esarbe

10 ms·

121.
by esarbe 3y ago
It's just the same as "Keine Werbung" stickers on German letter boxes; you can ignore it, but it will get you fined. Most large companies would like to continue making business in Germany, so I expect this to have some impact
122.
by esarbe 3y ago
What is it the fault of this crisis that we have been ignoring it for 50 years? Climate scientists have for years warned that we were running into a catastrophe and now you blame them for... trying warn us? What other strategy for publicizi
123.
by esarbe 3y ago
Germany has been reducing its CO2 emissions for years now. [0] I'm afraid you need a different straw man. [0] https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/co2-emissions
124.
by esarbe 3y ago
Despite billions in subsidies, nuclear reactors have not become much cheaper to operate in the last 40 years. They have become safer and more efficient, sure. But not cheaper. Compare what PV has been able to achieve with way less subsidie
125.
by esarbe 3y ago
Solar and Wind are now much cheaper than nuclear has ever been. Germany has been adding 1GW of PV every month in 2023. That's one typical, large nuclear every month. While I don't see nuclear energy as the folly I used to, I don&#
126.
by esarbe 3y ago
Just that in this case, the wolves have been true the whole time. We've known that climate change is a problem for more than 50 years now. Just because we chose to ignore it doesn't mean there was no climate change.
127.
by esarbe 3y ago
> But we’ve been hearing “just x years left until catastrophe” for decades now Sure; and every year that number as been getting smaller. Just because you ignore it doesn't mean that it will go away magically.
128.
by esarbe 3y ago
This should come as no surprise; for fifty years we have been ignoring climate scientists warning about the dangers of global warming and climate change. That these tepid admonitions of yesteryear have turned into dire warnings should come
129.
by esarbe 3y ago
Sounds like a reasonable assumption.
130.
by esarbe 3y ago
That's pretty terrible for all the people living in coastal areas, which is a large part of the human population. It's also pretty terrible for all the people not living in coastal areas, because people living in coastal areas wil
131.
by esarbe 3y ago
Came here to ask this, pleasantly surprised to find it already asked.
132.
by esarbe 3y ago
First I would check the number that I gave you and make sure it is correct. Then you put it into perspective; e.g. how many millennia would it take for a couple of hundred nuclear reactors to produce that much of energy. Play with the numbe
133.
by esarbe 3y ago
> 1.5C is gone - no point clinging to it. And soon 2.0C will be gone - no point clinging to it, right? > However, there is a lot if effort going into decarbonization. I don't see a lot of effort going into decarbonization. We sti
134.
by esarbe 3y ago
Just try to imagine the ludicrous amount of energy required to heat up the whole surface - and probably a good part of the ocean - by 2°C. I think it is in the order of 10^17 joules or so.
135.
by esarbe 3y ago
I'm not sure what you are talking about re "experts" - I'm very much basing my statements on the conclusion drawn by experts. I don't think that there's any expert out there that will deny that 3°C warming will
136.
by esarbe 3y ago
You might be underestimating the social upheaval that will result from wast regions of the earth becoming uninhabitable and the effect of the population movements from desperate people trying to get away starvation. You might also be undere
137.
2023 was earth's warmest September In 174 year record(noaa.gov)
51 points by esarbe 3y ago|77 comments
138.
by esarbe 3y ago
While it is a noble goal, we've seen in the past few years how susceptible people are for disinformation. Just see how many people absolutely ate up Covid/Vaccination disinformation. See how many people are still ignorant about cl
139.
by esarbe 3y ago
Then please let me keep this topic focused on your most salient point. If you are interested, I'll happily also discuss your other points in other reply threads. > My most salient point is that proclaiming an "emergency"
140.
by esarbe 3y ago
I'm not sure that this is completely true. Yes, it's true that levelized cost is not giving the full picture. But that's not quite the point here. The point is to show that the "free market" is not the solution we&#
141.
by esarbe 3y ago
Not on this scale.[0] [0] https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/a-brief-history-of-consum... '
142.
by esarbe 3y ago
> I posit that any deliberate misinformation by the oil and gas lobby can and will be equally matched The economic and political power of the oil and gas lobby is magnitudes larger than the economic and political power of the wind and so
143.
by esarbe 3y ago
No one is demanding to get rid of "fossil fuels at the expense of all else". That's a bit of a straw man. We're far away from getting to the point where we've gotten rid of fossil fuels at the expense of everything
144.
by esarbe 3y ago
Not if that it requires me to reduce my conspicuous consumption by one cent! I've been trained all my life by media and advertisment to equate the acquisition of cheaply produced, low quality trash with freedom, and you can take it fro
145.
by esarbe 3y ago
I think this is a perception issue. Daily (or even monthly) temperature variance doesn't allow you to see the slow but steady increase in the global average. People aware of the impact of the climate crisis probably tend to notice the
146.
by esarbe 3y ago
No, I'm drifting into panic because I've seen that rational discourse just doesn't change anything. There's always a reason to not-do anything, to not-upset anything, because, you know, the GDP, the stock market, think o
147.
by esarbe 3y ago
I think it's an uneducated viewpoint that is supported by the deliberate misinformation of the oil and gas lobby. There are alternatives, there have always been alternatives. Better ones, cheaper ones.
148.
September was the most anomalously hot month ever(scientificamerican.com)
258 points by esarbe 3y ago|406 comments
149.
by esarbe 3y ago
All of them enjoy market domination in their respective areas of expertise. Their size makes them effective monopolies and their behavior has many times ruled anti-competitive. Competition between them is insufficient and they have been con
150.
by esarbe 3y ago
Seems to be a cultural issue in the USA, as this is not happening in Europe. Quite the contrary; going to private colleges is very widely perceived as a last-ditch way for rich kids with bad grades to get some paper at least. I guess this

More ›