/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10756270
>Venezuelans eating rabbit
>French have yellow-vests protesting every single time one word escapes their retard leader's mouth

Thanks for reminding to do the opposite of these faggots. No Climate Change legislature until at least 2030.

>>10756270
Correct, but this sci, add some data to your post next time

>>10756341
2030 sounds good. i want to see if the temp gets steep with all that co2 or continues this same meandering upwards.

>>10756819
And I want to see if when the ocean acidifies enough it becomes lemon flavor.

>>10756270
Didn't Chavez bet his counties entire future on a giant nationalized oil play?

Lots of people are attempting to do something.
We are just being held back by evil selfish people.
It's not really fair to blame everyone.

>>10758024
No.

>>10756270
you can thank the ecoterrorism movement for climate change being as big of a threat as it is

we could have used nuclear power and synthetic fuels to decarbonize the global economy back in the 80s, no need waiting for development of renewables and electric cars

but no, nucular is baaad

>>10758044
Thanks for the useless answer. Now kys.

>>10758065
Greenpeace is the worst. They are anti GMO and anti nuclear. They are a real danger for the planet.

>>10756270
How to save the climate effectively, option:

1. Have no children (reduces more than any other lifestyle choice)
2. Suicide (works as well as having no children + all other climate reducing factors)
3. Homicide (kill 2 people = committing suicide * 2)
4. Genocide (you're basically planet saving Jesus at this point. Good on you!)

This is why I'm no climate activist. I value humans lives more than nature.

>>10758104
>humans aren't dependent on nature

>>10758104
>I value humans
>so lets use the most lethal form of power generation and not prevent massive damage from global warming
Uhuh...

>>10758108
>>10758134
How many people have you killed for nature? Why aren't you committed to the cause?

>>10758104
Humans are dependent on nature moron

>>10758147
>>10758108
And nowhere have I implied otherwise? But I will have kids, I won't suicide and I definitely won't murder anyone to save the climate. Anyone who says they're trying to save the climate and doesn't do any of these things are hypocrites.

>B-but i drive electric and eat vegan food
You're still destroying the environment much more than you're saving it. Again: hypocrite.

What can we do? Not much. Bunker up and wait for nature to kill enough people for the rest of humanity to stabilize child birth in countries who are mature enough to do so.

>>10758156
>What can we do? Not much. Bunker up and wait for nature to kill enough people for the rest of humanity to stabilize child birth in countries who are mature enough to do so.
This is about the only sensible comment so far. We're living in a fundamentally unsustainable system that's starting to reach its limits. We're also showing no signs of doing anything substantive about it. It's all just too little too late. So the only reasonable course of action is to decouple form the system before it collapses and build the kind of resilience you need to survive.

>we didn't save the planet because it hurts the profit

fucking yikes. Capitalism is the worst religion ever. Zizek was right. If there is a god, everything is allowed. God is an excuse to do shitty things. You're not bad, you're doing this for a god/higher instance. Christians, muslims and other religions did bad things because god. Nazis did bad things because "god" (nation was their god). History was "god" for communists. All of this bleaks in comparison with capitalism and their religion of profit.

>>10758177
Communism was terrible for the environment. This isn't about what ideology you want to impose, it's about the fact that we're all helping to use up the limited resources of the planet.

>>10758183
>Communism was terrible for the environment

not that terrible

>>10758189
China is literally 1/3 of all carbon dioxide emissions on the planet

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

>>10758177
Based post.

>>10758183
Yes, but communists lived before climate change was a hot topic. If we had communism today, it's likely that we would have already taken action to reduce CO2 emissions.
Central planned economies tend to be very good at big boi projects, whereas market based economies are very good at consumerism.

>>10758196
Your link proves the point. China emits less per capita than any western European country.

>>10758196
>China is communist

>>10758143
I don't care about "nature" you lying sack of shit.

>>10758189
>not that terrible
Terrible enough to invalidate the argument that "capitalism specifically is the problem"

>>10758200
> If we had communism today, it's likely that we would have already taken action to reduce CO2 emissions.
No we wouldn't. Our leaders wouldn't want to have a comparative disadvantage to rival counties. It's not like China's top down system has prevented them from pumping out CO2 at more than twice the rate as the US does, simply because they wanted to use coal to help them rise to power

>>10758207
per capita means nothing when countries are in charge of their own population growth.

