The fossil fuel industry is still heavily invested in preventing real climate action. It is a very hard opponent to overcome.
And that taboo is probably rooted in evolutionary psychology, people have a genetically driven tendency to criticize those who advocate having less children? So could there be an instinctual drive behind it?
https://www.flashpack.com/solo/relationships/dont-want-kids-...
The GHG emissions associated with food intake required to fuel a kilometre of walking range between 0.05 kgCO2e/km in the least economically developed countries to 0.26 kgCO2e/km in the most economically developed countries.
A Tesla model 3 according to WLTP test cycle uses
0.191 kWh / km * 0.434 kgCO2e/kWh = 0.083 kgCO2e / km
Sources
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-66170-y https://www.tesla.com/de_DE/support/european-union-energy-la... https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/co2-emissionen-pro-kil...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/04/more-tha...
Treat it as a software optimisation problem - should you go after a large number of very minro problems, or take an axe to the single large problem that dominates your metrics?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/20/richest-...
Many NGOs are actively trying to increase the availability of birth control in such regions, they are aware of the problem with unplanned pregnancy in those parts of the world. I strongly doubt there's any racism behind it.
https://www.cgdev.org/blog/access-contraception-global-devel...
While in the west population growth is relatively slow and we still have a high per-capita CO2 footprint.
I guess I unintentionally touched a taboo subject (racism) that's not permitted by the current moral orthodoxy, which is no different to religion in the end? I hope I'm correct about this.
I don't really care if my posts are flagged or even if I get banned from this site completely, I am exercising my 1st Amendment protected freedom of speech rights. It's just that on the Internet every forum is privately owned, there is no "public square" here, and thus all are subject to moderation and censorship.
I like when HN has varying points of view with supporting links/data.
I’m with you on the population and per capita resource use.
Fact is that India is also slowly leveling out. Africa has a bunch of countries with high growth and that’s where the most humans are being added.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_populat...
https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-an...
: The oldest continuous ice core records to date extend 123,000 years in Greenland and 800,000 years in Antarctica. Ice cores contain information about past temperature, and about many other aspects of the environment. Crucially, the ice encloses small bubbles of air that contain a sample of the atmosphere – from these it is possible to measure directly the past concentration of atmospheric gases, including the major greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.
And fossil records go back further with respect to more general climate conditions capable of sustaining various species.
But regardless, changing the climate status quo in a short time will have various impacts, only some of which we can accurately predict and model.
I've found there's a whole philosophy that seems to line up with my (and maybe your) perspective: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/263979/global-cattle-pop...
I guess people even have their pension funds tied up into the system, so nearly everyone is forced to participate in it, against their wishes even.
Update: Something to back that up: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/04/05/the-worl...
The Haber-Bosch process is the primary method in producing ammonia from nitrogen and hydrogen. Ammonia produced, utilized mainly as fertilizers, currently responsible for approximately 1.8% of carbon dioxide global emissions
Yes, green ammonia is a thing - not yet at scale but there are plans afoot, funded by resource billionaires, to make industrial ammonia w/out the greenhouse gas ommissions.
https://fortescue.com/what-we-do/green-energy-research/green...
I definitely would say that and would argue it needs to be way more than 10.
If you want to solve manmade climate change you need to solve the demand for goods that cause it. You lower demand by increasing the the supply (can't do that because that increases the emissions you try bringing down) or you increase its price making only the very rich able to afford it and delaying the problem for a decade till population catches up. We already see it with migrant crisis all over the west - both Europe and US.
You do this decade after decade, again and again each time creating more and more privileged cast that can afford it (current policy) and in essence pushing the rest of the civilisation further and further into poverty as they will never catch up and if they do - new legislation will bring them down again to mask the issue once more.
An example of that would be farmers in Europe protesting removal of diesel subsidies or just in general people being able to afford smaller and smaller cars due to taxation in Europe every year.
The problem with these "minor changes to their lifestyle" is that they need to accommodate exponentially growing population that already is a magnitude or more higher than persons who need to adjust.
We are talking about 90%+ reduction in what you call "minor changes" to achieve emission equilibrium to begin with and add that with exponentially growing population and its simply not feasible not due to lack of compassion from top percentile but because changes like these would completely anihilate the modern human civilisation and bringing it back hundreds of years.
As an example theres a very informative video on what happens to country and infrastructure when 4 million people join the power grid in a decade [1] Imagine that scaled to 4 billion and the extreme worldwide devastation.
Population control is the only way to solve climate change and it needs to be reduced everywhere but especially in the undeveloped nations as they have the most potential of bringing everything down.
This has been studied long time ago by scientists such as Alfred Sauvy [1], who concluded that overpopulation is not the cause of sustainability crisis, and that greenhouse gas is the major cause. In particular, limiting the growth of population has few impact on the production of greenhouse gas, whereas changing the means of energy production and consumption is much more impactful.
Moreover the world population is expected to be less than 12 billions in 2100 [2], which is plainly sustainable. This is mostly due to the demographic transition, a pattern observed in most countries, where the fertility rates decrease over time. More specifically I recommend the excellent book of Emmanuel Todd and Youssef Courbage on this subject [3]. The authors argue that in most countries throughout history, when both the majority of men and the majority of women know how to read and write, then the fertility rate decreases, and a revolution becomes imminent.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Sauvy
[2]: https://www.un.org/en/desa/world-population-projected-reach-...
[3]: https://cup.columbia.edu/book/a-convergence-of-civilizations...
The main increase of energy usage has been due to this, not people in urban areas eskewing apartments and public transport to drive cars and live in suburban houses.
https://youtu.be/6sqnptxlCcw?si=FfqAqooG9qg4kejC
Another fun fact: 80% of the world's population has never flown, and only 2-4% fly abroad in a year.
Daily Sea Surface Temperature (notice the new paradigm started in 2023 and extending into 2024):
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/
Daily Surface Air Temperature:
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/?dm_id=world
Daily Sea Ice Extent (click on "Show Southern Hemisphere", also showing concerns of being low in 2023):
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/seaice/
The most shocking is the sea surface temperature, but we see rising temperature in all layers of the troposphere. A factor that has dampened global warming for very long, since the last ice age, is the ocean's capacity for absorbing heat. If this gets saturated, and since surface waters don't mix much with deep waters.. If the same surplus heat equivalent to 15 hiroshima bombs per second today hits the surface, and rising. All that goes into heating air and surface, it's going to accellerate warming going forward. Early projections are in fact showing accelleration already.
That most people are incapable of emotionally processing this, is part of the problem.
Jevon's Paradox[1] states that as efficiency increases (which itself is a form of supply increase), demand increases.
My own view is that the paradox makes the idea of population reduction moot, those remaining humans would simply use more energy because supply has gone up and demand (through lack of competition) going down to levels below supply would, again, drive prices down.
But that said, religious apocalypse scenarios usually aren't quite as specific as "methane hydrate runaway feedbacks".
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
>Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
>Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
and it turns out that by building in a strong preference towards the null hypothesis, science has tended to dramatically understate both the amount of emission, the amount they matter, and the feedback loops that can amplify this further.
like yea it has been simulated to death but everyone wanted to whistle past the graveyard and so those simulations had drastically optimistic assumptions built into them such that we are likely to crash through what was only a decade or two ago considered the “worst case scenario” by a decent sized multiple.
And frankly the root cause is really the people who go “I find this very confusing, don’t you have this all figured out by now? wasn’t it supposed to be global cooling in the 70s???”, the process was built around appeasing you so you didn’t dismiss the whole thing as alarmist and it turns out the process was built in a way that produced (unsurprisingly) over-optimistic results. The models missed low largely because royal-you wanted to play skeptic 30 years ago.
(And no, “global cooling” was never a thing and the idea that it was is more fossil-fuel propaganda and marketing. Even noaa is uncharacteristically blunt about this.) https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
https://www.globe.gov/explore-science/scientists-blog/archiv...
In fact religious belief in apocalypse might contribute to the apathy about climate policy from the voters, people can either conflate the two or think the religious apocalypse is nearer so no need to address the climate catastrophe: https://www.newsweek.com/shocking-number-americans-believe-l...
Same has also happened with this hackernews post: >>39162856 (I didn't visit the link shared in this post either) and looks like this post didn't get 'as much' traction on HN as compared to the above one. However, the video shared in this post also came up on top on youtube.
Looks like HN is a good place to boost your content on YT, if it gets pushed to the top!
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/01/shipping...
It could be the underwater Tonga volcano erruption, which put alot of water into the atmosphere. Water is also a GHG.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/goddard/tonga-er...
