Post source: https://mas.to/@advisorybriefs/110769955083302457
Data source: https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/
Don’t worry guys, I’m sure this is just natural weather fluctuation and has nothing to do with us messing with the climate for the past however many decades. We couldn’t possibly be suffering the consequences of our own actions (or at least the actions of a few with too much power). /s
Nah don’t worry bro. I separated my plastics from my trash so it’s fine now obviously.
Where I’m from, we were massively talking about it in the 80s when I was a kid. It promply stopped by the end of the 90s. Then all of sudden, we don’t hear much about it.
It’s so fucked up to be told all your life that your are insane to believe in climate change, and then about 40 years later, most people talk about it as if it was a given.
We should not be anxious about climate change, we should be furious.
Nobody stopped talking about it.
Its that the channels that we watch news on have now been fragmented / specialized to the point where we can “watch the news” and only get right wing propaganda.
Same generation here. I really think boomers and their selfish politics are greatly to blame for lost momentum.
Fuck generational politics. There are class, gender, and racial divisions within each generation. We have more in common with working class and oppressed boomers than with ruling class members of our own generation.
Yeah, I remember the topic from school in the 90s, where it said “if we don’t start to do anything about it soon, it will have serious catastrophic consequences in about 30 years”. And now here we are.
I was a kid in the early 2000’s and I remember that page from the science book that we were reading during class, and it was also already alarming us about climate change/global warming. And like you said, here we are…
I remember this also in the 80s. But we were mostly worried about the ozone. Then that got figured out, more or less, and we got stuck with reduce, reuse, recycle.
It was being talked about in newspapers a century ago. The fossil fuels companies have known for a very long time, and have been suppressing it for a very long time, hiring many of the same people involved in suppressing evidence that tobacco causes cancer. We should be torches and pitchforks in the street livid.
Carbon is good for the atmosphere. It’ll open up farmland in Canada and Russia.
Not funny.
Missinformation
When permafrost warms up it turns into a marshy bog, not farmland.
We just keep boiling and nobody cares.
Plenty care but those that can affect change are the least affected by inaction.
But this snow in my hand not melting is proof it’s all a hoax . /s
Dreading what’s to come.here in France. We’ve got rain and 25 c ATM while rome and Spain are burning up. Sure it’s going to come our way shortly.
I had to put on a coat the other day. So clearly global warming is a conspiracy to make the world a better place for no reason. I’m not having it, that’s why I burn a barrel of crude oil every night in my garden.
Well this is it boys, hug your loved ones, make the most of the time that we have left. Shit feels like what the people at Horizon Zero Dawn felt.
The hottest 21 days so far!
Seriously! I give it pretty good odds this runs for a full month, then we’ll probably get some relief with days that are only near record-breaking 🥵
Why’s this guy so horny about climate change?
removed by mod
And then the inevitable day or week or so where it’s unseasonably cold before we barrel into another couple months of record breaking heat. But during those weeks I will be told innumerable times “so much for global warming! This idiots don’t know anything!”
We’re at the top of the curve, we’re going to see record breaking temps till November, and then it’s summer in Australia.
Not true. Fake news. Everyone knows that for the first few hundred million years after Earth first formed the average surface temperature was 80C (176F).
Exxon is working on it. Give it another decade.
Weren’t there already some 82 C temperatures recorded at ground level already? I seem to recall a post here in the last couple of days saying that people ended up in hospital with burns and such from contact with very hot pavement.
hands in front while looking high
Aliens
“ever recorded” - there was nobody around to record the formation of the earth.
Um in case you’ve been under a rock George Santos obviously kept perfect records for the last 4.5 billion years.
God did! /s
Unfortunately he isn’t sharing his historical datasets sets with the wider community. :(
Not as hot as ‘we’ were 13.7bn years ago!
Also when the impactor that hit us to form the moon melted the surface of the planet I bet it was pretty toasty.
We just had the coolest three weeks for the next 100 years! Awesome!
I’m sure our winters will be more extreme now too
All I can picture with these posts is the SpongeBob montage when Mr Krabs decided to go 24/7 and everything looking increasingly disheveled
Keep it up everyone! We’re going to show Mother Nature who’s really in charge.
