We are doomed!

[voiha]

 

*I thought it would be good to share the info here on the forum*

 

Well as far as I understand, the government don't care about how the planet will go by as we are "already doomed" that's actually their words.
Most of other countries at least for now won't make a push too as it will not benefit them in any aspect...
The only light I see is that most car manufacturers are going electric or hybrid, but all the 1.015 billion cars that exist and are being driven in the world would last more than 12 years..

Southern hemisphere countries will experience the hit the most.

[Tcrumpen]

Sounds like typical media fearmongery to me

 

Yes we are still killing the planet but a lot of companies are far more green than you would think, For example Microsoft when deploying big data-centres try to keep the energy consumption and carbon footprint of the datacentre as low as possible by using renewable energy and in the case of cold climates the natural weather to cool the place

[voiha]

2 minutes ago, Tcrumpen said:

Sounds like typical media fearmongery to me

 

Yes we are still killing the planet but a lot of companies are far more green than you would think, For example Microsoft when deploying big data-centres try to keep the energy consumption and carbon footprint of the datacentre as low as possible by using renewable energy and in the case of cold climates the natural weather to cool the place

Yes but they say that in order to stabilize the planet we must go carbon free, or at least use what the planet can handle which I don't know how it's going to happen. Most of the people will refuse to change their way of life, even if that means mass destruction as we can see the government is applying.

[Tcrumpen]

7 minutes ago, voiha said:

Yes but they say that in order to stabilize the planet we must go carbon free, or at least use what the planet can handle which I don't know how it's going to happen. Most of the people will refuse to change their way of life, even if that means mass destruction as we can see the government is applying.

We lack the infrastructure to go carbon free; that's the main problem. We have yet to come up with another form of fuel that is as "efficient" at burning as fossil fuels. To get a decent range on batteries you have to use a TON of them and not to mention the cost to the planet of get the materials for them is probably equal to that of getting oil

[Anghammarad]

5 minutes ago, Tcrumpen said:

We lack the infrastructure to go carbon free; that's the main problem. We have yet to come up with another form of fuel that is as "efficient" at burning as fossil fuels. To get a decent range on batteries you have to use a TON of them and not to mention the cost to the planet of get the materials for them is probably equal to that of getting oil

And with infrastructure, even in a quite modern country like here in germany, where we have a kind of stable electricity grid, going for example from fossil fuel to e-cars couldn't be handled by the grid. even where do you want to charge your car for example... not everyone has their own house and garage,

 

and all the electricity needed would be needed to supplied. which in this case a full switch by law, wouldn't be the case right now.

 

So there are many good ideas, big business has ignored them mostly (with them I mean the electricity providers like EON/RWE etc...) Haven't upgraded the grid, didn't make any changes etc... like big companies do, as soon as they have their infrastructure up... less maintenance, just raking in all the goodies (currencies) they can and let the infrastructur left to decay... for example "Deutsche Bahn". Now they are surprised that they have to move and change and whine "we got no budget for that! it would ruin us!" well these were changes that could be anticipated... 

[voiha]

2 minutes ago, Anghammarad said:

So there are many good ideas, big business has ignored them mostly (with them I mean the electricity providers like EON/RWE etc...) Haven't upgraded the grid, didn't make any changes etc... like big companies do, as soon as they have their infrastructure up... less maintenance, just raking in all the goodies (currencies) they can and let the infrastructur left to decay... for example "Deutsche Bahn". Now they are surprised that they have to move and change and whine "we got no budget for that! it would ruin us!" well these were changes that could be anticipated... 

This will ruin them because their directors wants to live a billion dollars/euro life without actually managing billion dollar/euro company right.

[Tcrumpen]

5 minutes ago, Anghammarad said:

And with infrastructure, even in a quite modern country like here in germany, where we have a kind of stable electricity grid, going for example from fossil fuel to e-cars couldn't be handled by the grid. even where do you want to charge your car for example... not everyone has their own house and garage,

 

and all the electricity needed would be needed to supplied. which in this case a full switch by law, wouldn't be the case right now.

 

So there are many good ideas, big business has ignored them mostly (with them I mean the electricity providers like EON/RWE etc...) Haven't upgraded the grid, didn't make any changes etc... like big companies do, as soon as they have their infrastructure up... less maintenance, just raking in all the goodies (currencies) they can and let the infrastructur left to decay... for example "Deutsche Bahn". Now they are surprised that they have to move and change and whine "we got no budget for that! it would ruin us!" well these were changes that could be anticipated... 

Because Businesses want to spend the minimum amount to get the job done (The big wigs decide that); it's cheaper to use the current infrastructure than to innovate a new one

[voiha]

1 minute ago, Tcrumpen said:

Because Businesses want to spend the minimum amount to get the job done (The big wigs decide that); it's cheaper to use the current infrastructure than to innovate a new one

In the short run yes, in the long run not really.

[Tcrumpen]

Just now, voiha said:

In the short run yes, in the long run not really.

I've not seen too many execs look at the long term, they are more concerned about the number at the bottom of the paper

[Anghammarad]

And to put in a lighter note... 

 

have any of you heard about the 10% rule for implementing a change in the world?

