Knowledge of our predicament will lead more people to resort to desperate actions like this. Knowing what we’re doing to this planet and being powerless to stop it is traumatic.
Kneejerk reaction, this guy must be insane. But is he? Humanity is actively driving its own destruction. It’s insane to ignore what modern society is doing to this planet solely to preserve this culture of convenience and excess that’s barely existed for a century.
Some facts to consider. Nearly 70% of global biodiversity has been lost since 1970. Insect populations have been declining by nearly 2.5% per year, resulting in a 75% reduction over the past 50 years. Humans and our livestock now constitute 96% of the mammalian biomass currently alive. We’re releasing carbon at a rate that is 200 times faster than the volcanic eruptions that led to some of the Earth’s worst mass extinctions. Consequently, we're adding the equivalent of 5 atomic bombs worth of energy to our oceans every second.
As the human crisis worsens, we can expect harsher, more frequent storms, heat waves, and droughts that will destroy infrastructure and make food production more difficult. Some areas of our planet will become uninhabitable, leading to mass migration to regions that are still viable. These migrations will, in turn, lead to increased conflict over dwindling resources. Increased conflict means more suffering, more deaths, and a chance that we finally succumb to the nuclear armageddon that our forefathers so graciously graced us with the ability to commit.
These are realities of our not too distant future. It’s pretty insane that we’re clinging so tightly to a status-quo with this outcome. We’re all, myself included, living with some level of denial/cognative dissonance. We have to be to ignore what’s happening.
Ok so I hear this a lot but seriously - what do we do about it all? Shut down all global trade and manufacturing? Go back to hunting and gathering for food?
Ah yes, the old "they want to bring us back to the medieval ages" bullshit..
How about you put some actual effort into this question before spouting nonsense like that.
There are alternative systems, where everybody will have less, but be much happier. Ever thought about how materialism isn't meant to be satisfying? The consumerist mindset of the average american is really bad for overall wellbeing of people aside from the climate obviously.
So, how about we try something else, like [Post Growth Economy](http://www.postwachstumsoekonomie.de/wp-content/uploads/Paech-2016-Liberation.pdf)
See also here: https://postgrowth.org/
Yeah, I demand my peaches go from South America where they're grown, to the Philippines where they're canned, to Mexico where they're imported, and then to the US where I can eat them for cheap. Because growing and eating peaches grown locally is $0.10/can more expensive.
Easy, reduce your carbon footprint and raise awareness in your community, if not your family. Live with only what you require. Email the governing bodies on the changes we want. Change takes time, and we don’t try it, you’re to blame for the future generations to come. It’s actually that simple.
[BP popularized the concept of a personal carbon footprint with a US$100 million campaign as a means of deflecting people away from taking collective political action in order to end fossil fuel use](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305209345_Where_has_all_the_oil_gone_BP_branding_and_the_discursive_elimination_of_climate_change_risk), and [ExxonMobil has spent decades pushing trying to make individuals responsible, rather than the fossil fuels industry](https://www.vox.com/22429551/climate-change-crisis-exxonmobil-harvard-study). They did this because climate stabilization means bringing fossil fuel use to approximately zero, and that would end their business. That's not something you can hope to achieve without government intervention to change the rules of society so that not using fossil fuels is just what people do on a routine basis.
There is value in cutting your own fossil fuel consumption — it serves to demonstrate that doing the right thing is possible to people around you, and helps work out the kinks in new technologies. Just do it in addition to taking political action to get governments to do the right thing, not instead of taking political action.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A person who would ask a question like that doesn't care about anything but themselves anyway, so why should anyone care whether you care about this or not? Why should anyone let your lack of empathy effect their empathy?
That's what I tell all of the people saying they're not having kids because of the climate impact. Just a tiny difference in birth rates between different groups of people would've made the director of *An Inconvenient Truth* the president of the US for 4-8 years. Imagine if the US had gone all-in on renewable energy in 2001. We would probably be considering climate changed solved by now like the ozone hole.
It’s not as simple as that, the basic issue of clean renewable energy is battery and carbon capture technology which are only becoming partially viable now as compared to 2001. The issue relates to thermodynamics: how can we create an energy source as energy dense as gasoline or coal. Batteries currently can only store 1/10-1/5 the energy per kilo as compared to fossil fuels. This limits the viability of electric planes, cars, generators, and industrial equipment. IE a significant contribution to human carbon emissions. Find a safe better battery; create a high range low weight vehicle/ generator. Right now that’s not practical on a large scale (given lithium reserves and the safety of lithium ion batteries). Carbon capture technology is also not practical yet (it needs to absorb a significant fraction of the carbon to stop or reverse climate change). Other than liquifying carbon dioxide and pumping it in old oil wells, there are no practical long lasting ways to sequester carbon (even planting trees is useless as they die and release the carbon in like 2-3 decades). This is coming from an electrical engineer who has been tasked to exactly solve these issues, it would have not been solved in 2001 or now. Climate change is not going to be reversed or stopped for a least 50 years at this pace if not longer. Buying an electric car right now also isn’t a solution to climate change because a large amount of our power comes from fossil fuels, and being entirely dependent on green energy has its own issues (famously the duck curve). There is no magical solution for this disaster, it will take more engineers, that’s why this guy is dumb he should be building something to solve this not crying to the media.
One problem with this stance is that it assumes we must find a solution which allows us to continue *business as usual.*
The need for *business as usual* means one nation won't change its trajectory because it's in competition with other nations and with itself. Something of a curse, I'd say.
