Why was it a piece of cake to regulate CFC:s but no one has the vision to strive to control CO2 and methane. I'm 37 years old. I've been scared of CO2 accumualation in the atmosphere before I went to school and I'm no genious.<p>I can't understand why has it been so hard recognize and act on CO2.<p>And it's not only the industry and politicians. Green parties have been the craziest in actively blocking nuclear power.<p>Why has this been so hard to see?
I don't know when we as humans are going to fucking get it together and start acting like a better species. I hope that the rate of climate change will push us to stop worrying about what bathroom another human decides to use or whom one selects to love and focus more on the ill's of the collective.
Put a tax on carbon & market forces will solve everything. We'll have cleaner cities, and hopefully won't need to worry about runaway climate change. Yeah, some rich people will suffer, but that's OK they are rich and won't stop being rich when their industries are forced to change.
So what can we do about it? Is anyone still seriously working on iron fertilization to encourage phytoplankton growth? [0]<p>The main arguments I've heard against it is that we don't know what the effect will be on the ecosystem:<p><i>> The side effects of large-scale iron fertilization are not yet known. Creating phytoplankton blooms in naturally iron-poor areas of the ocean is like watering the desert: in effect it changes one type of ecosystem into another</i><p>Well, guess what? We're going to affect the ocean ecosystems negatively if we don't reduce atmospheric CO2, and I don't see that happening any time soon. How about we just go for broke and try it out on the off chance it helps things?<p>[0] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization</a>
This is genuinely scary. I'm especially concerned over both the loss of food to populations, and the suggested nitrous oxide loop for further warming.
We would solve most of this problem if we'd get people to 1) stop buying new cars unless their previous car had died, 2) stop commuting to work, and 3) stop living in situations which require lots of driving. If we incentivized companies to transition all possible staff to remote positions, we'd eliminate a huge amount of emissions. The problem is that while everyone knows cars produce a huge amount of emissions, no one is willing to not buy that fancy new car. I mean, "it gets better gas mileage!", or "it's electric!" passifies everyone's environmental concerns. Never mind that new car production is incredibly environmentally unfriendly (in most cases driving an old car, even one with poorer emissions profile or worse gas mileage, is better on net for the environment), and that all the commuting we do is disastrous for the environment. But until the problem is owned at the personal level nothing will change. A big piece of this is that politicians aren't interested in going to bat against the auto manufacturers. No politician wants to be linked to the death of such a huge industry (and a loss of hundreds of thousands or millions of jobs). The only way this will change is if all of us start to 1) live close to work (so we can walk, cycle, or simply drive less) or require remote work options, 2) own fewer and older model cars and drive them until they die, and 3) contact our elected representatives to encourage them to support law and policy which incentivizes employers to employ remote workers. We would all do well, too, to remember the three Rs: reduce (our consumption), reuse (buy used and put off replacing our possessions until absolutely necessary), and recycle (duh).<p>But when even climate warriors like Leonardo DiCaprio and Al Gore show wanton disregard for the cost of their lifestyle on the environment (apparently they like to raise a ruckus, but expect others to do something magical about it), there's little hope for things to get much better any time soon. Talk is cheap, people; Let's see some real action on a personal level.
Howdy! I work in cleantech, and I guess it's that time again for your wall of links about what you can do to fight climate change.<p>To start, here's my favorite climate change joke: "They say we won't act until it's too late... Luckily, it's too late!"<p><i>So what can you do about it?</i><p>Work at a new energy technology company! We are currently growing exponentially[1], and we need as many smart people as we can get. There are lots of companies hiring software engineers.<p><i>How do I find a job fighting climate change?</i><p>I'd recommend browsing the exhibitor and speaker lists from the most recent conference in each sector (linked below).<p><pre><code> * Energy Storage[2][3]
* Solar[4][5]
* Wind[6]
* Nuclear[7]
* Electric Utilities[8][9]
* Electric vehicles[10]
</code></pre>
Also, if you're in the SF bay area, I'd recommend subscribing to my Bay Area Energy Events Calendar[11]. Just start showing up to events and you'll probably find a job really quickly.<p>[1]: <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/22/energy-is-the-new-new-internet/" rel="nofollow">https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/22/energy-is-the-new-new-inte...</a><p>[2]: <a href="http://www.esnaexpo.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.esnaexpo.com/</a><p>[3]: <a href="https://www.greentechmedia.com/events/live/u.s.-energy-storage-summit-2016" rel="nofollow">https://www.greentechmedia.com/events/live/u.s.-energy-stora...</a><p>[4]: <a href="https://www.intersolar.us/" rel="nofollow">https://www.intersolar.us/</a><p>[5]: <a href="http://www.solarpowerinternational.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.solarpowerinternational.com/</a><p>[6]: <a href="http://www.windpowerexpo.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.windpowerexpo.org/</a><p>[7]: <a href="https://www.nei.org/Conferences" rel="nofollow">https://www.nei.org/Conferences</a><p>[8]: <a href="http://www.distributech.com/index.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.distributech.com/index.html</a><p>[9]: <a href="https://www.greentechmedia.com/events/live/grid-edge-world-forum-2016" rel="nofollow">https://www.greentechmedia.com/events/live/grid-edge-world-f...</a><p>[10]: <a href="http://tec.ieee.org/" rel="nofollow">http://tec.ieee.org/</a><p>[11]: <a href="https://bayareaenergyevents.com/" rel="nofollow">https://bayareaenergyevents.com/</a>
>The authors then used interpolation techniques for areas of the ocean where they lacked measurements.<p>Speaking as someone that studied pure mathematics more than science, I am curious as to whether there is formal justification that this interpolation is valid. As far as I understand, global systems like this often, if not always, exhibit chaotic behavior.
For all the climate change deniers and skeptics that point out WaPo is a "liberal" outlet as a way to skip even reading the data: How about the scientific journal Nature ?<p><a href="http://www.nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/nature21399" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/nature21399</a><p>While I'm at it, please explain why science has become so politicized by the political right.<p>I have <i>literally</i> heard my conservative friends say they think "science is leftist" and Obama paid off scientists around the world to blow up a global warming hoax.<p>Tell me, why would an American political party engage in an elaborate hoax with scientists around the world, and somehow "pay them all off", just so they would... what, raise your gas prices? Subsidize clean energy?<p>For that matter why would scientists around the world spend years studying complicated subjects, and then decades doing research, and <i>NEARLY ALL</i> accept a bribe from the leftists of <i>YOUR</i> country to sabotage their own sensors and models and data?<p>Finally - and here is the kicker - what are you afraid of if we transition away from fossi fuels? Electric cars open up electricity to be generated in a variety of ways. Wind farms have just powered <i>OVER HALF</i> of the central USA. Investment in solar has just overtaken fossil fuels. There are plenty of jobs to be made.<p>Why are the "conservatives" so keen on subsidizing the fossil fuel industry so the government can pick winners and losers? If fossil fuels become too expensive, that means more innovation and investment in clean energy generation!<p>Where is the economic loss from this? I am always amazed just how much "Stockholm Syndrome" the conservatives have when it comes to big corporations. Whatever they do - big bonuses to CEOs, pollution, etc. it is always rabidly defended by a mob angry that any criticism of their destructive activities, whether by scientists or by people who lost their jobs, is "socialism" and "libtards".<p>Do you really think preventing the rise of sea levels, deforestation and loss of millions of species through overfishing, factory farms, colony collapse disorder etc. is going to tank your economy? Isn't this the height of idiocy?