human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
POSTED BY: 1kiki
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 19:38
VIEWED: 60750
PAGE 61 of 111
Facts can be stubborn things. Facts are not swayed by political hype.
https://heartland.org/opinion/world-climate-declaration-there-is-no-cl
imate-emergency/
https://www.ntd.com/over-1600-scientists-sign-no-climate-emergency-dec
laration_938916.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There's a difference between a climate emergency/crisis and a climate shift. The difference is time frame. I don't buy the idea that we have a crisis at hand that will require draconian action by TPTB. OTOH I accept it as fact that the climate is indeed changing, and that we should mitigate what we can (eg, eliminate our world-straddling military, ban private jets, plant more urban trees, manage our forests better, incentivize agricultural and ranching practices to store more carbon in the soil, solarize in sunshine states, supplement with wind power in windy states etc.) and adapt where we can't (create north-south corridors for species migration, pre-plant long-lived species like trees for pre-adaptation, manage ocean preserves and land reservations to maintain biodiversity, etc.)
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Facts can be stubborn things. Facts are not swayed by political hype.
https://heartland.org/opinion/world-climate-declaration-there-is-no-cl
imate-emergency/
https://www.ntd.com/over-1600-scientists-sign-no-climate-emergency-dec
laration_938916.html
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:From what I can tell, you have been advocating shifting all prosperity to the planet's greatest polluters: China, India, Mexico, Brazil, Russia, Ethanol Industry aka Big Ethanol.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:There's a difference between a climate emergency/crisis and a climate shift. The difference is time frame. I don't buy the idea that we have a crisis at hand that will require draconian action by TPTB. OTOH I accept it as fact that the climate is indeed changing, and that we should mitigate what we can (eg, eliminate our world-straddling military, ban private jets, plant more urban trees, manage our forests better, incentivize agricultural and ranching practices to store more carbon in the soil, solarize in sunshine states, supplement with wind power in windy states etc.) and adapt where we can't (create north-south corridors for species migration, pre-plant long-lived species like trees for pre-adaptation, manage ocean preserves and land reservations to maintain biodiversity, etc.)
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Facts can be stubborn things. Facts are not swayed by political hype.
https://heartland.org/opinion/world-climate-declaration-there-is-no-cl
imate-emergency/
https://www.ntd.com/over-1600-scientists-sign-no-climate-emergency-dec
laration_938916.html
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
Not sure if that is because you want humans to perish, or only just Americans.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Facts can be stubborn things. Facts are not swayed by political hype.
https://heartland.org/opinion/world-climate-declaration-there-is-no-cl
imate-emergency/
https://www.ntd.com/over-1600-scientists-sign-no-climate-emergency-dec
laration_938916.html
SIGNY: There's a difference between a climate emergency/crisis and a climate shift. The difference is time frame. I don't buy the idea that we have a crisis at hand that will require draconian action by TPTB. OTOH I accept it as fact that the climate is indeed changing, and that we should mitigate what we can (eg, eliminate our world-straddling military, ban private jets, plant more urban trees, manage our forests better, incentivize agricultural and ranching practices to store more carbon in the soil, solarize in sunshine states, supplement with wind power in windy states etc.) and adapt where we can't (create north-south corridors for species migration, pre-plant long-lived species like trees for pre-adaptation, manage ocean preserves and land reservations to maintain biodiversity, etc.)
JSF: From what I can tell, you have been advocating shifting all prosperity to the planet's greatest polluters: China, India, Mexico, Brazil, Russia, Ethanol Industry aka Big Ethanol.
Not sure if that is because you want humans to perish, or only just Americans.
How is that?
Who will get poorer if we ban private jets?
Who will get poorer if we pay people to hand-thin forests? Seems like that would be a job opportunity.
Who will get poorer if we pay ranchers to practice management intensive grazing (which requires more ranch-hands) and farmers to plant cover crops? The farmers? The ranch hands and ranchers?
