What do you mean, "nowhere does it say that things get worse overall"? Do you need to get it explicitly spelled out for you to realize that the environment and ecosystems everywhere are under extreme stress (to say it mildly) and failing!?
Do you really believe, that the way humans are using resources and polluting everything, doesn't have any negative impact?
And why the hell would the GDP be ANY good measurement, since it does not include any environmental costs (if I don't need to correctly dispose of my trash and can burn it cheaper, I have an economic advantage in the way of less costs)?
And your OECD study: doesn't it specifically talk about economic impact if climate change measures ARE being implemented (especially emission reductions)? This of course makes sense, as this would imply massive investments in technologies and sectors. This source specifically does not make a case for climate change being not as bad as predicted or that it doesn't take place.
Looking at the current state of the world (especially ecosystems, which are extremely important for us), I really wonder how someone can make an argument, that it isn't as bad as it is made out to be. It is often way worse, as many things aren't really talked about in the open.
> Do you need to get it explicitly spelled out for you to realize that the environment and ecosystems everywhere are under extreme stress
That's anthropomorphizing. The ecosystem cannot be stressed because it has no natural/good state.
> And why the hell would the GDP be ANY good measurement, since it does not include any environmental costs (if I don't need to correctly dispose of my trash and can burn it cheaper, I have an economic advantage in the way of less costs)?
Because people predict life will eventually get worse. Your scenario is why people are making bad long term decisions (according to you) but the reason it's a bad long term choice is because it's supposed to lead to bad outcomes for humanity. GDP is a pretty decent measure of quality of life.
If the climate gets worse but quality of life gets better, it's not quite the catastrophe that's often claimed.
Not OP but that's the point being made.
Essentially you're both talking about different things. you're saying the environment will be worse and OP is saying we'll be better off.
You're also saying a worse environment will make us worse of but not backing that up with data. OP is. That data might be bad but I haven't seen you say anything that would make me doubt it but the OECD has overseen a period of immense improvement of all the measures OP is talking about.
OPs argument is that climate change might kill a billion people but the energy used that creates that climate change created two billion people with better lives.
The natural state of an ecosystem is one in which my native trees aren’t dying back every year until they get killed by massive insect infestations because they can’t access enough water to protect themselves in the summer anymore.
You care more about the beauty of the environment than people’s lives. It’s all about aesthetics for you. If you cared about lives you would bring up statistics.
If a material is under stress, is it also being anthropomorphized?
Also, it's an ecosystem, as everything is more or less connected. Insects, plants, mammals, water. Do you really think, that billions of people dying will do this without consequences for the rest of the world? Do you think YOU will be part of the few, who still might've a normal life, after everything is upended?
Everybody who's looking at this scientifically, is of different opinion than both of you. Lots of people, over decades. The chances that they are incorrect and you are correct, are rather miniscule.
Also, if it DOESN'T happen as science predicts, what would we have lost? The monumental investments and changes would still have a positive impact (remember the cited OECD study). If we do nothing and science is right, we're in a massive world of trouble. I do not understand, why betting on the latter is the better option than just doing something.
I am always reading and never experiencing this (knockonwood).
I'm self hosting email servers for multiple domains for now nearly 25 years. When moving to a new hoster with new IP addresses (especially Hetzner, as it is cheaper and seems to attract more malicious people), I have to contact Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and one or two other big providers to clear my IP address range. This has to be done only once and usually is resolved within hours (faster for automated sites). The bigger ones have a web page to do this, others can be reached via email and are always replying quite quickly. So after a day, everything works and once it works, this never changes and mail gets accepted.
These servers are being used by multiple users and businesses and none have reported any problems. For decades.
I am only using dedicated servers though and using everything in the book: DNSSEC, DMARC, SPF, DKIM, proper DNS records, TLS with valid certs and a correctly behaving SMTP server...
Yeah, and aren't like have the plants currently not working, either because it's to hot or they're in maintenance or it's too expensive to repair them? And EDF, the biggest company behind nuclear power generation has huge amounts of debt and needs (is?) to be nationalized?
From what I can gather, nuclear power was never cheap. It seems no country calculates the real cost - everything's subsidized to be even competitive. In Germany, after the power companies reaped the profits, they said they need to be subsidized to dismantle them, as the costs were to high.
The waste disposal seems to be also subsidized (be it that the state searches for locations and builds them?) or
Building those new and plants seems to be a gigantic money pit - look at the UK. Didn't they surpass the 30 billion mark and no end in sight? And that they can't be built fast?
