Yep, we're almost there is many areas. And within a decade or so, we'll be seeing huge population displacements as well, as mass-inhabited coastal areas like the Nile Delta or Bangladesh will get into trouble due to rising waters.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
As @Cheimoon points our it’s already happening with some of the places you already associate with war and refugees. What people don’t seem to appreciate is that some of the most developed and desirable areas in the world are going to become uninhabitable. Coastal cities will be lost and the people that inhabit them will be forced to leave their life behind and try to find somewhere else to live, along with everyone else. People living in the more comfortable spots won’t like the influx of people coming to their region, they never do.
And we can forget about the north becoming inhabitable instead. If the permafrost thaws away, those places will be swamps first, not arable or liveable countryside. Plus the thawing permafrost wpuld release so much methane into the atmosphere that climate change would get into a feedback loop and go into overdrive.
The interviews also gave a glimpse of how the fossil fuel industry really views some of its most recent pro-climate PR moves. After years of lobbying against actual proposals for a carbon tax, many oil majors and affiliated groups have done an about-face on the policy. Exxon is among the founding members of the Climate Leadership Council, a group that backs a carbon tax.
It won't be the end of life on Earth but I feel bad for other species that will die too through our own corruption; we'll be taking a fair few species down with us.
https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/fp...yGJBdtwwnX51URrSVouXlKujelaPmA1XljIE8brU4eotQ
Wind turbines can be pretty tall but they're no more risk than any other structure. Its not like they're invisible. Generally though we've moved away from the idea of onshore turbines as its looking like offshore will be cheaper in the very near future and is already more efficient/productive now. Wont be long before mobile offshore turbines are a thing either and can just move around to wherever is most beneficial at the time. Plus probably more environmentally friendly from a wildlife/effect on human health perspective...I think with onshore councils and the government almost look for excuses to move away from it at this point. Not sure that's completely right as its only going to slow things down but they clearly don't see it as part of the answer, and overall renewable energy is on a pretty steep upward curve.Pretty sure an airliner has never hit a wind turbine
Plans for new wind farm thrown out by councillors amid plane crash fears
https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/fp...yGJBdtwwnX51URrSVouXlKujelaPmA1XljIE8brU4eotQ
I'd always take figures like that with a massive pinch of salt as there's so many variables its basically just a number plucked from thin air. Not just that they can use the maximum power output as you said but also there's a multitude of ways to decide how much power an average home uses.
You could just not be lazy and go and research it yourself. It's not like any of the information isn't public.
The EU and UK aren't the world, and in fact don't even produce most of the (carbon- and resource-heavy) manufactured goods they consume.
Dam! @berbatrick owned once again by facts and logic.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I reckon some badly affected country will eventually try one of the speculative geo-engineering technologies unilaterally. All bets are off at that point.
If we are being really honest, our beautiful planet will inevitably be far better off without humans.
Sad but true. There is no hope where consumerism is king.
I think that's what the majority of people are doing; on an individual level it just seems too big and futile and people have so many other cares and concerns in their lives. Some clever boffin will solve everything or it won't be as bad as we expect etc. it the hope. It seems the disruption and change necessary to even attempt to cope with this issue is something that there's no real drive for as yet.
Sobering but accurate. Unfortunately, man made climate change will probably defeat humanity in the end.
I still feel the individual has little meaningful power to tackle the problem. We can all make better decisions but our waste feels completely meaningless when you have others setting the ocean on fire. Its a problem of scale, of the actions of tens of thousands of individuals and it can only be addressed within them systems. We're a million miles past them willingly engaging the issue so it needs to be forced on them - I dont know how you do that, or if it ever happens.
people (right wingers) continually make fun of Greta for having mental illness, especially depression, but just imagine actually being brought up as a child being told the truth and that we are deciding to just not take action.
You are right.
Agree with all of that. Especially the last part.The funny thing is, we're not destroying Earth per say. We're (humans) just making inhospitable for future generations of our own species. Once we die from the greed of mega corps, and corrupt governments who enable them, the Earth will eventually "heal" and a new species will take our place and planet Earth will be as good as new.
Also I hope every board member of Exxon dies a horrible death.
Yep, I find it incredibly sad that things like hedgehogs are on the endangered list , when I was a kid there were loads of them . According to David Attenborough we are at a point in time where we could be seeing species extinctions at its highest rate which is incredibly sad to me. Unfortunately my grandchildren will grow up and that is all they will ever know.The funny thing is, we're not destroying Earth per say. We're (humans) just making inhospitable for future generations of our own species. Once we die from the greed of mega corps, and corrupt governments who enable them, the Earth will eventually "heal" and a new species will take our place and planet Earth will be as good as new.
Also I hope every board member of Exxon dies a horrible death.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
And for the first time, self inflicted.
Naomi Klein mentioned in her book "this changes everything" that there are open discussions in policy circles about the use of aerosols. She highlighted a conference in which it was being taken seriously that we just give up on CO2 targets and pump aerosols of certain compounds into the atmosphere and essentially try to outpace the warming. When the conference talked about the impact of aerosols, it was suggested that Africa and China regions would essentially stop receiving rain ever again. The response was what you expect....who cares. Leading to a UN delegate claiming "it sounds like we are really talking about whom we are going to sacrifice/murder in order to maintain the status quo". This was on top of concerns raised that no one has any clue what would happen to the atmosphere at different levels if you pumped aerosols for the rest of human existence.
It would be a massive mistake for a policy which said, give up on CO2. The general public has been focused on CO2 as the problem. And any deviation from that would just kill the public buy-in on climate change. And the denier's would jump on that with glee.
This is the thing that should be waking people up imo
Ore or Oar?
