BF2S Forums D&ST - Science

SuperJail Warden wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

I saved the planet by painstakingly sorting glass into proper bins in the 80s while nearby Tacoma's pollution kept Bruce Springsteen away.

Don't minimize that.

https://youtu.be/CSiz6kbIZkw

fukqyou asszhole
3 years ago
This is actually Jason Voorhees between Friday the 13th 2 and 3. He tried.....he really tried.

lol

I think we're all agreed, what we need to do is cut the number of people.

Then we can all wear shoes with no guilt.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment … -emissions

Australia has more than 100 fossil fuel developments in the pipeline that could result in nearly 1.7bn tonnes of greenhouse gases a year – equivalent to about 5% of global industrial emissions – if all were to go ahead, an analysis says.

Based on the estimated annual capacity of each proposal, it found together they could add about 146m tonnes to emissions within Australia (equivalent to a nearly 30% annual increase) during extraction and processing. The overwhelming bulk of the emissions – about 1.6bn tonnes – would be released offshore after the coal and gas was sold and burned for energy.

don’t worry, boys, if we just bully tourists enough and stop driving to the beach, we can fix this.

imagine enjoying a first-world quality of life in australia, a country which contains approx. 0.33% of the global population, whilst your government and state plans to add another 5% to total global emissions. imagine lecturing people on their careless lifestyles whilst your own economic growth and quality-of-life is predicated on a 30% annual increase in fossil fuel emissions.

what does that mean for your ‘personal carbon footprint’, dilbert? don’t you realise that every time you put the aircon on, you’re contributing as much to the atmosphere as 250,000 africans? how do you even live with yourself, being part of such a coal-hungry, export-dependent colony?

imagine talking about ‘cutting the number of people’, as if high-birthrate or high-population nations are the problem. they surely are not. the problem is the number of white people in ‘advanced’ countries who want every technological luxury and amenity possible afforded to them, and who enjoy all the benefits of living in a ‘rich industrialised’ (read: fossil fuel dependent) economy. the problem isn’t ‘too many people’, it’s dilbert and his folk, living in a petrochemical state, ordering springs from 10,000km away and thinking they’re untouchable because they only eat lentils.

it’s almost like exactly what i said about systemic issues, and national economies being fatally dependent upon the control of and profits from fossil fuels. australia’s whole continued growth and economic position is totally jacked into selling off her mineral, rare earth metal and fossil fuel wealth. it involves much bigger sacrifices and changes to lifestyle than avoiding tourist flights, derp.

"anyone who believes in infinite growth on a finite planet is either mad or an economist" - dAviD atTenBoRuohGg

Last edited by uziq (2021-11-02 16:08:33)

errr and you’re free to just leave them in the ground? you do realise that the extraction and processing of fossil fuels, before burning them, contributes an enormous sum to total global emissions? this is exactly what i was saying 2-3 posts ago about consumers giving up shell and BP petrol having a marginal effect: they're still going to suck up and process the stuff, they're still going to send it on to industry, to petrochemical plants, and so on, which contributes an enormous amount to greenhouse gases! dipshit.



aviation is 1.9% of global emissions, and yet you're mad at tourists. and yet you're totally blithe about the huge ecological costs of digging, processing/refining, and exporting fossil fuels. lol you are truly fucking retarded.

as one of the richest nations on earth, you’re in the best position to take the lead and pivot to green technologies. to say ‘no’ to fossil fuels. like biden, who on one hand urges OPEC to open the taps and on the other furrows his brow about climate change. it’s just not cricket, is it?

you’re very good at blaming the end consumer whilst failing to consider the industrial-state complexes, and their interests. the cynicism is really nonpareil. you sit in a nation with a very high standard of living, public services, infrastructure, etc, in significant part because of your huge exports. will you sacrifice any of it? or even vote for a party that will make the necessary hard commitments in spending and green development? ‘but i don’t take holidays in bali!’. ok boomer.

‘oh we are just providing a service and selling a product to satisfy an existing demand. the ecological genocide and human misery isn’t our problem’. are you talking about your government, and your own complicity, or a cocaine gang?

the truly amazing thing is that you constantly talk about western industrial-capitalist civilisation as very pinnacle of development and the moral exemplum of our world. but when it comes to actually making bold choices and questions of statesmanship, at really being the global leaders you self-evidently take us for, you seem oddly sanguine. 'we're just selling a product, sir'. it's not good enough.

Last edited by uziq (2021-11-02 17:55:51)

you do realise livestock went into creating your leather shoes too?

haven’t had a single steak in korea, for what it’s worth. the only beef here is australian or wagyu and it costs half a month’s rent. as we have said here many times before, vegetarian growing and monocultures are not exempt from carbon footprints either.

the simple fact of the matter is that you are, by dint of your place and living quality alone, in the top 3% of all co2 emitters on this planet. your lifestyle and middle-class luxury is absolutely unsustainable. rather than talk about the real, top-down, widespread systemic change that must be made to this picture, you choose to point spider-man fingers at other western consumers like yourself.  it’s really not very smart. so much of your own daily lifestyle and spending habits are clearly implicated in massively wasteful and costly greenhouse processes: the internationally sourced clothes, the imported toys, the house you live in and cars you drive every day. playing ‘gotcha!’ with other middle-class first-world consumers is not going to change the global trend and direction we are heading in.

meanwhile …
https://twitter.com/dmacsyd/status/1455 … 35747?s=21
LMAO.

but of course australia is a blameless paradise, just partaking in the global market, and it’s up to those big nasty boo boos from foreign land to stop buying all of your coal, those naughty boys!

korea has an amazing and diverse local cuisine that doesn’t always revolve around meat. most meals here will be served with 6-10 side dishes of various non-meaty things. protein can be acquired in lots of other interesting ways, e.g. tofu.

i had some great fish on the coast and i’ve had some very good korean BBQ. but these are large communal meals and normally for social occasions. i don’t cook meat at home during workdays.

not that any of this meets the basic point. huge ecological destruction is being wrought due to vegetarian cash crops too. avocados are one of the least sustainable foods on the planet. each one takes 100s of litres of water to grow and then they have to be shipped from mexico to australia or whatever. they’re so coveted now that even local populations can’t afford them.

vegans in general really think their shit doesn’t stink, whilst they’re busy chasing unsustainable fad foods from an exotic/global pantry. eating locally and sustainably is really the only way forward. somehow i doubt dilbert gets all of his food from the local farmer’s market.

I should add that some of the stores in my area consistently label for "local" and "sustainable" and "in season." But these kinds of places tend to be a little expensive, even on items found in supermarkets ($8 for a brand box that costs $4 at Safeway, rip). It seems unlikely that someone living on, say, restaurant wages could afford to shop there and not at a bargain grocery with stuff like meat and eggs from the cheapest (and sometimes most abusive) of sources.

Here the price of electricity averages $50/MWh and its largely renewable, the UK price is $200/MWh and its mostly from fossil fuels, who are the dummies in the room? Its not my state anyway.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 … ity-prices

https://www.energy-uk.org.uk/our-work/g … ation.html

don't tend to use AC in korea for 80% of the year.

and, yes, no shit, korea is far, far worse than the advanced western countries for its fuel use. korea was a peasant agrarian society until japanese occupation in the early 20th century, and was bombed back to the stoneage in the 1950s. i really don't know why i have to defend their energy infrastructure: i'm talking about rich, advanced western nations taking the lead and initiative. when a country like australia intends to ramp up fossil fuel production and export at a time when the world needs far less of the stuff, then it clearly seems like a bit of a moral fumble. (i have said the exact same for biden's USA and of course the UK, who are equally full of bad faith; the point being that rich western citizens are knee-deep in hypocrisy over this stuff, and yet you rage at developing nations and 'overpopulated' countries ... not smart and suggests more than a little denial and self-loathing for your own tribe.)

your pie chart is out-of-date, in any case: 3-4 years is an awful long time in a country that is developing and changing as fast as korea. korea does, importantly, have a Green New Deal of their own and intends to pivot away from their – necessary – reliance on coal and fossil fuels in the 20th century.

The Green New Deal focuses on renewable energy, green infrastructure and industrial sector. Its green car subsidy programme offers up to US$17 million in subsidies to people buying electric cars in 2021 and up to US$33.5 million for hydrogen fuel-cell electric vehicles.

