Climate Change/Mass Extinction Megathread

[dps]

The USA's CO2 emissions are falling while virtuous Germany is increasing CO2 emissions 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/yes-the-u-s-leads-all-countries-in-reducing-carbon-emissions/#7b70f9ed3535

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/01/24/germany-announces-carbon-emission-rise-second-year-row/

There are good reasons for this of course. Shale gas replacing coal in the USA is a big improvement for example. But it is interesting, in the instagram age, how important the posturing of leaders is to people's perceptions of reality.

That's why I used the term "lip service." Many countries talk a big game, but shy back from taking decisive steps. In Germany, the government would have to tackle the energy sector, industries, and car manufacturers, but with the jobs attached and size of these sectors, nobody seems even willing to formulate a plan. The government has been waffling for months about the Diesel emissions that are in breach of EU regulations with basically no cooperation from the car industry.

Diesel powered cars are more common in Germany than in the US, correct?

[The Brain]

Not as common as on Krypton.

[Tamas]

What's rather priceless is that IIRC around 2009 the UK government gave subsidies on diesel cars. Now they really close to severly punishing them I think.

Take crap like that, and the fact that as it turns out most of the plastic "recycling" in the West involved dumping it on China, and it's really hard to take this whole thing seriously. Not the actual climate problem, that's serious enough. But attempts to reverse it.

Even in seeming efforts it's just a battleground for short-term economic and political interests. See the whole plastic recycling thing. Or how you switch from nuclear to coal to score a cheap political victory. Or how people are made to obsess over cars and their fuel usage, when even with that's gone you still have ships and trains burning oil, not to mention all the other industrial products derived from it.

[Richard Hakluyt]

The government should really try to reclaim the costs of those subsidies from the car companies; given that we were supplied with falsified data and that data led to the subsidies.

[Admiral Yi]

And don't forget the "carbon footprint reduction" extra charge you can pay online when ordering various services and such  Your conciense can be much lighter with the proper indulgence paper!

Offsets are an elegant and efficient method of reducing global emissions.

[Tamas]

And don't forget the "carbon footprint reduction" extra charge you can pay online when ordering various services and such  Your conciense can be much lighter with the proper indulgence paper!

Offsets are an elegant and efficient method of reducing global emissions.

Assuming most companies don't trick our outright lie regarding them when offering such extra charges for customers.

I mean look at the recent findings regarding plastic recycling in the UK. MASSIVE fraud using loopholes in the system.

[Tonitrus]

Isn't Germany shutting down their nuclear plants and replacing them with coal?

Nuclear power plants can't survive freakishly huge tsunamis. They cannot be kept on German soil!

I've heard that nuclear plants contain atoms! 

If only they had an Atomwaffe like we do.

[Duque de Bragança]

What's rather priceless is that IIRC around 2009 the UK government gave subsidies on diesel cars. Now they really close to severly punishing them I think.

Macron is already punishing diesel drivers now, after years of cheaper diesel fuel prices too.

[Duque de Bragança]

Isn't Germany shutting down their nuclear plants and replacing them with coal?

You forgot Russian gas in the new green energy mix, courtesy of Gazprom and Former Kanzler Schröder.

[viper37]

And don't forget the "carbon footprint reduction" extra charge you can pay online when ordering various services and such  Your conciense can be much lighter with the proper indulgence paper!

Offsets are an elegant and efficient method of reducing global emissions.

elegant, yes.  Efficient, not so much.

For the tree you buy, it will take it's entire life, say 30 years, to offset the cost of one trip to some southern, sunny carribean place.  If a tree buyer and his family are doing this trip every year, they create a lot more damage than they can repair.

If they use private planes or private helicopters, it's even worst.

[Tonitrus]

What's rather priceless is that IIRC around 2009 the UK government gave subsidies on diesel cars. Now they really close to severly punishing them I think.

I bought a diesel car. 

(or, now I should know why I got a pretty good deal on the price)

[Richard Hakluyt]

What's rather priceless is that IIRC around 2009 the UK government gave subsidies on diesel cars. Now they really close to severly punishing them I think.

I bought a diesel car. 

(or, now I should know why I got a pretty good deal on the price)

Oh, bad luck.

Should have consulted with us UK bores in tbr 

[Admiral Yi]

elegant, yes.  Efficient, not so much.

For the tree you buy, it will take it's entire life, say 30 years, to offset the cost of one trip to some southern, sunny carribean place.  If a tree buyer and his family are doing this trip every year, they create a lot more damage than they can repair.

If they use private planes or private helicopters, it's even worst.

Are you saying they are running out of space in which to plant trees?

[The Minsky Moment]

And don't forget the "carbon footprint reduction" extra charge you can pay online when ordering various services and such  Your conciense can be much lighter with the proper indulgence paper!

Offsets are an elegant and efficient method of reducing global emissions.

There are many methods for reducing global emissions and at this point we need to use lots of them, elegant or not.

[Syt]

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/27/politics/donald-trump-climate-change-report/index.html

Trump administration climate change report is dead wrong, says Trump administration

Washington (CNN)Last Friday, the Trump administration -- 13 federal agencies working in coordination -- released the Fourth National Climate Assessment, a detailed document featuring the conclusions of more than 300 scientists that the planet is getting warmer, human activity is contributing to that warming and we are approaching a point of no return in terms of the damage to the climate.

It's a stunning document. It's also one that President Donald Trump and his administration don't, uh, believe.
"I don't believe it," Trump told reporters Monday of the report, acknowledging that he had only read "some" of the study.

Then, on Tuesday, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders took the whole thing a step further. "We think that this is the most extreme version and it's not based on facts," Sanders said. "It's based on -- it's not data-driven. We'd like to see something that is more data-driven."

Let's be very clear about what is going on here: The President and his official spokesperson are rejecting the conclusions of a detailed study conducted by the Trump administration because the findings of that study don't comport with the President's long-held beliefs that climate change just isn't a real thing.

And this is far from the first time this has happened. Back in 2017, the US intelligence community unanimously concluded that Russia had sought to interfere in the 2016 election to help Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton. Trump has continued to raise questions about whether Russia actually did it. Earlier this month, the CIA determined that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had personally ordered the murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Trump, in an official White House statement, said "our intelligence agencies continue to assess all information, but it could very well be that the Crown Prince had knowledge of this tragic event -- maybe he did and maybe he didn't!"