TADEAS:

George Monbiot
@GeorgeMonbiot
To all the people saying "they should have locked the Just Stop Oil protesters up for longer", enjoy your weekend.
But please remember that you wouldn't have a weekend, or any other fundamental right, were it not for protesters who were reviled by people like you.¨
If we are to have the right to a habitable planet, which I hope your descendants will take for granted just as you take your rights to vote, to speak freely and to weekends for granted, it will not happen without the protests you hate so much.

To je naprostej idiot

Be Wary What You Wish For: Trump 2.0 Will Retract Climate Laws - CleanTechnica
https://cleantechnica.com/2024/07/12/be-wary-what-you-wish-for-trump-2-0-will-retract-climate-laws/

Another Trump administration would revise nearly every forward-looking Biden-Harris administration action, including breakthrough legislation to mitigate the effects of the climate crisis. The Sierra Club warns that “everything from rules to curb hazardous air pollutants to programs that help make cleaner and more energy-efficient purchases affordable would be on the chopping block” if Trump 2.0 becomes a reality.

...

Trump: The former president said, “In my opinion, you have a thing called weather, and you go up, and you go down. If you look into the 1920s, they were talking about a global freezing, okay? In other words, the globe was going to freeze.’”
...
Trump: “The global warming hoax, it just never ends,” he said, also referring to the climate crisis as “nonexistent” and “created by the Chinese.”
...
Trump: Trump has called renewable energy “a scam business.” His campaign asserts that, under the Trump administration, “without sacrificing any economic gains, American energy became cleaner than ever before.”
...
Trump: “I hate wind,” Trump told the executives over a meal of chopped steak at his Mar-a-Lago Club and resort in Florida. “The windmills (sic) aren’t working, the most expensive form of energy ever.”
...
Trump: “And we have other things that are also no good. It’s called the Green New Deal — I call it the Green New Hoax

Atd.

Roger explaining himself

Nevim zda to nekoho jeste zajima, tyka se to te fear-mongering strategie, Roger napsal dlouhy vysvetlovaci post, ze si mysli, ze je to vic honest and fair, nez kdyz se vedci furt schovavaji za svuj non-emotional pohled. Za me, kazdej dela co se mu vypocitalo, ale bojim se, ze uz to Roger prozkoumal kam az to slo a je to bez efektu..

...
The nerdy scientists are the mirror image of the raging deniers. They feed each other. They both need each other like one of those really perverse dependency relationships. If scientists emote and speak in blunt terms like “my children are going to die”, the deniers give them hell for saying things that are not certain. “Have you proof that your children will die you fucking bunch of fear mongers? No!”. And so the scientists retreat, which suits them just fine because then they can continue to be in their comfort zone of only talking about certainties: “Sorry you are right, there is only an uncertain possibility my children will soon enter into unique levels of discomfort”.

Both scientists and deniers are not computers - they are humans trying to avoid emotional pain. Both groups can’t cope with me because I am the guy running into the room going: “I don’t give a flying fuck about your fucking certainty analysis - it's my fucking children you total dicks.” That's why I got 1.6 million views. Because I am violating the rules both sides impose on the public sphere. That is why my favourite historical figure, Larry Kramer, was such an effective change-maker. Because he didn’t give a fuck - check him out.

...

This is a roundabout way of saying that when I say, “12% of Phoenix are going to die” I am not really saying 12% of Phoenix are going to die. I am not talking about moss - I am making an emotional, rhetorical and entirely appropriate statement. A deeply true statement in the holistic sense.

I know 12% of Phoenix might ACTUALLY not die. But that is not the point. The point is this world is so fucked up because we just sit there and continue watching Netflix when we are in this beyond fucking fucked situation.

Get it yet? What I am ACTUALLY saying is “Wake the fuck up you fucking dicks.”

