The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I like facts and am fine with them. I'm not fine with that website as a source, mostly because of how much they set back environmental causes and give fodder to global warming deniers and other anti-environmentalists.

Anything on that site is opinion unless they cite other sources. If these facts you say are presented on their site, they surely they listed their source. If so, that can be linked rather than be regurgitated by their zombie content-fabricators.

I see. But a little fact checking goes a long way.
The tender was won by Vattenfall of Sweden, and they are apparently still negotiating with Siemens Gamesa to provide the wind turbines. Siemens Gamesa is already hiring dozens of engineers and project managers in the area though.

[sendler]

Interesting back and forth on impending collapse from Jeremy Lent and Jem Bendell. They are both focused on climate change caused disruptions. Which might end up being enough on it's own, but barely even consider resource depletion, energy depletion, and the growth demands for function of the debt based free market. But do both briefly allude to it as below. Which I would argue are at least as pressing. It's also interesting to see how they are debating each other when they both seem to mostly accept the same basic premises. As I have experienced here.
.
"The primary reason for this headlong fling toward disaster is that our economic system is based on perpetual growth—on the need to consume the earth at an ever-increasing rate. Our world is dominated by transnational corporations, which now account for sixty-nine of the world’s largest hundred economies. The value of these corporations is based on investors’ expectations for their continued growth, which they are driven to achieve at any cost, including the future welfare of humanity and the living earth.

It’s a gigantic Ponzi scheme that barely gets a mention because the corporations also own the mainstream media, along with most governments. The real discussions we need about humanity’s future don’t make it to the table. Even a policy goal as ambitious as the Green New Deal—rejected by most mainstream pundits as utterly unrealistic—would still be insufficient to turn things around, because it doesn’t acknowledge the need to transition our economy away from its reliance on endless growth."
.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2...ep-adaptation/
.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2...o-jem-bendell/
.

[freebeard]

It’s a gigantic Ponzi scheme that barely gets a mention because the corporations also own the mainstream media, along with most governments.

What would we do if corporations weren't people and money wasn't speech? What then?

[redpoint5]

If money wasn't speech, then it wouldn't be useful as money. Whenever we spend money on anything, we're saying something, even if what we're saying is "build more of these things".

There needs to be more personal responsibility with regards to corporate culpability. I'm not sure if that means dissolving corporations as legal entities, but the prospect of profit needs to be tempered by the prospect of utter ruin when calculating risk. Risks taken when ruin is not possible is not a risk then, but an incentive to be reckless.

[freebeard]

It's like a half glass of water. I see value elsewhere, but it does inform the 'invisible hand' if capitalism isn't stifled.

Corporations need a death penalty, humans not so much.

Almost forgot: Boing Boing ran a story on shopping bags. Organic cotton shopping bags have to be used 20,000 times before they're better for the Earth than plastic disposables

Also those mad scientists have instantiated Cthulu! "Cthulhu was real!" say scientists


Sollasina cthulhu. What could possibly go wrong.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Almost forgot: Boing Boing ran a story on shopping bags. Organic cotton shopping bags have to be used 20,000 times before they're better for the Earth than plastic disposables

That sounds a little extreme, but it's something I've been giving some thought to as Salem (or is it all of Oregon?) is disallowing grocery stores from providing free bags.

It got me thinking a variety of things, like how insignificant the grocery bag is in comparison to the packaging of all the products it holds, or the fact that I'll now have to buy plastic bags to line my garbage cans with, and the $25 I just spent on Amazon to ship some heavier duty reusable bags to me, and the realization that they'll probably eventually get snagged on something and rip, and I'll have to throw the bag away and buy another one.

Then, every time I forget my reusable bags when I go grocery shopping, or simply miscalculate how many I'll need, I will resent environmentalism as a religion.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Whenever we spend money on anything, we're saying something, even if what we're saying is "build more of these things".

The consumer can play a big part in steering the market. But our inherited brain attributes of small tribes of hunter/ gatherers over the course of half a million years are still ingrained in us and were never programmed to care about the future of more than getting through the next winter or dry season or a few years at the very most. And our reward centers are now hijacked by modern super normal stimuli to hunt for the next big deal instead of for food. Yeast in a modern bottle of grape juice.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Sorry again. Continued growth is the short sighted economic band aid to our already debt problem. Population is still increasing exponentially and is headed to the sharper end of the hockey stick even if it is down to 1.1%. Resource depletion is looming and we are already several decades into overshoot, propped up by cheap fossil fuel. Renewable energy and electrification will not match the current levels of living standard. There will be an economic collapse. The only question is will we voluntarily bend back down to a simpler lifestyle? Or wait until it all breaks.

Right now,my dart has landed in between the two extremes.There are visionary,disruptive,and transformational technologies in the pipeline;and perhaps a little room for intellectual optimism.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

And it's not just energy depletion that will force a downward trend on economies. Most resources have been diminished. And have been harvested according to the best, first. So what remains of ore grades and overburden are more energetically remote to get.
.
In Jiangxi province, for instance, the city of Jingdezhen, famed for its high-quality clay, has been a center of porcelain production for centuries, serving both China’s imperial courts and, more recently, American and European markets. But after hundreds of years of exploitation, only about one million tons of clay remain—two percent of the area’s historic reserves.
.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/c...id=41266339255
.

There's a list of strategic resources recognized by the world community that we'll have to keep in mind.I don't have that in hand.
Other than those,there may be some wiggle room with respect to substitutions.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Elektrek is not nearly as bad. Green Car Reports is pretty honest.
.
I actually made my first every report to Facebook for fake news the other day. 350.org of all organisations. They shared a BS article by some unkown click baiter site with the headline " 30% of world energy now supplied by renewables". This is off by almost a factor of 10. I wrote messages to them and they tried to spin their way out of saying "The transition is happening. We are well on our way".
.
Hydro is pretty well topped out, wind has almost become visible on the chart. solar is still not visible.
.
.

.
.

The secret, intellectual dishonesty of that graphic is hiding in plain view.
The quanta reflect 'primary' energy,which includes 2nd-law of thermodynamics,which aren't associated with renewable energy,as their input energy is 'free.'
If you look at the net,useable energy available,after the conversion of fossil-fuel chemical energy,to actual 'work',you'll find that renewables are up to 300% higher than reported in this graphic.
It's also why we don't need to build out capacity equal to this 'primary' data point.
This is a perfect example of obfuscation on the part of the authors.