Climate Change/Mass Extinction Megathread

Started by Syt, November 17, 2015, 05:50:30 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Legbiter

Quote from: Jacob on June 28, 2022, 11:37:25 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on June 28, 2022, 10:47:41 AMYeah theoretically build 10 of these gigaplants around the world and you have essentially turned mankind carbon neutral, even if you do nothing else. I hope they expedite the timeline.

That would be an interesting turn on the public discourse...

Say we build enough of these plants to make burning fossil fuel a non-event from a climate perspective, what would happen?

Would climate "sceptics" dial down their opposition to the science since it'd no longer impact fossil fuel?

Would the holy holier-than-thou/resentment-against-perceived-holier-than-thou dynamic go away?

Would oil/coal production go up or down in price or volume? Would would happen to the momentum of non-carbon energy production?

It will simply fade as an issue much like the ozone layer crisis.
Posted using 100% recycled electrons.

Barrister

Legbiter, do you have any links on this Icelandic CCS scheme?

My understanding is that CCS was only ever remotely feasible at capturing emissions at their source.  Once CO2 is dispersed in the atmosphere it's still only present at parts per million quantities.  The idea of removing 40 million metric tons seems almost impossible.
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.

Legbiter

Posted using 100% recycled electrons.

Berkut

"If you think this has a happy ending, then you haven't been paying attention."

select * from users where clue > 0
0 rows returned

The Brain

Any link to the safety case of the deposit?
Women want me. Men want to be with me.

Berkut

Quote from: The Brain on June 28, 2022, 02:30:00 PMAny link to the safety case of the deposit?
They do mention that with some links in that article:

QuoteFor all types of CO2 capture, community concerns have been raised around CO2 pipelines and geological storage of CO2, particularly around safety and the possibility of leakage for both. These concerns are especially salient given a 2020 CO2 pipeline rupture in Mississippi paired with $4.6 billion in funding through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for CO2 transport and storage. CO2 pipelines have been used since the 1970s and, like oil and gas pipelines, pose non-zero risks. However, with expected investment ramping up, attention is needed to ensure they have adequate safeguards for operational safety as well as consideration of impact on the environment and people. Geological storage has been demonstrated safely at million-tonne volumes, but expanding to multi-million or billion tonne scales similarly requires further attention to regulatory needs.
"If you think this has a happy ending, then you haven't been paying attention."

select * from users where clue > 0
0 rows returned

Berkut

I think the biggest issue with DAC and DAC-like technologies is that they will be used as an excuse to not actually tackle reducing emissions.

Best case estimates are that sequestering a tonne of CO2 taken out of the atmosphere will cost something like 2-3 times the amount of simply not releasing it to begin with. The problem is that releasing those gasses generates profits and money, but sequestration is just a cost disassociated with those making fat shareholder value from ignoring those costs. We know that as humans we are absolutely, consistently, and completely terrible at making objective decisions about these things.
"If you think this has a happy ending, then you haven't been paying attention."

select * from users where clue > 0
0 rows returned

viper37

Garbon is killing the planet

QuoteThe fashion industry is currently responsible for more annual carbon emissions than all international flights and maritime shipping combined. If the industry maintains its course, an increase of 50% in greenhouse gas emissions is expected within a decade.

Sorry my friend, you are too well dressed.  :sleep:
I don't do meditation.  I drink alcohol to relax, like normal people.

If Microsoft Excel decided to stop working overnight, the world would practically end.

Eddie Teach

To sleep, perchance to dream. But in that sleep of death, what dreams may come?

Valmy

Quote from: Berkut on June 27, 2022, 07:45:14 AMThe USSC is about to rule that all the federal agencies in charge of protecting the environment, setup by Congress, are actually not allowed to do so - only Congress is allowed to do that.

And we know Congress cannot do anything.

This is brilliant. It's so fucking evil. Who cares what the US agrees to at this point in regards to climate change. No matter what we agree to do, internally or externally, the USSC is going to just make it impossible to actually execute.

That doesn't make any sense. The executive branch cannot execute laws set up by Congress? Surely they cannot just cancel the constitutional framework and the separation of powers. What does this ruling actually say?
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

Valmy

#2185
Quote from: Legbiter on June 28, 2022, 11:48:52 AMIt will simply fade as an issue much like the ozone layer crisis.

That would be fabulous. Here is hoping that is exactly what happens, and that is obviously what we are all working towards.
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

Berkut

Quote from: Valmy on June 28, 2022, 11:08:57 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 27, 2022, 07:45:14 AMThe USSC is about to rule that all the federal agencies in charge of protecting the environment, setup by Congress, are actually not allowed to do so - only Congress is allowed to do that.

And we know Congress cannot do anything.

This is brilliant. It's so fucking evil. Who cares what the US agrees to at this point in regards to climate change. No matter what we agree to do, internally or externally, the USSC is going to just make it impossible to actually execute.

That doesn't make any sense. The executive branch cannot execute laws set up by Congress? Surely they cannot just cancel the constitutional framework and the separation of powers. What does this ruling actually say?
There isn't a ruling yet.

But the basic "argument" is that federal agencies cannot create rules that have "major" impacts on the economy or government or business, because that is the job of Congress. If Congress passes a law saying "Hey EPA, regulate power plants so they don't pollute so much, and we give you the power to do that", then the EPA can only do so as long as they don't have a "major impact" that (presumably) is beyond the intended scope that Congress may have intended.

It is, of course, utter bullshit. The case is being brought by a bunch of state AGs who have banded together to gut federal regulatory power. If a regulatory agency is overstepping what Congress intended them to do, then why isn't Congress saying so?

When Trump told those agencies to NOT do what they were supposed to be doing, why didn't these AGs sue for THAT? 

Because again, this has nothing to do with the law, the constitution, or what makes sense. It's just power. There are six of us, and three of you, so go fuck yourself.
"If you think this has a happy ending, then you haven't been paying attention."

select * from users where clue > 0
0 rows returned

Valmy

So shouldn't Congress come in take care of that issue? Shouldn't the executive branch make those decisions? Are we supposed to just argue in court about what constitutes a significant impact? What is the legal definition of significant impact in the context of Constitutional law? And does that mean in the future Congress would have to insert some clause saying that they are cool with significant impacts?
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

Admiral Yi

Anyone understand why fashion emits so much carbon?  It's not readily apparent to me.

Nice to have at least one area where i can say I'm doing my part. :)

HVC

I'm guessing transportation. A lot of clothes are made in developing countries and then shipped.
Being lazy is bad; unless you still get what you want, then it's called "patience".
Hubris must be punished. Severely.