If you could eradicate one country in order to save the climate, would you really remove Palau, whatever shitty country that is, over China? They have the highest emission per captia, clearly they are the biggest contributors to the state of the Earth!

>>10758208
Ok name a communist country

>>10758207
What about Sweden, Denmark, Italy, France, Uk, etc?

>>10758156
>Anyone who says they're trying to save the climate and doesn't do any of these things are hypocrites.
Anyone who claims killing people is necessary to mitigate global warming is a liar. Anyone who claims to value humans but wants to continue using fossil fuels which kill millions of people a year from air pollution even if you ignore CO2, is a hypocrite.

>What can we do?
Carbon tax, nuclear and renewables. It's not that hard, but delusional ideologies like you will constantly lie to people in order to prevent it.

>>10758216
>Our leaders wouldn't want to have a comparative disadvantage to rival counties.

International treaties and sanctions would take care of that. It's in everyone's benefit if we cut emissions so countries would comply. Remember that the Paris Agreement was agreed to by every country on the planets except war torn Syria and the United States.

>It's not like China's top down system has prevented them from pumping out CO2 at more than twice the rate as the US does,

While being four times as large. Not to mention that in reality 1/2 of their emissions are US/EU products being manufactured there.

>simply because they wanted to use coal to help them rise to power
And now they are cutting it out faster than everyone else. And they would have cut it out even faster if the US wasn't such a shit country and would have signed the Paris Agreement.

>>10758225
>If you could eradicate one country in order to save the climate, would you really remove Palau, whatever shitty country that is, over China?
I would of course eliminator the US, being the country who is chiefly opposed to climate change action.

>>10758225
>If you could eradicate one country in order to save the climate
This is a completely contrived situation. Why only one country?

If you could remove n amount of people would you remove n Chinese or n Americans? If there was a worldwide food shortage, would you demand Africans go on a diet so that fatasses could continue studying food in their faces?

>>10758240
>Remember that the Paris Agreement was agreed to by every country on the planets except war torn Syria and the United States.
Most counties are utterly failing to meet their (non-binding) commitments.

>China
It was a top down decision by a Communist government to go all in on coal. This notion that we'd be ruled by all knowing, benevolent technocrats is ridiculous. Why do people not understand the fact that humans are flawed?

>And now they are cutting it out faster than everyone else
That's not even true. Their emissions are still going up. It's just that the rate of increase is slowing.

Not only that, they're still intent on destroying all human life apparently
https://globalnews.ca/news/5306423/china-cfc-11-ozone-chemical-production/

>>10758233
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4687400/Study-Want-save-planet-Don-t-children.html

So, if having a kid is the most destructive thing you can do to the environment, surely killing a person is the best way you can help the environment. It's only logical.

https://www.klimatkontot.se/

You're not Swedish, but maybe there's some way you can calculate it anyway. In order for the world to be in "sustainable development" (whatever that translates to), each individual needs to release max 1.5 tons of CO2e per year.

I have no kids, I don't own a car, I recycle, I don't travel by flying, I rarely do anything which is environmentally unfriendly at all and I'm at approximately 3.2 tons CO2e per year. I'm literally living as environmentally friendly as possible (I'm a poor student, after all) in a western country, and I'm at TWICE the acceptable levels for a ecologically sustainable future.

Unless the entire worlds population decides to lower their living standards to basically become farmers, it cannot be sustainable at 7+ billion people. It's impossible. Not even nuclear power is a solution, not even if the entire world were powered by solar and wind. Basically breathing alone from 7+ billion people is probably emitting so much CO2 that the earth can't handle it.

People needs to die. There's far too many humans.

>>10758240
Have a look at how well we're all doing
https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/

>>10758065
So true, my clear-eyed friend.

>>10758245
>Why only one country?
Because countries are responsible for their own population growth. Why do you think china had 1 child max per family?

