Global Warming
- Started
- Last post
- 643 Responses
- Nairn0
I wonder if governments pushing unilateral environmental destruction with global impact might become the focus of sanctions or even UN mandated military action in future?
- the darker me wonders whether 12 Monkeys like activities might start becoming plausible - biological or chemical attacks on large population centres.Nairn
- I can definitely envisage some nutter thinking it a better trade to kill a few Bn poor foreigners rather than risk consumer economies back home.Nairn
- what gov are pushing for gov unilateral env destruction? Your hypothesis is better wether fearful rich and powerful see climate change as destructiondeathboy
- and as such set force plans that ruins life for all not fully realizing there power relies on economic activity that keeps people peacefuldeathboy
- that their fear and policies that make people more poor will give rise to more tin pot dictators. That will take and give and set in motion populist rules wheredeathboy
- nothing survives and its a slow death as history has shown. and sometimes i wonder if its just man's winter. stuff dies in brutal conditions but grows again.deathboy
- however looking at history I still think the US had the best shot and it was simply because it was new land (indians not really developed) So much harderdeathboy
- to redevelop, but maybe a great extinction event would make it easier.deathboy
- I'll skip Deathboy's comments. But Nairn, I reckon governments will slowly see the benefits of being more sustainable, but then there are those countries..Ianbolton
- who can't keep up financially. Maybe they still burn coal? Do the richer countries help them out or do they get aggressive? Worrying possibilitiesIanbolton
- The dystopian 12 Monkey's scenario is pretty scary but apparently biological and chemical attacks are supposed to be illegal!! haha (novichock, cough!)Ianbolton
- lol at skipping deathboy's comments - I did too!
20 hours later: https://www.bbc.co.u…Nairn - Solar's already competitive against coal in most countires, even discounting subsidies (including externalities) so it's just a matter of time.Nairn
- Ah, I see your point. I dont see why we don’t speed up the destruction of the rainforests anyway. Get it over with and build a car parkIanbolton
- ha skip it. you are fool enough to think its about climate change (a thing that can never be stopped) and fail to see its about political and economic powerdeathboy
- in order to shape an ideal world largely based outside reality. You can subsidize one thing only as long as you have money, but that money will run drydeathboy
- and all that money will be a cost on everyone and the benefit of no one, except the cronies and political elite who supported it.deathboy
- If i want to pay less for coal than solar why cant I? Or vice versa? Why can't i choose what best works for me outside subsidies and taxes that try to shape mydeathboy
- behavior based on politician whims that are based more solely on camping financing and not on my individual interests?deathboy
- Thanks mate. Appreciate your inputIanbolton
- data:image/jpeg;base...deathboy
- ... well it was a sheldon cooper with "sarcasm?" type. and typin it the casm... made curious of latindeathboy
- more of to tear flesh like a dog, thought maybe it would have more of a divide like chasm.. learn something new everydaydeathboy
- but than again that russian viral lab explosion...deathboy
- inteliboy2
Imagine going to a climate/environment science blog website, and seeing them debate about design and the differences between UI and UX.
This is what this thread is. And this is what the rest of the dumb as fuck world is.
Listen to the experts. Question them. Debate them. But listen to them.
- hey im in marketing. want me to brand you as an expert?deathboy
- lowimpakt2
it's not a "millenial" issue.
We've know many fundamental problem for a very long time, people are just more informed and have less bling faith in systems like capitalism and the church.
This article is over 100 years old
- We know so little. And if you know of methods of "experts" you'd laugh too. However we do like to believe we know a lot. Its safe feeling that way.deathboy
- Fax_Benson1
It does seem that there's a distinction in most peoples' minds between the fossil fuel emissions / temperature rise issue and the wider issue of pollution in general.
The hardcore climate deniers can't and won't be won over with data. But the same people get properly narked if their local river is full of chemicals. As a demographic they're naturally inclined to be pro-animal (in a hunting kind of way), outdoor types. Big business fucking up the environment ought to be right up their political funnel.
These big UN-sponsored dossiers of doom may be designed to shock people into action but they seem to have the opposite effect on lots of people. It all fits too easily in to the liberal / green / conspiracy narrative. Maybe blurring the lines and localising the debate on to dying habitats and plastic chaos (in the news currently in the UK currently) is the way to get people on side.
- stating the obvious, really.
Public opinion is the only thing that will drive policy. Make it a vote-winner.Fax_Benson - CO2 turns critters queer. Oil is Islamic.....Fax_Benson
- uk has always been docile though - its been our education to sleep.mugwart
- stating the obvious, really.
