Nearly the hottest place on Earth, India swelters under intense heat wave(accuweather.com)
accuweather.com
Nearly the hottest place on Earth, India swelters under intense heat wave
https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-forecasts/nearly-the-hottest-place-on-earth-india-swelters-amid-brutal-heat-wave/1179824
309 comments
This is also known as the wet bulb temperature, and it is a function of the humidity.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature
If I were in a position of decision making in India, I would invest in large deployments of passive radiative cooling films: https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/energy-conservation-us/applicati...
These reflect nearly all the sunlight energy and cool their surroundings night and day by controlled black body emmisive radiation. (interestingly, for cooling applications, per unit area they are more power efficient than solar panels + AC, because solar only is working during the day, whereas passive cooling films also work at night)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature
If I were in a position of decision making in India, I would invest in large deployments of passive radiative cooling films: https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/energy-conservation-us/applicati...
These reflect nearly all the sunlight energy and cool their surroundings night and day by controlled black body emmisive radiation. (interestingly, for cooling applications, per unit area they are more power efficient than solar panels + AC, because solar only is working during the day, whereas passive cooling films also work at night)
A wet bulb related crisis in India is used as a plot point in Kim Stanley Robinson's latest novel Ministry for the Future. The way he describes the wet bulb event is quite scary. (edit: corrected author and title, I confused this with Neal Stephenson's latest Termination Shock).
Imagine something like that happening in a slum. It's the combination of humidity, temperature and poverty that is deadly. Think mass casualties (millions of people). No air conditioned environments to escape the heat. Limited access to clean water. Flaky electricity systems that cause what little capacity there is to cool anything to fail. Temperatures at night drop a little but not by enough to provide much relief. Robinson does a great job of making you believe how real this would be and what it would look like.
The human body loses the ability to cool it self with 100% humidity. Sweat no longer evaporates. Basically, people start dropping like flies once that gets out of control. It's not survivable for more than a few hours. Any water you'd use for cooling no longer evaporates and would in any case have an ambient temperature that is close to or higher than your body temperature. Instead of cooling your body, it would just heat it up quicker.
This is a very near future science fiction novel that describes a very scary reality that we might be dealing with on a regular basis pretty soon. North West US and Canada actually got a sneak preview when temperatures in the US and Canada hit record highs last summer.
Imagine something like that happening in a slum. It's the combination of humidity, temperature and poverty that is deadly. Think mass casualties (millions of people). No air conditioned environments to escape the heat. Limited access to clean water. Flaky electricity systems that cause what little capacity there is to cool anything to fail. Temperatures at night drop a little but not by enough to provide much relief. Robinson does a great job of making you believe how real this would be and what it would look like.
The human body loses the ability to cool it self with 100% humidity. Sweat no longer evaporates. Basically, people start dropping like flies once that gets out of control. It's not survivable for more than a few hours. Any water you'd use for cooling no longer evaporates and would in any case have an ambient temperature that is close to or higher than your body temperature. Instead of cooling your body, it would just heat it up quicker.
This is a very near future science fiction novel that describes a very scary reality that we might be dealing with on a regular basis pretty soon. North West US and Canada actually got a sneak preview when temperatures in the US and Canada hit record highs last summer.
I thought the setup for that book was interesting, but it's probably his worst book IMHO (though I haven't read all of them). Normally I'm careful about attributing the actions of characters to novelists, but Robinson seems to be increasingly advocating terrorism in his books and it's getting really off-putting.
There's an internally consistent moral argument that terrorism is warranted in this situation eg Malm's "How to Blow Up a Pipeline."
The basic argument is that peaceful protest is effective when it is an alternative to a more militant and disruptive extremist movement with the same goals. You negotiate with the peaceful side so the violent side doesn't tear your shit down.
When there is no extremist movement, you really have no powerful incentive to acquiesce to the demands of the peaceful movement. At this point mass peaceful climate protest is decades old but we've seen virtually no meaningful changes addressed.
We're tens or hundreds of thousands of deaths into the climate crisis and it's only just barely getting started and those with the most agency to change it very obviously have no intent to. Why is ecoterrorism considered a morally abhorrent line that cannot ever be crossed, but their choice is not?
The normative answer is "that is bad too they should stop" but by what means can we make them? Our options seem very limited.
The basic argument is that peaceful protest is effective when it is an alternative to a more militant and disruptive extremist movement with the same goals. You negotiate with the peaceful side so the violent side doesn't tear your shit down.
When there is no extremist movement, you really have no powerful incentive to acquiesce to the demands of the peaceful movement. At this point mass peaceful climate protest is decades old but we've seen virtually no meaningful changes addressed.
We're tens or hundreds of thousands of deaths into the climate crisis and it's only just barely getting started and those with the most agency to change it very obviously have no intent to. Why is ecoterrorism considered a morally abhorrent line that cannot ever be crossed, but their choice is not?
The normative answer is "that is bad too they should stop" but by what means can we make them? Our options seem very limited.
For terrorism to be morally justified, you have to be right that the alternative is millions of deaths. Have you considered the possibility that you are not right?
I mean, really considered? Not, my friends all think the same way, and so do the charismatic politicians I prefer, so it must be true?
You could start with your "tens or hundreds of thousands of deaths into the climate crisis" claim, which is highly dubious. Have you swallowed the false claim that hurricanes and tornadoes are worse now than before? Are you looking at net deaths, for instance counting not just higher deaths in heat waves, but also fewer deaths in cold snaps? And are you accounting for the beneficial effect of higher food production due to CO2 fertilization?
I mean, really considered? Not, my friends all think the same way, and so do the charismatic politicians I prefer, so it must be true?
You could start with your "tens or hundreds of thousands of deaths into the climate crisis" claim, which is highly dubious. Have you swallowed the false claim that hurricanes and tornadoes are worse now than before? Are you looking at net deaths, for instance counting not just higher deaths in heat waves, but also fewer deaths in cold snaps? And are you accounting for the beneficial effect of higher food production due to CO2 fertilization?
It would be hard for anyone thinking carefully about climate change not to have considered the possibility that they are not right, given the decades of relentless, well-funded industry propaganda making such claims, to which you have apparently fallen victim.
I think you've fallen victim to propaganda about how much propaganda each side has put out.
You're deep in it, aren't you? Oh well! The reality of the situation is already making itself obvious. Come out to the small coastal town I've spent the last few months in and try telling the people here that hurricanes aren't getting worse. Try to work out why everyone who can afford to do so has been getting their whole house lifted up off its foundation, onto stilts... But this place is not special, this kind of thing is happening everywhere. You can see it easily enough, if you let yourself look. Up to you. Can't blame you for wanting excuses to ignore it, though; the future we are barrelling along into is a scary place.
You know, people 200 years ago in coastal towns would have told you the same things. Flooding is worse, more bad weather etc. It's a terrible data point.
There is plenty of data that supports climate change, on a Global scale. Whether it kills millions or billions or nobody at all is simply a question of attribution.
There is plenty of data that supports climate change, on a Global scale. Whether it kills millions or billions or nobody at all is simply a question of attribution.
Well, yes - you know that, and I know that; but I thought perhaps someone who can't accept the scientific consensus might find the personal choices made by residents of a conservative small town to be more relatable. Of course everywhere you go there are stories like this; whether people openly accept the reality of climate change or not, they are adapting, and you can see it wherever you look.
I've seen several publications in the last 5 to 7 years which suggest less nutrients in plants grown in higher CO2 containing atmosphere. For both outdoor and indoor. IIRC the useful nutrients are dispersed in more plant mass, which amounts to dilution. Why it is like that, I don't remember anymore.
Suppose that one thing you like to do in your leisure time is swim in lakes, which can only be done in summer. Now suppose that your work schedule changes, so that you have additional vacation time in winter, in addition to the leisure time you had before. Do you say, "Great! Now I have more time for leisure activities!", or do you say, "That sucks! The proportion of my leisure time that I can spend swimming has gone down!".
That's not how I remember it ;)
What I meant to say was less nutrients in same amount of weight/volume eaten.
What I meant to say was less nutrients in same amount of weight/volume eaten.
I get what you’re saying but is the track record of terrorism any better at causing constructive change? Really we need to engage a lot of people’s minds, and that just turns out to be really hard in our current culture no matter what angle you come at it from.
No, what I'm saying is that understanding peaceful movements separate from violent ones is missing the point. For example martin luther king jr's peaceful civil rights movement was effective in part because there was a credible threat of a violent movement on its wing. There was conflict and cooperation between these movements, they can't be cleanly separated. A lot of the reason white people came to the negotiating table at all was because of fear of what would happen instead if they didn't.
Whose minds do we need to change? Climate change is a major issue with massive popular support. There are relatively few people actually able to take action on it and they will not under the current circumstances. Specifically because there's no credible non-peaceful consequence they have to confront, they can ignore the demands of everyone else.
The actual historical effectiveness of terrorism alone is questionable. It's not a reliable or sustainable way to change the minds of a large mass of people. But that's not actually what we need to do here. Making a powerful few frightened enough to do what they ought may be sufficient.
And the effectiveness of the credible threat of violence, combined with a mass peaceful movement, is well attested.
Whose minds do we need to change? Climate change is a major issue with massive popular support. There are relatively few people actually able to take action on it and they will not under the current circumstances. Specifically because there's no credible non-peaceful consequence they have to confront, they can ignore the demands of everyone else.
The actual historical effectiveness of terrorism alone is questionable. It's not a reliable or sustainable way to change the minds of a large mass of people. But that's not actually what we need to do here. Making a powerful few frightened enough to do what they ought may be sufficient.
And the effectiveness of the credible threat of violence, combined with a mass peaceful movement, is well attested.
I have to agree this is always the way I have understood every peaceful movement that has ever existed, the peaceful movements were big and there were smaller violent movements, it did not take an amazing inductive leap to think hey if we don't make some concessions sooner or later these peaceful folks are going to become violent like these others, and then there will be real problems for us.
Since India is also the start of this whole conversation Gandhi especially comes to mind.
Since India is also the start of this whole conversation Gandhi especially comes to mind.
You should be placed on some kind of watch list.
Also, How many innocent people do you think you need to kill exactly to sway the CCP.
Also, How many innocent people do you think you need to kill exactly to sway the CCP.
Again I will make this point, again and again. Here, today, on HN, in this comment section, we have people endorsing mass population culling of the most dispossessed people on earth, and the least responsible for climate change. How am I the moral transgressor for arguing, abstractly, that redirecting the harm towards those actually perpetrating it is preferable?
The CCP isn't my problem honestly. Most of the major contributors to climate change are operated from within my own country, so I'll focus on that. There's plenty of work to go around, I'm sure someone over there can handle that part of the project.
The fact that people can never really come up with anything except "but well CHINA" speaks volumes to me. You aren't rejecting this stance because you abhor violence. Climate change IS VIOLENCE. Where is your outrage, what are you willing to do about it?
The CCP isn't my problem honestly. Most of the major contributors to climate change are operated from within my own country, so I'll focus on that. There's plenty of work to go around, I'm sure someone over there can handle that part of the project.
The fact that people can never really come up with anything except "but well CHINA" speaks volumes to me. You aren't rejecting this stance because you abhor violence. Climate change IS VIOLENCE. Where is your outrage, what are you willing to do about it?
But you have no solution, you just condone killing a few people in your own country because surely that will do something.
The fact that you can't even understand this is a global problem and just figure "someone over there can handle that part of the project" is telling.
You are a dangerous ideologue.
The fact that you can't even understand this is a global problem and just figure "someone over there can handle that part of the project" is telling.
You are a dangerous ideologue.
No one ever actually asked what my solution was!
My actual position is that there does need to be an extremist counterpart to the peaceful climate movement that can plausibly escalate to violence against people. But that there are several steps along the way with chances for those in power to de-escalate first.
Things like targeted destruction of fossil fuel facilities and harassment campaigns against certain politicians and executives are likely to be very effective at raising the cost of contributing to the climate crisis. If those with the power to actually respond to those measures do so, it won't need to escalate further. Hopefully violence isn't necessary but at this point unfortunately, the credible threat of it is.
My actual position is that there does need to be an extremist counterpart to the peaceful climate movement that can plausibly escalate to violence against people. But that there are several steps along the way with chances for those in power to de-escalate first.
Things like targeted destruction of fossil fuel facilities and harassment campaigns against certain politicians and executives are likely to be very effective at raising the cost of contributing to the climate crisis. If those with the power to actually respond to those measures do so, it won't need to escalate further. Hopefully violence isn't necessary but at this point unfortunately, the credible threat of it is.
> Hopefully violence isn't necessary but at this point unfortunately, the credible threat of it is.
The credible threat of violence doesn’t even work unless you can credibly threaten a huge portion of the population. Just look at how ineffective terrorism has been for the last 50 years.
Have you considered the civil rights movement was not successful because of the threat of violence but was instead successful because people actually changed their minds?
We have same sex marriage now, which was as unpopular as desegregation a couple of decades ago. When Obama went into office he was against same sex marriage. Society changed rapidly and without violence.