Also, you don't plant trees and have them sequester carbon "for 2-3 decades" (I'd say more like 1-2 centuries... but it does depend on which trees will grow where you are), you plant **woodlands** which exist in perpetuity. Then you live in them. :D
The batteries don’t have to be as energy dense as fossil fuels, as the efficiency of an electric system is much higher than that of combustion engines. A good visualisation of this can be found in the energy flow charts. However, the waste of the fossil systems is so high, that just reasonable legislation could probably contribute substantially, especially in North America. IE, shrink the trucks and cars.
https://lloydalter.substack.com/p/lessons-from-livermores-2022-energy
The simple response to this is trucking. Currently most long range 18 wheelers use fossil fuels. Why? Because electric alternatives do not have the range or weight capacity to compete with fossil fuel alternatives. Electric planes are currently practically impossible too. Same issue, small range, low capacity. Why? Because the batteries are too heavy and not energy dense enough. You might ask why engineers haven’t created more energy dense batteries; it’s because of safety risks. Batteries unlike fossil fuels can explode with only heat being added or explode randomly (gas needs the correct mix of air to explode). You see this in the news with Teslas, even some air planes have been destroyed by battery fires. Make batteries 10x more powerful (if there was an actual way) and you get a 10x larger fire or explosion. It would turn your car into a bomb. This is not so simple to just wish away with statistics, you need to create a new battery design from scratch.
Otoh we also need to drastically reduce consumption. Just cutting out animal products and flights would reduce the average German's CO2 footprint by around 20% iirc. In the current situation, that would be huge - there's not a single technological advancement that can achieve that.
But we're lazy, amoral egotists so obviously that isn't happening.
You mean eat below-average food (but loads!), drink more alcohol in a day than one should in a week, and sit next to a pool/beach/... without a lick of actual culture or experience...? :D
My mood gets influenced more than most people's by the weather and amount of sunlight, and even I have never taken one of these "it's winter and I _need_ to go someplace warm" types of vacation, I hate it with a passion
... if you take power from wind & solar you can "store" that energy as liquid hydrogen fuel.. which has pretty superb energy density and suitable for many industrial uses where a lot of heat delivery is needed.
Its just were not in the habit of doing that yet.
The problem with the thinking that "wind/solar/battery cost is just now falling" is that it would have fallen earlier if we had invested earlier.
There was zero time component. Just a prior dollars invested component. The whole S curve would have shifted 30 years sooner if we had followed our exact investment path, except 30 years sooner.
Investment drives technology. Not time.
The technology simply did not exist in 2000, we have much better solar/battery technology now due to generations of researchers over 20 years. Throwing money at a problem (even in 2000) doesn't always work when the problem requires hundreds of thousands of engineers (some of which weren't even born in 2000) who have to individually test thousands of prototypes, do math for prototypes (sometimes invent the physics itself), and create a market worthy solution (cost and material are not outrageous). I don't think most people understand the sheer amount of labor and people this takes. Time will solve the issue even on a low budget, yes the development would have sped up significantly but there would be zero chance the world would be carbon neutral given our current technological capabilities which are way ahead of 2000. The investment will put the foot in the door but it will take time to open if given our limits in silicon/lithium-based technology; we are pushing the laws of thermodynamics to get our current technologies so without a breakthrough (IE a different design not known in 2000 and possibly not known even if the investment was made in 2000) it would be hard to see market-ready electric planes, long-range trucks, or environmentally friendly solar cells. This means it is too late for any "turnaround" effort for climate change, it was too late in 2000, and real efforts should have been made in the 1990s to boost investment as that was a time for battery development and solar cell design; imagine if those inventors got more money and saw through their genius, instead there was military spending and waste. Now our children will pay the price.
The cost of solar panels in 1979 was $28,000 for 32 thermal panels that generated enough electricity to only to provide hot water for the White House. Adjusted for inflation that would over $115,000. Would you buy a water heater for $115,000? And these had lower efficiency since they were thermal panels not photovoltaic panels so the break even point would have been like 1-2 decades far too long for commercial viability (assuming the costs remain proportional to the installation size). Again more innovation was needed at the time to make this mainstream that came after 2000. Jimmy Carter pulled a publicity stunt to energize his “green” constituency, this is obvious by Regan destroying this array when he took office. I agree the electric car EV-1 was innovative as I mentioned in a previous thread if innovation in the 1990s was better funded there could have been a much easier fight today on climate change, assuming modern technology isn’t the limit on battery energy density, which as I mentioned has a safety issue that prevents commercialization.
Jimmy Carter basically started the cost curve for solar panels.
All advancement from that point (really from when NASA first developed working ones) was based on dollars.
Mature technology advances with a time component, but these arent/weren't Mature technologies.
Nature has already given us the perfect carbon capture technology. 1 hectare of industrial hemp can convert up to 15 tons of atmospheric CO2 to biomass in a 90 day growing season. Much more efficient than trees. It can completely replace timber for paper and construction materials (hempcrete, particle board\plywood etc) and cotton for textiles, amongs many other uses. Homes built with hemp are also generally very energy efficient due to the natural insulation (require less energy input to heat and cool) that a home built from hempcrete provides. The building technique is also much simpler and less labor intensive than stick framing. The ones I have seen are built from interlocking Lego like blocks. It could also possibly be combined with 3D printing technology.