>>10758245
>If you could remove n amount of people
Well, Americans of course. But ultimately the blame is on the total effect caused by country, not by person in said country.

>>10758284
>only countries """doing well""" (aka still causing world end scenario, but slightly slower) are countries too poor to increase their living standards anyway

>>10758282
This is the truth. barring some unlikely technological revelation or a world war that wipes out most chinks and poos, we just have to wait for nature to provide a massive correction.

I hope technocrats don't find ways to string along massive populations at incredibly low standards of living... That would be obscene. We should just accept that we can't have such huge human pop. until we colonize space or become something non-human.

>>10758309
Yep. Just goes to show you how utterly absurd and laughable those UN "sustainable development goals" really are.

>>10758156
>doing nothing is fine because there are other unreasonable options that do more
You are why unlimited franchise was a mistake

>>10758305
>Because countries are responsible for their own population growth.
Individuals are responsible for their own reproduction. China no longer has a one child policy because it was a failure. And this doesn't explain why you are restricted to removing one country instead of equivalent numbers of people from a country or multiple countries.

>But ultimately the blame is on the total effect caused by country, not by person in said country.
Ah so Africans are too blame for eating all the food during a food shortage. The blame is on the total effect caused by humans, not countries. If carbon emissions are going to be mitigated it should stay with the individuals who emit the most. The focus on countries instead of individuals is just an excuse to scapegoat China and stall action.

>>10758164
>This is about the only sensible comment
That comment is beyond retarded, that you think it isnt is honestly just depressing. Its the equivalent of defending your chain smoking by saying
>cigs might kill me, drowning will kill me
>water is more dangerous than smoking!
>ok il just keep smoking then

>>10758225
>If you could eradicate one country in order to save the climate
It would be America 100%. Well and away the most emissions per capita, still the most even adjusting to larger populations. Government and populace that is actively destroying the envrionment and doesnt give a fuck.

>>10758358
What are you even talking about? Of course we SHOULD do something about it. But we aren't. By any reasonable metric, we're doing FAR too little. It's not even close. CO2 emissions are reaching new records every year (with the only exceptions being after the 2008 financial crash).

>>10758361
>emissions per capita are more important than the actual amount of CO2 being pumped out
It's an objective fact that eliminating China would have more than twice the effect. How people can focus on "per capita" instead of you know.. on reality is beyond me.

>>10758282
No one with a brain thinks that everyone just minimizing their output under the current system is the solution. The purpose in minimizing now is so that we have more time to develop technology, infrastructure, social systems that will allow us to continue growing without obliterating the environment. None of this is fiction as well, you can easily map out a far superior society with respect to envronmental impact right now.

>>10758368
That anons post was literally saying that there is nothing we can do, because there isnt a 1 button cure all available right now.
>>10758156
>What can we do? Not much.

>>10758368
That anons post literally said we shouldnt do anything. His reasoning being that because there isnt a cure all solution right now nothing is worth doing.
>>10758156
>What can we do? Not much.

>>10758379
>>10758380
reee captcha bug

>>10758356
>The blame is on the total effect caused by humans
Yeah lemme just start 15 cars and keep them running constantly while being autofuled, fly around the world 10 times per week, impregnate 5 women per week while constantly eating red meat.

You're equally responsible for the emissions I do by doing this, btw. You're also to blame, because you're a human.

>>10758356
>why you are restricted to removing one country instead of equivalent numbers of people from a country or multiple countries.
Because if equal worth is applied on all of humanity, then China and India is by far the most valuable country by sheer numbers alone. Any other countries are basically insignificant.

China emission per capita: 7.7, India emission per capita: 1.8, Average per capita for India and China: 4.75.

World average per capita: 4.9.

Does this very simple experiment tell you something of who's having an actual effect? The countries are responsible because they have the most people living in their country. What is another country going to do? Invade China and India to make them be more environmentally friendly?

>>10758379
The fact is that we're not doing anywhere near enough. That's not meant to be a fatalistic statement, just an objective view of the current state of things. Personally, I don't see how we can solve the myriad problems we face before one of them hits our completely unsustainable agricultural system, resulting in the end of this current iteration of industrial civilization. We're in a race between new technology and the consequences of the technologies we've been using in the past century or two. And we're currently losing.
Having faith that new technologies will either fix everything or buy us enough time to adjust seems like a rather risky bet to me.

