'Climate Change' and the coming 'Climate Lockdown'

Zyobot

Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.

It always amazes me how every time there's a crisis, people naturally default to "More surveillance!", "More regulation!", and "More government!" as the almighty panacea — even when it either doesn't work, worsens the problem, or creates whole new ones that don't materialize until decades down the line, by which time people have long forgotten about root causes and just want to stick another Band-aid on it.

Sure, I can understand the desire to minimize environmental destruction in principle. And for voluntary, entrepreneurial solutions that genuinely work without unleashing the kind of monster these people are apparently cool with, I'm actually quite interested. Just... not when it's a Trojan Horse for Wokeness, socialism, or any of the other big-government "-isms" that have run roughshod over the last couple of centuries.
 

Zyobot

Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Knee jerk reactions like that is one of the great flaws of republics that ultimately leads to them becoming an oligarchy or some sort of dictatorship.

… Because people reflexively solve government-manufactured crises with yet more government expansion, on and on until things reach their nadir and the populace desperate clamors for a strongman to make everything right again? Yeah, that’d do it, though I fear our crash will end in horrors like nothing we’ve ever seen. :(
 
CNN ridiculed for blaming pets for impact on climate change, advocating 'insect-based food' and adopting small rodents instead of dogs

DarthOne

☦️
CNN ridiculed for blaming pets for impact on climate change, advocating 'insect-based food' and adopting small rodents instead of dogs

The latest scapegoat for climate change is your lovable dog and cuddly cat. According to CNN, pets are a negative impact in regards to climate change. CNN gave green advice on how to reduce your pets' "carbon pawprint," including feeding your canine companion "insect-based food" and adopting small rodents instead of dogs.

Late last month, CNN published an article titled: "Our pets are part of the climate problem. These tips can help you minimize their carbon pawprints." The article went largely unnoticed until CNN promoted the article on social media – where it was widely ridiculed.

CNN claimed that pets "play a significant role in the climate crisis."

The outlet argued that the meat-heavy diet of pets is accelerating climate change.

The article cited a 2017 study that contended that feeding cats and dogs have the same carbon impact as 13.6 million cars on the road.

The author conceded that you don't have to eliminate your furry friend, but you should embrace climate-friendly practices when it comes to having a pet.

CNN advised pet owners to feed lab-grown meat and insects to their dogs. The article said "insect-based pet foods" are a nutritious source of protein.

The author suggests picking up your dog's excrement and disposing of the poop in a toilet.





The article recommends cat owners use an environmentally-friendly kitty litter that is not made from clay.

CNN instructed people on what kind of breed of dog they should have.

"So you might consider smaller breeds or species if you’re aiming to minimize your impact on the planet," the article reads. "A Chihuahua’s carbon pawprint will be much smaller than a Saint Bernard, for example."

CNN even advises people to not adopt a dog at all, but instead get a smaller animal with less of a carbon footprint – such as birds, turtles, and small rodents.

Reactions on Twitter lambasted and mocked the CNN article.

Actor James Woods declared, "Okay. That’s it. Enough is enough. These liberal lunatics have gone after our guns, our cars, our money, our children, but when they go after our furry schnoot burgers, that’s. Game on!"

Writer Ian Miles Cheong wrote on Twitter, "Environmentalists: 'Kill your pets. That’ll get rid of their carbon footprint.'"

Singer Phil Labonte said, "PETA and climate activists are gonna come for your dog."

A Twitter user pointed out, "CNN gets worse every day. Dogs and cats generally eat the parts of meat that people don't, so I don't see how this even makes sense."

A commentator added, "Vanderbilt Cooper will still fly around on his private jet, but you want us to get rid of Fido to stop climate change."
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
Huh. They're not very good at this.

If the coal mine produces more power....
Turns out that the blades and wind speed restrictions on most large turbines make them rather inefficient and non-eco friendly. Also Germany has a shit ton of them, so losing a few is not a huge deal for power generation, if there is coal beneath their foundations.

We know how to clean coal up, if you are willing to eat that cost from your margin.

Edit: That ignores the whole 'kills lots of birds' thing too.
 

Doomsought

Well-known member
Turns out that the blades and wind speed restrictions on most large turbines make them rather inefficient and non-eco friendly. Also Germany has a shit ton of them, so losing a few is not a huge deal for power generation, if there is coal beneath their foundations.
I've never doen the math, but I have long suspected that if you include manufacturing cots, a wood and sailcloth windmill is far more environmentally friendly than those big carbon fiber monstrosities.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
Case in point the Little Ice Age from 1350 to 1850.
That wasn't just a solar dimming, that was several major volcanoes fucking thing up in the atmo for a bit.

And really the little Ice Age started shortly before the French Revolution, not way back in 1350.

Space-weather and large volcanoes mean the climate is never 'static', and will always change no matter how much control we wish to exert on it.
 

Robovski

Well-known member
We don't have much data on the solar constant, the first reading is from the 19th century and we started getting space based data in the 70's. The output of the sun itself varies* and affects everything on Earth because that changes the energy received by the Earth and energy = weather.

*The main variant cycle is the 11 year sunspot cycle. There may be other longer cycles at play as well.
 
Last edited:

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
We don't have much data on the solar constant, the first reading is from the 19th century and we started etting space based data in the 70's. The output of the sun itself varies* and affects everything on Earth because that changes the energy received by the Earth and energy = weather.

*The main variant cycle is the 11 year sunspot cycle. There may be other longer cycles at play as well.
Musk actually gave a solid average for this on IIRC one of the Joe Rogan bits; right now the Earth receives about 1 kWh per foot from the sun, which is the hard limit on solar panels.

Solar panels themselves are of limited efficiency at the moment, simply because really good ones one have about 15-25% efficiency.

So for most 'good solar', you figure you only get about 1/5th of a kWh per square foot of panel space.

Small scale hydro that does impede streams and rivers would be a much more consistent and dependable source of 'renewable' power.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Musk actually gave a solid average for this on IIRC one of the Joe Rogan bits; right now the Earth receives about 1 kWh per foot from the sun, which is the hard limit on solar panels.

Solar panels themselves are of limited efficiency at the moment, simply because really good ones one have about 15-25% efficiency.

So for most 'good solar', you figure you only get about 1/5th of a kWh per square foot of panel space.
Also correct for cloud cover, suboptimal orientation of non sun following panels (most of them are as the maintenance needs of it are not worthwhile), wind covering panels with random stuff like dirt, 1% decay of panels per year and bulk of power coming when it's not really needed (summer afternoon, especially in countries that don't need widespread AC in summer) in non tropical altitudes.
Small scale hydro that does impede streams and rivers would be a much more consistent and dependable source of 'renewable' power.
Small scale hydro = small scale power. Red herring outside of several small countries whose decisions do not matter in the global scale.
 

Blasterbot

Well-known member
Small scale hydro = small scale power. Red herring outside of several small countries whose decisions do not matter in the global scale.
yeah but if you are in an area that can do it making something for it is a relatively cheap and effective way to get consistent power. not able to be done everywhere like most forms of power generation but where you can it should be considered.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
yeah but if you are in an area that can do it making something for it is a relatively cheap and effective way to get consistent power. not able to be done everywhere like most forms of power generation but where you can it should be considered.
It can be done only in some countries at any meaningful scale, and most of those exploit the capacity available already. Trying to squeeze more would usually mean major geoengineering that would get conservationists angry.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top