• Member Statistics

    15,603
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    UpstateDawg
    Newest Member
    UpstateDawg
    Joined
Sign in to follow this  
donsutherland1

Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Thats interesting and true in the sense that sociologically humankind seems to be ignorant to what they are doing, with their brains wired for short term profit not long term sustainability, however we must also look at how being densely populated in cities adversely affects our health, as well as the negative impact on endangered species with humans cutting down trees to build more homes (cutting down trees is also bad for the environment)  I do believe we will stabilize our population at some point, the question is, at what point will that be and will we avoid an ecological disaster.  Land usage, the consumption of meat and overconsumption in general are also issues.  I believe it was stated that the most efficient way to reduce one's carbon footprint is to have one less child.  Having one species dominate over the rest seems to unbalance nature and intricate ecosystems.

 

PS have you seen all the smog/air pollution issues going on in India?  It's unfortunate that breathing clean air, which should be a right, is so hard to come by!

 

I expanded on that... I do that often... write something and then hammer it with afterthoughts -sorry

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

I expanded on that... I do that often... write something and then hammer it with afterthoughts -sorry

Thats fine John, I was looking up some of my reading material and just found it..... have a look at these:

 

Here is an excellent piece

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/15/sunday-review/overpopulated-and-underfed-countries-near-a-breaking-point.html

some others

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/talking-about-overpopulation-is-still-taboo-that-has-to-change/2018/06/18/ca7c1838-6e6f-11e8-afd5-778aca903bbe_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.10f9f1d1fab7

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-continuing-debate-over-population/2017/07/19/85c5f4bc-6b09-11e7-abbc-a53480672286_story.html?utm_term=.9cd76cfd419e

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2018/10/10/how-will-or-billion-people-eat-without-destroying-environment/?utm_term=.c22851ff04dd

here is an awesome piece from Nature

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0594-0

 A sobering report published Wednesday in the journal Nature argues that a sustainable food system that doesn’t ravage the environment is going to require dramatic reforms, including a radical change in dietary habits.

To be specific: Cheeseburgers are out, and fruits and veggies are in.

The 23 authors of the report, hailing from Europe, the United States, Australia and Lebanon, reviewed the many moving parts of the global food system and how they interact with the environment. The authors concluded that the current methods of producing, distributing and consuming food aren’t environmentally sustainable and that damage to the planet could make it less hospitable for human existence.

A core message from the researchers is that efforts to keep climate change at an acceptable level won’t be successful without a huge reduction in meat consumption.

“Feeding humanity is possible. It’s just a question of whether we can do it in an environmentally responsible way,” said Johan Rockström, an earth scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany and a co-author of the study.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/talking-about-overpopulation-is-still-taboo-that-has-to-change/2018/06/18/ca7c1838-6e6f-11e8-afd5-778aca903bbe_story.html?utm_term=.249575592711

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-importance-of-limiting-our-reproduction/2018/06/28/104ea1de-7959-11e8-ac4e-421ef7165923_story.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/15/opinion/sunday/remember-the-population-bomb-its-still-ticking.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/01/us/the-unrealized-horrors-of-population-explosion.html

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/08/is-overpopulation-a-legitimate-threat-to-humanity-and-the-planet/paul-ehrlichs-population-bomb-argument-was-right

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/08/is-overpopulation-a-legitimate-threat-to-humanity-and-the-planet/the-violent-side-effect-to-high-fertility-rates

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/08/is-overpopulation-a-legitimate-threat-to-humanity-and-the-planet/asia-must-build-a-less-wasteful-economy

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/08/is-overpopulation-a-legitimate-threat-to-humanity-and-the-planet/empower-women-for-the-health-of-the-planet

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/08/is-overpopulation-a-legitimate-threat-to-humanity-and-the-planet/its-not-a-numbers-problem

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/08/is-overpopulation-a-legitimate-threat-to-humanity-and-the-planet/overconsumption-is-a-grave-threat-to-humanity

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/08/is-overpopulation-a-legitimate-threat-to-humanity-and-the-planet

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/18/opinion/18iht-edwesting.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/opinion/no-to-population-growth.html

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/08/is-overpopulation-a-legitimate-threat-to-humanity-and-the-planet

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/24/opinion/population-growth.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/15/opinion/sunday/remember-the-population-bomb-its-still-ticking.html
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Not to be snarky but I don't agree that population is the problem in among its self.   

This may seem totally obvious because, well .. .it is, but, it's what the population does that is the problem - not the population. 

There is an important distinction.  

I'm sure those involved in any such debate are aware.. And perhaps there is a 'built in' assumption, one that is cynical where they're musing back and forth within the predilection that humanity is incapable of a non-profligate exploitation way of existence.  I could buy that ... I almost like that - almost.  Greed first! Evidence certainly seems to suggest so. To that, I have friends directly keyed into the circuit of Boston area university scientists, and they all agree ... the problem is more clearly a sociological one, more so than a geo-physical one.  Change attitudes... and the latter takes care of its self.  It's still just the population doing it.  If there were 8 billion people on this planet all living green - no problem. 

That can change?  But, people need to get burned to believe in the fire. That's the biggest problem with this ... the specter of climate change moves at a pace below the threshold of human senses.  People can't feel, see, taste or touch or hear it; though we are seeing that beginning to change with striking video.  Still, it's not in people's back yards enough.  'Soon as people feel the nausea, they'll stop sipping the cool-aide that it's okay to profligate - hell, begin to realize that the way we've done this thing since the Industrial Revolution is even profligate in the first place.  Generations have now lived and died, tucked inside the IR years since that great Human evolutionary turn begin to usurp Human societies... and their culture knows no other way. 

I've noticed it much more in the last few years with rising humidity, more rainfall, and uncomfortable health issues like allergies occurring almost year round.  I never had these issues before the last few years.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/01/us/the-unrealized-horrors-of-population-explosion.html

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/08/is-overpopulation-a-legitimate-threat-to-humanity-and-the-planet/paul-ehrlichs-population-bomb-argument-was-right

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/08/is-overpopulation-a-legitimate-threat-to-humanity-and-the-planet/the-violent-side-effect-to-high-fertility-rates

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/08/is-overpopulation-a-legitimate-threat-to-humanity-and-the-planet/asia-must-build-a-less-wasteful-economy

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/08/is-overpopulation-a-legitimate-threat-to-humanity-and-the-planet/empower-women-for-the-health-of-the-planet

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/08/is-overpopulation-a-legitimate-threat-to-humanity-and-the-planet/its-not-a-numbers-problem

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/08/is-overpopulation-a-legitimate-threat-to-humanity-and-the-planet/overconsumption-is-a-grave-threat-to-humanity

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/08/is-overpopulation-a-legitimate-threat-to-humanity-and-the-planet

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/18/opinion/18iht-edwesting.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/opinion/no-to-population-growth.html

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/08/is-overpopulation-a-legitimate-threat-to-humanity-and-the-planet

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/24/opinion/population-growth.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/15/opinion/sunday/remember-the-population-bomb-its-still-ticking.html
I knew I remembered this study from somewhere, now I finally found it- they're not talking about having no children at all, but the environmental benefit of just one less child per family.  An official at our own NOAA made this point also, just last year.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/3kn5z9/stop-telling-people-not-to-have-kids-to-save-the-planet

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children?CMP=twt_gu

https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2017.html

So when a new study came out today suggesting that having fewer kids is the most effective way to reduce our carbon emissions—sparking media headlines like "Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children" in The Guardian—I had to stop what I was doing and read it. It notes that a US family choosing to have one fewer child would be responsible for the same level of emissions reductions as 684 teens who "adopt comprehensive recycling" for the rest of their lives.

With the global population projected to reach 11.2 billion by the year 2100, up from 7.6 billion today, there are urgent questions about how we'll feed, clothe, house, and provide medical care for so many people in the face of climate change and its accompanying threats, including sea level rise, ocean acidification, and desertification.

And, while the new paper doesn't go so far, I've heard it suggested before that having kids is environmentally unconscionable—that parents are selfish to bring more people onto an already overcrowded planet, to gobble up more of our resources. This study predictably re-ignited a long-simmering debate.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/53ny3z/even-the-rainforest-is-better-off-when-women-have-reproductive-healthcare

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/59mb5d/our-planet-is-so-****ed-that-some-women-are-choosing-to-not-have-kids?utm_source=vicetwitterus

the paper

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/reuse-reduce-reproductive-rights-how-abortion-can-help-save-the-planet

another study

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/pdfs/OSUCarbonStudy.pdf

Stefanie Weiss, a writer in her mid-40s based in New York City, also decided to be child-free out of concern for the environment."Years ago, there was a study I learned about," Weiss told Broadly, referencing a 2008 study from a pair of researchers at Oregon State University. "There's this number, 9,441. That's the amount of additional metric tons of carbon you add to the atmosphere for every child you have. You can never take it back. That stopped me in my tracks."

There's this number, 9,441. That's the amount of additional metric tons of carbon you add to the atmosphere for every child you have.

That same study put those 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide into perspective: If a typical American decided to recycle newspapers, magazines, glass, plastic, aluminum, and steel cans over the course of her entire life, she would save the environment from just 17 metric tons of carbon emissions.

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/children-carbon-footprint-environment-climate-change-adoption-birth-pregnancy-a8469886.html

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541/meta

And the proliferating organisations arguing we should consider smaller families are being bolstered by recent reports. A major study last year concluded that not having children is one of the most effective ways of cutting our carbon footprint, and that a US family who chooses to have one fewer child would provide the same level of emissions reductions as 684 teenagers who recycle for the rest of their lives. 

Last year researchers recommended four ways to contribute to lowering our emissions, including having one fewer child – the equivalent of 58.6 tonnes of CO2 emissions every year. The other three suggestions – avoiding aeroplane travel, ditching the car and eating a plant-based diet – totalled a fraction of the emissions of having a child. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/children-carbon-footprint-climate-change-damage-having-kids-research-a7837961.html

Having children is the most destructive thing a person can to do to the environment, according to a new study.

Researchers from Lund University in Sweden found having one fewer child per family can save “an average of 58.6 tonnes of CO2-equivalent emissions per year”.

Eating meat, driving a car and travelling by aeroplane made up the list of the most polluting things people can do to the planet.

But having children was top, according to the new study, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

Read more
 
Carbon maps reveal those causing the most and least climate change
 
Government’s own experts slam its lack of action on climate change
 
Key environmental pledge feared shelved on Gove's return
“A US family who chooses to have one fewer child would provide the same level of emissions reductions as 684 teenagers who choose to adopt comprehensive recycling for the rest of their lives,” it said.

Lead author Seth Wynes told The Local: “We found there are four actions that could result in substantial decreases in an individual's carbon footprint: eating a plant-based diet, avoiding air travel, living car free and having smaller families.

“For example, living car-free saves about 2.4 tonnes of C02 equivalent per year, while eating a plant-based diet saves 0.8 tonnes of C02 equivalent a year.” 

The paper, which studied analysed 39-peer reviewed journals studying the environmental policies of several major economies, found most governments focused on incremental changes which have “much smaller potential to reduce emissions”.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children


http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/best-way-reduce-your-carbon-footprint-one-government-isn-t-telling-you-about

Recycling and using public transit are all fine and good if you want to reduce your carbon footprint, but to truly make a difference you should have fewer children. That’s the conclusion of a new study in which researchers looked at 39 peer-reviewed papers, government reports, and web-based programs that assess how an individual’s lifestyle choices might shrink their personal share of emissions.

