Comment They can lower it all they want. It will not matte (Score 1) 442
The ONLY way to solve this is to have ALL NATIONS STOP growing their emissions, and esp. stop building new coal plants.
Considering that nuclear power is the safest form of power the world has ever known, I'd say it's worthy of recognition for offsetting carbon more than anything else. To borrow a phrase, "It's the energy density, stupid."
There's a reason why China has 30 nuclear plants under construction, while the US just approved its first new plant in 30 years.
What they're trying to say, using the usual feminist sociology over-loquatiousness is:
For some on the planet, keeping it under 2 degrees will preserve a relatively familiar or at least acceptable quality of life.
For others on the planet, quality of life can only be preserved by keeping it under, say 1.5 degrees, or even one degree.
The first group (that can live with a higher threshold) are those in the upper portions of the global economic scale, and it's an acceptable rise for them because they can also afford technologies and tools (getting crude, say, air conditioners, new home materials, new kinds of agricultural output, etc.) that make a 2 degree rise tolerable.
The second group (that can't live at the 2 degree threshold, and really need a lower one) are going to tend to be in the lower portions of the global economic scale, who won't have access to the technologies and tools that make a 2 degree rise livable for those at the top of the scale.
Policymakers and scientists tend, by virtue of their privileged position, to be in the first group, and have thus set the 2 degree rise in connection with thinking of their own, best-case lifestyles, rather than—say—a member of one of the globe's largely impoverished equatorial populations without access to much in the way of resources, tools, or technologies already.
It's a good point: the effects are not uniform, and if 2 degrees is the upper bound for the people who are the globe's *most* comfortable, then it's probably a bad upper bound in general, because it will "cook" (even more than already occurs) those that are the *least* comfortable.
It was, however, bad language and clarity—which is a sin that social science commits far too often.
Their point is well taken:
I also mulled laying off gambling before I went broke.
Therefore I am, morally speaking, thin and rich.
Which makes sense. Sea level rise in the last 50 years has amounted to about 4 inches, probably not enough to make drains run backwards.
The way sea level rise will make itself known isn't through changes in day to day phenomena, but in exceptional phenomena like storm surge flooding. This is a place where inches may well matter. People plan around concepts like a "ten year flood" or a "hundred year flood", and this creates a sharp line on the map where there is no sharp line in reality. Depending where on the domain of the bell curve their chosen planning horizon is, a few inches could turn a ten year flood into a five year flood, which has immense practical implications.
When people way that there is nothing intrinsically worse about a globe that's four degrees hotter they're right. But *change* that undermines human plans represents a big challenge. Change also represents a big challenge to species populations that can't relocate on the timescale of change.
Go to Mars. *Stay there*. Don't return the Presbyterian astronauts back home to Ohio. Keep lobbing supplies at the colonists until they can sustain themselves. Why on earth do we keep trying to re-enact the Apollo fiasco? Colonize, or don't go. Plenty of older folk such as myself who would be glad of a few years of low G before we die while we build up the place for later arrivals. Dying there? The horror! Um, of course you'd die if you stay on Earth anyway. Dying on Mars would be more scenic, and your knees wouldn't hurt when you stand up.
Of course, Mars won't pay for itself as far as Earth is concerned, the way orbiting terraria and factories would. Less room, less opportunity, and yet another gravity trap on any planet. Mars is a place to colonize. It can't produce wealth for the old country. And colonies don't care about the old world much, so we're building a suburb that will home-rule faster than a town next door to a impoverished city.
Well, limited vision, but at least we'd have two baskets to put our eggs in.
She can't hear reality over the roar of the hundred million dollars she was paid for halving the shareholder value of HP. Clearly she isn't deluded; she just lives in an alternate reality from the rest of us.
Another mushy moderate is not what we need. The GOP needs a rock ribbed, conservative bomb thrower. Go Ted Cruz!!!
Not precisely correct from an anatomical standpoint. The rocks in question are superior to the c1 vertebra.
In an era where I can purchase trans-atlantic wifi for $15, it seems archaic to me that we still rely on hardened "black boxes" for data retrieval. Why is audio from the flight deck not REQUIRED to be streamed real-time to satellites in orbit for commercial airliners? Yes yes, it won't be 100% reliable blah blah. So what? No one is advocating REMOVING the black box.. there is no reason you can't have both.
Machines have less problems. I'd like to be a machine. -- Andy Warhol