Climate Change...
- Thread starter 6thElement
- Start date
Suprisingly, Rawlins is rumored to have a very good Thai restaurant.
So what you are telling me is I should purchase n+1 homes there
What about authentic tacos?
I'd never counsel anyone to buy more houses. Home ownership sucks. But I do see what you did there.
No idea on the tacos...
sure seems that way
Just geographically, there aint much in any direction other than giant pit mines, fracking fields and some scattered wind farms.
I holed up in Rawlins for a few weeks during my summer of unemployment doing the continental divide route. It's actually a cool little town but it's pretty much run by some form of energy or mining extraction only.......with a little bit of tourism around some of the historic buildings. I drove through there a few years ago for a nostalgic detour and it looked exactly the same as 20 years earlier, just some more mcHouses outside on the perimeter.
Some interesting conversations starting to happen:
www.theguardian.com
The moral case for destroying fossil fuel infrastructure | Andreas Malm
If someone has planted a time bomb in your home, you are entitled to dismantle it. The same applies to our planet
www.theguardian.com
This is cool:
www.rechargenews.com
World's first ammonia-powered ship will be ready next year, says iron-ore billionaire Forrest | Recharge
Magnate's Fortescue Metals Group aims to convert all its ore carriers to run on zero-carbon green ammonia — derived from renewable hydrogen — 'well within this decade'
for some reason we still let these companies exist
www.theguardian.com
The forgotten oil ads that told us climate change was nothing
Since the 1980s, fossil fuel firms have run ads touting climate denial messages – many of which they’d now like us to forget. Here’s our visual guide
www.theguardian.com
https://reneweconomy.com.au/rooftop-solar-helps-send-south-australia-grid-to-zero-demand-in-world-first/
progress. slow, but still ...
progress. slow, but still ...
Got to maximize those shareholder profits!for some reason we still let these companies exist
The forgotten oil ads that told us climate change was nothing
Since the 1980s, fossil fuel firms have run ads touting climate denial messages – many of which they’d now like us to forget. Here’s our visual guide
This could be a huge deal, it will significantly reduce tge scale at which GH2 will be economic:
www.rechargenews.com
New clean hydrogen production tax credit of up to $3/kg approved by US House, paving way for cheap green H2 | Recharge
The federal subsidies could make green H2 less costly to produce than the highly polluting grey variety as soon as next year
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/2PZPWLK4PNOIVFSPYYXT4BUQ3U.jpg)
Wind power risks becoming too cheap, says top turbine maker
The head of Siemens Gamesa warned on Wednesday that a decade-long race to bring down the cost of generating wind power could not continue, as it would reduce the financial muscle of turbine producers to continue investing in new technologies.
www.reuters.com
A great problem to have. We should be subsidising these green products instead of petrotech. It’s fucking unbelievable fossil fuel subsidies are a thing in 2021, and amazing green tech has got this far.Wind power risks becoming too cheap, says top turbine maker
The head of Siemens Gamesa warned on Wednesday that a decade-long race to bring down the cost of generating wind power could not continue, as it would reduce the financial muscle of turbine producers to continue investing in new technologies.
It’s time to fear the fungi
Humans have long been protected from fungal infections. Climate change could ruin that.
arstechnica.com
Another interesting looking tidal race power scheme,
The underwater 'kites' generating electricity as they move
The underwater 'kites' generating electricity as they move
World’s vast networks of underground fungi to be mapped for first time
Project aims to help protect some of trillions of miles of the ‘circulatory system of the planet’
www.theguardian.com
1) these people must really (really) like the sound of their own voice. Or maybe that's just the editorial style of this particular publication...
2) all your base are belong to us: ..."for technologies that involve vast quantities of data, such as digital tools that optimize electric grids or manage consumer demand, whoever defines the standards not only will be able to export compatible domestic systems but also may be able to mine data from them."
3) sounds like now would be a good time to invest in ammonia (and hydrogen)... "The IAE’s “net zero by 2050” scenario anticipates that trade in hydrogen and ammonia will rise from almost nothing today to more than one-third of all energy-related transactions. "
4) I'm a little concerned that many of their conclusions are predicated on one report (the IEA 2021 report on Net Zero)...