Who will get poorer if we solarize where practical? Son, WE have solar panels and they've saved us a fuck-ton of $$$!
Who will get poorer if we install wind-turbines where practical?
Who will get poorer if we improve the efficiency and robust of our grid?
Who will get poorer if we dismantle our world-straddling empire and stop running up the deficit, or re-allocate the $$$ to other job-creating projects (like those above).
We don't need to compete with the Chinese for the smallest bowl of rice. That's not the way to wealth.
We must have very different ideas of wealth, so please enlighten me how you see this being a problem.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Betting against worst-case climate scenarios is risky business
By David Spratt | September 4, 2023
Scientific observations and data from around the globe show that many of the changes that scientists thought would occur later this century are already here, ahead of schedule.
Many current changes are at the upper limit of scientific projections, and sometimes beyond them. Other events, including sea-surface warming in the North Atlantic and the eye-watering decline of sea-ice around Antarctica, have simply astounded scientists.
The International Monetary Fund notes a growing agreement between economists and scientists that “risk of catastrophic and irreversible disaster is rising, implying potentially infinite costs of unmitigated climate change, including, in the extreme, human extinction.” And a 2020 report concludes that exceeding climate tipping points “could lead to catastrophic and irreversible impacts that would make quantifying financial damages impossible” (emphasis added).
In other words, we cannot put a dollar figure on how much damage climate disruption will cause at the levels of warming towards which we are now heading. It is a case of “deep uncertainty” which occurs when decision makers and stakeholders do not know or cannot agree on the likelihood of different future scenarios.
Writing about the “climate endgame,” Luke Kemp from Cambridge’s Centre for the Study of Existential Risk and his colleagues agree that “prudent risk management requires consideration of the bad-to-worst-case scenarios” because low-probability, high-impact extreme outcomes have damages so large as to perhaps be unquantifiable. They say that large uncertainties about dangerous surprises “are reasons to prioritize rather than neglect them.”
But this is what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and climate research and risk managers in the financial system have overwhelmingly not done.
Policy makers and global leaders seem not to recognize that when risks are existential, a bad outcome means the future is unrecognizably different from before. By downplaying the high-risk possibilities, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others are foolishly conducting a dangerously unprecedented experiment: how much heat—how much change—can human systems tolerate before society collapses?
More at https://thebulletin.org/2023/09/betting-against-worst-case-climate-sce
narios-is-risky-business/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Why the United States undercounts climate-driven deaths
"The system of death surveillance wasn’t designed for a climate-changed world."
Every week between May and October, the Maricopa County Department of Public Health in Arizona releases a heat morbidity report. The most recent report said that 180 people have succumbed to heat-associated illness in the county this year so far. But everyone agrees that number is off.
If previous years are any indication, the true number of heat-related deaths in Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix, is much higher: At the end of last summer, the county revised its initial reports upwards by a factor of five, ultimately reporting a sobering 425 heat-related deaths in total.
This lag plagues not just heat-related mortality reporting, but climate-related death data in general. It’s hard to get a full picture of the true number of mortalities connected to a given disaster in real-time. The full death toll often isn’t revealed until weeks, months, even years after the event occurs. And an unknown fraction of deaths often slide by undetected, never making it onto local and federal mortality spreadsheets at all. For example, a recent retrospective study found the number of people who died from exposure to hurricanes and tropical cyclones in the U.S. in the years between 1988 to 2019 was 13 times higher than the federal government’s official estimates.
That study and others like it indicate that the U.S. is gravely underestimating the health impacts of climate change. “The system of death surveillance wasn’t designed for a climate-changed world,” said Robbie Parks, who coauthored the study on hurricane-related mortalities and works as a researcher at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health.
https://grist.org/health/why-the-united-states-undercounts-climate-dri
ven-deaths/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just about every country in the world is committed to keeping climate change in check. This week, the United Nations issued its first report card for this goal and found that the world is falling behind while time is running out.