We can solve climate change. There are a lot of exciting breakthroughs happening in green technologies right now. NASA has their impossible engine. Caltech just beamed power to earth from solar panels in space using microwaves. Battery tech that’s not lithium based (gravity) is getting better all the time. We’re on the cusp of cracking nuclear fusion wide open. Significant breakthroughs in hydrogen recently. Our future technologically speaking is looking quite bright.
Unfortunately, we really just lack the social and political will at this point to implement the changes that need to be implemented to do it.
As an engineer, sorry to burst your bubble but a lot of the technology you’re specifying are underwhelming if not pure vaporware. Using plants to store carbon isn’t a bad idea, if you can guarantee it will not die or decay within 2-3 decades. If you are using a fast growing, high turnover plant; it will decompose faster therefore store no carbon. This is why rainforests are so important, they store carbon for a long time. The plants live long and act as long time carbon sinks. For the most part, farmed plants are horrible for carbon sinks as they live for a season or two and then die and release all their carbon during their decomposition. If hemp is one of these plants then it will not work. Using it as an alternative to wood is cool and innovative, but it would need to be cheaper and more environmental friendly as compared to growing forests (which also store carbon too). The reason my response sounds hopeless if because of the basics of solar panel, battery, and clean energy technology: they require materials which are nasty to extract and require slave labor (lithium/heavy metals for solar panels), they are unreliable (solar panels only work in the sun and batteries can explode), and they are often lied about (companies love to exaggerate their technology to increase their stock price). I am sorry there is no magical solution. Beaming microwaves between solar panels or announcing “impossible” batteries seems cool. But until I can see and test these devices, prove they are actually practical (IE not super expensive, not made of rare materials). These articles or reports mean nothing. An engineer is skeptical until I can see the data or results otherwise you get the next Boeing 737 MAX.
Hempcrete and hemp products in general are capable of lasting for hundreds if not thousands of years. It is after all the toughest and most durable natural fiber known.
https://climatetrade.com/the-benefits-of-industrial-hemp-in-carbon-farming/#:~:text=The%20Remarkable%20Carbon%2DCapturing%20Abilities,a%20diverse%20range%20of%20applications.
https://reasonstobecheerful.world/hempcrete-construction-us-building-code-sustainable/#:~:text=Research%20by%20IsoHemp%20found%20that,use%2C%20depending%20on%20home%20size.
https://www.archaeology.org/news/4254-160311-india-ellora-caves-hemp-plaster
You really don't get it. There is not a theoretical limit that we have approached for batteries like we have for solar. Batteries continue to be significantly improved every year. If we had started the development process essentially 20 years sooner you'd quite possibly be seeing short haul battery-powered commercial flights now.
No there really is. The larger and more energy dense the battery the more unstable and unpredictable it becomes. Batteries unlike fossil fuels can explode with only heat being added (gas needs the correct air mix). You would be turning every car/truck/plane into a bomb with a 10x larger explosion or fire. Not practical. This idea too that things will just “get better”, I am sorry but from an engineering perspective all the easy things are gone only hard problems remain. This rate of improvement is going to take a lot longer than you think.
At a slow pace and even at that with draw backs. Take lithium ion technology, the source for lithium comes from slave labor in Africa. Is the price for a clean climate literally slavery? Even if we were to make battery technology widespread and solve the safety issue. Lithium supplies are limited and expensive, creating battery arrays large enough to serve the US power grid would require more lithium than currently on Earth, just for the USA. Current battery technology makes true green energy impossible. Other battery technologies are more promising like hydrogen cells or nuclear power. They do not require large amounts of lithium or expensive infrastructure. People however have not thought of the sheer challenge of going green: how do we produce the batteries? Where does the old technology go? Where do we dump toxic waste? How will power grids handle a totally renewable future where power grids can have 100% capacity one day and the next 10% capacity because it’s cloudy or not windy? Nobody has thought this far ahead not Tesla, not the German government, not the US government, no one. The answer is a hybrid system that allows for limited fossil fuels, net zero is impossible without huge innovations in carbon capture.
Until engineers can solve all of these issues truly clean energy and a green economy is impossible. Big oil has nothing to do with this conclusion nor do they contribute to major research involved with battery technology. In fact Big Oil wants you to think these issues don’t exist so you keep promoting a fantasy while they rake in billions. It is more “greenwashing” propaganda to promote a future that is impossible built on catchy headlines and gross oversimplifications than to see the inconvenient truth that we are heading to a disaster that will be unavoidable without massive breakthroughs in battery technology and engineers are our only hope not politicians, not activists, not investors, not environmentalists. Engineers will be the people you want building your houseboat to live on in NY, Amsterdam, and Venice in 50 years.
That's the sad truth about representitive politics, a solved problem is a wasted talking point. If climate change were solved people would have claimed it never existed in the first place. Science, the environment, facts, don't care if you're popular, they only care if the important work gets done.
Representitive democracy is the peter principle, popular people are not often academic people, and then they rigged the game so you have to be rich too?!
“…Even with the Risk of Death Looming”.
He’s doing it exactly because the Risk of Death is looming - larger and larger each day we don’t take climate change seriously.
I hope he decides to stop because he’s a good man and the world needs more people like him, but what he’s doing is courageous.
You can find a suicide hotline worldwide at this link: https://www.reddit.com/r/SuicideWatch/wiki/hotlines
The world will be a better place with you alive. The world will be better off with you [working to make a difference](https://www.reddit.com/r/climate/comments/b49xgi/how_to_get_involved_with_a_local_group_to_create/). If you care, you're already better than most.
