Pimpernel Smith
Tone Deaf Daddy
- Messages
- 10,809
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
World's richest 1% cause double CO2 emissions of poorest 50%, says Oxfam
Charity says world’s fast-shrinking carbon budget should be used to improve lot of poorestwww.theguardian.com
Pimpernel Smith
you always nail these storiesThat's because the 1%'s are too busy flying around the world in their private jets telling the rest of us forego our package holiday flying, move into city high rises and eat some Quorn man made delicacy their cultivating in a Wuhan biolab.
That's because the 1%'s are too busy flying around the world in their private jets telling the rest of us forego our package holiday flying,
You are the top 1%. In fact, I strongly suspect that most of us here are in the 1%.
According to the 2018 Global Wealth Report from Credit Suisse Research Institute, you need a net worth of US$871,320. Credit Suisse defines net worth, or “wealth,” as “the value of financial assets plus real assets (principally housing) owned by households, minus their debts.”
More than 19 million Americans are in the 1 percent worldwide, Credit Suisse reports, far more than from any other country, while “China is now clearly established in second place in the world wealth hierarchy,” with 4.2 million citizens among the world’s top 1 percent.
Amazon near tipping point of switching from rainforest to savannah – study
Climate crisis and logging is leading to shift from canopy rainforest to open grasslandwww.theguardian.com
Levelized Cost of Energy and of Storage 2020
Levelized Cost of Energy & Storage 2020 analyses are in-depth studies comparing the costs of energy and storage technologies for different applications.www.lazard.com
Pimpernel Smith wind energy cheaper than gas now
well it specifically cites cost, so i'm not sure how that's a qualifier. obviously reliability and storage are an issue but there are life threatening issues with gas. shouldn't those account for something? it can't all just be about money can it?A lot of graphs there that don't bare up to scrutiny. Wind energy is cannot compete against natural gas on several fronts: reliability, storage, energy in vs out and also costs.
well it specifically cites cost, so i'm not sure how that's a qualifier. obviously reliability and storage are an issue but there are life threatening issues with gas. shouldn't those account for something? it can't all just be about money can it?
Organic foods would like a wordI thought everything is about money. Do people make ethical and altruistic choices and pay more? The vast majority are about cold hard dollars and cents and what’s in it for me. Capitalism.
I thought everything is about money. Do people make ethical and altruistic choices and pay more? The vast majority are about cold hard dollars and cents and what’s in it for me. Capitalism.
Organic foods would like a word
curious how you see taste as something worthy but lack of pollution isn't. why do you think that is?Organic food in lots of cases e.g. lemons and tomatoes, taste much better and there is genuine improvement based on taste and health benefits being not exposed to pesticides. So a clear quality improvement on several fronts. Although not in terms of yields.
curious how you see taste as something worthy but lack of pollution isn't. why do you think that is?
David Attenborough having contributed more than his fair share of carbon in his globe trotting adventures since the 1960s, tells it like it is, we're going to pull up the ladder on the capitalist system, you won't get to travel in the future, your standards of livings must drop:
“I think that the standard of living of the western cultures... civilised countries... is going to have to take pause,” Sir David Attenborough said on a BBC podcast last week. “The excesses that the capitalist system has brought us have got to be curbed somehow.”
I much preferred his brother, charming fellow.
Does he mean those 'excesses of capitalism' that have brought him, and his ilk a very comfortable lifestyle?
Does he mean those 'excesses of capitalism' that have brought him, and his ilk a very comfortable lifestyle?
I am 100% against toxic pollution such as NOx, soot and particles. That's what needs managing, but instead they focus on CO2 will is a BS ruse to create a green revolution asset bubble.
Windfarms in the Netherlands:
I understand your point, but it doesn't invalidate the arguments being made by people such as Attenborough in any way, shape or form. Even if he is a hypocrite, doesn't mean that he's incorrect.
Furthermore, in order to criticise something, must we be outside that thing, removed from that thing? If we criticise capitalism, must we be beggars dressed in rags? If we criticise a particular country, must we be outside that country? If so, that brings up echoes of fatuous old expression "If you don't love it, leave".
ok, that's a reasonable angle. but can't we do both at the same time? the elimination of CO2 will, by its very existence of source pollution, drive out things like NOx, soot, and particles. i'm struggling to see how cherry picking here is furthering your overall goal of eliminating those particular types of pollution. one causes the other in many and or most cases.
you know what i meant for fucks sake. elimination of excess. happy now?If you eliminated CO2 the trees would die. You mean 'reduction of'.