I’ll always upvote this, until The End comes
Yeah well this is frightening. In 25-30 years I will retire and now I need to raise the chances that I will live in a home with air conditioning in a country that – currently – hardly has buildings with air conditioning because it was not a necessity up until now. This will be an uphill battle. I don’t want to die prematurely in a summer heat wave…
You should get some guns then, if it is the only room with A/C, I see the country moving into the room and you moving out the window.
This is why all climate change predictions come with predictions for escalated war, famine, violence. Human ‘civilization’ may have just been a result of a resource glut.
They make air conditioners that are relatively cheap, pretty easy to install and take up virtually no space these days. Usually wall mounted.
That’s all well and good until your AC breaks, hits its heat transfer limit, you lose the ability to afford it run the AC, or your electricity goes out because the grid is overloaded because everyone else is also running their AC.
AC is a band aid, not a solution.
removed by mod
It’s normal to use AC for billions of people already, so it is a solution to our reality as it is.
A solution would end the problem. AC does not do that. In fact it is the opposite since heavier AC use leads to higher energy use which ultimately means more greenhouse gasses.
It’s a band aid. It allievates the symptoms, and only for those who can afford it.
The solution is to end our production of greenhouse gasses.
If your grid is overloaded, get some solar panels and make your own power off-grid. If your air conditioner breaks, buy another one or keep a spare one on hand. That’s what the fuck I’m gonna do, because AC is great and I love having it.
Not everybody can afford that.
So you’re saying you’d be the first to die lmao
That’s not even close to what I was saying.
The guy I replied to said he didn’t want to die from overheating since he doesn’t have AC.
I replied and said that they make affordable and easy to install AC now as a direct and immediate solution to his issue of not wanting to die from overheating due to not having AC.
You come along and say this is a bandaid solution and makes things worse. Okay sure, that’s true for society as a whole on a large enough timeline, but not true for this individual person in the near future.
So I interpreted this as you saying you wouldn’t install AC in his shoes, but also don’t appear to have an alternative course of action in order to not overheat and die due to not having AC, therefore you’d be the first to die.
ever recorded When die the recordings start?
1979… Is the reading from the graph… I would guess that this is what the title refers to
Hottest three weeks in the last 44 years doesn’t sound as dramatic does it
Hottest 3 consecutive weeks. Not, oh there were three weeks spread randomly throughout the year that were quite warm. It was starting from the beginning and going on continuously to the end, every single day was hotter than the previous for three weeks continuously.
And it’s worth pointing out that the graph can actually go back a lot further than 44 years. It’s just that we don’t have data yearly for prior to that point. What we have is from ice cores, which are unreliable at targeting periods of less than about a century, but we do know that the climate has been steadily getting hotter over that period as well.
So we have two data sets we can stick together, one taken every hundred years or so, the other taken every year, but if both were shown in the same graph climate change denyers would jump up and down on the discrepancy, despite it not actually being an issue.
You’re right, this chart is wrong and there is absolutely nothing to worry about. Ecosphere collapse amid the 6th mass extinction event in our geologic record is all a sham to sell…something?
removed by mod
Even if it were the hottest 3 weeks in the last 44 years, it’s still the top 3 out of 2288 or so.
However, it’s not the hottest 3 weeks (which would be an average of 7 days each). It’s the hottest 21 individual days. Each and every single one of them. The top 21 out of 16060 all happened consecutively, “now”. I don’t get how much more “dramatic” it needs to get before people like you understand what’s going on.
Roughly 500 years ago, maybe more. Recordings are spotty up to the 19th century. Monestaries often had a daily log of current weather, for example. There are likely recovered observations going back to Greek or Roman civilizations.
Average temperatures can be deduced from scientific observations of ice cores and geological records as well. The arctic and antartic ice cores revealed detailed oxygen, carbon dioxide, and particulate data going back a couple million years.
There’s geological evidence going back thousands of years.
Welcome to the British Petroleum summer heat wave. Next up is the Exxon Mobile Hurricane season.
Fun fact about the Exxon Mobile Hurricane Season, oil and gas platforms can get insurance against a storm in the Exxon Mobile Hurricane Season, but homeowners in Louisiana can’t get any homeowners insurance due to the expected severity of the named storms in the Exxon Mobile Hurricane Season.
