human actions, global climate change, global human solutions

POSTED BY: 1kiki
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 19:38
VIEWED: 60750
PAGE 37 of 111

PREV PAGE 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 NEXT PAGE

6IXSTRINGJACK

Tuesday, October 18, 2022 11:44 PM

I'm not saying that there isn't a way to capture CO2 gasses. Of course there are ways.

Nobody has ever come up with a model that makes it economically feasible though.

Until that happens, they won't be used except for in niche markets where it is necessitated.

If they had an economic model that would extract CO2 from the atmosphere and make it profitable on a grand scale, we'd already be doing it and nobody would be talking about climate change.

--------------------------------------------------

Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus

SIGNYM

Wednesday, October 19, 2022 12:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'm not saying that there isn't a way to capture CO2 gasses. Of course there are ways.

Nobody has ever come up with a model that makes it economically feasible though.

Until that happens, they won't be used except for in niche markets where it is necessitated.

If they had an economic model that would extract CO2 from the atmosphere and make it profitable on a grand scale, we'd already be doing it and nobody would be talking about climate change.

--------------------------------------------------

Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus

Actually, there is. It's called forestry and cover crops. But nobody wants to bother with it bc it's detailed work.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake

SIGNYM

Wednesday, October 19, 2022 12:43 AM

Yanno SECOND, instead of slagging SIX all the time you should be promoting his lifestyle.

If we all (including you) lived like SIX ... buying only what is necessary, conserving and upgrading what exists, upcycling and re-using as necessary - we wouldn't have as much of a CO2 problem.

I'm all for technical innovation, but there are also tried and true fixes for our various environmental disasters, and if we look in our trash cans and landfills (and Pentagon stockpiles) we can see part of the problem right there. There are no magic (technical) wands for that.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake

SECOND

Wednesday, October 19, 2022 2:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'm not saying that there isn't a way to capture CO2 gasses. Of course there are ways.

Nobody has ever come up with a model that makes it economically feasible though.

Until that happens, they won't be used except for in niche markets where it is necessitated.

If they had an economic model that would extract CO2 from the atmosphere and make it profitable on a grand scale, we'd already be doing it and nobody would be talking about climate change.

I know I can't get you to pay attention because price and profit are the only things you care about, but Climate change is a threat to civilization while the high price of gasoline is not.

Daniel Steel, C. Tyler DesRoches, and Kian Mintz-Woo write:

In a speech about climate change from April 4th of this year, UN General Secretary António Guterres lambasted “the empty pledges that put us on track to an unlivable world” and warned that “we are on a fast track to climate disaster”. Although stark, Guterres’ statements were not novel. Guterres has made similar remarks on previous occasions, as have other public figures, including Sir David Attenborough, who warned in 2018 that inaction on climate change could lead to “the collapse of our civilizations”. In their article, “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency 2021”—which now has more than 14,700 signatories from 158 countries—William J. Ripple and colleagues state that climate change could “cause significant disruptions to ecosystems, society, and economies, potentially making large areas of Earth uninhabitable”.

Because civilization cannot exist in unlivable or uninhabitable places, all of the above warnings can be understood as asserting the potential for anthropogenic climate change to cause civilization collapse (or “climate collapse”) to a greater or lesser extent. Yet despite discussing many adverse impacts, climate science literature, as synthesized for instance by assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has little at all to say about whether or under which conditions climate change might threaten civilization. Although a body of scientific research exists on historical and archeological cases of collapse, discussions of mechanisms whereby climate change might cause the collapse of current civilizations has mostly been the province of journalists, philosophers, novelists, and filmmakers. We believe that this should change.

