New Global Warming study puts the fear in scientists
- Thread starter Nastycrow
- Start date
mojoalb1 said:
Simply comparing it to man. It is a metaphor:
a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, especially something abstract.
"the amounts of money being lost by the company were enough to make it a metaphor for an industry that was teetering
I didn't want to write a lengthy exposition, but apparently that is needed. A man can go to a doctor if he has a fever. The earth probably cannot, therefore it may just get sick and die.
I added the bit about the earth being a sentient being just to say it should get more respect from mankind.
"Look what we have done to the earth. Look what we have done to our fair sister".-Jim Morrison
Click to expand...
"I am the lizard king. I can do anything" - Jim Morrison
Mr. Mojo Risin was one groovy dude.
This is interesting:
https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/08/...arming-new-un-report-suggests-carbon-pricing/
A $240 Per Gallon Gas Tax To Fight Global Warming? New UN Report Suggests Carbon Pricing
A United Nations special climate report suggests a tax on carbon dioxide emissions would need to be as high as $27,000 per ton at the end of the century to effectively limit global warming.
For Americans, that’s the same as a $240 per gallon tax on gasoline in the year 2100, should such a recommendation be adopted.
In 2030, the report says a carbon tax would need to be as high as $5,500 — that’s equivalent to a $49 per gallon gas tax.
If you think that’s an unlikely scenario, you’re probably not wrong. However, it’s what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s
report
, released Sunday night, sees as a policy option for reducing emissions enough to keep projected warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius.
The IPCC’s report is meant to galvanize political support for doubling down on the Paris climate accord ahead of a U.N. climate summit scheduled for December. The report calls for societal changes that are “unprecedented in terms of scale” in order to limit future global warming to below 1.5 degrees Celsius, the stretch goal of the Paris accord.
However, the costs of meeting that goal are high based on the IPCC’s own figures
In order to effectively keep future warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius, the IPCC says carbon taxes would need to range from $135 to $5,500 per ton in 2030, $245 to $13,000 per ton in 2050, $420 to $17,000 per ton in 2070 and $690 to $27,000 per ton in 2100.
To meet the goals of the Paris accord, which seeks to limit future warming to below 2 degrees Celsius, the IPCC says carbon taxes would have range between $10 and $200 in 2030 and $160 and $2,125 in 2100.
That’s equivalent to a gas tax as high as $1.70 per gallon in 2030 to nearly $19 per gallon at the end of the century. That’s less onerous than limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, but still no walk in the park.
California and many European countries have policies to price carbon dioxide emissions and
mandate green energy
, including cap-and-trade systems and carbon taxes. But carbon prices under those systems are nowhere near where the IPCC says they need to be.
The IPCC said the “price of carbon would need to increase significantly when a higher level of stringency is pursued.” However, the group’s report tacitly acknowledges the unlikelihood that governments will enact astronomical taxes on energy.
“While the price of carbon is central to prompt mitigation pathways compatible with 1.5 [degree Celsius]-consistent pathways, a complementary mix of stringent policies is required,” reads the IPCC’s report.
In the U.S., Republican lawmakers
overwhelmingly passed a resolution
opposed to carbon taxes in July. Democrats called for a price on carbon dioxide in their 2016 party platform, but they haven’t made much effort on that front since the failure of cap-and-trade legislation in 2010.
Republican Rep. Carlos Curbelo of Florida
introduced carbon tax legislation
shortly after all but five of his GOP colleagues in the House voted to oppose such a bill. Curbelo’s bill would tax carbon dioxide at $23 a ton — nowhere near what the IPCC calls for.
However, the IPCC suggested a lower carbon tax could be used in conjunction with command and control policies, like regulations and bans on coal plants, could achieve “generate a 1.5˚C pathway for the U.S. electric sector.”
But that point only serves to undermine Curbelo’s bill, which would put a moratorium on some environmental regulations and possibly eliminate some if emissions goals are reached.
The IPCC noted the “literature indicates that the pricing of emissions is relevant but needs to be complemented with other policies to drive the required changes in line with 1.5°C-consistent cost-effective pathways.”
The IPCC issued its bleakest report yet this week, saying that without drastic changes, the world doesn't have a hope of avoiding uncontrollable climate change.
Unless emissions are halved within 12 years and virtually eliminated by 2050, temperature increases will likely exceed 2 degrees Celsius.
Beyond 2 degrees, scientists predict temperature increases may spiral as the climate breaches a series of unique tipping points, such as the melting of the permafrost.
The top culprit is fossil fuels, and the instructions to Australia and the rest of the world are clear: Quit coal by 2050.
