The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[All Darc]

A nearly 30% change in just 10 years (wew are almsot 2010 now) it's not really bad.

Third world, like India, where population will start to get more vehicles, needs to get help electric vehicle industry. The introdution of gas vehicle to poor people that had none, wouldl have huge impact on environment.

That's why there must be some nice international incentive to help such countries to get industries to create small cost affordable electric vehicles.

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The IEA believes 7 out of 10 new vehicles sold in 2030 will still be gas burners.

[oil pan 4]

It's no where near new green deal levels.
Stated out in 2010 selling effectively 0% electric, 2020 might be 3%, 2030 will be at least 10% for sure and 30% I see as being really optimistic.

I saw an old TV show made in 1999, that particular episode was about the future 10 years later in 2009. So in 2009 almost all the cars were electric. I thought that was funny as there was only 1 mostly electric car for sale by 2009.
They say hindsight is 2020, I say hindsight is a bich.

[sendler]

Human civilization has huge momentum. It took us 70 years of the Great Acceleration via super cheap, super dense, Carbon fuels to grow so big as to get into this complicated mess. We are not going to get out of it in 5 or 10 years. Many infrastructure investments have life cycles of 60-100 years. It is good to start moving away from big pipeline expansions, new cole plants, ect, now. But to pick a date out of a hat and demand that the world be at net zero by 2025, as Extinction Rebellion has done, or in 12 years, as the Green New Deal has done, is clearly pragmatically unattainable without precipitating the complete collapse that they are rallying against. These equally "fairy tale" dates only serve to further alienate people that are still unaware that anything about a growth based social system needs to change.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

All of those things have more to do with human population size than anything else. It seems a decline in our numbers is the inevitable solution to these problems, which I expect will happen mostly non-violently due to adoption of various technologies. Not in 10 years though. It will be a couple hundred years before population dwindles to say, half of current.

Based on nothing but speculation, I expect population to peak in 40 years.

Population is not an issue IF we live WITHOUT waste. All these things are driven by the WAY WE THINK about how we live - if we straighten that out, it doesn't matter how many people there are.

The combination and overlap and amplification of all these factors - will kill a lot of people.

Our climate crisis is piled on top of all the other issues. And all the problems are caused by our ignoring the facts.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by litesong

Wood is one of the most polluting forms of carbon energy production:
Wood Smoke Myths and Facts
Also, the very inefficient production & usage of wood energy is surpassed by efficient production & usage of solar & wind energy, to place important viable renewable energy in with carbon energy production & usage.
So much for RECENT carbon advocate(CA) predictions that renewable energy would never exceed 1% of total energy production. Those anti-science (sigh-ants) CA predictions were made to suppress renewable energy developments & boost carbon energy productions.

If we do pyrolysis, then we can burn wood very cleanly. We can also produce biochar - which is stabilized carbon, that we can use to greatly improve the soil, at the same time as it is sequestered.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

If global warming happens there will be more usable land for food production. We could easily support more people. Not that I want it to happen but Sibrea and Canada, the largest land masses on the planet, go from poor or unusable farmland to good farmland. Look at the size of Sibrea, it's amazing to consider.

It doesn't work like that. Soil chemistry, and pollinators, and rainfall don't magically happen to thawed tundra.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by Shaneajanderson

This is the same song that global warming/cooling/ozone hole/etc. advocates have been singing for 60 years, we're all going to die if we don't do X within ten years, and yet there is no statistically significant change in climate in general, and humanity is still alive and thriving, and very much not dead.

We saw that the ozone hole was occurring - and we changed what we were doing - and the ozone hole has begun to close. So, how is that a failure of science?

It proves the point that we need to respond to our climate crisis.

[freebeard]

Plus which we're talking about the Siberian Traps.

The extent of the Siberian Traps (Map in German)


http://www.sott.net/image/s3/72546/f...eriantraps.jpg

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

It doesn't work like that. Soil chemistry, and pollinators, and rainfall don't magically happen to thawed tundra.

Not tundra but boreal forest. It doesn't happen overnight but neither does the change in climate. What they do have is lots of water, with technology soil is actually optional.

I always find it funny when the greatest minds like Stephen Hawkin say we must colonize space to survive. Maybe he is talking about some other event than climate change but even the most extreme changes worse than the planet has ever faced still make Earth the best home for humans that we know of or could reach.

[redpoint5]

Interstellar tries to suggest climate change is so important that if we don't address it, we'll have to figure out what gravity is in order to master interstellar space travel and find a suitable planet. Practically the only thing that would make Earth unsuitable for humans and leaving to be the easier option is when temperatures soar as the sun gets hotter and bigger billions of years from now.

Hawking is right that Humans would need to master colonizing of other planets, or at least mining resources from them, to survive very long term. Then again, humans probably won't much resemble humans a billion years from now. Heck, genetic engineering and the integration of technology will probably rapidly change what a human is in just the next 100 years or so, which is nothing as far as time goes.