Maybe there's hope...the reaction to my post spurred me to do some quick research...I found that some clever people are already on the case... co-locating swimming pools with ice rinks seems to be the way to go, where waste heat from the rink gets used to heat the pool.That figure skating is energy and therefore CO2 intensive has long nagged at me as a fan.
And last year was already breaking records, now this year too...June was the hottest month ever recorded worldwide. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/june-hottest-month-ever-earth-2019-weather-heatwave-hot-a8984691.html
Isn't this like a global emergency then? Like if it is just allowed to go on, nothing else that is done about climate change will matter?An increase in fires and ensuing deforestation in the Amazon make it even more difficult, if not impossible, for countries to hold global warming to “well below” 3.6 degrees (2 degrees Celsius) compared with preindustrial levels, as called for in the Paris climate Agreement.
You know, it's all fine. Climate has always been changing. (That was seriously a comment I've been reading a few variations of in answer to Chuck Schumer pointing out that July was the hottest month on record ever, everywhere. Never mind that climate change wasn't man-made then and it didn't go so well for whoever/whatever was living on the planet at the time).Isn't this like a global emergency then? Like if it is just allowed to go on, nothing else that is done about climate change will matter?
The speed of the change is the issue. Sure earth was much hotter millions of years ago(not when humans were here) and much of the Northern hemisphere was covered with ice just a few thousands of years ago.You know, it's all fine. Climate has always been changing. (That was seriously a comment I've been reading a few variations of in answer to Chuck Schumer pointing out that July was the hottest month on record ever, everywhere. Never mind that climate change wasn't man-made then and it didn't go so well for whoever/whatever was living on the planet at the time).
What in the name of fck is wrong with these people? They are deniers in their own way that they don't accept that climate change is addressed or we won't have any long-term chance to address anything!The Democratic National Committee has voted to reject a resolution to host a primary debate singularly focused on climate change, despite mounting calls for one from activists and candidates as the risks posed by global warming become a top priority for voters.
The crisis is not just the immediate fires, though they are terrible, but the fear that Brazil under Bolsonaro will destroy the Amazon over time. Let's hope that Bolsonaro realizes that the calls to boycott Brazil economically and for Europe to scuttle a new trade deal are things he cannot ignore and that he'll alter his policies.RIO DE JANEIRO — Facing global scorn over environmental policies that have contributed to a rash of fires in the Amazon, President Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil said Friday that he was planning to send the military to contain the blazes.
After being largely dismissive about the fires earlier in the week, and claiming without evidence that they were probably set by environmental groups in an effort to undermine him, Mr. Bolsonaro’s administration appeared rattled on Friday.
“Whatever is within our power we will do,” Mr. Bolsonaro told reporters on Friday after a late-night emergency cabinet meeting on Thursday. “The problem is resources.”
According to the US Energy Information Agency, the average nuclear power generating cost is about $100 per megawatt-hour. Compare this with $50 per megawatt-hour for solar and $30 to $40 per megawatt-hour for onshore wind.
The latter was an issue in France and the west of Germany during the July heatwave.No technological system is ever perfect, but the vulnerability of nuclear power is particularly great. Improvements in design cannot eliminate the possibility of lethal meltdowns. These may result from extreme weather; from geophysical events such as earthquakes, volcanoes, and tsunamis (such as the one that caused the Fukushima event); from technical failure; and from unavoidable human error. Climate change itself works against nuclear power; severe droughts have led to the shutting down of reactors as the surrounding waters become too warm to provide the vital cooling function.
Nuclear reactors also raise the problem of nuclear waste, for which no adequate solution has been found despite a half-century of scientific and engineering effort.
Under the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the United States was required to develop a permanent repository for nuclear waste; nearly 40 years later, we still lack that repository.
A Washington Post analysis of four global temperature data sets, spanning from the 1800s to the present, has found that dangerous hot spots are spreading around the planet — on land and in the oceans alike.
The analysis, using data from U.S. federal scientists as well as several academic groups, finds that over the past five years — the hottest on record — about 10 percent of the planet has exceeded warming of over 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.
Scientists have identified this as a clear line that the planet as a whole must not cross. But in some locations, it has already happened.
Areas that have warmed by 1.5 degrees Celsius — another crucial marker — are about twice as common. And thus, in many of the scenarios that we considered, they already exceed 20 percent of the Earth’s area over in the last five years.
That last sentence. I mean, really. People are not using their own property when they dump poison into water that flows on many people's property and impacts ecosystems that are shared and needed by many people.The rollback of the 2015 measure, known as the Waters of the United States rule, has been widely expected since the early days of the Trump administration, when President Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to begin the work of repealing and replacing it.
Weakening the Obama-era water rule had been a central campaign pledge for Mr. Trump, who characterized it as a federal land-grab that impinged on the rights of farmers, rural landowners and real estate developers to use their property as they see fit.
It was actually this that most set me off in the post above yours. I just can't even articulate my feelings about how Trump and Republicans have come to the point where what happens in the real world doesn't even matter to them as if they live in a media bubble where what happens on Twitter and Cable TV is all there is and no real world problem can touch them.There is absolutely no sound reason to revoke the waiver, but what the heck, let's just continue to scorch the earth and screw future generations so that Trump can enact revenge on a liberal state that despises him.
I don't see those radical change happening soon enough to make a difference before we reach a crisis point. Radical changes to our economy could mean job losses (though some jobs would be created by the green economy) and losses of job opportunities. And big corporations would have to stop controlling our economies and polluting our environments (e.g. cruise ships need to stop dumping their garbage in the ocean).Part of me says this is very good, we need to have a way out of the echo-chamber for conservatives. Part of me doesn't feel all that good about it because we need radical changes to our way of conducting our economy and I can't really see how conservatives are going to embrace that.