It likely changed so rapidly because it was not a coercive movement at all, but that’s just speculation on my behalf.
The credible threat of violence doesn’t even work unless you can credibly threaten a huge portion of the population. Just look at how ineffective terrorism has been for the last 50 years.
Have you considered the civil rights movement was not successful because of the threat of violence but was instead successful because people actually changed their minds?
We have same sex marriage now, which was as unpopular as desegregation a couple of decades ago. When Obama went into office he was against same sex marriage. Society changed rapidly and without violence.
It likely changed so rapidly because it was not a coercive movement at all, but that’s just speculation on my behalf.
Mass murders in the US won’t help if someone isn’t picking up a machine gun in China as well.
You just said “not my problem”, which means you don’t actually care about stopping climate change. You need to stop thinking about how to kill locally when the problem is global.
You just said “not my problem”, which means you don’t actually care about stopping climate change. You need to stop thinking about how to kill locally when the problem is global.
Want to substantiate your claim that we're as many as hundreds of thousands of death into the climate crisis? Weather has always killed people, perfectly natural weather by the way, so if you're going to attribute deaths specifically to human-caused climate change, a source or two would be nice to see.
No not really. There is enough information that is easy to access that anyone who wants to can. If it's not convincing to you then changing your mind in this forum isn't a project I'm interested in right now.
No, there is plenty of models showing increased likelihood of various types of weather events due to extremes. Nobody has done meaningful analysis on deaths avoided or caused by these probabilities.
[deleted]
I agree, I did not actually finish the book. The setup was interesting but it was all a bit too moralistic and righteous for my taste. Neal Stephenson's Termination Shock is much more fun in that respect.
The terrorism aspect is interesting though. He's not the only one that is predicting conflict as a direct result of global warming. Mass population displacements due to things like wet bulb heat events, droughts, the middle east routinely hitting temperature of over 50/60 degrees Celcius, etc. have the potential to get really ugly.
The terrorism aspect is interesting though. He's not the only one that is predicting conflict as a direct result of global warming. Mass population displacements due to things like wet bulb heat events, droughts, the middle east routinely hitting temperature of over 50/60 degrees Celcius, etc. have the potential to get really ugly.
> The human body loses the ability to cool it self with 100% humidity
I wonder whether there are practical/efficient ways of decreasing humidity in situations like this in closed spaces?
So that you could use a regular fan again to cool yourself by means of evaporation of water off of your skin.
I wonder whether there are practical/efficient ways of decreasing humidity in situations like this in closed spaces?
So that you could use a regular fan again to cool yourself by means of evaporation of water off of your skin.
An air conditioner already is a cooler and a dehumidifier. In a closed system, using a dehumidifier and then an evaporative cooler makes no difference. Assuming the electrical input to these is dissipated as heat, it ends up heating the room further.
> An air conditioner already is a cooler and a dehumidifier.
The cold heat exchanger coil can cause condensation, which dehumidifies, but if the air temperature is 'correct' the AC control thermometer will keep the AC unit off.
So you can have have an 'uncomfortable' environment because the temperature is 22C/70F but the humidity is >70%. This is why separate (whole house) dehumidifiers are often recommended: they have a separate hygrometers that cause the unit to start, regardless of what the temperature is.
The cold heat exchanger coil can cause condensation, which dehumidifies, but if the air temperature is 'correct' the AC control thermometer will keep the AC unit off.
So you can have have an 'uncomfortable' environment because the temperature is 22C/70F but the humidity is >70%. This is why separate (whole house) dehumidifiers are often recommended: they have a separate hygrometers that cause the unit to start, regardless of what the temperature is.
He did a talk at the Long Now Foundation recently:
https://longnow.org/ideas/02021/11/10/climate-futures-beyond...
https://longnow.org/ideas/02021/11/10/climate-futures-beyond...
FWIW: he calls himself out in the talk on the lack of clarity between sabotage and murder.
That doesn’t seem to line up with the marketing you linked. “10-20% energy savings when integrated with building refrigeration and HVAC systems.”
PV on the roof can normally provide 100% of the energy needed for AC.
PV on the roof can normally provide 100% of the energy needed for AC.
It’s a per-unit-area comparison:
https://www.betonconsultingeng.com/passive-radiative-cooling...
“”SkyCool arrays work by cooling a fluid that moves below the panels and is pumped through refrigeration systems. The cooling helps reduce the run time of motors in the refrigeration system to reduce electricity consumption. All told, the SkyCool system can reject heat at about 100 watts per square meter, saving between 450 and 550 kilowatt-hours per square meter every year—twice the average production of a solar panel.—Brooks Johnson, Star Tribune, 12 March 2022“”
https://www.betonconsultingeng.com/passive-radiative-cooling...
“”SkyCool arrays work by cooling a fluid that moves below the panels and is pumped through refrigeration systems. The cooling helps reduce the run time of motors in the refrigeration system to reduce electricity consumption. All told, the SkyCool system can reject heat at about 100 watts per square meter, saving between 450 and 550 kilowatt-hours per square meter every year—twice the average production of a solar panel.—Brooks Johnson, Star Tribune, 12 March 2022“”
Ok, that’s your problem it’s about 2400Wh of heat moved per day per m2. A solar panel should be collecting ~1600Wh/day of electricity/m2, but an AC can then use that electricity to remove ~4,800Wh of heat.
And that’s assuming you need to remove heat 24/7/365. A solar panel can also provide electricity when cooling is unnecessary. Things get even worse if you need pumps etc to circulate a fluid under the film, which is presumably why that 10-20% cost savings figure was suggested.
And that’s assuming you need to remove heat 24/7/365. A solar panel can also provide electricity when cooling is unnecessary. Things get even worse if you need pumps etc to circulate a fluid under the film, which is presumably why that 10-20% cost savings figure was suggested.
Don’t necessarily need pumps, depending on what you are trying to do: https://www.abc15.com/weather/impact-earth/asu-testing-new-m...
This is what I was thinking of in the case of India :)
Edit: wanted to add, application of this technology might require government level systems thinking.
With an air conditioner, that heat being moved is being pushed to your neighbor, passive cooling technology rejects much of the heat out of the earth.
I.e., AC contributes to the urban heat island effect, the situation snowballs and makes everyone’s AC have to run even harder.
Passive cooling films are a mitigation for the urban heat island effect.
This is what I was thinking of in the case of India :)
Edit: wanted to add, application of this technology might require government level systems thinking.
With an air conditioner, that heat being moved is being pushed to your neighbor, passive cooling technology rejects much of the heat out of the earth.
I.e., AC contributes to the urban heat island effect, the situation snowballs and makes everyone’s AC have to run even harder.
Passive cooling films are a mitigation for the urban heat island effect.
UHI is mostly due to the materials cities are made of and lack of evaporation from plant life which is why it was noticed 200 years ago. AC has such a small effect it would be hard to measure.
People are studying the effect. Passive cooling films get at the ‘materials cities are made of’ problem, by decreasing the city-wide absorptivity of heat energy.
“We found that waste heat from air conditioning systems was maximum during the day but the mean effect was negligible near the surface. However, during the night, heat emitted from air conditioning systems increased the mean air temperature by more than 1 degree Celsius (almost 2 degrees Fahrenheit) for some urban locations,”
https://news.asu.edu/content/excess-heat-air-conditioners-ca...
“By the end of the century, greenhouse gas emissions from air conditioning will account for as much as a 0.5-degree Celsius rise in global temperatures, according to calculations by the World Economic Forum.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-prevent-ai...
“We found that waste heat from air conditioning systems was maximum during the day but the mean effect was negligible near the surface. However, during the night, heat emitted from air conditioning systems increased the mean air temperature by more than 1 degree Celsius (almost 2 degrees Fahrenheit) for some urban locations,”
https://news.asu.edu/content/excess-heat-air-conditioners-ca...
“By the end of the century, greenhouse gas emissions from air conditioning will account for as much as a 0.5-degree Celsius rise in global temperatures, according to calculations by the World Economic Forum.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-prevent-ai...
[deleted]
First props that’s a peer reviewed paper so this may just be hot air on my part.
Anyway, their using the most extreme data that they can find to base their calculations which is rather suspect. They regularly mention 65% of electricity useable for AC, but that’s peak during a heatwave not the general average etc.
Still, a peak of 0.5-1C at night and ~0C in the daytime is a much larger effect than I was expecting especially when nighttime energy usage for AC is only averaging around 1W/M2 in their data.
Anyway, their using the most extreme data that they can find to base their calculations which is rather suspect. They regularly mention 65% of electricity useable for AC, but that’s peak during a heatwave not the general average etc.
Still, a peak of 0.5-1C at night and ~0C in the daytime is a much larger effect than I was expecting especially when nighttime energy usage for AC is only averaging around 1W/M2 in their data.
So, yea 0.5 to 1C was taken out of context.
“To evaluate the contribution of AC systems on air temperature, the WRF AC100%, AC65%, and AC35% simulations were compared against the AC_NoOut experiment.” It’s even in the conclusion: “Sustainable development and optimization of electricity consumption in cities would require turning “wasted heat” from AC into “useful energy” which can be utilized inside houses for various purposes including, for example, in water heaters.”
In other words they simulated the cooling effect of AC without the heat produced by the AC systems entering the environment as the baseline. Not what would have happened if the AC had been turned off.
“To evaluate the contribution of AC systems on air temperature, the WRF AC100%, AC65%, and AC35% simulations were compared against the AC_NoOut experiment.” It’s even in the conclusion: “Sustainable development and optimization of electricity consumption in cities would require turning “wasted heat” from AC into “useful energy” which can be utilized inside houses for various purposes including, for example, in water heaters.”
In other words they simulated the cooling effect of AC without the heat produced by the AC systems entering the environment as the baseline. Not what would have happened if the AC had been turned off.
> ...so this may just be hot air on my part.
Truer words were never spoken, no qualification needed.
Truer words were never spoken, no qualification needed.
[deleted]
[deleted]
It is always a mistake to engage with this Retric. He just posts random remarks which do not stand up to a moment's scrutiny, but hopes they will seem plausible enough to derail meaningful discussion.
We have a word for that.
We have a word for that.
I live in a suburb of Delhi and to be honest it is not just the occasional days that it stays that high.
This year it has consistently been above 40C since late March. Summer has just started and the hottest months are generally May and June. So, it is going stay like this for more than three months this year in all.
Even worse is that unlike desert regions, even the night temperatures here stay above 30C many times during this part of the year. Sometimes you open the window at night expecting it to be better only to realize that a hot "breeze" is blowing.
Owing to the pandemic, I had spent the last couple of years in the foothills of the Himalaya where the temperature rarely went beyond 30C. It has been really hard coping up with the heat as it literally sucks the life out of you.
Ref: https://www.accuweather.com/en/in/delhi/202396/april-weather...
Owing to the pandemic, I had spent the last couple of years in the foothills of the Himalaya where the temperature rarely went beyond 30C. It has been really hard coping up with the heat as it literally sucks the life out of you.
Ref: https://www.accuweather.com/en/in/delhi/202396/april-weather...
> If air temperature reaches 44C, it's impossible to survive this without artificial cooling
Humidity is the other key factor though.
When younger I remember a day of walking all around Phoenix for many hours on a day where it was 122F (50C) and while it felt like being inside an oven, it was ok because humidity was close to 0%.
But high humidity with high temperatures is what makes it unsurvivable.
Humidity is the other key factor though.
When younger I remember a day of walking all around Phoenix for many hours on a day where it was 122F (50C) and while it felt like being inside an oven, it was ok because humidity was close to 0%.
But high humidity with high temperatures is what makes it unsurvivable.
I grew up in Las Vegas where summer would hit 120-124 F. Very dry heat. Sometimes in August it would rain for a day. Then moved to Arizona where it would hit 125 F once in awhile. Melt your brain.
Instead of relying solely on air conditioning, which often adds to greenhouse gas emissions if run on fossil power, there are a number of passive solar design strategies that work without additional energy:
- Solar chimneys draw cool air in when it’s sunny via pressure differential
- Building orientation along with natural shading from deciduous trees prevent excessive solar insolation heating the building
- Building on top of a thermal slab to provide enough thermal inertia to prevent excessive heat during the day
I wrote more details on this on my blog: https://uplevelgreen.com/passive-solar-cooling-in-hot-humid-...
- Solar chimneys draw cool air in when it’s sunny via pressure differential
- Building orientation along with natural shading from deciduous trees prevent excessive solar insolation heating the building
- Building on top of a thermal slab to provide enough thermal inertia to prevent excessive heat during the day
I wrote more details on this on my blog: https://uplevelgreen.com/passive-solar-cooling-in-hot-humid-...
Somehow this has been lost over the years. I can especially see this in Zürich Switzerland where new office buildings being built are awful and there seems little thinking about temperature. Everything is managed by complex air systems to move air from one area to the other.
