General > General Technical Chat
heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
<< < (7/67) > >>
hans:
In my experience with academia is full of "nut heads". Some can be fluent in solving complex equations, but be frozen by anxiety with the slightest bit of real world news. In my daily life, the only people I know without a smartphone are the elderly who don't know how to use one. In my work, the only people I know without a smartphone is because they are afraid of Google, Amazon and Facebook selling their data, and that intelligence services are tapping into their phone as they are working on new tech.

And to be honest, I can't fault those people for that. I don't like sticking "CONSPIRACY" on everything that's non-mainstream accepted. I can't prove in favour or against an argument, so what gives. Personally I'm indifferent to the CO2/climate change debacle, however, I tend to trust "the experts" that CO2, methane and other greenhouse gasses is damaging this planet at a rapid pace, with experimental data in place from climate changes in the past decade or so. I don't have many other choices as I don't have the time nor expertise to dive into the literature and accurately judge what causality or explanation is most plausible on that. I'm just a plain EE/software guy.. not a climate expert.

I think we've seen the dangers of that happening in Covid times. Some scammers that "have done their research" are trying to get people to donate money to their anti-5G or anti-vax cult. These people rely heavily on a distrust in science, which is usually hilariously misrepresented. CO2 Coaliation looks a lot like this.
Science is not a collection of knowledge. Science is a process of truth finding. If one doesn't "trust science" or only "real science" and then proceeds on giving arguments using the scientific method, then that logic is inherently flawed. It's similar to saying that "free energy" doesn't rely on any science. Well it should, because that would show what other energy source its harvesting (which you could argue, is free) and why a perpetual energy system in itself can't work.

But even if they are right, I think there is a FAR more important reason to consider. We cant keep using these non-renewable resources forever. Our world population still grows at a crazy rate. A majority of the world population still live in poor welfare conditions and the bigger that gap, the bigger that hunger for welfare becomes (see the various refugee crisis' we have had in the past century). We've been very good in depleting the world resources in the past hundred years or so.. but how long can we continue this? Do we want to figure out what a stock market ""bubble"" is like when it comes to humans, food and energy? Our "sophisticated" world is still incredibly vulnerable to power play on all those levels mentioned, as we've seen happen in the past 1.5 years. Do we want to bet on colonizing Mars? I don't know.. seeing our gov and private space programs I wouldn't get my bets up those "solutions" would arrive in time. And even if we would, it solving anything on Earth sounds like an utopia for now.

I think we have all the reasons to go for net zero, ASAP. Even if you don't give a crap on some plants or animals going extinct, sea levels rising a couple of meters, winters without snow and summers without rain.
pickle9000:
I'm with hans "We cant keep using these non-renewable resources forever"
Siwastaja:

--- Quote from: pickle9000 on August 01, 2023, 05:56:02 pm ---I'm with hans "We cant keep using these non-renewable resources forever"

--- End quote ---

Well, it's a pretty sensible viewpoint in any case. You don't need all the fearmongering to convey that, IMHO.

BTW, a honest question, as we are all engineers here, many working professionally -- what have you done to solve this Thing, thing referring to climate crisis, climate problem, CO2 problem, energy crisis, energy instability, whatever you choose to call it?

Let me start: I have been developing a product for consumers and commercial / light industrial customers which allows significant reduction in their energy costs and CO2 by letting them better match their energy use vs. grid production by utilizing the explicit and implicit thermal capacity of buildings, hot water tanks, plus of course electric vehicles. The product also bidirectionally meters own use vs. produced PV, and tries to optimize for local use whenever the grid doesn't need it even more direly (i.e., price benefit by selling to grid and buying back later, happens sometimes). This is a physical product which controls / interfaces with existing energy resources through line voltage relays, low-voltage optoisolators, RS485 buses. A web UI is offered for monitoring and control.
tom66:

--- Quote from: Siwastaja on August 01, 2023, 06:57:45 pm ---BTW, a honest question, as we are all engineers here, many working professionally -- what have you done to solve this Thing, thing referring to climate crisis, climate problem, CO2 problem, energy crisis, energy instability, whatever you choose to call it?

--- End quote ---

It's difficult for one individual to have a huge impact.  On my pension and investments I've shifted some towards ESG, but I have to retain some in high-growth or I'll have nothing to retire on.  On the personal front, I bought an EV, I plan to install solar when practical.  I eat meat only twice a week (good for your body-fat too.) I switched to oat milk and cut dairy out (that's mostly for personal health though.)   I've insulated the parts of my house that I can do without extreme disassembly.

I try to promote impact-reducing efforts to people.  I've got a few friends who didn't realise their boilers were set far too hot.  I've repaired electronics that would have gone to the landfill and saved the purchase of a new 'thing', and I used to be quite active on repair forums for TVs (but don't really have the time to work on them any more.)

The one part I've not been able to find a viable alternative to is flying.  I like seeing places and travelling.  It has to be my "climate vice".  But I'd pay more for an airline ticket if they promised to use synfuels instead of fossil fuels.  Aviation is not an easy one to clean up.  Fortunately it's only 2-4% of global emissions, or at least that's how I convince myself that it's okay.

I work for an organisation that has a negative climate impact (defence-adjacent), but if there was a way to apply my skills to "saving the world" (and still get paid enough to cover the mortgage) I'd love to do it... sadly I've not  found a better option.  That said, given Russia appears to be slowly losing this war, it may force Europe to permanently shift more towards renewables to substitute the missing gas.  So maybe a distant benefit?
nctnico:

--- Quote from: tszaboo on August 01, 2023, 10:49:49 am ---The shop I buy food, replaced plastic packaging with plastic lined paper. It's worse in quality, often times opened already on the shelves, spoiled food, and impossible to recycle because it's a composite.

--- End quote ---
On that topic: an independant consumer magazin did an analysis on which type of bag is worst. Turns out cotton bags you often get from 'biological' stores are the worst. The best are the bags made from recycled PET which have a low footprint but are also the most durable (you can use these for a very long time).
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod