4 ms·

The entire planet will lose as ecosystems die out, food and water supplies run low, refugee crises and global conflicts ramp up. But hey, line go up!

by vrganj 3mo ago

cyanydeez 3mo ago
Don't worry; republicans are way ahead of that refugee crises by generation fervent far right ethnic nationalism globally, independently of course.
simianwords 3mo ago
[flagged]
- OlivOnTech 3mo ago
  Do you have any source? The global scientific community and more specifically the GIEC have been saying the opposite for years...
  - simianwords 3mo ago
    I have been trying to look for sources myself and I feel like this whole sector is rampant with "noble lies". If you dig into the sources you will find Economic predictions: The most serious mainstream institutions[1] will dress it up us an imminent catastrophe as if humanity itself will collapse if we don't do anything. But once you read the real predictions, you will realise that that it they just say things would be better if you had reduced emissions compared to if we did not, but not compared to today (crucially) Tail risks and irreversible damage: I have read on tail risks, ecological collapse, species death and all of these models are strange and not supported by the mainstream generally. For example [2] article says that 5% of our species will go extinct by 2100 or so. That means more than 200k species! And in the last 50 years fewer than 1500 or so went extinct and it is not some abnormal number. I would encourage you to actually read the studies and see what people believe and the models used. [1] https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/investing-in-climate-for-growth-and-development_16b7cbc7-en/full-report/accelerated-climate-action-can-deliver-strong-economic-benefits_bee34dd7.html https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/investing-in-climate-fo... [2] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adp4461 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adp4461 Edit, can't reply: > Your argument is just linking to credible sources that make the opposite argument as you, and then stating "I disagree" afterwards? Dude, read the first document and then tell me whether they say things will get worse than now or not. They explicitly compare the counterfactual against with or without emissions not against today. This is my issue with this kind of misinformation.
    - estearum 3mo ago
      Your argument is just linking to credible sources that make the opposite argument as you, and then stating "I disagree" afterwards?
    - estearum 2mo ago
      To respond to your edit: The first document is a report on the economic upside of further investment + regulation on climate. It has nothing to do with downside risk of inaction. To the extent it mentions "whether things will get better than now or not," it certainly does not argue things will just be better. > However, current efforts are not keeping pace with rising risks. The world remains on an upwards emissions trajectory, and climate action is losing momentum as countries face a range of competing geopolitical, financial and economic challenges that slow its pace and scale. Without further action climate risks will intensify, and rising disasters, economic instability and financial system vulnerabilities will threaten long-term growth and development. > Actual benefits [of deeper investment + regulation] could be even greater, as uncertain current estimates do not fully account for the economic and social consequences of the increased likelihood of crossing tipping points, such as melting ice sheets or reversing circulation patterns in the ocean. So yes you're reading a publication explicitly written, labeled, and marketed as a positive economic case for deeper investment and regulation, and then saying "see it's just saying things will get better if we invest/regulate, it doesn't talk about downside risk!" But it explicitly says it's not looking at downside risk. Here's the same credible organization in a 2022 report on the downside risks: (https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/climate-tipping-points_abc5a69e-en.html https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/climate-tipping-points_...) > This report reviews evidence that overshooting 1.5°C may push the earth over several tipping points, leading to irreversible and severe changes in the climate system. If triggered, tipping point impacts will rapidly cascade through socio-economic and ecological systems, leading to severe effects on human and natural systems and imposing important challenges for human adaptation > Based on the most recent science and consultations with renowned experts, this report argues that it is no longer appropriate to consider the risk of crossing tipping points as low-probability. Note that inversely, this report does not make a positive argument for the economic growth potential of intervention, because it's a report on downside risk.
- flufluflufluffy 3mo ago
  Both you and the person you replied to are making claims about the future. Neither of them are true.
solenoid0937 3mo ago
This is just pure histrionics, you have no understanding whatsoever of the scale of data center water consumption, electricity consumption, new capacity coming online, etc.
- inigyou 3mo ago
  How much water does a DC use?
  - solenoid0937 3mo ago
    Not much. 0.04% of US water production. For context, that's about 3% of the water consumption of our golf courses, and less than 1% of what we use to water our lawns.
    - loloquwowndueo 3mo ago
      Get off my lawn.
  - quickthrowman 3mo ago
    All US data center water usage is less than the total water used for golf courses or the total water used to grow alfalfa. Less water used in evaporative cooling means more electricity is used for cooling given that the efficiency almost doubles if you add evaporative cooling to a chilled water loop. It’s bad to pump non-renewable fossil aquifer water in Arizona for evaporative cooling, but using cooling towers in an area that gets 30” or more of precipitation per year is probably not going to hurt anything.
  - _DeadFred_ 3mo ago
    The question is does DC building bring added costs to local communities. My small town has a backlog of home builders waiting for permits because of constrained municipal water capacity. We are still paying off the bonds for the last capacity we added. Golf courses/etc are already factored into current costs. Additional new use brings significant cost (bonds to build new capacity), funded by increasing expenses on the entire community, not funded by those who financially benefit from the new build outs. The issue isn't comparative usage to existing hookups, it's new cost burden on the local community where a data center is built. Which is why DC propogandists switched to the golf course measurement, it confuses the original concern, the cost to the community of new DC hookups to municipal water or the very limited amount (of expensive to the community) available hookups that were intended/funded by the community for other purposes.

The entire planet will lose as ecosystems die out, food and water supplies run low, refugee crises and global conflicts ramp up. But hey, line go up!

by vrganj 3mo ago

The entire planet will lose as ecosystems die out, food and water supplies run low, refugee crises and global conflicts ramp up. But hey, line go up!

cyanydeez 3mo ago

Don't worry; republicans are way ahead of that refugee crises by generation fervent far right ethnic nationalism globally, independently of course.

simianwords 3mo ago

[flagged]

OlivOnTech 3mo ago
Do you have any source? The global scientific community and more specifically the GIEC have been saying the opposite for years...
- simianwords 3mo ago
  I have been trying to look for sources myself and I feel like this whole sector is rampant with "noble lies". If you dig into the sources you will find Economic predictions: The most serious mainstream institutions[1] will dress it up us an imminent catastrophe as if humanity itself will collapse if we don't do anything. But once you read the real predictions, you will realise that that it they just say things would be better if you had reduced emissions compared to if we did not, but not compared to today (crucially) Tail risks and irreversible damage: I have read on tail risks, ecological collapse, species death and all of these models are strange and not supported by the mainstream generally. For example [2] article says that 5% of our species will go extinct by 2100 or so. That means more than 200k species! And in the last 50 years fewer than 1500 or so went extinct and it is not some abnormal number. I would encourage you to actually read the studies and see what people believe and the models used. [1] https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/investing-in-climate-for-growth-and-development_16b7cbc7-en/full-report/accelerated-climate-action-can-deliver-strong-economic-benefits_bee34dd7.html https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/investing-in-climate-fo... [2] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adp4461 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adp4461 Edit, can't reply: > Your argument is just linking to credible sources that make the opposite argument as you, and then stating "I disagree" afterwards? Dude, read the first document and then tell me whether they say things will get worse than now or not. They explicitly compare the counterfactual against with or without emissions not against today. This is my issue with this kind of misinformation.
  - estearum 3mo ago
    Your argument is just linking to credible sources that make the opposite argument as you, and then stating "I disagree" afterwards?
  - estearum 2mo ago
    To respond to your edit: The first document is a report on the economic upside of further investment + regulation on climate. It has nothing to do with downside risk of inaction. To the extent it mentions "whether things will get better than now or not," it certainly does not argue things will just be better. > However, current efforts are not keeping pace with rising risks. The world remains on an upwards emissions trajectory, and climate action is losing momentum as countries face a range of competing geopolitical, financial and economic challenges that slow its pace and scale. Without further action climate risks will intensify, and rising disasters, economic instability and financial system vulnerabilities will threaten long-term growth and development. > Actual benefits [of deeper investment + regulation] could be even greater, as uncertain current estimates do not fully account for the economic and social consequences of the increased likelihood of crossing tipping points, such as melting ice sheets or reversing circulation patterns in the ocean. So yes you're reading a publication explicitly written, labeled, and marketed as a positive economic case for deeper investment and regulation, and then saying "see it's just saying things will get better if we invest/regulate, it doesn't talk about downside risk!" But it explicitly says it's not looking at downside risk. Here's the same credible organization in a 2022 report on the downside risks: (https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/climate-tipping-points_abc5a69e-en.html https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/climate-tipping-points_...) > This report reviews evidence that overshooting 1.5°C may push the earth over several tipping points, leading to irreversible and severe changes in the climate system. If triggered, tipping point impacts will rapidly cascade through socio-economic and ecological systems, leading to severe effects on human and natural systems and imposing important challenges for human adaptation > Based on the most recent science and consultations with renowned experts, this report argues that it is no longer appropriate to consider the risk of crossing tipping points as low-probability. Note that inversely, this report does not make a positive argument for the economic growth potential of intervention, because it's a report on downside risk.
flufluflufluffy 3mo ago
Both you and the person you replied to are making claims about the future. Neither of them are true.

solenoid0937 3mo ago

This is just pure histrionics, you have no understanding whatsoever of the scale of data center water consumption, electricity consumption, new capacity coming online, etc.

inigyou 3mo ago
How much water does a DC use?
- solenoid0937 3mo ago
  Not much. 0.04% of US water production. For context, that's about 3% of the water consumption of our golf courses, and less than 1% of what we use to water our lawns.
  - loloquwowndueo 3mo ago
    Get off my lawn.
- quickthrowman 3mo ago
  All US data center water usage is less than the total water used for golf courses or the total water used to grow alfalfa. Less water used in evaporative cooling means more electricity is used for cooling given that the efficiency almost doubles if you add evaporative cooling to a chilled water loop. It’s bad to pump non-renewable fossil aquifer water in Arizona for evaporative cooling, but using cooling towers in an area that gets 30” or more of precipitation per year is probably not going to hurt anything.
- _DeadFred_ 3mo ago
  The question is does DC building bring added costs to local communities. My small town has a backlog of home builders waiting for permits because of constrained municipal water capacity. We are still paying off the bonds for the last capacity we added. Golf courses/etc are already factored into current costs. Additional new use brings significant cost (bonds to build new capacity), funded by increasing expenses on the entire community, not funded by those who financially benefit from the new build outs. The issue isn't comparative usage to existing hookups, it's new cost burden on the local community where a data center is built. Which is why DC propogandists switched to the golf course measurement, it confuses the original concern, the cost to the community of new DC hookups to municipal water or the very limited amount (of expensive to the community) available hookups that were intended/funded by the community for other purposes.