[HN Gopher] Greenland ice sheet is close to a melting point of n...
___________________________________________________________________
Greenland ice sheet is close to a melting point of no return
Author : geox
Score : 162 points
Date : 2023-03-27 18:34 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (news.agu.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (news.agu.org)
| vaseko wrote:
| Soros is saying [1] if not solved withing ten years, it will cost
| exponentially more to restore the balance. Bellow in [1] there is
| a video proposing a device to recreate the albedo effect using
| see water. For Soros climate change is the biggest security
| thread, only after this he talks about wars and geopolitics.
|
| [1] https://www.georgesoros.com/2023/02/16/remarks-delivered-
| at-...
| adrianN wrote:
| Ah well, here we go. I guess it's what we deserve for sitting on
| our hands for fifty years. So long and thanks for all the fish.
| nomel wrote:
| For reference, high tide where I am is ~20ft. Winter storms
| bring it up another 20. This will definitely require moving
| inland, but definitely not a "thanks for all the fish"
| scenario.
| foobarian wrote:
| Yeah if anything you'll have more access to fish now! _sob_
| pferde wrote:
| Not really, fish will die out soon after plankton goes,
| which won't be long...
| gshubert17 wrote:
| The mass of the Greenland ice sheet is about 2.5 E15 tonnes. The
| average melt rate between 2003 and 2016 was about 2.5 E11
| tonnes/year. At this rate it would take 10,000 years to melt
| completely.
|
| But the melt rate is increasing with increasing average
| temperatures. Wikipedia quotes a melt of 5 E 11 tonnes in 2019.
| Perhaps the doubling time is about 10 years? At that rate it'd
| take about 5,000 years to melt away.
|
| Five thousand years is a long time only if the melt rate remains
| the same. If the melt rate continues to double every decade, then
| 12 doublings increases the melt rate to 4000 * 5 E 11 = 2 E 15
| tonnes/year. Then the Greenland ice cap could be gone in about
| 120 years.
| Someone wrote:
| > But the melt rate is increasing with increasing average
| temperatures. Wikipedia quotes a melt of 5 E 11 tonnes in 2019.
| Perhaps the doubling time is about 10 years? At that rate it'd
| take about 5,000 years to melt away.
|
| At that doubled rate it would take 5,000 years, but if that
| rate doubles every 10 years, at the rate 10 years from now, it
| would take 2,500, at the rate 20 years from now 1,250, at the
| rate 100 years from now about 5.
| effnorwood wrote:
| [dead]
| el_don_almighty wrote:
| Every sunset sees the point of no return
|
| Every time you lay down on your pillow,
|
| your eyes close on a world to which you can never return
|
| Thus it has always been and always shall be
| truthwhisperer wrote:
| [dead]
| lofaszvanitt wrote:
| There are a lot of reporting going on about taking ice samples
| from these areas. What do those ice samples say about the last
| few thousands of years. How temperature fluctuated, can they
| estimate the ice sheet coverage for the last x thousand years and
| if so, what does it say? What if it melts, can it ever freeze
| again, creating the same block of ice as before?
| andrewstuart wrote:
| The truth is the human race can do nothing about the pending
| environmental disaster.
|
| Nothing has worked on a scale large enough to make any
| difference.
|
| Greed and nationalism and small mindedness and selfishness and
| war prevent humanity from addressing its fate.
|
| It's going to be nasty future for those who survive and this
| period will simply be the time in history in which humanity knew
| and did nothing.
| the_third_wave wrote:
| These reports are the modern versions of the men walking around
| the city with sandwich boards proclaiming the end of the world
| [1]. When you asked them what it was which made them believe so
| you'd get some rambling story of how the lord had given them
| signs in their breakfast porridge, ask these climate prophets
| what makes them believe the point of no return has come and they
| point at their models which have shown them the end is coming.
| The difference between these two is that the former at least got
| a good breakfast out of their medium.
|
| Is the climate not changing then? Of course it is, always has and
| always will. Do humans not influence the climate then? Of course
| they do, especially since the industrial revolution. Does this
| portend a catastrophe? Well... there opinions vary. I'm convinced
| the changing climate will poise some problems which will be dealt
| with - just like humans have always dealt with the changing
| climate. The difference here is that there are more humans -
| which could make things more difficult - who have more advanced
| technology - which will make things easier. Assuming cooler minds
| prevail and the sabre rattling around the world does not lead to
| a bigger conflict I'm convinced humanity as a whole will make it
| through whatever changes the climate makes to come out richer and
| more advanced still.
|
| Would we be better off if we were not as reliant on fossil energy
| sources? Yes, we certainly would given the pollution - and I'm
| talking about true pollution here, not CO2 - involved in the
| winning and use of these sources. Build more nukes, get serious
| with fusion, develop a sane form of hydrogen storage, go for it.
| Not because of the climate boogeyman but because of the above
| reason as well as the fact that these energy sources are
| concentrated in some of the more troublesome regions in the world
| where they have already led to numerous conflicts.
|
| Do I trust climate models? No, I do not and with reason. I did
| study this stuff a few decades ago when the models were 'less
| advanced' than they are now. I know of too many fudge factors in
| these models, too many adjustments which are made to make them
| follow the observations where the reason for and effect of those
| adjustments are not understood. From what I have been able to
| keep up with things are not much different now - apart from far
| faster computers and more complex models with more parameters and
| their accompanying fudge factors.
|
| [1]
| https://therionorteline.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/lead64.j...
| itronitron wrote:
| I am always confused as to why they don't include a graphic that
| shows how a melting glacier or ice shelf translates into
| worldwide ocean level rise. The common intuition is that Earth's
| oceans are vast so any amount of above sea level mass going into
| them isn't going to change sea level that much.
|
| I haven't yet seen a graphic yet that explains the calculation,
| and I'm left cynically thinking that they are mistakenly using a
| Mercator projection when calculating the contribution for
| Greenland.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection#/media/Fil...
| [deleted]
| runesofdoom wrote:
| From, _Yes, Minister_ ,
|
| "Stage 1: We say nothing is going to happen.
|
| Stage 2: We say something may be about to happen, but we should
| do nothing about it.
|
| Stage 3: We say maybe we should do something about it, but
| there's nothing we can do.
|
| Stage 4: We say maybe there was something, but it's too late
| now."
