Climate change and its Impacts

Freak out about our shared future. Justify your antinatalism. Mourn for what we have forever lost.

Our planet’s atmosphere naturally pulls orbiting debris downward and incinerates it in the thicker lower atmosphere, but increasing carbon dioxide levels are lowering the density of the upper atmosphere, which may diminish this effect. A study presented last month at the European Conference on Space Debris says that the problem has been underestimated, and that the amount of space junk in orbit could, in a worst-case scenario, increase 50 times by 2100.

Our atmosphere is a useful ally in clearing up space junk. Collisions with its molecules cause drag, pulling objects back into the atmosphere. Below 300 miles above the surface, most objects will naturally decay into the thicker lower atmosphere and burn up in less than 10 years.

We as a country is fat enough, shouldn’t eat this much beef anyway, let the industry decline.

For some variety, here is a non-human caused climate disaster:

The catastrophe caused by the Laki Fires was the greatest to befall Iceland in recent centuries. Toxic ash spread over most of the country and a volcanic mist poisoned the air. This mist gave the disaster its name: Móðuharðindi, the hardship of the mist. From the start of the eruption it was obvious how it would end; a black eruption cloud bore down on the coastal plain, and ash fell so that inside the houses it was dark, and outside footprints marked the ground.

An odd development. Is it scaleable?

1 Like

I was just going to send you this article.

I would argue this approach is not just scalable but also NEEDED.

The economist Albert O. Hirschman once wrote that members of a firm in distress had a few options: They could exit, leaving the organization to collapse; use voice, expressing dissatisfaction with the hope of fixing the firm; or show loyalty, sticking in their role and hoping for improvement.
For the past decade, the dominant approach among climate-concerned investors has been to exit: If you’re worried about climate change, activists have exhorted, you should divest from fossil-fuel stocks. But last month, Engine No. 1 voiced its problems with Exxon—and found rapid success. VOTE now lets average investors try voice too.
Really, the two strategies should work in tandem. Divestment should, over time, make raising money more expensive for carbon-intensive oil companies—as it indeed seems to be doing. Engagement should push companies to act in a way that makes divestment less necessary.

If all socially-conscious investors choose the exit strategy, that would leave only non-socially-conscious investors to voice their opinions, as a result, making these companies more reluctant to change. I think both exit and voice strategies should go hand in hand: the exit investors making voice investors’ threats more credible, while the voice investors make the exit investors’ concerns heard.

Some Very butthurt comment section regarding to this event:

https://www.ft.com/content/ebfdf67d-cbce-40a5-bb29-d361377dea7a

FT comment section is pretty interesting.

So much drama

1 Like

I’m so skeptical of all the corporate climate pledges that focus on carbon removal. No guarantee this shit will ever work.

1 Like

Carbon capture from the air seems intuitively less efficient than preventing the carbon emissions from entering the air in the first place. Entropy means that it is much harder to remove the cream from your coffee than it is to add it in. This article does a good job of showing the napkin math to back this intuition up.

Given the general impracticality of carbon capture from the air, why does it still receive attention in funding? I suspect it is because it is a convenient way to assuage people’s fears without requiring change in the status quo. The perfect fit for carbon heavy industries. A scam.

1 Like

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01983-z
This is madness, if it true.

Oh wow, the blog article I posted here pointed out it’s relatively cheap to catch the carbon dioxide right at the power plants:

It’s one of the few cases where carbon removal makes economical sense.

Relevant quote from dictator’s handbook:

Most publicly traded corporations have this structure as well. They have millions of shareholders who are the interchangeables. They have big institutional shareholders and some others who are the influentials. And the essentials are pretty much those who get to pick actual board members and senior management.

Vanguard ETF’s managers, for example, would be “essentials” to many corporations

Engine No.1 basically want to become one of the essentials by creating an ETF.

1 Like

This article argues that California’s wildfires aren’t just climate change, but also severe mismanagement:

Academics believe that between 4.4 million and 11.8 million acres burned each year in prehistoric California. Between 1982 and 1998, California’s agency land managers burned, on average, about 30,000 acres a year. Between 1999 and 2017, that number dropped to an annual 13,000 acres. The state passed a few new laws in 2018 designed to facilitate more intentional burning. But few are optimistic this, alone, will lead to significant change. We live with a deathly backlog. In February 2020, Nature Sustainability published this terrifying conclusion: California would need to burn 20 million acres — an area about the size of Maine — to restabilize in terms of fire.

Combine mismanagement and climate change, and you have a recipe for disaster.

1 Like