YMLADRIS: ad "skoda ze nepotrebuje setrit emise"

to nelze, jelikoz to by civilizaci zpomalilo. a to je pro toho, kdo rozviji ideu, proces hypercivilizace to nejhorsi

ban flights and car use in cities to hurt climate change.
or not

Ban European flights and car use in cities to hurt Putin, report urges | Fossil fuels | The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/08/slugs-ban-european-flights-cities-car-use-hurt-putin-russia-oil-gas-income-report

YMLADRIS: ne, nevytvorila. Obcas tu ale padaji takove nazory, ze degrowth, nebo zit tak jak sme zili v minulosti je to co civilizaci zachrani a jine modely civilizace nejsou existenceschopny, tak se mi do toho primichaly emoce. Co sem chtel rict je, ze Musk kouka dopredu a snazi se nektery z tech aktualnich painpointu/zmenit mitigovat

V te myslence jsme se asi nepochopili, co rikam je, ze pokud chceme soucasnou civilizaci zachovat s co nejmensimi ztratami na zivotech, neni cestou vypnout fosil, ale nastavit max prioritu na transformaci energetiky, popripade stavebnictvi a chemickyho prumyslu.

Neni to o tom, ze od zejtra nebudem jezdit na naftu. Ty solary, vetrniky atd. musime vybudovat co nejrychleji a mezitim musime zajistovat logistiku a bezpeci pro populaci zeme, tzn od stavby silnic, po prevoz potravin a materialu, prevozu nemocnych, vyroby leku, v tuhle chvili diky Rusku bohuzel i na military atd. Tohle neni ze dne na den, ani z roku na rok, nejde to proste jen tak 'vypnout' aniz by bylo cim to nahradit

...

Carbin tax se samozrejme hodi a emsini povolenky pomahaj dorovnavat ty 'realne' naklady na energie, ale samotne CC zarizeni jednak nejsou technologicky tak daleko, aby byly nakladove efektivni (dokud nebudou prebytky levne clean energie) a jednak tu carbon dan nikdy nezavede celej svet. Muze to byt nejaky doplnek v budoucnu/pro (energeticky) bohate zeme, ale tou optimalni cestou by melo byt snizit naklady na clean energii, protoze pak cely svet tyhle technologie prevezme bez nutnosti 'efektivni' diplomacie OSN, protestu ExtinctionRebellion, sebevrazd zemedelcu...

(Plus zustane samozrejme otazka co se soucasny carbon debt, tam muze CC hrat vetsi roli pri dostatecny skale a globalni vuli)

SHEFIK: asi jsem nejakym zpusobem vytvorila zdani, ze toto navrhuji?

--

jinak CC tuny co2 ted stoji 600$. nedovedu si to prevest na zvyseni ceny, tj o kolik vic by stalo vytapeni domu nebo doprava nebo prumysl nebo steak, pokud by automaticky muselo se montovat CC zarizeni. to jako rozvadim tvou myslenku o umreni hladem, jen tak

A není někde český (či sk .)) překlad toho IPCC reportu 22?

XCHAOS: a to "jde do prodeje" znamena, ze si to muzes zarezervovat, ah tak urcite :) porad je to ve vyvoji a na elektrovozitka je tu jiny klub, nemluve o cene :D

YMLADRIS: vratit o 1000 let zpet bylo mysleno, ze na transformaci potrebujeme fosil. Nejde najednou vystoupit zejtra rano z aut, shodit je ze skaly a tvarit se, ze je vsecko ruzovy a eko. Kdyby od zejtra jezdily jen elektromobily, 99% populace do mesice umre, z mnoha ruznych pricin, nejen hladem.

YMLADRIS: tak ono uridit Teslu a SpaceX, k tomu 5 deti a jeste resit dalsi topic (i kdyz souhlasim ze nemene dulezitej) muze bejt uz nad lidsky sily :)

Kazdopadne ne vsecko musi clovek delat sam. Nektery veci se daj outsourcovat. A myslim, ze Musk dela co muze, aby k vykonum dostatecne motivoval i ostatni

$100M Prize For Carbon Removal | XPRIZE Foundation
https://www.xprize.org/prizes/elonmusk

YMLADRIS: Musk se ale snazi 'setrit emise' jenze vi, ze to nedava smysl ted a tady, ze spolecnost nejde rozbit, zredukovat a vratit kulturne 1000 let zpatky. Tesla je jeho nejvetsim ekologickym projektem. (Teda az na ten jeho fanouskovskej bitcoin platby vystrelek)

S CATLem uzavrel smlouvu na bezkobaltovy baterie jako prvni. Pevne verim, ze bude Tesla bude jednou z prvnich co nahradi lithium jinym, hojnejsim, eco friendly prvkem do baterek, pokud budou konkurenceschopny tem lithiovejm.

