https://m.phys.org/news/2017-11-scientists-countries-negative-global-environmental.html
Human well-being will be severely jeopardized by negative trends in some types of environmental harm, such as a changing climate, deforestation, loss of access to fresh water, species extinctions and human population growth, scientists warn in today's issue of BioScience, an international journal.
The viewpoint article—"World Scientists' Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice"—was signed by more than 15,000 scientists in 184 countries.
The warning came with steps that can be taken to reverse negative trends, but the authors suggested that it may take a groundswell of public pressure to convince political leaders to take the right corrective actions. Such activities could include establishing more terrestrial and marine reserves, strengthening enforcement of anti-poaching laws and restraints on wildlife trade, expanding family planning and educational programs for women, promoting a dietary shift toward plant-based foods and massively adopting renewable energy and other "green" technologies.
Global trends have worsened since 1992, the authors wrote, when more than 1,700 scientists—including a majority of the living Nobel laureates at the time—signed a "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity" published by the Union of Concerned Scientists. In the last 25 years, trends in nine environmental issues suggest that humanity is continuing to risk its future. However, the article also reports that progress has been made in addressing some trends during this time.
The article was written by an international team led by William Ripple, distinguished professor in the College of Forestry at Oregon State University. The authors used data maintained by government agencies, nonprofit organizations and individual researchers to warn of "substantial and irreversible harm" to the Earth.
"Some people might be tempted to dismiss this evidence and think we are just being alarmist," said Ripple. "Scientists are in the business of analyzing data and looking at the long-term consequences. Those who signed this second warning aren't just raising a false alarm. They are acknowledging the obvious signs that we are heading down an unsustainable path. We are hoping that our paper will ignite a wide-spread public debate about the global environment and climate."
Other links:
Here is the official page where you can read the full article, endorse the article, view signatories, and endorsers
Direct link to full article in PDF
(Score: 3, Informative) by Sulla on Tuesday November 21 2017, @05:22PM (23 children)
How can you be anti-nuclear and advocate for stopping greenhouse gasses? Nuclear is the only true viable solution. Wind and Solar are great but it would be hard to scale that for our whole country in a time frame where it can make a difference. It is sad to know that Hydro is a problem now because of the rise and fall in water levels causing plant decay, anyone have the link to that soylent article?
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 3, Informative) by NewNic on Tuesday November 21 2017, @06:17PM (16 children)
Because of this:
"Building new renewables is now cheaper than just running old coal and nuclear plants. [thinkprogress.org]
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @06:38PM (2 children)
If the title is true, there is no need to do anything, the market will take care of it before long.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by meustrus on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:02PM
Not if Big Government gets in the way of renewables by unfairly subsidizing coal, oil, and natural gas. And don't forget all the onerous regulations imposed on homeowners wanting to install home solar arrays. Too bad about that
climate researcherenergy industry conspiracy to stifle innovation and keep our infrastructure in the stone age.If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 3, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:56PM
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Troll) by khallow on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:11PM (12 children)
And anyone who can claim that fossil fuels are more expensive in the developing world than in the developed world is doing something very wrong.
Who really believes that when cost of labor and materials is greatly lower in these countries than in the US?
(Score: 3, Informative) by NewNic on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:33PM (7 children)
LIAR!
'Versions 6.0 – 11.0 present the LCOE on an unsubsidized basis, except as noted on the page titled “Levelized Cost of Energy—Sensitivity to U.S. Federal Tax Subsidies”'
https://www.lazard.com/media/450337/lazard-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-110.pdf [lazard.com]
Just look at the title of this graph:
https://www.lazard.com/media/450333/chart-1-finally.jpg [lazard.com]
"Hurr, Durr... I know better than someone who spends most of their life studying this topic ...."
You ignore the cost of capital which the report notes is likely to be higher in non-OECD countries.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: -1, Troll) by khallow on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:55PM (6 children)
In other words, the analysis can contrive scenarios where unsubsidized cost of renewable sources (other than hydro, of course) can be cost competitive with the unsubsidized cost of non-renewable sources, but in general it's not.
FTFY.
One doesn't buy capital with labor and materials. One builds it.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:32PM (5 children)
So you assert that Lazard is in the business of promoting renewable energy sources? Do know what Lazard is? It's an investment bank, it's unlikely to be promoting renewable energy unless it really thinks that it is a good investment.
As a capitalist, you should understand that this is back to front. Or perhaps you are just a know-nothing blowhard?
One uses capital to buy labor and materials in order to build and operate assets. That capital comes with an assumed interest rate: the cost of capital.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: -1, Troll) by khallow on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:40PM (4 children)
And hence, where it would profit them to promote their "good investments".
There is no understanding in your quote. It is claimed that the cost of capital is high in developing world countries. But once again, what is the cost of such? It is primarily the cost of labor and materials, particularly when you get to fundamental infrastructure like power plants.
No, one uses a medium of trade to buy the above, usually money.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:01PM (3 children)
Posting this for the benefit of the financially illiterate.
