All energy projects should get this kind of analysis.

Yep.

This project will kill over 400 Europeans. — Banno

Why limit your death analysis to climate change issues and not conduct it every time you build a car or road? People rarely die in open fields, but then you build a road and folks start get getting killed.

The solution wouldn't be the elimination of roads and cars, but in increased safety measures. Life is a dangerous venture, so we create seat belts and airbags. If it gets too hot, maybe we need more air conditioners.

If it gets too hot, maybe we need more air conditioners. — Hanover

This is the kind of analysis I would expect from Karoline Leavitt.

This is the kind of analysis I would expect from Karoline Leavitt. — Mikie

Science doesn't dictate action. It provides data from which to decide what is valued. That's always the case. Let's remove the question from climate change and just ask if we should produce trains. If each train results in X deaths, then we know that by not producing Y number of trains, we'll have XY less deaths. Certainly if one of my family members is destined for a train death, I'd like for there not to be deathtrains out there.

Saying something like “maybe we need more air conditioners” in relation to climate change is a dismissive, ignorant statement. And I’m sure you know it. So why say it?

Yes, there are trade offs to building things. The externalities involved in fossil fuel infrastructure, extraction, and use are enormous and destructive, and have existed for decades. The damage to the ecosystem, apart from the floods, droughts, wildfires, and agricultural destruction is beyond comprehension.

To wave all this off with “too hot? Try more air conditioners” is something I felt compelled to call out.

"Under a middle-of-the-road emissions scenario, warming contributed by Scarborough would cause an additional 484 heat-related deaths in Europe alone by the end of the century, the researchers calculated. Taking into account a reduction in cold-related deaths in Europe, they estimate a net contribution of 118 additional deaths."
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/oct/13/woodside-scarborough-gas-project-emissions-could-cause-heat-deaths

That's about 1.5 European deaths a year from this project. Hanover is right. The average person is not going to be alarmed by that, nor should they. People know there is an inherent risk to everything, and a handful of deaths a year is a piddling human cost to pay for providing cheap electricity to a huge number of people. On a utilitarian calculus, how does 1 or 2 deaths (let's say it's 10 worldwide) a year compare to the utiles of providing electricity to, say, 100,000 extra households a year? How many lives will be saved/vastly improved by that increase in access to electricity every year?

To wave all this off with “too hot? Try more air conditioners” is something I felt compelled to call out. — Mikie

By 2100, the average temperature in Jerusalem will be 14-16 degrees hotter than it is now. The whole area will be well into irreversible desertification. There just won't be any water. The flora and fauna will become desert forms. Unless the human population turns into Fremen, no one will live there.

Some men may downplay concerns about climate change because it's perceived to be feminine.

Previous studies have shown that women are more concerned about climate change than men, but this is the first research looking to answer why that is.

What do y'all think about how with this mad arms race for getting the best AI amongst the mega corps it is using humongous amounts of resources?

Apologies if it was mentioned already but I did a quick search in thread for 'ai' and of course got a litany of unrelated results.

I guess the proponents will be saying that the benefits to humanity are worth the cost of finite resources and that the better iterations will be able to solve the very problems of resource use that they are causing.

I don't know if you meant to put this in the climate change thread, but it's true that an AI data center is supposed to require gigawatts.

I haven't looked far into it, but I know that a glass manufacturing plant requires megawatts, not gigawatts. I'm not sure why the data centers require that much energy.

Yes I know what thread I was posting in. I saw your comments earlier about power requirements for some other stuff and AI technology is one that is said to require huge amounts.

Maybe the glass manufacturing produces more in comparison now, I don't know I haven't looked, but as per your claim, but AI is increasing so fast and at an exponential rate the power requirements will likely ramp up in kind. Glass manufacture has been happening for hundreds of years and is a very established industry yet AI is a nascent technology so of course it is expected the infrastructure are not going to be comparative at this time.

It is also salient because probably many of the tech bros who are claiming to be very green conscious will also be funnelling their resources into this none green technology.

But what if AI helps us solve the problem?

The only way to solve the problem is to stop burning fossil fuels pronto and sequester large amounts of carbon from the atmosphere asap.
I don’t see AI coming to the rescue any time soon.

The only way to solve the problem is to stop burning fossil fuels pronto and sequester large amounts of carbon from the atmosphere asap.
I don’t see AI coming to the rescue any time soon. — Punshhh

Do you think this might be a little closed minded? Remember, the way out of chinese puzzle isn't to pull backward. It's to push forward.

The only way to solve the problem is to stop burning fossil fuels pronto and sequester large amounts of carbon from the atmosphere asap.
I don’t see AI coming to the rescue any time soon. — Punshhh

AI pinpoints promising materials that capture only CO₂ from air

Not to say a practical solution to AGW is at hand, but it is becoming routine for new scientific findings to result from the use of AI.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions for 2025 are of course an estimate, with the year not yet complete – but they show a mixed picture.
Emissions from fossil fuels and cement are forecast to increase yet again to 38.1bn tonnes of CO2, according to the Global Carbon Budget team, which comprises more than 130 scientists from 21 countries.
That would be up 1.1% on 2024.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c620q30w0q0o

This is the size of the problem. Perhaps if AI can bang a few heads together in the rooms where energy policies are decided, we can start to make some progress.

The U.S. has the potential for vast solar resources in her southern sun baked states. Where are the plans for these solar farms. Same for Spain, India, Australia, Brazil, even China have vast potential for solar farms in their deserts.

Let’s get AI banging these heads together.

I already mentioned that in my reply.

I am not saying it won't. It might. It is open for discussion.