Senate Global Climate Change

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rotating-sails-help-to-revive-wind-powered-shipping/
Interested to see if this amounts to anything. If we can get ships to stop looking like the Zumwalt that would be an even greater reward than not dying from climate change

 

China has significant problems concerning the water supply, related to what's happening to their glaciers. They absolutely care about climate change and they are actually moving in the right direction in terms of policies.

 

Almost no country is on track to meet its Paris Accord "commitments"-- I think it was Morocco and one other-- and none are moving with the speed to avert catastrophe urged by the IPCC in their 2018 report. But at least @QUIGONMIKE will be able to make bad faith whataboutchina talking points while temperatures in the Arctic reach 100 degrees Fahrenheit regularly and the American West burns and Florida drowns and vast swaths of Southern Asia become unsuitable for humans and every coral reef is cooked and the Amazon becomes grazing land for cattle.

 

And when is this all going to happen exactly? Do we have a date? Its a fair question. I think AOC said we have like 12 years left to live or whatever it was but we'll throw that out. Gimme a number.

 

The IPCC report said that we need to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 (and move on a downward trajectory toward "net zero" emissions by 2050) in order to have a real chance. That's what AOC was talking about.

And we can't say when exactly these things will happen. It really depends on how much more carbon we pump into the atmosphere before we get our act together, if we ever do. The Arctic has already warmed by a lot and Siberia recorded highs of 100 degrees this past summer. Coral reefs, including the Great Barrier Reef, have already been bleached en masse by warming waters. The Amazon is being reduced at its fastest rate ever with fires set by ranchers and miners. So when will these things reach their end points? By the end of the century, certainly. By 2050, highly likely that we'll already have seen major, as-of-yet unprecedented climate-fueled disasters. The IPCC said it could be as early as the 2030s.

 

Don't forget ocean acidification. That affects a lot more than coral reefs. A drastic change in the composition of ocean life is at hand.

 

Oh, and I forgot to mention my favorite aspect of the IPCC report. Their models of "net zero" emissions depend on adoption of a kind of carbon capture technology that, while theoretically possible, does not yet exist and would need to be deployed on a massive scale. So yeah, we're in a very bad situation and we need states to adopt aggressive mitigation efforts 10 years ago.

 

Maybe we could genetically redesign ourselves so that we contain biologic carbon sequestration sacks. And then engineer us to be sexually attracted to the size of someone's carbon sequestration sack. Give evolution a little nudge and we'll do the rest.

 

https://climateandsecurity.org/a-security-threat-assessment-of-global-climate-change/

 

It's not a 'fair question', largely because you're taking a supremely unscientific approach in that you want "a date" or "a number". It points to you profoundly not understanding science, let alone the specifics of climate change, and yet you want to have what is a scientific discussion by your unscientific rules. That simply doesn't work. Both because these things have ranges and because you're trying to bundle multiple things taking place on different time scales, particularly as there's a lag time between greenhouse gas concentrations and the consequences showing up because these processes take time.

(And of course, I'll note here that the term climate change denier is primarily used in reference to people that deny anthropogenic global warming, because that is happening even though many people are politically motivated to dismiss it)

 

Not sure if anyone caught this:

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-worlds-largest-solar-farm-powering-singapore

 

So there is actual date but rather a range. How wide is the range? They’ve been harping on how we’re screwed environmentally since the 70s. Here we are. The "cry wolf" thing starts to come into play at some point. Maybe this constantly moving goal post is why a lot of people are questioning all of this? They should. They are being asked to absorb high energy costs, lose jobs, pay high prices for things all for....what?

I keep hearing about how this green energy stuff is so much cheaper or cost neutral. Tons of jobs are sitting there ready to be filled. Is there data for this or does that have a "range" too? Just curious.

 

That's why they invented Google buddy.

 

Google? Da**** is that? Tell ya what, I’ll go search and see if we can get some dates or ranges then. Back soon.

Ok, Google is returning some pretty hysterical claims. Like AOCs famous "12 years" rant which is now down to 11 years, I think. So if we have 11 years left to live.....why bother? Let’s party and max out our credit cards.

star out disallowed words, plz. thx /heels

 

No, he’s why they invented contraception.

 

What "constantly moving goal post"? You're not talking about any real claims, you're just making up vague statements to respond to. Like this bit: "How wide is the range?"
Which range? There's multiple things being discussed and you're not making it at all clear which one you're talking about, or that you understand there are multiple things involved in this discussion.