Many commonly promoted options, such as washing clothes in cold water or swapping incandescent bulbs for light-emitting diodes, have only a moderate impact (see chart, below), the team reports today in Environmental Research Letters. But four lifestyle choices had a major impact: Become a vegetarian, forego air travel, ditch your car, and—most significantly—have fewer children.

http://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541

Eating no meat cuts an individual’s carbon footprint by 820 kilograms of carbon dioxide (CO2) each year, on average, about four times the reduction they’d get by recycling as much as possible. (Emissions generated by eating meat result, in large part, from the large amounts of energy needed to grow, harvest, and process feed crops.) Foregoing one round-trip transatlantic flight each year would cut a person’s emissions of CO2 by 1600 kilograms. Getting rid of their car would reduce emissions by 2400 kilograms, or 2.4 metric tons. And by choosing to have one fewer child in their family, a person would trim their carbon footprint by a whopping 58.6 metric tons—about the same emissions savings as having nearly 700 teenagers recycle as much as possible for the rest of their lives.

https://slate.com/technology/2007/09/should-americans-have-fewer-babies-to-save-the-environment.html

https://globalnews.ca/news/3595511/climate-change-carbon-footprint-children/

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541/meta#erlaa7541s1

https://www.sciencealert.com/the-best-ways-to-reduce-your-carbon-footprint-environment-science-less-children

https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541

https://www.sciencealert.com/the-best-ways-to-reduce-your-carbon-footprint-environment-science-less-children

https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541

https://www.kinder-world.org/articles/you/these-are-the-4-most-effective-ways-to-reduce-your-carbon-footprint-19883

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-15/a-radical-plan-to-slow-climate-change-eat-less-meat

Avoiding meat and dairy products is the single biggest way to reduce your environmental impact on the planet, according to the scientists behind the most comprehensive analysis to date of the damage farming does to the planet.

The new research shows that without meat and dairy consumption, global farmland use could be reduced by more than 75% – an area equivalent to the US, China, European Union and Australia combined – and still feed the world. Loss of wild areas to agriculture is the leading cause of the current mass extinction of wildlife.

The new analysis shows that while meat and dairy provide just 18% of calories and 37% of protein, it uses the vast majority – 83% – of farmland and produces 60% of agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions. Other recent research shows 86% of all land mammals are now livestock or humans. The scientists also found that even the very lowest impact meat and dairy products still cause much more environmental harm than the least sustainable vegetable and cereal growing.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/10/earths-sixth-mass-extinction-event-already-underway-scientists-warn
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/21/human-race-just-001-of-all-life-but-has-destroyed-over-80-of-wild-mammals-study

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1711842115

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg3/index.php?idp=115


Humankind is revealed as simultaneously insignificant and utterly dominant in the grand scheme of life on Earth by a groundbreaking new assessment of all life on the planet.

The world’s 7.6 billion people represent just 0.01% of all living things, according to the study. Yet since the dawn of civilisation, humanity has caused the loss of 83% of all wild mammals and half of plants, while livestock kept by humans abounds.

The new work is the first comprehensive estimate of the weight of every class of living creature and overturns some long-held assumptions. Bacteria are indeed a major life form – 13% of everything – but plants overshadow everything, representing 82% of all living matter. All other creatures, from insects to fungi, to fish and animals, make up just 5% of the world’s biomass.

Another surprise is that the teeming life revealed in the oceans by the recent BBC television series Blue Planet II turns out to represent just 1% of all biomass. The vast majority of life is land-based and a large chunk – an eighth – is bacteria buried deep below the surface.

“I was shocked to find there wasn’t already a comprehensive, holistic estimate of all the different components of biomass,” said Prof Ron Milo, at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel, who led the work, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“I would hope this gives people a perspective on the very dominant role that humanity now plays on Earth,” he said, adding that he now chooses to eat less meat due to the huge environmental impact of livestock.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1704949114

A “biological annihilation” of wildlife in recent decades means a sixth mass extinction in Earth’s history is under way and is more severe than previously feared, according to research.

Scientists analysed both common and rare species and found billions of regional or local populations have been lost. They blame human overpopulation and overconsumption for the crisis and warn that it threatens the survival of human civilisation, with just a short window of time in which to act.

The study, , eschews the normally sober tone of scientific papers and calls the massive loss of wildlife a “biological annihilation” that represents a “frightening assault on the foundations of human civilisation”.

Prof Gerardo Ceballos, at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, who led the work, said: “The situation has become so bad it would not be ethical not to use strong language.”

Previous studies have shown species are becoming extinct at a significantly faster rate than for millions of years before, but even so extinctions remain relatively rare giving the impression of a gradual loss of biodiversity. The new work instead takes a broader view, assessing many common species which are losing populations all over the world as their ranges shrink, but remain present elsewhere.

The scientists found that a third of the thousands of species losing populations are not currently considered endangered and that up to 50% of all individual animals have been lost in recent decades. Detailed data is available for land mammals, and almost half of these have lost 80% of their range in the last century. The scientists found billions of populations of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians have been lost all over the planet, leading them to say a sixth mass extinction has already progressed further than was thought.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/10/earths-sixth-mass-extinction-event-already-underway-scientists-warn

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/19/humans-creating-sixth-great-extinction-of-animal-species-say-scientists

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/11/sixth-mass-extinction-habitats-destroy-population

The human population has grown so large that roughly 40% of the Earth’s land surface is now farmed to feed people – and none too well at that. Largely due to persistent problems with distribution, almost 800 million people go to bed hungry, and between one and two billion suffer from malnutrition. As a consequence of its booming population, Homo sapiens has taken much of the most fertile land to grow plants for its own consumption. But guess what? That cropland is generally not rich in food plants suitable for the caterpillars of the 15,000 butterfly species with which we share the planet. Few butterflies require the wheat, corn or rice on which humans largely depend. From the viewpoint of most of the Earth’s wildlife, farming can be viewed as “habitat destruction”. And, unsurprisingly, few species of wildlife have evolved to live on highways, or in strip malls, office buildings, kitchens or sewers – unless you count Norway rats, house mice, European starlings and German roaches. Virtually everything humanity constructs provides an example of habitat destruction.

