Climate in the 21st Century

Will Humankind see the 22nd Century?

  • Not a fucking chance

    Votes: 45 29.4%
  • Maybe. if we get our act together

    Votes: 38 24.8%
  • Yes, we will survive

    Votes: 70 45.8%

  • Total voters
    153

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
The only thing these terrorist assholes do is piss people off, they don't help the cause of climate change at all, they harm it. I try to highlight solutions and the people doing something about it and not fill the thread with these self-centered assholes destroying our shared human heritage. We are doing a lot more to mitigate climate change than ever before and can do more, through the ballot box. This shit makes it harder to elect those who care, and it makes it easier to elect reactionaries like MAGA republicans who will just make it worse.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions and this is an example of that.

 

Sativied

Well-Known Member
The only thing these terrorist assholes do is piss people off, they don't help the cause of climate change at all, they harm it. I try to highlight solutions and the people doing something about it and not fill the thread with these self-centered assholes destroying our shared human heritage. We are doing a lot more to mitigate climate change than ever before and can do more, through the ballot box. This shit makes it harder to elect those who care, and it makes it easier to elect reactionaries like MAGA republicans who will just make it worse.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions and this is an example of that.

Self-centered assholes must refer to tourists flying all over the world to take a selfie at a stupid fountain and not the ones putting themselves on the line to get people to wake tf up. Destroying shared human heritage? All they got to do is replace the water, nothing was destroyed. How about the damage to the shared planet, or their country. The solutions are already widely known, the problem is people refusing to recognize the necessity. Appeasing those who wouldn’t vote for the right side of history is no longer a factor.

Any judgement towards these kids strongly indicates a lack of understanding of how critical the situation is. Italy just had the worst flood in a over 100 years, which is just one example of how not addressing climate change drastically, radically, NOW, is destroying Italy, quite literally. The drought, the lack of snow in the Alps, the dying lakes including one of my favorite vacation spots, Lago di Garda, all the over 500 major dams operating far below normal level. The food industry in Italy is at a critical stage, at risk of collapsing, already a water war between the two agricultural areas where they produce half of all rice sold in the EU.

No need to wait for more innovation, there’s plenty they can do, and it’s not a lack of money either.

That’s what these kids are up against. Unwillingness, incompetence, dumb old people who’ll be dead in few decades. As one of the oldest water sources in Rome, it made a perfect target. They demand action now and have every right to do so. And it helps. Hate them, vilify them, while the rest worries about having a popular take that is the price they’re willing to pay.

"Most of the research shows that when people do disruption, the general public's opinion… is that they don't like the organisations or the tactics, but it does not change opinions about the policy or climate change."

”Overall, these results paint a picture of the so-called activist’s dilemma: activists must choose between moderate actions that are largely ignored and more extreme actions that succeed in gaining attention, but may be counterproductive to their aims as they tend to make people think less of the protesters.“
 

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
The only thing these terrorist assholes do is piss people off, they don't help the cause of climate change at all, they harm it. I try to highlight solutions and the people doing something about it and not fill the thread with these self-centered assholes destroying our shared human heritage. We are doing a lot more to mitigate climate change than ever before and can do more, through the ballot box. This shit makes it harder to elect those who care, and it makes it easier to elect reactionaries like MAGA republicans who will just make it worse.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions and this is an example of that.

fuck that fountain....FIX THE FUCKING PLANET
I'm sure the trevi fountain will last longer than the race of people who made it will...especially at this rate.
I could give one mother fuck about anything built by man, except that practically everything we build produces garbage and pollution.
If they have to take the trevi fountain, the eiffel tower, the pyramids, the great wall of china, and the colleseum to fix the environment, i'll get a hammer and help knock the useless shit down.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Self-centered assholes must refer to tourists flying all over the world to take a selfie at a stupid fountain and not the ones putting themselves on the line to get people to wake tf up. Destroying shared human heritage? All they got to do is replace the water, nothing was destroyed. How about the damage to the shared planet, or their country. The solutions are already widely known, the problem is people refusing to recognize the necessity. Appeasing those who wouldn’t vote for the right side of history is no longer a factor.

Any judgement towards these kids strongly indicates a lack of understanding of how critical the situation is. Italy just had the worst flood in a over 100 years, which is just one example of how not addressing climate change drastically, radically, NOW, is destroying Italy, quite literally. The drought, the lack of snow in the Alps, the dying lakes including one of my favorite vacation spots, Lago di Garda, all the over 500 major dams operating far below normal level. The food industry in Italy is at a critical stage, at risk of collapsing, already a water war between the two agricultural areas where they produce half of all rice sold in the EU.

