Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
davieG

Technology, Science and the Environment.

By davieG, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

samlcfc

samlcfc

Posted
Posted (edited)

I guess some of what I mentioned doesn't consider the nuances of individuality where humans are concerned.

 

In the human context, it does seem that the society generally heads in the same direction, although I guess there's not too much room for movement at this point in time and with what we've managed to achieve in terms of societal systems. Mostly everyone is subject to the same restraints in providing for their basic needs.

 

I imagine you're partly right whatever the case. There's probably always going to be at least some people who favour exploration for the sake of it.

 

I'm not knowledgable enough in the slightest to expand on this point, but it'd be interesting to consider the possible directions of any far future exploration. In this respect, I mean that we currently look out to different solar systems and galaxies, whereas I wonder if there's anything else beyond our current systems of measurement. I'm probably talking shit at this point lol Maybe one for theoretical physiscists and mathemticians.

 

Edited by samlcfc
Wymsey

Wymsey

Posted
Posted

Yes, many companies state that their aim is to achieve net-zero by a certain time frame, yet they don't reveal how (in terms of strategy) they'd go about in achieving this..

 

It's fine they say about the commitment towards this, but it'd put a lot more weight into their ambition if they outlined the plans to achieve this.

 

 

grobyfox1990

grobyfox1990

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Wymsey said:

Yes, many companies state that their aim is to achieve net-zero by a certain time frame, yet they don't reveal how (in terms of strategy) they'd go about in achieving this..

 

It's fine they say about the commitment towards this, but it'd put a lot more weight into their ambition if they outlined the plans to achieve this.

 

 

Which companies btw? As I’ve been noticing the opposite. Reporting emissions under the various disclosure frameworks has stepped up in quality exponentially, especially for uk listeds. As have transition plans 

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Which companies btw? As I’ve been noticing the opposite. Reporting emissions under the various disclosure frameworks has stepped up in quality exponentially, especially for uk listeds. As have transition plans 

If this is true, it would suggest that the base purposes that guide these companies (short term material gain) also aligns with getting the necessary infrastructure in place, which is a good sign.

grobyfox1990

grobyfox1990

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

If this is true, it would suggest that the base purposes that guide these companies (short term material gain) also aligns with getting the necessary infrastructure in place, which is a good sign.

Not sure about that, understanding and quality of reporting has increased as markets demand it, but if you're equating that with getting 'necessary infrastructure in place' that's quite a leap IMO. Companies are getting their own houses in order so to say, but whilst there is little understanding of scope 3 and no mandatory assurance over reporting, getting yourself in order may just mean shoving the problem to another part of the value chain.

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Not sure about that, understanding and quality of reporting has increased as markets demand it, but if you're equating that with getting 'necessary infrastructure in place' that's quite a leap IMO. Companies are getting their own houses in order so to say, but whilst there is little understanding of scope 3 and no mandatory assurance over reporting, getting yourself in order may just mean shoving the problem to another part of the value chain.

Fair points well made.

 

Well, at least it points to the possibility, which is more than can be said of a while back. It shows that public opinion and therefore the bottom line is at least affecting their thinking in this matter. Now it just needs to be seen that they do indeed do their part.

  • Like 1
samlcfc

samlcfc

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://phys.org/news/2022-12-extinction-cascades-climate-world-biodiversity.html

 

Could well end up being much more than the 25% tbh.

Sounds like a pretty complex piece of work. Very interesting read with regards to the methodology.  

 

I know it's the nature of the work, but it's grim reading. Each time the intricacies of the consequences of current human behaviour on this planet are explored, the situation just looks so desperate for certain types of life.

 

Without yet exploring the nuances of it, the way we humans go about our lives could possibly be viewed as such a massive act of violence. I can barely imagine how this period will be looked back upon if we ever manage to really elevate our societies in general.

 

I do wonder if we'll ever see more than a civil disobedience response from those affected by, or emotionally invested in the consequences. 

 

grobyfox1990

grobyfox1990

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, BKLFox said:

https://technation.io/uk-tech-ecosystem-update-2022/
 

https://news.sky.com/story/uk-is-the-leading-european-tech-ecosystem-as-investors-pile-in-12771969
 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-tech-sector-achieves-best-year-ever-as-success-feeds-cities-outside-london
 

I know I know I’ve been on the forum long enough to know this is despite Brexit and not because of it.

No it is because of Brexit. The £ has been decimated so UK assets are cheap as chips, with a strong dollar, a $/£ carry trade is worth a punt. Shouldn't take away from what is probably a fantastic and innovative UK tech sector though.

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, BKLFox said:

https://technation.io/uk-tech-ecosystem-update-2022/
 

https://news.sky.com/story/uk-is-the-leading-european-tech-ecosystem-as-investors-pile-in-12771969
 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-tech-sector-achieves-best-year-ever-as-success-feeds-cities-outside-london
 

I know I know I’ve been on the forum long enough to know this is despite Brexit and not because of it.

 

20 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

No it is because of Brexit. The £ has been decimated so UK assets are cheap as chips, with a strong dollar, a $/£ carry trade is worth a punt. Shouldn't take away from what is probably a fantastic and innovative UK tech sector though.

The UK tech sector has always been superb (despite most often not being supported by the powers that be).

 

The problem is that the issues tech needs to solve today are largely global in scope and so need global solutions, or at least global collaboration on the matter.

samlcfc

samlcfc

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-64028510

 

Complex issue.

 

But the one thing that is certain is that reliance on natural gas to heat homes needs to be moved away from, as well as for power generation. Hopefully that transition can happen as smoothly as possible.