Under the 2015 Paris climate agreement, countries agreed to pitch in what they could to slash greenhouse gas emissions. Their initial proposals were nowhere near enough, so the accord created a mechanism called the global stocktake to keep everyone accountable.
Unlike other UN climate change reports that are meant to be informative and shy away from policy recommendations, the stocktake is explicitly meant to spur countries to act. It’s a blunt progress assessment, and it lays out how much further countries must go in their emissions commitments the next time they come to the negotiating table at COP28, which will be held in the United Arab Emirates this December.
“The Paris Agreement has driven near-universal climate action,” the report notes, but “much more is needed now on all fronts.”
The task ahead is immense: According to the report, global emissions need to be slashed 43 percent by 2030 to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, one of the main goalposts of the Paris agreement. But the world has already warmed about 1.2 degrees so far above preindustrial averages and is on track to pass the key threshold in the next few years. So when negotiators reconvene at the next climate summit, the stocktake will shape the discussion.
“It carries a lot of weight,” said European Climate Foundation CEO Laurence Tubiana, who helped negotiate the Paris agreement. “The [stocktake] is looking backwards, but even more importantly setting the direction for the next phase of climate policymaking.”
Among its recommendations, the report unapologetically calls for “phasing out all unabated fossil fuels” and for a “radical decarbonization of all sectors of the economy.”
But in a world facing economic turmoil, energy shocks, and unrelenting opposition from the biggest polluters, there are open questions about whether leaders will heed the message at all, and what they’ll actually do about it.
Coal, oil, and natural gas need to go.
More at https://www.vox.com/climate/23864312/climate-change-stocktake-cop28-du
bai
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
dbl
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Trump wrote: "Shawn Fain, the respected President of the United Auto Workers, cannot even think about allowing ALL ELECTRIC CARS - THEY WILL ALL BE MADE IN CHINA, and the Auto Industry in America will cease to exist! There is already a giant 'E GLUT,' they don't go far or long, are very expensive, and the consumer must be given a CHOICE."
The former president also urged users to vote for him in 2024 as he will "stop this madness" and claimed, without evidence, that Mexico and Canada love "Biden's idiotic policy."
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-auto-workers-strike-1827306
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Trump wrote: "Shawn Fain, the respected President of the United Auto Workers, cannot even think about allowing ALL ELECTRIC CARS - THEY WILL ALL BE MADE IN CHINA, and the Auto Industry in America will cease to exist! There is already a giant 'E GLUT,' they don't go far or long, are very expensive, and the consumer must be given a CHOICE."
The former president also urged users to vote for him in 2024 as he will "stop this madness" and claimed, without evidence, that Mexico and Canada love "Biden's idiotic policy."
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-auto-workers-strike-1827306
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
You forgot to mention the part where EV workers are not union, and even leftist news outlets are saying that the union would be a fool to agree to any terms where EV creation wasn't also unionized.
https://prospect.org/blogs-and-newsletters/tap/2023-09-13-beware-wrong
-auto-deal/
Quote:
According to my sources, the industry strategy is to make the bargaining entirely about wages and working conditions, offer the autoworkers a very generous raise of more than 30 percent, but concede nothing when it comes to the EV sector, and hope that the union takes the deal. That would be a disaster. It would represent the union being bought off for present workers at the expense of an increasingly non-union auto future. Too much of the decline of organized labor over the past several decades has followed exactly this pattern.
The industry hope is to put Fain in a bind, since such a deal might look very good to the rank and file. It would take gumption and leadership for Fain to reject the deal and tell the industry to come back with a bargain that included EVs.
I have a feeling you know that already though, don't you shill?
Your TDS is so strong that if Trump agrees with Democrats on something you will automatically turn on it and come to the defense of corporations.
You are a silly, hollowed out shell of a stupid, stupid man.
--------------------------------------------------
How you do anything is how you do everything.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME