-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion
- Thread starter Raffy.Roma
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
cpa
Active Member
Fun times ahead in the San Joaquin Valley:
Starting Thursday, 1 September the daily highs will be 108, 110, 110, 112, 112, 111, 109, 104. Overnight lows (if you can call them lows) for the same days will be 70, 74, 75, 77, 77, 77, 75, 73, 69. Friday 9 September is still going to be 100. Today is supposed to be 100 as well. Eleven consecutive days >100 that followed 12 consecutive with a two-day break at 98.
Triple digits in early September historically have been rare, but not unheard of. But never as high as 112, and not for more than a day or two. Generally our temps in early September range from 92-98 with lows around 62. Perfect raisin weather!
If those temps are too hot for laying the grapes out, they'll all have to go to the dehydrators instead relying upon the old-fashioned way.
Starting Thursday, 1 September the daily highs will be 108, 110, 110, 112, 112, 111, 109, 104. Overnight lows (if you can call them lows) for the same days will be 70, 74, 75, 77, 77, 77, 75, 73, 69. Friday 9 September is still going to be 100. Today is supposed to be 100 as well. Eleven consecutive days >100 that followed 12 consecutive with a two-day break at 98.
Triple digits in early September historically have been rare, but not unheard of. But never as high as 112, and not for more than a day or two. Generally our temps in early September range from 92-98 with lows around 62. Perfect raisin weather!
If those temps are too hot for laying the grapes out, they'll all have to go to the dehydrators instead relying upon the old-fashioned way.
FOX 13 News Utah: Group pitches Utah lawmakers on a pipeline to the Great Salt Lake.
Group pitches Utah lawmakers on a pipeline to the Great Salt Lake
So why is CA not pumping sea water into the Salton Sea? As I understand, it's saltier than the sea, just like Salt Lake.
Group pitches Utah lawmakers on a pipeline to the Great Salt Lake
So why is CA not pumping sea water into the Salton Sea? As I understand, it's saltier than the sea, just like Salt Lake.
I’m a big fan of low birth rates stemming from 1st world lifestyles. Climate impact can be viewed as carbon intensity per person. While 1st world lifestyles have increased carbon use they also reduce population growth.
Do poverty reduction, then people have fewer kids. Then the people who are alive can have a first world life style while in total reducing carbon intensity helping hit net 0 as renewables keep expanding.
If he’s scared of fewer people, continuing to increase worker efficiency means the economy can keep growing even with fewer workers. If we improve healthcare population decrease can slow because people are living longer healthier lives.
I mean if you had a transnational company in 2100 would you want to sell to a population of 1.5B first worlders and 10B third worlders with a climate going to hell or 7.5B 1st worlders with a climate where CO2 has peaked and is slowly coming down?
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Polling shows that US voters favor climate bills – yet assume fellow Americans don’t | Adrienne Matei
Part of the key to collective action may be to overcome the ‘false social reality’ that makes us assume no one else cares about the climate
www.theguardian.com
mspohr
Well-Known Member
‘We’re going to pay in a big way’: a shocking new book on the climate crisis
In An Inconvenient Apocalypse, authors Wes Jackson and Robert Jensen style themselves as heralds of some very bad news: societal collapse on a global scale is inevitable, and those who manage to survive the mass death and crumbling of the world as we know it will have to live in drastically transformed circumstances. According to Jackson and Jensen, there’s no averting this collapse – electric cars aren’t going to save us, and neither are global climate accords. The current way of things is doomed, and it’s up to us to prepare as best we can to ensure as soft a landing as possible when the inevitable apocalypse arrives.
In An Inconvenient Apocalypse, authors Wes Jackson and Robert Jensen style themselves as heralds of some very bad news: societal collapse on a global scale is inevitable, and those who manage to survive the mass death and crumbling of the world as we know it will have to live in drastically transformed circumstances. According to Jackson and Jensen, there’s no averting this collapse – electric cars aren’t going to save us, and neither are global climate accords. The current way of things is doomed, and it’s up to us to prepare as best we can to ensure as soft a landing as possible when the inevitable apocalypse arrives.
ElectricIAC
Good-Natured Rascal
One thing I can give Greta props on is that she at least took a boat instead of a private jet to preach climate gospel.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Greta?
These people are way beyond Greta.
The answer to this Ponzi scheme involves shrinking humanity from the current 7.7 billion people to a more sustainable 2 or 3 billion. An Inconvenient Apocalypse doesn’t describe how exactly this decline in population will occur, nor reckon with the enormous trauma that the elimination of the majority of humanity will inflict on humans and our societies. Although the book is nominally oriented toward social justice, the authors make no effort to address the fact that such a population decline would probably be an absolute disaster for marginalized ethnicities and sexualities, those who are disabled or mentally unwell, and basically anyone not deemed fit for survival in the new world. In conversation, Jensen offered this explanation:
“A lot of past talk of population control has been based in white supremacy, but that doesn’t mean we can ignore the question of what’s a sustainable population. That’s the kind of thing that people have bristled against. We don’t have a solution. But the fact that there aren’t easy and obvious solutions doesn’t mean that you can ignore the issue.”
ElectricIAC
Good-Natured Rascal
mspohr
Well-Known Member
I think their point is that climate change (unavoidable) will lead to a drastic reduction in population (also unavoidable). Of course this will be chaos.
They aren't proposing a method to reduce the population... just that it will happen.
However,
"Jensen is a longtime journalist who has written books on ecology, masculinity and radical feminism. He has received backlash for propounding exclusionary and harmful views against transgender people, specifically targeting transgender women, and in response to the criticism he has doubled down on these viewpoints, continuing to promulgate them."
“A lot of past talk of population control has been based in white supremacy, but that doesn’t mean we can ignore the question of what’s a sustainable population. That’s the kind of thing that people have bristled against. We don’t have a solution. But the fact that there aren’t easy and obvious solutions doesn’t mean that you can ignore the issue.”
According to Jackson and Jensen, once the collapse occurs and the Earth’s population declines, it is up to humans to figure out how to live in a “low-energy” future – that is, one where fossil fuels are no longer used and we essentially are back to relying on our own muscles and those of beasts of burden. In terms of what that low energy world might look like, An Inconvenient Apocalypse articulates an ethos that might be summed up as the paleo diet, but for society. Because 10,000 years of so-called progress has left us in “dire straits”, the answer involves looking back to the prehistoric millennia before humans developed agriculture, began writing down their history, and built societal hierarchies. Insofar as An Inconvenient Apocalypse describes how this future could look, it involves tradespeople and agricultural workers elevated to the high-status ranks of society, the affluent getting taken down some notches, a wholesale elimination of the cosmopolitan, consumerist world, and religion playing a prominent role. One is tempted to sum it up as “make the Earth great again”.
ElectricIAC
Good-Natured Rascal
Presumably there still a class of winners and losers in that scenario though.
Who picks who lands on which side?
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Same with everything else. The winners decide they want to be winners and the losers decide they want to be losers. If you make the choice to adapt to a low energy lifestyle you win. If you refuse to adapt you lose. Same with everything else.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
The usual... the rich and powerful pick themselves to be the winners!
They then persecute the "losers".
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Burning forests for energy isn't 'renewable' – now the EU must admit it | Greta Thunberg and others
Increasing volumes of wood pellets and other wood fuels are being imported from outside the EU to satisfy Europe’s growing appetite for burning forests for energy. This is an appetite that the existing EU renewable energy directive incentivises. It does this by classifying forest biomass on paper as zero-carbon emissions when in reality, burning forest biomass will produce higher emissions than fossil fuels during the coming decisive decades
Increasing volumes of wood pellets and other wood fuels are being imported from outside the EU to satisfy Europe’s growing appetite for burning forests for energy. This is an appetite that the existing EU renewable energy directive incentivises. It does this by classifying forest biomass on paper as zero-carbon emissions when in reality, burning forest biomass will produce higher emissions than fossil fuels during the coming decisive decades
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Under Liz Truss, we’ll be careering into petrolhead politics while the world burns | John Harris
The pandemic, it turns out, was merely one more crisis on the way to something completely convulsive: payback for our fragile dependence on fossil fuels, and a way of living that is no longer sustainable. With perfect timing, next weekend will see the return to London’s streets of Extinction Rebellion, whose protests will trigger the usual sneers from climate deniers while hammering home 2022’s awful sense of urgency.
Both have said they support the lifting of England’s current moratorium on fracking. Sunak began the contest opposing more onshore wind turbines, but then changed his mind; Truss has repeatedly said she wants fields to be cleared of solar panels, a position Sunak also supports. Last week, in the wake of a Spectator interview in which Sunak agreed with the contention that “we need more fossil fuels in the short to medium term”, there came apparent confirmation that Truss and her team are discussing plans to issue as many as 130 new licences for drilling in the North Sea. Any results might not be seen for 20 or 30 years: the fact that oil and gas are globally traded commodities would mean that the effects of additional production on prices would be negligible to nonexistent. But, like her fracking stance, the move is performative: a half-cocked answer to some of the questions triggered by the energy crisis, and a signal that even Boris Johnson’s limp flirtation with green politics was too much for the Tory party to bear.
The pandemic, it turns out, was merely one more crisis on the way to something completely convulsive: payback for our fragile dependence on fossil fuels, and a way of living that is no longer sustainable. With perfect timing, next weekend will see the return to London’s streets of Extinction Rebellion, whose protests will trigger the usual sneers from climate deniers while hammering home 2022’s awful sense of urgency.
Both have said they support the lifting of England’s current moratorium on fracking. Sunak began the contest opposing more onshore wind turbines, but then changed his mind; Truss has repeatedly said she wants fields to be cleared of solar panels, a position Sunak also supports. Last week, in the wake of a Spectator interview in which Sunak agreed with the contention that “we need more fossil fuels in the short to medium term”, there came apparent confirmation that Truss and her team are discussing plans to issue as many as 130 new licences for drilling in the North Sea. Any results might not be seen for 20 or 30 years: the fact that oil and gas are globally traded commodities would mean that the effects of additional production on prices would be negligible to nonexistent. But, like her fracking stance, the move is performative: a half-cocked answer to some of the questions triggered by the energy crisis, and a signal that even Boris Johnson’s limp flirtation with green politics was too much for the Tory party to bear.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Large parts of Amazon may never recover, major study says
Environmental destruction in parts of the Amazon is so complete that swathes of the rainforest have reached tipping point and might never be able to recover, a major study carried out by scientists and Indigenous organisations has found. “The tipping point is not a future scenario but rather a stage already present in some areas of the region,” the report concludes. “Brazil and Bolivia concentrate 90% of all combined deforestation and degradation. As a result, savannization is already taking place in both countries.”
Environmental destruction in parts of the Amazon is so complete that swathes of the rainforest have reached tipping point and might never be able to recover, a major study carried out by scientists and Indigenous organisations has found. “The tipping point is not a future scenario but rather a stage already present in some areas of the region,” the report concludes. “Brazil and Bolivia concentrate 90% of all combined deforestation and degradation. As a result, savannization is already taking place in both countries.”
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Europe Is Sacrificing Its Ancient Forests for Energy Europe Is Sacrificing Its Ancient Forests for Energy
ElectricIAC
Good-Natured Rascal
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Sorry.Paywall.
It's a photo story. Light on text. The headline is the whole story
Similar threads