The opposite of love is not hate - it's indifference. Hate, don't get me wrong, is a terrible thing but indifference is so much worse. Indifference is death. The first 100-plus hateful comments below my tweet are all calling me a dick. Why? Because they are crying out for this terrible shit show called “Climate” not to be real. Because if it is real, it will be so unbearably upsetting, not just for themselves and those they love, but for their whole sense of the world as something they need to control.

zbytek zde

x.com
https://x.com/RogerHallamCS21/status/1799751384486584322

DEGROWTH NERUST

mam update k tomu degrowth. jak jsem tu psavala, ze nechapu, jak by to melo fungovat, jak by se to mohlo zavest, jake by to melo parametry atd. tak zrejme to nevi nikdo. nove vysel clanek v nature, zkusim z toho vytipat, co vsechny autori rikaji, ze by se muselo nejak vyresit. jsou to ty namitky, o kterych jsme si tu psali. prijde mi to jako nastolit svetovy mir.

Nature beru jako top journal, kde netisknou jen tak neco

zopakovala bych otazku jak si nekdo muze realne myslet, ze by se to fakt nejak nasadilo. (TUHO?) to neni hate, vadi mi kdyz nechapu veci

Degrowth can work — here’s how science can help
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04412-x

problemy (need to address)

Welfare is often funded by tax revenues.
Private pension providers rely on stock-market growth for financial returns.
Firms cite projected growth to attract investors.

For example, the ‘fiduciary duty’ of company directors needs to be changed. Instead of prioritizing the short-term financial interests of shareholders, companies should prioritize social and environmental benefits and take social and ecological costs into account.

Sectors such as social care and pensions need secure funding mechanisms for public providers, and better regulation and dismantling of perverse financial incentives for private providers

For example, if markets are spooked by low growth in one country, some companies might move their capital overseas, which could adversely affect the original country’s currency and increase borrowing costs. Conditions such as these posed severe financial problems for Argentina in 2001 and Greece in 2010.

co se tyce navrhovanych reseni

- zdanit foslni odvetvi
- zdant bohate
- natisknout penize, ale zaroven
- nedopustit inflaci
- a nedostat se do problemu se statnimi dluhy
- zkratit pracovni dobu, ale
- zaridit, aby low income lidi nemeli problemy
- zmenit sektor sluzeb (nepochopila jsem = zni dost utopicky, napr. ze sektor bydleni by nesel na ruku developerum atd, ale zajistil dostupne bydleni pro vsechny aby nemuseli odjizdet ven z mesta)

problem

politika = zadny politik si to nedovoli, nema to podporu

reseni

- delat pruzkumy, jestli uz jsou na to lidi zrali
- priklady z transition cities a z Kuby po padu SSSR
- studovat politicka hnuti
- Fourth, a better grasp is needed of the political and economic interests that might oppose or support degrowth. For example, how do groups such as the think tanks, corporations, lobbyists and political parties that work to support elite interests organize, nationally and internationally, to scupper progressive economic and social policy? The role of the media in shaping pro-growth attitudes remains underexplored. Given the links between economic growth and geopolitical power, individual nations might be disinclined to act alone, for fear of facing competitive disadvantage, capital flight or international isolation. This ‘first mover’ problem raises the question of whether, and under what conditions, high-income countries might cooperate towards a degrowth transition.

.. za me, to spis drzim palce te jaderne fuzi. Nevim no.

TUHO: asi je to off topic tady, ale co je vlastně ta obava? V čem může být Twitter horší, než byl? Co by byla ta katastrofa?

Kdyby to koupil trump a najal bandu Prchalů, aby designovali dezinfo, tak chápu paniku. Musk ale prostě chce centristickou Ameriku, považuje ten jejich národní rozkol Blue vs red za fakt velkej problém. Držím mu palce, že něco zkouší. Šéfové jiných socek nedělají nic, protože hate posiluje profit. To ale nikomu nevadí protože to není vizionářský a autistický

Zrovna jsem měla ve Feedu

TUHO: krivka vypada takto TADEAS



v zasade jde o to, ze jakmile dosahnes na private jety, jachty a podobny sragory, tak ti ty emise z excesivni osobni potreby rapidne narostou. ale zase se to tyka tak malyho mnozstvi lidi, ze agregovane to v celkovym kontextu je nejaky desetiny procenta globalnich rocnich emisi... cili na invidiuum hrozne moc, v celku zas tak moc ne. ... opet ale otazka, kolik tech private jet letu je relevantnich pro organizaci ty civilizacni struktury, zda jsou nutne nebo ne, to nejsem schopny posoudit.

me prijde, ze je relevantni na to poukazovat napr. z duvodu ze to ilustruje extremni nerovnost lidskyho spolecenstvi v soucasnosti, ze to poukazuje na excesy osobni spotreby, ale pokud jde o klima, tak v tom celkovym kontextu to proste zas takovej problem neni. nasere to, ale je to tak a kdyz nekdo tuhle linku pouziva, tak si proste jede 'miliardarskej hate' a je to ukrok stranou, jak rika ymladris.