You also try to make a broad point about talking about environmental consequences, but seem to ignore that many of the things talked about actually were responded to. So, for example, in the 1970s there were concerns about the impact that pollution was having on the ozone via CFLs. Policies were put into place then to reduce that damage. We have reaped the benefits of those policies. A similar thing took place with another 1970s concern, acid rain. Again, the damage was clear, actions were eventually taken, and acidity has dropped significantly from where it was in the 70s because something was done about it. It is not "crying wolf" if we respond to a crisis so that it doesn't happen.

You appear to be complaining that that the disaster that was stated didn't happen, which is rather like someone stopping smoking because they were told if they keep smoking, they'd likely get lung cancer and then being mad that you stopped smoking and haven't gotten lung cancer yet so you stopped smoking for nothing.

 

Lets talk. What ya got? Ive tried to ask some legit questions and get nothing but angry, foot -stomping replies and the usual under-handed insults. Any other plays from the playbook here? How about we discuss the actual climate change "plan" then? Whats it going to cost everyone? Are there really all those green jobs just waiting for everyone? How about costs to the average family? Are businesses expected to just "eat" extra costs imposed on them? What do you think?

@Lowbacca_1977 - I want to know a legit date range that we have until the doom and gloom really hits. I cant find one anywhere. Al Gore in the 90's had people worked up pretty good. The smoking analogy is clever but doesnt work here. Seems to me like this is a case of we want the USA to take the brunt of the burden for a lot of this but cant really say if or when it will have any real impact or amount to anything.

If you want to discuss realistic changes we can make which really help, I'll listen. Things that wont cost an arm and a leg. Things that wont cost jobs. Things that wont pass high costs onto consumers whom cant afford it right now. Whenever this stuff comes up it gets quite fast is all.

 

Where did AOC say, specifically, that we had 12 years left to live? Not just any statement about 12 years, but specifically what you're saying here, that she said in (now) 11 years that everyone would die at that point in time?

 

USAToday from 2019: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...casio-cortez-climate-change-alarm/2642481002/

If 12 years were actually true for some global, major disaster then I guess we're screwed, arent we? . I dont quite believe that though. I think we can manage thbis and mitigate what we have to without going overboard. Dont you?

 

You missed the question I asked, it seems. You talked about how we're going to die in 11 years. I asked you to provide the quote where AOC said that we would all die in 11 years. Nowhere in that link does she say that. You have said this is everyone dies in 11 years. Where does she actually say that.

If you're going to frame this as her saying we all had 12 years to live, then provide where she said we all have 12 years to live. Provide that quote. (and of course, you're also skipping that she's making that statement in the context of mitigation being an option, so saying "that can be mitigated" is, in fact, a huge part of the point she's making about any climate-change timeline. That taking action will alter that outcome)

 

@QUIGONMIKE

The “they’ve been saying we’re environmentally screwed since the 70s!” cry wolf lament is a particularly tired talking point. Did it ever occur to you that the policies put in place since then, including the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency (by Richard Nixon, no less) and the phasing out of CFC’s to reverse the hole in the ozone layer, and a thousand other protections that both liberal and conservative politicians supported until it became fashionable to deny these problems, actually had an impact on reversing some of that environmental screwed-up-ness? There’s no crying wolf scenario. The policies worked to prevent the worst from happening. Had we not gotten rid of CFCs, the ozone hole would have gotten much greater and we essentially would indeed have been quite screwed.

Secondly, stating “here we are” does not indicate that we’re environmentally in the clear. If the standard for being all good on that front is “still existing as a species,” that’s a damn low standard. Also, you might be fine on this front, but are you aware of how massively vulnerable to environmental degradation billions of people in the world are?

Lastly, new problems arise with time. In the early 70s, the scale and scope of climate change was not well understood. Now...it is. And the overwhelming consensus is that we’re facing potentially catastrophic security risks from climate change:

https://climateandsecurity.org/a-security-threat-assessment-of-global-climate-change/

The only reason fossil fuel costs for consumers are as low as they are in the US is because the federal government heavily subsidizes it. So the answer is no, businesses don’t have to “eat” the higher costs of renewable energy. All the federal government has to do, at least for now, is heavily subsidize renewables to drive the price down, just as it’s been doing for oil and gas. So given the revelation of this reality that you clearly weren’t aware of, I imagine you will now support subsidies for renewable energy?