Louisiana: come for the resources, leave the problems behind.
And the shoreline!
Read Make Room! Make Room! if you want a grim and realistic picture of the future (though I don’t agree with the notion that overpopulation is the problem).
Genuinely curious why you don’t agree with overpopulation as being a problem. Mathematically, more people on the same finite rock means less rock for each individual person. Since resources are tied to amount of rock available, it seems to mathematically check out.
Not oc but we are not overpopulated. Every single hunan that ever loved could fit in the grand canyon only. The problem is how we feed and consume.
While I agree with your conclusion that we need to modify behavior, I find this metric to be not helpful. You could also pack all the human biomass into a pinhead with enough pressure or gravity. Modifying behavior is easier said than done, reducing population would help too.
But reducing population without massive changes to behavior is not fixing anything either. We also don’t have to change every single persons behavior but mainly how we regulate industries. Throwing a plastic water bottle in the garbage is not the problem. Manufacturing those bottles and filling them with fuckin tap water and selling them for a profit should be punishable by hanging
Something like this is most certainly a crime against humanity.
It might be a problem, but I don’t think it’s the cause of extreme weather and climate change (or scarcity, poverty, hunger etc.). The dominant economic and political system is.
Also I believe it will be eventually possible to either build comfortable cities in deserts and permafrost tundra (or even on the sea floor) or transform those to less hostile biomes (although there are ethical and aesthetical considerations) provided we don’t go extinct due to climate change before we have a chance to address overpopulation concerns.
Because if you make a country rich enough they will decline naturally.
I always thought it it was frightening enough to realize, if you were born in the 80’s, every year of your life had been the hottest year on record. Will stacking hottest days consecutively hit harder? I get the sense that it won’t hit all that hard until the capitalists can no longer keep off-loading the cost of climate change on the public. The outcry at that stage should be something to behold. I’m really sorry to the younger people watching us all give up, but every year of our lives has been the hottest in history and nobody has done anything about it no matter how willing we’ve been to do our part.
Moving past tipping points. With permafrost melting, sea ice melting and not reforming, and fires in the boreal forest, the feedback loop is developing. We are going to blow past 2 degrees C way faster than anyone predicted.
Honestly, anyone paying attention saw this coming since 2010.
We had twenty years to avoid this: by massively switching to nuclear power in the 90s and 00s.
We missed that exit ramp. By 2010 it was clear that 2 degrees was unavoidable.
The choice now is, do we limit it to 2-3 degrees warming, or do we go straight to 4-5 degrees?
It will take at least two decades to transform our industrial world economy.
It would take that long for developed nations, there are countries that are still in their industrial revolution and that’s not even counting the ones that actively oppose this kind of thing like Russia and China.
Switching >50% of the power to wind could have happened any time in the last 80 years for far less than any one of the various failed nuclear transitions.
Hell, the first commercial solar thermal installation was over a century ago and the first attempt to bring PV to market was george cove in 1906. One abandoned nuclear reactor worth of investment could have moved either down the economic learning curve to replace coal.
I live in the SW US. We could probably provide power for most of the US with all the sun we get here and all the empty space without much of a hassle. The great thing is that it would likely be far less expensive than a good number of the alternatives.
The answer has been clear. The wealthy that cause this will continue to rape the planet for short term profit to feed their insatiable greed machine, the peasants who will suffer the most who could destroy the global oligarch class in a day will continue to labor for them in exchange for minimal subsistence until we die of climate change induced natural disasters, heat stroke, or starvation, and the global oligarchs will flee to the luxury bunker complexes they’ve been building to continue to live like modern Pharoahs, protected from the destruction they wrought.
Humanity chose greed and greed worship, because humans would rather daydream about becoming the greedy fuckers and living in the decadence and gluttony of their masters, than of breaking the wheel, rejecting the owners and stripping them of their wealth/power, and working together sustainably for the future of the species.
A great many of us peasants actually resent our tax dollars going to the underpaid teachers that try to foster society’s future in the face of apathy and greed. I think you’d have to be blind to have any hope for humanity getting wise without the painful, clearly needed education of civilization’s collapse. In an age where humanity’s technology can literally destroy the world, we need to learn the hard way that actions and inaction have consequences for the species.