Concerns surrounding the environment and the climate crisis are no longer just the focus of liberals and the left.

Eco-fascism is a growing racist ideology on the extreme right, marrying the ideas of environmentalism with white supremacy and ethnonationalism.

With the climate crisis worsening by the day, eco-fascist thought has deepened alongside it. Many modern eco-fascists blame overpopulation, immigration, and globalization for our current predicament. And they say the only way to stop a total climate catastrophe is to close borders and return to ethno states.

White Supremacy Meets Eco-Warriors | Decade of Hate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGXo--s15Nk

TADEAS: nesmyslu v duchu, ze to neni to domysleny. Je to levicackej idealismus, kterymu unika spousta souvislosti, proc spolecnost v pravicovem duchu funguje efektivneji na mnoha urovnich (socialne, kapitalove, znalostne, mirou doziti atd.).

Vlastne je to takova stiznost, ze neco neco nefunguje perfektne, cimz autor vlastne dokazal (i kdyz nic nedokazal), ze jeho vize na papire perfektne fungovat bude. Logickou paralelou bych to pripodobnil k argumentaci, kdyz mas spatny pneu na aute, tak je lepsi to shodit ze skaly a poridit novy, misto vymeny gum, protoze je jasny, ze je to cely spatne.

Je to docela dlouhy na revizi, za kterou tu stejne dostanu minusy, pac ekologicky temata sleduje primarne levice, ale abych nepouzival jen dojmy jako autor:

---

a) Titulek: "Zamlčovaný fakt o klimatu: nelze je zachránit beze změny společenského systému"
o zadny fakt se nejedna, je to autoruv nazor, nema ho nicim podlozeny a jeho text nepoklada ani zaklady pro takove tvrzeni

b) podtitulek: dtto, autorovo prani

c) "Mezi tyto omyly patří představa, že klimatická krize nemá žádného jasně definovatelného viníka"

- Nema jednoho jasne definovatelneho.
- Klima se meni bez priciny lidi, ale i diky lidem. Nekteri vedi vic, nekteri vedi mene. To plati i pro lidi pracujici v korporatech a nektere jejich rozhodnuti v minulosti. Nektere historicke studie o klimatu se trefily, nektere ne. Soudit ex post a vybirat si je zavadejici.
- Klimatologie se utvari a zpresnuje, a to dodnes.
- Fosilni trh ma stejne jako kazdy trh 3 ucastniky - poptavku, nabidku a regulatora. Vlada zajistuje levne energie (napr. USA, trh se nabazi a konzument zustava spokojeny, nebo CR aktualne s plynem). On totiz riot, zpusobenej bojem o holej zivot jeste efektivite udrzitelnosti nikdy neprospel.

--

d) "že jsme tak nějak všichni „na jedné lodi“, a na řešeních potřebujeme spolupracovat i s těmi, kdo k oteplování historicky nejvíc přispěli: s fosilním průmyslem a na něj napojeným kapitálem."

Zavrhuje, nejoptimalnejsi reseni, zapojit vsechny a idealne spolecnosti, ktere se jinak budou branit o to vic, a ktere jsou dost velke, aby tu obrovskou transformaci uridili. Kde jinde bychom jinak vzali tolik prostredku? Zestatnenim? (a jaka by pak byla motivace pro podnikani?) A kdo by tu transformaci provedl?

Pokud by se zabyval trochu managementem at uz lidi, nebo trhu, pak je nejjednodussi pro dosahnuti cilu lidi (popripade firmy) motivovat. Ne vytvaret rozkol a demotivaci. Nebo je dulezitejsi je potrestat za chyby minule mimo soucasne zakony, nez se soustredit na co nejrychlejsi vyreseni problemu vsech lidi?

e) "Souvisejícím omylem je představa, že klimatickou krizi půjde vyřešit v dnešním systému ekonomiky závislé na nekonečném růstu, převážně technologickými změnami, a že k tomu bude stačit nahradit dnešní výrobu energie z fosilních paliv obnovitelnými zdroji, aniž by se někdo ve své spotřebě musel uskromnit."

Vysvetloval jsem tu nekolikrat. Rust s udrzitelnosti vubec nesouvisi. HDP vzorec nic o emisich nerika, tudiz nejsou zavisle. To, ze si rust spousta lidi mylne interpretuje a zamenuje za symbol kourici tovarny je nepochopeni ekonomiky fungujici jako celku. Rust je relativisticka velicina. I pokud ji vztahneme ke konstantam, jako jsou materialy, tak napr. pokud jde o recyklaci a nove technologie, muze jit krivka sustainability ruku v ruce s rustem v danem sektoru.

f) "Klimatická krize má viníka. Je jím fosilní kapitál - Začaly se na projevy přehřívání planety samy připravovat a zabezpečovat svoji infrastrukturu. Nás ostatní ale nejenže nevarovaly — naopak. Investovaly miliardy dolarů do šíření dezinformací a lobbingu proti řešením."

- Neslo spis o konkretni viniky v minulosti, nez soucasne zamestnance techto spolecnosti, pripadne spolecnost jako takovou? Co je to vlastne korporace?
- Proc lide verili vice studiim, kde se pise, ze cmoudici auta neskodi, nez studiim, kde se psalo ze skodi (ze by nikdo v garazi na otravu plynem neumrel, nebo ze by po tezbe ropy zustavaly rozmanity ekosystemy?)
- Odkud se vzaly ty penize na investice ropnych spolecnosti?
- A ty vedci, co psali cinkle studie, ti za nic nemuzou? Jejich moralni vina je nizsi, nez u ropnych spolecnosti? (jak je to v zakone s objednanim vs. vykonanim vrazdy?)
- Studie o klimatu, ktere byly moralne v poradku cetli jen predstavitele ropnych spolecnosti, nebo byly pristupne vsem, vcetne statnich predstavitelu? Muze si sam kazdy za svuj nazor, nebo jsme jen obeti druhych, co maji penize?

g) "Začaly se na projevy přehřívání planety samy připravovat a zabezpečovat svoji infrastrukturu. Nás ostatní ale nejenže nevarovaly — naopak. Investovaly miliardy dolarů do šíření dezinformací a lobbingu proti řešením."

Takze meli rict, jasne, nas byznys skodi klimatu, pojdme to od zitra (pripadne pozdeji) zavrit? Premyslel autor nad scenari, co by se zitra delo bez ropy, nebo opet jen upozornuje, ze svet neni perfektni a jemu se to nelibi? Nesnazi dokazat svuj nazor, ktery radeji odsunul na zaver clanku, aby se nemusel drzet kontextu a neupozornil na to, ze on sam perfektni reseni na vsechno a hned take nema?

h) "Zároveň ale i nadále dělají všechno pro zdržování klimatické politiky — a samozřejmě také pro její přizpůsobování svým zájmům. Nemají problém investovat i do řešení, jako jsou obnovitelné zdroje, vodík nebo biopaliva, ovšem v té míře, v jaké na nich mohou vydělat, nebo si zlepšit obraz. Užitečný je v tomto smyslu pohled do plánů Shellu: dál vydělávat v nezmenšené míře na fosilních palivech a současně těžit dotace na čisté technologie a využívat je pro propagační účely."

Dalsi moralni hate... Ocekavame od firmy altruisticky pristup? Je prodelavajici firma dlouhodobe schopna sve existence? Melo by zajem velke mnozstvi motivovanych lidi pracovat ve firme, ktera neni schopna jim zajistit prijmy? Meli by investori zajem do nerentabilni spolecnosti investovat? Dela to z firmy neco "zleho", nebo to tak proste musi byt, aby to fungovalo? Jakou nabizi autor alternativu ke konceptu firmy a zajisteni zivota vetsiny lidi na zemi lidi od zitrka?

i) "Tento kapitál má ve fosilních palivech uloženy ne miliardy, ale biliony dolarů, často v investicích s životností daleko přesahující rok 2030, kdy bychom podle IPCC potřebovali snížit emise téměř o polovinu, chceme-li zadržet oteplení pod limitem 1,5 stupně. Skutečně rychlá dekarbonizace by znamenala vzít většinu těchto peněz, a prostě je vymazat — krok, který má v dějinách paralelu snad jen v osvobození otroků během americké občanské války, a který by bez intervence vlád podle expertů vedl k finanční krizi."

Dalsi brekot. Autor si stezuje, ze nechceme vzit cizi penize soukrome firmy a zachranit s nima lidstvo... uz chybi jen... jak ta zachrana vypada, kdyz nas technologie nezachrani, jak autor zminoval na zacatku textu? A kdo to odridi? Stat? Nebo nejakej startup? Co to udela se zbytkem trhu a s usporami lidi, pokud se zacnou znarodnovat privatni investice? Neni to tak, ze je vsichni stahnou z obehu pod polstar a spousta lidi nebude mit co jist, protoze smena vymizi a o jejich "praci" nebude zajem? Nevyvola to nejaky nepokoje / rioty / kradeze / vrazdy?

Pokud to myslel tak, ze kdyz zkrachuji ropne spolecnosti, tak fondy jako Blackrock prijdou o penize, tak opet nerozumi trhum. Jdenak nemaji penize jen v rope, maji diverzifikovana portfolia, jednak transformace bude trvat a oni (fondy = penize beznych lidi, napr. na penze) ten kapital stihnou bez vetsich ztrat realokovat. To by ale opet muselo dojit na nejhorsi, kdybychom chteli soucasne firmy uplne zavrit. Oni uz se ale davno pojistili, napr. BP uz koupila 40% podil v nejvetsim planovanem hydrogen hubu na svete.

Cimz vlastne zajistila budoucnost nas vsech, protoze ten kapital nebude nechat chtit padnout.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-15/bp-s-36-billion-hydrogen-hub-one-of-several-around-the-world

atd. klidne to muzu rozebrat dal, ale predpokladam, ze nebude zajem.

x-ranted

We’re Not Going to Make it to 2050 | by umair haque | Jul, 2022 | Eudaimonia and Co
https://eand.co/were-not-going-to-make-it-to-2050-5398cf97b805

Extinction — the Event we’re now entering — is going to be the single greatest occurrence in human history. We have never experienced anything remotely like it in the 300,000 years we’ve existed, because the last time it happened was 65 million years ago. Extinction will cleave time, shape politics, and define culture forevermore, after us. Our progeny will regard us the way we regard Stone Age people, or maybe medieval sorts — why didn’t they do anything, they’ll wonder? Why did they sit there glued to dumb Marvel Movies and debating pronouns and letting demagogues scapegoat and hate…while their planet died?

What we are doing is inadequate. You don’t have to think too hard about it. Our civilization’s attempts to combat Extinction so far have resulted in…this. This dystopia we currently live in, where Europe’s on fire, inflation’s spiking, Covid never goes away, and all the rest of it. Our efforts are self-evidently inadequate. Things are this bad right now. Go ahead, and think about 2025. And shudder. Most of us can’t even imagine the world in 2030, or 2040. Will there even be one? What will be left of this thing we once called civilization?

Vague goals to hit “net zero” by 2050 are like standing in the basement of a burning house, and agreeing to call the fire department in the morning.

R Hallam

#Easter Monday.
"God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son"
Don't get hung up on the God bit, we have to decide do we love humanity as much as God does or do we hate ourselves and each other so much we want to destroy creation?

This is the core question of our time. If we choose the former our love can only mean #civilresistance - a love that will sacrifice anything and everything - as God sacrificed for us.

