• úvod
  • témata
  • události
  • tržiště
  • diskuze
  • nástěnka
  • přihlásit
    registrace
    ztracené heslo?
    TUHOKlimaticka zmena / Thank you so much for ruining my day
    DZODZO
    DZODZO --- ---
    Tak ako prototyp na otestovanie to asi nemusi byt ziadny zazrak, baterie tiez nemali prvy den energeticku hustotu jak dnes a dobre ze ten vyvoj nezabalili
    JIMIQ
    JIMIQ --- ---
    PER2: mne ani nenapadlo ze by nekdo delal zachycovani co2 ktere by vic co2 do atmosfery vypustilo
    PER2
    PER2 --- ---
    JIMIQ: to neni filozofie, to je normalni uvazovani
    jestli by ti prislo ok vygenerovat vic co2 (na vsechny etapy toho zarizeni + energii) nez ho zachytit, tak to by byla fakt pecka
    a podle studii jim to vychazi i s tim, takze asi ok
    https://chemrxiv.org/engage/api-gateway/chemrxiv/assets/orp/resource/item/60c754339abda21fd7f8e13e/original/how-carbon-negative-is-direct-air-capture-life-cycle-assessment-of-an-industrial-temperature-vacuum-swing-adsorption-process.pdf

    GOJATLA: vybuch supervulkanu nebo dopad vetsiho asteroidu fakt neni problem jen na chvilku, ale dost pravdedopodne na par generaci, lokalni jaderny konflikt ti neudela nic, potrebujes full scale global nuclear war
    mne ochlazeni planety prijde jako docela efektivni reseni klimaticky krize popravde
    GOJATLA
    GOJATLA --- ---
    PER2: CCS je podvod, cílem je vyvolat představu, že můžeme dál vypouštět emise, protože je jednou někdo dokáže zase dostat pod zem. Hopium, podobně jako geoinženýring.
    JIMIQ
    JIMIQ --- ---
    PER2: tak pri takoveto filozofii je fakt nejlepsi se rovnou odprasknout - ale pozor u ta pistole a kulka maji uhlikovou stopu :D
    GOJATLA
    GOJATLA --- ---
    PER2: Psal si, že ochladit zemi nebude zas tak velký problém. To je sice pravda, ale není to řešení klimatické krize. Nejrychlejší cesta k ochlazení je globální nebo i lokální jaderný konflikt. Šance, že se ho dožijeme není vůbec zanedbatelná. Jo, výbuch supervulkánu nebo dopad asteroidu bude krátkodobě ještě ničivější než oteplování. Ale na rozdíl od oteplování nemáme důkazy, že nám v dohledné době hrozí, že s tím můžeme něco dělat a že si za to navíc můžeme i sami. Představ si, že by nás měl za 20 let zničit asteroid, vlády to ví už 30 let ale pořád se jen dohadují, kdo zaplatí misi, která ho odkloní. A voliči tomu tleskají.
    PER2
    PER2 --- ---
    JIMIQ: no myslim, ze ty trubky a zelezny profily z kterych je to vyrobeny + ten natezenej sorbent a vrty atd, tohle vsechno se tam asi neteleportovalo samo a nepostavilo se to samo a samo se to ani nevyrobilo, takze fakt nevim hele
    JIMIQ
    JIMIQ --- ---
    PER2: “ Obě technologie využívají obnovitelnou energii z blízké geotermální elektrárny.”
    Co myslis? :)
    PER2
    PER2 --- ---
    KEB: "ročně odsaje 4000 tun oxidu uhličitého ze vzduchu. To odpovídá ročním emisím zhruba 790 aut."
    docela by me zajimalo jakou ma to zarizeni uhlikovou stopu :)))
    PER2
    PER2 --- ---
    GOJATLA: nikdy jsem nikde nenapsal, ze to bude snadne, nebude, je tam plno veci, co ti do toho muze hodit vidle a prestrelis to, lidstvo jsou mali pani .... ale nic jinyho nez geoengineering nam nakonec nezbude, just matter of time
    a ochlazeni planety porad vidim jako mnohem vetsi hrozbu nez oteplovani