We can’t learn that until we’re hungry and can no longer delude ourselves into believing everything is fine by staring into a screen.
Sadly the inflation of the 70s followed by high interest rates froze nuclear plant building, and when it could have picked back up, Chernobyl put a final mail in the coffin.
Honestly I think the only thing that will stop it is mass death and destruction of the industrial economy.
Right now my biggest hope is a volcanic winter to give us a little reprieve.
“Nuclear power scares me”
Welcome to the result. It’s sad, because nuclear power was the way, but instead we propegandized against it and continued to use it as a boogie man.
Ignoring the fact that coal and natural gas still hurt and kill people daily, ignoring there’s over 400 nuclear power reactors that are still active, 93 in America… But no… “Chernobyl” and the discussion ends.
Also Chernobyl was a 50 year old design, and happened 40 years ago, involved multiple human errors … nah can’t consider things have changed since then.
Now we have people using another nuclear plant in Ukraine as an example, and again the fear rises. They’re trying to weaponize the plant, but somehow it’s “Nuclear power” and not the fact some fuckheads are planning to destroy it in a destructive fashion that’s the problem.
Somehow dams that would be devistating to destroy are given a pass, but hey Nuclear power, so scary.
Chernobyl was a 50 year old design, and happened 40 years ago, involved multiple human errors … nah can’t consider things have changed since then.
Things have indeed changed, now construction regulations are far tighter. This is good because the risk of a Chernobyl event is far lower, but at the price of extreme cost overruns and project delays
Ignoring the fact that coal and natural gas still hurt and kill people daily
So is it better to start a nuclear project and hope it can start reducing coal & NG emissions 10 years from now? Or is it better to add solar and wind capacity constantly and at a fraction of the price per MWh?
There was a time when nuclear was the right choice, but now it is just not cost effective nor can it be brought online fast enough to make a dent in our problems
Somehow Dams that would be devistating to destroy are given a pass, but hey Nuclear power, so scary.
I think you’re forgetting that once the waters from a dam break dry up you can rebuild…a nuclear accident has the potential to poison the land for generations
There was a time when nuclear was the right choice, but now it is just not cost effective nor can it be brought online fast enough to make a dent in our problems
And in ten years… it’ll be too long to add nuclear … And in ten years it’ll.
Solar and wind works in some places, it doesn’t work in all places, and the goal is to start moving away from Coal and Natural gas, it’s a long process no matter which way you go, but starting to add more nuclear capactiy so in 10 years we can use it, isn’t a bad thing.
“It’s too late” has also been a refrain about Nuclear, but hey, in 2010 if people started to go nuclear, we’d have that capacity today, instead it was too late then, and we can only go solar and Wind… and we’re still lacking.
The best time to ignore the nuclear industry scammers and spend the money on renewables instead for 10x the return in clean energy was 1942.
The second best time is now.
removed by mod
starting to add more nuclear capactiy so in 10 years we can use it, isn’t a bad thing.
Unfortunately this is only true if the money tied up building a reactor for 10 years doesn’t take away from the budget for wind and solar projects. If it isn’t then you’re literally stealing clean energy from the present to hopefully get roughly 1/4 that rate of power production in a decade
The problem is that Solar and Wind doesn’t work as a viable solution everywhere, so if the choice is between do nothing or start nuclear, you go nuclear.
Instead America has done neither and waited as have many countries.
If Solar and wind can work, and they are as fast as you say, of course you go wind and solar, the problem is that’s not the case in many places.
I am not here to argue with you or to persuade you to change your opinion. I am only here to provide you with some information and facts that you may find useful or interesting.
You are right that solar and wind energy may not be viable solutions everywhere, depending on the availability of resources, the cost of installation and maintenance, the environmental impacts, and the social acceptance.
However, there are also many challenges and risks associated with nuclear energy, such as the disposal of radioactive waste, the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the safety of nuclear power plants and fusion devices, and the potential for environmental contamination and human health hazards in case of accidents or mishandling.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, renewable energy sources accounted for about 20% of U.S. electricity generation in 2020, while nuclear energy accounted for about 19%. Solar and wind energy grew at the fastest rate in U.S. history in 2020, while nuclear energy remained relatively stable³. Some studies have suggested that it is possible to supply about 75-80% of U.S. electricity needs with solar and wind energy, if the system were designed with excess capacity and storage⁴.
Nuclear energy is not a renewable source of energy, as uranium is a finite resource that will eventually run out. Moreover, nuclear energy is not carbon-free, as the process of mining, refining, and preparing uranium emits greenhouse gases. Nuclear waste is also a major environmental problem that has no permanent solution yet.
I hope this information helps you to understand some of the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear energy compared to solar and wind energy. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to share them with me. 😊
(1) The Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy - Physics | ScienceBriefss.com. https://sciencebriefss.com/physics/the-disadvantages-of-nuclear-energy/.
(2) Advantages and Challenges of Nuclear Energy. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/advantages-and-challenges-nuclear-energy.
(3) Advantages Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy - NRC. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0813/ML081350295.pdf.
(4) Various Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy. https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/Disadvantages_NuclearEnergy.php.
(5) U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics … https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48896.
(6) Study: wind and solar can power most of the United States. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/mar/26/study-wind-and-solar-can-power-most-of-the-united-states.
(7) Pros And Cons of Nuclear Energy | EnergySage. https://www.energysage.com/about-clean-energy/nuclear-energy/pros-and-cons-nuclear-energy/.
(8) Nuclear energy: what it is and its advantages and disadvantages. https://www.endesa.com/en/the-e-face/power-plants/nuclear-power.
(9) Renewable Energy | Department of Energy. https://www.energy.gov/eere/renewable-energy. (10) U.S. renewable energy use nearly quadrupled in past decade, report … https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2021/11/09/renewable-energy-solar-wind-biden/.
(11) Wind and solar power producing record amount of U.S. electricity. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/science/2022/03/03/wind-and-solar-power-producing-record-amount-u-s-electricity/9353259002/.
Where?
Show the data.
What place on earth is nuclear more viable than renewables?
No vague gesturing. Hard numbers.
Solar wind thermal energy works almost everywhere that humans thrive and it’s cheap
The comments are full of nuclear bros who think nuclear is the answer. Something about sun and wind not working everywhere.
It’s people like you who present a false dichotomy that are the really evil people in the world today.
We can do solar, wind and nuclear. One does not preclude the other, contrary to your false dichotomy.
In fact, we must build out a minimum level of nuclear - it is the only mandatory technology required to stop climate change, because it works 24/7.
We can add as much solar and wind to the system as we would like, as long as the grid can handle it.
Grids with a lot of hydro will not require much nuclear, e.g. Iceland can do entirely without it and Sweden only needs a small amount. Grids with little hydro will need a lot of nuclear, like France.
This was true in 1990. It is still true today and it will still be true in 2050.
Budgets are a real thing. If you tie up $28.5 billion constructing say, the Vogtle #3 and #4 reactors, you are taking away significant amounts of money that could have already produced working wind and solar installations that would produce far more power. Stating that reality doesn’t make me “evil,” get a grip.
Additionally, with upgrades in high voltage transmission lines and grid-level storage systems the need for nuclear or fossil fuel baseload in the future is going to be far less than you expect
Obviously, regulations must be changed to make nuclear affordable.
But yes, misguided people like you and those who opposed nuclear in the 90s are causing a mass extinction even that is gearing up to become the biggest in the history of the planet.
If that isn’t evil, then I don’t know what the term evil means anymore.
So is it better to start a nuclear project and hope it can start reducing coal & NG emissions 10 years from now? Or is it better to add solar and wind capacity constantly and at a fraction of the price per MWh?
It’s better to do both!!
Nuclear is not more expensive than solar and wind. And today’s paradox is solar and wind are cheap because oil is cheap…
Besides, comparing the 2 is totally misleading. One is a controllable source of electricity, the other is by nature an unstable source, therefore you need a backup source. Most of the time, that backup is a gas plant (more fossil fuel…), and some other time it’s mega-batteries projects that need tons of lithium… that we also wanted for our phones, cars, trucks etc. Right now, every sector is accounting lithium resources as if they were the only sector that will use it…
And then you have Germany, that shut down all its nuclear reactor, in favor of burning coal, with a “plan” to replace the coal with gas, but “one day”, they’ll replace that gas with “clean hydrogen” and suddenly have clean energy.
