| fatslob-:O said: You just showed us that it is a matter of opinion ... To you, an increase over natural levels is not acceptable but that doesn't mean everyone else will agree with that stance ... |
Everything gets toxic, even Oxygen, it all comes down to it's particular concentration levels, so no. It's not just "opinion".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity
| fatslob-:O said: Still doesn't change the overall world trend that the quality of life has been increasing ... |
That is more to do with healthcare than improved environments though.
| fatslob-:O said: As far as sea level rise is concerned, according to a 2014 IPCC report on page 1191, the high-end estimate mean sea level rise is 0.83 meters by 2100. It's more realistic to expect a mean sea level rise of ~0.5 meters by 2100 so the impact of sea level rise over 80 years will largely remain imperceptible even to island nations ... |
I swear you ignored the evidence I provided earlier.
The sea levels rise by about 2.3mm per year and sometimes it will increase by up-to 11.6mm a year.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
40% of the worlds population lives in coastal areas.
NASA has seen an accelerated increase in sea-levels rise. (Basic thermodynamics come into play, the greater the warming, the more a liquid expands.)
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2680/new-study-finds-sea-level-rise-accelerating/
3.2mm increase over a 30 year period is 3.77 inches.
That is actually significant.
12 island nations are under threat as we speak:
http://www.climatedata.info/impacts/sea-levels/pacific-islands/
We have lost 5 solomon islands already.
http://theconversation.com/sea-level-rise-has-claimed-five-whole-islands-in-the-pacific-first-scientific-evidence-58511
By 2090 it is expected that sea levels will have increased by 45-82cm over 1986 levels.
https://coastadapt.com.au/climate-change-and-sea-level-rise-australian-region
Here is some good mapping data on areas that will be significantly impacted within the next 50 years....
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/ng-interactive/2017/nov/03/three-degree-world-cities-drowned-global-warming
If 10's of millions of people being displaced is something you are willing to downplay... Wow.
| fatslob-:O said: With industrialization, we can expect to use water treatment facilities so what's your point about polluted waterways ? Smog is a health concern but people now have better healthcare access due to industrialization so it more than balances out the odds ... |
We can only expect water treatment to happen in developed nations that can afford such expensive approaches.
But the issue is with us today with or without water treatment.
India has 80% of it's surface water currently polluted.
https://www.kent.co.in/blog/the-most-polluted-rivers-of-india/
Even in places like Australia, shit management of our river systems, increases in toxins and lack of water flows are resulting in river systems under strain.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/18/the-darling-will-die-scientists-say-mass-fish-kill-due-to-over-extraction-and-drought
Even something like the Mississippi River in the USA is pretty grotty.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ae3gj8/the-mississippi-river-was-a-toxic-mess-long-before-the-oil-spill
Less than 5% of water in Beijing is drinkable, which supports 15~ million people.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/jun/02/china-water-dangerous-pollution-greenpeace
Clearly those water treatment facilities you promote are doing fuck all.
fatslob-:O said:
Show evidence that millions of people around the world are dying directly due to human pollution ... Even with diseases like cancer and in particular skin cancer, just over 100000 people die each year from it but you'd be hard pressed to attribute a significant amount of the causes of ailments being down to anthropogenic climate change ... I lack empathy but somehow you're constantly implicating that less industrialization is somehow supposed to be more humane when that goes against common knowledge ? In that case how dare I advocate for more pollution to increase human life span, increase electricity coverage/uptime, improve healthcare, and ending poverty/world hunger indeed, oops ... |
I did provide evidence about the extent of deaths from pollution prior. But if you are going to demand evidence for my claims, I am going to expect it from you going forth.
https://www.who.int/airpollution/en/
I never once stated we need less industrialization.
And are you seriously asking for more pollution as a solution to our problems? Are you nuts?
| fatslob-:O said: Yes it is since mother nature is less compassionate than you think it is so it's only fair to bend it to do our bidding ... Modern civilizations like ours only exists to exploit nature for human purposes ... |
It's not about the "compassion" of mother nature. (Such a thing doesn't exist anyway.)
| fatslob-:O said: If only it were a good thing since nature has not ever been a very good caretaker for humans so it's only fair that we take matters into our own hands when nature doesn't have our best interests since it couldn't care less whether we were alive or not ... Consumers will vote with their wallets alright, they'll probably vote to keep themselves alive if it means kowtowing to electric generation companies to keep the lights on because people can't afford to get on their bad side even if it means ideological conflicts ... |
Erm... Green energy can be cheaper and more reliable anyway.
I.E. Geothermal, Nuclear, Hydro, Solar Thermal can provide really good base-load power generation rather than more intermittent sources like wind, wave and photovoltaic solar.
So there ain't no issue with keeping the lights on.
Here we have ample supplies of wind generation as we have the trade winds from the west, we capture that energy to create hydrogen, which we then store for when the wind stops blowing to generate energy.
We also have the worlds largest battery to level the grid in times of energy production drops. (As it takes time to spin up a coal/diesel/gas plant.)
- As as a Hazmat technician I am required to be educated on the various "hazards" that get shipped around as I am the first responder to clean it up.
Besides, being "green" doesn't mean getting rid of coal, diesel or gas power generation anyway, I think that is ultimately the part you don't understand, being green does not and has not ever meant getting rid of all industrialization.
| fatslob-:O said: @Bold How do you effectively achieve this without being energy self-sufficient or maybe going nuclear ? Both of which are certainly going to run over budget ... |
The budget will balance out in the long term. - The Health System here is universal, so the Taxpayer picks up the tab, healthier environments, less healthcare costs.
Some plants here have planted man-made forests as carbon-capture devices, installed filters on their smoke stacks to capture the carbon and then used that carbon for other commercial/industrial means or stored it underground.
http://www.ccsassociation.org/what-is-ccs/
Some plastics and cements get CO2 added into it's mixture to improve it for example.
| fatslob-:O said: I think it's the only reasonable proposition ... |
Nah.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