Looks like there's a fair bit of further reading to complete on this subject.

 

Professor Tom Baxter that's quoted in there regarding safety concerns, doesn't seem to think a while lot of it with regards to do feasibility surround clean energy either.

 

Had a bit of a read and he touches on the work of a Robert Howarth at Cornell University who seems pretty passionately against it. He seems to have pissed off the people who want to continue with the status quo as well, which could be a good non-partisan sign lol.

 

A quick takeaway is that they seem to be of a view, that politicians are being sold down the river by established gas companies, in order that they can be the ones in control going forward.

 

The negatives seem to be around the amount of energy required via hydrogen to power houses as the largest consumer of natural gas, and the power required at source to create the hydrogen as a resource. Also seems like Hydrogen may be more expensive than powering your house solely on electricity at the moment, which seems like a hard sell.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, samlcfc said:

Looks like there's a fair bit of further reading to complete on this subject.

 

Professor Tom Baxter that's quoted in there regarding safety concerns, doesn't seem to think a while lot of it with regards to do feasibility surround clean energy either.

 

Had a bit of a read and he touches on the work of a Robert Howarth at Cornell University who seems pretty passionately against it. He seems to have pissed off the people who want to continue with the status quo as well, which could be a good non-partisan sign lol.

 

A quick takeaway is that they seem to be of a view, that politicians are being sold down the river by established gas companies, in order that they can be the ones in control going forward.

 

The negatives seem to be around the amount of energy required via hydrogen to power houses as the largest consumer of natural gas, and the power required at source to create the hydrogen as a resource. Also seems like Hydrogen may be more expensive than powering your house solely on electricity at the moment, which seems like a hard sell.

 

 

 

That would be my read as well.

 

I like the idea of as many alternatives to carbon emitting sources as possible, but it seems at the moment that such hydrogen solutions need advancements in the way they are sourced before they become more viable than purely electric solutions.

 

However, it should be stressed again that the emphasis here should be, however possible, removing coal, oil and gas as a means of energy generation and fuelling homes ASAP. The fiscal concerns are legit but it's a simple matter of fact that a more expensive solution (or suite of solutions) now is better than a vastly, vastly more expensive cost that not doing it will impose in the near future.

  • Like 2
samlcfc

samlcfc

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

That would be my read as well.

 

I like the idea of as many alternatives to carbon emitting sources as possible, but it seems at the moment that such hydrogen solutions need advancements in the way they are sourced before they become more viable than purely electric solutions.

 

However, it should be stressed again that the emphasis here should be, however possible, removing coal, oil and gas as a means of energy generation and fuelling homes ASAP. The fiscal concerns are legit but it's a simple matter of fact that a more expensive solution (or suite of solutions) now is better than a vastly, vastly more expensive cost that not doing it will impose in the near future.

 

Definitely agree. Making sure those costs are distributed appropriately will be important, although I appreciate thats a subjective matter.

 

I'm sure there's enough resources to do it, but the average person isn't going to be receptive to the idea of future crisis of society if they can't easily meet their physiological needs now, or feel like they're doing more than their fair part in avoiding them. 

 

I guess that's one of the ways in which that simple matter gets a bit more complicated. 

Edited by samlcfc
  • Like 1
Dahnsouff

Dahnsouff

Posted
Posted

Unless there is some centralised single solution, like a magic huge fusion solution (there isn’t and can’t be) then the economics have to match the various clean energy solutions. Obvious I know,  but it is this that will damn us more than any perceived required technology.

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Dahnsouff said:

Unless there is some centralised single solution, like a magic huge fusion solution (there isn’t and can’t be) then the economics have to match the various clean energy solutions. Obvious I know,  but it is this that will damn us more than any perceived required technology.

...unless there are enough humans suddenly motivated by the long game that the short-term economics no longer matter to them.

 

But that's just wishful thinking, probably.

 

I think you're right in that it is "human nature" (I hate that term) that then impedes required tech progress that could condemn us. Let's hope not.

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted

On a similar theme, a most interesting article:

 

https://bigthink.com/13-8/humanity-geniuses-jerks/

 

"Homo sapiens only started their Earth journey 300,000 years ago. Compared with microbes, sharks, and crocodiles, that is a blink of the geologic eye. Even more to the point, our project of technological civilization only got started after the last ice age ended, around 10,000 years ago. So when you consider how radically different human beings are from any of the species that came before us, you can see exactly what our problem is.

We are so new at being human that we still kind of suck at it."

 

This tallies. And it keys into why I think the future is so important - humans really haven't existed for all that long comparatively, so to truly maximise what human potential we have, it will take time. To say nothing of the way that tech development is proceeding much faster than the ethical brain that has to oversee it.

  • Like 1
Dahnsouff

Dahnsouff

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

...unless there are enough humans suddenly motivated by the long game that the short-term economics no longer matter to them.

 

But that's just wishful thinking, probably.

 

I think you're right in that it is "human nature" (I hate that term) that then impedes required tech progress that could condemn us. Let's hope not.

I was not being hopeless with my comment, I view the economic argument as both inevitable yet hopeful,  as once the required economic actions are made the requisite technology should be deployed at an exponential rate. 

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Dahnsouff said:

I was not being hopeless with my comment, I view the economic argument as both inevitable yet hopeful,  as once the required economic actions are made the requisite technology should be deployed at an exponential rate. 

That's the way it would work, yeah.

 

Here's hoping it's in time to prevent a vastly increased cost both materially and in lives and suffering.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...