Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Climate Change

The British Medical Journal making the case for divestment from fossil fuel companies.

 
Looks like it’s time to get rid of all pets to reduce the impact of climate change.

Many pet owners are blissfully unaware of the true cost of the pet population on the environment. With the exponential increase in global CO2 levels, more attention has recently been focused on just how much carbon our furry friends contribute to this imbalance. In ecological terms, dogs and cats are apex predators, feeding largely on meat, which has a high carbon footprint to produce.

Pets are responsible for 64m tonnes of greenhouse gases per annum, which is the equivalent of 13m cars (Okin, 2017). In addition, they produce around 30% of the poop that Americans egest, which leads to 64m tonnes of methane and nitrous oxide greenhouse gasses, which have a twenty fold effect on CO2 on global warming.


 
Which is mainly diverionary bullshit from the main culprits, the fossil fuel industry.

Are you a pet owner?

Even if not surely you understand that if people did not have pet cats and dogs there would be less animals required to be reared then slaughtered to produce dog/cat food, less amount of trucks transporting these foods, less factories to process these foods etc, etc.

I remember when talk of cattle methane wasn’t mainstream but now it is. I doubt however that the hypocrisy of green evangelists owning methane emitting pets will get much if any traction.
 
No I am not, and I don't care how much you slice it, individuals are not going to solve this alone. This is merely diverting attention away from the main issue, the fossil fuel industry. Everything else is just pissing in the wind.
 
Last edited:
No I am not, and I don't care how much you slice it, individuals are not going to solve this alone. This is merely diverting attention away from the main issue, the fossil fuel industry. Everything else is just pissing in the wind.

"An individual can help the global effort to tackle the climate change dilemma by being part of the collective solution, making bold decisions and sacrifices, and sharing their personal decisions with the community as a positive influence,"

Dr. Michael Notaro, Ph.D., the associate director of the Nelson Institute Center for Climatic Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
 
I did not say that individuals could not help. I said it would be pissing in the wind unless the fosssil fuel industry is bought to book. Something they have sought to avoid with bought and paid for politicians, relentless lobbying and burying the facts every step of the way.
 
Last edited:
executive summary: things will go to shit far faster than previously thought

1583919190840.png
 
An article concerned that there is no budget, or impetus, to prevent the deforestation of the Amazon.

 
First Antarctic heatwave recorded at Casey research station
31st March 2020
“Heatwaves are classified as three consecutive days with both extreme maximum and minimum temperatures,” Dr Robinson said.

“In those three days in January, Casey experienced minimum temperatures above zero and maximum temperatures above 7.5°C, with its highest maximum temperature ever, 9.2°C on 24 January, followed by its highest minimum of 2.5°C the following morning.”
“In the 31 year record for Casey, this maximum is 6.9°C higher than the mean maximum temperature for the station, while the minimum is 0.2°C higher.”

Temperature records were also broken at research bases on the Antarctic Peninsula in February, with the average daily temperatures for the month exceeding the long-term means by between 2°C and 2.4°C.
 
As per the OP and logging CC milestones, I saw on a FB CC discussion group that there is currently an initiative preparing mirrors to reduce the Earth's albedo that appears to have interested people with an understanding of the subject.
 
As per the OP and logging CC milestones, I saw on a FB CC discussion group that there is currently an initiative preparing mirrors to reduce the Earth's albedo that appears to have interested people with an understanding of the subject.

Without doing any research of my own whatsoever, is it at all feasible on the scale required to compensate to any extend for ice loss?
 
The discussion I read - about the Harvard Rowland Institute /work by Dr Ye Tao & team, suggested that technology to affect Earth's albedo is currently the only hope. There is more detail online and YouTube.
 
Chomsky said:
The reason why this is the most important election in history has nothing to do with this. Four more years of Trump’s climate policies and nuclear policies might simply doom the human species, literally. We don’t have a lot of time to deal with the environmental crisis. It is very serious. Every prediction that has been made by scientists has been too conservative. Each time it comes out worse
 
Forgive my ignorance: what is Trump's stance on nuclear power? A brief search only brings up references to Iran and North Korea.
 
Forgive my ignorance: what is Trump's stance on nuclear power? A brief search only brings up references to Iran and North Korea.

A properly pro-fission President would be raising a stink about the stupid and wasteful policy of not reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. They're up to their ears in stuff which could be recycled and put back into reactors. Fucking imbecilic.
 
Greenland's ice sheet passes a tipping point: "Glacier retreat has knocked the dynamics of the whole ice sheet into a constant state of loss," said one of the co-authors.
The glaciers have shrunk back enough that many of them are sitting in deeper water, meaning more ice is in contact with water. Warm ocean water melts glacier ice, and also makes it difficult for the glaciers to grow back to their previous positions.

That means that even if humans were somehow miraculously able to stop climate change in its tracks, ice lost from glaciers draining ice to the ocean would likely still exceed ice gained from snow accumulation, and the ice sheet would continue to shrink for some time.
Paper - DOI: 10.1038/s43247-020-0001-2
 
The Arctic hasn't been this warm for 3 million years–and that foreshadows big changes for the rest of the planet
phys.org September 30, 2020
Every year, sea ice cover in the Arctic Ocean shrinks to a low point in mid-September. This year it measures just 1.44 million square miles (3.74 million square kilometers) – the second-lowest value in the 42 years since satellites began taking measurements. The ice today covers only 50% of the area it covered 40 years ago in late summer.
This year’s minimum ice extent is the lowest in the 42-year-old satellite record except for 2012, reinforcing a long-term downward trend in Arctic ice cover. Each of the past four decades averages successively less summer sea ice. Credit: NSIDC

As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has shown, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are higher than at any time in human history. The last time that atmospheric CO2 concentrations reached today's level – about 412 parts per million – was 3 million years ago, during the Pliocene Epoch.
 
Back
Top Bottom