Anthropogenic Climate Change

Pretty much, and attempts to avoid using conflict material, especially on coltan's case, run into the problem that China is effectively 'laundering' conflict minerals, making it hard for investors and businesses to know if what they're dealing with is ethical or conflict sourced.

Related to what I said earlier, this article the major ways current industrial farming practices contribute to climate change, and briefly mentions an agroecology approach to solving climate change that will be important in the near future.

Basically, a huge amount of emissions are not only produced by fossil fuel agriculture and global food distribution, but are exacerbated by the industrial farming practices that destroy natural forest and deplete soil.

By reducing dependence on global imports, shifting focus to local self-sustaining farming, eliminating waste and needless packaging, there's a lot that can be done to shield against the worst of climate change while providing better food security.

That's a start. I can't tell you the amount of times I've encountered people who argue that all we need to do to 'save the planet' or 'end global warming' is to become vegan. They think they're well-researched because they know what the industrial livestock farming and the agricultural farming of livestock feed is contributing to the greenhouse gases. But when I point out that this isn't enough because the industrial crop farming (for human consumption) is a very big problem now (that's before the massive load increase from the entire human population switching to vegan, which is what these vegan activists want), they don't listen to what I'm saying and dismiss me as anti-vegan.

That couldn't be further from the truth, I'd be vegan myself if not for medical reasons (my GP is vegan for religious reasons, so my case is not because I have a GP who 'doesn't understand' veganism or vegetarianism). It's because we have a case of 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing'. People research what they want to oppose, but they don't research what they support. One of the 'hidden' dangers of well-meaning activists is that they don't look closely enough at the true scale of the problem — that it's not industrial livestock farming that's the issue, it's industrial farming. If we remove livestock from the equation and, with all other factors being unchanged, the biggest culprit will switch to rice farming.

I don't have these debates to dissuade people from becoming vegetarians or vegans; I do it because I want people to think bigger than just becoming vegetarian or vegan. I don't want people to switch their diet and sit back thinking they've saved the planet. Because it doesn't work like that, and it's quite shocking to see how many people appear to think that it does.

Obvious disclaimer: this is anecdotal, my experiences only.

Edited by Wyldchyld on Oct 13th 2018 at 11:25:52 AM

I will also add that humans, at least in their infancy, do need meat to for brain growth and to avoid mental retardation, not to mention that some areas are simply not good for farming for climatic and soil reasons. I also read once that one of the sources of deforestation in Brazil was to make land to cultivate soy beans so it's not just the livestock industry that contributes to the problem here.

Now, there is an issue that I don't think has been mentioned and that is the current trend of the industry to advocate for the "use and discard" model of production: With each year, the quality of the manufactured products decreases in favour of making people buy new ones, this can be seen in things like fridges, cars or even bulbs; even worse, the advancement of technology has given the electronics and computing industry an undying rallying point towards unrestricted innovation.

Yeah, I deliberately avoided biological arguments with that post, but I do engage in debates over soil quality.

And, yes, if you're looking for alternative milks (to dairy) based solely on climate change issues, do not switch to soymilk. The most environmentally friendly milk alternative that exists is, I believe, almond milk, but I will need to double-check that (and it's obviously got environmental issues, just less than all the alternatives).

Soymilk producers also engages in misleading advertising — they claim its good for the planet because it's not as large a greenhouse gas producer as dairy farming, conveniently ignoring both the environmental damage of soybean farming, and its somewhat more indirect contribution to greenhouse gas production.

So advertising is definitely an issue when it comes to using purchasing power to support the environment.

Edited to add: the least environmentally unfriendly milk alternative is currently oat milk; almond milk is right up there with soymilk for the scale of the damage it causes.

Edited by Wyldchyld on Oct 14th 2018 at 10:33:49 AM

Only German language sources so far, but it looks like we broke a temperature record in Switzerland for October today: 27.2 °C. Now this happened during strong southern winds as I wearily found out while hiking but still worth noting.

Just imagine if companies actually designed their products to last as long as possible, rather than planned obsolescence so that the device inevitably breaks down or doesn't run as well within a few years, practically forcing you to buy another one. I drove my first car for ten years before it got totaled, and each phone I get I use for at least three before upgrading. The sheer amount of wasted metals and electronic components that are rusting away in a landfill somewhere is just infuriating to think about.

Advertising is also extremely wasteful. Not just the waste of paper to your mailbox, but also the waste of electricity keeping storefronts and billboards (and now, HDTV billboards) lit at night...

(The following links are from the NY Times, WIRED and The Guardian, respectively)

Apparently, Trump is denying denying climate change, Beer is getting a price hike because of climate change oh, and we might have little more over a decade to reverse climate change.

Edited by MorningStar1337 on Oct 15th 2018 at 2:08:44 AM

An interesting climatology tidbit: A Link between the Hiatus in Global Warming and North American Drought. That is, atmospheric patterns (easterly winds over the Pacific) can direct a La Nina-like climate anomaly that "hides" global warming in the deep sea and also promotes the onset of droughts in Western North America.

Note also that a) such wind anomalies are most likely not caused by global warming and may become less common with more global warming and that b) such a "hiatus" can only last as long as the deep sea can absorb the heat. Eventually overflow occurs after one-two decades. Arguably, the great 2015 El Nino was such an "overflow" event.

Apparently glaciers in Canada are melting rapidly according to the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/30/canada-glaciers-yukon-shrinking

Can anyone there confirm this?

