The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: Glenstache on February 14, 2019, 10:28:01 AM
-
This thread is to discuss climate change policy. Carbon taxes, limits on emissions, fuel economy standards, insurance regulation, zoning, infrastructure, transit, etc.
The most recent policy proposal, and where this thread will start is the Green New Deal, which is a resolution (statement of principles rather than actual enforceable law).
Here is the actual text of the GND:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text
And the summary, as written in the resolution:
Introduced in House (02/07/2019)
This resolution calls for the creation of a Green New Deal with the goals of
achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions;
establishing millions of high-wage jobs and ensuring economic security for all;
investing in infrastructure and industry;
securing clean air and water, climate and community resiliency, healthy food, access to nature, and a sustainable environment for all; and
promoting justice and equality.
The resolution calls for accomplishment of these goals through a 10-year national mobilization effort. The resolution also enumerates the goals and projects of the mobilization effort, including
building smart power grids (i.e., power grids that enable customers to reduce their power use during peak demand periods);
upgrading all existing buildings and constructing new buildings to achieve maximum energy and water efficiency;
removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation and agricultural sectors;
cleaning up existing hazardous waste and abandoned sites;
ensuring businesspersons are free from unfair competition; and
providing higher education, high-quality health care, and affordable, safe, and adequate housing to all.
Here's an interesting take on it from the NYT opinion section.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/opinion/green-new-deal-ocasio-cortez-.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
I think that piece is correct at the 30,000 foot view that it takes. A GND or equivalent policy needs to be broad to be effective. It also needs to be an economic document as much as an emissions document. It also needs to be as bold as the situation demands. Current technical assessments suggest that this should be a driving agenda over the next generation or more.
Fire away!
-
ptf.
This thread can't possibly become controversial!
-
From what I have seen of the GND, I like the goals. I have seen some criticisms that it is short on details/poorly thought out or too ambitious. I don't think either of those are valid. In terms of details, I view the GND as a mandate and then we figure out smaller pieces of legislation for various components. In terms of ambition, well yes, it's ambitious, but we failed to take more modest steps back in the 1990s and so now we need to be this ambitious or we will quite likely go extinct as a species (maybe we will anyway, but we might still have some chance to prevent that outcome...if we take it seriously).
My one complaint with GND is that it doesn't have a carbon tax (that I have seen, maybe I missed it). So okay, it makes green options more available and more viable and gets carbon out of the electric grid, but we also need to make carbon intensive activities more expensive (implement a carbon tax or stop subsidizing the oil & gas industry, or both). There is other legislation around proposing a carbon tax, my hope would be for GND *and* a carbon tax.
-
Glenstache, may I make a suggestion? Could you please put "US" in the title? Because those of us elsewhere may have opinions/input on this, but we have no formal say in your policy, and it would be nice for people to come in knowing this is going to be a US-centric discussion.
-
Glenstache, may I make a suggestion? Could you please put "US" in the title? Because those of us elsewhere may have opinions/input on this, but we have no formal say in your policy, and it would be nice for people to come in knowing this is going to be a US-centric discussion.
I made that change. However, I would really like to see examples from other countries, especially policies that have been implemented. One thing I would like to get out of this discussion is learning ideas beyond what I have come across.
-
Glenstache, may I make a suggestion? Could you please put "US" in the title? Because those of us elsewhere may have opinions/input on this, but we have no formal say in your policy, and it would be nice for people to come in knowing this is going to be a US-centric discussion.
I made that change. However, I would really like to see examples from other countries, especially policies that have been implemented. One thing I would like to get out of this discussion is learning ideas beyond what I have come across.
I'm sure lots of people in countries with more experience will have lots to say. It just gives a heads-up as to the focus. Thanks for changing it.
-
Dead man walking!
I know enough (I used to work on contract for the EPA's greenhouse gas reporting program) to know that I don't know enough to adequately state what the federal policy should be.
But this looks like a wolf in sheep's clothing.
-
IMHO there needs to also be a focus on animal agriculture as well. The government heavily subsidizes factory farming. The Trump administration has rolled back regulations on the "organic" classification in particular making it more difficult for small scale, local farms to compete. It should be a multifaceted approach.
-
Dead man walking!
I know enough (I used to work on contract for the EPA's greenhouse gas reporting program) to know that I don't know enough to adequately state what the federal policy should be.
But this looks like a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Care to elaborate?
-
Hell, I'd be happy if people would stop telling me that climate change doesn't exist every time it snows.
Until it's possible to convince people of the existence of the problem that all available data shows, I doubt many effective measures will be implemented.
-
Dead man walking!
I know enough (I used to work on contract for the EPA's greenhouse gas reporting program) to know that I don't know enough to adequately state what the federal policy should be.
But this looks like a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Care to elaborate?
That was an overstatement. It looks like there are other agendas being hitched to this bill. More likely than not the bill will languish, not because of its climate change related policy changes. I know by design this bill is omnibus but the sales pitch 'All this is needed to tackle climate change' sounds fraudulent.
I'd rather not elaborate further until I read into the bill more. I don't want to judge it based on my misunderstandings. However, I won't take the time to do so because I don't think this bill will go far.
I know my attitude isn't furthering the discussion (how to address climate change at the federal level), but I'll be happy to jump in if the discussion gets juicy OR if the bill gets steam!
-
Hell, I'd be happy if people would stop telling me that climate change doesn't exist every time it snows.
Until it's possible to convince people of the existence of the problem that all available data shows, I doubt many effective measures will be implemented.
I would like very much to see two things:
1) for wider acceptance of anthropogenic climate change within the US. Like GuitarStv said - it's disheartening just how many people challenge this very notion, despite the vast preponderance of evidence
2) acknowledgment that NOT doing anything has and will continue to result in enormous economic costs. I keep hearing arguments from the right about how any mitigation efforts would be 'too costly' - yet we are already incurring considerable costs and these will grow exponentially over the next several decades.
-
Hell, I'd be happy if people would stop telling me that climate change doesn't exist every time it snows.
Conveniently forgetting that there's this north/south hemisphere thing when it comes to our seasons so their remarks are bullshit.
-
IMHO there needs to also be a focus on animal agriculture as well. The government heavily subsidizes factory farming. The Trump administration has rolled back regulations on the "organic" classification in particular making it more difficult for small scale, local farms to compete. It should be a multifaceted approach.
Agreed, these subsidies should be cut or significantly rolled back. Direct those dollars elsewhere (vegetables, fruit, grains, plant meat, etc). It also seems that people want to talk a big game about this but when it comes to things they control in their own lives, no action. Stop eating meat and go plant based.
-
ptf.
This thread can't possibly become controversial!
Nuclear Power - Newer type nuclear plants can alleviate climate change to a large extent.
-
ptf.
This thread can't possibly become controversial!
Nuclear Power - Newer type nuclear plants can alleviate climate change to a large extent.
Low hanging fruit. Power generation and use is 2/3 of the industry and electricity sector (which together account for half of emissions).
The other low hanging fruit that's being tackled is natural gas in lieu of coal (see attachment of GHG emissions within the industrial sector).
Nuclear power and fracking..
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QES_QWq2gs0)
-
Dead man walking!
I know enough (I used to work on contract for the EPA's greenhouse gas reporting program) to know that I don't know enough to adequately state what the federal policy should be.
But this looks like a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Ya for those of us (i say us but really me) that worked/work in energy the resolution is really blah. and all the inclusion and equity bs, oh and environmental racism!!! ecosocialism!!!
green house gas emission is complicated, you gotta deal with agriculture, power generation, transportation, and manufacturing (concrete and steel).
be pragmatic, start with replacing coal using natural gas and nuclear on the power gen front in the us and developing countries. oh and also eat less meat if you want.
build more wood houses instead of concrete and steel? we got more forest now.
-
@anisotropy: why do you think most of the oil & gas companies are not interested in renewables? Is it because the profit margins are not there, they lack a long-term strategic plan, or corporate inertia (or some combination of the above plus other reasons?)
I get that this plan is DOA since it's over-ambitious and has too much social baggage. Also battery storage is not scalable enough to stabilize energy delivery. With those caveats, do you think it's feasible to create a more practical one that energy companies would like, or is it going to be like fusion reactors and never happen?
-
PTF, I'm not a climate change warrior but I'm here to learn.
-
@anisotropy: why do you think most of the oil & gas companies are not interested in renewables? Is it because the profit margins are not there, they lack a long-term strategic plan, or corporate inertia (or some combination of the above plus other reasons?)
Most large oil&gas comps are interested and have stakes in some forms of renewables. Shell and Total for example are "known" for their solar tech and batteries, BP their wind farms, Chevron and Exxon for their "alternative energy" w/e those may be, ranging from bioengineered algae (I know, totally nuts, Exxon has many more of those projects) to geothermal to hydrogen fuel cell to next gen batteries.
Collectively these 5 supermajors along with the next tier large comps like Statoil, Suncor, etc spend about 10 billion a year doing basic researching on "clean/renewable" energy sources. They also spend about the same amount on researching ways to reduce emission and improve energy efficiency in existing projects. It is very much part of the long term strategy, the shift accelerated in the late 90s and early 2000s when BP tried to be cute and rebranded itself as "Beyond Petroleum" after a bunch of mergers.
Other than basic research, they also own and operate existing renewable energy farms. Suncor is one of the largest wind power owner in Canada (at least in Alberta), and Total is pretty much the undisputed king of solar. These operations are almost all unprofitable. Typically, a well run major has a net profit margin of about 10%, not bad, but not great either. So yes, profitability plays a role here.
However, they don't do it purely for PR reasons, they do it because they could also benefit if they made a breakthrough. A lot of these remote productions sites suffer from logistic issues so if they could get energy on site it would be great. In the past, often the by-product gas one extract along with oil was not immediately useable and would require some sort of upgrader on site, so they were usually flared off.
But things had been quite different for almost 2 decades now, especially in northern alberta where steam is required to move oil, they've come up with clever ways to utilize the gas as an energy source. In West Tx (where Permian plays locate), many companies have begun using solar in their fracking operations, you almost never see that prior to 2014 (well yes, price crashed so they had to cut cost).
The oil&gas companies (at least the big ones) have been de-carboning for decades now, and are very involved in alternative energy research, but regardless of how much emission they reduce per unit of production, the more you produce, the more emission you are going to have, and this unfortunately ties back to population and 3rd world nations trying to industrialize their way out of poverty.
There is a misconception, actually I don't think that's the right word, that big oil lied to the public about climate change. It's more complicated than that. The Earth had been warmer (also cooler) naturally through out it geological history, climate change is always happening. The oil comps just weren't convinced what we were experiencing was truly anthropogenic.
The problem, you see, is that these climate models came with huge uncertainties (error bars wider than measured increase). Basically, people came up with models that fit past observations (history matching), then used it for forecasting purposes (forced and unforced temp, etc), most were crap. It's essentially the same process many use to time the stock market. It wasn't until people began to notice that recent observations tended to be in the upper limit/range of the predictions that we became more alarmed, ie, worst-case scenarios are the most accurate.
You can see a list of the "best performers" here: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming
-
Simply something I don't know enough about. I follow our local rules for recycling and have no problem doing whats better for our climate and have been for all the changes with emissions etc if not just because its a lot nicer than seeing all that shit spew out of mufflers like back in the 70's when I was growing up. So going to follow along as well to see if some of whats said makes more sense than the crap I hear people arguing about. To @GuitarStv point, the minute this gets brought up it seems to immediately turn into an argument. So also will be interesting to see if this subject can stay civil on here and not side bashing.
-
There is a misconception, actually I don't think that's the right word, that big oil lied to the public about climate change. It's more complicated than that. The Earth had been warmer (also cooler) naturally through out it geological history, climate change is always happening. The oil comps just weren't convinced what we were experiencing was truly anthropogenic.
That isn't a misconception at all. This is the proverbial "it's happened before so it must be happening again" farce. Shell and Exxon in particular, knew as far back as the early 1980s when their own scientist started examining the effects of CO2 emissions. They were forecasting catastrophic damage to the ecosystem caused by a significant rise in man made CO2. Of course this information was never made public. A Dutch researcher dug up the Shell report in 2015 and released it to the public. Not ironically it was marked "confidential." Exxon's report was also leaked in 2015 and was never intended for the public.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f)
The problem, you see, is that these climate models came with huge uncertainties (error bars wider than measured increase). Basically, people came up with models that fit past observations (history matching), then used it for forecasting purposes (forced and unforced temp, etc), most were crap. It's essentially the same process many use to time the stock market. It wasn't until people began to notice that recent observations tended to be in the upper limit/range of the predictions that we became more alarmed, ie, worst-case scenarios are the most accurate.
https://skepticalscience.com/how-well-have-models-predicted-gw.html (https://skepticalscience.com/how-well-have-models-predicted-gw.html)
-
Dead man walking!
I know enough (I used to work on contract for the EPA's greenhouse gas reporting program) to know that I don't know enough to adequately state what the federal policy should be.
But this looks like a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Ya for those of us (i say us but really me) that worked/work in energy the resolution is really blah. and all the inclusion and equity bs, oh and environmental racism!!! ecosocialism!!!
green house gas emission is complicated, you gotta deal with agriculture, power generation, transportation, and manufacturing (concrete and steel).
be pragmatic, start with replacing coal using natural gas and nuclear on the power gen front in the us and developing countries. oh and also eat less meat if you want.
build more wood houses instead of concrete and steel? we got more forest now.
The Green New Deal Is Impractical, But ‘Practical’ Solutions Haven’t Worked Either (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-green-new-deal-is-impractical-but-practical-solutions-havent-worked-either/)
Take, for instance, the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, which formed in 2006 as a lobbying organization that spoke for a diverse group of interests big enough to include both the Natural Resources Defense Council and BP America. The partnership eventually led to the 2009 American Clean Energy and Security Act, a bill that would have introduced a cap-and-trade system for controlling greenhouse gas emissions and provided federal funding for research and development of renewable energy.
But that bill didn’t pass the Senate. And there’s been little forward momentum on climate legislation since then. Instead, the scope “practical” solutions has just gotten smaller and smaller. Even the more recent Climate Solutions Caucus — a bipartisan congressional group aimed at showing that people of many political stripes can agree on combating climate change — declined to criticize the Trump Administration for withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. “That should have been an easy lift,” Jaffe said.
And if bipartisan, practical, detail-oriented climate solutions aren’t working, are they really practical? “I think that’s a fair observation,” Jaffe told me.
-
There is a misconception, actually I don't think that's the right word, that big oil lied to the public about climate change. It's more complicated than that. The Earth had been warmer (also cooler) naturally through out it geological history, climate change is always happening. The oil comps just weren't convinced what we were experiencing was truly anthropogenic.
Oh they definitely lied. A thousand times in a thousand different ways.
Not only did they suppress their own internal scientific reports, they literally lied to Congress about it. I won't go into details for privacy reasons, but I assure you that oil company scientists and government scientists worked together once upon a time to identify climate change risks to the oil and gas industry, identified a list, identified proposed mitigation strategies and costs, and then denied that any of the work ever happened. They deliberately withheld this information from their stock prospectus. They testified falsely in the US capitol about it. They hired the same lobbyists that the tobacco industry used to convince people smoking wasn't bad for you. They absolutely lied, over and over and over again.
Buy lying is far from the worst thing an oil company has done in the name of profit. Shell literally murdered environmental activists in Africa in the 1990s, for opposing the development and exploitation of tribal lands. And I mean literally, as in they hired men with guns to go shoot them. Who's going to miss a few black African dudes, when there are billions of dollars on the line? They eventually paid a few million in fines for human rights violations, but that's just the cost of doing business, amirite?
And don't even get me started on the "we wanted to wait and see to be sure" argument. That's the most disingenuous way possible to stall cleaning up your messes. This is basic chemistry that we've understood since the late 1800s; when you add CO2 to the atmosphere, it will heat up as a necessity of the laws of physics. You might as well argue that you didn't bother to empty your outhouse because you "wanted to wait to be sure" it was actually going to fill up, or refuse to put out the fire in your kitchen because you wanted to wait to be sure it wouldn't spread to the rest of the house if you ignored it while continuing to cook more bacon. Not only did we collectively refuse to acknowledge the inevitable consequence of fossil fuel burning, we continued to burn fossil fuels at an ever increasing rate long after we knew what the consequences were. Like a smoker with emphysema who decides to smoke twice as much because he doesn't have cancer yet.
I have a remarkable amount of sympathy for oil companies, as necessary agents of our technological progress. But they are also unfairly subsidized and hugely profitable enterprises that have deliberately misled the country and irrecoverably damaged our planet in the pursuit of making even more money. They're already the most profitable businesses on the planet, why did they also need to lie, cheat, steal, and kill in order be even more successful?
-
Look I am not here to gaslight people or even talk about human rights abuses in the past.
Yes the basic chemistry is known (known, not understood) for over 50 years, but so is factor investing. I am making the comparison to say that just because something is shown to work in theory doesn't mean it will (for abe, its like many drug research had a good theoretical base but very few actually provide beyond marginal benefits), how many people made it rich doing factor investing? Climate, much like the stock market, is largely chaotic, so you can understand when a model's error bars are wider than it's predicted changes, naturally you are going to get a ton of push backs and disbelief.
To go a little deeper regarding the "known" chemistry. The weird thing is that the CO2 predictions tended to over-predict while temp models tended to under-predict (observed temp rose more than it should based on CO2 increases), this begs the question just how accurate some of these initial models were. Ironically, that turned out to be partially the reason why more people in the oil&gas industry started to accept anthorpogenic climate change, because when you look at it from that perspective, it's saying none of the existing models are aggressive enough to explain the climate change.
Decades ago Jeffreys used Bayesian techniques to deduce the likelihood of lung cancer being caused by smoking, in the early 2000s a group of people did the same for climate change caused by human activities, they arrived at the chance being ~35% likely. That might look low, but it is actually significant given how Bayesian works, and brought more people over.
In case you missed it, that skeptical science article is a re-post of the link I provided. It even says so, do you ever read other people's links before you speak? These are the "most accurate" models out of many many more. Personally I wrote two papers detailing my own model back in the day. When it became fashionable, everyone in my grad department was involved in their own model one way or another. It's like predicting the stock market, we only remember the forecasts that were more right than wrong.
Lastly, on the Exxon documents,
"Our assessment of ExxonMobil's peer-reviewed publications and the role of its scientists supports the conclusion that the company did not 'suppress' climate science—indeed, it contributed to it. However, on the question of whether ExxonMobil misled non-scientific audiences about climate science, our analysis supports the conclusion that it did."
"The company's peer-reviewed, non-peer-reviewed, and internal communications consistently tracked evolving climate science: broadly acknowledging that AGW is real, human-caused, serious, and solvable, while identifying reasonable uncertainties that most climate scientists readily acknowledged at that time. In contrast, ExxonMobil's advertorials in the NYT overwhelmingly emphasized only the uncertainties, promoting a narrative inconsistent with the views of most climate scientists, including ExxonMobil's own"
Yes Exxon promoted mostly the uncertainties to the non-scientific public and I am not saying it's good. But it is really no different from well, many things (IQ, GMO, and all things political). There is a reason why people stopped using Bayesian techniques (and resorted to a more deterministic method) to assert human influences on climate -- the general public is largely scientifically illiterate, and it is very difficult for people to understand the uncertainties in many of these models. Notice how the other side of the coin is also true regarding the pro-anthorpogenic crowd, they almost never talk about uncertainties in any detail.
My point is, once people noticed the models tend to under-predict the rate of delta temp (temp increase moving beyond error bars), people have become more open to accept the idea. And large o&g comps in general have been in the forefront of developing alternative energy sources and reduce emission in operations.
-
I guess the climate change thing has been known for quite some time. The oil companies didn't even have to lie about it.:
Svante Arrhenius:
In developing a theory to explain the ice ages, Arrhenius, in 1896, was the first to use basic principles of physical chemistry to calculate estimates of the extent to which increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) will increase Earth's surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.[3][21][22] These calculations led him to conclude that human-caused CO2 emissions, from fossil-fuel burning and other combustion processes, are large enough to cause global warming. This conclusion has been extensively tested, winning a place at the core of modern climate science.[23][24
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius)
-
In case you missed it, that skeptical science article is a re-post of the link I provided. It even says so, do you ever read other people's links before you speak?
I did miss it, thanks for pointing that out. Looks like I responded in earnest as you debunked your own claim about climate models not being very accurate.
Yes Exxon promoted mostly the uncertainties to the non-scientific public and I am not saying it's good. But it is really no different from well, many things (IQ, GMO, and all things political).
Wow, just wow! That's the very thing the climate denial campaign loves. The Heartland Institute uses that very same tactic of sewing a little bit of doubt to undermine the proven link between smoking and cancer, climate change etc. DuPont harped on the uncertainties of the danger of their teflon products to claim they were safe (despite their own research proving otherwise). Meanwhile people were dying (and still are). They fucking poisoned their own employees. But hey, hey there was a bit of doubt so it's all good.
So yes Exxon fucking lied. And they lied to protect their profit. They lied because they don't want to appear complacent in the potential catastrophic destruction of our ecosystem. They did it because of greed, not because there was a tiny bit of uncertainty. Good grief!
-
We should be spending money on mitigation (gmo crops, moving people away from problem areas) and geoengineering.
The ship sailed on the emissions front a long time ago.
-W
-
lol ok. I don't know what your background is, but uncertainty is key to all things science related. In fact, back when I was in Uni, there was a required course on uncertainty for all science students before 1st year class even began.
It was not a matter of "a little doubt", the error bars were wider than the predicted change, do you even understand what that means?
I have said repeatedly, the emission problem is complex, Exxon's emission accounts for only a tiny fraction of the big picture. They are just a scapegoat. You gotta deal with agriculture, power generation, transportation, and manufacturing (concrete and steel) to make any progress. Now where would Exxon's emission be categorized here? none, it falls under "industry", which is maybe 10% collectively at most.
Get over your own self-righteousness and start thinking rationally. I don't think you understand what i mean by most models are bad, there are literally hundreds if not thousands of models that people came up with, most were way off base, Arrhenius is actually a good example. His simple model (over 100 years ago) predicted the temps would rise 2x as much given a lower co2 emission. Was he in the ballpark? ya sure by a factor of 2. Is that something to build policies around? Nope.
If you actually want policies, look beyond the o&g industry, start eating less red meat (especially no organic or humane meat), make less buildings using steel and concrete, and replace coal power plants with natural gas and nuclear. Oh, you can also try to persuade 3rd world countries from industrializing and tell them to stay in abject poverty. lol
-
The ship sailed on the emissions front a long time ago.
Sure, but you don't keep on cooking bacon after you start a grease fire. Step one is to stop making it worse. Step two can be about trying to make it better.
The "Green New Deal" that started this thread is definitely about both of those things. Despite all of the fearmongering on Fox News about how liberals are going to take away your car and outlaw hamburgers, the actual document itself looks pretty reasonable to me. It just says we should try to solve this problem, and even a trump style climate denialist who thinks it's all a Chinese hoax should be on board with that idea, I think. Even if you refuse all evidence, and believe that climate change is 100% natural and humans can't be responsible, you still have to recognize that climate IS changing, and that those changes are causing problems, and that we're going to have to deal with those problems.
At this point, it's almost silly to argue over the causes of climate change anymore. It happened. It's going to continue happen, and you can blame sunspots or the hollow earth if you really want to but we're still going to have to deal with heat waves and flooding and permafrost melting and pine bark beetles and glacier losses and ocean acidification and a hundred million people in Bangladesh who will need to relocate. The portions of the Green New Deal document that say "we should deal with these problems before they get any more expensive" should probably be universally accepted, from every wing of the political spectrum.
-
Sol, I agree with everything you said there. But we've been trying the same sort of stuff for the last 20+ years and emissions are HIGHER now than they were. A lot higher.
It's not working.
It's time for a plan B. We can still do our best to cut back emissions and develop new clean tech. But I want to be ready for that plan to fail.
-W
-
And now time for the nuclear reply:
It's not working.
It's time for a plan B.
That's why people voted for Trump, because things weren't working no matter who was in charge ;)
I am not a big fan of this argument, because it pretty much says the end justifies the means.
-
It was not a matter of "a little doubt", the error bars were wider than the predicted change, do you even understand what that means?
You're confusing different kinds of error bars. The aggregate climate predictions show a range of future temperatures, but that range is not an error bar. That range is the natural variability of year to year climate. Then there are error bars on where the edges of that range lie.
Starting in about the mid 2000s, the error bars on aggregate model predictions started to shrink considerably, even as the range of future temperatures continued to hold pretty constant.
Also of note, the the range of possible future temperatures will be entirely above the former range starting in the 2030s. That means that the coldest year in the 95% CI in the 2030s will be hotter than the hottest year in the 95% CI from the pre-1980 baseline.
These changes are already in progress. At this point it's pretty impossible to argue that climate change isn't happening, though people spent decades arguing over every little wiggle. The only debate now is what do do about it, and the answer to that question is somewhat tied up in the reasons for the changes we've seen thus far.
I have said repeatedly, the emission problem is complex, Exxon's emission accounts for only a tiny fraction of the big picture.
You might as well argue that Hitler wasn't responsible for most of the World War II deaths because he didn't personally murder them. He was responsible for the underlying forces that led to most of them, though, and as such he bears more responsibility than what can be literally attributed to his own hands.
Exxon is in the same boat. Exxon and other global oil companies are responsible for extraction all of those gigatons of C out of the ground, and making it available to everyone else to burn. Just because they sold it before it was burned doesn't mean they aren't responsible.
-
Starting in about the mid 2000s, the error bars on aggregate model predictions started to shrink considerably, even as the range of future temperatures continued to hold pretty constant.
Also of note, the the range of possible future temperatures will be entirely above the former range starting in the 2030s. That means that the coldest year in the 95% CI in the 2030s will be hotter than the hottest year in the 95% CI from the pre-1980 baseline.
These changes are already in progress. At this point it's pretty impossible to argue that climate change isn't happening, though people spent decades arguing over every little wiggle. The only debate now is what do do about it, and the answer to that question is somewhat tied up in the reasons for the changes we've seen thus far.
Just to be clear, I am not arguing climate change isn't happening, I have been very clear on that. What you just described here is precisely what I am trying to convey, the error bars shrunk in recent years relative to the delta temp, making predictions more significant and more falsifiable, and people became much more open to AGW partly because of it.
Using stock market as an example, if I were to tell you that s&p would hit 4000 next month because of x y and z, and other person told you it would hit 2780 next year because of a b and c. Say both turned out to be right, which "prediction" would you say is more significant?
-
Starting in about the mid 2000s, the error bars on aggregate model predictions started to shrink considerably, even as the range of future temperatures continued to hold pretty constant.
Also of note, the the range of possible future temperatures will be entirely above the former range starting in the 2030s. That means that the coldest year in the 95% CI in the 2030s will be hotter than the hottest year in the 95% CI from the pre-1980 baseline.
These changes are already in progress. At this point it's pretty impossible to argue that climate change isn't happening, though people spent decades arguing over every little wiggle. The only debate now is what do do about it, and the answer to that question is somewhat tied up in the reasons for the changes we've seen thus far.
Just to be clear, I am not arguing climate change isn't happening, I have been very clear on that. What you just described here is precisely what I am trying to convey, the error bars shrunk in recent years relative to the delta temp, making predictions more significant and more falsifiable, and people became much more open to AGW partly because of it.
Using stock market as an example, if I were to tell you that s&p would hit 4000 next month because of x y and z, and other person told you it would hit 2780 next year because of a b and c. Say both turned out to be right, which "prediction" would you say is more significant?
I'm just going to chime in here and say that comparing the stock market to climate predictions is going to be inherently flawed. Perhaps a better analogy would allow this conversation to be more productive.
-
In economic terms, it's fine to take on more debt provided your net worth grows at the same or better pace. Unfortunately, our planet's oceans and atmosphere can't do the same thing. As the population grows and industrial production grows we're pretty much destined to increase CO2 productive in absolute terms. I have no idea about the numbers on this, but it would seem that pollution policy would need to address a reasonable amount of growth in CO2 simply because we can't avoid it (unless a member of the G20 volunteers to return to the Middle Ages). Unless somebody can explain to me a way for us to have a growing population, growing global economy, and a neutral or negative growth in emissions?
While the US produces a considerable amount of the CO, CO2, and CH4 emissions being discussed, the side opposing any significant reforms would put their foot down if the rest of the world didn't have to take an equal cut on relative or absolute terms. Why should the US put thousands out of work to reduce pollution if a) the other countries don't have to as well or b) they're allowed to simply make up the difference in whatever we just cut. Wasn't that one of the outcomes on the Kyoto and Paris agreements?
-
Perhaps a better analogy would allow this conversation to be more productive.
I think the analogy are close enough to get my point across, both are predominately driven by human and largely chaotic. But if you disagree that's fine, you can come up with your own versions.
Not sure how productive the conversation can get when many people that just can't get over their self righteousness. On individual level, have less children, eat less red meat (especially the free roam kind), always fly coach, keep your home temp <65F . Oh, also ditch all of your cryptos to me, I will bear your crypto sins for you free of charge cuz i am nice.
Policy-wise you can try to abolish private planes or even first class seats, build less rails and roads not more (except in heavily populated corridors with enough demand), set limits on how big a house (or living space per person) can be, etc. When I was doing school in the UK my entire flat was the size of my master bathroom today, smaller homes usually translate to smaller footprint. You could also go after the farmers/ranchers for their share of carbon-tax, but i gotta warn you, that's going to push them further to Trump.
You could try to balance it out for the rural folks by making it easier for them to sell the electricity they generate back to the grid to bring the emission down on the power generation front. But then of course you run the risk of people flooding the grid if the numbers aren't right, also effectively people with abundant land would benefit.
-
Trump might just do some good here if he manages a thumping global recession... that's a pretty good way to bring down emissions by a decent bit.
One of the biggest problems, and a source of extensive (as far as I let external things bother me, which isn't much) frustration is just how staggeringly moronic the anti-climate-change types are in their proposals and lifestyles - or, a better term, the "optics" of their proposals.
It's quite rare to find any of the "climate activists" who live a particularly low impact lifestyle - Al Gore is a particularly high lightening rod here, but it's quite common to find people who consistently live a "Do as I say, not as I do!" lifestyle, when it comes to carbon emissions. Gunhild Stordalen being one of the more recent examples - demand everyone eat a meat-free diet, fly around the world on her and her husband's private jet, fly friends around for a party, etc. I'm not actually opposed to private aviation when it makes sense, but I'll suggest that if you are demanding other people do something to have a fairly minor impact on global emissions, living a genuinely carbon-intensive party lifestyle may reduce the traction your message gets. People, like it or not, are rather sensitive to hypocrisy, and it's found in great quantities among those who demand others do things.
Al Gore is the common example, because despite (flying) around the country to give presentations on carbon emissions, it's remarkably difficult to tell, by his lifestyle, that he actually believes it's a problem. Yes, sure, he works from home... I've heard the list of excuses for why a remarkably energy hungry 10k sq ft house is "required" for him to do stuff, and I'll suggest that most people on this forum have a far lower impact that he does. Plus, yes, he put solar panels on - but they were a fairly small array that made a rather tiny dent in his energy consumption. Sure, they were expensive, but he had the money he could have done a proper offsetting system, even a decade and change ago. So, when people who are the figureheads of the movement won't put their money where their mouth is, why would other people believe they actually care and aren't just looking for a lever to use to control other people?
The utter obsession over carbon (and inability to talk about anything but carbon, even to an audience that doesn't care) reminds me of the joke about colored elephants. How do you kill a blue elephant? With a blue elephant gun. How do you kill a red elephant? Choke it until it's blue and then use a blue elephant gun. If you're attempting to make a point to an audience that don't consider "But CARBON!!!!" as a valid reason to change their lifestyle, perhaps consider something other than carbon? Know your audience and all that.
I've got a Volt in a pretty deep red area of the country. I interact with people who don't believe carbon is a particular problem. My approach doesn't involve pointing out that they should first care about carbon then... buy a Tesla, or whatever the proper action to show you Care(TM) is. It's pointing out the other merits of plug in hybrid/electric transportation, talking up homeowner installed solar (the solar companies out here are criminally expensive), pointing out the benefits of ebikes (which, to be fair, I need to get my high speed runner built), etc. We manage a fairly low carbon footprint out here, but it's not something I bludgeon people with, because most people I talk to don't care. Now, the energy/food independence stuff we're working towards? That's of substantial interest, so, I tend to sell that side of things. And I work from home, so my commute is more or less non-existent.
I also own an area-appropriate truck (F350, CCLB, 7.3 Powerstroke diesel). It's not a problem, and isn't seen as a point of hypocrisy, because I don't use it for things that don't require a truck - nor am I telling people they should Definitely Sell the Truck (as is common in certain circles). I just point out that I don't use it as a commuter, because it's damned expensive to run, and if I can accomplish something without the truck, I will. It's an area of the country with larger lots, so having a few vehicles isn't a big deal. Having a commuter car (electric or PHEV) and a truck just isn't that difficult out here.
But, seriously, people who don't live their lives like they give two shits about carbon, lecturing other people on why they can't have hamburgers? I'm not at all surprised they haven't managed to make a damned bit of difference. And, no, paying for carbon indulgences doesn't help the optics of it.
Not sure how productive the conversation can get when many people that just can't get over their self righteousness. On individual level, have less children, eat less red meat (especially the free roam kind), always fly coach, keep your home temp <65F . Oh, also ditch all of your cryptos to me, I will bear your crypto sins for you free of charge cuz i am nice.
Oh, man, I'm going to have to upgrade my air conditioner to keep it under 65 in the summer...
So, simple question: Do you do all those things?
Policy-wise you can try to abolish private planes or even first class seats, build less rails and roads not more (except in heavily populated corridors with enough demand), set limits on how big a house (or living space per person) can be, etc. When I was doing school in the UK my entire flat was the size of my master bathroom today, smaller homes usually translate to smaller footprint. You could also go after the farmers/ranchers for their share of carbon-tax, but i gotta warn you, that's going to push them further to Trump.
The problem isn't so much private aviation, as private jets. A good turboprop is still far faster than flying commercial, and is quite a bit more efficient than a jet. You can't directly compare L/passenger/mile numbers, as almost all commercial trips are spoke and hub, with far more miles flown than you'd fly straight line. Even comparing to driving, the whole "straight from where you are to where you want to be" thing screws with the numbers.
I'm not picking on you in particular, but if you care about carbon emissions, why do you live in a house that has a larger master bath than your previous apartments? It's not the sort of thing that really reduces planetary impact...
You could try to balance it out for the rural folks by making it easier for them to sell the electricity they generate back to the grid to bring the emission down on the power generation front. But then of course you run the risk of people flooding the grid if the numbers aren't right, also effectively people with abundant land would benefit.
The rural grid generally isn't suited to large scale transmission of power. It tends to be built out "about enough to work," and isn't going to handle massive power flows into populated areas without transmission upgrades - which then means large industrial scale solar, which isn't the sort of thing you can do in your back 40. On the other hand, that's still a far better use of money than rooftop solar. Large scale solar is around $1/W installed, residential is $3-4/W installed. You get far, far more bang for your buck with the big farms.
-
Hi @Syonyk, I apologize for the miscommunication, the 65F I referred to was for in the winter as in now, I was not talking (at least not intended to) about year round, especially in the summer. Sorry about the confusion, I can see that would be a ridiculous notion in the summer.
Your other criticisms are also valid, although i would quibble with your turbopop comment in terms of emission on a per capita basis. selling power back to the grid was just an idea to "give back" some to the rural folks if policies do end up going after them for carbon taxes. Transmissions and storage limitations are definitely large obstacles and likely wont be overcome without major upgrades.
As to whether i follow my own suggestions on the personal level, the answer is yes. I am currently sitting on my coach under 3 layers of blanket and wearing gloves as i type. I fly almost exclusively coach even though I could afford much better. I stay away from various "organic" or "humane" meat and I am childfree (as far as i know).
EDIT: i might be wrong but i think you mistook me for a crazy environmentalist, i am not! I agree with your take on "climate activists", please read my other posts in this thread to see where i stand. thanks.
-
This poll needs extra options, to include "...but it won't matter"
Because it won't, really. I guess a really aggressive world-wide climate policy shift might lessen the extreme end of the impact or the turn-around time, but really, we're way too late. We're toast. I think we've already doomed most larger species, including man.
-
Hi @Syonyk, I apologize for the miscommunication, the 65F I referred to was for in the winter as in now, I was not talking (at least not intended to) about year round, especially in the summer.
Yeah, I got it...
Your other criticisms are also valid, although i would quibble with your turbopop comment in terms of emission on a per capita basis.
Even with the emissions from it, I'm still a large fan of business aviation. I'd just rather see the jets pulled back in favor of the turboprops - they're a good bit more efficient, and tend to haul more load. I get the appeal of a Citation X, but edging along the Mach barrier just isn't a very efficient way to fly. The things look like someone stuck a pair of DC-9 engines on a lawn dart for a reason.
selling power back to the grid was just an idea to "give back" some to the rural folks if policies do end up going after them for carbon taxes.
As one of those "rural folks," have you actually talked to anyone to find out what would be useful, or just assumed that letting them sell unreliable power to the grid would be of use? I'm currently in battles with my power company over solar capacity (they limit based on panel STC nameplate, I'm doing a weird looking system and arguing that I should be able to limit based on inverter capacity), but it's a weird little corner for most people out here. Though, if you actually tax carbon fairly (including in manufactured goods), cities don't look so hot. At least they can pay double the price for everything without too much more than grumbling.
I wouldn't mind a bit of investment in EV charging infrastructure out where I live, but see "Volt."
As to whether i follow my own suggestions on the personal level, the answer is yes. I am currently sitting on my coach under 3 layers of blanket and wearing gloves as i type.
I've lived at 45F for a winter, can't say I thought it was enjoyable. I just couldn't afford heat. I question if that's the best way to reduce impact, though - natural gas heating is pretty efficient, though the generation side emissions on NG tend gross.
-
As one of those "rural folks," have you actually talked to anyone to find out what would be useful, or just assumed that letting them sell unreliable power to the grid would be of use?
Nope, I am just an urbanite coming up with dumb ideas to screw over rurals. Because that's what we snobby elites do. ;)
Seriously though, ya it's a bad, at least, premature idea and won't do people much good. But please note the sarcasm (and pre-condition) in that post. I just want to be clear so you understand my position, I am not advocating for some carbon tax targeting farmers and ranchers directly, if anything, that tax should come on the consumer end.
-
Cats is right to point out there is no carbon tax, and abe is right to point out that there is too much social baggage. Same here in Australia, the Greens are concerned about environment matters, but muddy the waters with left wing politics. When the US entered WW2, the government did not bother with social policy, they increased taxes and spent big on the armed forces.
Today, heavy spending on carbon mitigation will employ a lot of people. Employ people on good wages, and a lot of social problems fade to the back row.
-
In Australia, state governments have offered subsidies for roof top solar for years. People have pointed out, that residential solar is not a good idea because people are out at work when the sun is shining, although recent advances in battery storage will solve that problem.
Subsidies for roof top solar make more sense for hospitals, schools, shopping malls, office blocks and industrial buildings, mainly because people work in these buildings when the sun shines. I expect that as the price of solar falls further, property developers will install roof top solar as standard.
Syonik, you quoted prices of $1 a watt for large scale solar and $3 a watt for roof top solar. Do you have as reference? Now I think about it, large scale solar will buy solar panels in bulk.
-
Syonik, you quoted prices of $1 a watt for large scale solar and $3 a watt for roof top solar. Do you have as reference? Now I think about it, large scale solar will buy solar panels in bulk.
Google it. Residential is $3-$4/W in most areas, you're doing amazing to find $2/W. Look at industrial nameplate capacity vs cost - it's $0.80/W to $1.50/W - far, far cheaper, and has trackers to better follow the sun.
-
In economic terms, it's fine to take on more debt provided your net worth grows at the same or better pace. Unfortunately, our planet's oceans and atmosphere can't do the same thing. As the population grows and industrial production grows we're pretty much destined to increase CO2 productive in absolute terms. I have no idea about the numbers on this, but it would seem that pollution policy would need to address a reasonable amount of growth in CO2 simply because we can't avoid it (unless a member of the G20 volunteers to return to the Middle Ages). Unless somebody can explain to me a way for us to have a growing population, growing global economy, and a neutral or negative growth in emissions?
While the US produces a considerable amount of the CO, CO2, and CH4 emissions being discussed, the side opposing any significant reforms would put their foot down if the rest of the world didn't have to take an equal cut on relative or absolute terms. Why should the US put thousands out of work to reduce pollution if a) the other countries don't have to as well or b) they're allowed to simply make up the difference in whatever we just cut. Wasn't that one of the outcomes on the Kyoto and Paris agreements?
The reason why the USA could be a gamechanger IMO is because they are one of the largest countries population wise AND have one of the highest per capita emissions. Countries with higher or similar emissions (Australia, Luxembourg) all have way lower population numbers while countries with larger populations (India, China) may have higher total emissions but way lower per capita emissions. So the first countries could try to cut back emissions, but won't have as much impact due to their population size (which doesn't mean they shouldn't do anything) while the most populated countries aren't doing that bad on an individual basis (plus have other problems to care about, like massive poverty).
The other big one I'd say is the EU, but compared to the USA we already pollute way less (on average, heavily dependent on the country you're looking at), we already have more ambitious plans (to my knowledge), plus we're a bunch of independent countries so it's much harder to get to 1 overall policy.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is is that if there's one country for whom it makes the least sense to make the statement of "why would we have to do the majority of the work if others don't", it's the USA because they do have the best options to make a big impact. Other countries will certainly have to do their part to, but without the country that's responsible for 20% of emissions with only 5% of the world's inhabitants (not sure anymore where I got this statistic from) it's gonna be a tough fight.
If it's gonna make any difference in the end... I don't know.
-
This poll needs extra options, to include "...but it won't matter"
Because it won't, really. I guess a really aggressive world-wide climate policy shift might lessen the extreme end of the impact or the turn-around time, but really, we're way too late. We're toast. I think we've already doomed most larger species, including man.
I’m an optimist at heart, and I don’t share your sentiment that we’re all doomed. We certainly aren’t too late, and we already have the technology and understanding to curb the worst of climate change’s effects. What we lack (currently) is the political will. However, even here I retain some optimism, as public opinion can shift dramatically in just a few short years. We’ve seen such shifts in the US regarding gay marriage, about entering both world wars, about owning people as slaves. I’m guessing at some point we’ll hit a critical threshold and the majority will see climate change as (the) major national priority.
As for humans becoming extinct - even under the worst case scenarios I don’t see that happening. Hundreds of millions may become refuges, about as many will starve, but we’ll survive as a species.
-
Syonik, you quoted prices of $1 a watt for large scale solar and $3 a watt for roof top solar. Do you have as reference? Now I think about it, large scale solar will buy solar panels in bulk.
Google it. Residential is $3-$4/W in most areas, you're doing amazing to find $2/W. Look at industrial nameplate capacity vs cost - it's $0.80/W to $1.50/W - far, far cheaper, and has trackers to better follow the sun.
I installed rooftop solar back in 2011/2012 for less than $3/watt. That was with ridiculous county requirements like hiring a structural engineer to inspect our trusses. Just as a point of reference. We sold the house and it added quite a bit of value.
-
Was that your cost for doing it yourself, or having someone else do it?
I got a local quote from a company:
8.68kW roof mount/grid tie
$38,687
28 Premium Silfab 310W Triple-Black panels with Enphase IQ 6 microinverters
So... old gen inverters, $4.45/W. And the "savings" involve some pretty sketchy assumptions about how much grid power goes up year over year (they actually calculate 3% YoY increase for the life of the system in order to estimate power costs).
You can see why I'm not excited about that sort of thing. I can do a hybrid system with batteries, myself, for far less money, while having far more capability. Or, their system for under $15k.
-
Was that your cost for doing it yourself, or having someone else do it?
I got a local quote from a company:
8.68kW roof mount/grid tie
$38,687
28 Premium Silfab 310W Triple-Black panels with Enphase IQ 6 microinverters
So... old gen inverters, $4.45/W. And the "savings" involve some pretty sketchy assumptions about how much grid power goes up year over year (they actually calculate 3% YoY increase for the life of the system in order to estimate power costs).
You can see why I'm not excited about that sort of thing. I can do a hybrid system with batteries, myself, for far less money, while having far more capability. Or, their system for under $15k.
I did it myself. Really isn't that hard. I did all the spec work, obtained the permits, electrical calculations etc. Installing was fairly easy and straightforward. My brother in law helped and we knocked out 28 panels and all the electrical work in less than 2 weekends. I used micronverters as well.
-
I'm impressed, over 80% of Mustachians agree with the absolute need to address climate change.
The problem with admitting there is a problem, and setting about changing the problem is that this forces us to deal with another problem we have: too much shit. We have too many cars, driving too many miles, consuming too much junk. We also have too much food. I was just listening to NPR today, there are food banks in Virginia/Kentucky (both states mentioned) that are receiving too much milk. These food banks have to expend gas and resources to go and pick up the milk, and then to store the milk-sometimes in tractor trailers idling ALL NIGHT! There are way too many shit producing factories making crap we don't need. Every holiday is an orgy of spending, all the "new" things to buy, gift, and decorate with. Every season, Americans flush with cash buy the latest thing, the cool gadget, the new hobby toy, and then let it pile up in the garage to gather dust. I myself am guilty of it, but am trying to reform.
If an economic tsunami wiped out half the economy, I'm pretty sure the Earth and its inhabitants (including us humans!) would be better off in the long run.
-
I'm impressed, over 80% of Mustachians agree with the absolute need to address climate change.
The problem with admitting there is a problem, and setting about changing the problem is that this forces us to deal with another problem we have: too much shit. We have too many cars, driving too many miles, consuming too much junk. We also have too much food. I was just listening to NPR today, there are food banks in Virginia/Kentucky (both states mentioned) that are receiving too much milk. These food banks have to expend gas and resources to go and pick up the milk, and then to store the milk-sometimes in tractor trailers idling ALL NIGHT! There are way too many shit producing factories making crap we don't need. Every holiday is an orgy of spending, all the "new" things to buy, gift, and decorate with. Every season, Americans flush with cash buy the latest thing, the cool gadget, the new hobby toy, and then let it pile up in the garage to gather dust. I myself am guilty of it, but am trying to reform.
If an economic tsunami wiped out half the economy, I'm pretty sure the Earth and its inhabitants (including us humans!) would be better off in the long run.
I agree with your main sentiment, but isn't the whole point of Mustachianism to avoid the second problem and thus help with the first? My family hasn't bought material gifts for an adult in at least 10 years, and I'm sure many others here are similar. The second one is almost certainly incorrect - economic depressions usually cause significant suffering.
On a similar note, NPR had a story on how the Salvation Army in NYC has to maintain a large fleet of trucks and a massive warehouse to deal with all the stuff people try to donate. An unfortunately high fraction ends up in a landfill anyway, after wasting everyone at the charity's time and energy. Also, 6% of NYC's landfill volume is clothing!
-
Some posters have thought that a warmer Earth will kill off humanity. This will not happen. Below is a link to a discussion of estimated carbon dioxide concentrations in the Earth's atmosphere over geological time, and in the article is a further link to methods of estimating ancient carbon dioxide concentrations.
These estimation methods are inevitably shaky, but have indicated that there have been times when carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere have been much higher than at present, but life went on.
A warmer Earth in the future will mean a more comfortable climate near the poles, and perhaps a lethal climate near the equator. The impact on humanity will be big, and there may even mean a fall in world population, but humanity will continue. At the moment, the climate near the poles is close to lethal.
Canada, northern Europe and Russia will benefit from a warmer world, and these countries know it. The infamous Lord Monckton, a notorious and flamboyant climate denier, comes from Scotland, which he knows will benefit. Countries nearer the equator, nearly all poor, will suffer.
But life goes on.
-
In the short run, yes-much suffering. But in the long run....well the choice is the same gold bars or earth....hmmmm.
I think mustachianism is closer to environmentalism than driving a Prius or buying organic or signing a petition. It addresses the entire chain of ecological harm we've been responsible for these past few centuries. Don't buy stupid shit. Stop driving to work in a stupid car to pay for stupid shit. Stop working period! It's a perfect circle. I realize MMM has strayed a bit from the original tenants (bought a Nissan Leaf recently I think?) but classic mustachianism applied is still effective.
-
These estimation methods are inevitably shaky, but have indicated that there have been times when carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere have been much higher than at present, but life went on.
Keep in mind this change did not happen overnight (Earth time scale speaking). It took eons and plants and animals were able to adapt. There were also times when the climate shifted quite rapidly and it took a huge toll on the ecosystem.
-
Next gen nuclear reactors (Thorium/Uranium) that are much safer will be the only way to make a substantial difference in the big picture of CO2 emissions.
-
Some posters have thought that a warmer Earth will kill off humanity. This will not happen. Below is a link to a discussion of estimated carbon dioxide concentrations in the Earth's atmosphere over geological time, and in the article is a further link to methods of estimating ancient carbon dioxide concentrations.
These estimation methods are inevitably shaky, but have indicated that there have been times when carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere have been much higher than at present, but life went on.
A warmer Earth in the future will mean a more comfortable climate near the poles, and perhaps a lethal climate near the equator. The impact on humanity will be big, and there may even mean a fall in world population, but humanity will continue. At the moment, the climate near the poles is close to lethal.
Canada, northern Europe and Russia will benefit from a warmer world, and these countries know it. The infamous Lord Monckton, a notorious and flamboyant climate denier, comes from Scotland, which he knows will benefit. Countries nearer the equator, nearly all poor, will suffer.
But life goes on.
Well, I'll start by agreeing with your point that humans will almost certainly survive as a species under any climate change scenario. As for the rest of your post, it uncomfortably follows the new talking points of those that think we shouldn't try to address climate change.
The idea that positive effects of climate change have been overlooked and will offset most or all of its deleterious ones is a false canard. Speaking specifically about habitable land with rising temperatures, there are two flaws with this logic. First, as temperatures warm and the ice sheets melt sea level will rise substantially both through displacement (more water in the oceans) and by thermal expansion (warm water takes upmore space). Going back to the previous geological time periods you mentioned, sea level up to 20 meters higher than it is today with a climate 2-4şC warmer than we have now (which is what may happen should we miss the IPCC targets). Even a much more modest 3m sea level rise will eliminate about 2% of all available land.
The second part has to do with where available land is. Yes, some currently frozen land in high latitudes will become less frozen and more tolerable for both living and farming, but it won't offset the land that's lost. Currently more than 1/3 of all available land is in the tropics, which as you've said will become largely inhabitable. bottom line is we stand to lose a LOT more land than we gain, both in absolute terms and for what is suitable for growing crops and living on. Then of course there's the political fallout that there are only 6 nations with territory in the arctic, whereas there are over 50 which are entirely in the tropics.
-
@Leisured that link isn't in your post FYI, kind of curious about it. Was that at a time when agriculture feeding millions would be affected? Or a time where a massive shift in water levels would displace millions of people? If not, I don't think those levels are relevant.
"Life goes on" is an unacceptable approach. Not for the people and populations affected. So there's a toxic waste dump leaking poison into your drinking water-does life go on? Life goes on when that dump is cleaned up, moved, fines are levied and the water is drinkable or people relocated.
-
@Leisured that link isn't in your post FYI, kind of curious about it. Was that at a time when agriculture feeding millions would be affected? Or a time where a massive shift in water levels would displace millions of people? If not, I don't think those levels are relevant.
"Life goes on" is an unacceptable approach. Not for the people and populations affected. So there's a toxic waste dump leaking poison into your drinking water-does life go on? Life goes on when that dump is cleaned up, moved, fines are levied and the water is drinkable or people relocated.
"Life goes on" is the complacent bromide of the privileged person who is confident his life will never be impacted by the thing he's talking about.
Trump was at least honest about this sentiment when he talked about the looming debt crisis that will explode as a result of his bullshit tax cuts: "Yeah, but I won't be here."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-shrugs-off-future-debt-crisis-i-wont-be-here
-
It is somewhat amusing to me how people that cite the geologic record of prior CO2 levels do not cite any other portions of the geologic record for context. They never seem that interested in the Permian extinction event, for example. In this event massive amounts of CO2 entered the atmosphere and was concurrent with about a 90% decrease in species diversity. Here's a nice summary from MIT:
http://news.mit.edu/2011/mass-extinction-1118
"It's happened before so it will be fine." is intellectually lazy cherry picking. The state of the science on climate change is not "is AGW a thing?" it is "just exactly how bad will this be and how will it be felt in different places over time?"
There will be costs and winners and losers if we enacted aggressive climate action now. However, the long term cost savings - as a global society - is a clear benefit. Yes, we will probably not see the full benefits in our own lifetimes. The next generation may be lucky to see the bend in the curve, which will mostly just be "less bad" impacts. Even if we are beyond a tipping point, slowing the rate will make adaptation less expensive and less disruptive. Sol's analogy to a kitchen fire is quite apt.
-
It's really hard to sell something that you won't see in your lifetime. People just do not think that way. Hell, most people are living paycheck to paycheck. How important do you really think the future is to them?
:P
-
In the short run, yes-much suffering. But in the long run....well the choice is the same gold bars or earth....hmmmm.
Gold bars are pretty environmentally friendly once you get them out... they don't corrode, and just sit around. ;)
I think mustachianism is closer to environmentalism than driving a Prius or buying organic or signing a petition. It addresses the entire chain of ecological harm we've been responsible for these past few centuries. Don't buy stupid shit. Stop driving to work in a stupid car to pay for stupid shit. Stop working period! It's a perfect circle. I realize MMM has strayed a bit from the original tenants (bought a Nissan Leaf recently I think?) but classic mustachianism applied is still effective.
In some ways yes, in some ways... it relies awfully heavily on "business as usual" continuing into the indefinite future.
It does address the chain of purchases and the various clown activities one can engage in (stressing out at work to earn enough money to buy shit to destress being one of those cycles), but I'd argue the zero waste movements are better aligned with the planet - and, importantly, don't rely on never ending market returns.
The "Well, put your money in index funds and when you hit 25x, boom, you're golden!" advice assumes 4% returns going forward - which I tend to think is unlikely to remain for my remaining life (60 years, if all goes well). The combination of climate change, debt issues, coastal land loss, diminishing returns on investment in technology, etc... one of these is likely to really shake things up, several of them hitting all around the same time (as we're likely to see)... enh. I'm treating market returns as a "nice bonus" and busy trying to ensure that I'm mostly robust against various things regardless of what markets do. Will it work? Probably not as I hope, but it's better to have local resources/energy/food than to rely purely on markets like a lot of people are.
I certainly agree being content on less (or, to borrow a Greer-ism, LESS - Less Energy, Stimulation, Stuff) is going to be helpful, and would make a difference. The various anti-digital-everything movements (or at least anti-digital-distraction) give me hope that some people will pre-adapt, but, honestly, I don't expect the internet to be as widespread in 50 years as it is now. I'm one hell of a pessimist (I recognize my bias, as a pessimist-by-career), and am rarely disappointed. ;)
Next gen nuclear reactors (Thorium/Uranium) that are much safer will be the only way to make a substantial difference in the big picture of CO2 emissions.
Technically, I agree with you. Reality-wise, I don't think they're going to happen. I think renewables will make enough of a dent that you can't make a nuclear plant pay off, and, yeah, the power grid will be less reliable, but I would bet against any significant new nuclear (at a large scale). The micro plants (100kW electrical or so?), on the other hand, seem like they'd work well with local micro-grids - a neighborhood could run on a blend of one of those, some storage, and solar for the sunny times.
Going back to the previous geological time periods you mentioned, sea level up to 20 meters higher than it is today with a climate 2-4şC warmer than we have now (which is what may happen should we miss the IPCC targets). Even a much more modest 3m sea level rise will eliminate about 2% of all available land.
Yeah, but it mostly floods the coastal elites, and who cares about them? ;)
If you assume a few meters of sea level rise (isn't that one glacier rotting out from underneath on Antarctica able to do a good chunk of that if it slides?), the coastal cities will have major problems - and that's where an awful lot of the economic growth early retirement relies on happens.
-
Technically, I agree with you. Reality-wise, I don't think they're going to happen. I think renewables will make enough of a dent that you can't make a nuclear plant pay off, and, yeah, the power grid will be less reliable, but I would bet against any significant new nuclear (at a large scale). The micro plants (100kW electrical or so?), on the other hand, seem like they'd work well with local micro-grids - a neighborhood could run on a blend of one of those, some storage, and solar for the sunny times.
Well I spent about two years as an analyst for the decommissioning of two medium-sized nuclear plants. From an economic standpoint the problem with smaller nuclear plants is the cost of security and the obligatory decommissioning fund (which largely provides for the security of the nuclear material for at least 50 years after shutdown). If plants didn't have to have redonkulous security protocols in place to subvert terrorists I'd agree with you - but security doesn't scale linearly with power production; even a 'micro-plant' would have most of the same costs as a very large one. Wind farms or even LNG plants don't have that problem.
To me the biggest area of development over the next two decades will be in mechanical (ie passive/kinetic) energy storage.
If you assume a few meters of sea level rise (isn't that one glacier rotting out from underneath on Antarctica able to do a good chunk of that if it slides?), the coastal cities will have major problems - and that's where an awful lot of the economic growth early retirement relies on happens.
Oh for sure. Regarding sea-level rise, the biggest challenge we face from a societal standpoint is that we've built the overwhelming majority of our cities and infrastructure along navigable waterways and very often on the coast itself. Historically this has made commerce relatively cheap, but now these areas are in the greatest danger of flooding. Many island-nations may cease to be above water all-together, and its an open question where those people go particularly when they can't be sent 'back' to their homeland (ie climate refuges). The latest UN report estimates we may have 100MM such refuges by the end of this century if we carry on with 'business as usual'.
-
Well I spent about two years as an analyst for the decommissioning of two medium-sized nuclear plants. From an economic standpoint the problem with smaller nuclear plants is the cost of security and the obligatory decommissioning fund (which largely provides for the security of the nuclear material for at least 50 years after shutdown). If plants didn't have to have redonkulous security protocols in place to subvert terrorists I'd agree with you - but security doesn't scale linearly with power production; even a 'micro-plant' would have most of the same costs as a very large one.
True. I've been mostly assuming that "bury it pretty far down and encase it in a lot of steel and concrete" would suffice, but I'm not familiar with the specific regulations involved.
Wind farms or even LNG plants don't have that problem.
LNG... is fine, if you ignore the leaks during generation and transmission, which seem like they're an awful lot worse than advertised.
To me the biggest area of development over the next two decades will be in mechanical (ie passive/kinetic) energy storage.
The energy density of that sort of system is awful, but it's definitely got potential, and a properly built system should last nearly forever, with a bit of maintenance (and likely have a far lower embodied energy cost in the long run, helped if you can recycle scrap - load construction debris and concrete waste into worn out train cars or something).
-
Well I spent about two years as an analyst for the decommissioning of two medium-sized nuclear plants. From an economic standpoint the problem with smaller nuclear plants is the cost of security and the obligatory decommissioning fund (which largely provides for the security of the nuclear material for at least 50 years after shutdown). If plants didn't have to have redonkulous security protocols in place to subvert terrorists I'd agree with you - but security doesn't scale linearly with power production; even a 'micro-plant' would have most of the same costs as a very large one.
True. I've been mostly assuming that "bury it pretty far down and encase it in a lot of steel and concrete" would suffice, but I'm not familiar with the specific regulations involved.
Yeah - from a safety perspective there's not much to it other than encase, line and bury. But since 'bad hombres' would love to get even a few pounds of radioactive material plants have to be designed like super-max prisons in reverse, and at incredible cost. Do a Google Earth flyover of any nuclear plant - you'll see a remote parking lot outside a large perimeter barrier (usually a high chain-link outside another concrete wall), then a second inner barrier surrounded by more chain-link. The only vehicle entrance is through double sliding gates and doglegs. Everyone else (eg workers) enters through security checkpoints. And that just gets you past the first of several concentric rings of security. The whole thing is a 'no-go' zone.
Even after the plant is decommissioned much of that security remains in place because no one wants some f-nut jihadist to dig up 20lbs of spent fuel two decades later. Since we'ev never been able to get a national (or even regional) repositories off the ground (e.g. yucca mountain) each plant is required to pay into a fund annually to the tune of tens-of-millions, regardless of their power output. That's why plants generating >1MW can be very profitable while those <500MW are not competitive (and in between is the grey zone).
oh yeah - then there's the upfront cost (billion$ in construction) and decades-long permitting (and protesting) which no utility wants to endure to get new plants online.
don't get me wrong, I'd like to see more nuclear reactors to replace all of our fossil fuel plants - but small reactors aren't very feasible unless we can solve the obstacles above.
-
Fair - I've not considered the security aspects in detail.
I wouldn't mind solving that waste problem with breeders, but... see politically infeasible ideas. :/
-
Power generation is a big piece of the pie. The policy methods for addressing it include shifts in the subsidies from petroleum towards renewables, and direct investment and/or seed money for innovation. R&D will pay off in the long run. We may also need transitional base-load solutions such as LNG or big nuclear, with acceptance that these are imperfect.
-
Here is an article in the NYT describing a $400 million dollar bond measure in Miami to adapt to rising sea levels. This is likely a first installment. This is in part based on a prediction that 10% of the city would be flooded at least once a year by normal tides by the year 2100, not including potential additional impacts from hurricanes.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/opinion/ban-ki-moon-miami-climate-change.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
Missing is discussion of zoning changes and building codes that would improve resilience, especially in low lying areas.
-
@Leisured that link isn't in your post FYI, kind of curious about it. Was that at a time when agriculture feeding millions would be affected? Or a time where a massive shift in water levels would displace millions of people? If not, I don't think those levels are relevant.
"Life goes on" is an unacceptable approach. Not for the people and populations affected. So there's a toxic waste dump leaking poison into your drinking water-does life go on? Life goes on when that dump is cleaned up, moved, fines are levied and the water is drinkable or people relocated.
"Life goes on" is the complacent bromide of the privileged person who is confident his life will never be impacted by the thing he's talking about.
My post was in response to those who suggested that a warmer Earth will drive humanity extinct. When I said 'life goes on' that meant that human life will continue, and we will not become extinct. That was my point! I certainly did not mean that climate change was not a problem. Of course climate change is a problem, but I was talking about whether humnanity will go extinct. Extinction is a larger problem!
I apologise for leaving out a link to estimating past CO2 levels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology
-
Thanks for the update @Leisured .
Interesting graphs. I know it might come off as backpedaling, but I don't see the "warming" as the ultimate problem, or the CO2, but the fact that our current levels of pollution are unsustainable and that our air, water, and habitats are under serious threat. Not to mention the environment around us of lifeforms other than humans. One doesn't have to look very far to see that we in fact make huge impact on the environment. Parts of China are unbreathable right now. In California, even the global warming skeptics acknowledge how much a difference our clean air laws have made in the clarity and cleanliness of our air. Hilariously they still question if the laws were worth it...
-
My post was in response to those who suggested that a warmer Earth will drive humanity extinct. When I said 'life goes on' that meant that human life will continue, and we will not become extinct. That was my point! I certainly did not mean that climate change was not a problem. Of course climate change is a problem, but I was talking about whether humnanity will go extinct. Extinction is a larger problem!
I apologise for leaving out a link to estimating past CO2 levels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology
I agree with you that as a species humans will survive somewhere through pretty much anything short of nuclear war, but you are trying to use inherently flawed logic to make this point. Just because CO2 levels were higher at a time when humans did not exist does not mean humans will survive if the planet returns to something similar.
Interesting graphs. I know it might come off as backpedaling, but I don't see the "warming" as the ultimate problem, or the CO2, but the fact that our current levels of pollution are unsustainable and that our air, water, and habitats are under serious threat. Not to mention the environment around us of lifeforms other than humans. One doesn't have to look very far to see that we in fact make huge impact on the environment. Parts of China are unbreathable right now. In California, even the global warming skeptics acknowledge how much a difference our clean air laws have made in the clarity and cleanliness of our air. Hilariously they still question if the laws were worth it...
What matters here is scope and duration of these various impacts. Point-source pollutants can have severe health and environmental impacts. If you're downwind from an unfiltered coal plant the particulates can cause respiration ailments, dirty the air, kill of wildlife and make crops too contaminated to eat safely. But as you've noted the impacts can dissipate within a few years if the source of pollutant(s) are curtailed, like what happened in the US and most other countries with their various environmental protection laws. Then there's the highly-toxic point-source environmental disasters that have more lasting effects (i.e. 'superfund sites'). Once you contaminate groundwater with toxic metals or get it into the soil it can take centuries to go back to untoxic levels by itself, and can be mindboggling expensive to actively clean up. Such places routinely become 'no-go' zones. Those of course are very bad too.
Greenhouse gases and climate change are entirely different threats. It impacts the entire planet and every living thing on it. Even with our enthusiastic burning of fossil fuels it has taken centuries to get established, and its impacts are likely to persist not just for decades of centuries but quite possibly for megaannum. Unlike with clean air/water acts, curbing emissions will not cause us to revert back to our previous state. It, too, willl cause mass extinctions to species that cannot adapt. Marine species with hard (calcified) shells will be particularly vulnerable, as more acidic oceans will make it energetically costly to build their skeletons. Our climate is driven by ocean currents and wind patterns, which in turn are fueled by transfers of heat as warm air and water expand and move. Here's where concentrating on global averages misses the entire point; not everywhere will go up by ~2şC, and the extreme events will become more frequently because there's more total energy (heat). So we get more powerful and more frequent storms which not only kill people but destroy vegetation as well. In truth I could write all day about the impacts a changing climate will have and already has had on our planet, and that's what I do professionally. But the simple message is that because it acts on a planetary scale and because it its effects will continue for centuries , collectively it has environmental impacts that are far greater than toxic air in Beijing or contaminated groundwater around industrial plants or deforestation of the Amazonian rain forest.
-
Speaking of policy is anyone truly surprised the WH is putting together a panel of folks, led by a climate change skeptic, to study weather climate change poses a national security threat? The infamous William Happer who once compared the "demonization" of CO2 to the treatment of Jews under Adolf Hitler. It will be rather ironic when they dispute their own earlier reports that it is happening and it's consequences are dire. It's like, just keep trying until you get the outcome you want. Fuck facts!
I'm sure Trump is just taking the same approach as with the national debt. He won't be around to worry about it.
-
Greenhouse gases and climate change are entirely different threats. It impacts the entire planet and every living thing on it. Even with our enthusiastic burning of fossil fuels it has taken centuries to get established, and its impacts are likely to persist not just for decades of centuries but quite possibly for megaannum. Unlike with clean air/water acts, curbing emissions will not cause us to revert back to our previous state. It, too, willl cause mass extinctions to species that cannot adapt. Marine species with hard (calcified) shells will be particularly vulnerable, as more acidic oceans will make it energetically costly to build their skeletons. Our climate is driven by ocean currents and wind patterns, which in turn are fueled by transfers of heat as warm air and water expand and move. Here's where concentrating on global averages misses the entire point; not everywhere will go up by ~2şC, and the extreme events will become more frequently because there's more total energy (heat). So we get more powerful and more frequent storms which not only kill people but destroy vegetation as well. In truth I could write all day about the impacts a changing climate will have and already has had on our planet, and that's what I do professionally. But the simple message is that because it acts on a planetary scale and because it its effects will continue for centuries , collectively it has environmental impacts that are far greater than toxic air in Beijing or contaminated groundwater around industrial plants or deforestation of the Amazonian rain forest.
+1
The poles are actually seeing larger temp increases as are the oceans since they are huge heat sinks. The consequences are dire and already apparent. In 2016 alone the Great Barrier reef lost 30% of it's coral. Every reef around the world is dying and it's projected that in only roughly 30 years we'll be lucky if any coral reefs still exist. As far as mass extinctions, we are already in the midst of a mass extinction event caused entirely by humans.
-
Greenhouse gases and climate change are entirely different threats. It impacts the entire planet and every living thing on it. Even with our enthusiastic burning of fossil fuels it has taken centuries to get established, and its impacts are likely to persist not just for decades of centuries but quite possibly for megaannum. Unlike with clean air/water acts, curbing emissions will not cause us to revert back to our previous state. It, too, willl cause mass extinctions to species that cannot adapt. Marine species with hard (calcified) shells will be particularly vulnerable, as more acidic oceans will make it energetically costly to build their skeletons. Our climate is driven by ocean currents and wind patterns, which in turn are fueled by transfers of heat as warm air and water expand and move. Here's where concentrating on global averages misses the entire point; not everywhere will go up by ~2şC, and the extreme events will become more frequently because there's more total energy (heat). So we get more powerful and more frequent storms which not only kill people but destroy vegetation as well. In truth I could write all day about the impacts a changing climate will have and already has had on our planet, and that's what I do professionally. But the simple message is that because it acts on a planetary scale and because it its effects will continue for centuries , collectively it has environmental impacts that are far greater than toxic air in Beijing or contaminated groundwater around industrial plants or deforestation of the Amazonian rain forest.
+1
The polls are actually seeing larger temp increases as are the oceans since they are huge heat sinks. The consequences are dire and already apparent. In 2016 alone the Great Barrier reef lost 30% of it's coral. Every reef around the world is dying and it's projected that in only roughly 30 years we'll be lucky if any coral reefs still exist. As far as mass extinctions, we are already in the midst of a mass extinction event caused entirely by humans.
Just to get this straight... a heatwave that damages coral is "climate" and a cold wave that freezes politicians is just "weather" due to climate change - right?
-
Just to get this straight... a heatwave that damages coral is "climate" and a cold wave that freezes politicians is just "weather" due to climate change - right?
No. Weather is what you get on a day to day basis. Climate is the cumulation of a long period of weather which ultimately characterizes what kinds of flora and fauna can persist in an area. Climate incorporates not just the averages, but also the extremes and their frequency for everything from temperature to humidity/percipitation and solar irradiance.
(yes, I realize your post is most likely in jest, but so many people can't distinguish between weather and climate that I thought it important to point out the differences here).
-
Just to get this straight... a heatwave that damages coral is "climate" and a cold wave that freezes politicians is just "weather" due to climate change - right?
No. Weather is what you get on a day to day basis. Climate is the cumulation of a long period of weather which ultimately characterizes what kinds of flora and fauna can persist in an area. Climate incorporates not just the averages, but also the extremes and their frequency for everything from temperature to humidity/percipitation and solar irradiance.
(yes, I realize your post is most likely in jest, but so many people can't distinguish between weather and climate that I thought it important to point out the differences here).
I hope you are right. It's astounding the ignorance some folks display when it comes to differentiating local weather patterns from global climate changes.
-
... It's astounding the ignorance some folks display when it comes to differentiating local weather patterns from global climate changes.
Well there's confounding local weather patterns with global climate change, but there's also confounding local weather with local (and regional) climate. That one seems to be really hard for many to differentiate, and it leads people to false conclusions.
For example, people will view a large snowfall and note that similar events have happened several other times in the last hundred years, while also noting that the average annual temperature in that area has increased by 'only' 1şC over the past century. They might conclude that very little has changed and we've always had these occasional large snowfalls. But it isn't the averages or even the records - it's the frequency of the extremes that really drive ecological changes. There's an interesting 'stress point' around 17şC (63şF) where colder water species have to expend a lot more energy to not die. In the southern Gulf of Maine we had roughly 40 stress-degree days each year in 2001. Today we are experiencing around 150; critters like salmon are stressed 3x as much, even though the annual temperature has gone up 'just' 1.4şC. Whether or not salmon (and many other animals) can persist in a particular area is often a function of how many extreme weather days there are each year.
-
Gardeners also see what Nereo is talking about. Take Forsythia - when I was a kid it bloomed in Toronto but not in Montreal, because Montreal had a few really cold winter days that killed the flower buds. Montreal average winter temperatures looked OK, but it was just those few really cold days that mattered for the flower buds.
Some plants need cold - apple varieties have minimum chill requirements before they bloom in spring. Too few chill degrees and they may bloom in a February or March warm spell and then have the blossoms all killed when winter returns. This is why we grow different varieties than someone in say North Carolina.
What I am noticing in our weather variability is that we have more warm spells, more freezing rain episodes, than we used to have. We also still have super cold temperatures, winter temperatures are always pretty variable. But we notice when it keeps going over 0oC, because it changes the dynamic of the snow pack.
-
Just to get this straight... a heatwave that damages coral is "climate" and a cold wave that freezes politicians is just "weather" due to climate change - right?
No. Weather is what you get on a day to day basis. Climate is the cumulation of a long period of weather which ultimately characterizes what kinds of flora and fauna can persist in an area. Climate incorporates not just the averages, but also the extremes and their frequency for everything from temperature to humidity/percipitation and solar irradiance.
(yes, I realize your post is most likely in jest, but so many people can't distinguish between weather and climate that I thought it important to point out the differences here).
Of course it's in jest. I'm well aware of the difference. I'm just pointing out that when weather phenomena happen that pushes the man made climate change agenda, it's "climate" - and when weather phenomena happen that suggest the opposite, then it's just "weather" and people are stupid and don't know the difference.
The barrier reef suffered some bleaching due to a heat wave. So now that's catastrophic long term climate that will destroy every reef in the world and kill us all. Please send your checks to the IPCC, thanks.
The polar bears should already be gone... but somehow we have even more of them. The Marshall Islands were supposed to be gone, but they are still there. Florida should be underwater, but when I go to the beach, it looks just the same as it did decades ago. When I go diving, the reefs look healthy and great. Tons of fish. Consider that in Florida we have everyone screaming about how somehow the Republican governor is causing red tide and destroying the oceans. This is due to having to drain Lake Okeechobee because we have too much fresh water. The same people screaming about that issue are the same ones who scream about conserving fresh water, don't water your lawn! I find that when people get so polarized and on "their side" - they have a hard time rationalizing their positions. Global warming comes off similarly. It's so radicalized. You can't have a middle ground position. You either think we need economic catastrophe to fix global warming or you are a crazy denier. The alarmism and radicalism with climate change is what disturbs me a bit. Is it possible that conservatives DO want a clean environment and recognize the importance of it, but just view the path to get there a little bit differently? Maybe even a little be more practical? Just some food for thought.
I know my opinions will be highly unpopular in this thread, but that's ok :)
-
The polar bears should already be gone... but somehow we have even more of them. The Marshall Islands were supposed to be gone, but they are still there. Florida should be underwater, but when I go to the beach, it looks just the same as it did decades ago.
You're jesting again, right?
-
The polar bears should already be gone... but somehow we have even more of them. The Marshall Islands were supposed to be gone, but they are still there. Florida should be underwater, but when I go to the beach, it looks just the same as it did decades ago.
You're jesting again, right?
Apparently, they missed this a few posts above:
Here is an article in the NYT describing a $400 million dollar bond measure in Miami to adapt to rising sea levels. This is likely a first installment. This is in part based on a prediction that 10% of the city would be flooded at least once a year by normal tides by the year 2100, not including potential additional impacts from hurricanes.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/opinion/ban-ki-moon-miami-climate-change.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
Missing is discussion of zoning changes and building codes that would improve resilience, especially in low lying areas.
Just because a position is in the middle between two alternative points of view, does not mean that it is the most reasonable or correct point of view. If they wish to insulate their position from the "hysteria" of the left or right on this, then they should be referring to the technical literature. This is a technical issue, not a debate about whether Rush or Led Zeppelin is better. The technical analysis says that this is a really big problem, that the problem is not going to be easy to solve, and that the longer we wait to adjust our emissions, the worse the outcome will be for humans and other species.
The post also highlights the problem in communicating how climate change works. It is inherently a complex set of impacts and waiting until we see obvious signs in Miami when walking down the beach on a nice day is not the correct set of tools to evaluate it.
-
The polar bears should already be gone... but somehow we have even more of them.
I'm just picking a single comment that you made that immediately jumped out as incorrect here, but:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11656-climate-myths-polar-bear-numbers-are-increasing/ (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11656-climate-myths-polar-bear-numbers-are-increasing/)
-
I know my opinions will be highly unpopular in this thread, but that's ok :)
It isn't your opinions that I object to - it's that your 'facts' are completely wrong.
-
When I go diving, the reefs look healthy and great. Tons of fish.
I assume that you know that fish are not reefs, and that the structure of coral reefs can remain in place long after the living animals that create them are dead. There's significant evidence that the reefs do not look healthy and great (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/expeditions/the-effects-of-climate-change-on-coral-reef-health/ (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/expeditions/the-effects-of-climate-change-on-coral-reef-health/), https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/19/great-barrier-reef-93-of-reefs-hit-by-coral-bleaching (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/19/great-barrier-reef-93-of-reefs-hit-by-coral-bleaching)).
-
Sigh. Sad little troll is sad.
-
Sigh. Sad little troll is sad.
I was going to respond, but in retrospect, I have to agree with you. I mean polar bears, everything looks fine to me, the scientist are paid. It's like the trifecta of denier talking points.
-
In reference to the coral reefs for anyone interested this is worth a watch (FYI it was tough to watch, at least for me):
https://www.chasingcoral.com/ (https://www.chasingcoral.com/)
-
Sigh. Sad little troll is sad.
I was going to respond, but in retrospect, I have to agree with you. I mean polar bears, everything looks fine to me, the scientist are paid. It's like the trifecta of denier talking points.
Yup, not worth it. Either troll or willfully stupid. Either way, what's the point?
-
You either think we need economic catastrophe to fix global warming or you are a crazy denier. The alarmism and radicalism with climate change is what disturbs me a bit. Is it possible that conservatives DO want a clean environment and recognize the importance of it, but just view the path to get there a little bit differently?
If you're keen on fostering empathy for the other side, can you admit that it's possible environmentalists don't want an "economic catastrophe" either? Both sides of this debate want a healthy and sustainable economy, and the whole point of this "Green New Deal" proposal is that it supports both the economy and the environment, by redirecting government subsidies away from low-employment oil and gas firms to high employment green energy firms. It's a win for all sides, in theory.
Personally, I think that many "conservatives" want a clean environment but it sure seems that "republicans" do not. Consider that the republican party, in just the past two years, has...
Increased logging and road building in federal forests. (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/eo-promoting-active-management-americas-forests-rangelands-federal-lands-improve-conditions-reduce-wildfire-risk/?utm_source=Our+Daily+Planet+Subscribers&utm_campaign=b0b46a1d21-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_01_17_04_14&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_15a39131a0-b0b46a1d21-62377737)
Gutted the EPA's enforcement arm, reducing criminal prosecutions for polluters by about 75% (https://www.peer.org/news/press-releases/criminal-enforcement-collapse-at-epa.html)
Subsidized the construction of new coal power plants by removing pollution control requirements (https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-proposes-111b-revisions-advance-clean-energy-technology)
Gutted the endangered species act (https://www.fws.gov/endangered/pdf/20180718_proposed_424_signed.pdf) like 6 different ways (https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/so_3349_-american_energy_independence.pdf), including opening up protected habitat (https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?methodName=dispatchToPatternPage¤tPageId=134121) and changing the rules for listings and delistings (https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoDetails?rrid=127967)
Overturned the verdict blocking the Keystone XL pipeline for tar sands (http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/keystone-xl-pipeline-order-issued-by-us-district-judge-brian-morris-in-montana/3301/)
Opened the arctic ocean for offshore oil drilling for the first time ever. (https://www.apnews.com/73e0b2c8f8854c5482f34af9f889b3dc)
Disbanded the EPA air pollution review panel (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/11/climate/epa-disbands-pollution-science-panel.html)
Removed restrictions on methane flare offs at oil wells (https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/Final%20Rule%20-1004-AE53%20-%20%20Ready%20for%20OFR%209.18.18_508%20%281%29.pdf)
Shot down the federal fuel efficiency standards for passenger cars (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/2018/08/01/90c818ac-9125-11e8-8322-b5482bf5e0f5_story.html?utm_term=.ee657d404e70)
Cut climate monitoring and research funding at NASA, USGS, NPS, NSF, USFS, NOAA, BLM, etc. (https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/budget-fy2019.pdf)
Removed all references to climate change from official government plans (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/15/594140026/fema-drops-climate-change-from-its-strategic-plan)
Shrunk a couple of national monuments (https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/12/trump-shrinks-bears-ears-grand-staircase-escalante-national-monuments/)
Increased offshore oil and gas leases on public lands (https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/secretary-zinke-announces-largest-oil-gas-lease-sale-us-history)
Scrapped the clean power plan (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/09/climate/clean-power-plan.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur)
Stopped research into health risks of mountaintop mining (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3936617-Interior-Stop-Work-Letter-to-NAS.html)
Revoked flooding standards that account for rising sea levels (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-executive-order-establishing-discipline-accountability-environmental-review-permitting-process-infrastructure/)
Tried (but failed when sued) to block ozone pollution standards (https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/8-1-17_state_of_ny_v_us_epa.pdf)
Cancelled rule to protect marine mammals from fishing nets (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-administration-ends-measure-endangered-sea-animals-caught-fishing-nets-environmental-a7787541.html)
Pulled out of the nonbinding and voluntary paris climate agreement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_the_Paris_Agreement)
Re-assigned senior scientists working on climate adaptation issues, ending careers (https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/327854-epa-shutting-climate-adaptation-program)
Rejected the ban on the pesticide chlorpyrifos on farms, though it's already illegal for household use (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/us/politics/epa-insecticide-chlorpyrifos.html?_r=0)
Made lead ammunition legal again for hunters on federal lands (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-interior-zinke-idUSKBN16930Z)
Lobbied to allow mine waste dumping in streams (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-joint-resolution/38/text)
Appointed an oil CEO to be secretary of state. (https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122016/rex-tillerson-exxon-climate-change-secretary-state-donald-trump)
I can provide additional supporting documents for anything on that list you're not already familiar with.
Taken as a whole, Trump's record on these issues does NOT suggest that he "wants a clean environment" or "recognizes the importance of it". To me it suggests that he only recognizes the importance of increasing profits for polluters, and will happily destroy our environment in the name of short term profits. It's an organized and deliberate effort to undermine and degrade the health of our ecosystems, hurry the extinction of vulnerable species, increase the health threats posed to American citizens by toxic chemicals, and delay any attempts to address these problems in the future.
tl;dr: Republicans don't appear to want a clean environment at all, if you look at what they've actually done under Trump.
-
You either think we need economic catastrophe to fix global warming or you are a crazy denier. The alarmism and radicalism with climate change is what disturbs me a bit. Is it possible that conservatives DO want a clean environment and recognize the importance of it, but just view the path to get there a little bit differently?
If you're keen on fostering empathy for the other side, can you admit that it's possible environmentalists don't want an "economic catastrophe" either? Both sides of this debate want a healthy and sustainable economy, and the whole point of this "Green New Deal" proposal is that it supports both the economy and the environment, by redirecting government subsidies away from low-employment oil and gas firms to high employment green energy firms. It's a win for all sides, in theory.
Personally, I think that many "conservatives" want a clean environment but it sure seems that "republicans" do not. Consider that the republican party, in just the past two years, has...
Increased logging and road building in federal forests. (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/eo-promoting-active-management-americas-forests-rangelands-federal-lands-improve-conditions-reduce-wildfire-risk/?utm_source=Our+Daily+Planet+Subscribers&utm_campaign=b0b46a1d21-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_01_17_04_14&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_15a39131a0-b0b46a1d21-62377737)
Gutted the EPA's enforcement arm, reducing criminal prosecutions for polluters by about 75% (https://www.peer.org/news/press-releases/criminal-enforcement-collapse-at-epa.html)
Subsidized the construction of new coal power plants by removing pollution control requirements (https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-proposes-111b-revisions-advance-clean-energy-technology)
Gutted the endangered species act (https://www.fws.gov/endangered/pdf/20180718_proposed_424_signed.pdf) like 6 different ways (https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/so_3349_-american_energy_independence.pdf), including opening up protected habitat (https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?methodName=dispatchToPatternPage¤tPageId=134121) and changing the rules for listings and delistings (https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoDetails?rrid=127967)
Overturned the verdict blocking the Keystone XL pipeline for tar sands (http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/keystone-xl-pipeline-order-issued-by-us-district-judge-brian-morris-in-montana/3301/)
Opened the arctic ocean for offshore oil drilling for the first time ever. (https://www.apnews.com/73e0b2c8f8854c5482f34af9f889b3dc)
Disbanded the EPA air pollution review panel (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/11/climate/epa-disbands-pollution-science-panel.html)
Removed restrictions on methane flare offs at oil wells (https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/Final%20Rule%20-1004-AE53%20-%20%20Ready%20for%20OFR%209.18.18_508%20%281%29.pdf)
Shot down the federal fuel efficiency standards for passenger cars (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/2018/08/01/90c818ac-9125-11e8-8322-b5482bf5e0f5_story.html?utm_term=.ee657d404e70)
Cut climate monitoring and research funding at NASA, USGS, NPS, NSF, USFS, NOAA, BLM, etc. (https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/budget-fy2019.pdf)
Removed all references to climate change from official government plans (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/15/594140026/fema-drops-climate-change-from-its-strategic-plan)
Shrunk a couple of national monuments (https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/12/trump-shrinks-bears-ears-grand-staircase-escalante-national-monuments/)
Increased offshore oil and gas leases on public lands (https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/secretary-zinke-announces-largest-oil-gas-lease-sale-us-history)
Scrapped the clean power plan (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/09/climate/clean-power-plan.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur)
Stopped research into health risks of mountaintop mining (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3936617-Interior-Stop-Work-Letter-to-NAS.html)
Revoked flooding standards that account for rising sea levels (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-executive-order-establishing-discipline-accountability-environmental-review-permitting-process-infrastructure/)
Tried (but failed when sued) to block ozone pollution standards (https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/8-1-17_state_of_ny_v_us_epa.pdf)
Cancelled rule to protect marine mammals from fishing nets (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-administration-ends-measure-endangered-sea-animals-caught-fishing-nets-environmental-a7787541.html)
Pulled out of the nonbinding and voluntary paris climate agreement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_the_Paris_Agreement)
Re-assigned senior scientists working on climate adaptation issues, ending careers (https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/327854-epa-shutting-climate-adaptation-program)
Rejected the ban on the pesticide chlorpyrifos on farms, though it's already illegal for household use (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/us/politics/epa-insecticide-chlorpyrifos.html?_r=0)
Made lead ammunition legal again for hunters on federal lands (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-interior-zinke-idUSKBN16930Z)
Lobbied to allow mine waste dumping in streams (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-joint-resolution/38/text)
Appointed an oil CEO to be secretary of state. (https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122016/rex-tillerson-exxon-climate-change-secretary-state-donald-trump)
I can provide additional supporting documents for anything on that list you're not already familiar with.
Taken as a whole, Trump's record on these issues does NOT suggest that he "wants a clean environment" or "recognizes the importance of it". To me it suggests that he only recognizes the importance of increasing profits for polluters, and will happily destroy our environment in the name of short term profits. It's an organized and deliberate effort to undermine and degrade the health of our ecosystems, hurry the extinction of vulnerable species, increase the health threats posed to American citizens by toxic chemicals, and delay any attempts to address these problems in the future.
tl;dr: Republicans don't appear to want a clean environment at all, if you look at what they've actually done under Trump.
I think I got exactly the snobby, "denier" nonsense responses above as expected. It's so typical of the left. My facts are wrong, apparently, but these are the same organizations and scientists who have told us we'll be underwater already. The problem is, sea level just isn't rising any faster. It's not accelerating. And according to governmental data, there is a reason the beaches look pretty much exactly the same as they have for decades... because the seas are not rising in any meaningful way.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8724580
Key West should ALREADY be gone if we listened to the hysteria. At this rate, Key West may or may not be in trouble in, oh, a few hundred years, unless we go through a cooling cycle... which may or may not happen. And when the predictions don't come true, as they never do, it's completely ignored and new hysteria is introduced. And the global warming squad runs around swearing everything is going to collapse, we need to do something "RIGHT AWAY!!!!" - Miami will be gone in 10 years, I mean 20 years, I mean 50 years, I mean, your great great grand children years.... Maybe the discussion shouldn't be centered around hysterics, but a more reasoned and practical approach to making the planet better. Kind of like what is already happening. Cars are vastly more efficient and clean. Tons of new technology is being introduced. Power is cleaner. Solar panels are going up like crazy all over the country and coming down in price. Homes more efficient. More efficient water heaters. Cleaner water. The list goes on. It's already happening and it's driven by human innovation and capitalism and will continue without massive government takeovers and radical, unnecessary solutions.
Anyways, we see things differently. When I see your links above, I don't see what you do. Each one of those is a complicated topic with very well reasoned arguments on both sides. Just because we build a pipeline doesn't mean we hate the environment. "Scrapped the clean power plan" - oh, that must mean we want dirty power!!! I mean, come on. It's just a lot of intentionally misleading headlines. You would pretty much have to discuss each one individually. But again, as you can see from this thread, people are so unbelievably polarized, so radicalized, that finding a reasonable middle ground on the topic and having a rational discussion is all but impossible. Just look at the poll! We need to do MAJOR things to fix the climate... Nuts.
For fun, here is the "predictions" for Miami (page 6) -
http://www.southeastfloridaclimatecompact.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015-Compact-Unified-Sea-Level-Rise-Projection.pdf
Surely we need to spend hundreds of millions, since we will see at least 1 foot of sea level rise in just the next decade... 5 feet by the turn of the century!!! Oh, by the way, the ACTUAL trend is more like 8 inches over the next 100 years.... These projections are nothing but religion at this point. Based on models that have failed over, and over, and over. But people STILL believe them and cite them, and swear by them.
-
This is why we need an actuarial understanding of the potential problem.
I don't wear a seat belt because I expect to get in a wreck today, I wear it because even if the odds are against it being necessary, the consequences are unacceptable if I *do* need it. For the religious folks out there, this is just like the famous Pascal's wager. When faced with terrible, low probability outcomes, the rational response is not to ignore the potential problem.
We don't need model certainty to be concerned about climate change. Even if you think there's only a 10% chance Miami is in real trouble - that's not good odds. It would be worth doing some major mitigation and taking our hefty subsidy hand (I'm looking at you, US military) off the oil/gas side of the scale, at least.
-W
-
I think I got exactly the snobby, "denier" nonsense responses above as expected.
Well when you spout long debunked denier talking points, you should expect people to fact check you.
It's so typical of the left.
I find that when people get so polarized and on "their side" - they have a hard time rationalizing their positions.
If you don't like the issue being polarized, then why are you polarizing it?
My facts are wrong, apparently...
Multiple folks actually provided evidence that multiple claims you made were wrong. Can you point out where you accepted this new information in an effort to better understand the situation of global warming/climate change? If not then it seems you are guilty of the very absolute polarization you are so upset about. Thus we are back to square 1 and you get responses you don't like.
-
This is why we need an actuarial understanding of the potential problem.
I don't wear a seat belt because I expect to get in a wreck today, I wear it because even if the odds are against it being necessary, the consequences are unacceptable if I *do* need it. For the religious folks out there, this is just like the famous Pascal's wager. When faced with terrible, low probability outcomes, the rational response is not to ignore the potential problem.
We don't need model certainty to be concerned about climate change. Even if you think there's only a 10% chance Miami is in real trouble - that's not good odds. It would be worth doing some major mitigation and taking our hefty subsidy hand (I'm looking at you, US military) off the oil/gas side of the scale, at least.
-W
Pascals wager is irrational and fails miserably. So I'm glad you used it to describe the global warming religion as well. It fits perfectly.
As someone who DOES believe the climate is changing but doesn't buy in to the radicalism that has taken over the topic, I'm all for doing things to mitigate sea level rise and the effects of our changing climate. Of course, in a practical, reasonable way that is based on sound science and ACTUAL sea level rise trends.
Unfortunately, it's nearly impossible to take a rational and reasonable approach to the topic since it's so highly politicized. If you don't believe in the most radical of projections, you are simply outcast from society as some sort of kook denier.
-
I'd love to hear about why Pascal's wager is irrational. I haven't heard anyone claim that before. Can you elaborate?
-W
-
This is why we need an actuarial understanding of the potential problem.
I don't wear a seat belt because I expect to get in a wreck today, I wear it because even if the odds are against it being necessary, the consequences are unacceptable if I *do* need it. For the religious folks out there, this is just like the famous Pascal's wager. When faced with terrible, low probability outcomes, the rational response is not to ignore the potential problem.
We don't need model certainty to be concerned about climate change. Even if you think there's only a 10% chance Miami is in real trouble - that's not good odds. It would be worth doing some major mitigation and taking our hefty subsidy hand (I'm looking at you, US military) off the oil/gas side of the scale, at least.
-W
Pascals wager is irrational and fails miserably. So I'm glad you used it to describe the global warming religion as well. It fits perfectly.
As someone who DOES believe the climate is changing but doesn't buy in to the radicalism that has taken over the topic, I'm all for doing things to mitigate sea level rise and the effects of our changing climate. Of course, in a practical, reasonable way that is based on sound science and ACTUAL sea level rise trends.
Unfortunately, it's nearly impossible to take a rational and reasonable approach to the topic since it's so highly politicized. If you don't believe in the most radical of projections, you are simply outcast from society as some sort of kook denier.
You do realize that at least three people in this sub-thread have science PhDs and direct, practical work experience in fields that address climate change and understanding the impacts, correct?
-
I'd love to hear about why Pascal's wager is irrational. I haven't heard anyone claim that before. Can you elaborate?
-W
Because there can be infinite Gods, each with their own requirements. Pascals Wager basically assumes one version of one religion is the correct "do or die" version to make the wager on. But that's ridiculous. It's just as likely a God would reward you for NOT believing as believing. So which wager would you take? The options are infinite, which makes it completely irrational.
-
As someone who DOES believe the climate is changing but doesn't buy in to the radicalism that has taken over the topic, I'm all for doing things to mitigate sea level rise and the effects of our changing climate. Of course, in a practical, reasonable way that is based on sound science and ACTUAL sea level rise trends.
What was the rise in 1993? What was it in 2013? Did it stay the same, decrease, or increase?
Further, can you cite where a scientist has claimed that Florida/Key West/Miami/Marshall Islands would already be underwater? What page # and what version of the IPCC? Thanks.
-
I'd love to hear about why Pascal's wager is irrational. I haven't heard anyone claim that before. Can you elaborate?
-W
Because there can be infinite Gods, each with their own requirements. Pascals Wager basically assumes one version of one religion is the correct "do or die" version to make the wager on. But that's ridiculous. It's just as likely a God would reward you for NOT believing as believing. So which wager would you take? The options are infinite, which makes it completely irrational.
Well, in the 1600s context of Pascal it was pretty much Catholicism or nothing. But, this is a nitpick that diverts from the fact that we are not looking at infinite climate scenarios.
Back on topic, I think this would be an example of the last option in the poll. I'd wager (see what I did there?) that this thread is unlikely to convert AlexMar's point of view. The assumed policy would be to deal with sea level rise as it is an immediate problem and technology and other fixes will deal with the rest. Is that a fair summation?
-
You do realize that at least three people in this sub-thread have science PhDs and direct, practical work experience in fields that address climate change and understanding the impacts, correct?
That doesn't mean, to me, what you think it should. There are people with PhD's and direct, practical work experience in fields that address climate change that do NOT agree with these people. I'm open to hearing differing views and forming my own opinion on the topic.
I am skeptical by nature. And when the predictions continue to fail, decade after decade, I don't think it's unreasonable to hold a view that is skeptical of it. But as I pointed out, society has become so polarized and radicalized, intentionally by the way, that you aren't really allowed to be skeptical. Believe it all, every bit of it, or you are an idiot denier Trump loving racist bigot who wants to see children die from global warming or something to that tune. That's where we are at in the world right now. It's sad, really. It goes both ways, too. The rational middle ground is long lost. Wacky, soaring nonsense like the Green New Deal vs Trump promises to eliminate $20 trillion in debt. Everything is so radical nowadays.
I'm not offended by the responses, by the way. It was expected. It only proves my point.
-
Because there can be infinite Gods, each with their own requirements. Pascals Wager basically assumes one version of one religion is the correct "do or die" version to make the wager on. But that's ridiculous. It's just as likely a God would reward you for NOT believing as believing. So which wager would you take? The options are infinite, which makes it completely irrational.
Ah, gotcha. You misunderstood how I was using it. My point was that if you believe that there's something very bad that might happen (ie, go to hell for not going to church) even if you think it's super unlikely (Pascal thought there was very little chance he'd go to hell for not believing, remember!) then you take steps to prevent that possibility from occuring.
It's like buying insurance (literally). My house is very unlikely to burn down, but I spend considerable money to insure against that possibility.
Hence my actuarial comment. The only case where it's rational to do nothing about climate change is if you believe there is literally zero chance it will be a problem. Even if you only assign those egghead scientists a 10% chance of being correct, you should be happy to spend trillions of dollars to prevent that prediction from coming true.
-W
-
I'd love to hear about why Pascal's wager is irrational. I haven't heard anyone claim that before. Can you elaborate?
-W
Because there can be infinite Gods, each with their own requirements. Pascals Wager basically assumes one version of one religion is the correct "do or die" version to make the wager on. But that's ridiculous. It's just as likely a God would reward you for NOT believing as believing. So which wager would you take? The options are infinite, which makes it completely irrational.
Well, in the 1600s context of Pascal it was pretty much Catholicism or nothing. But, this is a nitpick that diverts from the fact that we are not looking at infinite climate scenarios.
Back on topic, I think this would be an example of the last option in the poll. I'd wager (see what I did there?) that this thread is unlikely to convert AlexMar's point of view. The assumed policy would be to deal with sea level rise as it is an immediate problem and technology and other fixes will deal with the rest. Is that a fair summation?
I'm definitely more towards the last option in the poll, but I don't like to be characterized that way since I do think we need some intervention. I think sea level rise IS something that is an immediate problem but nowhere near to the extent of the "alarmists." I do not buy in to the catastrophic projections that have failed over and over - or at least I'm highly skeptical of them. I do support the continued science but disagree with how we are using the science to push political agendas. I think we do need to focus heavily on our environment, but in a pragmatic way. Which means I'm ok with drilling and pipelines managed carefully, for example. I'm not all or nothing and certainly not far left or right.
-
Because there can be infinite Gods, each with their own requirements. Pascals Wager basically assumes one version of one religion is the correct "do or die" version to make the wager on. But that's ridiculous. It's just as likely a God would reward you for NOT believing as believing. So which wager would you take? The options are infinite, which makes it completely irrational.
Ah, gotcha. You misunderstood how I was using it. My point was that if you believe that there's something very bad that might happen (ie, go to hell for not going to church) even if you think it's super unlikely (Pascal thought there was very little chance he'd go to hell for not believing, remember!) then you take steps to prevent that possibility from occuring.
It's like buying insurance (literally). My house is very unlikely to burn down, but I spend considerable money to insure against that possibility.
Hence my actuarial comment. The only case where it's rational to do nothing about climate change is if you believe there is literally zero chance it will be a problem. Even if you only assign those egghead scientists a 10% chance of being correct, you should be happy to spend trillions of dollars to prevent that prediction from coming true.
-W
Curious. If everyone TRULY believed these were problems that will be catastrophic in just a few short years, especially insurance companies with professional actuaries, then why are massive new developments being approved on the Miami coastline?
I'm not happy to spend trillions of dollars to prevent the prediction from coming true. Notably because they have a hard time defining exactly WHAT is going to happen. We lose some islands? Need to slowly move inland? Build a levy? Plants and food might grow faster and in more places? Climate change is a much slower process than the projections, and we are far more capable of dealing with it as it happens, slowly. It's hard to come up with solutions when you don't actually know what's going to happen. You end up spending trillions (where is that coming from, exactly?) to fix an unknown problem. To me it very much feels like a Pascals Wager and irrational. Nobody REALLY knows what's going to happen, when, and to what extent - if at all. So why be so alarmed?
-
As someone who DOES believe the climate is changing but doesn't buy in to the radicalism that has taken over the topic, I'm all for doing things to mitigate sea level rise and the effects of our changing climate. Of course, in a practical, reasonable way that is based on sound science and ACTUAL sea level rise trends.
What was the rise in 1993? What was it in 2013? Did it stay the same, decrease, or increase?
Further, can you cite where a scientist has claimed that Florida/Key West/Miami/Marshall Islands would already be underwater? What page # and what version of the IPCC? Thanks.
Still waiting on a response to this. Or to make it a little easier, can you provide any citations showing that predictions have failed decade after decade which you keep repeating as fact?
-
Because there can be infinite Gods, each with their own requirements. Pascals Wager basically assumes one version of one religion is the correct "do or die" version to make the wager on. But that's ridiculous. It's just as likely a God would reward you for NOT believing as believing. So which wager would you take? The options are infinite, which makes it completely irrational.
Ah, gotcha. You misunderstood how I was using it. My point was that if you believe that there's something very bad that might happen (ie, go to hell for not going to church) even if you think it's super unlikely (Pascal thought there was very little chance he'd go to hell for not believing, remember!) then you take steps to prevent that possibility from occuring.
It's like buying insurance (literally). My house is very unlikely to burn down, but I spend considerable money to insure against that possibility.
Hence my actuarial comment. The only case where it's rational to do nothing about climate change is if you believe there is literally zero chance it will be a problem. Even if you only assign those egghead scientists a 10% chance of being correct, you should be happy to spend trillions of dollars to prevent that prediction from coming true.
-W
Curious. If everyone TRULY believed these were problems that will be catastrophic in just a few short years, especially insurance companies with professional actuaries, then why are massive new developments being approved on the Miami coastline?
Same reason we continue to use fossil fuels and subsidize the petroleum industry. Same reason GOP lawmakers pretend not to believe climate change is real. Same reason Democratic lawmakers who know better don't push harder for change. Money. The exciting prospect of making a crapload of it now makes it easy to turn one's eyes away from the scary, mind-boggling, overwhelming prospect of massive upheaval later. Especially when the rich folks making these decisions will mostly be dead by then.
-
Because there can be infinite Gods, each with their own requirements. Pascals Wager basically assumes one version of one religion is the correct "do or die" version to make the wager on. But that's ridiculous. It's just as likely a God would reward you for NOT believing as believing. So which wager would you take? The options are infinite, which makes it completely irrational.
Ah, gotcha. You misunderstood how I was using it. My point was that if you believe that there's something very bad that might happen (ie, go to hell for not going to church) even if you think it's super unlikely (Pascal thought there was very little chance he'd go to hell for not believing, remember!) then you take steps to prevent that possibility from occuring.
It's like buying insurance (literally). My house is very unlikely to burn down, but I spend considerable money to insure against that possibility.
Hence my actuarial comment. The only case where it's rational to do nothing about climate change is if you believe there is literally zero chance it will be a problem. Even if you only assign those egghead scientists a 10% chance of being correct, you should be happy to spend trillions of dollars to prevent that prediction from coming true.
-W
Curious. If everyone TRULY believed these were problems that will be catastrophic in just a few short years, especially insurance companies with professional actuaries, then why are massive new developments being approved on the Miami coastline?
I'm not happy to spend trillions of dollars to prevent the prediction from coming true. Notably because they have a hard time defining exactly WHAT is going to happen. We lose some islands? Need to slowly move inland? Build a levy? Plants and food might grow faster and in more places? Climate change is a much slower process than the projections, and we are far more capable of dealing with it as it happens, slowly. It's hard to come up with solutions when you don't actually know what's going to happen. You end up spending trillions (where is that coming from, exactly?) to fix an unknown problem. To me it very much feels like a Pascals Wager and irrational. Nobody REALLY knows what's going to happen, when, and to what extent - if at all. So why be so alarmed?
Question: what impacts of climate change do you perceive to be potential issues other than sea level rise? Or is SLR the primary issue that you see as an issue?
-
I'm open to hearing differing views and forming my own opinion on the topic.
Again can you point out where facts were presented to dispute your claims and you accepted/acknowledged them? (ie. your claim that polar bear populations are increasing)
And when the predictions continue to fail, decade after decade, I don't think it's unreasonable to hold a view that is skeptical of it.
I would be right there with you if this were a fact. But your rationalization relies on speculative subjects like the exact prediction of polar bear extinction. Perhaps try temperature predictions. The IPCC's have been pretty solid for quite some time. I say this understanding full well your reliance on visual clues (ie. there are lots of fish, beaches and coral look fine to me, and there are still polar bears).
Believe it all, every bit of it, or you are an idiot denier Trump loving racist bigot who wants to see children die from global warming or something to that tune. That's where we are at in the world right now. It's sad, really.
You really need to knock off the extreme straw-man arguments. You cannot have a constructive, intelligent conversation typing this nonsense. That isn't where we are at. It's where you are at.
Curious. If everyone TRULY believed these were problems that will be catastrophic in just a few short years, especially insurance companies with professional actuaries, then why are massive new developments being approved on the Miami coastline?
Uh yeah you might want to dig a bit deeper. Developments are going up and insurance rates are skyrocketing. Some folks have even just decided to not insure because the cost to replace is much cheaper. Feel free to fact check.
-
If everyone TRULY believed these were problems that will be catastrophic in just a few short years, especially insurance companies with professional actuaries, then why are massive new developments being approved on the Miami coastline?
Where are you getting these "alarmist" projections from? For reference, the most current IPCC report predicts less than a meter of sea level rise over the coming century, and that's a higher prediction than the previous versions. No one has ever said Miami will be underwater by this year, or whatever it is you're claiming.
You sound kind of like Donald Trump tweeting that the Green New Deal is an attempt to take away your cars and cows. You're arguing against an imaginary extremist position that is easy to refute, because it doesn't actually exist. We call that a straw man.
Climate change is a much slower process than the projections
No.
Speaking as one of the aforementioned PhDs with years of professional experience working for the US government on these very issues, you're very wrong on this one. Each new IPCC report has had to up the severity of the predictions it makes, because our emissions keep rising faster than we expected, and the climate impacts keep being measured as more severe than we anticipated. I technically agree with the criticism that our climate models have not been as accurate as we had hoped, but you have the sign of the error wrong. The real world has turned out to be worse than the models predicted.
You end up spending trillions (where is that coming from, exactly?) to fix an unknown problem.
We're already spending trillions to prop up an unsustainable carbon-based energy economy. Imagine how different our world would be if we could stop invading middle eastern countries that have lots of oil, or using the US military to defend tanker shipping routes. What we need, IMO, is to reduce these government subsidies for oil and gas, and start spending some portion of that money on subsidizing research into energy sources that do less damage to our environment while still supporting our economy. Is that really so radical?
I mean there are literally entire government agencies JUST dedicated to helping oil and gas companies find and exploit reserves. Where's the equivalent agency for solar, or wind?
-
Just to get this straight... a heatwave that damages coral is "climate" and a cold wave that freezes politicians is just "weather" due to climate change - right?
No. Weather is what you get on a day to day basis. Climate is the cumulation of a long period of weather which ultimately characterizes what kinds of flora and fauna can persist in an area. Climate incorporates not just the averages, but also the extremes and their frequency for everything from temperature to humidity/percipitation and solar irradiance.
(yes, I realize your post is most likely in jest, but so many people can't distinguish between weather and climate that I thought it important to point out the differences here).
Of course it's in jest. I'm well aware of the difference. I'm just pointing out that when weather phenomena happen that pushes the man made climate change agenda, it's "climate" - and when weather phenomena happen that suggest the opposite, then it's just "weather" and people are stupid and don't know the difference.
The barrier reef suffered some bleaching due to a heat wave. So now that's catastrophic long term climate that will destroy every reef in the world and kill us all. Please send your checks to the IPCC, thanks.
The polar bears should already be gone... but somehow we have even more of them. The Marshall Islands were supposed to be gone, but they are still there. Florida should be underwater, but when I go to the beach, it looks just the same as it did decades ago. When I go diving, the reefs look healthy and great. Tons of fish. Consider that in Florida we have everyone screaming about how somehow the Republican governor is causing red tide and destroying the oceans. This is due to having to drain Lake Okeechobee because we have too much fresh water. The same people screaming about that issue are the same ones who scream about conserving fresh water, don't water your lawn! I find that when people get so polarized and on "their side" - they have a hard time rationalizing their positions. Global warming comes off similarly. It's so radicalized. You can't have a middle ground position. You either think we need economic catastrophe to fix global warming or you are a crazy denier. The alarmism and radicalism with climate change is what disturbs me a bit. Is it possible that conservatives DO want a clean environment and recognize the importance of it, but just view the path to get there a little bit differently? Maybe even a little be more practical? Just some food for thought.
I know my opinions will be highly unpopular in this thread, but that's ok :)
@AlexMar - you cited Sol's response about the weakening of environmental protection when others had brought up your false statements. Perhaps that was better aimed at me and/or Glenstache.
I didn't have time earlier to elucidate my brief response, but I do now. Let's go down what you said point by point
The polar bears should already be gone - according to whom?
somehow we have even more of them [polar bears] - Wrong. Polar bears are critically endangered and have declining global populations (https://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/pdf/FWS_PB_Annual_Report_2016.pdf). True, 2 of the 19 populations have seen modest increases in recent years (and largely in response to an exceptional level of protection), but all are down drastically from the 19th century, and having 17/19 populations in decline is a big problem from the polar bears' perspective.
The Marshall Islands were supposed to be gone - again, according to whom? The Marshall Islands (http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/4/eaap9741)have already lost a considerable amount of their land area, and the majority of the island is predicted to be underwater by 2100. That's a far bit different from saying they already should be [entirely] gone.
Florida should be underwater - ...and again... who predicted Florida would already be underwater? By all accounts Florida is suffering from substantial erotion though (see next point).
when I go to the beach, it looks just the same as it did decades ago - perhaps because they actively rebuild the beaches (https://www.miamidade.gov/environment/beach-renourishment.asp) each and every winter?
the reefs look healthy and great. Perhaps to you. To anyone that studies the reefs - particularly around the keys, they have been decimated (https://www.nature.com/articles/srep16762). Your false perception could be due to you not having a very good frame of reference, or because you aren't particularly well versed on what a healthy reef looks like, as many of the reefs have been in very poor health since ~1983 (which coincided with the Diadema dieoff, from which many reefs in the keys never fully recovered (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308978974_The_sea_urchin_Diadema_antillarum_-_keystone_herbivore_or_redundant_species)). (Also link1 (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/302/5644/391.3). link2 (https://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/caribbean_coral_reefs___status_report_1970_2012.pdf). link3 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-20341-0). link)
Tons of fish. False. The decline of fish (https://www.pnas.org/content/105/Supplement_1/11458) is one of the best studied and most obvious changes worldwide. It's notable that what we've lost is overwhelmingly large predatory fish (ie those higher on the trophic scale) . Specific to the keys and the rest of the Caribbean, groupers (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/oryx/article/should-the-critically-endangered-goliath-grouper-epinephelus-itajara-be-culled-in-florida/ED9A2F910BD319228B67FEAF1A10288D) are almost extinct, parrot fish (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982209007519) have been in steep decline and once-abundant reef sharks (http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/f07-098) are a rare sight.
Freshwater... red tides... etc. I think here the problem is that you don't have a very good grasp of the underlying mechanisms. THe level of Lake Okeechobee not withstanding, the reason that red tides are increasing in frequency and intensity is that they are being fed by an increase in nutrients (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13762-018-2108-x), which primarily comes from terrestrial runoff.
If you think I'm 'the left' simply because I agree that we have acute anthropogenically driven environmental problems, well you've grossly mischaracterized me. Further, demoting one's argument by attributing them to another group doesn't actually refute the argument that they are making.
-
Maybe the discussion shouldn't be centered around hysterics, but a more reasoned and practical approach to making the planet better. Kind of like what is already happening. Cars are vastly more efficient and clean. Tons of new technology is being introduced. Power is cleaner. Solar panels are going up like crazy all over the country and coming down in price. Homes more efficient. More efficient water heaters. Cleaner water. The list goes on. It's already happening and it's driven by human innovation and capitalism and will continue without massive government takeovers and radical, unnecessary solutions.
Yup. And this is why I find the current approaches so irritatingly ineffective - because it involves head first crashing into a particularly polarized issue, and... then crashing head first into it, instead of asking if there's a path around the wall.
Let's say one disagrees with AlexMar, as is the case here. There are basically two paths: Either continue to argue over if climate change is happening or not (obviously this is the favored solution here), or say, "You know what? Let's find common ground and go from there." Most people, even those evilly evil Republicans, tend to care about clean water and clean air - and, perhaps, locally produced energy. There have been surveys done that ask people throughout the political spectrum what their support for solar is, and the support is fairly strong across the spectrum - but for different reasons. A conservative is far more likely to value solar if it has grid-down operating capability of some form or another, but in general, deploying renewable energy isn't that controversial - across the spectrum. (http://www.pewresearch.org/science/2016/10/04/public-opinion-on-renewables-and-other-energy-sources/)
So find the common ground and move forward, instead of insisting that everyone has to agree about the reasons before doing anything.
I'll let some people reading in on another little secret: The vast, vast majority of diesel truck owners hate the coal-rolling idiots just as much as most people on the left do - just for different reasons. It's a waste of perfectly good engines, and it tends to lead to unwelcome attention towards diesel trucks, the vast majority of which are owned by people who haul fairly heavy trailers (yes, there are people who drive a jacked up diesel as a daily driver, and, yes, they're regarded as pretty stupid by most truck owners as well). I own a diesel truck, and I'll happily call in the tags of people who are obviously blowing clouds of smoke for no good reason. However, I also understand that a bit of smoke under load is perfectly normal, and if a 20 year old truck is smoking a bit pulling a grade, well... it's probably got worn out injectors and the compression is a bit weak. A 4 year old diesel blowing a coal black column? Yeah, I report them.
Anyways, we see things differently. When I see your links above, I don't see what you do. Each one of those is a complicated topic with very well reasoned arguments on both sides. Just because we build a pipeline doesn't mean we hate the environment. "Scrapped the clean power plan" - oh, that must mean we want dirty power!!!
I'm about as pro-solar as they come, and I regularly get accused of being a fossil fuel shill for pointing out things like, "We still don't know how to make a stable power grid with a lot of solar and wind, without so many batteries that they drive the delivered cost per kWh way up." Handling a few residential installs, not a problem. Handling a lot - and doing so in a way that doesn't then starve the power grid of funding so you get defection-driven grid collapse? Still a very much open problem, and Hawaii and California are places to watch here to see how things work. The older inverter specs (pre-1741 SA/CA Rule 21) were also pretty grid-hostile, though the newer standards are a lot better on that front.
Same reason we continue to use fossil fuels and subsidize the petroleum industry. Same reason GOP lawmakers pretend not to believe climate change is real. Same reason Democratic lawmakers who know better don't push harder for change. Money. The exciting prospect of making a crapload of it now makes it easy to turn one's eyes away from the scary, mind-boggling, overwhelming prospect of massive upheaval later. Especially when the rich folks making these decisions will mostly be dead by then.
Actually, I continue to use fossil fuels because there's no alternative out there for at least some of my transportation/energy needs. An electric truck that can tow a 10k lb trailer and crawl around my property doesn't exist - and though there are some that should be showing up in the next few years, I sure can't afford them (for a moderately responsible value of afford). And while I could (and eventually plan to) trench power out to my solar powered office, I use 5-10 gallons of gas and about 5 gallons of propane a winter because it's a good bit cheaper than the radically expanded solar panel array and wastefully large battery pack I'd need to heat on electric all winter.
Though, to pick on Democratic lawmakers, most of them sure don't live like they believe their emissions matter.
-
this is why I find the current approaches so irritatingly ineffective - because it involves head first crashing into a particularly polarized issue, and... then crashing head first into it, instead of asking if there's a path around the wall.
A hilarious use of the term "wall" to describe how the current administration is crashing head first into a polarizing issue by pushing for an irritatingly ineffective solution. Kudos for unintentionally biting criticism of trump's immigration policy.
There are basically two paths: Either continue to argue over if climate change is happening or not
I don't think there is any argument on this point anymore. Climate is changing. People still argue about why, or how much worse it's going to get, or what we should do about it. There are no rational people who still argue that climate is not changing. You can't argue with thermometers.
Most people, even those evilly evil Republicans, tend to care about clean water and clean air
Why would you think republicans care about clean air and water? Did you not see my list above? At least at the congressional level, the republican party votes in lockstep against clean air and clean water. Look at what they do, not what they say. They claim to want to clean air, then revoke air pollution standards. They claim to want clean water, then allow mining waste to be dumped into streams. I posted a long list of republican actions on clean air and water since trump took office, and not a single item in there supports you theory that the republican party has done one single thing to make the environment cleaner. Most of the items in that list aren't even climate related, they're just blatant environmental abuses, cases of deliberately making pollution worse.
I agree that there are "conservatives" who want to protect the environment, because they see conservatism and conservation as not too different. Some of them are hunters and fishers and they want to protect our lands. I'm not sure why they continue to vote for republicans who consistently gut environmental protections, though.
-
I don't think there is any argument on this point anymore. Climate is changing. People still argue about why, or how much worse it's going to get, or what we should do about it. There are no rational people who still argue that climate is not changing. You can't argue with thermometers.
Ok, calling large percentages of the population irrational will definitely help get the stuff you care about passed in... which world, exactly?
My point, which you seem to have entirely missed, is that forcing everything through the funnel of climate change, in 2019, in the United States, is a losing proposition. Even the politicians who claim they care about it don't appear to live lives that are changed by their supposed beliefs in it. I do believe Derrick Jensen and some of the DGR folks believe what they say, based on how they live their lives, but your typical Congressional Democrat? Show me any evidence beyond the basic lip service required by their party that they believe in climate change. There are a few, certainly, but the bulk? Consider me unconvinced by their actions.
Why would you think republicans care about clean air and water? Did you not see my list above? At least at the congressional level, the republican party votes in lockstep against clean air and clean water.
I saw your list, and while I'm not going to pick on every single one of them, I think your chosen titles are biased as hell, at least on some of the areas I'm familiar with.
To pick on your first one (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/eo-promoting-active-management-americas-forests-rangelands-federal-lands-improve-conditions-reduce-wildfire-risk/), in particular (because I've done pretty extensive reading and at least some writing on wildfires in the past year), what is your specific problem with that EO? You chose to use "Increased logging and road building in federal forests," which is a technically correct description, but entirely misses the point that the purpose of this is to reduce the wildfire fuel load - and that it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do, if you're concerned about wildfires and the massive damage they do. I might nitpick a few things in the EO, but overall, I think it's a reasonable response to the wildfires we've been having and the past ~100 years of forest mismanagement ("Don't log it; don't let it burn!" is the sort of thing that can't go on forever, and we've hit the end of the road on it). Modern logging is quite a bit different from Fern Gully, so... as I said, I'm interested in your particular opinions on why it's horrible.
I'm not familiar enough with some of the other things you've linked to be able to have a properly informed opinion. What, in particular, is the problem with rolling back the new methane flaring standards (https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/Final%20Rule%20-1004-AE53%20-%20%20Ready%20for%20OFR%209.18.18_508%20%281%29.pdf) ? Obviously you have an opinion on it, since you chose to link it - would you be willing to explain the actual details and the difference in methane captured/flared/leaked under both of the relevant standards?
Etc. You've chosen deliberately biased titles in the areas I'm familiar with, so I have to assume you've done the same in other areas.
...and not a single item in there supports you theory that the republican party has done one single thing to make the environment cleaner. Most of the items in that list aren't even climate related, they're just blatant environmental abuses, cases of deliberately making pollution worse.
So... increased logging access to reduce the spread and destruction of wildfires is making things worse, how, exactly? I know how our air quality is during wildfire season when hundreds of thousands of acres turn into a rather aggressive smoke, and I'd far rather see some of that wood be put to good use (construction, biomass heating, etc) than to simply wait around for a fire to go through and turn it into smoke - especially if by reducing the fire load in areas, it can help reduce the spread/severity of fires in the first place.
I agree that there are "conservatives" who want to protect the environment, because they see conservatism and conservation as not too different. Some of them are hunters and fishers and they want to protect our lands. I'm not sure why they continue to vote for republicans who consistently gut environmental protections, though.
Perhaps because their definition of environmental protection is different from yours - there's quite a bit of discussion out west about state vs federal management of forestland, and maybe they disagree with what the Democrats want. Or, perhaps, because they value unborn human lives more highly than the Democrats tend to. Or because they're sick of the Democrats treating their AR-platform hunting rifle as something just this side of an atomic bomb. The list continues, and that absolutely everything has been turned into a political purity test is properly irritating. Even things that both sides want get trapped in that mess (such as solar).
Also, just because politicians are doing something doesn't always mean that the people voting for them agree with it. It may simply mean they disagree less than with the stated positions of the alternative(s).
-
I don't think there is any argument on this point anymore. Climate is changing. People still argue about why, or how much worse it's going to get, or what we should do about it. There are no rational people who still argue that climate is not changing. You can't argue with thermometers.
Ok, calling large percentages of the population irrational will definitely help get the stuff you care about passed in... which world, exactly?
My point, which you seem to have entirely missed, is that forcing everything through the funnel of climate change, in 2019, in the United States, is a losing proposition. Even the politicians who claim they care about it don't appear to live lives that are changed by their supposed beliefs in it.
Folks who don't believe there is a problem are not likely to offer or support solutions. And in many cases, are more likely to support/advance an agenda that reverses previous progress. In other words, folks like Trump are not going to pass any sort of green agenda when they perceive there to not be a problem.
I'm not sure what "funnel" we should pass climate change through other than what it is. We don't pass vaccinations through different funnels. We don't pass sexual assault through different funnels. If something is happening as a direct result of climate change (ie, sea level rise, polar bear population decline, dying reef, etc.) how per say do we address this without addressing the underlying cause?
Sol is right, it's irrational to deny human induced climate change. Those irrational people, unfortunately, are making policy right now and don't give a shit how we refer to climate change. Best thing we can do is vote them out of office.
-
Ok, calling large percentages of the population irrational will definitely help get the stuff you care about passed in... which world, exactly?
I'm not calling a large percentage of the population irrational, because almost nobody believes climate change isn't happening anymore. There are people who believe the moon landing was faked, or the holocaust never happened, and people who believe climate isn't changing at all are even more fringe than that. Because those are historical events with only second hand evidence, and we measure climate changing every single day in today's world.
If someone is so far out of touch with reality that they will look at the thermometer in their own yard and call it a Chinese hoax, then I have no hesitation about calling them irrational. Rational means you believe the evidence of your own eyes, and the collected evidence of a million other measurements about the world. These are not opinions, these are measurable quantities of the physical world. Temperatures are up. Glaciers are shrinking. Floods are more frequent. You can't rationally deny objective reality.
Even the politicians who claim they care about it don't appear to live lives that are changed by their supposed beliefs in it.
What do you think they "should" be doing to live in accordance with their beliefs? Is it possible that these democratic congresspeople recognize that climate is changing slowly, and also that carbon burning is a central part of our economy, and that change will come slowly over decades? You don't have to live in a grass hut to believe in climate change. There is no conflict inherent in having a car, or flying in airplanes, and also believing thermometers.
Show me any evidence beyond the basic lip service required by their party that they believe in climate change.
Well for starters there's the long list of environmental protections passed by the Obama administration. The democrats actively pursued a greener economy because it was good for both the environment and our job numbers. Is that not evidence enough?
Or are you still stuck on the idea that you have to live in a grass hut to believe climate change is a real thing.
To pick on your first one (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/eo-promoting-active-management-americas-forests-rangelands-federal-lands-improve-conditions-reduce-wildfire-risk/), in particular (because I've done pretty extensive reading and at least some writing on wildfires in the past year), what is your specific problem with that EO?
My specific problem with it is that the wildfire excuse is a lie. Nothing in there targets areas that have wildfire problems, they only target areas that have commercially valuable timber. Nothing in there targets selective thinning of forests for fire suppression, just clearcutting. The whole EO is about lifting restrictions on wilderness areas to allow road building, which can then be used to perpetuate deforestation for economic reasons. "Wildfires" is just the political cover story for allowing increased logging, regardless
But the logging example is about the least problematic thing in that entire list, from an environmental harm perspective. It kills wildlife and contributes to increased erosion and increased stream temperatures and a whole host of other problems, but it's not on the same level as repealing the clean air or clean water standards. It doesn't literally result in the death of thousands of people, the way that repealing the clean air standards does.
Modern logging is quite a bit different from Fern Gully, so... as I said, I'm interested in your particular opinions on why it's horrible.
I'm professional quite familiar with modern logging, at least in my corner of the country. It's never done for fire reasons, because it's just not economically viable to thin remote forests. You can thin trees in places that already have roads built, especially if they're big ones, but most of that land has already been logged and replanted and isn't ready to harvest again yet. What the logging companies want is access to our protected wilderness areas, where no roads (or any other infrastructure) exists, and that EO gives them permission to build it.
would you be willing to explain the actual details and the difference in methane captured/flared/leaked under both of the relevant standards?
I would. How far off topic do you really want to go? This thread is about US Climate policy, and how one our political parties has consistently denied pollution or that climate change is a problem that should be addressed. I'm not sure how much is to be gained by delving into each rabbit hole, when the point of my list was to establish the pattern. Democrats have advanced environmental protections and republicans have repealed them. Democrats want clean air and water and republicans don't.
Perhaps because their definition of environmental protection is different from yours - there's quite a bit of discussion out west about state vs federal management of forestland
Forest management is the least of my worries. Don't get stuck there. I'm much more concerned about the systematic efforts by this administration to remove all discussion of climate change from official government websites and reports, and allowing additional air pollution that has a super well-documented direct correlation to human deaths. That's suppressing information that is vital to our national well-being, and letting innocent people die for no reason other than increasing corporate profit margins. Seems like textbook Hollywood evil supervillain stuff, right?
-
I don't think there is any argument on this point anymore. Climate is changing. People still argue about why, or how much worse it's going to get, or what we should do about it. There are no rational people who still argue that climate is not changing. You can't argue with thermometers.
Ok, calling large percentages of the population irrational will definitely help get the stuff you care about passed in... which world, exactly?
My point, which you seem to have entirely missed, is that forcing everything through the funnel of climate change, in 2019, in the United States, is a losing proposition. Even the politicians who claim they care about it don't appear to live lives that are changed by their supposed beliefs in it.
Folks who don't believe there is a problem are not likely to offer or support solutions. And in many cases, are more likely to support/advance an agenda that reverses previous progress. In other words, folks like Trump are not going to pass any sort of green agenda when they perceive there to not be a problem.
I'm not sure what "funnel" we should pass climate change through other than what it is. We don't pass vaccinations through different funnels. We don't pass sexual assault through different funnels. If something is happening as a direct result of climate change (ie, sea level rise, polar bear population decline, dying reef, etc.) how per say do we address this without addressing the underlying cause?
Sol is right, it's irrational to deny human induced climate change. Those irrational people, unfortunately, are making policy right now and don't give a shit how we refer to climate change. Best thing we can do is vote them out of office.
+1
If someone is willing to deny that a measurable problem exists, they will actively work to undermine education and effort done to fix the problem as to them it's wasted and frivolous. These are the people that my first comment in the thread was about:
Hell, I'd be happy if people would stop telling me that climate change doesn't exist every time it snows.
Meeting them half way is ultimately doomed to failure because the halfway point between undermining climate change science and doing something to fix the problem of climate change is 0.
The whole reason that climate change is contentious is because a group of people refuse to accept reality if it means it might inconvenience them. I don't know how you're supposed to come to a consensus with that kind of person about the need for something that might be inconvenient.
-
would you be willing to explain the actual details and the difference in methane captured/flared/leaked under both of the relevant standards?
I would. How far off topic do you really want to go? This thread is about US Climate policy, and how one our political parties has consistently denied pollution or that climate change is a problem that should be addressed. I'm not sure how much is to be gained by delving into each rabbit hole, when the point of my list was to establish the pattern. Democrats have advanced environmental protections and republicans have repealed them. Democrats want clean air and water and republicans don't.
Perhaps because their definition of environmental protection is different from yours - there's quite a bit of discussion out west about state vs federal management of forestland
The flaring is pretty smack on target as a policy issue. The flaring considerably increases the GHG emissions associated with petroleum production. Reducing flaring is one of many ways to reduce emissions. Yes, it does increase production costs and it is a pain in the ass for petroleum producers. Taking a more global perspective on it, here is a peer-reviewed take on it:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X17300962
The federal vs state control of land in the west has a long history of weird threads to it. In short it is either a religious fundamentalist thread (Aka, the Bundy's at Malheur) or a desire to be able to extract resources from publicly held lands with less oversight. This has long roots and deep funding from extractive business interests such as the Koch brothers (see funding for the American Lands Council, which is the primary policy engine for public lands transfers). The goal is simple: reduce the size of the regulatory agency to something that can be easily controlled and which does not have the financial resources to do so. How many states can maintain National Forest lands, roads, and infrastructure? That is an aside, but one which actually has a lot of opposition across the political spectrum once people understand the issues. High Country News has done a lot of very good coverage of the issues. <end tangent>
-
What do you think they "should" be doing to live in accordance with their beliefs? Is it possible that these democratic congresspeople recognize that climate is changing slowly, and also that carbon burning is a central part of our economy, and that change will come slowly over decades? You don't have to live in a grass hut to believe in climate change. There is no conflict inherent in having a car, or flying in airplanes, and also believing thermometers.
In general, I would expect someone who is making large statements about carbon-caused climate change to be living somewhere between a low carbon and a fully carbon offset life. It's not like it's expensive to offset a typical life. Some moderately extensive searching can't find much in the way of congresspersons doing this, beyond a guy from 2007.
And, if they've got homes with good sun exposure, extensive (and perhaps more than required to zero their power use) solar arrays.
Basically, "do something so it at least looks like you're living what you claim you care about."
Well for starters there's the long list of environmental protections passed by the Obama administration. The democrats actively pursued a greener economy because it was good for both the environment and our job numbers. Is that not evidence enough?
I mean, they got us to pat ourselves on the back by agreeing to maybe at some point reducing the rate of increase of carbon emissions in the future, unless some other group of politicians disagree (as has happened).
Yes, they've done some useful things. I'm not arguing that, but I don't see the sort of substantial efforts that make any sort of actual progress towards the emissions targets set for remarkably close in the future.
My specific problem with it is that the wildfire excuse is a lie. Nothing in there targets areas that have wildfire problems, they only target areas that have commercially valuable timber. Nothing in there targets selective thinning of forests for fire suppression, just clearcutting. The whole EO is about lifting restrictions on wilderness areas to allow road building, which can then be used to perpetuate deforestation for economic reasons. "Wildfires" is just the political cover story for allowing increased logging, regardless
Given that pretty much the entire western half of the United States is now wildfire territory (with the exception of west of the Cascades, for now), do you have any actual justification that the whole thing about wildfire is a lie?
The USDA Forest Service Chief seems to think it's a reasonable thing, and she knows an awful lot more about it than I do.
You seem to be falling into the (admittedly common) trap of assuming that everything Trump does is evilly evil for evil's sake, full stop, instead of actually looking into the stuff he does.
I would. How far off topic do you really want to go? This thread is about US Climate policy, and how one our political parties has consistently denied pollution or that climate change is a problem that should be addressed. I'm not sure how much is to be gained by delving into each rabbit hole, when the point of my list was to establish the pattern. Democrats have advanced environmental protections and republicans have repealed them. Democrats want clean air and water and republicans don't.
You're the one using your "list" as an argument from volume of evidence, so... yeah, I'm interested in the details of the flaring regulation changes.
Please don't confuse me as a Trump supporter. I don't like him. But I also don't think he's a cartoon villain. He's not that competent.
-
I don't know, when Trump declares he wants to hold back federal aid to California unless they do what HE wants in regards to forestry management, I'd call it evil. There is no other word.
In addition, the problems with wildfires specifically in California are due not to forests that aren't well enough managed, but by developers encroaching deeper into wilderness placing homes at greater risk. In other words, the forest isn't the problem, it's the damn homes being built there and catching fire that is the problem. The single biggest way to prevent more wildfire disasters in California is to stop building homes in danger's way.
-
If someone is so far out of touch with reality that they will look at the thermometer in their own yard and call it a Chinese hoax, then I have no hesitation about calling them irrational. Rational means you believe the evidence of your own eyes, and the collected evidence of a million other measurements about the world. These are not opinions, these are measurable quantities of the physical world. Temperatures are up. Glaciers are shrinking. Floods are more frequent. You can't rationally deny objective reality.
Yeah, they're measurable quantities. But you can't experience them by looking at your thermometer. If you go up to the rockies every 10 years you can see the Saskatchewan glacier shrinking noticeably but that's about it. It's not "objective reality" to most people, it's information reported by the media.
-
In addition, the problems with wildfires specifically in California are due not to forests that aren't well enough managed, but by developers encroaching deeper into wilderness placing homes at greater risk. In other words, the forest isn't the problem, it's the damn homes being built there and catching fire that is the problem. The single biggest way to prevent more wildfire disasters in California is to stop building homes in danger's way.
Eh... kind of. Yes, the urban wild interface is a problem, but it's more how the houses are being built, and less (to an extent) where they're being built. Plenty of Paradise was leveled even though it didn't catch directly from the forest - the firebrands are the big issue.
https://syonyk.blogspot.com/2018/08/wildfires-in-western-united-states.html covers it in a good bit more detail, but basically, firebrand-resistant homes are the way to go. Even a towering wall of forest on fire, a couple hundred feet away, won't light a house from radiant heat.
-
That is a pretty damn well put together piece of writing. I hate to take issue with a single bit or two, but two things stick out to me. One is, you acknowledge wild fires are natural and necessary as evidenced by the lightning strikes and the need for burnt areas for Sequoia seeds to sprout. The other is the "problems" caused by wildfires are all human related. Utility equipment in disrepair sparking massive blazes. Houses being built too close to forests and too close to each other, and without adequate roads out, catching fire. Some in depth research presented on firebrands, but the houses that are subject to them would not even have to catch fire if they simply weren't built. And there's no way to fix the past practice of instantly extinguishing fires everywhere killing the normal fire cycle that "nature" seems to actually need. Now we do know better, but what are we going to do when one of those inaccessible areas catches fire and grows to huge size?
It seems to me that letting people build near the forests causes problems, and simultaneously are the victims of those problems. The easiest course of action would be to limit what can be damaged by limiting the development. Interestingly, the free market might be an ally here as insurance companies are probably taking note and adjust rates and coverage accordingly.
"Thinning" the forests? You have faith that companies won't put profits over the environment here? Thinning forests as I understand is a tedious process, much harder than clear cutting. With the way the current administration is throwing open all the levers that controlled environmental damage, what's to say Trump isn't going to sign off on whatever a logging company wants after they dip their toes in? Trump might have been a masterful negotiator when he was an unknown quantity, we know what he's driving toward now. I don't see much ground ceded here.
-
That is a pretty damn well put together piece of writing.
Thanks, I enjoy long form deep dives into interesting topics. I haven't had quite as much time for that recently with the new kid and prep for projects this year (installing solar, a deck, graveling around structures for fire resistance, etc), but there's a lot of long form stuff in my blog.
Some in depth research presented on firebrands, but the houses that are subject to them would not even have to catch fire if they simply weren't built.
Sure, but they are built - so unless your proposal is to just flatten neighborhoods within a mile or so of the wilderness interface (which will creep out over time - so you'd have to keep flattening more homes as it expanded), it's a problem that will continue to exist - and, really, the solutions aren't that difficult. Building codes for the interface zone need to be a lot tighter, and as much as I generally hate HOAs, something like "property management to reduce neighborhood fire risk" is something I'd be OK with them existing for.
Meanwhile, in reality, "not having whole neighborhoods catch fire and burn" seems a useful thing we could be working towards.
And there's no way to fix the past practice of instantly extinguishing fires everywhere killing the normal fire cycle that "nature" seems to actually need. Now we do know better, but what are we going to do when one of those inaccessible areas catches fire and grows to huge size?
If it's properly inaccessible, letting it burn is probably the right option - we have to reset somehow, and there's an awful lot of area that needs to return to a natural cycle. Until it does, it's more or less a tinderbox waiting for a spark. I don't have any particularly good answers on how to reset things, because as far as I can tell, they don't exist.
It seems to me that letting people build near the forests causes problems, and simultaneously are the victims of those problems. The easiest course of action would be to limit what can be damaged by limiting the development. Interestingly, the free market might be an ally here as insurance companies are probably taking note and adjust rates and coverage accordingly.
I'm guessing there will be some changes to insurance policies coming, yes. It's not something I'm terribly familiar with, as my risk is simply small grass fires.
"Thinning" the forests? You have faith that companies won't put profits over the environment here? Thinning forests as I understand is a tedious process, much harder than clear cutting. With the way the current administration is throwing open all the levers that controlled environmental damage, what's to say Trump isn't going to sign off on whatever a logging company wants after they dip their toes in?
I'm more a fan of locally owned companies and state control over forest lands coming to agreements on what can be done - I think local control and negotiation is better than one size fits all federal policies. A well managed forest can be sustainably logged over time for far more value than just clear cutting it, though obviously the returns take longer to materialize. I've found smaller companies (often family owned) tend to think through this better than large, shareholder-driven companies.
The thing is, Trump shouldn't have that much say in logging in the first place. It shouldn't be an area where the President needs to make EOs, because it should be managed downstream by people who know an awful lot more about the issues.
But, given that, I also reject the common way of thinking that anything Trump does is pure evil simply because Trump did it. Same for the Republicans - I disagree with them on many points, but I'm not willing to say, "A Republican said it, therefore it's automatically awful."
-
Because there can be infinite Gods, each with their own requirements. Pascals Wager basically assumes one version of one religion is the correct "do or die" version to make the wager on. But that's ridiculous. It's just as likely a God would reward you for NOT believing as believing. So which wager would you take? The options are infinite, which makes it completely irrational.
Ah, gotcha. You misunderstood how I was using it. My point was that if you believe that there's something very bad that might happen (ie, go to hell for not going to church) even if you think it's super unlikely (Pascal thought there was very little chance he'd go to hell for not believing, remember!) then you take steps to prevent that possibility from occuring.
It's like buying insurance (literally). My house is very unlikely to burn down, but I spend considerable money to insure against that possibility.
Hence my actuarial comment. The only case where it's rational to do nothing about climate change is if you believe there is literally zero chance it will be a problem. Even if you only assign those egghead scientists a 10% chance of being correct, you should be happy to spend trillions of dollars to prevent that prediction from coming true.
-W
Curious. If everyone TRULY believed these were problems that will be catastrophic in just a few short years, especially insurance companies with professional actuaries, then why are massive new developments being approved on the Miami coastline?
I'm not happy to spend trillions of dollars to prevent the prediction from coming true. Notably because they have a hard time defining exactly WHAT is going to happen. We lose some islands? Need to slowly move inland? Build a levy? Plants and food might grow faster and in more places? Climate change is a much slower process than the projections, and we are far more capable of dealing with it as it happens, slowly. It's hard to come up with solutions when you don't actually know what's going to happen. You end up spending trillions (where is that coming from, exactly?) to fix an unknown problem. To me it very much feels like a Pascals Wager and irrational. Nobody REALLY knows what's going to happen, when, and to what extent - if at all. So why be so alarmed?
Question: what impacts of climate change do you perceive to be potential issues other than sea level rise? Or is SLR the primary issue that you see as an issue?
It seems to be the dominant issue. I know "more hurricanes" was a bullshit prediction that failed miserably. And now when it gets really cold, supposedly that's due to global warming, too. We have had red tide since the first settlers in Florida, but now supposedly it's due to global warming. I'm sure there are 1000's of catastrophes due to global warming! I'm certainly open to some other suggestions and would weigh the facts fairly.
-
As someone who DOES believe the climate is changing but doesn't buy in to the radicalism that has taken over the topic, I'm all for doing things to mitigate sea level rise and the effects of our changing climate. Of course, in a practical, reasonable way that is based on sound science and ACTUAL sea level rise trends.
What was the rise in 1993? What was it in 2013? Did it stay the same, decrease, or increase?
Further, can you cite where a scientist has claimed that Florida/Key West/Miami/Marshall Islands would already be underwater? What page # and what version of the IPCC? Thanks.
Still waiting on a response to this. Or to make it a little easier, can you provide any citations showing that predictions have failed decade after decade which you keep repeating as fact?
I have already provided a NOAA source demonstrating that sea level rise has NOT been accelerating. Believing it's going to magically start accelerating, any year now.... is religion. But it's not a controversial thing to say that the global warming movement has largely centered around accelerating and catastrophic sea level rise. The problem is, that it's just not happening. The actual trend is barely 8 inches over the next 100 years. The models and predictions are more like 8 feet. This acceleration has been predicted for decades. Yet here we are, decades later, and still trending the same.
The earth is warming. Sea levels are rising. The problem is, the predictions of catastrophe due to human influence just haven't panned out one bit. We are not going to stop sea level rise be cutting fossil fuels. And until we actually see some acceleration, I'll remain skeptical.
-
Maybe the discussion shouldn't be centered around hysterics, but a more reasoned and practical approach to making the planet better. Kind of like what is already happening. Cars are vastly more efficient and clean. Tons of new technology is being introduced. Power is cleaner. Solar panels are going up like crazy all over the country and coming down in price. Homes more efficient. More efficient water heaters. Cleaner water. The list goes on. It's already happening and it's driven by human innovation and capitalism and will continue without massive government takeovers and radical, unnecessary solutions.
Yup. And this is why I find the current approaches so irritatingly ineffective - because it involves head first crashing into a particularly polarized issue, and... then crashing head first into it, instead of asking if there's a path around the wall.
Let's say one disagrees with AlexMar, as is the case here. There are basically two paths: Either continue to argue over if climate change is happening or not (obviously this is the favored solution here), or say, "You know what? Let's find common ground and go from there." Most people, even those evilly evil Republicans, tend to care about clean water and clean air - and, perhaps, locally produced energy. There have been surveys done that ask people throughout the political spectrum what their support for solar is, and the support is fairly strong across the spectrum - but for different reasons. A conservative is far more likely to value solar if it has grid-down operating capability of some form or another, but in general, deploying renewable energy isn't that controversial - across the spectrum. (http://www.pewresearch.org/science/2016/10/04/public-opinion-on-renewables-and-other-energy-sources/)
So find the common ground and move forward, instead of insisting that everyone has to agree about the reasons before doing anything.
I'll let some people reading in on another little secret: The vast, vast majority of diesel truck owners hate the coal-rolling idiots just as much as most people on the left do - just for different reasons. It's a waste of perfectly good engines, and it tends to lead to unwelcome attention towards diesel trucks, the vast majority of which are owned by people who haul fairly heavy trailers (yes, there are people who drive a jacked up diesel as a daily driver, and, yes, they're regarded as pretty stupid by most truck owners as well). I own a diesel truck, and I'll happily call in the tags of people who are obviously blowing clouds of smoke for no good reason. However, I also understand that a bit of smoke under load is perfectly normal, and if a 20 year old truck is smoking a bit pulling a grade, well... it's probably got worn out injectors and the compression is a bit weak. A 4 year old diesel blowing a coal black column? Yeah, I report them.
Anyways, we see things differently. When I see your links above, I don't see what you do. Each one of those is a complicated topic with very well reasoned arguments on both sides. Just because we build a pipeline doesn't mean we hate the environment. "Scrapped the clean power plan" - oh, that must mean we want dirty power!!!
I'm about as pro-solar as they come, and I regularly get accused of being a fossil fuel shill for pointing out things like, "We still don't know how to make a stable power grid with a lot of solar and wind, without so many batteries that they drive the delivered cost per kWh way up." Handling a few residential installs, not a problem. Handling a lot - and doing so in a way that doesn't then starve the power grid of funding so you get defection-driven grid collapse? Still a very much open problem, and Hawaii and California are places to watch here to see how things work. The older inverter specs (pre-1741 SA/CA Rule 21) were also pretty grid-hostile, though the newer standards are a lot better on that front.
Same reason we continue to use fossil fuels and subsidize the petroleum industry. Same reason GOP lawmakers pretend not to believe climate change is real. Same reason Democratic lawmakers who know better don't push harder for change. Money. The exciting prospect of making a crapload of it now makes it easy to turn one's eyes away from the scary, mind-boggling, overwhelming prospect of massive upheaval later. Especially when the rich folks making these decisions will mostly be dead by then.
Actually, I continue to use fossil fuels because there's no alternative out there for at least some of my transportation/energy needs. An electric truck that can tow a 10k lb trailer and crawl around my property doesn't exist - and though there are some that should be showing up in the next few years, I sure can't afford them (for a moderately responsible value of afford). And while I could (and eventually plan to) trench power out to my solar powered office, I use 5-10 gallons of gas and about 5 gallons of propane a winter because it's a good bit cheaper than the radically expanded solar panel array and wastefully large battery pack I'd need to heat on electric all winter.
Though, to pick on Democratic lawmakers, most of them sure don't live like they believe their emissions matter.
Another thing not discussed is just how dirty lithium mining is. Or the fact that lithium is not unlimited. We don't actually have enough lithium on the planet for everyone to drive electric cars and install power walls.
-
Why would you think republicans care about clean air and water? Did you not see my list above? At least at the congressional level, the republican party votes in lockstep against clean air and clean water. Look at what they do, not what they say. They claim to want to clean air, then revoke air pollution standards. They claim to want clean water, then allow mining waste to be dumped into streams. I posted a long list of republican actions on clean air and water since trump took office, and not a single item in there supports you theory that the republican party has done one single thing to make the environment cleaner. Most of the items in that list aren't even climate related, they're just blatant environmental abuses, cases of deliberately making pollution worse.
I agree that there are "conservatives" who want to protect the environment, because they see conservatism and conservation as not too different. Some of them are hunters and fishers and they want to protect our lands. I'm not sure why they continue to vote for republicans who consistently gut environmental protections, though.
What you are pointing out is lawmakers who are interested in cutting pointless regulations that strangled industries without achieving their goals. Then you use the headlines to try and make your point "revoke air pollution standards" - OMG, they want dirty air!!! It's highly likely that you pollute the air to some extent. Vehicle, chemicals, who knows. So let's say a highly economically damaging law was passed... can't use any internal combustion engines anymore. Period. Stop vehicle pollution 100%. Goes in to effect immediately. Nobody can drive to work. Jobs lost. Industries destroyed. But hey, clean air, right? Then another lawmaker comes out and says, that's not reasonable, it's a step too far and too radical. We are going in the direction of cleaner air and less emissions already, and we need to go in that direction in a more responsible way without destroying industries. So we are removing the "Zero Vehicle Pollution" law. Then here you come... "They want dirty air, see, they revoked a pollution regulation!!!!"
-
Another thing not discussed is just how dirty lithium mining is. Or the fact that lithium is not unlimited. We don't actually have enough lithium on the planet for everyone to drive electric cars and install power walls.
Actually, cobalt is more likely to be an issue in the near term - not that lithium mining is particularly clean.
https://syonyk.blogspot.com/2015/12/cobalt-requirements-for-global-electric.html
Some of the data in that post is old - newer chemistries tend to use less cobalt, but most of the good chemistries are still using a good bit. The non-cobalt chemistries pay a pretty good penalty in either energy or power density (usually, both - look at the density numbers for LiMN, LiFePO4, LTO, etc). About 50% of the world's cobalt comes from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and most of that is "artisanally mined" - or, "by hand, no safety standards, with an awful lot of child labor involved." Uncomfortable facts, certainly, and that one supplier or another uses "non-Congo cobalt" doesn't really change much, because, well, it's a commodity. If they don't use it, someone else will, and demand is demand, for an awfully good first order approximation.
That's part of why I'm so disappointed that GM killed the Volt off. It makes far better use of limited battery production than a pure electric car. For the cells and materials that go into a single 100kWh Tesla pack, you could build 5-6 Volt packs, offset an awful lot more gasoline use, and have a far bigger impact - because cell production is a bottleneck, and beyond just that, the materials going into the cells are a bottleneck at not too many multiples of global battery pack production. So you're far better off with a moderate range PHEV from a climate and energy perspective than you are with long range BEVs that never use the bulk of their pack. We use the ~10kWh in our Volt pretty much every time we go somewhere, and use a bit of gas as well, but we make far better use of the cells in the car, and still are managing about 150 miles per gallon of gas used (5x what our Mazda 3 got in the exact same driving conditions).
-
I don't think there is any argument on this point anymore. Climate is changing. People still argue about why, or how much worse it's going to get, or what we should do about it. There are no rational people who still argue that climate is not changing. You can't argue with thermometers.
Ok, calling large percentages of the population irrational will definitely help get the stuff you care about passed in... which world, exactly?
My point, which you seem to have entirely missed, is that forcing everything through the funnel of climate change, in 2019, in the United States, is a losing proposition. Even the politicians who claim they care about it don't appear to live lives that are changed by their supposed beliefs in it.
Folks who don't believe there is a problem are not likely to offer or support solutions. And in many cases, are more likely to support/advance an agenda that reverses previous progress. In other words, folks like Trump are not going to pass any sort of green agenda when they perceive there to not be a problem.
I'm not sure what "funnel" we should pass climate change through other than what it is. We don't pass vaccinations through different funnels. We don't pass sexual assault through different funnels. If something is happening as a direct result of climate change (ie, sea level rise, polar bear population decline, dying reef, etc.) how per say do we address this without addressing the underlying cause?
Sol is right, it's irrational to deny human induced climate change. Those irrational people, unfortunately, are making policy right now and don't give a shit how we refer to climate change. Best thing we can do is vote them out of office.
Is it possible that the people making decisions right now just see a different path towards a similar goal? I'll give an example. AOC is taking a lot of heat for acting like an economic retard and torpedoing the Amazon deal which would have brought billions to the State and created countless jobs. It's the same type of deal that got Tesla's Gigafactory rolling in Nevada. The same factory that is designed to drastically reduce carbon emissions and push a green agenda. Could you imagine if there was an AOC in Nevada? One side likes the idea of the private sector and capitalism leading the way, the other side wants strict government intervention and industry killing regulations to lead the way. Can't we just disagree on the methods? Suggesting half the country doesn't care about the environment is pretty ridiculous. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that American private sector innovation, is a pretty solid way to achieve these goals, considering it's basically the way America has always done it. Working pretty good I'd say.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/epa-acting-administrator-andrew-wheeler-trump-administrations-waters-united-states-rule-gives-power-back-states/
-
I don't think there is any argument on this point anymore. Climate is changing. People still argue about why, or how much worse it's going to get, or what we should do about it. There are no rational people who still argue that climate is not changing. You can't argue with thermometers.
Ok, calling large percentages of the population irrational will definitely help get the stuff you care about passed in... which world, exactly?
My point, which you seem to have entirely missed, is that forcing everything through the funnel of climate change, in 2019, in the United States, is a losing proposition. Even the politicians who claim they care about it don't appear to live lives that are changed by their supposed beliefs in it.
Folks who don't believe there is a problem are not likely to offer or support solutions. And in many cases, are more likely to support/advance an agenda that reverses previous progress. In other words, folks like Trump are not going to pass any sort of green agenda when they perceive there to not be a problem.
I'm not sure what "funnel" we should pass climate change through other than what it is. We don't pass vaccinations through different funnels. We don't pass sexual assault through different funnels. If something is happening as a direct result of climate change (ie, sea level rise, polar bear population decline, dying reef, etc.) how per say do we address this without addressing the underlying cause?
Sol is right, it's irrational to deny human induced climate change. Those irrational people, unfortunately, are making policy right now and don't give a shit how we refer to climate change. Best thing we can do is vote them out of office.
Is it possible that the people making decisions right now just see a different path towards a similar goal?
Nope! The current administration and the Prez in particular have made no attempt to pass legislation that is green in nature. Why would they? Trump doesn't believe man-made climate change is happening. He basically proves my point. So the answer to your question is an absolute "no!"
He is trying hard to find a panel to undermine the WH's own findings concerning climate change. That would seem pointless if they truly were trying to pass more environmentally friendly policies.
-
As someone who DOES believe the climate is changing but doesn't buy in to the radicalism that has taken over the topic, I'm all for doing things to mitigate sea level rise and the effects of our changing climate. Of course, in a practical, reasonable way that is based on sound science and ACTUAL sea level rise trends.
What was the rise in 1993? What was it in 2013? Did it stay the same, decrease, or increase?
Further, can you cite where a scientist has claimed that Florida/Key West/Miami/Marshall Islands would already be underwater? What page # and what version of the IPCC? Thanks.
Still waiting on a response to this. Or to make it a little easier, can you provide any citations showing that predictions have failed decade after decade which you keep repeating as fact?
I have already provided a NOAA source demonstrating that sea level rise has NOT been accelerating.
You should double check you own link, btw. In particular check the title. Your welcome ( :
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html (https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html)
-
I don't think there is any argument on this point anymore. Climate is changing. People still argue about why, or how much worse it's going to get, or what we should do about it. There are no rational people who still argue that climate is not changing. You can't argue with thermometers.
Ok, calling large percentages of the population irrational will definitely help get the stuff you care about passed in... which world, exactly?
My point, which you seem to have entirely missed, is that forcing everything through the funnel of climate change, in 2019, in the United States, is a losing proposition. Even the politicians who claim they care about it don't appear to live lives that are changed by their supposed beliefs in it.
Folks who don't believe there is a problem are not likely to offer or support solutions. And in many cases, are more likely to support/advance an agenda that reverses previous progress. In other words, folks like Trump are not going to pass any sort of green agenda when they perceive there to not be a problem.
I'm not sure what "funnel" we should pass climate change through other than what it is. We don't pass vaccinations through different funnels. We don't pass sexual assault through different funnels. If something is happening as a direct result of climate change (ie, sea level rise, polar bear population decline, dying reef, etc.) how per say do we address this without addressing the underlying cause?
Sol is right, it's irrational to deny human induced climate change. Those irrational people, unfortunately, are making policy right now and don't give a shit how we refer to climate change. Best thing we can do is vote them out of office.
Is it possible that the people making decisions right now just see a different path towards a similar goal?
Nope! The current administration and the Prez in particular have made no attempt to pass legislation that is green in nature. Why would they? Trump doesn't believe man-made climate change is happening. He basically proves my point. So the answer to your question is an absolute "no!"
He is trying hard to find a panel to undermine the WH's own findings concerning climate change. That would seem pointless if they truly were trying to pass more environmentally friendly policies.
Well, you have successfully proven the point I have made. Thanks.
-
As someone who DOES believe the climate is changing but doesn't buy in to the radicalism that has taken over the topic, I'm all for doing things to mitigate sea level rise and the effects of our changing climate. Of course, in a practical, reasonable way that is based on sound science and ACTUAL sea level rise trends.
What was the rise in 1993? What was it in 2013? Did it stay the same, decrease, or increase?
Further, can you cite where a scientist has claimed that Florida/Key West/Miami/Marshall Islands would already be underwater? What page # and what version of the IPCC? Thanks.
Still waiting on a response to this. Or to make it a little easier, can you provide any citations showing that predictions have failed decade after decade which you keep repeating as fact?
I have already provided a NOAA source demonstrating that sea level rise has NOT been accelerating.
You should double check you own link, btw. In particular check the title. Your welcome ( :
Are we reading something different?
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8724580
"Sea Level Trends" - are you getting a different title?
The relevant info:
based on monthly mean sea level data from 1913 to 2018 which is equivalent to a change of 0.79 feet in 100 years.
The trend is 3/4 of a foot over 100 years. Now let's talk about that 6 feet in 80 years thing. And the fact that this prediction has been made since the 1980's. 30+ years later and for some reason, the trend is still the same. When will that severe acceleration start? Another 10 years? If we don't do something RIGHT NOW!!! 5 years!! Still waiting for the J curve, the big woosh straight up! Catastrophe, islands gone, people dying, The Day After Tomorrow. At what point do we have the right to be skeptical? How many years? How many decades?
I'll post the relative projections here. You'll notice these are projections NOT based on the mean average over the last 105 years. Now, again, note these predictions were starting in the 80's. So we could have had this discussion in the 80's... and you would say "Well, the projections are in the future, it's what's coming, science!!!" - and here we are decades later and it's still the same old story.... Just give it more decades... Science! Stop denying science!! And again, how many more decades of the same failed projections must occur until we can be skeptical of it?
(https://i.postimg.cc/sgCppmXs/sea-level-rise.png)
-
As someone who DOES believe the climate is changing but doesn't buy in to the radicalism that has taken over the topic, I'm all for doing things to mitigate sea level rise and the effects of our changing climate. Of course, in a practical, reasonable way that is based on sound science and ACTUAL sea level rise trends.
What was the rise in 1993? What was it in 2013? Did it stay the same, decrease, or increase?
Further, can you cite where a scientist has claimed that Florida/Key West/Miami/Marshall Islands would already be underwater? What page # and what version of the IPCC? Thanks.
Still waiting on a response to this. Or to make it a little easier, can you provide any citations showing that predictions have failed decade after decade which you keep repeating as fact?
I have already provided a NOAA source demonstrating that sea level rise has NOT been accelerating.
You should double check you own link, btw. In particular check the title. Your welcome ( :
Are we reading something different?
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8724580
"Sea Level Trends" - are you getting a different title?
The relevant info:
based on monthly mean sea level data from 1913 to 2018 which is equivalent to a change of 0.79 feet in 100 years.
The trend is 3/4 of a foot over 100 years. Now let's talk about that 6 feet in 80 years thing. And the fact that this prediction has been made since the 1980's. 30+ years later and for some reason, the trend is still the same. When will that severe acceleration start? Another 10 years? If we don't do something RIGHT NOW!!! 5 years!!
I doubt it, you just seem to be leaving out parts of it:
"Relative Sea Level Trend
8724580 Key West, Florida"
-
I don't think there is any argument on this point anymore. Climate is changing. People still argue about why, or how much worse it's going to get, or what we should do about it. There are no rational people who still argue that climate is not changing. You can't argue with thermometers.
Ok, calling large percentages of the population irrational will definitely help get the stuff you care about passed in... which world, exactly?
My point, which you seem to have entirely missed, is that forcing everything through the funnel of climate change, in 2019, in the United States, is a losing proposition. Even the politicians who claim they care about it don't appear to live lives that are changed by their supposed beliefs in it.
Folks who don't believe there is a problem are not likely to offer or support solutions. And in many cases, are more likely to support/advance an agenda that reverses previous progress. In other words, folks like Trump are not going to pass any sort of green agenda when they perceive there to not be a problem.
I'm not sure what "funnel" we should pass climate change through other than what it is. We don't pass vaccinations through different funnels. We don't pass sexual assault through different funnels. If something is happening as a direct result of climate change (ie, sea level rise, polar bear population decline, dying reef, etc.) how per say do we address this without addressing the underlying cause?
Sol is right, it's irrational to deny human induced climate change. Those irrational people, unfortunately, are making policy right now and don't give a shit how we refer to climate change. Best thing we can do is vote them out of office.
Is it possible that the people making decisions right now just see a different path towards a similar goal?
Nope! The current administration and the Prez in particular have made no attempt to pass legislation that is green in nature. Why would they? Trump doesn't believe man-made climate change is happening. He basically proves my point. So the answer to your question is an absolute "no!"
He is trying hard to find a panel to undermine the WH's own findings concerning climate change. That would seem pointless if they truly were trying to pass more environmentally friendly policies.
Well, you have successfully proven the point I have made. Thanks.
I'll be honest and say I don't have a clue what your point actually is. You were corrected for numerous dubious claims and seemed to ignore all of it despite claiming you are open to new facts. In that respect you were simply trolling. So outside of that I don't even know what your point is. You still keep going on about entire states/islands being underwater, people dying, etc. I don't even know what that's all about. Maybe somewhere at some point decades ago somebody said something to you that has had you in an uproar all these years?? I really don't know.
-
I don't think there is any argument on this point anymore. Climate is changing. People still argue about why, or how much worse it's going to get, or what we should do about it. There are no rational people who still argue that climate is not changing. You can't argue with thermometers.
Ok, calling large percentages of the population irrational will definitely help get the stuff you care about passed in... which world, exactly?
My point, which you seem to have entirely missed, is that forcing everything through the funnel of climate change, in 2019, in the United States, is a losing proposition. Even the politicians who claim they care about it don't appear to live lives that are changed by their supposed beliefs in it.
Folks who don't believe there is a problem are not likely to offer or support solutions. And in many cases, are more likely to support/advance an agenda that reverses previous progress. In other words, folks like Trump are not going to pass any sort of green agenda when they perceive there to not be a problem.
I'm not sure what "funnel" we should pass climate change through other than what it is. We don't pass vaccinations through different funnels. We don't pass sexual assault through different funnels. If something is happening as a direct result of climate change (ie, sea level rise, polar bear population decline, dying reef, etc.) how per say do we address this without addressing the underlying cause?
Sol is right, it's irrational to deny human induced climate change. Those irrational people, unfortunately, are making policy right now and don't give a shit how we refer to climate change. Best thing we can do is vote them out of office.
Is it possible that the people making decisions right now just see a different path towards a similar goal?
Nope! The current administration and the Prez in particular have made no attempt to pass legislation that is green in nature. Why would they? Trump doesn't believe man-made climate change is happening. He basically proves my point. So the answer to your question is an absolute "no!"
He is trying hard to find a panel to undermine the WH's own findings concerning climate change. That would seem pointless if they truly were trying to pass more environmentally friendly policies.
Well, you have successfully proven the point I have made. Thanks.
I'll be honest and say I don't have a clue what your point actually is. You were corrected for numerous dubious claims and seemed to ignore all of it despite claiming you are open to new facts. In that respect you were simply trolling. So outside of that I don't even know what your point is. You still keep going on about entire states/islands being underwater, people dying, etc. I don't even know what that's all about. Maybe somewhere at some point decades ago somebody said something to you that has had you in an uproar all these years?? I really don't know.
The point that you are so politically radicalized that you can't even believe that the "other side" doesn't want dirty water and air. You can't even accept the obvious, which is that we all want the same thing but to different degrees and methods of achieving them. That's simply impossible for you to comprehend. "NO!!!!! Trump! Bad!!!"
-
I don't think there is any argument on this point anymore. Climate is changing. People still argue about why, or how much worse it's going to get, or what we should do about it. There are no rational people who still argue that climate is not changing. You can't argue with thermometers.
Ok, calling large percentages of the population irrational will definitely help get the stuff you care about passed in... which world, exactly?
My point, which you seem to have entirely missed, is that forcing everything through the funnel of climate change, in 2019, in the United States, is a losing proposition. Even the politicians who claim they care about it don't appear to live lives that are changed by their supposed beliefs in it.
Folks who don't believe there is a problem are not likely to offer or support solutions. And in many cases, are more likely to support/advance an agenda that reverses previous progress. In other words, folks like Trump are not going to pass any sort of green agenda when they perceive there to not be a problem.
I'm not sure what "funnel" we should pass climate change through other than what it is. We don't pass vaccinations through different funnels. We don't pass sexual assault through different funnels. If something is happening as a direct result of climate change (ie, sea level rise, polar bear population decline, dying reef, etc.) how per say do we address this without addressing the underlying cause?
Sol is right, it's irrational to deny human induced climate change. Those irrational people, unfortunately, are making policy right now and don't give a shit how we refer to climate change. Best thing we can do is vote them out of office.
Is it possible that the people making decisions right now just see a different path towards a similar goal?
Nope! The current administration and the Prez in particular have made no attempt to pass legislation that is green in nature. Why would they? Trump doesn't believe man-made climate change is happening. He basically proves my point. So the answer to your question is an absolute "no!"
He is trying hard to find a panel to undermine the WH's own findings concerning climate change. That would seem pointless if they truly were trying to pass more environmentally friendly policies.
Well, you have successfully proven the point I have made. Thanks.
I'll be honest and say I don't have a clue what your point actually is. You were corrected for numerous dubious claims and seemed to ignore all of it despite claiming you are open to new facts. In that respect you were simply trolling. So outside of that I don't even know what your point is. You still keep going on about entire states/islands being underwater, people dying, etc. I don't even know what that's all about. Maybe somewhere at some point decades ago somebody said something to you that has had you in an uproar all these years?? I really don't know.
The point that you are so politically radicalized that you can't even believe that the "other side" doesn't want dirty water and air. You can't even accept the obvious, which is that we all want the same thing but to different degrees and methods of achieving them. That's simply impossible for you to comprehend. "NO!!!!! Trump! Bad!!!"
AlexMar.
I mean...
Come on.
The GOP generally speaking doesn't want to admit that anthropogenic climate change is even a thing.
So... How do we all "want the same thing"?
I mean... I'm sorry to interject myself into this conversation, but... I just have to say... really???
-
You still keep going on about entire states/islands being underwater, people dying, etc. I don't even know what that's all about. Maybe somewhere at some point decades ago somebody said something to you that has had you in an uproar all these years?? I really don't know.
This has been pretty damn mainstream climate propaganda for quite some time.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/jasmin-guenette/al-gores-inconvenient-sequel_b_16669842.html
https://dailycaller.com/2015/05/04/25-years-of-predicting-the-global-warming-tipping-point/
https://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html?pagewanted=all
-
I don't think there is any argument on this point anymore. Climate is changing. People still argue about why, or how much worse it's going to get, or what we should do about it. There are no rational people who still argue that climate is not changing. You can't argue with thermometers.
Ok, calling large percentages of the population irrational will definitely help get the stuff you care about passed in... which world, exactly?
My point, which you seem to have entirely missed, is that forcing everything through the funnel of climate change, in 2019, in the United States, is a losing proposition. Even the politicians who claim they care about it don't appear to live lives that are changed by their supposed beliefs in it.
Folks who don't believe there is a problem are not likely to offer or support solutions. And in many cases, are more likely to support/advance an agenda that reverses previous progress. In other words, folks like Trump are not going to pass any sort of green agenda when they perceive there to not be a problem.
I'm not sure what "funnel" we should pass climate change through other than what it is. We don't pass vaccinations through different funnels. We don't pass sexual assault through different funnels. If something is happening as a direct result of climate change (ie, sea level rise, polar bear population decline, dying reef, etc.) how per say do we address this without addressing the underlying cause?
Sol is right, it's irrational to deny human induced climate change. Those irrational people, unfortunately, are making policy right now and don't give a shit how we refer to climate change. Best thing we can do is vote them out of office.
Is it possible that the people making decisions right now just see a different path towards a similar goal?
Nope! The current administration and the Prez in particular have made no attempt to pass legislation that is green in nature. Why would they? Trump doesn't believe man-made climate change is happening. He basically proves my point. So the answer to your question is an absolute "no!"
He is trying hard to find a panel to undermine the WH's own findings concerning climate change. That would seem pointless if they truly were trying to pass more environmentally friendly policies.
Well, you have successfully proven the point I have made. Thanks.
I'll be honest and say I don't have a clue what your point actually is. You were corrected for numerous dubious claims and seemed to ignore all of it despite claiming you are open to new facts. In that respect you were simply trolling. So outside of that I don't even know what your point is. You still keep going on about entire states/islands being underwater, people dying, etc. I don't even know what that's all about. Maybe somewhere at some point decades ago somebody said something to you that has had you in an uproar all these years?? I really don't know.
The point that you are so politically radicalized that you can't even believe that the "other side" doesn't want dirty water and air. You can't even accept the obvious, which is that we all want the same thing but to different degrees and methods of achieving them. That's simply impossible for you to comprehend. "NO!!!!! Trump! Bad!!!"
AlexMar.
I mean...
Come on.
The GOP generally speaking doesn't want to admit that anthropogenic climate change is even a thing.
So... How do we all "want the same thing"?
I mean... I'm sorry to interject myself into this conversation, but... I just have to say... really???
"To different degrees"
Anyways. It's simple. We all want less pollution, clean air, renewable energy, etc. When the starting point that we have to agree on is "anthropogenic climate change is real and catastrophic, massive things must be done by 2015 (yeah) or we are all doomed - and we need to commit $100B/year to poor countries so they can fight climate change" - well, then maybe we aren't having a reasonable discussion. It's kind of like you are saying "we all just need to agree to agree with me" as opposed to finding a common middle ground and understanding. In other words, if we removed the extremes from the conversation, then we may find that the middle ground is actually where the extremes wanted to be all along. We are rapidly improving in regards to the environment, emissions, etc. Rapidly. The growth of incredibly efficient vehicles and zero emission vehicles is incredible. Even the new trend for cruise ships is a move to LNG instead of the awful heavy fuel oil. And it's due to private sector innovations and a demand for it. It's come about from both Republican economic policies AND Democrat regulatory policies. There is much more middle ground than you think. But speaking in extremes "Trump and Republicans wants more pollution and don't care about the environment" is so unhelpful, and not to mention, just completely false.
-
I don't think there is any argument on this point anymore. Climate is changing. People still argue about why, or how much worse it's going to get, or what we should do about it. There are no rational people who still argue that climate is not changing. You can't argue with thermometers.
Ok, calling large percentages of the population irrational will definitely help get the stuff you care about passed in... which world, exactly?
My point, which you seem to have entirely missed, is that forcing everything through the funnel of climate change, in 2019, in the United States, is a losing proposition. Even the politicians who claim they care about it don't appear to live lives that are changed by their supposed beliefs in it.
Folks who don't believe there is a problem are not likely to offer or support solutions. And in many cases, are more likely to support/advance an agenda that reverses previous progress. In other words, folks like Trump are not going to pass any sort of green agenda when they perceive there to not be a problem.
I'm not sure what "funnel" we should pass climate change through other than what it is. We don't pass vaccinations through different funnels. We don't pass sexual assault through different funnels. If something is happening as a direct result of climate change (ie, sea level rise, polar bear population decline, dying reef, etc.) how per say do we address this without addressing the underlying cause?
Sol is right, it's irrational to deny human induced climate change. Those irrational people, unfortunately, are making policy right now and don't give a shit how we refer to climate change. Best thing we can do is vote them out of office.
Is it possible that the people making decisions right now just see a different path towards a similar goal?
Nope! The current administration and the Prez in particular have made no attempt to pass legislation that is green in nature. Why would they? Trump doesn't believe man-made climate change is happening. He basically proves my point. So the answer to your question is an absolute "no!"
He is trying hard to find a panel to undermine the WH's own findings concerning climate change. That would seem pointless if they truly were trying to pass more environmentally friendly policies.
Well, you have successfully proven the point I have made. Thanks.
I'll be honest and say I don't have a clue what your point actually is. You were corrected for numerous dubious claims and seemed to ignore all of it despite claiming you are open to new facts. In that respect you were simply trolling. So outside of that I don't even know what your point is. You still keep going on about entire states/islands being underwater, people dying, etc. I don't even know what that's all about. Maybe somewhere at some point decades ago somebody said something to you that has had you in an uproar all these years?? I really don't know.
The point that you are so politically radicalized that you can't even believe that the "other side" doesn't want dirty water and air. You can't even accept the obvious, which is that we all want the same thing but to different degrees and methods of achieving them. That's simply impossible for you to comprehend. "NO!!!!! Trump! Bad!!!"
Umm you made it political not me. I said nothing of Dems or Republicans. What does "dirty water" and "air" have to do with the increase in the average global temps, dying reefs, polar bear population decline, rising sea levels, solar and wind energy? I spoke of the current admins desire to not pursue any sort of "green" policies. You just created one big giant straw-man fallacy. A point was made, just not the one you intended.
BTW, when are you going to acknowledge all your dubious claims earlier? It's really tough to take anyone seriously who shows a serious lack of integrity.
-
Anyways. It's simple. We all want less pollution, clean air, renewable energy, etc.
Can you provide evidence that Trump is actively pursuing renewable energy supportive policies?
-
You still keep going on about entire states/islands being underwater, people dying, etc. I don't even know what that's all about. Maybe somewhere at some point decades ago somebody said something to you that has had you in an uproar all these years?? I really don't know.
This has been pretty damn mainstream climate propaganda for quite some time.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/jasmin-guenette/al-gores-inconvenient-sequel_b_16669842.html
https://dailycaller.com/2015/05/04/25-years-of-predicting-the-global-warming-tipping-point/
two blogs using some of the same talking points you've used in this thread that have been disproven when put into proper context or by provided data.
https://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html?pagewanted=all
A NY Times article from 1988 which predicts:
The rise in global temperature is predicted to cause a thermal expansion of the oceans and to melt glaciers and polar ice, thus causing sea levels to rise by one to four feet by the middle of the next century.
From 1-4 feet ~2050 you get whole states underwater in 2019? Even Miami has a high altitude of just >6'.
I'm actually pretty impressed by what they knew 30 years ago.
-
BTW, when are you going to acknowledge all your dubious claims earlier? It's really tough to take anyone seriously who shows a serious lack of integrity.
Already have.
-
You still keep going on about entire states/islands being underwater, people dying, etc. I don't even know what that's all about. Maybe somewhere at some point decades ago somebody said something to you that has had you in an uproar all these years?? I really don't know.
This has been pretty damn mainstream climate propaganda for quite some time.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/jasmin-guenette/al-gores-inconvenient-sequel_b_16669842.html
https://dailycaller.com/2015/05/04/25-years-of-predicting-the-global-warming-tipping-point/
two blogs using some of the same talking points you've used in this thread that have been disproven when put into proper context or by provided data.
https://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html?pagewanted=all
A NY Times article from 1988 which predicts:
The rise in global temperature is predicted to cause a thermal expansion of the oceans and to melt glaciers and polar ice, thus causing sea levels to rise by one to four feet by the middle of the next century.
From 1-4 feet ~2050 you get whole states underwater in 2019? Even Miami has a high altitude of just >6'.
I'm actually pretty impressed by what they knew 30 years ago.
Of course those claims were disproven. That was my entire point. I never claimed the IPCC made these claims. I have said it's been the mainstream rhetoric used to advance political agendas. People like Al Gore (a politician, mind you) have absolutely claimed the ice caps would be gone and massive sea level rise by now. It's you guys who then say "oh, where did the IPCC make this claim, book and page number." I would say "Exactly."
On the other hand, I have also pointed out data and reports, which you conveniently skip over. Let's take the NY Times article from 30 years ago. Here is the problem, we are more than half way towards their doomsday date and NO acceleration. We aren't talking 5 - 10 years later. It's been a long ass time. Yet the sea level rise is still as slow as it ever was. 1 - 4 feet by 2050? We are pacing a few inches. When is that big jump we have been haring about since the 80's? Any day now.... What are you impressed by? That they have been wrong?
"the higher temperatures can now be attributed to a long-expected global warming trend linked to pollution" - the earth IS warming and has been for a very long time. Sea levels have been rising and have been for a very long time. The problem is all the human caused acceleration hasn't panned out one bit. 30 years later and no acceleration. And I'd say again, how many more decades have to go by until we are allowed to voice skepticism without being labeled some sort of "denier"?
-
BTW, when are you going to acknowledge all your dubious claims earlier? It's really tough to take anyone seriously who shows a serious lack of integrity.
Already have.
Couldn't find where you acknowledged you were wrong about the polar bear population. Can you link and/or copy your admission of pushing a dubious claim?
-
ptf.
This thread can't possibly become controversial!
It should not. It is very simple: Do you want to have people in 100 years living a better life? Than yes, we need to do big things. If not, then no. Let them deal with a Gongola-New York!
Maybe it becomes a tourist attraction for the people in the corn belt who don't see any water that isn't pumped for a few hundred miles.
Hell, I'd be happy if people would stop telling me that climate change doesn't exist every time it snows.
Tell them it hasn't snowed (well, that not instantly melted) here in central Germany for the whole, winter, an last week we had 16 degrees Celsius (60 Fahrenheit). Currently it's 12C/53F at 1p.m.
And tell them the big snow that you had a few weeks ago has the same reason as the second worst heat wave ever we had in 2018 summer. It's artic circulation breaking down because of higher temperatures.
There is a misconception, actually I don't think that's the right word, that big oil lied to the public about climate change. It's more complicated than that. The Earth had been warmer (also cooler) naturally through out it geological history, climate change is always happening. The oil comps just weren't convinced what we were experiencing was truly anthropogenic.
Not misconception.
In the 1970 I think it even was, EXXON scientist, in an internatl study, came to the conclusion that climate change was happening and man-made.
The company reacted by putting that study in the biggest safe and hiring the same people that did the "smoking does not cause cancer" FUD campaign for Big Tobacco to do the same for Big Oil and climate change.
Oh, MasterStache has already said that. I should read all before writing more lol.
Unless somebody can explain to me a way for us to have a growing population, growing global economy, and a neutral or negative growth in emissions?
Yeah, it's a hard one, but not as hard as it might look if we just act towards it. Growth does not need to be = more emissions. It used to be impossible to build refrigerators without gases that damage the ozon layer. Than a small company from Eastern Germany, already planned to be demolished after the collapse of the GDR, raised the hand and said "Um. No. Actually we can do this." (true story).
A very simple and extremely easy measuere would be to just stop stupid overconsumption, and MMM has told you how, not only for Clown cars. US emissions could probably be halved just by everyone switching to mustachian.
You could try to balance it out for the rural folks by making it easier for them to sell the electricity they generate back to the grid to bring the emission down on the power generation front. But then of course you run the risk of people flooding the grid if the numbers aren't right, also effectively people with abundant land would benefit.
I can assure you the problem of grid-feeding is far less severe than you think. It IS a problem, as is storage of electricity, but Germany manages 30% regenerative energies with a bad distribution background (all industry in one part, where the big old power plants are, all wind in the other half for example).
Trump might just do some good here if he manages a thumping global recession... that's a pretty good way to bring down emissions by a decent bit.
LOL yeah. I have mused sometimes that Trump may go in history as the president that made CO2 emissions drop right in the 10 years when it was decisive. History likes her puns!
I think we've already doomed most larger species, including man.
You are going to die. With 100% certainty. So are you going to sit only at home, because there is no sense in doing anything, because it will all vanish for you anyway?
The other big one I'd say is the EU, but compared to the USA we already pollute way less (on average, heavily dependent on the country you're looking at), we already have more ambitious plans (to my knowledge), plus we're a bunch of independent countries so it's much harder to get to 1 overall policy.
I don't think you understand the political EU lol
I’m guessing at some point we’ll hit a critical threshold and the majority will see climate change as (the) major national priority.
Trouble is that this is often a literal generational thing. It may be that we are approaching the point where the "olds" are dying out now, but it still is a close thing.
Nobody has put it better (on a slighly different topic/"ideology") than this guy (really watch it for the laugh):
https://twitter.com/stevemorris__/status/1092807628147879939?s=21
It's really hard to sell something that you won't see in your lifetime. People just do not think that way.
And that is the core why it is a political decision, not a "find out what you can do" one, as the opponents often say. It is not indivudial action that decides, but action of everyone, that have to be made by the society (and, yes, by a certain amount force if necessary, like a carbon tax).
When the Romans build the aqueducts, they didn't do it because the leaders wanted to have fresh water. They had. But they wanted fresh water for all of the "eternal city", and at least one of those aqueducts still does this work today, after 2000 years.
We are now in the position of having to do the same thing, or up to two billion people will see their living conditions worse to uninhabitable in the next 200 years.
Just to get this straight... a heatwave that damages coral is "climate" and a cold wave that freezes politicians is just "weather" due to climate change - right?
No, the single heatwave or coldwave are weather.
The waves coming again and again are caused by climate change.
A coral reef can sustain even a 90% demage year. But maybe not 3 of them in one decade, and we already had 2 of those.
Scientists are activly trying to re-plant the reefs with the more resistant survivors btw. and not sure if they will succeed.
The problem is, sea level just isn't rising any faster. It's not accelerating.
It is. It used to be 1/10th of what it is now just 50 years ago.
As someone who DOES believe the climate is changing but doesn't buy in to the radicalism that has taken over the topic,
Unfortunately the climate does not care if it is radical or not. The change will happen, regardless of how oyu call it, and the results will be incredibly bad for humanity and devasteating to the eco system.
And when the predictions continue to fail, decade after decade,
But they do not O.o Not on any larger scale. They only get more and more correct, like weather prodictions did too in the past.
OF COURSE you can find a wrong prediction. Even one by a famous "climate radical" with 50 years of work in the field. But if there are 99 mainly correct predictions and 1 wrong, I still go with the 99 and don't say they are worthless because there is that one wrong.
Curious. If everyone TRULY believed these were problems that will be catastrophic in just a few short years, especially insurance companies with professional actuaries, then why are massive new developments being approved on the Miami coastline?
If I remember right, because there was a law enacted that explicitly forbid to calculate with the "fake news" climate change in development plans.
Might have been a different city though.
I know "more hurricanes" was a bullshit prediction that failed miserably.
That is not a topic I know much about. But taking a short look into Wikipedia, it says:
Mayor hurricanes, 1850-1854 (to take the earliest 5 years): 5
1970-1974: 6
2010-2014: 13
For me, that looks like an increase, not like the same or even less.
And now when it gets really cold, supposedly that's due to global warming, too.
As I wrote above, failing polar circulation. I know a nice explainer video, but it's in German.
And no, you cannot say "it is because of global warming" in the strict sense, because it is not a 1:1 causation. But the warming makes all those effects far more likely and more severe.
So, in the common sense, "caused by global warming" is right, even if you can't put a statistical point to a certain cause. It is like cancer. You can get lung cancer without having build a WWII warship (asbestos), but having build one you still have 10 times higher risk to get it. Asbestos causes cancer. Global warming causes waves of extreme weather. It is actually this easy!
AOC is taking a lot of heat for acting like an economic retard and torpedoing the Amazon deal which would have brought billions to the State and created countless jobs.
It's another straw man, for if you want: Nobody prevents Amazon from building. They just don't get any extras. Do we need to heavily subsidize the company (which is known for extremely bad working conditions btw) of the richest man in the world with tax payer money?
The point that you are so politically radicalized
No, the point is that you ignore measured facts again and again and every time someone points that out you are going "you are so politically radicalized" as if you were an ISIS suicide bomber hearing someone saying that dying for the Quoran is something only stupid people do.
-
Anyways. It's simple. We all want less pollution, clean air, renewable energy, etc.
Can you provide evidence that Trump is actively pursuing renewable energy supportive policies?
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy/trump-just-gave-renewable-energy-a-long-awaited-victory
https://www.denverpost.com/2018/04/23/donald-trump-stance-wind-power/
Even CNN:
https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/26/investing/renewable-energy-trump-solar-coal/index.html
And if you read the CNN article, especially the last section, keep in mind the current administration has moved hard towards allowing States more control over their energy/pollution.
-
BTW, when are you going to acknowledge all your dubious claims earlier? It's really tough to take anyone seriously who shows a serious lack of integrity.
Already have.
Couldn't find where you acknowledged you were wrong about the polar bear population. Can you link and/or copy your admission of pushing a dubious claim?
I see you have admitted defeat. Thank you.
And for what it's worth:
https://dailycaller.com/2017/02/16/polar-bear-numbers-still-on-the-rise-despite-global-warming/
-
It is. It used to be 1/10th of what it is now just 50 years ago.
No, it's not.
https://judithcurry.com/2016/02/23/is-sea-level-rise-accelerating/
"The key issue is whether the sea level rise during the past 50 years reflect an acceleration in sea level rise. The IPCC figure 3.14 suggests that there is no acceleration, given the large rates of sea level rise in the first half of the 20th century."
That is not a topic I know much about. But taking a short look into Wikipedia, it says:
Mayor hurricanes, 1850-1854 (to take the earliest 5 years): 5
1970-1974: 6
2010-2014: 13
For me, that looks like an increase, not like the same or even less.
As a South Florida resident, it's a topic I know quite a bit about. Every single year, without fail, we are told it's going to be a horrible season with brutal hurricanes, lots of them, and way more intensity. And nearly every year that doesn't happen. But I'll let a NOAA researcher explain why we still expected increases:
"Gerry Bell, a hurricane forecaster at NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center, told reporters in August that researchers have seen “a lot of active hurricane seasons in the Atlantic” since 1995 that have been linked to warmer ocean temperatures. He said the Atlantic has historically produced 25 to 40-year stretches of warmth, when hurricane activity increases, followed by cooling, when it slows. Reduced activity between 2013 and 2015 led researchers to speculate that “maybe we’re getting out of” the warming phase, Bell said."
It's another straw man, for if you want: Nobody prevents Amazon from building. They just don't get any extras. Do we need to heavily subsidize the company (which is known for extremely bad working conditions btw) of the richest man in the world with tax payer money?
It's not a straw man at all. It's the reality of what happened and the fact that competition does exist. These weren't credits (as AOC famously claimed) - they were INCENTIVES. In other words, Amazon brings in $30 billion in new taxes and countless high paying jobs (who all pay taxes), and we'll give them a break on $3 billion. That's a nice incentive to get done what we need done and still bring in a massive positive outcome. We give tax incentives for all sorts of things. That's how it works. The government uses the tax code to incentivize clean energy all the time. Solar, wind, etc. Tax incentives to buy electric cars is a popular one. Subsidies to solar companies.
The tax code is basically how the government gets things done without resorting to governmental takeover of industries. It's literally how it works. It's how you get people to invest more, buy things, etc. By offering incentives.
-
You still keep going on about entire states/islands being underwater, people dying, etc. I don't even know what that's all about. Maybe somewhere at some point decades ago somebody said something to you that has had you in an uproar all these years?? I really don't know.
This has been pretty damn mainstream climate propaganda for quite some time.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/jasmin-guenette/al-gores-inconvenient-sequel_b_16669842.html
https://dailycaller.com/2015/05/04/25-years-of-predicting-the-global-warming-tipping-point/
two blogs using some of the same talking points you've used in this thread that have been disproven when put into proper context or by provided data.
https://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html?pagewanted=all
A NY Times article from 1988 which predicts:
The rise in global temperature is predicted to cause a thermal expansion of the oceans and to melt glaciers and polar ice, thus causing sea levels to rise by one to four feet by the middle of the next century.
From 1-4 feet ~2050 you get whole states underwater in 2019? Even Miami has a high altitude of just >6'.
I'm actually pretty impressed by what they knew 30 years ago.
Of course those claims were disproven. That was my entire point. I never claimed the IPCC made these claims. I have said it's been the mainstream rhetoric used to advance political agendas. People like Al Gore (a politician, mind you) have absolutely claimed the ice caps would be gone and massive sea level rise by now. It's you guys who then say "oh, where did the IPCC make this claim, book and page number." I would say "Exactly."
On the other hand, I have also pointed out data and reports, which you conveniently skip over. Let's take the NY Times article from 30 years ago. Here is the problem, we are more than half way towards their doomsday date and NO acceleration. We aren't talking 5 - 10 years later. It's been a long ass time. Yet the sea level rise is still as slow as it ever was. 1 - 4 feet by 2050? We are pacing a few inches. When is that big jump we have been haring about since the 80's? Any day now.... What are you impressed by? That they have been wrong?
"the higher temperatures can now be attributed to a long-expected global warming trend linked to pollution" - the earth IS warming and has been for a very long time. Sea levels have been rising and have been for a very long time. The problem is all the human caused acceleration hasn't panned out one bit. 30 years later and no acceleration. And I'd say again, how many more decades have to go by until we are allowed to voice skepticism without being labeled some sort of "denier"?
You've misunderstood. When I said these claims have been disproven I was referring to claims like "Polar bear population is increasing and therefore everything is fine." Put into context, you realize hunting restrictions are an added variable which make it very possible that overall numbers have increased while habitat has been lost.
Regarding Al Gore and "an Inconvenient Truth" I'm definitely not a fan. He used worst cases scenarios, misrepresented some of the science and used all kinds of emotional and scare tactics. I think his intentions were good but you're right, he's a politician and the best way most politicians know to get people to do what they want is to scare them. All that said, he still didn't predict that the polar ice caps would be gone by now, he said that there was a possibility that there would be no summer sea ice. Here's a better explanation of how he was wrong:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ice-caps-melt-gore-2014/
On the 1-4 foot estimate, we're less than halfway to the prediction date so you can't really say they were wrong yet, however current estimates indicate we may fall short of the low end estimate of 1'. I don't see how this is evidence that anyone has predicted Florida being underwater. When I said I was impressed by what they knew, I was referring to the article as a whole.
-
On the 1-4 foot estimate, we're less than halfway to the prediction date so you can't really say they were wrong yet, however current estimates indicate we may fall short of the low end estimate of 1'. I don't see how this is evidence that anyone has predicted Florida being underwater. When I said I was impressed by what they knew, I was referring to the article as a whole.
You are taking 2 different points I made and conflating them. One is the doomsday political rhetoric, and the other is the actual data/science (which is rather doomsday but certainly not the same extent of the politicians). I know the IPCC has not claimed Florida would be gone by now.
But what the IPCC and global warming scientists have claimed is acceleration that must be tackled right away. The problem is, as you even just admitted, is that it's not really happening the way they say it would. Falling short of the 1' estimate is a really big deal. The seas have been rising for thousands of years. That's nothing new. They were rising before the industrial revolution. We are being sold on a catastrophe but the reality seems to be the seas are kind of just rising as they have for a very, very long time. If the estimates can't even hit the low side, what does that really say about the reality of man caused global warming vs what we are being told? Again, falling short of the low end estimate literally means no acceleration..... and you just admitted that current estimates appear to fall short of the 1' rise. Food for thought and maybe a catalyst to some deeper thinking on the subject.
-
BTW, when are you going to acknowledge all your dubious claims earlier? It's really tough to take anyone seriously who shows a serious lack of integrity.
Already have.
Couldn't find where you acknowledged you were wrong about the polar bear population. Can you link and/or copy your admission of pushing a dubious claim?
I see you have admitted defeat. Thank you.
And for what it's worth:
https://dailycaller.com/2017/02/16/polar-bear-numbers-still-on-the-rise-despite-global-warming/
From the sources provided in your own link: "contrary to the assertions of Polar Bear Specialist Group scientists, Baffin Bay and Kane Basin subpopulations have not been declining but are stable."
2 obvious points stand out:
1. They examined only 2 sub-groups of polar bears, not the entire population.
2. The conclusion was "stable" not an increase (as you suggested). Actually it was only "likely stable" for one subpopulation.
This is a good read if you think think bears are thriving in the Baffin Bay region (FYI it's a published paper, not a link to a biased media site like the Daily Caller):
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.3809 (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.3809)
-
FYI the Daily Caller has a very right leaning media. In terms of science it helps your argument to link to actual published science. Even their headline (to the article you linked to) is grossly misleading.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/ (https://www.sciencedaily.com/) Science daily is a good web site - they publish synopses of scientific journal articles on a wide range of subjects. Including climate change. Much more reliable than most popular press articles, no matter the political leanings of the popular press. And you can always see the source article.
-
BTW, when are you going to acknowledge all your dubious claims earlier? It's really tough to take anyone seriously who shows a serious lack of integrity.
Already have.
Couldn't find where you acknowledged you were wrong about the polar bear population. Can you link and/or copy your admission of pushing a dubious claim?
I see you have admitted defeat. Thank you.
And for what it's worth:
https://dailycaller.com/2017/02/16/polar-bear-numbers-still-on-the-rise-despite-global-warming/
From the sources provided in your own link: "contrary to the assertions of Polar Bear Specialist Group scientists, Baffin Bay and Kane Basin subpopulations have not been declining but are stable."
2 obvious points stand out:
1. They examined only 2 sub-groups of polar bears, not the entire population.
2. The conclusion was "stable" not an increase (as you suggested). Actually it was only "likely stable" for one subpopulation.
This is a good read if you think think bears are thriving in the Baffin Bay region (FYI it's a published paper, not a link to a biased media site like the Daily Caller):
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.3809 (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.3809)
I don't care how "biased" a media site is providing they make a good argument and cite sources. I also posted a Huff Po article. The article I provided is well cited. It's ok if you disagree with the sources and facts that are used. This is pretty much irrelevant though and you seem to be sticking to one minor comment about polar bears to grasp on to, which is why it's clear you are conceding.
-
On the 1-4 foot estimate, we're less than halfway to the prediction date so you can't really say they were wrong yet, however current estimates indicate we may fall short of the low end estimate of 1'. I don't see how this is evidence that anyone has predicted Florida being underwater. When I said I was impressed by what they knew, I was referring to the article as a whole.
You are taking 2 different points I made and conflating them. One is the doomsday political rhetoric, and the other is the actual data/science (which is rather doomsday but certainly not the same extent of the politicians). I know the IPCC has not claimed Florida would be gone by now.
But what the IPCC and global warming scientists have claimed is acceleration that must be tackled right away. The problem is, as you even just admitted, is that it's not really happening the way they say it would. Falling short of the 1' estimate is a really big deal. The seas have been rising for thousands of years. That's nothing new. They were rising before the industrial revolution. We are being sold on a catastrophe but the reality seems to be the seas are kind of just rising as they have for a very, very long time. If the estimates can't even hit the low side, what does that really say about the reality of man caused global warming vs what we are being told? Again, falling short of the low end estimate literally means no acceleration..... and you just admitted that current estimates appear to fall short of the 1' rise. Food for thought and maybe a catalyst to some deeper thinking on the subject.
You posted that article in response to:
You still keep going on about entire states/islands being underwater, people dying, etc. I don't even know what that's all about. Maybe somewhere at some point decades ago somebody said something to you that has had you in an uproar all these years?? I really don't know.
In an honest discussion we would assume an article linked in response to this statement would either support or dispute it. Do you see why I might have "conflated" those two things? You're essentially saying X is true because Y... but Y isn't even related to X.
-
On the 1-4 foot estimate, we're less than halfway to the prediction date so you can't really say they were wrong yet, however current estimates indicate we may fall short of the low end estimate of 1'. I don't see how this is evidence that anyone has predicted Florida being underwater. When I said I was impressed by what they knew, I was referring to the article as a whole.
You are taking 2 different points I made and conflating them. One is the doomsday political rhetoric, and the other is the actual data/science (which is rather doomsday but certainly not the same extent of the politicians). I know the IPCC has not claimed Florida would be gone by now.
But what the IPCC and global warming scientists have claimed is acceleration that must be tackled right away. The problem is, as you even just admitted, is that it's not really happening the way they say it would. Falling short of the 1' estimate is a really big deal. The seas have been rising for thousands of years. That's nothing new. They were rising before the industrial revolution. We are being sold on a catastrophe but the reality seems to be the seas are kind of just rising as they have for a very, very long time. If the estimates can't even hit the low side, what does that really say about the reality of man caused global warming vs what we are being told? Again, falling short of the low end estimate literally means no acceleration..... and you just admitted that current estimates appear to fall short of the 1' rise. Food for thought and maybe a catalyst to some deeper thinking on the subject.
You posted that article in response to:
You still keep going on about entire states/islands being underwater, people dying, etc. I don't even know what that's all about. Maybe somewhere at some point decades ago somebody said something to you that has had you in an uproar all these years?? I really don't know.
In an honest discussion we would assume an article linked in response to this statement would either support or dispute it. Do you see why I might have "conflated" those two things? You're essentially saying X is true because Y... but Y isn't even related to X.
I'm not following you, I'm sorry. I was asked about what all the "islands under water" and what not was about, and I posted an article that demonstrates the political rhetoric being used. This thread is all over the place, I agree. But this is going back to one of my first posts. I was pointing out the doomsday rhetoric and others then demanded IPCC citations. My point was that this rhetoric does exist, and it's pretty much mainstream actually. That doesn't mean it's all coming from the scientists themselves, but this topic is about politics and policy! So the rhetoric being used to advance that policy is important. 83% currently have voted that we "absolutely" need AGGRESSIVE climate change policy. How many of those people do you think are influenced by media and political rhetoric as opposed to actually looking at BOTH sides of the discussion? The problem is that the mainstream has demonized the "other side" of the discussion. If you don't buy in to every little bit of doomsday and support massive policy change and wealth transfer, well then you are just a "science denier" and basically labeled an idiot. And it's effective strategy, really. Look at the results of the poll! Look at the comments about this administration littered throughout the thread. People are highly polarized and radicalized on the topic - to the point where rational thought is almost completely gone.
It doesn't really matter. My position should be clear enough at this point.
-
BTW, when are you going to acknowledge all your dubious claims earlier? It's really tough to take anyone seriously who shows a serious lack of integrity.
Already have.
Couldn't find where you acknowledged you were wrong about the polar bear population. Can you link and/or copy your admission of pushing a dubious claim?
I see you have admitted defeat. Thank you.
And for what it's worth:
https://dailycaller.com/2017/02/16/polar-bear-numbers-still-on-the-rise-despite-global-warming/
From the sources provided in your own link: "contrary to the assertions of Polar Bear Specialist Group scientists, Baffin Bay and Kane Basin subpopulations have not been declining but are stable."
2 obvious points stand out:
1. They examined only 2 sub-groups of polar bears, not the entire population.
2. The conclusion was "stable" not an increase (as you suggested). Actually it was only "likely stable" for one subpopulation.
This is a good read if you think think bears are thriving in the Baffin Bay region (FYI it's a published paper, not a link to a biased media site like the Daily Caller):
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.3809 (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.3809)
I don't care how "biased" a media site is providing they make a good argument and cite sources. I also posted a Huff Po article. The article I provided is well cited. It's ok if you disagree with the sources and facts that are used. This is pretty much irrelevant though and you seem to be sticking to one minor comment about polar bears to grasp on to, which is why it's clear you are conceding.
Except the source contradicts the article and consequently your claim as well (see point #2 above citing the source). I don't disagree with source, rather I disagree with the incorrect conclusion drawn by the article using the source. Upon trying to figure out why I found that the Daily Caller is right leaning. Ergo, it makes sense.
You should look up "Danth's Law"
-
FYI the Daily Caller has a very right leaning media. In terms of science it helps your argument to link to actual published science. Even their headline (to the article you linked to) is grossly misleading.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/ (https://www.sciencedaily.com/) Science daily is a good web site - they publish synopses of scientific journal articles on a wide range of subjects. Including climate change. Much more reliable than most popular press articles, no matter the political leanings of the popular press. And you can always see the source article.
I've always enjoyed SkepticalScience (https://www.skepticalscience.com/)
An absolute wealth of information with tons of links to published research. I enjoy reading the comments section as well as there is some good discussion with dissenters.
-
https://www.sciencedaily.com/ (https://www.sciencedaily.com/) Science daily is a good web site - they publish synopses of scientific journal articles on a wide range of subjects. Including climate change. Much more reliable than most popular press articles, no matter the political leanings of the popular press. And you can always see the source article.
I've always enjoyed SkepticalScience (https://www.skepticalscience.com/)
An absolute wealth of information with tons of links to published research. I enjoy reading the comments section as well as there is some good discussion with dissenters.
[/quote]
It only covers climate change - ScienceDaily covers everything. For general science info I like sources that are not focused on one issue.
-
Trying to put this thread away from the useless "BUT THE WORDS USED!!!" discussion...
We have this situation:
1. There is climate change - a warming of the global temperature
2. It is man made
3. The main cause is humanity's emission of CO2, but other stuff we do has up to 1/4 of the effect; still CO2 is THE big thing and the one we can change the easiest.
4. In the matter of a few generations this will change the planet extremely - to the worse for humans and the ecosystem. Even today people already die in "additional" hurricanes, heat waves, frost waves or whatever weather you want to name.
5. There are multiple, interdependend "tipping points" at 1,5-2 degrees Celsius. If they are activated, it will be really bad.
6. We have only a few years until we reach the point of no return, where those tipping points will invariably triggered (ignoring possibilities like a WWIII)
(7. The people most affected by the warming will be the ones that have the least possibilites to defend against it and also the least responsibility because of History)
We need to do this:
1. Drastically lower the CO2 output, and preferably other greenhouse gas emissions like methane
2. To do this, rebuild the whole economy like we did with electrification
3. Change conceptions about what is a good economy, especially the growth definition. Away from stupid "ever more" (consumption) towards "ever efficient". Growth in the current sense must mainly be seen as waste. Everything you take out of the earth instead of something that humans made before is wasting stuff, or stealing from our children from whom we have lend the earth, as some famous Indian has put it.
(This applies to other things than greenhouse gases too. Water, air, everything. Even if there would be no global warming, we are still wasting away the only planet we have at double the rate it can regenerate)
4. We need to accept that some damage is already done and more will be done. That will have results - like millions of peoples fleeing from fields that no longer can raise crops. Those people must be cared for, preferably before those numbers get so big that we cannot handle them.
How can we do this? How we reach those goals?
-
Trying to put this thread away from the useless "BUT THE WORDS USED!!!" discussion...
Apologies to anyone who finds discussions with people like AlexMar a waste of time. Personally, I don't think we'll be changing his mind, at least not in the short term, but I still find these discussions useful as a way to dig up some of the denialist talking points and try to understand their origins. I have learned a few things, not so much from the conversation but by following the links and digging down into the citations.
That said, I'll admit we've probably passed the point of usefulness on this one.
-
^^^ My biggest worry with LennStar's list is #3 in the "need to do" list. Because "ever more" (consumption) is the foundation, basically, of free-market capitalism. And there will always be people who knee-jerk react to any attempt to address that as "soshulist communist libtard unamerican blabla nanny state blabla"...
I would expect a lot less of that here, on the MMM forums, because one of the tenets of Mustachianism is to recognize that mindless consumption is actually bad. But unfortunately, it's how our economy grows. And that's part of the reason the gubmint won't do much about it (and why the GOP pretends anthropogenic global warming isn't a thing).
But the fact is, this problem goes way beyond "start using reusable bags when you go to the store." Individual actions, at this point, will not solve the problem. It WILL take large impositions of regulation in order to turn things around.
And the fact that the "government is the problem" people have been so successful at their campaign means that we will very likely not get to a point of a critical mass of the electorate DEMANDING action before we are past the point where dramatic, and in some cases catastrophic, consequences can be avoided.
So. Sorry, LennStar, I recognize that your question at the end of that post was "How can we reach those goals?" I don't mean to be a downer. But I guess my response to that question is essentially, "How can we get to the point where there's a critical mass of the electorate demanding action from our governments? Sooner rather than later?"
-
@AlexMar - I pointed out a while back the erroneous claim about polar bear populations, and linked it to an actual study (not a new media article).
Short version is that polar bears remain critically engangered with a total population around 20,000. Of the 19 recognized genetic populations, 17 are in decline. Yes, 2 have had rebounds in recent years, but they are still below their historical estimates. The timeframe is important - when articles cite an increase in a population you must consider where their starting point is. Are they talking about an uptick just in the last few years or a multi-decadal trend?
I also pointed out how fish populations - particularly around Florida - are in decline, how corals there are definitely not healthy and how the apparent stability of the beaches is due to constant rebuilding and armoring efforts which we already spend ~$100MM annually in Florida alone.
Your position(s) aren't clear because your real-world examples are frequently incorrect.
When considering the financial cost of addressing climate change we also must consider what we are already spending in addition to what future costs could look like. At a minimum that will give us a baseline from which future costs will invariably rise (unless one argues that there will be no further warming, which strains credulity).
-
The latest IPCC report says that to stay below the 1.5°C target we need to reduce the emissions by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 and zero the emissions by 2050. To believe that an aggressive climate change policy is needed is to be in line with scientists, not with the "radical left", MSM or whatever.
-
^^^ And on that note, there's this:
The Trump White House is going to manufacture a report that denies climate change findings.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/white-house-to-select-federal-scientists-to-reassess-government-climate-findings-sources-say/2019/02/24/49cd0a84-37dd-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html?fbclid=IwAR2j7oNk-o64HRp1ZyCDvau3P9wLb3_1iJLOzR79SJYozDR6_Eb-0zarddo
-
^^^ And on that note, there's this:
The Trump White House is going to manufacture a report that denies climate change findings.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/white-house-to-select-federal-scientists-to-reassess-government-climate-findings-sources-say/2019/02/24/49cd0a84-37dd-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html?fbclid=IwAR2j7oNk-o64HRp1ZyCDvau3P9wLb3_1iJLOzR79SJYozDR6_Eb-0zarddo
Appointing a panel of fringe scientists with the sole purpose of creating a document to refute global scientific consensus for purely political reasons . . . I hope this is remembered the next time someone tries to equate Republicans with fiscal conservatism.
-
Trying to put this thread away from the useless "BUT THE WORDS USED!!!" discussion...
We have this situation:
1. There is climate change - a warming of the global temperature
2. It is man made
That is one heck of a radical assumption that I'm not sure any scientist would agree with.
By the way, we have already passed countless tipping points. You claim another one is "a few years"... When is that exactly? I'm sure this post will age well for you just like all the other projected tipping points.
-
The latest IPCC report says that to stay below the 1.5°C target we need to reduce the emissions by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 and zero the emissions by 2050. To believe that an aggressive climate change policy is needed is to be in line with scientists, not with the "radical left", MSM or whatever.
The IPCC also told us in 2000 that we would see a 1 degree increase in temperature by 2010. We saw a decrease. Their projections of sea level rise acceleration have been wrong, constantly. They can't predict next year and we are supposed to take their 2050 projections as the gold standard?
-
Trying to put this thread away from the useless "BUT THE WORDS USED!!!" discussion...
We have this situation:
1. There is climate change - a warming of the global temperature
2. It is man made
That is one heck of a radical assumption that I'm not sure any scientist would agree with.
By the way, we have already passed countless tipping points. You claim another one is "a few years"... When is that exactly? I'm sure this post will age well for you just like all the other projected tipping points.
He probably could have just dropped #2 and gone to #3 in his list and had it be more precise. Maybe instead of looking for the things that can be argued, are there things that we can agree on? Would you agree with the statement: The increased CO2 input to the atmosphere due to human activities results in higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations. These increased CO2 levels will result in climate impacts including increased temperature. This warming will also be associated with climactic shifts including changes that will manifest differently by region. Examples could include: changes in snow pack, changes in overall precipitation, changes in relative sea level, changes in sea surface temperature, changes in ocean pH, changes in frequency of extreme weather events (heat/cold waves, etc), changes in wildfire intensity due to changes in climate, among other effects.
-
The IPCC also told us in 2000 that we would see a 1 degree increase in temperature by 2010. We saw a decrease.
Is this true? Link?* Thanks.
* Peer reviewed, please.
-
The IPCC also told us in 2000 that we would see a 1 degree increase in temperature by 2010. We saw a decrease.
Is this true? Link?* Thanks.
* Peer reviewed, please.
Sorry I deleted my post after I saw yours and your explanation ( :
-
assumption that I'm not sure any scientist would agree with.
It doesn't need to be any, as long as it's still 99+% of climatologists, it's good enough for me.
The IPCC also told us in 2000 that we would see a 1 degree increase in temperature by 2010. We saw a decrease. Their projections of sea level rise acceleration have been wrong, constantly. They can't predict next year and we are supposed to take their 2050 projections as the gold standard?
Is this true?
Of course not.
18 of the 19 hottest years in recorded history are after 2000. The 3 (or 4 now) hottest are the last 4 years. And the 10th is 1998.
Yes, you can't predict the weather of next year. But you can be damn sure that in 50 years the decade will be a lot hotter than a decade was 50 years ago.
-
By the way, we have already passed countless tipping points.
Yes, we have had many tipping points in many different ecosystems, leading to a whole host of alternative stable states which, in general, are far less productive and have lower biodiversity.
As examples, many lakes have become eutrophic, urchin barrens have supplanted productive kelp forests, coral reefs have become died as turf algae have overgrown the coral, and deforested mountains become scrub. In all cases the system cannot be reverted back to its former state as easily as it was pushed into this lower diversity one (ie. hysteresis).
Are you suggesting that stop caring about the ecosystems we've altered, and don't attempt to prevent future shifts? Because the cost (both biologically and economically) is astronomical.
-
The IPCC also told us in 2000 that we would see a 1 degree increase in temperature by 2010. We saw a decrease.
It's interesting to see where people get their beliefs.
In this case, it was from a denier conference in 2012 organized by The Heartland Institute.
The results of this conference probably made the rounds and was accepted as truth by those who were already inclined to be deniers. https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/
Don Easterbrook made both claims that AlexMar mentions above.
When pressed about the first -- that the IPCC predicted a 1 degree increase from 2000 to 2010 -- Easterbrook couldn't find the IPCC charts and models he used in his presentation. He didn't have copies and, he claimed, the IPCC had erased those models/charts/whatever from its website. Scandal! Only Easterbrook knew the truth (but he didn't have proof)!
The 2nd claim -- that there was actually a decrease -- was predicted by Easterbrook himself over 10 years prior to the conference. He was wrong as there was warming in the 2000-2010 decade. Who knows why he didn't keep up on the literature and actually chose to dispute the recorded measurements by satellites and ground based instruments.
-
The latest IPCC report says that to stay below the 1.5°C target we need to reduce the emissions by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 and zero the emissions by 2050. To believe that an aggressive climate change policy is needed is to be in line with scientists, not with the "radical left", MSM or whatever.
The IPCC also told us in 2000 that we would see a 1 degree increase in temperature by 2010. We saw a decrease. Their projections of sea level rise acceleration have been wrong, constantly. They can't predict next year and we are supposed to take their 2050 projections as the gold standard?
@AlexMar What exactly are you trying to debate? If you are debating the scientific facts about climate change, many of your points have been shown to be verifiably false (and most of the others are simply irrelevant). For example, the 2001 IPCC report in no way mentioned a 1 degree increase by 2010: https://web.archive.org/web/20060710101208/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig9-13.htm (https://web.archive.org/web/20060710101208/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig9-13.htm). Additionally, it goes through great pains to discuss intra-seasonal, interannual, decadal, and longer time-scale variability, which would completely explain a drop in measured temperature over the period of a decade while the long-term trend continues to rise: https://web.archive.org/web/20060927150043/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/338.htm (https://web.archive.org/web/20060927150043/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/338.htm).
If you want some respect for your intelligence and contributions to this debate, you need to talk in actual facts, not opinions or oil-industry talking points. I'm not sure if you are ignorant of the facts, or if you have some ulterior motive. Assuming you have moral motives, the facts can be found by reading the IPCC reports, the independent Berkeley reports (initially funded by the Koch brothers to disprove anthropogenic global warming), or many other secondary sources on the web.
After we agree on the scientific facts, than we can discuss whether or not it is a good idea to do anything. I love hearing opinions based on facts, but abhor lies (and the spread of alternative facts after decades of the truth being out is beginning to rate as lies).
-
Trying to put this thread away from the useless "BUT THE WORDS USED!!!" discussion...
We have this situation:
1. There is climate change - a warming of the global temperature
2. It is man made
That is one heck of a radical assumption that I'm not sure any scientist would agree with.
By the way, we have already passed countless tipping points. You claim another one is "a few years"... When is that exactly? I'm sure this post will age well for you just like all the other projected tipping points.
He probably could have just dropped #2 and gone to #3 in his list and had it be more precise. Maybe instead of looking for the things that can be argued, are there things that we can agree on? Would you agree with the statement: The increased CO2 input to the atmosphere due to human activities results in higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations. These increased CO2 levels will result in climate impacts including increased temperature. This warming will also be associated with climactic shifts including changes that will manifest differently by region. Examples could include: changes in snow pack, changes in overall precipitation, changes in relative sea level, changes in sea surface temperature, changes in ocean pH, changes in frequency of extreme weather events (heat/cold waves, etc), changes in wildfire intensity due to changes in climate, among other effects.
Sure. I would agree that it's plausible man is having some effect on the climate through CO2 emissions. I would probably disagree on to what extent man is having an effect and that it's even a bad thing. CO2 isn't necessarily a bad thing. More people die of cold weather than warm weather. Food doesn't grow well in sub zero temperatures. And I'm not convinced that the earth isn't capable of balancing itself to a reasonable degree.
-
The IPCC also told us in 2000 that we would see a 1 degree increase in temperature by 2010. We saw a decrease.
Is this true? Link?* Thanks.
* Peer reviewed, please.
I was going from memory, but this is the best article I could find on it. I thought the cooling cycle was pretty well established and reported anyways, where warming pretty much stopped for what was it, a decade or so? I think there are mixed opinions on the pause in global warming, you are certainly entitled to yours.
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/climate-scientist-who-got-it-right-predicts-20-more-years-global
Ah, yes I see you found an Easterbrook article. I've seen plenty of articles on a cooling period. Sorry you disagree, that's ok.
-
The IPCC also told us in 2000 that we would see a 1 degree increase in temperature by 2010. We saw a decrease.
Is this true? Link?* Thanks.
* Peer reviewed, please.
I was going from memory, but this is the best article I could find on it. I thought the cooling cycle was pretty well established and reported anyways, where warming pretty much stopped for what was it, a decade or so? I think there are mixed opinions on the pause in global warming, you are certainly entitled to yours.
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/climate-scientist-who-got-it-right-predicts-20-more-years-global
I beat you to it. Easterbrook was wrong. He's also using his...sloppy data for this assertion, "They’re off by a full degree in one decade, which is huge." The IPCC never predicted a 1 degree increase from 2000 to 2010.
The warming didn't increase as much as expected but there was warming. There's been even more warming since 2010.
-
More people die of cold weather than warm weather.
...just for fun... Do you have even the slightest source for the above claim? Because you seem to be stating as fact things that you have no evidence for.
I can't point to data either way, but can tell you that a crap-ton of people die every year from events linked to drought (yes, droughts are correlated to heat) and heat-stress.
-
The latest IPCC report says that to stay below the 1.5°C target we need to reduce the emissions by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 and zero the emissions by 2050. To believe that an aggressive climate change policy is needed is to be in line with scientists, not with the "radical left", MSM or whatever.
The IPCC also told us in 2000 that we would see a 1 degree increase in temperature by 2010. We saw a decrease. Their projections of sea level rise acceleration have been wrong, constantly. They can't predict next year and we are supposed to take their 2050 projections as the gold standard?
@AlexMar What exactly are you trying to debate? If you are debating the scientific facts about climate change, many of your points have been shown to be verifiably false (and most of the others are simply irrelevant). For example, the 2001 IPCC report in no way mentioned a 1 degree increase by 2010: https://web.archive.org/web/20060710101208/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig9-13.htm (https://web.archive.org/web/20060710101208/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig9-13.htm). Additionally, it goes through great pains to discuss intra-seasonal, interannual, decadal, and longer time-scale variability, which would completely explain a drop in measured temperature over the period of a decade while the long-term trend continues to rise: https://web.archive.org/web/20060927150043/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/338.htm (https://web.archive.org/web/20060927150043/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/338.htm).
If you want some respect for your intelligence and contributions to this debate, you need to talk in actual facts, not opinions or oil-industry talking points. I'm not sure if you are ignorant of the facts, or if you have some ulterior motive. Assuming you have moral motives, the facts can be found by reading the IPCC reports, the independent Berkeley reports (initially funded by the Koch brothers to disprove anthropogenic global warming), or many other secondary sources on the web.
After we agree on the scientific facts, than we can discuss whether or not it is a good idea to do anything. I love hearing opinions based on facts, but abhor lies (and the spread of alternative facts after decades of the truth being out is beginning to rate as lies).
I feel like I'd have to retype half my posts here. But I would say the fact that the entire warming debate surrounds computer models (that seem to constantly be wrong) would be a good start. The sea level rise has simply not accelerated. And we have been told this for decades now. And as I've said several times, at what point do we get stand back and say: "look, you keep talking about CO2 and acceleration in temperatures, rapid sea level rise, etc.... and it simply keeps not happening". Over and over. All of these catastrophic events are simply not happening. And it's been what, 30 years of this nonsense? The same old tired story that it's "coming in a few years." I don't buy in to the narrative. I wish it wasn't so polarized. I wish the narrative wasn't so extreme. Either you accept the very extreme predictions as fact and demand aggressive changes or you are a denier. Absolutely no middle ground. I'm very much a centrist. I appreciate the science, I like reading about it. I support continuing it. But I also don't buy in to the radical interpretations of it. There are very well reasoned arguments on "the other side" of this, too. A consensus isn't science. Once you have a consensus, you aren't doing science anymore.
-
The warming didn't increase as much as expected
At least we are making progress :)
-
Easterbrook's most clearly stated claim was from 2006, when he said that we'd see cooling over the next 2 decades. At least that was a verifiable claim, and we'll see if he was right in another 7 years.
So far, that has not panned out, at least per NASA. The general trend (with a few years a bit cooler) has been hotter since then, and certainly not cooler. There is still time for Easterbrook to be right. I for one hope he is, but suspect he won't be.
You can see it broken down by year here: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
I guess you can just say you don't believe NASA, though, and around and around we go.
-W
-
I can't point to data either way, but can tell you that a crap-ton of people die every year from events linked to drought (yes, droughts are correlated to heat) and heat-stress.
Fair enough. 18 people died in Chicago this year alone due to the extreme cold. I'm not sure I've heard too many similar stories of people dying when it's warm outside in Chicago.
-
The warming didn't increase as much as expected
At least we are making progress :)
Why did you ignore the part where you repeated Easterbrook’s false assertion?
-
Easterbrook's most clearly stated claim was from 2006, when he said that we'd see cooling over the next 2 decades. At least that was a verifiable claim, and we'll see if he was right in another 7 years.
So far, that has not panned out, at least per NASA. The general trend (with a few years a bit cooler) has been hotter since then, and certainly not cooler. There is still time for Easterbrook to be right. I for one hope he is, but suspect he won't be.
You can see it broken down by year here: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
I guess you can just say you don't believe NASA, though, and around and around we go.
-W
I'm open to it. The warming hiatus was pretty widely reported and we STILL haven't seen any acceleration in sea level rise. So even if it wasn't colder and there is no hiatus, then why is it that over 20 years the sea level seems to be rising at the same rate it always has. This is crunch time, right? We have been warned about this for decades now. But it just keeps on not happening.
AOC just warned us not to have kids (seriously) because they will suffer due to climate change.
-
The warming didn't increase as much as expected
At least we are making progress :)
Why did you ignore the part where you repeated Easterbrook’s false assertion?
Why do you refuse to recognize the models were wrong?
-
I feel like I'd have to retype half my posts here. But I would say the fact that the entire warming debate surrounds computer models (that seem to constantly be wrong) would be a good start. The sea level rise has simply not accelerated. And we have been told this for decades now. And as I've said several times, at what point do we get stand back and say: "look, you keep talking about CO2 and acceleration in temperatures, rapid sea level rise, etc.... and it simply keeps not happening". Over and over. All of these catastrophic events are simply not happening. And it's been what, 30 years of this nonsense? The same old tired story that it's "coming in a few years." I don't buy in to the narrative. I wish it wasn't so polarized. I wish the narrative wasn't so extreme. Either you accept the very extreme predictions as fact and demand aggressive changes or you are a denier. Absolutely no middle ground. I'm very much a centrist. I appreciate the science, I like reading about it. I support continuing it. But I also don't buy in to the radical interpretations of it. There are very well reasoned arguments on "the other side" of this, too. A consensus isn't science. Once you have a consensus, you aren't doing science anymore.
No. As I've pointed out *many* times throughout this thread, we have already seen substantial impacts of a changing climate, including and beyond sea level change.
These are not things that are predicted to come. These are changes that have already happened.
The Gulf of Maine has risen almost 2 degrees in the last decade. So have the great lakes. We've seen range shifts in everything from birds to crabs to seaweeds. Coral cover has decreased throughout the Caribbean and globally. Ice cover has decreased and ocean acidity has increased.
There's lots of 'middle ground' - lots of areas to have discussion, but not when people refute what has already happened and then claim that models to predict where we are going must also be wrong.
-
I feel like I'd have to retype half my posts here. But I would say the fact that the entire warming debate surrounds computer models (that seem to constantly be wrong) would be a good start. The sea level rise has simply not accelerated. And we have been told this for decades now. And as I've said several times, at what point do we get stand back and say: "look, you keep talking about CO2 and acceleration in temperatures, rapid sea level rise, etc.... and it simply keeps not happening". Over and over. All of these catastrophic events are simply not happening. And it's been what, 30 years of this nonsense? The same old tired story that it's "coming in a few years." I don't buy in to the narrative. I wish it wasn't so polarized. I wish the narrative wasn't so extreme. Either you accept the very extreme predictions as fact and demand aggressive changes or you are a denier. Absolutely no middle ground. I'm very much a centrist. I appreciate the science, I like reading about it. I support continuing it. But I also don't buy in to the radical interpretations of it. There are very well reasoned arguments on "the other side" of this, too. A consensus isn't science. Once you have a consensus, you aren't doing science anymore.
No. As I've pointed out *many* times throughout this thread, we have already seen substantial impacts of a changing climate, including and beyond sea level change.
These are not things that are predicted to come. These are changes that have already happened.
The Gulf of Maine has risen almost 2 degrees in the last decade. So are the great lakes. We've seen range shifts in everything from birds to crabs to seaweeds. Coral cover has decreased throughout the Caribbean and globally. Ice cover has decreased and ocean acidity has increased.
There's lots of 'middle ground' - lots of areas to have discussion, but not when people refute what has already happened and then claim that models to rpedict where we are going must also be wrong.
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum
-
The warming didn't increase as much as expected
At least we are making progress :)
Why did you ignore the part where you repeated Easterbrook’s false assertion?
Why do you refuse to recognize the models were wrong?
Do you still believe what you wrote below?
Or will you woman up and admit that you were wrong?
The IPCC also told us in 2000 that we would see a 1 degree increase in temperature by 2010. We saw a decrease.
-
I feel like I'd have to retype half my posts here. But I would say the fact that the entire warming debate surrounds computer models (that seem to constantly be wrong) would be a good start. The sea level rise has simply not accelerated. And we have been told this for decades now. And as I've said several times, at what point do we get stand back and say: "look, you keep talking about CO2 and acceleration in temperatures, rapid sea level rise, etc.... and it simply keeps not happening". Over and over. All of these catastrophic events are simply not happening. And it's been what, 30 years of this nonsense? The same old tired story that it's "coming in a few years." I don't buy in to the narrative. I wish it wasn't so polarized. I wish the narrative wasn't so extreme. Either you accept the very extreme predictions as fact and demand aggressive changes or you are a denier. Absolutely no middle ground. I'm very much a centrist. I appreciate the science, I like reading about it. I support continuing it. But I also don't buy in to the radical interpretations of it. There are very well reasoned arguments on "the other side" of this, too. A consensus isn't science. Once you have a consensus, you aren't doing science anymore.
No. As I've pointed out *many* times throughout this thread, we have already seen substantial impacts of a changing climate, including and beyond sea level change.
These are not things that are predicted to come. These are changes that have already happened.
The Gulf of Maine has risen almost 2 degrees in the last decade. So are the great lakes. We've seen range shifts in everything from birds to crabs to seaweeds. Coral cover has decreased throughout the Caribbean and globally. Ice cover has decreased and ocean acidity has increased.
There's lots of 'middle ground' - lots of areas to have discussion, but not when people refute what has already happened and then claim that models to rpedict where we are going must also be wrong.
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum
From your link:
"Antarctica and the Arctic are two very different environments: the former is a continent surrounded by ocean, the latter is ocean enclosed by land. As a result, sea ice behaves very differently in the two regions. While the Antarctic sea ice yearly wintertime maximum extent hit record highs from 2012 to 2014 before returning to average levels in 2015, both the Arctic wintertime maximum and its summer minimum extent have been in a sharp decline for the past decades. Studies show that globally, the decreases in Arctic sea ice far exceed the increases in Antarctic sea ice."
-
Background - we are in an inter-glacial. It isn't clear what tips an interglacial back to glacial, or how fast it happens, but we saw a little ice age in Europe in the 1400's (going from memory here, dates could be off) that started quite abruptly, so without added greenhouse gases we could be cooling - or not. Who knows?
In the late 60's and 70 's, given that we are in an interglacial, there was concern about an actual mild cooling trend seen due to an increased albedo (reflecting light back to space before it ever hits the planet) because we were putting so much particulate matter into the atmosphere (pollution particles, dust from soil erosion, volcanoes, all of the above).
We cleaned up a lot of the particulate mater (smoke stack scrubbers, some better farming practices), we got rid of the ozone layer destroying chemicals despite all the dire warnings about the loss of refrigerants so it is basically holding its own now, not worsening.
The thing is, we are already seeing more effects from heat increase than we saw with the cooling, but the greenhouse gas issue seems to meet more resistance.
Just to point out basic chemistry - CO2 dissolved in water dissociates into bicarbonate and carbonate ions, which means water with more CO2 dissolved in it becomes more acidic. Remember acid rain? That is where the acid came from, the various oxides of carbon, sulfur and nitrogen. Animals with external hard skeletons of calcium salts (think snails, clams) have trouble making their shells, because the acid dissolves them. I have canoed in the shallows of an acid lake, and I saw zero clams and snails in habitat that should have had high numbers.
Radiolarans and Foraminifera, which have external calcium skeletons, are marine zooplankton that often have symbiotic algae, and are an important part of the marine food chain. If the oceans become more acid these plankton will suffer, and everything that eats them will suffer, all the way up the food chain. Nereo referred to this earlier, but I don't think people got the significance.
So even if the global climate was not an issue, the significance of ocean acidification should be an issue. Because all those fish that people want to eat? What are those fish going to eat?
-
I feel like I'd have to retype half my posts here. But I would say the fact that the entire warming debate surrounds computer models (that seem to constantly be wrong) would be a good start. The sea level rise has simply not accelerated. And we have been told this for decades now. And as I've said several times, at what point do we get stand back and say: "look, you keep talking about CO2 and acceleration in temperatures, rapid sea level rise, etc.... and it simply keeps not happening". Over and over. All of these catastrophic events are simply not happening. And it's been what, 30 years of this nonsense? The same old tired story that it's "coming in a few years." I don't buy in to the narrative. I wish it wasn't so polarized. I wish the narrative wasn't so extreme. Either you accept the very extreme predictions as fact and demand aggressive changes or you are a denier. Absolutely no middle ground. I'm very much a centrist. I appreciate the science, I like reading about it. I support continuing it. But I also don't buy in to the radical interpretations of it. There are very well reasoned arguments on "the other side" of this, too. A consensus isn't science. Once you have a consensus, you aren't doing science anymore.
No. As I've pointed out *many* times throughout this thread, we have already seen substantial impacts of a changing climate, including and beyond sea level change.
These are not things that are predicted to come. These are changes that have already happened.
The Gulf of Maine has risen almost 2 degrees in the last decade. So are the great lakes. We've seen range shifts in everything from birds to crabs to seaweeds. Coral cover has decreased throughout the Caribbean and globally. Ice cover has decreased and ocean acidity has increased.
There's lots of 'middle ground' - lots of areas to have discussion, but not when people refute what has already happened and then claim that models to rpedict where we are going must also be wrong.
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum
Do you even understand what you are linking? See Barbaebigode's response.
It's like the polar bear example you brought up: most populations have seen huge declines, whereas a very few have seen marginal increases. Overall the global trend is clear. You keep pointing to the outliers and try to ignore what has already happened. It's like pointing to a few companies who's stock price went up in 2008 and arguing that the 'great recession' never happened.
-
The latest IPCC report says that to stay below the 1.5°C target we need to reduce the emissions by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 and zero the emissions by 2050. To believe that an aggressive climate change policy is needed is to be in line with scientists, not with the "radical left", MSM or whatever.
The IPCC also told us in 2000 that we would see a 1 degree increase in temperature by 2010. We saw a decrease. Their projections of sea level rise acceleration have been wrong, constantly. They can't predict next year and we are supposed to take their 2050 projections as the gold standard?
@AlexMar What exactly are you trying to debate? If you are debating the scientific facts about climate change, many of your points have been shown to be verifiably false (and most of the others are simply irrelevant). For example, the 2001 IPCC report in no way mentioned a 1 degree increase by 2010: https://web.archive.org/web/20060710101208/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig9-13.htm (https://web.archive.org/web/20060710101208/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig9-13.htm). Additionally, it goes through great pains to discuss intra-seasonal, interannual, decadal, and longer time-scale variability, which would completely explain a drop in measured temperature over the period of a decade while the long-term trend continues to rise: https://web.archive.org/web/20060927150043/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/338.htm (https://web.archive.org/web/20060927150043/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/338.htm).
If you want some respect for your intelligence and contributions to this debate, you need to talk in actual facts, not opinions or oil-industry talking points. I'm not sure if you are ignorant of the facts, or if you have some ulterior motive. Assuming you have moral motives, the facts can be found by reading the IPCC reports, the independent Berkeley reports (initially funded by the Koch brothers to disprove anthropogenic global warming), or many other secondary sources on the web.
After we agree on the scientific facts, than we can discuss whether or not it is a good idea to do anything. I love hearing opinions based on facts, but abhor lies (and the spread of alternative facts after decades of the truth being out is beginning to rate as lies).
I feel like I'd have to retype half my posts here. But I would say the fact that the entire warming debate surrounds computer models (that seem to constantly be wrong) would be a good start. The sea level rise has simply not accelerated. And we have been told this for decades now. And as I've said several times, at what point do we get stand back and say: "look, you keep talking about CO2 and acceleration in temperatures, rapid sea level rise, etc.... and it simply keeps not happening". Over and over. All of these catastrophic events are simply not happening. And it's been what, 30 years of this nonsense? The same old tired story that it's "coming in a few years." I don't buy in to the narrative. I wish it wasn't so polarized. I wish the narrative wasn't so extreme. Either you accept the very extreme predictions as fact and demand aggressive changes or you are a denier. Absolutely no middle ground. I'm very much a centrist. I appreciate the science, I like reading about it. I support continuing it. But I also don't buy in to the radical interpretations of it. There are very well reasoned arguments on "the other side" of this, too. A consensus isn't science. Once you have a consensus, you aren't doing science anymore.
You're doing it again. You're stating 'facts' that simply aren't true. Please go through the reports and point out exactly where these failures of the models have occurred (the posts you've already made have been refuted multiple times). And do so without nitpicking irrelevant details or focusing on noise while missing the signal.
Listen, I know relating to the threat of climate change can be frustrating due to its actions occurring over the periods of human generations and over temperature differences that seem like noise compared to the swings between highs and lows in a single day. But it makes it no less a threat. We're performing a dangerous experiment where we're piling blankets on the earth with no way to remove them (sorry, the invisible hand doesn't yet have that power) and with time constants on the order of magnitude of human lifetimes (or longer), so that we haven't yet begun to experience the full effects of the gases we've already emitted, let alone the ones we continue to emit.
-
I can't point to data either way, but can tell you that a crap-ton of people die every year from events linked to drought (yes, droughts are correlated to heat) and heat-stress.
Fair enough. 18 people died in Chicago this year alone due to the extreme cold. I'm not sure I've heard too many similar stories of people dying when it's warm outside in Chicago.
739 heat-related deaths: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Chicago_heat_wave (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Chicago_heat_wave)
-
Trying to put this thread away from the useless "BUT THE WORDS USED!!!" discussion...
We have this situation:
1. There is climate change - a warming of the global temperature
2. It is man made
3. The main cause is humanity's emission of CO2, but other stuff we do has up to 1/4 of the effect; still CO2 is THE big thing and the one we can change the easiest.
4. In the matter of a few generations this will change the planet extremely - to the worse for humans and the ecosystem. Even today people already die in "additional" hurricanes, heat waves, frost waves or whatever weather you want to name.
5. There are multiple, interdependend "tipping points" at 1,5-2 degrees Celsius. If they are activated, it will be really bad.
6. We have only a few years until we reach the point of no return, where those tipping points will invariably triggered (ignoring possibilities like a WWIII)
(7. The people most affected by the warming will be the ones that have the least possibilites to defend against it and also the least responsibility because of History)
We need to do this:
1. Drastically lower the CO2 output, and preferably other greenhouse gas emissions like methane
2. To do this, rebuild the whole economy like we did with electrification
3. Change conceptions about what is a good economy, especially the growth definition. Away from stupid "ever more" (consumption) towards "ever efficient". Growth in the current sense must mainly be seen as waste. Everything you take out of the earth instead of something that humans made before is wasting stuff, or stealing from our children from whom we have lend the earth, as some famous Indian has put it.
(This applies to other things than greenhouse gases too. Water, air, everything. Even if there would be no global warming, we are still wasting away the only planet we have at double the rate it can regenerate)
4. We need to accept that some damage is already done and more will be done. That will have results - like millions of peoples fleeing from fields that no longer can raise crops. Those people must be cared for, preferably before those numbers get so big that we cannot handle them.
How can we do this? How we reach those goals?
We can only make individual actions at this time: drive less, fly less, and eat less meat. Consume less, ultimately.
In the US, the Senate tips conservative so we'll have to deal with the consequences until the deniers fade out like an incandescent bulb collection or until they finally, begrudgingly, admit to climate change. It'll probably be more expensive to hide our heads in the sand but that's the reality.
-
I feel like I'd have to retype half my posts here. But I would say the fact that the entire warming debate surrounds computer models (that seem to constantly be wrong) would be a good start. The sea level rise has simply not accelerated. And we have been told this for decades now. And as I've said several times, at what point do we get stand back and say: "look, you keep talking about CO2 and acceleration in temperatures, rapid sea level rise, etc.... and it simply keeps not happening". Over and over. All of these catastrophic events are simply not happening. And it's been what, 30 years of this nonsense? The same old tired story that it's "coming in a few years." I don't buy in to the narrative. I wish it wasn't so polarized. I wish the narrative wasn't so extreme. Either you accept the very extreme predictions as fact and demand aggressive changes or you are a denier. Absolutely no middle ground. I'm very much a centrist. I appreciate the science, I like reading about it. I support continuing it. But I also don't buy in to the radical interpretations of it. There are very well reasoned arguments on "the other side" of this, too. A consensus isn't science. Once you have a consensus, you aren't doing science anymore.
No. As I've pointed out *many* times throughout this thread, we have already seen substantial impacts of a changing climate, including and beyond sea level change.
These are not things that are predicted to come. These are changes that have already happened.
The Gulf of Maine has risen almost 2 degrees in the last decade. So are the great lakes. We've seen range shifts in everything from birds to crabs to seaweeds. Coral cover has decreased throughout the Caribbean and globally. Ice cover has decreased and ocean acidity has increased.
There's lots of 'middle ground' - lots of areas to have discussion, but not when people refute what has already happened and then claim that models to rpedict where we are going must also be wrong.
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum
From your link:
"Antarctica and the Arctic are two very different environments: the former is a continent surrounded by ocean, the latter is ocean enclosed by land. As a result, sea ice behaves very differently in the two regions. While the Antarctic sea ice yearly wintertime maximum extent hit record highs from 2012 to 2014 before returning to average levels in 2015, both the Arctic wintertime maximum and its summer minimum extent have been in a sharp decline for the past decades. Studies show that globally, the decreases in Arctic sea ice far exceed the increases in Antarctic sea ice."
Yep.
I was just about to post this.
Sea ice in the antarctic has returned to average levels, and in the arctic is in steep decline. Overall sea ice has seen significant declines.
This is just like the polar bear thing. One or two populations of polar bears that were being actively hunted has rebounded (after legislation was passed that prevented the hunting), overall polar bear numbers have been decreasing.
These distortions and half-truths are the bread and butter of climate deniers. The climate is complex, so they zoom in on a tiny detail that seems to support their point while ignoring the bigger picture.
-
You guys are wasting your breath. You all know that, right?
Welcome to the post-fact world. Reality doesn't matter anymore, only perception. If you can convince enough people to support your crazy idea, you can make it "reality" no matter how obviously wrong it is. In AlexMar's reality, climate change is a Chinese Hoax and, we have always been at war with Eastasia. Ignorance is strength, remember?
You're all trying to use logic and facts to refute a person's deeply held beliefs. Beliefs which are not based on logic and facts cannot be changed with logic and facts. It's an exercise in futility to even try.
-
You guys are wasting your breath. You all know that, right?
Welcome to the post-fact world. Reality doesn't matter anymore, only perception. If you can convince enough people to support your crazy idea, you can make it "reality" no matter how obviously wrong it is. In AlexMar's reality, climate change is a Chinese Hoax and, we have always been at war with Eastasia. Ignorance is strength, remember?
You're all trying to use logic and facts to refute a person's deeply held beliefs. Beliefs which are not based on logic and facts cannot be changed with logic and facts. It's an exercise in futility to even try.
Sol is a smart man - Change the things you can change, accept the ones you cannot and have the wisdom to know the difference.
I had a boss tell me years ago - "Perception is Reality." It took me quite a while to realize he was right.
-
I can't point to data either way, but can tell you that a crap-ton of people die every year from events linked to drought (yes, droughts are correlated to heat) and heat-stress.
Fair enough. 18 people died in Chicago this year alone due to the extreme cold. I'm not sure I've heard too many similar stories of people dying when it's warm outside in Chicago.
I mean, I guess there is this, which was the first result in a simple google search:
https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2018/06/29/heat-wave-chicago/
This article discusses a heat wave in Chicago that lead to approximately 700 deaths in a week. That's a bit more than 18.
-
You guys are wasting your breath. You all know that, right?
Welcome to the post-fact world. Reality doesn't matter anymore, only perception. If you can convince enough people to support your crazy idea, you can make it "reality" no matter how obviously wrong it is. In AlexMar's reality, climate change is a Chinese Hoax and, we have always been at war with Eastasia. Ignorance is strength, remember?
You're all trying to use logic and facts to refute a person's deeply held beliefs. Beliefs which are not based on logic and facts cannot be changed with logic and facts. It's an exercise in futility to even try.
You are right. But it is so goddamn frustrating.
-
You guys are wasting your breath. You all know that, right?
Welcome to the post-fact world. Reality doesn't matter anymore, only perception. If you can convince enough people to support your crazy idea, you can make it "reality" no matter how obviously wrong it is. In AlexMar's reality, climate change is a Chinese Hoax and, we have always been at war with Eastasia. Ignorance is strength, remember?
You're all trying to use logic and facts to refute a person's deeply held beliefs. Beliefs which are not based on logic and facts cannot be changed with logic and facts. It's an exercise in futility to even try.
You are right. But it is so goddamn frustrating.
I think that's the main point of the disinformation campaigns. Raise enough ignorant people who are thoroughly committed to their ignorance, and the rest of us will become thoroughly exhausted and demoralized trying to get them to see reality.
-
You guys are wasting your breath. You all know that, right?
Welcome to the post-fact world. Reality doesn't matter anymore, only perception. If you can convince enough people to support your crazy idea, you can make it "reality" no matter how obviously wrong it is. In AlexMar's reality, climate change is a Chinese Hoax and, we have always been at war with Eastasia. Ignorance is strength, remember?
You're all trying to use logic and facts to refute a person's deeply held beliefs. Beliefs which are not based on logic and facts cannot be changed with logic and facts. It's an exercise in futility to even try.
You are right. But it is so goddamn frustrating.
I guess what I was trying to get at is that we need a different approach. As soon as it's clear that he doesn't care about the facts of the issue, and is arguing based purely on an emotional commitment to an irrational position for which no actual evidence exists, then maybe it's time to switch tactics and appeal to emotion instead.
I think it's absolutely valid to point out all of his errors, just in case he is genuinely misinformed. For people who have just been living in a bubble of lies, sunlight works. Expose them to the real world, and a rational person has to come around. But in this case, that clearly isn't working. AlexMar has consistently refused to engage on any of the factual issues, has deliberately distorted and misled on the logical issues, repeatedly presented easily debunked talking points as if they were facts, and seems to believe that the entire scientific establishment must be stupid for not seeing what he knows in his heart to be true. So reality doesn't matter to him anymore, I think we can all agree.
That doesn't mean his mind can't be changed, it just means it can't be changed the normal way we arrive at truth. He needs to be cajoled or deceived into believing the truth, just like he was cajoled and deceived into believing lies in the first place. Maybe he needs to be treated the same way he has treated everyone in this thread, mocked and humiliated into acquiescence if that's all that he knows how to process and respond to. Maybe we need an appeal to his illogic, like the classic "god wants you to be a good steward of the earth" argument that has been so successful in getting evangelicals to support environmental cleanup efforts.
I don't claim to know what will work best on a crazy person, I just think that facts aren't it. And for professional fact-finders like you and me, yes that's horribly frustrating.
-
I can't point to data either way, but can tell you that a crap-ton of people die every year from events linked to drought (yes, droughts are correlated to heat) and heat-stress.
Fair enough. 18 people died in Chicago this year alone due to the extreme cold. I'm not sure I've heard too many similar stories of people dying when it's warm outside in Chicago.
I mean, I guess there is this, which was the first result in a simple google search:
https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2018/06/29/heat-wave-chicago/
This article discusses a heat wave in Chicago that lead to approximately 700 deaths in a week. That's a bit more than 18.
We'll just add this to the pile of bizarrely false claims made upthread.
Surprising that no one mentioned the focus on a location known for cold winters in an attempt to prove that severe cold kills more people than severe heat. If we were really being intellectually honest we'd look at deaths due to heat across the planet and compare to those to deaths from extreme cold. As an example, the 2010 Eurasian heat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Northern_Hemisphere_heat_waves#Russia) wave was responsible for over 14,000 deaths in Russia alone. I'm having a hard time finding extreme cold events that killed anywhere near this many.
You guys are wasting your breath. You all know that, right?
Sadly yes, at this point it seems so. Given the number of false claims raised and then abandoned when ample evidence has been presented to refute, I don't expect any changes, but I hope this will serve as a record for anyone else who might stumble upon this thread thinking that polar bears are doing just great or that climate predictions have somehow been drastically overestimating effects, neither of which is true.
-
You guys are wasting your breath. You all know that, right?
Welcome to the post-fact world. Reality doesn't matter anymore, only perception. If you can convince enough people to support your crazy idea, you can make it "reality" no matter how obviously wrong it is. In AlexMar's reality, climate change is a Chinese Hoax and, we have always been at war with Eastasia. Ignorance is strength, remember?
You're all trying to use logic and facts to refute a person's deeply held beliefs. Beliefs which are not based on logic and facts cannot be changed with logic and facts. It's an exercise in futility to even try.
You are right. But it is so goddamn frustrating.
I guess what I was trying to get at is that we need a different approach. As soon as it's clear that he doesn't care about the facts of the issue, and is arguing based purely on an emotional commitment to an irrational position for which no actual evidence exists, then maybe it's time to switch tactics and appeal to emotion instead.
I think it's absolutely valid to point out all of his errors, just in case he is genuinely misinformed. For people who have just been living in a bubble of lies, sunlight works. Expose them to the real world, and a rational person has to come around. But in this case, that clearly isn't working. AlexMar has consistently refused to engage on any of the factual issues, has deliberately distorted and misled on the logical issues, repeatedly presented easily debunked talking points as if they were facts, and seems to believe that the entire scientific establishment must be stupid for not seeing what he knows in his heart to be true. So reality doesn't matter to him anymore, I think we can all agree.
That doesn't mean his mind can't be changed, it just means it can't be changed the normal way we arrive at truth. He needs to be cajoled or deceived into believing the truth, just like he was cajoled and deceived into believing lies in the first place. Maybe he needs to be treated the same way he has treated everyone in this thread, mocked and humiliated into acquiescence if that's all that he knows how to process and respond to. Maybe we need an appeal to his illogic, like the classic "god wants you to be a good steward of the earth" argument that has been so successful in getting evangelicals to support environmental cleanup efforts.
I don't claim to know what will work best on a crazy person, I just think that facts aren't it. And for professional fact-finders like you and me, yes that's horribly frustrating.
It's likely best to just not engage anymore at all. The cognitive dissonance in some is so overwhelming there simply is no hope.
-
More people die of cold weather than warm weather.
Thats another one of those bullshit denier's points to distract people, and btw. factually wrong.
It's just that you don't see people dying from hot weather. You see them dying from e.g. heart attacks.
And than, after already more people died from heat, you can include the millions that die because their crops withered away.
But I also don't buy in to the radical interpretations of it.
The most radical interpretation is that there is no climate change. Or that everything is wrong just because one of thousands of predictions is a bit late (if it is at all, see next point).
we STILL haven't seen any acceleration in sea level rise
We have. But you are looking away from it. Compare the rise speed 100 years ago and now. As I said, they are 10 times bigger now.
And yes, not everything happens exactly as predicted. Surprised? We are talking about the most complex system we have ever researched. New details are added constantly. The factors on the system (human activity) change constantly. No climate model 20 years ago was able to predict what the US fracking boom (or the 2008 crash) would mean, simply because there was no fracking at that time, not because the model was wrong.
AOC just warned us not to have kids (seriously) because they will suffer due to climate change.
They will, one way or the other. If you take the consequence of not having kids or not is everyone's own mind, and if you laugh about that, I find it frankly quite stupid. Not as stupid as trying to diverse with that, though.
but we saw a little ice age in Europe in the 1400's (going from memory here, dates could be off) that started quite abruptly, so without added greenhouse gases we could be cooling - or not. Who knows?
@RetiredAt63 for you to read: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47063973
America colonisation ‘cooled Earth's climate’
I made an article
https://steemit.com/science/@LennStar/human-made-climate-change-may-be-older-than-you-think
mentioning the several factors that together made the apruptness of the "Little Ice Age".
-
@RetiredAt63 for you to read: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47063973
America colonisation ‘cooled Earth's climate’
Except that the cooling started around 1250, long before there was any European presence in central America. I'm not counting the cod fishermen in Newfoundland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
Therefore, any of several dates ranging over 400 years may indicate the beginning of the Little Ice Age:
1250 for when Atlantic pack ice began to grow; cold period possibly triggered or enhanced by the massive eruption of Samalas volcano in 1257[17]
1275 to 1300 based on the radiocarbon dating of plants killed by glaciation
1300 for when warm summers stopped being dependable in Northern Europe
1315 for the rains and Great Famine of 1315–1317
1550 for theorized beginning of worldwide glacial expansion
1650 for the first climatic minimum.
The Little Ice Age ended in the latter half of the 19th century or early in the 20th century.
I am not a big fan of Wikipedia for science, but it is a good place to start.
What is also interesting is that the end of the little ice age corresponds to the first wide-scale use of fossil fuels (coal). I'm not saying one caused the other, but it is an interesting data point.
-
I have a question.
There are about 1B people in developed countries (mostly Europe and North America). We have a huge pollution footprint. Even if we're able to reverse the trend and start creating less carbon, how will we account for the other 6B people who are creating more pollution while trying to reach our standard of living?
I see the resolution has several detailed objectives:
building smart power grids (i.e., power grids that enable customers to reduce their power use during peak demand periods);
upgrading all existing buildings and constructing new buildings to achieve maximum energy and water efficiency;
removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation and agricultural sectors;
cleaning up existing hazardous waste and abandoned sites;
ensuring businesspersons are free from unfair competition; and
providing higher education, high-quality health care, and affordable, safe, and adequate housing to all.
but none of these will help developing nations in becoming more environmentally friendly.
-
There are about 1B people in developed countries (mostly Europe and North America). We have a huge pollution footprint. Even if we're able to reverse the trend and start creating less carbon, how will we account for the other 6B people who are creating more pollution while trying to reach our standard of living?
This is a huge and legitimate area of concern, and one of the aspects that the Paris climate accord was designed to address.
One of the ideas is that adoptation of cleaner tech by the developed nations will result in much lower emissions by the developing world through efficiencies of scale and tech transfer. As examples, the price of solar continues to decline, and its often cheaper for a poorer country to buy clean power from its developed neighbor than to build powerplants on their own. Car fuel efficiency is another example - used cars from richer nations (with stricter fuel standards) find their way to developing nations, as does the technology involved in getting 35+mpg.
Still, there's big gaps to fill. Deforestation of virgin forests progresses because many of those doing the cutting have no practical choice other than starvation. This is what's going on in the Amazon rainforests.
On a positive note, if you consider the US, China, Japan, Canada and the EU - you are at roughly 2/3rds of total greenhouse emissions. So in theory standards implemented and enforced in just those markets would go a great way towards solving the input side of the problem, and by-and-large these countries all have economies strong enough to make major changes. Whether its politically possible remains another quesiton.
-
More people die of cold weather than warm weather.
Thats another one of those bullshit denier's points to distract people, and btw. factually wrong.
It's just that you don't see people dying from hot weather. You see them dying from e.g. heart attacks.
And than, after already more people died from heat, you can include the millions that die because their crops withered away.
But I also don't buy in to the radical interpretations of it.
The most radical interpretation is that there is no climate change. Or that everything is wrong just because one of thousands of predictions is a bit late (if it is at all, see next point).
we STILL haven't seen any acceleration in sea level rise
We have. But you are looking away from it. Compare the rise speed 100 years ago and now. As I said, they are 10 times bigger now.
And yes, not everything happens exactly as predicted. Surprised? We are talking about the most complex system we have ever researched. New details are added constantly. The factors on the system (human activity) change constantly. No climate model 20 years ago was able to predict what the US fracking boom (or the 2008 crash) would mean, simply because there was no fracking at that time, not because the model was wrong.
AOC just warned us not to have kids (seriously) because they will suffer due to climate change.
They will, one way or the other. If you take the consequence of not having kids or not is everyone's own mind, and if you laugh about that, I find it frankly quite stupid. Not as stupid as trying to diverse with that, though.
but we saw a little ice age in Europe in the 1400's (going from memory here, dates could be off) that started quite abruptly, so without added greenhouse gases we could be cooling - or not. Who knows?
@RetiredAt63 for you to read: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47063973
America colonisation ‘cooled Earth's climate’
I made an article
https://steemit.com/science/@LennStar/human-made-climate-change-may-be-older-than-you-think
mentioning the several factors that together made the apruptness of the "Little Ice Age".
I don't know many crops that do well in the snow. Do you?
As for 10X faster sea level rise - it just so happens we have sea level trends from over 100 years ago!
