West Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Doomed

[Hantlers]

What am I gonna use to power my tractor if I don't have a diesel?

And don't forget that we have to get rid of all of the cows, cause they produce so much methane.

This is random, but I have a feeling some of the people posting in here are the same ones who believe GMO's have caused the gluten problem, and all that malarkey.

 

[LogGrad98]

You don't want to get dalamon started on GMOs and gluten. He will end up talking about starving children in siberia and try to convince you that was the topic to begin with.

 

[Hantlers]

Ironically, hipsters and hippies eating more of quinoa made it far more difficult for people in 3rd world countries to eat it, as it used to be their cheap food source...increased demand from the hipsters and hippies increased prices.

 

[♪alt13]

I understand the preference for realism, but defeatism is quite frankly the worst thing that we could flock to in an instance like this. There are many, many ways to stymie our dependence on fossil fuels, and saying "well, we're ****ed" simply is not a solution.

It isn't defeatism. The truth is that our planet has been much warmer in the past. The desertification of the Sahara was to a large degree caused by this last ice age.(same thing with most of Australia) There is large areas of Earth in the Northern Hemisphere that will be more habitable. I share loggrads pov to the extent that I think a moderate amount of global warming will likely be a net positive.

Your fellow German brethren seem to really be suffering economically from embracing environmental adjustments to climate change.

The Germans aren't feeding the world. Can we reduce and shift our electric infrastructure towards renewables yes. That being said we cannot become carbon neutral anytime soon. Even if we did I guarantee that the drop in fossil fuel prices would lead to new consumers. Do you really think we are in a position to tell emerging economies not to burn fossil fuels?

Bottom line I think we should do everything reasonable and then some as a developed nation but global co2 emissions are going to continue to rise.

 

[♪alt13]

Ironically, hipsters and hippies eating more of quinoa made it far more difficult for people in 3rd world countries to eat it, as it used to be their cheap food source...increased demand from the hipsters and hippies increased prices.

Don't forget that the rainforest is being cut down to grow soybeans for tofu.

 

[LogGrad98]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to heyhey again.

 

[LogGrad98]

It isn't defeatism. The truth is that our planet has been much warmer in the past. The desertification of the Sahara was to a large degree caused by this last ice age.(same thing with most of Australia) There is large areas of Earth in the Northern Hemisphere that will be more habitable. I share loggrads pov to the extent that I think a moderate amount of global warming will likely be a net positive.




The Germans aren't feeding the world. Can we reduce and shift our electric infrastructure towards renewables yes. That being said we cannot become carbon neutral anytime soon. Even if we did I guarantee that the drop in fossil fuel prices would lead to new consumers. Do you really think we are in a position to tell emerging economies not to burn fossil fuels?

Bottom line I think we should do everything reasonable and then some as a developed nation but global co2 emissions are going to continue to rise.

Someone who gets it.

As with most everything else, seldom is the right answer an extreme response to anything. Normally the middle ground has the best solutions, and calmer heads almost always make better decisions than the people waving the flags and pushing for instant change for whatever their dogma is.

 

[♪alt13]

Someone who gets it as with most everything else.

fixed

 

[One Brow]

Again, that is an example of the reasons I am against making broad sweeping changes on such tight timelines with known deleterious effects because we are afraid of a shadow of an idea.

What are these known deleterious effects to which you refer? Higher cost?

 

[One Brow]

What am I gonna use to power my tractor if I don't have a diesel?

Biodiesel.

And don't forget that we have to get rid of all of the cows, cause they produce so much methane.

That's very low on the list of reasons why having so many cows is bad.

This is random, but I have a feeling some of the people posting in here are the same ones who believe GMO's have caused the gluten problem, and all that malarkey.

There's some overlap between the groups, but the scientific community supports both the use of GMOs and the existence of global climate change.

 

[One Brow]

Ironically, hipsters and hippies eating more of quinoa made it far more difficult for people in 3rd world countries to eat it, as it used to be their cheap food source...increased demand from the hipsters and hippies increased prices.

You mean, people didn't start growing more when prices went up, or the extra money for local farmers wasn't used to buy more food of other types, spend more in markets of city-dwellers, etc.? It would help if you thought about your criticisms before spewing them.

 

[One Brow]

I share loggrads pov to the extent that I think a moderate amount of global warming will likely be a net positive.

That's the sort of arrogance that led to us overthrowing a democratically elected regime in Iran to install the Shah. It's looking at a small selection of benefits, without considerations of the feedback loops and changes tot he system.

The Germans aren't feeding the world. Can we reduce and shift our electric infrastructure towards renewables yes. That being said we cannot become carbon neutral anytime soon. Even if we did I guarantee that the drop in fossil fuel prices would lead to new consumers. Do you really think we are in a position to tell emerging economies not to burn fossil fuels?

If they can get the job done with less expense by using renewables, why would they burn?

 

[franklin]

It's a good question, and those are good points. Sentiments like these are pragmatic, and I have no problems with them. It only irks me when people either call climate-change panic-mongering, or they exclaim that fossil fuels are irreplaceable.


It's funny, because despite all of what has been said, we still haven't even gone into the detrimental human health consequences of things like fracking (which USA heavily endorses, due to the US being the Saudi Arabia of methane), or the health consequences of the Indigenous Aboriginals of Northern Alberta (in Canada) who are suffering from extremely elevated cancer rates from the oil sand projects.

Directional drilling has helped us put a serious dent in our CO2 output from coal fired power plants. It has set the nuclear power industry back in a way as well, but also incentivized technology advancements there, as it has made nuclear power cost ineffective. We shuttered 4(?) nuclear plants last year for the first time in something like 40 years. They are building a couple replacements, but it's only that and nothing to meet growth.

"Fracking" is nothing new, however. The oil and gas industry has been fracturing wells forever. The reason it's just recently receiving so much backlash is because places like Qatar and a lot of big industry stand to lose a lot of money from the shale oil boom. So they go on funding "studies" with the goal of proving something detrimental and add these to their PR campaigns. We've seen this same old game with offshore drilling for 50 years now. The truth of that is that environmentalists forgot about all those natural oil slicks we had prior to the oil majors pumping and releasing the pressure that cause the slicks. They also love the corral reefs that oil rigs develop.

 

[LogGrad98]

What are these known deleterious effects to which you refer? Higher cost?

By some accounts much higher, depending on how crazy it gets. Lost jobs, reduced food production, higher costs for basic goods. The impact will be much harsher on the poor, and the developing world would feel it as well as America pulls back and would be forced to keep more "in house" so to speak.

 

[franklin]

You mean, people didn't start growing more when prices went up, or the extra money for local farmers wasn't used to buy more food of other types, spend more in markets of city-dwellers, etc.? It would help if you thought about your criticisms before spewing them.

Good point. Society has a tendency to conveniently hop on either side of the gouging-dumping teeter totter depending on how it suits an argument. China dumping steel -- bad, costs US jobs. US gouging corn prices by making ethanol -- bad, starves messicans. Deseret Industries providing free clothing to African countries -- bad, costs jobs. High gas prices -- bad, starving poor inner city murricans. High gas prices -- good, spurring innovation.

I'm a huge fan of the high prices side. It gives our industrious and innovators some profit to chase after, and creates work. People will forever hate inflation and high prices, but they complain not knowing what's good for them. I remember reading and hearing a slew of complaints about housing prices and inflation back in 2007, but I'll be damned if the lowest end of the labor pool workers weren't having the earning times of their lives making over $100k a year swinging a hammer. This was possibly the richest time for labor in the history of mankind, yet we complained about high prices.

The irony that a high crop prices complaint came from a capitalistic, self-proclaimed hard working farmer is pretty thick. But it is Hantlers, and the rest is worth his occasional beanclowning around.

By some accounts much higher, depending on how crazy it gets. Lost jobs, reduced food production, higher costs for basic goods. The impact will be much harsher on the poor, and the developing world would feel it as well as America pulls back and would be forced to keep more "in house" so to speak.

"By your riches ye make them poor."

I'm pretty sure that's a BofM quote that I badly botched. There is a point to this ... I'm still a fan of high prices.

 

[Deleted member 848]

The changes aren't scheduled quickly enough to make this flood of migration a remote concern. I think your response on the last page where you discuss changing our collective thinking and goals over time will solve your own worries here.

I disagree with that. My post holds true for all of the vast geographic areas of the planet being changed at the same time-- I think this change will probably happen quicker than the Western World figuring out how to handle Environmental Refugees numbering in the tens of millions. Would love to hear others proving otherwise.

 

[Deleted member 848]

It's populist opinion, what can we do?

Spend a significant amount of time instructing people to think otherwise. I refuse to think that a populist opinion like this can never be changed.

Technology is already taking care of the problem for us. The gas guzzling USofA peaked consumption in 2005 and will likely never reach those levels again in spite of adding millions more vehicles to our roads every year.

I respectfully disagree that technology can completely take care of the problems for us. Complete pipe-dream, IMO.

The way our Clean Air Act works is it requires the EPA to revisit standards every 7 years or so and tighten them up where necessary. It's like a torque wrench ratcheting down a nut on a bolt ever & ever tighter. (This has a huge flaw, of course, as in many ways it tends to unnecessarily burdens small-to-medium sized businesses with overly cumbersome regulations that no one in their right mind would expect a small business owner to ever be aware of these new regulations that are both onerous and often carry such a low impact on the environment that they're outright laughable...). Anyway, the EPA revisits both standards on business/consumption and also on overall air pollution levels, then revises and tightens them both down as scientific evidence [of health concerns] and technological advances permit. Here in Utah, we are in the middle of creating a new State Implementation Plan which has the purpose of meeting these new, tighter air quality standards. We've already met the old, tighter standards EPA set back in 1994 IIRC. They tightened a couple pollutant levels up significantly, & we are no longer in compliance.

Right. There are lots of regulations like these, and it's good to see. No one is arguing that nothing is being done to combat climate change-- I think that most people simply state that not enough is being done, by those who are most capable of administering change.

Back to the first paragraph -- Utah's newest proposals have vehicle pollution as 50% of our air quality (geographic) problem. We have proposed to EPA using Federal Tier 3 standards, which require cutting our current statewide fleet pollution levels in half. In essence, we are leaning on technological advancements to cut out 25% of our wintertime inversion pollution (50% of 50%). Thanks Detroit Lobbyists, you big bad evil Ronald Reagan devil worshipping ********.

I think you are focusing on a very minor aspect of the grand scheme of contemporary ecological strife. Air pollution is a problem, of course-- and it's probably among those that is being treated most seriously….but quite frankly using this example, and applying it to cliate change altogether is naive.

Air quality was an easier fix for the government to justify because it has a very direct impact on the health of citizens in America. Meanwhile, no one gives a **** when places like the Bhola Island are flooded. It makes sense, and it's human nature-- but I'm just trying to point out that responses are not all one and the same, and its quite simple to see why the response to air quality in the US has been mobilized so quickly.

 

[Deleted member 848]

In other words you cannot be bothered to let facts disrupt your singular view of the world. Whatever works for you I guess.

Facts? Excuse me? Which facts have you stated in this thread? Lmao. You mean like this 'fact:

So, first, you do realize that several of "those" cultures are contributing to the CO2 issue at close to and even more than the rate the "western" countries do, right? China and India are huge CO2 polluters, and other 3rd world countries are on their own scale

L-O-L. Absolutely embarrassing. I'm glad other posters quickly jumped in to prove this ridiculous sentiment incorrect as well.

As far as straw men go, you are the one that keeps shifting the focus when you hear things you cannot refute.

lol. Excited to read this.

You specifically talk about if the western world (me specifically)

Well, it looks like we are already at an inaccuracy about 10 words in. I'm not talking about you specifically. Canada is arguably even worse than the States. Most of this forum applies to the posts I'm making. Yes, including myself, my family, my friends, my ecology professors, and my neighbours.

Let's move on.

would accept the refugees from those countries displaced by floods. I say yes, which is not what you wanted to hear so you shift the topic to the culture.

I moved on, because you simply talked out of your ***, and showed zero claims that would strengthen this viewpoint. 3rd world citizens seek refugee status from dire, death-revalent situations all the time. Until you give me SOME justification behind this belief (other than "yes, America will help save environmental refugees because I think so), then I see this point as not worth addressing.

You are the one who brought about the fact that these people would be outright wiped out by our "western arrogance" or whatever ******** you are spinning it into, and I argue that if that were the case, if we were truly facing an event so horrendous (as you framed it) that it might mean the end of the species then how important would culture be then.

It's because your reading comprehension is lacking-- either that, or you were constructing a straw-men for some sort of veiled-demagoguery. For the second time, an event like that would NOT mean the end of a species. Not sure when this notion will be berthed inside that head of yours. It would mean the end of localized area by localized area, and those cultures of course would be vanquished. And let me tell you-- losing mainland Bangladesh would not simply result in a loss of cuisine, and UNESCO heritage sites. A belief like that is narrow-visioned and stereotypically American, and I called you out for it. Next time, rephrase your remarks in a less insulting manner. Not my problem.

Look, I understand you have a hard time following along, so I am going to let you go ahead and re-read everything now while I talk to the grownups.

And then you cap things off by decorating this absolute cowpie of a post by suggesting I am not worthy of discussion because of my age.


Do your conversations with grown-ups involve the persistent sharing of false 'facts'? If so, then I'm glad I am not being involved with those conversations.

 

[Deleted member 848]

What am I gonna use to power my tractor if I don't have a diesel?

And don't forget that we have to get rid of all of the cows, cause they produce so much methane.

This is random, but I have a feeling some of the people posting in here are the same ones who believe GMO's have caused the gluten problem, and all that malarkey.

You don't want to get dalamon started on GMOs and gluten. He will end up talking about starving children in siberia and try to convince you that was the topic to begin with.

One Brow did a great job addressing these, so I won't bother.

Ironically, hipsters and hippies eating more of quinoa made it far more difficult for people in 3rd world countries to eat it, as it used to be their cheap food source...increased demand from the hipsters and hippies increased prices.

I don't eat Quinoa, as I try to keep my food as locally-sourced as possible. Millet is a great replacement, despite its source of protein not being as wholesome.

 

[Deleted member 848]

"Fracking" is nothing new, however. The oil and gas industry has been fracturing wells forever. The reason it's just recently receiving so much backlash is because places like Qatar and a lot of big industry stand to lose a lot of money from the shale oil boom. So they go on funding "studies" with the goal of proving something detrimental and add these to their PR campaigns. We've seen this same old game with offshore drilling for 50 years now. The truth of that is that environmentalists forgot about all those natural oil slicks we had prior to the oil majors pumping and releasing the pressure that cause the slicks. They also love the corral reefs that oil rigs develop.

So you are completely dismissing the raised health, and ecological concerns of fracking as mere PR campaigns from industries that stand to lose (economically speaking) from the advent of American shale-resource exploitation?