>>10758380
letting the market work is doing something. by mid century people will be wealthier and decide less pollution is better for them.

>>10758282
>So, if having a kid is the most destructive thing you can do to the environment, surely killing a person is the best way you can help the environment. It's only logical.
Oh so it's not necessary to kill people to "help the environment," thanks for admitting you lied.

This ignores the fact that a carbon tax and alternative power sources will reduce the carbon footprint of all activities, birthrates are already falling everywhere, and that the point is not to "help the environment," its to help humans. But you know this already, you're just a dishonest hack.

>I have no kids, I don't own a car, I recycle, I don't travel by flying, I rarely do anything which is environmentally unfriendly at all and I'm at approximately 3.2 tons CO2e per year.
Where does the CO2 come from? You don't actually want the answers, you just want to make assumptions and have a tantrum.

>Unless the entire worlds population decides to lower their living standards to basically become farmers, it cannot be sustainable at 7+ billion people.
An optimal carbon tax will not lower living standards any more than the effects of unmitigated global warming would.

>Basically breathing alone from 7+ billion people is probably emitting so much CO2 that the earth can't handle it.
Breathing is carbon neutral, moron. You have no clue what you're talking about. No one cares about your baseless opinions.

>>10758282
Cringe
>>10758406
based

>>10758398
>muh free market
Brilliant, I suggest picking up a textbook on the 19th and 20th centuries to see how astronomically retarded this is.

>>10758406
a tax isn't going to reduce anything

>>10758415
based retard, increasing the cost of pollution improves the financial viability of non polluting alternatives and also incentivizes efficiency, revenue from the tax can go directly back to the tax payer to compensate for slightly higher prices. As well as fund things like EV tax credits, energy subsidies etc.

>>10758421
ok enjoy your energy poverty riots

>>10758415
1) Tax all forms of CO2 output
2) Give all taxed money back in the form of rebate checks, equally across all citizens
3) Citizens adjust behavior to pay less taxes while still receiving money from those who don't adjust

You'd have to be some kind of dummkopf to think that this wouldn't work.

>>10758388
>Yeah lemme just start 15 cars and keep them running constantly while being autofuled, fly around the world 10 times per week, impregnate 5 women per week while constantly eating red meat.
>You're equally responsible for the emissions I do by doing this, btw. You're also to blame, because you're a human.
That's what you're arguing by saying the blame is on countries, whereas I'm saying the blame is on individuals. Are you retards capable of doing anything but misrepresenting and projecting onto others?

>Because if equal worth is applied on all of humanity, then China and India is by far the most valuable country by sheer numbers alone. Any other countries are basically insignificant.
Who is valuing countries??? Another retarded non-answer to the question.

>Does this very simple experiment tell you something of who's having an actual effect?
Yes, it tells me the average Chinese person has much less an affect than the average American.

>The countries are responsible because they have the most people living in their country.
Another non-sequitur. Individuals with the most emissions are the most responsible because they have the most emissions.

>What is another country going to do? Invade China and India to make them be more environmentally friendly?
Yet the only ones not on board with this are the US (under Trump), Russia, and Saudi Arabia.

>>10758431
what if not everyone agrees to be taxed

reminder to the retards that refuse to travel by air that it's 1,5% of carbon dioxide emissions

>>10758406
So you're seriously claiming there is a scenario where 7+ billion people can live on earth without causing global warming by doing things such as applying carbon tax and alternative power sources..? Is this what you're saying?

Here's some ipcc facts:

>Pic related, s. 21 (pdf)

"IS92c: This scenario assumes the lowest rate of population and economic growth and severe constraints on fossil fuelsupplies. As a result, it is the lowest emission scenario and the only one showing a decreasing emission trend." - s.12 (pdf)

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/paper-IV-en-2.pdf

IS92c is the ONLY scenario where CO2 isn't rising consistently according to the IPCC97 report. I can't find a new report like it, i suppose IPCC stopped publishing technical papers or something. Looking at how things are progressing form 97 until now, would you say we're heading for IS92c or no..? Maybe some more carbon taxes and alternative power sources will help, sure.