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8724580
Please point out the 10X acceleration in sea level rise. Of course, the 9 inches over the next 100 years (which just so happens to trend the last 100 years, too) is a far cry from the 5 feet all the smart scientists on this thread swear by. Notice the complete and utter lack of a J curve. There is no curve upward, no acceleration, period. Facts are facts. Which is why it's all about "oh, any day now, the tipping point is coming... oh it passed already? A new tipping point! Oh that one passed too? Then a new tipping point! Red tide happened, didn't you see that? Just like it did hundreds of years ago, but now it's like, global warming... Watch out! It's coming, next year, next 5 years, you'll see!!! Aggressive action is needed right now! I read skeptical science, so I'm an expert!"
But you know, they are entitled to their religious beliefs as much as anyone else. I mean, just because we haven't seen the sea level rise predicted over the last 30 years happen and countless failed models, and trends suggesting it's not actually happening, doesn't mean it won't... any day now... Just keep believing folks! It'll happen! Send your wealth to the UN for immediate distribution to combat Global Warming. You can do it!! Of course, those doomsday believers all jump in private jets and drive cars every day... They don't actually believe this bullshit themselves. But it sure is effective marketing. Just look at the people here!
Ciao.
-
There are about 1B people in developed countries (mostly Europe and North America). We have a huge pollution footprint. Even if we're able to reverse the trend and start creating less carbon, how will we account for the other 6B people who are creating more pollution while trying to reach our standard of living?
This is a huge and legitimate area of concern, and one of the aspects that the Paris climate accord was designed to address.
One of the ideas is that adoptation of cleaner tech by the developed nations will result in much lower emissions by the developing world through efficiencies of scale and tech transfer. As examples, the price of solar continues to decline, and its often cheaper for a poorer country to buy clean power from its developed neighbor than to build powerplants on their own. Car fuel efficiency is another example - used cars from richer nations (with stricter fuel standards) find their way to developing nations, as does the technology involved in getting 35+mpg.
Still, there's big gaps to fill. Deforestation of virgin forests progresses because many of those doing the cutting have no practical choice other than starvation. This is what's going on in the Amazon rainforests.
On a positive note, if you consider the US, China, Japan, Canada and the EU - you are at roughly 2/3rds of total greenhouse emissions. So in theory standards implemented and enforced in just those markets would go a great way towards solving the input side of the problem, and by-and-large these countries all have economies strong enough to make major changes. Whether its politically possible remains another quesiton.
Yeah developing countries contribute very little in terms of carbon output. It's the developed nations that are far out in front with their carbon output.
-
I don't know many crops that do well in the snow. Do you?
Actually, for areas that are adapted to it, winter is very useful. It gives enough winter chill for plants that need it. It limits many insect pests to one generation per year instead of 2 or 3 in warmer climates. Frost movement aerates soil. Snow insulates soil, moderating temperatures, and stores winter precipitation - for many areas winter mountain snow is summer water. I am guessing you don't live in a cold winter area or you would not be making silly jokes about crops in snow.
Of course most of Europe was not adapted to the cold winters. It wasn't Narnia, they didn't have winter 12 months of the year. But the growing seasons were certainly affected. They had crop failure after crop failure. England stopped growing wine grapes. Grain crops suffered most in cold wet summers. Badly nourished people fell victim to plagues - the Black Death was from 1347 to 1351. The Thirty Years War is thought to be a direct result of poor crops.
https://www.history.com/news/little-ice-age-big-consequences
-
I mean, just because we haven't seen the sea level rise predicted
I have no idea why you come back to this point again and again. If I write a book with one typing error, will you go and on that I can't type. too?
But just for you I looked it up. If you take the years between 1901 und 2010, the average was 1.7 millimeter. If you take only 1993 to 2010, you have an average of 3,2 millimeters. Or double the speed as before (And probalby 10 times more today in a year than in 1900 as I said, or maybe I have even confused that with something else and it's only 4 times, does not matter, right?). So your "30 years ago they said the rise would accelerate" is hit bulls eye.
And here is the graph with predictions and measurements.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Slr_prediction_med.jpg
-
As for 10X faster sea level rise - it just so happens we have sea level trends from over 100 years ago!
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8724580
Please point out the 10X acceleration in sea level rise.
You don't seem to understand the data or the science you are linking. From that very data source, you can see that sea level has risen at the Key West tidal station over the last century. The authors were interested in average increase over that time period, so they did exactly that, and snapped a line to the data. So at the very least we can all agree that sea level has risen in that one spot. For fun, you can also plot changes to the trend over various time frames. Well... maybe you can't, but I can! So I did just this looking at annual changes and a loess smoother. Attached below! If you look at the last three decades you'll see the curve is getting steeper. That's acceleration!
But wait - much like the entire US is not represented by Miami, the entire ocean is not represented by Key West. Perhaps you were unaware of this, but sea level is not uniform across the globe. From that same NOAA data set you can view the average sea level change cross all of the eastern Atlantic tide gauges. Notable that Key West (due to its location) has among the LEAST sea level change of all US stations. Two important things to note - ALL stations are reporting increasing sea level and most of the mid Atlantic stations are reporting double what Key West observes.
(https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/regcomp_US_USNA_1210_2.png)
But wait, there's more! While we Americans like to think that the US is all that matters, it turns out that most of the ocean is not within our sovereign waters. Thankfully other people have also studied sea level change on a global scale - and they've made their data publicly available too (and it's Open Source! Horray!). Here's a recent (2018) paper (https://www.pnas.org/content/115/9/2022) which used altimeter data cross-validated with the same tidal data you linked to determine that, yes, globally sea level is both rising and accelerating over the past 30 years.
(https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/115/9/2022/F1.medium.gif)
THe authors summarize the data here: Using the altimeter record coupled with careful consideration of interannual and decadal variability as well as potential instrument errors, we show that this rate is accelerating at 0.084 ± 0.025 mm/y2. (emphasis my own)
-
It's a great time for climate change trolls, isn't it?
You know, the kind who point out one tiny subset of data: "the ocean is cooling around the U.K.", "Ice in this part of the world is increasing", "If you look at year X and year Y, the world got cooler" and ignore the overall data and the longterm trends.
Lovely bunch, them, playing their fiddles while the world melts.
-
Lovely bunch, them, playing their fiddles while the world melts.
What gets me is that many of us on this thread live in places like New England, Canada, the Pacific NW and Europe - yet we seem far more concerned about the impacts climate change poses to Florida than someone who actually lives in Florida.
-
What's the best way to appeal to emotion without logic?
Should we build an argument that carbon dioxide is sexually violating unicorns? Draw parallels between religious manuscripts and climate change? Delve into the false fields of homeopathy, astrology, and phrenology?
If so, how do we do that without losing all credibility with people who are capable of rational thought?
-
What's the best way to appeal to emotion without logic?
Should we build an argument that carbon dioxide is sexually violating unicorns? Draw parallels between religious manuscripts and climate change? Delve into the false fields of homeopathy, astrology, and phrenology?
If so, how do we do that without losing all credibility with people who are capable of rational thought?
God has given us the Earth. How dare we destroy his most beautiful work?!?
-
What's the best way to appeal to emotion without logic?
Should we build an argument that carbon dioxide is sexually violating unicorns? Draw parallels between religious manuscripts and climate change? Delve into the false fields of homeopathy, astrology, and phrenology?
If so, how do we do that without losing all credibility with people who are capable of rational thought?
God has given us the Earth. How dare we destroy his most beautiful work?!?
I think you're forgetting that God explicitly told us to beat nature down, and do whatever the fuck we want with the critters.
And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” - Genesis 1:26
Keeping nature natural isn't subduing it and dominating living things.
-
...
If so, how do we do that without losing all credibility with people who are capable of rational thought?
God has given us the Earth. How dare we destroy his most beautiful work?!?
I tried this approach with a relative who is both devoutly religious and deeply skeptical of anthropogenic change. His response was "if god didn't want us to burn fossil fuels, why did he put all this coal for us to find?"
We've since found some common ground that water, air etc should be clean and that we can (and should avoid) over-harvesting God's bounty, and in general be good stewards of the land.
-
As for 10X faster sea level rise - it just so happens we have sea level trends from over 100 years ago!
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8724580
Please point out the 10X acceleration in sea level rise. Of course, the 9 inches over the next 100 years (which just so happens to trend the last 100 years, too) is a far cry from the 5 feet all the smart scientists on this thread swear by. Notice the complete and utter lack of a J curve. There is no curve upward, no acceleration, period. Facts are facts.
Yes, facts are facts. If you fit a quadratic curve to the data (which you would need to do in order to calculate acceleration as any freshman physics student could attest), you would see that the rate of sea level rise has increased from 1.78 mm/yr in 1913 to 3.04 mm/yr in 2019. This is a 70% increase per 100 years. So if the next 100 years trends like the last 100 years, we will in fact see an increase in sea level of over 14 inches in the next century.
That being said, this exercise was extremely pedantic, because scientists have already thoroughly studied the data for us and presented conclusions to us. We have the IPCC results and, as noted previously, independent analysis by Berkeley Earth (again, funded by Koch brothers in the hope of disproving global warming). These results give a range of values based on the amount of emissions, and the average global results are surprisingly fairly in line (at the low end) with my crude calculations for one small location on Earth (Key West).
Let me repeat that a constructive discussion could be had on what we should do politically about global warming. A productive discussion cannot be had between facts and alternative facts.
-
What's the best way to appeal to emotion without logic?
Should we build an argument that carbon dioxide is sexually violating unicorns? Draw parallels between religious manuscripts and climate change? Delve into the false fields of homeopathy, astrology, and phrenology?
If so, how do we do that without losing all credibility with people who are capable of rational thought?
I can think of a few possibilities, off the top of my head, and none of them involve violating unicorns.
An appeal can be emotional without being illogical, in some cases. The aforementioned appeal to scripture, for example, is an attempt to capitalize on religious affiliation to encourage responsible environmental stewardship, in much the same way that religious affiliation is often used to encourage other pro-social behaviors like respecting your neighbor's property instead of stealing it. Both of them are emotional attempts to say "you should behave in this way because it is right and just."
My local Native American groups make a similar argument about good resource management being necessary to their long term survival. The land is on loan from their descendants, who will also have to live here someday, and they're not strong believers in the sustainability of modern urban living. They lived here for thousands of years before we covered the hillsides with houses and roads in the past century, and they believe that someday all of those houses and roads will be gone and they will still be here, eating the same native plants and catching the same native fish. Their argument is one based on their history and identity being tied to a physical place, in a way that it rarely is for white Americans who are more mobile, and who tie their identity to something other than a home.
Then there's the seatbelt argument that somebody made earlier in this thread: you wear your seatbelt every time you drive even though you expect to NOT crash, because the consequences of being wrong are so dire. This argument is partly logical, but I think it's also strongly emotional. Considering the whole range of possible outcomes every time you go for a drive, it's the absolute worst possible one that you guard against because you don't want to die a horribly violent death, and because the guarding is relatively painless compared to bleeding out in a fiery crash. I think this is why some climate change "enthusiasts" (even some in this thread) tend to exaggerate the consequences of climate change. Fear works to motivate good behavior. That's an emotional appeal.
Social in-group belonging is a strong motivator, but unfortunately this one works in both directions. There are people who proudly use recyclable grocery bags when they drive their Prius to the grocery store, because it makes them feel good to be responsible and they get social brownie points from their equally environmentally conscious neighbors. Everyone gets to feel warm and fuzzy for doing their part, and if you're not doing your part you get the side-eye. But there are equally strong (if not stronger) in-groups for people like AlexMar, who get social brownie points for rolling coal on a Tesla, or wearing a MAGA hat made in China. People feel rewarded for following the trend of their local friends and family, whichever way they lean, so this particular emotional motivator can work both ways.
Conspiracy arguments are similarly double-sided. One side believes climate change is a Chinese hoax perpetrated on honest hard-working Americans in order to suppress American corporate profitability, and the other side believes American corporations have colluded with government officials to plunder and pollute in the mindless pursuit of higher profits. Both of these arguments are attractive to a certain kind of person. They're also not mutually exclusive.
I'm sure you can come up with a few more examples, if you sit in your chair for the next five minutes and think hard about it. Convincing people to do the right thing can take lots of different forms, and the scientist's approach we've seen for the first few pages of this thread is certainly ONE of them, but it's probably not the most useful for people who are not scientists themselves, or otherwise open to facts changing their hypotheses. AlexMar's repeated lies about sea level rise, for example, have convinced me that he's entirely immune to observable reality. Burying him in correct measurements isn't going to matter to him at all, because his mind is already made up no matter what the data say. I suspect there are millions of people like him in America.
-
...
If so, how do we do that without losing all credibility with people who are capable of rational thought?
God has given us the Earth. How dare we destroy his most beautiful work?!?
I tried this approach with a relative who is both devoutly religious and deeply skeptical of anthropogenic change. His response was "if god didn't want us to burn fossil fuels, why did he put all this coal for us to find?"
We've since found some common ground that water, air etc should be clean and that we can (and should avoid) over-harvesting God's bounty, and in general be good stewards of the land.
If God did not want us to sin, why did He created us to be sinners (and punished for sinning)?
Clearly God wants us to show him that we can make ourselfs better. Stop ddoing things like destroying His creation.
-
Let me repeat that a constructive discussion could be had on what we should do politically about global warming. A productive discussion cannot be had between facts and alternative facts.
While we are waiting for other posters to recant previous erroneous statements, let's continue with the OP topic at hand.
What appropriate policies should the US put in place to address a changing climate? Granted under the current denialist leadership even sensible solutions may be a non-starter, but suppose in 22 months our government comes back into line with the consensus from both the global scientific community and our own federal scientists?
While I dislike governmental regulations in general, it seems to me that little is accomplished under 'market forces' without them (as examples - fuel efficiency in vehicles).
I think an oft-neglected source of emissions is poorly insulated buildings. Our building codes (namely minimum insulation and air-infiltration standards) have not kept pace with modern construction materials and techniques. Rather than using just a 'stick' approach (regulations) I'd like to see a lot more incentives to offset the costs of ultra-efficient building design, including deep-energy retrofits on existing structures. We've had federal subsidies on EVs of $7,500 and on PV panels- that seems like a good start to encourage builders to spend an extra few $k to better insulate and seal buildings. Plus, it's pretty verifiable with energy usage and simple air-flow tests.
...just a thought...
-
Let me repeat that a constructive discussion could be had on what we should do politically about global warming. A productive discussion cannot be had between facts and alternative facts.
While we are waiting for other posters to recant previous erroneous statements, let's continue with the OP topic at hand.
What appropriate policies should the US put in place to address a changing climate? Granted under the current denialist leadership even sensible solutions may be a non-starter, but suppose in 22 months our government comes back into line with the consensus from both the global scientific community and our own federal scientists?
While I dislike governmental regulations in general, it seems to me that little is accomplished under 'market forces' without them (as examples - fuel efficiency in vehicles).
I think an oft-neglected source of emissions is poorly insulated buildings. Our building codes (namely minimum insulation and air-infiltration standards) have not kept pace with modern construction materials and techniques. Rather than using just a 'stick' approach (regulations) I'd like to see a lot more incentives to offset the costs of ultra-efficient building design, including deep-energy retrofits on existing structures. We've had federal subsidies on EVs of $7,500 and on PV panels- that seems like a good start to encourage builders to spend an extra few $k to better insulate and seal buildings. Plus, it's pretty verifiable with energy usage and simple air-flow tests.
...just a thought...
Building insulation upgrades and code revisions would be great, though I suspect the latter would be fought... but probably not by Dow Corning. Energy savings from reducing heat loss usually far outstrip the benefits of swapping out the heat source.
I think that education is important also. Having people come out of K-12 with a basic understanding of climate science will allow them to make better-informed political and personal decisions.
-
Let me repeat that a constructive discussion could be had on what we should do politically about global warming. A productive discussion cannot be had between facts and alternative facts.
While we are waiting for other posters to recant previous erroneous statements, let's continue with the OP topic at hand.
What appropriate policies should the US put in place to address a changing climate? Granted under the current denialist leadership even sensible solutions may be a non-starter, but suppose in 22 months our government comes back into line with the consensus from both the global scientific community and our own federal scientists?
While I dislike governmental regulations in general, it seems to me that little is accomplished under 'market forces' without them (as examples - fuel efficiency in vehicles).
I think an oft-neglected source of emissions is poorly insulated buildings. Our building codes (namely minimum insulation and air-infiltration standards) have not kept pace with modern construction materials and techniques. Rather than using just a 'stick' approach (regulations) I'd like to see a lot more incentives to offset the costs of ultra-efficient building design, including deep-energy retrofits on existing structures. We've had federal subsidies on EVs of $7,500 and on PV panels- that seems like a good start to encourage builders to spend an extra few $k to better insulate and seal buildings. Plus, it's pretty verifiable with energy usage and simple air-flow tests.
...just a thought...
The fixed cost parts of my water, gas, and electricity bills tend to be higher than the parts that I have control over for much of the year. I could double my electrical or water usage while barely increasing my bill 10%. Why conserve if there's no benefit in doing so?
If you want to create an incentive for conservation, make some rules about charging people for energy where you pay more higher prices as you use more and there are no fixed costs. Let the free market sort the problem out for you. If it costs more to waste, people will be more concerned about doing so.
-
The fixed cost parts of my water, gas, and electricity bills tend to be higher than the parts that I have control over for much of the year. I could double my electrical or water usage while barely increasing my bill 10%. Why conserve if there's no benefit in doing so?
If you want to create an incentive for conservation, make some rules about charging people for energy where you pay more higher prices as you use more and there are no fixed costs. Let the free market sort the problem out for you. If it costs more to waste, people will be more concerned about doing so.
The problem as I see it is that energy efficiency isn't very high on people's priority list when buying a home - perhaps precisely because sizable changes in energy usage are met with only modest increases in electric bills (or what you call 'hydro bills'). And homes are built on spec, which means builders construct to the minimum code in order to maximize profits. Regardless, as a species we've never been terribly good at weighing short-term vs long-term savings (with our tendancy always to go towards the longer-term). People will take a $3,000 upfront savings over utility bills that would be $50 cheaper, even though the ROI would be about 5 years and a more comfortable home to boot.
-
GuitarStv, WTF are your contracts?
Even 50% fixed costs is high.
Let me repeat that a constructive discussion could be had on what we should do politically about global warming. A productive discussion cannot be had between facts and alternative facts.
While we are waiting for other posters to recant previous erroneous statements, let's continue with the OP topic at hand.
What appropriate policies should the US put in place to address a changing climate? Granted under the current denialist leadership even sensible solutions may be a non-starter, but suppose in 22 months our government comes back into line with the consensus from both the global scientific community and our own federal scientists?
While I dislike governmental regulations in general, it seems to me that little is accomplished under 'market forces' without them (as examples - fuel efficiency in vehicles).
I think an oft-neglected source of emissions is poorly insulated buildings. Our building codes (namely minimum insulation and air-infiltration standards) have not kept pace with modern construction materials and techniques. Rather than using just a 'stick' approach (regulations) I'd like to see a lot more incentives to offset the costs of ultra-efficient building design, including deep-energy retrofits on existing structures. We've had federal subsidies on EVs of $7,500 and on PV panels- that seems like a good start to encourage builders to spend an extra few $k to better insulate and seal buildings. Plus, it's pretty verifiable with energy usage and simple air-flow tests.
...just a thought...
Using the sun is really nice, but getting a "real" house is more important. It is possible today to have an house that uses nearly no energy (compared to older ones).
Of course that does not work with what I (as never been in US) think of as a normal US house. You know, build from wood planks etc.
If you are new to this type of thing, look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-energy_house before going to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house
and for fun you can have a look at earthships: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthship
-
Let me repeat that a constructive discussion could be had on what we should do politically about global warming. A productive discussion cannot be had between facts and alternative facts.
While we are waiting for other posters to recant previous erroneous statements, let's continue with the OP topic at hand.
What appropriate policies should the US put in place to address a changing climate? Granted under the current denialist leadership even sensible solutions may be a non-starter, but suppose in 22 months our government comes back into line with the consensus from both the global scientific community and our own federal scientists?
While I dislike governmental regulations in general, it seems to me that little is accomplished under 'market forces' without them (as examples - fuel efficiency in vehicles).
I think an oft-neglected source of emissions is poorly insulated buildings. Our building codes (namely minimum insulation and air-infiltration standards) have not kept pace with modern construction materials and techniques. Rather than using just a 'stick' approach (regulations) I'd like to see a lot more incentives to offset the costs of ultra-efficient building design, including deep-energy retrofits on existing structures. We've had federal subsidies on EVs of $7,500 and on PV panels- that seems like a good start to encourage builders to spend an extra few $k to better insulate and seal buildings. Plus, it's pretty verifiable with energy usage and simple air-flow tests.
...just a thought...
I can give you an example of what not to do. Our "wonderful" governor decided, during a fantastic solar boom our state was experiencing, to freeze RPS requirements for utilities. Well that pretty much brought solar in particular to a screeching halt. It was done all in the name of "lowering energy bills." I was trying to track it down but a study was conducted. Turns out the average savings was $5/year per household. Um what??
I was taking some local college renewable energy courses at the time. This also happened to be when I installed solar on my own house. Some of the guys I was in class with worked at a couple different large energy companies that focused on renewables. Needless to say they had to start searching out of state for projects.
Our same governor did just veto a new proposed bill that would have reduced RPS requirements even further. Looking forward to moving to an area that is more friendly to renewable energy.
-
GuitarStv, WTF are your contracts?
Even 50% fixed costs is high.
Let me repeat that a constructive discussion could be had on what we should do politically about global warming. A productive discussion cannot be had between facts and alternative facts.
While we are waiting for other posters to recant previous erroneous statements, let's continue with the OP topic at hand.
What appropriate policies should the US put in place to address a changing climate? Granted under the current denialist leadership even sensible solutions may be a non-starter, but suppose in 22 months our government comes back into line with the consensus from both the global scientific community and our own federal scientists?
While I dislike governmental regulations in general, it seems to me that little is accomplished under 'market forces' without them (as examples - fuel efficiency in vehicles).
I think an oft-neglected source of emissions is poorly insulated buildings. Our building codes (namely minimum insulation and air-infiltration standards) have not kept pace with modern construction materials and techniques. Rather than using just a 'stick' approach (regulations) I'd like to see a lot more incentives to offset the costs of ultra-efficient building design, including deep-energy retrofits on existing structures. We've had federal subsidies on EVs of $7,500 and on PV panels- that seems like a good start to encourage builders to spend an extra few $k to better insulate and seal buildings. Plus, it's pretty verifiable with energy usage and simple air-flow tests.
...just a thought...
Using the sun is really nice, but getting a "real" house is more important. It is possible today to have an house that uses nearly no energy (compared to older ones).
Of course that does not work with what I (as never been in US) think of as a normal US house. You know, build from wood planks etc.
If you are new to this type of thing, look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-energy_house before going to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house
and for fun you can have a look at earthships: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthship
Through Toronto Hydro, looking at my electricity bill is usually something like this:
Fixed charges:
Delivery: 61$
Regulatory charge: 3.28
Stuff I control:
Peak Usage:9$
Mid-Peak Usage: 8$
Off-Peak Usage:20$
Looking at my gas bill it's similar, the more you use the less you get charged (bulk gas consumption discount). I never use more than the lowest bracket though (even in winter), so am always charged the maximum amount for usage. In the summer we use very, very little gas. Basically just the hot water . . . so a 35$ bill might be 3-5$ of usage.
-
Using the sun is really nice, but getting a "real" house is more important. It is possible today to have an house that uses nearly no energy (compared to older ones).
Of course that does not work with what I (as never been in US) think of as a normal US house. You know, build from wood planks etc.
I'm not entirely sure what you are saying here, LennStar - that you can't have a house with low energy requirements if it is made from wood??
I've seen quite a few LEEDs-certified homes that used stick-frame construction with modern framing techniques, and many more that have a net-zero energy budget with PVs.
Or maybe I'm not understanding what you are saying... Also what do you mean by a "real" house?
-
While we are waiting for other posters to recant previous erroneous statements, let's continue with the OP topic at hand.
I kept hoping AlexMar would move in this direction, because maybe he might be able to convince people using economics. My prodding has not yet paid off.
People bring up the huge economic expense of trying to tackle the problem, and I agree to some extent, but at the same time the economy exists to fulfill our needs first, then our wants (and climate stabilization is politically approaching the level of need (at a glacial pace)). To start with specifics:
1) There are parts of the climate change problem that could be treated as short-term investments, and these should be implemented as soon as possible. If there is a positive overall return on investment (such as higher building insulation, programmable thermostats, etc.) these should be made into law (similar to the CAFE standards). This should be a no-brainer bipartisan solution (just like the car companies are currently advocating for higher standards).* The only people who would argue against this approach would be shills for the real estate and/or energy companies or deluded laissez-faire extremists.
2) I'm not sure gas (or carbon) taxes work politically due to their regressiveness. The best way to add a gas tax (or similar fossil fuel tax) would be either to make it revenue neutral through a dividend check (there has been bipartisan support for this) or to increase minimum wage so that those most affected can at least still afford to travel to work. Others have suggested using the proceeds of such a tax to fund liberal carbon policies, however I feel this would be political suicide (I'm a fan of compromise).
3) I think nuclear is probably a medium-term solution to back up more renewables. Natural gas of course the short-term solution. Long-term solutions still in development.
These are the strategies I favor, but I also realize they are something of a pipe dream.
*My current employer (very ironically) has no programmable thermostats in the buildings and the heating setpoints are higher than the cooling setpoints. To me this is the height of hypocrisy and absurdity given their messaging.
-
Where I have the most uncertainty is how best to approach carbon sequestration (the "other" side, while also addressing curbing emissions).
Without a market for carbon offsets it seems unlikely that carbon sequestration efforts will have any economic incentive for the private sector. Its also an area where there are a plethora of pilot-scale ideas but little in the way of testing and verifying large-scale concepts. It seems we need to have some sort of governmental funding to push some of this tech beyond the proof-of-concept stage and towards proof-of-feasibility implementation, but that of course is filled with political minefields. Anytime you are trying out new concepts there's going to be a lot of promising ideas that don't pan out in the end, which detractors will scream about "wasting tax-payer dollars". At the same time we spent $2.5B to put one smallish rover on Mars for a - seems to me that's a reasonable amount to start with to develop such tech here in the US - at present we seem to be spending ~$40MM/year on grants for carbon sequestration, which seems like an insanely small amount.
I suppose more "X-prize" like competitions will spur some innovation, but only from already well-funded companies.
-
- SNIP -
3) I think nuclear is probably a medium-term solution to back up more renewables. Natural gas of course the short-term solution. Long-term solutions still in development.
These are the strategies I favor, but I also realize they are something of a pipe dream.
*My current employer (very ironically) has no programmable thermostats in the buildings and the heating setpoints are higher than the cooling setpoints. To me this is the height of hypocrisy and absurdity given their messaging.
If a concentrated effort was made to build low waste safe generation 4 nuclear reactors using Thorium as fuel, there would be enough fuel to last essentially forever. These new designs cannot melt down, They do not take enormous amounts of land like windmills and solar cells. They are not an intermittent source of energy like wind and solar. They do not contribute to global warming. They can be built in any corner of the earth. The power can be used to either power electric cars. High speed trains can also be a pollution fee form of travel that can use this power.
And unlike the 200 mile per gallon carburetor I used to read about as a kid, these reactors could be reality if WE could conquer FUD.
You can turn the thermostats down and shiver in the dark or use available technologies to solve problems.
Maybe even AlexMar would agree.
-
- SNIP -
3) I think nuclear is probably a medium-term solution to back up more renewables. Natural gas of course the short-term solution. Long-term solutions still in development.
These are the strategies I favor, but I also realize they are something of a pipe dream.
*My current employer (very ironically) has no programmable thermostats in the buildings and the heating setpoints are higher than the cooling setpoints. To me this is the height of hypocrisy and absurdity given their messaging.
If a concentrated effort was made to build low waste safe generation 4 nuclear reactors using Thorium as fuel, there would be enough fuel to last essentially forever. ...
You can turn the thermostats down and shiver in the dark or use available technologies to solve problems.
I would support the construction of more advanced nuclear reactors including using federal funds to help overcome the considerable construction costs - but comments like 'shiver in the dark' I find to be particularly unhelpful. Efforts to use electricity more responsibly shouldn't be mocked, nor should we attempt to solve our problems by generating ever-large quantities of electricity. There's an enormous amoutn of energy waste already, and plugging those gaps allows us to both spend less *and* be more comfortable in our homes and cars while we switch to lower-carbon fuels.
-
You can turn the thermostats down and shiver in the dark or use available technologies to solve problems.
Maybe you misunderstood. I shiver in the summer (68F setpoint) and sweat my ass off in the winter (74F setpoint). Shit like that provably makes no sense: http://comfort.cbe.berkeley.edu/ (http://comfort.cbe.berkeley.edu/). That, along with keeping the temperature at 74F all night and weekend means they are wasting at least half their energy costs.
-
I'm not entirely sure what you are saying here, LennStar - that you can't have a house with low energy requirements if it is made from wood??
You can, but mostly it's not done.
There are actually concepts of wood-only plus energy houses.
It seems we need to have some sort of governmental funding to push some of this tech beyond the proof-of-concept stage and towards proof-of-feasibility implementation
There was a big project here at a coal power plant.
it has been shut down by the company. It is just too expensive. Coal cannot compete with other energy productions if they have to get the CO2 out.
Also where the hell do you store it? Yes, there are places. But not enough. Also the CO2 will come out eventually, so the best you can do with this is buying time. For the same cost you could possible tackle production better. And of course - if it ever happens that the stored CO2 comes out through an accident, you might kill a lot of people in the area.
If a concentrated effort was made to build low waste safe generation 4 nuclear reactors using Thorium as fuel, there would be enough fuel to last essentially forever.
Same goes for the deadly waste though.
On this topic I really hope fusion finally comes out of the "we have it in 20 years" loop it's running in for half a century now. Fusion would still be a cluncky and not especially clean (radioactivity wise) thing, but all parts are controllable.
-
I would support the construction of more advanced nuclear reactors including using federal funds to help overcome the considerable construction costs - but comments like 'shiver in the dark' I find to be particularly unhelpful. Efforts to use electricity more responsibly shouldn't be mocked, nor should we attempt to solve our problems by generating ever-large quantities of electricity. There's an enormous amoutn of energy waste already, and plugging those gaps allows us to both spend less *and* be more comfortable in our homes and cars while we switch to lower-carbon fuels.
Not too worry - Just like the construction of any new generating station there will be capital costs to be paid back by the rate payer. You will still have your incentives to save energy. On the other hand if energy is plentiful it can be used for so many good things. It can desalinate water for coastal cities perhaps pumping water to make deserts bloom. A hungry world can be fed.
Some of the discussion here has talked abut the changes that comfortable people can make such as making their buildings more energy efficient. I think there are big chunks of the rest of the world that just want electric light and saving the planet from global warming is probably not uppermost on their minds. They will be solving that problem of not having that electric light. They can either solve it with new coal plants or by other methods. I think the biggest bang for the buck in alleviating the issue of future global warming is by giving these people an easy choice for clean energy.
-
I think to address this issue, we really will have to commit to it like we once did as a country to WWII, or to the space program. I think both political/programmic and hopefully scientific advances will be made.
I think everyone who recognizes there is a problem agrees that the amount of c02 emissions for developed countries has to go down signficantly. We need to do better with conserving the way we use existing fuel. I also agree that we will need to transition away from fossil fuels. Most likely that is nuclear power until we have something better. That also means nuclear power plants should have been starting to have built, like years ago.
And 2nd if there is a way to scrub c02 from the atmosphere or sequester it in the oceans we need to develop that technology, like yesterday. It's far easier to not emit it in the first place. The carbon in the form of many different molecules as highly diffused in both the atmosphere and ocean so I don't even know if it's possibly from an economic or energy-cost side, but if is, it could be critical.
Science has shown that the ocean has absorbed more c02 than predicted. That was good in the sense it delayed runaway greenhouse warming. The problem is that the ocean is at the limit and we are seeing and soon going to see even more adverse consequences from this very soon.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181029165534.htm
The only thing I can suggest to people like Alex Mar, is to get educated about the subject. Go to a place like Science Daily, type in "climate change". Read the abstracts and then read the original articles. And repeat. Or just read the latest IPCC report.
-
"If a concentrated effort was made to build low waste safe generation 4 nuclear reactors using Thorium as fuel, there would be enough fuel to last essentially forever."
Same goes for the deadly waste though.
On this topic I really hope fusion finally comes out of the "we have it in 20 years" loop it's running in for half a century now. Fusion would still be a cluncky and not especially clean (radioactivity wise) thing, but all parts are controllable.
Don't you think people can handle a small amount of nuclear waste? Some nuclear waste lasts a long time, but not forever. The waste from coal plants such as heavy metals in the water and soil is forever. The waste is dispersed rather than being in a small protected area.
New generation 4 fission reactors are based on science that we know now. It is based on science that works. It is not just a hope. Since fusion reactors have not been developed yet, you do not know their potential drawbacks. Since such a plant does not yet exist, we really do not know their control mechanisms. Fission plants, on the other hand, have many operating years of experience all over the world.
-
I would support the construction of more advanced nuclear reactors including using federal funds to help overcome the considerable construction costs - but comments like 'shiver in the dark' I find to be particularly unhelpful. Efforts to use electricity more responsibly shouldn't be mocked, nor should we attempt to solve our problems by generating ever-large quantities of electricity. There's an enormous amoutn of energy waste already, and plugging those gaps allows us to both spend less *and* be more comfortable in our homes and cars while we switch to lower-carbon fuels.
Not too worry - Just like the construction of any new generating station there will be capital costs to be paid back by the rate payer. You will still have your incentives to save energy. On the other hand if energy is plentiful it can be used for so many good things. It can desalinate water for coastal cities perhaps pumping water to make deserts bloom. A hungry world can be fed.
Some of the discussion here has talked abut the changes that comfortable people can make such as making their buildings more energy efficient. I think there are big chunks of the rest of the world that just want electric light and saving the planet from global warming is probably not uppermost on their minds. They will be solving that problem of not having that electric light. They can either solve it with new coal plants or by other methods. I think the biggest bang for the buck in alleviating the issue of future global warming is by giving these people an easy choice for clean energy.
Well as this is a US Climate Change policy my comments were on policies which would be enacted within the US, not the developing world. As noted upthread about 2/3rds of the global emissions come from a few larger developed countries, with >40% coming from just the US and China together.
That said I would like to help with cleaner energy production globally. With regard to feeding the world's hungry, currently we don't have a problem growing enough food, we have a distribution problem, exacerbated by a poverty problem (people too poor to pay for food from a largely capitalistic food supply).
it has been shut down by the company. It is just too expensive. Coal cannot compete with other energy productions if they have to get the CO2 out.
Also where the hell do you store it? Yes, there are places. But not enough. Also the CO2 will come out eventually, so the best you can do with this is buying time. For the same cost you could possible tackle production better. And of course - if it ever happens that the stored CO2 comes out through an accident, you might kill a lot of people in the area.
Well the core idea of carbon sequestration is that it *doesn't* come back out, at least not in millennial timescales. I'm not sure I follow your arguments that 'if it comes out you might kill a lot of people' - the carbon is *already* out.
-
I think to address this issue, we really will have to commit to it like we once did as a country to WWII, or to the space program. I think both political/programmic and hopefully scientific advances will be made.
I think everyone who recognizes there is a problem agrees that the amount of c02 emissions for developed countries has to go down signficantly. I also agree that we will need to transition from fossil fuel to nuclear power until we have a better plan. That also means nuclear plants need to have been starting built, again yesterday.
And 2nd if there is a way to scrub c02 from the atmosphere or sequestur it in the oceans we need to develop that technology, like yesterday. It's far easier to not emit it in the first place, but anything that can help will be important.
Science has shown that the ocean has absorbed more c02 than predicted. That was good in the sense it delayed runaway greenhouse warming. The problem is that the ocean is at the limit and we are seeing and soon going to see even more adverse consequences from this very soon.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181029165534.htm
Some article - Sounds rather extreme. Are there secondary effects? There is a big dead zone in Lake Michigan. I guess there is no oxygen so nothing can live. The oceans produce most of our oxygen. Could CO2 eventually cause dead zones in the ocean?
-
I think to address this issue, we really will have to commit to it like we once did as a country to WWII, or to the space program. I think both political/programmic and hopefully scientific advances will be made.
I think everyone who recognizes there is a problem agrees that the amount of c02 emissions for developed countries has to go down signficantly. I also agree that we will need to transition from fossil fuel to nuclear power until we have a better plan. That also means nuclear plants need to have been starting built, again yesterday.
And 2nd if there is a way to scrub c02 from the atmosphere or sequestur it in the oceans we need to develop that technology, like yesterday. It's far easier to not emit it in the first place, but anything that can help will be important.
Science has shown that the ocean has absorbed more c02 than predicted. That was good in the sense it delayed runaway greenhouse warming. The problem is that the ocean is at the limit and we are seeing and soon going to see even more adverse consequences from this very soon.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181029165534.htm
Some article - Sounds rather extreme. Are there secondary effects? There is a big dead zone in Lake Michigan. I guess there is no oxygen so nothing can live. The oceans produce most of our oxygen. Could CO2 eventually cause dead zones in the ocean?
They already are causing dead zones in the ocean. As others have pointed out, acidification of the ocean affects the very lowest levels of the ocean's food chain. I don't need to spell out what that means.
-
I would support the construction of more advanced nuclear reactors including using federal funds to help overcome the considerable construction costs - but comments like 'shiver in the dark' I find to be particularly unhelpful. Efforts to use electricity more responsibly shouldn't be mocked, nor should we attempt to solve our problems by generating ever-large quantities of electricity. There's an enormous amoutn of energy waste already, and plugging those gaps allows us to both spend less *and* be more comfortable in our homes and cars while we switch to lower-carbon fuels.
Not too worry - Just like the construction of any new generating station there will be capital costs to be paid back by the rate payer. You will still have your incentives to save energy. On the other hand if energy is plentiful it can be used for so many good things. It can desalinate water for coastal cities perhaps pumping water to make deserts bloom. A hungry world can be fed.
Some of the discussion here has talked abut the changes that comfortable people can make such as making their buildings more energy efficient. I think there are big chunks of the rest of the world that just want electric light and saving the planet from global warming is probably not uppermost on their minds. They will be solving that problem of not having that electric light. They can either solve it with new coal plants or by other methods. I think the biggest bang for the buck in alleviating the issue of future global warming is by giving these people an easy choice for clean energy.
Well as this is a US Climate Change policy my comments were on policies which would be enacted within the US, not the developing world. As noted upthread about 2/3rds of the global emissions come from a few larger developed countries, with >40% coming from just the US and China together.
That said I would like to help with cleaner energy production globally. With regard to feeding the world's hungry, currently we don't have a problem growing enough food, we have a distribution problem, exacerbated by a poverty problem (people too poor to pay for food from a largely capitalistic food supply).
it has been shut down by the company. It is just too expensive. Coal cannot compete with other energy productions if they have to get the CO2 out.
Also where the hell do you store it? Yes, there are places. But not enough. Also the CO2 will come out eventually, so the best you can do with this is buying time. For the same cost you could possible tackle production better. And of course - if it ever happens that the stored CO2 comes out through an accident, you might kill a lot of people in the area.
Well the core idea of carbon sequestration is that it *doesn't* come back out, at least not in millennial timescales. I'm not sure I follow your arguments that 'if it comes out you might kill a lot of people' - the carbon is *already* out.
I think he was referring to an acute outgassing similar to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos_disaster (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos_disaster)
-
Regarding developing countries, for a second: wind and solar can be competitive with coal and natural gas. All have capital investments to initially build the plants / windfarms / solar arrays. Most of the installation cost for all four types is labor, which is very cheap in developing countries. Solar used to suffer from high equipment costs, but China fixed that problem with massive panel factories. In the long term, the zero fuel cost acts as a hedge against fluctuations in world fossil fuel and natural gas prices, when comparing to CNG or coal. It is also a hedge against rising labor costs (coal miners, well drillers). These hedges are the main reason both India and China (which both have large low-grade coal reserves, but limited CNG reserves) are pushing renewable energy.
Of course, the major cost of clean energy is storage at night. However, this can be mitigated with a centralized distribution system in the lower-resourced societies since the wind is always blowing somewhere at night (especially offshore), and energy usage drops drastically at night. Also, both China and India are uniquely positioned to use hydroelectric "batteries" in the Himalayas.
-
I think he was referring to an acute outgassing similar to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos_disaster (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos_disaster)
Yeah. Something like this could happen to every CO2 storage. Of course that are worst case things, but you can't insure against them. You are dead then.
And of course the same applies to Nuclear Power Plants. Nothing is 100% secure, and I don't want another Fukushima. And while Thorium reactors are a lot safer in that respect, they also use the most dangerous stuff, and albeit I always say people worry way too much about terrorism - if there is a real attack by a dozen well trained and equipped terrorists, they will succeed in getting material that could kill tens of thousands, if not millions, if placed in e.g. central New York.
And for feasability: Reactors need water - lot of it - to run, and current "third world" countries aren't exactly overflowing with water in most cases.
France had to shut down a lot of reactors in the last summer (again) because they heated the rivers too much and would have killed all life in there.
Funnily enough, in the winter they had problems with water too.
AND for such big producers, you need a lot of infrastructure to bring the electricity to the thousands of small villages, over long distances. That is costly (compare with how Africa basically jumped landline phone to mobiles, because that is cheaper to install).
Last year Germany had 38% regenerative energies in power production. And my area produced 56% of the electricty we use here from wind.
-
The reality is there's no impact-free and perfect source of energy, and power generation must always be put into the context of comparing the various alternatives. I've seen too many wind projects get shut down because detractors find them ugly, so instead more fossil fuels get burned (which are also ugly, pollute a heck of a lot more... but they tend not to be near rich people's eyesight).
Grid energy storage is still a monumental challenge to powering everything on solar and turbines. Gen-IV nuclear reactors IIRC don't have the cooling water requirements of older nuclear reactors. They've been proven but not implemented on a commercial scale, so the first few are bound to be costly as kinks are worked out. The major safety advantage as I see it is that, unlike with Fukushima a disrupted reactor will just passively power down on its own.
As for carbon sequestration - to me it's a rather straightforward dilemma:
We've got two sides to anthropogenic climate change - global emissions and the increased carbon that's already in the atmosphere and environment (410ppm and rising). Even if we rapidly curb emissions we are still left with all the carbon we've already pumped into the system, and that won't go away on its own. In fact, climate change will continue for decades even if we magically halt atmospheric CO2 at 450. So we need strategies to draw down and store (sequester) that carbon... which is what coal and petrolium deposits were in the first place. Forests do this pretty naturally (that's how coal was first formed) but take enormous amounts of land. Worth noting that New England and Siberia continue to be carbon sinks. Anyway, there's a whole suite of concepts out there, many of which have been lab or bench tested on very moderate scales which could help draw-down and sequester that CO2. Sure, we have to make sure sequestration methods are safe, but the alternative is to keep that in the ecosystem which we already know isn't particualrly safe for us.
It's a much longer-term view and solution, but one we shouldn't ignore as we continue to reduce global greenhouse emissions.
-
-SNIP -
Yeah. Something like this could happen to every CO2 storage. Of course that are worst case things, but you can't insure against them. You are dead then.
And of course the same applies to Nuclear Power Plants. Nothing is 100% secure, and I don't want another Fukushima. And while Thorium reactors are a lot safer in that respect, they also use the most dangerous stuff, and albeit I always say people worry way too much about terrorism - if there is a real attack by a dozen well trained and equipped terrorists, they will succeed in getting material that could kill tens of thousands, if not millions, if placed in e.g. central New York.
And for feasability: Reactors need water - lot of it - to run, and current "third world" countries aren't exactly overflowing with water in most cases.
France had to shut down a lot of reactors in the last summer (again) because they heated the rivers too much and would have killed all life in there.
Funnily enough, in the winter they had problems with water too.
AND for such big producers, you need a lot of infrastructure to bring the electricity to the thousands of small villages, over long distances. That is costly (compare with how Africa basically jumped landline phone to mobiles, because that is cheaper to install).
Last year Germany had 38% regenerative energies in power production. And my area produced 56% of the electricty we use here from wind.
Carbon Dioxide storage - Tons and tons of low volume stuff that must be stored forever. Nuclear power has a much smaller tonnage of stuff that can be the most heavy dense stuff around that must be stored forever or until recycled back into fuel. Yeh - I'd think storing all that Carbon Dioxide may be the bigger problem.
Fukushima - I read one person died due to radiation induced sickness. Most died due to being evacuated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties)
Like any other industrial disaster, it seems like people could learn from it, apply the lessons and move on. I don't think there is any other area of human endeavor where they just decided to "give up." The overall safety record of nuclear power is still very very good. It is safer than wind and solar per present statisitics.
Good chemical or biological bombs placed strategically in New York could probably do a good (bad) a job or better than a dirty nuclear bomb for less effort, We aren't giving up on our chemical industries or researching biology.
You can build nuclear reactors to use little water for cooling. I believe Fort Saint Vrain in colorado was air cooled like the gas turbines that replaced it. You can also have closed loop cooling where a given amount of coolant remains on site like your car radiator. It's just been cheaper to use a river, lake or ocean as the heat sink.
I would hope that they would be building transmission infrastructure in Africa for reliability. As has been stated the wind does not always blow, the sun does not always shine and river levels can abate. There are times where power must be obtained from elsewhere. Distributed small scale sources are limited in capacity. The economy of scale will dictate that some central station power plants will need to be built. Power needs to be transported from where it is produced to where it is needed.
This article says we can learn from Germany, but retain nuclear power. This seems like a sensible course. The wind is can be an unreliable source of electricity.
https://www.americanexperiment.org/2018/12/german-co2-emissions-remain-stubbornly-high/ (https://www.americanexperiment.org/2018/12/german-co2-emissions-remain-stubbornly-high/)
-
Fukushima - I read one person died due to radiation induced sickness.
The overall safety record of nuclear power is still very very good. It is safer than wind and solar per present statisitics.
I know that sometimes there are work accidents and people die at solar modules or falling from wind turbines... but I don't think we have even reached the thousands, let alone the hundred thousands range of deaths O.o
Don't mix up "people died looking at the reactor" with "people died 20 years later due to increased cancer rates".
For example, for Tschernobyl only 50 "liquidators" died from direct radiation. But estimates are that about 50'000 died from later damage (give or take a factor of 3 depending on whom you ask).
And then there is the radiation that was spread around. Even today in some areas of Germany you are advised to not eat (more than a few) mushrooms you take from the woods, because of that radiation.
It's just been cheaper to use a river, lake or ocean as the heat sink.
But even with that nuclear power plants are already more expensive than regenerative energies, even if you add storage costs - as long as you also add the real cost of nuclear waste handling etc.
That is the main reason why nearly no new reactors are build.
Yeah, the article... I could tell a long story about that. Let's just say that there is a big fight over coal, just now again, because of jobs. Was the topic of January here. (https://news.google.com/search?for=kohlekommission&hl=de&gl=DE&ceid=DE%3Ade)
And the Energiewende was stalled for similar political reasons. Big companies, that once openly said that >10% regenerative (and a few years earlier 1%) is impossible and such did not try to transform themselves.
We did not even reach the already low "corridor" for new wind power because of the changes made.
But even with that, and nuclear phasing out, Germany is still Europe's biggest energy exporter (mostly to nuclear France ironically).
btw. if you are interest in current prices for energy in Germany, here is the spot market (current 46,75€, means 4,675 cent per kWh is what you pay the power plant) https://www.eex.com/en/
-
fun fact: In Norway they just found 2 nuclear reactors from the 60s.
https://www.nrk.no/ostfold/trodde-de-skulle-avvikle-to-atomreaktorer-_-sa-var-det-fire-1.14447615
google translate: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrk.no%2Fostfold%2Ftrodde-de-skulle-avvikle-to-atomreaktorer-_-sa-var-det-fire-1.14447615
-
There are lots of reasons to be wary of nuclear plants (either Gen III or newer Gen IV).
But the question remains what do power sources do we use to power the grid? Wind is among the cheapest (in locaitons where wind is relatively constant) but production drops during non-windy periods, and turbines have faced stiff opposition in many places throughout the US. PVs are good when the sun is up, and Germany is a good model at how much electricity can be generated on solar alone. To date energy storage methods are woefully inadequate and prohibitively expensive in most areas, so relying on wind and solar alone isn't going to cut it.
New Hydro can cost more than new nuclear plants, and has its own environmental footprint. LNG is big in the US now because its cheap here and cleaner than coal, but of course carries a big carbon footprint.
In sum, while I enthusiastically support building a ton more turbines and expanding solar (particularly throughout the SW), we'll still need energy plants of some sort to balance the load on the grid in addition to tackling this energy storage problem. So what do we go with? Nuclear? Or LNG? or residual fuel? Or... Of the options that remain, Gen IV nuclear reactors to me have the best tradeoffs.
-
Per this article electricity in France is 139.07 vs 214.89 Euros in Germany. France is largely non polluting nuclear.
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_countries_result.jsp?country1=Germany&country2=France
It is smart for the French to import cheap power and export expensive nuclear power to Germany. I guess both Germany and France have non polluting forms of energy.
Sorry - I didn't see how to translate the link from Deutsch.
"or example, for Tschernobyl only 50 "liquidators" died from direct radiation. But estimates are that about 50'000 died from later damage (give or take a factor of 3 depending on whom you ask)."
I don't think they've died yet. Give it another 20 years from 1986 and then blame it on the radiation. Per the following, the numbers are all over the board depending on whose estimate you use. They figure maybe 4,000 died, but it is hard to isolate these deaths from other environmental exposure. Smoking?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster)
It was a bad thing, but again learn from it and move on.
"And then there is the radiation that was spread around. Even today in some areas of Germany you are advised to not eat (more than a few) mushrooms you take from the woods, because of that radiation. "
Have you ever questioned that maybe, just maybe, they are being ultra-conservative in their warnings? Have you ever heard of hormesis?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis)
A little bit of sunshine is good. Too much bad. Some people have tried to show that just a little radiation may actually be good for you, but have been silenced. I wonder what the actual dose you would receive from those mushrooms and how many mushrooms would you have to eat for how many years before there was even a measurable effect. Maybe, there is a greater risk of mercury from those coal plant emissions than from those mushrooms.
"But even with that nuclear power plants are already more expensive than regenerative energies, even if you add storage costs - as long as you also add the real cost of nuclear waste handling etc. That is the main reason why nearly no new reactors are build. "
It's kind of odd. They built a lot of them in the 1960s and early 1970s and they were not so expensive to build then. Perhaps onerous requirements have been applied. Perhaps expertise has been lost. They seem to be able to build them in China but not in the West. The Finns have had trouble completing one, the French are having difficulties (same bad design) and there are 4 units in the American South that are having difficulties.
Storage costs are currently not too much in the US as the fuel is stored in casks outside the plants. Money has been paid by the plants for many years to the government for permanent storage, but politics has prevented this. Billions of dollars were spent on a facility in Nevada, but it was cancelled. I suspect that the fuel will be recycled in future years rather than stored. There is great energy remaining in spent fuel.
In the US we have cheap natural gas and nuclear cannot compete with the construction or operating costs. However, natural gas contributes to greenhouse warming. New nukes could be used as renewable backup / replacement from wind / solar rather than natural gas to alleviate further greenhouse gas emissions.
This greenhouse gas stuff is frightening. Germany is doing a lot. The US is doing much less. How was the Energiewende sold to the German people?
-
I view the nuclear waste storage almost as a solution instead of a problem. If only we had a way of storing the pollution generated by burning fossil fuels like we do with nuclear.
-
I view the nuclear waste storage almost as a solution instead of a problem. If only we had a way of storing the pollution generated by burning fossil fuels like we do with nuclear.
That's the carbon sequestration I was talking about upthread. There are many different methods available to accomplish this ranging from low-tech storage of plant material to chemical reactions to trap CO2 into various liquid or solid states to seeding the oligotrophic regions of the ocean (i.e. the IRONEX experiments). A great deal of promising tech has yet to be scaled up beyond the bench-top phase to see if it would ever be viable. The main challenge remains that all solutions involve ongoing and considerable costs, and how that gets paid for is an open question. A carbon tax is one solution, but has lately fallen out of favor. Tax dollars is another (unpopular) idea, but it would be much like the continual funding of other infrastructure. But there's little buy-in from the public, at least not yet.
Personally I'd like to see a lot more funding for research in these methods.
-
Have you ever questioned that maybe, just maybe, they are being ultra-conservative in their warnings?
If they were that, they would forbid you eating them at all, like in the first year.
Yes, you may say it is a bit over-safety to not eat wild boars (a small amount of them) because of "too high" radiation, if eating that would be equivalent to one flight across the Atlantic.
But current science is still that every bit of radiation is dangerous.
And as pilots and stewardesses show, the danger is real (double risk to get black skin cancer).
It's kind of odd. They built a lot of them in the 1960s and early 1970s and they were not so expensive to build then.
You mean at the time when you put soldiers in front of atom bombs to see what the results would be? When you could buy radioactive toothpaste?
Yes, stronger regulation (like: You just can't put the radioactive water in the river, even if the two headed fishes are funny!) have made it more expensive. Both building and destruction. The last one is actually one of the most exensive points. The money the firms put back (tax free in the US too I guess) may only be 1/10th of what is needed, and the other billions have to be paid by us. That alone makes the electricity more expensive than other sources.
And that nobody builds a final waste place is not a surprise. Who wants something in their garden that will be deadly for 100 times longer than known history?
----
I think you are all going into a very common trap: Saying this or that.
Nobody said ONE technology has to make everything.
First of all, wind and solar are not as unreliable as most of you still seem to think. Local, yes. But no wind and sun throughout the USA? Unlikely.
In Germany such a several day long "Dunkelflaute", literally dark calm, is calculated to happen about every 20 years.
Shorter ones already happen - in 2015 there was a day where practically no electricity was generated by regenerative energies.
We could easily do that short time with other power plants - or get energy from other states. A EU wide Dunkelflaute is practically impossible.
Second we may look into different storage technologies. Power-to-gas would be one possibility.
This one would also easily made sure that even a long Dunkelflaute is covered by backup, with estimated costs (only this system) of 0,5 cent per kWh. Or a few percent of the end price. (We still pay a nearly similar sum for e.g. reserve coal power plants)
Another storage is - surprise for many - heat! You can store heat quite easily for days, and you can even generate it with the sun. US states like Texas should be primary spots for this type of power plant. Here is one in the USA, albeit looks like it failed the goals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpah_Solar_Power_Facility
Most of those plants do not as well as expected, and generally the space they use is very big. But in some places they may be perfect.
There are other possibilites, too. And of course you combine those with other stuff. Like Hemp. Hemp is wonderful! And I am not talking about smoking it.
It grows practically everywhere and does not need much work or pesticides. You can make clothes out of Hemp that are better than cotton. You get more out per hectar than with cotton. You can get high quality oil out of it and make ropes for daily use. I am quite sure you could use it as a biogas source.
And there is bamboo. Fine stuff, too. Lots of biomass. And this beautiful video ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTejJnrzGPM
tl;dr
Don't think in eithers, think in nets! You can change literally thousands of things to safe CO2!
-
fun fact: In Norway they just found 2 nuclear reactors from the 60s.
https://www.nrk.no/ostfold/trodde-de-skulle-avvikle-to-atomreaktorer-_-sa-var-det-fire-1.14447615
google translate: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrk.no%2Fostfold%2Ftrodde-de-skulle-avvikle-to-atomreaktorer-_-sa-var-det-fire-1.14447615
Ha.
- How is it possible to overlook two reactors?
- It's a question I've asked myself, too. It is not easy to ignore them. They are quite large.
-
I'm trying to understand the thought process here, but admit I'm having a bit of a problem following the logic.
As you've said with your 'power-to-gas' example, there are many methods of storing energy, but all add considerable cost to electricity generation and many add environmental concerns, safety concerns (as with power-to-gas) or both. As said before, I think improvements with energy storage will be an intense area of focus over the next couple of decades. Syonyk had a good synopsis of the hurdles faced though.
In the US and Canada transmission becomes a large obstacle; we're 27x the size of Germany and we simply don't have the grid capable of effectively powering homes in New England with solar from the SW, or use the proposed offshore windfarms of Cape Cod to help power Florida. AS noted, during calmer winter days (or "Dunkelflaute"?) Germany buys nuclear power from France. It's not that I'm underestimating wind and solar - I'm a very big proponent. But each faces obstacles and limitations. Hence the need for additional sources.
Concentrated thermal solar works great in the SW desert, which is where several have been built. No nearly as efficient in New England.
Hemp, you've got me here. I don't see how this ties in to our discussion. Yes, lots of manufacturers here use hemp in their textiles, and hemp production is expanding, though federal and state laws are in conflict currently.
Bamboo is non-native and can be highly invasive in a lot of areas, taking over native veggitation. A lot of money has been spent trying to irradicate bamboo from areas, so I think widespread cultivation is not a good idea, though again how that ties in to the discussion I'm not entirely sure.
I'm not sure what 'nets' or 'safe CO2' mean.
-
I'm trying to understand the thought process here, but admit I'm having a bit of a problem following the logic.
As you've said with your 'power-to-gas' example, there are many methods of storing energy, but all add considerable cost to electricity generation and many add environmental concerns, safety concerns (as with power-to-gas) or both. As said before, I think improvements with energy storage will be an intense area of focus over the next couple of decades. Syonyk had a good synopsis of the hurdles faced though.
In the US and Canada transmission becomes a large obstacle; we're 27x the size of Germany and we simply don't have the grid capable of effectively powering homes in New England with solar from the SW, or use the proposed offshore windfarms of Cape Cod to help power Florida. AS noted, during calmer winter days (or "Dunkelflaute"?) Germany buys nuclear power from France. It's not that I'm underestimating wind and solar - I'm a very big proponent. But each faces obstacles and limitations. Hence the need for additional sources.
Concentrated thermal solar works great in the SW desert, which is where several have been built. No nearly as efficient in New England.
Hemp, you've got me here. I don't see how this ties in to our discussion. Yes, lots of manufacturers here use hemp in their textiles, and hemp production is expanding, though federal and state laws are in conflict currently.
Bamboo is non-native and can be highly invasive in a lot of areas, taking over native veggitation. A lot of money has been spent trying to irradicate bamboo from areas, so I think widespread cultivation is not a good idea, though again how that ties in to the discussion I'm not entirely sure.
I'm not sure what 'nets' or 'safe CO2' mean.
Pumped hydro may still work in New England as there are some pretty good hills. It's an expensive but very proven technology.
Hemp has oil so it may be possible to produce biofuels from it. Not sure about the bamboo unless it is to be burnt directly like wood waste. It could probably be a good biofuel. It doesn't grow in all climates.
Lennstar is certainly right about not putting all your eggs in one basket. In fact, I've wondered if the US is doing that right now with our increased dependence on natural gas.
-
In the US and Canada transmission becomes a large obstacle; we're 27x the size of Germany and we simply don't have the grid capable of effectively powering homes in New England with solar from the SW, or use the proposed offshore windfarms of Cape Cod to help power Florida. AS noted, during calmer winter days (or "Dunkelflaute"?) Germany buys nuclear power from France. It's not that I'm underestimating wind and solar - I'm a very big proponent. But each faces obstacles and limitations. Hence the need for additional sources.
Concentrated thermal solar works great in the SW desert, which is where several have been built. No nearly as efficient in New England.
I'm not sure that the distribution problem is as bad as we think it may be. Neither wind nor solar are excluded from geographic regions for a few reasons. Neither alone is sufficient to power the country, and I do think CNG will probably be required until the battery problem is solved.
For solar power:
Solar panels can work well in New England. The amount of average solar energy hitting the ground in the NE throughout the year is lower than the SW, but not prohibitively lower (approximately 60-70%):
https://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/eere_pv/national_photovoltaic_2012-01.jpg
For wind power:
Generally any offshore location in the US other than the Gulf of Mexico has good wind power density (similar to the North Sea and the Great Plains, which are well suited with current turbine technology). The consistency of offshore wind is one of the major advantages over land-based turbines. Thus, most of the urban US (and really the entire country) is within reasonable distance of a potential wind power site. The engineering challenges remain, but are addressable.
https://www.nrel.gov/gis/wind.html
The point being that our land size is an advantage a well as disadvantage.
-
Solar panels can work well in New England. The amount of average solar energy hitting the ground in the NE throughout the year is lower than the SW, but not prohibitively lower (approximately 60-70%):
https://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/eere_pv/national_photovoltaic_2012-01.jpg
Is that corrected for snow coverage? The southwest has the general advantage of it not snowing much in the winter, so you can still collect a lot. Rooftop solar in the NE is likely to be covered by snow a good bit, and even utility scale stuff will run into problems with snow load/snow shedding (a single axis tracker can dump snow, but it can only build piles so high before you block the panels from being able to rotate and pretty much take the whole array offline until things melt).
-
Is that corrected for snow coverage?
Fortunately, the farther north you go the smaller fraction of your annual solar production comes from the winter months anyway. It's like mother nature gave us a free work-around for that one, transposing most of the free energy to the snow-free months in the only climates that get snow so that the penalty is minimized.
-
It is corrected for cloud cover and precipitation. I am not sure how much they account for snowdrifts, etc. there probably is some manual labor needed to keep them clear but the amount this effects overall annual production is probably low.
-
^Was reading a chapter in a book last week where solar concentrators flipped upside down to protect the mirrors from hail or snow build up.
-
^Was reading a chapter in a book last week where solar concentrators flipped upside down to protect the mirrors from hail or snow build up.
My area has solar farms. I have no idea if they do that, but in winter it would be a really bad idea, there would be snow/ice (from freezing rain) stuck in the mechanism. I think ours are at a steep enough slope that most stuff just slides off. And we do get thunderstorms and hail.
-
We have a lot of solar in our part of New England, in part because they've allowed community solar farms in an area where there's lots of land, so economies of scale can be leveraged (vs individual homeowners just plopping some on their roof or yard). My own workplace has a 84kW array. I've never seen solar panels inverted or turned upside down. Occasionally you'll see a guy with a snow-broom wiping them off, but for the most part they are at a steep enough angle that within a day or so the snow just falls off.
-
One of the best solar panel ideas I have seen was at a facility in the Coachella Valley. Perfect area for solar anyway, and the panels were installed over a parking area - the panels generated all the electricity for the facility, and employees and visitors were able to park their cars out of the sun.
