Slashdot Mirror
8 In 10 People Now See Climate Change As a 'Catastrophic Risk,' Says Survey (trust.org)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Thomas Reuters Foundation: Nearly nine in 10 people say they are ready to make changes to their standard of living if it would prevent future climate catastrophe, a survey on global threats found Wednesday. The survey of more than 8,000 people in eight countries -- the United States, China, India, Britain, Australia, Brazil, South Africa and Germany -- found that 84 percent of people now consider climate change a "global catastrophic risk." That puts worry about climate change only slightly behind fears about large-scale environmental damage and the threat of politically motivated violence escalating into war, according to the Global Challenges Foundation, which commissioned the Global Catastrophic Risks 2017 report. The survey, released in advance of this week's G7 summit of advanced economies in Italy, also found that 85 percent of people think the United Nations needs reforms to be better equipped to address global threats. About 70 percent of those surveyed said they think it may be time to create a new global organization -- with power to enforce its decisions -- specifically designed to deal with a wide range of global risks. Nearly 60 percent said they would be prepared to have their country give up some level of sovereignty to make that happen.
54 out of 100 Senators and 234 out of 435 Representatives, and Twitler don't.
The numbers don't line up.
Glaciers have covered most of Greenland for the past 2-3 million years. Not hundred.
This space intentionally left blank
Sorry, but when was Greenland green?
Geez, it ain't hard to find....:
To investigate the possibility of climatic cooling, scientists drilled into the Greenland ice caps to obtain core samples. The oxygen isotopes from the ice caps suggested that the Medieval Warm Period had caused a relatively milder climate in Greenland, lasting from roughly 800 to 1200. However, from 1300 or so the climate began to cool. By 1420, the "Little Ice Age" had reached intense levels in Greenland.
And while the medieval warm period was, in fact, a thing (with parts, notably the coastal regions, of Greenland being rather greener than today)- it was so incredibly localized that it did not affect global average temperatures at all.
Research is indicating that the medieval warm period was much more global than those with financial interests in it being regional will admit.
Humans, Human Civilization and the environment all did much better at warmer temperatures.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
In the UK the cost has little to do with protesters or politics. In fact the UK government has been extremely generous to nuclear operators - it build all the original plants, then gave them to commercial operators basically for free, with a guarantee that it would pick up most of the cost of decommissioning, plus the usual subsidies like free insurance.
The problem are all to do with the technology itself. For example, the long term profitability of new nuclear is in doubt as renewable energy is replacing it. That's why the people building this new plant demanded a guarantee of extremely high prices and guaranteed sales for the lifetime of the plant. In Europe the decommissioning requirements are stricter too, because land is more valuable here, requiring the site to be made habitable again rather than just burying the reactor there until it becomes safe enough to move.
As for renewables, fortunately Europe is quite large and has plenty of distributed wind power. While batteries do wear out, they don't wear out as fast as people think and as we move to electric vehicles there will be vast numbers of them that can be re-used before being recycled. There are also other forms of energy storage. More investment is needed of course, which is why people want the subsidies for nuclear redirected.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Methane - 8% of greenhouse emissions, x86 times the impact of CO2 (Yes, that makes is a significantly bigger problem than CO2).
Methane induced warming is measured by "CO2 equivalence", so the number you are quoting is already multiplied by the potency.
There is 200 times more CO2 than CH4 in the atmosphere.
Methane has a much shorter half-life in the atmosphere, so it is not as much of a long term problem. Methane is 86 times as potent, but has a potency factor of 34 over a century.
Last year, the world emitted 36B tons of CO2, and about 0.25B tons of CH4, equivalent to about 8B tons of CO2 in 100-year warming potential. So methane is a serious problem, but far less than CO2.
Methane emissions are declining in most 1st world nations, mostly because of better wellhead equipment, but also because of declining beef consumption.
Methane emissions are rising in less developed countries, mostly because of rising meat consumption. Taxes on beef may be able shift consumption to chicken or pork, but are unlikely to be politically feasible on a wide scale.
Methane emissions by country.
CO2 emissions by country.
Disclaimer: I don't eat meat, so don't blame me.