    (ps: jsou i jine zpusoby nez jen vypoustet so2)
    KEB
    KEB --- ---
    Na Islandu zahajuje provoz největší zařízení pro odsávání CO2 ze vzduchu
    https://oenergetice.cz/emise-co2/na-islandu-zahajuje-provoz-nejvetsi-zarizeni-pro-odsavani-co2-ze-vzduchu#comments
    SEJDA
    SEJDA --- ---
    GOJATLA: myslim, ze cele to je namet sci-fi filmu/serialu Snowpearcer .. inzenyri si usmysli, ze uz rozumi vsemu, a nastoli nejextremnejsi dobu ledovou "omylem".
    TADEAS
    TADEAS --- ---
    v souvislosti s tim by me zajimalo, jakej je konsenzus ohledne tech feedbacku, protoze IPCC je nezahrnuje, mann rika, ze je to spekulativni, postupimska crew to tlaci...
    TADEAS
    TADEAS --- ---
    FLUO: jo no, ty scenare totiz sice pocitaj velky emise, ale zase nepocitaj feedbacky. takze treba rockstromm rika, ze z hlediska emisi je to pesimistickej scenar, kterej by se nemel pouzivat, jenze pokud zohlednime absenci tech feedbacku, tak muze bejt realistickej. viz TADEAS
    GOJATLA
    GOJATLA --- ---
    PER2: Mám podobný názor, SRM bude. Ale vidíš to moc růžově. Ano, ochladit Zemi na pár let je snadné, ale vypouštět přesně dané množství SO2 500-1000 let, než se podaří odčerpat vypuštěný CO2, to je imho mimo možnosti naší civilizace. Stačí pár nepovedených let, globální teplotní šok, neúroda, hladomor, válka. Pravděpodobně i konec SRM a oteplení o 10 C během pár let, vyhynutí dokonáno. Je to jako každý den si pustit do žíly jed a pak jít shánět antidotum, jednoho dne to nemusí vyjít. Smysl dává jen krátkodobé nasazení po dosažení neutrality, pokud k tomu dojde, dalo by se tak předejít škodám z opožděného oteplení. Ale fosilové to tlačí jako alternativu k dekarbonizaci a to je jistá sebevražda.
    DZODZO
    DZODZO --- ---
    to bude poprask az zacnu destilovat litium vesnicania s kyblikmi :)

    Nigeria's illegal oil refineries
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e3_bkKwgQY
    FLUO
    FLUO --- ---
    KEB: Ja s dovolenim jen tematicky vypichnu reseni klimaticke krize podle SPD, kdyby nekdo nedocetl az na konec:

    Máte nějaké konkrétní představy o tom, jak posílit odolnost České republiky vůči projevům změny klimatu?

    My nesmíme dopustit, aby ke změně klimatu došlo.



    TADEAS: Musim rict, ze kdyz vychazely ty odkazovane research papery pred x lety, tak jsem tak nejak naivne pocital s tim, ze to pujde nejakou tou stredni cestou a ejhle - ono je to zatim ve skutecnosti jeste o trochu horsi nez worst-case scenario (RCP 8.5).
    PER2
    PER2 --- ---
    GOJATLA:
    "Solar geoengineering raises profoundly difficult governance issues due to its potential to impact large-scale human support systems such water availability, agriculture and energy on global scales."
    nastesti tohle nam od globalniho oteplovani nehrozi, tak to je fajn

    taky z toho muzu vytahnout par veci:
    "Yet the report points out that we simply do not know enough to determine whether solar geoengineering would be safe, effective and acceptable."
    safe - to urcite nikdy uplne nebude(jak po koho a kde), acceptable - no to casem urcite, effective - neexistuje, duvod aby to nefungovalo

    "A clear-eyed response to this failure requires Canada to redouble its efforts to reduce emissions, and not place false hope in unproven technological fixes. But the urgency of the current climate emergency also necessitates the responsible exploration of all options that may contribute to a more liveable planet."


    dle meho skromneho nazoru je geoengineering do budoucnosti absolutni jistota, at se to nekomu libi nebo ne, ikdyz prestaneme vypoustet ze dne na den co2(coz se absolutne nestane), oteplovani se hned tak nezastavi
    GOJATLA
    GOJATLA --- ---
    PER2: https://theconversation.com/solar-geoengineering-could-limit-global-warming-but-canada-should-study-risks-and-benefits-first-162230
    ...
    Solar geoengineering raises profoundly difficult governance issues due to its potential to impact large-scale human support systems such water availability, agriculture and energy on global scales. That said, solar geoengineering is unlikely to resemble its dystopian portrayal in movies and television.

    Solar geoengineering is at best a complement to, not a substitute for, emissions reduction. This is not a political statement, but reflects the inability of solar geoengineering to address key climate impacts, such as ocean acidification, caused by the ocean’s increased absorption of carbon dioxide.

    Solar geoengineering may temporarily lower or moderate the Earth’s temperature, but it’s unable to return the Earth’s climate to some prior state. Limiting changes in temperature and precipitation patterns requires limiting carbon dioxide emissions, and likely removing past emissions from the atmosphere.
    TADEAS
    TADEAS --- ---
    The end of social movement theory, the beginning of climate breakdown revolutionary theory - Roger Hallam
    https://www.facebook.com/100003329775307/posts/4475886602532288/

    As the UK XR rebellion moves along in a slightly repressed and underwhelming way it is worth revisiting the notion of “emergency” and the related idea that “this changes everything”. “Everything” presumably includes the way we see social movements and the whole process of political change. If we want the state to force industry to “jump to it” World War Two style then surely it is right that we to apply the same challenge to ourselves.

