New Climate Change Report Urges Immediate Action

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by RootBeerMan, Oct 8, 2018.

  1. RootBeerMan macrumors 65816

    RootBeerMan

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    #1
    The IPCC has issued a new report (two years in the making) that lays out the need for countries to take immediate action on reducing CO2 and and trying to stave off the coming climate catastrophe. This is one where the politicians need to pull their heads out of their butts and get moving. I don't expect much from the current regime in DC, but they'd best realise that we are running out of time and if they don't do something they risk not just losing elections.

    http://ipcc.ch/report/sr15/

    The summary for policymakers.

    http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf
    --- Post Merged, Oct 8, 2018 ---
    A very short synopsis of the high points from the folks over at SyFy, of all places.

    https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/new-u...he-apocalypse-could-be-closer-than-we-thought

     
  2. NT1440 macrumors G5

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #2
    The logic of capitalism is incompatible with the concept of finite resources or environmental stewardship, period.

    In short, we’re ****ed.
     
  3. RootBeerMan thread starter macrumors 65816

    RootBeerMan

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    #3
    Not true. We can tackle and solve this problem with the free markets, capitalism and the will to do it. It will be a massive undertaking, but we can do it. As for finite resource...well. They are finite at the moment and on this lone little planet but, if we get on the ball we have the resources of an entire solar system at our door. Again, it just takes the will to do it.

    Climate change is an immediate concern and one the politicians need to get off their asses to fight.
     
  4. adnbek macrumors 65816

    adnbek

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2011
    Location:
    Montreal, Quebec
    #4
    I think this thread clearly demonstrates the apathy and/or defeatism on the topic... Sad.
     
  5. jerwin macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #5
    Can it wait until a certain person is out of office?
     
  6. RootBeerMan thread starter macrumors 65816

    RootBeerMan

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    #6
    Sadly, no.
     
  7. SandboxGeneral Moderator emeritus

    SandboxGeneral

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Location:
    Detroit
    #7
    A collective will and collaboration of all humans worldwide and a disregard for fiscal considerations to fix the climate problems is what is really needed. To survive as a species on this planet, we need to do what it takes and look past our own financial desires.
     
  8. GermanSuplex macrumors 6502a

    GermanSuplex

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    #8
    Of all the things that are partisan issues, this is the most confusing. I have no doubt removing large money from politics would see this morph into a much less politically divisive issue.

    Of course, having a president who doesn't Tweet that its a Chinese hoax just because it snowed somewhere would help.
     
  9. Jason Honer Suspended

    Jason Honer

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2018
    Location:
    Boston MA
    #9
    Meh. Man has been here long enough. I say, “bring on the apocalypse”.
     
  10. RootBeerMan thread starter macrumors 65816

    RootBeerMan

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    #10
    As I have said before. What we need is a new Manhattan Project style program focused on the problem. Use tax incentives to get the things done we need to doing, not carbon taxes, (which are a punishment). We could shut down every coal powered plant in the US right now and we'd never miss a single erg. Conversion also works. A crash program to build clean nuclear reactors could start immediately. And Detroit would gladly hop on electrics and hydrogen, if given the incentive. We can fight this problem. We just need people with political will.
     
  11. SandboxGeneral Moderator emeritus

    SandboxGeneral

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Location:
    Detroit
    #11
    In addition to that, the rest of the nations on earth will need to participate. *cough* China.
     
  12. RootBeerMan thread starter macrumors 65816

    RootBeerMan

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    #12
    Yeah, they all have to get onboard. But, China has shown some willingness to recognise the problem, unlike others. If the rest of the world showed a united front and then pitched in to help them make the changes necessary (with lots of Chinese yuan helping, too) I think they'd come along quite quickly.
     
  13. A.Goldberg macrumors 68020

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #13
    The most viable answer I see here is nuclear energy. Solar and Wind is great but their efficacy and efficiency is limited and storage is expensive. Batteries require a lot of resources for be produced. Electric cars are probably the future of personal transportation but until we have an effective way of producing massive amounts clean energy, we’re stuck.

    Nuclear is our best option in the meantime for non-fossil fuel energy production. Obviously there are problems associated with it, but until new technology emerges out only other option is to stick with the status quo.

    Again, nuclear obviously has it’s dangers, but they can be mitigated. There are hundreds of nuclear plants running across the world for decades without incident. Fukushima was a disaster, but perhaps just as bad as the environmental catastrophe is the fact that the accident was completely preventable. The plant was built with the backup generators below the flood level, which is an obvious problem that was brought to TEPCO’s attention but ignored.
     
  14. Huntn macrumors P6

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #14
    Exactly, the entire right wing are so worried about their bank accounts for tomorrow, can’t seem to fathom in the end it won't make any difference after we’re living (or dying) in cinders. :oops:
    --- Post Merged, Oct 9, 2018 ---
    My answer: Thorium reactors.
     
  15. fatalogic macrumors regular

    fatalogic

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2016
    #15
    Unfortunately nothing will happen until those in power find their summer homes falling into the water and their profits decimated by hurricanes and other natural disasters.
     
  16. RootBeerMan thread starter macrumors 65816

    RootBeerMan

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    #16
    Thorium reactors are a good way to go. We also need to get Toshiba back in the game with their small reactors, too. But! What the people on the left are going to have to do is rein in their anti-nuclear segment. These folks have, for all intents and purposes, destroyed nuclear energy in the US. You folks are going to have to make them sit down and shut up.

    https://www.fastcompany.com/1594671/bill-gates-goes-nuclear-toshibas-4s-reactor
    http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_po...duncan-williams-toshiba-4s-01272#.W7zcx1JRfUI
     
  17. NT1440 macrumors G5

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #17
    So....the answer to our problems rather than using renewable energy is to fast track the building of nuclear reactors.