There was a time when nuclear was the right choice, but now it is just not cost effective nor can it be brought online fast enough to make a dent in our problems
So we’ll have very very exactly the same conversation 10 years from now, when we’ll be 100% renewable but we’ll have very frequent power outages. People will say “we don’t have time to build nuclear power plan, we need to do «clean gas/hydrogen/other wishful thing to burn»”. And at that time, someone will mention that we will never produce enough of these clean fuel but … How many times do we want to shoot ourselves in the foot??
I think you’re forgetting that once the waters from a dam break dry up you can rebuild…a nuclear accident has the potential to poison the land for generations
In the years to come, we’re going to lose much more land just because it won’t be suitable for human survival, and that will be on a longer scale than a nuclear disaster. Eliminating fossil fuel should be the sole absolute priority, and nuclear is one tool to achieve it.
deleted by creator
Actually we can make nuclear molten salt reactors (working small scale stuff exist for long decades). Since the medium is liquid, it has much better utilization of the fuel, there is no pressurized radioactive water reservoirs (which is the actual issue with current reactors), to stop the reaction, you drain the fuel circulation into a container and you are done, no need to supply water to prevent criticality.
But since those molten salt reactors could not be used to create plutonium for weapons, the current reactor design was chosen during cold war era.
They have some drawbacks, like slow startup times, but the cons it provide are incredible.
deleted by creator
MSRs and LFRs are horribly unreliable and don’t last. There hasn’t even been a successful demo reactor and the technical issues for running one safely at full power long term don’t even have proposed half-solutions.
There are a few testing facilities like chinas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Experimental_Fast_Reactor and it was already tested and producing power. And they are planning to start a functional plant connected to the grid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFR-600
So it seems much more than a half-solution…
You’ve now swapped from molten salt reactors to sodium cooled ones while pretending they’re the same thing.
CFR has also never run without using U235 as its main fuel source.
Mind-boggling stupidity as always.
cheaper and vastly safer alternative techs are available?
That’s the problem “cheaper and vastly safer” alternatives AREN’T always available. People continue to talk up Solar, and Wind, but they’re not viable for a majority of users of coal and natural gas plants. To produce the power that Nuclear does in square mile of land, you need 50 square miles of solar at least, and over 360 square miles for Wind. And that’s also saying you need viable places, because Wind turbines can’t just be thrown up anywhere, nor can solar.
Coal and Natural gas is more efficient by a factor of at least 10 in land space.
If you’re in the middle of nowhere, that’s viable, if you live in a big city, that’s going to become a problem quickly.
Inkai uranium mine produces about 40W/m^2 in fuel for the actively leeched land where everything is killed by the sulfuric acid and vehicle movement.
If you include the 15km buffer where you can’t live or eat anything it’s about 20W/m^2
Solar averages 20-50W/m^2 with current tech.
Rooftop solar uses no land. Agrivoltaics can have negative land use (adding the solar reduces the amount of land needed for the crops under it). Roughly 30m^2 of roof + 30m^s of facade or wall is sufficient for the average high income country european’s final energy use.
Solar uses a strict subset of the materials needed for a nuclear plant, so land use from the uranium mining is in addition to construction.
Like every pro-nuke lie, your land use pearl clutching is the oppksite of the truth.
The statement that “cheaper and vastly safer alternative techs are NOT always available” is not accurate. Solar and wind energy are becoming more viable as technology improves, and the land requirements for these technologies are not as significant as they once were. In addition, coal and natural gas are not as safe as they are often made out to be. Coal mining is a dangerous occupation, and coal-fired power plants can release harmful pollutants into the air. Natural gas is also a fossil fuel, and its combustion releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
The cost of coal and natural gas is likely to increase in the future, as the world’s reserves of these resources dwindle. The environmental impacts of coal and natural gas are also becoming increasingly well-known, and public pressure is growing for a transition to cleaner energy sources. The development of new technologies, such as battery storage and smart grids, is making it easier to integrate renewable energy sources into the electricity grid.