Here we call for treating the mechanisms and uncertainties associated with climate collapse as a critically important topic for scientific inquiry. Doing so requires clarifying what “civilization collapse” means and explaining how it connects to topics addressed in climate science, such as increased risks from both fast- and slow-onset extreme weather events. This kind of information, we claim, is crucial for the public and for policymakers alike, for whom climate collapse may be a serious concern. Our analysis builds on the latest research, including Kemp et al.’s PNAS Perspective, which drew attention to the importance of scientifically exploring the ways that climate outcomes can impact complex socioeconomic systems. We go further by providing greater detail about societal collapse, for instance, distinguishing three progressively more severe scenarios. Moreover, we emphasize avoiding doom-saying bias and recommend studying collapse mechanisms in conjunction with successful adaptation and resilience, seeing these as two sides of the same coin. [Continue reading… at https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2210525119 ]

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

SECOND

Wednesday, October 19, 2022 3:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Yanno SECOND, instead of slagging SIX all the time you should be promoting his lifestyle.

If we all (including you) lived like SIX ... buying only what is necessary, conserving and upgrading what exists, upcycling and re-using as necessary - we wouldn't have as much of a CO2 problem.

I'm all for technical innovation, but there are also tried and true fixes for our various environmental disasters, and if we look in our trash cans and landfills (and Pentagon stockpiles) we can see part of the problem right there. There are no magic (technical) wands for that.

I keep wondering what the hell is wrong with you, but I never will find out why you can't understand simple things. The simple thing, which I doubt you can understand, is that the important numbers are how much CO2 and other greenhouse gases are in the atmosphere. Those numbers need to go downward, and very fast, but it seems like most people think those numbers will go downward if and only if they emit fewer tonnes of CO2 per year. You could make your daily emissions zero and it would not lower the numbers that need lowering, which is the percent of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Those are the ONLY numbers that count.

I live a very downscale lifestyle. But by selling natural gas, I'm serving people who live a very proliferate lifestyle, with hundreds of tonnes (or even thousands) per year per person of CO2 emissions. Before that, I was building petrochemical plants that emit gigatonnes of CO2. I'm one of the guys who made the percentage of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increase, and the only way to make the numbers decrease is to run the industrial process that guys like me started in reverse, where the industry takes greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere and puts those gases back into the ground. If industry does not take its waste gases, which are greenhouse gases, out of the atmosphere, we are going to be cooked.

Yes, I know some people dream of reflecting sunlight back into outer space by geoengineering and other people dream of forests and oceans "naturally" absorbing greenhouse gases. Good luck with those dreams, but you better wake up fast and make those dreams into reality pretty damn quick.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

6IXSTRINGJACK

Wednesday, October 19, 2022 4:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'm not saying that there isn't a way to capture CO2 gasses. Of course there are ways.

Nobody has ever come up with a model that makes it economically feasible though.

Until that happens, they won't be used except for in niche markets where it is necessitated.

If they had an economic model that would extract CO2 from the atmosphere and make it profitable on a grand scale, we'd already be doing it and nobody would be talking about climate change.
I know I can't get you to pay attention because price and profit are the only things you care about,

... Says the guy who lies every day about being a rich business man who owns cattle one day and natural gas the next day depending on what lie of the day he wants to tell to the guy who hasn't worked for somebody else since the summer of 2019.

Quote:
but Climate change is a threat to civilization while the high price of gasoline is not.

We'll see about that once the printing presses stop going BRRRRRRRRR, the PayDay loans dry up, the jobs disappear, the evictions spike and the poor people start coming into your neighborhoods and start looting, burning and raping those who can still afford to eat the food that won't stop increasing in price, largely due to the gas prices.

I've seen feral before. At one point, I was damn near feral myself.

We had police forces that worked back in 2009. We also benefited from low interest rates and comparatively low inflation the last time everything crashed.

Winter is coming.

--------------------------------------------------

Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus

SIGNYM

Wednesday, October 19, 2022 8:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Yanno SECOND, instead of slagging SIX all the time you should be promoting his lifestyle.

If we all (including you) lived like SIX ... buying only what is necessary, conserving and upgrading what exists, upcycling and re-using as necessary - we wouldn't have as much of a CO2 problem.