Mj.soucasti Tesly, pod taktovkou jeho bratru je kontejnerovy/modulovatelny pestovani microgreens, napajeny solarem a druhou silnou vetvi jsou solarni strechy (solarni tasky+powerwall).

Powerwally se pak skalujou az na uroven zaloh elektraren, napr. v australii.

Plus 'decentralizace/stabilizace site' skrze virtualni energeticky uloziste (propojeny Tesla auta v siti).

Tenhle clovek dela pro transformaci nasich fosilnich energetickejch toku do nejakyho sustainable modelu jako malokdo jinej

James Dyke
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1511268589797531656.html

If anyone wants my "take" on the latest IPCC report then here goes (will be writing something about this later, but to be honest, this thread will probably allow me to say what I want to say more effectively).

1.5°C is over. We now have to imagine the most fabulous scenarios to truly honour the Paris Agreement. That includes increasingly including large-scale removal of CO2 from the atmosphere to drag down temps after "overshooting".

We are still firmly on course for around 3°C by end of century. But really these end of century and even mid-century projections & targets are meaningless. What we need is the reduction of fossil fuel use NOW (sorry for shouting).

The reason we're not cutting fossil fuel use is not because it's really hard (it is) or represents huge challenges for finance (it does). It's because a tiny fraction of humanity is resisting with all of its considerable power. Power it has accrued with fossil fuels.

I appreciate "Fossil fuel fucks are stealing my children's future" isn't the sort of title IPCC will use in press releases or SPMs but that's the brutal reality. And I'm very frustrated about why we academics find it so hard to say that (or family friendly version).

We are still playing the game of producing increasingly absurb scenarios and then watching as civilisation carries on regardless. Now this doesn't mean we haven't made some huge progress in decarbonising. We are seeing energy transformations in many places.

But it's nowhere near enough and I guess that most academics either know that or suspect it. We have to turn off fossil fuels. Not overnight - that will kill billions. But VERY SOON. And that is a direct challenge to the most powerful organisations the world has ever seen.

Did you ever think they would wake up one day and decide to implode their industry? I'm not painting them as the victim here, but they will require support from governments to fundamentally repurpose their missions. This cannot be left to the market.

That's what this latest IPCC report says to me. I am profoundly grateful to all (lead)authors & reviewers. We would be in a far worse place without them. But now we need a new stage of academic engagement with the greatest challenge humanity has ever faced.

That's why I'm working with facultyforafuture.org Perhaps you would like to join us.

Gloom Reality: Even the Most Daring Technologies Can No Longer Reverse Impacts of Climate Change | Nature World News
https://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/49777/20220307/gloom-reality-even-daring-technologies-longer-reverse-impacts-climate-change.htm

"SRM carries a severe danger of changing regional and seasonal rainfall patterns and ozone depletion, ocean acidification, and other known and undiscovered negative consequences."

....

Outside of the IPCC, opposition to SRM is growing: over 240 eminent worldwide scientists have asked for a solar geoengineering non-use agreement that would essentially stop SRM from progressing.

A recent SRM equipment test over indigenous land in Kiruna, Sweden, was canceled amid vociferous objections from the Saami Council and environmental groups. They believe that climate modification is fundamentally incompatible with indigenous cosmology.

The only logical conclusion is that we must, by all means necessary, begin on pathways that prevent a 1.5°C overshoot and climatic collapse.




Paul Maidowski komentuje https://t.co/jbwB7AkWrx

:Many professors signed, but I don’t get it.

(1) We oppose SRM as ungovernable & worry about a termination shock;

(2) BUT want 1.5°C, which requires SRM;

(3) BUT don’t focus on the ongoing termination shock from sulfate aerosol cuts?

Genuinely puzzled! Maybe someone can help?

Why Do We Cling to Art in Apocalyptic Times? – ARTnews.com
https://www.artnews.com/feature/why-cling-art-apocalyptic-times-max-ernst-1202688847/

We face a choice, amid the slow collapse of a derelict civilization. It is not a choice of whether to stop global warming, whether to head off its inevitable consequences, or whether to save the world. The choice we face, like the choice Ernst faced on his escape from Camp des Milles, is simply whether to accept the reality we find ourselves in. Such an acceptance demands letting go of the burdens we have dragged so far, letting go of any hope for salvation, letting go of every piece of hoarded flotsam we think we might yet need, and facing the fact that the new world we are doomed to inhabit is as alien to our lives today as are the moons of Jupiter, the ziggurats of the Aztecs, or the blood cults of the ancient Greeks. There is only a narrow passage to this new world, the eye of the fiery needle, and to linger on the threshold is to die. On the doorway’s lintel are inscribed these words: “Abandon hope all ye who enter here.

1990 climate game