The more people there are, the more products of nature they demand to meet their needs and wants: timber, seafood, meat, gas, oil, metal ores, rare earths and rare animals to eat or to use for medicinal purposes. Human demands cause both habitat destruction and outright extermination of wildlife. So when you watch the expansion of the human enterprise; when you see buildings springing up; when you settle down to dinner at home or in a restaurant; you are observing (and often participating in) the sixth mass extinction.

The expanding human population not only outright destroys habitats, it also alters them to the detriment of wildlife (and often people themselves). The more people there are, the more greenhouse gases flow into the atmosphere, and the greater the impacts on wildlife that require specific temperature ranges.

And the more people there are, the more cities, roads, farm fields, fences and other barriers preventing wildlife from moving to areas of more favourable temperature or humidity in a rapidly changing climate. Less recognised, but perhaps even more dangerous to both people and wildlife, is the increasing toxification of the entire planet with synthetic chemicals. Growing populations want myriad more items of plastic that often leak toxic chemicals: more cosmetics, cleansing compounds, pesticides, herbicides, preservatives and industrial chemicals. Many of these novel chemicals mimic natural hormones, and in tiny quantities can alter the development of animals or human children, with potentially catastrophic consequences. As with climate disruption, this is one more case of human overpopulation threatening civilisation.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180531-where-are-the-worlds-healthiest-places-to-live

Generally speaking, evidence suggests that green spaces are good for those of us who live in urban areas. Those who reside near parks or trees tend to enjoy lower levels of ambient air pollution, reduced manmade noise pollution and more cooling effects (something that will become increasingly useful as the planet warms).

Natural spaces are conducive to physical and social activities– both of which are associated with myriad benefits of their own.

Time in nature has been linked to reduced physical markers of stress. When we are out for a stroll or just sitting beneath the trees, our heart rate and blood pressure both tend to go down. We also release more natural ‘killer cells’: lymphocytes that roam throughout the body, hunting down cancerous and virus-infected cells.

Researchers are still trying to determine why this is so, although they do have a number of hypotheses. “One predominate theory is that natural spaces act as a calming backdrop to the busy stimuli of the city,” says Amber Pearson, a health geographer at Michigan State University. “From an evolutionary perspective, we also associate natural things as key resources for survival, so we favour them.” 

 

City residents tend to suffer from more asthma, allergies and depression – but they also tend to be less obese, at a lower suicide risk and are less likely to get killed in an accident

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204611003665

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180531-where-are-the-worlds-healthiest-places-to-live
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204611003665
http://www.ecehh.org/research-projects/urban-green-space/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Unfortunately there are massive side effects to industrialization, and the rise of large global multinational corporations is one of the cancers of modern society.  Yes, there are positive aspects to it, but it must be strictly regulated to counter the side effects of human greed. Factory farming MUST come to an end, consumption of meat must be sharply reduced.  Not just for the environment but for human health also, as the ACS and AHA both now call for a massive reduction in the consumption of processed food and meat to lower cancer and heart disease risks.

A prime example is how the corruption and monetary influence of the American Chemical Lobby has kept toxic substances legal here which are banned in Canada and Europe.  The pesticide Chlorpyrifos which has been linked to brain damage in children was due to be banned until the current administration took charge and got an earful from the chemical lobby and decided to not go through with the ban which the EPA's own scientists had stated was necessary. The administration's decision was reversed by the federal courts, however toxic levels of this chemical are still being sprayed on fields near schools in California's central valley and children and pregnant women who gave birth to children have been reported as suffering from various side effects.   Aside from that we have over 2000 superfund sites, places where companies like Dow buried their harmful PFOA for which they got sued, when it was found out they kept using them even though their own employees were giving birth to children with birth defects.  NJ the state with the most superfund sites is also not coincidentally, the state with the highest rate of autism.  It's out of control capitalism and unregulated industrialism that has produced these horrors, as well as fast food that has chemicals added that are specifically included to make children addicted to fast food for life.  The sugar industry's cover up with its paid "scientists" is a well known example of how money has been used to influence those in charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Friday, the San Francisco Federal Reserve hosted a conference on climate change. Excerpts from San Francisco Federal Reserve President Mary C. Daly's address are below:

Why is the San Francisco Fed hosting a climate conference?

...The answer is simple. It’s essential to achieving our mission...

Extreme weather events like hurricanes, floods, and wildfires destroy property and disrupt essential services like health care and education. But they also impact how people buy things. Without power, electronic payment methods – debit cards, credit cards, and mobile services like Apple Pay – don’t work. So you need cash for everything...

The Fed’s second core function is the regulation and supervision of the banking system. And climate events are becoming an increasing area of risk for many of the financial firms we supervise.

Higher sea levels, heavier rainfalls, dryer conditions, and the associated fallout can cause catastrophic losses to property and casualty insurers – especially if the majority of their clients are geographically concentrated in the affected region. In 2018 alone, it’s estimated that damages from severe weather in the United States cost insurers upwards of $50 billion...

Finally, climate change can also influence our third function: conducting monetary policy to achieve our congressionally-mandated goals of full employment and price stability.