It could be El Nino part of the ENSO-cycle in addition.
https://www.npr.org/2023/06/08/1181086972/el-nino-has-offici...
All these are temporary masking conditions. They also add to feedback effects, for increased warming. So could be partly accellerating heating as well.
I think some researchers are seeing accelleration in the overall trend. You can eyeball this with a ruler as well. Even though it might be too early to tell, it's hard to find any negative feedback loops to counter all these positive ones.
For cars, I think we'd probably see increase in surface temperature on land. People might care a bit more then. It could be removed from both gas and diesel. That would bring pollution down, but also remove aerosols currently masking effects from GHG.
https://www.futurity.org/potassium-fuel-sulfur-1369772-2/
UPDATE: As noted in another comment here. Car fuel is quite a bit different category than bunker fuel (heavy fuel oil). We might still observe "unmasking"-impacts if implemented generally though. We'd notice it more too, as the impact would be right where we use our cars.
If you care about the well being of dogs, how can the answer be to have less of them crammed in your tiny apartment?
It’s about balance. It is not true that more of something is unambiguously good, for itself or the system as a whole.
You should read about how reintroducing wolves, a carnivore that kills other animals, made the Yellowstone ecosystem flourish.
https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wildlife/wolf-r...
Or the case of Macquarie Island.
https://archive.is/2020.10.21-044800/https://www.nytimes.com...
Or the deer of Manitou Island.
https://www.interlochenpublicradio.org/2022-03-04/unnatural-...
Or, or, or. We have tons of examples.
Somehow OP must've linked to the RDCWorld video by mistake and somehow this still got to the top of HN?
I guess HN just upvotes without clicking the link?
The increasing sea surface temperature is concerning because it directly is starting to harm millions of sea creatures that cannot adapt fast enough. There are multiple die-offs happening already that might be due to this.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/ocean...
What's concerning is that all the arrows are pointing just one way. The discussion is now wether it's accellerating or not..
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/23/china-factorie...
We're not even vertically farming at scale yet.
There's a lot of room left for densifying human civilization. Seems like 10x should be achievable.
https://www.minorcompositions.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/1...
good book on the topic ^^^
> Thinking the market will save us is just a convienient pipe dream.
I think you should dig a little deeper into my comment before calling me out on my supposed pipe dreams.
I say taxation (which is NOT a market force, but a govt intervention in a market) can be used to then let the market fix the problem. Especially given that I also say that tax on "wholesome" things such as labour and housing should be abolished. To break it down for you: a massage these days costs, say, 50 USD for 30mins, because labour and the parlours location are expensive. For 50 USD I can order bin bags full of plastic rubbish (toys) from China (plastic, transport, im/ex, are all suuuuuuper cheap). I suggest to use taxation to the other way: make labour/housing cheap and transport/plastic expensive.
It was approximately exponential up until around 200ish AD, fell below exponential for a few hundred years, then was above exponential for around 600 years (the growth rate was going up approximately linearly), had a period where it varied and even was slightly negative, and then around 1500ish entered a period where the growth rate was increasing almost exponentially. That lasted to around 1960, and since then the growth rate rapidly.
Here's a graph of the growth rate from 4000 BC to 2023 [1] from the data here [2].
I was curious what it is called when the growth rate itself is going up exponentially, but utterly failed to craft a search in Google that worked for me. I then tried ChatGPT (the free version) and at first it was just wrong. I reiterated that I want to know what it is called when the growth rate is going up exponentially, not when the growth is exponential. It apologized and told me it is called "exponential growth of the growth rate" or "exponential acceleration".
I tried to verify that it is called "exponential acceleration" with Google, but failed.
- There's no climate change
- Climate change is okay and has no impact
- Climate change exists but it's due to natural causes
- Climate change exists but it's due to natural causes and its impacts are small
- Climate change exists but its impacts are good for us
- Climate change exists but we will adapt
- Climate change exists and its the activists' fault we didn't act because they scared us with their doomsday predictions <- you are here
- Climate change exists and we shouldn't talk about it because it's scary and scared people are not productive members of society
'On the subject of birth control, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).”
St. Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae, the landmark encyclical reaffirming Church teaching against contraception, on July 25, 1968.
In the encyclical, Paul VI warned of serious social consequences if the widespread use of contraceptives became accepted. He predicted that it would lead to infidelity, the lowering of morality, a loss of respect for women, and the belief that humans have “unlimited dominion” over the body.'
