RvTV95XBeo

You're absolutely right, but to be fair, it'd probably take a full growing season to swap all of the animal feed farms to human foods - so fixed by this time next year perhaps

Still much quicker than renewables and global electrification.

If it's purely on subsidies, then why, as stated in the article, are men consuming disproportionately more beef than women? Am I missing out on my secret man meat tax cut?

True no cities are prepared for this, but this is exactly the kind of thing distributed solar helps handle well - heat waves are almost always paired with sunshine. The more distributed solar you get on the grid, the less of an issue this becomes.

Yes, I know you still have power challenges at sunset while its still hot outside, but fortunately that's also when things tend to start cooling off, and you lose one major contributor to heat stress - solar radiation.

It's not a perfect system, batteries could of course help, but it's a major step in the right direction.

I've studied this (professionally) quite a bit, and I can confidently say you're generally right.

Blends up to 20% hydrogen or so are pretty straightforward and can be done relatively easily without having to spend hundreds of billions of dollars upgrading downstream equipment, but that's only, optimistically, a 20% reduction in emissions. To get past that you need to replace most downstream burners, which will be very slow and cost a fortune. Better off going electric for homes

The current Tesla "superchargers" put out 250kWh

kW

My wall outlet charger puts out 250 kWh, if you leave it in for 2 weeks straight...

Is there a viable Republican candidate who doesn't have a record that shows 'a pattern of prioritizing fossil fuel interests'? The GOP is effectively the party of 'prioritizing fossil fuel interests'.

I think you misinterpreted my comment, the point was they're obviously doing this because they want to continue to deny climate change, but that's like 1% of what NOAA does.

Saw this question posted elsewhere, so I'm paraphrasing somebody else, but the privacy benefits of Graphene OS are ESPECIALLY impactful if you're using invasive apps. The whole point of setting up all of the extra sandboxing, storage limits, network restrictions, yadda yadda yadda, is specifically for people who might need or want to still leverage some apps from bigger, less trusted providers.

I'll flip the question, if you're only using trusted, vetted, open source applications, do you even need GrapheneOS? Why not LineageOS, which also comes free of gapps?

And this also fully neglects the inherent distinction between privacy and security. Maybe you trust google knowing you called your mom last night, but you don't want your oppressive conservative government accessing your phone to view your Signal messages to your Grinder date. There's more to privacy than just the number of times your phone pings Google Telemetry servers.

Fuck climate change, NOAA provides hurricane and heat warnings. They're what most weather providers use as the basis for telling people if you should grab an umbrella on your way out the door

Starting a culture war with the weather is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. What's your end game? Weatherman Alex Jones telling Floridians to go to the beach because the hurricane is just going to glide by safely and bring a nice cool breeze to the shore to keep you comfy?

Miners, meet canaries.

If it was directly analogous, people would have been denying that sickness happened at all, just like how there are far too many people who don't believe that climate change is happening.

I don't know that this is necessarily true - I can't speak to everyone, and there's always crazies who take things to the extremes, but most deniers I'm aware of don't deny that the climate is changing, they deny that it's caused by humans, and they doubt the forecasts.

I think we're, to a certain degree, past the days of bringing a snowball onto the Senate floor to disprove climate change, and into the "humans aren't doing this, the planet just goes through phases" denial, which is to a certain degree similar to people denying germ theory insisting instead it's just demons / God's will.

People are finally seeing and experiencing the record setting heat waves, polar vorteces, unprecedentedly early Cat 5 hurricanes, and rising sea levels, they just refuse to accept fault, or agree that it's worth sacrificing "the Economy" to try and stop it from getting worse.

Also, what portion of the decayed tree becomes soil. Sure some CO2 is released back out, but the net increase in soil over the tree's life is where the savings are.

Anaerobic vs aerobic decay is largely about the difference in short-term impacts. Anaerobic decay releases methane which is much more potent than CO2 in the short term, but naturally breaks down into CO2 over a hundred or so years, which is a long time for the generations of humans dealing with climate change, but a blip on the timescales of forests.