General / Off-Topic Recycle or Die! (the elite environmental thread)

'Manmade Antarctic snowstorm 'could save coastal cities from rising seas':


Spraying trillions of tons of snow over west Antarctica could halt the ice sheet’s collapse and save coastal cities across the world from sea level rise, according to a new study.

The colossal geoengineering project would need energy from at least 12,000 wind turbines to power giant seawater pumps and snow cannons, and would destroy a unique natural reserve. The scientists are not advocating for such a project, but said its apparent “absurdity” reflects the extraordinary scale of threat from rising sea level.

Ending the burning of fossil fuels remains the key to tackling the climate crisis and sea level rise, the researchers said. But the carbon emissions pumped into the atmosphere so far may already have doomed the west Antarctic ice sheet.

A series of earlier studies concluded the accelerating loss of ice from the region could not be stopped by emissions cuts any more, meaning the oceans will rise by three metres in the coming centuries. This would leave major cities across the world, from New York to Kolkata to Shanghai, below sea level.

“As scientists we feel it is our duty to inform society about every potential option to counter the problems ahead,” said Prof Anders Levermann, at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, who led the research. “As unbelievable as [the proposal] might seem, in order to prevent an unprecedented risk, humankind might have to make an unprecedented effort.”

“The effort needed would be huge, like an Antarctic moon landing,” he said, though the cost would be less than abandoning even one city like New York. “It is up to society to make this choice – it can’t shy away from making decisions.”
An interesting approach, and like many of the geo-engineering plans given so far, maybe more painful (and expensive) than adapting our world to not burn fossil fuels. Still i'm glad scientists are looking at all the potential options as it seems likely in the face of our governments resistence (due to the pressure from vested interests of the big corporations involved) to doing what makes the most sense, we are going to need all the 'plan b' options we can muster!
 
I've been quite good about not flying in general, since i became aware of the environmental cost etc. The last flight i took was to Jordan back in the 90's and since then all my trips abroad have been much more local and by train (or ship across the channel then train). This article looks at the impact of even a short range plane trip:

'Carbon calculator: how taking one flight emits as much as many people do in a year':


Many people fly due to work, and that is difficult as you basically are looking at changing the way we work (which we all ultimately will have to do anyway) and most of us are not in positions at work where we can make that decision etc. Still for those little holiday jaunts i would urge more people to think local and holiday local (where local means not taking a plane flight).

This is just part of how our lifestyle choices impact the environment in negative ways and how we can make changes to reduce that, as in the longrun we will all be better off from those kind of personal decisions.
 
'Environment of greater concern than housing or terrorism – UK poll':


Interesting because just a few years ago polls were showing on average a less than 50% concern for the environment (Climate Change in particular). Now we just need to see a similar opinion shift across the atlantic in the USA and we might have a chance to stop the train wreck we are currently on! :)
 
Answering surveys is easy.

Making real sacrifices about one's lifestyle is unthinkable for most people.

"After me the flood", says the saying.

And as Greta Thunberg says, "This is just the beginning of global warming, and all that does the humanity is make even more air conditioners."
 
Just had an e-mail from my bank with a form attached.

Print this form off, sign it, scan it and e-mail it back and we will deal with your request. - ....ugh.....????

(Natwest - btw)
 
I had a recent eye-opener regarding the over-use of plastic.

In general, I find that plastic waste isn't a big problem - for me.
I have what I'd consider to be an "average" awareness of the problem, so I re-use plastic bags and I get a bit irritated by cardboard packaging with plastic "windows" in it, which I feel compelled to separate so I can put the cardboard in the recycling bin, and I try to avoid buying food-products which I know include several plastic sub-containers.

My missus works for the local council.
It's summer and somebody's had the bright idea of supplying the council offices with bulk-packs of bottled water, so that employees can take a bottle to their desk instead of having to get up and get a (plastic) cup of water from a water-cooler.
Fair enough, I guess.

Anyway, my missus' boss told her that she could take a tray of bottled water home each week.
The amount of extra plastic waste this has created for us is just INSANE.
The litter bins, the tables, the kitchen worktops and almost every flat surface have become swamped with empty 330ml plastic bottles.
And, at the end of the week, the plastic bin is FILLED with the bloody things.

She's been bringing these trays of bottled water home since the start of June and I've just told her that I'm going to buy a water filter for the mains water supply so we can get filtered water out of the tap 'cos I just can't take seeing all these empty plastic bottles any more.

I guess I can sympathise with people who want the convenience of fresh, cold water - and who live in places (like us) where the regular tap water doesn't taste nice - but, geez, somebody needs to organise a campaign to make people aware of the alternatives to bottled water.
If, maybe, a quarter of the population are buying bottled water each week it must be generating a ridiculous amount of plastic waste.
 
'No doubt left' about scientific consensus on global warming, say experts:


The scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming is likely to have passed 99%, according to the lead author of the most authoritative study on the subject, and could rise further after separate research that clears up some of the remaining doubts.

Three studies published in Nature and Nature Geoscience use extensive historical data to show there has never been a period in the last 2,000 years when temperature changes have been as fast and extensive as in recent decades.

It had previously been thought that similarly dramatic peaks and troughs might have occurred in the past, including in periods dubbed the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Climate Anomaly. But the three studies use reconstructions based on 700 proxy records of temperature change, such as trees, ice and sediment, from all continents that indicate none of these shifts took place in more than half the globe at any one time.
As usual links are in the article for those wanting to see the main data.
 
There is no doubt that the elites of this planet want to kill a large part of the population.

🧐
Or, at the very least, completely remove their agency.

If I was a billionaire, I'd probably be in favour of increased taxation to reduce global warming.
As a billionaire, I wouldn't mind paying a few thousand quid extra if it got all the pleb's off the roads and off the Maldives beaches.

Personally, my solution to global warming would be to either BAN everything that's considered responsible or do nothing about it.
Any solutions to global warming should have the same impact on everybody, regardless of wealth.
Taxation is not an equitable solution.
 
Or, at the very least, completely remove their agency.

If I was a billionaire, I'd probably be in favour of increased taxation to reduce global warming.
As a billionaire, I wouldn't mind paying a few thousand quid extra if it got all the pleb's off the roads and off the Maldives beaches.

Personally, my solution to global warming would be to either BAN everything that's considered responsible or do nothing about it.
Any solutions to global warming should have the same impact on everybody, regardless of wealth.
Taxation is not an equitable solution.
Nice theory: The impact being equal, I mean. But it is just an ideological myth. The simple fact of having more than the next guy, means that you have more to fall back on, or lessen any impact, of such issues.
 
..except when money ceases to have any value (hint: we are not that far away from that, maybe a generation or two?).

-------------------

'Climate change: 12 years to save the planet? Make that 18 months':


Now it seems, there's a growing consensus that the next 18 months will be critical in dealing with the global heating crisis, among other environmental challenges.

Last year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that to keep the rise in global temperatures below 1.5C this century, emissions of carbon dioxide would have to be cut by 45% by 2030.

But today, observers recognise that the decisive, political steps to enable the cuts in carbon to take place will have to happen before the end of next year.

The idea that 2020 is a firm deadline was eloquently addressed by one of the world's top climate scientists, speaking back in 2017.

"The climate math is brutally clear: While the world can't be healed within the next few years, it may be fatally wounded by negligence until 2020," said Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, founder and now director emeritus of the Potsdam Climate Institute.

The sense that the end of next year is the last chance saloon for climate change is becoming clearer all the time.
Or maybe less than a generation or two? (for the financial markets to collapse and 'civilization' as we know it to pretty much crumble). There is a reason many of the worlds richest have been investing in 'secure' secret locations to hide away in when it all falls down (I posted some articles on this in this thread last year iirc?).
 
Another day, another study showing that things are so much worse than we thought:



Underwater glacial melting is happening up to 100 times faster than previously thought, a major study has found.
For the first time, researchers directly measured the melting of tidewater glaciers below the waterline.
They found existing models were “wildly inaccurate”.


Bolsanaro is making good on his word to exploit the Amazon to the hilt:


"Deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon has surged above three football fields a minute, according to the latest government data, pushing the world’s biggest rainforest closer to a tipping point beyond which it cannot recover.

The sharp rise – following year-on-year increases in May and June – confirms fears that president Jair Bolsonaro has given a green light to illegal land invasion, logging and burning.

Clearance so far in July has hit 1,345 sq km, a third higher than the previous monthly record under the current monitoring system by the Deter B satellite system, which started in 2015.

With five days remaining, this is on course to be the first month for several years in which Brazil loses an area of forest bigger than Greater London."
 
After yesterday's Furnace Thursday, I was fully behind all this environmental lobbying.... until I read that at the recent Teen Awards - you know, the holders of the keys to the future of our species - 'Love Island' was unanimously voted "Best TV Show"...WHAAT?!!

...now I think it's probably best to let the retarded effers burn!

I'm 33 so I'll probably make it to 50+ before the ecosystem, economies & ultimately, civilization collapse...which seems like a fair innings to me. :D

Imagine the vacuous little tw@ts Tweeting everything in real time sending selfies via Whatsapp capturing the unfolding breakdown of society - Nero will look like a complete amateur in comparison.
 
Or, at the very least, completely remove their agency.

If I was a billionaire, I'd probably be in favour of increased taxation to reduce global warming.
As a billionaire, I wouldn't mind paying a few thousand quid extra if it got all the pleb's off the roads and off the Maldives beaches.

Personally, my solution to global warming would be to either BAN everything that's considered responsible or do nothing about it.
Any solutions to global warming should have the same impact on everybody, regardless of wealth.
Taxation is not an equitable solution.
That depends, there are many bussiness targeted taxes...
 
The mass of warm air from North Africa that has crossed Western Europe, pushing mercury to record levels, is now moving to Greenland, the World Meteorological Organization says. "According to the forecasts, and this is worrying, the atmospheric flow will now push the hot air mass towards Greenland"

This mass of warm air would raise temperatures and "consequently will increase the glacial melt of Greenland".

For Greenland ice melting has accelerated in recent weeks. "For the month of July alone, the ice cap lost 160 billion tonnes of ice from surface melt. That's the equivalent of 64 million Olympic pools. For the month of July alone »
 
I hope these parasites of the society will live in this environment with their billions of dollars.

View attachment 138628
"Your people are driven by a terrible sense of deficiency. When the last tree is cut, the last fish is caught, and the last river is polluted; when to breathe the air is sickening, you will realize, too late, that wealth is not in bank accounts and that you can’t eat money."

Alanis Obomsawin, 1972
 

"Residents who live near an endangered glacier have been covering it with a huge thermal blanket to protect it from the summer heat.
The 12,000ft high Swiss glacier is meting so quickly over the past 150 years that a massive tarpaulin has to be dragged over the top of it to halt its retreat.
Every spring since 2009, locals who live near the Rhone Glacier trek up the southern part of the Swiss Alps to cover it in white blankets.
These huge sheets covering around five acres of the retreating glacier are left on from spring until autumn, when the ice field is most vulnerable."

Sad, desperate and utterly doomed to failure. And all to keep tourists visiting what's left of their glacier, emitting quantaties of CO2 to get there.
 
Top Bottom