Now, mainstream Catholics are relatively moderate in terms of many modern political positions, but I hope that the fact of approximately 1bn people adopting and affirming this position establishes that my assertion isn't bullshit. Beyond Catholics I think that the "true right" (someone help me please) have many folks (often with undercuts, wild eyes and tattoo's that they regret only because if they are discovered they will disqualify them from public life) who have far stronger views. To find out about these people (I will restrain myself from more powerful descriptions of them) please investigate the "tradwife" [3] and "incel" [2] movements.
[1]https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251920/pope-francis-...
[2] https://theconversation.com/incel-violence-is-a-form-of-extr...
[3] https://jezebel.com/trad-wife-wellness-influencers-are-tryin...
(I'm trying to find a sea rise map that looks right by eye and not having much luck. Here's the North Atlantic at 10m[1]. Surely that's not enough flooding?)
[1] https://coastal.climatecentral.org/map/4/-10.3532/51.4503/?t...
I see no predictions by him.
What I do see are examples of him selectively quoting other people and that he was in turn selectively quoted himself.
This is also why you shouldn't rely on politicians for anything.
This is just a tribute to the stoic philosophy. I recommend reading the classics. You can start with this article.
[0] >>39156692
Now it links to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCo3XwTRg9o
And I heard the reason why teens act out so much can be due to the incredibly stifling environment they are in for their age. I think the rise of over-controlling helicopter parenting is making that even worse?
Throughout history the treatment of children in society has been absolutely appalling. And even in today's times emotional abuse of children is very common. During the COVID lockdown nearly half of children were victims of it.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/not-surprising-see-sad-...
but living through 30 years of catastrophic predictions not happening has made me question the messenger instead.
Some examples(1):
1989: Rising seas to ‘obliterate’ nations by 2000
2008: Al Gore warns of ice-free Arctic by 2013
(1) https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-poca...
Don’t get me wrong. I still think it’s an area of concern. I’m actually a raging environmentalist but I just think we should spend our limited political capital on air pollution, heavy metals, microplastics, and expanding national park access.
In the US, which takes in far more refugees and asylum seekers, it’s around half a percentage point of all legal immigration attempts succeed.
https://www.cato.org/blog/why-legal-immigration-nearly-impos...
Because I see that we have a lot of people coming in from Mexico claiming asylum for uh, whatever war is going on there, getting released into the country, and just never showing up for their court hearings: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/nearly-600000-m...
> There won't be an extinction event.
This also ignores the fact that we are currently in the 6th largest extinction event in the history of life on this planet [1]. Elizabeth Kolbert's The Sixth Extinction is a great book on this (and the history of our understanding of species extinction as well).
So aside for being naive about the science, your comment reads a bit like claiming you don't think it will rain today while in the midst of being soaked in a massive rain storm.
Hot Weather.—Many a man has mopped his brow during the summer months of 1884, declaring it was the hottest weather the world ever knew, which, of course, would not be true, for the extreme heat in the record of the past has not been approached during the late summer.
In 627, the heat was so great in France and Germany, says the London Standard, that all springs dried up; water became so scarce that many people died of thirst.
In 879, work in the field had to be given up; agricultural laborers persisting in their work were struck down in a few minutes, so powerful was the sun. In 993, the sun’s rays were so fierce that vegetation burned up as under the action of fire. In 1000, rivers ran dry under the protracted heat, the fish were left dry in heaps and putrefied in a few hours. Men and animals venturing in the sun in the summer of 1022 fell down dying.
In 1132, not only did the rivers dry up, but the ground cracked and became baked to the hardness of stone. The Rhine in Alsace nearly dried up. Italy was visited with terrific heat in 1189; vegetation and plants were burned up. During the battle of Bela, in 1200, there were more victims made by the sun than by weapons; men fell down sunstruck in regular rows. The sun of 1277 was also severe; there was an absolute dearth of forage.
In 1303 and 1304, the Rhine, Loire, and Seine ran dry. In 1615, the heat throughout Europe became excessive. Scotland suffered particularly in 1625; men and beasts died in scores. Meat could be cooked by merely exposing it to the sun. Not a soul dared to venture out between noon and 4 p.m. In 1718, many shops had to be closed; the theatres were never opened for several months. Not a drop of water fell during six months.