This seemed like the best place for this. There are 750 million people in Europe, just for reference.
www.theguardian.com
‘Deluge of plastic waste’: US is world’s biggest plastic polluter
At 42m metric tons of plastic waste a year, the US generates more waste than all EU countries combined
www.theguardian.com
"starting"Some interesting conversations starting to happen:
The moral case for destroying fossil fuel infrastructure | Andreas Malm
If someone has planted a time bomb in your home, you are entitled to dismantle it. The same applies to our planet
Environmental Justice: Pipeline activist sentenced to 8 years (While Big Oil crimes go unpunished) | Red, Green, and Blue
Environmentalists in recent days expressed outrage over the eight-year prison sentence handed to Jessica Reznicek—a nonviolent water protector who pleaded guilty to damaging equipment at the Dakota Access Pipeline in Iowa—while calling the fossil fuel companies who knowingly caused the climate...
redgreenandblue.org
Packages & instructions are in the mail.
The crow flies at midnight.
Repeat, the crow flies at midnight.
Crow are next month.
Wet’suwet’en are this month
Not sure whats up with the link headliner. Click it anyway.
fortune.com
Wet’suwet’en are this month
Not sure whats up with the link headliner. Click it anyway.
It turns out women of color aren't exactly 'benefitting' from diversity initiatives
Women of color are not succeeding at work, says a new report. And that's everyone's problem.
Last edited:
Good for her. What a ridiculous justice system."starting"
Environmental Justice: Pipeline activist sentenced to 8 years (While Big Oil crimes go unpunished) | Red, Green, and Blue
Environmentalists in recent days expressed outrage over the eight-year prison sentence handed to Jessica Reznicek—a nonviolent water protector who pleaded guilty to damaging equipment at the Dakota Access Pipeline in Iowa—while calling the fossil fuel companies who knowingly caused the climate...
We have nothing resembling a justice system. We have a legal system that stands in its way.
Last edited:
@slyfink is right about investing in H2 and ammonia.
www.rechargenews.com
'Our largest energy source': South Korea plans 40 foreign hydrogen bases to meet vast future demand | Recharge
Nation says investment and technology clout will secure supplies of 28 million tonnes a year by 2050
Mostly in line with my own thinking:
“Spend any time discussing climate policy and you’re sure to discover the “degrowth” movement. Its vocal proponents are hard to miss, online and off. Its core tenets might be harder to pin down, but the tagline captures the gist: Economic growth is the problem. The only way to decarbonize the economy: Degrowth!
Hmm, nope.
To be clear, there is quite a bit to like about the broader sentiment. After all, economic growth alone cannot be the goal. Gross domestic product is a misguided welfare indicator. Pollution gets added instead of subtracted. And aren’t we all overworked and underpaid, placing too much value on frivolous consumption and too little on what should truly matter in life?
Cue the “Great Resignation” or the recent Chinese “lying flat” (or “tang ping”) movements, where Millennials and Gen Zs exit the workforce en masse. But the basic sentiment goes back quite a bit farther.
“Economic growth involves a variety of costs that must be recognized,” economist Simon Kuznets argued in 1962, a decade before he would win the Nobel Prize for his work developing the GDP concept. Degrowthers might be forgiven for mistaking some of Kuznets’s words as their own: “If urbanization, the formation of large and impersonal corporations…are indispensable adaptations imposed by modern industrialization, the costs are borne by those groups in the population who have to adopt these new patterns of life.”
To understand degrowth and its follies, consider the humble washing machine.
Depending on who’s counting, and where, the washing machine appeared three or four generations ago. It was a fix to an important problem, helping free (mostly) women from housework and allowing them to enter the workforce. Nowadays it is hard to imagine a middle-class household without one. Going back to doing laundry before the invention and largescale adoption of the washing machine would, to most, be taking a step back.