Cost of capital refers to the opportunity cost of making a specific investment. It is the rate of return that could have been earned by putting the same money into a different investment with equal risk. Thus, the cost of capital is the rate of return required to persuade the investor to make a given investment. [investinganswers.com]
What is 'Cost Of Capital' [investopedia.com]
The cost of funds used for financing a business. Cost of capital depends on the mode of financing used – it refers to the cost of equity if the business is financed solely through equity, or to the cost of debt if it is financed solely through debt. Many companies use a combination of debt and equity to finance their businesses, and for such companies, their overall cost of capital is derived from a weighted average of all capital sources, widely known as the weighted average cost of capital (WACC).
As can be seen, it has nothing to do with the cost of labor and materials.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: -1, Troll) by khallow on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:39PM (2 children)
Further, we're missing a big point here. Why would an investment of equal risk have a higher cost of capital associated with it in a developing world country than in a developed world country? What's the market inefficiencies making this happen at all? A key inefficiency is that the big money is coming in from the developed world. That will always distort a market in a contrary direction to the source of the big money. So investors throwing money in from their developed world location are paying more, including cost of capital, than someone local in a developing world locale. Not all investment comes from the developed world and it won't have the same problems with cost of capital. Cost of capital differs with where your money is located.
I father this is one of the many wealth transfer mechanisms from the developed world elsewhere as they pay a premium for such developing world capital.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:45PM (1 child)
There is no arguing with someone who is militantly ignorant.
You adopted your usual style: 3 wise monkeys. Just ignore or deny anything that doesn't fit your world view.
It's not about me missing your point: it's about you denying well-sourced information.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 23 2017, @03:57AM
Now presumably some day it will become true just because these sources of power appear to be getting cheaper while most of the rest aren't. But once again, it hasn't happened yet.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:39PM (3 children)
You assume they have skills to do so. Labor and materials may be cheap, but that doesn't translate instantly into being able to deploy nuclear facilities. You need expensive and long term training for your citizens before you have enough people in your talent pool. That's one of the advantages countries with big populations have, more trained scientists. Of course, that's only with a good educational system, which is why the U.S will crater sooner than later. Our real talent are in their 60's, 70's and 80's right now.
If your own country can't provide the skill, how do you attain it? I would imagine paying for it, which is what would raise the costs up. I don't think it's a coincidence that developing countries often seek reputable foreign companies that possess those skills.
Then we can get into just how damn dangerous conventional nuclear facilities are. They would need newer designs, such as thorium reactors. It makes so much more sense for them to wait for the first world countries to develop the tech, and then they implement the tech themselves at a later point, or purchase it. An older conventional design would require so much more security and maintenance.
You forgot something else, which surprised me for you :)
Regulations. Those are what makes a screw cost $10k. When you are that paranoid about your reactor having issues, which seems very healthy to me, you need to spend a lot more money in doing even the simplest things. Like sourcing a fucking screw.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:56PM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:40PM
Ahhh, that's what you meant by conventional. I was stuck in nuclear.
Yeah, you have a point. Burning coal is cheaper there if the labor and materials are cheap.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:18PM
Burning coal has high maintenance costs - many power stations are old enough.
Unless you build new coal fired stations, which translated into investment. Investment which most of the banks will think twice before financing.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @06:24PM
Easily, for sufficient pay.
(Score: 1) by insanumingenium on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:19PM
Sorry, in retrospect I wasn't clear. They are anti nuclear weapons. I have no idea what their policy stance is on nuclear power. But it looks like from 63-92 their primary message was nuclear disarmament.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:49PM
Easy. I am, and I'm not. Nuclear is extraordinarily bad for the environment, which is completely unarguable. What has become very clear is that the endemic corruption in the U.S produced dangerous and costly nuclear facilities. To be fair, this science was heavily under development.
I'm completely against all nuclear facilities that use the older conventional designs, and are subject to the corruption and regulations that make screws cost 10k. That's why it costs taxpayers so damn much, and then ultimately it just makes a few people richer that own the damn things. Like Mr. Burns :)
I'm completely FOR all newer reactor designs that were made to be safe above all else. AFAIK, thorium reactor designs are the only ones that fail gracefully. Those reactors should be cheaper and safer to operate, not to mention build.
Additionally, I'm ALL FOR the government making multiple thorium reactors in each state....... and then giving the power to the people literally. Power is free from the government, paid for by your taxes :) Charge for anything over normal usage, but otherwise, citizens won't be freezing because some hellbound executive cocksucker decided to lay people off before Christmas and now they can't afford heat in the winter.
Ubiquitous safe and cheap power in the U.S could help get our economy back into shape, and not having to deal with frozen or cooked citizens is a good thing. Heat waves kill the old and the poor, and quite often, the old are poor.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:24PM
(Score: 2) by arslan on Wednesday November 22 2017, @03:18AM (1 child)
I'm pro-nuclear, but you seem to fall into the same trap to the person you're replying to. Nuclear is not mutually exclusive to wind and solar - Note, I inferred this by your statement "Nuclear is the only true viable solution".
No it is not, but it shouldn't be avoided either. Solar can be viable too if we pour enough research into it. If we can develop better solar PVs with higher efficiency they can become even more viable. Both nuclear and solar has the added benefit of being tech we can use for space faring as well. I don't follow wind, so can't comment on that.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:29AM
My statement was in error. I prefer a baseline of Solar and Wind with some sort of stored energy (hydrogen, gravity cells, future battery, diesel) to handle spikes.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam