medinaria

Member
Oct 30, 2017
2,562
I was also reading how farmers in the Boise Valley are now pulling crops a full month earlier than the normal growing season because of the extreme drought. How long until our food supply is completely fucked?

the honest answer to this is "if you live in america, probably way longer than you think"

there's going to be an increase in volatility year-to-year just because of the potential for severe weather events, and some areas are likely to see a pretty decently-sized drop in production - but others will be fine or increase. I don't know info for every state, but for ohio (my family has a farm in ohio, so it's a topic I've looked into) we're basically projected to be fine.

in general, in the US, the big areas of concern are keeping fires away from productive farmland out west and seeing if there's anything we can do to mitigate drought conditions in the more southern states of the midwest (oklahoma etc). we're probably mostly ok.

this is very much not the case for some other regions of the world (southeast asia, eastern south america, africa) and it remains to be seen how much can or will be done to address this, either through technology/infrastructure or through exports.
 

LegendofJoe

Member
Oct 28, 2017
12,106
Arkansas, USA
Capitalism hasn't been able to do what needs to be done because the massive cost of greenhouse gas emissions has never been priced into goods and services. We've needed a global GhG tax to account for that externality for decades.
 

mbpm

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,077
If we can get one through all the necessary halls of power and get one that's appropriately high (at least in some sort of scaling effect over time) that would surely help.
 

Lausebub

Member
Nov 4, 2017
3,165
I mean, the US literally did say it wanted to be Carbon Neutral by 2050.

www.cnbc.com

Biden pledges to slash greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030

President Biden's pledge to reduce emissions by at least 50% by 2030 more than doubles the country's prior commitment under the 2015 Paris climate agreement.

My biggest worry with America right now is, what happens if America gets another republican president in 2024 or 2028? Won't they just reverse a lot of climate regulations? Especially when whatever democrats do impacts people financially like a carbon tax, so prices of most things especially fuel will go up and Republicans will have an easy target.
 

Opposable

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,371
Every day I feel were getting closer to that Futurama flaming ball of garbage episode, where the catastrophe is seen as so far away that we will leave it for future generations to save themselves
 

mbpm

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,077
My biggest worry with America right now is, what happens if America gets another republican president in 2024 or 2028? Won't they just reverse a lot of climate regulations? Especially when whatever democrats do impacts people financially like a carbon tax, so prices of most things especially fuel will go up and Republicans will have an easy target.
I definitely wonder how much of these things that we might implement are really binding and how much can be reversed
 

myth

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Jul 15, 2021
283
My dude, when I say "exploitation", do you think I'm only talking about workers? Capitalism is the rape of the natural world. How many millions of species have gone extinct due to unfettered growth of industry? How many indigenous people have been decimated because we needed a labor force to fuel our civilization(s)? The U.S. government literally drove buffalo to near extinction because it forced Lakota/related tribes into our economy.

It's hard to tell if you're ignorant or you just don't care.
You know there was a place called the Soviet union, there wasnt any profit in that country. You know what that country did? It destroyed a whole sea, check out the aral sea if you want to know more
This thread exists because capitalism isn't and hasn't been working, and we're at a crisis point. And, once again, how many of those leftist governments failed due to U.S. intervention?
Capitalism's goal is to move recourses efficiently and dynamically. And it's good at that. So yeah, i think its working rn.
There's the condescension I knew you were capable of. Yeah, don't worry, 1 billion marine animals were killed in a flash heat wave off the coast of Canada the other day, but us humans are fine, so it's all good.
What do you think is worse, 1 billion animals dying or every plant, animal, and human dying off?
 
Oct 30, 2017
1,728
My biggest worry with America right now is, what happens if America gets another republican president in 2024 or 2028? Won't they just reverse a lot of climate regulations? Especially when whatever democrats do impacts people financially like a carbon tax, so prices of most things especially fuel will go up and Republicans will have an easy target.
Tbh I think it doesn't even matter that much what top level politicians are going to do (of course it does to some extent).

Market forces already took over in the renewable energy generation sector (actively killing fossil fuels) and everything else will follow suit.

Trump couldn't stop the death of the coal industry either, the prices are just undercut by wind and solar.

And you can't stop the transition to EVs either because car manufacturers around the world are investing heavily into it.
 

KtSlime

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,910
Tokyo
It's great to say you want to be carbon neutral by 2050, but that means instead of increasing carbon production per year, we would need to decrease it, and then decrease it the following year, and the year after that - for 30 years, errr, probably 29 years, since 2021 looks to be yet another increase.
 

LegendofJoe

Member
Oct 28, 2017
12,106
Arkansas, USA
My biggest worry with America right now is, what happens if America gets another republican president in 2024 or 2028? Won't they just reverse a lot of climate regulations? Especially when whatever democrats do impacts people financially like a carbon tax, so prices of most things especially fuel will go up and Republicans will have an easy target.

The proponents of the most likely to pass GhG tax have thought of that. The funds from the tax will be distributed directly to citizens to help them offset the price increases. It's basically a stealth UBI, read about it here:

energyinnovationact.org

Polluters pay. People get a carbon cashback.

A healthy climate AND affordable for people? Yes, it's possible.
 

LordByron28

Member
Nov 5, 2017
2,348
Tbh I think it doesn't even matter that much what top level politicians are going to do (of course it does to some extent).

Market forces already took over in the renewable energy generation sector (actively killing fossil fuels) and everything else will follow suit.

Trump couldn't stop the death of the coal industry either, the prices are just undercut by wind and solar.
Pollution rose under Trump. Trump was slashing environmental regulation left, right and center. He was actively tearing away conservation areas and conservation on certain animals. We have a lot to do in the fight against climate change and yes the president of the United States matters. The previous one was a complete train wreck that mismanaged a global pandemic that will now likely be with us for the rest of our lives.
 
Oct 30, 2017
1,728
It's great to say you want to be carbon neutral by 2050, but that means instead of increasing carbon production per year, we would need to decrease it, and then decrease it the following year, and the year after that - for 30 years, errr, probably 29 years, since 2021 looks to be yet another increase.
CO2 emissions are actually falling since 2007.

ourworldindata.org

United States: CO2 Country Profile

United States: How much CO2 does your country emit? Are emissions falling? How does it compare to other countries?
www.statista.com

U.S. CO2 emissions by year 2023 | Statista

CO₂ emissions in the U.S. have reduced by more than 17 percent when compared to 2005 levels to less than five GtCO₂ per year.

The increase in 2021 is just because 2020 had an unusually strong decrease due to COVID.
 

darkwing

Corrupted by Vengeance
Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,157
It's great to say you want to be carbon neutral by 2050, but that means instead of increasing carbon production per year, we would need to decrease it, and then decrease it the following year, and the year after that - for 30 years, errr, probably 29 years, since 2021 looks to be yet another increase.

the goal post will be pushed further and further once we near 2050, why wait wait 2050? goal should be at least 10 years from now

Paris accord is a joke, no one is following it
 

LegendofJoe

Member
Oct 28, 2017
12,106
Arkansas, USA
If the world continues the rate of increase for renewable energy generation it has over the last several years, the green energy transition would be complete way before 2050.
 

medinaria

Member
Oct 30, 2017
2,562
Pollution rose under Trump. Trump was slashing environmental regulation left, right and center. He was actively tearing away conservation areas and conservation on certain animals. We have a lot to do in the fight against climate change and yes the president of the United States matters. The previous one was a complete train wreck that mismanaged a global pandemic that will now likely be with us for the rest of our lives.

you're doing the thing people do where you conflate "everything to do with the health of the environment" with "climate change"

all of the things you are saying here are true, but also, none of these have more than secondary effects on climate change. emissions growth is slowing/stopping in the US, coal is dying because it's too expensive, and there's just not much that a given president can do to stop it. especially because a lot of the changes in power buildout etc. aren't caused by regulations themselves, but by the fear of regulations. the regulations just accelerate it.
 

Lausebub

Member
Nov 4, 2017
3,165
The proponents of the most likely to pass GhG tax have thought of that. The funds from the tax will be distributed directly to citizens to help them offset the price increases. It's basically a stealth UBI, read about it here:

energyinnovationact.org

Polluters pay. People get a carbon cashback.

A healthy climate AND affordable for people? Yes, it's possible.

Driving your car should will get more expensive and should get more expensive. A big argument for a carbon tax is, that it works as an incentive to produce less CO2 and the redistribution should go towards poor people and it won't be as much as prices increase, so the middle class will be pissed. A CO2 tax in America is a non starter anyways and if one gets introduced it will be super low like it is right now here in Germany

www.theguardian.com

ExxonMobil lobbyists filmed saying oil giant’s support for carbon tax a PR ploy

Undercover reporter hears company worked to undermine Biden efforts and funded shadow groups to deny global heating
 

LegendofJoe

Member
Oct 28, 2017
12,106
Arkansas, USA
Driving your car should will get more expensive and should get more expensive. A big argument for a carbon tax is, that it works as an incentive to produce less CO2 and the redistribution should go towards poor people and it won't be as much as prices increase, so the middle class will be pissed. A CO2 tax in America is a non starter anyways and if one gets introduced it will be super low like it is right now here in Germany

www.theguardian.com

ExxonMobil lobbyists filmed saying oil giant’s support for carbon tax a PR ploy

Undercover reporter hears company worked to undermine Biden efforts and funded shadow groups to deny global heating

The Carbon Dividend and Energy Innovation Act is structured to start off with a modest tax that will increase every year along with payouts. The payouts will go to everyone, so the middle class won't have (as much) reason to be angry that poor people are also getting checks.

