Nonsense!!!! If it doesn't fix the problem right away and on its first iteration, then it is a piece of crap. Just like Obamacare.
Sarcasm noted. What shit like the Paris accord do is give the impression things are being done when they aren't. It was pointless from the beginning because it had no teeth. So, back to the sarcasm part, you think we need more unenforceable international agreements and if I don't agree I'm a denier? Is that the angle you are working?
This is indeed the new Alamo for denial As the science is increasingly had to deny, instead one throws ones hands in the air and says its all too expensive or claims Paris doesn't solve all problems. Of course Paris was only a first step - but at least a step forwards.
It is a start, shit is not getting done because too many people don't want to do anything about global warming, that is why they criticize the Paris accords. Now if you want to links on how to make international climate change agreements more enforceable, then post it.
Wow, so a toothless agreement that is unenforceable is better than nothing amirite? I have to call BS on that. The Paris Climate stuff is a joke. Stuff isn't getting done on climate change because the people with the money who make decisions have vested interests in the current way of doing business. They dontgivea******** about the planet. Laughing at the angst because some folks "feel better" saying we tried is even more laughable than pointing out the ridiculous fallacy the whole thing was to begin with. There is no political will to remove the ability of corporations to transfer the negative externalities of their business models onto the public at large. Pollution will continue until it becomes immediately more expensive than being green, as in holding corporations accountable for the negative externalities (i.e.product lifecycles and end use accountings) of their businesses. I actually am doing something before you attack me, I got my school to let me teach "Planet Earth" as an elective science class and we are making the curriculum up as we go. We survey the Earth's systems, and look at how we can do things more sustainably. We talk about resource conservation and personal responsibility. A great deal of our time is spent in our urban garden growing stuff and learning about plants and small animals like chickens, rabbits and goats. We may even attempt a aquaponics demonstration project to teach ecosystem management as a semester class if we can find a few thousand in funding. Any other conversation about the environment is simply smoke and mirrors. If we are not doing it sustainably, we are not doing it right. tldr our best hope is to teach the next generation about how we ********ed the planet up, and give them the basic STEM tools to be able to find solutions.
Your rant basically said exactly this, but rather than the "next generation," it is "our generation." Our parents put it on us, and now you are suggesting we put it on our kids. That's a cop-out. We should stick with Paris because, if nothing else, it creates social pressure, and sets a benchmark. Yes, it could be better, but there at a million things to balance out. One of the biggest issues, if you remember, was that if it was made enforceable in the manner a lot of people wanted, it would have stifled growth in a hell of a lot of underdeveloped countries, all of them being brown-skinned countries.
I was gonna mow the lawn this afternoon, but the mower crapped out on me. Took it in for repair. The good news is, I'm way ahead of the usual break where people get their mowers tuned up before that first Valentine's Day cut. The bad news is, if they have it for more than a week, I'll have to deal with mosquitoes in my face while I grill the Thanksgiving meal...
Funny to read a post about lawn mowing and mosquitos after I slipped on ice on my way to the gym this morning. #global_warming=Fake_Nesw, #reglaciation
Here I can help you make the case on why the Paris accord can be seen as shit, again mostly because it does not do enough. The big Elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about, how are we going to capture the CO2 already out there, and the CO2 that we will continue to put out.
Here is the link for the post above. (my bad mods) https://www.economist.com/news/lead...de-atmosphere-not-enough-it-has-be-sucked-out
Actually lots of money is being invested in this kind of tech The problem is that tech cannot be commercialised while carbon pollution is free That is the key step.
Imagine if the price to dispose of and mitigate the environmental impact of goods was built into the price of your car, refrigerator, dryer, computer, cell phone, lawn mower, etc...
Jawhol! Australian coal industry was spending a lot of money in partnership with government on CCS - like billions I was quite surprised to discover the issues were more commercial than technical But this is in fact why steps like Paris are important - for the first time we have actual global action
Actually, not really. GE would be directly responsible for disposing of their refrigerators/microwaves/incandescent or CFL bulbs/etc... Therefore, there would be an individual incentive by the company NOT to make products with planned obsolescence. You buy a refrigerator for a lifetime, not every 5-10 years. In particular, it would incentivize companies to make cars/computers/faucets that could be easily broken down and recycled. There would be a push to minimize the costs of waste by the producers of the future waste. Simply passing a tax on goods to mitigate the effects isn't sufficient. A company would then only have the incentive to make the best product possible for their particular niche without having to take into account the disposal and environmental impact of the product. They get to blame it on government waste and inefficiency. Right now, companies that do care about this are priced out of the market, and ultimately end up selling out.
German court: Ancient forest can be cleared for coal mine By The Associated Press BERLIN — Nov 24, 2017, 11:21 AM ET The coal, a light brown variety called lignite, is considered one of the most polluting forms of fossil fuel. If only it were sunnier in Germany...sad!
It's Nov 25 and I am wondering if I should drag the mower out and do the lawn one more time. This decision is usually made in October.
I'm at 5000' elevation in Utah pressed up against the "wet" side of the Wasatch Mountain Range. We have been breaking record highs this week, and, I THINK!!!, that I just put the mower to rest for 2017.
Lot of dams (78%) with their own environmental consequences, but still not bad. Plus they made the World Cup. RT for #renewables! "Costa Rica runs entirely on renewable energy for 300 days this year" https://t.co/OBH3RJskTJ— Enviro. Media Assoc. (@green4EMA) November 26, 2017
Well, it's a kinda Christmas present I suppose... https://www.theguardian.com/football/ng-interactive/2017/dec/25/how-green-are-electric-cars How green are electric cars? Norway, the world leader in electric car take-up, can boast that the vehicles are clean because they're almost exclusively run on hydropower. But how environmentally friendly is an electric car if its ultimate energy source is an oil-fired power plant? Multiple studies have found that electric cars are more efficient, and therefore responsible for less greenhouse gas and other emissions than cars powered solely by internal combustion engines. An EU study based on expected performance in 2020 found that an electric car using electricity generated solely by an oil-fired power station would use only two-thirds of the energy of a petrol car travelling the same distance.
Edit: blah, blah, blah. Very cool interactive article. Eventually, I'd like to have an electric vehicle charged by a solar array, but that is still several years off I'm afraid. My biggest concern with electric vehicles is at the end of the life cycle, when the batteries need to be disposed of. If not handled correctly, that will be a huge environmental issue.