Early research suggests that increased warming has already started to reduce average output growth in the United States. And future growth may be curtailed even further as temperatures rise. Several of the papers on the program today outline other ways in which the micro- and macro-economic environments may be impacted by climate change. While more work needs to be done to clearly understand these effects, there’s little doubt that we need to recognize, examine, and prepare for these risks in order to fulfill our core responsibilities.

https://www.frbsf.org/our-district/files/Speech-Daly-Economics-of-Climate-Change-Conference.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Historic fire weather conditions in Australia:

 

 

I'm less than entirely familiar with the specifics of Australian climatology ... other than exposure to outback heat and dry cinema portrayed through science channel this, or old movie that.. 

I think it interesting that they are only in their spring .. which concomitantly means, the higher hotter sun and air potential looms, and it seems at a very simple level of consideration that this cannot project very favorably that this is happening this early. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2019 at 8:53 PM, donsutherland1 said:

On Friday, the San Francisco Federal Reserve hosted a conference on climate change. Excerpts from San Francisco Federal Reserve President Mary C. Daly's address are below:

Why is the San Francisco Fed hosting a climate conference?

...The answer is simple. It’s essential to achieving our mission...

Extreme weather events like hurricanes, floods, and wildfires destroy property and disrupt essential services like health care and education. But they also impact how people buy things. Without power, electronic payment methods – debit cards, credit cards, and mobile services like Apple Pay – don’t work. So you need cash for everything...

The Fed’s second core function is the regulation and supervision of the banking system. And climate events are becoming an increasing area of risk for many of the financial firms we supervise.

Higher sea levels, heavier rainfalls, dryer conditions, and the associated fallout can cause catastrophic losses to property and casualty insurers – especially if the majority of their clients are geographically concentrated in the affected region. In 2018 alone, it’s estimated that damages from severe weather in the United States cost insurers upwards of $50 billion...

Finally, climate change can also influence our third function: conducting monetary policy to achieve our congressionally-mandated goals of full employment and price stability.

Early research suggests that increased warming has already started to reduce average output growth in the United States. And future growth may be curtailed even further as temperatures rise. Several of the papers on the program today outline other ways in which the micro- and macro-economic environments may be impacted by climate change. While more work needs to be done to clearly understand these effects, there’s little doubt that we need to recognize, examine, and prepare for these risks in order to fulfill our core responsibilities.

https://www.frbsf.org/our-district/files/Speech-Daly-Economics-of-Climate-Change-Conference.pdf

I think it's interesting that these excerpts have an over-arching theme of monetary this and that, and how it will effect commerce ... And guess what?  Money means nothing in nature.  Nor, to climate change's ability to dwindle species survivability - yes, that includes the conceit of humanity, a fragility that will be exposed.  

Is this narrative - money vibe some manipulation of the audience?   I mean, considering... it is an audience that cannot connect with anything unless they are impacted in their wallets, it's an understandable device.  It's the only way to get them to pay attention and take this shit seriously. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

 

I'm less than entirely familiar with the specifics of Australian climatology ... other than exposure to outback heat and dry cinema portrayed through science channel this, or old movie that.. 

I think it interesting that they are only in their spring .. which concomitantly means, the higher hotter sun and air potential looms, and it seems at a very simple level of consideration that this cannot project very favorably that this is happening this early. 

Tip, In the middle of the last century, when I was young, I remember a teacher telling me that Australia looked like an upside down version of the USA. Looking at the graphic above brings to mind the picture of Dorian Grey or perhaps Alice through the Looking Glass with the Mad Hatter and Queen Of Hearts going full tilt. Of course, the Cheshire Cat looms in the background. As always .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Typhoon Tip said:

I think it's interesting that these excerpts have an over-arching theme of monetary this and that, and how it will effect commerce ... And guess what?  Money means nothing in nature.  Nor, to climate change's ability to dwindle species survivability - yes, that includes the conceit of humanity, a fragility that will be exposed.  

Is this narrative - money vibe some manipulation of the audience?   I mean, considering... it is an audience that cannot connect with anything unless they are impacted in their wallets, it's an understandable device.  It's the only way to get them to pay attention and take this shit seriously. 

 

To be fair, that is a Federal Reserve conference. The focus is on areas within the Fed's domain. We agree that climate goes beyond monetary policy, finance, and economics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

To be fair, that is a Federal Reserve conference. The focus is on areas within the Fed's domain. We agree that climate goes beyond monetary policy, finance, and economics.

Oh ...geez, I missed the statement in the beginning - yeah, I guess what's relevant to them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ten hours. 

Super massive stars that begin fusing Hydrogen into Helium during their early lives, will burn so hot and furiously through their Hydrogen mass that within just a few million years they will begin fusing the Helium they have created, into heavier elements.  This goes onward, each cycle faster than the predecessor, because the energy produced by fusion of these increasingly heavier elements adds more and more energy to the nucleosynthesis process, thus speeding it up.  Once the star begins fusing Silicon into Iron ...that's the end of the line. 

BOOM. 

That fusion into Iron at the core is the end of the line because it takes more energy than is provisionally in place left over from the previous nucleosynthesis processes to fuse Iron into heavier elements such Gold ..etc.  The star no longer is producing additional energy thus begins to lose thermal pressure, and can no longer withstand its own incredible gravity. The core collapses... When that collapsing mass hits the neutron density being created by compressing protons and electrons together ( the creating of a neutron star associated with ~ 8 solar mass stars or > ), it rebounds in a horrific explosion called a Super Nova. 

Here is the fascinating part.  Because the star is so large, that process of core implosion to 'Nova, takes time - on the order of ten hours.  In that time, the outside observer sees the star as burning normally.  It's really quite literally as though the outside spherical envelope of the star its self, is a dead man walking.  A corpse unaware... that it's heart beat has ceased, and has no idea about the the shock wave about to annihilate from below.  

When I read articles like this:  https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/13/europe/insect-apocalypse-report-scn/index.html

I am driven to the above primer; where humanity, and perhaps a lot of other species to go along with, may be living and breathing, and carrying on in their existence as though quite metaphoric with that above theme, having no idea ( or in our case, vaguely..).  

There are so many moving parts to the climate change catastrophe, and it is absolutely a catastrophe.  So few are aware, or could even begin to conceptualize the immense inter dependencies of the entire biological system.  We read about polar bear habitats.  Sea level rises.. Droughts and heat waves.  And we think we got it?  As commoners, we don't even know the 1% of it.  As scholars and scientists, we don't know the half.  But as we burn and carry on in our ways and means, in a lot of ways it is as though we are symbolically existing through our final, proverbial ten hours.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Ten hours. 

Super massive stars that begin fusing Hydrogen into Helium during their early lives, will burn so hot and furiously through their Hydrogen mass that within just a few million years they will begin fusing the Helium they have created, into heavier elements.  This goes onward, each cycle faster than the predecessor, because the energy produced by fusion of these increasingly heavier elements adds more and more energy to the nucleosynthesis process, thus speeding it up.  Once the star begins fusing Oxygen into Iron ...that's the end of the line. 

BOOM. 

That fusion into Iron at the core is the end of the line because it takes more energy than is provisionally in place left over from the previous nucleosynthesis processes to fuse Iron into heavier elements such Gold ..etc.  The star no longer is producing additional energy thus begins to lose thermal pressure, and can no longer withstand its own incredible gravity. The core collapses... When that collapsing mass hits the neutron density being created by compressing protons and electrons together ( the creating of a neutron star associated with ~ 8 solar mass stars or > ), it rebounds in a horrific explosion called a Super Nova. 

Here is the fascinating part.  Because the star is so large, that process of core implosion to 'Nova, takes time - on the order of ten hours.  In that time, the outside observer sees the star as burning normally.  It's really quite literally as though the outside spherical envelope of the star its self, is a dead man walking.  A corpse unaware... that it's heart beat has ceased, and has no idea about the the shock wave about to annihilate from below.  

When I read articles like this:  https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/13/europe/insect-apocalypse-report-scn/index.html

I am driven to the above primer; where humanity, and perhaps a lot of other species to go along with, may be living and breathing, and carrying on in their existence as though quite metaphoric with that above theme, having no idea ( or in our case, vaguely..).  

There are so many moving parts to the climate change catastrophe, and it is absolutely a catastrophe.  So few are aware, or could even begin to conceptualize the immense inter dependencies of the entire biological system.  We read about polar bear habitats.  Sea level rises.. Droughts and heat waves.  And we think we got it?  As commoners, we don't even know the 1% of it.  As scholars and scientists, we don't know the half.  But as we burn and carry on in our ways and means as a species, we may be existing through our ten hours. 

And I've been thinking more and more about what you wrote a while back regarding Gaia maybe keeping NOTAM cooler relative to global temps in order to ensure that humans take no action in their last ten hours that could potentially mitigate the worst outcome (not that we have too many options at this point even if every one of us awakens NOW to imminent danger). If IMBY weenies with a hobbyist's literacy in the sciences cannot comprehend how record setting cold Oct-Nov temps over the contiguous 48 could be strongly correlated with a warming planet, then there's no chance that the average Joe in Lubbock can be convinced his frostbite is caused by global warming. Maybe I'm just an old cynic, but that's my take on the eve of 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, adiabatic14 said:

And I've been thinking more and more about what you wrote a while back regarding Gaia maybe keeping NOTAM cooler relative to global temps in order to ensure that humans take no action in their last ten hours that could potentially mitigate the worst outcome (not that we have too many options at this point even if every one of us awakens NOW to imminent danger). If IMBY weenies with a hobbyist's literacy in the sciences cannot comprehend how record setting cold Oct-Nov temps over the contiguous 48 could be strongly correlated with a warming planet, then there's no chance that the average Joe in Lubbock can be convinced his frostbite is caused by global warming. Maybe I'm just an old cynic, but that's my take on the eve of 2020.

No .. I don't think that's cynical at all. I think that's a fair observation.

Truth is, there is a reason these early cold snaps are becoming more common year to year.  And, guess what? It's more than merely plausible.  It has to do with the Pacific thermal ridge/bulge, combined with a permanent geographical circumstance that relates to the orientation of the N/American continent with respect to the west-to-east prevailing winds.  Both cause ..or favor, NW flow in western Canada without the help of one another, as a rest/base-line tendency. 

The rest state of the Perennial North American Pattern features a mountain bulge, a flat ridge, the axis of which is collocated roughly with the Rockies cordillera ( Canada to Mexico).. Immediately down wind of this mean ridge there is a flattening out of the flow that is arguable a coupled trough. That is the geographically induced circulation mode. 

In present era of Pacific thermal surplus - particularly as we near the autumn and entry times to the cold season - that bulge combines with the ever present geographically induced ridge; superimposition over one another sort of "synergistically" enhances NW flows over western North America.  That constructive wave interference than lends to tapping cold earlier and delivering it south toward N/A middle latitudes. 

As far as Gaia, that was more for science-fiction?  A thought experiment.  Muse out loud if you will. Though it's an intriguing premise for a book, don't you think?  You know what it really hearkens to?  I hearkens to the crashing airliner narrative, about how the moment of the accident is actually the end result of a series of events set into motion ... sometimes years in advance as forensics eventually piece together.  It's just that with so many moving parts in the machinery of this planets biosphere and all the dependencies and delicate bandwidths of adaptation that need to remain stable, it gets to be so complex that its easier to just refer to it as Gaia.  But, the geographic layout of our planetary interface with the prevailing N.H.wind ... causing slightly cooler variance over N/A as far as the GW we experience here, was like the plain wreck... That part of it formulated 10,000,000 years ago. Or if you really want to get outre with it, maybe Gaia set all this up back then. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2019 at 9:15 AM, Typhoon Tip said:

 

I'm less than entirely familiar with the specifics of Australian climatology ... other than exposure to outback heat and dry cinema portrayed through science channel this, or old movie that.. 