The washing machine, of course, is also one of the umpteen household appliances that sit idle for most of their life. And no, there’s no concerted “degrowth” effort around getting rid of washing machines. But whenever I mention to a degrowther that my family doesn’t have one at home — by choice, I should add — the response is immediate: “Welcome!” After all, it’s a tiny example of this broader sentiment: less personal consumption; fewer material possessions; collective ownership of resources; and back to the land. Well, no, quite the opposite.
It’s precisely the most central of urban locations — a fortuitous 90-second walk from the full-service cleaners — that makes living without a machine not just possible but desirable. Neither my wife nor I have a comparative advantage in doing our own laundry, much like we don’t happen to have one in growing our own cotton or weaving our own clothes. So we don’t. (Yes, our pandemic sourdough starter is still alive and well, but that’s a different story. It’s a fun hobby by now. Doing laundry isn’t.)
Is it “degrowth”? Not in any meaningful sense of the term. Or rather: if that is degrowth, everything is, and the term is truly meaningless. For starters, having someone else do your laundry is as much a luxury as paying someone else to make your morning cappuccino.
Does sending out your laundry lower one’s carbon footprint? I have no idea. I do know that once decarbonizing our economy comes down to these kinds of questions, we will be in a fortunate situation. I also know that the broader efforts to decarbonize a 200-year-old co-op apartment in New York City come with a steep price tag. That cost comes with jobs and economic growth, and that is the point.
The investments necessary to decarbonize an entire city, country, or the global economy run in the billions to trillions of dollars. Costs are coming down quickly and are likely lower than most realize. But it’s precisely the higher costs of cutting carbon, compared with going about our fossil-fueled ways, that pose the core of the climate problem. The Green New Deal is a massive new investment program for good reason. And yes, it’s these investments that re-channel market forces and spurthe right kind of economic growth. As the “father” of GDP, Simon Kuznets, put it: “Distinctions must be kept in mind between quantity and quality of growth, between its costs and returns, and between the short and the long run.”
Whether the tagline for such an all-out, global decarbonization effort is green, lean, low-carbon, high-efficiency, or smart growth, I don’t know. “Degrowth” it is not.
Gernot Wagner writes the Risky Climate column for Bloomberg Green. He teaches at New York University. His book “Geoengineering: the Gamble” is out this fall. Follow him on Twitter: @GernotWagner. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners.
“Spend any time discussing climate policy and you’re sure to discover the “degrowth” movement. Its vocal proponents are hard to miss, online and off. Its core tenets might be harder to pin down, but the tagline captures the gist: Economic growth is the problem. The only way to decarbonize the economy: Degrowth!
Hmm, nope.
To be clear, there is quite a bit to like about the broader sentiment. After all, economic growth alone cannot be the goal. Gross domestic product is a misguided welfare indicator. Pollution gets added instead of subtracted. And aren’t we all overworked and underpaid, placing too much value on frivolous consumption and too little on what should truly matter in life?
Cue the “Great Resignation” or the recent Chinese “lying flat” (or “tang ping”) movements, where Millennials and Gen Zs exit the workforce en masse. But the basic sentiment goes back quite a bit farther.
“Economic growth involves a variety of costs that must be recognized,” economist Simon Kuznets argued in 1962, a decade before he would win the Nobel Prize for his work developing the GDP concept. Degrowthers might be forgiven for mistaking some of Kuznets’s words as their own: “If urbanization, the formation of large and impersonal corporations…are indispensable adaptations imposed by modern industrialization, the costs are borne by those groups in the population who have to adopt these new patterns of life.”
To understand degrowth and its follies, consider the humble washing machine.
Depending on who’s counting, and where, the washing machine appeared three or four generations ago. It was a fix to an important problem, helping free (mostly) women from housework and allowing them to enter the workforce. Nowadays it is hard to imagine a middle-class household without one. Going back to doing laundry before the invention and largescale adoption of the washing machine would, to most, be taking a step back.
The washing machine, of course, is also one of the umpteen household appliances that sit idle for most of their life. And no, there’s no concerted “degrowth” effort around getting rid of washing machines. But whenever I mention to a degrowther that my family doesn’t have one at home — by choice, I should add — the response is immediate: “Welcome!” After all, it’s a tiny example of this broader sentiment: less personal consumption; fewer material possessions; collective ownership of resources; and back to the land. Well, no, quite the opposite.
