400 ppm

[Dangerman]

"And the best part is nuclear material and spent fuel, along with many construction materials, can be transported BY TRAIN!"

[lunchstealer]

Your math checks out.

[JD]

Do not fuck with commuters.

Climate activists who crippled rush hour across London on Thursday by climbing onto the roofs of trains were met with angry commuters who took it upon themselves to drag some of them back to platforms.
...
Videos have shown protestors using a ladder to climb on top of the roof of one train, sparking an immediate reaction from commuters on the platform. Some tossed food and drinks at protestors, which one person could be heard shouting, "I need to get to work, I have to feed my kids."
...
Another video showed at least one man reaching up and grabbing the leg of a protester on top of a Tube train, dragging him onto the platform where he was quickly surrounded as he lay on the ground.

This bit is particularly eye-roll-inducing:

Robin Boardman, a spokesman for the protesters, said that if such action is necessary to make the government take notice of their climate change demands, "then this is what we must do."

"None of us want to inconvenience ordinary people,"

Uh, inconveniencing ordinary people is exactly what you want to do, judging by the actions you've undertaken. I mean, claim that it's justified if that's what you really believe, but don't insult our intelligence.

[Kolohe]

Not going to lie, I liked the past spring when the extinction rebellion closed down the streets (or rather, caused the streets to be closed down) around Westminster. It made doing to tourist thing and walking around all that a heck of lot more pleasant experience.

But stopping public transit - stopping *dedicated right of way public transit that could use renewable energy with out too much more trouble* - that's hella stupid.

[thoreau]

Environmentalist parties make big gains in Switzerland.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/20/worl ... ction.html

I blame Greta Thunberg. Switzerland, Sweden, they're both sort of Germanic.

[JD]

Michael Shellenberger, Time magazine Hero of the Environment for 2008 and winner of the 2008 Green Book Award, says could we please just cool it with the apocalyptic talk? No, we are not all going to die.

[Aresen]

The one confident prediction I will make is that, after Climate Change is no longer an issue, there will be another apocalyptic issue with a movement demanding we completely reorganize society to SOLVE it (by putting them in control, of course.)

[JasonL]

Michael Shellenberger, Time magazine Hero of the Environment for 2008 and winner of the 2008 Green Book Award, says could we please just cool it with the apocalyptic talk? No, we are not all going to die.

The sad part to me is the follow up to apocalyptic claims - “aren’t you on the side of SCIENCE???” You should never ever make an important decision in your life based on the claims of environmental advocates. They just lie and misrepresent all the time then seem baffled when they don’t have credibility enough to drive global action.

I think carbon is the most significant in priced externality in the world and it should be priced. It’s crazy trying to get green types onboard with a large carbon tax.

[Shem]

Michael Shellenberger, Time magazine Hero of the Environment for 2008 and winner of the 2008 Green Book Award, says could we please just cool it with the apocalyptic talk? No, we are not all going to die.

It makes some good points, but it also mischaracterizes some of the arguments that it's responding to. The mass-migration argument gets a lot more compelling when you consider that a huge chunk of the Middle East can't take much of a temperature increase before it becomes literally uninhabitable for part of the year. There's also the danger to water; a lot of places around the world depend on snow melt to recharge their aquifers from year to year. The lack of winter rain and snow is part of California's issue. You can't fix that problem without another increase in energy use, one that will probably make carbon release worse, at least in the short term.

[Eric the .5b]

Michael Shellenberger, Time magazine Hero of the Environment for 2008 and winner of the 2008 Green Book Award, says could we please just cool it with the apocalyptic talk? No, we are not all going to die.

While I worry about things like methane releases, that does seem to be more the scientifically-backed understanding of the situation.

And yeah, far-left people advocating the destruction of capitalism to save the human race is some pretty transparent stuff.

[Mo]

His point about natural disasters is grossly dishonest. He makes it sound like 3.1 M in 1931 was the run rate as opposed to a crazy outlier due to the Yangtze floods in that year. In 1930, there were 10,500, fewer than there were in 2018. And this is from the exact same source that he uses. He could have made an intellectually honest point that recent peaks have been lower than the peaks historically, due to technology, but instead he picks a local peak and compares it to the local trough.

https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters

[JD]

New York City's Climate Mobilization Act requires buildings to be substantially more energy-efficient:

The Climate Mobilization Act, which passed last spring, makes sustainability a major priority for New York’s built environment, targeting buildings that are among the biggest contributors to the city’s carbon emissions. One component of that legislation, Local Law 97, requires owners of the city’s largest buildings to meet new emission standards beginning in 2024. But the first major milestone won’t arrive for another decade: By 2030, emissions from large buildings must be slashed by 40 percent from 2005 levels; by 2050, that number must be 80 percent. If owners don’t comply they’ll face substantial fines of as much as $1 million (or more) per year for the largest buildings.

This is not such a bad idea, but I still wonder why legislators and activists are so resistant to using market forces to reduce energy usage. If you simply increased energy costs, you would give people a large incentive to reduce their usage. There is the issue that not all people who are paying energy bills actually have the opportunity to affect things on the construction side, but is there not also the possibility of using incentives on the materials side of things?

One architect makes an interesting point:

“If it’s not part of the code, contractors have the tendency to say, ‘Oh, it’s a specialized item and therefore it’s going to cost more,’” Cho says. Windows designed to meet strict energy-saving requirements, for example, can come at a steep price, but the upfront investment is a worthy tradeoff for lower long-term operating costs that will help building owners meet their new regulatory burdens. “By turning it into a code thing, it’s just a universal standard that will normalize prices and make it easier to do,” she explains.

I can kind of get that about specialized items costing more, but then the author says that the higher investment is a worthy tradeoff for lower long-term operating costs...so is there just not sufficient incentive? Is the upfront cost too high?

[Jennifer]

I can kind of get that about specialized items costing more, but then the author says that the higher investment is a worthy tradeoff for lower long-term operating costs...so is there just not sufficient incentive? Is the upfront cost too high?

I don't know specifics about the NYC developer's market, of course, but I know that in general, at least when talking about things like shareholder-owned companies, there IS often the built-in paradox of "Spending this money now will save us a lot more in the long run ... but it will also register as a temporary loss for this quarter AND the next, which means we can't do it because the stockholders will go bugshit...."

[JasonL]

The claims about lower operating cost vs higher initial investment have a lot of hand waving in them. Try pricing triple panel low e windows. They are about 20% more expensive and will save you 2% in northern climates. 30 years or so to actually save. Easiest is replacing power hogs with newer models in certain appliances. Adding insulation is always good but at a certain point you need adjustments to ventilation.

[Warren]

And suddenly JasonL repudiates everything he ever said and Demands Action NOW!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... yj1IfYA7ao

[nicole]

"No, the entire world is not a pro-natalist scam, why would you think that?"

[Shem]

Nicole is Grimes confirmed:

Code: Select all

https://www.instagram.com/p/B8YA2w_HMGz/