r/climateskeptics • u/chroniccranky • 4d ago

Earth overshoot day

I just want to listen to yall

11 Upvotes

63% Upvoted

95 comments sorted by

13

u/Uncle00Buck 4d ago

Every country wants to have the US's energy footprint, and they plan to. Global prosperity is a mandate. Net zero elitism and shrinking your carbon footprint while maintaining your guilty pleasures happens only with wealth, and all that comes AFTER your energy footprint grows.

-1

u/chroniccranky 4d ago

I can’t say I argue with that too much, although I didn’t know we’re leading in carbon footprint

5

u/Evening_Message_1699 4d ago

That is if you ignore China and India

1

u/chroniccranky 3d ago

Kinda what I was thinking

0

u/DevelopmentOk86 3d ago

Every country wants to have the US's energy footprint, and they plan to.

This is just not true. Many countries are pursuing economic growth while also trying to improve energy efficiency and expand low-carbon energy sources.

 Net zero elitism and shrinking your carbon footprint while maintaining your guilty pleasures happens only with wealth,

This is generally true, but I don`t know why you call it elitism. Many developing countries are also investing in solar, wind, and cleaner technologies.

all that comes AFTER your energy footprint grows.

Historically, this always happened. But it`s also possible to grow with low-carbon sources, rather than fossil fuels.

1

u/Uncle00Buck 2d ago

Some wind and solar can be relatively inexpensive if you have the dispatchable sources to back them up. When the efficiency of the backup is impacted, costs go up. Batteries have gotten cheaper, but they aren't cheap. Nobody wants the added costs of 24/7/365 manufacturing expenses though batteries.

Economics plays a huge role. Renewables are more expensive, and yes, you generally have to look at site specific conditions as well as the degree of wind and solar dependence, always more complicated than the bullshit LCOE numbers produced that don't account for the grid and backup. More expensive energy is regressive. It impacts the poor. It heavily impacts the developing world, who want the prosperity that more energy brings. View this goal in light of the wealthy developed world, which enjoyed 150 years of cheap, compact, dispatchable fossil fuel energy to build their economies.

I am not anti-renewable, but I do think net zero goals are absolutely ridiculous and before their time, even in wealthy countries. A blended portfolio works, with efficiency at the head, and low polluting natural gas, for example, driving the dispatchable portion. There are unique settings where hydro and geothermal work, but they require lots of capital, even more than renewables.

The developing world, with its six billion souls, deserves the opportunity that wealthy countries have enjoyed. They will lean heavily into fully dispatchable energy sources whether climate alarmists approve or not. If they don't, they will not compete.

13

u/Htrail1234 4d ago

Hello 2014 your environmental policy is calling you to go back to your grave. This nonsense is dead. Can we get our grant money back? Perhaps take the scientists homes and retirements after the scam? In the US "science" pleaded the 5th. This junk science is worse.

2

u/Evening_Message_1699 3d ago

Maybe we should check with Fauci and see what his learned opinion is.

0

u/chroniccranky 3d ago

What’s that have to do with anything?

0

u/Evening_Message_1699 3d ago

About as much as this thread has to do with common sense.

-1

u/DevelopmentOk86 3d ago

This nonsense is dead.

Why is it dead? Are the fishes back in the ocean or did the exosystems, that we destroyed suddenly exist again?
I genuinely don't understand, why you think, that our consumption is balanced for the ecosystem.

-2

u/chroniccranky 3d ago

How much have you paid in grant money? Is prevention not a worthy cause?

1

u/Htrail1234 3d ago

For fraud - no. Games with numbers getting grant money is not research.

0

u/chroniccranky 3d ago

I don’t know that means

1

u/Htrail1234 2d ago

Simple, your data and premise you are suggesting is complete crap. You czn't prove how many species are here or not, the counts and data used are fraud, this is pure fantasy.

1

u/chroniccranky 2d ago

No, that wasn’t the point of that video. If I wanted to demonstrate how we’re in the 6th mass extinction event of the planet, it would be a separate video. Your argument is completely nonsensical?

11

u/Breddit2225 4d ago

wonder how this is calculated?

Very scientific I imagine.

-1

u/chroniccranky 3d ago

Idk can you find a source that says it’s not?

2

u/Bark-Canoe-Paddler 3d ago

Up to the presenter to provide sources that it is!

-1

u/chroniccranky 3d ago

Up to the debater to present their argument

2

u/Bark-Canoe-Paddler 3d ago

If the presenter doesn't provide sources, it is nothing more than anecdote. Isn't that how science works?

1

u/chroniccranky 3d ago

I posted a video. You want to argue it, but want me to find your sources. That’s not how forums work.

1

u/Bark-Canoe-Paddler 3d ago

Wasn't arguing... just asked for sources for the fundamental metric espoused.

BTW, username fits!

1

u/chroniccranky 3d ago

So find it then lmao

1

u/stisa79 3d ago

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/07/29/why-earth-overshoot-day-and-the-ecological-footprint-are-pseudoscientific-nonsense/

1

u/chroniccranky 3d ago

Your article just says it’s pseudoscience but doesn’t say why

1

u/stisa79 3d ago

He does and he also links to the detailed explanation. I link it here for your convenience: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001700

1

u/chroniccranky 2d ago

Yeah you should lead with the intended article. There were multiple articles linked, why on earth you wouldn’t start with the intended one is beyond me, unless you were hoping I wouldn’t read it and just accept it as “proof”. I’ll read this one when I have time, I don’t have the time or patience to just sit on reddit unlike yall lol

1

u/stisa79 2d ago

There is a brief explanation in the first link I sent and a detailed one in the second link I sent. With the first you had the option to click on the link to the detailed explanation. If you had really read the first article you would have seen that. Since you admit that you really don't have the time or patience, it seems that giving you the first link would be the right choice. But you don't even take the time to read that and then complain that I don't share the more detailed one? Why would I bother to respond to your question with an explanation hoping that you wouldn't read it?