| robocat wrote:
| https://youtube.com/watch?v=nSXIetP5iak
| tomp wrote:
| Non-clickbait title: it's halfway there.
| Forestessential wrote:
| most recent global warming threat
| aaa_aaa wrote:
| If they are so sure about amounts I expect a date.
| antibasilisk wrote:
| BOE by 2030.
| Eumenes wrote:
| Ask Al Gore
| nomel wrote:
| This doesn't make sense. Volume is measurable. Satellites do
| it. There's little prediction, it has already been done.
| Predicting when something will happen, in the future, is much
| harder.
|
| For example, you could measure a hamburger in front of me.
| Predicting when, and if, I'll eat it is much harder.
| zamfi wrote:
| Let me preface this by saying that I believe climate change and
| decarbonization to be one of the critical challenges of our time.
| That said...
|
| This article's title and its content are completely at odds.
| Here's a critical passage:
|
| > As the ice sheet melts, its surface will be at ever-lower
| elevations, exposed to warmer air temperatures. Warmer air
| temperatures accelerate melt, making it drop and warm further.
| Global air temperatures have to remain elevated for hundreds of
| years or even longer for this feedback loop to become effective;
| a quick blip of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit)
| wouldn't trigger it, Honing said. But once the ice crosses the
| threshold, it would inevitably continue to melt. Even if
| atmospheric carbon dioxide were reduced to pre-industrial levels,
| it wouldn't be enough to allow the ice sheet to regrow
| substantially.
|
| > "We cannot continue carbon emissions at the same rate for much
| longer without risking crossing the tipping points," Honing said.
| "Most of the ice sheet melting won't occur in the next decade,
| but it won't be too long before we will not be able to work
| against it anymore."
|
| So...we potentially have hundreds of years to bring temperatures
| back down before the "tipping point" triggers? Forgive me for not
| being super alarmed.
|
| 100 years ago we'd just barely started dumping carbon into the
| atmosphere. That is a long time.
|
| EDIT: to be clear, yes of course it not enough to stop dumping
| carbon into the atmosphere in the next hundred years, but it does
| give us (potentially) decades to figure out large-scale carbon
| capture and sequestration even if we exceed the thresholds
| described here (1000 gigatons).
| Scarblac wrote:
| Well, once the CO2 is in the air and stays there, the warming
| will happen. Then hundreds of years later the threshold is
| passed and then even removing it from the air (something we
| can't do) won't help anymore.
|
| Once we've emitted enough CO2 to reach 2 degrees warming, it
| will almost certainly happen that all the ice melts. And
| there's a point where that will be certain, even if we learn
| how to remove all CO2 we emitted from the atmosphere. Is how I
| read it.
|
| The ice on this island is enough to cause about 7m of global
| sea level rise on its own, iirc.
| BirAdam wrote:
| Well, if that's an accurate measure of sea level rise, then
| ocean salinity would drop significantly and cool the planet
| very rapidly, and by quite a bit. Not sure what outcome of
| that would be, but dramatic sudden cooling would likely
| devastate agriculture.
| bell-cot wrote:
| Are you thinking of this theory? Greenland Melts ==> North
| Atlantic Salinity Falls ==> North Atlantic Ocean Currents
| Disrupted ==> Local Cooling of Northern Europe
|
| If so, sed 's/cool the planet/cool Northern Europe/' Though
| yes, it'd be locally pretty dire for agriculture. Maybe
| they could switch to farming fish in all the newly-flooded
| lowlands...
| mikrotikker wrote:
| The fish will be dead from all the nitrogen run off.
| gridspy wrote:
| Fortunately the CO2 does eventually leave our atmosphere,
| given about 50 years.
| Scarblac wrote:
| That's a lot faster than the numbers I usually see (e.g.
| Google says 300 to 1000 years).
| [deleted]
| folsom wrote:
| What is the process that removes CO2?
| thechao wrote:
| The snowball Earth's (both of them) were caused by excess
| serpentine weathering. Serpentine is one of the most
| common minerals in the Earth's crust -- like 80% of it.
| The serpentine is covered in limestone (and other things)
| which prevents warm-saline erosion of the serpentine,
| directly. If you look at the tailings from the coal mines
| in the TVA, you could "just" ship those tailings to the
| Gulf coast (using the old train systems) and cause a
| major glacial period, quite quickly, by grinding up the
| tailings & dumping them in a mile wide strip from Corpus
| Christi to Miami.
| akiselev wrote:
| _> Serpentine is one of the most common minerals in the
| Earth 's crust -- like 80% of it._
|
| Serpentines are common but they do not make up 80% of the
| crust. Feldspars are the most common minerals in the
| crust and they make up less than 60% of it [1].
|
| [1] https://deq.nc.gov/energy-mineral-and-land-
| resources/geologi...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _What is the process that removes CO2?_
|
| Lots of them [1]. (No free lunch, though. Oceans
| absorbing carbon makes them acidic.)
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink
| gridspy wrote:
| No, the story is that we begin the melting by raising the
| earth's temperature a little. You'd think that if we reduced
| our carbon emissions, the ice would stop melting.
|
| > But once the ice crosses the threshold, it would inevitably
| continue to melt
|
| Bear in mind that the atmosphere retains carbon dioxide for ~50
| years, that other melt events are dumping methane into the
| atmosphere from permafrost. It's not just one factor heating
| the planet.
| tzs wrote:
| > Bear in mind that the atmosphere retains carbon dioxide for
| ~50 years
|
| It's 300-1000 years [1].
|
| [1] https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/the-atmosphere-
| getting-a-...
| hypertele-Xii wrote:
| Good thing plants eat carbon dioxide then, so we don't need
| to wait for it to break down by itself. The more CO2 in the
| atmosphere, the more plants grow and convert it to oxygen.
| gridspy wrote:
| Plants only store the CO2 until they decompose a
| relatively short time later. The only way to end up with
| a net decrease in CO2 this way is to bury the plants
| deep. Of course that is the process that initially
| created coal.
| realworldperson wrote:
| [dead]
| graeme wrote:
| >You'd think that if we reduced our carbon emissions, the ice
| would stop melting.
|
| People think of climate change like a river. You reduce
| emissions, you reduce the size of the emissions, you reduce
| the size of the problem.