On the other hand you go into a 200+ year old building and you notice it's cool in summer although there is no air conditioning. The building is positioned in such a way that it stays cool for the most of the day, the walls and windows are placed to optimized for this. It's not 100% but if you added a cooling system you would have a perfect setup.
We rely to much on technology to build these ugly boxes instead of also considering the building shape and position itself.
On the other hand you go into a 200+ year old building and you notice it's cool in summer although there is no air conditioning. The building is positioned in such a way that it stays cool for the most of the day, the walls and windows are placed to optimized for this. It's not 100% but if you added a cooling system you would have a perfect setup.
We rely to much on technology to build these ugly boxes instead of also considering the building shape and position itself.
As someone who was in Europe for one of the heatwaves of recent years, and whose appartment was in one of these older buildings designed this ways with thick walls etc., I can attest that this only works up to a point. This design relies on there being cold air for the building to retain. However, in a heatwave it doesn't even get cold at night. The result is your apartment gradually heating over a period of days / weeks and turning into a sauna. It is not pleasant.
By the end of that summer I was dreaming about moving back to north america where air conditioning is much more common in rental units.
By the end of that summer I was dreaming about moving back to north america where air conditioning is much more common in rental units.
What Europe needs is heat pumps and lots of them. More efficient heating, simply run them in reverse during a heat wave for refrigeration.
Most of the Continent is mild enough in winter that an air-loop heat pump will reliably heat throughout the winter, and these aren't more expensive to install than other heating systems, they're less energetically intense to operate, and they provide cooling on demand.
Most of the Continent is mild enough in winter that an air-loop heat pump will reliably heat throughout the winter, and these aren't more expensive to install than other heating systems, they're less energetically intense to operate, and they provide cooling on demand.
Problem with that is electricity is expensive in Europe. Of course as you know Europe varies a lot between Portugal and Romania. While the first has a balmy 10C in winter daily low, colder areas can easily have -10C, -15C at night. That's the minimum operating range of a heat pump.
That's a 30C difference to work through. That's why they have cheap (Russian) gas, it has the biggest energy density (and nuclear).
Ground-source heat pumps would work better in continental Europe but they are expensive to install (I have only seen them in new build villas).
Putting the gas into electric generators and using that electricity to heat is more economical than burning it in a furnace for heat, heat pumps are just that much better.
I agree that the national programme must be more detailed than just declaiming "heat pumps!" and calling it even.
I gestured vaguely at the existence of parts of Europe where cheap mini-splits might not be sufficient, let's just agree I'm talking about the places where they will be.
I agree that the national programme must be more detailed than just declaiming "heat pumps!" and calling it even.
I gestured vaguely at the existence of parts of Europe where cheap mini-splits might not be sufficient, let's just agree I'm talking about the places where they will be.
Apologies if my comment made it seem I disagree with you.
Air-source heat pumps can definitely be used in many countries here, in fact they are already popular in the UK, and gaining popularity in Spain, due to their efficiency.
Yeah it's a temporary effect and once the walls have heated up, it actually makes it worse since it retains the heat at nighttime as well.
You need to drill down to access the constant temperature in the ground, to be able to really counterbalance the differences in the air temperature. Once you've drilled down I guess you can make a passive or minimal energy circulation system that would be much more energy efficient than air conditioning.
You need to drill down to access the constant temperature in the ground, to be able to really counterbalance the differences in the air temperature. Once you've drilled down I guess you can make a passive or minimal energy circulation system that would be much more energy efficient than air conditioning.
It’s called a geothermal heat pump and they’re quite efficient in the places they can work (which is basically anywhere that has enough temperature differential during the year).
I had an issue with this last fall - had my AC go out in the fall when it had been over 80F for the last few months. Outside, it would be 70 during the day and 50 overnight, but there was so much heat in my walls/floors that I literally couldn't keep my apartment below 80. If I opened every window and door, I'd get down to 75 or so, but it would be back to 80 within an hour, even when the temperature outside was significantly cooler.
It's great in the winter though. I haven't had to turn my heat on in years.
It's great in the winter though. I haven't had to turn my heat on in years.
Northern Europe complains of the heat in the summer - they have nice radiators for the 7-9 months that need heating, Southern Europe complains of the winter cold because of the lack of insulation and central heating.
That’s so weird to me - why on earth would you skimp ion insulation? The stuff barely costs anything and it helps keep the place cool in the summer as well as warm in the winter
I grew in Southern Europe (around 30C every day in summer, more in full sun) when no-one had aircon at home and no-one had aircon in cars.
It's hot, you live with it. I'm sure it's worse on the other side of the Med.
It's one of the reasons the traditional 'siesta' exists and towns and villages are virtually dead until 5pm.
The issue I have with aircon is that it makes people ignore the local climate and, worse, actively fight it, which requires even more aircon.
It's hot, you live with it. I'm sure it's worse on the other side of the Med.
It's one of the reasons the traditional 'siesta' exists and towns and villages are virtually dead until 5pm.
The issue I have with aircon is that it makes people ignore the local climate and, worse, actively fight it, which requires even more aircon.
Staying indoor in 24C air-conditioned spaces conditions the body so badly that even 28C starts to feel bad. I noticed this in my own behaviour and thought of changing it last month. For a change, I decided to drive without air conditioning. It felt bad for a few minutes, then it gets better and when I come back to a cooler place it feels like heaven.
Exposing yourself to the elements is greatly rewarding.
Exposing yourself to the elements is greatly rewarding.
That's actually true. I had a car with A/C in southern europe which I traded in for one that doesn't have one (don't ask how). The first month was brutal but this year it's been already 30C+ and I don't even feel it.
People used to keep all windows open to get the cooling airflow. Now they keep all windows closed with aircon on.
30c in Castilles and Madrid is nothing.
Siesta for that it's ridiculous. No one does that. What we do it's to have lunch.
Siesta it's for days bordering 40 and up.
Also, beware of the stereotypes. You will freeze up in 3/4 of Spain if you dare to get out in shorts and flipflops on Winter as many tourists do.
30c isn’t a point of reference for hot temperature.
> It's hot, you live with it.
For the average person, yes. But old and vulnerable people do die from it.
For the average person, yes. But old and vulnerable people do die from it.
I would assume it's mostly the thicker walls, at least it was this case in Berlin with older buildings staying cool for a long time because it took months to heat the walls. Then those walls were warm in winter and it took months to cool them down (though it didn't work very well in the last very hot summers that were hot early on)
This is still sometimes done. The newest section of the Freie Universität Berlin campus (the “Holzlaube”) was built so that the inside remains comfortable with no A/C and minimal heating. Thick walls, as you said.
I don’t know how applicable architectural cleverness will be in densely populated cities in the developing world that are threatened by global warming. That seems like an impossible situation.
I don’t know how applicable architectural cleverness will be in densely populated cities in the developing world that are threatened by global warming. That seems like an impossible situation.
Many parts of the world the outside will be unhabitable :-(
> We rely to much on technology to build these ugly boxes instead of also considering the building shape and position itself.
Just to make a silly pedantic af point, those building structures are also technology
Just to make a silly pedantic af point, those building structures are also technology
maybe i'm squinting too hard,
but I see this as related to a more general attitude of imposing our will while disregarding what is already there.
"why would we want to position the building according to where it is? specially when there's an alternative of putting it however we like, and then involving a sophisticated air system which will isolate the building from it's environment (which is going to shit anyways) and also, think of all the jobs, the infrastructure, electricity, generators, coal-mining, ac technicians, etc that come with an AC based building! if the building, just by virtue of where it is, can do without all this then the economy will shrink, we cannot have that."
but I see this as related to a more general attitude of imposing our will while disregarding what is already there.
"why would we want to position the building according to where it is? specially when there's an alternative of putting it however we like, and then involving a sophisticated air system which will isolate the building from it's environment (which is going to shit anyways) and also, think of all the jobs, the infrastructure, electricity, generators, coal-mining, ac technicians, etc that come with an AC based building! if the building, just by virtue of where it is, can do without all this then the economy will shrink, we cannot have that."
I'm curious whether the people who designed those old buildings back in the day really thought about cooling or it was just a welcome (as long as heatwaves don't last too long, as mentioned in other comments) side effect of making those buildings with long lasting materials (lots of large bricks and rocks) of those days.
Older European buildings are horrible to heat in winter, they are massive waste of energy.
I deployed my own design (not calculated, eyeballed) of a buoyancy based passive cooling at my parents home near Mumbai, India. It did make a measured difference of approximately (temperature meters aren't very accurate) 2 degrees Celsius. I have been reading a lot in my spare time and your blog looks like a nice read.
My point is, is 2 to 3 degrees Celsius enough? From what I read is that I need to really move very large columns of air to make a sizeable impact. TBF my energy bills did come down by ~10%
My point is, is 2 to 3 degrees Celsius enough? From what I read is that I need to really move very large columns of air to make a sizeable impact. TBF my energy bills did come down by ~10%
At some point the thing to do is give people shovels and tell them the roof of their new dwelling has to be at least 2 meters/6 feet below the surface. Or use modern tech.
Got a point there, we as a species lived in 'caves' for a long time, it's only the past 2000 years or so we gave up our nice caves/mud houses. In my region in Europe people still lived in straw mudhuts/semi dug-in houses up until 100 years ago. Somehow that became uncool so we deal with modern people problems.
"uncool" !@!
how does this work where there are heavy rains in that part of the world, each year? desert, sure..
I’m not that familiar with hot temperatures but intuitively I would think that a difference of 2-3 degrees (Celsius) when temperatures are already high at around 40-45 to be noticeable.
For example if you go from 40°C to 37-38 that’s a quite good improvement if you don’t have to spend energy for this. I don’t know if that also applies to more extreme temperatures like 47°C, I cannot really imagine how that feels like.
For example if you go from 40°C to 37-38 that’s a quite good improvement if you don’t have to spend energy for this. I don’t know if that also applies to more extreme temperatures like 47°C, I cannot really imagine how that feels like.
At those temperatures heat stroke isn’t far away regardless of humidity. These aren’t temperatures to target 2-3c reductions as a safe goal, either.
Ref: lived in LV,NV for a decade.
Ref: lived in LV,NV for a decade.
From what I understood 2-3°C is not a safe goal but something you can get from the passive cooling solution the initial commenter mentioned. I would guess you can add extra active measures on top?
Very good ideas but as far as India goes, adoption might have to consider monsoon, winter-snow in some, which again might require more tweaks based on more tests.
Another aspect is how real-estate and building construction works in India, across rural and urban regions.Some of the regions have strong clouts of companies that control building/development in urban spaces, while supplies and other aspects in rural region.
Can see the realties changing and newer construction projects taking in newer & greener designs, in both urban and rural regions, but its got a long way to go!
Another aspect is how real-estate and building construction works in India, across rural and urban regions.Some of the regions have strong clouts of companies that control building/development in urban spaces, while supplies and other aspects in rural region.
Can see the realties changing and newer construction projects taking in newer & greener designs, in both urban and rural regions, but its got a long way to go!
How much do these things work when the wet bulb temperature is over 90F?
This would be my concern too. People fail to understand how in heatwaves there ceases to be cold air to move around. Everything heats up. It's brutal.
At that point you need to put your heat exchanger pipes underground, which is more annoying than air-based AC but not insurmountable. The temperature 20 feet underground will be about 50 F year-round. Of course, if a city of millions tried to do this all at once I have no idea how the local ground temperature would react.
> 20 feet underground will be about 50 F year-round
Is that the case in India? I was under the impression that while underground temperature is consistent across seasons, it does vary considerably across climates, with warmer climates generally having higher underground temperatures. For example, while much of the central US has underground temperatures around 50F, southern Florida, California and Arizona have areas with temperatures in the upper-70s[1].
[1] https://www.builditsolar.com/Projects/Cooling/EarthTemperatu...
Is that the case in India? I was under the impression that while underground temperature is consistent across seasons, it does vary considerably across climates, with warmer climates generally having higher underground temperatures. For example, while much of the central US has underground temperatures around 50F, southern Florida, California and Arizona have areas with temperatures in the upper-70s[1].
[1] https://www.builditsolar.com/Projects/Cooling/EarthTemperatu...
I can believe the ground temperature is higher nearer to the equator. At the same time, you don't need the ground temperature to be very low, just low enough for the heat exchanger to function. Alternatively, you can dig deeper until you hit a lower temperature.
[deleted]
Thanks for the excellent resource. A big part of this problem is self inflicted.
We used to have thick mud walled houses which stayed cool during scorching heat. People who could afford would go with stone constructions. Things such as sun and wind direction were also considered while constructing the houses. All that knowledge is discarded in favour of high rising concrete jungles.
But all that is replaced with concrete based constructions with almost no insulations. This makes inside even more uncomfortable than outside once the wall have absorbed heat. Commercial construction is even worse with lots of glass.
We used to have thick mud walled houses which stayed cool during scorching heat. People who could afford would go with stone constructions. Things such as sun and wind direction were also considered while constructing the houses. All that knowledge is discarded in favour of high rising concrete jungles.