It’s precisely the most central of urban locations — a fortuitous 90-second walk from the full-service cleaners — that makes living without a machine not just possible but desirable. Neither my wife nor I have a comparative advantage in doing our own laundry, much like we don’t happen to have one in growing our own cotton or weaving our own clothes. So we don’t. (Yes, our pandemic sourdough starter is still alive and well, but that’s a different story. It’s a fun hobby by now. Doing laundry isn’t.)
Is it “degrowth”? Not in any meaningful sense of the term. Or rather: if that is degrowth, everything is, and the term is truly meaningless. For starters, having someone else do your laundry is as much a luxury as paying someone else to make your morning cappuccino.
Does sending out your laundry lower one’s carbon footprint? I have no idea. I do know that once decarbonizing our economy comes down to these kinds of questions, we will be in a fortunate situation. I also know that the broader efforts to decarbonize a 200-year-old co-op apartment in New York City come with a steep price tag. That cost comes with jobs and economic growth, and that is the point.
The investments necessary to decarbonize an entire city, country, or the global economy run in the billions to trillions of dollars. Costs are coming down quickly and are likely lower than most realize. But it’s precisely the higher costs of cutting carbon, compared with going about our fossil-fueled ways, that pose the core of the climate problem. The Green New Deal is a massive new investment program for good reason. And yes, it’s these investments that re-channel market forces and spurthe right kind of economic growth. As the “father” of GDP, Simon Kuznets, put it: “Distinctions must be kept in mind between quantity and quality of growth, between its costs and returns, and between the short and the long run.”
Whether the tagline for such an all-out, global decarbonization effort is green, lean, low-carbon, high-efficiency, or smart growth, I don’t know. “Degrowth” it is not.
Gernot Wagner writes the Risky Climate column for Bloomberg Green. He teaches at New York University. His book “Geoengineering: the Gamble” is out this fall. Follow him on Twitter: @GernotWagner. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Fuck Shell and big oil generally:
www.theguardian.com
Shell to go ahead with seismic tests in whale breeding grounds after court win
Judgment rules company can blast sound waves in search for oil along South Africa’s eastern coastline
www.theguardian.com
And fuck these people, I almost cannot describe my contempt:
www.seattletimes.com
Oregon officials ask public help to find killers of 8 wolves
The Oregon State Police has been investigating the killing of all five members of the Catherine pack in Union County, plus three other wolves from other packs, the agency said.
www.seattletimes.com
Perhaps it was one of the Bundy's?And fuck these people, I almost cannot describe my contempt:
Oregon officials ask public help to find killers of 8 wolves
The Oregon State Police has been investigating the killing of all five members of the Catherine pack in Union County, plus three other wolves from other packs, the agency said.
LOLAnd fuck these people, I almost cannot describe my contempt:
Oregon officials ask public help to find killers of 8 wolves
The Oregon State Police has been investigating the killing of all five members of the Catherine pack in Union County, plus three other wolves from other packs, the agency said.
Man-introduced non-native species is livestock
And they were poisoned because they sport kill actual livestock. The whole reintroduction of generic "wolf" species was a way to draw money out of housewives with airbrushed dreamcatchers giving money to environmental groups to give them their next purpose.
The whole uppity white people fascination with wolves is hilarious to me.
Grey Wolves have been in North America for about 750,000 years, possibly more.
The wolves Oregon are a Canadian species, migrated over from idaho, deliberately stocked by man. They ARE livestock. They are a non-native species.
Last edited:
Neither is the electricity running to your substantial house allowing you to post this.
"balanced environment" heh. That's long gone son, wolves or not.
Neither of you get outraged at someone poisoning prariedogs I'm gonna guess. Certainly not to this degree at least. Those little guys do wonders for soil aeration. I don't particularly dig poisoning ANY animal and couldn't really give two shits about large scale factory "ranching". But bring up wolves.........hooboy, here come the honkies! Picking and choosing your 'team' is a selective process. Wolves are not magic. They're no different from any other similarly situated predator, but for some reason they're exalted as some holy animals.
