hanrahan

hanrahan, 16 days ago

Quit work at 35, am now 58.

Regrets ? Not brave enough to quit earlier.

hanrahan, 16 days ago

As an Australian, whatever it is we’re doing, it isn’t enough

hanrahan, 18 days ago

I watched the original movie and thought it one of the best SciFi movies I’d ever seen with an awesome premise. The series was …farirly good .

hanrahan, 18 days ago

George Orwell quote “A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, theives and traitors are not victims…but accomplices”

hanrahan, 18 days ago

While that seem ostensibly sensible it isn’t really useful, you can’t transition away from just large cars, you still won’t have the carless infrastructure in place anyway.

As to vegan, i find the entire thing worrisome, conflating say a poor Cambodian who eats a little chicken with his noddles with a vegan American is ridiculous. The americans refrigerator alone is more destructive then his chicken, veg and noodle dinner. The entire idea is to look holistically. If yoire a vegan with a large dog, for example, you’re going to eat more meat then I do with my little permeculture set up and the poultry I raise and eat.

hanrahan, 18 days ago

Maybe they can send the poop emoji in reply if Meta does reaches out?

hanrahan, 20 days ago

Not sure what this has to do with climate change aside from potentially make it worse ? Seems it would increase emsisions and GDP as “the poor” will spend it.

We need to all emit like the poor do now. I’d suggest instead they spend it on good quality free PT and AT (cycling infrastructure etc) so the poor don’t need a car for example, immensely improving their lives and lowering emissions, pollution and heath care costs…

With less roads and parking they can infill with smaller, well insulated cheaper medium density housing, and trees and bushes, making many homes cheaper to live in as they don’t need as much energy, this immensely improves the lives of the poor and reduces emsisions.

Giving “poor people” more money within the orthodox neo-liberal shit show will make anything climate or enviormentally adjacent worse. Taking it alll off the rich will help in spades but this is tokenism that won’t help with emissions or biodiversity loss or plastic use etc.

That asdie, The Australian Green party went into the last federal election with a policy to tax the very wealthy much more but voters soundly rejected such policies, 75% voted againt it. I voted in the minority for it.

hanrahan, 20 days ago

Miami, Las Vegas, and Phoenix spring to mind as worse

That aide, there was a study published years ago, The Appalachians was mentioned as probably the best option from memory.

hanrahan, 20 days ago

Yeah, it’s one of those weird things, upvote something devastating becase it’s important. Maybe there a way to relabel the upvote downvote to more or less important ?

hanrahan, 23 days ago

Surely Storm Shadow and the French variant can go further then that being aircraft launched?

And ffs Germany send then Tarus.

Long range would be when they could hit Moscow, a stretch calling these long range.

hanrahan, 22 days ago

As might be expected, many economists and techno-optimists roundly rejected this assessment

Nordhaus surley leads this group of asshats.

theintercept.com/…/william-nordhaus-climate-econo…

Ignorance of systems has its way of plowing forward, juggernaut-like. Nordhaus has opined that agriculture is “the part of the economy that is sensitive to climate change,” but because it accounts for just 3 percent of national output, climate disruption of food production cannot produce a “very large effect on the U.S. economy.” It is unfortunate for his calculations that agriculture is the foundation on which the other 97 percent of GDP depends. Without food — strange that one needs to reiterate this — there is no economy, no society, no civilization. Yet Nordhaus treats agriculture as indifferently fungible.

This crude mess of a model is what won him the Nobel. “

hanrahan, 22 days ago

No need, we’ll do it ourselves

theintercept.com/…/william-nordhaus-climate-econo…

Terrible numbers get thrown around. But scientists mean what they say. Kevin Anderson, professor of energy and climate change at the University of Manchester in the U.K. and Uppsala University in Sweden, asserts that “something like 10 percent of the planet’s population — around half a billion people — will survive if global temperatures rise by 4 C.” He notes, with a modicum of hopefulness, that we “will not make all human beings extinct as a few people with the right sort of resources may put themselves in the right parts of the world and survive. But I think it’s extremely unlikely that we wouldn’t have mass death at 4 C.”

