BLU
Active topics
  1. aren't they already?
  2. Originally posted by NeonTiger64:[..]

    I think I've heard that too. That's pretty crazy, does it count the transportation of animals and meat to/from farms and supermarkets? And if not what are they doing to those animals!?

    I've been cutting down my meat intake recently with hopes to be a full fledged vegan within the next 2-5 years, mostly under inspiration from Morrissey I've got enough dietary restrictions that it probably wont be too hard, the days of eating for pleasure rather than survival are behind me and have been for a while now.
    It counts for the methane which cows produce when they fart (methane roughly being 25-100 times more potent than other greenhouse gasses), the waste that comes with it, transportation of these animals etc.

    But most of all the feeding of animals: every 2 minutes or so 1 football field of rainforest is wiped away from the Brazilian rain forests to grow food for animals, this is really destructive. Also, transportation of the food is counted etc.


    http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/
  3. Originally posted by Remy:[..]
    Yes lots of celebrities are doing a great job when it comes to being the voice of these matters. Good stuff Awareness can only lead to good things in the end.
    That James Cameron documentary has Harrison Ford, Matt Damon, Don Cheadle, Ian Somerhalder (wow! a lot of Americans... ) and even Arnold Schwarzenegger taking action. Here's the official website and where you can watch...

    http://yearsoflivingdangerously.com/
  4. Yeah Schwarzenegger is doing good stuff. One of the few Republicans actually acknowledging climate change to begin with.

    He gave a good speech a few weeks ago about this:


    "This is bigger than any movie"
  5. Speaking as a Christian, it saddens me that many fellow Christians (mainly conservative ones) either downplay climate change or deny it outright. Their thinking seems to be that if our good and all-powerful God designed everything in creation just right, there's no way we as humans could screw it up to the point of no return...

    Thankfully there are also many prominent believers out there - like my Protestant denomination's leaders, and the Pope! - who are calling attention to this issue as it deserves. It's sort of like evolution, as I see it - there is such a strong consensus in the scientific community that the universe is 14 billion years old and that all life, including humans, evolved over time that to deny it is irresponsible, especially when the denial is based on a mistaken, literalistic interpretation(s) of Scripture. The same goes for climate change: mistaken ways of reading Scripture have led to a denial of the evidence for global warming.

    I would argue instead that the Bible makes it very clear that God chose to bestow his "Image" on human beings and put them in charge of the world as his stewards. And that through the death and resurrection of Christ, God's work of reclaiming and renewing this broken world has already begun, and Christians are called to be a part of living into that new reality. Yet look what we've done with that responsibility...



  6. not as much as in NL, but pretty screwed in Recife as well.
    it's so frustrating that it's been discussed for more than 30 years and still today some governments are not commited..
  7. Originally posted by Remy:[..]
    I didn't know that Alex, interesting! Could you tell more about what you're studying? Are you or will you work in this area as well?


    My undergraduate degree was in Environmental Chemistry and one of the main topics of study during my Master's program was analytical techniques in environmental systems (mainly sea water). Currently I'm working in pharmaceuticals, not in the same area but I consider myself to be an analytical chemist foremost and I was hired for a position that required those skills.

    Anyways, I studied various topics relating to climate change, including the small-scale reactions behind the global consequences of climate change (ozone depletion, the greenhouse effect, localized ozone production, etc.). One the major themes is that nearly all of these occurrences are connected to each other. People tend to look at each consequence as an individual event with a singular cause, but it turns out that the situation is far more complex. For example, increasing carbon dioxide has been deemed the primary cause of global climate change and many people feel the burden falls on the international community to solve the problem. However, they do not realize that the same sources that produce carbon dioxide and impact the global climate often also produce byproducts that impact the local climate, such as sulfur dioxides, nitrogen oxides, and other compounds that we generally recognize as smog. I took a couple classes that talked about biofuels and other forms of alternative energy, such as wind and solar energy. Each of these alternatives have their own pros and cons and often times the decision to implement an alternative energy source hinges on factors unrelated to the science itself. Politics, social perception, and money play a massive role.

    Regarding my current job choice, I think I could have found a job working in this area as San Diego is well known for many start-up companies in this field, but from a practical standpoint San Diego is known for seeing the birth and death of start-ups on a near daily basis. Start-up R&D is incredibly risky to get into, but some people like the thrill of that. Personally, I don't see myself cut out for research. What many people don't realize is that there is a massive gap between research and practical implementation. Just because a piece of technology exists in the lab doesn't mean it will exist outside of that environment. Again, politics, social perception, and money will decide how far your tech goes into the market.

    I think the science behind climate change is 100% solid and with the current technology there is a lot of progress that can be made. The only problem is that society today does not recognize the urgency of the situation because they do not realize that the consequences being talked about have been in the works for decades. There is no solution that will fix climate change within the next year, or even the next 10-20 years. Looking at ozone layer depletion, which was primarily caused by CFCs found in early aerosol products, CFCs were outright banned when the link was discovered but it would still be decades before the ozone layer showed signs of recovery simply because these compounds were designed to last for years in the atmosphere.