This strain is not a native species, they're a fundraising a species. Looks like it's working.
Are the wolves in Oregon a different subspecies than the wolves originally here?
The wolves in Oregon today are part of the Northern Rocky Mountain wolf population. They are descendants of wolves that naturally recolonized northwest Montana starting in the early 1980s and wolves captured in Canada and released in Yellowstone National Park and Idaho in the mid-1990s. Historical evidence and wolf specimens show wolves from the Canadian and northern U.S. Rockies, interior British Columbia, Northwest Territories, and nearly all of Alaska are closely related. According to taxonomists, they belong to a single subspecies known as Canis lupus occidentalis and form a single population across the Rocky Mountains of the northern U.S. and southern Canada.
ODFW Frequently Asked Questions About Wolves
www.dfw.state.or.us
Last edited:
I don't care if they aren't originals, they perform a function. And I am not into killing prairie dogs, woodchucks, or other "nuisance" species.
Any you have yourself wrapped in a web of bullshit.
And I'd say the same for you. You don't live where wolves are and don't visit those areas frequently.
You're also not the one who flipped the fuck out about some being poisoned. I'm not here to defend some archaic ranching operation from tyranny™ of the clinton admin when they INTRODUCED a similar species. I'm here to point out the completely illogical attachment to that species that upwardly mobile white people have who live nowhere near where the things even are.
Last edited:
Woo, they are reintroduced Grey Wolves my dude.
Apex predators are very important to the entire food chain and overall wealth of functional biodiversity around us. The more we learn of the interactions around them the more we see their importance. Be clear; I am by no means saying other things are not important but we see they are the keystones in the arches so to speak. This has been shown many times. It’s your fucking environment as you say. In this case you are mostly hurting yourselves and America the political entity can generally go fuck itself but your vast clumsiness nearly always hurts the entire planet too and it seems you need a reminder of this a little too often. You can literally draw lines down the overall health snd success of nearly all elements of a co-evolved ecosystem when all its parts are replete and functional. I’d bet money that a strong wolf population leading to a more balaced prey species web to balancex foragers to diverse funghi etc. etc. will even correlate with things like less severe fire seasons. But suit yourself.
I find this pointless poisoning particularly galling as I have a friend who spent a lot of time on wolves in AZ and human greed has fucked this cause over a few times in some highly ‘inhumane’ (ha) ways even after benefits are demonstrated.
Apex predators are very important to the entire food chain and overall wealth of functional biodiversity around us. The more we learn of the interactions around them the more we see their importance. Be clear; I am by no means saying other things are not important but we see they are the keystones in the arches so to speak. This has been shown many times. It’s your fucking environment as you say. In this case you are mostly hurting yourselves and America the political entity can generally go fuck itself but your vast clumsiness nearly always hurts the entire planet too and it seems you need a reminder of this a little too often. You can literally draw lines down the overall health snd success of nearly all elements of a co-evolved ecosystem when all its parts are replete and functional. I’d bet money that a strong wolf population leading to a more balaced prey species web to balancex foragers to diverse funghi etc. etc. will even correlate with things like less severe fire seasons. But suit yourself.
I find this pointless poisoning particularly galling as I have a friend who spent a lot of time on wolves in AZ and human greed has fucked this cause over a few times in some highly ‘inhumane’ (ha) ways even after benefits are demonstrated.
Last edited:
A pretty interesting article about German climate adaptation and their new political structure post election. The ever-widening spread of leadership drivers and accountability included in a mature and sober power sharing agreement seems really hopeful to me. Secondly whilst Germany could indeed stand to do better on coal the absolute reductions are still trending well as are much of Europe’s. Note how well even the UK has done dropping coal recently — unfortunately the data presented mostly avoids talking of natural gas but Europe’s overall direction is pretty clear. This sort of political situation can only help speed this up further.
www.carbonbrief.org
Q&A: What does the new German coalition government mean for climate change? - Carbon Brief
Carbon Brief explores the current state of climate action in Germany and the path ahead for its new coalition government.
www.carbonbrief.org
You've heard of chronic wasting disease (CWD)? It's probably the single biggest threat to large elk heards in Montana. I've seen it with my own eyes, it's heartbreaking. It's decimating them. It's also spread all over the northern rockies now in other grazing animals (let's call them prey).