I don't think it's going to pass either, but it is a very well thought out piece of legislation.
 
Oct 30, 2017
1,728
you're doing the thing people do where you conflate "everything to do with the health of the environment" with "climate change"

all of the things you are saying here are true, but also, none of these have more than secondary effects on climate change. emissions growth is slowing/stopping in the US, coal is dying because it's too expensive, and there's just not much that a given president can do to stop it. especially because a lot of the changes in power buildout etc. aren't caused by regulations themselves, but by the fear of regulations. the regulations just accelerate it.
Exactly.

Trump could get into power in 2024 and he won't stop shit in terms of renewable energy, because money > everything else.

If coal is more expensive to use than wind or solar, it will die, simple as that.

I think energy production is the smallest thing to worry about because you can't beat wind and solar anymore in terms of price.


The next big sectors to worry about are transportation, real estate & cooling/heating, agriculture and raw materials.

EVs are getting mainstream rather sooner than later, another part where market forces took over and nobody is going to stop this.

So we are left to figure out to lower the impact of airplanes, ships and the other stuff that I mentioned. Those are still some huge sectors in the worldwide industry.


Furthermore, we're just talking about the West here, China pumps out more CO2 than the United States and the EU combined. Granted, they're still the factory of the world and their economy is growing.
 

medinaria

Member
Oct 30, 2017
2,562
If the world continues the rate of increase for renewable energy generation it has over the last several years, the green energy transition would be complete way before 2050.

I hate that I know about this shit, but it's all about the s-curve of technology adoption

little happens for a long time, then everything happens all at once. the technology is readily available and is cheap enough that we just fundamentally ought to expect huge growth in renewables year-over-year, even without regulation. the point of regulation is to steepen the slope as much as possible, to compress the timeframe as much as possible, but the green energy revolution is very much here.

I bring this up more than I should, probably, but it's even true in developing areas - which is something we didn't expect even a decade ago. we figured that most developing economies would still be coal-centric, and there will still definitely be coal usage there, but places like india are showing that solar is way, way more competitive there than projected

Rishab Shrestha, senior analyst at consultancy Wood Mackenzie said he expects India's coal generation share to drop to 50% in early 2030s from over 70% currently.

"We expect cost of building new coal plants in India to be $62/MWh by 2030, 25% higher than that of solar," Shrestha said.
 

LegendofJoe

Member
Oct 28, 2017
12,106
Arkansas, USA
I hate that I know about this shit, but it's all about the s-curve of technology adoption

little happens for a long time, then everything happens all at once. the technology is readily available and is cheap enough that we just fundamentally ought to expect huge growth in renewables year-over-year, even without regulation. the point of regulation is to steepen the slope as much as possible, to compress the timeframe as much as possible, but the green energy revolution is very much here.

I bring this up more than I should, probably, but it's even true in developing areas - which is something we didn't expect even a decade ago. we figured that most developing economies would still be coal-centric, and there will still definitely be coal usage there, but places like india are showing that solar is way, way more competitive there than projected

I was blown away when I got a quote for enough solar panels to cover my energy needs. I expected it to be almost twice as much as what I was quoted. The cost is still going down too, and that's not even taking into account all of the other energy innovation that is taking place with nuclear, wind, tidal, geothermal, hydrogen, etc. The green energy revolution is well underway thankfully.
 
OP
OP
III-V

III-V

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,827


To avert disaster, countries are committing to carbon cutting steps. But these will be costly and likely to add to a global debt pile which asset manager Janus Henderson estimates ballooned to $62.5 trillion by the end of last year.

With floods and wildfires devastating the world, estimates vary on how much damage warming will inflict on its economy.

But a report earlier this year by BofA put it at $54-69 trillion by 2100, which compares to a valuation of the entire global economy of around $80 trillion.


Another study by a group of universities including Cambridge concluded that 63 countries – roughly half the number rated by S&P Global, Moody's and Fitch - could see credit ratings cut by 2030 because of climate change.
China, Chile, Malaysia, and Mexico would be the hardest hit with six notches of downgrades by the end of the century, it said, while the United States, Germany, Canada, Australia, India, and Peru could see around four.
 

medinaria

Member
Oct 30, 2017
2,562
8 billion humans is obviously too much for one Earth to sustain

source: dude, trust me

the honest answer to the carrying capacity of the earth is "literally nobody knows what the answer is, we can't know what the answer is, we keep making estimates based on modern technology and then just assuming that nothing will ever change, and then it does"

people make estimates of like "well if everyone became a vegetarian we could feed 10 billion people max using all the arable farmland in the world" in 2002, but wheat productivity (as an example) has increased by 35% in america between then and 2018. so now the number is just completely, obviously wrong. basically every estimate of "carrying capacity" is outdated before it is even published.

it is far more likely that general trends towards having fewer children in developed countries (which essentially always happens, until they go below replacement levels) will cause us to reach a natural population maximum long before we need to actually do anything about it
 

Tsuyu

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,788
CO2 emissions are actually falling since 2007.

ourworldindata.org

United States: CO2 Country Profile

United States: How much CO2 does your country emit? Are emissions falling? How does it compare to other countries?

