California Gov. Jerry Brown to launch satellite to track greenhouse gas emissions
California Gov. Jerry Brown started the week by signing a pair of actions to get his state to use nothing but electric power drawn from green sources like wind and solar by 2045. He ended the week Friday with a surprise: The state would launch its "own damn satellite" to track down greenhouse gas emitters who fuel global warming.
Brown announces California plan to launch satellite to track climate change
News of California's satellite was among an abundance of pomp and pageantry on Friday when some of the week's biggest names took the stage, including musician Dave Matthews, former Secretary of State John Kerry and chimpanzee expert Jane Goodall.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
California to Launch Weather Satellite
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 35 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 18 2018, @11:34AM (20 children)
Takyon edited the submission, the original quoted story referenced the SFC article with additional content exposing the hypocrisy we've come to expect.
Similar sentiment from amateur pilot Harrison Ford.
And private jet owner Leonardo Dicaprio
It seems we could drastically cut global emissions just by getting rid of climate change activists.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 18 2018, @11:42AM (1 child)
You are still blowing out CO2, you hypocrite.
(Score: 2) by gottabeme on Wednesday September 19 2018, @03:27AM
This abuse of the moderation system (+4, Touche for a comment accusing of hypocrisy a comment which exposes hypocrisy) is another example of why the old Slashdot meta-moderation system needs to return. Although I don't know if even it would help, because I assume it requires a critical mass of visitors with integrity to function properly.
So maybe what's needed is for people who abuse the moderation system this way to simply have their moderation privileges revoked. A "shadowrevoke" would probably be best; let them think they are modding down the denialists and modding up the sycophants. Of course, that would be a lot more work than just turning off their mod bit.
The lack of integrity of these leftists is why we can't have nice things anymore. Good people mostly follow the rules, while evil people believe the ends justify the means and will break them as much as they can get away with. This is the same problem we have in government. We really need strong leadership willing to fight back--not by stooping to their level, but by using power righteously. In the case of something like SN, that might mean creating yet another alternative, run by people with integrity, who are unwilling to allow those without integrity to ruin it.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by RamiK on Tuesday September 18 2018, @11:45AM (9 children)
He edited out the ad-hominem noise around the celebs and kept the news worthy content. Would you rather the discussion focus on the satellite and the politics, or on the celebs?
compiling...
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Tuesday September 18 2018, @11:50AM (1 child)
Opportunity to diss rich people, celebrities, or anyone better known/wealthier.. because you can't be concerned for the environment and do *anything*; live in a cave and eat fallen nuts or you just don't care, not really.
California doing a launch for a launch is very.. hollywood.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 3, Funny) by bob_super on Tuesday September 18 2018, @04:28PM
> California doing a launch for a launch is very.. hollywood.
Only because they had the wrong kind of band. With the right music, it could have quickly escalated into Bollywood. Elon already has the rocket that starts as three spinning together and end in fireworks, with two side-by-side and one far away on the sea.
(Score: 0, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 18 2018, @11:52AM (6 children)
It's not "ad-hominem" and there's no problem with Takyon's editing. I was simply reiterating that it is, almost without fail, the biggest polluters lecturing us.
(Score: 3, Informative) by MostCynical on Tuesday September 18 2018, @12:44PM (2 children)
They could be using carbon offsets [pro-sky.com] or they might have a different perspective [quora.com] on which emissions matter.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 18 2018, @01:02PM (1 child)
Carbon-offsets are a modern day sin-box and most schemes are proven scams. [redd-monitor.org] Revised fraud laws would help there. From your second link
Is "another perspective" like "alternative science"? Airtravel [nationalreview.com] and multiple private homes [snopes.com] in different states increase carbon footprint to many multiples of the average person.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 19 2018, @03:17AM
A 747-400 can carry approx 200 tonnes of fuel. It can carry around 600 passengers.
Even assuming it burnt the full load of fuel on each flight that would still be around 300 kg of carbon per passenger.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday September 18 2018, @05:50PM (1 child)
And private jet owner Leonardo Dicaprio
It's not "ad-hominem" and there's no problem with Takyon's editing.
Well in DiCaprio's case, it appears to be a lie. A quick Google says he flew on a couple private jets and none of those articles claim that he owned it.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday September 18 2018, @10:14PM
Maybe he should. I understand that the cost of a private jet is tax-deductible in the US, as is the cost of the fuel.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 18 2018, @07:07PM
Also the biggest economic force in the US. At least our state is trying to do something about it while our Presidentress Orangina tries to remove all environmental protections. Get a grip you bloody nutter.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday September 18 2018, @11:48AM (7 children)
Oh, boo-bloody-hoo! Fact is: "California to Launch Weather Satellite" - thumbs up to takyon for doing his job properly.
Everything else in that garbage you linked originally is injective and opinions - stick them in the comments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 18 2018, @11:57AM (6 children)
I see, CO2 emissions are a problem skeptics are like "holocaust deniers", [thehill.com] except for when celebrities pollute and then objecting to it is just an opinion?
(Score: 4, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday September 18 2018, @12:59PM (5 children)
Go find a story specifically on the issue of celebrity polluters - I don't see why need to mix up that one with the California launching a satellite.
If you do, make sure it includes some numbers and don't cherry-pick only CA/Hollywood celebs - I see no difference between the CO2 emitted by the jets hired by DiCaprio [telegraph.co.uk] and the ones owned by Trump [wikipedia.org] - except probably the emission amount per unit of distance and per person transported.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 18 2018, @01:07PM (3 children)
Dear C0lo, The announcement occurred at a celebrity attended event in California, please address further complaints about it here. [ca.gov]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday September 18 2018, @01:24PM (2 children)
And so...?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 18 2018, @01:36PM (1 child)
So...
It wasn't me that organized a celebrity event to announce it, take up your complaint with moonbeam.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 18 2018, @02:14PM
You obviously have an axe to grind, maybe try reddit. No one here cares about the celebrities. We just don't, most of us despise all of them.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Tuesday September 18 2018, @04:07PM
There is a difference. Trump's jets are older, less efficient jets and are much larger than Trump needs to transport himself and his family.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday September 18 2018, @12:22PM (9 children)
So they're going to sing it up into space or they'll have a chimp-out?
Remember from a technical perspective this is the kind of people we're dealing with:
https://wagingnonviolence.org/feature/the-day-they-levitated-the-pentagon/ [wagingnonviolence.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Tuesday September 18 2018, @12:42PM
If Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, or Bulgaria can "launch" a satellite, so can California. There are plenty of satellite companies based in California [wikipedia.org] which would be good choices to receive the contract for building one. SpaceX is a California-based launcher.
Is the real question about money? California is $1.3 trillion in debt, or just $428 billion if you want to be generous. Another $100 million or so thrown onto the pile of debt is negligible. If they want to save some money, they could do a rideshare instead of getting a dedicated Falcon 9 flight. They could build a smaller satellite, such as a CubeSat, for this rideshare. That could cost less than $200,000 including launch, although I don't know if it would meet their goals. They could partner with a California university for the ground operations portion.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 18 2018, @12:45PM (5 children)
They'll use SpaceX, ignoring the impact of rocket emitted alumina in the upper atmosphere. They could indeed sing kumbaya to their rocket god during launch before inevitably lecturing us on "science".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 18 2018, @01:21PM (1 child)
Pray tell, what that impact would be?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 18 2018, @01:34PM
Warming effect [pnas.org] and likely reduced precipitation. [ametsoc.org]
(Score: 5, Informative) by Immerman on Tuesday September 18 2018, @01:27PM (2 children)
What alumina? The solid rocket boosters on the SLS burn aluminum-ammonium perchlorate, but SpaceX uses strictly liquid propellants. The Falcon burns RP-1, a.k.a. highly refined kerosene. No aluminum included.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 18 2018, @01:49PM (1 child)
Interesting, still produces sulfur dioxide though.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday September 18 2018, @03:04PM
From what sulfur? Sulfur attacks metals at high temperature, so they do their best to remove the naturally occurring sulfur impurities it during the production of RP-1. Not 100% effective, but there's far less sulfur than you'd find in normal kerosene, gasoline, etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 18 2018, @07:10PM (1 child)
Well we deal with you all the time and the world hasn't exploded, just sayin' if the anti christ reincarnation of Hitler won't do it then neither will a bunch of environmentalists out Caleeforneeway.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday September 19 2018, @08:34PM
I think I'm in love!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 18 2018, @01:15PM (3 children)
I'm with tacky on this one.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Tuesday September 18 2018, @01:24PM (2 children)
https://soylentnews.org/submit.pl?op=viewsub&subid=29023 [soylentnews.org]
For anyone who's interested, blockquoting the text you are quoting is recommended. Linking some random portion of that text with your source link is not.
It was easy to remove redstate.com since the portion quoted was actually from the SF Chronicle. I could have thrown a "Also at Red State." at the end, but chose not to.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 18 2018, @01:41PM (1 child)
I have no problem with your editing the submission, I did consider if would be classed as editorial but stuck with the RS article over directly linking the SFC since it balanced the article out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 18 2018, @02:04PM
Your point about "celebrity" hypocrisy is valid, and the omitted bit is succinct and neutral with no drama, but it's still the right call in the end to omit that bit otherwise all the comments would be "celebrities" doing celebrity things.