After COP we’re all Eichmanns now
Roger Hallam

Complexity and Moral Collapse
I recently did a talk for my patreon supporters on this subject and I thought it be good to do a post about it.
There was a time, until quite recently, when there was a clear division between good and evil. If you wanted to murder someone you had limited choices. You generally needed a sharp object and you had to plunge it into another person several times. If you wanted to kill more people it would take a long time and even the most evil person could not kill people outside of his locality and certainly not those who were not yet born.
Complexity has changed all that. Complexity refers to the increasing connections between actions and consequences across time and space. Complexity has been increasing exponentially for decades. When I was a kid the only veg we ever had was carrots and peas. Milk came from the local farm. Now just about everything comes from all over the world, and there’s so much more of it.
The moral point is that today due to the ecological crisis you are murdering billions of people just by going to the supermarket. You only push the knife into them a tiny bit but millions of people are doing the same thing. And the result is mass death. We are in the process of going over 2C, and so as we go about our ordinary lives we lock in mass killing. 2C locks in 3C, and so on due to irreversible feedbacks, as Johan Rockstrom said at COP last month.
This is how complexity creates moral collapse. The system makes you a murderer– you are all at it all of the time. This is what Hannah Arendt was referring to when she spoke about the banality of evil at the famous Adolf Eichmann trial in 1961. Eichmann was a key administrator of the holocaust but looked upon himself as just doing his job competently. Arendt was attacked when she used this phrase because people had the old pre complexity idea that killing is a self conscious physical act. A person stabs another person to death. In fact the Nazi death machine was a proto complex system – where thousands of ordinary people in a banal way organised the small parts cogs in a vast bureaucratic system of mass murder.
That is what we have today.
But this time it’s on a global scale and it will annihilate the whole of humanity. The banality of evil has become universal. We are entering into mass death and human extinction because everyone is just “doing their job”.
As with Arendt in 1961, in 2021 lots of people will outraged by having this reality pointed out to them because they cannot accept they are murderers. They would not physically murder another person. But they absolutely are murderers in a banality of evil sense. And the moral point is that the outcome is the same. Billions of people will be subject to indescribable suffering because of your actions, combined with the actions of millions of other people, primarily in the Global North. The top 10% of the world’s population puts out 50% of global carbon emissions. That’s you.
The real challenge is doing something effective about it. The climate movements are catastrophically unsuccessful because they pretend we can deal with complexity with more complexity. Campaigners use abstract repressed middle class language to try to stop mass killing. It obviously does not work because people and governments will not change in the drastic way required of them on the basis on detailed information and polite engagement. They are 100% going to fail because nothing they do or say creates any connection with reality. This is why twenty six COPs have failed. The last one in November reduced the increase in carbon emissions from a 16% to 13% by 2030 – when what is needed according to the IPCC is a 50% decrease. The whole approach is psychologically illiterate and morally catastrophic. It is a sick totally fucked joke.
The only chance of creating the complete transformation we need in the next few years we have available is to recognise that most people most of the time cannot deal with complex abstract and technocratic arguments. We are not wired for complexity. It’s cognitively exhausting and we switch off.
There are three things which cut through the noise:
• A simple demand which is concrete and doable – you understand it in a sentence.
• Disruption: day after day economic disruption of people’s lives – as we recently saw with the 17 motorway blocks of Insulate Britain.
• The display of extreme emotion – shouting and screaming – like when you are in a relationship and your partner finally “gets through to you”.
None of this is cognitive. None of it is about information. The demand, disruption, and emotion create a super concentrated proxy for dispersed mass murder you are involved in. It makes the complex system a simple system. I want to go to work – I can’t get to work. Someone is calling me a murderer and screaming at me – I hate that. You agree to the demand because you are hard wired to respond to such visceral stimulus. The banality of your evil is made real to you because it is now literally in your face.
Of course this might not work, you might fail to create enough disruption with enough people as in the case of Insulate Britain– or you might go too far, as in “blowing up a pipeline”, and create an overreaction. Civil resistance aims at the nonviolent sweet spot between too little and too much. The critical and practical point is not that this might not be successful, but that conventional approach has zero chance of being successful – as shown by the last 30 years.
It’s civil resistance or mass death in 2021. It’s resistance or complicity. After COP26 there is no middle way.
The biggest barrier to success in 2021 is the climate movement itself because it is full of people whose privilege and power enable them to stay in the dream world of polite verbal persuasion and they work hard to stop effective approaches from happening. That is why Martin Luther King called white moderates worse than the Ku Kluk Klan. That is why the NGOs are far worse than Trump supporters. It is why we have to subject them to the same approach: demands, disruption and high emotion.
There is nothing pretty about civil resistance. But as people are realising – we are going to get hurt anyway so we have nothing to lose. If the world is to saved it will be because people now get this truth. It’s finally starting to happen and the carbon death system will be torn apart in the next few years. Better late than never.
Note if you doubt what I say here – think what stood out most in the text above – was it when I said “it’s a sick totally fucked joke”? Why was that?
Přihlásit se k Facebooku
https://www.facebook.com/roger.hallam.7/posts/4781491371971808