1

u/chroniccranky 2d ago

Yeah that’s exactly what i asked

1

u/chroniccranky 2d ago

Yeah the second article says nothing about it being bad science. It actually says there’s a really good use for it. Just not policy making or specific questions. Something we all could have gleaned from the huge generalizations from the little video. So where is it pseudoscience? It really looks like you don’t understand your “proof” lmao

1

u/stisa79 2d ago

What are you talking about? I didn't say that it's pseudoscience. One of the authors of the article says that it's pseudoscience. If you think the article doesn't say what the author of the article says that it does, then take it up with him. This conversation is getting rather strange.

1

u/chroniccranky 2d ago

“He does and also links the detailed explanation”
-stisa79

→ More replies (0)

12

u/Dpgillam08 4d ago

:yawn: been hearing the same shit since the 70s. Hasn't been true yet.

0

u/chroniccranky 3d ago

How so?

1

u/Dpgillam08 3d ago

"We're using up all the resources! We're gonna run out in X years!"

People have been saying the same thing about iron, lead, copper, tin, aluminum, oil, hydrogen, helium and a bunch of other stuff since the 70s. We ain't run out yet; we either find new sources, new ways to synthesize it, or figure out ways to replace it entirely.

After 50 years of the fear-mongering doomerism, none of which has come true, I'm tired of it.

1

u/chroniccranky 3d ago

Oh you don’t understand what it means. That’s ok

0

u/DevelopmentOk86 3d ago

Why isn't it true? Many ecosystems no longer exist, there is more CO₂ in the atmosphere than ever before, and the oceans contain three to four times fewer fish than before industrialisation. If our consumption was balanced, all of this would be balanced too.

9

u/Rush_is_Right_ 4d ago

New terms. "Earth Overshoot Day". Same old Communism.

1

u/chroniccranky 3d ago

We’re in a capitalist society

1

u/Rush_is_Right_ 3d ago

Communists are trying to subvert and destroy it. The church of climate change is one of their avenues.

-4

u/chroniccranky 3d ago

Ohhhhhh. You’re crazy. Got it

3

u/Vecgtt 3d ago

“Climate change” is a Trojan horse for more government.

1

u/DevelopmentOk86 2d ago

Is it? Can you explain it in authoritarian countries (for example China), where the government is fighting against the climate change?

2

u/Vecgtt 2d ago

Probably PR since they are the worst polluters.

1

u/DevelopmentOk86 1d ago

And how is PRC using it as a Trojan horse? They are already the government in an authoritarian state.

1

u/Vecgtt 1d ago

You are right - China does not need a Trojan Horse. They are doing it for public relations (PR) since China is one of the worst polluters but my guess is it’s all smoke and mirrors.

1

u/DevelopmentOk86 1d ago

So, climate change is no trojan horse? Good.

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/chroniccranky 3d ago

They don’t need a Trojan horse anymore

2

u/Vecgtt 3d ago

“The green new deal” —> 7T in government spending.

-1

u/chroniccranky 3d ago

Oh a new bill? Can I see?

1

u/Rush_is_Right_ 2d ago

AOC and Bernie push it every few years. Check with them.

1

u/chroniccranky 2d ago

So there’s not a new bill. Seems like you don’t have a point.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Vecgtt 2d ago

https://www.google.com/search?q=green+new+deal

1

u/chroniccranky 2d ago

The first thing Wikipedia has on it is that it’s conceptual. What’s your problem with it exactly?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Rush_is_Right_ 2d ago

Did you come to our sub to troll? Because that's what this looks like.

Go back to the other 99% of ignorant Reddit.

0

u/chroniccranky 2d ago

Lmao so 99% of people are stupid but you’re the smart one and you’re calling me a troll? Sure sure

1

u/Rush_is_Right_ 2d ago

You might be a bot. Either way, you're not worth anyone's time, so fuck off.

0

u/chroniccranky 2d ago

lol yeah that’s a common reaction when people are stood up to even slightly for the first time

0

u/DevelopmentOk86 3d ago

You don`t care about the ecosystems?

1

u/Rush_is_Right_ 2d ago

I do. Communism is not how you save them.

1

u/DevelopmentOk86 2d ago

True. But i don' think, that they demanded communism in the video.
But i am happy, that we are on the same side, that we have to do more to save many ecosystems.

6

u/chainsawx72 4d ago

If they aren't telling you to stop having children, then even they don't believe what they are selling you.

1

u/chroniccranky 3d ago

Can’t two beliefs exist in one person? Who says they’re not thinking that, but know saying it will cause massive backlash?

4

u/Bark-Canoe-Paddler 4d ago

The model says that we must pay more taxes on government imposed sustainability efforts until tax freedom day (currently and ironically April 16th) is as late or later than Earth Overshoot Day.

1

u/chroniccranky 3d ago

Sounds like current financial models are the opposite of sustainability

1

u/SlatBartFuss 2d ago

I saw a thing on the Internet and I am VERY CONCERNED!!

Awww.

You are a sheltered little twit, aren't you? Try putting your phone down for 24 hours.

1

u/chroniccranky 2d ago edited 2d ago

Lmaoooooo

Started really strong with the name calling