revax

>It is not a conspiracy theory to believe that a relatively untested vaccine can have unknown side effects.

Everybody knows that. But the benefits (reduced transmission, protection from severe forms of the disease) still outweigh the risks of the vaccine.

Here's one of many examples https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3322

>Around 30% of the world’s population is currently exposed to climatic conditions exceeding this deadly threshold for at least 20 days a year. By 2100, this percentage is projected to increase to ∼48% under a scenario with drastic reductions of greenhouse gas emissions and ∼74% under a scenario of growing emissions.

Please publish a scientific paper debunking this. In the mean time, I'm more inclined to believe the article I've linked.

>It's not an existential threat

For the human kind, no there is no doubt that we will survive.

But don't act like it's nothing. Here's one of many examples https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3322

>Around 30% of the world’s population is currently exposed to climatic conditions exceeding this deadly threshold for at least 20 days a year. By 2100, this percentage is projected to increase to ∼48% under a scenario with drastic reductions of greenhouse gas emissions and ∼74% under a scenario of growing emissions.

Then I have a easy solution, split China in ten countries.

Of course, per capita is not the only criteria to be considered but, those who emit the most per capita and profited the most from fossil fuels should be an example to the world.

>Add renewable energy to the equation and you can build a fantastic system running 24/7 without any waiting for trains.

You'll need some storage or natural gas power plant as most renewable energy are intermittent.

Also, unless you have alternative routes, you cannot have a subway running 24/7 because maintenance needs to be done somehow.

>Beef also primarily produces methane, so I'm not sure if the co2 impact of beef is the proportional impact in methane or actual co2. Methane has a much shorter term. impact vs co2.

It is most certainly accounted for. The correct unit is CO2-equivalent and the time horizon commonly used is 100 years.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential

>Why do we insist that we are moving around the sun, and not the other way around if everything is relative?

Try to express the trajectories relative to earth of other planets in our solar system and you will quickly understand why we use a heliocentric model.

I think your numbers are also way off, wikipedia cite 16t CO2 emission per capita (and not household) in the USA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

>For example, increasing fuel efficiency of cars does decrease energy use

MPG from passenger car didn't decreased since 1976 despite huge advancement in fuel efficiency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CAFE_mpg_curve_from_NHTSA...

Here is the paper about parachute in your example: https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5343

Mainly the problem is phasing out nuclear power before coal.

By doing doing so, we are losing 20 years in a race against climate change.

I like it but in every theory, there is always some edge case where the theory doesn't work. In a sense, every models in natural science are wrong but some are more right than other.

>Upgrading them to conform to modern safety standards isn't cost-effective.

Why that? In France nuclear power plants are kept to the newest safety standards. Everything in a nuclear power plant can be replaced apart from the reactor vessel and the containment building.

Can you link to the comment, that sounds interesting!

>That quote always bugged me because it disregards that our economic growth is not really tethered to natural resources.

I really think the opposite is true, what makes you think that?

Plenty of things are nonlinear in physics though.

For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law

It is 10% users, not people in general if I understood correctly.

More like 300% as electricity -> hydrogen -> electricity is around 35% efficient IIRC

0 is divisible by every integer.

IMO even with those goals stated it is not clear what course of actions should be taken. Because they could be all linked together, a crumble economy might kill more people you are trying to save [1].

A right balance needs to be found.

[1] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/economic-do...

Mainly from the IPCC reports.

Yes you are right but this is not enough to have a meaningful impact.

FYI melting iceberg do not cause sea levels to rise, but glacier do. An ice cube melting in your glass water do not rises the level.

Thank you for your insightful comments, I stand corrected. I didn't think of the local effects.

This is basic thermodynamics stuff. Looks like energy used in datacenter in 2018 was around 200TWh. If you use all this energy to heat only the mediterranean sea, you will have a change of temperature of 0.00006°C.

I used this calculator https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/specific-heat

Ami is small car, much like a cart, only 20000 are produced per year. It's hard to make a profit with a such low volume.

Only 250 parts are used compared to 30 000 for a standard car.

Source (in French) https://www.caradisiac.com/la-citroen-ami-la-meilleure-amie-...

>The half paid by the employer is actually taken from your salary.

That is not true, if you don't have the transit pass (eg. you only take your car) you are not paid 38€ more than your coworkers.

Also, https://oui.sncf for the main trains operator in France.

The technology you talked about is only available in developed countries. What about the people in parts in Africa who already have problem in terms of food insecurities?