No need to wait for more innovation, there’s plenty they can do, and it’s not a lack of money either.

That’s what these kids are up against. Unwillingness, incompetence, dumb old people who’ll be dead in few decades. As one of the oldest water sources in Rome, it made a perfect target. They demand action now and have every right to do so. And it helps. Hate them, vilify them, while the rest worries about having a popular take that is the price they’re willing to pay.

"Most of the research shows that when people do disruption, the general public's opinion… is that they don't like the organisations or the tactics, but it does not change opinions about the policy or climate change."

”Overall, these results paint a picture of the so-called activist’s dilemma: activists must choose between moderate actions that are largely ignored and more extreme actions that succeed in gaining attention, but may be counterproductive to their aims as they tend to make people think less of the protesters.“
It is not how you solve problems and only helps reactionary forces who will do counterproductive shit. I agree that climate change is a serious problem and post emerging solution on this thread all the time, I differ with them over the methods. Maybe occupy the mansions and villas of the super-rich? Or pic up garbage or some other useful thing. This problem will be solved or not, collectively by electing governments who care and things like this make that harder. Bear in mind many in the public don't think much and just react to feelings and this shit evokes feelings of outrage in many. America is close to electing a rightwing reactionary government that will destroy any progress made on climate change made by the current administration. Italy has a rightwing government too and, in your country, "cunt farmers" are protesting environmental laws, despite the fact that rising sea levels will drown the dumb fucks.

My main objection to this bullshit is that it is an act of vandalism, and such things have damaged art works, but mostly that it is counterproductive and does more to harm to the climate change movement than to help it and the way to help it is by electing governments who give a fuck about it. When the Palestinians started hijacking airliners and doing international terrorism it brought attention to their cause alright and they are still suffering the effects of it.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
fuck that fountain....FIX THE FUCKING PLANET
I'm sure the trevi fountain will last longer than the race of people who made it will...especially at this rate.
I could give one mother fuck about anything built by man, except that practically everything we build produces garbage and pollution.
If they have to take the trevi fountain, the eiffel tower, the pyramids, the great wall of china, and the colleseum to fix the environment, i'll get a hammer and help knock the useless shit down.
If what they were doing made any difference except harm the cause I might be more sympathetic.
 

Sativied

Well-Known Member
It is not how you solve problems and only helps reactionary forces who will do counterproductive shit. I agree that climate change is a serious problem and post emerging solution on this thread all the time, I differ with them over the methods. Maybe occupy the mansions and villas of the super-rich? Or pic up garbage or some other useful thing. This problem will be solved or not, collectively by electing governments who care and things like this make that harder. Bear in mind many in the public don't think much and just react to feelings and this shit evokes feelings of outrage in many. America is close to electing a rightwing reactionary government that will destroy any progress made on climate change made by the current administration. Italy has a rightwing government too and, in your country, "cunt farmers" are protesting environmental laws, despite the fact that rising sea levels will drown the dumb fucks.

My main objection to this bullshit is that it is an act of vandalism, and such things have damaged art works, but mostly that it is counterproductive and does more to harm to the climate change movement than to help it and the way to help it is by electing governments who give a fuck about it. When the Palestinians started hijacking airliners and doing international terrorism it brought attention to their cause alright and they are still suffering the effects of it.
I already addressed and countered the above assumptions in my previous post. And your last line is a false equivalence, very different situation.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
I already addressed and countered the above assumptions in my previous post. And your last line is a false equivalence, very different situation.
Not really, it is essentially the same thing as the Palestinians tried and will have the same effect on the cause of climate change, it is not helpful and if it happens on any scale, it will cause an opposite reaction. It is vandalism, not a protest or a useful action. There are other targets for their attention, but they lack the courage of their convictions to attack them, so they prey upon the innocent and delude themselves that they are somehow doing good. Go after the fossil fuel producers, even though many of them drive an ICE car and enjoy the benefits of what they protest.

In the end, this is about collective action by governments and to gain control of them in a liberal democracy one must win hearts and minds, this is not how that is done. It draws attention, but most of the governments and populations they are seeking to change are already well aware of climate change. This long hot summer in Europe with dried up rivers will make them far more aware of climate change than this kind of bullshit. It makes it easier for those causing the problem for profit to control and buy governments who can stop the shift to green technologies overnight, they have done this in the past and will do it in the future.

It will about as useful as hijacking airliners were for the Palestinians.
 