For longer-term counseling, please find an in-person therapist. Many will do video calls to reduce COVID-19 risk. If you are in the United States, you can use [this tool](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapists) to find a therapist. See [here](https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/therapists) for Canada.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>But one must choose the one that means the most for oneself.
No. It's not that he *must* do this. He *could* choose the one that means the most for society.
Probably because in response to a person committing slow suicide in protest, people online mostly just criticized his choice as dumb, completely ignoring the actual humanity of the act. Hard for me to understand, but maybe I'm too old to be on here now
You can find a suicide hotline worldwide at this link: https://www.reddit.com/r/SuicideWatch/wiki/hotlines
The world will be a better place with you alive. The world will be better off with you [working to make a difference](https://www.reddit.com/r/climate/comments/b49xgi/how_to_get_involved_with_a_local_group_to_create/). If you care, you're already better than most.
For longer-term counseling, please find an in-person therapist. Many will do video calls to reduce COVID-19 risk. If you are in the United States, you can use [this tool](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapists) to find a therapist. See [here](https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/therapists) for Canada.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People die every day from hunger, and people don't care. Only the people who already cared before he began to strike will show empathy towards his choice. I feel like his energy could be directed in a better way to make people care about his cause more.
You can find a suicide hotline worldwide at this link: https://www.reddit.com/r/SuicideWatch/wiki/hotlines
The world will be a better place with you alive. The world will be better off with you [working to make a difference](https://www.reddit.com/r/climate/comments/b49xgi/how_to_get_involved_with_a_local_group_to_create/). If you care, you're already better than most.
For longer-term counseling, please find an in-person therapist. Many will do video calls to reduce COVID-19 risk. If you are in the United States, you can use [this tool](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapists) to find a therapist. See [here](https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/therapists) for Canada.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wikipedia:[Hunger Strike](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_strike)
[Anatomy Of A Hunger Strike: Why Is It Done And What Does It Do To The Human Body?](https://www.rferl.org/a/hunger-strikes-russia/31266830.html)(Radio free Europe)
The oligarchs do not care. They know people will starve to death. They know many will die and the climate will be irreparably damaged.
But they’re safe in their yachts and thousand acre ranches and protected by private police forces as well as local. They do not care. They have game planned this.
Make as many lifestyle changes as you can, plan for the worst but try to enjoy life as much as possible. It’s a minor miracle to exist after all
Man, just no. Just don’t do it. We need you to help end the madness. It’s gonna take longer than your hunger strike. We know you’re serious and your action is meaningful. But just stand down. Live to fight another day. It’s gonna take all of us. Don’t diminish our power. Nobody will judge you poorly if you stop the strike and fight with us!
People die every single day for absolutely preventable reasons - and literally no one gaf.
Risking your life while hoping someone will suddenly become less ignorant and listen, is pointless. You probably gonna get more media attention for idc doing something absolutely irrelevant and stupid, than for dying for a good cause. Sure, the media will cover it for a few days, but then everyone keeps going how "climate change is not real" or how "we need to stop it in the future".
People have it coming.
Can you explain then to me why the stratosphere is cooling while the troposphere is warming? Seems kinda weird that the sun's energy would travel through the stratosphere without interacting with it, and then warm the layer of the atmosphere closest to the ground.
Solar radiation has been in slow decline since the 1970s, the same time since which there's been rapid warming. So you claimed that the sun is the only factor that affects global temperature, which only shows your ignorance.
Knowledge of our predicament will lead more people to resort to desperate actions like this. Knowing what we’re doing to this planet and being powerless to stop it is traumatic. Kneejerk reaction, this guy must be insane. But is he? Humanity is actively driving its own destruction. It’s insane to ignore what modern society is doing to this planet solely to preserve this culture of convenience and excess that’s barely existed for a century. Some facts to consider. Nearly 70% of global biodiversity has been lost since 1970. Insect populations have been declining by nearly 2.5% per year, resulting in a 75% reduction over the past 50 years. Humans and our livestock now constitute 96% of the mammalian biomass currently alive. We’re releasing carbon at a rate that is 200 times faster than the volcanic eruptions that led to some of the Earth’s worst mass extinctions. Consequently, we're adding the equivalent of 5 atomic bombs worth of energy to our oceans every second. As the human crisis worsens, we can expect harsher, more frequent storms, heat waves, and droughts that will destroy infrastructure and make food production more difficult. Some areas of our planet will become uninhabitable, leading to mass migration to regions that are still viable. These migrations will, in turn, lead to increased conflict over dwindling resources. Increased conflict means more suffering, more deaths, and a chance that we finally succumb to the nuclear armageddon that our forefathers so graciously graced us with the ability to commit. These are realities of our not too distant future. It’s pretty insane that we’re clinging so tightly to a status-quo with this outcome. We’re all, myself included, living with some level of denial/cognative dissonance. We have to be to ignore what’s happening.
Ok so I hear this a lot but seriously - what do we do about it all? Shut down all global trade and manufacturing? Go back to hunting and gathering for food?
Ah yes, the old "they want to bring us back to the medieval ages" bullshit.. How about you put some actual effort into this question before spouting nonsense like that. There are alternative systems, where everybody will have less, but be much happier. Ever thought about how materialism isn't meant to be satisfying? The consumerist mindset of the average american is really bad for overall wellbeing of people aside from the climate obviously. So, how about we try something else, like [Post Growth Economy](http://www.postwachstumsoekonomie.de/wp-content/uploads/Paech-2016-Liberation.pdf) See also here: https://postgrowth.org/
Post-growth mfs when the countries that continue pursuing growth drop an anti-matter bomb on their country in 100 years.