Specifically, the report's authors say that coal usage needs to drop to between 0 and 2 per cent of existing levels.
At the moment, the countries responsible for the bulk of the world's emissions are scaling down their reliance on coal, but developing countries in South-East Asia are moving in the exact opposite direction, even going so far as to build new coal-fired power plants with the help of foreign finance.
If they're all built, Australian coal is likely to be used to keep those generators running for decades into the future.
So with all that in mind, is it possible for the world to quit coal in time?
Full article:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-11/can-we-quit-coal-in-time/10361552
We're f---ed
LighthouseKeeper said:
The IPCC issued its bleakest report yet this week, saying that without drastic changes, the world doesn't have a hope of avoiding uncontrollable climate change.
Unless emissions are halved within 12 years and virtually eliminated by 2050, temperature increases will likely exceed 2 degrees Celsius.
Beyond 2 degrees, scientists predict temperature increases may spiral as the climate breaches a series of unique tipping points, such as the melting of the permafrost.
The top culprit is fossil fuels, and the instructions to Australia and the rest of the world are clear: Quit coal by 2050.
Specifically, the report's authors say that coal usage needs to drop to between 0 and 2 per cent of existing levels.
At the moment, the countries responsible for the bulk of the world's emissions are scaling down their reliance on coal, but developing countries in South-East Asia are moving in the exact opposite direction, even going so far as to build new coal-fired power plants with the help of foreign finance.
If they're all built, Australian coal is likely to be used to keep those generators running for decades into the future.
So with all that in mind, is it possible for the world to quit coal in time?
Full article:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-11/can-we-quit-coal-in-time/10361552
We're f---ed
Click to expand...
What about...
Beautiful, sweet, lovely... clean coal.
Is Nico running this chicks campaign or something?
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/06/asia/new-zealand-ok-boomer-trnd/index.html
A 25-year-old politician got heckled during a climate crisis speech. Her deadpan retort: 'OK, boomer'
A 25-year-old New Zealand lawmaker giving a speech supporting a
climate crisis
bill was heckled by an older member of Parliament. Her witty response baffled her audience, to the delight of millennials everywhere.
Chlöe Swarbrick was speaking about the Zero Carbon Bill, which would set a target of zero carbon emissions for the country by 2050. When she was heckled, she casually dropped a sharp-tongued retort — "OK boomer" — and, unfazed, continued talking amid the puzzlement and silence of the room.
The term, a viral meme among millennials and Generation Z, exploded this year on the TikTok social media app, where countless mocking videos are calling out what young people perceive as out-of-touch Baby Boomers and their patronizing opinions.
An
article on the New York Times
calls the "OK boomer" phenomenon "a rallying cry for millions of fed up kids." T-shirts and hoodies with the phrase have appeared on online marketing sites.
Swarbrick, a Green Party MP, was explaining Tuesday how the climate emergency will affect her generation and the generations to come, when she was interrupted by a heckler.
"Mr. Speaker, how many world leaders, for how many decades have seen and known what is coming but have decided that it is more politically expedient to keep it behind closed doors. My generation and the generations after me do not have that luxury," she said. "In the year 2050, I will be 56 years old. Yet, right now, the average age of this 52nd Parliament is 49 years old."
That's when she was heckled about her age, prompting her to reply, "OK boomer" without missing a beat, according to the Parliament's video of the speech. In the video, a man sitting behind her chuckles at her put-down.
Swarbick said later in a
post that people were upset about her remarks.
"Today I have learnt that responding succinctly and in perfect jest to somebody heckling you about *your age* as you speak about the impact of climate change on *your generation* with the literal title of their generation makes some people very mad," she wrote. "So I guess millennials ruined humor. That, or we just need to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and abstain from avocados. That's the joke."
In a text-message conversation with
New Zealand's Stuff,
Swarbick explained the phrase is a "simple summarisation of collective exhaustion."
She added that she was tired of hearing that millennials ruined everything, and they need to "pull our socks up, or something." Swarbick went on to acknowledge that "you cannot win a deeply polarized debate - facts don't matter."
"It's better to acknowledge that perhaps energy is better spent elsewhere," she said. "That rallying cry is the relatively innocuous 'okay boomer'."
New Zealand's Parliament TV wasn't in on the joke, either. Its closed captioning transcribed the Swarbrick's retort as "OK, Berma." The parliament's social media team later issued an apology.
"We apologise for the error, and have updated the captions accordingly. Clearly we need to start doing all-office meme briefings," it said in a tongue-in-cheek tweet.