Climate Change in the Trump Era

Bass

Brother in arms
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnus
This got me thinking about a segment I watched on a tv show called The Newsroom here.
While the findings and reactions of the show are quite possibly, and quite probably, romanticized, you can't help but think. What if it's too late? Is climate change inevitable at this point? That's what I'm starting to think, because to reverse the trend at this point will basically never happen, due to the need for drastic and immediate changes to many Americans' lifestyles, and changes in several ways companies do business, which politicians in DC will never pass. Even someone like Bernie will roll back climate regulations when he gets a gigantic riot of angry citizens at his doorstep.

Why not do nothing to stop climate change, due to its inevitability, and just focus on preserving the natural resources of the United States? Curb all outflow from Hoover Dam, Grand Coulee Dam, etc. to build up reservoirs, stop outsourcing energy, increase solar+wind power, not as an alternative to fossil fuels but to supplement our energy supply. Stop food exports and flash freeze food to preserve perishables. Build up our military to protect our resources. Curb population growth to prevent depletion.

I'm actually 100% not joking here so someone respond to my batshit crazy idea before I start to put it into action please.
Of course climate change is inevitable. Even if we act as aggressively as we can, we will have about 1 degree C of global warming by 2100. It's honestly fairly likely that we will exceed 1.5 or even 2 degrees C.

However, that's a terrible excuse not to act, and it's not a sustainable way of living. Scientific studies have shown time and time again that the actual economic costs of inaction will far exceed the costs of action. I am not saying that we shouldn't be aggressively thinking about adaptation strategies, but rather that action in response to climate change must include both adaptation and mitigation.

The main lifestyle changes that need to happen are embracing electric vehicles and public transportation, which is still in a horrendous state in many parts of the United States (particularly in Los Angeles where I currently live) as well as switching to carbon free energy sources to power our electric grid. In my view, the biggest reason that we have been unsuccessful in this pursuit is because the ones who would have to pay a large percentage of this cost are the rich and powerful, particularly those in the energy industry who insist that natural gas must be a transition source for the sake of maintaining their own profits. As we should have learned from this election, they are actively working behind the scenes to influence our politicians through their large campaign contributions so that climate change action is minimal (which is why the republicans deny science and the democrats pretend natural gas is a good thing while snubbing a carbon tax) and also fund multiple think tanks to continue to spread misinformation about a conclusion which scientists have reached a consensus on decades ago.
 
Last edited:
Of course climate change is inevitable. Even if we act as aggressively as we can, we will have about 1 degree C of global warming by 2100. It's honestly fairly likely that we will exceed 1.5 or even 2 degrees C.

However, that's a terrible excuse not to act, and it's not a sustainable way of living. Scientific studies have shown time and time again that the actual economic costs of inaction will far exceed the costs of action. I am not saying that we shouldn't be aggressively thinking about adaptation strategies, but rather that action in response to climate change must include both adaptation and mitigation.

The main lifestyle changes that need to happen are embracing electric vehicles and public transportation, which is still in a horrendous state in many parts of the United States (particularly in Los Angeles where I currently live) as well as switching to carbon free energy sources to power our electric grid. In my view, the biggest reason that we have been unsuccessful in this pursuit is because the ones who would have to pay a large percentage of this cost are the rich and powerful, particularly those in the energy industry who insist that natural gas must be a transition source for the sake of maintaining their own profits. As we should have learned from this election, they are actively working behind the scenes to influence our politicians through their large campaign contributions so that climate change action is minimal (which is why the republicans deny science and the democrats pretend natural gas is a good thing while snubbing a carbon tax) and also fund multiple think tanks to continue to spread misinformation about a conclusion which scientists have reached a consensus on decades ago.
Honestly, if it comes to worse, and my home ends up underwater, I'm all for a coordinated wealth redistribution from every single those who are responsible for this mess. Take their fortune (by force if necessary, since they don't deserve it anyways), and split it among the affected evenly. They can get whatever is left, assuming there is anything. If it ends up as FUBARed as in Incorporated, well, they should have thought of the saying "misery loves company". If we're miserable and end up on the streets, it would be justice for them to be as well. I'd feel sorry for their families, but then millions of families could suffer the same fate, so... Hopefully, things won't snowball in my lifetime, and people won't have to take that sort of action.

These bastards have stonewalled every meaningful effort to stop climate change, until it is now too late to stop it. At this point, it is a goal of damage control. And if Trump doesn't even help with that, as is his damned job as President, not only will I not show him the respect of considering him President, but when the time comes, yes, his fortune should be redistributed as well.

In case you don't know, these people piss me the hell off, since their decisions will have effects on my life, effects I wanted no part in.
 
Some of what i work on is supported in part by the Department of Energy. I'm not sure if I should be extremely concerned by the Rick Perry cabinet pick.
 

GatoDelFuego

Legendary Cat
is a Forum Moderatoris a Live Chat Contributoris a Site Staff Alumnusis a Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Moderator
the garbage you peddle is mind numbing, Deck Knight. It takes two seconds in google to prove this wrong.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es071763q
This study takes a few liberties. Which is a shame. For example, 30 years of solar power from a panel is pretty optimistic. The things are incredibly frail.

the study said:
This is a nice image. But it is built on the positive assumptions that the researchers made.

http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/03/the-ugly-side-o.html this is an even nicer page. Once you set the installations to more "realistic" scenarios (like being placed in the southwestern US, lowered life expectancy). All this means is that solar panels are "arguably" not as good as coal. You have to play with numbers, but it can work out favorable either way. Also, this study doesn't talk a lot about the mining aspect. They seem to import mining figures from some other study, but I don't see where they mention it in the paper.

Of course, not that anything deck knight said about wind panels is valid at all, lmao. And of course, not that thermal solar power is bad at all. And of course, solar energy is good in the long, long run, but the problem is getting there.



I'm curious about what suddenly happened that makes climate change a bigger issue now than it was 4 years ago. I've heard a lot of people talk about it recently like the world is going to explode tomorrow, both in this thread and irl. Yes, it is a pressing issue and not one that can be ignored. But I believe it can be solved, even if countries continue to lag. But we still don't have a magic bullet for stopping carbon emissions, even if we switched everything to nuclear reactors overnight (though that would be a good idea), and even if we pass regulation it will take time to fix things. Not that that means we shouldn't legislate thing. But I think we have to push green energy rather than remove unclean energy, because there is pushback in one and no pushback in another. Why do people hate nuclear energy, anyway?
 
Last edited:
Energy will be solved in 100 years. Everyone alive at that point can rest assured that some day the temperature will even out for any humans who survived the nuclear holocaust or the alien encounter or the sun sneezing too hard. I hope we still live on earth then.

Real talk, the problem is solved by governments and businesses alone, and until it makes monetary sense there will be no change. All green products are money grabs from a shame campaign. "Buy the product that hurts earth less or your personally killed the ploar bears." I don't know what it would do to a company to make 100% green products but I'm guessing it would ruin them or set them so far behind they would become a niche market.
 
Simply put, I dislike the "Apocalypse Now" attitude of global warming. But onto the show.

Deck Knight's windmill bit was funny, but green energies do have their flaws. Solar has kerf, which while recyclable to an extent is still a big hazard in production. Hydroelectric is limited by few optimal locations. Wind, barring ducks n ruining the view, is pretty shitty due to installation costs, being loud, and being limited to rural areas.

Nuclear is usually avoided due to stigma and public fear; it's incredibly safe, all things considered. It could be used as an alternative major source of energy, but IIRC we don't have much fissile material, maybe 100 yrs worth.

ChaosWalker is pretty correct. Until green energy becomes able to actually compete with fossil fuels costwise, it can't grow much without the government ramming it down everyone's throats.

The goal should always have been damage control, considering that the more major producers of greenhouse gases wouldn't give a fuck about the Paris agreement anyway. It's extremely hard to convince someone to shoulder increased costs for an intangible benefit. Even worse when there is no actual way to enforce said agreement and there is some criticism that said agreement may not even be enough.

Science has always been politically correct; heck, look are Galileo. Say something someone doesn't like and they whomp you. It doesn't really matter if you were right or wrong.
 
Last edited:

verbatim

[PLACEHOLDER]
is a Battle Simulator Administratoris a Community Leaderis a Live Chat Contributor
Community Leader
From what I've heard from Nuclear Engineering students the biggest roadblock to fission as a big powersource is tons of red tape and overreduntant/not helpful safety measures that make it cost millions of dollars more than it should to get approval to build a plant. I would be all in favor of Trump's energy deregulation in this case.
 

6A9 Ace Matador

veni, vidi, vici, VERSACE, VERSACE VERSACE
public fear/safety measures/nuclear power plants going wrong being catastrophic are the main concerns for mass implementation. nuclear is a viable alternative to fossil fuels but we're at the point now where implementing even greener strategies is probably as feasible (and of course more desirable) than going full nuclear for many of the most developed western countries.
'apocalypse now' attitude is IMO necessary, given that the target demographic for climate change speakers, & advertisements are the general public. who lets not forget up until recently were largely unaware/brainwashed against the idea of global warning and the associated consequences i.e. food shortages, previously confined infectious illness spreading, shade's fav Magaluf holiday becoming unavailable . it's also become more pressing as new research has thrown light on the cascade like reactions triggered by global warming on the environment which means in turn that it directly affects people, dramatically and 'unnaturally' within their life times.
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
public fear/safety measures/nuclear power plants going wrong being catastrophic are the main concerns for mass implementation. nuclear is a viable alternative to fossil fuels but we're at the point now where implementing even greener strategies is probably as feasible (and of course more desirable) than going full nuclear for many of the most developed western countries.
'apocalypse now' attitude is IMO necessary, given that the target demographic for climate change speakers, & advertisements are the general public. who lets not forget up until recently were largely unaware/brainwashed against the idea of global warning and the associated consequences i.e. food shortages, previously confined infectious illness spreading, shade's fav Magaluf holiday becoming unavailable . it's also become more pressing as new research has thrown light on the cascade like reactions triggered by global warming on the environment which means in turn that it directly affects people, dramatically and 'unnaturally' within their life times.

"Global Warming" is a phrase that is often made light of, I do it all the time in the coastal Bay Area in California, where it is getting colder and stormier each winter near the coast where the sea level is rising (I'm guessing, it is likely more complicated than that and is moderated by the effect of ice melting on the ocean's thermocline). Both 'climate change' and 'global warming' may seem (and the oil lobby's politicians make it sound) like slow processes or even processes unrelated to human activity, but I think that the nearest-term threat is ocean acidification caused by CO2 emissions, which has been projected to lead to massive species losses and disruptions to the ocean ecosystems (exacerbated by the human activity of over-fishing). Though there needs to be more research to produce a timeline that could predict how soon we can expect to see major losses in the productivity of fisheries, I recall a few years ago seeing projections that coral reefs, a key part of marine ecosystems, might be wiped out as soon as 2050 (here is one from a quick web search http://www.livescience.com/2135-increasing-acid-kill-coral-2050.html). The economic impact will have major political consequences in terms of people being incentivized to flee affected areas.

So yeah, while I think it is likely true that there is little that individuals can do about the activities of businesses and governments that are the major 'producers of CO2', I think the 'apocalypse now' message, whether it comes from someone trying to sell a 'green' product or not, is totally appropriate. I think I started getting interested in going to protests and learning about politics, 'being radicalized' lol, when I was working as a TA for an Ocean Sciences elective. It is very sad to see America implementing xenophobic policies in 2017, when our corporate activities will soon be forcing people all over the world to pick-up and leave their homes. Not to mention the projected increase of 'unpredictable' natural disasters which will probably just straight up leave millions of people dead.
 
http://time.com/4649472/donald-trump-epa-study-restrictions/




I don't like making absolute statements but this is 100% unacceptable. Science isn't politics, it is objective. Any attempt to make it "politically correct" is propoganda.
IKR? Wish I could teleport to their office, and Gojulas Giga (my new Pupitar that I need to train more) was real, so he could stand behind me, intimidating and shit ("don't shoot at him SS, you'll only piss him off!!!"), while I tell them I will not stand for this sort of propogandic bullshit, and if they want to run this sort of government, they can found their own damned country, because this isn't how they're gonna run mine!

Science has always been politically correct; heck, look are Galileo. Say something someone doesn't like and they whomp you. It doesn't really matter if you were right or wrong.
And what was done to Copernicus and Galileo was a disgrace, and there is a good reason why in Star Trek, there are shuttlecraft named after these historical figures. Hell, in fanon, I'm sure those names are used a lot, because of what they represent: the need for government to adapt to what the hard science says, not science adapting to the whims of those in power.

That is exactly the sort of thing that needs to be abolished, like posthaste. Like as in, you do this, and you'll have a mob armed with tasers, shotguns, pitchforks, and torches rushing to hang you from the tallest tree. One of the good things about democracy is that it gives us the chance to govern based on logic and compassion, and anybody who tries to drag us away from that needs to be treated as a danger to our security.
 
Last edited:

Mattapod

bad clarinet music
is a Community Contributor Alumnus
http://time.com/4649472/donald-trump-epa-study-restrictions/




I don't like making absolute statements but this is 100% unacceptable. Science isn't politics, it is objective. Any attempt to make it "politically correct" is propoganda.
im gonna go out and agree with you on this one. which is also surprising because the republican party typically is not one to try to PC-ify things. It seems more like informational control which is totally fucked and wrong on a million levels. don't get me wrong-im all for verifying data before publishing it on a government website. however, it should be verified by a non biased third party, not a party who has direct interest in the result of the information in question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JES

verbatim

[PLACEHOLDER]
is a Battle Simulator Administratoris a Community Leaderis a Live Chat Contributor
Community Leader
Yes they are. This decade it's climate control, last couple of decades were the dangers of smoking, the couple of decades BEFORE that was creationism. Extremists and big buisness interests using politics to push their agenda is nothing new.

On the other end of the political spectrum, I can't say that it's been as decisively proven, but I'd be shocked if it turned out that there wasn't serious oil money behind the anti-nuclear power movement.


This time it's a lot more dangeorus though.

The famines that ultimately lead to the downfall of the USSR can be traced back to political ideology overruling science when setting standards and recommendations for crop farming. From the director that oversaw the disasterous plan, the dangers of pushing political ideology over real science has been termed Lysenkoism.

Climate denial's a lot like that, except instead of starving to death people are going to drown, or burn, dending on where they live.
 
Last edited:

EV

sksksksk
is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Utterly deplorable - https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/861

"Introduced in House (02/03/2017)
This bill terminates the Environmental Protection Agency on December 31, 2018."

I can't think of anything more unpatriotic than dismantling the agency in place to, ya know, PROTECT the very country that we live in. How can any red-blooded American stand by while we return to

rivers on fire



tire beach



airplane fly-bys


source: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/03/cities-epa-clean-air-water-pollution-trash


Clearly the regulations haven't been too hard on industry. I mean, look at all the billionaires in Trump's cabinet...
 
Clearly, they don't care! Money, money, money! They act like it's air or water! I'm all for environmental activist groups just taking the EPA's place, so long as they don't hurt any innocent people in the process. Sure, they'll shout "terrorism", but we shouldn't allow them to shove shit up our asses. That is, unless this can be challenged in court.
 
Utterly deplorable - https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/861

"Introduced in House (02/03/2017)
This bill terminates the Environmental Protection Agency on December 31, 2018."
This was obvious to me the minute I saw his picks for the heads of that departments (and others including education) many of which have been on record saying they detest the very things they have been put in charge of. I hope they finish that wall soon, we'll need it to stop all the americans escaping from the wasteland that will be the US.
 
Not if anything us Progressives have anything to say of it. Not short enough their reign will be. Sorry, I love Yoda.

Anyways, as far as I'm concerned, they can turn my state into a wasteland into a wasteland over their dead bodies. I might hesitate to feed them to the gators, but if they pollute our water, then maybe those corporate heads will serve better as chow. I kid, I kid! I'd never condone that! But if Trump wants Law and Order, he can either pass fair and just laws, or as far as we should be concerned, they don't exist, like slavery. Actually, a movement similar to the civil rights and abolitionist movements might be in order.

Oh, Trump would be pissed!!!
 
THE SENTIENT SACK OF SHIT HE ACTUALLY DID IT

To all Americans that voted this man because "Crooked Hillary" or because you wanted to fix an immigration issue well congrats because thats now irrelevant. The US of A is the second largest polluter in the world and backing out of the "Don't kill the world" aka Paris agreement is essentially the equivalent of giving planet earth a death sentence.

No matter which party you support, your opinions on sexuality, immigration, healthcare, employment and whatever. This issue *trumps* all of them. Regardless of your political alignment, social status and wealth, the fact that you live on this planet makes this relevant to you. This is not a partisan issue. This is a deplorable act that was born of the incomprehensible machinations of Trump's mind. Whether you're a Republican or Democrat is irrelevant. You, if you wish to continue living on this planet, are now against Trump.

In the next election may the USA unite not under a party, but under the shared interest of kicking this cunt out of the white house. People of the USA the future lies in your hands.
 
Last edited:

Soul Fly

IMMA TEACH YOU WHAT SPLASHIN' MEANS
is a Contributor Alumnus
USA finds itself in the super-elite company of Syria and Nicaragua as the only states out of 197 to not sign the treaty. One of them is war-torn and literally on the brink of oblivion, the other didn't sign because they wanted something more substantial and binding, rather than a symbolic non-binding treaty.

You're pretty much out of an excuse when you fail to sign a global agreement that even North Korea managed to get on board with. Congrats USA, you're literally less reasonable than Kim Jong Un. That's quite the achievement.

#MAGA



 

Blazade

is a Forum Moderator
Moderator
What really gets me is all the American Sovereignty language throughout his explanation for pulling out. There's no sense of long term thinking here, no respect for the science, and paradoxically no vision about how America actually could become a leader in green technology. It's all about image and looking like a big shot, and this is what we're getting out of foreign policy.

How do you deal with someone like this?
 
If I had any respect for Trump before this, it is gone. I have nothing but hate for him, and he will never be my President. As far as I'm concerned, we have no President, the White House is hostilely occupied, and I no longer have any reasons not to disobey Vladimir Trump or his cronies any chance I get.

I look forward to when he is executed for treason regarding Russia, but I no longer really care how he goes. I just know he needs to go.

I have zero sympathy for him now, because he has ignored no doubt millions of appeals to combat climate change, which is a major concern. He has basically has told everyone who is concerned about climate change that our concerns don't mean shit to him, so I think that we need to send him a message. I have been told multiple times on Twitter that I'm basically ignorant for even being concerned, and that I'm supposed to give priority to some global conspiracy. If he wants a debate on whether the research is flawed, have a referendum, then would be reasonable, so that this can be dealt with once and for all. If he wants to ignore us and prioritize money, then we need to get his attention until he can't ignore us.

Fuck the King, and fuck anyone who defends him. He doesn't deserve to be President. He doesn't even deserve Secret Service protection. He's a terrible person who is only doing this to try to show that he's in charge, and it wouldn't surprise me if he has stocks in energy companies like Koch.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top