    What could possibly go wrong?

    Nuclear is being pushed so hard now because its a centralized power structure. That's not what we need.
     
  18. RootBeerMan thread starter macrumors 65816

    RootBeerMan

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    #18
    Renewables do not produce enough power to drive our economy or needs. Nuclear is a carbon zero power source and is pretty safe, overall. It takes a cataclysmic event to cause a nuclear disaster. New technology, like thorium and Toshiba's 4S systems are even safer than traditional light water reactors. Our civilisation relies on reliable power generation to survive. Nuclear is the safest and most efficient means to do that. What could go wrong? Given the history of nuclear power generation on a worldwide basis, very little.
     
  19. NT1440 macrumors G5

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #19
    How in the world is the supply chain of Nuclear carbon free? That’s a talking point directly from the industry as they refer specifically and ONLY to the plant itself. Mining is a hugely carbon intensive process (for every industry).

    Also, not a single bank in the US will finance a nuclear plant. So we either ignore the mythical free markets decision on nuclear or we admit that the free market is a 20th century (and beyond) fairy tale. You don’t get to pick and choose, that’s allegedly the entire core of that financial faith system.

    The inconsistency of free market philosophy is a concrete sign it is merely a faith based system.
     
  20. tshrimp macrumors 6502

    tshrimp

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    #20
    They have said this many times before, and we are still here. Add in some Al Gore, and others and we become a little callous to these types of things. Since this has been said so many times, how can people know when the "real" time is here? I am worried we are now a victim of the "cry wolf" scenario. If it is every truly real, then no one will believe it.
     
  21. NT1440 macrumors G5

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #21
    Miami floods regularly in normal rain conditions, that wasn’t the case 40 years ago. So you can keep pretending if you’d like, but to the observant it’s very clear we’re already seeing the onset effects of a looming disaster.

    I hope people aren’t expecting super markets to be the “I can buy strawberries year round” illusion they are today, the international food supply chains will be dramatically altered in the next two decades.
     
  22. tshrimp macrumors 6502

    tshrimp

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    #22
    Do you have any links to back up your claims? How many banks have denied financing a nuclear power plant? How much carbon will it take to go nuclear compared to if we don't? And where do you get that the "Free Market Philosophy" is a fairy tail?
    --- Post Merged, Oct 9, 2018 ---
    Nothing in my statement denies anything. It just points out that this doom and gloom picture has been painted for so long now that expecting people to buy in is going to get harder and harder since these predicted outcomes do not seem to ever come true.
     
  23. linuxcooldude macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    #23
    Make up a fake climate change problem that Democrats need to fix by voting for them. Climate change is a natural progression that humans have little effect overall. Increased CO2 isnt always a bad thing, that actually increases plant growth that in turn releases more oxygen.
     
  24. RootBeerMan thread starter macrumors 65816

    RootBeerMan

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    #24
    You are obviously suffering some kind of intellectual disconnect where power generation is concerned. Mining does currently produce carbon. Does it somehow escape your notice, (or is it a deliberate attempt at obfuscation?), that the materials required to produce "renewable" energy products also require extensive mining? Renewables are carbon neutral, after they are built by industries that produce carbon, just like nuclear. Until we get to the point where we do not use fossil fuels and industry does not produce carbon (unlikely) that will always be the case. Try being honest in why you are against nuclear power. If, as I have suggested, we start a crash program to combat global warming and get the anti-nuclear nuts to shut up, banks will have no problem funding construction of thorium plants and others. The free market works, when governments and ninnies get out of the way. The fact that you are on the internet, fed and sheltered proves that.
    --- Post Merged, Oct 9, 2018 ---
    Denying the science, on which there is a consensus, does not make the problem go away. You folks are in the same grouping that don't want carbon neutral nuclear. The powers that be are going to have to set you, and the others who deny the science, on ignore and proceed without you. The report, (which I am sure you failed to read) lays out all the evidence. You do believe in examining evidence to form an opinion, don't you? It's linked above.
     
  25. NT1440 macrumors G5

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #25
    I never claimed any process is carbon free, I’m just tired of nuclear supporters leaving out the mining process in the carbon chain. THAT seems deliberate to me. I’m critiquing claims, not advocating for a given renewable.

    That said, I do find flow batteries or compressed air to be an interesting topic paired with renewables, but that’s an aside to the topic I was commenting on.

    My main concern with nuclear plants is honestly I don’t trust the Bechtels or GE’s of the world to build them safely and to spec...as they never have before purely to save cost. Without adequate regulation in their construction I simply don’t trust them. Thorium is fascinating to me, and I understand that (I think this is the right term) mark IV and above designs are theoretically incapable of meltdown (the physics checks out from what I’ve looked into) as the reaction simply stops if not maintained.

    None of this even touches my other critique, that of the centralization of power generation. Given only massive energy conglomerates will build and own these things I don’t trust the nature of capitalism to not **** it up or use that centralization as a lever for profit making/political leverage. If they were 100% public owned and operated I’d be a bit less skeptical but honestly I think decentralized generation paired to a smart grid is the real answer.
     

Share This Page

97 October 8, 2018