Even if he is a hypocrite, doesn't mean that he's incorrect.
ok, that's a reasonable angle. but can't we do both at the same time? the elimination of CO2 will, by its very existence of source pollution, drive out things like NOx, soot, and particles. i'm struggling to see how cherry picking here is furthering your overall goal of eliminating those particular types of pollution. one causes the other in many and or most cases.
you know what i meant for fucks sake. elimination of excess. happy now?
He's completely wrong as his position is that the quality of life in Western countries must take a hit...Carter tried that schmuck and lost to Reagan.
There is something deeply twisted that has entered the game at many levels. This is no accident. The elimination of all carbon life forms seems to be a possible element.
Simply because someone is saying something that is politically unpalatable does not necessarily mean that it is wrong. Also, as I said previously, simply because someone is a hypocrite does not mean that they are wrong. It just means that they are a hypocrite.
Perhaps you can explain how our conventional economic model of expanding population and increasing consumption can cope with dwindling oil reserves and increasing cost of recovery of mineral reserves?
I don't like the idea, but it seems very likely that, unless we make some fundamental changes to the way we live, we are going to face severe problems in the next 50-100 years.
If you really believe that, then your thinking is as twisted as you consider the thinking of others to be.
I assume that you are being hyperbolic and exaggerating for effect.
not to pick on you but i've seen you use schmuck twice now in this way and it doesn't make any sense. admittedly, i don't know if this is a lost in translation sort of thing. a person is a schmuck. things are not schmuck. words are not schmuck. carter is a schmuck, his speech or tactics aren't schumcks.Carter tried that schmuck
When you state ''fundamental changes to the way we live...'' are you happy for your children to live diminished lives compared to your own?
The thing with oil reserves is that the easy stuff has gone, but of the harder stuff, there's hundreds of years left and it still makes more economic sense than so called renewables.
A barrel of oil is not just fuel, it's everything else...
Climate Change Will Make Parts of the U.S. Uninhabitable. Americans Are Still Moving There.
Instead of moving away from areas in climate crisis, Americans are flocking to them. As land in places like Phoenix, Houston and Miami becomes less habitable, the country’s migration patterns will be forced to change.www.propublica.org
Is that a rhetorical question?
Of course not. I want them to live better lives. What I am concerned about is that it may not be a matter of choice - and I'm talking about external factors such as oil supply and price and the flow-on effects, not government policies.
It's estimated that we've already hit peak oil, or will in the next decade or so. Basically, it's slowly downhill from there - oil supply will stabilise or decrease, with flow-on effects. As you note, oil isn't just used for transportation (although that is the primary use) - it's also used for energy generation, plastics, fabrics, and fertilisers. Modern society depends upon a cheap, plentiful supply of all of those things.
That doesn't mean that life as we know it will come to a crunching halt. However, there it's very likely that there will be changes within the next few decades, and it's very unlikely that they will be for the better.
If you have some time, here's a 500-page study by the Geological Survey of Finland (GSK) on the current and predicted oil situation, and resulting changes. The lead author is an old friend of mine.
Here's a brief synopsis of the report:
Climate Change Will Make Parts of the U.S. Uninhabitable. Americans Are Still Moving There.
Instead of moving away from areas in climate crisis, Americans are flocking to them. As land in places like Phoenix, Houston and Miami becomes less habitable, the country’s migration patterns will be forced to change.www.propublica.org
At this stage, there is no viable alternative to fossil fuels and the oil that can support the current world population in the style we've come accustomed to.
Wind, solar and tide power is not an effective alternative.
I find it interesting that you fully believe that new technologies will be invented that will allow once unrecoverable oil to be viable, but you apparently don't consider that new technologies will be invented that will increase the efficiency and utility of wind, solar and tidal power.
Exactly - which is precisely why people are worried.
Not yet, at least.
I find it interesting that you fully believe that new technologies will be invented that will allow once unrecoverable oil to be viable, but you apparently don't consider that new technologies will be invented that will increase the efficiency and utility of wind, solar and tidal power.