Page 162 of 169 FirstFirst ... 62112152160161162163164 ... LastLast
Results 1,611 to 1,620 of 1681

Thread: New report on climate change released today

  1. Top | #1611
    Veteran Member PyramidHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    4,607
    Archived
    4,389
    Total Posts
    8,996
    Rep Power
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post

    Bingo! Pastured cows can actually turn depleted plains and fields into grasslands, and can be a net carbon sink relative to their output.

    This article describes how there were once as many buffalo as there are cows today, if not more. Their existence was not a problem for the climate until we started feeding them corn, as you point out. All I'm saying here is that beef is only a climate risk if you produce it in a certain way, and it's not the only way to make beef.
    Unfortunately it is if you need to produce so much of it.
    I never said current consumption levels were sustainable. That's true about almost anything. If we keep producing as much soy, corn, and wheat as we do, and keep growing and distributing it the way we do, the outcome is no better. But that's the key point here: factors other than the thing being produced--how it's produced, where it goes, how it gets there, how much is produced, etc.--are what is primarily responsible for the problem, and those factors apply to way more than just beef.

  2. Top | #1612
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Atlanta, USA
    Posts
    2,969
    Archived
    1,766
    Total Posts
    4,735
    Rep Power
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by southernhybrid View Post



    Call me skeptical because there are so many conflicting reports about China.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/judecle.../#4637486d65fa


    Responsible for 46% of global production and 51% of global demand, China's coal reliance is not falling nearly as fast as some like to claim

    For demand, too many confuse the crucial difference between "growing less slowly" or remaining "buoyantly very high" versus "shrinking" or "declining." Similar to U.S. oil demand, China's coal consumption aligns with the first two. While it could indeed be said that Chinese coal demand has been relatively flat for a few years now, importantly, it hasn't been falling in the absolute sense.

    For production, China’s December coal output was 2.1% higher than it was in 2017, hitting the highest level in over three years. The country started up new mines last year and then ramped up production to meet high winter demand. Due to domestic gas supply shortages in recent years, China has been softening its stance to displace coal heating with natural gas.
    That report is from this year. If you believe that China is really accomplishing much when it comes to climate change.........

    It's all easier said than done when it comes to reducing our usage of the things that are hastening climate change. That's the real problem. Take air travel, something I never do. Plenty of the most progressive people use air travel on a regular basis. Air travel is a huge contributor to climate change. There are just so many things that we would need to change to accomplish much in the way of reducing the impact of climate change, that I find it very difficult to be optimistic.

    Talk is cheap. Change is very difficult. Meat-eating is another big issue, but how many people are going vegan or even cutting way back on their meat-eating? We humans have really fucked up the planet, especially those of us in the first world.
    These two articles aren't disagreeing with each other. China is making large improvements in its greenhouse gas emissions from industrial sources but overall its emissions are increasing. It's reducing its grams per kilo of production but it's producing so many more kilos of product to meet the demand in China that its total emissions are increasing.

    When I built industrial plants in China the standard that they used for the emissions from the plants was the strictest standard in Europe or the US or Japan.
    Last edited by SimpleDon; 11-07-2019 at 11:20 PM. Reason: "much" turned into "many" more kilos of product

  3. Top | #1613
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    25,024
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    121,776
    Rep Power
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    They might be cleaning up the smokestacks (which is a very good idea considering how much damage the pollution does) but that does nothing about the carbon emissions.
    China is catching up the rest of the world in terms of its productive capacity. What other nations did over the course of centuries China is doing in a matter of decades. China also has almost 2 billion inhabitants, which might put its output in context compared to a nation of about 300 million. Cleaning up smokestacks doesn't directly impact carbon, but it helps preserve habitats that do.

    Overall, China's strategy is only comprehensible if you take into account its other priorities, namely the empowerment and industrialization of the global south. To combat climate change, the nations with the longest record of causing it should be the ones who draw down their resources, not the ones that are undeveloped and lack basic infrastructure. Much of China's emissions are from their international effort to bring impoverished areas into the 21st century, and if you oppose those efforts then you're basically saying such areas do not deserve to have electricity, paved roads, or clean water.

    Instead of depriving the global south of the first chance they have ever had at becoming autonomous and technologically developed, America should be calling upon the European and Japanese governments to massively scale back their military and heavy industry, and contribute a smaller portion of it to building up places in Africa to a dignified baseline of development. This is very unlikely, of course, but not impossible under the right leadership. Climate policy has to be international and can't be used as a cynical way to deny economic progress to the majority of the human species. China is one of the only countries whose policy is (at least currently) reflective of that.
    There's no reason China can't build nuke plants. They should be building them, not coal plants.

  4. Top | #1614
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    21,708
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    32,185
    Rep Power
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post

    China is catching up the rest of the world in terms of its productive capacity. What other nations did over the course of centuries China is doing in a matter of decades. China also has almost 2 billion inhabitants, which might put its output in context compared to a nation of about 300 million. Cleaning up smokestacks doesn't directly impact carbon, but it helps preserve habitats that do.

    Overall, China's strategy is only comprehensible if you take into account its other priorities, namely the empowerment and industrialization of the global south. To combat climate change, the nations with the longest record of causing it should be the ones who draw down their resources, not the ones that are undeveloped and lack basic infrastructure. Much of China's emissions are from their international effort to bring impoverished areas into the 21st century, and if you oppose those efforts then you're basically saying such areas do not deserve to have electricity, paved roads, or clean water.