In conclusion, there are a number of reasons to believe that cheaper and vastly safer alternative technologies to coal and natural gas are becoming more available. These technologies offer a number of advantages over traditional fossil fuels, and they are likely to play an increasingly important role in the global energy mix in the years to come.
deleted by creator
Theyve had to start shutting down nuclear reactors in summer when water levels get too low,
This is a fake news. Period.
Some reactors had to REDUCE THEIR OUTPUT because otherwise they would exceed the temperature increase they’re allowed to cause in the river, this to preserve life in the river. No reactor was shutdown because of a low water stream.
What happened last year is a systematic defect was found in an external protection layer, and the decision was made to fix all the reactors having the same potential defect at once. The work took longer than expected, and that caused France having very limited capacity for months, causing worries about power outage.
Not to say it could never happen in the future, but it didn’t yet.
deleted by creator
No, I don’t mean to destroy life in the river. I mean to highlight the difference of impact between going from 90% of your capacity to 0% in one information to reducing from 90% to 80% or even 70%. Shutting down a nuclear reactor is quite a big deal in terms of operations. Restarting it is not like turning back on a switch either. Claiming a reactor was shut down makes it sound like a much bigger deal than what it was.
We’re going to need to make all the changes now. Energy production, energy usage, energy storage, transportation, manufacturing, carbon capture and so on. We’re going to need to do all of it, and we’re still in big trouble. My guess is that within the next 100 years the human population might take a dive because of climate change.
deleted by creator
They were being conservative because they didn’t want to be accused of being alarmists.
deleted by creator
4-5 degrees? You are optimistic. I bet I get to see 3 degrees in my lifetime as we will blast by each and every exit ramps. Not only that we’ll also be drifting on the highway, because it looks cool.
The question on my mind is at what temp will global economy and our current civilization start to implode, as at that point we will probably stop emmiting as people, cities and possibly states literally die off…and than will probably be the new norm…
Looks like it’s happening already. Natural disasters are on the rise, costing billions, insurance companies start bailing out of some area. I was also wondering if international help would come back every year to address a fraction of the wildfire in Canada, Spain, Italy, Greece, and soon pretty much everywhere.
Pretty sure the cost of the disaster is soon going to be unbearable and we’ll start abandoning places and infrastructures instead of rebuilding (not officially, of course, we’ll just “push back until conditions allow to rebuild” and forget about it as more disasters will occur).
It will be a slow death, though.
I think a few scientists at Exxon Mobile predicted this in the 70’s in their worst-case scenario reports.
Time to get out the guillotines. Socialism or extinction.
In what way would socialism prevent extinction, environmental degradation, or global warming? It might even make things worse, as capitalists only exploit the earth and its people to make profit. Marxism has a goal to expand industrialization to relieve humanity of harsh labor and to provide products for all people. The love affair with development is as much a capitalist value as it is a Marxist infatuation.
Hopefully I’m not mistaken, but I’m going to assume you are asking in good faith.
Capitalism is an ideology of infinite growth. Capital is only invested for growth, that’s the whole point…so corporations have to consume more, produce more, sell more, or capitalists will take away their capital investments. Think of it this way, you’re a capitalist (by which, I don’t mean someone who believes in the idea of capitalism…I mean someone who makes the bulk of their wealth with capital investments instead of labor) with millions invested in an oil company – that oil company realizes that we need to phase out the use of fossil fuels for the sake of the planet – so they announce a plan to limit production (and therefore profits).
Your capital is how you make your money, so if they announce a very finite upside (with a real possibility that in a decade or two, their whole business will dry up), you will quickly take your millions and move them somewhere else. And you won’t be alone – think of the bank run that Silicon Valley Bank had once everyone suspected the bank would have solvency problems. And before you know it, that whole company has lost trillions and fails almost immediately.
Now repeat this while coal, commercial beef farms, and down the line of the worst industries for the climate.
The corporations that are the main source of climate change causing emissions also know that if any one of them chooses to do the right thing for the planet, other, less ethical corporations will see blood in the water, and take over their portion of the market; and nothing will change for the environment, all that CEO will have done is put thousands of their own workers out of business.