In 1753 the thermometer rose to one hundred and eighteen degrees. In 1779, the heat at Bologna was so great that a large number of people died. In July 1793, the heat became intolerable. Vegetables were burned up and fruit dried upon the trees. The furniture and woodwork in dwelling-houses cracked and split up; meat became bad in an hour.
In Paris in 1846, the thermometer marked one hundred and twenty-five degrees in the sun. The summers of 1859, 1860, 1869, 1870, 1874, etc., although excessively hot, were not attended by any disaster.”
- source: https://books.google.com/books/about/Gaillard_s_Medical_Jour... - page 473.
Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That tramples curiosity.
Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead.
I got involved in climate advocacy in 2021. Since then I’ve successfully lobbied my local government to start an energy resources study, which will look at ways for my community to quickly transition to renewables. A small thing. But if we all do small things, it will add up!
Still though. My state, Arizona has really terrible people writing awful laws. This legislative session they’re proposing a 12.5% tax on purchasing solar if you’re not a utility, and a bunch of other regressive, anti-free market, pro-fossil fuel legislation [1]. We’re going to vote these people out of office this November and remove barriers to using our states abundant solar resources.
And since HN is a startup and technology forum, we need cheap utility scale energy storage as soon as we can get it. It exists, but solar+storage is just a bit too expensive for most regions of the country. If it does become cheaper than methane, that makes the move away from fossil fuels much easier. If you want to work on this, do it.
But also, citizens engagement is crucial. If you live in a regressive state like mine. It’s super important to get involved. If you live in a place that is going in the right direction, engage on the implementation details, there are so many ways good climate policy can get derailed in bureaucracies. There are a ton of groups that you can work with on this [2] [3] [4].
[1] https://legiscan.com/AZ/bill/HB2281/2024
[2] https://citizensclimatelobby.org/
Livestock make up 62% of the world’s mammal biomass; humans account for 34%; and wild mammals are just 4%.
https://ourworldindata.org/wild-mammals-birds-biomass
And add to that the fact that cow flatulence is very rich in methane (much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2) because of poor diet in industrial agriculture.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03062...
AC won't scale
I actually maintain several online Finnish learning resources now, including a flashcard deck of the most common 10,000 words from the YLE study way back [1], a command line lemmatizer [2], and a website whose permissions I need to refresh ASAP which archives Selkouutiset with YYYY/MM/DD URLs [3].
Indeed building these tools were what got me back into software development as a profession, after a long absence.
[1]: https://ankiweb.net/shared/info/1149950470
Eocenic period had high CO2 levels, but it didn't lead to ocean anoxidation. In fact, at the end of the period, the eocene-oligocene exctinction event happened in connection with reduced CO2 and global cooling of the climate. [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene–Oligocene_extinction_ev...
This is incorrect. Please stop saying we have the technology to live anywhere else other than on Earth, it's false: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9YdnzOf4NQ
The problem with this attitude is that it prevents you from solving problems that might actually affect the odds of humans making it to tomorrow or any other near-term date. Right now it looks as if we're in the run-up to World War III. [0] Perhaps we should spend a little energy preventing that. Or perhaps aquifer exhaustion, a long-standing issue exacerbated by climate change. [1] Or solving the political polarization that prevents us from addressing other problems. [2] Humans have faced all of these problems in the past and generally solved them.
Climate change is obviously a serious and challenging problem. But it seems doubtful civilization will be directly overturned any time soon by climate change alone. Europeans and others made it through crises like the Black Plague, which killed a third or more of the population without extinguishing the arc of civilization. [3] It's the knock-on effects we need to worry about, as well as the things that prevent us from fixing them.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/27/opinion/china-taiwan-war....
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/24/climate/global-groundwate...
[2] https://www.politico.com/interactives/2019/how-to-fix-politi...
One thing I can't work out is if something like that - a heat/cool aircon unit counts as a heat pump from the point of view of getting a government grant?
https://preprints.apsanet.org/engage/api-gateway/apsa/assets...
The rise of asylum seekers is due to this cult which believes in many of these sins. I am just as alarmed that it exists. They are the same political activists who failed to stop the pipeline have put their efforts here. Those caravans are NOT organic.
Paper reference:
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/ny-eso-rapport-flyktingin...
It would be standard mod practice to replace https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2024/01/i-used-to-not-worr... with a link to the video, since the blog post is just a thin wrapper around it. As the HN guidelines say, "If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter." (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)
Why the wrong video made it in, I don't know, but most likely it was a simple copy-paste error. Sorry, all!
