lichess.org
Donate

A page called Ask Any Questions About Climate Change

@george_mcgeorge said in #9:
> Ah, so you will just wait a little longer to take your eventual break, which will definitely still happen, for sure.
>
> Any way, what about solar panels? Are they a good (enough) option? How about nuclear energy? Is the risk worth the reward in climate?

The problem with solar panels is the government, or else why do you think taxes exist? Financially, if everybody gets his electricity from solar panels, nobody will pay taxes. This is my sad opinion.

Note out of context: Ping me if you quote me, no problem.
@ LordSupremeChess said in #10:
> Yes.
>
But why yes? Could enough solar panels create enough energy for a city? Even for an entire country? Could it replace fossil fuels in a foreseeable future? If so, why and how? If not, why not? (A simply yes or no doesn't help me with this eternal question!)
> There is only risk in not taking this risk.
What if something goes wrong like in Chernobyl or Fukushima? Would it be better, safer, to rely on nuclear energy or could it bring more harm? And if all works out, what will be the consequences for the climate? And why?

Another question I have is: Do you think it is possible to "stop and reverse" climate change? And which priority for which industry should be taken? How do we fight poverty (if at all) at the same time? And would that have an impact on the climate? And what about restrictions? Are they always necessary or would it be better to educate people and leave them on their own?

And why?
@ WassimBerbar said in #11:
> The problem with solar panels is the government, or else why do you think taxes exist?
Wouldn't Algeria make a lot of money off of companies creating solar panel fields? I mean, through taxes the government would have a nice boost too, probably. And in europe (it seems like) they are favoring (or at least trying to) this kind of energy - that has not such a negative impact on climate. So... do such field already exist? (Damn, I'll probably be researching myself if I keep asking these annoying questions!)
> Financially, if everybody gets his electricity from solar panels, nobody will pay taxes. This is my sad opinion.
That is a legitimate opinion. Living off the grid is usually more cost efficient - and if your house has solar panels, then you can have some energy for seven years - which would probably me more cost efficient than paying those bills. But still, when you buy
you usually have to pay some sort of taxes too. Then again, I haven't been to Algeria (yet).
> Note out of context: Ping me if you quote me, no problem.
:)
@george_mcgeorge said in #13:
> Then again, I haven't been to Algeria (yet).
In Algeria, right now, I've never seen an Algerian house with solar panels on their roofs, only their big blue/green reservoir. In Algeria (Tlemcen), we do many projects in school to increase public awareness around the town, but nobody seems to seriously care about climate change actions.

I hope you will visit Algeria, welcome to our country where little children play near our house and where there hasn't been any snow in our home from 2017!
Do you think climate change is preventing the advent of the next ice age?
@LordSupremeChess said in #1:
> Any questions???
Why do you use 3 question marks?
Isn't this redundant? I know it's abysmal in the grand scheme of things. But those two extra question marks, are an excessive waste ;-)

Joke aside, to stay on topic, here is my question:

Which commercial product would you ban or put under higher legislation?
Either completely, or at least restrict under certain circumstances?

For example:
We (humans) have the ability and technology to make lightbulbs last for a 100 years, but from a business standpoint, then it is not feasible. A company can only survive when they keep selling products.
So currently lightbulbs are built to break after a certain period of time. (X amount of hours)

Another example:
Chewing gum (there are medical purposes out there, to be taken into consideration)
But as a commercial product, it's a waste of resources, both to produce and to dispose.

One thing to keep in mind though, is when removing products from a market, is that it also removes jobs.
And removing a job, also removes food from someone mouth.
Many products that ain't cost effective, or even necessary from a environmental perspective, is nevertheless important to the workers who either fabricate it, or harvest the resources for the manufacturing process.
So another job/industry must be created simultaneously (or prior) when dismantling a business.

For example:
It's easy in Europe to critique other countries for not sorting out their garbage. When we ourselves ships huge piles of garbage abroad, because it's more cost effective that way for us.
Imagine if you go to Ghana, and criticize them for pollution as a third world country, they would just point over their shoulders, to their imported garbage dumps from rich countries waste.

Rich countries, who has the money to deal with it, yet prefer to be comfortable and environmental friendly.
(Friendly to their own environment, but out of sight = out of mind)
This isn't humane. Letting others countries sort out our trash. Especially not when we don't even provide them the infrastructure, to do it properly and as environmental as possible.

Shipping garbage to 3world countries is a billion dollars industry, to be collected, not only, by the already rich shareholding companies, but also we, the tax paying citizens, who just wants to be as comfortable as possible.
Regardless of how our lifestyle affects others across the globe, as long as we can't see or feel it, we are comfortably numb.

Edit: when I started writing this, there was only the #1 post. I am so slow :-/
www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYuIvfS6MtE

I have not listened to this yet (only the first couple minutes) but it is about climate change so I felt you might be interested!

It seems that it is a discussion on the idea of "humanity" in a general sense being blamed for climate change.
@george_mcgeorge said in #12:
> But why yes? Could enough solar panels create enough energy for a city? Even for an entire country? Could it replace fossil fuels in a foreseeable future? If so, why and how? If not, why not? (A simply yes or no doesn't help me with this eternal question!)
> What if something goes wrong like in Chernobyl or Fukushima? Would it be better, safer, to rely on nuclear energy or could it bring more harm? And if all works out, what will be the consequences for the climate? And why?
I wouldn't worry about nuclear power plant failures that much. There have been like 4 in all of history, and only one (Chernobyl) actually killed someone.
> Another question I have is: Do you think it is possible to "stop and reverse" climate change? And which priority for which industry should be taken? How do we fight poverty (if at all) at the same time? And would that have an impact on the climate? And what about restrictions? Are they always necessary or would it be better to educate people and leave them on their own?
#1: Maybe. I don't really think about reversing climate change alot, because first we need to stop it.
#3: I don't know... I don't study that subject really...
All the other ones: I kind of need to get back to work...
@y_x said in #2:
> Fusion Energy is the only solution I see.
Fusion energy is a hope for status quo.
A hope that we can live as comfortable as we do now. And still consume products in our constant gluttony feast.
But even if we have energy fusion, we still have a lot of other environmental issues, which energy fusion won't resolve.

For example: the Ozone hole is currently healing, but this is because of global legislation to ban the creation and usage of certain chemicals such as CFCs. And fusion energy would not have made a difference in this particular case.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.