It is difficult to get a "scientist" to question something when their salary depends on believing it.

At this point the hope is that technology advances so quickly and cheaply that there’s little excuse to go backwards. I see it happening with heat pumps and induction stoves. Not to mention electric lawnmowers and leafblowers and whatnot. These things are just cool and better.

Guys like this and his Kraken are encouraging.

An interesting chat about climate models, that explains how they differ from weather models.

I am optimistic about the present and future generations of people. 81% of Spaniards consider climate change, desertification, and CO2 serious issues, and we want to change the situation to better and live in a less polluted country. But I wonder whether we approached this issue too late or not.

As the climate in Europe becomes more unstable and intense, it is going to become increasingly more difficult to grow enough food to feed the population. Adaptation will be vital in fighting food insecurity. In the longer term it is much more serious, when AMOC collapses we will be in for a rollercoaster of unknown climatic changes.

I agree. However, what makes me furious is that future generations would have to 'adapt' to adverse conditions such as scarcity or weather. This is clearly—in my opinion and view—a consequence of climate change and the guilt of our representatives for not taking the correct decisions on time. Yet others—climate change deniers—believe some shite that this is just the fate of our humanity and we are overreacting.

grow enough food to feed the population — Punshhh

We started to experience this issue regarding water. When summer comes, there are vast municipalities in Spain where it is impossible to drink potable water! The pits and lagoons are already drought!

Well, I don't know why I am speaking in the future because we already have zones that became a bloody desert.

Another little local difficulty.



Note: this video is from the end of August. Now, you can find many videos and satellite images showing lakes and rivers that have appeared in the desert.

‘Fossil Fuels Are Still Winning’: Global Emissions Head for a Record

In the United States, carbon dioxide emissions are expected to drop modestly this year, by around 0.6 percent. America’s emissions from coal are now at their lowest levels in more than 120 years as utilities continue to retire their older coal-burning power plants.

At the same time, however, U.S. electricity demand has soared to record highs as a result of scorching summer heat waves and a rapid build-out of data centers. That has led to record demand for natural gas, which emits about half as much carbon dioxide as coal when burned for energy.

China, the world’s largest emitter, saw a small increase in emissions this year of around 0.2 percent. That’s a notable shift from the past few decades, when China was building hundreds of coal plants to fuel breakneck growth and carbon dioxide emissions were rising sharply each year. But experts say it is too soon to say whether Chinese emissions might be on the verge of peaking.

In recent years, China has built more solar arrays, wind farms and electric vehicles than any other country. At the same time, China’s rate of economic growth has slowed, with sectors like construction and heavy industry cooling off after decades of rapid expansion.

“If these trends continue and renewable power keeps up the pace, it’s conceivable that emissions will decline or at least stay flat after 2024,” said Jan Ivar Korsbakken, a senior researcher at CICERO who studies Chinese emissions. But he also cautioned that some forecasters had expected China’s emissions to decline this year, and that didn’t happen.

A report from Greenland; very quiet and sober, Not reassuring though. Time to start growing some gills.




And to escape the meaningless graphs for a moment, a short report on India, and how poor people are affected. Human, and animal impact.

And to escape the meaningless graphs for a moment, a short report on India, and how poor people are affected. Human, and animal impact. — unenlightened

This is why we will see millions, if not billions of people going to seek refuge somewhere else. And this time there's no "go back to your country" if there's literally nothing to go back to.

I think people miss the fact, or they're too stupid to understand it, that the cascading consequences of what's happening won't just be some higher waters and some heat waves in the summer or more storms, but a total change of how people live. The relocation of people, by their own or through government means will transform the entire world.

And even if the wealthy world ignores the poor people of the world there will be people in more wealthy locations that will be feeling the burn as well. When this happens, things will be felt much more.

I'm predicting there will be wars because of this. People who are so desperate that they have nothing to do but to fight for a place to exist in, will do so. It's extremely naive to think that people will just remain in the heat and take it until they die. No, people will be pushed to the point that killing others in order to save their family and people will be a no-brainer.

I mean, if you had the option to see your friends and family die off because of living conditions falling to unsustainable levels, or invade somewhere else in order to survive... what are you going to do?

Governments of the world won't help people, they can't. If they can't sustain the normal levels of refugees due to current conflicts in the world, how would they ever be able to handle the extreme amount of refugees that climate change will bring about?

Welcome to my world!

Governments of the world won't help people, they can't. — Christoffer

After a careful examination, I managed to find two words to disagree with - "they can't." They can do a great deal more than they are doing. Instead of sowing division and conflict and xenophobia, they could help poor countries adapt somewhat; instead of subsidising oil, they could subsidise renewables; instead of pretending that endless growth is possible, they could start managing the economy to be fair and stable instead of expanding and exploiting. And so on. It's going to be bad, but there's no reason in that, to go on making it worse.

Two fundamental problems that make our governments fail completely:

1. Democracy entails short-termism.
2. Giving all the power to the old does the same.

After a careful examination, I managed to find two words to disagree with - "they can't." They can do a great deal more than they are doing. Instead of sowing division and conflict and xenophobia, they could help poor countries adapt somewhat; instead of subsidising oil, they could subsidise renewables; instead of pretending that endless growth is possible, they could start managing the economy to be fair and stable instead of expanding and exploiting. And so on. It's going to be bad, but there's no reason in that, to go on making it worse. — unenlightened

I'm not talking about the now, but the future in which it's too late to do anything. At that time, "they can't". They can't do anything to help millions of refugees that simply can't do anything but to enter the nation. Where are they going? How are they sustained? How do the food get distributed? Imagine a nation with 20 million inhabitants and they get 2 million refugees storming in. It's going to throw the economic and resource balance out the window. Not only will these 2 million refugees starve, but the rest of the nation will be thrown into chaos trying to solve the problem.

Nations today can't even handle a few thousands refugees coming at once without creating both political and societal turmoil. How do the world handle billions of people relocated from uninhabitable locations?

It's this that I mean governments can't solve. We can solve things now, but when the tipping point happens, we won't be able to without fundamentally throw the world into chaos. It's not the climate change itself that will be the greatest issue, it's the delicate balance of the current world order.

Yes, we will soon be shooting people at the borders and sinking the boats. But most will die of heatstroke or famine where they are. It turns out that frogs will not stay in the pot while you slowly boil them, but humans, I think, mostly will. Like the Palestinians of Gaza, respecting the borders imposed on them that they could have overwhelmed at any time.

Nah, humans are incredibly adaptable and naturally migratory. It will be like the early iron age. The sea peoples will be cruising all over the place, raiding, having fun, going back to Greenland to party.

Hmm... Seems like a neat idea (not quite new though)...

Startup Promises to Beam Sunlight from Space (— via TheBrainMaze TBM · Sep 7, 2024 · 52s)

Reflect Orbital

Startup Promises to Beam Sunlight from Space — jorndoe

How long until it is used as a weapon?

, if we assume something like this can be weaponized (which it likely could), then (knowing homo sapiens) someone may do that eventually. If others don't/can't, then they'd have to rely on something else for deterrence, or a sufficient alliance, or whatever. I'm just speculating. Either way, if it's feasible, then it's grabbing free energy from the Sun. What's not to like? The idea is older than Reflect Orbital; it's the useful, safe, reliable implementation that needs work.

if it's feasible, then it's grabbing free energy from the Sun. What's not to like? — jorndoe

Many people live in a fantasy world where they think that they can get energy for free.
- solar power is not free
- wind power is not free
- getting energy from in-space reflectors will not be free. Think about the cost of getting the reflectors into space. Operating the system. Maintaining the system. Salaries need to be paid. The company will want a good return on their assets. The company will want to make a profit (just like oil companies).

Of course , "it's the useful, safe, reliable implementation that needs work".

Not green energy, unfortunately. Given an already overheating planet, extra sunlight is not what is required.

My wife wanted to watch the documentary Buy Now! The Shopping Conspiracy (2024 · 1h:24m), so that's what we did. Some will call it propaganda, others will revel in the exposé, others still whatever else.

Some keywords/phrases: profit maximization · capitalism · tragedy of the commons · continued growth · climate change (hence posting it here)

The one-and-a-half hours are split into five chapters:

1. Sell more
▸ marketing science ▸ advertising ▸ faster fashion ▸ inflate supply and demand

2. Waste more
▸ planned obsolescence ▸ IFixit

3. Lie more
▸ greenwashing

4. Hide more
▸ disposal ▸ hazardous waste ▸ product cycles ▸ pollution

5. Control more
▸ Amazon is cracking down on protesters and organizing, workers say (— Michael Sainato · Guardian · May 5, 2020); it's not just Amazon

Regardless of the genuinely troubling (and known) message, just using it to promote anti-capitalism doesn't seem quite right. Responsible consumer culture and incentives are parts of a response, to be furthered by legal constraints on whatever parts of the problem. But, it's a global thing. Maybe we should all pick up some of that Greta Thunberg stuff and pass it on.

FYI, here's a brief review, others can be found with a search: Buy Now! The Shopping Conspiracy film review — marketing tricks and their effect on the planet exposed (— Jonathan Romney · The Financial Times · Nov 21, 2024)

The frontline of planet wars.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/21/canada-arctic-herschel-island-qikiqtaruk-climate-permafrost-tundra-ecology-aoe

Some nice pics and little films and Timelapse's and some words too.

Is solar energy a good investment?

SolarZero Limited, New Zealand’s biggest solar energy company, has announced its liquidation, citing unsustainable operating losses and liquidity constraints.

The directors of SolarZero said the decision came after extensive efforts to explore restructuring options. “Regretfully, SolarZero and its key stakeholders were unable to find a viable solution to sustain the business.

Customers posting on SolarZero’s Facebook page were concerned about their contracts being honoured.
- one asked: “Can we please have a heavily discounted liquidator sale buyback scheme? Feels like a liability on the roof now.”
- another wrote: “Our contracts still stand and we still get the second battery free after 10 years, correct?”

Customers of SolarZero could buy solar panels and a battery set-up outright, which often runs to $20,000-plus or, as most did, pay nothing up-front.

The company continued to own all the hardware and the customer paid a set fee per month for “energy as a service”.

Rates varied depending on the set-up, especially the number of solar panels installed.

SolarZero would not provide further comment since liquidators have now been appointed.

My state subsidizes roof solar panels, so basically all tax payers contribute to make solar energy available. Doesn't New Zealand do that?

According to Google's AI overview:

New Zealand doesn't currently offer government subsidies for solar panels, but there are other ways to support solar energy, including:
- Solar subsidies from banks
- Labour's solar policy (basically an election bribe, but they lost the election)
- Community Renewable Energy Fund
- The Energy Efficiency & Conservation Authority (EECA) has a tool to help consumers assess the economics of solar installations.
- Solar buy-back rates

Of course, subsidies don't help much when the company supplying and maintaining your solar panels goes broke.

Of course, subsidies don't help much when the company supplying and maintaining your solar panels goes broke. — Agree-to-Disagree

True. And the government shouldn't interfere in a case where the company was mismanaged, or just not suited to its intended market.

NZ is not best placed for solar. They would do better to concentrate on hydro, wind, wave, and tidal. Australia is a bit sunnier tho, I hear.

:up:

NZ is not best placed for solar. They would do better to concentrate on hydro, wind, wave, and tidal. Australia is a bit sunnier tho, I hear. — unenlightened

In 2022, 87% of New Zealand's electricity came from renewable sources.

This is compared to around 25% renewable generation in neighboring Australia.

The following percentages are for 2023
- 60% of New Zealand's electricity came from hydropower
- 18% of New Zealand's electricity came from geothermal
- 7% of New Zealand's electricity came from wind

I'm not sure how important this is, but it is not something I have seen discussed before, so maybe it needs to be, or maybe it doesn't. Yet another melting permafrost side effect.

So we've learned in America that when people are faced with single-digit transitory inflation, all their climate concerns go out the window and they vote for the drill-baby-drill candidate. American leadership is essential to combating climate change, and it's taken a four-year hiatus. I don't think we're going to solve this problem with collective action. We'll have to hope for a tech miracle or some crazy geo-engineering plan.