Edit: oh it might have been that one of us saw >>39157418 and mistook that for a comment of this sort: >>39163616 .
> How do you know?
posed in ignorance (perhaps genuine ignorance, perhaps feigned) above, we (humans) have been measuring gas properties in isolation for 200 years (and more) and have been specifically measuring (and storing as bottled samples) atmospheric gas composition since the start of the Cold War.. seventy odd years or so now.
Much of our high quality environmental data comes from cold war research - ocean tempretures were first mapped at large scale by Scripps in order to use thermoclines to pinpoint submarines and other sounds in water.
In the civilian arena, Cape Grim is of interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Grim_Air_Archive
https://researchdata.edu.au/cape-grim-air-archive/678420
This and other global references informs us about the changing atmospheric makeup and other experiments inform us about the increase in trapped heat from incoming solar radiation.
That's one problem. But I'm aware that CO2 is not the ONLY danger to the environment. Hopefully you are also aware of that and can discuss the topic beyond only CO2. We obviously wouldn't replace CO2 with methane, right? So let's talk about the environment, not just CO2.
>Mining lithium doesn't require gasoline.
Name one mine that doesn't use gasoline to mine, haul, store, or transport. Good luck.
>The radioactive products decay on short time scale.
At least 3% of the waste from any reactor is extremely harmful for many thousands of years. The other 97% is irrelevant. Why did you bring it up? Seems dishonest.
Citation: https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fu...
>Lithium batteries aren't a problem if they did decay.
Sure if you manage to keep them all really far away from each other. High concentrations of anything is a problem. Even a basic Wikipedia search can help you here. Leaked evaporation pools, water contamination, huge amounts of water usage in production, etc.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impacts_of_lit...
Go ahead and keep downvoting. Each downvote proves exactly what I'm saying; it's unacceptable to even discuss better solutions.
I suggest you read this:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2022.026...
The international political system has a long track record of cajoling nations into joining treaties that theoretically are like this.
It's not prisoner's dilemma, because the main property of the PD problem is that parties are prevented from communicating and cooperating with each other. When there's negotiations, transparencency/monitoring, etc, parties can cooperate. If you think international treaty development is like PD, you are due for a for a big optimism update!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
Citation: The associated period of massive carbon release into the atmosphere has been estimated to have lasted from 20,000 to 50,000 years. The entire warm period lasted for about 200,000 years. Global temperatures increased by 5–8 °C.[21]
The hot-models Sabine referred to are in range of 4.8 - 5.6 if I'm not mistaken...
Before about 1940, the most common method for measuring sea surface temperature was to throw a bucket attached to a rope overboard from a ship, haul it back up, and read the water temperature. The method was far from perfect. Depending on the air temperature, the water temperature could change as the bucket was pulled from the water. (1)
In the late 1970s ... tracking what was happening to Earth temperatures was at a relatively primitive state. Much of the relevant weather station data had not been digitized and what had been, was not widely available. Previous estimates of temperature changes ... had focused on the northern hemisphere, but that obviously missed half the planet. (2) interactive map: (3)
There is analysis showing differences in model temperature variation models and actual data from balloons and satellites since 1979. (4)
Those are few examples how our ability to measure things changes with our developing knowledge.
Rising temperatures is not new phenomena. Greenland ice core project (5) showing that there was about 25 dramatic climate changes in history. Its called Dansgaard–Oeschger event. (6), (7) and shows that for example during Younger Dryas (8) there was dramatic temperature decline and increase in few decades.
Making predictions on data since 70's are fragile and should be constantly reanalyzed.
(1) https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3071/the-r...
(2) https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/history/
(3) https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v4_globe/
(4) https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/christytest...
(5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_core_project
(6) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansgaard%E2%80%93Oeschger_eve...
(7) https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/2%20He...
I'm pretty happy with translation, even with GPT-3.5. I haven't used it for native text generation. Happy to keep in touch :D.
But let's take it. So the assumption is that there is an alternative that is better than gasoline. Nuclear is largely dominant on the coasts and gasoline usage is roughly half for goods delivery across the middle of the country where everything is coal powered. So at least for the moment, do you prefer reliance on gasoline or coal for goods delivery?
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/use-of-energy/transporta...
Submitters can't change URLs once they've submitted.
Sources:
https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/sweden
https://government.se/government-policy/swedens-carbon-tax/s...