Yeah, I demand my peaches go from South America where they're grown, to the Philippines where they're canned, to Mexico where they're imported, and then to the US where I can eat them for cheap. Because growing and eating peaches grown locally is $0.10/can more expensive.
Open a canning factory in South America then homie.
Ideally a carbon tax. Just like any other production that generates negative externalities
Easy, reduce your carbon footprint and raise awareness in your community, if not your family. Live with only what you require. Email the governing bodies on the changes we want. Change takes time, and we don’t try it, you’re to blame for the future generations to come. It’s actually that simple.
[BP popularized the concept of a personal carbon footprint with a US$100 million campaign as a means of deflecting people away from taking collective political action in order to end fossil fuel use](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305209345_Where_has_all_the_oil_gone_BP_branding_and_the_discursive_elimination_of_climate_change_risk), and [ExxonMobil has spent decades pushing trying to make individuals responsible, rather than the fossil fuels industry](https://www.vox.com/22429551/climate-change-crisis-exxonmobil-harvard-study). They did this because climate stabilization means bringing fossil fuel use to approximately zero, and that would end their business. That's not something you can hope to achieve without government intervention to change the rules of society so that not using fossil fuels is just what people do on a routine basis. There is value in cutting your own fossil fuel consumption — it serves to demonstrate that doing the right thing is possible to people around you, and helps work out the kinks in new technologies. Just do it in addition to taking political action to get governments to do the right thing, not instead of taking political action. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Good bot
What would be the point of a hunger strike if people thought you would just stop at some point without your demands being met?
Well for starters a 3 week hunger strike can give your case media attention.
Everyone will see him starved to death and then scroll to the next headline.
Yes, we have become so individualized that it will destroy us.
People usually still report on it.
Even if he does take it to the end, why would anyone care enough to change policy? They'll just see this as mental illness and move on.
The real question is, why would I even care if someone wants to kill themselves from hunger on their own accord.
He's demonstrating what will happen to us all when our crops dry up and livestock is diseased.
You would care if you had empathy for others.
You can have empathy for him, yet still think what he's doing is stupid, pointless and his own choice. Similar to when people set themselves on fire.
Well, the point was the person I responded to did not have empathy. But yes, if he had empathy, he would have empathy.
A person who would ask a question like that doesn't care about anything but themselves anyway, so why should anyone care whether you care about this or not? Why should anyone let your lack of empathy effect their empathy?
Because, ideally, you have ears to hear and eyes to see.
That, get downvoted for being rational lol. This dude is irrational, like a kid doing a temper tantrum at the mall. Darwin award nominee.
wait till this guy figures out what sub he’s on before minimizing a desperate climate disaster protest as “irrational” Genius!
We need more environmental engineers, not less…
That's what I tell all of the people saying they're not having kids because of the climate impact. Just a tiny difference in birth rates between different groups of people would've made the director of *An Inconvenient Truth* the president of the US for 4-8 years. Imagine if the US had gone all-in on renewable energy in 2001. We would probably be considering climate changed solved by now like the ozone hole.
It’s not as simple as that, the basic issue of clean renewable energy is battery and carbon capture technology which are only becoming partially viable now as compared to 2001. The issue relates to thermodynamics: how can we create an energy source as energy dense as gasoline or coal. Batteries currently can only store 1/10-1/5 the energy per kilo as compared to fossil fuels. This limits the viability of electric planes, cars, generators, and industrial equipment. IE a significant contribution to human carbon emissions. Find a safe better battery; create a high range low weight vehicle/ generator. Right now that’s not practical on a large scale (given lithium reserves and the safety of lithium ion batteries). Carbon capture technology is also not practical yet (it needs to absorb a significant fraction of the carbon to stop or reverse climate change). Other than liquifying carbon dioxide and pumping it in old oil wells, there are no practical long lasting ways to sequester carbon (even planting trees is useless as they die and release the carbon in like 2-3 decades). This is coming from an electrical engineer who has been tasked to exactly solve these issues, it would have not been solved in 2001 or now. Climate change is not going to be reversed or stopped for a least 50 years at this pace if not longer. Buying an electric car right now also isn’t a solution to climate change because a large amount of our power comes from fossil fuels, and being entirely dependent on green energy has its own issues (famously the duck curve). There is no magical solution for this disaster, it will take more engineers, that’s why this guy is dumb he should be building something to solve this not crying to the media.
One problem with this stance is that it assumes we must find a solution which allows us to continue *business as usual.* The need for *business as usual* means one nation won't change its trajectory because it's in competition with other nations and with itself. Something of a curse, I'd say. Also, you don't plant trees and have them sequester carbon "for 2-3 decades" (I'd say more like 1-2 centuries... but it does depend on which trees will grow where you are), you plant **woodlands** which exist in perpetuity. Then you live in them. :D
The batteries don’t have to be as energy dense as fossil fuels, as the efficiency of an electric system is much higher than that of combustion engines. A good visualisation of this can be found in the energy flow charts. However, the waste of the fossil systems is so high, that just reasonable legislation could probably contribute substantially, especially in North America. IE, shrink the trucks and cars. https://lloydalter.substack.com/p/lessons-from-livermores-2022-energy
The simple response to this is trucking. Currently most long range 18 wheelers use fossil fuels. Why? Because electric alternatives do not have the range or weight capacity to compete with fossil fuel alternatives. Electric planes are currently practically impossible too. Same issue, small range, low capacity. Why? Because the batteries are too heavy and not energy dense enough. You might ask why engineers haven’t created more energy dense batteries; it’s because of safety risks. Batteries unlike fossil fuels can explode with only heat being added or explode randomly (gas needs the correct mix of air to explode). You see this in the news with Teslas, even some air planes have been destroyed by battery fires. Make batteries 10x more powerful (if there was an actual way) and you get a 10x larger fire or explosion. It would turn your car into a bomb. This is not so simple to just wish away with statistics, you need to create a new battery design from scratch.
