Climate Change/Mass Extinction Megathread

[Maximus]

Yea, the concerns I've heard is that the geoengineering solution then causes some other problem to fix.

If the idea is carbon-fixing plants then I'd support it wholeheartedly. If it's stratospheric aerosols then we need more information.

Whatever the solution, it will require an economic mobilization at least on the order of WW2. It will still require sacrifices and social change.

[mongers]

Yea, the concerns I've heard is that the geoengineering solution then causes some other problem to fix.

If the idea is carbon-fixing plants then I'd support it wholeheartedly. If it's stratospheric aerosols then we need more information.

Whatever the solution, it will require an economic mobilization at least on the order of WW2. It will still require sacrifices and social change.

Indeed and especially your last point.

Also it doesn't have to be a binary choice as others have said, I see a need for global governmental action, crash technological programmes and individual adaption/lifestyle changes, all acting together.

[Barrister]

Fucking Alberta.

You had your chance to live here.

[Valmy]

Damn. You Canucks are all rich.

[Barrister]

Damn. You Canucks are all rich.

Map is adjusted for PPP.  A similar graph in just straight per capita GDP would look very different.

[Grey Fox]

I love how the Newfoundland figure is in Labrador.

[Zoupa]

I love how the Newfoundland figure is in Labrador.

You mean northeastern Quebec right 

[Zoupa]

Yea, the concerns I've heard is that the geoengineering solution then causes some other problem to fix.

If the idea is carbon-fixing plants then I'd support it wholeheartedly. If it's stratospheric aerosols then we need more information.

Whatever the solution, it will require an economic mobilization at least on the order of WW2. It will still require sacrifices and social change.

I keep seeing that WW2 effort quote. Now I don't know the numbers so you guys correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the most effective way to counter global warming be a massive reforestation effort?

A couple billion trees per 30 million people should do it.

[Grey Fox]

I love how the Newfoundland figure is in Labrador.

You mean northeastern Quebec right 

Yes, of course. We should still call it Labrador tho.

[Maximus]

Yea, the concerns I've heard is that the geoengineering solution then causes some other problem to fix.

If the idea is carbon-fixing plants then I'd support it wholeheartedly. If it's stratospheric aerosols then we need more information.

Whatever the solution, it will require an economic mobilization at least on the order of WW2. It will still require sacrifices and social change.

I keep seeing that WW2 effort quote. Now I don't know the numbers so you guys correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the most effective way to counter global warming be a massive reforestation effort?

A couple billion trees per 30 million people should do it.

I think that should be part of the plan, but I think the main problem there is that trees grow slowly. The amount of CO2 they can absorb is going to be proportional to their size, or at least their leaf surface area. So that would probably be very effective in 30-50 years. This could be somewhat offset with intensive management, but then you get back to expense.

In addition any project that converts a significant portion of our "utilized" land into forest is going to require economic and/or social changes.

[Maximus]

Damn. You Canucks are all rich.

Map is adjusted for PPP.  A similar graph in just straight per capita GDP would look very different.

If the point of the graph is to show standard of living, my understanding is that per capita GDP is a bad metric. I'm not actually sure what the point of the graph is in this case.

[Grey Fox]

I don't know why it was made but I posted it to highlight the deniers in Alberta sure do benefit from their denial.

[garbon]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/06/police-ban-on-extinction-rebellion-protests-ruled-illegal-by-high-court

Extinction Rebellion protesters may sue Met after protest ban ruled illegal

Hundreds of Extinction Rebellion protesters may now sue the Metropolitan police for unlawful arrest after the high court quashed an order banning the group's protests in London last month.

In a judgment handed down on Wednesday morning, Mr Justice Dingemans and Mr Justice Chamberlain said the section 14 order imposed during XR's "autumn uprising" in October was unlawful.

Dingemans said: "Separate gatherings, separated both in time and by many miles, even if coordinated under the umbrella of one body, are not a public assembly within the meaning of ... the Act.

"The XR autumn uprising intended to be held from 14 to 19 October was not therefore a public assembly ... therefore the decision to impose the condition was unlawful because there was no power to impose it under ... the Act."

...

[crazy canuck]

Thanks for pointing out the courts of in the UK continue to function as they should.

[Zoupa]

Yea, the concerns I've heard is that the geoengineering solution then causes some other problem to fix.

If the idea is carbon-fixing plants then I'd support it wholeheartedly. If it's stratospheric aerosols then we need more information.

Whatever the solution, it will require an economic mobilization at least on the order of WW2. It will still require sacrifices and social change.

I keep seeing that WW2 effort quote. Now I don't know the numbers so you guys correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the most effective way to counter global warming be a massive reforestation effort?

A couple billion trees per 30 million people should do it.

I think that should be part of the plan, but I think the main problem there is that trees grow slowly. The amount of CO2 they can absorb is going to be proportional to their size, or at least their leaf surface area. So that would probably be very effective in 30-50 years. This could be somewhat offset with intensive management, but then you get back to expense.

In addition any project that converts a significant portion of our "utilized" land into forest is going to require economic and/or social changes.

I don't think the land usage would be a problem, in Canada at least. Coming from Europe, you really see how empty it is here.