- utopian2
Donald Trump’s Disastrous Climate Change Policy Will Have Dire Consequences
Over the weekend, EPA director Scott Pruitt announced that he would be sending a proposal to Donald Trump to rescind Obama-era regulations on the coal industry. This is another long list of things that the Trump administration wants to end in protecting the environment, and part of his plan to leave the Paris Agreement earlier this year. Many believe that these regulations hurt the American economy, but the effects on the rest of the country are far more costly.
- utopian3
CLIMATE CHANGE IS KILLING US RIGHT NOW
- utopian2
Rapid warming and disintegrating polar ice sets the stage for ‘societal collapse
Carbon pollution is destabilizing both the Arctic and Antarctic.
The Arctic and Antarctic are seeing an accelerated collapse of both sea and land ice.
When you add in Trump’s aggressive agenda to undo both domestic and global climate action, we are facing the worst-case scenario for climate change — and one new study finds that the worst case is “societal collapse.”
The unprecedented drop in global sea ice we reported on last month has continued. Arctic sea ice reached a new record low, the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) reports.
"Drill Baby Drill" - GOP
- ukit21
World's biggest PR firm calls it quits with American oil lobby
- i_monk1
England will get colder:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shu…
- utopian0
Big Oil Finally Admits Climate Risks — To Its Business AND The Planet
For decades, oil companies have tried to ignore the truth about climate change.
After decades of denial, and in some cases outright coverup, a few of the world’s largest oil companies may be waking up to the realities of climate change.
American giants Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and Valero Energy have started to tell investors that they face financial and physical risks as the planet warms and the world begins to use smaller amounts of fossil fuels, according to a review of their recent public filings with securities regulators.
These risks include increased government regulation aimed at making dirty energy more expensive to produce or limiting how much of it can be burned. Extreme weather, another danger, could disrupt operations or damage company assets.
A report published last November found that more than half of the 20 largest public U.S. energy and industrial companies had not disclosed information about the potential risks of climate change to their businesses. Since then, negotiators have reached a historic agreement in Paris to try to limit climate change, a new report found that sea levels could rise even faster than researchers had previously anticipated and state attorneys general continued to investigate companies that may have withheld information about the dangers of climate change.
Influence Map, a nonprofit group that examines the corporate influence of climate change policies, released both the November and April reports.
The recent disclosure by Exxon is perhaps the most significant. The story that the company tired to hide evidence of climate risks was first revealed by the L.A. Times and Columbia University’s Energy & Environmental reporting program and is now the subject of investigations by state attorneys general.
“ExxonMobil believes the risk of climate change is real and warrants action. ExxonMobil is taking action by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in our operations, helping consumers reduce their emissions, supporting research and participating in constructive dialogue on policy options,” said company spokesman Alan Jeffers.
In its annual report to investors, released in February, Exxon said it assumes “governments will enact policies that impose rising costs on energy‑related CO2 emissions.” It also assumes carbon emissions will be priced at $80 per ton in 20 years, as governments around the world enact policies to make fossil fuels more expensive and renewable energy even more competitive.
Currently, there is no stated, national price on carbon in the U.S., but some states have implemented carbon pricing plans, and hundreds of companies are using internal carbon prices to make investment decisions.
U.S. companies are not currently required to disclose climate change risks to investors.
Financial regulators are doing “almost nothing” to push companies to disclose climate risk, Mindy Luber, head of sustainable investing coalition Ceres wrote earlier this month. Previously, the Securities and Exchange Commission seemed poised to enact rules requiring that companies tell investors about the climate risks their businesses face. But that was in 2010, when the SEC was headed by Mary Shapiro. Under the current leadership of Mary Jo White, the agency has not moved forward with that effort.
In contrast, the Financial Stability Board, a group of national regulators, is working with executives to develop voluntary climate change disclosure standards.
“It’s encouraging to see the energy sector providing greater disclosure,” Timothy Smith of Walden Asset Management, a sustainability-focused investment firm, said in a release. “This is an indicator that post-Paris, companies are increasingly aware of new realities that will inevitably affect their business.”
Reached for comment, Chevron referred The Huffington Post to its proxy statement, where it recommends investors vote against proposals requiring additional climate change reporting. ConocoPhillips, Valero and the SEC did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
- How much gas is burnt in the driving of that truck ?yurimon
- I'm sure all oil companies understand the risks to their business as they're dealing with a finite source. They're not total idiots.Ianbolton
- ^^ HA HAdrake-von-drake
- utopian2
The North Pole was about 40 degrees above the seasonal average high on Wednesday, according to the Washington Post's weather team.
- Now they are saying more like...
Storm 'Unfreezes' North Pole, Causing Temperatures to Rise 50 Degrees Above Normal.utopian - https://gma.yahoo.co…utopian
- Now they are saying more like...