And who talkes about the real environmental (even CO2) cost to even produce a fuel rod?
Everybody points to France as the poster boy for nuclear power. But it seems that it is a total disaster.
Unfortunatley in German, but can maybe translated:
In France the price of electricity is incredibly low so of course power was very subsidized.
However the investment in nuclear in France still payed of big time. Consider a alternative solution where you use coal power, the only realistic alternative at the time.
Coal is absolutely horrible for air quality and incredibly destructive to the environment.
Any rational person would say it a huge advantage for a country to have heavily invested in nuclear.
The real failure of France is not having continued the investment in nuclear, their failure is that they stopped investing and advancing technology in 1990s.
> And who talkes about the real environmental (even CO2) cost to even produce a fuel rod?
Every single end to end analysis shows that CO2 of nuclear is tiny.
There was a ~5 year gap where France stopped work on adding reactors. France would probably be building more EPRs now if the planned 5-year construction of Flamanville 3 hadn't stretched out to 15 years:
Well we are still building with 1960s technology because the industry has been so beaten down.
Are we just gone accept that nuclear is just inherently to expensive and that can never change. Are we just inherently unable to look at those project and ask, why did it happen that way. Why are we building inherently old technology and are doing it far worse then 20 years before.
When in the 1970s Jimmy Carter tried to push solar and wind, but the tech clearly wasn't ready. Did we just go 'well that's it then'. No people just pushed it, demanded it, forced politicians to have national labs finance it. When it became almost viable it was subsidized in million large and tiny ways all around the world. When there was negative news about solar and wind the Germans would just double down with their strategy.
And yet, a few nuclear reactors are to expensive to build, shut down the whole industry forever. Lets never try to improve or use reactor technology developed after 1960.
The issue is that nuclear scales well with size, but that increases iteration time & costs for a single iteration. It also leads to much less efficiency possible compared to e.g. solar cells. So once they didn't improve and were still expensive (and getting more expensive, like all big construction projects) the potential seems limited. Same as start ups getting huge evaluations while running deficits, but no-one giving the benefit of the doubt at that scale to a failing 30-year old business with promising basic ideas.
Every (big honkin') nuclear power plant is more-or-less a giant project onto itself. The hope of nuclear advocates is that with small reactors, their reduced cost & increased scale (in terms of units) will more than make up for their small size (and resulting loss of scaling in that dimension). I think that's unlikely, but some startups are trying so we'll see if it's a winning formula.
My argument is: Why bother? Renewables are cheap, storage technologies[1] have a lot of viable ways of going forward and are getting better very quickly. Even if through a lot of investment nuclear energy gets (economically, build-time-wise) viable in 20 years like renewables are now, I doubt it would change much or solve pressing issues.
[1]: Starting from common chemical batteries, over to hydrogen/power-to-gas, molten-sand and a variety of concepts exploiting potential height energy. The limited commercial adoption yet can be attributed to the fact that they're not necessary yet, so the added price is too high. Germany, with a very high share of renewables and planned to be growing, is only starting to dip it's toes with some very basic "stabilizer" like in Australia and nothing big-scale in the near future. If this was a pressing issue, you'd think governments would do more (Especially in germany, the cost structure strongly disincentives storage right now, needing to pay certain costs twice, while sinking and sourcing the energy).
No, this seems to be false. France is importing electricity for years from Germany - at least since 2015.
I'm not sure why you're saying that France only has an issue because of Germany? Where do you get that from? Even a french power grid operator is saying that they import more power from Germany, than they're exporting (https://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/cross-border-electrici...).
But you're not even responding to my main concern - that nuclear power is so expensive, that it is never competitive. Only when subsidized. And that is for power plants that are already built - not new ones (which seem to be an even greater money pit). Why is the biggest nuclear power company unable to make money in France and needs to be rescued by the government?
I'd say if it makes sense and helps us in our current situation, just subsidize the heck out of it, even if it costs us as a country lots of money. But it absolutely doesn't seem environmentally friendly, not even regarding CO2. And it doesn't seem to be feasible to quickly build nuclear power.
But yes, Germany fucked up regarding its dependency on gas (from one source and then it's even from a country like Russia).
