• Thank you for visiting the Cafe Rad Lab Forum
  • We present & discuss radiation health, science & news
  • To keep you informed about vital nuke information.
Hello There, Guest! Login Register


Climate Debate
#61
“Policies addressing climate change are driving major transformations in access to global land, forests and water as they create new ‘green’ markets that reinforce, and attracts the financial grid and its speculators. This leads us to examine the rise of state violence and subsequent environmental policies in forests, transferring into both ‘fortress’ and ‘participatory’ conservation, enhancing this relationship with new environmental commodity markets.

http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/12/...-conflict/
 
Reply
#62
Climate change is so serious that birds are singing to their unhatched babies in the egg to prepare them for it.   No, really;

Zebra finches sing to eggs to prepare babies for global warming
https://www.theverge.com/2016/8/18/12490...at-warning

That same bird told me to invest in carbon trading derivatives
 
Reply
#63
According to the site, if you made $50,000 in 2010 and your filing status was single, you paid $2,513.29 towards national defense

CanIGetAReceiptWithThat.com

But you also paid the salaries of the politicians who keep that military industrial complex going.  And you believed their rhetoric, and chose your favorite side, like a football game.

 

Number Of Iraqis Slaughtered In US War And Occupation Of Iraq "1,455,590"

 

$4,977,501,240,977


We paid for all of that climate of death and destruction, while hoping for jobs and security.  Birds sing to eggs to help chicks survive the global collapse due to climate change...a bigger threat than nuclear annihilation, they tell us.
Republicans call Democrats insane and vice versa.  At least we are all in agreement on that
 
Reply
#64
The solution to the impending climate catastrophe is largely framed in the business as usual model.  Some thoughtful people say that any fix involving capitalism is doomed to failure

something from Dennis Riches blog
https://litbyimagination.blogspot.com/20...gical.html

which was inspired by the book 'Green Capitalism, the God that Failed'
https://www.academia.edu/26469863/Green_...hat_Failed

summary of that book here
https://climateandcapitalism.com/2011/05...at-failed/

"The discourse of global warming flows with terminology that is born from the existing economic system, which is driven to quantify and financialize nature: ecosystem services, biodiversity offsets, carbon offsets, carbon credits, carbon footprints, carbon swaps, cap and trade, subsidies, penalties, tax incentives, tax credits, climate accords, reduction targets, protocols, investments in renewables, green jobs, green new deal, energy transition, fourth industrial revolution, and so on. It is an approach that has a long history, as the English elite in the 17th century also argued that the enclosures that dispossessed commoners would allow for better preservation of natural resources. While proponents of this approach accuse defenders of the status quo of being “in denial of the science,” they themselves are in denial about what needs to be done to put an end to the fossil fuel economy, assuming the matter is as urgent as they claim. The denial can also be found among radical socialists who assume a drastic reduction of fossil fuel emissions can be managed while material progress continues. "
 
Reply
#65
Investment giant BlackRock Inc (BLK.N) and its $7 trillion in assets just joined the Climate Action 100+ initiative, pressuring companies to act on climate issues

“BlackRock is the largest transnational investment company in the world. This year they’ve got six trillion dollars’ worth of assets that they’re investing worldwide. They have 50 billion in Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman each, and so they’re doing huge amounts of investment and benefiting from war. They benefit from investments in everything, but a lot of military companies are involved. All the highest CO2-producing companies are involved. They’re just a massive capital investment company, run by a guy named Larry Fink who’s from LA, and it’s been the most successful investment company. It’s not a bank. It’s just an investment company, and it’s been the most successful in the world. Its massive, and he’s the one who’s on Trump’s advisory board. "

"Now here we are eighty years into the nuclear age and the multi-trillion-dollar investment firm called BlackRock is the leading force behind a global hegemony of capitalism backstopped by a nuclear arsenal of 7,000 warheads."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-money...SKBN1ZC0Z7
 
Reply
#66
“As the oligarchs financed, shaped and largely managed the climate movement – it’s only natural that they alone benefit from it. The power-elites repackaged our oppression as revolution and sold it back to us. By exploiting the innocent youth, which in turn exploited our emotions and fears as a collective populace, we devoured it.  And soon, young Greta, and all the youth they have exploited, will be thrown under the bus.” – Cory Morningstar

Green New Deal and the Climate Movement. Trojan Horses for the Billionaire Class?
https://www.globalresearch.ca/green-new-...ss/5690415

The audio broadcast interview with Cory Morningstar starts around thirty minutes in.  

green new deal involves the smart grid and geoengineering with no public oversight.  But thats just the tip of the capitalist control and plunder of people and the biosphere...

This Changes Nothing: The Paris Agreement to Ignore Reality
CLIVE L. SPASH
https://www.clivespash.org/wp-content/up...othing.pdf
 
Reply
#67
The carbon credit crap is basically a scheme to create a cryptocurrency  disguised as a tax, that the poor and middle class pay.
  Governments and their corporate owners are the beneficiaries.
don't stir up the hot particles
 
Reply
#68
In a world where people believe you only get wealth by getting it from other people, naturally every effort is made to get wealth from people.   Its odd nobody questions where the wealth of the people comes from.  With a digital economy and a total surveillance world,  yes, the rich will be able to extract the maximum of wealth from the people, but this will only deplete the people and the source of the people's wealth, which is basically the biosphere. Future generations are doomed.

Green New Deals Costs

American Action Forum estimates that if the Green New Deal (GND) is enacted, every
American household would pay $65,000 per year to foot the bill and that the total price tag could
reach $93 trillion in the first 10 years alone.

Liberal economist Noah Smith estimated that the cost of the Green New Deal without all the
promises listed in the FAQ would be $6.6 trillion annually. That is three times as much as the
federal government collects in tax revenue and about 34% of U.S. GDP. Under the Green New
Deal, Smith estimates that nearly 75% of the economy would be spent by the government

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal
 
Reply
#69
Do all trains lead to Disney Land?...God I hope so

https://www.msn.com/en-us/Travel/news/gr...ar-BBYa56A

ECOCREDIT

The cards have already been laid out
Society looking for answers in the couch
So many boxes, check one and shut your mouth
In the poison house roams an all seeing mouse
Riding my bike I talk to the grouse
Up in the sky into our bodies frequencies surround and bounce
In the parlors economies are espoused
While Under foot life is trounced
Indemnities for those who pounce
No liability for those left without
Humans are a course of death sprouts
Technologically all life will bow
The great vastness will open its bowels

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.hindustan...O_amp.html
 
Reply
#70
No New Nuclear

He said: “This movement is being led by every political group and is involving local people in planning the actions needed to cut carbon.”

But there’s an important thing missing here. Last September members of Radiation Free Lakeland lobbied Lancaster City Council asking the council to include a No New Nuclear clause in their climate emergency planning.



https://www.globalresearch.ca/no-new-nuclear/5703136
 
Reply
#71
In my humble opinion, its very likely that the climate alarmism (there IS alarm, but its not JUST climate), is because the world of big money knows that solar is taking over no matter what. The most optimistic prediction is that if the growth rate of solar continues at the current rate,  the world will be 100% solar in 10 years. Yes, hard to believe, but other metrics are in;  Electric vehicle purchase will eclipse gas cars in a few years.  Big business is scrambling to cash in on nuclear investment and carbon schemes while there is still time.  Leverage, they call it

https://singularityhub.com/2016/05/09/so...-new-tech/

https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/20...-12-years/

Meanwhile, back at the nuclear ranch

At least 40 companies and research institutes are currently working on small, modular reactors or visionary nuclear power plants

https://www.windpowerengineering.com/fut...-industry/

If the insect armageddon is real, as scientists say it is (funny, while we were saying theres a problem with insects, science and media were silent.),  well then we have a lot more to worry about than climate change.  Oh for sure they will tell you its due to climate change but that is not supported by science.   Ive been checking the science papers!

[Image: cumulative-photovoltaic-production-1975-...=450&h=338]

Nuclear proponents, will tell you that solar is only 2% of the worlds energy production.  Right on track in fact to achieve total solar in a decade.

Its the money

Greta Thunberg trademarked her name, set up a non profit organization to handle book sales and incomes. She had no choice

Meanwhile,  solar is on its way to dominating the market in just a few years...all on its own
https://steinbuch.wordpress.com/2017/06/...gy-agency/

Does nobody question how an unknown 16 year old can get photo shoots with Obama, get on every magazine cover, get speaking spots at every international conference, travel the world, write books, sail the seas with royalty, get nominated for nobel prizes, and land her own BBC series all in a year? 

Prince Charles meets Greta Thunberg at Davos World Economic Forum

Greta Thunberg gets a BBC series
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/attent...2020-02-10

Anyone can do it, chin up.  Just get the ole BBC on the phone and they will make you a series, simple as that!

"Greta Thunberg tells World Economic Forum leaders at Davos" ...really?   Just look at what happened to activists at other world economic forums...not only could the NEVER get in the door, they were shot with rubber bullets in the street.  Have you ever seen any leader welcome and applaud and endorse someone who tells them they are scum ruining the earth for the young people?

The Greta phenomenon was so successful, the tycoons want their own Greta

Tycoon Sir Tom Hunter launches hunt for ‘Scottish Greta Thunberg’
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tycoo...-dg3mt97j2

Yes, Greta, with her own BBC series shares the acclaim of this Saudi Prince
Saudi Prince named alongside Thunberg, Beckham and Meghan Markle in top 50 shaping the UK

https://www.arabianbusiness.com/media/43...ing-the-uk
 
Reply
#72
Does money believe sustainability is long term ? That would be 'short' sighted

https://www.fool.com/amp/investing/2017/...lions.aspx ... older article but talks about why they really exist.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloombe...able-shift. ....Among the fund’s short bets is Huadian Power International Corp. Ltd., a Chinese electricity firm. “As a coal-fired power producer, we couldn’t own that on the long side, but under our mandate we can short those stocks and profit from that,” he said.

Will the nuclear power play now in earnest 'short' these sustainable energy alternatives? .....
 
Reply
#73
"short selling can be the easiest way to profit from the misfortunes that a company is experiencing".  
That is the 'wisdom' of the financial planner.  Investigate if its unethical, and all the money boys say no.  Some say its a duty!   I say they're full of s#!t.

If you 'make' money and dont add any value, you are simply a leach that sequesters the wealth of everyone else.   This is easy to see;   Lock 100 stock traders in a room, and no matter how much they bought and sold and shorted stocks between themselves, by the time you let them out (if you decide to) there would be NO extra money, no extra value.

To make big projects, you need pooled resources. That is capital.   End of story.  The stock traders are just leaches on that basic reality. 

Thats the thing with capitalism,  it sells out future generations and robs them of a clean earth. It kicks debt down the road for future generations.  The system stops working if you stop the growth.  There are physicists who write books on this subject, explaining that the capitalist jargon is not based in reality of the physical world.  Its junk rhetoric, that people buy into.   it is unsavory!


'Short selling should be illegal' – Elon Musk

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news...1028733903

The rush now is to sell and trade 'ecology stocks'.  People want to cash in....a free lunch...on the effort to save their only home, spaceship earth.   Its like if there was flood damage and the husband says, honey I will lend you money to invest on fixing the house for a low low interest rate.  And the children say, hey lets get in on this and pretty soon they are short selling home rebuild funds, hoping to rake in big profits because they think the family will have ongoing bad health and various difficulties.   Its absurd right?

To fix the world,  get rid of the profit motive.   People wouldnt be any different if you changed out their brains for a stack of 100 dollar bills.   Its....well....disgusting....in my humble opinion
 
Reply
#74
And all the selfgloryfiing mean blind man in charge can think about is MOOOORE..adding New spinky spanky corrupt macho apocalypse toys...to the therefore exponentially growing mountain of unmanageable, ricocheting forever, "man" - made nuclear waste..much of it in the same spot mind you..

----

Speeding Sea Level Rise Threatens Nuclear Plants

New research using satellite data over a 30-year period shows that around the year 2000 sea level rise was 2mm a year, by 2010 it was 3mm and now it is at 4mm, with the pace of change still increasing


Alarm about sea level rise elsewhere has been increasing outside the scientific community, partly because many nuclear power plants are on coasts. Even those that are nearing the end of their working lives will be radio-active for another century, and many have highly dangerous spent fuel on site in storage ponds with no disposal route organised.

Perhaps most alarmed are British residents, whose government is currently planning a number of new seaside nuclear stations in low-lying coastal areas. Some will be under water this century according to the EEA, particularly one planned for Sizewell in eastern England.

“But it’s not just the height of the rise in sea level that is important for the protection of nuclear facilities, it’s also the likely increase in storm surges. An increase in sea level of 50cm would mean the storm that used to come every thousand years will now come every 100 years. If you increase that to a metre, then that millennial storm is likely to come once a decade.

(me: why stop there with the exponential visualisation..especially with the new accidents inevitable coming and the consequences of what has been dumped in the oceans or injected straight in the Planet without even the slightest hint of care for anything...so make it once a year, a day, non-stop...no life it is..with such a disconnect in charge) 


https://www.globalresearch.ca/speeding-s...ts/5704001
 
Reply
#75
Im not a climate investigator,  but it appears that not all of the factors of importance have been put into the climate models.   A big one is the cloud formation from sea surface generated aerosol cloud seeding.   The clouds have the potential of much greater climate forcing,  as given in watts per earth surface area, than Co2.   There is some indication from some research that plankton has been decreasing.   Consider that 96 % of the CO2 comes from sources other than man, and in a constantly changing climate, its perhaps a little difficult to attribute causes and determine effects, at this stage.   

There is little doubt that mankind is burning fossil fuels and contributing to the CO2 and that it is rising.  But there also seems to be a huge impact from man on the biosphere.  Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.  But coal and other industrial activities put out huge amounts of toxic pollutants.  Mercury,  radionuclides,  PCBs, lead, particulates, plastics, cadmium, insecticides, and its just a huge list.   Considering the loss of whales, which fertilize plankton, the tree cutting, and all of these pollutants, how does this affect the production and uptake of Co2?  And if these toxins create a dying garbage dump of a planet, where does the CO2 issue stand in importance?

The news headlines always include dire predictions of CO2 caused cataclysm.  Why dont we hear about population driven cataclysm?  Glyphosate, heavy metal, nuclear, tree cutting,  sea exploitation,  international shipping, cattle ranching caused cataclysm?  Reducing carbon dioxide output is not going to save life raft earth.

 To reduce human caused problems, reduce the number of humans.

What do we hope to save, exactly?  The civilization status quo? An overpopulated, degraded exploited human centric spoiled garbage dump planet ruled by sociopaths?  We hope to preserve an 8 billion strong prison planet, for our children. Close to 15% of the Earth's land is designated park land but even there you arent free to roam and live.  Severe climate could be a much needed enema.  Too bad ocean rise is only millimeters.  

Some of those sea level and extreme event predictions are perhaps not as firm as they appear.   For example here is one graph of extreme weather events, in this case hurricane landfalls

[Image: klotz20171.jpg?w=418&h=304]

another one based on percent of wet and dry events vs the rising CO2

[Image: 6a010536b58035970c01b7c73ad9d6970b-pi]

extreme precipitation


[Image: ac7804f2-879f-41d9-a3dc-42a48cc5b59b-sma...7798981904]

weather stations registering above 90 deg

[Image: August-24-Percent-Of-Stations-Above-900-...shadow.png]

tornados

[Image: image_thumb55_thumb.png?w=500&h=300]

droughts

[Image: mudltigraph_thumb.png?w=520&h=320]

One chart

[Image: ClarkeandRendell2006.gif]

compared to another chart

[Image: Extreme.png]

So I think one has to find out how they defined climate related disasters.  Economic cost is not necessarily indicative because it depends on the increasing number of structures and stuff

Long term sea level rise...we are sort of on the tail end of the last ice age....something to consider

[Image: Holocene_Sea_Level.png]





To save the living world, value nature above profit,

reduce human population
 
Reply
#76
Greenland's biggest glacier suddenly slows down and thickens, baffling scientists

https://www.independent.co.uk/environmen...13791.html


Capitalism’s limitless growth on a finite planet ends abruptly in disaster.
The financial system as it is cant be used to solve the problems it creates.

[Image: population-growth-chart-map.gif]
 
Reply
#77
Old carbon reservoirs unlikely to cause massive greenhouse gas release

Quote:"One of our take-home points is that we need to be more concerned about the anthropogenic emissions—those originating from human activities—than the natural feedbacks," Dyonisius says.

The data also shows that methane emissions from wetlands increased in response to climate change during the last deglaciation, and it is likely wetland emissions will increase as the world continues to warm today.

Even so, Petrenko says, "anthropogenic methane emissions currently are larger than wetland emissions by a factor of about two, and our data shows we don't need to be as concerned about large methane releases from large carbon reservoirs in response to future warming; we should be more concerned about methane released from human activities."

https://phys.org/news/2020-02-carbon-res...e-gas.html

The result is always the sum of the parts...
 
Reply
#78
The Global warming crowd seldom mention that Earth is at the end of an interglacial.  Solar output and the Earth's orbit is thought to govern periods of glaciations and interglacial periods.  

Betting on a catastrophically cooling world
Ed Hoskins
Ice Age Now
Mon, 30 Jul 2018 11:55 UTC
https://www.iceagenow.info/betting-on-a-...ing-world/
Quote:The recent warming since the end of the Little Ice Age has been wholly beneficial when compared to the devastating impacts arising from the relatively minor cooling of the Little Ice Age.

With the present reducing Solar activity, significantly reduced temperatures, at least to the level of another Little Ice Age are predicted quite soon this century.

   

Cloud cover influences cooling.

https://www.sott.net/article/154648-Forg...or-Ice-Age
Quote:Some scientists believe a strong solar magnetic field, when there is plenty of sunspot activity, protects the earth from cosmic rays, cutting cloud formation, but that when the field is weak - during low sunspot activity - the rays can penetrate into the lower atmosphere and cloud cover increases, cooling the surface.

Cosmic Rays Cause Climate Change?
https://blog.cajunastro.com/conspiracy-t...e-cooling/

I wouldn't worry too much about a little warming when faced with the problems that cooling brings; famine, mass migration, and political upheaval.  Following politicized climate science may get rid of the pollution of fossil fuels but it leaves us wholly unprepared if the weather should turn colder for the Northern Hemisphere.   Let Greta shake her little fist at the sun.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#79
Do we only have 12 years to implement capitalist mechanisms to save the future megacity planet from climate change?
The climate debate needs to be framed within the context of the population, our economic and social systems and the web of life that makes up this unique space ship earth.    The earth isnt ours,  we are children of the earth.   The focus on CO2 is a subset of our megalomania. This is a key point missed by a blinded global civilization.


It is estimated that if everyone on earth had the living standard of australians, four earth planets worth of resources would be required.  Think of this in regard to the future megacity world.   Dystopia is here. 

 It would be so easy to cut our CO2 emissions yet lose the world.  A world in many ways already lost.

Two-thirds of global population will live in cities by 2050, UN says
In North America, 82 percent of people were found to live in cities, 

Some people are actually positive about the future of mega cities and super dense population management.  
The extreme future of megacities
https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...11.00485.x

megacities are booming
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDS_BqDeZ4k
 
Reply
#80
Exactly, exponential growth, diminishing resources.

There is no civilized way to change the eventual result of unbridaled capitalism.

There will eventually be too many...

Inside China's ghost cities | 60 Minutes Australia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ie6zd3Rwu4c
We always ask what have we done because we don't know what we are doing.


 
Reply
  


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Nukes Are No Answer To Climate Crisis Staup 1 2,969 06-14-2019, 08:06 AM
Last Post: Staup
  Krypton-85 and climate change Horse 0 2,150 06-06-2019, 07:54 AM
Last Post: Horse

Forum Jump:


Browsing: 1 Guest(s)