|
| But it's more like a bathtub. Emissions are the water filling
| the tub, but the real problem is the water level already in
| the tub. If you reduce emissions, you reduce the size of the
| flow into the tub. But....water is still flowing in and the
| water is still rising.
|
| If we had zero emissions it would take earth systems much
| much longer than 50 years to bring things back down to where
| they were.
| upsidesinclude wrote:
| >have to remain elevated for hundreds of years or even longer
| for this feedback loop to become effective.
|
| To further reiterate:
|
| hundreds of years or _even longer_ for this feedback loop to
| _become_ effective.
| Belituio wrote:
| 100 years is not a lot. Your kids kids will already be
| affected.
|
| It feels very short sides.
| [deleted]
| alex_young wrote:
| From the same page: Previous research
| identified global warming of between 1 degree to 3 degrees
| Celsius (1.8 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) as the threshold beyond
| which the Greenland Ice Sheet will melt irreversibly.
|
| We're already at 1.2c above pre-industrial levels. Although it
| will take a long period of exposure to warm air for the ice to
| melt, we've already been doing that for a long time. It doesn't
| seem reasonable to say we have hundreds of years to figure out
| a solution.
| epolanski wrote:
| Only 1.2?
|
| Definitely feels like much more.
| kiliantics wrote:
| > It doesn't seem reasonable to say we have hundreds of years
| to figure out a solution.
|
| We've also known about the global warming problem in great
| detail for well over 50 years at this point. Since then we
| haven't figured it out but made it worse -- most of our
| cumulative emissions have happened in just the last 50 years.
| Why do people still think we can figure this out in a matter
| of decades without having to drastically change our fossil
| fuel habits?
| crispinb wrote:
| > Why do people still think ...
|
| Because people haven't come to terms with the fact that
| humans are not Children of God nor disembodied Cartesian
| rational calculators, but actually a loquacious and
| smartish hominid, designed by selection for small group
| interaction. There is nothing to suggest this species is
| capable of planet-level cooperation towards a communally-
| decided end.
|
| Add to that the fact that path-dependent history has placed
| that species today in a situation where it's organised into
| huge 17thC mutually-hostile groups ("States"), incapable of
| anything more than opportunistic cooperation because of
| their religious and anachronistic founding concept
| ("sovereignty"). Most people have no idea that this
| contingent organisation is not the natural and inevitable
| state of the world, so aren't open to the possibility that
| it dooms them to sclerotic inability to face today's
| challenges.
| tejohnso wrote:
| > There is nothing to suggest this species is capable of
| planet-level cooperation towards a communally-decided
| end.
|
| Absolutely. In fact there is _plenty_ to suggest to me
| that this species is completely incapable of that level
| of cooperation.
| taylodl wrote:
| Kick the can down the road. Nothing to see here. Let our
| progeny figure out how to clean up the mess we created.
| We're doing the same thing with our debt, too.
|
| I'm just going to put it out there - our progeny is going
| to _hate our guts._
|
| Then again, maybe afterward humanity will hold us up as an
| example for what _not_ to do, how _not_ to solve global
| problems. They 'll be able to use history to quickly and
| effectively shut down the naysayers. Of course that's
| assuming they bother to learn anything from history...I
| mean _we_ sure as hell haven 't!
| lozenge wrote:
| Stopping emissions (which isn't even in the Overton window)
| means CO2 concentration will slowly reduce.
|
| "Between 65% and 80% of CO2 released into the air dissolves
| into the ocean over a period of 20-200 years. The rest is
| removed by slower processes that take up to several hundreds of
| thousands of years, including chemical weathering and rock
| formation. This means that once in the atmosphere, carbon
| dioxide can continue to affect climate for thousands of years."
|
| During the time of elevated CO2 levels, the temperature
| continues to rise.
| Arnt wrote:
| Temperature is a function of elevation. It's saying that if you
| move the surface down by removing the top layer of material
| (ice), the temperature at the surface increases, _all else
| being equal_ including the temperature at sea level.
|
| The effect is real, and big enough to feel with the naked skin.
| One generally says one kelvin per 100m elevation, although the
| Greenland surface will be different from that rule of thumb.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| > One generally says one kelvin per 100m elevation
|
| That's not true in Europe nor Asia nor South America nor
| Africa, although I didn't climb mountains specifically in
| Greenland to be factual. Better value is cca 0.6C per 100m,
| or 6C per 1km (sorry, no conversion to feet/yard vs F and
| similar fun games for lazy sunday afternoon... seriously,
| with all the love, fix this shit guys, we are not living in
| 15th century when similar stuff was common and accepted).
|
| It depends on many factors including humidity and local
| meteorology.
|
| That part discussed about moving surface down doesn't make
| sense - you can lower glacier only to base rock/soil level.
| But at this level, where glacier starts, its already the
| dreaded temperature they want to avoid, so glaciers should be
| melting from the bottom with this logic. If they mean that
| once ice melts the rock temperature rises well yeah, that's a
| no brainer, its a different surface. Ice has surface
| temperature below/around 0, any rock hit with sun can easily
| surpass that even during winter.
|
| I know reality is more complex out there, one of my todos is
| to have sleepover (no tent) on nearby Mer de Glace in
| Chamonix, France. Just me, gazillion stars, mountains
| crumbling around me and glacier cracking beneath my ass.
| czinck wrote:
| >But at this level, where glacier starts, its already the
| dreaded temperature they want to avoid, so glaciers should
| be melting from the bottom with this logic.
|
| Yes, that's generally what happens to glaciers even
| ignoring climate change. The bottom melts, but is replaced
| by snow/ice that accumulated on top. Glaciers grow top
| down, not bottom up. But, if you lower the top so it's
| warmer, less ice accumulates, which can't replace all that
| melts, and so you get net shrinking.
| dvh wrote:
| https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/To...
| saiya-jin wrote:
| so Greenland will soon have an inland lake
| neerd wrote:
| Does anyone have suggestions for how an individual can feel like
| they're actually doing something. I already make donations to
| organizations that advocate for climate activism, vote at local
| and national level for candidates what support climate action,
| and in my own live I try to be conscious about the environment
| impacts or my lifestyle and purchases. Despite all that I still
| feel like I'm changing nothing. I still feel like there are
| theses colossal and obvious problems bearing down on our species
| and all I can do is watch it happen. I hate this feeling of
| helplessness.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| The truth is that whatever you or I do personally has no effect
| at all globally on this.