Sativied

Well-Known Member
Maybe not a false equivalence if you start off by labelling them as terrorists but yes, comparing kids who dye fountain with palestinian hijackers is a false equivalence. An example of how you can lose support, but of a such a completely different order it has zero relevance in this context.

Repeating your assumptions about how they harm the cause don’t make them facts. There’s a ton of research into how useful more radical actions are and how they affect the opinion and votes of the public, the majority draws very different conclusions. And of course, kids in Italy are not responsible for any effect on the political balance in the US and its 2party system where cunt farmer states have an equal say in the senate despite their smaller populations.

Is that something you’d tell these activists? “Care for magat-feelings else they might elect Trump again.“ “Pick up garbage and vote for a caring government“. There’s no time left for such passiveness, things need to change drastically today. When you risk runing out of water and food you might agree.

If what they were doing made any difference except harm the cause I might be more sympathetic.
Where is the factual harm and why do you assume it outweighs the positive effects?

The radical flank effect at work?

These activists force the public to be confronted with their absurd priorities. Dirty paintings (specifically those with glass covers) and dirty tourist fountain water is vandalism, it breaks social norms, and causes outrage to a point they’re labeled terrorists. Especially in sewers like Twitter where the popular take dictates people’s outrage. Yet it doesn’t not even compare to the vandalism against the planet and its life of every tweeter, daily.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Maybe not a false equivalence if you start off by labelling them as terrorists but yes, comparing kids who dye fountain with palestinian hijackers is a false equivalence. An example of how you can lose support, but of a such a completely different order it has zero relevance in this context.

Repeating your assumptions about how they harm the cause don’t make them facts. There’s a ton of research into how useful more radical actions are and how they affect the opinion and votes of the public, the majority draws very different conclusions. And of course, kids in Italy are not responsible for any effect on the political balance in the US and its 2party system where cunt farmer states have an equal say in the senate despite their smaller populations.

Is that something you’d tell these activists? “Care for magat-feelings else they might elect Trump again.“ “Pick up garbage and vote for a caring government“. There’s no time left for such passiveness, things need to change drastically today. When you risk runing out of water and food you might agree.


Where is the factual harm and why do you assume it outweighs the positive effects?

The radical flank effect at work?

These activists force the public to be confronted with their absurd priorities. Dirty paintings (specifically those with glass covers) and dirty tourist fountain water is vandalism, it breaks social norms, and causes outrage to a point they’re labeled terrorists. Especially in sewers like Twitter where the popular take dictates people’s outrage. Yet it doesn’t not even compare to the vandalism against the planet and its life of every tweeter, daily.
speaking of dirty paintings,

 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Maybe not a false equivalence if you start off by labelling them as terrorists but yes, comparing kids who dye fountain with palestinian hijackers is a false equivalence. An example of how you can lose support, but of a such a completely different order it has zero relevance in this context.

Repeating your assumptions about how they harm the cause don’t make them facts. There’s a ton of research into how useful more radical actions are and how they affect the opinion and votes of the public, the majority draws very different conclusions. And of course, kids in Italy are not responsible for any effect on the political balance in the US and its 2party system where cunt farmer states have an equal say in the senate despite their smaller populations.

Is that something you’d tell these activists? “Care for magat-feelings else they might elect Trump again.“ “Pick up garbage and vote for a caring government“. There’s no time left for such passiveness, things need to change drastically today. When you risk runing out of water and food you might agree.


Where is the factual harm and why do you assume it outweighs the positive effects?

The radical flank effect at work?

These activists force the public to be confronted with their absurd priorities. Dirty paintings (specifically those with glass covers) and dirty tourist fountain water is vandalism, it breaks social norms, and causes outrage to a point they’re labeled terrorists. Especially in sewers like Twitter where the popular take dictates people’s outrage. Yet it doesn’t not even compare to the vandalism against the planet and its life of every tweeter, daily.
It is about perception more than anything else and most people are appalled at the behavior. Like I said, this is about winning hearts and minds to elect governments who are responsive to the crises and not reactionaries who don't give a fuck. Climate change is about collective action, not antisocial individual acts. It has no positive effects other than making news about something well covered by the media and that most governments are responding too. The "cunt farmers" are unhappy about the environmental response and so are others that new regulations are impacting, so they vote against efforts to mitigate these things. Here in North America, much depends on keeping fascists out of power and staying on the course Biden has set upon, increasing the pace if we can. What Canada does and can do depends on what the Americans do. Like where you live, if the farmers don't like the EU regulations, they will cause governments to be elected that will ignore them or do other stupid shit.