>>10758435
If everyone has equal responsibility, no one has any responsibility at all. It kills the point of responsibility. The reason climate change is to blame is because people like you say "it's up to every individual to change..!". Haven't you noticed that this does literally nothing? Everyone can so easily point at someone else and go "whataboutism!".

If you hang a sign at work saying "everyone is responsible to do the dishes!", do you really expect anyone at all to do it..? Humans doesn't work like that.

>>10758436
You can leave the country.

>>10758435
If you hang a sign over the dishes saying "everyone is responsible to do the dishes", do you really expect the dishes to get done..?

>>10758444
>So you're seriously claiming there is a scenario where 7+ billion people can live on earth without causing global warming
The point is not to stop global warming, the point is to optimally mitigate global warming. Yet again you show you have nothing but straw men to attack.

>>10758462
the dumbass germans will do the dishes hehehee

>>10758436
How is this a unique argument for this specific tax and not for taxes in general?

>>10758465
>optimally mitigate global warming
Why would this be a good thing? Optimally mitigating global warming is still causing global warming. It's the same problem, but slightly less. You'd be doing literally nothing but acting like you're doing something useful. It's pointless.

>>10758428
only if revenue isn't distributed properly, such a tax would actually be a net benefit for consumers.
>After the carbon tax John's energy bill goes up $100 dollars annually. John also gets a rebate check for $100 dollars. John's net energy costs haven't changed. However He recognizes that he wastes lots of energy when he doesn't need to so he starts using a clothes line and re seals his windows. This reduces his annual bill by $50 meaning compared to the year before he actually has more money, and has reduced his carbon footprint.

>>10758458
>If everyone has equal responsibility
Yet I said they didn't. Are you really this illiterate or are you just pretending to be retarded?

>The reason climate change is to blame is because people like you say "it's up to every individual to change..!"
That's the exact opposite of what I'm saying. Since people are incapable of voluntarily reducing their pollution, they should be forced to pay for it. I don't know why this is controversial or hard to understand. Knock off the retard act.

>>10758458
Which is why sitting around and crying about it like you is doing nothing. We need to take responsibility now and curb our emissions not cry about India and china.

>>10758462
>if you pass a law requiring the dishes to be done or face serious economic penalties do you expect the dishes to be done?
kinda?

>>10758478
>they should be forced to pay for it
Who will be forcing them to pay for it?

>>10758472
>3C of warming is no different than 8C of warming you aren't doing anything!!!!
retard

>>10758482
>pass a law
A... global law..? Which will penalize the.. global... currency? Are we living on the same planet?

>>10758484
We the people of the United States of America

>>10758487
The US and EU combined have more than enough economic power to tariff and sanction anyone who won't play along.

>>10758486
You'd just be postponing the same problem. What's the point?

>>10758472
>Why would this be a good thing?
Because it minimizes harm to humans, you utter moron.

>Optimally mitigating global warming is still causing global warming.
If it does then that means stopping all global warming is worse than letting some of it happen.

>It's the same problem, but slightly less. You'd be doing literally nothing but acting like you're doing something useful.
So let me get this straight, you think preventing the equivalent of trillions of dollars worth of damage to be "nothing" if some damage is inevitable? Kill yourself.

>>10758493
it's not postponing it you fucking idiot, it's preventing warming from reaching such high levels. in the first place.

>>10758489
>USA: "Pick up your trash !! >:("
>Russia/China/Pakistan/India: "Nigga I'll nuke you"

>>10758484
I guess you're not old enough to know taxes yet.

>>10758493
>You'd just be postponing the same problem.
Wrong, try again moron.

>>10758491
lmao the eu can't even make it's own member states follow the rules and the USA doesn't give a shit

>>10758502
>USA: ok no more trade for you
>Russia/China/Pakistan/India *economies collapse* "W-we were just kidding"

>>10758177
>You're not bad, you're doing this for a god/higher instance. Christians, muslims and other religions did bad things because god. Nazis did bad things because "god" (nation was their god). History was "god" for communists.

