Climate change: What can you do to help halt global warming and when will you do it?

Forums › Off topic › Climate change: What can you do to help halt global warming and when will you do it?

1 | ... | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | ... | 70

3647 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4554

ID Verified

#2325419 26-Sep-2019 16:16

MikeB4:

Rikkitic:

When discussing possible alternatives, there always seems to be an unspoken assumption that anything we choose must maintain or improve our current standard of living. But that may simply not be possible. If it becomes a matter of survival, maybe we will have to return to a peasant economy, with just a few essential machines. Maybe the majority of people, instead of a tiny fraction, will have to become involved in food production. Maybe we won't be able to have private cars anymore, regardless of how they are fueled. These things need to be at least taken into consideration.

I feel the vast majority of the population do not grasp the gravity of the situation the planet's people are is in.

Fixed. The planet will recover in its own good time once we're all gone.

Sometimes I use big words I don't always fully understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15472

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325420 26-Sep-2019 16:19

floydbloke:

MikeB4:

Rikkitic:

When discussing possible alternatives, there always seems to be an unspoken assumption that anything we choose must maintain or improve our current standard of living. But that may simply not be possible. If it becomes a matter of survival, maybe we will have to return to a peasant economy, with just a few essential machines. Maybe the majority of people, instead of a tiny fraction, will have to become involved in food production. Maybe we won't be able to have private cars anymore, regardless of how they are fueled. These things need to be at least taken into consideration.

I feel the vast majority of the population do not grasp the gravity of the situation the planet's people are is in.

Fixed. The planet will recover in its own good time once we're all gone.

Chances are, if we can't survive, then neither can MANY other species. Considering we are top of the food chain.

ShinyChrome

1603 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 686

ID Verified

Trusted

#2325422 26-Sep-2019 16:28

networkn:

Chances are, if we can't survive, then neither can MANY other species. Considering we are top of the food chain.

I'm sure there are some nice single-cell organisms that might appreciate the real estate when 99% of species get wiped out, and evolve into a bunch of amphibian-people or fish-people in a couple of million years.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2325451 26-Sep-2019 17:30

ShinyChrome:

networkn:

Chances are, if we can't survive, then neither can MANY other species. Considering we are top of the food chain.

I'm sure there are some nice single-cell organisms that might appreciate the real estate when 99% of species get wiped out, and evolve into a bunch of amphibian-people or fish-people in a couple of million years.

That actually took quite a few hundred million years, was only partly successful - at least apparently from looking at the remaining reptilian mentality of some humans.

kingdragonfly

11993 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12889

Subscriber

#2325452 26-Sep-2019 17:35

tdgeek: What has been designed uses spent uranium.

Bill Gates's Experimental Nuclear Power Plant Halts Construction in China

Gates cites the Trump Administration's aggressive stance for having to pull out.

...Pulling out of the project leaves TerraPower's future uncertain. According to company CEO Chris Levesque, speaking to the Wall Street Journal, the price of a demonstration reactor is around $1 billion. Having to cancel a project worth such an extraordinary amount would likely be the death knell for most new players in any field. Most new players, however, aren't funded by Bill Gates—still valued by Forbes to have a fortune north of $93 billion.

In his letter, Gates notes that the company "may be able to build ... in the United States" under certain funding and regulatory conditions. He also announced that he would be taking up the mantle of nuclear energy in a more public way this year in actions unaffiliated with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

"Nuclear is ideal for dealing with climate change," Gates says in his letter, "because it is the only carbon-free, scalable energy source that’s available 24 hours a day." He adds that "problems with today’s reactors, such as the risk of accidents, can be solved through innovation."

For now, though, TerraPower's technology looks like it may have to start from scratch.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a25728221/terrapower-china-bill-gates-trump/

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325475 26-Sep-2019 18:08

MikeB4:

Rikkitic:

When discussing possible alternatives, there always seems to be an unspoken assumption that anything we choose must maintain or improve our current standard of living. But that may simply not be possible. If it becomes a matter of survival, maybe we will have to return to a peasant economy, with just a few essential machines. Maybe the majority of people, instead of a tiny fraction, will have to become involved in food production. Maybe we won't be able to have private cars anymore, regardless of how they are fueled. These things need to be at least taken into consideration.

I feel the vast majority of the population do not grasp the gravity of the situation the planet is in.

Hence my suggestion that a cleaner and safer 2018 Nuclear reactor solution makes a whole lot of sense. Waiting decades and decades for an alternative to replace FF, and FF have been super awesome as a plentiful energy supply, is shocking. Time is either already up, or near up. I recall that while the Industrial Revolution started all this, it has doubled since 1980. 40 years. What about the next 40 years where we all know, little will be achieved.

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325476 26-Sep-2019 18:09

floydbloke:

MikeB4:

Rikkitic:

When discussing possible alternatives, there always seems to be an unspoken assumption that anything we choose must maintain or improve our current standard of living. But that may simply not be possible. If it becomes a matter of survival, maybe we will have to return to a peasant economy, with just a few essential machines. Maybe the majority of people, instead of a tiny fraction, will have to become involved in food production. Maybe we won't be able to have private cars anymore, regardless of how they are fueled. These things need to be at least taken into consideration.

I feel the vast majority of the population do not grasp the gravity of the situation the planet's people are is in.

Fixed. The planet will recover in its own good time once we're all gone.

It will, nothing is more certain.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325480 26-Sep-2019 18:15

networkn:

floydbloke:

MikeB4:

Rikkitic:

When discussing possible alternatives, there always seems to be an unspoken assumption that anything we choose must maintain or improve our current standard of living. But that may simply not be possible. If it becomes a matter of survival, maybe we will have to return to a peasant economy, with just a few essential machines. Maybe the majority of people, instead of a tiny fraction, will have to become involved in food production. Maybe we won't be able to have private cars anymore, regardless of how they are fueled. These things need to be at least taken into consideration.

I feel the vast majority of the population do not grasp the gravity of the situation the planet's people are is in.

Fixed. The planet will recover in its own good time once we're all gone.

Chances are, if we can't survive, then neither can MANY other species. Considering we are top of the food chain.

Im not sure about that. There have already been a few extinction events. The last was 67 million years ago, the meteor that hit Yucatan vaporised everything in a wide radius. The rest died as the planet was covered in smoke and oracles, plant life died along with animals. Except in the sea and underground. Thats vastly more serious than 6C above average which will deal to us. All life adapts, but we cant as its too fast.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325482 26-Sep-2019 18:17

ShinyChrome:

networkn:

Chances are, if we can't survive, then neither can MANY other species. Considering we are top of the food chain.

I'm sure there are some nice single-cell organisms that might appreciate the real estate when 99% of species get wiped out, and evolve into a bunch of amphibian-people or fish-people in a couple of million years.

I think the last episode, which is the last extinction of 3 or 4, wiped out 95% max. It all came back. It didn't last time which was more serious go back that far.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325483 26-Sep-2019 18:23

kingdragonfly:
tdgeek: What has been designed uses spent uranium.

Bill Gates's Experimental Nuclear Power Plant Halts Construction in China

Gates cites the Trump Administration's aggressive stance for having to pull out.

...Pulling out of the project leaves TerraPower's future uncertain. According to company CEO Chris Levesque, speaking to the Wall Street Journal, the price of a demonstration reactor is around $1 billion. Having to cancel a project worth such an extraordinary amount would likely be the death knell for most new players in any field. Most new players, however, aren't funded by Bill Gates—still valued by Forbes to have a fortune north of $93 billion.

In his letter, Gates notes that the company "may be able to build ... in the United States" under certain funding and regulatory conditions. He also announced that he would be taking up the mantle of nuclear energy in a more public way this year in actions unaffiliated with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

"Nuclear is ideal for dealing with climate change," Gates says in his letter, "because it is the only carbon-free, scalable energy source that’s available 24 hours a day." He adds that "problems with today’s reactors, such as the risk of accidents, can be solved through innovation."

For now, though, TerraPower's technology looks like it may have to start from scratch.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a25728221/terrapower-china-bill-gates-trump/

On the surface it looks awesome. If anyone can cast aside the anti nuclear, Hiroshima, Chernobyl mentality, this solution has it all. It can even convert the waste that is stored in a dinky town in Kentucky into power that will run NYC for 150 years. Like the modern aircraft which is super safe, it can fail. But the failures of the past cannot be extrapolated to this design. How long does it take to commission a reactor? 5 years? Theoretically, you could replace all FF in 5 years. This is a climate change thread, do the math. Is it a risk? Yes. What is the other option? 100% we are screwed by CC .

DarthKermit

5346 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3317

Trusted

#2325489 26-Sep-2019 18:32

I've done the one most significant thing to slow global warming. No kids.

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325497 26-Sep-2019 18:47

DarthKermit:

I've done the one most significant thing to slow global warming. No kids.

I wish you were Fred Trump

Dingbatt

6804 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3694

Lifetime subscriber

#2325694 27-Sep-2019 08:22

DarthKermit:
I've done the one most significant thing to slow global warming. No kids.

Wow. I guess you must be serious about this stuff then. To go against the primary drive of all living things to procreate and continue their branch of the species. Can I assume then that the resources you would have put into raising a family will go towards combatting global warming? Roughly half a mill per child.
And that you are foregoing imported goods, anything that is petroleum based or mined. That you will be walking to your job at a business that produces no emissions. That all the food you eat is locally grown plants.

Or is it just a convenient excuse for the very personal decision you have made not have children. A choice that is nobody's business but yours.

A quote I like from this week is
"Rich people are looking at the end of the world, poor people are looking at the end of the month."

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2325698 27-Sep-2019 08:35

Dingbatt:

Wow. I guess you must be serious about this stuff then. To go against the primary drive of all living things to procreate and continue their branch of the species.

Not "all living things" need to reproduce in order to benefit the survival of their genes - look at a beehive. (Or from a human civilization perspective competing for resources - an army).

Dingbatt

6804 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3694

Lifetime subscriber

#2325702 27-Sep-2019 08:42

Fred99:
Dingbatt:

Wow. I guess you must be serious about this stuff then. To go against the primary drive of all living things to procreate and continue their branch of the species.

Not "all living things" need to reproduce in order to benefit the survival of their genes - look at a beehive. (Or from a human civilization perspective competing for resources - an army).

Sorry, so are you suggesting that anyone who decides to not have children is a drone?

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

1 | ... | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | ... | 70