will eliminate development in energy intensive parts of the country. Phoenix should not exist. We need to emphasize building in ways that reduce the need for heating and cooling. We can't continue to live in single family houses on large lots long distances from work. All of this and more is what I mean by the need for changing people's lives in dramatic fashion. We cannot build enough green energy to allow us to keep living the way we live now. And we need to stop telling people we can.


That's enough for now.

Thanks! I generally agree with you. Way beyond the climate crisis we have the consumption and overuse of resources crises, and we are destroying our home. We are shitting where we eat.

1) yes!
2) I don't understand why this isn't happening today (and yes I have organized some things but most people aren't upset enough to protest)
3) carbon free energy requires the technology I have pushed for - wind, solar, storage, enhanced and interconnected grids, etc. I use a saying from Dr Jonathon Foley of Project Drawdown: Now, not New. We need to stop waiting for more innovation and use the technology we have today to get off of fossil fuels. A carbon tax has some other issues I won't go into now, but if the price could be set high enough to make it effective, I'm for it along with regulations too.

The Democratic plan for a clean energy standard in budget reconciliation right now is actually a clean energy payment plan, a bit like a tax. Power companies that meet greenhouse gas reduction targets will get paid for that, while those who don't will have to pay. If you support climate action, everyone should call their representatives and urge them to pass this.
4) yes, we need to change our ethos and our lifestyles to be much more sustainable. But that ain't happening overnight. What can happen quickly is that we can move from fossil fuel energy to clean energy in a big over a decade. On our current path we will surpass 1.5C of warming in the early 2030's, and 2C a decade later. Both of these will be catastrophic for us. So while we work to change lifestyles we also need to move rapidly to electrify everything that can be electrified, all powered by clean energy.

The one place I disagree is that I've read enough work by experts to believe that we can build enough clean energy to live how we do now. But I agree that would be an awful idea and would lead to other environmental issues. The part of that Rewiring America video I hate is when he says people won't have to give up their big houses and big cars. If we don't, we all will suffer from other environmental impacts besides climate change.

Check out this article:

Greenhouse gas emissions must peak within 4 years, says leaked UN report
Group of scientists release draft IPCC report as they fear it will be watered down by governments
Fiona Harvey and Giles Tremlett
Thu 12 Aug 2021 09.47 EDT


Global greenhouse gas emissions must peak in the next four years, coal and gas-fired power plants must close in the next decade and lifestyle and behavioural changes will be needed to avoid climate breakdown, according to the leaked draft of a report from the world’s leading authority on climate science.
Rich people in every country are overwhelmingly more responsible for global heating than the poor, with SUVs and meat-eating singled out for blame, and the high-carbon basis for future economic growth is also questioned.

https://amp.theguardian.com/environm...aked-un-report

[kootenayskier]

Many of us have known what was coming, and what was theoretically necessary to avert it for at least the past 35 years. Unfortunately, the levels of restraint, sharing, coordination and discipline required proved well beyond our species capacity. Now, as we’re rapidly moving past various ecological tipping points, and our governance seems more dysfunctional than ever, all that realistically remains is to hunker down enjoy the ride. It’s going to be a wild one.

[WMD]

^^Yes, we can't stop climate change from occurring, but this is dead wrong. We can still avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Giving up is bullshit and ensures disaster.

We probably can't keep warming below 1.5C, but we have a chance to keep it to 2C. Would that be really really bad? Yes. But it is better than 2.5C, which is better then 3C, which is better than 4, etc.

We do not fall off a climate cliff at any point, and it is absolutely critical to act to save what we can.

Right now in the US call your Senators and Congresspeople and urge them to include a clean energy standard and renewable energy tax credits among other climate actions in the budget reconciliation bills.

[NWFlow]

^Yep, thanks for the perspective. It's easy to get fatalistic about it, but the only option at this point is to reduce the anthropogenic warming as much as we can.

[joeshek]

Been seeing a lot of echo recently regarding climate change activists/leaders having "inflexible views on climate change"

Is this a new talking point that's being tested? Who or what is it it implying that we're supposed to have give and take with? The atmosphere?

[F#*k you cat]

#earthinthebalance
#algore

We have known about this for decades.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[kootenayskier]

^^Yes, we can't stop climate change from occurring, but this is dead wrong. We can still avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Giving up is bullshit and ensures disaster.

We probably can't keep warming below 1.5C, but we have a chance to keep it to 2C. Would that be really really bad? Yes. But it is better than 2.5C, which is better then 3C, which is better than 4, etc.

We do not fall off a climate cliff at any point, and it is absolutely critical to act to save what we can.

Right now in the US call your Senators and Congresspeople and urge them to include a clean energy standard and renewable energy tax credits among other climate actions in the budget reconciliation bills.