But all that is replaced with concrete based constructions with almost no insulations. This makes inside even more uncomfortable than outside once the wall have absorbed heat. Commercial construction is even worse with lots of glass.
Also I think this needs to be deployed an large scale. It uses passive radiative cooling http://skycoolsystems.com/
- paint that has high emissivity in the IR window and high reflectivity in the rest of the spectrum.
- thermochromic windows
- thermochromic windows
> - paint that has high emissivity in the IR window and high reflectivity in the rest of the spectrum.
Does such thing exist?
And, doesn't high emissivity in the IR mean high IR absorption as well ?
Does such thing exist?
And, doesn't high emissivity in the IR mean high IR absorption as well ?
It's a fairly recent development[0], a few years before that the principle was demonstrated as a special surface coating on smooth surfaces rather than paint. And it's about the IR window[1], which is smaller than the whole IR spectrum. And sunlight delivers most of its energy in visible light and near IR, so there isn't a problem with reflecting the incoming light while radiating away into cold space in the IR window[2].
[0] https://ceramics.org/ceramic-tech-today/materials-innovation... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_window [2] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Illustration-showing-des...
[0] https://ceramics.org/ceramic-tech-today/materials-innovation... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_window [2] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Illustration-showing-des...
> - paint that has high emissivity in the IR window and high reflectivity in the rest of the spectrum.
paint is not free and needs replacement every few years. hardly a solution.
paint is not free and needs replacement every few years. hardly a solution.
So you are looking for a free magic solution?
I mean, I like houses made from big stones but it is probably cheaper to paint an existing house, instead of tearing it down and replacing with stonewalls.
I mean, I like houses made from big stones but it is probably cheaper to paint an existing house, instead of tearing it down and replacing with stonewalls.
Probkem is that it does not scale globally if you can only rely on short term efficacy
The surface finish of walls may also make a difference. Rough vs smooth and something like that doesn't fade as quick as paint itself.
No solution is free and needs no replacement.
There is nothing worse than spending a heatwave in one of those valleys of concrete and glass we call "office towers".
Yeah, and everybody turns AC to maximum, we have record energy consumption for each heatwave, whereas at home I feel more comfortable with just a big fan.
Spanish houses are made of ventilated brick without insulation so they stay really nice even when outside temps are touching 40C.
Of course the price to pay is it's 'freezing' between Jan-March.
During the summer of 2021 Lytton, BC in Canada hit a slightly higher temperature of 49.6C.
The next day the town burned down.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/literally-hotter-than-t...
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/literally-hotter-than-t...
> there are street vendors in major cities selling special fruit that supposedly helps protect people from the potentially damaging effects of above-normal temperatures. [...] "Instead of the regular synthetic fruits, you know, the ready-made fruit juice which is harm[ful] to the health, these are good for your health as well and these are the only way that you can manage the heat."
What's this mysterious special fruit the article strangely forgets to name?
What's this mysterious special fruit the article strangely forgets to name?
Most likely Ice Apple [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borassus_flabellifer
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borassus_flabellifer
Thanks for linking this. I've had this fruit before, fond memories of a childhood visit to Mumbai in early 80s. It's known by the Marathi speakers as "targolay". Its taste can be roughly described as a mix between a slimey coconut flesh with a distinctive sweetness found maybe in litchi fruit, but not as intensely sweet. Some rumour that it is intoxicating after a certain quantity - not sure about this. But it's a taste sensation unlike anything I've ever experienced since. Recent visit to Mumbai (2016) in Dec yielded nothing as explained by a dismissive street hawker: "tadgolay won't be found in winter". Much disappointed!
Yep, most certainly. This is the first thing that came to my mind along with Watermelons and Wax apples [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygium_samarangense
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygium_samarangense
Well, there are many summer drinks, depending on which region you are in. Some of them are:
Aam Panna, Bel ka Sharbat, JalJeera, Shikanji, Neera, Ragi ambli, Jigar Thanda, Nannari, Kokam Sharbat, Coconut water, Chaach/ButterMilk, Thandai, Roohafza,
and many more...
Aam Panna, Bel ka Sharbat, JalJeera, Shikanji, Neera, Ragi ambli, Jigar Thanda, Nannari, Kokam Sharbat, Coconut water, Chaach/ButterMilk, Thandai, Roohafza,
and many more...
I thought the rest of the article was equally lousy.
Quoting Death Valley temperature as only “99F” to make a point that Delhi is really fricking hot at this time. Well, Death Valley currently isn’t at its peak temperature and the summer has barely begun. It’s also not experiencing a heat wave.
The whole article appears to be GPT’ed.
Quoting Death Valley temperature as only “99F” to make a point that Delhi is really fricking hot at this time. Well, Death Valley currently isn’t at its peak temperature and the summer has barely begun. It’s also not experiencing a heat wave.
The whole article appears to be GPT’ed.
It was weird how they brought in a climate change quote from a normal Chennai resident. I would have expected an expert to be quoted on that. I have no idea whether she is right or wrong, this year has seen a lot of anomaly, including both the poles heating up by 30C at the same time[1], and the researchers just called it anomaly and did not blame it on climate change. Probably just that kind of year, although you can never be sure.
[1]https://phys.org/news/2022-03-hot-poles-antarctica-arctic-de...
[1]https://phys.org/news/2022-03-hot-poles-antarctica-arctic-de...
As some other comments have mentioned, South Asia has this concept of hot and cold foods that basically map to one of the sides of the four humors[0]. This classification seeks to define what the reaction of the body is upon ingesting the food/drink and I've always somewhat associated it with foods that can be inflammatory (hot) vs more neutral refreshing drinks (cold). Interesting to see it mentioned on HN
[0]https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Humorism.svg#/media/...
[0]https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Humorism.svg#/media/...
Nongu had this reputation in India 20 years ago. Probably the same statement. There was also a lot of “hot foods” / “cold foods” (not relating to temperature, I think milk was always a “cold food”) or something like that. At least I heard that from multiple people in Chennai / Madras.
Some common Indian "cool-drinks":
- Sugarcane juice
- Chhaanch (Butter milk)
- Coconut water
Yup "nongu" as it is called in southern parts of India is commonly sought after in summer.
I also wonder what a “regular synthetic fruit” is?
Reminds me that I should finish reading The Ministry for the Future by Kim Stanley Robinson
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ministry_for_the_Future
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ministry_for_the_Future
I read it and I thought it was pretty dumb. Much much too optimistic for my understanding of the situation.
My main gripe with it was that it leaves the reader thinking that climate change can be combatted with sensibility and reason. The idea that our global elites will come to their senses if we shove a few incidents in front of their faces goes against the fundamental narcissistic arc western civilization is currently enamored with.
The world he presents is predominantly western and China barely gets a mention. While he does start off in India most of it takes place in Switzerland, a country that doesn't really matter all that much for the climate. He's American, so he probably thinks China is inherently a bad place where stupid things happen. But I don't know why one wouldn't center a fictitious future of climate change there, and worse leave it out entirely. It's civilization is ascending while western white European culture is obviously descending.
I don't want my criticism of the book to lie entirely on Robinson's euro-centrism, but it is my primary complaint. Not because this makes the book racist, and I'm not accusing Robinson of that, but because it shows how Robinson's limited view of the world shapes his fiction. He gives us a white saviour story primarily taking place in Switzerland and yet claims to be speaking to the world. It's just dumb.
My main gripe with it was that it leaves the reader thinking that climate change can be combatted with sensibility and reason. The idea that our global elites will come to their senses if we shove a few incidents in front of their faces goes against the fundamental narcissistic arc western civilization is currently enamored with.
The world he presents is predominantly western and China barely gets a mention. While he does start off in India most of it takes place in Switzerland, a country that doesn't really matter all that much for the climate. He's American, so he probably thinks China is inherently a bad place where stupid things happen. But I don't know why one wouldn't center a fictitious future of climate change there, and worse leave it out entirely. It's civilization is ascending while western white European culture is obviously descending.
I don't want my criticism of the book to lie entirely on Robinson's euro-centrism, but it is my primary complaint. Not because this makes the book racist, and I'm not accusing Robinson of that, but because it shows how Robinson's limited view of the world shapes his fiction. He gives us a white saviour story primarily taking place in Switzerland and yet claims to be speaking to the world. It's just dumb.
China is left out because the government behavior there for the past few decades has been to deprioritize climate change entirely. Until they take some kind of initiative in leading the world in reducing CO2, European countries are likely where this innovation will be. Right now both the US and China are the problem, this has nothing to do with “white”.
I am in Shenzhen, and have been told by friends that it is impossible to get a license for gas powered cars. There is a strong push for all cars to be electric, electric bikes are everywhere, and all buses are electric. And China is making a push towards renewables and to reduce their dependence on coal, if only to combat air pollution.
Maybe they don't talk about climate change as the reason perse, but it is wrong to say they are doing nothing, and in fact I would argue they have done much more than I see in my native country (the U.S.).
Maybe they don't talk about climate change as the reason perse, but it is wrong to say they are doing nothing, and in fact I would argue they have done much more than I see in my native country (the U.S.).
> and in fact I would argue they have done much more than I see in my native country (the U.S.).
Is it something about discussing China that triggers people to engage in whataboutism for the US? My post that you just replied to literally just roasted the US for being shitty when it comes to climate change and your defense of China is “it might be better than the US because it’s hard to get a gas car”. GTFO with that crap.
Is it something about discussing China that triggers people to engage in whataboutism for the US? My post that you just replied to literally just roasted the US for being shitty when it comes to climate change and your defense of China is “it might be better than the US because it’s hard to get a gas car”. GTFO with that crap.
I suspect China was left out because it already had an important role in his previous novel "Red Moon".
Europeans are not the good guys in this. Yes we care about the environment but only IN OUR OWN BACKYARD. All the evil and polluting industries have been given a bag of cash to move.
> China is left out because the government behavior there for the past few decades has been to deprioritize climate change entirely.
China is left out because their per capita income is lower than romania.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...
And their per capita CO2 emission is nothing. Most of china's emissions are to provide manufacturing goods to europe.
> European countries are likely where this innovation will be.
Europe isn't at the forefront of anything anymore.
> Right now both the US and China are the problem, this has nothing to do with “white”.
No. The problem is europe. And climate change is most definitely a white problem. It was a result of europe's decision to colonize, genocide and industrialize. On a per capita basis, europe at near the top of C02 emissions. You don't get to live a 1st world lifestyle without causing environmental harm.
The idea that china or india or africa has to fix a problem caused by europe is a non-starter.
China is left out because their per capita income is lower than romania.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...
And their per capita CO2 emission is nothing. Most of china's emissions are to provide manufacturing goods to europe.
> European countries are likely where this innovation will be.
Europe isn't at the forefront of anything anymore.
> Right now both the US and China are the problem, this has nothing to do with “white”.
No. The problem is europe. And climate change is most definitely a white problem. It was a result of europe's decision to colonize, genocide and industrialize. On a per capita basis, europe at near the top of C02 emissions. You don't get to live a 1st world lifestyle without causing environmental harm.
The idea that china or india or africa has to fix a problem caused by europe is a non-starter.
> He's American, so he probably thinks China is inherently a bad place where stupid things happen.
Without speaking to the book’s Eurocentrism, I can confirm this is not true. KSR has said in interviews he believes China is the world’s best hope at mitigating climate change because the United States is too politically decayed to accomplish anything at that scale.
Without speaking to the book’s Eurocentrism, I can confirm this is not true. KSR has said in interviews he believes China is the world’s best hope at mitigating climate change because the United States is too politically decayed to accomplish anything at that scale.
>It's civilization is ascending while western white European culture is obviously descending.
China's had a below-replacement birthrate since 1991. It's TFR was 1.7 last year, 132nd in the world, putting it next to demographic powerhouses like Latvia and Denmark.
This is an ascendant civilization?
China's had a below-replacement birthrate since 1991. It's TFR was 1.7 last year, 132nd in the world, putting it next to demographic powerhouses like Latvia and Denmark.
This is an ascendant civilization?
Maybe Switzerland because entities like Glencore are (nominally) based there?
Mining and such, you know?
Or Nestlé, making billions with water:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nestle-ceo-water-not-human...
IDK, make up your own mind.
Mining and such, you know?
Or Nestlé, making billions with water:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nestle-ceo-water-not-human...
IDK, make up your own mind.
From someone who hasn't read it, can you say why?
That's the second time I've seen it referenced here. Cheers.
That's the second time I've seen it referenced here. Cheers.
An Indian heat wave is the premise of the story.
I stopped reading it after a couple of chapters.
I stopped reading it after a couple of chapters.
Yeah it gets monotonous after a while, but the first third of the book or so is very good.
I couldn't finish it either but the beginning was good!
Mostly because it starts with a Indian heat wave that kills 20 million people in a couple of days. Beyond that its a load of gibberish glorifying eco terrorism and full blown woke politics. Basically its written to be the extreme left's wet dream of breakdown in global order and bringing to heel the 'global elite'. It is difficult to move past the heavy pro communist overtones and the whole narrative lurches into many tangents that have no relation to the plot.
The subject chosen is really interesting but the way the novel was written (fiction mixed with facts) and some chapters where the author directly communicates with the reader is really weird. I wouldn't be surprised if this is their first novel and reads like a middle school essay of some kind.
The subject chosen is really interesting but the way the novel was written (fiction mixed with facts) and some chapters where the author directly communicates with the reader is really weird. I wouldn't be surprised if this is their first novel and reads like a middle school essay of some kind.
>I wouldn't be surprised if this is their first novel and reads like a middle school essay of some kind.
It's Kim Stanley Robinson...
It's Kim Stanley Robinson...
My bad. I didn't lookup the Author name. I am a fan of his Mars trilogy. I don't know why the writing style is so crappy in this one. I tried pushing forward but its just hard. Its actually a lot similar to the Red faction in the Mars trilogy. That rabid faction never made any sense to me in those novels and the same pre assumed moral superiority didn't make much sense in the new novel.
I prized the trilogy for its vivid descriptions of the Mars in the beginning to how it was transformed using technology. The pace was good and never boring. Not so in this latest one - some characters and their feelings are given so much space in the book without moving the plot - like that character who survived the heat wave - by the 3rd of the book, you would wish he didn't - just chapters and chapters of PTSD descriptions.
I prized the trilogy for its vivid descriptions of the Mars in the beginning to how it was transformed using technology. The pace was good and never boring. Not so in this latest one - some characters and their feelings are given so much space in the book without moving the plot - like that character who survived the heat wave - by the 3rd of the book, you would wish he didn't - just chapters and chapters of PTSD descriptions.
[deleted]
If there is anybody who sees Indian domestic news and/or articles, could you tell us whether there is any political impetus there to start spraying climate-modifying aerosols at high altitudes regardless of effectiveness and/or international opinion, or if it's completely outside of the Indian overton window?
I don't see this being discussed or something any public figure has said as being considered.
Various states in India are deprioritizing power supply to industries in favour of consumer household use. So domestic news is playing those "govt reduces power supply to industries by 50%" headlines. [1]
Use of ACs and air coolers has skyrocketed the demand for power (38 year high), thereby increasing demand for Coal. Internal politics is now totally fixated on Coal stocks and supply for each state. National govt even blamed some states for "not taking ample steps to end power shortage, not buying enough coal". [2]
National govt cancelled 650 passenger trains to ensure timely delivery of coal supplies by train rakes to states.
[1] https://twitter.com/CNBCTV18Live/status/1520308462533550080
[2] https://twitter.com/CNBCTV18Live/status/1519929083588902912
Various states in India are deprioritizing power supply to industries in favour of consumer household use. So domestic news is playing those "govt reduces power supply to industries by 50%" headlines. [1]
Use of ACs and air coolers has skyrocketed the demand for power (38 year high), thereby increasing demand for Coal. Internal politics is now totally fixated on Coal stocks and supply for each state. National govt even blamed some states for "not taking ample steps to end power shortage, not buying enough coal". [2]
National govt cancelled 650 passenger trains to ensure timely delivery of coal supplies by train rakes to states.
[1] https://twitter.com/CNBCTV18Live/status/1520308462533550080
[2] https://twitter.com/CNBCTV18Live/status/1519929083588902912
And is there any sentiment that this is caused by climate change, and coal phase out should be accelerated?
I get the immediate need for electricity, but talk about increasing coal stocks sounds weird nonetheless in light of what the goals are now in Western countries.
I get the immediate need for electricity, but talk about increasing coal stocks sounds weird nonetheless in light of what the goals are now in Western countries.
I don't think there's any confusion here that human activities are impacting the climate, even in the political strata. So policy wise, carbon emissions targets are...whatever they are.
But if talk of an "accelerated coal phase out" were to come up, it will face some pushback and phasing-out pace will only be in line with development and growth targets. I wouldn't be surprised if politicians point to emissions by developed nations over the years and term India as a victim of it.
Consumers would happily switch to EVs that are priced right. That shift may occur fairly quickly. The grid going hybrid is a work in progress. Coal is now showing how "elastic" it can be to meet demand spikes like these, so it may stick around longer.
But if talk of an "accelerated coal phase out" were to come up, it will face some pushback and phasing-out pace will only be in line with development and growth targets. I wouldn't be surprised if politicians point to emissions by developed nations over the years and term India as a victim of it.
Consumers would happily switch to EVs that are priced right. That shift may occur fairly quickly. The grid going hybrid is a work in progress. Coal is now showing how "elastic" it can be to meet demand spikes like these, so it may stick around longer.
Western efforts to avert climate change won’t succeed, certainly not in time to avoid the consequences of these heat waves, and India can’t afford to spend time or money on optical measures. Renewables are being phased in as they are cost effective, but India needs to invest in air conditioning now instead of uncertain mitigation efforts in the future.
At least among those who're aware of these things, I do believe that sentiment prevails, though it sucks that nuclear which is likely a good options is opposed.
India has done more than its share to meet its commitments.
The rest of the world, of course, is full of pompous hypocrites who say one thing to arm-twist nations like India, while doing exactly the opposite at home (see, climate-change, Russian-oil etc.). Little wonder there is little trust of the West in the global south (except in "elite" circles).
The rest of the world, of course, is full of pompous hypocrites who say one thing to arm-twist nations like India, while doing exactly the opposite at home (see, climate-change, Russian-oil etc.). Little wonder there is little trust of the West in the global south (except in "elite" circles).
I'm experiencing this heat right now, albeit very very mild but still bad, in southern part of India.
Coming to climate modifying aerosols I haven't heard/read this being discussed. A comparable exercise, cloud seeding, was done couple of years ago. But it was very geographically limited. What we are experiencing right now is unprecedented. So I guess we just have to wait it out.
For comparison; Bangalore used to see high summer temperature of 32-34 about a decade ago. It's gotten progressively worse. To an extent that Bangalore reached ~35-36 as soon as summer months began, mid/late March.
By far the harshest heat I've experienced is back in 2015, early May in Delhi, India. I don't know what the temperature was but the blast of heat wave as soon as I exited from office building is vivid in my memory. Couple of days later I read in news that a few cars spontaneously caught fire around the office building I visited.
Also, fire broke out last week in Delhi last week[1]. So yeah, it's quite bad.
Edit: more content.
[1] https://www.india.com/news/delhi/video-delhi-bhalswa-landfil...
Coming to climate modifying aerosols I haven't heard/read this being discussed. A comparable exercise, cloud seeding, was done couple of years ago. But it was very geographically limited. What we are experiencing right now is unprecedented. So I guess we just have to wait it out.
For comparison; Bangalore used to see high summer temperature of 32-34 about a decade ago. It's gotten progressively worse. To an extent that Bangalore reached ~35-36 as soon as summer months began, mid/late March.
By far the harshest heat I've experienced is back in 2015, early May in Delhi, India. I don't know what the temperature was but the blast of heat wave as soon as I exited from office building is vivid in my memory. Couple of days later I read in news that a few cars spontaneously caught fire around the office building I visited.
Also, fire broke out last week in Delhi last week[1]. So yeah, it's quite bad.
Edit: more content.
[1] https://www.india.com/news/delhi/video-delhi-bhalswa-landfil...
Nope. The hot weather is off the news cycle and the top news is political. https://www.ndtv.com/
Cities section does have it.
https://www.ndtv.com/cities#pfrom=home-cities
https://www.ndtv.com/cities#pfrom=home-cities
Was this comment inspired by Kim Stanley Robinson’s Ministry for the Future, or is this a case of life-imitates-art-imitates-life?
Neal Stephenson also published a geoengineering novel this year.
The climate effect would extend far beyond India's borders, isn't it a given that more developed countries wouldn't "let" India do it? Of course, I don't expect they will apply the same objections to themselves when it becomes domestically advantageous to geoengineer the climate.
[deleted]
keewee7(1)
Climate change in action, only going to get worse.
Yes, and i dont see anyway to change it. It will just get worse and we will do nothing.
I can see several million or even billion people die in the next 20 to 30 years.
I can see several million or even billion people die in the next 20 to 30 years.
You're being downvoted but this is pretty much what we should expect to happen (unless we take real action). A zero sum mess for livable spaces for some decades. I'm sure humanity will be awesome again in like 2300 once we get out of it and the wisdom of the mistakes are engrained in the new culture (it'd be wonderful to see).
Is nature going to put a stop to our rape of this planet by directly killing millions (maybe billions) through heat, fire, flooding, famine, drought, etc.? Is that what it will take? Am I wrong to be despondent about our capability as a species to prevent this coming catastrophe any other way?
> Is that what it will take?
Probably. That said, the brunt will be born by the poor. America may face a deep recession. India, starvation and a political reboot.
Probably. That said, the brunt will be born by the poor. America may face a deep recession. India, starvation and a political reboot.
Even if all humans on the planet went to zero emissions tomorrow it is too late. We are now inside a feedback loop that will push temperature rise to +20c and sea levels up 200m or more within 200 years. Photosynthesis drops off to zero long before then. Geoengineering is the only way we don’t go extinct along with most animals.
Dear doomsayer: Citation needed.
Well you're in luck because it's likely we'll have a nuclear war soon, and that will put plenty of aerosols in the atomosphere, and cool things down.
Bad news: nuclear winter isn't actually a thing, so after the bombs drop we'll still be stuck with runaway climate change.
That is just a temporary band-aid, lasting like 8 years tops. Are we going to nuke each other regularly? Do we have enough nukes for a permanent climate change? How can we make sure we have a sufficient supply of nukes for that?
[deleted]
Population reduction is the most effective tool we actually have. So nature doing it for us is a good thing. Sadly it targets more likely those who emit less and not more.
> Population reduction is the most effective tool we actually have
This is the ultimate "do as I say, not as I do", never seen a single person who has argued that there are too many people on this planet follow it up by removing themselves from the tally. It's always other people who are the "too many".
This is the ultimate "do as I say, not as I do", never seen a single person who has argued that there are too many people on this planet follow it up by removing themselves from the tally. It's always other people who are the "too many".
And natural selection is a harsh mistress. If a certain cohort decides not to reproduce, then the next generation will be populated by those who did decide to reproduce, and humanity on average will have more reproductive fervor than ever. By all means, have fewer children if you want, but that does not solve the long-term problem. If you want people in general to have fewer children, then focus on educating and enriching the world's poorest, for whom having many children is a matter of survival.
> Population reduction is the most effective tool we actually have
Are you a visitor from 1900? That's exactly what people were saying 122 years ago. Prophecies of Doom are easy to make but appear to be hardly take in account a key factor: technological progress.
Are you a visitor from 1900? That's exactly what people were saying 122 years ago. Prophecies of Doom are easy to make but appear to be hardly take in account a key factor: technological progress.
It doesn’t matter. We are now in a feedback loop that will take us to +20c regardless of human emissions. Geoengineering is our only hope.
Cite your sources? This is 10x any estimate I've seen.
Look into the papers collected by the ipcc. The ipcc is the most conservative possible estimates that every member nation can unanimously agree on, and many are big carbon export nations.
Even the ipcc report this year says we are fubared.
Even the ipcc report this year says we are fubared.
Not disagreeing on fubared but the reports I've read say 4C by 2100. Not 20.
Article says this isn’t a record high so what do you mean?
This may surprise people, but places near the equator are really god damn hot most of the time and when they have a heat wave it’s even hotter.
This may surprise people, but places near the equator are really god damn hot most of the time and when they have a heat wave it’s even hotter.
Climate change isn't only new record high temperatures. It's also, as described in the article, temperatures consistently being higher than is regular for this time of the year.
How do you tell "climate change" heat waves from "non-climate change" heat waves? I mean "heat waves" are not some recent phenomenon.
I mean, any farmer can tell you some growing seasons are really warm, others cold, some very dry and others very wet. No two seasons are the same.
I mean, any farmer can tell you some growing seasons are really warm, others cold, some very dry and others very wet. No two seasons are the same.
This is more or less covered in the article as well:
> Meteorologists from the India Meteorological Department (IMD) found that March 2022 was the hottest March for India as a whole since 1901, with average highs jumping to a staggering 3.35 degrees Fahrenheit (1.86 degrees Celsius) above the climatological average.
Heat waves happen, and have happened before, but if they become more common, longer, hotter on average etc you can see this in the statistics.
> Meteorologists from the India Meteorological Department (IMD) found that March 2022 was the hottest March for India as a whole since 1901, with average highs jumping to a staggering 3.35 degrees Fahrenheit (1.86 degrees Celsius) above the climatological average.
Heat waves happen, and have happened before, but if they become more common, longer, hotter on average etc you can see this in the statistics.
If the last time this happened was 1901 (but 1901 was hotter), it doesn't sound "more common"?
It's literally more than 100 years since the last time this level of heat occurred. Sounds similar to 100-year floods?
It's literally more than 100 years since the last time this level of heat occurred. Sounds similar to 100-year floods?
My understanding is that 1901 wasn't particularly hot. They mention 1901 because that's when systematic collection of weather data began.
"Meteorologists from the India Meteorological Department (IMD) found that March 2022 was the hottest March for India as a whole since 1901".
As the other comment already pointed out, the study linked in the article [0] makes it clear that it's not the case that 1901 was the hottest March, but instead 1901 is the year that data gathering began. The warmest March on record was 2010.
> Characteristics of Average maximum, minimum and mean temperature for the country as a whole and over four homogenous region during March 2022 and its comparison since 1901
> [...]
> The country averaged monthly mean temperatures of 26.67ºC is the second warmest since 1901 (The warmest year on record was 2010 (26.671 ºC)).
[0] https://internal.imd.gov.in/press_release/20220402_pr_1551.p...
> Characteristics of Average maximum, minimum and mean temperature for the country as a whole and over four homogenous region during March 2022 and its comparison since 1901
> [...]
> The country averaged monthly mean temperatures of 26.67ºC is the second warmest since 1901 (The warmest year on record was 2010 (26.671 ºC)).
[0] https://internal.imd.gov.in/press_release/20220402_pr_1551.p...
[deleted]
You cannot tell the difference between types of events. However the science says that the frequency increases.
That is what is actually the thing that climate change models say: more exteme weather events.
Climate != Weather
But climate shapes weather.
That is what is actually the thing that climate change models say: more exteme weather events.
Climate != Weather
But climate shapes weather.
It's the new normal now.
People already think that the avarage temperature in the last 3 years was always like that
People already think that the avarage temperature in the last 3 years was always like that
[deleted]
[deleted]
And here in the western world, people still don't like using public transport and their bikes (when they can).
It's difficult to be optimistic, but it seems there is nothing that will truly limit fossil fuel consumption.
Maybe some oil producing countries could get in some sort of alliance, and artificially limit the amount of oil they extract, in return for subsidies? Those countries could also put a tariff on oil.
The fact that cars manufacturers don't even try to increase MPG, by reducing the engine size and car weight, is also quite hilarious.
It's difficult to be optimistic, but it seems there is nothing that will truly limit fossil fuel consumption.
Maybe some oil producing countries could get in some sort of alliance, and artificially limit the amount of oil they extract, in return for subsidies? Those countries could also put a tariff on oil.
The fact that cars manufacturers don't even try to increase MPG, by reducing the engine size and car weight, is also quite hilarious.
"Hilarious" is not the word I'd use. "Dispiriting", "Irresponsible", "Fucked up".
I don't understand why we aren't pouring massive amounts of money into public transport. Apparently many people in Western Europe seem to enjoy being stuck in traffic for hours every day. For some reason, company cars are still a thing in Belgium, very nearly everyone working in IT gets one. I can't wrap my head around how stupid this is.
Not only does there seem to be no sense of urgency, there doesn't seem to be much interest in doing anything at all..
I don't understand why we aren't pouring massive amounts of money into public transport. Apparently many people in Western Europe seem to enjoy being stuck in traffic for hours every day. For some reason, company cars are still a thing in Belgium, very nearly everyone working in IT gets one. I can't wrap my head around how stupid this is.
Not only does there seem to be no sense of urgency, there doesn't seem to be much interest in doing anything at all..
> I can't wrap my head around how stupid this is.
Same as in the Netherlands: It's a cost/tax dodge. Looks like you get 500-800 euro/month in car but it actually only costs about 200 to the company and the company doesn't have to pay a significant amount of taxes over it. Scrap that advantage and it will quickly go away.
Same as in the Netherlands: It's a cost/tax dodge. Looks like you get 500-800 euro/month in car but it actually only costs about 200 to the company and the company doesn't have to pay a significant amount of taxes over it. Scrap that advantage and it will quickly go away.
Public transport hasn't solved the problem of "the last mile". How do I get to/from the train station/bus stop? Frequently you still need a car to even get there and then you will need parking - which is often limited and costs a lot.
Then there's timeliness. Deutsche Bahn is known for frequently their trains are delayed. In summer, even on the Intercity connections (IC, ICE) trains will be filled to the brim and air conditioning unavailable.
I love trains. I want to use public transport. It's just so goddamn inefficient.
I live in a small town about 70km north of Frankfurt am Main. A lot of people will commute daily from here to Frankfurt. The drive is 45 minutes to 70 minutes depending on traffic. If I were to take a train I could: - Walk to the bus station (5 minutes) - Take a bus to the train station (25 minutes) - Take the train to Frankfurt (60 minutes) - Take the metro to the closest location for my office (10 minutes) - Walk into the office (5 minutes)
The time given is assuming no delays, and a schedule that matches up perfectly. Realistically you'll lose another 30 minutes just standing around on platforms.
Ultimately the whole trip, even with a daily ticket will already cost you double your fuel costs for the same ride while sacrificing air condition, quiet and comfort.
We need better solutions for a lot of things. I loved seeing how Oxford in the UK has massive parking lots outside the city center with free buses connecting you to the city. It means that people can take the highway to the city but not get stuck in city traffic.
Then there's timeliness. Deutsche Bahn is known for frequently their trains are delayed. In summer, even on the Intercity connections (IC, ICE) trains will be filled to the brim and air conditioning unavailable.
I love trains. I want to use public transport. It's just so goddamn inefficient.
I live in a small town about 70km north of Frankfurt am Main. A lot of people will commute daily from here to Frankfurt. The drive is 45 minutes to 70 minutes depending on traffic. If I were to take a train I could: - Walk to the bus station (5 minutes) - Take a bus to the train station (25 minutes) - Take the train to Frankfurt (60 minutes) - Take the metro to the closest location for my office (10 minutes) - Walk into the office (5 minutes)
The time given is assuming no delays, and a schedule that matches up perfectly. Realistically you'll lose another 30 minutes just standing around on platforms.
Ultimately the whole trip, even with a daily ticket will already cost you double your fuel costs for the same ride while sacrificing air condition, quiet and comfort.
We need better solutions for a lot of things. I loved seeing how Oxford in the UK has massive parking lots outside the city center with free buses connecting you to the city. It means that people can take the highway to the city but not get stuck in city traffic.
Major part of the problem is working 70 kilometers away. Before cars you would basically just live pretty close to your place of work. I think that's how it should still be, but don't see any realistic way for societies to encourage that beyond building denser cities where every new residential area comes with rail transport from the get-go.
Bikes are great for solving transit’s last-mile problem provided it’s at all close to the last mile and not, say, the last 15. E-bikes especially so.
Beyond that, yes, transit schedules need to be frequent and reliable, with frequency especially being important if you have to make lots of transfers. It’s no big deal if you miss your train if another one will be there in a few minutes; if you have to wait 15-30 though, a slight delay can be a problem. For buses, giving them their own right-of-way is important.
Long-term though, as another commenter mentioned, we need to enable more people to live closer to work. I’m not sure what much of Germany is like (have only visited Berlin and Munich) but in the US we have a ton of sprawling suburbs because it’s not legal to build anything denser than single-family homes in most places here. Especially those places that already have good transit connections need to densify, and then the places nearest them need to do the same and build good transit connections.
Beyond that, yes, transit schedules need to be frequent and reliable, with frequency especially being important if you have to make lots of transfers. It’s no big deal if you miss your train if another one will be there in a few minutes; if you have to wait 15-30 though, a slight delay can be a problem. For buses, giving them their own right-of-way is important.
Long-term though, as another commenter mentioned, we need to enable more people to live closer to work. I’m not sure what much of Germany is like (have only visited Berlin and Munich) but in the US we have a ton of sprawling suburbs because it’s not legal to build anything denser than single-family homes in most places here. Especially those places that already have good transit connections need to densify, and then the places nearest them need to do the same and build good transit connections.
Bikes are great for the last-10-mile problem, easily. I've got plenty of friends who cycle commute 15km+ each direction, each day, and are quite happy (and healthy) doing it.
That may be practical if it’s the entirety of your commute, but it’s less practical if you then have 70 minutes of riding the train immediately afterwards, right? I’m talking bikes as a response to transit’s last-mile problem.
Maybe e-bikes do change the calculus a bit there too though.
Maybe e-bikes do change the calculus a bit there too though.
Many places have spots for bicycles on the trains, and mass guarded bike parking at train stations. Helps a bit with this last mile problem.
Ebikes really extend the range
Ebikes really extend the range
1. Climate requires that we make some compromise
2. If we used cars less, there is a good chance public transport would have less of those issues you're talking about. It's a vicious circle. Urban planning has been favoring cars for a long time.
2. If we used cars less, there is a good chance public transport would have less of those issues you're talking about. It's a vicious circle. Urban planning has been favoring cars for a long time.
> How do I get to/from the train station/bus stop?
By foot, bike, trotinette. If it's too far, that isn't good public transit and/or you live too far.
By foot, bike, trotinette. If it's too far, that isn't good public transit and/or you live too far.
> How do I get to/from the train station/bus stop?
Having good public transportation would mean having a bus stop within 100m of every house.
Having good public transportation would mean having a bus stop within 100m of every house.
I used to live 700 meters away from the subway, there's also a bus stop 100m away from where I lived. The bus came less frequently than the subway, so I got a rickety old bike if I want to go the 700 meters faster. The whole way there's a bike path on the sidewalk, separated by a wide strip of grass/trees from the street.
In the US we can and do throw money it but we don't get anything from it. Costs just balloon and scare anyone else from trying it.
https://www.constructiondive.com/news/california-high-speed-...
https://www.constructiondive.com/news/california-high-speed-...
> some oil producing countries could get in some sort of alliance, and artificially limit the amount of oil they extract, in return for subsidies
This is a difficult equation to balance when India and China burn cheap fuels while petrostates trade their reserves for bombs.
This is a difficult equation to balance when India and China burn cheap fuels while petrostates trade their reserves for bombs.
>it seems there is nothing that will truly limit fossil fuel consumption
Nothing will work while companies and consumers are free to ignore the externalities of their own actions.
Tax carbon.
Nothing will work while companies and consumers are free to ignore the externalities of their own actions.
Tax carbon.
You mean the US, because in a lot of european countries, we very much like using our public transports and bikes
The European 'we' who like using public transit and bike is unfortunately a small minority.
In France, if you add those two modes, you barely get over 10-12% of the number of moves people make.
The number of cars has again increased by 10% in the last decade. It has doubled since the 80s, when we thought that almost everyone who needed a car had one, and that they were already too many and had bad influence urban planning and many other aspects. The progression seems to never stop.
It's a flood of cars. If I take my municipality, there are more individual cars and vans than people who can drive them. It is not uncommon to see households with 3 or 5 cars. Cars are parked everywhere (rarely on owners' property, though); and that's before city people come over for the week-end or holidays (2/3 of houses are secondary residences)...
Everywhere but in large cities, local elected officials keep on pushing projects of motorways 'for economic development' like it was 1972 (a strategy which hasn't worked in 60 years, but eh...), spending tens and hundreds of millions of €, sometimes in direct competition of an existing or abandoned railroad. A case a few dozen miles away from my place: €200M for a 2 km bypass (no 0 is missing or extra). They have bottomless pockets for roads.
In France, if you add those two modes, you barely get over 10-12% of the number of moves people make.
The number of cars has again increased by 10% in the last decade. It has doubled since the 80s, when we thought that almost everyone who needed a car had one, and that they were already too many and had bad influence urban planning and many other aspects. The progression seems to never stop.
It's a flood of cars. If I take my municipality, there are more individual cars and vans than people who can drive them. It is not uncommon to see households with 3 or 5 cars. Cars are parked everywhere (rarely on owners' property, though); and that's before city people come over for the week-end or holidays (2/3 of houses are secondary residences)...
Everywhere but in large cities, local elected officials keep on pushing projects of motorways 'for economic development' like it was 1972 (a strategy which hasn't worked in 60 years, but eh...), spending tens and hundreds of millions of €, sometimes in direct competition of an existing or abandoned railroad. A case a few dozen miles away from my place: €200M for a 2 km bypass (no 0 is missing or extra). They have bottomless pockets for roads.
The west, as it is typically viewed, consists of far more than just the US and "a lot of European countries." There are plenty of places in Europe where public transport isn't as common as it should be, let alone other continents.
Some common definitions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world
Some common definitions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world
Not sure where you mean by "western world" but public transport and cycling are very popular and normal options where I live.
The GP almost certainly means the US, that's certainly not true in most of Europe.
Even in the US, there are some cities with excellent public transit.
New York is the land of subways, and was known for its endless taxis at one point.
I know other US cities have light rail, elevated tracks, transit.
Even SV has things called buses, and rail transit too.
I think people just like to shout random ideas sometimes, without thinking.
New York is the land of subways, and was known for its endless taxis at one point.
I know other US cities have light rail, elevated tracks, transit.
Even SV has things called buses, and rail transit too.
I think people just like to shout random ideas sometimes, without thinking.
I don't mean that the US doesn't have cities with good public transit, but that the cities with bad public transit are usually in the US.
I just checked my old bus route when I used to work in Kansas City.
Driving from Corporate Woods, Overland Park to Westbottoms Missouri is 19 minutes. The bus takes over an hour including a sixteen minute walk. In other words, nothing has changed in ten years. It takes about three times the time to take a bus as opposed to driving.
Driving from Corporate Woods, Overland Park to Westbottoms Missouri is 19 minutes. The bus takes over an hour including a sixteen minute walk. In other words, nothing has changed in ten years. It takes about three times the time to take a bus as opposed to driving.
Many Americans make sweeping assumptions about the "western world" only based on what they see in the US ( lack of public transit, only SUVs, political partisanship, etc.).
Public transit is pretty great in most big French cities ( including mini metros in not huge cities like Rennes, Lille Toulouse).
Public transit is pretty great in most big French cities ( including mini metros in not huge cities like Rennes, Lille Toulouse).
> people still don't like using public transport
Because most public transport sucks, is unreliable, only works at certain hours, is dirty, unsafe, and covers only a small ridiculous amount of space limited to key cities. No wonder.
The pandemic will only make public transport less desirable as well.
Because most public transport sucks, is unreliable, only works at certain hours, is dirty, unsafe, and covers only a small ridiculous amount of space limited to key cities. No wonder.
The pandemic will only make public transport less desirable as well.
Public transit sucks in areas where only poor people use it.
When everyone has to use it, all of a sudden, everyone becomes invested in improving it.
> unsafe
Driving is unsafe. ~40,000 people die while driving in the US every year, and many more are seriously injured.
Public transit is so much safer, it's not even in the same ballpark.
When everyone has to use it, all of a sudden, everyone becomes invested in improving it.
> unsafe
Driving is unsafe. ~40,000 people die while driving in the US every year, and many more are seriously injured.
Public transit is so much safer, it's not even in the same ballpark.
> Public transit is so much safer, it's not even in the same ballpark.
It's safer because it goes nowhere in the first place. I can't even believe you guys are even trying to compare public transport which is super limited in the areas they can possibly cover (by definition, because it's made to cover denser areas), and stuff like cars which can go virtually anywhere, anytime, in pretty much any weather condition. In video games that would like comparing a rail shooter to an open world one: they are too different products and the overlap in utility is very narrow.
It's safer because it goes nowhere in the first place. I can't even believe you guys are even trying to compare public transport which is super limited in the areas they can possibly cover (by definition, because it's made to cover denser areas), and stuff like cars which can go virtually anywhere, anytime, in pretty much any weather condition. In video games that would like comparing a rail shooter to an open world one: they are too different products and the overlap in utility is very narrow.
1. Climate requires that we make some compromises.
2. If we used cars less, there is a good chance public transport would have less of those issues you're talking about. It's a vicious circle. Urban planning has been favoring cars for a long time.
2. If we used cars less, there is a good chance public transport would have less of those issues you're talking about. It's a vicious circle. Urban planning has been favoring cars for a long time.
> only works at certain hours, is dirty, unsafe, and covers only a small ridiculous amount of space limited to key cities
Check out my profile before commenting...
FUD
[deleted]
> It's difficult to be optimistic, but it seems there is nothing that will truly limit fossil fuel consumption.
Eventually oil production will decline [1]. Right now, it seems as if this is the only thing that will limit consumption.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil#Predictions
Eventually oil production will decline [1]. Right now, it seems as if this is the only thing that will limit consumption.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil#Predictions
We need to make public transportation so alluring people want/need to use it.
For starters, I think public transportation should be free for the poor, and low middle class.
All air travel that uses fossil fuel would would be taxed if you are above middle class. Outlaw the private jets. (It just bothers me to see the Elon, or Saturday Night Fever types jetting off to Ibesa. (Too disenfranchised to check the spelling of the party port.)
Give companies federal income tax credits if they can keep their employees at home, and not commuting.
Encourage solar with incentives. Yes--we have been doing that, but in my state (CA) PG&E seems to balk at paying customers for the energy produced.
And more Nuclear power plants, but not on faults.
Bring companies back home if their product is in a county that dosen't care about Carbon. More than just a tariff.
(In the end I'm afraid Global Warming measures will be paid for by the poor, and middleclass. Their will be more taxes on gas. Their will be more effort to keep older cars off the roads. (poor can't afford electric vechicles right now. Those two year smog checks are really getting stringent, and don't make sense. I put 500 miles on my vechicle a year. Why am I paying every two years for a smog check. DMV has our mileage. Same gripe goes for mandatory insurance.)
For starters, I think public transportation should be free for the poor, and low middle class.
All air travel that uses fossil fuel would would be taxed if you are above middle class. Outlaw the private jets. (It just bothers me to see the Elon, or Saturday Night Fever types jetting off to Ibesa. (Too disenfranchised to check the spelling of the party port.)
Give companies federal income tax credits if they can keep their employees at home, and not commuting.
Encourage solar with incentives. Yes--we have been doing that, but in my state (CA) PG&E seems to balk at paying customers for the energy produced.
And more Nuclear power plants, but not on faults.
Bring companies back home if their product is in a county that dosen't care about Carbon. More than just a tariff.
(In the end I'm afraid Global Warming measures will be paid for by the poor, and middleclass. Their will be more taxes on gas. Their will be more effort to keep older cars off the roads. (poor can't afford electric vechicles right now. Those two year smog checks are really getting stringent, and don't make sense. I put 500 miles on my vechicle a year. Why am I paying every two years for a smog check. DMV has our mileage. Same gripe goes for mandatory insurance.)
All those are good things, but in the US, it will be seen as socialist measures.
I read Chapter 1 of "Ministry of the Future" by Kim Stanley Robinson on a recommendation here - frightening that this will happen one day.
Hah was about to comment this very thing. Probably won't be as destructive as the one in the book yet this time, but give it a few years and it's geoengineering time.
That was brutal eh. Fingers crossed it never happens.
now you know why we need nuclear power. There's no way to deal with the power surge needed to help a billion people survive.
And this is in the sunniest place on earth with a significant investment in solar energy.
And this is in the sunniest place on earth with a significant investment in solar energy.
Minnesotans should be worried.
Several times in the past 20 years I have seen the heat index break 50C[1] and it is normal to experience >95F temperature at near 100% humidity in the summertime.
The issue with the Minnesotan climate (in both winter and summer) is that there is no moderating coastal effect for thousands of miles and it is possible for heat (and cold) to "pool" in that center of the continent.
My understanding - and also my personal experience - is that Minnesota summers are a few degrees away from being life-threatening.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Minnesota_weather_reco...
Several times in the past 20 years I have seen the heat index break 50C[1] and it is normal to experience >95F temperature at near 100% humidity in the summertime.
The issue with the Minnesotan climate (in both winter and summer) is that there is no moderating coastal effect for thousands of miles and it is possible for heat (and cold) to "pool" in that center of the continent.
My understanding - and also my personal experience - is that Minnesota summers are a few degrees away from being life-threatening.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Minnesota_weather_reco...
It should be noted that AccuWeather is a very problematic source when it comes to any topic related to climate change. They were spreading outright climate denial in the past and have spread misinformation downplaying climate change since:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/08/09/accuweathe...
This text is problematic as well. It mentions climate change twice, but frames it as the personal opinion of some people that there's a relation between heat waves and climate change.
This text is problematic as well. It mentions climate change twice, but frames it as the personal opinion of some people that there's a relation between heat waves and climate change.
Meanwhile we've had an unusually cold spring here in the Midwest.
Never knew Himalayan range is so effective. India should build artificial mountain range to stop heat weave entering the region.
Why? It’s easier to just invent fusion and get air conditioning going at the national level. Or just paint the entire country white.
India has painted entire cities before! (Jodhpur blue, Jaipur pink)
not everyone might like all white. Instead of entire country we can have dome with climate control over metro city.
Maybe blow some parts of the Himalayas so the cold air can enter the Indian mainland.
If that is done, then the advantages are lost too. Much of moisture from the monsoons is dumped as snow during winter which powers all the glacial rivers because Himalayas act as a barrier for the moisture rich winds. That is why the other side of Himalayas is a cold dry desert (rain shadow).
and let Chinese in? nah.
A grim thought, but in 50 years time when a lot of the planet is uninhabitably hot, does that reduce emissions, by virtue of, you know, there not being people to stoke the fires?
There is a force in the opposite direction, because all the tree carbon and soil carbon currently stored in those areas will likely burn or decay, increasing total atmospheric carbon. Also permafrost melting will release huge amounts of methane. Lots of positive feedback loops that will be going independent of burning fossil fuels.
locks and loads clathrate gun
Thanks, that was a fun read.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
It's probably not that simple. If you have food shortages and displaced populations as a result in climate change, then you might get an increase in poverty. More poverty means less education, and less access to things like birth control. So you could see somewhat of an acceleration in population growth and energy demand as a result.
> So you could see somewhat of an acceleration in population growth and energy demand as a result.
but poor people dont consume as much energy as rich Westerners.
but poor people dont consume as much energy as rich Westerners.
Reducing emissions may not have the effect you might think.
First, once the CO2 is in the atmosphere, it stays there for a very long time (centuries to millennia). So stopping emissions would not stop the heat.
Second, emissions also contain sulfer dioxide, which has a cooling effect through the formation of sulfate aerosols. These do not stay in the atmosphere for very long (only weeks). So in a scenario where these emissions stop, the immediate result would be a loss of that cooling effect and thus even more heat.
First, once the CO2 is in the atmosphere, it stays there for a very long time (centuries to millennia). So stopping emissions would not stop the heat.
Second, emissions also contain sulfer dioxide, which has a cooling effect through the formation of sulfate aerosols. These do not stay in the atmosphere for very long (only weeks). So in a scenario where these emissions stop, the immediate result would be a loss of that cooling effect and thus even more heat.
Most carbon pollution comes from the global north, most of which will still be inhabitable long after the tropics aren't.
Food security is another quesiton.
Food security is another quesiton.
baisq(2)
India has been happily buying discount fossil fuels from Russia. Foot, meet gun
US imported even more.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/international-b...
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/international-b...
Countries with secure energy reserves are sitting on the moral high horse right now.
Similar to the India criticism above, in Europe it is always Germany that is criticized for importing natural gas from Russia. This week it turned out that Poland and Bulgaria (which Russia has just cut off) relied to the order of 45% and 90% on Russian gas. Poland is now re-importing Russian gas from Germany!
Other European countries also rely on Russian gas.
I suppose we should instead buy from virtuous countries like Saudi Arabia (Yemen war, human rights violations).
Similar to the India criticism above, in Europe it is always Germany that is criticized for importing natural gas from Russia. This week it turned out that Poland and Bulgaria (which Russia has just cut off) relied to the order of 45% and 90% on Russian gas. Poland is now re-importing Russian gas from Germany!
Other European countries also rely on Russian gas.
I suppose we should instead buy from virtuous countries like Saudi Arabia (Yemen war, human rights violations).
Still it's easier to lay blame on the richest country in Europe for picking the cheaper and dirtier option while they could do better, than Poland for trying to pull itself out of poverty. Not to mention a large chunk of Germany's gas is used by the chemical industry, which is kind of like saying "we're gonna keep buying Russian gas to not hurt our profit margins".
What we should really be doing is following France's shining example of complete nuclear power independence, but the time for that was 15 years ago and we're basically all fucked right now.
What we should really be doing is following France's shining example of complete nuclear power independence, but the time for that was 15 years ago and we're basically all fucked right now.
I agree with pushing nuclear energy, but France is still buying Russian gas!
Other European countries benefit from the NordStream pipelines as well, which were originally built to circumvent Ukraine after Ukraine stole gas in transit (another example that the history is more complex than presented right now).
Germany is rich on paper for the elites. The population is poor, suffers from wage dumping through influx of Eastern Europeans and already suffers from sky high energy costs for private households.
Other European countries benefit from the NordStream pipelines as well, which were originally built to circumvent Ukraine after Ukraine stole gas in transit (another example that the history is more complex than presented right now).
Germany is rich on paper for the elites. The population is poor, suffers from wage dumping through influx of Eastern Europeans and already suffers from sky high energy costs for private households.
>in Europe it is always Germany that is criticized for importing natural gas from Russia
Germany is particularly criticized because they shut down their nuclear plants about 10 years ago, which makes them seen as huge hypocrites when talking about reducing fossil fuel use.
Germany is particularly criticized because they shut down their nuclear plants about 10 years ago, which makes them seen as huge hypocrites when talking about reducing fossil fuel use.
Yeah, why care for the poor population even when Europe is busy buying oil for itself. It’s not like per capita consumption of the west is 10x or greater.
Well that would be 12kWh (EU) vs. 1.8kWh (India). Multiply by population 447M * 12 kWh = 5364 BkWh vs. 1360M * 1.8 kWh = 2448 BkWh from oil. So yes, EU is spewing twice the co2 from oil. That said, the EU has probably the strongest co2 emissions reduction programs out there atm. The EU for example reduced its co2 emissions by 19% 2019->2020. India’s co2 emissions OTOH grows 4-5% each year. So in that sense they are shooting themselves in the foot. Of course there are multitudes of things to consider (GDP, standard of living etc.) so blamegame is a bit misplaced.