In December 2020, South Korea submitted to the UNFCCC its NDC and 2050 Carbon Neutral Strategy. The latter includes Korea's long-term strategy for achieving carbon neutrality by 2050.

but, again, well done for pointing out that one of the fastest developing societies in the history of the planet went through a carbon-fuel-intensive period of development.

you know, there's something circuitous about the major fossil fuel-exporting nations blaming the developing economies for buying and burning their stuff. the world needs a moratorium on new fossil fuel developments, period, which includes rich export-heavy nations like australia deciding not to fatten the nation's exchequer for the next 10 years based off dirty exports. the whole system needs a major shock and whipcrack: on the supply-export side and demand-import side. we need a paradigm shift, otherwise every year nations like china are going to keep buying dirty coal to make-up for their winter energy deficits and the entire fatal cycle will continue. both parties need to cooperate and take responsibility on that.

as i said at the start of this discussion, it's you who are being reductive, naive and simplistic, when you say that 'if we just stop buying the consumer-level products of shell and BP, we will topple the oil companies'. clearly the production and export of fossil fuels is integral to many national economies and their position within the global order/hierarchy. i said exactly that. clearly australia's balance sheet and political class have an addiction to coal exports. this is exactly part of the big picture of analysis that i pointed to – and which you never want to deal with. we won't solve the climate crisis by driving EV cars, avoiding planes (again, 1.9% of the total emissions picture) and wearing only hemp clothes. LEADERS and STATES need to take decisive action, not consumers with their 'buying power', which you constantly appeal to as if it's a fucking fix to anything.

You're saying half a month's rent is the average australian's lunch? Either they didn't work hard enough at school or korea is overpopulated.

apart from the casual exaggeration, korea is 80% mountainous terrain. they don't have much dairy or livestock as a result, which requires plenty of land and, of course, a huge amount of resources to raise and keep cattle. the food options exist, but they're expensive; and imported meat, like many food imports here, bears a high tariff. koreans mostly eat locally using locally sourced ingredients. you still see the older generations here selling their produce in the streets, even in modern cities. they don't ordinarily go to huge grocery stores to buy food produce from all over the world. their diet and food culture is leagues ahead of industrialised nations, imo, even on a sociological level of sourcing and cooking the food together using local ingredients. westerners with their industrial foodstuffs and international supply chains probably could learn a thing or two.

i don't know why you're casually gloating about australians eating steak every day for lunch, either. isn't that precisely the sort of thing you bemoan? beef here is about $20–50 per serving, not exorbitant but certainly pricey enough to keep it as a treat. as for 'didn't work hard enough at school' ... LOL. i'm sure you're aware of all the stereotypes about the insane korean education system and work ethic. they work longer hours than just about any OECD nation – not that the spurious rhetoric of 'hard work' makes a difference to their wellbeing.

Last edited by uziq (2021-11-03 18:52:50)

yes, well done, you found some pictures of me using the AC unit during the peak of summer. did you read the part of my post where i said "people don't tend to use the AC for 80% of the year"? their summer is incredibly humid as well as hot: which means that for half of the summer months and early autumn, it's monsoon season. people don't use their AC units during weeks of heavy rains, dilbert.

still, july and august was very hot, i'll give you that.

and how am i a hypocrite? i am talking continually about the need for systemic change and for STATE-LED solutions. you are the one who wants to reduce the climate crisis to a series of personal decisions made by individuals and consumers. this entire line of thinking is FALSE and STUPID. no amount of 'consumer buying power' or 'ethical consumption' is going to change the direction this ship is drifting in. you seem to enjoy the small satisfactions of feeling smug and morally superior over your personal lifestyle ... when you live in a state that is expanding its fossil fuel exports and which relies upon said exports for a substantial amount of its revenues. see what i mean, when i talk about 'systemic critique' and you talk about 'selfish tourists'?

the purpose of conferences like cop26 is precisely to try and secure international collaboration, right? to try and force states to commit, to breaking this cycle of supply+demand and the pussyfooting around who is culpable ("blame them for demanding and burning the stuff!' "why should we stop our own developments when they are building 100 new facilities in the next 5 years?") the point is the SYSTEM is broken and the SYSTEM needs changing. you reside in your own self-satisfaction, perfectly contented with your own simple circumstances, and then, well, if the rest of the world is going to burn, oh well ... it's not my fault ... humanity is stupid ... que sera, sera ... amazing intellectual prowess there, dilbert.

migrating to a racist, insular monoculture

you just quoted a picture of mine with a 7/11 in it ... an american convenience store. but yes, insular monoculture etc etc.

with one of the worst carbon footprints in the world.

i can't help but feel you're being a little bit selective here with your data.

australia has a higher per capita emissions rate than korea. which is exactly as i have been saying: you are enjoying a high quality of life in a rich nation that is incredibly costly on a per-individual basis.