Define "bad"

>>10758496
>preventing
Nothing is prevented. It's mitigated. You've said so yourself. The harm will still happen, but slower and more drawn out.

If i can chose suffering over a long time, or for it to be over in an instant and then recover, I'd chose the former any day of the week.

>>10758510
>USA: ok no more trade for you
>Russia/China/Pakistan/India: uhh.. you mean, no more trade for YOU

>>10758512
You literally have no idea how any of this works. If GHG concentrations level off warming levels off. If GHG concentrations never level off warming will reach much much much higher levels much sooner. Though if by get it over quickly you mean complete and utter collapse of the biosphere and human civilization with it I guess if that's your preference...

>>10758513
Russia has nothing but fossil fuels china's entire economy relies on selling cheap shit to the us and pakistan and india have nothing. EU and USA are in the much stronger position.

>>10758513
literally everyone wins except for the jews who industrialized us so they wouldn't have to pay Americans

>>10758523
deindustrialized*

>>10758507
It's changing, just need to actually get voter turn out up in non retarded boomers.
>https://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1198a1Global-Warming.pdf

>>10758516
>utter collapse of the biosphere and human civilization
This is inevitable. Even if Hans Rosling is right and we level out at 12 billion people, it's far too many people. The emission per person would have to be something like 0.6-0.7 tons of CO2 per person/year, I highly doubt this is possible in a capitalistic society which will crash at the lack of growth.

>>10758512
>Nothing is prevented. It's mitigated.
Mitigation is prevention. Your desperate claim that if you don't prevent all global warming you are preventing none of it is a pathetic lie. Why do you feel the need to constantly lie? Who is this for?

>The harm will still happen, but slower and more drawn out.
Apparently you don't even understand why global warming is bad. The harm is not caused by the amount of warming, it's in its speed.

>>10758532
>The harm is not caused by the amount of warming, it's in its speed.
What is an acceptable speed? How much warmer can the planet be without it causing completely catastrophic scenarios?

>>10758531
The planet can support us just fine, we just need to actually be intelligent about it. You might be right that infinite growth capitalism isn't sustainable but that's a problem for another day.

>>10758531
>here have some more nonsense pulled out of my ass

>>10758537
>The planet can support us just fine
Not it can't. We're destroying ecosystems (and therefore the planet's carrying capacity for humans) at absolutely stunning rates.

>>10758532
1.4 degrees since 1880 doesn't seem very fast

>>10758537
>The planet can support us just fine
According to..?

>>10758546
very little of that destruction is unavoidable or necessary for humans. it's just cheaper to fuck everyone over.

>venezuela

>>10758487
Imagine if there was some sort of system whereby different nations could come to an agreement! Oh orange man mistook the paris agreement for dragons den so now thats gone.

>>10758540
https://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/978-91-620-5903-3.pdf s. 56

Actually, the emissions would need to be average 0 tons CO2 per capita per year by 2100, 1,7-1,9 by 2050, according to the swedish scientific council. So It proves me right! We're fucked. Because there's no way that'll happen.

>>10758472
You realize what you just said was?
>everyone who has an incurable but manageable illness should just do nothing and die
or
>Combustion engines are extremely inefficient in as a function of the relevant physics, lets not bother trying to engineer them to minimize loss

>>10758556
What may or may not be physically possible is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what we actually do, and we're destroying the planet's ability to sustain us.

>>10758577
link doesn't work and no one speaks swedish anyways

>>10758556
We fucked up when we invented money, tbf.

>>10758585
So lets do nothing and accelerate our demise! So the ultra rich will get to fulfill their mad max warlord fantasies!

>>10758586
dont include the s.56, the fact I'm citing is on s.56 but if you don't speak Swedish yeah it'll be hard to understand either way. Can't find any other sources in english

>>10758589
The rich? Nono, the nordic countries.

>>10758511
i know, anon. Nazis weren't bad. They were Based

>>10758589
I'm saying we're on a disastrous trajectory and are unlikely to change it enough to avoid catastrophe. How, in your mind, does that equate to "let's do nothing?"
I'm literally arguing for the opposite. How is anything going to change if people won't even admit how dire the problem really is?