    The scary thing about climate change is that if you look at the overall carbon cycle, human activity accounts for just a small fraction of net carbon dioxide release (think less than 5%). However, this 5% is enough to throw the entire system out of balance. Even if we decided to cut off all man-made sources of carbon dioxide today, we have to recognize that all of the oil we've consumed in the past few decades took several millions of years to form. When scientists talk about climate change, it sounds super apocalyptic and makes them look like fear mongers but the truth is that we have many reasons to be afraid.
  8. Originally posted by ahn1991:[..]


    My undergraduate degree was in Environmental Chemistry and one of the main topics of study during my Master's program was analytical techniques in environmental systems (mainly sea water). Currently I'm working in pharmaceuticals, not in the same area but I consider myself to be an analytical chemist foremost and I was hired for a position that required those skills.

    Anyways, I studied various topics relating to climate change, including the small-scale reactions behind the global consequences of climate change (ozone depletion, the greenhouse effect, localized ozone production, etc.). One the major themes is that nearly all of these occurrences are connected to each other. People tend to look at each consequence as an individual event with a singular cause, but it turns out that the situation is far more complex. For example, increasing carbon dioxide has been deemed the primary cause of global climate change and many people feel the burden falls on the international community to solve the problem. However, they do not realize that the same sources that produce carbon dioxide and impact the global climate often also produce byproducts that impact the local climate, such as sulfur dioxides, nitrogen oxides, and other compounds that we generally recognize as smog. I took a couple classes that talked about biofuels and other forms of alternative energy, such as wind and solar energy. Each of these alternatives have their own pros and cons and often times the decision to implement an alternative energy source hinges on factors unrelated to the science itself. Politics, social perception, and money play a massive role.

    Regarding my current job choice, I think I could have found a job working in this area as San Diego is well known for many start-up companies in this field, but from a practical standpoint San Diego is known for seeing the birth and death of start-ups on a near daily basis. Start-up R&D is incredibly risky to get into, but some people like the thrill of that. Personally, I don't see myself cut out for research. What many people don't realize is that there is a massive gap between research and practical implementation. Just because a piece of technology exists in the lab doesn't mean it will exist outside of that environment. Again, politics, social perception, and money will decide how far your tech goes into the market.

    I think the science behind climate change is 100% solid and with the current technology there is a lot of progress that can be made. The only problem is that society today does not recognize the urgency of the situation because they do not realize that the consequences being talked about have been in the works for decades. There is no solution that will fix climate change within the next year, or even the next 10-20 years. Looking at ozone layer depletion, which was primarily caused by CFCs found in early aerosol products, CFCs were outright banned when the link was discovered but it would still be decades before the ozone layer showed signs of recovery simply because these compounds were designed to last for years in the atmosphere.

    The scary thing about climate change is that if you look at the overall carbon cycle, human activity accounts for just a small fraction of net carbon dioxide release (think less than 5%). However, this 5% is enough to throw the entire system out of balance. Even if we decided to cut off all man-made sources of carbon dioxide today, we have to recognize that all of the oil we've consumed in the past few decades took several millions of years to form. When scientists talk about climate change, it sounds super apocalyptic and makes them look like fear mongers but the truth is that we have many reasons to be afraid.
    Thanks! Interesting.

    There has been an interesting paper in 2009 about the solution, where one suggested that the only solution is to shutdown the entire industrial economy/industry, but even that is not possible since we still have 400 nuclear reactors which need energy to not meltdown.

    Anyway, even if we did, all these so-called "positive feedback mechanisms" seem to be the real show stopper there, what we did cannot be undone. The first six/seven months of this year have been warmer than the record-breaking 2014, and 2016 will be warmer than 2015 etc. Things will only get worse, as more and more changes are set in motion.

    I guess you in California are all a first-hand witness to many of these visible changes. Are people there not worried?
  9. Southern California is probably one of the largest geo-engineering experiments to have taken place and after several decades it is finally coming back to bite us. Most don't realize that most of SoCal is actually desert that has been artificially modified to what it is by drawing upon water from several nearby states. This drought is the worst I've seen since as long as I could remember. I remember growing up around green fields, so seeing many of those left to burn is a very dramatic sight, but not surprising.

    The interesting thing is that we've been in a drought for several years, but this particular part is hitting us so hard that I think many people are starting to open their eyes and connect the dots.
  10. Obama

    ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — President Barack Obama is painting a doomsday scenario for the Arctic and beyond if climate change isn’t dealt with fast: entire nations submerged underwater, cities abandoned and refugees fleeing in droves as global conflict breaks out.

    It’s a harrowing image of a future that Obama insists is inevitable, unless the world follows his lead by making sweeping cuts to greenhouse gases.
    –

    Obama opened his three-day trip Monday with a speech calling global warming an escalating crisis already disturbing Alaskans’ way of life.

    “We will condemn our children to a planet beyond their capacity to repair,” Obama said. Alluding ironically to the threat of rising seas, he castigated leaders who deny climate change as “increasingly alone — on their own shrinking island.”

    “..any leader willing to take a gamble on a future like that..any so-called leader who does not take this issue seriously, or treats it like a joke, is not fit to lead…”