I’m reasonably well read on the subject, am in local government, and am a strong advocate for the changes required to prevent complete ecosystem collapse. However it also seems pretty clear that our democratic governance, our capitalist economy, and the heuristic limitations of human nature don’t currently permit the magnitude of change required to address what the science tells us is necessary. The most ambitious measures currently being considered by our governments aren’t nearly enough, and even more critically they aren’t sophisticated enough to account for the the economic and social feedback loops that will quickly negate them. Here’s a primer:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...21800919304203

If you have ideas for how to get the majority of voters to support the fundamental economic restructuring required, I’m all ears.

[k2skier112]

Been seeing a lot of echo recently regarding climate change activists/leaders having "inflexible views on climate change"

Is this a new talking point that's being tested? Who or what is it it implying that we're supposed to have give and take with? The atmosphere?

the only inflexible views on the environment are those of the deniers
care to decipher the incoherent last sentence?

[WMD]

If you have ideas for how to get the majority of voters to support the fundamental economic restructuring required, I’m all ears.

I agree there are structural barriers to staying within climate and other environmental limits. But, did we give up when the German's bombed Pearl Harbor? It will be hard but nothing is impossible, and this is kinda important so we gotta try.

Currently most experts agree that enacted policies around the world put us on a path to 3C of warming by 2100, with continued warming into the next centuries. This would be catastrophic.

Proposed policies, if enacted, could keep that to 2.4C. Still awful, but way better. We need to make sure those policies are put in place and followed through. Then, we try to chip away at more and get the market to kick in to help us switch to EVs, etc, rapidly. Then get a few more aggressive policies enacted and maybe we stay to 2C.

Giving up leads to catastrophe. We have to do better than that and it
takes all of us working together to get anywhere. Failure is not an option, especially if you are young or have kids or grandkids or nephews/nieces. If you are old and don't have relatives who will experience this shitty future, I don't blame you for giving up. But please just shut up and enjoy your life and don't stop the rest of us from doing what is necessary.

Edit to add: Check out Naomi Klein's "This Changes Everything" for ideas on how we make the necessary structural changes.

[The SnowShow]

Patagonia says “fuck you Jackson Hole”:

https://unofficialnetworks.com/2021/...le-break-ties/

[brutah]

Patagonia says “fuck you Jackson Hole”:

https://unofficialnetworks.com/2021/...le-break-ties/

That's funny that they decide this now. I'm pretty sure the Kemmerer's made their money in coal to begin with, but good for Patagonia. I'm glad some corporatations, particularly in the outdoor industries have grown a backbone and aren't all talk when it comes to the environment.

And fuck anyone that associates with that Georgia congresswoman.

[DanoT]

That's funny that they decide this now. I'm pretty sure the Kemmerer's made their money in coal to begin with, but good for Patagonia. I'm glad some corporatations, particularly in the outdoor industries have grown a backbone and aren't all talk when it comes to the environment.

And fuck anyone that associates with that Georgia congresswoman.

So, are you saying that you personally don't ever ski J.H. due to the political beliefs of the owner?

[AirheadD8]

But, did we give up when the German's bombed Pearl Harbor? It will be hard but nothing is impossible, and this is kinda important so we gotta try.

"That's a fact jack"

[brutah]

So, are you saying that you personally don't ever ski J.H. due to the political beliefs of the owner?

Naw, just that I support a company that stands behind their convictions. We won't have the opportunity to ski much longer if we keep supporting the far right and stay scared of making changes.

Change seems to be what the far right is most afraid and they scared of a lot

[Dantheman]

First ever recorded rain at the summit of the Greenland ice sheet (10,500' amsl): https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/to...cid=uxbndlbing

[ex-powderbroker]

some good pics albeit a dark tone:

https://www.landdesk.org/p/guest-pos...-in-the-desert

[thefrush]

WMD, I appreciate your optimistic outlook and for sharing ideas with the community here to try and redirect the attitude from one of pure demise. I do have a question for you regarding EVs out of sincere curiosity, as that is one of the things you listed being a shift in the market towards a better energy solution. My question is, are EVs all that much better than internal combustion vehicles? I know batteries are getting better but they still have a lifespan, and the mining for materials is obviously quite invasive. They roll on rubber tires and drive on roads made from asphalt & concrete. So how much of a positive impact would an entire societal shift to EVs actually be? And is it realistic in the next 2 or 3 decades? Thanks again.

[dunfree]

I was talking about this the other day at the pub. We were reminiscing about the ‘90s, post Reagan/Bush, and how it seemed there was more hope for the future in regards to the planet and society. What happened? I think in large part it was the tech revolution.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

what happened? The ex-communist world went backwards. You can bitch about capitalism, but authoritarians give fewer fucks about the environment, and absolutely hate the civil society groups that do care about the environment. Despite lip service, China, Russia, hate the fucking environment and want it paved under. India doesn’t give that many fucks either. Their poverty let us pretend in5e 90s

[MagnificentUnicorn]

some good pics albeit a dark tone:

https://www.landdesk.org/p/guest-pos...-in-the-desert

I found it inspiring.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums