Teens promise to fix "climate change" with great idea

[notimp]

Nuclear power is the future. It is the only route that puts us toward becoming a type 1 civilization and moving up the Kardashev scale.

Here is the elephant in the room;

Plans for safe & clean nuclear plants exist and are totally viable, the problem is governments are not interested in these because they don't produce weapons grade material.

The problem with nuclear power is mostly twofold.

- You get waste material that no one wants to store. To understand that, you have to understand, that typical state confiscation or redeclaration of land is set up for 100 years max. The half-life time of uranium is 4468 billion years. So guaranteeing what 'happens' to it is something nobody can. If you are negotiating with other states to 'take over' your waste problem, they come to that conclusion pretty quickly - so no one really wants to be 'known' as or own the end storage place for that waste. Even if you fill it into empty salines (mountains), those storage places get full. Because everyone has a tendency to ignore it, you cant move it from there (usually stored in steel barrels that eventually rot away). So over time, it simply becomes too much of a problem. Dump it into the ocean also isnt the solution, because that stuff moves.

- All powerplants are built to specifications for a certain 'lifespan'. Towards the end of life, whoever runs the thing usually is incentivized to cut costs. Coupled with the risk profile on those things, thats not a great thing to face. So if you make that issue too structural - you are bound to have something happen at some point.

Running nuclear reactors regardless of the aim to generate weapongrade material is common place already. The discussion about that capability is only highlighted in debates with countries that dont have nuclear weapons capability yet. The race to nuclear weapon capability in certain nations is held, because it promises you a seat at the big table, where you arent pushed around by world powers as much anymore. Usually because of risk mitigation. Depending on if the US feel hawkish or not in their foreign policy trajectory that decade.
--

There are countries like France or Japan, that will to a large extent bet on nuclear power for quite a while still (usually because of a lack of alternatives) (population vs. energycosts vs. alternatives). But in general it is not expected that many other nations will make big investments along those lines. Its definitely talked about as a way to lessen the 'renewable energy is not reliable throughout the day/you cant easily turn it off and on (loadbalancing)' issue, but governments usually dont like it too much because they'd have to explain it to people as well.

edit: Roughly: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200309-are-small-nuclear-power-plants-safe-and-efficient

 

[notimp]

Mazzucato: In the G20 56% of Covid recovery money was given to fossile fuel based projects.

 

[notimp]

A little late, but hey, better late than never:


For better context, watch this:

 

[UltraSUPRA]

A little late, but hey, better late than never:


For better context, watch this:

You'll own nothing, and we'll beat you until you act happy. Welcome to Marxism.

 

[notimp]

You'll own nothing, and we'll beat you until you act happy. Welcome to Marxism.

No, no...



We will fake humility and tell you your job is so important as well (mostly if you pamper boomers, until they are dead, because they can still pay) - love what you are doing for society, but never allow social mobility - except for where it fits for PR purposes. (Zero growth societies - for decades.)

When Michael Sandel has to feign humility, something is very wrong.

Whole thing comes too fast. Everyone is worried.

Fake PR movements for the masses, business as usual for elites. (Upstarts now just get told, that they now have to be like Stefan Weiss-Fanzlau

Marketing Manager for Orange Austria, Co-Initiator of the Climate referendum in Austria, demanding that Climate targets get written into our countries constitution, working in an honorary capacity - along side his main job of selling people consumption contracts. (Just picked a random example, really.) )

And by whole thing, I dont mean just climate change.
--

edit: Common concept is, to pivot away from 'individual freedoms' on the PR level.

 

[notimp]

Plan for the US is live:

But it would still require a massive technological phase shift and an utterly remade country. In the next 10 years alone, the report says, we would need to add 50 million electric vehicles, quadruple the size of wind and solar in the United States, and expand the transmission infrastructure by 60 percent. It would certainly take a concerted effort — and legislation that, right now, it is hard to imagine Congress signing onto.

“If you took it as a given that you were going to get to net zero by 2050, this is the full onboard, all-hands-on-deck kind of thing that you would need to do,” said Susan Tierney, a senior adviser at the Analysis Group and an energy expert who advised on the report. “And it’s overwhelming.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/clim...-by-2050-heres-what-that-would-actually-take/

Referencing this report:
https://environmenthalfcentury.princeton.edu/

The Princeton team used detailed energy-system modeling, with five separate scenarios, to figure out how the United States could cease to emit any net amount of greenhouse gases by 2050. The details vary. For instance, most scenarios still use some nuclear power and some fossil fuels, but with carbon capture to remove their emissions. But a 100 percent renewable-energy scenario, somewhat more costly to achieve because of its deliberately constrained options, rules even this out.

On feasibility:

The incoming Biden team knows what needs to happen, Victor said. “They know that electricity is central, and they know that you have to combine decarbonization with known technologies with a big investment in innovation,” he said.

But how tied their hands will be remains to be seen.

And hands will be tied not only by national politics, Tierney noted. There could be all kinds of “friction” that energy system modelers say they’re not able to include in their scenarios, she said: Legal issues. Permitting issues. Changes in consumer behavior, or resistance to changes.

“It is a reminder that if we are serious about deep decarbonization, every week needs to be Infrastructure Week from now on,” Bordoff said.

But of course, the United States will not get to net zero in precisely the ways described in the report, Jenkins acknowledged, nor is it likely to get there precisely in 2050. Rather, the document lays out the exacting details, and the people decide how many of them to accept — and when.

This is in direct contridiction to 'expert commitees' in my country, who try to ram it through, by pointing at the competition in other countries, and that 'we cant risk give the first mover advantage away', combined with lies, that this will all in a sense pay for itself because it would make us less dependant on fossile fuel imports, and thereby prop up our foreign trade balance.

In reality, this cant be seen as a zero sum game, so this has political implications, this impacts other countries economies. If everyone sees it like that, world trade is dead.

But no one cares to correct the pleasant lies.

 

[laudern]

Pretty simple question I have but I'm somewhat new to fully understanding climate change.

• The climate changes naturally
• Humans are allegedly speeding up the rate of change

My question is, what is the rates number that humans have sped up climate change? How can we tell what the rate of increased change is, if we don't know what the rate would be without us here?

 

[notimp]

Pretty simple question I have but I'm somewhat new to fully understanding climate change.

• The climate changes naturally
• Humans are allegedly speeding up the rate of change

My question is, what is the rates number that humans have sped up climate change? How can we tell what the rate of increased change is, if we don't know what the rate would be without us here?

We have ways to know the CO2 cycles from before the industrial revolution (ice core drilling mostly).

https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/

edit: Also 'rock strata' and tree ring analysis (trees grow faster if more CO2 in the air (that doesnt mean, that planting more trees solves the issue alone)) f.e.
https://www.global-climate-change.org.uk/3-3-7.php

edit:

Also US mostly is not moving into zero growth economies anytime soon, this part of the statement mostly is valid for european economies.

 

[ThatGamingAirman]

Guys I know how to fix Climate Change but, it results in us all becoming Communist for the sake of equality.

 

[notimp]

Washington Post article from above archived on archive.org:
https://web.archive.org/web/2020121...-by-2050-heres-what-that-would-actually-take/

 

[notimp]

Bill Gates now also has become a climate expert.


I have to say - this _is_ a bit odd...

edit: At least he's not lying...

 

[ThatGamingAirman]

Bill Gates now also has become a climate expert.


I have to say - this _is_ a bit odd...

edit: At least he's not lying...

He also patented COVID-19 before it went mainstream.

 

[notimp]

He also patented COVID-19 before it went mainstream.

Thats somewhat understandable, he is in that scene - its also understandable, why media features him as much, as hes now the main sponsor of the WHO (to no fault of his own), so I expect some pandering.

But climate change expert? *scratch head*

edit: Probably the Economist really running out of high profile people to talk to to seem important... At the same time they advertise the next joint event, where young people could enlist, to get the loaddown. ("Economies of the future" stuff.) So its also 'right scene'. In that sense. But it is a little bit silly....
----------

edit2: Might have a better reason. They are searching for 'big shot' company leads that can symbolically say, how they'd go into the green transition. Billy boy is good for that. Rich - and company wise (his foundation) small footprint enough to offset carbon cost by buying CO2 certificats (which currently (no government minimum CO2 pricing), are still cheap). At the same time he can talk about MS, which last time I checked only had 'we recycle' as a PR mesage out there concerning their data centers. He now hints at a larger commitment. But thats still a commitment.

(You have to make those, because other wise you are loosing out on young talent, which now all are asking, but hows about the companies CO2 footprint, what are yous doing, or are you evil?)

Hes the right person for that job..

Posterchild.

On the topic he is saying nothing exciting or new. Its just a somewhat accurate summery. Its just, that hearing him 'inventing climate economy terms' and a journalist noding that off - _is_ a bit rich.

 

[Deleted User]

I'm always annoyed with the egotistical wording that World campaigns use in regards to Climate Change - you don't have to save anything, the Planet doesn't need you to save her.

Currently, the Planet has two Biospheres - the current one we're living with that is Oxygen-based and the Shadow Biosphere which is Nitrogen-based. It's a wonder that with 78% of the atmosphere comprising of Nitrogen the Oxygen side of things is more dominant, but it just goes to show that everything in the Universe has a Plan B, including Earth, whether we're too self-centred to see it or not.

The worst thing we can do is kill off our own Biosphere, which can activate one of two options; the Shadow Biosphere may gain dominance or the Planet resets after a few million years with an identical Oxygen-based Biosphere. There is still enough life in our Sun to keep a few more Earth Hard Resets, as it were, going before it finally dies.

We're literally not the Centre of the Universe; if you're going to save the Planet, it's to save your own hide.

 

[notimp]

I'm always annoyed with the egotistical wording that World campaigns use in regards to Climate Change - you don't have to save anything, the Planet doesn't need you to save her.

Currently, the Planet has two Biospheres - the current one we're living with that is Oxygen-based and the Shadow Biosphere which is Nitrogen-based. It's a wonder that with 78% of the atmosphere comprising of Nitrogen the Oxygen side of things is more dominant, but it just goes to show that everything in the Universe has a Plan B, including Earth, whether we're too self-centred to see it or not.

The worst thing we can do is kill off our own Biosphere, which can activate one of two options; the Shadow Biosphere may gain dominance or the Planet resets after a few million years with an identical Oxygen-based Biosphere. There is still enough life in our Sun to keep a few more Earth Hard Resets, as it were, going before it finally dies.

We're literally not the Centre of the Universe; if you're going to save the Planet, it's to save your own hide.

Ah, always great to see people resort to quasi religious motives (light and shadow), and then argue for 'life on earth is still possible' - well yeah, just not in several regions.

Here is a chart of what happens at 4-5 degrees temperature rise until 2100. (Which we are on track for - if 'nothing is done')

Whats plotted are the days where 'living/working' outside for humans would be deadly. Red = 365 days a year, white = 0 days a year.

Then you add the fact that 'something is done', and you end up at 'its not about the daily heat days' so much, its about food security for people, and about migration pressure to richer countries, which can afford to buy food and water on the market - even then.

Then you add - that its very, very hard to reverse the trend, once its there (much more 'energy' needed than to slow it down and bring it to a halt earlier). And you've understood the situation.

But leave it to the religious mind, to tell you about the yin and yang of the atmosphere, and that the worst thing to do would be to 'disturb it' to lead you into an actual mass extinction event, or wars..

Chart is from a recent talk of the german climate poster boy - Volker Quatschnig ( https://media.ccc.de/v/rc3-11371-nach_der_coronakrise_ist_mitten_in_der_klimakrise ) who is just dumb enough, that he uses target numbers derived from the concept of 'from now on - everyone has an equal amount of CO2 they still can put into the atmosphere' with every human on earth getting an equal share to still spend. Which is very noble, and very humanistic, but not how the world works, and not the targets with which the UN or any government in the world opperate. So - he is just dumb enough to do that, but also hold an engineering degree.

Which makes him an ideal person to feature him in the media, which is exactly what has happened in germany, where he is maybe the most important 'TV scientist' on the matter.

Also those targets, are also the ones Fridays for Future is operating with - but not the actually important think tanks (in germany for example (linked in here before)), that produce the actual transition planning, they are then lobbying for politicians to implement.

Roughly meaning, public activism does do jack sh*t, other than to convince the public not to rebel, once implementation comes along. Especially, if you listen closely to what Billy boy is saying in the video above. (If the US doesnt participate goals arent going to be reached in 2050, or 2060, or...)

 

[Deleted User]

...

I'm not sure who you're referring to, but if it's me then let me know.
Since I'm in the reply, I'll add this, though.

If we look at the progress of History and Technology, the inevitability is that we'll reach a point of where pressures are great enough for us to change, either external or internal; whether this push is hard-wired into our DNA is a question for the ages, but we as a gregarious species have not been to change without it.

"The Earth is the cradle of humanity, but mankind cannot stay in the cradle forever."
- Konstantin Tsiolkovsky.

The simplest analogy I would have is of the Birthing Process; it's not particularly pleasant for all involved and pushes one out of the womb, but is a much-needed process to the next phase and actually the beginning of Life as we know it.

There are a lot of moving causal parts to Climate Change and their speed and impact to the World can only be speculated at best.
One very recent example of Humanity thriving under pressure is the COVID-19 vaccine and, ultimately, medication; there is no model in the World that could have predicted the response time, despite Political aspects throwing everything and the kitchen sink at it.

As such, I'm not one to lose faith in Humanity because it serves no point; those who do can feel free to dig a nice hole in the ground, lie down and wait, for all they're worth.

 

[notimp]

I'm not sure who you're referring to, but if it's me then let me know.
Since I'm in the reply, I'll add this, though.

If we look at the progress of History and Technology, the inevitability is that we'll reach a point of where pressures are great enough for us to change, either external or internal; whether this push is hard-wired into our DNA is a question for the ages, but we as a gregarious species have not been to change without it.

"The Earth is the cradle of humanity, but mankind cannot stay in the cradle forever."
- Konstantin Tsiolkovsky.

The simplest analogy I would have is of the Birthing Process; it's not particularly pleasant for all involved and pushes one out of the womb, but is a much-needed process to the next phase and actually the beginning of Life as we know it.

There are a lot of moving causal parts to Climate Change and their speed and impact to the World can only be speculated at best.
One very recent example of Humanity thriving under pressure is the COVID-19 vaccine and, ultimately, medication; there is no model in the World that could have predicted the response time, despite Political aspects throwing everything and the kitchen sink at it.

As such, I'm not one to lose faith in Humanity because it serves no point; those who do can feel free to dig a nice hole in the ground, lie down and wait, for all they're worth.

You preach to them boy.

Problem is - do you then have enough reaction time to do something. No? Well business as usual is out of the question then.

Also - yes, its on an 'everybodys best guess' basis. (We dont have a second earth to do experiments.) But there is a scientific consensus. Which doesnt say - this much, by this year - but gives a range. And that range is worrying enough as is.

US always is incentiviced to act later than other parts of the world - not because of them being directly exposed to 'heat' related risks so much - but because of other structural changes that are happening as a result.

From a business perspective, the most worrisome aspect right now is 'risk mitigation'. Basically insurance companies telling them, they cant carry the risk of keeping certain countries 'stable', they are operating in.

The US is pretty well situated to 'isolate' itself from migration pressures, and have an economic partner to develop, right at their border (Exporting grain to mexico? Hey - great! ) - other countries (more dependent on world trade) - less so.

That drives, who is invested in the issue currently, and how strongly.

 

[ThatGamingAirman]

Thats somewhat understandable, he is in that scene - its also understandable, why media features him as much, as hes now the main sponsor of the WHO (to no fault of his own), so I expect some pandering.

But climate change expert? *scratch head*

edit: Probably the Economist really running out of high profile people to talk to to seem important... At the same time they advertise the next joint event, where young people could enlist, to get the loaddown. ("Economies of the future" stuff.) So its also 'right scene'. In that sense. But it is a little bit silly....
----------

edit2: Might have a better reason. They are searching for 'big shot' company leads that can symbolically say, how they'd go into the green transition. Billy boy is good for that. Rich - and company wise (his foundation) small footprint enough to offset carbon cost by buying CO2 certificats (which currently (no government minimum CO2 pricing), are still cheap). At the same time he can talk about MS, which last time I checked only had 'we recycle' as a PR mesage out there concerning their data centers. He now hints at a larger commitment. But thats still a commitment.

(You have to make those, because other wise you are loosing out on young talent, which now all are asking, but hows about the companies CO2 footprint, what are yous doing, or are you evil?)

Hes the right person for that job..

Posterchild.

On the topic he is saying nothing exciting or new. Its just a somewhat accurate summery. Its just, that hearing him 'inventing climate economy terms' and a journalist noding that off - _is_ a bit rich.

I’m really surprised it’s not King Bezos who’s trying to make his own company reach zero carbon emissions.

 

[notimp]

I’m really surprised it’s not King Bezos who’s trying to make his own company reach zero carbon emissions.

I'm not. Amazon is a logistic company (and cloud storage), they drive around more vehicles than any other single company in the world currently. And tech is not there yet where it would make sense for them to offset.
https://www.freightwaves.com/news/a...ring-billions-into-transport-network-cfo-says

While they will eventually profit from technological developments in that sector the amount to offset there is so large that they cant do it as a PR move.

Basically. Companies who are highly dependent on a well educated talent pool are going to be doing it, for their image - industry is mostly doing structural change, when states set carbon taxes - and need them to be 'advertised' years beforehand, so their investment structure can change (those are made for 10 years plus). And they will do it - slightly before they are forced to, because CO2 price (made up to incentivice structural change), is set to increase quite steeply (again currently we are in the 'get energy efficiency' up phases, because thats cheapest, but also whats needed first). Small and medium size companies (mom and pop shops), need 'price signals'. (And maybe even more than that, which is also part of why you try to put it into constitutions. To make it a necessary part of their businesses. (Because you cant 'grasp' (influence) them as easily with lets say industry regulation legislation. (They are too diverse.))

 

[notimp]

ECB now has two goals. Keeping the currency stable - and climate change:

https://www.bis.org/review/r210127d.htm

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ecb-climate-lagarde-idUSKBN29U0TA

Someone should write about the god principal in central banking:

Furthermore, several factors associated with climate change may weigh on productivity and the equilibrium interest rate, potentially reducing the space available for conventional policy. For example, labour supply and productivity may diminish as a result of heat stress, temporary incapability to work and higher rates of mortality and morbidity. Resources may be reallocated away from productive use to support adaptation, while capital accumulation may be impaired by rising destruction from natural hazards and weaker investment dynamics related to rising uncertainty. And the increase in short-term volatility and accelerated structural change could hamper central banks' ability to correctly identify the shocks that are relevant for the medium-term inflation outlook, making it more difficult to assess the appropriate monetary policy stance.

Our strategy review enables us to consider more deeply how we can continue to protect our mandate in the face of these risks and, at the same time, strengthen the resilience of monetary policy and our balance sheet to climate risks. That naturally involves evaluating the feasibility, efficiency and effectiveness of available options, and ensuring they are consistent with our mandate.

God affects everything. As everything also concerns the things we love most (securities), he also affects us. Because we are unsure what god is going to do - our uncertainty increased to the point where we are unsure, that our risk projection mechanisms work. So we've founded a new review entity, ... And set in place new stress tests with goals of what god likes most, which we will have defined shortly...

Holy smokes.

Regardless, that there is a process logic to it being decoupled from your process to the point where you admit, this could impact your future work to the point, where you have no understanding of whats coming - and therefore you must and are allowed to move your entire strategic outlook is... interesting. Turns out the "danger for humanity" principle really is apt to overrule everything.

And this (fist link) is the speech putting that into a public organizational framework.