Plastic bags, climate change, renewable energy,

hifiandmtb

Sphincter beanie
I’m entirely aware of my impact on the planet thanks. My goal in life is not to make you tip your hat.

Here is that graph again:



Do you understand what it is showing?
 

cokeonspecialtwodollars

Fartes of Portingale
@hifiandmtb you seem to be very fond of this graph, I've seen you post it a few times but I am struggling to completely understand it and the implications behind the results, could you post the source please and maybe an EILI5 of your interpretation? A Google search for "carbonisation rate" doesn't yield any hits pertaining directly to climate change and regarding the vertical axis is that (tonnes Carbon per Joule per year)? Is this a global study or localised to Australia or other, I also note that it doesn't appear to include any data relating to the transport industry only to power generation? Also the with the results are they trying to say that we would need to maintain approximately -8% carbonisation rate for every year from 2017 to 2050 to achieve a 2030 outcome (I assume this must be a typo). If the data for the graph is indeed correct given that we haven't ever achieved even a -1% annual change (I'll treat 1978 as an anomaly as it doesn't really fit the trend) it would seem rather unrealistic that as a population we could get anywhere close -8% and maintain it, so what happens if we can't reach this target?
 

hifiandmtb

Sphincter beanie
Explained here:

http://www.climatecodered.org/2018/06/our-energy-challenge-in-6-eye-popping.html

And the big picture? Despite 25 years of global climate policy-making, decarbonisation rates are not within cooee of what is required. Global policy-making often bandies about a goal of full decarbonisation by 2050. That's miles too slow, because today we have no carbon budget left for 1.5C, and none left for 2C either from a sensible risk-management perspective. But how do the 2030 and 2050 goals compare to present rates of decarbonisation.
At last someone is asking questions.

What happens if we can’t reach the decarbonisation rate?

To avoid dramatic climate system tipping points, the world needs to decarbonise very quickly and start drawing down the level of carbon in the atmosphere, because it’s already unsafe. As one dramatic example, in past periods when greenhouse levels were similar to the current level, temperatures were 3–6°C higher and sea levels around 25–40 metres higher than in 1900.
Well, all hell will break loose. Anyone have any evidence that a runaway climate is a pleasant place to live?
 

pink poodle

気が狂っている男
Bull shit @hifiandmtb!!! Each time I buy an airline ticket they ask if I want to carbon off set my flight and it's only a few dollareedoos...I think you're exaggerating the cost.

@Dozer those people working in coal and other fossil fuel industries will simply need to find new jobs. That may mean retraining and learning new skills, it might mean new industries or professions, it may even mean earning less money, it may mean moving...this isn't a new concept within the working lives of Australians. You don't come across many whalers these days. Why not? Because we realised it was a foolish pursuit and made a change. When was the last time you sent something to the office typing pool or grabbed morning tea from the tea lady as she wheeled the trolley past? I'll wager none of our parents ever imagined they would need to work closely with the web design team for a meadia release or pay some 19 year old git with a camera for some social media work...

This argument used to justify the pursuit of coal and other fossil fuels is simply a trick to pull on our compassion as humans. Nobody wants to be unemployed or under employed. It isn't an easy gig, especially if you have wider obligations than numero uno. We are fed these lies to fuel our fears of being next...it helps to make for subservient workers and voters (vote for security...). But what is really at play is that massive investment had been rolled into those destructive industries and the decision makers want their return before they pull out. They will pursue their greed at all costs. Does anyone really think people are stupid enough to believe that rocks falling into the ocean is the true cause of sea level rising?

People are welcome to side with the ignorant and greedy, but it doesn't seem possible for humans to inhabit the earth without producing waste. How that waste is produced, stored, and composed is a choice.









As for plastic bags...I feel that if there was still a strong domestic manufacturing industry for them, this wouldn't be happening.
 

Dozer

Heavy machinery.
Staff member
What happens if we can’t reach the decarbonisation rate?
So in summary, humans never knew the problem they created a long time ago and now we're trying to backpedal super dooper quick to make some changes to stop us either cooking or drowning?
Placing blame on the general public is pissweak, we're all victims of the machine we live by by that logic and the minority who are actually putting changes into practice instead of acting like socialites and politicians talking about it are just seen as hippies who read some intel that isn't in your run of the mill mainstream media. The only real way we can make any sort of difference is to stop buying products that are part of the manufacturing process that's creating the problem. That leaves us with growing our own food, storing water in a dam in our front yard that we dug by hand, walking everywhere and only conversing with other people in person. The chances of that happening are pretty damn small.
Still, we can all do our best to make even a small difference 'cause it makes some sort of difference yeah or are we all fucking doomed with no realistic resolution?
 

pink poodle

気が狂っている男
Train is now passing an operational coal fired power plant. Train will soon pass land reclaimed from and aluminium smelter. I will alight from the train at the world's bussiest coal port, after a journey that will pass some mines and trains carrying coal. If I wanted to I could catch another train right through the heart of the coal mining area, an area so ugly and devastated by coal mining that a few years ago enormous concrete walls were erected to hide the "moonscape" from the public. I'll ride along the harbour and see a huge amount of carelessly discarded rubbish floating in it, much of which washes up on the beach 30m from my house.

The same train also runs through pristine examples of the natural forest of this area. It is a shame to see what has been destroyed without much care in only a few hundred years.
 

hifiandmtb

Sphincter beanie
So in summary, humans never knew the problem they created a long time ago and now we're trying to backpedal super dooper quick to make some changes to stop us either cooking or drowning?
Incorrect. Knowledge of climate change as known & understood 50 years ago, but the science was immature & information deliberately suppressed (and continues to be so):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy

What we have now in this current generation is access to science that vastly more clearly understands the issue.

There is a wealth of information out there that proposes solutions, But to most, the best solution is to introduce a fee & dividend price on carbon:

https://www.ted.com/talks/james_han...t_about_climate_change/transcript?language=en

Watch it.

P.S. This will mean you will make a choice to ride locally rather than flying to Whistler. Based purely on economics, as the plane ticket contains all hidden costs.
 

cokeonspecialtwodollars

Fartes of Portingale
Well, all hell will break loose. Anyone have any evidence that a runaway climate is a pleasant place to live?
Nor does anyone have evidence that we wouldn't adapt our way of living, pleasant or not. It would appear that the best thing we could do for the planet is to eradicate ourselves from it and if that is the goal then I guess we are well on our way to succeeding.

David mentions on the page you linked that...
in past periods when greenhouse levels were similar to the current level, temperatures were 3–6°C higher and sea levels around 25–40 metres higher than in 1900
...if this is the case than why are we not seeing the same temperatures and sea levels for corresponding greenhouse levels, the answer is that there are many other variables that influence this and that the past periods referred to likely span geological timescales which means that it may take several generations from now before we see the real impact of our current greenhouse levels, either way the planet has been there before so it is really just a question of if it will be habitable for humans at this point or perhaps the question should be do we as a species deserve to inhabit it at all.

It is apparent to me that any personal contributions that I can make towards reducing my carbon emissions only serve to make me feel better about myself and will not have a direct impact on climate change merely add the the collective contributions of our society, so I will continue doing what I can where I can and the rest is up to you fuckers.
 

hifiandmtb

Sphincter beanie
CO2 forcing on temp & sea level change is slow. The equilibrium will mean his statements are correct.

But it’s our children’s children’s problem to deal with eh?
 

droenn

Fat Man's XC President
We're getting a bit off track in this thread now, but we will still survive climate change. We're unfortunately innovative and smart enough to preserve ourselves. Ecosystems will not be the same, however, and we'll be poorer in the number of species around, and there will be increases in conflict over resources that will become scarcer.

Its not a world I look forward to. And as @cokeonspecialtwodollars says, much of the efforts we do are for self-congratulation at this stage. The burgeoning global middle class is only going to exacerbate the problems from plastics to food demands to CO2 emissions.

This is partly the reason we decided not to have kids, and why I don't eat animals. Again, these are tokenism at one level, but I think once you are aware of the issues you have a responsibility to change some of your behaviours, instead of burying your head in the sand.
 

hifiandmtb

Sphincter beanie
I too am a childless vegetarian. But I’m sure you’ve all worked that out already


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

cokeonspecialtwodollars

Fartes of Portingale
CO2 forcing on temp & sea level change is slow. The equilibrium will mean his statements are correct.

But it’s our children’s children’s problem to deal with eh?
Unfortunately the reality will be that yes it will be our children's, their children's and their children's children's problem regardless of how much change we effect immediately, as I stated before I expect that even if we were able to eliminate global carbon emissions with immediate effect the geological timescales involved would mean that they would still bear the impact of our actions.

I am not advocating inaction in anyway, I am merely stating that each of us has a role to play and that our role is only minor and cannot have a direct impact unless it forms part of a collective effort.

For a real world example
Scenario 1. I have a family, each of us has a car, we have built and sold several new houses over the last ten years, we don't travel often and we rarely fly. We recycle, use energy efficient lighting and are active in reducing our energy consumption.
Scenario 2. Poodle has no dependents, no car and purchased an existing house, he flys several times a year and does the same things regarding recycling and energy consumption. As he is single his household energy consumption is less although as he is the only person occupying his house his individual consumption would be higher perhaps.
Lets say that after an indepth analysis our individual carbon footprints are identical, should he stop flying just because it's selfish, if each of us is trying to actively meet our arbitrary -8% target then does it matter how we achieve it and if each of us is meeting this target then are we somehow obligated to do even more?
 

safreek

*******
I hear a lot of space is being wasted on websites, I do believe that if people stopped living in cyberspace they would stop coveting what others have and focus in what they need.
All you new bike buyers are part of the problem, probably more so than the bag users, the need for things such as tyres that grip better around corners/climbing hills/rolling better, how about upping your skill levels instead of consuming more raw products.
I ride an old bike with heavy DH tyres and all that shit and have a ball, even on the flat and to be honest if I had a newfangled cycling contraption it would increase my enjoyment factor by nil percent.
 

cokeonspecialtwodollars

Fartes of Portingale
if all our generation left for our kids was having this implemented, that would be legacy enough
Are you referring to this?
a gradually rising carbon fee collected from fossil fuel companies and distributed 100 percent electronically every month to all legal residents on a per capita basis
Do you think that the reaction time between implementation of a policy such as this and the outcome it envisages would be enough to deliver the reduction required in the time-frame needed, unfortunately I cannot see how it would not end up subject to the similar levels of corruption that have put us in our current place.
 

hifiandmtb

Sphincter beanie
It’s the best chance we’ve got. Certainly better than anything else!

Can’t help with the corruption bit. That again is up to us humans to manage.
 

pink poodle

気が狂っている男
Poodle wishes he flew several times a year...4 flights is a big year, 2 flights is however common. I swear it is an absolute necessity!
 

John U

MTB Precision
Unfortunately the reality will be that yes it will be our children's, their children's and their children's children's problem regardless of how much change we effect immediately, as I stated before I expect that even if we were able to eliminate global carbon emissions with immediate effect the geological timescales involved would mean that they would still bear the impact of our actions.
I think the human race overestimates it’s ability to solve any problem. We won’t solve population growth and that’s really where we should be starting. With a lot less humans we could do whatever we wanted and the planet would cope.
 
Top