OK.

Do you guys want to know how I feel about the current climate change situation?

Honestly?

Imagine you live with a roommate. Imagine that roommate is an obese, rich white guy who does nothing but eat all day. Imagine he eats literally every foodstuff in your house as soon as it's bought. The bread, the lunchmeat, the fruits, the vegetables, the chips. Imagine you're left with seven breadcrumbs for the entire week. Imagine you're actually starving to death.

OK, so you go up to this obese rich white guy—we'll call him "Rich Asshat" for short—and you say to him, "Hey, you can't keep doing this. You're eating me out of house and home. I barely have anything left for myself because of you."

And Rich Asshat has the audacity to say, "Well, obviously it's your fault for eating so much. You're going to have to make some serious changes to your diet if you don't want to starve. It's just not sustainable the way it is. (Hey, by the way, gimme the Oreos.)"

And then you go to your friends and tell them that Rich Asshat can't keep being a rich asshat if he wants you to stay alive, and they have the audacity to take his side. Because, haha, yeah right, like rich people will ever suffer consequences for anything.

This is a friendly reminder that just 100 businesses are responsible for 70% of CO2 emissions that are killing our planet. This needs to stop, and it needs to stop yesterday.

Edited by Midna on Nov 9th 2018 at 12:00:25 PM

Well, I'm only 19, so I'll probably hear some stories of major cities being engulfed by rising waters in my lifetime, so I get you.

Still, businesses won't change a profitable method unless their hand is forced by governments. Unfortunately, since the populations of the two largest co2 emitters, China and the US, care little about climate change (various polls), we're screwed.

Edited by Grafite on Nov 9th 2018 at 10:50:23 AM

They seem to care more about space exploration and exploitation then they do about climate change. Makes me wonder if its a matter of running away from your problems being easier than fixing them?

I just hope i'm dead by the time the worst comes to pass, there is a chance we can minimize the impact but going by current mindsets that's unlikely to happen until the last moment.

And the majority of energy produced is used to generate more energy. It's a vicious cycle.

We gotta reinstate carbon taxes, and make them heavier if anything. Corporations won't do anything about it voluntarily because it's profitable. Fine, we'll make it unprofitable as all hell to be a polluter. It's why taking back the government is so important. Republicans sure as hell aren't going to make that kind of legislation happen.

Edited by danime91 on Nov 9th 2018 at 12:07:29 PM

And here come the doomsayers. Thanks a fucking lot, Midna.

I'm wondering if limits besides carbon taxes should also be considered, at least until renewables become widespread? Specifically those pertaining to transportation and electronics like computers and smartphones.

Edited by MorningStar1337 on Nov 9th 2018 at 2:22:28 AM

I think the absolute best hope for future (cleaner) energy production is more nuclear power plants.

Edited by Friendperson on Nov 15th 2018 at 9:10:20 AM

You know, what really needs to be done first isn't imposing limitations on the big businesses' use of polluting methods/tech, it's imposing limitations on their ability to lobby politicians into putting laws that are favorable to them and/or removing laws that are unfavorable to them. Otherwise, we'd be stuck in a cycle where we put eco-friendly laws, the corps lobby pro-business politicians to remove them, we work hard to put them back again, the corps lobby again to restore their favorable status quo, ad infinitum.

Personally, I think the first step is toward electrifying the economy (esp transportation, but eventually all of it). Then, we can start switching to renewables that have a reduced carbon footprint. A smartgrid would help us conserve energy consumption, leaving agriculture as the main source of carbon emissions (and fossil fuel consumption). One potentially good piece of news is that global economic growth is ultimately driven by population growth, which one way or another, either the good way or the bad way, will eventually correct itself.

It's unfortunately behind a paywall, but a group of researchers has conducted a climate simulation to find out how climate change has affected the intensity of last year's hurricanes Irma and Maria. The summary:

• Climate change so far has only had little effect on their intensity, but it has substantially increased the amount of precipitation falling.
• Both hurricanes become substantially stronger with future climate change; in the RCP 8.5 simulation (basically, what climate looks like in 2100 if global warming and greenhouse gas emissions are allowed to increase totally unchecked) they are about 10-15 knots stronger than present-day.
• Both hurricanes also undergo some minor track changes, but it's difficult to tell as the simulation didn't properly represent their present-day paths.

I do miss the days when phones didn't break in few years Like I think I went about 10-15 years with Nokia 3310 and only switched because battery life started to die really quickly

Anyway, at least with computers(at least if you bother buying them as parts instead of whole product) they seem to have long life span. Once I invested into new computer(, I've been using the same one for ages without any problems by now. I don't think same kind of stuff could be done with other electronics though... Plus it'd be expensive as hell if you would have to customize everything so that they work for years

Anyhoo, do we have any idea if oil crisis will happen before the climate change is impossible to prevent anymore? I'm kinda wondering if those two are connected, like if fossil fuels ended, would that actually help with developing tech that is more environmental friendly or would it just make things worse?

I remember reading on one site (I can't remember the name) that our current emissions can potentially raise the temperature to 2.7 by 2030, is that even possible or did this one site just fuck up?

> Here come the Doomsayers

And so is the Golden City blackened, With each step you take in its halls. Marvel at it's perfection, for it is fleeting, For you have brought Sin to Heaven, And Doom upon all the World.

Sorry, couldn't resist.