|
| That's also true of hundreds of global and international
| problems.
|
| The best approach is to accept that which you cannot change.
| epolanski wrote:
| I really dislike those arguments. It's like why bother
| voting, one vote does not change much.
|
| You can be conscious about your consumption and set great
| examples. Or you can decide you don't care and keep ordering
| stuff on amazon every day, shove meat and fish everyday in
| your mouth, change car every few years while flying regularly
| and pretend is somebody's else problem.
| dleslie wrote:
| That's really not true, and we have the largest experiment on
| collective behaviour in history to show this. COVID lockdowns
| had an _enormous_ impact on carbon emissions.
|
| Everyone should fight to WFH, even if you hate it, because
| the benefit to reducing carbon emissions is known and
| significant.
| jjbickerstaffe wrote:
| IIRC Covid reduced emissions by about 7%. Then they went
| back up. That's big... but not as big as the 10% reductions
| we actually need _every year_
| lozenge wrote:
| Don't have kids.
|
| You feel like you're changing nothing because you are. It's
| logically impossible to have an impact as one person of
| billions.
| driftless_zone wrote:
| Made this account just to say: with regards to climate change,
| it's tough because your impact is largely limited to voting +
| "negative actions" such as flying or driving less, eating less
| meat, etc. Voting obviously doesn't happen often, and
| attempting to reduce your carbon footprint is awesome but imo
| not exactly morale-boosting.
|
| That said, there are other related causes you can give time and
| effort to that have a direct positive impact, such as
| volunteering in ecological restoration in your free time.
| Protecting native biodiversity and restoring ecosystems-- which
| are becoming every-more-threatened due to climate change,
| habitat fragmentation, and invasive species-- is very rewarding
| work, and more accessible than most people realize. No prior
| experience or tools needed, just time and energy. You can
| search for "environmental volunteering" or "ecological
| volunteering" for wherever you live, and decent odds there are
| options for you to choose from.
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| I work in climate change. I changed my job in order to do so.
| The pace of change feels glacial (badum-bum). The same can be
| said of politics, and everything else that involves way too
| many interests fighting over a very small set of resources. You
| will never not feel helpless.
|
| Greta Thunberg probably felt helpless. But she turned that
| feeling into anger, and that anger into action. Henry Rollins
| said he stays angry, because he doesn't want to accept what's
| wrong with the world. (I don't think he has as positive an
| impact as Greta, though)
|
| You, yourself, _cannot_ fix the world 's problems. Neither can
| Greta or Rollins. But if you really feel like you're not doing
| enough, then hold yourself accountable. List the things you do
| every day to affect change. Just write down what you're doing.
| Then when your inner voice says "What the hell are you doing
| about it?", answer it. If your inner voice says "That's not
| enough", then do more. Or don't! But be at peace with your
| decisions.
| chollida1 wrote:
| > Greta Thunberg probably felt helpless. But she turned that
| feeling into anger, and that anger into action.
|
| Serious question.
|
| What impact has she had? I haven't seen any changes from her
| actions. People knew about climate change before she came
| around. What changes did she create?
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| * * *
| heleninboodler wrote:
| The biggest impact I've seen is that a lot of people are
| very angry at her for some reason.
| tejohnso wrote:
| > how an individual can feel like they're actually doing
| something
|
| That's going to depend on the individual. Some people feel just
| fine driving a hybrid automobile every day as their big
| contribution. Some people quit eating meat, quit flying, quit
| driving altogether, and some even protest. Of course there are
| many options and many different levels of guilt and
| helplessness that individuals deal with.
|
| But perhaps you could address your need to feel like you're
| doing something. You don't have to do anything. You can give
| yourself some slack. This isn't a problem that you caused, and
| it's not a problem you're going to solve.
|
| What do you do when a loved one is in the later stages of
| terminal cancer? Do you fret and feel like you need to do
| something? Do you yell at the doctors to try one last thing? Do
| you cry over loss? Maybe but eventually in a healthy person
| that will all end. Once someone is in hospice, it's time to
| work toward acceptance and appreciation and to try to enjoy the
| last bit of time left as much as one can. We're in a sort of
| planetary hospice situation right now.
| iLoveOncall wrote:
| Buy a lot of AC machines but make them cool the outside and put
| the exhaust in your house!
| mongol wrote:
| What sacrifices can you do in your own life? That is certainly
| the easiest and most certain way you can contribute. The impact
| will be limited no doubt, but the most obvious place to start.
| airstrike wrote:
| _> What sacrifices can you do in your own life? That is
| certainly the easiest and most certain way you can
| contribute. The impact will be limited no doubt, but the most
| obvious place to start._
|
| Respectfully, I think a better plan is to work hard to reach
| a position of power and/or leadership, and then make changes
| that affect millions. Minor changes in my household have
| relatively zero impact in the big picture.
| dpedu wrote:
| I think you'll find it very difficult to convince people to
| make a sacrifice that you are not willing to make yourself.
| Or are you talking about forcing them?
| kulahan wrote:
| Climate change is genuinely one of the few things where
| grassroots movements (pun not intended) can have an outsized
| impact. Kill your lawn, replace it with native plants, and you
| can create an absolute oasis for animals that are losing more
| of their habitats year after year.
|
| This can be a refuge for thousands of animals, give you tons of
| cool stuff to watch go on in your back yard, and it'll almost
| certainly save you money as the plants won't struggle to grow
| and thrive in your area.
| epolanski wrote:
| Consume less, buy less material stuff, eat less meat/fish, have
| less than 3 children, set a good example without becoming
| annoying to family and peers.
|
| Don't over stress it though. You can't change the world but you
| can set great seeds with examples.
| imwithstoopid wrote:
| live like its 1880
|
| buy stuff as if the garbage man does not exist...in 1880 they
| didn't have trash removal
|
| buy one set of clothes you wear pretty much every day until
| they fall off of you
|
| buy a few tools that will last you forever
|
| no more disposable anything, remember the trash man doesn't
| exist
|
| wash clothes by hand
|
| cook everything yourself, even better grow your own food
|
| sorry no biking, rubber is an industrial process...you walk
| everywhere just like great grampa did
|
| no need to worry about fossil fuels...you won't be using them
| in any capacity other than maybe a nice fire in the winter in
| your wood burning stove which will be the only "appliance" you
| own (good news - they last forever!)