This is bad PR and won't change hearts and minds, for now what they do is relatively harmless, but some won't be and the next time something other than charcoal could be put in the fountain. As it stands now, they will probably use a hundred kilos of detergent trying to remove the stains on the fountain and that won't help the environment either.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
speaking of dirty paintings,

When a lot of people look at the news, they miss that salient point and perhaps copycats will miss it too and actually want to destroy works of art thinking it will get even more attention and their social media pages more views. There are plenty of things to attack in this war and it reminds me of the Russians attacking the innocent instead of the Ukrainian Army. Those protesters drive cars, wear synthetic clothes and use power generated by fossil fuels, they can hardly help this as individuals and collective action is needed to address it. The plastic bags that contained the charcoal were litter and that never set a good example either. You get collective action when you elect governments who care about shit and these people give the impression, they only care about anything but themselves and not their purported cause. Maybe they should take hostages at gun point the next time and kill a few, that would get more attention and that seems to be the only real point, attention, not solutions.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
we totally should keep on buying huge Cadillacs with supercharged V8s


my parents payed 35 thousand for a 4 bedroom 2 bath house with a finished basement in 1977...151K for a bloated boat?...fuck that shit.
 
Last edited:

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
It would be difficult to move 100 kWh through a charging cord in 3 minutes to say the least! If the limiting factor is not the battery, it will be the charging system and in particular the cord and connector. Charging @ 300 volts pushing 300 amps would take well over an hour to charge to 100kWh and a typical EV half ton would get 2 or 3 miles per kWh. The problem might not be the battery but getting enough energy into it in a timely manner using fast charging. If you are charging at 300 volts DC pushing 300 amps, you might not want to do it in the rain either!

On the other hand, a North American house with a 100-amp electrical entrance could charge an EV at up to 20kW per hour and a 10-hour overnight charge could give you up to a 200-kWh battery charge. I think home charging might become popular simply because of the physical limitations of fast charging. If one adds home rooftop solar and cheap home battery banks, it would be a lot cheaper too, free transportation for many people. If you want cheap charging at home and fast charging on the road, then get a small energy efficient EV. If you need 3 tons of steel to drive to the corner store to pick up a jug of milk, expect to spend a lot of time fast charging if you don't do it from home, no matter how good the batteries become.

 

printer

Well-Known Member
It would be difficult to move 100 kWh through a charging cord in 3 minutes to say the least! If the limiting factor is not the battery, it will be the charging system and in particular the cord and connector. Charging @ 300 volts pushing 300 amps would take well over an hour to charge to 100kWh and a typical EV half ton would get 2 or 3 miles per kWh. The problem might not be the battery but getting enough energy into it in a timely manner using fast charging. If you are charging at 300 volts DC pushing 300 amps, you might not want to do it in the rain either!

On the other hand, a North American house with a 100-amp electrical entrance could charge an EV at up to 20kW per hour and a 10-hour overnight charge could give you up to a 200-kWh battery charge. I think home charging might become popular simply because of the physical limitations of fast charging. If one adds home rooftop solar and cheap home battery banks, it would be a lot cheaper too, free transportation for many people. If you want cheap charging at home and fast charging on the road, then get a small energy efficient EV. If you need 3 tons of steel to drive to the corner store to pick up a jug of milk, expect to spend a lot of time fast charging if you don't do it from home, no matter how good the batteries become.

Free solar energy, if you do not count the cost of the solar cells. On 100 kW, one furnace I used to work on ran on 200 kW, the work area could fit a Miata on its side. The floor would vibrate as the power was pulsed.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Free solar energy, if you do not count the cost of the solar cells. On 100 kW, one furnace I used to work on ran on 200 kW, the work area could fit a Miata on its side. The floor would vibrate as the power was pulsed.
I'm making the argument that home charging would make more sense for most than fast charging and it presents certain fundamental problems, even if battery charging times are reduced, like the article says. This is particularly true for kilowatt guzzlers like half tons and large SUVs. 300 amps DC should make the charging cord jump 2 meters into the air and rip itself out of the charger or EV when the juice was turned on and it had better be cooled by some kind of liquid circulating! Also, the charging station had better have some kind of local battery storage to power the chargers.

Of course, there are capital costs with home solar and home battery banks, right now it makes sense to off load excess to the grid. However distributed solar generation and storage offers many advantages to cities that are surrounded by suburbs and industrial parks and takes a lot of loads off the grid in general, especially if overnight charging becomes a trend and it should be eventually. The cost of both solar and especially battery storage appears ready to drop considerably over the next decade. If your house and garage rooftops are producing power all day while you are at work, the home battery bank would be used to supplement charging your EV to its usual range requirements or top it up.
 
Top