#hate #civilization

TADEAS: a driv nez ropny giganti uz nam zatapeli Maori

Zjištění, za nímž stojí tým Joea McConella z BAS (British Antarctic Survey) a norských výzkumníků, je navázáno na odběr sond vrtaných od roku 2008 v ledu na východě Antarktidy. Analyzované vzorky ledu totiž vykazovaly nápadně zvýšenou koncentraci černého uhlíku, popílku/sazí, jež svou datací odpovídaly přibližně 13. století. Tedy době, kdy byly lidské aktivity považovány na jižní polokouli za minimální. Černý uhlík si přitom spojujeme s nedokonalým spalováním fosilních paliv a biomasy a jeho koncentrace ve vzorcích z polárního regionu Rossovy země rozhodně nebyla malá. Dosahovala měřítek, které vypovídaly o rozsáhlém ovlivnění atmosféry velké části jižní polokoule, jež silně překonávaly dosavadní předindustriální emise za předchozí 2000 let.

Lidé ovlivňovali planetární atmosféru zásadním způsobem dávno před průmyslovou revolucí - Ekolist.cz
https://ekolist.cz/cz/zpravodajstvi/zpravy/lide-ovlivnovali-planetarni-atmosferu-zasadnim-zpusobem-davno-pred-prumyslovou-revoluci

TUHO: Tak nemecka spolecnost Duesenfeld byla prvni ktera to mela opravdu dobre vyresene. Kromne plastovych casti a grafitu to maji vyresene. Tzn. vsechny kovy a kovove casti jdou plne recyklovat. Napr. : https://youtu.be/wxCFDWMPu38

Obdobnou technologii ma i Volkswagen : https://youtu.be/Qi8Y2lF7Luw

Ale jsou i firmy v Indii, Cine ktery s tim zacinaji. Zakladem vseho je ze se baterie kompletne vybijou (opravdu do mrte kdy uz dochazi k poskozeni) a ta energie se vyuzije (Duesenfeld) v provozu spolecnosti. Pak se pod dusikem ty baterie namelou, roztridi se heterogenni materialove kusy (strepy hliniku, ...) a pak prichazi hydrometalurgicky proces. Tzn. jednotlive kovy se prevedou na ve vode/vodnych roztokach/kyselinach rozpustne slouceniny (tam uz by nemel byt pritomen hlinik, ktery z hydrometalurgickeho procesu nejde elektrochemicky vyziskat zpet) a zde je to klicove know-how. Pak se chemicky a elektrochemicky dostavaji jednotlive kovy do separovene formy. Vystup jsou typicky uhlicitany, hydrogenuhlicitany danych kovu ve vysoke cistote. Vyteznost procesu je klidne 98%, tzn. materialove velmi setrne.

Jestli nekde budes hate proti recyklaci a budou se uvadet technologie kdy se baterie tavi ve vysoke peci, vyziska se jen male mnozstvi kovu atp., tak to je technologie minuleho stoleti a nikdo to takhle delat nebude.

LINKOS: Ano, to mas asi pravdu. Ale to by platilo i pro jiny druh sportu. Tedy externality jako prelet souteznich teamu, vybaveni, transfery, hotely, externality v miste konani. Srovnatelne velke mistrovstvi treba v nejakem fyzickem sportu bude mit srovnatelne externality, ale hate se udela jen proti motosportu. A proto pouzivam ten primer mezi spalenym benzinem formuli a letem dopravniho letadla.

SHEFIK: haters gonna hate