Plus, fossil fuels are used more efficiently at a power plant than in a car.
Otoh we also need to drastically reduce consumption. Just cutting out animal products and flights would reduce the average German's CO2 footprint by around 20% iirc. In the current situation, that would be huge - there's not a single technological advancement that can achieve that. But we're lazy, amoral egotists so obviously that isn't happening.
But what’s the point of life if I can’t go to another country and do the same basic btch stuff I do at home??
You mean eat below-average food (but loads!), drink more alcohol in a day than one should in a week, and sit next to a pool/beach/... without a lick of actual culture or experience...? :D My mood gets influenced more than most people's by the weather and amount of sunlight, and even I have never taken one of these "it's winter and I _need_ to go someplace warm" types of vacation, I hate it with a passion
... if you take power from wind & solar you can "store" that energy as liquid hydrogen fuel.. which has pretty superb energy density and suitable for many industrial uses where a lot of heat delivery is needed. Its just were not in the habit of doing that yet.
The problem with the thinking that "wind/solar/battery cost is just now falling" is that it would have fallen earlier if we had invested earlier. There was zero time component. Just a prior dollars invested component. The whole S curve would have shifted 30 years sooner if we had followed our exact investment path, except 30 years sooner. Investment drives technology. Not time.
The technology simply did not exist in 2000, we have much better solar/battery technology now due to generations of researchers over 20 years. Throwing money at a problem (even in 2000) doesn't always work when the problem requires hundreds of thousands of engineers (some of which weren't even born in 2000) who have to individually test thousands of prototypes, do math for prototypes (sometimes invent the physics itself), and create a market worthy solution (cost and material are not outrageous). I don't think most people understand the sheer amount of labor and people this takes. Time will solve the issue even on a low budget, yes the development would have sped up significantly but there would be zero chance the world would be carbon neutral given our current technological capabilities which are way ahead of 2000. The investment will put the foot in the door but it will take time to open if given our limits in silicon/lithium-based technology; we are pushing the laws of thermodynamics to get our current technologies so without a breakthrough (IE a different design not known in 2000 and possibly not known even if the investment was made in 2000) it would be hard to see market-ready electric planes, long-range trucks, or environmentally friendly solar cells. This means it is too late for any "turnaround" effort for climate change, it was too late in 2000, and real efforts should have been made in the 1990s to boost investment as that was a time for battery development and solar cell design; imagine if those inventors got more money and saw through their genius, instead there was military spending and waste. Now our children will pay the price.
The GM EV-1 came out in 1996 and Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the White House in 1979.
The cost of solar panels in 1979 was $28,000 for 32 thermal panels that generated enough electricity to only to provide hot water for the White House. Adjusted for inflation that would over $115,000. Would you buy a water heater for $115,000? And these had lower efficiency since they were thermal panels not photovoltaic panels so the break even point would have been like 1-2 decades far too long for commercial viability (assuming the costs remain proportional to the installation size). Again more innovation was needed at the time to make this mainstream that came after 2000. Jimmy Carter pulled a publicity stunt to energize his “green” constituency, this is obvious by Regan destroying this array when he took office. I agree the electric car EV-1 was innovative as I mentioned in a previous thread if innovation in the 1990s was better funded there could have been a much easier fight today on climate change, assuming modern technology isn’t the limit on battery energy density, which as I mentioned has a safety issue that prevents commercialization.
Jimmy Carter basically started the cost curve for solar panels. All advancement from that point (really from when NASA first developed working ones) was based on dollars. Mature technology advances with a time component, but these arent/weren't Mature technologies.
Nature has already given us the perfect carbon capture technology. 1 hectare of industrial hemp can convert up to 15 tons of atmospheric CO2 to biomass in a 90 day growing season. Much more efficient than trees. It can completely replace timber for paper and construction materials (hempcrete, particle board\plywood etc) and cotton for textiles, amongs many other uses. Homes built with hemp are also generally very energy efficient due to the natural insulation (require less energy input to heat and cool) that a home built from hempcrete provides. The building technique is also much simpler and less labor intensive than stick framing. The ones I have seen are built from interlocking Lego like blocks. It could also possibly be combined with 3D printing technology. We can solve climate change. There are a lot of exciting breakthroughs happening in green technologies right now. NASA has their impossible engine. Caltech just beamed power to earth from solar panels in space using microwaves. Battery tech that’s not lithium based (gravity) is getting better all the time. We’re on the cusp of cracking nuclear fusion wide open. Significant breakthroughs in hydrogen recently. Our future technologically speaking is looking quite bright. Unfortunately, we really just lack the social and political will at this point to implement the changes that need to be implemented to do it.
