The "technological solutions" being the focus as opposed to a Carbon tax or other measures is because 'technological solutions' will result in a huge shift of tax dollars into the hands of corporations (both for R&D and Solutions) whereas a Carbon Tax is dollars coming out of corporations and into gov't coffers.

I am not saying technological solutions are not a significant and needed part, as they are, but am just pointing out why some only want focus on that side of the ledger.

Why does anyone care what an anti vax ivermectin pushing derp has to say, given his track record of absolute wrongness, its possible he is not really pumping light when it comes to climate change.

I think you are declaring victory way too early. Lets let things play out a few more years and circle back to this then.

loooooooooooooooooooool

Taking all your points aside .
Wouldn’t be great just to have a better environment and a better source of energy regardless what else people do elsewhere ?

It’s like u say , let’s us do nothing to progress because elsewhere they don’t ?
What kind of lame (loser) vision is this ?

How large is Weinstein’s house?

The federal government is already funding fusion research. What nonsense is this Weinstein teaching you?

The hypocrisy is a dumb reason to throw out a legitimate issue. A trump supporter wouldn't toss out the love for the man's policies just because they disagree with his antics. I know we agree on other areas polically, but anyone who is capable of critical thinking and doesn't instantly hand wave away a lefty labeled issue should come to a similar conclusion with the information available, imo.

"We could have done something about climate change, but China, India, Russia bad, also Mars mission bad!"

Yeah, I heard his large house is the reason why we can't do anything about climate change.

Clean free energy would be a disaster for the environment and by extension humanity right now.

The whole mind set of how do we keep consuming X without the implicit carbon production is absolutely the wrong way to approach this issue.

So technology that removes carbon would actually be net negative to our long term prospects if it just enabled everyone to just keep nom nom noming.

This is because loss of habitat and loss of bio diversity are just as pressing problems for the human species and just as much as a threat to a functioning eco system as man made global warming.

Unfortunately we are no where close to accepting this or being allowed to accept this by the thought leaders that posters like TheNoGod2 like to unthinkingly respew.

The 2015 Paris Agreement addressed this directly by allocating billions to developing nations for their clean energy industries, in recognition of how developed nations would unfairly benefit from an absence of pollution controls during their own industrial revolutions.

Nope. The countries that consume the most energy per capita are also the ones that are best able to maintain their environments. It is pretty clear at this point how this works. You get prosperous first, normally at huge energy expenditure, and then you have the luxury to start tackling the other stuff. If you start enacting austerity before you are prosperous it not only doesn't work, but will probably backfire and you will end up destroying more of the environment than the other way around.

How is that working out? Is there any specific African country you can name that has clearly benefitted from going green like this and is well on the road to property?

Yes because like their carbon production they have also off shored their environmental destruction in a huge way.

Also, prosperity? You mean the ability to consume more.

It does not matter how good you are at environmental protection, you cant globalise the consumption we have and maintain the environment at a level necessary for human life.

The whole concept of growth and prosperity needs to be rethought and also its also only in these contexts that austerity exists anyway.

The bolded is basically cool story bro.

How do recent extinction rates compare to previous mass extinctions?

Clearly we’re killing off species much faster than would be expected. But does this fall into ‘mass extinction’ territory? Is it fast enough to be comparable to the ‘Big Five’?

One way to answer this is to compare recent extinction rates with rates from previous mass extinctions. Researcher, Malcolm McCallum did this comparison for the Cretaceous-Palogene (K-Pg) mass extinction.16 This was the event that killed off the dinosaurs around 65 million years ago. In the chart we see the comparison of (non-dinosaur) vertebrate extinction rates during the K-Pg mass extinction to recent rates. This shows how many times faster species are now going extinct compared to then.

We see clearly that rates since the year 1500 are estimated to be 24 to 81 times faster than the K-Pg event. If we look at even more recent rates, from 1980 onwards, this increases to up to 165 times faster. Again, this might even be understating the pace of current extinctions. We have many species that are threatened with extinction: there is a high probability that many of these species go extinct within the next century. If we were to include species classified as ‘threatened’ on the IUCN Red List, extinctions would be happening thousands of times faster than the K-Pg extinction.

This makes the point clear: we’re not only losing species at a much faster rate than we’d expect, we’re losing them tens to thousands of times faster than the rare mass extinction events in Earth’s history.


https://ourworldindata.org/extinctio...ass-extinction

NYT Opinion Piece: Hardly Anyone Talks About How Fracking Was an Extraordinary Boondoggle

Perhaps the most striking fact about the American hydraulic-fracturing boom, though, is unknown to all but the most discriminating consumers of energy news: Fracking has been, for nearly all of its history, a money-losing boondoggle, profitable only recently, after being propped up by so much investment from Wall Street and private equity that it resembled less an efficient-markets no-brainer and more a speculative empire of bubbles like Uber and WeWork.
...
Today, with profits aided by the energy price spikes of the last year, the fracking industry is finally, at least for the time being, profitable. But from 2010 to 2020, U.S. shale lost $300 billion. Previously, from 2002 to 2012, Chesapeake, the industry leader, didn’t report positive cash flow once, ending that period with total losses of some $30 billion, as Bethany McLean documents in her 2018 book, “Saudi America,” the single best and most thorough account of the fracking boom up to that point. Between mid-2012 and mid-2017, the 60 biggest fracking companies were losing an average of $9 billion each quarter. From 2006 to 2014, fracking companies lost $80 billion; in 2014, with oil at $100 a barrel, a level that seemed to promise a great cash-out, they lost $20 billion.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/27/o...-fracking.html

How do you persuade the six billion who are on the cusp of living a middle class life or better, like the one billion who already do. that they should adjust their aspirations downward for the sake of people not yet born?

You forgot a Billion Folks as we hit the 8 billion mark

Bill Mahr owns an enormous mansion, why should I care what the **** he thinks?

What's your point?

That its impossible to persuade them, so we should force it?
Or that its too hard to force them to change, so, we should let everyone achieve prosperity for a very short time?
Or that we should look for a different solution, that allows us all to live in prosperity whilst changing nothing?

Or something else?

It is a completely unreasonable and untenable "solution." And counterproductive to boot. On a global scale I anticipate the next year to be one of extremely high direct human destruction of the environment brought on by completely avoidable scarcity. As people, mainly in developing countries, will not have reliable access to energy and food, they will invariably resort to hunting wildlife for food and burning habitat for energy.

You may not know this because of the western media blackout, but Netherlands is the second biggest agricultural exporter in the world. And their government announced strict austerity measure to meet climate change objections that will result in massive worldwide food shortages on a scale comparable to the Ukraine war.