The only solution is to greatly lower our energy consumption and standard of living back to around 1700's level tech (with some updates for efficiency and eco-friendliness). EERYONE self sufficient and growing their own food, living and buying locally, no carbon footprint. It will be law soon enough, but it's better to get ahead of the game. Education of the 3rd world on our planetary situation will hopefully curb the birthrates. We valso have to leave behind the "ultraprodyctivity rat race culture" we have grown accustomed to. The only thing that really calls for imeditate action in our world is unfucking the ecosystems. Everything else needs to take a backseat. Social issues. Technological developments. The "entertainment industry". The only other thing that would be important would be to completely restructure the world's economic systems, something like lifetime xp tracking for various things you do are your "points" and you can use those points gained in a certain area of study or work to buy more powerful tools in that field, but you have to "unlockl" them with proper experience and training. So, no more people buying the top of the line equipment with daddy's money and no experience. Don;t worry, you start accumulating xp from birth, so everyone except the laziest of people will all be "wealthy", in experience and training in what they want and need to do in life.

>>10758589
>So lets do nothing
No, let's do what Russia is doing: https://bellona.org/news/arctic/2019-01-moscows-response-to-climate-change-bring-it-on

>>10758620
Is this even physically possible without the immense amount of free labor that oil is providing us?

>>10758632
What's russia's average latitude again?

>>10758632
Russians based and suicide pilled
>And while Moscow bankers might be betting on future farmland as the Tundra melts, the country’s current farmland is getting battered by droughts.

Human idiocy is the only thing that's truly infinite in this universe

>>10758548
It's very fast, an order of magnitude faster than interglacial warming.

>>10758632
expains why the GOP denies AGW

>>10758634
That's the thing, all we have to do is stop working so hard, our energy consumption will go down drastically, literally the only thing you need to do in life to bare minimum survive is eat and drink water and sleep. So, We put most of our tech efforts into growing food super efficient with the least amount of chemical intervention, while still being able to do it basically by hand in your greenhouse or backyard (aquaponics makes sense here). If we all reverted back to self sufficient homesteads, everyone on Earth, collected our own water, and had little to no carbon footprint while also spending extra time planting viable, non-invasive carbon eating/oxygen giving plants in your local woods, I bet we could turn this shit around in a few decades. But that means current city and corporate/capitalist life HAS to fucking go. No questions asked.

The problem is we have removed ourselves from nature. The solution is to put ourselves back into it.

>>10758654
Is there enough arable land for everyone to actually do this? Most people don't have back yards large enough to feed their family and many regions don't have enough water. It's even worse when you consider that land has to be left fallow from time to time.
What will Honk Kong do?

>>10758535
>What is an acceptable speed?
There is no such thing. There is only the cost of global warming and the cost of mitigation at any particular time. These costs should be balanced for the optimal result. "Acceptable" has no objective meaning.

>How much warmer can the planet be without it causing completely catastrophic scenarios?
What it's a catastrophic scenario? I would consider letting global warming go unmitigated to be catastrophic, but apparently it's "acceptable" to you.

>>10758641
About 55.

>>10758677
>These costs should be balanced for the optimal result.
What's the optimal result?

>What it's a catastrophic scenario?
Let's say a modest black death 30% of total human population dead.

>I would consider letting global warming go unmitigated to be catastrophic.
How can it by itself be catastrophic if you can't list whatever this catastrophe will cause..?

>>10758577
Where does it say this is necessary to prevent the collapse of civilization and why do you think reducing emissions is impossible? This is a hypothetical question which assumes you actually care about any of this and are not just here to lie and shitpost.

>>10758689
>What's the optimal result?
The one which results in the least harm to humans.

>How can it by itself be catastrophic if you can't list whatever this catastrophe will cause..?
Because it's more complicated than a list: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

>>10758691
>why do you think reducing emissions is impossible
Because the entire industrial revolution/the global society at large is fueled by growth. If a society isn't growing, it's crashing. It's never stable. Growing societies = more emissions. Another reason is the projections of increasing human populations (due to growth). More people = more emissions.

