The >50⁰C heat waves in Melbourne when the wind is northwesterly in summer aren’t going to be fun. By the end of the century there could be occasional fatal wet bulb temperatures.

(the current record is 46⁰C in 2009, but extremes get more extreme)

It seems odd to me that crops for feed would be less than crops, considering this source says 80% of agricultural land is used for feed. Some of that land is for grazing, sure, but it smells fishy.

The percentages seem to be lifted from supplementary table S17 from Poore & Nemecek (2018), which isn’t paywalled (the main article is, but sci-hub gets around that). This table cites EDGAR 4.2 FT2010, a dataset compiled for the European Commission, but the link redirects to the EDGAR landing page.

The Internet Archive version of the page shows links to downloadable tables, which aren’t archived and which 404 on the EDGAR website. None of which would obviously provide a global CO2 equivalent of all greenhouse gases by industry component. The page also says there is a detailed explanation in a report to the International Energy Agency, which is archived but which makes no mention of “feed”.

Trying to find the same data through EDGAR’s archive, I come to this page, but it appears to be raw data which doesn’t split things up into different sectors, but which does somehow purport to track CO2 emissions per square of 0.1 degrees latitude and longitude excluding CO2 from “short-cycle biofuels” (e.g. firewood).

This makes very little sense to me as raw data. I could see a satellite-bassd determination of CO2 emissions, but that wouldn’t exclude firewood. I could see this being the output of land use analysis and modeling, but then where is the model? Where are the inputs of the model? Where is the citation of the scientific article explaining the model?

Also, the data only seems to go up to 2008 when Poore and Nemecek cite it for a 2010 average. So I have no idea what the heck is going on.

Fun fact: it is possible for governments to change quickly. Sometimes it even improves matters!

They definitely change their position based on new information. Nuclear power went from desirable to undesirable when it went from nuclear weapons manufacturing to competition with fossil fuels. Climate change went from a future problem to a non-existent problem. Mass migration went from a necessity to do work locals didn’t want to do to the end of western civilization.

They always tell the most convenient lie to increase the power of the elite and break the power of the working class, and as that changes their position changes.

Conservatives are principled people. They believe whole-heartedly that hierarchy is justice. That some should suffer and work hard and others prosper and work little, and they are willing to be the ones that suffer if need be.

Every decade we can delay climate change takes immense pressure off ecosystems and human migration pressures, giving them time to adapt more gradually. If this could work safely and didn’t take money and effort away from CO2 reduction, then it would be good even if it eventually comes to an end.

That said, the “if” is false. Like plastic recycling, geoengineering is a way for people to accept pollution by pretending it’s preventable. The company in question isn’t selling a solution, they are selling a greenwashing ad campaign. And the NYT is already participating in the ad campaign by publishing the article.

I recognized the sarcasm but don’t like Trumpisms living rent free in our spaces like that. This article talks about a phenomenon that will upend the lives of millions of people, if your reaction is sarcastically quoting Trump then he is winning the propaganda war in your mind.

The system is behaving as intended, and as it always has. The suffragettes were treated just as harshly.