I think it interesting that they are only in their spring .. which concomitantly means, the higher hotter sun and air potential looms, and it seems at a very simple level of consideration that this cannot project very favorably that this is happening this early. 

and they already had their hottest summer ever just a couple years ago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Typhoon Tip said:

No .. I don't think that's cynical at all. I think that's a fair observation.

Truth is, there is a reason these early cold snaps are becoming more common year to year.  And, guess what? It's more than merely plausible.  It has to do with the Pacific thermal ridge/bulge, combined with a permanent geographical circumstance that relates to the orientation of the N/American continent with respect to the west-to-east prevailing winds.  Both cause ..or favor, NW flow in western Canada without the help of one another, as a rest/base-line tendency. 

The rest state of the Perennial North American Pattern features a mountain bulge, a flat ridge, the axis of which is collocated roughly with the Rockies cordillera ( Canada to Mexico).. Immediately down wind of this mean ridge there is a flattening out of the flow that is arguable a coupled trough. That is the geographically induced circulation mode. 

In present era of Pacific thermal surplus - particularly as we near the autumn and entry times to the cold season - that bulge combines with the ever present geographically induced ridge; superimposition over one another sort of "synergistically" enhances NW flows over western North America.  That constructive wave interference than lends to tapping cold earlier and delivering it south toward N/A middle latitudes. 

As far as Gaia, that was more for science-fiction?  A thought experiment.  Muse out loud if you will. Though it's an intriguing premise for a book, don't you think?  You know what it really hearkens to?  I hearkens to the crashing airliner narrative, about how the moment of the accident is actually the end result of a series of events set into motion ... sometimes years in advance as forensics eventually piece together.  It's just that with so many moving parts in the machinery of this planets biosphere and all the dependencies and delicate bandwidths of adaptation that need to remain stable, it gets to be so complex that its easier to just refer to it as Gaia.  But, the geographic layout of our planetary interface with the prevailing N.H.wind ... causing slightly cooler variance over N/A as far as the GW we experience here, was like the plain wreck... That part of it formulated 10,000,000 years ago. Or if you really want to get outre with it, maybe Gaia set all this up back then. 

Gaia isn't science fiction, the idea of the planet self-regulating has merit.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, adiabatic14 said:

And I've been thinking more and more about what you wrote a while back regarding Gaia maybe keeping NOTAM cooler relative to global temps in order to ensure that humans take no action in their last ten hours that could potentially mitigate the worst outcome (not that we have too many options at this point even if every one of us awakens NOW to imminent danger). If IMBY weenies with a hobbyist's literacy in the sciences cannot comprehend how record setting cold Oct-Nov temps over the contiguous 48 could be strongly correlated with a warming planet, then there's no chance that the average Joe in Lubbock can be convinced his frostbite is caused by global warming. Maybe I'm just an old cynic, but that's my take on the eve of 2020.

it doesn't have to be sentient to be self-regulating.  It's logical that for life in general to survive for billions of years, the planet must have some sort of self-regulation in place.  Otherwise life wouldn't have made it this far.  Ironically, it may mean the end of any species that decides to dominate the rest of the planet- because that's not good for sustainability.  We may have or be in the process of pulling the kill-switch on ourselves.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Ten hours. 

Super massive stars that begin fusing Hydrogen into Helium during their early lives, will burn so hot and furiously through their Hydrogen mass that within just a few million years they will begin fusing the Helium they have created, into heavier elements.  This goes onward, each cycle faster than the predecessor, because the energy produced by fusion of these increasingly heavier elements adds more and more energy to the nucleosynthesis process, thus speeding it up.  Once the star begins fusing Silicon into Iron ...that's the end of the line. 

BOOM. 

That fusion into Iron at the core is the end of the line because it takes more energy than is provisionally in place left over from the previous nucleosynthesis processes to fuse Iron into heavier elements such Gold ..etc.  The star no longer is producing additional energy thus begins to lose thermal pressure, and can no longer withstand its own incredible gravity. The core collapses... When that collapsing mass hits the neutron density being created by compressing protons and electrons together ( the creating of a neutron star associated with ~ 8 solar mass stars or > ), it rebounds in a horrific explosion called a Super Nova. 

Here is the fascinating part.  Because the star is so large, that process of core implosion to 'Nova, takes time - on the order of ten hours.  In that time, the outside observer sees the star as burning normally.  It's really quite literally as though the outside spherical envelope of the star its self, is a dead man walking.  A corpse unaware... that it's heart beat has ceased, and has no idea about the the shock wave about to annihilate from below.  

When I read articles like this:  https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/13/europe/insect-apocalypse-report-scn/index.html

I am driven to the above primer; where humanity, and perhaps a lot of other species to go along with, may be living and breathing, and carrying on in their existence as though quite metaphoric with that above theme, having no idea ( or in our case, vaguely..).  

There are so many moving parts to the climate change catastrophe, and it is absolutely a catastrophe.  So few are aware, or could even begin to conceptualize the immense inter dependencies of the entire biological system.  We read about polar bear habitats.  Sea level rises.. Droughts and heat waves.  And we think we got it?  As commoners, we don't even know the 1% of it.  As scholars and scientists, we don't know the half.  But as we burn and carry on in our ways and means, in a lot of ways it is as though we are symbolically existing through our final, proverbial ten hours.  

the usage of pesticides also has a large impact on pollinator populations.  Bayer is a major villain in this.