    Instead of depriving the global south of the first chance they have ever had at becoming autonomous and technologically developed, America should be calling upon the European and Japanese governments to massively scale back their military and heavy industry, and contribute a smaller portion of it to building up places in Africa to a dignified baseline of development. This is very unlikely, of course, but not impossible under the right leadership. Climate policy has to be international and can't be used as a cynical way to deny economic progress to the majority of the human species. China is one of the only countries whose policy is (at least currently) reflective of that.
    There's no reason China can't build nuke plants. They should be building them, not coal plants.
    They are.

    Mainland China has about 45 nuclear power reactors in operation, about 15 under construction, and more about to start construction. The government's long-term target, as outlined in its Energy Development Strategy Action Plan 2014-2020, is for 58 GWe capacity by 2020, with 30 GWe more under construction.
    https://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...ear-power.aspx

    But even 30GW of electricity is a drop in the bucket for a nation whose billion inhabitants all want lights, refrigerators, hot water systems, and air-conditioners; And who work in huge factories, refineries and smelters, all of which run at least in part on electricity.

    On the plus side, as in Taiwan and South Korea, China is getting very good overnight construction costs, due to their making many copies of a single reactor design, using the same engineering teams. One reason why nuclear plants in the west have historically been expensive is that they have been built as one-off designs, with no two exactly the same - or where the designs are very similar, they have not been constructed by the same core teams of engineers who can use the learnings from the first few builds to reduce costs and construction times for the nth-of-a-kind.

  5. Top | #1615
    Elder Contributor angelo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    11,228
    Archived
    5,706
    Total Posts
    16,934
    Rep Power
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
    As to meat eating, the biggest problem is ruminants, because of their stomach fermentation - it makes methane, an additional greenhouse gas.

    So one ought to avoid ruminant meat, like beef. Milk is also a problem, because the most conveniently milkable animals are ruminants, like cows.

    So eat pork and chicken and fish and drink fake milk.
    There were more ruminants grazing the American plains before Europeans settled than there are in American factory farms, so if methane was a problem it would have been a bigger one before industrialization.
    Make up you minds! Which is the culprit in so called GW/CC/CD, CO2 or methane? If you say the latter, then all humanity has to do is kill all the cows and bulls and turn vegan, and hey presto! The so called crisis is over and we can still keep using our unlimited supply fossil fuels.

  6. Top | #1616
    Elder Contributor angelo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    11,228
    Archived
    5,706
    Total Posts
    16,934
    Rep Power
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by scombrid View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by angelo View Post
    It has been much warmer than today or the near foresable future in the past,
    When was that?

    long before homo sapiens came along as this link shows.
    Oh, so not relevant to the last couple hundred k years or the conditions under which modern man and civilization developed. Okay.
    Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me on what caused the worldwide rise of more than 10 meters of seas all those millennia ago?

  7. Top | #1617
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    21,708
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    32,185
    Rep Power
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by angelo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
    As to meat eating, the biggest problem is ruminants, because of their stomach fermentation - it makes methane, an additional greenhouse gas.

    So one ought to avoid ruminant meat, like beef. Milk is also a problem, because the most conveniently milkable animals are ruminants, like cows.

    So eat pork and chicken and fish and drink fake milk.
    There were more ruminants grazing the American plains before Europeans settled than there are in American factory farms, so if methane was a problem it would have been a bigger one before industrialization.
    Make up you minds! Which is the culprit in so called GW/CC/CD, CO2 or methane? If you say the latter, then all humanity has to do is kill all the cows and bulls and turn vegan, and hey presto! The so called crisis is over and we can still keep using our unlimited supply fossil fuels.
    Both are.

    And cattle are one of many sources of atmospheric methane - leaks from fossil fuel supply chains being another. Indeed there's some evidence that when you include methane leaks, natural gas is no better as a fuel than coal, in terms of its warming effects.

    Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but doesn't remain in the atmosphere for as long as carbon dioxide does. Both are important, but carbon dioxide is far greater in volume, and far longer lived, so it's the one we need to fix most urgently.

    Quote Originally Posted by angelo View Post
    Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me on what caused the worldwide rise of more than 10 meters of seas all those millennia ago?
    Only the worst simpleton would expect that an effect in a complex system such as climate could have only one cause in all of history; or that because some past effects were not due to human activity, no current effects can possibly be. You might as well declare that humans cannot possibly light fires, because fire existed long before humans evolved. It's not a defence that would go down well at your arson trial.

  8. Top | #1618
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    24,448
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    66,921
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by angelo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scombrid View Post

    When was that?



    Oh, so not relevant to the last couple hundred k years or the conditions under which modern man and civilization developed. Okay.
    Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me on what caused the worldwide rise of more than 10 meters of seas all those millennia ago?
    Likely a lot of rocks falling into the ocean.

  9. Top | #1619

  10. Top | #1620
    Contributor Trausti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northwest
    Posts
    5,477
    Archived
    372
    Total Posts
    5,849
    Rep Power
    59
    Blaming every bad thing on climate change to justify your economic agenda kinda makes you a kook.

Similar Threads

  1. Today there is a report of how to time travel.
    By George S in forum Natural Science
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-28-2019, 09:56 PM
  2. Global Warming to Climate change to Climate Catastrophe.
    By T.G.G. Moogly in forum Natural Science
    Replies: 152
    Last Post: 10-20-2018, 06:07 PM
  3. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 08-02-2018, 12:00 AM
  4. Climate Change Fanatics Confront Growing Evil - Climate Lukewarmers
    By maxparrish in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 01-28-2015, 03:11 AM
  5. Ezell Ford autopsy report released
    By ksen in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 01-01-2015, 04:19 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •