No, it is more accurate to say that leadership at Cloudflare does not know what they are doing nor have they known what to do for a good decade now.
Acting like workers at Cloudflare have any meaningful say in how work is made or the direction of the company is delusional neoliberal fantasy thinking.
The onus of poor business outcomes is laid directly on its leadership. Saying that workers were unproductive when they were coerced to follow leadership's mandates is just straight up class warfare.
So you would contend it's in the economic sense. It wasn't intended as an assignment of blame, I was just saying Cloudflare either thinks they weren't doing the job or job they were doing wasn't making money.
Practically everything we do is a local ecological disaster.
Pumped storage hydro electricity is one of our least ecologically devastating options and we are not even remotely close to exhausting locations we can put them.
> So we are no longer worried about catastrophic or runaway climate change based on these revisions?
Don't listen to mc32, they're intentionally confusing the issue. This is the paper they're presumably referencing from last month[1].
The IPCC reports are based on a number of carbon emissions scenarios based on how the world acts: how do countries coordinate, what are the mixes of new electricity generation that come online, how are old fossil fuel plants shut down, what cars are sold, etc. In their reports they simulate multiple scenarios to show what could happen depending on the choices made, since you can't really simulate policy decisions (like presidents paying companies billions to shut down wind projects), wars (ahem), and economic changes.
There were five main scenarios in the IPCC sixth report, from very low to very high GHG emissions.
What was "walked back" is not about climate simulation or feedback loops, but they've retired the very high emissions scenario they developed in the mid 2010s of a world that went all in on heavy economic growth all powered by fossil fuels and little effort toward electrification or decarbonization.
Basically based on renewable energy prices in the years since, electrification, etc, it's just not plausible that the world will grow in that way, so it's no longer worth trying to do simulations based on it.
Note that this was literally called the "very high emissions scenario" in the report, and that's there's still a "high" emissions scenario that will be included in the seventh IPCC report as an upper bound of plausible emissions. A couple of economic models already estimated that we'll likely emit less carbon than the new upper bound high emissions scenario, the same as it was for the very high scenario in the sixth report. Like then, though, it's still worth simulating because it is at least still plausible, and you never know how things will develop sociopolitically (this paper proposes six scenarios from very low to high and a new "high to low" scenario, see section 2.3) .
That’s tough to say. Weather systems are difficult to model. We have minimal understanding of the causes or inputs that control the very long climate cycles. Like we know that some day thousands of years from now we’ll have another unstoppable glacial period. We’ll also have a period free of polar ice. Those are cyclical and independent of CO2. We cannot stop either. We live in a very precious time.
I also think we should limit or be judicious as much as we can about what we pump into the atmosphere (or oceans or ground)
Nothing in the article (or in the real world) even remotely suggests that "the best" airlines survive. Simply, the airlines that survive are the ones that survive.
It's a losing business for exactly the reason they sold us on deregulation in the first place: "Competition drives down prices". It's hard to understand why they fought so hard for it, because they got exactly what they said we'd get.
Consumers compare prices and will always take the cheapest one, even if it's only by a few dollars. They don't think about which airline would be more comfortable, so they make comfort worse and worse. There's very little room in the market for a less-uncomfortable plane. They can auction off exit row seats, but for the most part it's "cattle car" and "first class" at ten times the price (for the people who don't care about price at all).
Frequent flier programs try to stem the flow of people to the cheapest airline, but it doesn't help all that much. They get to charge slightly more than they would otherwise, especially since everybody has a frequent flier program (so everybody gets to raise prices and nobody gives you the even-cheaper alternative). But the various benefits that they use to entice you eat up most of the profits.
Basically they're hoist by their own petard. They promised lower prices but didn't think they'd have to deliver. Instead consumers took them up on it, in droves.
reply