This solution has been brought to you by the book, "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert Heinlein. In the book it takes place on the moon, so water is even more difficult to get, but the solutions are essentially the same.
While it is wonderful to see logical thought instead of fearmongering applied to climate change arguments, the chart in your first video is too simplistic.
For example, the Action-Yes boxes don't specify what kind of action (or address the possibility of geoengineering instead of creating regulations). Note that the "default" do-nothing system would include some forms of geoengineering, such as building sea walls and hurricane preparations, especially once the variability of the climate is established.
Another possibility is that (whether GCC=yes or GCC=no), the economic harm caused by enacting regulations may prevent society's progress sufficiently such that solutions to climate change are slower.
I'm imagining a future technology that could be a quick fix to climate change (eg: fusion energy combined with a device that uses the free energy to suck the CO2 out of the air). It is possible that increased regulations will delay this technology to the point that it is too late to use it, due to global instability.
There may be an argument that more money would be pumped into clean-tech using increased taxation in the "yes/action" column, but we've seen how well US politicians choose projects to invest in, at the expense of other potentially viable technology.
Having a weaker economy also weakens our nation's ability to deal with unseen catastrophies, such as meteor strikes. So, it is possible (maybe even just as likely), that action on climate change (in the form of regulation) could result in global catastrophe.
That doesn't seem like a show-stopper to me, at least not for a defensive use.
A ground-based long-wave installation could send the data to a fighter or missile using wireless technology.
If you cover your country in long-wave receiver antenni, then you've found your stealthed target and can relay its position to your fighters.
If not for a bribe (or increased public awareness/donations), then Greenpeace is doing it as a show of unearned power.
That being said, their statement is scientifically meaningless without such calculations, and if Slashdot is going to have a discussion about pollution from Amazon Fire devices, then I would like to see such a discussion have scientific meaning.
Then we can discuss politics if there even is significant scientific meaning to it.
I would like to see a calculation of how much CO2 is emitted by uploading a photo compared to, say, driving to the grocery store.
The calculation would take the CO2 emitted by powering the servers, divided by the number of users of the servers, divided by the number of photos a user is expected to upload over a given time period.
I would imagine that heating your home or driving would be much worse, and the time spent uploading the photos would be better for the environment than driving to the movies. But this is speculation until someone does the calculations.
This link may help:
Technically, much of the star's mass is lost when it goes supernova, so part of the original star is lost and is therefore not part of the neutron star. So, pit would be a somewhat better descriptor than husk.
Also, I've heard that a teaspoon of matter would be more mass than Manhattan Island. Wikipedia's "Neutron Star" article says, "a neutron star is so dense that one teaspoon (5 milliliters) of its material would have a mass over 5.5Ã--1012 kg (that is 1100 tonnes per 1 nanolitre), about 900 times the mass of the Great Pyramid of Giza."
I doubt that the earth is 900 times the mass of that pyramid, but yes, one teaspoon of Neutron Star is very massive.
Please include the fuel-costs of making the ethanol, the decrease in mileage, as well as the repair costs to engines and hoses that have been damaged by using the ethanol. Repair costs would include replacement parts or even replacement cars, as some people just junk cars rather than having them fixed once they develop enough problems. And of course it takes fossil fuels to create these replacement parts.
I'm thinking specifically of Regulation D, which prevents the middle/lower class from investing in small businesses (as "Angel Investors") that need money, but aren't big enough to be listed on a major exchange. This makes it more difficult/less profitable for entrepreneurs to set up new businesses to provide more work for society to do.
In fact, most regulations on business harm small business more than large businesses. This is one reason that big business Amazon wants to enact internet sales tax; it hurts their competitors more than it hurts them, and therefore makes it easier for Amazon to compete.
It doesn't just happen in communist societies, but also in over-regulated societies as well.
Then why not say "over-regulated", instead of smearing an approach you oppose with an association with communism?
I only mentioned communism because I see the US moving in that direction rapidly.
In the direction of communism, or the direction of over-regulation?
Both. By over-regulating, the US government is gaining more and more control over the means of production. For example, coal/nuclear regulations allow the government to have power over electrical generation companies. The US gained more control during the US bank bailouts (and subsequent regulation of all banks) and automotive company bailouts.