EPTit worked bois
now; probably just inertia. but considering nobody can definitively confirm that we have working nuclar waste disposal it probably still serves a fine purpose.
panic responsibly kids.
The LiquidLegends Lounge - Page 1374
| Forum Index > The Shopkeeper′s Inn |
|
Dandel Ion
Austria17960 Posts
it worked bois now; probably just inertia. but considering nobody can definitively confirm that we have working nuclar waste disposal it probably still serves a fine purpose. panic responsibly kids. | ||
|
Scip
Czech Republic11293 Posts
Yeah read a bit about wind seems expensive as fuck. Don't know what advances in technology could make it more effective, maybe some exotic materials lol. Solar seems like it could be good if you improved the technology a fuckton, which could reasonably be done. Nuclear is amazing except we run out of uranium in like 100 years, so clean yes, efficient yes, sustainable no. I think the world got stuck in the procrastination disaster like students can before a big exam "we've got some time to deal with it" -> "holy shit we gotta do so much stuff now it's gonna be so painful" -> "it's too late now, fuckfuckfuck. Rip. Time to watch anime and eat candy" I think we are at the point where we hope that we get fusion to work on an economically viable level otherwise we mercykill everything between the Tropic of Cancer and and Tropic of Capricorn with nuclear warfare that'd be visible from the moon. | ||
|
Dandel Ion
Austria17960 Posts
until known for sure, over better than under solar is actually pretty questionable if done through panels IIRC, but since it can be done without them it could be fine also an alternative line: we stop using so much energy. you heard it, wanna be ecologically responsible? turn off your fucking pc you piece of shit | ||
|
Scip
Czech Republic11293 Posts
| ||
|
Doctorbeat
Netherlands13241 Posts
On July 28 2016 18:45 Scip wrote: Oh and forget about binding CO2 back into solids/liquids, the energy required is more than what you get for burning fossil fuels lol. The only even conceivable way of doing that is growing plants, but I don't think the earth is big enough to grow enough forests to bind all that CO2 we released, lol. They're busy trying to engineer bacteria/algae that mass digest CO2. Which is pretty neat. | ||
|
Scip
Czech Republic11293 Posts
On July 28 2016 18:52 Doctorbeat wrote: They're busy trying to engineer bacteria/algae that mass digest CO2. Which is pretty neat. I mean if you can genetically engineer some sort of superplant/bacteria to bind CO2 then that'd be fucking epic, but I think I'll remain somewhat sceptical for now. | ||
|
PrinceXizor
United States17713 Posts
| ||
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
On July 28 2016 19:08 Scip wrote: I mean if you can genetically engineer some sort of superplant/bacteria to bind CO2 then that'd be fucking epic, but I think I'll remain somewhat sceptical for now. We've done crazier stuff. The issue with this kind of thing is making sure it doesn't cause another problem later down the line that no one thought of. On July 28 2016 19:19 PrinceXizor wrote: The best things we can do is transition as quickly as we can toward renewables while increasing the size of national parks and reserves worldwide, and increasing punishment of violation of those nature reserves, both on poaching/logging and polluting. Don't need a new GE algae if you just protect all the forests we have left and increase protected land slightly in the least dense population centers. Honestly the best thing that we can currently do is if one of the biggest and most outspoken nation in the world starts accepting and actively helping fight against climate change. That is the first big step. Once everyone is at least showing token support then it'll be a lot easier to get the ball rolling. | ||
|
Scip
Czech Republic11293 Posts
On July 28 2016 19:19 PrinceXizor wrote: The best things we can do is transition as quickly as we can toward renewables while increasing the size of national parks and reserves worldwide, and increasing punishment of violation of those nature reserves, both on poaching/logging and polluting. What are the national parks and reserves for? | ||
|
PrinceXizor
United States17713 Posts
In america they are areas that are protected by law to be untouched by humanity except for eco-tourism. No industry/dumping/hunting (without specific permits). essentially enforced wilderness areas, keeping all the plants set up to ensure there is a lot of carbon absorption. I'm certain europe just calls it something different. Bhutan is a role model for that kind of Carbon sink as a country. They have issues with human rights with regards to LGBT and minority religious rights. but environmentally, they are a role model. Countries like the US/Canada and Germany/France/Russia Have huge amounts of forest or grassland space they could lock down as carbon sinks. We can't rely on Africa or China to do it. they are either unable or unwilling. + Show Spoiler [TED talk] + Pre industrial revolution we didnt have the technology to mass produce food and products without massive amounts of land and resources. but we've gotten so efficient at that and at building we don't really need 80% of our countries land for people and industry | ||
|
Doctorbeat
Netherlands13241 Posts
On July 28 2016 19:22 PrinceXizor wrote: In america they are areas that are protected by law to be untouched by humanity except for eco-tourism. No industry/dumping/hunting (without specific permits). essentially enforced wilderness areas, keeping all the plants set up to ensure there is a lot of carbon absorption. I'm certain europe just calls it something different. Bhutan is a role model for that kind of Carbon sink as a country. They have issues with human rights with regards to LGBT and minority religious rights. but environmentally, they are a role model. Countries like the US/Canada and Germany/France/Russia Have huge amounts of forest or grassland space they could lock down as carbon sinks. We can't rely on Africa or China to do it. they are either unable or unwilling. + Show Spoiler [TED talk] + https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lc_dlVrg5M Actually, in most Western nations the total forest area has been growing the last decades. The big problem for forests is the rainforests disappearing in South America/SEA. Too bad our country can't really have carbon sinks, too little space. If we were to use the metropolitan area city definition that is used in China/USA/Istanbul, like half of our country would be one city. | ||
|
PrinceXizor
United States17713 Posts
