Tagged “climate”

grim

These emissions [for wind turbines, solar panels, and batteries] could amount to a cumulative 15-35 gigatonnes of CO₂ equivalent over the next 30 years: but that compares with around 40 Gt CO₂ equivalent produced every year by the fossil fuel based energy system.

This seems very bad.

oh no

I still don't quite understand what happens with the salt but more water in places seems good

Lot of interesting stats throughout.

1. To add enough CO2 to Mars to make the atmosphere thicker (which reduces temp fluctations), would make the atmosphere unbreathable regardless of O2 content
2. Earth-like does not mean like current earth. For most of the planet's history the water and atmosphere were toxic to us
3. It would take 79,000 years at current rocket speeds to get to Alpha Centauri

Unsurprising, but still shocking

Links to this Forbes piece, that 40% of global shipping is for fuel

Will ectoplasmic green skies be alarming enough to make people take climate more seriously? Undecided.
Some interesting overviews on how eyes work though.

retrofitting buildings to improve energy and thermal efficancy faster

On resource extraction in Canada. Apparently 75 percent of the world’s mining companies are based in Canada!

Also fun hover effect on links

The hydrogen is currently being made with coal but Energy Minister @AngusTaylorMP says the trade will be crucial in bringing down global emissions.

I'm sure it will, Angus

Great, scary photograph. More than the boats I noticed previous high water mark on the riverbanks.

Covers a lot! Approximate cost breakdowns, on people's desire for customisation, on transport costs of materials (you can't ship prefab concrete slabs across the country).

Includes a handy one-liner on why things aren't improving:

The combination of consumer tastes, low dollar value per volume building components, and the complexity of buildings inhibit efforts to scale.

Either infuriating or upsetting how long we have known about this and done nothing.

HN discussion, including some good comments like this:

The time for decisive action was at least a decade ago, but there's no harm in starting now — it just means that the transition to alternative energy sources must be more abrupt and more investment must be allocated to remedial technologies that can work towards undoing at least some portion of the damage we have done to our biosphere.

Let historians and the next generations worry about whose fault it was. It is more important to secure for the next generation a sustainable and habitable future, than it is to look back at past hubris and wonder where it went wrong.

Longer growing seasons, larger areas of workable land, and parts becoming more hospitable at the same time other regions of the world become uninhabitable due to heat.

We need solutions that are less terrible for the environment, but 'living in harmony with nature' is basically a fallacy; seeking that is longing for an age that never existed.

Personal triggers are more persuasive that any other arguments or data. Future and far away people are harder to imagine than seeing change in a place you know. Image from ShowYourStripes is striking.