|
| etc etc
|
| this is probably what sustainable living looks like until we
| get star trek matter synthesizers
|
| you'll never get a date living like this but you'll also never
| again worry about 98% of the crap of modern life
| RC_ITR wrote:
| >live like its 1880
|
| >sorry no biking, rubber is an industrial process
|
| Bicycles had rubber tires as early as 1870 and before that,
| rubber was widely available in the 18th Century.
|
| If you're going to snark, at least snark correctly.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| You're guttaing his percha, but apparently he's rubber and
| you're glue.
| snozolli wrote:
| _sorry no biking, rubber is an industrial process...you walk
| everywhere just like great grampa did_
|
| This is ridiculous. If petroleum were used solely to produce
| bicycle tires and things like seals for appliances, the world
| would be unimaginably 'greener'.
|
| That entire list is just disingenuous, defeatist nonsense.
| EngManagerIsMe wrote:
| Biking is demonstrably more efficient than walking. And
| electric bikes are _even_ more energy efficient than
| biking.
|
| Sure, manufacturing a bike takes some energy, but there's
| huge value in people using e-bikes to get everywhere.
| imwithstoopid wrote:
| Nope.
|
| Get the best minds in the world together and ask for an
| action plan for salvaging climate within two
| generations...100% chance it will be some variation of
| "live like its 1880"
| snozolli wrote:
| Get the best minds in the world together and ask them and
| they'll say you're talking out your ass.
|
| See how useless that argument is?
| [deleted]
| awb wrote:
| > you'll never get a date living like this
|
| There are plenty of people around the world that live like
| this and want to raise their family this way.
|
| And lots of intentional living communities.
|
| But location is everything.
| [deleted]
| BirAdam wrote:
| This would mean massive deforestation to heat and build with
| wood. That means much more carbon than most people currently
| produce with less land taking it in. Burning wood ain't the
| answer. Also, 1800s was the era where coal became available
| for businesses and the wealthy, and that's also a bad idea.
| To suggest no major energy source would likewise be bad as
| billions would die.
| imwithstoopid wrote:
| Okay 1680
| globular-toast wrote:
| Not having children is the best thing you can do.
| camdenlock wrote:
| The feeling of helplessness you're describing has been
| intentionally taught to you. It's what keeps the religion
| going. "If only I could do MORE..."
| CatWChainsaw wrote:
| Degrowth. There is no way to square this circle. Sorry.
| Lammy wrote:
| "Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance
| with nature."
| CatWChainsaw wrote:
| Had to look that up, a quote from the now-destroyed Georgia
| Guidestones, apparently. Hard to tell what _your_ message
| is when there 's literally nothing but the quote to give
| you context.
| dpedu wrote:
| > Despite all that I still feel like I'm changing nothing.
|
| You're doing the right thing. Saving the planet isn't sexy.
| It's getting a few more years out of your old car instead of
| buying another. It's skipping a few generations of iPhone and
| making your current device last longer. It's skipping that
| vacation to Aruba this year. It's researching dozens of brands
| at your supermarket and being a patron of those with better
| practices, rather than those you prefer.
| [deleted]
| khaki54 wrote:
| The best thing you can do in continue to innovate and build
| more efficient things. We can use that technology to stop
| wasting resources, stop pushing negative externalities to the
| environment, and rapidly bring the entirety of the planet out
| of abject poverty where they are more concerned about where
| dinner is coming from than their environment, local or global.
| ChatGTP wrote:
| I hate the way now, we're all making it worse by leaning
| on"AI".
|
| People can't even write code now without it being a carbon
| intensive activity, it's pretty insane...we just can't stop.
| dleslie wrote:
| The most important innovation is behavioural: if we
| collectively stop travelling by ICE to a remote office, we
| can meaningfully and significantly reduce global emissions.
|
| WFH isn't just a pandemic response measure, it's a climate
| change measure. We should all fight to WFH, even if we hate
| it, to reduce carbon emissions.
| STM32F030R8 wrote:
| How does this get shoehorned into every thread?
| offmycloud wrote:
| Figure out how to stop China from building a new coal-fired
| power plant every week.
| pharmakom wrote:
| Emissions per capita in China are not even that high though.
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| I didn't realize it was a per capita problem. Maybe we can
| breed our way out of it so the global emissions per capita
| will be better and the environment will be happy.
| rngname22 wrote:
| Voting, protests, labor / general strikes, riots, and
| revolutions.
|
| Easier said than done though.
| kiliantics wrote:
| This is the best answer. Voting and consuming differently are
| not impactful enough. Only mass labour movements will get the
| wheels turning. The proof is all there in recent history.
| nomel wrote:
| It would take the majority of the population giving up the
| majority of the luxuries they have. Getting everyone to agree
| with that is the tricky part.
| jenadine wrote:
| All I can think of is to build many nuclear power plant in a
| remote place, and use the energy to do carbon capture, somehow.
|
| That's based on the assumption that the CO2 removed from the
| atmosphere is worse that the produced nuclear waste.
| bell-cot wrote:
| Daydream: Chain all the politicians to rocks within a foot of
| sea level, so they'll actually care.
|
| More practically, try to downsize your life and carbon
| footprint. Avoid the performative virtue of buying lots of
| "green" things. (Many goods like EV's have a huge carbon
| footprint to manufacture. And eco-tourism via airplane is right
| out.)
|
| And maybe donate to a non-profit or two that are trying to
| mitigate the harm that climate change is causing to people much
| less fortunate than you.
| PeterisP wrote:
| > Chain all the politicians to rocks within a foot of sea
| level, so they'll actually care.
|
| The policies which are currently in place are not there
| because of the desires of some handful of politicians but
| because of the desires of the masses. If you'd banish all the
| current politicians, their replacements still wouldn't be
| able to enact policies of rapid decarbonization, degrowth and
| an actually enforced major reduction in consumption of
| energy, goods and transportation, because their constituents
| wouldn't accept that.
| kfrzcode wrote:
| Turn off the feeds; don't listen to the talking heads. I'm not
| saying to be ill informed or under informed, but curate your
| information feeds such that they're challenging you to do due
| diligence; read journal articles that cite sources and avoid
| anything that has an advertisement like the bubonic plague.
|
| Distend social media and focus on high-quality, low-throughput
| content. Rationality is not based in the vox of the masses.