For blame: all this pales in comparison to the US, which consumes over twice the oil per capita (27 kWh/capita) vs. EU https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-oil?tab=table which make 27 kWh * 334M = 9000 BWh from oil alone and is barely reducing their total co2 emmissions. They reduced it by a whopping 1% 2009-2019
For blame: all this pales in comparison to the US, which consumes over twice the oil per capita (27 kWh/capita) vs. EU https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-oil?tab=table which make 27 kWh * 334M = 9000 BWh from oil alone and is barely reducing their total co2 emmissions. They reduced it by a whopping 1% 2009-2019
One can always compare the per capita and blame the rich world for many issues. This is nice for a debate.
But at the end, poor + middle class of India suffer due to this. Sure the rich world ruined environment, but that cannot be reason to say India can do similar. The first to get affected will be the poor world (yes, incl. India) and then only the poor people in the west.
I understand this is a sensitive issue, as my wife is from India, and people do not like complaining about India (especially they do not like foreign news organisations like BBC/CNN/NYtimes posting negative news).
Please start thinking as global citizens (heck your people are running Twitter, Google, MS).
But at the end, poor + middle class of India suffer due to this. Sure the rich world ruined environment, but that cannot be reason to say India can do similar. The first to get affected will be the poor world (yes, incl. India) and then only the poor people in the west.
I understand this is a sensitive issue, as my wife is from India, and people do not like complaining about India (especially they do not like foreign news organisations like BBC/CNN/NYtimes posting negative news).
Please start thinking as global citizens (heck your people are running Twitter, Google, MS).
The problem is that you are cut off from the reality. The poor has to live and that means we need to have cheap energy. Get off the high horse and maybe engage with your governments to understand why nuclear power is still out of reach for developing nations. Forget about sharing green power tech.
exactly .... "rules for thee, but none for me". In an already resource constrained place like India, it will take time to switch to renewable resources. Until then the only option is fossil fuels.
It doesn't seem to get talked about as much it should but the economically efficient way to net zero is for rich, but non-sunny places to install solar in poor but sunny places and split the carbon reduction 'credit'. It’s a win-win-win.
I wonder how much more effective in economically damaging Russia it would be to push solar (and efficiency, insulation etc.) in regions on its southern border.
EU should do it at home too, as its the smart thing to do regardless, but bang-for-buck probably depends more on a) geography, b) growth rate of electricity usage, c) displacement of coal power, followed by poorly regulated methane extraction.
I wonder how much more effective in economically damaging Russia it would be to push solar (and efficiency, insulation etc.) in regions on its southern border.
EU should do it at home too, as its the smart thing to do regardless, but bang-for-buck probably depends more on a) geography, b) growth rate of electricity usage, c) displacement of coal power, followed by poorly regulated methane extraction.
India is already doing it. Not at a rapid enough pace to meet all of the national demand, but at least my state (KA) has the lowest coal consumption and is still selling electricity to other states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaic_power_sta... sort by year and by capacity for highlights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaic_power_sta... sort by year and by capacity for highlights.
India does have some good work in this area but at the margin India will think "should I invest one more dollar in this?" and the answer will be "No, it will only gain me 99c that I can capture".
But that gain, unlike the carbon output, will be bounded by the national border, unless there's some way of exporting it for cash.
EU carbon tariffs will have a similar effect, making Indian goods relatively cheaper on the export market if they invest in solar.
This comes up again and again. The famous "Renewable Energy Without the Hot Air" for example is about how the UK could generate it's own power cleanly.
Which is effectively irrelevant in a global context of 60 Million vs 11 Billion people, but it makes phasing out fossil fuels seem harder so there's a lot of people pushing it as an unstated assumption.
But that gain, unlike the carbon output, will be bounded by the national border, unless there's some way of exporting it for cash.
EU carbon tariffs will have a similar effect, making Indian goods relatively cheaper on the export market if they invest in solar.
This comes up again and again. The famous "Renewable Energy Without the Hot Air" for example is about how the UK could generate it's own power cleanly.
Which is effectively irrelevant in a global context of 60 Million vs 11 Billion people, but it makes phasing out fossil fuels seem harder so there's a lot of people pushing it as an unstated assumption.
Tangential to this, there is the Morocco solar project - where the plan is to export via HVDC link to the UK - will this result in UK energy prices influencing those of Morocco? "Ideally" the production site should have access to cheaper energy since it's "their resource".
Thats a good example. It would be better for 'global' warming if Britain just bought carbon credits from Morocco and skipped the transmission line.
Morocco gets cheap, clean energy independence and industrial investment, the world gets less fossil co2 and even if they get taken over by Martians in the future that don't respect human laws, the climate benefit is already delivered and can’t be "cut off".
However, the same groups that have poisoned the well on carbon "taxes", seem to have really done a number on the whole concept of offsets and emissions trading.
Free market economics? Not acceptable if it hurts fossil fuels and helps the poor, only vice versa it seems.
Morocco gets cheap, clean energy independence and industrial investment, the world gets less fossil co2 and even if they get taken over by Martians in the future that don't respect human laws, the climate benefit is already delivered and can’t be "cut off".
However, the same groups that have poisoned the well on carbon "taxes", seem to have really done a number on the whole concept of offsets and emissions trading.
Free market economics? Not acceptable if it hurts fossil fuels and helps the poor, only vice versa it seems.
The Gold Standard organisation funds projects that reduce carbon emissions and helps the poor:
https://www.goldstandard.org/our-story/gold-standard-feature...
https://www.goldstandard.org/our-story/gold-standard-feature...
"Free market" economics are broken for nonrenewable resources, since they misprice them - don't take future scarcity into account at all, and encourage an all-you-can-extract economy.
They're relatively easy to fix though.
But fossil fuels oligarchies destroy society and civilization just as much as they destroy the environment.
Faith in government, science, rule of law, democracy and economics have been polluted as thoroughly as the air.
But fossil fuels oligarchies destroy society and civilization just as much as they destroy the environment.
Faith in government, science, rule of law, democracy and economics have been polluted as thoroughly as the air.
Europe is stopping it, India is asking for more. 140 countries could condemn the war in an UN vote - India couldn't.
I'm a European. I think we have to accept that not the whole world has to care about a war in eastern Europe. For us, it's the world, but it's hypocritical to demand that everyone pays attention to our crisis.
I generally agree - but considering this conflict could (unlikely but possibly) become a world war then, yes, other countries should pay attention.
> yes, other countries should pay attention.
India is paying attention but India also knows that Russia has been good partner in the past, lot of Indian military has Russian equipment. You dont want to piss off your military partner.
India is paying attention but India also knows that Russia has been good partner in the past, lot of Indian military has Russian equipment. You dont want to piss off your military partner.
If you're afraid of p!ssing off your military partner when it comes to quite simple right and wrong ... then they aren't your military partner, you are the slave, they are the master.
What is right and wrong?
US killed millions of Iraqis and Afghans, yet Europeans still support the US, is it because Europeans are slaves and the US is master or is it because brown lives are worth less than white lives?
US killed millions of Iraqis and Afghans, yet Europeans still support the US, is it because Europeans are slaves and the US is master or is it because brown lives are worth less than white lives?
To stay on point ... a good partnership depends on shared values, which may (and probably should) extend to similarities in what is viewed as right and wrong.
If you cannot agree on that, or negotiate and compromise on that right or wrong, or influence your partner when you think things are going wrong, then ... it's not a partnership.
If you cannot agree on that, or negotiate and compromise on that right or wrong, or influence your partner when you think things are going wrong, then ... it's not a partnership.
To stay on point by your own definition is there a slave master partnership between Europe and US because US kept killing millions of Iraqis and Afghans and Europe also shares those values or does Europe not share those values yet still keep partnering with US because they need US protection against Russia?
Should it be considered world war if it's only NATO vs Russia? WW2 involved millions from commonwealth(India contributed the largest volunteer military), I don't see India, China and Africa getting involved into NATO-Russia war directly. That excludes majority of the world's population.
True.
It does, but similar risks have come by before (in S Asia). India & Pakistan had a full confrontation in 1990s, when they were both nuclear capable & backed by Russia and US respectively. People at the helm of warcraft perhaps know where to draw the line. It is highly unlikely Putin will use tactical nukes or pre-emptively strike US/EU, no matter how grim the war looks.
People do not realize that the game of brinksmanship has played out several times in the past. We empathize Ukraine because news coverage & social media have brought the sounds of guns and rocket right to our doorstep. Horrific war crimes have happened, countless people died & children orphaned in Kosovo, Palestine, Kashmir etc. - but we can't connect with it because we don't see it flashed in the daily news.
It does, but similar risks have come by before (in S Asia). India & Pakistan had a full confrontation in 1990s, when they were both nuclear capable & backed by Russia and US respectively. People at the helm of warcraft perhaps know where to draw the line. It is highly unlikely Putin will use tactical nukes or pre-emptively strike US/EU, no matter how grim the war looks.
People do not realize that the game of brinksmanship has played out several times in the past. We empathize Ukraine because news coverage & social media have brought the sounds of guns and rocket right to our doorstep. Horrific war crimes have happened, countless people died & children orphaned in Kosovo, Palestine, Kashmir etc. - but we can't connect with it because we don't see it flashed in the daily news.
It's very hard to understand what is actually at stake - how would nuclear weapons use actually play out. I'm curious, I just don't know. I have to imagine that and actual use of nuclear weapons would play out very differently from how it's often imagined (i.e the mutually assured destruction idea, or the end of all life on the planet meme).
My gut tells me that the balance of power is not at all as "equal" as it's claimed ("both sides have nukes") but there is enough uncertainly on all sides to want to test it.
The "usual" rules of gradual escalation probably apply. Of course, it's best to avoid any escalation because it can be an uncontrollable situation.
My gut tells me that the balance of power is not at all as "equal" as it's claimed ("both sides have nukes") but there is enough uncertainly on all sides to want to test it.
The "usual" rules of gradual escalation probably apply. Of course, it's best to avoid any escalation because it can be an uncontrollable situation.
The balance of power is ”both sides have nukes _and_ something to lose”
If a country is experiencing mass psychosis and wants to commit murder-suicide, it doesn’t really help that the other countries have nukes too
If a country is experiencing mass psychosis and wants to commit murder-suicide, it doesn’t really help that the other countries have nukes too
> It is highly unlikely Putin will use tactical nukes or pre-emptively strike US/EU, no matter how grim the war looks.
I wouldn't be so sure about this. He has working hypersonics and this advantage would last very short time. Currently those hypersonics can't be even detected in time before they hit their targets and there is no real defense against them. He might just launch 100-200 of them with 100kT payload at military/strategic targets in Europe at the same time, level down parts of countries without any response outside submarines or US strategic nukes (their flight time is in minutes anywhere in Europe, insufficient time to react), and then given Europe would be written off for a century, he can try to negotiate terms with the US, assuming MAD is given if diplomacy fails and there is a proof already (destroyed Europe).
He perceives UA effectively in NATO (given heavy arm supplies) as an existential risk for Russia, so he might go all in.
I wouldn't be so sure about this. He has working hypersonics and this advantage would last very short time. Currently those hypersonics can't be even detected in time before they hit their targets and there is no real defense against them. He might just launch 100-200 of them with 100kT payload at military/strategic targets in Europe at the same time, level down parts of countries without any response outside submarines or US strategic nukes (their flight time is in minutes anywhere in Europe, insufficient time to react), and then given Europe would be written off for a century, he can try to negotiate terms with the US, assuming MAD is given if diplomacy fails and there is a proof already (destroyed Europe).
He perceives UA effectively in NATO (given heavy arm supplies) as an existential risk for Russia, so he might go all in.
How many of those 140 countries belong to the following :
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/9/infographic-which-co...
When half of your military weapons depend on another country you don't really risk angering them over some inconsequential vote.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/9/infographic-which-co...
When half of your military weapons depend on another country you don't really risk angering them over some inconsequential vote.
In India’s defense, not much of the world has condemned china’s aggression at the Indian border over the past 2 years, and this has factored into India’s response on Ukraine
I'm from the south of India and now live in Europe. My body tolerates heat quite well compared to my European friends. I remember tolerating 38-40C indoor temperatures and sleeping through it with heavy sweating. But air temperature of 42C is where I draw the line. It is almost biologically impossible to survive this.
So this story isn't just about record high temperatures, it's about record high temperatures that coincide with biological limits. If air temperature reaches 44C, it's impossible to survive this without artificial cooling and I predict a state of emergency will be declared every summer starting 2030.
There's one additional factor. The hottest months in the equator are June to August. This happens to coincide with the monsoon season in India. So I remember dreading May but looking forward to the monsoon in June. If climate change messes with the monsoon season, the Indian subcontinent is f'ed.