I've been looking to use my skill set (software, computer science, machine learning) to either volunteer or work in climate science in some capacity.
Does anyone have suggestions for resources for #climate jobs or #volunteer opportunities? Not sure where to start.
Are degrees in Climate Science always a must?
Kinda contradicting. Computers are bad for the environment and data centers such up way too much power.
@verita_84 @lewtron It really isn't contradicting? Technology and computing power can allow you to solve unthinkably large scale problems, especially with good modelling and the emergence of machine learning. Just because computing uses lots of power does not make it inherently bad for the environment.
@verita_84 @lewtron That is a really naive view of the world, with no intention of being rude. Firstly, energy can and is becoming renewable. This is not the be all and end all of environmentalism, however it is a significant step forward. Many data centers are moving towards renewable sources (just go look at data centers in Iceland!). The reason I say this view is naive is that you are basically asserting that we should abandon technological advancement and computing because it can be bad for the environment. Why not use technology to improve the world rather than just abandon it because it uses fossil fuels somewhere down the track? Being a cynic is fine, because I also accept that the adoption of renewables has been unfathomably slow, but there's no reason to live in the dark ages because of this.
> Firstly, energy can and is becoming renewable.
It takes a lot of dirty energy to create the tech for renewable energy. Electric vehicles are bad for the enviornment also and the batteries used for green vehicles are terrible as well. Look up the impacts of lithium mining.
Climate activists loves destroying our quality of life to protect the environment from climate alarmists. Al Gore was incorrect in his Film and most climate predictions are fear mongering.
@verita_84 @lewtron How does any of what you wrote relate to your original argument? Looks like you completely ignored what I was pointing out. You literally said environmentalism contradicts computing because computing uses electricity. And you are talking about activists destroying quality of life but advocate for not using computers? Maybe you were just taking the piss, but seriously why?
On the topic of renewable energy, I would be intrigued if you can quantify what you claim. Lithium mining is dirty, ethically and environmentally, I agree. The point about constant technological advancements is that something will always improve. When it comes to batteries, solid state batteries using solid sodium are on their way and are in fact about to enter mass manufacturing. These batteries are cleaner and way more efficient. I would also point out that climate change activism goes far far beyond idealising electric vehicles.
It all goes together because they are pushing for us to go green and become cleaner. While they are doing it, they are destroying the environment even more with technology.
When will technology actually be a benefit to society? Since the industrial revolution, technological advancement has only done more damage to the Earth. You can look up the details on how renewables are bad for the environment yourself
In the end, we are the carbon that environmentalists want to reduce.
@verita_84 @lewtron How can you possibly ask when will technology benefit society? Look at how you and I are communicating. I have no clue where you live, but generally here in Australia I am on the opposite of Earth to who I'm talking to. The very existence of the internet, the immense healthcare allowing us to live longer than ever, the discoveries we have made about the world through science (although not everyone particularly cares about the answers science gives us and I guess that's OK too). We have access to awesome forms of recreation, we can traverse whole continents in our readily available cars. What do you mean "when?", we are in that technologically benefited society already.
Also yes, technology and the power that fuels it damages society, but the idea that "green stuff" harms it more is just categorically false (the keyword here being "more"). You can for instance argue as you have already, that renewable energy takes expensive resources to make. In the long term though, after its creation, a solar panel will produce zero carbon emissions or any emissions for that matter. That's just one example. The point many make is that a coal plant will produce emissions for its entire lifetime, not just when it is constructed. No mining isn't ideal, but once again the alternative is either abandon technology (which is to say we abandon our entire lives, like imagine a world with no fridges?), or we try to do things better. You mentioned renewables being bad for the environment, but of course go look at the existing coal and gas power plants, which are worse. We are looking for improvement. No existing solution is perfect, but we have already got clear pathways which will reduce environmental damage in the long term.
@verita_84 @lewtron Please don't put me in that boat. I don't understand the widespread attack on nuclear energy. Most of it is based on disproportionate fears about reactor meltdowns or nuclear waste, and people who in engage in anti-nuclear energy arguments tend not to do so based on fact.
Just responding to your last line, I would ask you to respond to my point about existing energy infrastructure. The justification behind renewables is not based on harm to the Earth, it is based on reducing harm caused by existing infrastructure such as gas and coal power plants.
As far as the long-term goes, I see no reason why we can't have more nuclear power and have renewables at the same time. The greatest problem is that nuclear reactors take ages to build, and we should have started sooner. This being said, the longer we keep saying "we should've built them sooner" is obviously time wasted, and we should just build them. Here in Australia, we have the world's largest reserve of uranium, so it would be ideal, especially given the places we could put reactors if people truly feared them.
Nuclear energy was the cleanest and most efficient energy source and you all chose to attack it and close plants. Bring it back and relax on all the scare propaganda. It helped us get away from nasty coal power plants.
> but the idea that "green stuff" harms it more is just categorically false (the > > keyword here being "more"). You can for instance argue as you have already, that > >renewable energy takes expensive resources to make. In the long term though, >after its creation, a solar panel will produce zero carbon emissions or any > emissions for that matter.
Justification to harm the earth for renewable tech that is not that good.