australia's per capita emissions: 15.83
south korea's per capita emissions: 11.58
united kingdom's per capita emissions: 5.99

Here the price of electricity averages $50/MWh and its largely renewable, the UK price is $200/MWh and its mostly from fossil fuels, who are the dummies in the room? Its not my state anyway.

total emissions per country, 2021.

australia: 380.93 Mn
united kingdom: 389.75 Mn

so you have the same total emissions as the UK but 40% of the population. still, your cost per MWh is cheaper, so great work i guess!

i guess this is why you talk so much about 'overpopulation' or 'my personal fuel bill', as it's a pretty useful diversion away from the fact that the australian way of life is extremely costly. and you're always careful to mention your own province, which is rather disingenuous, don't you think? i could move to rural oxfordshire and claim to be living an unimpeachable lifestyle, too. meanwhile the massive expansion of the australian state's fossil fuels develops apace ... but dilbert isn't worried! look, my neighbourhood has a wind turbine!

just think what the world would be like if everyone had the same per capita emissions rate as an aussie bloke with his steaks and long beach drives. you have the same per capita consumption as america. isn't per capita the more meaningful statistic when YOU are the one stressing INDIVIDUAL CARBON FOOTPRINTS as a meaningful metric in this crisis?

Last edited by uziq (2021-11-03 19:38:46)

This probably isn't the best infographic. I don't think man-made emissions on the north coast of Alaska are quite the same as in the most populous US cities.

There was probably a "few points to keep in mind when looking at the data" section that never gets clipped when people copy/paste these things.

But it's not very useful.

Living in a sparsely populated country, using overall figures to lord it over a dense nation, while your countrymen may individually consume more power in a lifetime? lol

how is land mass relevant here? we are talking about personal carbon footprints and the amount of emissions per capita.

it's completely irrelevant to talk about land area. for instance, canada seems very respectable according to land mass (0.06). and yet canada is the 9th largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the entire world, only fractionally behind south korea (with its co2/land of 6kg/m2). canada has the fourth highest emissions per individual in the world (australia is second, by the way).

so canada is 'clearly world-beating' for co2/land ... whilst being one of the very biggest polluters in the world. great metric chap!

are you seriously a trained engineer? i think you would have benefitted from a humanities education, and some training as to how to select data, analyse sources, and present an argument. the land mass is a totally fucking irrelevant metric in the climate change argument. according to that measure, both CHINA and the UNITED STATES are doing remarkably better than south korea. are you telling me south korea is dragging the world to global warming oblivion? lmao. are the real problem nations BAHRAIN and SINGAPORE? hahahah.

does this mean, if i'm domiciled in siberia or alaska, that i can take as many private jets as i want? deal!

it's amazing to me. you continually try to present australia as a green haven and brag that your home supply comes from fairy farts and unicorn sighs. meanwhile australia has the 2nd highest per capita emissions of carbon dioxide in the world and manages to output as much emissions into the air as western european nations, like the UK, with 2.5x the population. how can it be that australia has such amazing, cheap, clean fuel, but then outputs the same emissions as the UK? i guess you're being quite selective and not everywhere in australia is 'running on wind as of 9 a.m.'. very, very disingenuous of you.

there's no two ways around it, dilbert: i am talking about state-led initiatives and YOU are emphasizing the individual. in terms of individual usage, per capita, australia is grieviously high. as i said, your lifestyle, taken on a global scale, is extremely costly and privileged.

Nobody needs to actually die, asians just need to stop reproducing.

south korea has the lowest birthrate in the world. so your casual, pathetic racism doesn't really add up to much, either. and once again: low-population australia has the same total emissions as high-population nations like the united kingdom. think about that, genius.

too bad for you chap. you point fingers at everyone else and blame individual behaviour, but wont take any real account of your own quality-of-life, your own presumptions, and your own state. really, blaming the buyers when australia plans to up its fossil fuels-based exports by 30% in the next 5 years. blaming asians for 'breeding too much' when their per capita usage is much lower than your own.

as i've said before, here, it's the rich industrialized nations who need to take the lead and initiate meaningful change. you evidently are comfortable living in a state that is a major exporter of fossil fuels with a world-beating emissions/capita ratio. you constantly impute, with your racism and pathetic behaviour, that the 'west is best', and yet you demur and resort to jokes whenever anyone seriously suggests that perhaps 'world's no. 1' civilization should start behaving like world-leaders.

Last edited by uziq (2021-11-03 20:10:24)