Here's a little primer if you're not familiar, pay very close attention to the very first bullet point.
Wolves and Disease - 8.006
Print this information sheet by the Center for Human-Carnivore Coexistence (5/20) Key Points…. Chronic wasting disease (CWD) is a contagious and fatal neurological disease found in deer, elk, and moose in Colorado. Selective predation by wolves on sick and diseased animals may help limit CWD in...
extension.colostate.edu
That first "key point" has been a gigantic call to action for reintroducing the things everywhere in the western US over the last few years. Catch the part about it not being actually studied yet? It's a hypothesis. Sounds right, but it's still a hypothesis. One that was brought up over a decade ago.
You'd think over the last several years, that would be a pretty easy thing to test. I can tell you for a fact there are herds of every ungulate out there that are very closely tracked. Seems kinda weird that you won't find anything scientific in support of that. I'll save some space here but if you want I can start posting links to the MASSIVE fundraising efforts run by some of the huge non-profits here on that point alone.
Here's the thing: In the 90's two phenomena didn't exist in the western plains around yellowstone on the scale they do now. 1. Massive spread of CWD, and 2. the presence of long ranging wolf populations. I kinda work in ecology. Not a biologist but I work with them jointly on projects, and have talked at length with a few that study this. The reason you don't see anyone backing up that key point is because every time it's been researched, what they're finding is that there's far more evidence that wolves are responsible fro the spread of CWD. Remember I brought up sport killing? You ever see a pack of wolves run through a herd of deer? Sometimes they'll take one down and eat, and just as often they'll run through the herd just attacking shit, often times not killing anything. As a carrier of a parasite, one that's now killing ungulates all over the northern Rockies, you'd think that behavior could possibly, maybe, just could be a vector no? It turns out that's exactly what's happening. Other predators don't travel the distances that wolves do.
I know this because I know some of the people who were hired to test this original hypothesis, based on everything you posted above. They've had well over a decade now to prove it, and they haven't. In fact what there's more evidence for is the exact opposite: that wolves are serving as a vector for CWD, not helping to eliminate it. The world now is not the same as the world wolves inhabited 200 years ago. But there is a very large mechanism already in motion that would have egg on its face if it had to admit that one the biggest selling points of wolf reintroduction is actually one of the biggest arguments against. But literally millions and millions of dollars have been raised on this idea, that is now actually proven to be very wrong.
They dance around it in that link I posted:
Recently, E. canadensis was confirmed as regularly cycling in wolves and wild ungulates in western North America, with infections present in 30-60% of wolves tested.9,10 E. canadensis has been documented in Colorado.11 In 2017, a hydatid cyst was identified in a Colorado moose. This case occurred in the apparent absence of resident wolves, suggesting other canids may have been involved. In 2020, E. canadensis eggs were identified in feces from gray wolves that migrated into northwestern Colorado.11
It took 40 years for these same groups to admit that maybe completely banning logging and prescribed fire in the name of "environment" has actually created a tinderbox that burns faster, more intense, and more destructively than any spot logging operation. They do not admit their mistakes until it blows up in their faces. They have too much invested. And they control land management agencies. I have literally watched research data get suppressed in my own field when it threatens an industry that relies on a very well crafted image. I know how this works.
So instead of posting a bunch of condescending blather that every 6 year old knows regarding the theory of apex predators, why don't you maybe be open to learning something from someone who lives (and works) a lot closer to the issue, and has no vested interest in an outcome. Propaganda doesn't just exist here in politics and health care, and not from only one side of a two party structure. As it pertains to climate change, we are in a different climate now than the one people fundraise off of to recreate.
I do share your fatalism though.
Last edited:
