Climate Change


#21

Aviation fuel is doomed, unless there is an energy revolution. There’s no way to make it carbon neutral otherwise.

Whereas, every other mode of transport can most likely just can be electrified. Cars, buses, trains, ships etc.

We have the technology to transition into full electrification of transport infrastructures. The problem is we’re not, because reasons.

According to this EPA page transport only makes up 14% of the problem. Whereas Agriculture etc. is 24% wtf

Cancel that beef!

image

image


#22

Ships not so much in terms of long distance bulk transport.

Here’s the thing: our entire world economy is based on fossil fuel extraction. There is no way to make slight changes to the current system and still have all the benefits of it, but just remove the burning fossil fuels part. The entire system has to change. It can be changed, but it’s going to take a lot more than just putting batteries in things.


#23

There has been research in biofuels for aviation use. Of course, that brings up the question of how to divvy up land for biofuels vs. food production. And that ignores the issue of CO2 used in the production of said biofuels, even if they are theoretically carbon-neutral.


#24

https://www.myclimate.org/

A good resource on the matter.


#25

Maersk pledges to cut carbon emissions to zero by 2050

“World’s largest container shipping group throws down challenge to industry”


#26

To my previous point: the way that the world economy works is that it is cheaper to make stuff in China and ship it to Copenhagen than it is to make the same stuff in Denmark and drive it to Copenhagen. Because fossil fuel is so cheap, it is way easier for your product to have a bigger carbon footprint than to produce it locally.

The way to make container shipping carbon neutral is to stop buying things bulk-produced on the other side of the world and bulk-shipped across three oceans. It doesn’t mean shipping things in another way, or using electric trains or electric ships. Making production of goods local (close enough for electric vehicles to deliver) is going to be easier and cheaper than… what? Converting nuclear aircraft carriers into container ships?

But Maersk, a container shipping company, isn’t about to announce “The way to reduce our carbon footprint is for us to go out of business due to lack of demand”.


#27

I used to work for a large main construction contractor. In better times they committed to reduce their carbon footprint. All they did was work with another company which bought the carbon footprint from the one company and recorded it against the other.


#28

Yes!

Which will happen first? Will China produce less goods, because other countries will start rebuilding their capacity to manufacture?

Or will current systems be retrofitted to reduce their CO2 footprint?

Both options are well overdue.

The UK’s capacity to manufacture has diminished significantly year or year. And is only getting worst, especially now with Brexit.

Other countries are far more capable of reinvesting in manufacturing. Yet, it would be quicker and more effective to start transition modes of transport to electric, and also investing in more renewable energy sources.

Those things can happen today, with immediate positive effects. Not that it will solve every problem. However it will be the quickest and most achievable thing literally everyone country can do because the technology is more accessible than ever.


#29

Will demand for certain kinds of useless bulk goods decrease?

The biggest hurdle to rebuilding our manufacturing capacity is that it will not bring any jobs. It’ll be automated or it won’t happen…


#30

If it can be automated, then the solution can still be, distributed manufacturing.

The jobs creation part isn’t important, but instead creating the economy of reducing total global CO2 emissions.

If distributed manufacturing can do that, that’s something that should be implemented.

However, can only be achieved with international cooperation and LCA (Life-cycle assessment) fundamentally part of the process.


#31

I still don’t think this is thinking broadly enough. The only reason we can afford the massive consumption we enjoy at the moment is due to fossil fuels. It’s cheap. It powers everything cheaply.

There doesn’t need to be a change from “buy however much of whatever we feel like as quickly and easily as possible from China” to “buy however much of whatever we feel like as quickly and easily as possible from the country next door”. More like “buy exactly how much we need of only what we need as far in advance as possible with as little waste as possible from as near by as possible”. And then make sure that is powered by carbon neutral electricity.


#32

#33

A terrifying image from last week’s issue of Nature, ice in Greenland has almost dropped by half since the 1800’s.

Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0752-4


#34

We’re going back to the planet the dinosaurs lived on.


#35

I, for one, look forward to our new chicken overlords.


#36

At least we’re not increasing the oxygen levels, I’d hate to live in a world with dragonflies the size of crows, centipedes that are 3 feet long, and scorpions two feet long … just no.


#37

I must be the only person who wants this then.


#38

I for one am still hopeful that enough of us will get our heads out of our asses soon enough that we can slow down, stop, and maybe even reverse this problem. The kernel of the necessary tech is there, it just needs to be developed more.


#39

#40

If this meant relocating entire communities that live in non-viable areas where the sole industry is coal mining: so be it.

Keeping coal alive to keep a handful of jobs in a subsidized rural town is ludicrous.