| mbgerring wrote:
| Quit your job and go to work full time on climate. Start here:
| https://climatebase.org
| EngManagerIsMe wrote:
| So I looked through Climatebase, and I found it hard to
| evaluate the companies listed. There's plenty of listings,
| but no (easy) way to say, "Show me one entry per company, for
| every company hiring engineering leaders." I either got
| drowned in "this company has 35 reqs open, so here's 35
| entries" or "you've narrowed your filters so much that you
| only see two companies".
|
| Not quite easy to figure out "Which set of _companies_ are
| hiring for a role I can fulfill? "
|
| Edit: And within moments, I of course find the URL to do
| _exactly_ what I want: https://climatebase.org/organizations?
| l=&q=Engineering%3A+So...
| scrollaway wrote:
| This is the only correct answer from all of these. The highly
| educated are far more likely to make a significant difference
| especially if they have knowledge that spans multiple fields.
| imwithstoopid wrote:
| exactly, fly all over the world and tell the dirt poor
| uneducated masses about the dangers of carbon emissions!
|
| and then realize the dirt poor uneducated masses already
| have a low carbon footprint because THEY'RE DIRT POOR
| mbgerring wrote:
| What are you talking about? "Work on climate" means
| "build the infrastructure to enable the transition away
| from fossil fuel dependence," not... whatever imaginary
| demon you're fighting with here.
| scrollaway wrote:
| What the f are you talking about?
| robocat wrote:
| A reliable approximation for your carbon footprint is
| your total spending, which is closely related to your
| income.
|
| If your income is very low, you are quite simply not
| spending much on climate warming activities.
|
| There are some exceptions to the rule, but it is a valid
| generalisation.
| EngManagerIsMe wrote:
| I bought some forest land, and I'm restoring it to riparian
| habitat. It's not world changing, but if a few hundred acres
| can be returned to a natural state and grow large, carbon
| sucking trees, I feel like I'll have done a net good over my
| life.
|
| This required giving up on some other goals though. I don't
| know that there's a lot you can do that is sacrifice free.
|
| I've also gone to a mostly vegetarian diet -- preferring to
| source meat _only_ from local farmers I 've met in person. If I
| haven't met the farmer, I won't eat the meat. This reduces the
| amount of meat I eat, but still lets me seek it out. Maybe this
| helps, maybe it doesn't, but it's a pretty easy rule to follow
| that doesn't require me to be a strict vegetarian. I can have
| my beef stew as a treat, but also know that I'm not
| contributing to a massive industry of wasteful excess with
| every meal.
| xupybd wrote:
| I strongly believe engineers will solve this not politicians.
| Nevermark wrote:
| The engineers have alternatives to more than enough cases
| where greenhouse gasses are produced or released.
|
| The "political" problem is how to solve the economics
| problem. As long as society "subsidizes" damage to the
| environment, by not charging the damagers, then damage will
| continue to be extremely lucrative and near impossible to
| stop.
|
| But the incentives for Big Energy to resist change are so
| huge, that I don't see a timely solution without explicitly
| co-opting them.
|
| I.e. solving their economic problem to solve our
| environmental problem.
|
| Get every Big Energy CFO into a room and establish what kind
| of incentives they would need to find hard CO2 drawdown
| legislation a financially attractive opportunity worth
| pursuing with greener alternatives en masse.
|
| New massive subsidies for Big Energy would not be a fair use
| of citizen's taxes. But the alternative of continuing to
| "subsidize" their destruction of the environment is far more
| costly.
|
| And the side benefits of greater energy security and
| independence, international stability, etc., would be worth a
| great deal too.
| ashes-of-sol wrote:
| [dead]
| pharmakom wrote:
| Either that or game over. Totally agree that humans cannot
| coordinate on this scale.
| awb wrote:
| Leading by example is a great place to start.
|
| Otherwise you have to make green choices a win/win or change
| people's minds.
|
| EVs are a good example of a win/win. Most people weren't
| willing to sacrifice range or power in their vehicles. But now
| that the range and power is there and electricity is cheaper
| than gas it's more of a win/win.
|
| Changing minds is a lot harder.
| fnimick wrote:
| What about not having a personal vehicle at all?
| [deleted]
| Scarblac wrote:
| Friends of mine work at a company called Satelligence (
| https://satelligence.com/ ).
|
| They use satellite data to check that various countries and
| companies _keep their promises_. E.g., a country receives money
| based on the promise that some rain forest is protected, then
| they are paid to check that no logging takes place there.
|
| That's one of the few use cases for _software_ that I believe
| can actually help.
| ryandrake wrote:
| Every time there's an article about climate change, it's always
| about how we're "close to the point of no return." It's felt like
| the Truck Almost Hitting The Pole GIF[1] for like 10 years now.
| Has anything actually gone past the point of no return?
|
| I'll almost be relieved when we're officially inevitably
| fucked... at least these "nearly there!" articles won't keep
| popping up.
|
| 1: https://tenor.com/view/truck-crash-test-pole-doesnt-reach-
| gi...
| vintermann wrote:
| > Has anything actually gone past the point of no return?
|
| We won't know when we pass points of no return until well after
| we're past them (and even then, living in denial may be an
| understandable option). To know if the brakes will work, you
| have to actually step on the brake first.
|
| But we have lost a lot of biodiversity as a result of global
| warming, yes. Things like palsa bogs which won't come back for
| a long time even if climate returns to preindustrial tomorrow.
| libraryatnight wrote:
| I imagine to the people watching and warning it's a lot more
| visible and obvious. I also think there's varying degrees of
| fucked, so we're already fucked, but we can be more fucked so
| even as things indeed get fucked we still read articles about
| how there's still fucking on the docket.
|
| I think a lot about this article from Harpers in 2015:
| https://harpers.org/archive/2015/04/rotten-ice/
|
| In it there are scientists that more or less say we were in
| mitigation phase then, not prevention.
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| That's because you're reading about different 'points of no
| return'. Originally, we were trying to keep the world as we
| knew it. There was a big push for 'absolutely no more than 350
| ppm!'. That came and went. Then it was '1.5c', or a world that
| looks vaguely as healthy as what we have now, but every
| scientist who's actually done the research _knows_ this is a
| pipe dream '. Year by year, we're slowly dooming ourselves to a
| worse and worse fate. It's _still_ worthwhile to act, because
| things can _always_ get worse. What happens when Pakistan and
| India are nuclear armed nations each others throats over water
| rights to the Indus river?
|
| Nobody says 'game over' because that's not helpful. It can
| always get worse, and hope and action is the only way it ever
| gets better.
| netrus wrote:
| A lot of this can be explained by our moving of the goalpost
| towards still attainable goals. At the moment it's the 1.5C
| goal, that is becoming more and more unrealistic. But of course
| we will aim for 2C after that, because its still better than
| 2.5C, etc. This communication strategy backfires to some
| degree, but it is not inconsistent.
|
| This article talks about 7m of sea level rise over the next
| couple hundreds of years. That's pretty bad, but its easy to
| imagine something even worse.
| pharmakom wrote:
| I'm sure we will feel that way in 50 years time :)
| phpisthebest wrote:
| Global Warming will be here Two days before the day after
| tomorrow... We didn't listen.... We Didn't listen......
| vlunkr wrote:
| Applies to the Doomsday Clock as well.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock
|
| Someone ought to make a parody clock at this point.
| STM32F030R8 wrote:
| Oh that's a funny read. Somehow 2023 is the closest we've
| ever been to global catastrophe? I'm not saying it's out of
| the question this year but those jokers really think now is
| worse than at any point in the cold war? Really? Well you
| know what they say about broken clocks...
| danjoredd wrote:
| The me getting a GF clock will reach midnight sooner than
| that thing
| andrewstuart wrote:
| Have you missed the events of the past few years?
|
| The droughts, the floods, the fires?
| STM32F030R8 wrote:
| Not trying to be snarky but... those happen literally every
| year.
| munificent wrote:
| The way to visualize this is that the truck is instead a
| hundred-mile long train whose engine is in the back and we are
| all on it in different cars.
|
| The front of the train has _already_ hit the pole. Cars nearest
| the front are already crumpling, killing thousands and leading
| millions to migrate farther back into the train.
|
| Meanwhile, those of us fortunate enough to be in cars farther
| down the line are starting to get cynical about doomsaying
| because when we look around us, all of our cars seem mostly
| fine. Sure, maybe we hear a little rattling (food prices, heat
| waves, more hurricanes every year), but that's just random
| chance, right?
|
| And, sure, maybe it seems like more and more people keep
| showing up from cars closer to the front with the luggage and
| settling into our cars, which are--if we're totally honest--
| starting to get a little crowded.
|
| But the train is fine, right? We look out the window and the
| scenery is still trundling by just fine so there's no reason to
| stop the engine, right?
| la_fayette wrote:
| Funny GIF :)
| EngManagerIsMe wrote:
| Species extinction is very real, and ongoing. There's little
| more irreversible than a whole species ceasing to exist.
| wolpoli wrote:
| The headline is talking about a point of no return for a
| specific threshold or feedback loop, and there seem to be no
| end of those, for decades to come. As for the "we're fucked"
| point of no return, we'll still need to first precisely define
| it.
| nostrademons wrote:
| We already are officially inevitably fucked. If you corner a
| climate scientist in private and point out the real
| implications of their work, they might even admit it.
|
| The problem is you can't admit that we're officially inevitably
| fucked in public. If you did that, funding for climate science
| and climate mitigation would dry up, because there's nothing we
| can realistically do about it. Trust in governments would
| evaporate - the purpose of a government is to keep us all safe,
| but if we're all fucked anyway, it'll quickly become every man
| for themselves. Currency would lose its value, because it
| assumes that there will be a future better than the present
| where you might want to buy things. So everybody has an
| incentive to parrot the "Things are looking bad, we have a
| serious problem, but if we all band together and lower our
| emissions we can solve it!" line.
| nickpp wrote:
| > there's nothing we can realistically do about it
|
| There _is_ something we can do about it: we can keep
| improving, evolving, getting better. The solution will only
| be found in the future, with tools maybe outside of our grasp
| today.
|
| Nothing is inevitable, until it happened. Till then, you and
| every other pessimist cand still be proven wrong. My money is
| on the creativity and ingenuity of the race that started in
| the trees, went to the moon and is currently birthing an even
| greater intelligence.
| [deleted]
| Timon3 wrote:
| It's not quite this binary. Yes, we're fucked. But the less
| we do, the worse we're fucked. It's better to have a glimmer
| of hope and use that to unfuck what you can.
| nostrademons wrote:
| That's true but also risks misallocating resources to
| efforts that won't make a big difference now when we should
| be focusing on mitigation rather than avoidance.
|
| If we had taken Al Gore's warnings in the 80s and began an
| aggressive push to move off of fossil fuels then, we could
| perhaps have avoided the whole climate change problem. We
| didn't, and we can't now. Instead, the rational approach is
| to accept that the climate will change, there will be
| consequences of this, and then do our best to avoid the
| worst effects of the consequences. That includes:
|
| We should be building seawalls and flood barriers around
| major low-lying areas. Every major city should have an
| evacuation plan for how to get everyone out in a natural
| disaster. If the road capacity for this doesn't exist, we
| should build it. We need systems in place to deal with mass
| migration. We need housing tech, ways to quickly build
| housing in new locations because the population is soon
| going to be forced to move to new locations. We should be
| researching ways to add back the seed diversity that we've
| extinguished over the past 60 years, because major
| agricultural staples are soon going to be out of their
| climate windows. We need _local_ renewable energy - the
| biggest benefit of renewables isn 't going to be reducing
| carbon emissions (it's too late for that), it's divorcing
| ourselves from global energy supply chains that are going
| to get increasingly unreliable.
|
| My wife works in climate investing, which was a sleepy
| backwater when she started 12 years ago but now is the hot
| field to be. There's billions of dollars in capital chasing
| hare-brained carbon capture schemes that have basically 0%
| chance of working. That capital should instead go into
| mitigation efforts, programs that accept that we're fucked
| but try to avoid the worst effects of that. But if
| anything, government policy is going _the opposite_ way -
| we 're making it _harder_ to migrate, _refusing_ to build
| housing or transportation infrastructure, telling people
| they 're on their own when a hurricane hits, and
| centralizing seed ownership under Monsanto.
| [deleted]
| phpisthebest wrote:
| >> Trust in governments would evaporate
|
| I am unclear why anyone ever trusted government or believed
| government would be the avenue for resolution of this problem
|
| You either understand history, or you trust government, you
| can not both understand history and trust government..