Johan Rockström, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany and a leading researcher on climate tipping points and “safe boundaries” for humanity, projects that in a 4 C warmer world, “it’s difficult to see how we could accommodate a billion people or even half of that.”

Hans Shellenhuber suggests that if we get to around 2c or thereabouts, 4c is inevitable becase of cascading tipping points we won’t be able to stop.

hanrahan, 19 days ago (edited 16 days ago)

the nobel in economics is just a fake award of other pseudoscientists tugging each others dicks.

For sure . for those not in thr know the Economics Nobel is set up by a Swedish Bank and uses Noble’s name.

There are plenty of absolutely damning counterarguments to nordhaus that make it so that nobody serious takes him seriously. hes a shill plain and simple

I don’t agree he’s not taken seriously, which is unfortuante. He’s the professor of Economics at Yale. Lots of his work was leant on by other confident idiots like Bjorn Lomborg and the likess of Richard Tol when he was involved in working group 3 of the IPCC and that’s often what informs policy decisions governmentally.

PS nice to see you here from Reddits collapse group? I don’t visit there anymore but did fire over a decade.

hanrahan, 20 days ago

Luckly they didnt divest huh ?

That said you can’t thave a fossil fuel company with a Climate plan. You’ll end up with some stupidity where they subsidise ecars for thier employees while expanding gas exploration and saying job done.

The only emissions worthy of consideration are scope 3, we have the same ludicrous situation at airports claiming to be Carbon neutral and enviormentally because they put solar panels on the roof and use rainwater for flushing the shitter.

hanrahan, 23 days ago

Hitler liked dogs and said we shoukd be kind to them.

hanrahan, 20 days ago

there should be an awakening in most voters’ minds about the idiocy of this policy.

History would seem to suggest the opposite. Or perhaps I am just not the optimist you are ? People voting for the LNP aren’t particularly “woke” to much of anything in my expereince, aside from entitlment and tribalism.

"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative - John Stuart Mill

hanrahan, 20 days ago

It also allows them to shift blame to The Greens for pushing back againt nuclear when it all falls over. “See climate change and energy prices are The Greens fault” will be a simplistic mantra they can use to keep the outrage alive.

I heard that same thing endlessly after the 2019/2020 bushfires from numpties like Barnanby and every older perons I spoke too about the fires when they found out we’d lost so much in then said “you must be really upset with The Greens”. I’d just look and then say “No, I’m only upset with voters who didnt Vote Green”.

hanrahan, 20 days ago

The bridge was the myth sold by gas, no one was going to get excited by “slightly better then coal if everything goes right and there are no fugitive emissions”

science.org/…/natural-gas-could-warm-planet-much-…

Just have to look at the shitshow mess we’ve made of this with @ZLabe stuff for Berkly Earth (methane chart part way down"

zacklabe.com/climate-change-indicators/

hanrahan, 18 days ago

This… Does it still get updates or do I need to start again ?

hanrahan, 18 days ago

Just no, please no, for the love of god no ? that way inevitability leads to enshitification. YT itself is a giant shitshow from decades past

hanrahan, 20 days ago

Because I don’t remember voting on that

But surely anyone voting LNP/ALP must know that? Decades of voting for the orthodoxy means this is the inevitable for seeable result. The only ones occasionally pushing back againt this shit occasionally is The Greens.

None of this is new, I remember back in the day Bob Brown, an Australian Greens Senator and party leader no less, was banned from Parliament during a speech by US President Bush. As an Australian I was horrified. How is it that a member of our parliment was banned ?

The ALP lost it all after Gough was booted out and stopped being an alternative party and became the other arse cheek of the orthodoxy. He wanted to throw the lid off the shenanigan at Pine Gap.

Yes, I’m that old, yes I Vote Green

hanrahan, 20 days ago

This was such a harrowing read. In a just world, they’d all be up on manslaughter charges.

I am sure in 2 years they’ll be able to retire with PTSD on workers comp.