Socialism, by contrast, is not an ideology of infinite growth. At it’s core, it’s an ideology of collectivism – we all need to take care of everyone else – this includes making sure everyone has a habitable planet to live on. The government can make sure all companies play by the rules, for the benefit of all humankind, not just do as they do now…ask nicely for the corporations to be nice, and then shrug their shoulders when nothing changes.
The industrialization needed to carry out the Marxist project has already occurred. Capitalism is a religion of infinite growth on a finite planet just for growth’s sake.
Still, about half of the population of earth is in desperate need of basic necessities
You’re not wrong my friend, but it is because of hoarding by the capitalist class, as well as their willingness to destroy things rather than see the poor have them, as it would lower their perceived “value”. See: grocery stores and fast food joints throwing perfectly good food in the dumpster vs. giving it away, luxury brands like LV and others destroying handbags and what not to keep them artificially scarce, etc. We can make it happen with the industry and tech we have today.
Please read the book Socialist Reconstruction that was put out by the Party for Socialism and Labor. The sentence that you have starting with “Marxism” is not factual and completely debunked by not only the chapter on farming, but any of the chapters that touch on climate change at all.
Your heart is in the right place, but telling someone to read a book they already know they’re going to disagree with has got to be one of the least effective ways of persuading anyone. People read books about things they already think are worthwhile, not to convince themselves they’re wrong and some stranger on the internet is right.
I know I just don’t have the mental energy to argue with a chud right now
You’re confusing the means with the goals. Marxism is about making the economy work for people (rather than the other way around). Industrialization was the obvious means to that end in Marx’s time, but any sane person trying to run an economy today would prioritize making sure people have a planet to live on over just making more stuff for them to consume.
Capitalism is fundamentally different because it’s highest goal isn’t to make people’s lives better—it’s to increase privately held wealth. Capitalism can’t pivot to prioritizing survival over private wealth, because if it did, it would no longer be capitalism.
Why are you defining socialism only as full Marxism?
Socialism is really an economic system based on equality, but as all economic systems require centralized authority and overseeing/supervising to maintain. As capitalism is a system of organized inequality, socialism is one of organized equality. Centralized authority creates an endless political inequality, in some way much worse than found in capitalism.
Porque no los dos?
removed by mod
removed by mod
removed by mod
Some variation of that idea was used in at least two Supreme Court opinions and by Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln. But sure, feel free to speak on behalf of the Constitution itself, O mighty legal scholar.
Personally, though, I don’t need a legal justification for breaking the law when it impairs my survival, because I’m unwilling to sacrifice my survival or my conscience for the sake of obeying dead men. People who don’t recognize that laws can be wrong are, frankly, horrifying, because they have a tendency feel justified in doing horrible things.
removed by mod
That’s exactly us that could push and work to make those changes happen, you have more power than you realize. And that’s probably OUR responsability to make those changes happen, because we all know fossil-fuels companies won’t decide to stop selling their resources after their saw some of their most proficuos years (just look the datas for 2022, it was the most profitable year for them).
I have no idea how many US service members there are in the US but it’s a non issue for two reasons. One, the US population far outnumbers them and two, I bet when the fighting starts there would be a lot of desertions because it would mean killing their friends, family and fellow countrymen.
Pessimistic defeatist attitude won’t get us anywhere.
Edit: oh and before I became a socialist my friend who is in the military (and has been for a while) reminded me how effective guerrilla warfare is. See: Vietnam and Korea.
removed by mod
The military is communist FYI.
You say red states produce all the food yet red states only survive off of subsidies from blue states 🤔
removed by mod
Actually, California produces a ton of the US’s fruits and vegetables (like, 90%+ of a lot of fruits). Just not cereal grains. I bet the costs could probably grow their own food if it came to that. Were there no trade between the states, the middle of the country would have plenty calorie-wise, but not the most varied of diets.
I expect it to be worse next year, and even worse the year after that.
What about the year after that?
Actually hoping this is situational to a degree bc of the
El Niño is the “hot wave” portion of the cycle. El Niña is the “cooling” portion of the cycle. Both are involced in water surgace temperatures affecting storms, hurricanes, and more. We are in El Niño currently for the new couple years so I wouldn’t be surprised to see the routinely for a couple years sadly.
