Something weird is going on in Australia. They’re gonna fry in a few years. Must be that problem with populism I was talking about. — Punshhh
devil is in the details. — Agree-to-Disagree
Something weird is going on in Australia. They’re gonna fry in a few years. Must be that problem with populism I was talking about. — Punshhh
It is nice to meet somebody who knows more about Australia than Australians do.
Why is it that many Australians are willing to "fry" despite the calamitous bushfires?
The number of climate deniers in Australia is more than double the global average, new survey finds
Yes, because so far you’ve proven yourself credible to make such a judgment. :roll: — Mikie
Why not go troll somewhere else. — Mikie
you here who want to suspend society — Lionino
You all have shown not to know basic statistics and physics as I have shown before several times — Lionino
(do I have to go quote all those times?) — Lionino
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adk1189Reanalysis products indicate that the present-day AMOC is on route to tipping.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06863-2Our results indicate that, by neglecting calving-front retreat, current consensus estimates of ice-sheet mass balance4,9 have underestimated recent mass loss from Greenland by as much as 20%. The mass loss we report has had minimal direct impact on global sea level but is sufficient to affect ocean circulation and the distribution of heat energy around the globe
Exxon CEO blames public for failure to fix climate change
:lol: — Mikie
This spring, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) will release its finalized rule on companies’ climate disclosures.
That much-anticipated rule will weigh in on the key question of whose responsibility it is to account for emissions — the customer who burns them (Scope II), or the fossil fuel company that produces them (Scope III).
Exxon has long argued for Scope II, based on the idea that it provides a product and is not responsible for how customers use it.
Last week, Reuters reported that the SEC would likely drop Scope III, a positive development for the companies.
Woods argued last year that SEC Scope III rules would cause Exxon to produce less fossil fuels — which he said would perversely raise global emissions, as its products were replaced by dirtier production elsewhere. — Saul Elbein (The Hill)
From the highway into Vanderbijlpark, you can see the heavy veil of smoke that cloaks Africa’s biggest steel mill. To the southeast, near the town of Vereeniging, the Lethabo coal power plant, whose name means “happiness,” joylessly belches out ash and toxic sulfur dioxide. Further south, outside a petrochemicals plant in Sasolburg, an adjacent neighborhood regularly reeks of rotten eggs from hydrogen sulfide in the air.
The plants offer steady work for residents at a time when one in three South Africans are unemployed, yet they’re also pumping out harmful emissions at levels so high that Vereeniging is by some measures the most polluted city in the world. The toxins are causing hundreds of premature deaths every year across the Vaal Triangle, and respiratory disease for many of those still breathing. The situation is a stark reminder of the toll the world’s dependency on steel, oil and coal is having on human health – and the difficulty a green transition faces if it costs the livelihood of the workers who depend on old economy jobs.
It may not be advisable to talk on LinkedIn about the time I was fired by #ExxonMobil. But here goes.
I am a #climate scientist. I can identify with both climate researchers featured in this worth-your-time article.
I started out as Ms Rebecca Grekin, a climate scientist who earnestly, naively believed that the ExxonMobil of today is a trustworthy actor in the energy transition. I spent more than a decade working for ExxonMobil, occasionally (but not often enough) advocating for combatting #climatechange .
In 2020, I was fired—yes, fired—by ExxonMobil because I reported what amounted to a $10 billion fraud. To put it mildly, that experience fundamentally altered my opinion of whether present-day ExxonMobil can be considered an honest broker in anything, but most especially in the realm of the energy transition, which is a far-greater-than-$10-billion threat to the Exxon's bottom line. I have become the article's more cynical and wiser Mr Kashtan.
Despite what smooth-talking spokespeople will tell you, ExxonMobil continues to fund and be an active member of organizations that are—today—working to decrease political support for government action to curb climate change and decrease the public’s access to and trust in readily available replacements for #oilandgas. They fund PhDs and national labs to burnish their reputation and influence what questions researchers address. #industry lobbyists have convinced large swaths of the public (and most of their own well-meaning employees) that technologies like carbon capture and storage are legitimate recipients of billions of taxpayer dollars earmarked for combatting climate change. Those taxpayer dollars are urgently needed for existing, proven, ready-right-now solutions but instead are funding a massive campaign to enhance oil recovery. Carbon capture and storage is, at its core, a technology for producing more oil. It requires more carbon to be expended to inject #co2 at pressure than it keeps out of the atmosphere. It is not and will not be a viable solution to climate change.
ExxonMobil executives can continue this deception in large part because so many useful idiots, myself included, willingly lend their personal reputations to the propping up of a lie. They can continue this deception because they make an example of people like me (I’m not the only one) to ensure that their employees are afraid to truly challenge the ethics of the company line.
I wish I could tell my younger self that the cynical Mr Yannai Kashtan is right. That idealism and/or a paycheck can lull you into trusting those who say one thing and do another. That we must stop allowing ourselves to be used by a few people who care more about their reserve shares than about doing the right thing. And, most important, that we must, without delay, find the unflinching political will to turn off the #fossilfuels tap as fast as we possibly can. — Lindsey Gulden, geophysicist
If we can leave out terms like "point of no return", we won't play into their newest but equally stupid position against mitigation projects. — Christoffer
it’s important to acknowledge the level of threat we face. But doomism and defeatism isn’t the answer. — Mikie
Oh if only I could find the right way to talk. 'Crisis' good, 'catastrophe' bad; 'tipping point' good, 'point of no return' bad; 'Houston we have a problem', good, 'The rocket has exploded' bad.
The main thing is to get the talk nuanced just so, and then everyone will act and no one will despair. Or possibly not. — unenlightened
Among the things that peeped up from the dirt in my woodland garden this spring is a... tropical houseplant. Dude. — frank
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.