I'm all for technical innovation, but there are also tried and true fixes for our various environmental disasters, and if we look in our trash cans and landfills (and Pentagon stockpiles) we can see part of the problem right there. There are no magic (technical) wands for that.

SECOND: I keep wondering what the hell is wrong with you, but I never will find out why you can't understand simple things. The simple thing, which I doubt you can understand, is that the important numbers are how much CO2 and other greenhouse gases are in the atmosphere.

CO2 is at about 400 ppm in the atmosphere, up from about 250-300 ppm pre-industrial levels. We measure it all the time.

Quote:
SECOND Those numbers need to go downward, and very fast, but it seems like most people think those numbers will go downward if and only if they emit fewer tonnes of CO2 per year.

They will go down with lower emissions. Plants and algae absorb CO2 every day, as does the ocean. If that were not happening, CO2 would go up continuously eon over eon until it was in the high percent level.

Quote:
SECOND: You could make your daily emissions zero and it would not lower the numbers that need lowering, which is the percent

ppm, ppb

Quote:
SECOND: of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Those are the ONLY numbers that count.

Yanno, NATURE produces CO2. Animals, rotting vegetation, soil bacteria, fires, volcanoes ... even plants... produce CO2. If that were not the case, there would be no CO2 in the atmosphere and all plant life would die of starvation and the earth wuld be one giant snowball.

It's an equilibrium of production and absorption. That's why they call it a carbon cycle.

The question is: where do we want the equilibrium to be?

In higher CO2 atmospheres, plants absorb more. It's one of their critical foods and a negative feedback on atmospheric CO2. If our emissions were to go to zero, the CO2 in the atmosphere would gradually fall. If we were to ENHANCE the absorption capacity... with better forestry management using biochar (the thing that makes reforestation immediately carbon-negative) and cover cropping then the CO2 would fall even faster.

The thing we have to be prepared for is that higher temperatures will set off positive feedbacks: melting permafrost releasing methane, warming oceans releasing the CO2 that they absorbed.

Quote:
SECOND I live a very downscale lifestyle.

Do you fly on airplanes? Support war? Both are profligate sources of greenhouse gases

Quote:
SECOND: But by selling natural gas, I'm serving people who live a very proliferate lifestyle, with hundreds of tonnes (or even thousands) per year per person of CO2 emissions.

Dont look at poor people. The wealthy and war emit most of the CO2 emissions

Quote:
SECOND: Before that, I was building petrochemical plants that emit gigatonnes of CO2. I'm one of the guys who made the percentage of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increase, and the only way to make the numbers decrease is to run the industrial process that guys like me started in reverse, where the industry takes greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere and puts those gases back into the ground. If industry does not take its waste gases, which are greenhouse gases, out of the atmosphere, we are going to be cooked.

Industry can run full-tilt absorbing CO2, and it would probably not hold a candle to what nature can do. But by all means, let's do ALL THREE things: conserve/reduce emissions, promote natural absorption, and remove CO2 industrially. (Altho I have to say, looking at the energetics of CO2 absorption, it seems to me that absorbing CO2 would take more energy than its

6IXSTRINGJACK

Wednesday, October 19, 2022 10:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
What we COULD do is replace our dark asphalt-based rooftops with white ones and increase the albedo of our cities. Planting urban trees would also make cities more liveable by reducing temperatures and AC usage.

Lets' just make sure we're not doing it with soft maple garbage trees this time, m-kay?

--------------------------------------------------

Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus

SIGNYM

Wednesday, October 19, 2022 11:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
What we COULD do is replace our dark asphalt-based rooftops with white ones and increase the albedo of our cities. Planting urban trees would also make cities more liveable by reducing temperatures and AC usage.

Lets' just make sure we're not doing it with soft maple garbage trees this time, m-kay?

--------------------------------------------------

Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus

Hahaha!!!