|
| The second people put their trust in government was the
| second humanity was fucked. In the best of time Government is
| like fire, is a troublesome servant and a terrible master.
|
| >the purpose of a government is to keep us all safe
|
| When has that ever been the case... The purpose for
| government is to provide a framework for non-violent dispute
| resolution, and to safe guard natural rights and property),
| and maybe form a national defense force. Not to provide
| individual safety and security.
|
| >>Currency would lose its value, because it assumes that
| there will be a future better than the present where you
| might want to buy things.
|
| No fiat currency actually needs the future to look worse than
| today to encourage spending today and discourage saving for
| tomorrow. This is why fiat currency required inflation, and
| why deflation is feared above all else with fiat currency.
| You have to have spending today, you have to have people
| spending in multiples of what they really have in currency
| (i.e debt spending) and you have to have that in perpetuity.
|
| In short, Fiat Currency is a legal pozi scheme that is
| destined to fail at some point anyway....
| akira2501 wrote:
| > We already are officially inevitably fucked.
|
| Well.. the second law of the thermodynamics guarantees that.
|
| > The problem is you can't admit that we're officially
| inevitably fucked in public.
|
| I see several people attempting to start a career off of just
| that, some of them are quite successful, even. It helps if
| you add a lot of theocratic and pseudo-religious ideology
| into your message. People need _something_ to latch on to
| after all.
|
| > because there's nothing we can realistically do about it.
|
| We are a dynamic species. My proposition is we are currently
| living through a sort of "modern dark ages." Government
| imposition and corporate monopolization are at all time
| highs, to the extent that most new wealth is captured and not
| used to create new technologies and to progress the species.
| This is an artificial situation and it is not sustainable.
|
| If you let this cloud your judgement of what is possible you
| may arrive at this position and feel it is logical. I suggest
| to you that it is actually a form of insanity or odd
| religious fervor to actually believe this.
|
| Perhaps, in afterthought, more generously it's a desire to
| not lose any current level of comfort that you enjoy while
| "realistically" being able to solve the problem. A solution
| to this problem will obviously require drastic and hopefully
| generally positive change, something we've been known to do
| sporadically many times before.
| earthscienceman wrote:
| I am a climate scientist that studies Greenland, can confirm:
| we're (not-even-inevitably but currently) fucked.
| patrickdavey wrote:
| So, what's your plan?
| earthscienceman wrote:
| This is an interesting and open question. But I need you
| to be _slightly_ more specific. In my research? For my
| personal life? For the global economy?
| CadmiumYellow wrote:
| I'm most curious about your personal life!
| patrickdavey wrote:
| For your personal life mainly. I guess I'm most curious
| about whether you're planning on where you're living etc
| in the context of various forms of climate breakdown.
|
| I'm also curious how many personal changes you've made
| (flying less, vegetarian) when it seems like we need
| massive government intervention to move the needle.
|
| Thanks for replying!
| travisporter wrote:
| But it can get worse right? I mean before we become Venus
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| What are you doing in your personal life? I've strongly
| considered moving to the great lakes region, but most
| likely caring for my parents will keep me in the south
| east.
| [deleted]
| anonyfox wrote:
| And still here we are, and no one yet has found an effective
| argument that convinces people that: yes, this climate
| catastrophe is real, on track to happen, and within our lifetime.
|
| We, as humanity, know what causes it, why it happens, what can be
| done to stop it, and even a few things to revert parts of it. The
| knowledge is there. Scientists proved things. Engineers built
| stuff.
|
| The literally only thing is that we are currently unable to stop
| this madness because of a lack of... motivation to do so.
|
| There are numerous reasonings why this is the case, from
| inequality to geopolitics over profitmaximization up to straight
| out lying and denial. Many indeed have a point somewhere. It's
| just that it doesn't matter if they have a point - the global
| problem must be stopped, now.
|
| Maybe... while many of us here on HN are busy prompt engineering
| AIs... could we use that momentum to craft arguments for every
| single person not willing to act for humanity?
| ako wrote:
| Unfortunately, the only proof I see is that you're expecting
| too much from humans. We're just not very rational, and have a
| problem doing the right thing. We believe in unproven stories
| about gods, kill millions of people for temporary greed, power
| or believing the wrong lies, and we lie and deceive to gain
| power or wealth, and have a hard time sharing with those in
| need (actually sending fugitives back to sea knowing they'll
| drown). We've pretty much destroyed all life on earth, and are
| close to destroying our ability to survive. Sometimes people
| surprise you in a positive way, but overall it's pretty sad.
| Maybe it's unavoidable, as these are the 'qualities' that made
| humans successful, but it seems they'll now destroy a large
| part of us (not for the first time, but at an unprecedented
| scale).
| slibhb wrote:
| It seems that, shockingly, "people are an evil, ravenous
| cancer hellbent on destroying their planet" isn't a story
| that the masses find compelling.
| onion2k wrote:
| _And still here we are, and no one yet has found an effective
| argument that convinces people that: yes, this climate
| catastrophe is real, on track to happen, and within our
| lifetime._
|
| Everyone who 'doesn't believe in' climate change has a vested
| interest in maintaining the status quo - they profit from
| fossil fuels or from misinformation, or they're
| narsessistically enjoying other people's discomfort from their
| arguments, or they're just stupid. There is no point trying to
| convince them. We have to fix the problems without their help.
| goldforever wrote:
| [dead]
| maximinus_thrax wrote:
| Real talk, anyone interested in jump-starting some sort of fund
| to buy real estate in Greenland? We need to jump at the
| opportunity! /s
| horsh1 wrote:
| How long until Greenland is green again?
| padjo wrote:
| I mean whatever about the physical reality, politically the ice
| sheet is guaranteed to melt. There is essentially zero chance of
| humans coordinating a global response to climate change that
| achieves anything until things get much much worse
| oezi wrote:
| Humans have already achieved that many countries stopped
| growing their emissions unchecked and are trying to reverse the
| trend.
|
| By means of initial subsidies renewables are now producing
| cheaper energy than fossil sources. This causes the normal
| market forces to act (economies of scale, tipping points, etc.)
| which make it very likely that renewables will be the
| predominant energy source of the 21st century.
| padjo wrote:
| Global emissions are still going up.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-03-27 23:01 UTC)