 

I once read an article that if you want to change the world, you would only need to have 10% of the population sharing your thoughts about the subject you want to change, and carry it on, so not just thinking the same, but communicating the same outwards. Then change will come. 

[PlayStation 2]

Nice to see we're getting our news from our media overlords in the late night television slots.

[Guest]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Days_Before_the_Day_After_Tomorrow

[Drak3]

15 hours ago, Tcrumpen said:

Sounds like typical media fearmongery to me

And it is coming from Jimmy Kimmel, whose only talents are fear mongering and appealing to the emotion of sorrow.

[PlayStation 2]

6 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

And it is coming from Jimmy Kimmel, whose only talents are fear mongering and appealing to the emotion of sorrow.

And piggybacking off of celebrities to make a name of himself.

[Derrk]

I had a discussion with my dad not too long ago about climate change. We both believe in it, but he read something that made him question how much of it is caused by carbon emissions. Personally, i believe that carbon emissions have played a huge role in climate change, but i was open to listening to what he had to say.

 

Disclaimer: nothing about this is verified in any way, i haven't read his sources yet, but it is interesting nonetheless.

 

Basically these articles, written or influenced by scientists (not sure) stated that climate change could be considered inevitable, and that carbon emissions could have negligible effects on changing climates. They referenced how the earth's climate is constantly changing and it's seen extreme climate conditions being both hot and cold (ice ages & warm ages). My dad threw one example at me that i found interesting. He believes that carbon emissions do have an impact on climate change, but he's unsure of to what extent.

 

His example was that if i train hit a mosquito, the train would slow down. It wouldn't be much. It wouldn't even be noticeable, but physics dictates that to be true. Likewise, it could be that carbon emissions effect climate change, but not to a serious extent. I don't quite believe it to be that negligent, but i found it to be an interesting way to look at it.

 

Other factors he had mentioned that i hadn't thought about before was the impact of nuclear devices, nuclear explosions, and heat emissions contributing to climate change. For example, even something like a nuclear reactor, which is considered green energy, gives off substantial amounts of heat from the cooling process. I think those reactors are only capable of turning about 1/3 of the heat they produce into usable energy. In a similar case, he argued that nuclear blasts could potentially affect the atmosphere. I don't quite remember the way he put it (a few drinks were involved in this discussion), but something about nuclear blasts damaging layers of the atmosphere. It's hard to say how many nuclear tests have occurred, but the Russians alone performed hundreds of nuclear tests in a challenge of geoengineering, just to see if they could make rivers flow in the opposite direction.

 

Again, i have to emphasize i have no idea how much of this plays a role, if any at all. But the debates are fun, and can sometimes offer alternate perspectives  

[handymanshandle]

1 hour ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

And piggybacking off of celebrities to make a name of himself.

Celebrity No. 2590 says you must change your ways even you can't afford it because this vague threat of catastrophic doom is imminent but yet at the same time never actually happens or the trend they claim is actually misrepresented or inaccurate. You must trust Celebrity No. 2590 on this, they know what's best.

[Tcrumpen]

6 hours ago, Derrk said:

I had a discussion with my dad not too long ago about climate change. We both believe in it, but he read something that made him question how much of it is caused by carbon emissions. Personally, i believe that carbon emissions have played a huge role in climate change, but i was open to listening to what he had to say.

 

Disclaimer: nothing about this is verified in any way, i haven't read his sources yet, but it is interesting nonetheless.

 

Basically these articles, written or influenced by scientists (not sure) stated that climate change could be considered inevitable, and that carbon emissions could have negligible effects on changing climates. They referenced how the earth's climate is constantly changing and it's seen extreme climate conditions being both hot and cold (ice ages & warm ages). My dad threw one example at me that i found interesting. He believes that carbon emissions do have an impact on climate change, but he's unsure of to what extent.

 

His example was that if i train hit a mosquito, the train would slow down. It wouldn't be much. It wouldn't even be noticeable, but physics dictates that to be true. Likewise, it could be that carbon emissions effect climate change, but not to a serious extent. I don't quite believe it to be that negligent, but i found it to be an interesting way to look at it.

 

Other factors he had mentioned that i hadn't thought about before was the impact of nuclear devices, nuclear explosions, and heat emissions contributing to climate change. For example, even something like a nuclear reactor, which is considered green energy, gives off substantial amounts of heat from the cooling process. I think those reactors are only capable of turning about 1/3 of the heat they produce into usable energy. In a similar case, he argued that nuclear blasts could potentially affect the atmosphere. I don't quite remember the way he put it (a few drinks were involved in this discussion), but something about nuclear blasts damaging layers of the atmosphere. It's hard to say how many nuclear tests have occurred, but the Russians alone performed hundreds of nuclear tests in a challenge of geoengineering, just to see if they could make rivers flow in the opposite direction.

 

Again, i have to emphasize i have no idea how much of this plays a role, if any at all. But the debates are fun, and can sometimes offer alternate perspectives  

It's commonly accepted that climate change is a natural process that will happen regardless of humans being on the planet or not, however we are increasing the severity of it i believe is what most scientists believe