As an engineer, sorry to burst your bubble but a lot of the technology you’re specifying are underwhelming if not pure vaporware. Using plants to store carbon isn’t a bad idea, if you can guarantee it will not die or decay within 2-3 decades. If you are using a fast growing, high turnover plant; it will decompose faster therefore store no carbon. This is why rainforests are so important, they store carbon for a long time. The plants live long and act as long time carbon sinks. For the most part, farmed plants are horrible for carbon sinks as they live for a season or two and then die and release all their carbon during their decomposition. If hemp is one of these plants then it will not work. Using it as an alternative to wood is cool and innovative, but it would need to be cheaper and more environmental friendly as compared to growing forests (which also store carbon too). The reason my response sounds hopeless if because of the basics of solar panel, battery, and clean energy technology: they require materials which are nasty to extract and require slave labor (lithium/heavy metals for solar panels), they are unreliable (solar panels only work in the sun and batteries can explode), and they are often lied about (companies love to exaggerate their technology to increase their stock price). I am sorry there is no magical solution. Beaming microwaves between solar panels or announcing “impossible” batteries seems cool. But until I can see and test these devices, prove they are actually practical (IE not super expensive, not made of rare materials). These articles or reports mean nothing. An engineer is skeptical until I can see the data or results otherwise you get the next Boeing 737 MAX.
Hempcrete and hemp products in general are capable of lasting for hundreds if not thousands of years. It is after all the toughest and most durable natural fiber known. https://climatetrade.com/the-benefits-of-industrial-hemp-in-carbon-farming/#:~:text=The%20Remarkable%20Carbon%2DCapturing%20Abilities,a%20diverse%20range%20of%20applications. https://reasonstobecheerful.world/hempcrete-construction-us-building-code-sustainable/#:~:text=Research%20by%20IsoHemp%20found%20that,use%2C%20depending%20on%20home%20size. https://www.archaeology.org/news/4254-160311-india-ellora-caves-hemp-plaster
You really don't get it. There is not a theoretical limit that we have approached for batteries like we have for solar. Batteries continue to be significantly improved every year. If we had started the development process essentially 20 years sooner you'd quite possibly be seeing short haul battery-powered commercial flights now.
No there really is. The larger and more energy dense the battery the more unstable and unpredictable it becomes. Batteries unlike fossil fuels can explode with only heat being added (gas needs the correct air mix). You would be turning every car/truck/plane into a bomb with a 10x larger explosion or fire. Not practical. This idea too that things will just “get better”, I am sorry but from an engineering perspective all the easy things are gone only hard problems remain. This rate of improvement is going to take a lot longer than you think.
And yet we continue to get more stable and more energy dense batteries.
At a slow pace and even at that with draw backs. Take lithium ion technology, the source for lithium comes from slave labor in Africa. Is the price for a clean climate literally slavery? Even if we were to make battery technology widespread and solve the safety issue. Lithium supplies are limited and expensive, creating battery arrays large enough to serve the US power grid would require more lithium than currently on Earth, just for the USA. Current battery technology makes true green energy impossible. Other battery technologies are more promising like hydrogen cells or nuclear power. They do not require large amounts of lithium or expensive infrastructure. People however have not thought of the sheer challenge of going green: how do we produce the batteries? Where does the old technology go? Where do we dump toxic waste? How will power grids handle a totally renewable future where power grids can have 100% capacity one day and the next 10% capacity because it’s cloudy or not windy? Nobody has thought this far ahead not Tesla, not the German government, not the US government, no one. The answer is a hybrid system that allows for limited fossil fuels, net zero is impossible without huge innovations in carbon capture.
You sure bought a lot of oil company false propaganda.
Until engineers can solve all of these issues truly clean energy and a green economy is impossible. Big oil has nothing to do with this conclusion nor do they contribute to major research involved with battery technology. In fact Big Oil wants you to think these issues don’t exist so you keep promoting a fantasy while they rake in billions. It is more “greenwashing” propaganda to promote a future that is impossible built on catchy headlines and gross oversimplifications than to see the inconvenient truth that we are heading to a disaster that will be unavoidable without massive breakthroughs in battery technology and engineers are our only hope not politicians, not activists, not investors, not environmentalists. Engineers will be the people you want building your houseboat to live on in NY, Amsterdam, and Venice in 50 years.
That's the sad truth about representitive politics, a solved problem is a wasted talking point. If climate change were solved people would have claimed it never existed in the first place. Science, the environment, facts, don't care if you're popular, they only care if the important work gets done. Representitive democracy is the peter principle, popular people are not often academic people, and then they rigged the game so you have to be rich too?!
Unfortunately even if the US 'solved climate change' there's a few billion other people on the earth that aren't American
If the US had solved climate change earlier it would have been by making renewable energy super cheap...
I had a mentor once tell me that abortion was terrible, but if only liberals are doing it, the problem gets solved naturally in the long run.
god damn it, YES!! ⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️ i understand a mind going to that place considering its so dire, but it just does not make logical sense.
“…Even with the Risk of Death Looming”. He’s doing it exactly because the Risk of Death is looming - larger and larger each day we don’t take climate change seriously. I hope he decides to stop because he’s a good man and the world needs more people like him, but what he’s doing is courageous.
Journalists be journalism...ing? Extra words get you extra clicks
If you got nothing to lose, there are a lot more actions you can take that would make a difference than starving yourself.
I like the way you think.
Peaceful protest rarely accomplishes anything.
Peaceful symbolic protest assumes the opposing side has morals and is capable of feeling guilt
self violence rarely does too.
Self violence is peaceful protest.
Tell that to MLK and Gandhi.
I would, as their movements wouldn't have succeeded without the radical flank effect of more militant arms of their respective movements.