What makes you think, Germany doesn't have enough electricity? Actually quite the contrary, we produced an additonal 20 TWh to fill in for the gaps left by the French nuclear plants not delivering. (And a lot of other plants in Europe are not running on full power due to lack of cooling water)
Yes, and? Currently less than 35% of the German gas comes from Russia. Leaves way enough for electricity. The question is only, who gets cuts, if there isn't enough gas in the winter. The law says, industry first, heating second. The only debate is, how much cuts to private heating are a good trade off for supporting the industry. And as the Germany are very protective of the industry, there will probably a compromise of somewhat reduced heating (just wear a sweater instead of a t-shirt) and keeping all industry alive. Also of course, all companies are scrambling to secure their energy needs.
This is how you deal with looming crisises: you identify them, you act to prepare. And suddenly the worst is no longer a thread. German gas storage is already filled up to 75%.
I’m paying 60x more for power in Toten, Norway because Germany is importing so much electricity from us. It’s a huge annoyance. We never should have allowed connection outside of the peninsula to you moron Germans.
If anyone, you would be the moron. If Norvegian electricity is more expensive because of Germany, then because Norway is selling it at that higher price. If Norway wouldn't sell it, there would be no money flowing from Germany to Norway. Where the money goes? Well ask your fellow Norvegians and don't blame your countries customers.
P.S.: if anyone, France is guilty of the current high electricity price in Europe. They are failing behind producing enough electricity for local consumption and consequently drive the sport market price up.
Can you do anything but make stupid comments without content?
Yes, Germany is a net exporter, but Germany is part of the European grid. There is a joint market, where electricity is balanced across Europe every minute. The same country which is a net exporter can import in some parts of the day. France is a good example, because they mostly use rather slow nuclear power plants. But as they are part of the European grid, they rather vary between export and import than trying to adjust their power output to their current domestic usage. At minimum that makes electricity cheaper as the plants are run closer to the optimum power point.
Peak consumption occurs after sunset across Europe, when German photovoltaics generate zero electricity. So what do the Germans do to keep up with the demand? They spin up their extremely polluting coal plants, or buy electricity from their neighbours, forcing them to spin up their peaking plants.
>The same country which is a net exporter can import in some parts of the day.
Yeah, except the time when they want to import is precisely the time when everyone else is experiencing peak demand. Now tell me, what happens in a market when demand increases across the board? The price point moves higher along the demand curve, bravo!
Surgical masks are designed to stop droplets, not aerosols so they're pretty loose. The mask is not form fitting around the nose. OR's also have dedicated filtration/HVAC systems with HEPA filters. I researched this when I was looking for a filter system for wildfire smoke.
Where is the consent of users that are being tracked outside of Facebook and are not part of it?
I don't understand why nobody is talking about the even bigger issue that Facebook (and Google and every other ad service) gets to see what people are visiting and when (articles, videos, porn, ...)!
Imagine the detailed profiles you can create with that amount of data...
It is unfortunately true that e-mail is mostly centralized (as in even if I don't want to use GMail & Co., I will mostly communicate with people on those bign centralized platforms, thus giving them again my data).
But it is absolutely federated - I have the choice of running my own server and can communicate with every other e-mail address on this planet.
Unfortunately, it isn't easy to setup - average Joe has no chance to get his own server. On the other hand, for IT people it isn't extremely hard either. Once setup, it is nearly maintenance free...
I'm running my (and a company) e-mail server since 2001 and I don't want to miss it. I only once had a problem with being blocked by big sites, after moving to a new server where the IP range has gotten on some blacklists, because of the previous owner. Also never a problem with spam filters.
I hope e-mail will never be replaced - or at least there's some new way of communicating federated where every internet user is reachable.
The bigger problem is unwillingly sending them even more private information than participating on their sites. Sending a referer and a cookie with every ad (or like button) delivered is far more intrusive. Or isn't that how it works?
Do you really believe, that the way humans are using resources and polluting everything, doesn't have any negative impact?
And why the hell would the GDP be ANY good measurement, since it does not include any environmental costs (if I don't need to correctly dispose of my trash and can burn it cheaper, I have an economic advantage in the way of less costs)?
And your OECD study: doesn't it specifically talk about economic impact if climate change measures ARE being implemented (especially emission reductions)? This of course makes sense, as this would imply massive investments in technologies and sectors. This source specifically does not make a case for climate change being not as bad as predicted or that it doesn't take place.
Looking at the current state of the world (especially ecosystems, which are extremely important for us), I really wonder how someone can make an argument, that it isn't as bad as it is made out to be. It is often way worse, as many things aren't really talked about in the open.