Also read this:

New movie coming out about DuPont, PFOA/PFOS contamination, etc., on November 22nd, based on some of the things I've already mentioned:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Waters_(2019_film)

The movie is reportedly based on the 2016 article "The Lawyer Who Became DuPont's Worst Nightmare" by Nathaniel Rich, published in The New York Times Magazine.[3][4] Much of the underlying story was first reported in-depth by two other journalists, Mariah Blake, whose 2015 article, "Welcome to Beautiful Parkersburg, West Virginia," ran in HuffPost Highline[5] and was a National Magazine Award finalist,[6] and Sharon Lerner, whose series, Bad Chemistry, ran in the Intercept.[7][8][9]

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare.html

https://deadline.com/2019/01/anne-hathaway-tim-robbins-mark-ruffalo-todd-haynes-dupont-pollution-scandal-1202532048/

https://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/welcome-to-beautiful-parkersburg/

https://theintercept.com/2015/08/17/teflon-toxin-case-against-dupont/

https://theintercept.com/2015/08/11/dupont-chemistry-deception/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Waters_(2019_film)#cite_note-9

Inspired by a shocking true story, a tenacious attorney (Ruffalo) uncovers a dark secret that connects a growing number of unexplained deaths due to one of the world's largest corporations, DuPont. In the process, he risks everything – his future, his family, and his own life – to expose the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2019 at 4:01 PM, LibertyBell said:

Gaia isn't science fiction, the idea of the planet self-regulating has merit.  

The planet or, a concept I enjoy, Gaia will self regulate and find balance. Whether humanity can survive that balance will be of no consequence to the planet. As always .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rclab said:

The planet or, a concept I enjoy, Gaia will self regulate and find balance. Whether humanity can survive that balance will be of no consequence to the planet. As always .....

Gaia will self-regulate the excess heat by destroying your house and flooding global civilization. Are you still enthusiastic about your prospects?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Vice-Regent said:

Gaia will self-regulate the excess heat by destroying your house and flooding global civilization. Are you still enthusiastic about your prospects?

Neither my prospects or yours will matter in the final reckoning. As always ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Vice-Regent said:

Gaia will self-regulate the excess heat by destroying your house and flooding global civilization. Are you still enthusiastic about your prospects?

We must divorce our emotions from what the planet does to regulate itself.  The system as a whole is more significant than any of its parts.

With that said, I want to go after these greedy bastards who screw with the environment too!  I want THEM to sink first.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2019 at 4:01 PM, LibertyBell said:

Gaia isn't science fiction, the idea of the planet self-regulating has merit.  

Nah... I was referencing a prior context - that statement you are responding to is not that context.  

The prior context did thematically portray Gaia as some sort of agent of intelligence that was strategizing the demise of Humanity - almost as a hand-throwing acquiescence to the notion that Humanity cannot be reasoned with, so blind extermination is the only recourse... Muah hahaha. Something along those lines was implicit - 

That would be fodder for science fiction/fantasy.   

But Gaia "self- regulating" - I'm not sure I agree with that either. I've heard other's sort of crutch on Gaia in principle, like it'll "protect" and "save" Earth from us... Mmm.  No.  

It's not regulating shit when there's a mass-extinction already underway.  I understand the modern definition contains that terminology, self-regulation, but that is being conflated with self-protecting. Even Gaia theory would have its break point... Think of it this way ( logically ):  if the organic life that is supposed to be working WITH the inorganic Earth to produce a synergy-related positive feed-back that supports life, what does it mean if the life part of that formula ceases to exist?  No Gaia, that's what -

It's failing is what that is. And just like all the major mass-extinction events, regardless of whether they are causally related to geology, extra-terrestrial bombardment, or ... fascinatingly, the biology of the planet its self, these effectively wiped out their "Gaias" in lieu of new Gaias.  

As far as Gaia its self... upon deeper reflection ... I find it just as equatable to processes of ecological-balance.  There are direct interdependent requirements of life within any given domain, and that domain then has indirect but still important dependencies upon adjacent ecology(s).  Gaia really just a whimsical way of artfully describing the same thing in a poetic refrain of awe and wonder.  But it's no different than ecology processes of various life components working unwittingly in support of one another. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

We must divorce our emotions from what the planet does to regulate itself.  The system as a whole is more significant than any of its parts.

With that said, I want to go after these greedy bastards who screw with the environment too!  I want THEM to sink first.

 

 

Slip sliding' away... as usual. There is no moral high ground only cause and effect which happens to follow the laws of universal karma. In other news the Pope has outlawed environmental exploitation. Religion comes to the fore at the final hour but it's too late now.

The enemy is us

Not to be deluded by dreams. To know that great civilizations have broken down into violence, and their tyrants come, many times before. When open violence appears, to avoid it with honor or choose the least ugly faction; these evils are essential. By dreams of universal justice or happiness. These dreams will not be fulfilled.

Robinson Jeffers 1936

Oh cracked and twilight mirrors ever to catch
One color, one glinting flash, of the splendor of things.

I think, here is your emblem
To hang in the future sky...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw this on twitter from the International Energy Agency's recently issued 2019 World Energy Outlook. Base case on left, sustainable development, broadly consistent with Paris targets, on right. Solar forecast to  be #1 in global power generation by 2035 in base case. That date is moved forward to 2028 for "sustainable development". This isn't rocket science.

IEA2019WEO.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, chubbs said:

Here is solar in previous IEA outlooks - 2035 in the base case is undoubtedly conservative.

ieasolar.jpg

 

O,  I C ...

No I don't actually...  what the in hell do all these abbreviations mean in that product's context?   What's "PV" ... does that mean polar vortex. What in the f are "WEO" ... "IEA" and NPS... 

Oh, I see ... some of those are expanded in the subheading.. .But what is PV again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.