>the collapse of civilization
Well it doesn't, it only says this is required to reach 1.5C increase in temperature. But even 1.5C increase in temperature will probably cause a lot of societies to collapse.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/bengaluru-will-run-out-of-groundwater-in-2-years-warns-niti-aayog-report/articleshow/64618522.cms
It's already begun.

>>10758721
So, do you realize now that whatever we do, we'll end up in catastrophe? Doing anything but bulking up before the storm before the chaos is pointless, unless you wan't to get dragged along with it.

>>10758731
Growing society = more energy consumption, not more emissions.

>Well it doesn't, it only says this is required to reach 1.5C increase in temperature. But even 1.5C increase in temperature will probably cause a lot of societies to collapse.
Ah so I guess that means we should just let it very worse.

>>10758731
if EVERY industrial emitter of pollution was shut down overnight it wouldn't technically be a crash, it'd be a power vacuum. Nature abhors a vacuum. In no time at all you'd see those industries spring back to live with new non-polluting methods of production. It would be the rebirth of the industrial revolution. This "crash" you fear so much is actually the very thing that triggers the American industrial revolution 2.0

>>10758731
>we're gonna run out of water
>rains
>we're gonna run out of water if...

>>10758747
>that means we should just let it very worse.
Well, I personally won't really limit my own lifestyle in order to save something unsaveable and don't apply blame on anyone else who does the same.
>https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/03/forget-paris-1600-new-coal-power-plants-built-around-the-world/
more energy consumption = more emissions. if you're being even slightly realistic.

>>10758751
>technically be a crash
But the entire society WOULD crash if it were no power active.
https://youtu.be/v1BMWczn7JM

Haven't you followed the situation in Venezuela? The power outages there are causing a lot of trouble

>>10756921
I want to see if growing a rainforest in North America becomes viable.

>>10758752
Rain isn't enough to grow the huge amounts of crops we grow. We've been draining groundwater to feed them (US is no exception), which is running out rapidly.

>>10758745
>So, do you realize now that whatever we do, we'll end up in catastrophe?
So you're still sticking with this pathetic equivocation? Not all catastrophes are equal. You already lost, get over it.

>>10758752
>we're gonna run out of water
>actually doesn't rain because of continuous heatwave

>>10758797
damn that sounds dire

>>10758806
i hope my garage doesn't explode with fire

>>10758804
>Not all catastrophes are equal.
Sure, but all catastrophes will inevitably occur. The temperature won't stop rising until they do, if even then. So preventive action is nothing but false hope. That's the truth. Maybe you can't handle it.

>>10758761
>Well, I personally won't really limit my own lifestyle in order to save something unsaveable
Too bad it's not up to you.

>more energy consumption = more emissions. if you're being even slightly realistic.
More growth = more horse manure if you're being even slightly realistic in 1894.

So basically your argument boils down to, "we should not replace fossil fuels because fossil fuel consumption is inevitable and fossil fuel consumption is inevitable because we haven't replaced fossil fuels." Do you have any valid arguments? Just one?

>>10758820
>Sure, but all catastrophes will inevitably occur.
Nope.

>The temperature won't stop rising until they do, if even then.
Still wrong, humans can be net emitters without the CO2 concentration rising.

>That's the truth.
Hmmm no luck this time, maybe your next post will be your first to contain the truth. I kind of doubt it though.

>>10758844
>humans can be net emitters without the CO2 concentration rising.
Source?

>>10758832
>we should not replace fossil fuels
Never have i claimed such a thing? I've not even named fossil fuels ever.

I'm agnostic about the whole ordeal because it literally doesn't matter, our current civilization is doomed anyway. Want to comfort yourself by riding a bike to work thinking it'll help? Fine, whatever. I'll drive my car.

>>10758857
Pic related.

>>10758857
>Never have i claimed such a thing? I've not even named fossil fuels ever.
You just said growth means new coal plants. Of course that's false if you use nuclear and renewables instead of coal.

>I'm agnostic about the whole ordeal because it literally doesn't matter, our current civilization is doomed anyway.
That's wrong and not even a valid reason.