There are such things as "urban foresters" who can help select trees that don't buckle sidewalks/foundations or invade sewer lines or drop fruit that stains cars, that are also (hopefully) friendly to birds and pollinators and tolerates dust and smog.

Bad decisions have been made in the past. Ficus trees buckle sidewalks, palm trees harbor rats. I look at the freeway plantings - all exotics- acacia, eucalyptus, plumbago, "California pepper" (which is not a pepper tree and not Californian) and I have to wonder "why?"

With so many native trees and shrubs to choose from - a half dozen oaks, sycamore, ash, toyon, lemonade berry, coffeeberry, all kinds if sages and buckwheat, native sunflowers... seems like there would be something suitable for every situation.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake

SECOND

Thursday, October 20, 2022 12:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Hahaha!!!

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake

Did anybody today tell Signym and 6ix they are worthless? For two valueless assholes, they certainly have as high an opinion about themselves as Trump and Putin have about themselves. Trump will be fine? Putin will win? That wouldn't happen if God wasn't indifferent, shrugging off responsibility. Even some children act more responsible, until adults teach them the craftiness of shirking and lying, than the God in the Old Testament Bible. It is no wonder that people who profess belief in Gods are just as fundamentally irresponsible as their Gods are. If you're sensing that I think people want in a leader and a god a bigger version of their sorry selves, one that will forgive them for being worthless assholes who don't try, you would see why I think people choose sadly inadequate leaders, religions and gods.

State of NJ Files Suit Against Five Oil and Gas Companies And Trade Group Of Misleading the Public About Their Products and Climate Change

The suit filed today in New Jersey Superior Court in Mercer County names as defendants Exxon Mobil Corporation, Shell Oil Company, Chevron Corporation, BP, ConocoPhillips, and the trade group in which these defendants were members — American Petroleum Institute (API).

October 18, 2022

TRENTON, NJ (MERCER)–Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin, the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs and the Department of Environmental Protection today filed a lawsuit on behalf of New Jersey residents against five oil and gas companies and a petroleum trade association, alleging they knowingly made false claims to deceive the public about the existence of climate change and the degree to which their fossil fuels products have been acerbating anthropogenic global warming.

The suit filed today in New Jersey Superior Court in Mercer County names as defendants Exxon Mobil Corporation, Shell Oil Company, Chevron Corporation, BP, ConocoPhillips, and the trade group in which these defendants were members — American Petroleum Institute (API). The State is seeking to hold the defendants accountable for systematically concealing and denying their knowledge that fossil fuel consumption could have a catastrophic impact on the climate, causing the devastating consequences of fossil fuel overconsumption: the significant sea level rise, flooding, and extreme weather that have battered New Jersey’s citizens and businesses, requiring the State and its residents to shoulder the enormous costs of rebuilding, hardening New Jersey’s defenses against severe weather and making the necessary transition away from reliance on fossil fuels to a more sustainable clean-energy future. API is accused of playing a key role in orchestrating and implementing climate denial campaigns on behalf of and under the supervision of the fossil fuel defendants.

The State alleges that the defendant oil and gas producers and API have known for decades that use of fossil fuels is a major cause of climate change, but instead of warning the public or the State about the danger, they launched public-relations campaigns to sow doubts about the existence, causes, and effects of climate change with the goal of confusing the public, delaying the transition to a lower carbon economy and future, increasing their own profits, and further deepening dependence on their products.

“Based on their own research, these companies understood decades ago that their products were causing climate change and would have devastating environmental impacts down the road,” said Attorney General Platkin. “They went to great lengths to hide the truth and mislead the people of New Jersey, and the world. In short, these companies put their profits ahead of our safety. It’s long overdue that the facts be aired in a New Jersey court, and the perpetrators of the disinformation campaign pay for the harms they’ve caused.”

“New Jersey is ground zero for some of the worst impacts of climate c

PREV PAGE 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 NEXT PAGE