On July 28 2016 19:37 Doctorbeat wrote: Actually, in most Western nations the total forest area has been growing the last decades. The big problem for forests is the rainforests disappearing in South America/SEA. Too bad our country can't really have carbon sinks, too little space. If we were to use the metropolitan area city definition that is used in China/USA/Istanbul, like half of our country would be one city. Yeah i know we're increasing forested areas. but our "untouched" forest area, at least in the US. has been shrinking, which sucks. And yeah SA/SEA are the biggest deforesting areas right now. I hope that Metropolitan countries develop green rooftop areas for new constructions and stuff. It's not very efficient in terms of focus (trying to save the amazon or the jungles in SEA is more effective, and increasing untouched land in the western US as well). but Mandating new constructions follow those types of rules can reduce impacts of a building by 5% which while small 5% of all urban areas worldwide would still be a big deal. | ||
|
Scip
Czech Republic11293 Posts
the difference can't be that big Also, it isn't THAT hard to produce lowish CO2 emissions when most of your power comes from hydroplants like it does in Bhutan. I think everyone agrees that hydroplants are fucking amazing (except for people who care about river fish, nice memes), but there are only so many rivers we can build profitable hydroplants on. | ||
|
Dandel Ion
Austria17960 Posts
at least in austria i know we went fresh outta river to build them at | ||
|
Scip
Czech Republic11293 Posts
http://www.nature.com/news/carbon-sequestration-managing-forests-in-uncertain-times-1.14687 tl;dr no idea what to do, might be best to mine the bitch for lumber (bitches love lumber), might be better to leave them alone (bitches love being left alone) | ||
|
PrinceXizor
United States17713 Posts
On July 28 2016 20:46 Scip wrote: How much better are untouched forest areas as carbon sinks than industrial forest areas though the difference can't be that big Also, it isn't THAT hard to produce lowish CO2 emissions when most of your power comes from hydroplants like it does in Bhutan. I think everyone agrees that hydroplants are fucking amazing (except for people who care about river fish, nice memes), but there are only so many rivers we can build profitable hydroplants on. The big thing about "untouched" vs "forested but harvested" is that It's the mature trees that absorb the most carbon, while the 7-10 year growth tends to absorb far less. And then the obvious emissions created to have machines plant and harvest the trees, that often can completely overpower the carbon offset of the trees themselves. And yeah Bhutan has special geography allowed them to be carbon negative. but having these big sinks around the world be protected and enforcing that protection will help offset the carbon cost of transitioning to renewable energy. | ||
|
Seuss
United States10536 Posts
On July 28 2016 07:31 killerdog wrote: There are prizes being offered for working out how to teleport, or how to create localised artificial gravity, or how to cure cancer. That doesn't mean I'd wager the future on those prizes being claimed within the next few hundred years... I don't think you comprehend the scale of co2 released. :s And we're not talking millions, if things get to the point where we have weather conditions rendering areas inhabitable, like someone else said we're talking billions of refugess. And that's ignoring how quickly the human race is just increasing in number as well. This isn't something you can treat re-actively, the damage you do now will show it's effect in maybe 50 or 100 years. If we haven't massively cut down by then then we're just completely fucked lol. Nobodies saying the planet is going to die, that's just a shitty strawman used to drown out the actual concerns by climate "sceptics," but very few models don't have billions of people being displaced if things don't change. Maybe you're just one of the people hoping to yolo blaze it then die before the effects become noticeable, but for people who care about future generations having a billion people suddenly need food and land is kind of an issue. I understand the scale of everything that's going to happen, both in terms of environmental impact and human suffering/misery. It is going to suck, but it's not the end of the world and I push hard against pessimistic outlooks because in my experience pessimism is the fastest route to inaction (or worse). Being overly optimistic can also be counter-productive, but I'm not saying "everything will be fine" I'm saying, "things are bad, but ultimately the world is going to be different, not destroyed". Basically I'm coming at this pragmatically. There's a lot of shit that's going to happen that we can't stop now, so the simple thing to do is stop worrying about the stuff we can't change, and change the things we can. | ||
|
Requizen
United States33802 Posts
| ||
|
Scip
Czech Republic11293 Posts
On July 28 2016 23:25 Requizen wrote: I think my panic from yesterday has calmed down a bit but it's still extremely worrying to me. I guess all one can do is the best they can. I was already thinking of getting an electric car and we have been cutting back on beef in favor of white meats and produce. I know it's all just small stuff and I just wish there was more I could do as a person, but that's kind of all there is to it. Just gonna do my best and distract myself with models and gamez. Where does the electricity for your electric car come from Requizen I imagine the most effective way of helping the planet for one person is probably trying to get governments to do shit, or get into high-end research and make some beakers. | ||
|
PrinceXizor
United States17713 Posts
On July 28 2016 23:25 Requizen wrote: I think my panic from yesterday has calmed down a bit but it's still extremely worrying to me. I guess all one can do is the best they can. I was already thinking of getting an electric car and we have been cutting back on beef in favor of white meats and produce. I know it's all just small stuff and I just wish there was more I could do as a person, but that's kind of all there is to it. Just gonna do my best and distract myself with models and gamez. We're a few hundred years from the unstoppable cycle of heating caused by humans. So we don't need to worry about that stuff in the immediacy type of way. obviously preventing it is important. But you are in Illinois dude, your votes for environmentally focused representatives in city/state govt are greatly impactful on our country. do your research and vote for the planet and it'll help out a lot. | ||
| ||