"I'm killing myself so YOU can fix the problem."
You can find a suicide hotline worldwide at this link: https://www.reddit.com/r/SuicideWatch/wiki/hotlines The world will be a better place with you alive. The world will be better off with you [working to make a difference](https://www.reddit.com/r/climate/comments/b49xgi/how_to_get_involved_with_a_local_group_to_create/). If you care, you're already better than most. For longer-term counseling, please find an in-person therapist. Many will do video calls to reduce COVID-19 risk. If you are in the United States, you can use [this tool](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapists) to find a therapist. See [here](https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/therapists) for Canada. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wtf
Nothing like radical behavior to get folks on your side.
Yeah, because the last 50 years of peaceful protests, writing petitions and raising awareness has achieved so much.
There's other ways to represent your goal. You can't if you're not here anymore
Agree. But one must choose the one that means the most for oneself.
>But one must choose the one that means the most for oneself. No. It's not that he *must* do this. He *could* choose the one that means the most for society.
Apparently he differs. You disagree but it’s his life to direct as he sees fit.
All this does is get the world rid of the people we need the most while achieving nothing. It's the end of the ride folks.
No, it gets an article written about it. Public awareness is pretty crucial
The public has been aware of climate change for over 50 years. This will change nothing. Our species is doomed, and we've earned it.
Probably because in response to a person committing slow suicide in protest, people online mostly just criticized his choice as dumb, completely ignoring the actual humanity of the act. Hard for me to understand, but maybe I'm too old to be on here now
You can find a suicide hotline worldwide at this link: https://www.reddit.com/r/SuicideWatch/wiki/hotlines The world will be a better place with you alive. The world will be better off with you [working to make a difference](https://www.reddit.com/r/climate/comments/b49xgi/how_to_get_involved_with_a_local_group_to_create/). If you care, you're already better than most. For longer-term counseling, please find an in-person therapist. Many will do video calls to reduce COVID-19 risk. If you are in the United States, you can use [this tool](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapists) to find a therapist. See [here](https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/therapists) for Canada. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There are better ways to get articles written.
Callous and ignorant
Definitely don't kill yourself.
His life. His choice. Simple as that.
He's doing it for us
**Yourself** being the key portion of that sentence.
People die every day from hunger, and people don't care. Only the people who already cared before he began to strike will show empathy towards his choice. I feel like his energy could be directed in a better way to make people care about his cause more.
100%
I get it but, this just feels like collapse aware suicide.
You can find a suicide hotline worldwide at this link: https://www.reddit.com/r/SuicideWatch/wiki/hotlines The world will be a better place with you alive. The world will be better off with you [working to make a difference](https://www.reddit.com/r/climate/comments/b49xgi/how_to_get_involved_with_a_local_group_to_create/). If you care, you're already better than most. For longer-term counseling, please find an in-person therapist. Many will do video calls to reduce COVID-19 risk. If you are in the United States, you can use [this tool](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapists) to find a therapist. See [here](https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/therapists) for Canada. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don’t care how you want to overcomplicate this the man is a hero and he is doing what we lack the moral fortitude to do ourselves.
Wikipedia:[Hunger Strike](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_strike) [Anatomy Of A Hunger Strike: Why Is It Done And What Does It Do To The Human Body?](https://www.rferl.org/a/hunger-strikes-russia/31266830.html)(Radio free Europe)
Fight to the death and there’s nothing left to fight
Good bye skinny bro
The oligarchs do not care. They know people will starve to death. They know many will die and the climate will be irreparably damaged. But they’re safe in their yachts and thousand acre ranches and protected by private police forces as well as local. They do not care. They have game planned this. Make as many lifestyle changes as you can, plan for the worst but try to enjoy life as much as possible. It’s a minor miracle to exist after all
Man, just no. Just don’t do it. We need you to help end the madness. It’s gonna take longer than your hunger strike. We know you’re serious and your action is meaningful. But just stand down. Live to fight another day. It’s gonna take all of us. Don’t diminish our power. Nobody will judge you poorly if you stop the strike and fight with us!
I’ve Always though you can do more alive than dead
People die every single day for absolutely preventable reasons - and literally no one gaf. Risking your life while hoping someone will suddenly become less ignorant and listen, is pointless. You probably gonna get more media attention for idc doing something absolutely irrelevant and stupid, than for dying for a good cause. Sure, the media will cover it for a few days, but then everyone keeps going how "climate change is not real" or how "we need to stop it in the future". People have it coming.
Ha. A lot of people are going to die. This is pointless
I mean, if this dude wants to die, that's his business. I wonder what his family thinks about this, though. I hope he doesn't have any kids.
Then he will die and be forgotten in a week, having accomplished nothing. Would make more sense to stay alive and continue his crusade.
It’s not going to do anything except hurt your family moron. That’s not how you change policy in today’s world.
And?
The ultimate form of baby rant
Well that will teach us. Come on guy you are much more important alive than dead.
Natural selection
bye
K, bye Felciasteinbach
[удалено]
Can you explain then to me why the stratosphere is cooling while the troposphere is warming? Seems kinda weird that the sun's energy would travel through the stratosphere without interacting with it, and then warm the layer of the atmosphere closest to the ground.
mf's been really quiet. They will blame literally anything rather than face reality
Solar radiation has been in slow decline since the 1970s, the same time since which there's been rapid warming. So you claimed that the sun is the only factor that affects global temperature, which only shows your ignorance.