    When I started doing research on this field at King’s College I was initially very excited by the rich literatures on social movement theory. But when it came to advising climate activists and doing the strategic framework for the setting up of XR, I quickly realised it was not fit for purpose, to put it mildly.

    “This changes everything”. Does it or are we just saying it?

    The main point here is that social movement theory has this idea of the “radical flank”. I was told for instance at the end of 2019 by those “in the know” that I should “go off and set up a radical flank to XR”. The implicit assumption here is that the “herd” – that is the centre of the radical opinion are the sensible guys, and then there are a few pesty ultra radicals who every now and again pull the space to the Left.

    This makes no sense when you are dealing with a physical crisis – such as the melting of the Arctic. This is an objective threat not a social construction – like someone pushing your kid off a cliff, or gassing your community in a sealed room. This means that the required response is objective – you have to stop the Arctic melting and therefore have to stop the emission of carbon emissions. It is a binary situation. You either stop it or you lose it for hundreds of thousands of years and humanity goes extinct. This is what is means to be facing tipping points – it’s an absolute emergency. It’s a pushing the kid off the cliff or gassing people to death type of thing applied to the whole of humanity.

    In this situation there is no “radical flank” – there is only action which is deluded, or at best performative, and then there is action that gets the job done, that actually forces the government to decarbonise. So we have to get into the ballpark of creating mass civil resistance or you fail. “Radical flank” does not come into it.

    The reality is that if we don’t have thousands of people ready to go on hunger strike, engage in open criminal damage (with lawful excuse) and repeated actions which result in prison we simply won’t catch the ball before it races away down the hill.

    Social movement theory is based upon the meta assumption that conflicts are linear and limited. If you don’t sort out slavery this year you can have another bash at it the following year – it’s still obscene but no one is claiming it will be ten times as obscene next year. Hitler was just plain evil but once you have defeated him things go back to normal. With the climate crisis you have three to four years to completely change the economy or you are done for – everyone and for ever. That’s a beyond the imagination totally different situation. You cannot go to nature in ten year’s time and go sorry we are ready to go to prison now – your chance has gone. Nature does not give a damn.

    That changes everything.

    The theory then is totally redundant. As I often say this is not a political observation any more than the observation that ice melts when it’s warm is “political”: no one wants the collapse of their societies unless they are a nihilistic psychopath. Stopping collapse is the number one priority whether you are a radical or a conservative. It’s not a question of politics it’s a question of being able to face reality. The problem is the whole complex of reformist and gradualist ideas that underlie social movement theory which then determine what we are told, and tell each other, about how to change society. In other words we look at the future with our eyes fixed on the rules of thumb or “heuristics” which worked in the past.

    But the past has gone forever.

    A core redundant notion here is the idea that “you don’t have get arrested”. This is pure false compassion. The situation is you get arrested now (in numbers to get to critical mass) or you watch your kids die of starvation and social collapse in a decade or so. You often get an implicit racist reaction when you say this to people – meaning they don’t think it will happen to them but to those black lives in Africa who they secretly consider as disposable and they think that is, well, okay. If the dead bodies were in the home counties they would be lining up around to block to engage in civil resistance.

    Of course you have to get arrested. If for no other reason than self interest. There are always exceptions like with everything – don’t do it if your mum has just died, but they are the exceptions that prove the rule. If you have to transform society in three to four years, engaging in nonviolent resistance to the point of getting arrested is the least you have to do.

    Social movement theory then is just a posh phrase for whole bunch of delusionary ideas of people in the environmental and “progressive” movements who don’t want to face reality. They become self-fulfilling prophecies – you don’t need to get arrested and so it’s not surprising that people decide they can’t be.

    The alternative theory I would call climate breakdown revolutionary theory. The core idea is: “whatever it nonviolently takes”. And again this is self-fulfilling. If you tell people the only way you are going to get in the ballpark of stopping the arctic from melting is to have thousands of people in prison then you get people stepping up. I have just done around 40 public meetings in the past three months saying this so I have plenty of evidence that it is the case.

    And the good news (there is good news) is once a critical mass of people adopt this new theory of political change then the transformation will happen– and very fast. No one knows if it will happen in time of course, that will be determined by how fast we give up on redundant ideas. But that it will happen is inevitable. Humans being don’t just lie down and let themselves be killed. As the elites will soon find out.

    People stepping into civil resistance email ring2021@protonmail.com
    Kliknutím sem můžete změnit nastavení reklam