What could be the reason behind the fall of consumption based CO2 after 2007? Iphone actually came out in that year and started a smartphone revolution.

I find it hard to believe given how frequent people buy and upgrade electronics, consume media including games etc.
 
OP
OP
III-V

III-V

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,827
What could be the reason behind the fall of consumption based CO2 after 2007? Iphone actually came out in that year and started a smartphone revolution.

I find it hard to believe given how frequent people buy and upgrade electronics, consume media including games etc.
I could be wrong, but I think it was mostly coal

thanks Obama
 

medinaria

Member
Oct 30, 2017
2,562
What could be the reason behind the fall of consumption based CO2 after 2007? Iphone actually came out in that year and started a smartphone revolution.

I find it hard to believe given how frequent people buy and upgrade electronics, consume media including games etc.

all emissions are largely driven by the carbon cost of the electricity used to make/use things

us emissions are down largely because (quote taken from 2016):

  • Overall, CO2 emissions were around 18% lower than they would have been, if underlying factors had not changed, and 14% lower than their 2005 peak.
  • Coal-to-gas switching in the power sector is the largest driver, accounting for 33% of the emissions reduction in 2016.
  • Wind generation was responsible for 19% of the emissions reduction.
  • Solar power was responsible for 3%.
  • Reduced electricity use – mostly in the industrial sector – was responsible for 18%.
  • Without these changes, electricity sector CO2 emissions would have been 46% higher than they are today.
  • Reduced fuel consumption in homes and industry was responsible for an additional 12% of the overall emissions reductions.
  • Changes in transport emissions from fewer miles per-capita, more efficient vehicles, and less air travel emissions per-capita account for the final 15%
 

TrueSloth

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,082
CO2 emissions are actually falling since 2007.

ourworldindata.org

United States: CO2 Country Profile

United States: How much CO2 does your country emit? Are emissions falling? How does it compare to other countries?
www.statista.com

U.S. CO2 emissions by year 2023 | Statista

CO₂ emissions in the U.S. have reduced by more than 17 percent when compared to 2005 levels to less than five GtCO₂ per year.

The increase in 2021 is just because 2020 had an unusually strong decrease due to COVID.
Numbers don't really put into perspective how much we havent changed and the situation is getting worse.
www.epa.gov

Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks | US EPA

The national greenhouse gas inventory is developed each year to track trends in U.S. emissions and removals. Find emissions by source, economic sector and greenhouse gas.

There might be a decrease, but it's not really all that much:
emissionsbygas1990_2019.png
 
OP
OP
III-V

III-V

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,827
May as well add it here as well for record

looking for metals used in EV


That is quite a bit of money
 

Sibylus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,734
Malthus get back in the sea and don't come out.

The Mediterranean is supposed to be moderated by the water right? Looks like that's being overcome
It's a bad feedback loop, that. Our oceans can buffer centuries' and millennia' worth of heat and carbon respectively (with the latter ranging between biological capture in things like the shells of sea life and sedimentary rock burying the carbon for a very long time indeed), but as they warm their capacity for both decreases, which contributes to a steeper warming trend, which warms them further...
 

Ghgghggh

Banned
May 2, 2018
185
I was banned for 3 days for my inoffensive posts here. It exemplifies why this issue is such a challenge...people dont want to understand the severity of this problem because it threatens their self identity and way of life.
 
OP
OP
III-V

III-V

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,827
I was banned for 3 days for my inoffensive posts here. It exemplifies why this issue is such a challenge...people dont want to understand the severity of this problem because it threatens their self identity and way of life.
I don't know why you were banned, but the suggestion of moving back to the stone age does not hold any footing in reality, regardless of the severity of the situation.
 

Joco

Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,446
gdra4d4cl5h71.png


So am I looking at this right? 3C by the 2040s and 4C by the 2060s for land temperatures in the U.S.?
 

darkwing

Corrupted by Vengeance
Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,157
2.7 C increase is pretty much unavoidable based on current trajectory

only widescale catastrophe that is much worse now will wake up governments
 

gozu

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
10,442
America
It doesn't help that much coal burning was replaced by natural gas, which not only produces CO2 but escapes unburned by the billions of gallons into the atmosphere, where it is many times more harmful as the equivalent amount of CO2.

Obly advantage is it doesn't cause as many premature deaths as coal smoke.