SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Massive white tarpaulins are being used to protect Alpine glaciers from melting over the summer.
In northern Italy, the Presena glacier has lost more than one third of its volume since 1993.
Once the ski season is over and cable cars are berthed, conservationists race to try and stop it melting by using white tarps that block the sun's rays.
"This area is continuously shrinking, so we cover as much of it as possible," explains Davide Panizza, 34, who heads the Carosello-Tonale company that does the work.
From around 30,000 square metres (36,000 square yards) covered in 2008 when the project began, his team now places 100,000 square metres under wraps.
The tarps themselves are "geotextile tarpaulins that reflect sunlight, maintaining a temperature lower than the external one, and thus preserving as much snow as possible," according to Panizza.
Installation and removal of the tarps takes approximately six weeks each to complete. Similar systems are in place on a few Austrian glaciers as well.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Monday June 22 2020, @11:58AM (5 children)
It's straight up capitalist economics. The cost of putting out the tarps is less than the expected return of increased snow cover next season. At least they can look forward 9 months for those consequences.
Now, what's the first order CO2 emissions for this activity? Let's talk about not just fuel for the vehicles involved, but the cost of maintenance/manufacture of those vehicles, the cost of manufacture, disposal, and off season storage (buildings cost) of the tarps themselves, transporting people to/from the site to do the work, etc.
How about second order: increased tourism due to the activity?
Are these emissions within their self-stated guidelines for CO2 emission reduction to preserve not only their local glacier, but the global environment?
They're like upside-down NIMBYs.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 22 2020, @05:06PM (4 children)
The dinosaurs were doing quite well when the Earth was warmer. So there should be no worries about life on Earth. With 7 billion plus humans around, even if a few billions die it's very likely that humans will survive too. And the sort of disasters predicted (hurricanes, drought, etc) are likely to still leave billions of humans around. Just don't spend lots of money buying real estate for your grandchildren in places that's going to be below sea level.
I'd say global nuclear war is more scary since it could happen a lot sooner, can you say with certainty that Trump wouldn't use nukes for the wrong reasons?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 23 2020, @12:37AM (3 children)
I'd say when billions start getting displaced, nuclear war is a certainty.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday June 23 2020, @01:06AM (2 children)
Not if the (unhappy) billions don't control the nukes.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Tuesday June 23 2020, @11:51AM (1 child)
You have a point that the unhappy billions are unlikely to have access to the nukes, but that does not mean that the nukes will not be used on the unhappy billions.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday June 23 2020, @12:07PM
If the nukes are being used on unhappy billions who don't control nukes themselves, is that nuclear war or just genocide?
🌻🌻 [google.com]