When I think of all the parking lots around here, that are bare and so hot in summer, this would be perfect. It wouldn't generate all the electricity for a mall, because in winter the days are so short, but it would be a big help. Same for schools, hospitals, etc., they have lots of surface area that could generate a lot of their electricity needs.
-
One of the best solar panel ideas I have seen was at a facility in the Coachella Valley. Perfect area for solar anyway, and the panels were installed over a parking area - the panels generated all the electricity for the facility, and employees and visitors were able to park their cars out of the sun.
When I think of all the parking lots around here, that are bare and so hot in summer, this would be perfect. It wouldn't generate all the electricity for a mall, because in winter the days are so short, but it would be a big help. Same for schools, hospitals, etc., they have lots of surface area that could generate a lot of their electricity needs.
Not to mention that the black asphalt won't absorb all the sunlight and contribute to urban heat gain.
-
One of the best solar panel ideas I have seen was at a facility in the Coachella Valley. Perfect area for solar anyway, and the panels were installed over a parking area - the panels generated all the electricity for the facility, and employees and visitors were able to park their cars out of the sun.
When I think of all the parking lots around here, that are bare and so hot in summer, this would be perfect. It wouldn't generate all the electricity for a mall, because in winter the days are so short, but it would be a big help. Same for schools, hospitals, etc., they have lots of surface area that could generate a lot of their electricity needs.
Not to mention that the black asphalt won't absorb all the sunlight and contribute to urban heat gain.
True. 3 wins for one action!
-
Fortunately, the farther north you go the smaller fraction of your annual solar production comes from the winter months anyway. It's like mother nature gave us a free work-around for that one, transposing most of the free energy to the snow-free months in the only climates that get snow so that the penalty is minimized.
Yes, but people in general get unhappy if the lights don't work in the winter. And having lived in the snow belt for many years, there are plenty of good clear days in the winter. Living in "not the snow belt but still gets some snow" now, winter solar production on clear days is quite impressive, if you have the panels aimed for it.
^Was reading a chapter in a book last week where solar concentrators flipped upside down to protect the mirrors from hail or snow build up.
Mirrors? That's not a flat PV panel setup, then. PV panels are designed for impacts from the front, so you'd want to keep them facing up in the snow/hail.
Based on experiments I've done (my office panels can swing), if the panels are more than about 30 degrees from vertical, they won't self-shed snow very well, but if they're more vertical, they'll dump snow off as soon as there's any sun at all - they can't build up a thick layer of snow, and what does build up is thin enough that the sun can punch through, heat the panel, and the whole thing goes sliding off. It's actually really fun to watch...
The 45 degree A-frames I'm building won't self shed as easily, but since they're ground mount, they won't be hard to manually clear.
-
^You're right, not PVs, but part of a solar concentrator array. A different and fascinating use of the Sun's thermal energy that doesn't require batteries to store energy.
-
Far less useful in large parts of the country, though. The solar concentrators basically fall off a cliff in collection if there's even light haze, whereas PV can produce on quite dark days. Not much, of course, but they'll produce useful energy on pretty grey days.
-
52-47 The #Senate CONFIRMED Andrew Wheeler to be Administrator of the EPA.
So the ex coal lobbyist is no iffcial head of protecting the nature. You don't need to know more about Trumps politics.
-
52-47 The #Senate CONFIRMED Andrew Wheeler to be Administrator of the EPA.
So the ex coal lobbyist is no iffcial head of protecting the nature. You don't need to know more about Trumps politics.
What does it say about the state of things that he is an improvement on his predecessor?
-
Interesting article
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-co2-emissions-cut-in-18-countries-with-strong-policies-study-finds-1.5032468?cmp=rss (https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-co2-emissions-cut-in-18-countries-with-strong-policies-study-finds-1.5032468?cmp=rss)
-
Interesting article
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-co2-emissions-cut-in-18-countries-with-strong-policies-study-finds-1.5032468?cmp=rss (https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-co2-emissions-cut-in-18-countries-with-strong-policies-study-finds-1.5032468?cmp=rss)
Wow! Even the US emissions went down. Maybe this CO2 reduction stuff is actually easy. We weren't trying very hard.
-
Interesting article
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-co2-emissions-cut-in-18-countries-with-strong-policies-study-finds-1.5032468?cmp=rss (https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-co2-emissions-cut-in-18-countries-with-strong-policies-study-finds-1.5032468?cmp=rss)
Wow! Even the US emissions went down. Maybe this CO2 reduction stuff is actually easy. We weren't trying very hard.
I would guess that some of Canada's decrease is the drop in oil prices and lower production from the tar sands. How is the energy-intensive manufacturing section of the US economy?
I know that better methods can produce amazing results. For example, cement production is a high CO2 producer (it can't be anything but, given you have to cook the limestone at high temperatures), but if you use the warmth from the oven chimney to prewarm the crushed limestone,you can decrease the amount of fuel needed to make the cement by a large %. And if you are careful about fuel choices you can also reduce the amount of acid rain-producing emissions. Of course to do this you need a government that has tight air emission standards. I see this because Ontario has easier standards than the US and the EU - and of course that was before we elected a Conservative government that wants to strip environmental protections to make things easier/cheaper for businesses.
-
Interesting article
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-co2-emissions-cut-in-18-countries-with-strong-policies-study-finds-1.5032468?cmp=rss (https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-co2-emissions-cut-in-18-countries-with-strong-policies-study-finds-1.5032468?cmp=rss)
Wow! Even the US emissions went down. Maybe this CO2 reduction stuff is actually easy. We weren't trying very hard.
I would guess that some of Canada's decrease is the drop in oil prices and lower production from the tar sands. How is the energy-intensive manufacturing section of the US economy?
I know that better methods can produce amazing results. For example, cement production is a high CO2 producer (it can't be anything but, given you have to cook the limestone at high temperatures), but if you use the warmth from the oven chimney to prewarm the crushed limestone,you can decrease the amount of fuel needed to make the cement by a large %. And if you are careful about fuel choices you can also reduce the amount of acid rain-producing emissions. Of course to do this you need a government that has tight air emission standards. I see this because Ontario has easier standards than the US and the EU - and of course that was before we elected a Conservative government that wants to strip environmental protections to make things easier/cheaper for businesses.
Well - A lot of coal plants closed down in the US to switch to natural gas (methane). Gas plants have more efficient thermodynamics due to higher operating temperatures and cogeneration. The economics of cheap natural gas helped the US to lower emissions. All those wind farms didn't hurt either.
Should we wait for market forces to alleviate global warming?
-
Far less useful in large parts of the country, though. The solar concentrators basically fall off a cliff in collection if there's even light haze, whereas PV can produce on quite dark days. Not much, of course, but they'll produce useful energy on pretty grey days.
Well, PVs are practically useless in the PNW. Huge swaths of the SW US are perfect for this tech. It's already being done, requires less exotic materials and tech to achieve decent efficiencies. Does require more land area (cheap tho) and materials and machinery (turbines, generators, etc) however. Dude, building one of these things seems right up your alley! I've built one in my spare time, quite satisfying in a way boring old PVs just can't touch.
Just watched this video as a class assignment, if anyone's got an hour to burn I suggest Building Below Zero (PBS special) (https://www.pbs.org/video/building-below-zero-net-zero-plus-transformation-building-below-zero-net-zero-plus-transfo/)
It's amazing how a-political being environmentally concious is. It's about saving money, energy independence, stability, and responsibility. Entire buildings and facilities can reduce energy usage and can produce more energy than they consume, today-right now. None of these techniques requires space age tech, mostly common sense approaches to building and awareness of energy use.
-
Well, PVs are practically useless in the PNW.
My roof disagrees with you.
-
Dude, building one of these things seems right up your alley! I've built one in my spare time, quite satisfying in a way boring old PVs just can't touch.
I like my energy systems boring. I have access to a vintage satellite TV dish if I want, and could easily build a quite powerful steam generator with it.
I quite don't trust myself yet to build a steam based system that doesn't blow up and injure or kill myself. Dealing with a couple hundred volts and a couple hundred amps is quite safe, as far as I'm concerned, compared to 500 psi steam.
It's amazing how a-political being environmentally concious is. It's about saving money, energy independence, stability, and responsibility. Entire buildings and facilities can reduce energy usage and can produce more energy than they consume, today-right now. None of these techniques requires space age tech, mostly common sense approaches to building and awareness of energy use.
No, they just require either a rather tolerant power grid of random rogue generators, or massive piles of money.
-
I'll keep my eye on the blog in case you get the urge ha.
Video goes over a lot of things, bit long but hey Ted Danson's narrating ha. I'm a bit invested in this stuff as my career in HVAC/Refrigeration is changing right in front of me, gotta keep up here. With regards to the tolerant grid, these practices are helping power plants by reducing power usage during peak electrical demand. We have alerts here in California where we are told we need to cut our power usage to preserve continual uninterrupted power for everyone (to avoid rolling blackouts or brownouts). In these NetZero buildings, this can be done tons of ways, from dimming lights to running systems on battery power instead of grid till the peak usage time passes. There are a TON of really boring ideas that simply reduce power usage, some cheaply.
I get the concern for the grid though. People hooking up PV panels and expecting the power company to pull them through when they themselves need or expecting the Utility to pay for "excess" power at market rates reduces their resources. Rogue generators? Skepticism is fine, but business is already moving forward in the name of profit with some of this tech. Building controls, building design, strategic use of things like waste heat have been moving along for YEARS, albeit very slowly. Optimizing efficiencies alone can go a long way here. All this requires a concious effort though. People didn't care about fuel efficiency in the '60s, it took a kick in the pants to get things going in the right direction. Them old boats are neat to look at, but they aren't as safe, fuel efficient or reliable as a base model Kia these days. Come a long way with cars, bout time buildings catch up. Buildings contribute 40% of green house gas. Designing new buildings and retrofitting old ones will probably make a bigger dent environment-wise then buying a Tesla.
-
Well, PVs are practically useless in the PNW.
My roof disagrees with you.
My mistake! I should not have assumed.
-
Well, PVs are practically useless in the PNW.
My roof disagrees with you.
My mistake! I should not have assumed.
Maybe, the East side of Washington state is even better. Some places only get 5" of precipitation.
-
Maybe, the East side of Washington state is even better. Some places only get 5" of precipitation.
I agree that the east side is much dryer, though they typically get snow for months on end. The west side only sees a few days of snow cover per year.
Even though western Washington is known for being gray and drizzly, my roof by Puget Sound produces more power than my house uses (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/solar-panel-installation/) each year by a comfortable margin, including powering my electric car and my heat pump. My solar array paid for itself in four years, thanks to state tax incentives for supporting local manufacturing, so from here on out it's just free zero-emission power forevermore.
People like to complain that solar doesn't work in northern latitudes, but this thread has already discussed how much solar is currently running in Germany. Germany and Washington are at the same latitude. PV panels produce electrons from light, not from heat, so even on cold and overcast days they work. If it's light enough for you to drive without headlights, they're making power.
-
Washington is a tad South of Germany in terms of latitude.
I used to live in Eastern Washington. It didn't get much snow where I lived. Solar panels would do well there. It is some distance from major loads, however.
-
Washington is a tad South of Germany in terms of latitude.
A teensy bit, yes. But doesn't that just prove my point? If solar works well in Germany, and Washington State is even lower latitude than that, then shouldn't solar work in Washington too?
-
Washington is a tad South of Germany in terms of latitude.
A teensy bit, yes. But doesn't that just prove my point? If solar works well in Germany, and Washington State is even lower latitude than that, then shouldn't solar work in Washington too?
That's a bit simplistic, doesn't cloud cover have a lot to do with that? And might that vary depending on jet stream currents and other region specific phenomenon?
Not that it matters... studies have been done for where solar panels are economical and have a reasonable ROI, I believe. If it pencils out, it pencils out.
-
With regards the the PNW, man I wish I didn't shoot off with my typing fingers there, lol. I had just finished reading a chapter in the book "Earth the Sequel" on solar energy. This book is 10 years old, so a bit out of date, fascinating history on solar tech coming up though, some of which is still being developed, some it seems shelved or hard to find info on (Is DuPont still developing the acquired Innovalight solar ink tech?). Anyway, this passage is kind of what made me doubt PNW solar energy being viable:
If your rooftop panels lasted thirty years, your price per kilowattphour would be 11 cents in Vegas, 21 cents in Fairbanks, Alaska. That might be cheaper thann the electricity you buy from your utility, but againt that depends on where you live. Analysts for the French brokerage Credit Agricol estimate that in Tokyo, where retail electricity prices are extremely high and there is moderate sunshine, "solar is cost competitive at $5 a watt, $8 installed]. Los Angeles is close behind (even more sunshine; nearly as costly energy), while solar will not become cost competitive in Portland [Oregon] any time soon."
Interestingly, the book points out the incentives in Germany that kicked off the solar boom actually had some perverse outcomes as well. One fact that gave me pause was that in Germany, a place not known for it's sunniness, it takes up to 6 years for a photocell to generate the amount of energy that it took to actually produce it. I'm not sure how accurate that statement is, but it's useful to consider ALL of the factors here in what is actually affecting climate change. Perhaps there are better more efficient technologies that are being ignored in favor of solar that could have taken climate change more effectively. At the time the book was published, not a single coal plant had been eliminated, and electric prices have risen substantially. Who does that affect? The poorer, and those that are stuck paying for conventional electricity. Those coal stacks are still going, and customers are paying more, for what outcome? There's a bit of unrest in Germany right now over the solar situation related to this. Another thing is huge incentives and having them disappear also gets companies pouring resources into manufacturing *current* tech to take advantage of incentives while they can. I wonder how many resources were diverted from R and D to manufacturing something now for a quick and easy profit? How much capital is being burned up by companies that are going to wither away without subsidies that could have otherwise gone to some more innovative, but slower to market tech companies? While incentives definitely get the ball rolling on new tech, I'm not sure they are the best way forward and may end up skewing market forces toward inefficiency and waste.
-
If the book is 10 years old, the numbers on solar are so ancient as to be worthless.
Modern "screw the customer" installers will do solar for $4/W installed, and you can do it for far less if you do the work yourself ($1.50/W or so).
-
If the book is 10 years old, the numbers on solar are so ancient as to be worthless.
Modern "screw the customer" installers will do solar for $4/W installed, and you can do it for far less if you do the work yourself ($1.50/W or so).
Right before I installed my own array a few years back, I talked with a guy living not too far from me who actually started his own solar company. He charged a nominal consulting fee (I think it was like 1K) to help a homeowner through the process of layout, component selection and purchase, permitting process, all the way through installation. He generated a lot of business this way. Saved homeowners a lot of money and he had a nice little side business going in retirement.
My wife and I were just talking about our next home purchase when she finally decides to join me in retirement and the kids are gone. I told her absolutely it has to have excellent solar potential.
-
Interestingly, the book points out the incentives in Germany that kicked off the solar boom actually had some perverse outcomes as well. One fact that gave me pause was that in Germany, a place not known for it's sunniness, it takes up to 6 years for a photocell to generate the amount of energy that it took to actually produce it. I'm not sure how accurate that statement is,
I don't know if it is a "real" book or propaganda of the coal industry. They did their usual thing and there are still people believing solar takes more energy to produce than you can make with it. Or the book is just stone age old, and with 10 years I guess it is. It probably has the numbers of 2000.
But after that a huge boom happened because of the EEG (the "make more regenerative energies law") and solar dropped in prices like a stone while effectiveness rose by 1/4 at the same time.
The problem was - the "perverse outcome" you say? - that the law was too slow for this vast success. Prices (always for 20 years to ensure saftey of investation) were set every few years while the production got cheaper by several % every quater.
That meant that the guaranteed prices were not only high (to subsidize new tech), they were also a lot higher than it was needed. It was a real bubble. (Which, factory wise, burst when the Chinese jumped onto it, but that is a different story.)
At the same time general prices (not least because of the new reg. energy production and despite the closing of nuclear after Fukushima) were dropping too. Since the people have to pay the difference price between market rates and subsidized prices, that number rose heavily in a few years.
And since every bigger company does not need to pay that price (for competetive reasons), but only a more symbolic 0.15 cent I think, the EEG costs 6 cent per KwH for me. It does no longer rise, but it will take a few more years to drop, when the first (and very expensive) solar and wind fall out of the 20 years.
Germany made solar a valid energy source for nearly the whole world, and often the cheapest, and as a thank you we are nearly the only ones paying the invention -> feasability costs. (solar now is 6 times or even more cheaper than when the EEG was initiated)
It's a bit unfair, but in sight of what climate change does, I just shrug. Also it still costs less than nuclear power feasability has cost us (not to mention the waste, which is still open).
On the other hand it shows that if you really want it politically, you could even now reach the 1.5 degree goal of the IPCC.
-
On the other hand it shows that if you really want it politically, you could even now reach the 1.5 degree goal of the IPCC.
Of this I have no doubt, though politically (and practically) it seems like a pipe dream. Entire national economies are based on petroleum sales, and even as wind and solar become less expensive to produce when all factors are considered incentives remain to continue drilling.
How to get from there to here, and quickly?
-
On the other hand it shows that if you really want it politically, you could even now reach the 1.5 degree goal of the IPCC.
Of this I have no doubt, though politically (and practically) it seems like a pipe dream. Entire national economies are based on petroleum sales, and even as wind and solar become less expensive to produce when all factors are considered incentives remain to continue drilling.
How to get from there to here, and quickly?
Have you seen this article yet? It's notable because of who wrote it.
https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-the-planet/
I thought this one was interesting, too:
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/3/4/18216045/renewable-energy-wood-pellets-biomass
Is renewables really the answer to climate change or should we be much more focused on nuclear?
-
Have you seen this article yet? It's notable because of who wrote it.
https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-the-planet/
What are you trying to say here, @CheezM? That article was written like someone with ADHD who had mistakenly taken cocaine instead of Ritalin - jumping randomly from topic to topic. It (falsely) suggests all sorts of correlations are cause-and-effect, and brings in too many straw men to count.
-
Have you seen this article yet? It's notable because of who wrote it.
https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-the-planet/
What are you trying to say here, @CheezM? That article was written like someone with ADHD who had mistakenly taken cocaine instead of Ritalin - jumping randomly from topic to topic. It (falsely) suggests all sorts of correlations are cause-and-effect, and brings in too many straw men to count.
Nereo, I think you're being unfair to the article writer (and poster by proxy). The article perhaps wasn't the most focused, but it brought up a lot of good points that should be discussed in a rational manner rather than being dismissed out-of-hand. (I don't expect a rebuttal from you point-by-point, but maybe reference to an article that makes the case for renewables regarding some of these issues.) Renewables do have serious issues which he brings up fairly thoroughly. And nuclear, in my mind, is one of the most environmentally-friendly power sources we have (though we need to grow up and decide on where to dispose of the waste).
From my perspective, the biggest point of the article I do not agree with is that rising energy costs are necessarily a bad thing. Cheap energy is one of the problems, not the solution.
-
Nereo, I think you're being unfair to the article writer (and poster by proxy). The article perhaps wasn't the most focused, but it brought up a lot of good points that should be discussed in a rational manner rather than being dismissed out-of-hand. (I don't expect a rebuttal from you point-by-point, but maybe reference to an article that makes the case for renewables regarding some of these issues.) Renewables do have serious issues which he brings up fairly thoroughly. And nuclear, in my mind, is one of the most environmentally-friendly power sources we have (though we need to grow up and decide on where to dispose of the waste).
From my perspective, the biggest point of the article I do not agree with is that rising energy costs are necessarily a bad thing. Cheap energy is one of the problems, not the solution.
Perhaps I should have been more thorough of my criticism, and avoided colorful school-yard insults.
About the article specifically, the biggest complaints I have is that the author states as fact a number of misleading points. among them are that solar and wind farms require huge amounts of land, that newer turbines kill millions of birds, that resevoirs are the only method for mechanical storage of energy, that enviornmental mitigation is somehow a bad thing or doomed to failure, that a decrease in solar panel cost somehow caused an increase in rate-payer electricity, that transmission lines are not figured into the cost of wind or solar farms (yet somehow are for new nuclear plants), that the 'dangers' of any potential source should only be tied how many people have directly been killed, that community resistance to wind & solar should not be ignored while we must ignore even greate community-level objection to nuclear, and (perhaps most egregious of all) - that the choice between wind and solar OR nuclear are somehow diametrically opposed.
As for my question for CheezM - I think it still stands. If you're going to link some articles and say "it's relevant..." some commentary is warranted.
Quite frankly I think the article is from a shill seeking to support nuclear at the expense of solar and wind. As I said, it's not an either/or proposition. In the article, the author obfuscated a number of key strengths of wind and solar - for example smaller PV arrays exist, whereas as discussed upthread small nuclear reactors are not economically viable - with nuclear you need very large plants on a sizable chunk of land. The most productive wind farms aren't on land at all, and turbines are frequently built along ridge-tops and in fields (ie they are not as big a loss of land as the author claims). Finally the challenge of spent nuclear fuel is not as rosy as the author suggests. It doesn't matter that the material itself might fit into a dump-truck. As we have no central repository in the US all spent fuel is stored on site and for centuries after powerdown. The relevant area isn't the fuel itself but the footprint of the entire plant, and the security needed to keep these secure.
I'm on record in this thread suggesting some new large (>1MW) Gen IV reactors could help move us away from fossil fuels over the next two decades, but throwing shade and erroneous 'facts' at PV and wind turbines just pushes us inevitably in the wrong direction, as any new nuclear will take a decade+ to come online (best case scenario) - meanwhile the 'renewable skeptics' will just use this to anchor their resistence against new plans.
-
On the other hand it shows that if you really want it politically, you could even now reach the 1.5 degree goal of the IPCC.
Of this I have no doubt, though politically (and practically) it seems like a pipe dream. Entire national economies are based on petroleum sales, and even as wind and solar become less expensive to produce when all factors are considered incentives remain to continue drilling.
How to get from there to here, and quickly?
Have you seen this article yet? It's notable because of who wrote it.
https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-the-planet/
I thought this one was interesting, too:
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/3/4/18216045/renewable-energy-wood-pellets-biomass
Is renewables really the answer to climate change or should we be much more focused on nuclear?
As Nereo said, both articles are extremely one sided. Yes, those problems exist. But they are small in comparison. For example here most solar "fields" are build on old industrial land that is no longer used and cannot be used to live on or grow on because of the former industry's pollution. In other countries like Spain there are often build on unused land - too stony to grow somethign on for example, or too dry.
And that large masses of wood are transported across the ocean is something new for me. I don't even know a single (big trunk) wood using biogas plant. All I know work with either cow and pig shit or plants from fields (which in itself is problematic, but that is a different point).
There was a lot of research going into using wood waste (unusable for buildings, furniture, paper), that I know. But afaik they still haven't solved the problems with those gen 2 fuels, mainly the low speed of the gassing process.
I would say the devastation of tar sands oil extraction are far worse than this could ever be.
-
You guys are all pretty smart. It is not either / or. Each energy situation has it's own solution.
So - How about geothermal? I had a short course in this a few months back. As you go deeper in the Earth, the temperature rises. We have been putting a lot of pipes in the earth as we drill for oil and gas. We have been putting horizontal pipes in the earth to get to the oil and gas and for fracking. The connection was made in the class that with today's drilling technology geothermal heat may be extracted from the depths of the Earth even in non-volcanic rock. Water pumped into the earth will boil. The steam can be used to turn a turbine.
This heat is nuclear heat. It results from the radioactive decay of isotopes within the Earth.
It seems like this form of energy although not titled as renewable could be just as good for emissions if not better. It would be available 24 hours a day and would not take up a lot of land. It may be like hydroelectricity and wind as all sites will not provide geothermal heat.
I'd be curious to hear some thoughts. It seems like geothermal energy could be developed / improved much quicker than nuclear fusion.
-
You guys are all pretty smart. It is not either / or. Each energy situation has it's own solution.
So - How about geothermal? I had a short course in this a few months back. As you go deeper in the Earth, the temperature rises. We have been putting a lot of pipes in the earth as we drill for oil and gas. We have been putting horizontal pipes in the earth to get to the oil and gas and for fracking. The connection was made in the class that with today's drilling technology geothermal heat may be extracted from the depths of the Earth even in non-volcanic rock. Water pumped into the earth will boil. The steam can be used to turn a turbine.
This heat is nuclear heat. It results from the radioactive decay of isotopes within the Earth.
It seems like this form of energy although not titled as renewable could be just as good for emissions if not better. It would be available 24 hours a day and would not take up a lot of land. It may be like hydroelectricity and wind as all sites will not provide geothermal heat.
I'd be curious to hear some thoughts. It seems like geothermal energy could be developed / improved much quicker than nuclear fusion.
Geothermal is intriguing but not market competitive away from specialized locations. Those locations are generally near near-surface thermal anomalies (aka volcanoes and faults) and also close to transmission lines. There are a number of places throughout the west that fit these criteria, but is unlikely to be a game-changer at the current price point. I think that the technology (at least in part borrowed from fracking) is developing quickly and is worth keeping an eye on. Land use restrictions can also be an issue. Here in Washington many of the most promising thermal resources are in remote designated wilderness areas. Some local agencies have looked at pilot holes (Snohomish County did this off hwy 2, for example), but little has been market-competitive.
-
So - How about geothermal? [...]
This heat is nuclear heat. It results from the radioactive decay of isotopes within the Earth.
Glenstache gave a pretty good rundown of using geothermal to generate electricity.
Minor nitpick - the heat within Earth is in part due to radioactive decay, but also/predominately because the earth is slowly cooling from when it was a ball of molton iron (at a rate of ~100şC/billion years, or -0.00001ş/century, so those hoping for natural cooling via this mechanism shouldn't waste their time) as well as the friction form gravity and tectonic activity.)
You can use geothermal to heat and cool buildings, but its very costly to set up and works best for larger buildings. It still requires energy to pump fluid through pipes drilled down several hundred feet. As I understand it, modern heat-pumps are more efficient (use less energy) at heating/cooling a properly insulated and sealed single family home in most regions.
-
Geothermal is intriguing but not market competitive away from specialized locations.
In practice, geothermal also suffers from degradation curves that wind and solar do not. When you start extracting heat from the earth, the earth cools off in the area around your heat exchanger, making it harder and harder to get more heat out if you've built an industrial-scale extraction system. By contrast, the sun still shines the same amount no matter how many solar panels you put up.
But I do agree that there is potential for site specific geothermal conversion technologies in areas that already have deep holes and fluid recirculation systems in place. We call those places oil wells, and it does seem kind of shocking that drilling companies aren't all making their own on-site electricity this way. Maybe it's because they're already awash in energy in those places, causing them (for example) to flare off methane rather than capturing or burning it locally.
The whole petroleum extraction industry is bizarre, when you get up close. Apparently, something like 30% of the crude oil in the trans-atlantic pipeline system is crude-burned along the way just to generate enough heat to keep the oil flowing through the pipe. It's terribly inefficient, but since they have a basically unlimited supply of oil at every junction anyway, it's cheaper to just torch it than to heat it up any other way.
-
On the other hand it shows that if you really want it politically, you could even now reach the 1.5 degree goal of the IPCC.
Of this I have no doubt, though politically (and practically) it seems like a pipe dream. Entire national economies are based on petroleum sales, and even as wind and solar become less expensive to produce when all factors are considered incentives remain to continue drilling.
How to get from there to here, and quickly?
Have you seen this article yet? It's notable because of who wrote it.
https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-the-planet/
I thought this one was interesting, too:
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/3/4/18216045/renewable-energy-wood-pellets-biomass
Is renewables really the answer to climate change or should we be much more focused on nuclear?
As Nereo said, both articles are extremely one sided. Yes, those problems exist. But they are small in comparison. For example here most solar "fields" are build on old industrial land that is no longer used and cannot be used to live on or grow on because of the former industry's pollution. In other countries like Spain there are often build on unused land - too stony to grow somethign on for example, or too dry.
And that large masses of wood are transported across the ocean is something new for me. I don't even know a single (big trunk) wood using biogas plant. All I know work with either cow and pig shit or plants from fields (which in itself is problematic, but that is a different point).
There was a lot of research going into using wood waste (unusable for buildings, furniture, paper), that I know. But afaik they still haven't solved the problems with those gen 2 fuels, mainly the low speed of the gassing process.
I would say the devastation of tar sands oil extraction are far worse than this could ever be.
How was the second article one-sided? To me it was very clear on the unintended consequences of not studying the lifecycle of a system before declaring it a carbon-neutral fuel source. By the EPA's logic, fossil fuels are carbon neutral as well because we will regenerate the stores in another half billion years or so.
-
By the EPA's logic, fossil fuels are carbon neutral as well because we will regenerate the stores in another half billion years or so.
This betrays a severe misunderstanding of the geological record.
The vast majority of commercially known oil reserves are Mesozoic. It's not like the Earth is constantly making new oil all the time at a constant rate, it only makes it in specific locations at specific times, and under just the right conditions those reserves are naturally processed into useful compositions and then revealed in accessible places.
But if you'll indulge my swing-for-the-fences scientific lunacy for a moment, I suggest that we should be making oil reserves today, artificially. Oceanic uptake of atmospheric CO2, converted to biomass and then buried in shallow stillwater environments, is still the most effective way to reduce greenhouse gas concentrations. The only problem is geography. We no longer have good tropical stillwater basins, thanks to plate tectonics reshuffling everything, and I don't think the folks in the middle east would be too happy if we were to convert the Red Sea into a giant sewage lagoon.
-
How was the second article one-sided? To me it was very clear on the unintended consequences of not studying the lifecycle of a system before declaring it a carbon-neutral fuel source. By the EPA's logic, fossil fuels are carbon neutral as well because we will regenerate the stores in another half billion years or so.
There's a fundamental difference between burning recent plant growth (eg 'wood') and fossil fuels. While were formed from essentially the same process (photosynthsis, or the biological conversion of atmospheric carbon into carbon-compounds) - the time scale is important. As Sol suggested, fossil fuels come from plants the lived hundreds of millions of years ago, and that carbon has been sequestered from the atmosphere since then. If it weren't for humans digging it up and setting it on fire it wouldn't be released except for subduction, which is a painfully slow process that happens on the order of millennia.
Burning wood, in contrast, is carbon that was largely pulled out of the atmosphere just a few years ago and (critically) if left to rot on the forest floor would largely re-enter the system as it rots and gets eaten by a lots of other critters. A small percentage will be sequestered on larger timescales (centuries) but by most estimates >98% stays in the system (we plant ecologists call it 'nutrient cycling). That's why using wood to heat your house has a lower carbon footprint than using coal or natural gas (though passive solar beats all of them by a large margin).
But if you'll indulge my swing-for-the-fences scientific lunacy for a moment, I suggest that we should be making oil reserves today, artificially. Oceanic uptake of atmospheric CO2, converted to biomass and then buried in shallow stillwater environments, is still the most effective way to reduce greenhouse gas concentrations. The only problem is geography. We no longer have good tropical stillwater basins, thanks to plate tectonics reshuffling everything, and I don't think the folks in the middle east would be too happy if we were to convert the Red Sea into a giant sewage lagoon.
I've always seen great potential in doing this in the deep sea, where very little of what's deposited ever comes back into the system. The challenge has been getting particles to sink deep enough without i) dissolving, ii) being consumed by other species on their way. It's fairly easy to create phytoplankton and zooplankton blooms in nutrient poor (oligotrophic) waters far offshore, but very little of that productivity sinks below the photic zone (~200 meters), let along makes it 4,000m to the ocean floor.
-
How was the second article one-sided? To me it was very clear on the unintended consequences of not studying the lifecycle of a system before declaring it a carbon-neutral fuel source. By the EPA's logic, fossil fuels are carbon neutral as well because we will regenerate the stores in another half billion years or so.
There's a fundamental difference between burning recent plant growth (eg 'wood') and fossil fuels. While were formed from essentially the same process (photosynthsis, or the biological conversion of atmospheric carbon into carbon-compounds) - the time scale is important. As Sol suggested, fossil fuels come from plants the lived hundreds of millions of years ago, and that carbon has been sequestered from the atmosphere since then. If it weren't for humans digging it up and setting it on fire it wouldn't be released except for subduction, which is a painfully slow process that happens on the order of millennia.
Burning wood, in contrast, is carbon that was largely pulled out of the atmosphere just a few years ago and (critically) if left to rot on the forest floor would largely re-enter the system as it rots and gets eaten by a lots of other critters. A small percentage will be sequestered on larger timescales (centuries) but by most estimates >98% stays in the system (we plant ecologists call it 'nutrient cycling). That's why using wood to heat your house has a lower carbon footprint than using coal or natural gas (though passive solar beats all of them by a large margin).
Help me understand my confusion then. All of the points in the Professor Emeritus's report seem to indicate this is a poor solution to the current problem: http://www.perspectivesecologiques.com/telechargements/SOSFSUD%20Myth%20of%20Carbon%20Neutrality%20of%20Biomass%20Pr%20William%20Moomaw%20Tufts%20University.pdf (http://www.perspectivesecologiques.com/telechargements/SOSFSUD%20Myth%20of%20Carbon%20Neutrality%20of%20Biomass%20Pr%20William%20Moomaw%20Tufts%20University.pdf).
Basically, his points are as follows:
1) With wood, just like other fossil fuels, we're adding carbon dioxide immediately into the environment.
2) The growth rate for new wood is less than the growth rate for old wood, thus in the short term wood is an even worse fuel than fossil fuels (since the bigger trees would have sucked out more CO2).
3) In the long-term (generations), a new equilibrium of the system will occur (carbon-neutrality), but the new equilibrium will be very, very bad given the amount of fuel needed.
(He also discusses the waste material and notes that again the timeframes are much longer for this process to occur.)
-
I didn't read the article but I would guess the answer (re: burning wood and burning fossil fuels) is that they are both bad, but fossil fuels are worse because they were a long term store of c02 that is now released into the environment versus being stored.
Of course if you burned down all the trees on the planet that would be bad as well, for multiple reasons.
-
You guys are all pretty smart. It is not either / or. Each energy situation has it's own solution.
So - How about geothermal?
If you live on Island - fantastic! Because you can just catch the hot water when it comes out of the earth.
For 99% of the other people... meh. You need to go extremely deep to get an amount and temperature that is cost-efficient. 400m is the minimum for a normal area, and this can double for big installations, the reason is that you need at least 80°C to produce electricity, and more is better. It is not unusual to go below 4km in Germany. That makes it extremely expensive, way more than solar or wind, and it is unlikely those costs will go down much. Digging is digging after all.
And geothermal can cause earthquakes (fun fact: why exactly is still not known, just that earthquakes happen very often near geothermals, and sometimes necessitated to close them down.)
You can use a similar low-temperature, non-industrial size installation for heating your house (or cooling in the summer), using heat pumps. You don't need to dig very deep for that. But you need electricity for this...
-
How was the second article one-sided? To me it was very clear on the unintended consequences of not studying the lifecycle of a system before declaring it a carbon-neutral fuel source. By the EPA's logic, fossil fuels are carbon neutral as well because we will regenerate the stores in another half billion years or so.
There's a fundamental difference between burning recent plant growth (eg 'wood') and fossil fuels. While were formed from essentially the same process (photosynthsis, or the biological conversion of atmospheric carbon into carbon-compounds) - the time scale is important. As Sol suggested, fossil fuels come from plants the lived hundreds of millions of years ago, and that carbon has been sequestered from the atmosphere since then. If it weren't for humans digging it up and setting it on fire it wouldn't be released except for subduction, which is a painfully slow process that happens on the order of millennia.
Burning wood, in contrast, is carbon that was largely pulled out of the atmosphere just a few years ago and (critically) if left to rot on the forest floor would largely re-enter the system as it rots and gets eaten by a lots of other critters. A small percentage will be sequestered on larger timescales (centuries) but by most estimates >98% stays in the system (we plant ecologists call it 'nutrient cycling). That's why using wood to heat your house has a lower carbon footprint than using coal or natural gas (though passive solar beats all of them by a large margin).
Help me understand my confusion then. All of the points in the Professor Emeritus's report seem to indicate this is a poor solution to the current problem: http://www.perspectivesecologiques.com/telechargements/SOSFSUD%20Myth%20of%20Carbon%20Neutrality%20of%20Biomass%20Pr%20William%20Moomaw%20Tufts%20University.pdf (http://www.perspectivesecologiques.com/telechargements/SOSFSUD%20Myth%20of%20Carbon%20Neutrality%20of%20Biomass%20Pr%20William%20Moomaw%20Tufts%20University.pdf).
Basically, his points are as follows:
1) With wood, just like other fossil fuels, we're adding carbon dioxide immediately into the environment.
2) The growth rate for new wood is less than the growth rate for old wood, thus in the short term wood is an even worse fuel than fossil fuels (since the bigger trees would have sucked out more CO2).
3) In the long-term (generations), a new equilibrium of the system will occur (carbon-neutrality), but the new equilibrium will be very, very bad given the amount of fuel needed.
(He also discusses the waste material and notes that again the timeframes are much longer for this process to occur.)
It's in my comments above. Basically he's correct that burning wood is not carbon neutral, and I didn't claim that it was - see comment about how both are inferior to passive solar. But its far better than burning, say, coal, because virtually all of the carbon in coal (or petrol or natural gas) is carbon that had been sequestered out of the system. Forests, on the other hand, are continously cycling the carbon. Where we get into trouble is when secondary growth replaces climax species, or when the forest is clearcut and no new forests emerge.
How you harvest matters a great deal - cutting down deadwood will have a much lower impact than heavy logging. Around here most firewood comes from trees downed by storms or cut during construction. Done sustainably (yes, you can log sustainably) you can actually accelerate the growth (and thereby CO2 uptake) of surrounding trees, as they no longer compete for sunlight, nutrients and water.
It's worth noting that New England is currently one of two major carbon sinks on the planet, as the forests have been expanding since the late 19th century when ~75% of northern New England was farmland (currently it's the opposite, about 75% forest).
-
As for my question for CheezM - I think it still stands. If you're going to link some articles and say "it's relevant..." some commentary is warranted.
I'd be happy to respond. The moderator keeps banning my account, however. Apparently anyone who holds an alternate view is a troll deserving of banishment.
So this will probably be a throwaway account as well, unless the moderator would like to chill out a little bit.
I think what made the first article stand out is the author. Someone who is/was on the front lines of renewables over the last decade. Which is why I shared it. The second article was interesting as well.
I have solar panels, I'm not totally against renewables, but the points are well stated. It does seem like nuclear is the cleanest and most efficient form of on demand energy. I was hoping the article would spark some conversation, as it did. Geothermal seems to be a solution that provides on demand energy and not simply limited to when it's windy or sunny, and the earth is seemingly always hot at it's core.
As for disposing of nuclear, the author did address this as well - nuclear just doesn't take up all that much space, a basketball court sized area. I wish we could just send it off in to space, but the risk of a rocket failure/explosion creating a nuclear holocaust is probably too big.
-
On the other hand it shows that if you really want it politically, you could even now reach the 1.5 degree goal of the IPCC.
Of this I have no doubt, though politically (and practically) it seems like a pipe dream. Entire national economies are based on petroleum sales, and even as wind and solar become less expensive to produce when all factors are considered incentives remain to continue drilling.
How to get from there to here, and quickly?
Have you seen this article yet? It's notable because of who wrote it.
https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-the-planet/
I thought this one was interesting, too:
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/3/4/18216045/renewable-energy-wood-pellets-biomass
Is renewables really the answer to climate change or should we be much more focused on nuclear?
As Nereo said, both articles are extremely one sided. Yes, those problems exist. But they are small in comparison. For example here most solar "fields" are build on old industrial land that is no longer used and cannot be used to live on or grow on because of the former industry's pollution. In other countries like Spain there are often build on unused land - too stony to grow somethign on for example, or too dry.
And that large masses of wood are transported across the ocean is something new for me. I don't even know a single (big trunk) wood using biogas plant. All I know work with either cow and pig shit or plants from fields (which in itself is problematic, but that is a different point).
There was a lot of research going into using wood waste (unusable for buildings, furniture, paper), that I know. But afaik they still haven't solved the problems with those gen 2 fuels, mainly the low speed of the gassing process.
I would say the devastation of tar sands oil extraction are far worse than this could ever be.
It wasn't just the space required for solar and wind. But compare how much space is needed for solar compared to nuclear? And what do you do to generate electricity when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining? You STILL have to store it somehow.
How renewable is solar when the panels don't last forever? How efficiently can the panels be recycled and reused.
-
How was the second article one-sided? To me it was very clear on the unintended consequences of not studying the lifecycle of a system before declaring it a carbon-neutral fuel source. By the EPA's logic, fossil fuels are carbon neutral as well because we will regenerate the stores in another half billion years or so.
There's a fundamental difference between burning recent plant growth (eg 'wood') and fossil fuels. While were formed from essentially the same process (photosynthsis, or the biological conversion of atmospheric carbon into carbon-compounds) - the time scale is important. As Sol suggested, fossil fuels come from plants the lived hundreds of millions of years ago, and that carbon has been sequestered from the atmosphere since then. If it weren't for humans digging it up and setting it on fire it wouldn't be released except for subduction, which is a painfully slow process that happens on the order of millennia.
Burning wood, in contrast, is carbon that was largely pulled out of the atmosphere just a few years ago and (critically) if left to rot on the forest floor would largely re-enter the system as it rots and gets eaten by a lots of other critters. A small percentage will be sequestered on larger timescales (centuries) but by most estimates >98% stays in the system (we plant ecologists call it 'nutrient cycling). That's why using wood to heat your house has a lower carbon footprint than using coal or natural gas (though passive solar beats all of them by a large margin).
Help me understand my confusion then. All of the points in the Professor Emeritus's report seem to indicate this is a poor solution to the current problem: http://www.perspectivesecologiques.com/telechargements/SOSFSUD%20Myth%20of%20Carbon%20Neutrality%20of%20Biomass%20Pr%20William%20Moomaw%20Tufts%20University.pdf (http://www.perspectivesecologiques.com/telechargements/SOSFSUD%20Myth%20of%20Carbon%20Neutrality%20of%20Biomass%20Pr%20William%20Moomaw%20Tufts%20University.pdf).
Basically, his points are as follows:
1) With wood, just like other fossil fuels, we're adding carbon dioxide immediately into the environment.
2) The growth rate for new wood is less than the growth rate for old wood, thus in the short term wood is an even worse fuel than fossil fuels (since the bigger trees would have sucked out more CO2).
3) In the long-term (generations), a new equilibrium of the system will occur (carbon-neutrality), but the new equilibrium will be very, very bad given the amount of fuel needed.
(He also discusses the waste material and notes that again the timeframes are much longer for this process to occur.)
It's in my comments above. Basically he's correct that burning wood is not carbon neutral, and I didn't claim that it was - see comment about how both are inferior to passive solar. But its far better than burning, say, coal, because virtually all of the carbon in coal (or petrol or natural gas) is carbon that had been sequestered out of the system. Forests, on the other hand, are continously cycling the carbon. Where we get into trouble is when secondary growth replaces climax species, or when the forest is clearcut and no new forests emerge.
How you harvest matters a great deal - cutting down deadwood will have a much lower impact than heavy logging. Around here most firewood comes from trees downed by storms or cut during construction. Done sustainably (yes, you can log sustainably) you can actually accelerate the growth (and thereby CO2 uptake) of surrounding trees, as they no longer compete for sunlight, nutrients and water.
It's worth noting that New England is currently one of two major carbon sinks on the planet, as the forests have been expanding since the late 19th century when ~75% of northern New England was farmland (currently it's the opposite, about 75% forest).
What I found interesting about the VOX article was the statements that biomass is going to make climate change worse, while at the same time also stating it's not settled science. It's a good, thought provoking article.
-
As for my question for CheezM - I think it still stands. If you're going to link some articles and say "it's relevant..." some commentary is warranted.
I'd be happy to respond. The moderator keeps banning my account, however. Apparently anyone who holds an alternate view is a troll deserving of banishment.
So this will probably be a throwaway account as well, unless the moderator would like to chill out a little bit.
I'm sure your account wasn't banned based on your last comment. My guess is that it was done in error, I think I've heard of a few cases of that happening. I would notify a moderator.
I think what made the first article stand out is the author. Someone who is/was on the front lines of renewables over the last decade. Which is why I shared it. The second article was interesting as well.
I have solar panels, I'm not totally against renewables, but the points are well stated. It does seem like nuclear is the cleanest and most efficient form of on demand energy. I was hoping the article would spark some conversation, as it did. Geothermal seems to be a solution that provides on demand energy and not simply limited to when it's windy or sunny, and the earth is seemingly always hot at it's core.
As for disposing of nuclear, the author did address this as well - nuclear just doesn't take up all that much space, a basketball court sized area. I wish we could just send it off in to space, but the risk of a rocket failure/explosion creating a nuclear holocaust is probably too big.
Nereo pointed out why this is incredibly misleading. Fitting the waste into the area of a basketball court is entirely theoretical, not based in reality. It doesn't account for security, waste other than just the spent fuel, or the fact that the storage is indefinite even after the plant is no longer producing energy.
-
As for my question for CheezM - I think it still stands. If you're going to link some articles and say "it's relevant..." some commentary is warranted.
I'd be happy to respond. The moderator keeps banning my account, however. Apparently anyone who holds an alternate view is a troll deserving of banishment.
So this will probably be a throwaway account as well, unless the moderator would like to chill out a little bit.
The forum rules are posted here (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/forum-rules/). Moderators here are very open to alternative views and willing to let discussions continue, but do not tolerate attacks on other posters (ie #2. Attack an argument, not a person).
Creating alternative accounts is another way to get banned, so you might want to PM a moderator first to plea your case if you don't want this to keep happening. Some accounts are banned accidentially (e.g. when IP addresses are shared)
I think what made the first article stand out is the author. Someone who is/was on the front lines of renewables over the last decade. Which is why I shared it. The second article was interesting as well.
Many of us are "on the front lines". As I said, the author has taken a very hostile stance to wind and solar, sits on the board of numerous lobbying groups who's sole purpose is to prevent the closure of specific nuclear plants (and who receive funding from said agencies) and has been called out by a wide swath of people for being counterproductive. His arguments are filled with hyperbole and false equivalence.
As for disposing of nuclear, the author did address this as well - nuclear just doesn't take up all that much space, a basketball court sized area. I wish we could just send it off in to space, but the risk of a rocket failure/explosion creating a nuclear holocaust is probably too big.
The author addressed it **incorrectly**. As I've outlined numerous times, the size of the actual material is not what matters - it's the total area dedicated to its containment. In the case of spent fuel rods, the entire plant remains a no-go zone for decades after power-down, and a typical plant can take up over two square miles. I know this because I've served as an decommissioning analyst for three different nuclear reactors. But don't take my word for it - go look up any decommissioned nuclear plant and do a google-earth flyover. It remains an off-limits, high security zone because we can't let 'bad hombres' dig up some spent fuel. Security (both from meltdown and from terrorist attack) is actually the dominant cost for a plant, and the primary reason why they are so 'effing expensive: you're building a super-max prison in reverse and keeping it open long after you stop generating power.
Your idea of shooting it into space has less to do with risk of rocket explosion and more to do with the infeasibility of the whole idea. Putting a golf-cart sized satellite into low-earth orbit (LEO) costs upwards of $100MM and these orbits will still decay over time. If you want to push a few thousand kilos out of Earth's gravity well the price-tag would be in the billions.
It wasn't just the space required for solar and wind. But compare how much space is needed for solar compared to nuclear? And what do you do to generate electricity when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining? You STILL have to store it somehow.
In case you missed my point earlier - the footprint of a nuclear reactor is the entire plant, which (largely for security reasons) stretches for several square miles. In contrast, you can build economic solar arrays on less than an acre. We are extremely limited on where we can build new nuclear plants based on politics, security and feasibility (eg a large cooling source like a river or lake or ocean).
Again, the various technologies are not diametrically opposed; we can (and probably should) have both constant-generation stations including nuclear, hydro and LNG, in addition to substantial wind and solar.
How renewable is solar when the panels don't last forever? How efficiently can the panels be recycled and reused.
Nuclear reactors have a similar and (IMO) more substantial problem - most reactors are built to last 30-50 years, whereas spent fuel (as discussed above) persists for millennia unless we develop better Gen IV consumer reactors. Disposal of PV panels is certainly a consideration, but it pales in comparison to the issues surrounding nuclear reactors which have reached their end-of-life. My guess is that automated recycling plants will develop to break down the more valuable, rare and toxic elements from spent panels (though see comments about disposal upthread).
Worth noting that while current panels carry a 25-30y 'lifespan', this is based on what's believed to be 80% power efficiency at the 25y mark. Most panels will likely remain in service for far longer, until they are no longer functional. Its too early to tell when exactly that will be from the latest crop of PVs.
-
The forum rules are posted here (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/forum-rules/). Moderators here are very open to alternative views and willing to let discussions continue, but do not tolerate attacks on other posters (ie #2. Attack an argument, not a person).
Creating alternative accounts is another way to get banned, so you might want to PM a moderator first to plea your case if you don't want this to keep happening. Some accounts are banned accidentially (e.g. when IP addresses are shared)
Can't discuss with a moderator once the account is banned. A simple warning would have been much more reasonable.
Again, the various technologies are not diametrically opposed; we can (and probably should) have both constant-generation stations including nuclear, hydro and LNG, in addition to substantial wind and solar.
We can definitely agree on this point.
Nuclear reactors have a similar and (IMO) more substantial problem - most reactors are built to last 30-50 years, whereas spent fuel (as discussed above) persists for millennia unless we develop better Gen IV consumer reactors. Disposal of PV panels is certainly a consideration, but it pales in comparison to the issues surrounding nuclear reactors which have reached their end-of-life. My guess is that automated recycling plants will develop to break down the more valuable, rare and toxic elements from spent panels (though see comments about disposal upthread).
Worth noting that while current panels carry a 25-30y 'lifespan', this is based on what's believed to be 80% power efficiency at the 25y mark. Most panels will likely remain in service for far longer, until they are no longer functional. Its too early to tell when exactly that will be from the latest crop of PVs.
This is probably the view I'd take as well. Does the underlying material of the solar panel actually decay to the point where it can't be recycled/remanufactured? I'd be curious how much of the panel can be reused efficiently. And my thoughts were similar, if the panels last even 50 years before power efficiency drops to unreasonable levels, then that's a pretty big win. But the point remains, if you can't recycle or remanufacture the materials for a solar panel, is it really renewable? While the sun may be renewable, if the panels are not, then does it matter? Or do we have such abundance of the materials that it's a moot point?
-
This is probably the view I'd take as well. Does the underlying material of the solar panel actually decay to the point where it can't be recycled/remanufactured? I'd be curious how much of the panel can be reused efficiently. And my thoughts were similar, if the panels last even 50 years before power efficiency drops to unreasonable levels, then that's a pretty big win. But the point remains, if you can't recycle or remanufacture the materials for a solar panel, is it really renewable? While the sun may be renewable, if the panels are not, then does it matter? Or do we have such abundance of the materials that it's a moot point?
I think you are confusing terminology here. "renewable energy" says nothing about the underlying materials but refers only to whether the source of the energy is not depleted. That said, currently modern silicone PVs have a recyclable component of ~95%, though whether it can be recycled and if it actually is are two different questions. That depends both on market forces and regulations.
Personally I'm curious what will happen with the new mega-blades on turbines, some of which now exceed 200ft. They lack any real toxicity, but after ~25years they need replacement. I'm guessing we'll see some creative uses for used turbine blades, like making up roof trusses or foot bridges.
You can ask moderators questions, as you have created a new account. But even viewing as a guest you can contact them.
-
There are solar panels from the 1960s and 70s that are still in service. We're already at 50 years of PV history.
And if we're suddenly worried about recycling the materials from old solar panels, why aren't we also worried about recycling all of the equipment and structures at nuclear plants? I can speak with some professional authority on the catastrophic consequences of nuclear facilities, having spent more time than I would like at Hanford. Even the old office buildings there are radioactive waste, and don't get me started on the purex plant. The long term plan for that place is "pay men with guns to guard it for the next 80,000 years."
A facility that makes solar panels can be retooled to make something else. A facility that makes nuclear fuel is forever off limits to any other user. It consumes that land in perpetuity, and costs billions and billions of dollars before you even start counting the environmental and human health impacts.
-
The length of time that some types of radioactive waste remain dangerous is a real concern. High level waste remains dangerous for longer than any containment vessel ever built by human hands has lasted. That should give you a little bit of pause to consider.
-
On the topic of renewables, what is the feasibility of a pricing structure that coincides with getting the majority of our electric power from renewables? For example, would it be feasible to charge, say, 10x for electricity at night when solar isn't available? I know my recent provider (APS) changed its daily pricing structure to better accommodate the increase in solar (https://www.aps.com/en/residential/accountservices/serviceplans/Pages/saver-choice.aspx (https://www.aps.com/en/residential/accountservices/serviceplans/Pages/saver-choice.aspx)), but nowhere near to this degree.
-
On the topic of renewables, what is the feasibility of a pricing structure that coincides with getting the majority of our electric power from renewables?
That will vary for different parts of the country, depending on the current power mix. Also on what you count as "renewable".
Here in the PNW we get roughly 70% of our electricity from hydropower already. My local utility is over 80% hydropower, 7% wind (mostly near Ellensburg), and 6% nuclear (mostly the Hanford reactors). Natural gas and coal are only about 2% of their power supply, so phasing those out entirely would be relatively easy here. There are already plans in motion to decommission the state's last (commercial) coal-fired power plant, in Centralia.
There are cascading side effects, of course. All of those hydropower dams have their own sets of environmental problems, which in this corner of the country are intimately tied up with treaty violations. The local Native American tribes still wield political power here, and they are by treaty entitled to half of the salmon in the rivers. Courts have ruled that "half" means half of what was there when the treaty was signed, not half of whatever is left after we kill all the fish, so the State is in a constant balancing act between paying money to increase the number of fish, and paying money to fight lawsuits for killing too many fish. It's a purely economic decision at this point, unfortunately, because we long ago gave up on actually trying to honor our treaty obligations.
When you consider all of that, it kind of makes sense why so many places are still happy to burn coal. The people most affected by the immediate pollution around coal mines and plants are the ones most likely to be economically dependent on the success of coal, so they don't complain, and the longer term climate impacts are thus far not politicized enough to cause any backlash. You can basically pollute the atmosphere for free right now, if you're a coal company of some sort, and nobody will sue you. Hydropower is much cheaper to generate once your dams are built, but it comes with its own set of ongoing (legal challenge) costs.
-
On the topic of renewables, what is the feasibility of a pricing structure that coincides with getting the majority of our electric power from renewables? For example, would it be feasible to charge, say, 10x for electricity at night when solar isn't available? I know my recent provider (APS) changed its daily pricing structure to better accommodate the increase in solar (https://www.aps.com/en/residential/accountservices/serviceplans/Pages/saver-choice.aspx (https://www.aps.com/en/residential/accountservices/serviceplans/Pages/saver-choice.aspx)), but nowhere near to this degree.
I've often wondered whether more aggressive rate schedules would trigger behavioral shifts we currently don't have. Currently our expectation is that electricity should always be there, it's relatively cheap and costs about the same regardless of the time of day or season. Our knee-jerk solution anytime there is a power shortage is to increase the power! (rather than decrease usage).
As hypothetical examples, charging 2x more at night might push people to charge EVs during the daytime and increase demand for at-work charging stations. 'Smart' thermostats might start considering when power is cheapest (and possibly encourage the inclusion of thermal-mass heat sinks in people's homes). Making winter power 3x more expensive in cold climates could fuel increased building energy efficiency.
Regardless of any behavioral shifts, I don't think we should assume that we can solve our climate problems solely by creating more power based on renewables. Instead we should take the mindset that we are replacing more polluting solutions with less envirormentally damaging ones while reducing per-capita energy consumption overall.
-
When you consider all of that, it kind of makes sense why so many places are still happy to burn coal. The people most affected by the immediate pollution around coal mines and plants are the ones most likely to be economically dependent on the success of coal, so they don't complain, and the longer term climate impacts are thus far not politicized enough to cause any backlash. You can basically pollute the atmosphere for free right now, if you're a coal company of some sort, and nobody will sue you. Hydropower is much cheaper to generate once your dams are built, but it comes with its own set of ongoing (legal challenge) costs.
I agree, if your livelihood depends on burning coal, it is going to be way more important than a 2°C rise in temperature. But this affects a very small subset of the U.S. population (with an over-representation of senators, but that's another thread). Everyone else likes coal because it's cheap power on demand (and you're right of course, it's cheap because we ignore externalities). Though the lawsuits are beginning to spring up against the carbon polluters, and it will be interesting to see how much traction they get in the courts.
-
I can speak a bit to behavioural shifts. Our billing rate is time of day based. Right now my electricity is at the shoulder rate. Peak winter demand (7-11 AM, 5-7 PM) is highest rate. Low rate is 7 PM to 7 AM. I know many people (including me) who do their peak energy use at night. Rural residential with Hydro One is expensive enough that this makes a noticeable difference.
This is not always ideal. The pool maintenance people I know hate it, because the best time to run a pool pump is during the day, but people do it at night because that is when the rates are lowest.
I use some electricity at peak because otherwise I have no water (well) and meal prep is not always done best at off times. But my use is usually about 14:3:2::low:shoulder:high.
-
I can speak a bit to behavioural shifts. Our billing rate is time of day based. Right now my electricity is at the shoulder rate. Peak winter demand (7-11 AM, 5-7 PM) is highest rate. Low rate is 7 PM to 7 AM. I know many people (including me) who do their peak energy use at night. Rural residential with Hydro One is expensive enough that this makes a noticeable difference.
This is not always ideal. The pool maintenance people I know hate it, because the best time to run a pool pump is during the day, but people do it at night because that is when the rates are lowest.
I use some electricity at peak because otherwise I have no water (well) and meal prep is not always done best at off times. But my use is usually about 14:3:2::low:shoulder:high.
That is how we lived life in Arizona. AC didn't come on until off-peak (yeah we'd be comfortable outside in late afternoon 105°F), all of the other major energy hogs were performed on the weekends (washing clothes being the big one (and no, we didn't line-dry)). Our energy bill was hundreds (plural) of dollars cheaper during summer months than most other people I discussed the topic with.
-
When you consider all of that, it kind of makes sense why so many places are still happy to burn coal. The people most affected by the immediate pollution around coal mines and plants are the ones most likely to be economically dependent on the success of coal, so they don't complain, and the longer term climate impacts are thus far not politicized enough to cause any backlash. You can basically pollute the atmosphere for free right now, if you're a coal company of some sort, and nobody will sue you. Hydropower is much cheaper to generate once your dams are built, but it comes with its own set of ongoing (legal challenge) costs.
I agree, if your livelihood depends on burning coal, it is going to be way more important than a 2°C rise in temperature. But this affects a very small subset of the U.S. population (with an over-representation of senators, but that's another thread). Everyone else likes coal because it's cheap power on demand (and you're right of course, it's cheap because we ignore externalities). Though the lawsuits are beginning to spring up against the carbon polluters, and it will be interesting to see how much traction they get in the courts.
Well, given that a former coal lobbyist is now in charge of the EPA, and he is actively reducing both the regulations on fossil fuels as well as the scope of what the EPA tries to penalize - I'd say its unlikely to get a lot of traction with this present administration.
From what I've seen, few coal miners want their children to be in the industry - there's just a scarcity of jobs. I'd support a massive taxpayer funded bailout of these coal towns in exchange for shuttering the industry entirely. But that's currently a pipe-dream...
-
On the topic of renewables, what is the feasibility of a pricing structure that coincides with getting the majority of our electric power from renewables? For example, would it be feasible to charge, say, 10x for electricity at night when solar isn't available? I know my recent provider (APS) changed its daily pricing structure to better accommodate the increase in solar (https://www.aps.com/en/residential/accountservices/serviceplans/Pages/saver-choice.aspx (https://www.aps.com/en/residential/accountservices/serviceplans/Pages/saver-choice.aspx)), but nowhere near to this degree.
I've often wondered whether more aggressive rate schedules would trigger behavioral shifts we currently don't have. Currently our expectation is that electricity should always be there, it's relatively cheap and costs about the same regardless of the time of day or season. Our knee-jerk solution anytime there is a power shortage is to increase the power! (rather than decrease usage).
As hypothetical examples, charging 2x more at night might push people to charge EVs during the daytime and increase demand for at-work charging stations. 'Smart' thermostats might start considering when power is cheapest (and possibly encourage the inclusion of thermal-mass heat sinks in people's homes). Making winter power 3x more expensive in cold climates could fuel increased building energy efficiency.
Regardless of any behavioral shifts, I don't think we should assume that we can solve our climate problems solely by creating more power based on renewables. Instead we should take the mindset that we are replacing more polluting solutions with less envirormentally damaging ones while reducing per-capita energy consumption overall.
That's not a direction I'd want to go down, personally. I feel like having reliable, inexpensive electricity 24/7 is a problem that should be relatively solved at this point. Starting to highly regulate which time we should do laundry is just kind of shitty and feels like we are moving backward. And it starts with that. Before you know it, 180% tax on cars - which I know a lot of mustachians would like, lol. But really, it's a level of government intrusion and behavioral control that I'm not comfortable with.
-
There are solar panels from the 1960s and 70s that are still in service. We're already at 50 years of PV history.
And if we're suddenly worried about recycling the materials from old solar panels, why aren't we also worried about recycling all of the equipment and structures at nuclear plants? I can speak with some professional authority on the catastrophic consequences of nuclear facilities, having spent more time than I would like at Hanford. Even the old office buildings there are radioactive waste, and don't get me started on the purex plant. The long term plan for that place is "pay men with guns to guard it for the next 80,000 years."
A facility that makes solar panels can be retooled to make something else. A facility that makes nuclear fuel is forever off limits to any other user. It consumes that land in perpetuity, and costs billions and billions of dollars before you even start counting the environmental and human health impacts.
I don't know enough about it to form an opinion. But I understand the point you are making.
Why can't we be both? Being curious about recycling of solar panels and even making solar panels - do we have the materials and land to legit go in that direction? And also concerned about nuclear structures? It's not one or the other.
Obviously wind and solar are not 24/7 - if not nuclear, than what are we going to use to maintain steady electric service without all of the carbon emissions?
-
On the topic of renewables, what is the feasibility of a pricing structure that coincides with getting the majority of our electric power from renewables? For example, would it be feasible to charge, say, 10x for electricity at night when solar isn't available? I know my recent provider (APS) changed its daily pricing structure to better accommodate the increase in solar (https://www.aps.com/en/residential/accountservices/serviceplans/Pages/saver-choice.aspx (https://www.aps.com/en/residential/accountservices/serviceplans/Pages/saver-choice.aspx)), but nowhere near to this degree.
I've often wondered whether more aggressive rate schedules would trigger behavioral shifts we currently don't have. Currently our expectation is that electricity should always be there, it's relatively cheap and costs about the same regardless of the time of day or season. Our knee-jerk solution anytime there is a power shortage is to increase the power! (rather than decrease usage).
As hypothetical examples, charging 2x more at night might push people to charge EVs during the daytime and increase demand for at-work charging stations. 'Smart' thermostats might start considering when power is cheapest (and possibly encourage the inclusion of thermal-mass heat sinks in people's homes). Making winter power 3x more expensive in cold climates could fuel increased building energy efficiency.
Regardless of any behavioral shifts, I don't think we should assume that we can solve our climate problems solely by creating more power based on renewables. Instead we should take the mindset that we are replacing more polluting solutions with less envirormentally damaging ones while reducing per-capita energy consumption overall.
That's not a direction I'd want to go down, personally. I feel like having reliable, inexpensive electricity 24/7 is a problem that should be relatively solved at this point. Starting to highly regulate which time we should do laundry is just kind of shitty and feels like we are moving backward. And it starts with that. Before you know it, 180% tax on cars - which I know a lot of mustachians would like, lol. But really, it's a level of government intrusion and behavioral control that I'm not comfortable with.
Actually, it's government intervention that's prevented the kind of rate-pricing that I'm talking about.
If left to market forces, privately held utilities would almost certainly charge based on the current cost of generating electricity. Only they can't, because of governmental regulations.
...but the rest of my post is more philosophical. Consuming more should not be a society's measure of progress. Efficiency IMO is a much better metric.
-
Our city also recently moved to Time of Day pricing for electricity. Peak hours are charged at 22 cents/kWh, and non-peak at 7 cents. Peak for winter is 5-9 pm on weekdays, peak for summer is 2-7 pm on weekdays. A LOT of people were angry. We're already paying an extra 2.65 cents/kWh for renewables, but so far neither change has altered our costs appreciably.
I've tried to adjust our usage a little, but we have gas heat and a gas water heater, so there's not much I can do in the winter - I try to only start the clothes dryer or dishwasher after 9 pm, and if I can I bake on the weekends, but I can't just never cook dinner after work.
Summer could be interesting, but luckily we have a large deciduous tree on the south side of our house, and it stays fairly cool most of the time even without the AC on. My DH works from home, but he also works in our basement, so it shouldn't bother him too much.
I'm interested to see if the city will actually give any sort of report about whether it changes the overall usage of electricity in the next year. I'd love to see that data, if they have it.
-
I don't know enough about it to form an opinion. But I understand the point you are making.
Why can't we be both? Being curious about recycling of solar panels and even making solar panels - do we have the materials and land to legit go in that direction? And also concerned about nuclear structures? It's not one or the other.
Obviously wind and solar are not 24/7 - if not nuclear, than what are we going to use to maintain steady electric service without all of the carbon emissions?
Crap - internet ate my earlier response...
In short - having multiple sources of electricity generation is exactly what many of us have been arguing for, but the article you linked is against expansion of wind/solar in favor of nuclear.
To answer your question, yes - we have the materials and land to 'legit go in' the direction of dramatically increased solar and wind production. As I've mentioned, an actual advantage of solar is that you can plop solar arrays onto very small segments of land (< 1 acre) and generate tens of kilowatts. These areas can be found just about everywhere, from office-building roofs to defunct fields to along roadsides. Similarily, turbines can be 'mixed use' (eg farming) and the best place for them is actually offshore... which is whwere most the greatest gains in wind turbine power generation has occurred in the last decade. We've got a ton of great locations available near large energy demands, such as the proposed windfarm off Cape Cod (less than 50 miles from Boston, ~120 miles from NYC). The author of the article you linked tried to make this sound all scary, like we'd need to plaster over all of WV, but the truth is good spots are very easy to find - it's funding and permitting which are the problem.
Nuclear can't even out the bumps in the mid-term (within, say, 15-20 years) simply because we can't build out our nuclear capacity that quickly. Even if we could overcome the political obstacles and community objections, building a new nuclear plant faces two major obstacles; 1) they cost billions in construction costs and 2) they take 10+ years to build once a project has been approved. We could possibly take care of #1 by providing federal subsidies and grants (controversal), but there' no safe way to tackle #2. So we aren't likely to see a massive influx in power from nuclear before, say, 2035 or 2040 at the earliest. I'm actually in favor of adding some more Gen IV reactors to our portfolio - but we shouldn't think that's somehow going to save us in the mid term. Also, worth noting that a number of medium & small reactors have gone offline in recent years precisely because only large reactors can produce power at a rate that's competitive with other forms of energy generation - and that's almost entirely due to the fixed security and construction costs inherent to all plants.
In comparison you can build an LNG plant in ~3 years, a wind turbine in under a year and a PV array in a few weeks. I'm fine with LNG as a medium-term fix as long as it's replacing coal plants, and we continue to build out other renewables. As I've said, mechanical storage is a facinating area where I expect to see a lot of development in the coming years. The technologies (there are multiple) are sound and tested - the challenge is doing it economically while reducing energy loss.
-
I've often wondered whether more aggressive rate schedules would trigger behavioral shifts we currently don't have.
I suspect that changes to the rate structure for electricity will be far less motivational than most of us hope.
There are still millions of homes in the eastern US that are heated in the winter with fuel oil, which costs roughly twice as much heating with natural gas and closer to 3x as much as using a heat pump. People don't switch because it costs thousands of dollars up front to redo the entire house hvac system, and that's money they don't have on hand.
But really, it's a level of government intrusion and behavioral control that I'm not comfortable with.
At least government control is responsive to voters. What we have right now is 100% unrestricted corporate control, motivated by short term profit seeking at the cost of our shared resources, with zero oversight and no way to object to the harm being done. That's the current state of affairs, and compared to that I think some "government intrusion" at the behest of voters would be a huge improvement.
Remember, the government is you! It's all of us! We have the power, if we just choose to use it. Conservative/corporate politicians like to talk about "government intrusion" as if listening to the will of the people were a bad thing. What they care about is keeping people complacent while they strip mine our public lands for private profits. Don't fall for their distorted rhetoric. Government exists to serve you, not corporations. You should never feel bad about using the power bestowed upon you in the Constitution.
if not nuclear, than what are we going to use to maintain steady electric service without all of the carbon emissions?
Nuclear plants exist, and they work. I don't know how clear it is that we need any more of them, though, to provide peak leveling services to a fully built-out renewable generation grid supply. What IS clear to me is that we have huge untapped wind and solar resources at cost competitive pricing, with lower environmental and health impacts, in a distributed generation model that minimizes required grid upgrades. Every single US state would benefit from ten times as many solar panels as it has right now. It's such an obvious answer that it shocks me we're still arguing about it, as a nation.
Germany is a good example of how renewables can be comfortably integrated into the grid at ratios up to 30% with only minimal upgrades required. Current US solar production is creeping up on 2%. We have a long way to go, and the solar industry could sustain 20% growth per year for the next decade before worrying about approaching current solar integration capacity limits.
-
On the topic of renewables, what is the feasibility of a pricing structure that coincides with getting the majority of our electric power from renewables? For example, would it be feasible to charge, say, 10x for electricity at night when solar isn't available? I know my recent provider (APS) changed its daily pricing structure to better accommodate the increase in solar (https://www.aps.com/en/residential/accountservices/serviceplans/Pages/saver-choice.aspx (https://www.aps.com/en/residential/accountservices/serviceplans/Pages/saver-choice.aspx)), but nowhere near to this degree.
I've often wondered whether more aggressive rate schedules would trigger behavioral shifts we currently don't have. Currently our expectation is that electricity should always be there, it's relatively cheap and costs about the same regardless of the time of day or season. Our knee-jerk solution anytime there is a power shortage is to increase the power! (rather than decrease usage).
As hypothetical examples, charging 2x more at night might push people to charge EVs during the daytime and increase demand for at-work charging stations. 'Smart' thermostats might start considering when power is cheapest (and possibly encourage the inclusion of thermal-mass heat sinks in people's homes). Making winter power 3x more expensive in cold climates could fuel increased building energy efficiency.
Regardless of any behavioral shifts, I don't think we should assume that we can solve our climate problems solely by creating more power based on renewables. Instead we should take the mindset that we are replacing more polluting solutions with less envirormentally damaging ones while reducing per-capita energy consumption overall.
That's not a direction I'd want to go down, personally. I feel like having reliable, inexpensive electricity 24/7 is a problem that should be relatively solved at this point. Starting to highly regulate which time we should do laundry is just kind of shitty and feels like we are moving backward. And it starts with that. Before you know it, 180% tax on cars - which I know a lot of mustachians would like, lol. But really, it's a level of government intrusion and behavioral control that I'm not comfortable with.
Actually, it's government intervention that's prevented the kind of rate-pricing that I'm talking about.
If left to market forces, privately held utilities would almost certainly charge based on the current cost of generating electricity. Only they can't, because of governmental regulations.
...but the rest of my post is more philosophical. Consuming more should not be a society's measure of progress. Efficiency IMO is a much better metric.
Are you suggesting the utilities are losing money? If anything I think regulation has prevented them from gouging. These are publicly traded companies, right? They obviously can't be operating at a loss.
-
At least government control is responsive to voters. What we have right now is 100% unrestricted corporate control, motivated by short term profit seeking at the cost of our shared resources, with zero oversight and no way to object to the harm being done. That's the current state of affairs, and compared to that I think some "government intrusion" at the behest of voters would be a huge improvement.
Remember, the government is you! It's all of us! We have the power, if we just choose to use it. Conservative/corporate politicians like to talk about "government intrusion" as if listening to the will of the people were a bad thing. What they care about is keeping people complacent while they strip mine our public lands for private profits. Don't fall for their distorted rhetoric. Government exists to serve you, not corporations. You should never feel bad about using the power bestowed upon you in the Constitution.
You and I are just going to have to disagree on this one. My wife is Danish, I spend a LOT of time there. It's not at all a system I would want to live under and it's pretty much the movement you seem to be describing (sorry if I'm reading you incorrectly). To me, it feels a lot like "Eventually you run out of other peoples money." A bunch of
government intervention at the behest of voters is obnoxious and it really sucks. I think we have it pretty damn good the way things are in the US.
Nuclear plants exist, and they work. I don't know how clear it is that we need any more of them, though, to provide peak leveling services to a fully built-out renewable generation grid supply. What IS clear to me is that we have huge untapped wind and solar resources at cost competitive pricing, with lower environmental and health impacts, in a distributed generation model that minimizes required grid upgrades. Every single US state would benefit from ten times as many solar panels as it has right now. It's such an obvious answer that it shocks me we're still arguing about it, as a nation.
Germany is a good example of how renewables can be comfortably integrated into the grid at ratios up to 30% with only minimal upgrades required. Current US solar production is creeping up on 2%. We have a long way to go, and the solar industry could sustain 20% growth per year for the next decade before worrying about approaching current solar integration capacity limits.
I've been a fan of rooftop solar. It seems so obvious. Not a fan of wind generators all over the place. I can deal with them off shore, however, or out in the desert. But I've seen first hand when government decides to put them all over and it sucks. Solar is not intrusive at all. I have a rooftop array and it seems to work out great. My bill for last month was $17 or so.
Anyways, your comment is about integrating renewables in to the grid. Good to know about the 2% stat, seems we do have a long ways to go until integration issues, which is great.
-
Are you suggesting the utilities are losing money? If anything I think regulation has prevented them from gouging. These are publicly traded companies, right? They obviously can't be operating at a loss.
No, I'm not suggeting that at all. How did you come to that notion?
Utilities are regulated by local and state agencies, many of which require the utility to maintain a certain price structure and place limits on when and how they can adjust their rates. Most certainly make money, but I have no idea why you'd think "obviously [they] can't be operating at a loss". Many do, at least for months and years, despite being defacto regional monopolies, precisely because they are so heavily regulated.
No, not all utilities are publicly traded private corporations. A great number of utilities are coops or municipal-run.
As Sol poitned out, we ARE the government, and these laws are in place precisely because we don't want our utility to suddenly triple the cost of our electricity just becayse they had a bad quarter and the shareholders want to pay out more dividends. His comment has little to nothing to do with the Dutch system, and I'm not sure how you jumped to that.
-
Are you suggesting the utilities are losing money? If anything I think regulation has prevented them from gouging. These are publicly traded companies, right? They obviously can't be operating at a loss.
No, I'm not suggeting that at all. How did you come to that notion?
Utilities are regulated by local and state agencies, many of which require the utility to maintain a certain price structure and place limits on when and how they can adjust their rates. Most certainly make money, but I have no idea why you'd think "obviously [they] can't be operating at a loss". Many do, at least for months and years, despite being defacto regional monopolies, precisely because they are so heavily regulated.
No, not all utilities are publicly traded private corporations. A great number of utilities are coops or municipal-run.
As Sol poitned out, we ARE the government, and these laws are in place precisely because we don't want our utility to suddenly triple the cost of our electricity just becayse they had a bad quarter and the shareholders want to pay out more dividends. His comment has little to nothing to do with the Dutch system, and I'm not sure how you jumped to that.
You most definitely implied it. "If left to market forces, privately held utilities would almost certainly charge based on the current cost of generating electricity. Only they can't, because of governmental regulations." - and you were talking about jacking up utility pricing previously.
As for my comments with Sol, he clearly was talking about our "system" that we have (corporate controlled) and took it political as well. I used a relevant comparison to suggest it's not always roses going completely the other way. For what it's worth, I don't in any way agree that we are 100% corporate controlled in the States. So I don't agree with the premise anyways.
-
Are you suggesting the utilities are losing money? If anything I think regulation has prevented them from gouging. These are publicly traded companies, right? They obviously can't be operating at a loss.
No, I'm not suggeting that at all. How did you come to that notion?
Utilities are regulated by local and state agencies, many of which require the utility to maintain a certain price structure and place limits on when and how they can adjust their rates. Most certainly make money, but I have no idea why you'd think "obviously [they] can't be operating at a loss". Many do, at least for months and years, despite being defacto regional monopolies, precisely because they are so heavily regulated.
No, not all utilities are publicly traded private corporations. A great number of utilities are coops or municipal-run.
As Sol poitned out, we ARE the government, and these laws are in place precisely because we don't want our utility to suddenly triple the cost of our electricity just becayse they had a bad quarter and the shareholders want to pay out more dividends. His comment has little to nothing to do with the Dutch system, and I'm not sure how you jumped to that.
You most definitely implied it. "If left to market forces, privately held utilities would almost certainly charge based on the current cost of generating electricity. Only they can't, because of governmental regulations." - and you were talking about jacking up utility pricing previously.
As for my comments with Sol, he clearly was talking about our "system" that we have (corporate controlled) and took it political as well. I used a relevant comparison to suggest it's not always roses going completely the other way. For what it's worth, I don't in any way agree that we are 100% corporate controlled in the States. So I don't agree with the premise anyways.
Then you aren't understanding what I am saying because it was not implied.
I was not talking about jacking up utility pricing, nor was I talking about utilities operating at a perpetual loss. I was talking about rate-based price structuring. Big difference.
-
Are you suggesting the utilities are losing money? If anything I think regulation has prevented them from gouging. These are publicly traded companies, right? They obviously can't be operating at a loss.
No, I'm not suggeting that at all. How did you come to that notion?
Utilities are regulated by local and state agencies, many of which require the utility to maintain a certain price structure and place limits on when and how they can adjust their rates. Most certainly make money, but I have no idea why you'd think "obviously [they] can't be operating at a loss". Many do, at least for months and years, despite being defacto regional monopolies, precisely because they are so heavily regulated.
No, not all utilities are publicly traded private corporations. A great number of utilities are coops or municipal-run.
As Sol poitned out, we ARE the government, and these laws are in place precisely because we don't want our utility to suddenly triple the cost of our electricity just becayse they had a bad quarter and the shareholders want to pay out more dividends. His comment has little to nothing to do with the Dutch system, and I'm not sure how you jumped to that.
You most definitely implied it. "If left to market forces, privately held utilities would almost certainly charge based on the current cost of generating electricity. Only they can't, because of governmental regulations." - and you were talking about jacking up utility pricing previously.
As for my comments with Sol, he clearly was talking about our "system" that we have (corporate controlled) and took it political as well. I used a relevant comparison to suggest it's not always roses going completely the other way. For what it's worth, I don't in any way agree that we are 100% corporate controlled in the States. So I don't agree with the premise anyways.
Then you aren't understanding what I am saying because it was not implied.
I was not talking about jacking up utility pricing, nor was I talking about utilities operating at a perpetual loss. I was talking about rate-based price structuring. Big difference.
Thank you for clarifying, but you did, in fact, talk about jacking up utility pricing.
"As hypothetical examples, charging 2x more at night might push people to charge EVs during the daytime and increase demand for at-work charging stations. 'Smart' thermostats might start considering when power is cheapest (and possibly encourage the inclusion of thermal-mass heat sinks in people's homes). Making winter power 3x more expensive in cold climates could fuel increased building energy efficiency."
2X and 3X increases is jacking up the price, right? Then you said that utilities are not able to charge based on current cost of generating electricity, keeping the pricing artificially low due to regulation. As in, they are not able to actually charge based on the cost of generating electricity.
Anyways..... again, thank you for clarifying because you confused me. Not that it's a hard thing to do.
-
Thank you for clarifying, but you did, in fact, talk about jacking up utility pricing.
"As hypothetical examples, charging 2x more at night might push people to charge EVs during the daytime and increase demand for at-work charging stations. 'Smart' thermostats might start considering when power is cheapest (and possibly encourage the inclusion of thermal-mass heat sinks in people's homes). Making winter power 3x more expensive in cold climates could fuel increased building energy efficiency."
2X and 3X increases is jacking up the price, right? Then you said that utilities are not able to charge based on current cost of generating electricity, keeping the pricing artificially low due to regulation. As in, they are not able to actually charge based on the cost of generating electricity.
Anyways..... again, thank you for clarifying because you confused me. Not that it's a hard thing to do.
Ok, I can see how you would be confused, but you are missing the crux of the conversation.
I was not implying that utilities are losing money. I'm not implying they implement price-gouging stategies, either in real life or in this hypothetical. I am not talking about 'jacking up the price' at all, but rather having peak-demand costs being 2-3x more than off-demand, which is the same as saying off-demand could be 1/2 to 1/3 as much as peak.
I'm directly refuting your idea that regulations would cause such behavior, when in fact they often prevent it. I also never said they cannot charge based on the cost of electricity, but that they were often limited to when and how often they could make such changes. Where I live they can only make adjustments once per quarter, and there is only two-tiered pricing. A similar example would be the USPS - they can raise the cost of stamps and services, but they can only do so at set times and constrained by the cost of doing business. They are heavily regulated.
An un-regulated utility could do all of the things you mentioned - increase prices for any reason and by any amount. Ergo, regulation prevents such activities.
-
Since I seem to have started this side discussion about time of use prices, can I point out that Hydro One was trying to even out demand? It changes peak hours for summer, when everyone wants to put on the AC in the afternoon. It isn't really any different than a parking lot in the middle of a city's downtown charging more for daytime parking when demand is high, than for evening parking when demand is low. Or any other situation where demand fluctuates. Hydro One has nuclear, water, fossil fuel and a bit of solar/wind, all feeding into the grid. Less demand at peak means less fossil fuel burning. It also means the grid can function on a smaller overall capacity, which means fewer times when we basically give away excess electricity because we are producing more than we use.
-
Thank you for clarifying, but you did, in fact, talk about jacking up utility pricing.
"As hypothetical examples, charging 2x more at night might push people to charge EVs during the daytime and increase demand for at-work charging stations. 'Smart' thermostats might start considering when power is cheapest (and possibly encourage the inclusion of thermal-mass heat sinks in people's homes). Making winter power 3x more expensive in cold climates could fuel increased building energy efficiency."
2X and 3X increases is jacking up the price, right? Then you said that utilities are not able to charge based on current cost of generating electricity, keeping the pricing artificially low due to regulation. As in, they are not able to actually charge based on the cost of generating electricity.
Anyways..... again, thank you for clarifying because you confused me. Not that it's a hard thing to do.
Ok, I can see how you would be confused, but you are missing the crux of the conversation.
I was not implying that utilities are losing money. I'm not implying they implement price-gouging stategies, either in real life or in this hypothetical. I am not talking about 'jacking up the price' at all, but rather having peak-demand costs being 2-3x more than off-demand, which is the same as saying off-demand could be 1/2 to 1/3 as much as peak.
I'm directly refuting your idea that regulations would cause such behavior, when in fact they often prevent it. I also never said they cannot charge based on the cost of electricity, but that they were often limited to when and how often they could make such changes. Where I live they can only make adjustments once per quarter, and there is only two-tiered pricing. A similar example would be the USPS - they can raise the cost of stamps and services, but they can only do so at set times and constrained by the cost of doing business. They are heavily regulated.
An un-regulated utility could do all of the things you mentioned - increase prices for any reason and by any amount. Ergo, regulation prevents such activities.
I have no problem with regulating. Government serves a vital role, and this is one of them. The point I was making, is that I don't like when government so aggressively tries to modify behaviors of tax payers. I don't even like peak/off-peak pricing. I think it should be flat rate. Rate it accordingly to make the numbers work. This is what my Denmark comment was about, basically. Once the government goes down this path, they often get carried away. We don't want you driving cars... wham, 180% car tax. We want you using electricity at certain times, wham, 3X rate increase during peak times. It's just not a lifestyle that I personally like. You may feel differently. We each have a vote. Neither of us is correct, it's just a preference.
-
That's not a direction I'd want to go down, personally. I feel like having reliable, inexpensive electricity 24/7 is a problem that should be relatively solved at this point. Starting to highly regulate which time we should do laundry is just kind of shitty and feels like we are moving backward. And it starts with that. Before you know it, 180% tax on cars - which I know a lot of mustachians would like, lol. But really, it's a level of government intrusion and behavioral control that I'm not comfortable with.
As Nereo mentioned, nobody is regulating what time you do laundry (or the price of cars (though there is the chicken tax...)). What would be regulated is the great pollution crisis of our generation, carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases). In order to do this, regulations need to be put in place to encourage renewables (tax-and-dividend is my preferred approach), and based on the inherent reality of how renewables operate, they will generate more electricity at certain times of the day. Simple supply-and-demand economics (not government regulation) would then force energy companies to price energy lower when renewables are at full capacity and higher when they need to be running power stations that pollute using fossil fuels.
These are all free-market solutions, with the sole tweak that carbon dioxide will be priced to account for the social damages it is causing. (Similar to how cigarettes were taxed in the late nineties / early oughts to account for the health dangers.)
-
From what I've seen, few coal miners want their children to be in the industry - there's just a scarcity of jobs. I'd support a massive taxpayer funded bailout of these coal towns in exchange for shuttering the industry entirely. But that's currently a pipe-dream...
This is actually happening now here ein eastern Germany. It is a multi-billion project to create new jobs in other fields.
Of course if we started with all this back in 1991 when we basically agreed to stop coal power it would have been a lot easier than now. But the lobbyists were very successful.
Germany is a good example of how renewables can be comfortably integrated into the grid at ratios up to 30% with only minimal upgrades required. Current US solar production is creeping up on 2%. We have a long way to go, and the solar industry could sustain 20% growth per year for the next decade before worrying about approaching current solar integration capacity limits.
In the summer days solar is actually doing more than 50% of energy production.
On a cloudy winter day of course its down to nearly nothing.
And that is the real problem. Not the short-term storage of day/night. You could do it with car batteries if you must. But the seasonal storage, that is the crucial point. Maybe there will be big water tanks storing heat in the future. That at least is easy and cheap tech. But still very expensive if you only use a single storage cycle per year...
-
That's not a direction I'd want to go down, personally. I feel like having reliable, inexpensive electricity 24/7 is a problem that should be relatively solved at this point. Starting to highly regulate which time we should do laundry is just kind of shitty and feels like we are moving backward. And it starts with that. Before you know it, 180% tax on cars - which I know a lot of mustachians would like, lol. But really, it's a level of government intrusion and behavioral control that I'm not comfortable with.
As Nereo mentioned, nobody is regulating what time you do laundry (or the price of cars (though there is the chicken tax...)). What would be regulated is the great pollution crisis of our generation, carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases). In order to do this, regulations need to be put in place to encourage renewables (tax-and-dividend is my preferred approach), and based on the inherent reality of how renewables operate, they will generate more electricity at certain times of the day. Simple supply-and-demand economics (not government regulation) would then force energy companies to price energy lower when renewables are at full capacity and higher when they need to be running power stations that pollute using fossil fuels.
These are all free-market solutions, with the sole tweak that carbon dioxide will be priced to account for the social damages it is causing. (Similar to how cigarettes were taxed in the late nineties / early oughts to account for the health dangers.)
Hence why I support nuclear. We can disagree on it. I think the inherent reality of renewables is not all that compatible with progress, in a sense. I support BOTH, but to a limited extent.
I would note that "free market" tends to lean towards ridiculous SUV's and dirty power as cheap as possible. The government HAS to step in and I think we probably disagree on to what extent that should happen.
-
I have no problem with regulating. Government serves a vital role, and this is one of them. The point I was making, is that I don't like when government so aggressively tries to modify behaviors of tax payers. I don't even like peak/off-peak pricing. I think it should be flat rate. Rate it accordingly to make the numbers work. This is what my Denmark comment was about, basically. Once the government goes down this path, they often get carried away. We don't want you driving cars... wham, 180% car tax. We want you using electricity at certain times, wham, 3X rate increase during peak times. It's just not a lifestyle that I personally like. You may feel differently. We each have a vote. Neither of us is correct, it's just a preference.
Ok, I see that we have differences in opinion here, and that's fine.
It's just when you say something like "it should be a flat rate" - that seems to require government regulation, which is the opposite of what you say you want. As is the cost to generate electricity is not uniform, so why should the rate stay flat?
Using government policy to influence behavior is a much deeper subject which could warrant its own thread. Specifically with regard to the topic of this thread I'll say that we've been very bad at prioritizing long term savings over short-term costs (eg properly insulated homes) that g'vt incentives seem appropriate to me.
-
I don't even like peak/off-peak pricing. I think it should be flat rate. Rate it accordingly to make the numbers work.
You do understand that nothing in the world has flat rate pricing (except perhaps the air we breathe)? The big difference is that most rates don't fluctuate on a daily basis. You look at gas, which has a well-known seasonality demand and cost: https://www.coursera.org/lecture/oilandgas/short-term-constraints-on-prices-5IhKb?authMode=signup (https://www.coursera.org/lecture/oilandgas/short-term-constraints-on-prices-5IhKb?authMode=signup). Free-market economies tend to do the best at letting the market price goods, whereas price controls have had very unfortunate side-effects (e.g., https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/remembering-nixons-wage-price-controls (https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/remembering-nixons-wage-price-controls)).
-
In the summer days solar is actually doing more than 50% of energy production.
I think it should be closer to 500%, with the surplus being used to generate storage. Charge every electric car. Heat every water tower. Fill every reservoir. While you're at it, go ahead and run every AC unit, foundry or smelting plant at full capacity to put that free energy to good use. Solar power is virtually free once you build it, so if you build enough you don't need to worry so much about the efficiencies of your storage solutions, and even cloudy days could provide a majority of your instantaneous power needs.
I literally can't think of a single alternative energy source that has no operating fuel costs whatsoever, after you build it. Wind is also free, but has higher ongoing maintenance costs. How can anything else possibly be cost competitive with free sunshine, making power in a system with no moving parts?
-
I don't even like peak/off-peak pricing. I think it should be flat rate. Rate it accordingly to make the numbers work.
You do understand that nothing in the world has flat rate pricing (except perhaps the air we breathe)? The big difference is that most rates don't fluctuate on a daily basis. You look at gas, which has a well-known seasonality demand and cost: https://www.coursera.org/lecture/oilandgas/short-term-constraints-on-prices-5IhKb?authMode=signup (https://www.coursera.org/lecture/oilandgas/short-term-constraints-on-prices-5IhKb?authMode=signup). Free-market economies tend to do the best at letting the market price goods, whereas price controls have had very unfortunate side-effects (e.g., https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/remembering-nixons-wage-price-controls (https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/remembering-nixons-wage-price-controls)).
My water service is flat rate. Internet. Phone. Electricity is a utility similarly. I think the debate would center around whether a utility like electricity should be flat rate. I have no issue with supply and demand in general. Parking more expensive during events. Hate me for it, but I even support price gouging during emergencies (it helps keep supplies available). But when it comes to electricity as a basic utility, I prefer a flat rate approach.
I am swaying a bit though, to be honest. Sol makes a good point about solar practically being free once built and there are some realities and benefits to renewables that are undeniable. And by the way, Sol, I loved your post about the Leaf. We are leaning towards picking one up later this year when my retarded, expensive car lease is over.
-
My water service is flat rate. Internet. Phone. Electricity is a utility similarly.
What do you mean by "flat rate"?
Because there are flat rate cell phone plans, where you pay a fixed price for unlimited usage, but water and electricity are typically billed with a combination of a flat connection fee, then a per-unit consumption charge. Without that second part, you just encourage waste.
If you could get unlimited electricity for a flat rate, the way you sort of can with cell phone minutes, what's to stop you from building an aluminum smelter and taking over the global aluminum market with your lowest production costs? Flat rate charges either need to be capped somewhere (like "unlimited" cell phone minutes are), they need to cover a service that has no per-use cost (much like cell data), or the flat rate needs to be so exorbitantly high relative to what they provide as to cover all possible excessive uses (also like cell phones, hmm, I'm seeing a pattern here).
-
My water service is flat rate. Internet. Phone. Electricity is a utility similarly.
What do you mean by "flat rate"?
Because there are flat rate cell phone plans, where you pay a fixed price for unlimited usage, but water and electricity are typically billed with a combination of a flat connection fee, then a per-unit consumption charge. Without that second part, you just encourage waste.
If you could get unlimited electricity for a flat rate, the way you sort of can with cell phone minutes, what's to stop you from building an aluminum smelter and taking over the global aluminum market with your lowest production costs? Flat rate charges either need to be capped somewhere (like "unlimited" cell phone minutes are), they need to cover a service that has no per-use cost (much like cell data), or the flat rate needs to be so exorbitantly high relative to what they provide as to cover all possible excessive uses (also like cell phones, hmm, I'm seeing a pattern here).
I should have written that better. Water is flat rate based on usage. I don't pay peak. I feel energy should generally be similar. Internet/Phone is fixed priced.
I would be fine with a higher tier for those who use excessive energy. However, it would need to be similar to cell phone plans where a vast majority of reasonable users wouldn't exceed it.
-
I don't even like peak/off-peak pricing. I think it should be flat rate. Rate it accordingly to make the numbers work.
You do understand that nothing in the world has flat rate pricing (except perhaps the air we breathe)? The big difference is that most rates don't fluctuate on a daily basis. You look at gas, which has a well-known seasonality demand and cost: https://www.coursera.org/lecture/oilandgas/short-term-constraints-on-prices-5IhKb?authMode=signup (https://www.coursera.org/lecture/oilandgas/short-term-constraints-on-prices-5IhKb?authMode=signup). Free-market economies tend to do the best at letting the market price goods, whereas price controls have had very unfortunate side-effects (e.g., https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/remembering-nixons-wage-price-controls (https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/remembering-nixons-wage-price-controls)).
My water service is flat rate. Internet. Phone. Electricity is a utility similarly. I think the debate would center around whether a utility like electricity should be flat rate. I have no issue with supply and demand in general. Parking more expensive during events. Hate me for it, but I even support price gouging during emergencies (it helps keep supplies available). But when it comes to electricity as a basic utility, I prefer a flat rate approach.
I am swaying a bit though, to be honest. Sol makes a good point about solar practically being free once built and there are some realities and benefits to renewables that are undeniable. And by the way, Sol, I loved your post about the Leaf. We are leaning towards picking one up later this year when my retarded, expensive car lease is over.
Just like with electricity, water rates are only flat rate because of government regulation. If it was left up to free market pricing, utilities would charge more during times of high usage or times of drought.
I think you may still be stuck on the idea that someone is suggesting the government step in to influence our behavior which no one has suggested.
-
I should have written that better. Water is flat rate based on usage. I don't pay peak. I feel energy should generally be similar. Internet/Phone is fixed priced.
I don't know how to reconcile your statements.
If you want flat rates, the only mechanism I know of is government regulation. Water, the eletricity grid and (yes) even phones (ie telecoms) are heavily regulated industries, which allows the flat rates you so desire.
-
If you want flat rates, the only mechanism I know of is government regulation. Water, the eletricity grid and (yes) even phones (ie telecoms) are heavily regulated industries, which allows the flat rates you so desire.
What we currently have is kind of a hybrid system. Yes these marketplaces are heavily regulated, but different places have different types of regulation. In Anchorage, water is absolutely free because they have lots more supply than they have demand, so you can use all you want. Where I live water is seasonally adjusted, priced higher in the summer when it is scarce than it is in the winter when it is abundant, but my power is the same cost all day all year. In California power is typically priced higher during peak usage hours, but water usage is only priced higher by total consumed, not when you use it.
Different pricing schemes, under different regulatory environments, allow different market forces to play out to accomplish different goals in different places. NONE of these are true free markets, though. They are absolutely dependent on the local government deciding, via the voters, how to best control these markets to meet their specific local needs.
If you don't want government intervention in your power or water supplies, then you don't really want to have a water or power supply. You want every person to be individually responsible for making their own power and water, ensuring it is safe and clean, and dealing with cleanup and downtime issues?
Why not improve reliability and safety, and reduce costs, by banding together with a handful of your neighbors to share operation of a water well? How will you decide how to operate it? Why not band together with your whole city? We could call it a "government" and maybe every person could get to vote on how your water system is operated...
-
Free-market economies tend to do the best at letting the market price goods,
Yeah, and there is the main problem: Market price is seldom (or never) the price of all costs. Quite contrary markets tend to externalize as many costs as possible because that is the inherent logic.
And that leads directly to the problem of climate change.
It is often said that regenerative energies are more expensive than fossil fuels. But that is only because nobody produces fossil fuels (they are just there) or pays the full costs for them. Health costs? Climate costs? Sometimes we re-internalize those costs (acid rains), but it is always a big fight.
Why not improve reliability and safety, and reduce costs, by banding together with a handful of your neighbors to share operation of a water well? How will you decide how to operate it? Why not band together with your whole city? We could call it a "government" and maybe every person could get to vote on how your water system is operated...
You just shocked 533 voluntaryists! LOL
-
I think you may still be stuck on the idea that someone is suggesting the government step in to influence our behavior which no one has suggested.
Isn't that exactly what is being suggested? Modifying peak times to encourage daytime usage through regulation?
-
I should have written that better. Water is flat rate based on usage. I don't pay peak. I feel energy should generally be similar. Internet/Phone is fixed priced.
I don't know how to reconcile your statements.
If you want flat rates, the only mechanism I know of is government regulation. Water, the eletricity grid and (yes) even phones (ie telecoms) are heavily regulated industries, which allows the flat rates you so desire.
I said I agree with regulation and that it's necessary. I'm not sure what it is you are suggesting now. I think we are talking about the type of regulation, not whether we should regulate at all. I am very much happy with how it's regulated where I live. We actually have a voluntary time of use rate. If you want to save by using more energy during off-peak, you can sign up for it and do just that. I like choices.
-
Free-market economies tend to do the best at letting the market price goods,
Yeah, and there is the main problem: Market price is seldom (or never) the price of all costs. Quite contrary markets tend to externalize as many costs as possible because that is the inherent logic.
And that leads directly to the problem of climate change.
It is often said that regenerative energies are more expensive than fossil fuels. But that is only because nobody produces fossil fuels (they are just there) or pays the full costs for them. Health costs? Climate costs? Sometimes we re-internalize those costs (acid rains), but it is always a big fight.
I agree 100%. I mentioned pricing externalities in a previous post, but in this post I wanted to highlight the negatives of arbitrary price controls (for the sake of constituent approval).
-
I think you may still be stuck on the idea that someone is suggesting the government step in to influence our behavior which no one has suggested.
Isn't that exactly what is being suggested? Modifying peak times to encourage daytime usage through regulation?
No, your cause-and-effect chain is not pointing in the right direction. Renewable energy supplies require that we charge peak times (or rather, we reduce the charge during off-peak times), which would in turn modify the behavior (at least those who are interested in saving money and/or the planet). Otherwise we will experience brown-outs and/or massive carbon pollution at night and/or overbuilding renewables to an absurd degree (which would make the flat rate price astronomical).
-
This article from HCN discussion Wyoming's attempts to keep their coal-fired plants operating is pretty interesting.
https://www.hcn.org/articles/coal-wyoming-lawmakers-extend-lifeline-to-coal-power?fbclid=IwAR2-14Hf5QJwK4A-SrPOuLo03uP1-dybT84yC3orB4TpLwpFlEvYPq_MZTo
Wyoming is a major coal producer accounting for 41% of US production, and coal isn't even economic there. Similar stories are playing out in Kentucky, etc. Heck, the coal museum even has solar power. Even in the absence of climate-based policy, coal is on the way out. Now do we put our dollars into continued subsidies for coal, or do we move towards programs that can help those communities adapt?
Kentucky coal plant closures:
https://www.kentucky.com/news/state/article223197205.html
Coal museum to solar:
https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/science/environment/2017/04/07/kentucky-coal-museum-shifts-solar-power/100137898/
-
Isn't that exactly what is being suggested? Modifying peak times to encourage daytime usage through regulation?
NOOOOOO!!! No no no!
My original question was whether allowing more rate pricing would have a potential secondary behavioral benefit. I was not suggesting we raise rates for the sole purpose of changing people's behavior. The entire comment was predicated on the understanding that energy does not cost the same amount to produce depending on the load, time of day and environmental conditions.
-
that a decrease in solar panel cost somehow caused an increase in rate-payer electricity,
This actually could be true in some case due to net metering agreements. Under net metering, the power company is required to purchase all the power residential rooftop solar produces at full retail price. Declining costs of panels means more customers install rooftop solar. If a large percentage of the power during peak solar production is solar, then the power company cannot cover grid maintenance costs with the power it sells to other costumers during this time because there is no margin. Additionally the power company has to absorb the system losses incurred moving the power from the producers to the consumers. The power company would therefore have to raise rates to make up for the difference at other times of day. Of course this doesn't mean that we should abandon solar, just that we have to revise the business model to make it more fair.
I should have written that better. Water is flat rate based on usage. I don't pay peak. I feel energy should generally be similar. Internet/Phone is fixed priced.
I would be fine with a higher tier for those who use excessive energy. However, it would need to be similar to cell phone plans where a vast majority of reasonable users wouldn't exceed it.
The costs of providing power are not flat. Utilities charge more at times when it is more expensive to provide it. There are lots of reasons it costs more to provide a different times. First, the grid is designed to deliver up to a certain amount of power at once. While flat rate phone plans throttle heavy users when the data bandwidth is overburdened, we don't expect the grid to brownout heavy users, so it is fair to charge those who use more a peak times more money. Second, different power plants have different costs to produce and have capacity limits. During times of light use, only the least expensive sources are utilized, as use goes up, more expensive sources are brought online. Therefore the average cost of energy increases during peak use and it is fair to charge more for that energy. (The sources with lower operating costs usually have higher fixed costs, so expanding those to meet peak load isn't feasible and it wouldn't be fair to pass that cost onto those who use less at peak times anyway.)
My power company moving to a weekday time of day rate by default (all weekend and holidays are billed at the off peak rate). In winter the rate is currently $0.0969/kWh off peak and $0.1338 peak 5 pm to 8 pm. Customers without solar can opt for a fixed rate instead $0.1032. Our summer (June - Sept) rates are higher $0.1166 midnight to noon, $0.1611 noon to 5 pm and 8 pm to midnight, $0.2835 5 pm to 8 pm; fixed rate option is $0.1649. The letter they sent me analyzed one year of use and found that we would save a few dollars a year on the time of date rate without changing our usage. I'm planning to make modest adjustments to usage to save a few more dollars (mostly turning my water heater off during peak times - we'll still have hot water, but wait to recover tank temperature until off peak). I'm happy that they're rolling out time of day billing to all customers.
-
I think you may still be stuck on the idea that someone is suggesting the government step in to influence our behavior which no one has suggested.
Isn't that exactly what is being suggested? Modifying peak times to encourage daytime usage through regulation?
No, your cause-and-effect chain is not pointing in the right direction. Renewable energy supplies require that we charge peak times (or rather, we reduce the charge during off-peak times), which would in turn modify the behavior (at least those who are interested in saving money and/or the planet). Otherwise we will experience brown-outs and/or massive carbon pollution at night and/or overbuilding renewables to an absurd degree (which would make the flat rate price astronomical).
I thought I have been fairly consistent on suggesting that I feel we should be able to provide adequate electricity all times of day. I support nuclear.
At the same time, I appreciate some fairly good arguments about renewables being made here. I'd be more keen on a solution that uses more renewables during the day but can sustain peak usage in the evening. Finding a balance and continuing to develop new technologies that can provide energy as needed. Peak/Off-Peak, higher rates, because we can't maintain the energy needed in the evenings... just seems like a step backwards to me. Surely we can do better.
-
The costs of providing power are not flat. Utilities charge more at times when it is more expensive to provide it. There are lots of reasons it costs more to provide a different times. First, the grid is designed to deliver up to a certain amount of power at once. While flat rate phone plans throttle heavy users when the data bandwidth is overburdened, we don't expect the grid to brownout heavy users, so it is fair to charge those who use more a peak times more money. Second, different power plants have different costs to produce and have capacity limits. During times of light use, only the least expensive sources are utilized, as use goes up, more expensive sources are brought online. Therefore the average cost of energy increases during peak use and it is fair to charge more for that energy. (The sources with lower operating costs usually have higher fixed costs, so expanding those to meet peak load isn't feasible and it wouldn't be fair to pass that cost onto those who use less at peak times anyway.)
My power company moving to a weekday time of day rate by default (all weekend and holidays are billed at the off peak rate). In winter the rate is currently $0.0969/kWh off peak and $0.1338 peak 5 pm to 8 pm. Customers without solar can opt for a fixed rate instead $0.1032. Our summer (June - Sept) rates are higher $0.1166 midnight to noon, $0.1611 noon to 5 pm and 8 pm to midnight, $0.2835 5 pm to 8 pm; fixed rate option is $0.1649. The letter they sent me analyzed one year of use and found that we would save a few dollars a year on the time of date rate without changing our usage. I'm planning to make modest adjustments to usage to save a few more dollars (mostly turning my water heater off during peak times - we'll still have hot water, but wait to recover tank temperature until off peak). I'm happy that they're rolling out time of day billing to all customers.
You are explaining exactly what I support. Figure out the overall cost, regardless of time of day, and provide a flat, consistent rate. At the same time, as you mentioned, utilities can provide TOU discounts for those who wish to partake and save money. Seems like it's working as it should, no?
Is it possible we are all trying to say the same thing?
-
You are explaining exactly what I support. Figure out the overall cost, regardless of time of day, and provide a flat, consistent rate. At the same time, as you mentioned, utilities can provide TOU discounts for those who wish to partake and save money. Seems like it's working as it should, no?
Is it possible we are all trying to say the same thing?
Perhaps. You're not opposed to TOU billing options, but you want a flat rate option as well. I did crunch through the numbers, for a users that has a constant usage, the time of day rate is slightly cheaper (for a constant 1kW load the usage would cost 29 cents/week more on the fixed rate in winter and $1.97/week more on the fixed rate in summer). Seems to me that the fixed rate power should be priced a little higher. You did note that I said they do not allow net metered customers to opt for the fixed rate - if you have net metering you must accept time of use rates.
In the letter they suggested ways to save during peak hours. With winter peak rates only 38% higher than off-peak rates, I thought the suggestion of using a laptop on battery instead of on mains power isn't all that great - the round trip energy losses and extra wear on the battery probably aren't worth the price difference (though at 76% increase from mid-peak to peak in summer the difference is a bit more appreciable). Suggestions to schedule pool equipment and laundry away from peak hours made much more sense.
-
Is it possible we are all trying to say the same thing?
It doesn't seem that way.
A flat rate, which you keep saying you want, means you pay the same amount per kilowatt regardless of the time of day, grid load or externals. Or maybe you are using it to mean something completely different?
You say you want renewables 'during the day' (which I assume means solar only) and don't want regulation, but at the same time you don't want utilities to charge different rates because the power they produce costs differing amounts.
You keep saying you want nuclear but ignore the various commentary brought up about nuclear by Sol, Lennstar, myself and others.
Basically your positions seem divorced from reality. No regulations on prices, yet constant prices. More nuclear, but let's just skip over the cost and timeframe constaints to build them. You object to wind turbines where you can see them, but don't seem to care whether others might object to large scale reactors nearby. You claim to have PV panels of your own, but don't acknowledge that these create some of the very differences in pricing that you so vehemently object to. Even if we waved a magic wand and had a grid supplied with 100% nuclear we would *still* have differences in the cost of electricity as the load would change while the cost of the plant is largely fixed (unlike, say, LNG)
-
You are explaining exactly what I support. Figure out the overall cost, regardless of time of day, and provide a flat, consistent rate. At the same time, as you mentioned, utilities can provide TOU discounts for those who wish to partake and save money. Seems like it's working as it should, no?
Is it possible we are all trying to say the same thing?
Perhaps. You're not opposed to TOU billing options, but you want a flat rate option as well. I did crunch through the numbers, for a users that has a constant usage, the time of day rate is slightly cheaper (for a constant 1kW load the usage would cost 29 cents/week more on the fixed rate in winter and $1.97/week more on the fixed rate in summer). Seems to me that the fixed rate power should be priced a little higher. You did note that I said they do not allow net metered customers to opt for the fixed rate - if you have net metering you must accept time of use rates.
In the letter they suggested ways to save during peak hours. With winter peak rates only 38% higher than off-peak rates, I thought the suggestion of using a laptop on battery instead of on mains power isn't all that great - the round trip energy losses and extra wear on the battery probably aren't worth the price difference (though at 76% increase from mid-peak to peak in summer the difference is a bit more appreciable). Suggestions to schedule pool equipment and laundry away from peak hours made much more sense.
I'm not sure how I'm billed at the house with the panels. That one is net metered. It's our second home. But it's irrelevant. Even running the pool heater for a week we only managed a $17 bill. Those panels work their butts off.
But yeah, what is wrong with having flat rate and TOU options and giving the customer a choice? If you want to manage your electricity usage based on peak/off-peak - then you can save some money doing so. Seems like a win/win to me. I imagine giving bigger discounts for TOU would encourage more people to do it. But you have to start somewhere. As for using a laptop on battery during peak, I can't think of anything more silly. Is that marketing nonsense or are they genuinely trying to make this suggestion? How much energy does a laptop even use? Goodness. Save you 4 cents on the month?
-
Is it possible we are all trying to say the same thing?
It doesn't seem that way.
A flat rate, which you keep saying you want, means you pay the same amount per kilowatt regardless of the time of day, grid load or externals. Or maybe you are using it to mean something completely different?
You say you want renewables 'during the day' (which I assume means solar only) and don't want regulation, but at the same time you don't want utilities to charge different rates because the power they produce costs differing amounts.
You keep saying you want nuclear but ignore the various commentary brought up about nuclear by Sol, Lennstar, myself and others.
Basically your positions seem divorced from reality. No regulations on prices, yet constant prices. More nuclear, but let's just skip over the cost and timeframe constaints to build them. You object to wind turbines where you can see them, but don't seem to care whether others might object to large scale reactors nearby. You claim to have PV panels of your own, but don't acknowledge that these create some of the very differences in pricing that you so vehemently object to. Even if we waved a magic wand and had a grid supplied with 100% nuclear we would *still* have differences in the cost of electricity as the load would change while the cost of the plant is largely fixed (unlike, say, LNG)
You keep making up this position of mine. What is this no regulation? I've said over and over I'm pro-regulation. I don't share your views on nuclear. Cost and time constraints are irrelevant, we ALREADY have electricity. We have nuclear all over our State, along with several other technologies. If they can build nuclear to replace coal and do so in a way that is sensible, I'm for it. I don't see the massive issue that you do and I see energy companies going in a more sustainable direction. I support constant pricing with a TOU option, just as my provider offers. I don't "want renewables during the day" - it just seems like wind/sun don't work 24/7, but if we can find a balanced mix of renewables and energy like nuclear, lng, even coal, that is what I'm going to support.
You keep getting caught up on differences in cost to provide electricity. I never said there was no difference. I said the opposite. So you seem dead set on building these strawmans just so you have something to argue. I don't know why, but that's what you do and by all means, keep at it.
-
Before they found all this cheap natural gas, nuclear was getting to be the cheapest option. The high construction costs and what I perceive as over-regulation is damaging it. I firmly believe regulation is required, but the industry is stifled. It is still a relatively new technology that has been prevented from giving us its true potential.
-
I don't share your views on nuclear. Cost and time constraints are irrelevant, we ALREADY have electricity. We have nuclear all over our State, along with several other technologies. If they can build nuclear to replace coal and do so in a way that is sensible,
Let's ask this way: How many reactors do you have now?
How many are currently build?
How many are planned?
If the last 2 numbers aren't at least 1/3 of the first, you have a problem, because the number of reactors will sink in the future. Because they take so damn long to build.
And btw. nuclear is nearly never build anymore because it is too expensive if you have to build for the current security levels (like a plane crushing into it). Of course a 70s standard is way cheaper. But do you want a reactor type that has already contaminated millions of people (if you add it up)?
And even if we do all electrity by nuclear - what do we do in 100 years? Because the fuel would no longer last. Except with reactors using plutonium. But that would mean daily handling of probably the most dangerous stuff on earth. Even if you are under the illusion we could do that safely, it is again extremely expensive.
I firmly believe regulation is required, but the industry is stifled.
But that isn't the regulation's fault. It is the fault of nuclear. If a nuclear power plant had to pay all the costs for waste, you would pay an nearly infinite amount of money per kWh simply because of the time span. You have to guard that stuff for a million years!
-
This article from HCN discussion Wyoming's attempts to keep their coal-fired plants operating is pretty interesting.
https://www.hcn.org/articles/coal-wyoming-lawmakers-extend-lifeline-to-coal-power?fbclid=IwAR2-14Hf5QJwK4A-SrPOuLo03uP1-dybT84yC3orB4TpLwpFlEvYPq_MZTo
Wyoming is a major coal producer accounting for 41% of US production, and coal isn't even economic there. Similar stories are playing out in Kentucky, etc. Heck, the coal museum even has solar power. Even in the absence of climate-based policy, coal is on the way out. Now do we put our dollars into continued subsidies for coal, or do we move towards programs that can help those communities adapt?
The east-coast coal regions (eg WV, Pennsylvania) basically started suffering when coal mining started in Wyoming, as it was far cheaper to less labor intensive to dig coal there. Most of what's left in the east is anthracite, which is the hardest form. Then the fracking boom made coal in Wyoming less economical to extract.
-
I don't share your views on nuclear. Cost and time constraints are irrelevant, we ALREADY have electricity. We have nuclear all over our State, along with several other technologies. If they can build nuclear to replace coal and do so in a way that is sensible,
Let's ask this way: How many reactors do you have now?
How many are currently build?
How many are planned?
If the last 2 numbers aren't at least 1/3 of the first, you have a problem, because the number of reactors will sink in the future. Because they take so damn long to build.
And btw. nuclear is nearly never build anymore because it is too expensive if you have to build for the current security levels (like a plane crushing into it). Of course a 70s standard is way cheaper. But do you want a reactor type that has already contaminated millions of people (if you add it up)?
And even if we do all electrity by nuclear - what do we do in 100 years? Because the fuel would no longer last. Except with reactors using plutonium. But that would mean daily handling of probably the most dangerous stuff on earth. Even if you are under the illusion we could do that safely, it is again extremely expensive.
I firmly believe regulation is required, but the industry is stifled.
But that isn't the regulation's fault. It is the fault of nuclear. If a nuclear power plant had to pay all the costs for waste, you would pay an nearly infinite amount of money per kWh simply because of the time span. You have to guard that stuff for a million years!
You could be spot on when it comes to nuclear, noted. This is not in any way my expertise. I know our most recent power plant near me is natural gas. But we have a nuclear plant as well and even waste to energy plants. I'll probably spend some free time reading a little more about the topic. I appreciate the alternative opinions here.
-
This is interesting:
https://ici.radio-canada.ca/info/2019/03/neige-accumulation-hiver-quebec-environnement-meteo-gel-degel/index-en.html
-
Reactors have always had very stout containment walls. They are not like coal plants or gas turbines where there is a sheet metal wall protecting you from the outside.
This may be interesting.
https://interestingengineering.com/crashed-jet-nuclear-reactor-test (https://interestingengineering.com/crashed-jet-nuclear-reactor-test)
Newer types of nuclear plants may not require the very thick walls of Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs) or Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs) due to different designs. The containment may be built into the fuel itself or the fuel may be molten.
Few if any reactors are being completed in the United States. The price of natural gas is down. More money iis to be made from cogeneration gas plants. The supply of natural gas should last for a generation. At that time, you may expect to see more reactors built unless political pressure due to global warming concerns accelerate this action.
The technology will continue in other countries that are not blessed with natural gas and have a more favorable political climate towards nuclear. When the US decides to once again build reactors, this technology can be imported into the states.
I guess as long as my beer is cold it doesn't matter too much to me except for the part about saving the planet.
-
I don't share your views on nuclear. Cost and time constraints are irrelevant, we ALREADY have electricity. We have nuclear all over our State, along with several other technologies. If they can build nuclear to replace coal and do so in a way that is sensible,
Let's ask this way: How many reactors do you have now?
How many are currently build?
How many are planned?
If the last 2 numbers aren't at least 1/3 of the first, you have a problem, because the number of reactors will sink in the future. Because they take so damn long to build.
And btw. nuclear is nearly never build anymore because it is too expensive if you have to build for the current security levels (like a plane crushing into it). Of course a 70s standard is way cheaper. But do you want a reactor type that has already contaminated millions of people (if you add it up)?
And even if we do all electrity by nuclear - what do we do in 100 years? Because the fuel would no longer last. Except with reactors using plutonium. But that would mean daily handling of probably the most dangerous stuff on earth. Even if you are under the illusion we could do that safely, it is again extremely expensive.
I firmly believe regulation is required, but the industry is stifled.
But that isn't the regulation's fault. It is the fault of nuclear. If a nuclear power plant had to pay all the costs for waste, you would pay an nearly infinite amount of money per kWh simply because of the time span. You have to guard that stuff for a million years!
I can speak to this: we haven't completed a nuclear plant in the US in over 30 years, and we've added just one new reactor to existing plants in the last two decades. There's only one new plant in the planning stages (the Blue Castle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Castle_Project) project in Utah) with a rather optimistic operational target of 2030 (optimistic because they are still several years from breaking ground, and there's a whole host of obstacles in their way from doing that).
At the same time we've decomissioned a number of smaller reactors that were no longer economically feasible, including two that I've worked on (Fort Calhoun & Yankee). Almost all (>80%) of the reactors in the US went into service in the 70s and early 80s, and are towards the end of their planned service life. There's about a half-dozen that are considering decommissioning in the next five years. Bottom line is that our nuclear capacity is decreasing substantially. We have less nuclear capacity today than we did a decade ago, and that trend is set to continue for at least the next few decades. Also worth noting that at least two plants were partially constructed before being abandoned several billion dollars in - Bellefonte (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellefonte_Nuclear_Plant) in Alabama and and Marble Hill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marble_Hill_Nuclear_Power_Plant) in Indiana.
The Fort Calhoun plant closed entirely due to economics - at 500MW in the plains it cost too much to continue running. Interestingly, the power loss from Calhoun was offset by a 440MW wind farm (Grande Prairie wind farm) and numerous PV arrays also built by the regional utility, OPPD. Yankee had better economic prospects but needed to have its operational lease extended, and that was blocked by voters. There's a large an ongoing debate about whether that was a good or bad decision - my take after being in that s-storm for several years is that continued maintenance costs would have continued to rise and new sources of power were far more economical, though it sucks to take another reactor offline which could have continued to feed the grid for another two decades. A ten year extension (vs the proposed 20y) would have made more sense but wasn't a regulatory or political option.
Beyond that we've got essentially nothing on the drawing board. Few existing plants can take on new reactors now due to cooling restrictions, and the upfront costs and failure to get Bellefont off the ground have scared away most utilities. As I've said before, no plant to my knowledge has ever gone from groundbreaking to operational in less than a decade, and all recent attempts have been scuttled before completion.
You can see the reactors currently under decommissioning here (https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/power-reactor/).
-
I didn't know that the US was so down on building nuclear reactors. I am actually very surprised.
One of the main reasons to have nuclear power (it was always expensive and needed additional money) was that you need them to build atomic bombs. That is why France and GB are relativly heavy on nuclear power - they have the bombs.
I am not into that topic, but I don't think you can use the warheads you already have forever. So you would need at least a few more plants to keep the military potential running.
Not that I want ANY atomic bomb to exist, but I would have bet that the mighty US military is more concerned about that.
-
I didn't know that the US was so down on building nuclear reactors. I am actually very surprised.
One of the main reasons to have nuclear power (it was always expensive and needed additional money) was that you need them to build atomic bombs. That is why France and GB are relativly heavy on nuclear power - they have the bombs.
I am not into that topic, but I don't think you can use the warheads you already have forever. So you would need at least a few more plants to keep the military potential running.
Not that I want ANY atomic bomb to exist, but I would have bet that the mighty US military is more concerned about that.
Nuclear (breeder) reactors are very useful to generate the fissile material necessary for building nuclear warheads, but strictly speaking they aren't necessary. At present the US has somewhere north of 6,000 warheads, though about 2k are in various stages of decommissioning. The half-life of plutonium and uranium are such that we don't really need more material - it's the actual missiles that need updating.
On a related subject, one unintended shortfall we are facing is spent plutonium that's so useful for deep space probes (https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/12/13/nasa-doesnt-have-enough-nuclear-fuel-for-its-deep-space-missions/#3557f8931c18). Once we get past abuot Mars solar panels aren't veyr useful for powering our probes, and until now we've relied on 'power orbs (https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/File:plutonium.png)' to keep craft like the two Voyagers and New Horizons operational.
-
So you would need at least a few more plants to keep the military potential running.
The US military don't giveashit about commercial power plants. They have their own pipeline for nuclear fuels.
-
Peak/Off-Peak, higher rates, because we can't maintain the energy needed in the evenings... just seems like a step backwards to me. Surely we can do better.
Let me just point out that time-of-use metering has been a huge technological step forward. Prior to the technology being developed, power companies had to charge a flat rate because they only checked the meters once a month. This has allowed power companies to better price energy for all consumers (those that prefer time-of-use and those that prefer flat rate) and, has been noted, reduce the instances of brownouts by smoothing demand (and, in the age of solar, matching demand to supply).
-
So you would need at least a few more plants to keep the military potential running.
The US military don't giveashit about commercial power plants. They have their own pipeline for nuclear fuels.
Right - I believe Savannah River still produces heavy water.
Here's a link showing that nuclear power had some use lately in the Pacific Northwest as Columbia Station (WPPS-2) was on a no touch condition.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf5jU8ttX58&vl=en (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf5jU8ttX58&vl=en)
The wind does not always blow, the sun does not always shine and the Rivers do not always blow.
Utilities have similar condition in the Summer when maintenance and construction cannot occur. There is big money to be made from people's air conditioning.
You can have all the tricky metering gimmicks that you want but there has to be a source for that power.
-
The wind does not always blow, the sun does not always shine and the Rivers do not always blow.
Utilities have similar condition in the Summer when maintenance and construction cannot occur. There is big money to be made from people's air conditioning.
You can have all the tricky metering gimmicks that you want but there has to be a source for that power.
If the sun isn't shining, there should be less demand for air conditioning. Kind of works itself out. But regardless, that's where companies need a backup supply, such as LNG. I don't know how to get around this with the current state of energy storage technology.
-
The wind does not always blow, the sun does not always shine and the Rivers do not always blow.
Utilities have similar condition in the Summer when maintenance and construction cannot occur. There is big money to be made from people's air conditioning.
You can have all the tricky metering gimmicks that you want but there has to be a source for that power.
If the sun isn't shining, there should be less demand for air conditioning. Kind of works itself out. But regardless, that's where companies need a backup supply, such as LNG. I don't know how to get around this with the current state of energy storage technology.
worth noting that peak solar and peak wind are typically offset, so the two do compliment each other. In most location peak wind occurs late in the day when solar is decreasing but energy use begins to rise. But yes, absent storage additional capacity is needed to level out these two sources.
-
One thing that appears to be getting lost in arguing over whether renewables or nuclear or LNG or some combination thereof is the right mix: we should all be consuming less. Period. Less heat. Less AC. Less electricity. Less water. Less.
This strikes as anologous to the Wizard vs Prophet debates: should we also consign ourselves to asceticism or are technological advancements going to make things better? The answer is obviously a bit of both. Unless everyone is willing to either go back to or, in the developing work, remain indefinitely in a pre-industrial lifestyle--which no one wants and (almost) no one is advocating for--we're going to need some remarkable technological advancements that reshape how we get our energy. But energy consumers at all levels -- companies and governments down to individuals--should be willing to meet them halfway by reducing energy demand so we don't need so much technological wizardry to have a livable future.
So, yeah -- plenty of room for debate on nuclear and renewables and all that good stuff. But regardless of what combination of sources we use, we need to be using a lot less of it. Among people who are serious about climate change, there should be near unanimous agreement on that.
-
One thing that appears to be getting lost in arguing over whether renewables or nuclear or LNG or some combination thereof is the right mix: we should all be consuming less. Period. Less heat. Less AC. Less electricity. Less water. Less.
This strikes as anologous to the Wizard vs Prophet debates: should we also consign ourselves to asceticism or are technological advancements going to make things better? The answer is obviously a bit of both. Unless everyone is willing to either go back to or, in the developing work, remain indefinitely in a pre-industrial lifestyle--which no one wants and (almost) no one is advocating for--we're going to need some remarkable technological advancements that reshape how we get our energy. But energy consumers at all levels -- companies and governments down to individuals--should be willing to meet them halfway by reducing energy demand so we don't need so much technological wizardry to have a livable future.
So, yeah -- plenty of room for debate on nuclear and renewables and all that good stuff. But regardless of what combination of sources we use, we need to be using a lot less of it. Among people who are serious about climate change, there should be near unanimous agreement on that.
Agree 100%, but Pandora's box has already been opened: cheap energy and water are not going to go silently into the night. Basically, we would need to convince millions (billions?) of people that it is in their best interest to be inconvenienced by having to spend more on and think more about using these resources (otherwise tragedy of the commons is inevitable). I don't see this happening; even the Pope has made the call to be better environmental stewards, and I don't see the average Catholic following this advice (similar to abstinence (this is an attempt at a joke, my catholic friends)).
-
Isn't the wind usually almost non-existent once the sun goes down?
Totally location and weather dependent. This winter at my house the wind has howled many night, with major gusts.
I know with many shore situations you get an on-shore wind, then a calm, then an off-shore wind.
There are windmill farms in the passes leading into the Coachella valley, that I think run pretty consistently (anyone here more familiar with them?).
-
Isn't the wind usually almost non-existent once the sun goes down?
No.
Wind intensity varies based on location, but broadly speaking wind is strongest in the late afternoon and continues to be quite strong until after midnight. Broadly speaking, wind intensity is lowest jwithin an hour or two of dawn.
(https://carboncounter.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/average_hour_rescaled2.png)
source. (https://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2015/07/10/are-wind-farms-more-productive-at-night/)
-
Isn't the wind usually almost non-existent once the sun goes down?
No.
Wind intensity varies based on location, but broadly speaking wind is strongest in the late afternoon and continues to be quite strong until after midnight. Broadly speaking, wind intensity is lowest jwithin an hour or two of dawn.
(https://carboncounter.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/average_hour_rescaled2.png)
source. (https://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2015/07/10/are-wind-farms-more-productive-at-night/)
That's interesting. I spend a lot of time in Denmark. I don't really feel like it's some crazy windy place, yet there are windmills everywhere and they almost always seem to be spinning. Science is funny like that :)
Anyways, I do appreciate the discussion, I am admittedly learning a lot. It's just a shame that an out of control and highly fragile moderator keeps banning me. He really has no business in that position. But oh well. The rest of the people around here aren't so bad.
-
Anyways, I do appreciate the discussion, I am admittedly learning a lot. It's just a shame that an out of control and highly fragile moderator keeps banning me. He really has no business in that position. But oh well. The rest of the people around here aren't so bad.
how many times did you vote?
-
Anyways, I do appreciate the discussion, I am admittedly learning a lot. It's just a shame that an out of control and highly fragile moderator keeps banning me. He really has no business in that position. But oh well. The rest of the people around here aren't so bad.
how many times did you vote?
You are sharp! Lol. I don't know, probably 3 times. However, it might surprise you that every vote wasn't the same. As I said, I'm learning more.
-
another interesting aspect of the wind-data linked above is how - averaged over a year of course - wind energy is remarkably consistent. While we solar goes towards near-zero every night and has reduced production when it is rainy or foggy, turbines spin much more consistently, and even the 'worst' times of day still produce ~80% of the max. Newer turbines have blades that are so large they overcome ground-level friction.
One thing that appears to be getting lost in arguing over whether renewables or nuclear or LNG or some combination thereof is the right mix: we should all be consuming less. Period. Less heat. Less AC. Less electricity. Less water. Less.
I brought this up a while ago but unfortunately was met with resistance. I believe the exact words were "a step backwards". As long as we think we can solve our energy problems by creating ever larger amounts of energy we're are unlikely to make real change. The irritating thing is that there are horrible inefficiencies everywhere you look. ~40% of our total energy use goes towards building heating/cooling, and a majority of homes are poorly insulated, poorly designed and/or use inefficient heating sources like fuel-oil (we're guilty of this in our latest rental). 'Market Forces' have not corrected these inefficiencies, in part because energy is still so damn cheap for what it is. Increasing building standards would do wonders, even if the anti-government folks scream about "over regulation".
-
'Market Forces' have not corrected these inefficiencies, in part because energy is still so damn cheap for what it is. Increasing building standards would do wonders, even if the anti-government folks scream about "over regulation".
Yes to this. Especially true in the rental market where residents are paying the bills but owners get to make the decisions on construction and updating inefficiencies. It's very difficult for renters to adequately factor in what their utilities will cost when choosing an apartment so there's little incentive for owners to pay for improvements. Even if renters knew what their power bill would be in each unit they're considering, it's hard to not choose the lowest sticker price.
-
'Market Forces' have not corrected these inefficiencies, in part because energy is still so damn cheap for what it is. Increasing building standards would do wonders, even if the anti-government folks scream about "over regulation".
Yes to this. Especially true in the rental market where residents are paying the bills but owners get to make the decisions on construction and updating inefficiencies. It's very difficult for renters to adequately factor in what their utilities will cost when choosing an apartment so there's little incentive for owners to pay for improvements. Even if renters knew what their power bill would be in each unit they're considering, it's hard to not choose the lowest sticker price.
This is so true. I was at a presentation years ago when David Miller (then mayor of Toronto, so you know it is a long time ago) pointed out that a lot of Toronto's government low-income housing built in the 50s was terribly energy inefficient, and if those buildings were brought up to code there would be huge savings. But there was no legislative or economic pressure to do so.
Similarly a few years ago I heard a radio interview of a builder of a development outside Ottawa. For about $6000 more people could buy a house that would be much more energy efficient, but people were not willing to fork out that extra money. Sort of like buying a car based on monthly payments instead of total cost, or the cheap refrigerator that will be long term expensive based on its electricity use.
-
Currently we are renting a home that is horribly energy-inefficient, and it's been a kick-in-the-teeth to go from a well insulated smaller apartment in Quebec to a much older, draftier, bigger single family home a bit to the south heated by fuel-oil. I cringe each time we have to place another fuel delivery, both because of the upfront cost but also because of all the carbon cost. We will burn more fuel oil heating our home than gasoline in our vehicles this year by a wide margin.
-
Currently we are renting a home that is horribly energy-inefficient, and it's been a kick-in-the-teeth to go from a well insulated smaller apartment in Quebec to a much older, draftier, bigger single family home a bit to the south heated by fuel-oil. I cringe each time we have to place another fuel delivery, both because of the upfront cost but also because of all the carbon cost. We will burn more fuel oil heating our home than gasoline in our vehicles this year by a wide margin.
That is an interesting comparison.
This house has a forced-air oil furnace. I know how many liters I have bought so far this year.* I also keep a record of all my car gas purchases.* Come summer I could take a date, say June 1, and look at all my liters of gas and all my liters of fuel oil. I could actually do this for a few years, to even out blips in usage for each.
This house isn't actually too bad. When we have power failures in winter it cools off quite slowly. The end that a lot of storms come from has no windows - this is good and bad, because it also hinders cross-ventilation in summer. Right now with the stronger March sun the furnace does not come on at all on sunny days. At just after 5PM the house is at a tropical 21C. No, that is not the thermostat setting. ;-)
Does anyone else keep a car book? I've kept one for decades, just to keep track of gas mileage and price fluctuations.
Headings are:
Date odometer reading price/litre amount paid # litres Location
It was more useful back in the days of non-electronic cars. We caught a bad butterfly valve (back in the early 70s, I said I've kept one for decades) when our mileage suddenly dropped.
-
Does anyone else keep a car book? I've kept one for decades, just to keep track of gas mileage and price fluctuations.
Headings are:
Date odometer reading price/litre amount paid # litres Location
I do, and there have been a couple times over the last decade when I noticed something was wrong because of it. My parents always made me divide the miles driven (not km) by the gallons taken. Seemed some sort or torture at the time.
While we're at it, I can convert km/miles or C/F or cm/feet in my head just fine, but hte one skill i never mastered was the fuel efficiency numbers in Canada. with MGP you want a big number - but liters per 100km driven you want the opposite, and I can't convert between the two easily.
-
Op-Ed by Sens Murkowski (R-AK) and Manchin (D-WV) on the need to address climate change, and how they propose we go about it in the US
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lisa-murkowski-and-joe-manchin-its-time-to-act-on-climate-change--responsibly/2019/03/08/2c4025f2-41d1-11e9-922c-64d6b7840b82_story.html?utm_term=.89bef0adc2b0 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lisa-murkowski-and-joe-manchin-its-time-to-act-on-climate-change--responsibly/2019/03/08/2c4025f2-41d1-11e9-922c-64d6b7840b82_story.html?utm_term=.89bef0adc2b0)
-
What are your thoughts on dairy and its role in global warming?
-
Have you seen this article yet? It's notable because of who wrote it.
https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-the-planet/
What are you trying to say here, @CheezM? That article was written like someone with ADHD who had mistakenly taken cocaine instead of Ritalin - jumping randomly from topic to topic. It (falsely) suggests all sorts of correlations are cause-and-effect, and brings in too many straw men to count.
This line made me a bit reluctant to trust the competence of the writer: " For example, California is a world leader when it comes to renewables"
Really? By "world"; does he mean the US? Because I'm pretty sure that the Nordics (51-98% renewables) and Canada (65 %) rank a bit higher than California. The newest numbers I could find for California is 34 %, a number that a large number of other countries, including Germany (40%) can easily beat.
-
Have you seen this article yet? It's notable because of who wrote it.
https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-the-planet/
What are you trying to say here, @CheezM? That article was written like someone with ADHD who had mistakenly taken cocaine instead of Ritalin - jumping randomly from topic to topic. It (falsely) suggests all sorts of correlations are cause-and-effect, and brings in too many straw men to count.
This line made me a bit reluctant to trust the competence of the writer: " For example, California is a world leader when it comes to renewables"
Really? By "world"; does he mean the US? Because I'm pretty sure that the Nordics (51-98% renewables) and Canada (65 %) rank a bit higher than California. The newest numbers I could find for California is 34 %, a number that a large number of other countries, including Germany (40%) can easily beat.
I wonder if the author is thinking of renewable other than hydro? Because Canada has a lot of hydro electricity, but we are not any great shakes at wind and solar. Doing them yes, but not a lot.
-
Does anyone else keep a car book? I've kept one for decades, just to keep track of gas mileage and price fluctuations.
Headings are:
Date odometer reading price/litre amount paid # litres Location
I do, and there have been a couple times over the last decade when I noticed something was wrong because of it. My parents always made me divide the miles driven (not km) by the gallons taken. Seemed some sort or torture at the time.
While we're at it, I can convert km/miles or C/F or cm/feet in my head just fine, but hte one skill i never mastered was the fuel efficiency numbers in Canada. with MGP you want a big number - but liters per 100km driven you want the opposite, and I can't convert between the two easily.
My little secret - I grew up Imperial, converted to metric as an adult. I can do all the conversions too. I used to have a little thingamajiggy that calculated l/100k. When I lost it, I went to k/l, equivalent of mpg. Just easier. It`s for my own information, I can do it however I please.
-
Have you seen this article yet? It's notable because of who wrote it.
https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-the-planet/
What are you trying to say here, @CheezM? That article was written like someone with ADHD who had mistakenly taken cocaine instead of Ritalin - jumping randomly from topic to topic. It (falsely) suggests all sorts of correlations are cause-and-effect, and brings in too many straw men to count.
This line made me a bit reluctant to trust the competence of the writer: " For example, California is a world leader when it comes to renewables"
Really? By "world"; does he mean the US? Because I'm pretty sure that the Nordics (51-98% renewables) and Canada (65 %) rank a bit higher than California. The newest numbers I could find for California is 34 %, a number that a large number of other countries, including Germany (40%) can easily beat.
I wonder if the author is thinking of renewable other than hydro? Because Canada has a lot of hydro electricity, but we are not any great shakes at wind and solar. Doing them yes, but not a lot.
He was recently interviewed on WBUR, along with a former head of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Gregory Jaczko. Both raised valid points, but Dr Jaczko's points against nuclear appeared more cohesive, well-researched and practical (nuclear power would be a valid baseline energy source if we were better at constructing plants, storing the waste safely, and developed better contingency plans for natural disasters near nuclear reactors - none of which could be accomplished in the US over the last 50 years and are unlikely to be accomplished in the next few decades). He also noted that the capital costs and time to just replace plants that will be decommissioned in the next few years are enormous, much less make additional plants to replace fossil fuels in a reasonable period to meet climate mitigation timelines. Mr Shillenberger basically argued that all of the above could be done if we had better regulators (took some potshots at Dr Jaczko and took some of his statements regarding Fukishima out of context and underestimated the effects of Chernobyl), but didn't have any real concrete ideas of how to do accomplish these goals. The debate definitely gave me pause regarding the logistical difficulties surrounding nuclear plants' normal operation, much less mitigation of potential complications.
To nereo and gaja's points: Though I agree in theory that nuclear could be a viable energy source, I am not impressed with Mr Shillenberger's writing, debating or critical thinking skills. His argument is essentially that we need to make nuclear power cheap, and everything will be fine because of uranium's energy density. That is a valid point but ignores the reality of the last 50 years. Conversely, he argues that solar and wind will never be cheap / consistent enough and thus are not viable alternatives to fossil fuels. He discounts any future technological advances would be sufficient to overcome these logistics. However, he tends to engage in name-calling and unreferenced conspiracy theories (Greenpece being funded by fossil fuel companies? The US NRC somehow caused the deaths of Japanese civilians evacuating from Fukishima?). Most annoyingly, he self-references way too much. I mean, look at his website.
Link to interview: https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2019/02/15/green-new-deal-climate-change-nuclear-power
-
To nereo and gaja's points: Though I agree in theory that nuclear could be a viable energy source, I am not impressed with Mr Shillenberger's writing, debating or critical thinking skills. His argument is essentially that we need to make nuclear power cheap, and everything will be fine because of uranium's energy density. That is a valid point but ignores the reality of the last 50 years. Conversely, he argues that solar and wind will never be cheap / consistent enough and thus are not viable alternatives to fossil fuels. He discounts any future technological advances would be sufficient to overcome these logistics. However, he tends to engage in name-calling and unreferenced conspiracy theories (Greenpece being funded by fossil fuel companies? The US NRC somehow caused the deaths of Japanese civilians evacuating from Fukishima?). Most annoyingly, he self-references way too much. I mean, look at his website.
Link to interview: https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2019/02/15/green-new-deal-climate-change-nuclear-power
I'm obviously not a fan of Michael Shellenberger, for all the reasons I've listed above and more. Suffice to say he's a pro-nuclear crusader that doesn't fairly address its cons and incorrectly disparages other energy generation types. In particular his statements about the economic and ecological effects of wind turbines and PV panels are based on previous generation tech and pessimistic assumptions.
From a practical standpoint our nuclear capacity is diminishing, and this trend will continue for a decade or more regardless of our future policies; too many reactors are being decommissioned and/or are towards the end of their service life, and only one new plant is on the drawing board.
So regardless of ones position on nuclear, the question becomes 'how do we handle our electricity needs over the next quarter-century, knowing we'll see more and more older nuclear plants decommissioned." Sol made a good point - wind and solar is still such a minor portion that we could continue to have 20% growth for a decade and we'd still not hit the practical limits of space and capacity. Unlike nuclear, LNG plants can be built much more quickly and can be throttled back more rapidly when grid-demand is low than either coal or nuclear. Ultimately more mechanical storage capacity is needed, but is costly.
-
- SNIP -
. That is a valid point but ignores the reality of the last 50 years. Conversely, he argues that solar and wind will never be cheap / consistent enough and thus are not viable alternatives to fossil fuels. He discounts any future technological advances would be sufficient to overcome these logistics. However, he tends to engage in name-calling and unreferenced conspiracy theories (Greenpece being funded by fossil fuel companies? The US NRC somehow caused the deaths of Japanese civilians evacuating from Fukishima?). Most annoyingly, he self-references way too much. I mean, look at his website.
Link to interview: https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2019/02/15/green-new-deal-climate-change-nuclear-power
I will say I didn't read the article. The reality over the last 50-60 years is that nuclear grew from nothing to a significant power source. Wind and solar are also growing to be significant power sources. Vacuum tubes have been replaced by transistors. Cell phones have taken over the minds of most teenagers. I would not have had a personal computer in front of me 50 years ago.
George Santayana - "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
To deny that technology can and will change for the better if it is not stifled is to not remember the past and how technology can transform our lives for the better. Thinking that traps nuclear power into the designs of the 1950s and 1960s would have us running around with horses.
Nereo:
"Unlike nuclear, LNG plants can be built much more quickly and can be throttled back more rapidly when grid-demand is low than either coal or nuclear. Ultimately more mechanical storage capacity is needed, but is costly."
True - Hard to argue with the reality of what is before your eyes. The municipal plant in the town I live in has been replaced by two cogeneration plants. The trend has been to either close coal plants or modify their heat source to be natural gas for a number of years now. It will continue. I worked a t a nuke plant that had a 1000 employees. A friend of mine worked at a natural gas plant with similar output. There were 34 employees. Fuel is very cheap for nuclear plants, but the availability of cheap natural gas is forcing them to close.
Nuke plants can be built to throttle back.
Just as subsidies have driven the construction of wind farms, cheap natural gas will drive the construction of more gas plants.
Greenpeace funded by Natural Gas? Could be. I didn't look very hard and found this article with the Sierra Club receiving similar type funding:
https://canadafreepress.com/article/questionable-funding-for-environmental-groups-and-what-they-do-with-it (https://canadafreepress.com/article/questionable-funding-for-environmental-groups-and-what-they-do-with-it)
If I was running a gas company, I'd have layers shielding me from our donations to environmental groups. It would be like the Koch boys.
From the article:
"But then something happened. Natural gas reserves boomed and electric utilities began converting some coal-fired plants to natural gas, prompting the Sierra Club to launch a sister campaign called “Beyond Natural Gas.” Just two years removed from accepting millions from a natural gas company, the group was opposed to natural gas as an energy source in principle. It wasn’t a change of heart, but a re-evaluation of strategy."
Natural gas will warm your home, produce your electricity and melt a few glaciers.
-
- SNIP -
. That is a valid point but ignores the reality of the last 50 years. Conversely, he argues that solar and wind will never be cheap / consistent enough and thus are not viable alternatives to fossil fuels. He discounts any future technological advances would be sufficient to overcome these logistics. However, he tends to engage in name-calling and unreferenced conspiracy theories (Greenpece being funded by fossil fuel companies? The US NRC somehow caused the deaths of Japanese civilians evacuating from Fukishima?). Most annoyingly, he self-references way too much. I mean, look at his website.
Link to interview: https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2019/02/15/green-new-deal-climate-change-nuclear-power
I will say I didn't read the article. The reality over the last 50-60 years is that nuclear grew from nothing to a significant power source. Wind and solar are also growing to be significant power sources. Vacuum tubes have been replaced by transistors. Cell phones have taken over the minds of most teenagers. I would not have had a personal computer in front of me 50 years ago.
To deny that technology can and will change for the better if it is not stifled is to not remember the past and how technology can transform our lives for the better. Thinking that traps nuclear power into the designs of the 1950s and 1960s would have us running around with horses.
Nuclear power construction has really tapered off since the 1980s (https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2016/03/10/global-nuclear-power-five-years-after-fukushima). There was a slight uptick from 2005 until the Fukushima disaster, but that put a big damper.
I agree that technology constantly improves and there is some stagnation for non-technical reason in nuclear plant development. But do you with the current public opinion we can build enough nuclear power, assuming some level of deregulation, to come online within the IPCC target timeline? I have no knowledge about the processes involved, but it seemed from the interview that it takes years from planning (i.e. now) to building, and another several years to completing a plant. In theory it is possible and probably good if we can figure out the storage situation long-term. I don't deny that technology can improve with newer designs. In fact my whole point is that technology isn't the issue, but limited political and economic will is, and no one has been able to fix that.
This article notes that most plants can be built in less than 10 years (average 7.5 years). However, there is no data on time to approve plans, etc.
http://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nuclear-power-plant/
I find it interesting that China, which has a totalitarian government with significant engineering talent at its disposal, has decided to pursue solar rather than nuclear plants. They are fairly immune from the repercussions of any major complications resulting in massive death or injury, can approve with minimal regulatory hurdles, and yet are not doing so.
I stand corrected about natural gas companies funding Sierra Club- looks like it happened in the 2010-2012 fiscal years, with the donations compromising 10% of each annual budget! That’s a major mistake on their part and seriously hurts their overall credibility!
-
What do you all think about the improving home energy efficiencies thorough ramped-up tax incentives for insulation, etc? It seems to make sense and would be hard to argue against tax cuts that also save money for consumers in the long term. Passive Houses can be heated with very little energy (not sure about cooling given the insolation from passive solar design elements sometimes used). Mandating new building codes probably would never fly nationally and wouldn’t alter existing housing stock. A mandate with tax cut/credit?
-
- SNIP -
I find it interesting that China, which has a totalitarian government with significant engineering talent at its disposal, has decided to pursue solar rather than nuclear plants. They are fairly immune from the repercussions of any major complications resulting in massive death or injury, can approve with minimal regulatory hurdles, and yet are not doing so.
I stand corrected about natural gas companies funding Sierra Club- looks like it happened in the 2010-2012 fiscal years, with the donations compromising 10% of each annual budget! That’s a major mistake on their part and seriously hurts their overall credibility!
From Wikipedia:
First paragraph:
"As of March 2019, China has 46 nuclear reactors in operation with a capacity of 42.8 GW and 11 under construction with a capacity of 10.8 GW.[2] Additional reactors are planned for an additional 36 GW. China was planning to have 58 GW of capacity by 2020.[3] However, few plants have commenced construction since 2015, and it is now unlikely that this target will be met.[4]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China)
The Chinese are wise. Oddly enough, I sometimes think that their centralized economy is trying to do more for it's people and environmental problems than our market driven capital economy. They have done a lot to help their people in the last 30 years whilst the US has stagnated.
It looks like the Chinese do not see this as an either - or situation. Their people have to wear masks because the air is so bad. They are not pampered. I remember seeing pictures of Chinese farming when I was a kid. It was not mechanized. Change and growth have been amazing. They do not choose between the differing forms of energy production. They try them all. This "Cut and Try" approach is making them a world leader.
Instead of arguing whether global warming is a reality or not, our leaders should be turning our young minds loose to solve this problem. Like the Space Program of the past, there would be technological spinoffs we cannot imagine. There would be new technologies discovered to make our lives better.
Instead we stagnate. As the great American John Glenn once said, "We are eating our own seed corn."
To me it seems like we could devote a small fraction of our resources to at least build one of these new reactor types, but the special interests do not even allow that.
-
The Chinese are wise. Oddly enough, I sometimes think that their centralized economy is trying to do more for it's people and environmental problems than our market driven capital economy. They have done a lot to help their people in the last 30 years whilst the US has stagnated.
It looks like the Chinese do not see this as an either - or situation. Their people have to wear masks because the air is so bad. They are not pampered. I remember seeing pictures of Chinese farming when I was a kid. It was not mechanized. Change and growth have been amazing. They do not choose between the differing forms of energy production. They try them all. This "Cut and Try" approach is making them a world leader.
I'd be wary of false equivalence and selective reasoning here. China "is trying to do more for it's... environmental problems" precisely because they have made their environment so bad over the last several decades. That's why people have to wear masks in major cities. In the course of pursuing growth at all costs the government took the short term view, prioritizing increasing capacity in all its forms (electricity generation, transportation infrastructure, building and port expansion, military...). To speed things along the authoritative government and its many contractors didn't require (or simply ignored) many of the same protections that are required and enforced here in the US and in Europe. And the results were predictable - the air and water turned filthy, valleys were flooded and towns relocated in the name of 'the collective good', habitat destroyed, species endangered and now the equivalence of 'superfund sites' dot the landscape.
China today are addressing many of these problems... sort of. There is a huge effort underway to clean up the air and water (particularly in the major cities), much as there was in the US in the 1970s, but the desire for growth still results in a lot of environmental degradation. In many ways they are starting to act like the rest of the G-20 with regards to environmental policy, but unlike with functional democracies there's nothing holding the government in check whenever they decided that 'X' needs to be built, damn the consequences. Which is why even today China can tout the massive steps they have taken to reduce emission growth and their investment in renewables, yet at the same time even today the central government turns a blind eye when factories discharge heavy metals into rivers or allow new coal plants to be built without the basic scrubbers we require, ...because 'growth' and 'necessity'. Ironically this internal tension has made modern-day China into both a global leader for renewables and a global leader in coal consumption.
ll these regulatory steps we all hate when trying to build something sensible also serve as guard rails to protect us from the more detrimental projects proceeding. I'm all for streamlining the process and changing the numerous laws that have not panned out as intended, but circumventing those laws entirely even if the intent is to help the climate puts us on very dangerous ground.
Instead of arguing whether global warming is a reality or not, our leaders should be turning our young minds loose to solve this problem. Like the Space Program of the past, there would be technological spinoffs we cannot imagine. There would be new technologies discovered to make our lives better.
Instead we stagnate. As the great American John Glenn once said, "We are eating our own seed corn."
I agree. We ought to be investing more - a lot more. Instead we have a WH that "digs coal" and wants to spend billions more to build concrete barriers along our southern border. Interesting tie-in; both the concrete used for the wall and the habitat fragmentation it will cause are big negatives for those fragile ecosystems (not to mention all the energy expended for heavy equipment and road construction).
To me it seems like we could devote a small fraction of our resources to at least build one of these new reactor types, but the special interests do not even allow that.
I'm not clear who you mean when you say "special interests". Environmental groups use the law to prevent what they see as detrimental against big polluters and proposed nuclear sites alike. Still, these obstacles can be overcome. A bigger problem IMO is the massive amount of capitol needed upfront to construct reactors - $10B or more for a new plant.
-
Oddly enough, I sometimes think that their centralized economy is trying to do more for it's people and environmental problems than our market driven capital economy.
Why odd? This is, after all, what socialism is all about - doing good for the people.
btw. "Centralized Economy". There is a huge misunderstood fact of life here. Like it is impossible to do it on a state level size.
Putting China aside, there are a dozen entities on earth with a higher GDP than the former USSR, all highly centralized planned "economies". They are called Apple, Google, Microsoft and so on.
China "is trying to do more for it's... environmental problems" precisely because they have made their environment so bad over the last several decades. That's why people have to wear masks in major cities.
Yeah. It was wealth first. The very first, right after the leadership of The Party, of course. ;) And the reason for wealth first was because that is the only way The Party could keep it's power. There is no country in the world where farmer's revolts happened more often. At one time in history there were 100+ uprisings per day over several years. And of course there was Mao...
You cannot understand Chinese economic politics without this in mind.
But saying it just this way is too one sided again. It is like saying the USA is full of Trumps. It might look so, but in a lot of cases it is not.
I could say a lot against the politics of the Chinese in regards to human rights, but generally they know what they are doing. And foremost, they have a Plan. With capital P. Where the US thinks in presidential terms, the Chinese government is thinking in several decades.
Most people in the USA have still not realized this, but by 2050 you will no longer be the most important country in the world - if everything happens according to the Plan of course ;)
The Chinese are right at the point of taking over Africa. And central Asia with the new Silk Road. They are even building military bases, something extremely unusual for the center of the world (as per historical view).
And yes, they are heavy into regenerative energies. They may build a few nuclear plants, but they also build more PV and wind than the rest of the world together if I remember it correctly.
There current stance since a few years is to go from the "workbench of the world" to be the "producer of the world", and they do go against pollution - depending on importance and political climate and such factors, of course.
The Chinese government is sometimes several years too slow, but if there is one thing you cannot say about them is that they do half-measures. One child politics anyone? That was part of the wealth plan. Economic growth must be (a lot) higher than population growth to keep stability. It is a bet on the economy outpacing the aging process. A huge bet. We will see who wins in 50 years.
-
LennStar - No arguments. Two billion educated people seeing the fruits of their hard work and looking to the future. I do not believe they are like some other countries which appear to be rudderless in many areas.
I expect some great innovation to come from China in the next few years.
-
Putting China aside, there are a dozen entities on earth with a higher GDP than the former USSR, all highly centralized planned "economies". They are called Apple, Google, Microsoft and so on.
Russian GDP: $1.6T (nominal) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Russia)
Highest revenue companies #1 Walmart - $500B (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_revenue) (Google and Microsoft are not even in the top 50 in that list)
Population of Russia: 147M
Area of Russia: 6.6M square miles
"Population" of Walmart: 2.3M
Area of Walmart: 400 square miles (assuming 20 acres per store, 12K stores incl. Sams' Club, +fudge for distribution centers)
-
Russian GDP: $1.6T (nominal) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Russia)
I was talking about the former USSR, 30 years ago ;)
And yes, It was not a "mathematical" comparison. It was to say that a "planned economy" is workable on big scale today, and is done. A side note not fully on topic ;)
A more or less chaotic free market or the free market with Chinese Characteristics - if you ask me, which one will be more effective for fighting climate change, I would guess the latter. I will be happy if the US beats that, of course :D
-
Russian GDP: $1.6T (nominal) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Russia)
I was talking about the former USSR, 30 years ago ;)
And yes, It was not a "mathematical" comparison. It was to say that a "planned economy" is workable on big scale today, and is done. A side note not fully on topic ;)
A more or less chaotic free market or the free market with Chinese Characteristics - if you ask me, which one will be more effective for fighting climate change, I would guess the latter. I will be happy if the US beats that, of course :D
Perhaps I missed it, but I don't really understand the comparison here between sovereign nations and corporations. They are fundamentally different entities, regardless of their financial size.
-
Russian GDP: $1.6T (nominal) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Russia)
I was talking about the former USSR, 30 years ago ;)
And yes, It was not a "mathematical" comparison. It was to say that a "planned economy" is workable on big scale today, and is done. A side note not fully on topic ;)
A more or less chaotic free market or the free market with Chinese Characteristics - if you ask me, which one will be more effective for fighting climate change, I would guess the latter. I will be happy if the US beats that, of course :D
Perhaps I missed it, but I don't really understand the comparison here between sovereign nations and corporations. They are fundamentally different entities, regardless of their financial size.
The comparison is to show that 'planned economies' can work, despite all the times they have failed, the millions of people who have died, and the generations of misery planned economies have created, and all the other evidence to the contrary.
-
... nations and corporations. They are fundamentally different entities, regardless of their financial size.
But they both work (or can work) on a heavily structured and planned
The comparison is to show that 'planned economies' can work, despite all the times they have failed, the millions of people who have died, and the generations of misery planned economies have created, and all the other evidence to the contrary.
No, the comparisn is to show that what most people, like you so aptly exampled, think is a planned economy is only one example of different forms.
And also you are mixing in other things. No planned economy has ever killed millions of people - if you exclude the very thoroughly planned Holocaust or e.g. the US military, which as far as I know has a lot of top-down planning and commandering.
But anyway, as I wrote, it was just a sidenote.
So back to topic:
For those people that say it is too expensive to "go green" (which, in reality, is the opposite, it is just that as in any investment you pay now and get the benefits later), here is a possible source to finance it.
http://wealthtaxsimulator.org/
-
... nations and corporations. They are fundamentally different entities, regardless of their financial size.
But they both work (or can work) on a heavily structured and planned
The comparison is to show that 'planned economies' can work, despite all the times they have failed, the millions of people who have died, and the generations of misery planned economies have created, and all the other evidence to the contrary.
No, the comparisn is to show that what most people, like you so aptly exampled, think is a planned economy is only one example of different forms.
And also you are mixing in other things. No planned economy has ever killed millions of people - if you exclude the very thoroughly planned Holocaust or e.g. the US military, which as far as I know has a lot of top-down planning and commandering.
...I'm even less clear about what point was being made now.
... nations and corporations. They are fundamentally different entities, regardless of their financial size.
But they both work (or can work) on a heavily structured and planned
So back to topic:
For those people that say it is too expensive to "go green" (which, in reality, is the opposite, it is just that as in any investment you pay now and get the benefits later), here is a possible source to finance it.
http://wealthtaxsimulator.org/
Assuming something like Sen Warren's 'Wealth Tax' could be passed, how do you envision the revenue should be used, particularly since the amount projected to be raised is substantially less than the current US deficit?
-
... nations and corporations. They are fundamentally different entities, regardless of their financial size.
But they both work (or can work) on a heavily structured and planned
The comparison is to show that 'planned economies' can work, despite all the times they have failed, the millions of people who have died, and the generations of misery planned economies have created, and all the other evidence to the contrary.
No, the comparisn is to show that what most people, like you so aptly exampled, think is a planned economy is only one example of different forms.
And also you are mixing in other things. No planned economy has ever killed millions of people - if you exclude the very thoroughly planned Holocaust or e.g. the US military, which as far as I know has a lot of top-down planning and commandering.
Sorry I am staying off topic but only the very largest corporation (Walmart) is even on the scale of a country like Singapore on any of the metrics I cited (revenue, population, land area). Companies are better compared to small municipalities than to empires or nation-states in their scope and power.
Regarding your comment "No planned economy has ever killed millions of people" are we not counting the Holodomor or the Great Chinese Famine?
-
Regarding your comment "No planned economy has ever killed millions of people" are we not counting the Holodomor or the Great Chinese Famine?
I can't say about the first, but it seems strange that the planned economy killed millions there but not in the other countries where the same happened, right?
And the Great Chinese Famine was not a planned economy failure, but a failure of understanding nature. Maybe even ignoring existing knowledge, but that also happens today on a wide scale in certainly not planned economy states. Bees anyone? Climate Change?
For those who don't know: The Chinese Famine was caused by people hunting sparrows who were seen as seed-thives.
That was correct, but way more than eating seeds, sparrows eat locusts.
No sparrows left lead to immense swarms of locusts, which destroyed the crops completely.
-
For those who don't know: The Chinese Famine was caused by people hunting sparrows who were seen as seed-thives.
A perusal of articles found by Great Chinese Famine - Google Search (https://www.google.com/search?q=Great+Chinese+Famine&oq=Great+Chinese+Famine) indicates the sparrow action was at best a minor contribution, with other factors much more significant.
-
For those who don't know: The Chinese Famine was caused by people hunting sparrows who were seen as seed-thives.
A perusal of articles found by Great Chinese Famine - Google Search (https://www.google.com/search?q=Great+Chinese+Famine&oq=Great+Chinese+Famine) indicates the sparrow action was at best a minor contribution, with other factors much more significant.
Of course there was bad weather (2/3 of fields didn't get any rain) und such stuff, like the ignorance of science when planting. And the actions of the Great Leap etc. did their own part.
But the locusts still did huge damage to that that was left, and it was the people's stupidiness that caused that. And that is what we are talking about, right? Climate Policy.
-
For those who don't know: The Chinese Famine was caused by people hunting sparrows who were seen as seed-thives.
A perusal of articles found by Great Chinese Famine - Google Search (https://www.google.com/search?q=Great+Chinese+Famine&oq=Great+Chinese+Famine) indicates the sparrow action was at best a minor contribution, with other factors much more significant.
Of course there was bad weather (2/3 of fields didn't get any rain) und such stuff, like the ignorance of science when planting. And the actions of the Great Leap etc. did their own part.
But the locusts still did huge damage to that that was left, and it was the people's stupidiness that caused that. And that is what we are talking about, right? Climate Policy.
Except in the 1950s there was no cohesive understanding of anthropogenic climate change, and no comprehensive data to draw from suggesting that our impacts would accelerate. This was when plate tectonics was still an unverified and poorly circulated hypothesis.
-
For those who don't know: The Chinese Famine was caused by people hunting sparrows who were seen as seed-thives.
A perusal of articles found by Great Chinese Famine - Google Search (https://www.google.com/search?q=Great+Chinese+Famine&oq=Great+Chinese+Famine) indicates the sparrow action was at best a minor contribution, with other factors much more significant.
Of course there was bad weather (2/3 of fields didn't get any rain) und such stuff, like the ignorance of science when planting. And the actions of the Great Leap etc. did their own part.
But the locusts still did huge damage to that that was left, and it was the people's stupidiness that caused that. And that is what we are talking about, right? Climate Policy.
Except in the 1950s there was no cohesive understanding of anthropogenic climate change, and no comprehensive data to draw from suggesting that our impacts would accelerate. This was when plate tectonics was still an unverified and poorly circulated hypothesis.
And that's why command/planned economies are doomed to fail. We're always learning things, and finding that our previous theories were wrong and even counter productive. Huge government bureaucracies aren't known for their excellent reaction times - and god help us if the existence of a bureaucracy is dependent on a flawed theory!
I'm inclined to think that our current climate theory is close to reality... there may be some variance in the time frame or magnitude, but that as a whole it's accurate. I do NOT support the creation or conversion to collectivist economic theory to combat climate change, which seems to be what the fringe left that controls the media and house of representative's narrative wants. I would be in support of a revenue neutral cap and trade scheme with ever decreasing cap levels and increasing cost of carbon. Then let the free market do it's thing.
-
For those who don't know: The Chinese Famine was caused by people hunting sparrows who were seen as seed-thives.
A perusal of articles found by Great Chinese Famine - Google Search (https://www.google.com/search?q=Great+Chinese+Famine&oq=Great+Chinese+Famine) indicates the sparrow action was at best a minor contribution, with other factors much more significant.
Of course there was bad weather (2/3 of fields didn't get any rain) und such stuff, like the ignorance of science when planting. And the actions of the Great Leap etc. did their own part.
But the locusts still did huge damage to that that was left, and it was the people's stupidiness that caused that. And that is what we are talking about, right? Climate Policy.
Yes, that is the thread's title.
It is apparently difficult to look back at something that has already happened (the Chinese Famine) and distinguish "the" cause from "a" cause and its importance relative to other causes. The difficulty in distinguishing does not diminish when one is looking ahead at things yet to come.
-
For those who don't know: The Chinese Famine was caused by people hunting sparrows who were seen as seed-thives.
A perusal of articles found by Great Chinese Famine - Google Search (https://www.google.com/search?q=Great+Chinese+Famine&oq=Great+Chinese+Famine) indicates the sparrow action was at best a minor contribution, with other factors much more significant.
Of course there was bad weather (2/3 of fields didn't get any rain) und such stuff, like the ignorance of science when planting. And the actions of the Great Leap etc. did their own part.
But the locusts still did huge damage to that that was left, and it was the people's stupidiness that caused that. And that is what we are talking about, right? Climate Policy.
Except in the 1950s there was no cohesive understanding of anthropogenic climate change, and no comprehensive data to draw from suggesting that our impacts would accelerate. This was when plate tectonics was still an unverified and poorly circulated hypothesis.
And that's why command/planned economies are doomed to fail. We're always learning things, and finding that our previous theories were wrong and even counter productive. Huge government bureaucracies aren't known for their excellent reaction times - and god help us if the existence of a bureaucracy is dependent on a flawed theory!
I'm inclined to think that our current climate theory is close to reality... there may be some variance in the time frame or magnitude, but that as a whole it's accurate. I do NOT support the creation or conversion to collectivist economic theory to combat climate change, which seems to be what the fringe left that controls the media and house of representative's narrative wants. I would be in support of a revenue neutral cap and trade scheme with ever decreasing cap levels and increasing cost of carbon. Then let the free market do it's thing.
I don't think the major players are suggesting a communist-level planned economy. I think that there is a lot to be gained from leveraging market forces to encourage both changes in use patterns and encouraging innovation. This will, to some extent, mean government picking categories of winners and losers. It will mean, in practical terms, increasing the cost of CO2e emitting industries and their products and subsidizing renewable and low-emission technologies and funding R&D aggressively. This is doable, but there are many that do not want that to happen because they are happy and invested in how things are now. I think we should be clear eyed that there will be individuals that will be hurt by changes, just as there will be by most major policies. I think the responsible thing is to do what we can to soften that blow as possible for those who have fewer resources to adapt.
-
I would be in support of a revenue neutral cap and trade scheme with ever decreasing cap levels and increasing cost of carbon. Then let the free market do it's thing.
You mean the Carbon Trading that has been a failure for a decade now?
and btw. that is a real bureocratic monster.
-
I don't think the major players are suggesting a communist-level planned economy. I think that there is a lot to be gained from leveraging market forces to encourage both changes in use patterns and encouraging innovation. This will, to some extent, mean government picking categories of winners and losers. It will mean, in practical terms, increasing the cost of CO2e emitting industries and their products and subsidizing renewable and low-emission technologies and funding R&D aggressively. This is doable, but there are many that do not want that to happen because they are happy and invested in how things are now. I think we should be clear eyed that there will be individuals that will be hurt by changes, just as there will be by most major policies. I think the responsible thing is to do what we can to soften that blow as possible for those who have fewer resources to adapt.
I don't see how this is substantially different from what governments around the world have been doing for centuries, albeit not with climate as a dominant factor in the decision-making process. 'Market forces' are already leveraged to produce outcomes from everything from growth to high home-ownership to westward expansion.
-
You mean the Carbon Trading that has been a failure for a decade now?
He probably means one of the various carbon pricing schemes that have failed to win majority votes anywhere in the US, but which have successfully worked in places like British Columbia. Washington just voted against one back in November, after a huge amount of oil industry spending trying to frame it as an "energy tax". It's bureaucratically easy though, you tax carbon-producing industries at the corporate level and then you issue tax refunds to every citizen. Average carbon consumers pay more for gas but get a bigger tax refund to make up for it. For efficient carbon users, they get to keep the profits they generate by spending more on efficiencies. For people who really want to burn extra carbon for some reason, they still can as long as they pay for harm they cause to the rest of us.
What makes less sense to me, objectively, is our current carbon subsidy system where we all pay higher taxes in order to subsidize carbon burning industries to bring down the up-front cost of burning it. That's effectively wealth redistribution from efficient people to polluters, which seems backwards to me.
-
I don't think the major players are suggesting a communist-level planned economy. I think that there is a lot to be gained from leveraging market forces to encourage both changes in use patterns and encouraging innovation. This will, to some extent, mean government picking categories of winners and losers. It will mean, in practical terms, increasing the cost of CO2e emitting industries and their products and subsidizing renewable and low-emission technologies and funding R&D aggressively. This is doable, but there are many that do not want that to happen because they are happy and invested in how things are now. I think we should be clear eyed that there will be individuals that will be hurt by changes, just as there will be by most major policies. I think the responsible thing is to do what we can to soften that blow as possible for those who have fewer resources to adapt.
I don't see how this is substantially different from what governments around the world have been doing for centuries, albeit not with climate as a dominant factor in the decision-making process. 'Market forces' are already leveraged to produce outcomes from everything from growth to high home-ownership to westward expansion.
Yep.
-
I'd like to see a carbon tax. I'd want the tax to be revenue neutral (California's goes to residential energy customers; I'd rather it went to individuals) and fair trade (carbon tariff on imports accounting for their manufacture and transport). Require government entities and non-profits to pay the carbon tax (no exceptions). Easiest way to implement would be as a fossil fuel tax with credits for sequestering. Set the initial tax rate and emissions targets in the law - use a formula to periodically adjust the tax rate according to emissions levels relative to targets (increase predictability of costs).
-
I'd like to see a carbon tax. I'd want the tax to be revenue neutral (California's goes to residential energy customers; I'd rather it went to individuals) and fair trade (carbon tariff on imports accounting for their manufacture and transport). Require government entities and non-profits to pay the carbon tax (no exceptions). Easiest way to implement would be as a fossil fuel tax with credits for sequestering. Set the initial tax rate and emissions targets in the law - use a formula to periodically adjust the tax rate according to emissions levels relative to targets (increase predictability of costs).
I agree, though the hard parts are 1) convincing the voting public that there is not an associated degradation in quality of life with said taxes and 2) convincing the public that the real economic hardships that will result (due to the resulting higher prices for domestic goods and associated negative trade balances and unemployment) are not a substantial price to pay. I think #1 can be solved by emphasizing the dividend checks and the resulting economic stimulus (the worst polluters will complain excessively, but the majority should be neutral or better off), and #2 should have a minimal effect due to labor already being the highest cost marker for domestic goods.
-
#2 should have a minimal effect due to labor already being the highest cost marker for domestic goods.
I agree that domestic goods would not see large price impacts. Cheap stuff from China would become much less cheap if the carbon cost of producing and shipping it was factored in.
-
#2 should have a minimal effect due to labor already being the highest cost marker for domestic goods.
I agree that domestic goods would not see large price impacts. Cheap stuff from China would become much less cheap if the carbon cost of producing and shipping it was factored in.
True. I haven't yet thought through all of the complexities that would go into a carbon tax. Does anybody have any good links that talk through the details of a proposed carbon tax?
-
- SNIP -
True. I haven't yet thought through all of the complexities that would go into a carbon tax. Does anybody have any good links that talk through the details of a proposed carbon tax?
Not complexities, but simplicity.
There are a lot of guys with large snorting pickup trucks. They love their pickups. Sometimes, they carry their rifles in the back windows of their pickups. It is just probably just as likely that they will fight to keep their cold dying fingers on their pickup steering wheels as on their guns. I don't think this can be discounted as a small number of people.
Those pickup trucks are very expensive. They pay a lot more money for gas than I do in my small compact car. They will certainly oppose paying more for said trucks (already very expensive) and the operation of sad trucks (already very expensive).
If the odor of a carbon tax is wafting through the air, these guys will do everything in their power to stop it. They will vote.
-
- SNIP -
True. I haven't yet thought through all of the complexities that would go into a carbon tax. Does anybody have any good links that talk through the details of a proposed carbon tax?
Not complexities, but simplicity.
There are a lot of guys with large snorting pickup trucks. They love their pickups. Sometimes, they carry their rifles in the back windows of their pickups. It is just probably just as likely that they will fight to keep their cold dying fingers on their pickup steering wheels as on their guns. I don't think this can be discounted as a small number of people.
Those pickup trucks are very expensive. They pay a lot more money for gas than I do in my small compact car. They will certainly oppose paying more for said trucks (already very expensive) and the operation of sad trucks (already very expensive).
If the odor of a carbon tax is wafting through the air, these guys will do everything in their power to stop it. They will vote.
Give 'em a choice then. Carbon tax, or ban personal use of trucks.
-
Here's an interesting piece on how to ensure carbon taxes are equitable on imports:
https://www.carbontax.org/nuts-and-bolts/border-adjustments/ (https://www.carbontax.org/nuts-and-bolts/border-adjustments/)
Doesn't look easy, but seems doable under a multilateral coalition (such as the Paris Climate Accord).
-
https://scholars.org/page/challenge-putting-price-carbon-emissions-united-states (https://scholars.org/page/challenge-putting-price-carbon-emissions-united-states)
From above:
"Australia shows the political difficulties a carbon tax can run into. In Australia, leaders with strong public support imposed a carbon tax and used the new revenues to fund dividends to compensate citizens. Following the best practice approach, the Australian program also targeted only the top polluters in certain industries and exempted agriculture and transportation, industries where a new tax and higher prices would have had the most disruptive impact. Australia’s tax program was very well designed from a theoretical standpoint and heralded as cutting edge because it even provided assistance to businesses that might be unfairly impacted. Slated tax increases were also very gradual, to allow people and businesses to adjust each step of the way. Nonetheless, despite the many ideal features, Australia’s carbon tax remained politically vulnerable. When a new, conservative government took office, it repealed the tax just two years after it was instituted."
How about those yellow vest guys?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/world/europe/france-fuel-carbon-tax.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/world/europe/france-fuel-carbon-tax.html)
I don't think you guys are going to pry the cold dead fingers from the truck driver's steering wheel. I don't think the legislation from the "top down" by well meaning intellectuals will fly.
-
I don't think you guys are going to pry the cold dead fingers from the truck driver's steering wheel. I don't think the legislation from the "top down" by well meaning intellectuals will fly.
Agreed. Until there's a plurality of people who a) care about climate change and b) are willing to modify their ways, then a carbon tax is a nonstarter. But, I think this is closer than you might think, especially in the United States, which doesn't already have extremely high gas taxes as France does. Even should passage of such a bill occur, there will always be hardliners fighting back.
-
As I see it, a carbon tax has been repeatedly proposed to satisfy those who say 'market forces' are the best solution to every problem, and who (generally) abhor government regulations.
OTOH, there is a long and detailed history of governments banning environmentally toxic substances (e.g. CFCs, leaded gasoline, DDT, radioactive compounds, etc) as well as minimum requirements on everything from energy efficiency (appliances) to insulation (buildings & homes) to fuel efficiency (vehicles).
Personally I think both approaches are appropriate and necessary.
-
As I see it, a carbon tax has been repeatedly proposed to satisfy those who say 'market forces' are the best solution to every problem, and who (generally) abhor government regulations.
OTOH, there is a long and detailed history of governments banning environmentally toxic substances (e.g. CFCs, leaded gasoline, DDT, radioactive compounds, etc) as well as minimum requirements on everything from energy efficiency (appliances) to insulation (buildings & homes) to fuel efficiency (vehicles).
Personally I think both approaches are appropriate and necessary.
Carbon regulation is significantly more complicated.
Carbon extraction is the single most profitable industry in the history of our global economy, and it comes with significant entrenched power structures. The current balance of the world is predicated on the cooperative extraction, refining, and distribution of carbon. Our military is dependent on it. Our foreign alliances are dependent on it. Most of our major industries, and thus our tax base and thus our democracy, is dependent on it.
The reasons why Russia is resurgent and why the Middle East has conflict and why Scandanavian countries have prosperity are all tied up with oil. We invade countries that have lots of it. We use our Navy to patrol the shipping lanes used to transport it, and the rest of our military to protect our territories and our allies' territories that drill it. Wars always target the production and refining facilities first. Oil is the single most important and interconnected resource on the planet right now, and any country without it always going to be a distant last place no matter how populous or industrious or creative it may be. Oil solidifies our global inertia. Our entire post WWII global system is built on the foundation of cheap oil.
So you can't just ban it. Any alternative technology that threatens to diminish its importance also threatens to disrupt our uneasy global stability. We rely on oil, and on other countries being dependent on oil, to maintain the status quo and our position at the top of that global pyramid. In a very real sense, regulating carbon emissions is like giving away America's global dominance.
It still needs to happen, though. We're slowly killing ourselves.
-
The reasons why...Scandanavian countries have prosperity are all tied up with oil.
You mean just Norway? Denmark is ranked 39th in oil (just 8% of the output of Norway) (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production) and Sweden isn't even mentioned. Scandinavia is successful because the Nordic Model is successful; they have a strong work ethic in high-trust societies that enjoy social welfare programs alongside some key market friendly policies.
-
As I see it, a carbon tax has been repeatedly proposed to satisfy those who say 'market forces' are the best solution to every problem, and who (generally) abhor government regulations.
OTOH, there is a long and detailed history of governments banning environmentally toxic substances (e.g. CFCs, leaded gasoline, DDT, radioactive compounds, etc) as well as minimum requirements on everything from energy efficiency (appliances) to insulation (buildings & homes) to fuel efficiency (vehicles).
Personally I think both approaches are appropriate and necessary.
Carbon regulation is significantly more complicated.
Carbon extraction is the single most profitable industry in the history of our global economy, and it comes with significant entrenched power structures. The current balance of the world is predicated on the cooperative extraction, refining, and distribution of carbon. Our military is dependent on it. Our foreign alliances are dependent on it. Most of our major industries, and thus our tax base and thus our democracy, is dependent on it.
The reasons why Russia is resurgent and why the Middle East has conflict and why Scandanavian countries have prosperity are all tied up with oil. We invade countries that have lots of it. We use our Navy to patrol the shipping lanes used to transport it, and the rest of our military to protect our territories and our allies' territories that drill it. Wars always target the production and refining facilities first. Oil is the single most important and interconnected resource on the planet right now, and any country without it always going to be a distant last place no matter how populous or industrious or creative it may be. Oil solidifies our global inertia. Our entire post WWII global system is built on the foundation of cheap oil.
So you can't just ban it. Any alternative technology that threatens to diminish its importance also threatens to disrupt our uneasy global stability. We rely on oil, and on other countries being dependent on oil, to maintain the status quo and our position at the top of that global pyramid. In a very real sense, regulating carbon emissions is like giving away America's global dominance.
It still needs to happen, though. We're slowly killing ourselves.
When I read your analysis, you know what is top of mind?
Single point of failure.
-
It is interesting that Norway is pushing heavily into renewable energy investments, and is now divesting from oil production companies for its sovereign wealth fund. They see the writing on the wall in terms of both local supplies and overall effects on the environment making oil unsustainable in the long term. Saudi Arabia and some of the Gulf states are also shifting towards solar. China is too, despite huge coal supplies. Other good news: 1/3 of the total energy capacity in the world is now renewable, and almost all of the increase in the last decade has been solar and wind since hydro is pretty much developed in all politically and economically feasible locations. If growth continues at the current pace, 1/2 to 2/3 (depending on how much more power overall we need) will be renewable in a decade.
People worry that China and India's growing population will tip us over into a death spiral if they have standards of living comparable to the US, but the density of infrastructure in both countries is more comparable to Europe, so targeting those levels of consumption is a much more manageable target. Honestly, it is unlikely that a sizable fraction of India's population (and probably most of China's) will be able to afford cars in the timeframe where gas/diesel engines will be economically viable.
So I do agree that oil remains the bedrock of our current energy infrastructure, but it seems that a future where natural gas provides baseline power (especially at night) at much lower quantities than currently used is achievable in the next few decades. That should go a long way to mitigating climate change and give us time to build more energy storage capacity. I think this will happen with or without carbon taxes just due to basic economics of wind & solar vs. natural gas.
-
-SNIP-
So I do agree that oil remains the bedrock of our current energy infrastructure, but it seems that a future where natural gas provides baseline power (especially at night) at much lower quantities than currently used is achievable in the next few decades. That should go a long way to mitigating climate change and give us time to build more energy storage capacity. I think this will happen with or without carbon taxes just due to basic economics of wind & solar vs. natural gas.
I used to work at nuclear power plants. I hated it. However, since quitting that business I see that it is ignored and lied about. Why can't nuclear provide the emission free baseload power? You wouldn't even need any solar and wind. It may cost a bit more, but when has cost been a concern of environmental types? Then they worry about the waste and do everything in their power to prevent anyone from dealing with it. There are new types of Nuke plants that can use Thorium with much less waste. There is enough waste Thorium lying about to supply the energy needs of the US for 4,000 years. You don't need to pollute the world with natural gas. This is the solution to global warming and it is ignored. Maybe, we deserve what we will get.
Of course opinions may differ.
-
-SNIP-
So I do agree that oil remains the bedrock of our current energy infrastructure, but it seems that a future where natural gas provides baseline power (especially at night) at much lower quantities than currently used is achievable in the next few decades. That should go a long way to mitigating climate change and give us time to build more energy storage capacity. I think this will happen with or without carbon taxes just due to basic economics of wind & solar vs. natural gas.
I used to work at nuclear power plants. I hated it. However, since quitting that business I see that it is ignored and lied about. Why can't nuclear provide the emission free baseload power? You wouldn't even need any solar and wind. It may cost a bit more, but when has cost been a concern of environmental types? Then they worry about the waste and do everything in their power to prevent anyone from dealing with it. There are new types of Nuke plants that can use Thorium with much less waste. There is enough waste Thorium lying about to supply the energy needs of the US for 4,000 years. You don't need to pollute the world with natural gas. This is the solution to global warming and it is ignored. Maybe, we deserve what we will get.
Of course opinions may differ.
Afaik there is still no Thorium reactor in the whole world and the research on them is still basically not happening. My data is 4 years old, but I don't think that has changed. So even in baest conditions you will have a sizeable amont of reactors only when it is either too late to prevent climate change or the energy structure is already build around regeneratives.
Not to mention the waste problem: Why invest in something that is - from your own words - more expensive than regenerative energies?
And "baseline power" is not part of the solution, it is part of the problem. Those power plants are too slow to adapt to changing supply and demand.
-
Afaik there is still no Thorium reactor in the whole world and the research on them is still basically not happening. My data is 4 years old, but I don't think that has changed. So even in baest conditions you will have a sizeable amont of reactors only when it is either too late to prevent climate change or the energy structure is already build around regeneratives.
Not to mention the waste problem: Why invest in something that is - from your own words - more expensive than regenerative energies?
And "baseline power" is not part of the solution, it is part of the problem. Those power plants are too slow to adapt to changing supply and demand.
Shouldn't this research be happening? I mean this climate change thing should have many options brought to bear upon it.
By baseline, I think you mean baseload. It is certainly not a "problem." Industrial customers need their power 24 hours a day and 365 days a year. In addition fossil fueled plants and nuclear plants can be built to swing load. The issue with renewables is that the power is irregular. Other forms of power must be built to make up the difference. If you have to build two sources of power, why not build one clean source of power?
Reliable electricity will keep your beer cold. You won't have to invest in a standby YETI cooler.
How about the waste? I don't know, but the new types of plants they talk about say there isn't very much of it and as technology moves along some smart person will figure out a use for it. The reason it is radioactive is because it is emitting energy after all.
-
How about the waste? I don't know, but the new types of plants they talk about say there isn't very much of it and as technology moves along some smart person will figure out a use for it. The reason it is radioactive is because it is emitting energy after all.
In the case of THorium reactors its the waste you start with, not the result.
The worst stuff in the world. Plutonium.
-
How about the waste? I don't know, but the new types of plants they talk about say there isn't very much of it and as technology moves along some smart person will figure out a use for it. The reason it is radioactive is because it is emitting energy after all.
In the case of THorium reactors its the waste you start with, not the result.
The worst stuff in the world. Plutonium.
Yes Thorium is a waste product of rare Earth mining. It's relatively cheap. They used to use it in Coleman lamp mantles.
This quote is from the linked Wikipedia article:
"The thorium fuel cycle has several potential advantages over a uranium fuel cycle, including thorium's greater abundance, superior physical and nuclear properties, reduced plutonium and actinide production,[1] and better resistance to nuclear weapons proliferation when used in a traditional light water reactor[1][2] though not in a molten salt reactor.[3][4]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle)
Here's a quote from another link you will find interesting:
The Th-U fuel cycle does not irradiate Uranium-238 and therefore does not produce transuranic (bigger than uranium) atoms like Plutonium, Americium, Curium, etc. These transuranics are the major health concern of long-term nuclear waste. Thus, Th-U waste will be less toxic on the 10,000+ year time scale.
https://whatisnuclear.com/thorium.html (https://whatisnuclear.com/thorium.html)
I guess it's like people have said. Since it's harder to make bombs out of the stuff, there is less interest. They don't like reactors that make little to no plutonium.
-
I guess it's like people have said. Since it's harder to make bombs out of the stuff, there is less interest. They don't like reactors that make little to no plutonium.
Ah yes, I was a bit short here.
The point of a Thorium reactor would be to absorb (and destroy) the Plutonium from the conventional reactors (even if Thorium is the main fuel, you need Uranium or Plutonium to start the cycle) - thats why I said you start with the Plutonium waste.
And that is not only more complicated than other methods (and such more expensive, too), but it also takes away the reason most conutires have the current technology - to be able to create atomic bombs. If it weren't for that, we all would likely use a different type of reactor today anyway.
And of course we are still dealing with thousands of years we have to keep the results safe.
-
Doing my best to post more in the core forums this month, per my open challenge. However, I see this question of increasing nuclear cropping back up without much consideration of the previous obstacles discussed in this and previous threads. These include
- A baseline cost of ~$10B to build a new plant in a system of regional and private utilities
- Timeline of ~ a decade from groundbreaking to power production
- Decreasing percentage of nuclear power as older reactors are being taken offline and no new ones have been built in three decades
- Two most recent nuclear projects scuttled after several billion invested, and zero in the design and planning phase
- No central repository for spent fuel
These are systemic obstacles which will remain even if public perception flips and we decide to go 'all-in' on a nuclear powered grid.
Regardless of where you fall on nuclear power generation, from a practical standpoint nuclear might only have a sizable impact on a much longer timeframe (likely several decades).
-
Vice News did a segment of me lobbying Congress for a pilot program to help animal farmers transition to low carbon-emitting businesses:
https://youtu.be/MfZB3BrjI74
Here's my campaign site if you want to kick in a few dollars. https://www.lobbyists4good.org/animal-ag-subsidies
We lobbied the House of Reps in Feb, and will lobby the Senate next month. We are close to our $ goal to pay Ron our lobbyist for the next month but not quite there.
What's the ROI on lobbying? Typically ~2000x. For example, animal ag lobby groups spent $16 million last year. Subsidies - both direct and indirect - are estimated at $38 billion per year (per David Simon's Meatonomics). That's a 2375x return. It's really, uh, depressing IMO.
-
Vice News did a segment of me lobbying Congress for a pilot program to help animal farmers transition to low carbon-emitting businesses:
https://youtu.be/MfZB3BrjI74
Sharp pantsuit!
Also, good work.
-
Thanks Sol. It's a Max Mara suit. Vegan - of course.
-
Doing my best to post more in the core forums this month, per my open challenge. However, I see this question of increasing nuclear cropping back up without much consideration of the previous obstacles discussed in this and previous threads. These include
- A baseline cost of ~$10B to build a new plant in a system of regional and private utilities
- Timeline of ~ a decade from groundbreaking to power production
- Decreasing percentage of nuclear power as older reactors are being taken offline and no new ones have been built in three decades
- Two most recent nuclear projects scuttled after several billion invested, and zero in the design and planning phase
- No central repository for spent fuel
These are systemic obstacles which will remain even if public perception flips and we decide to go 'all-in' on a nuclear powered grid.
Regardless of where you fall on nuclear power generation, from a practical standpoint nuclear might only have a sizable impact on a much longer timeframe (likely several decades).
Right - A technology that should be abandoned and not even explored. It is not an absolute that nuclear either has to be expensive nor take a long time to build. There are new technologies out there that could be explored and may not have these difficulties, but let's not even consider the possibilities, right?
-
Right - A technology that should be abandoned and not even explored. It is not an absolute that nuclear either has to be expensive nor take a long time to build. There are new technologies out there that could be explored and may not have these difficulties, but let's not even consider the possibilities, right?
Not sure if you've reversed your opinion or if this is sarcasm, but if its the latter than we might discuss how to address these challenges rather than getting snarky.
How can we overcome the obstacle of upfront cost for regional utilities?
How should we address regional opposition and legal challenges to new nuclear plants?
Where do we store spent fuel?
What do we do in the interim decades to power the grid as nuclear production continues to decline?
I'd love to hear your ideas. To date the industry has not been very successful at answering the first three, and both 'market forces' and local municipalities have addressed the forth, sometimes through voter referendums.
I also don't agree with your repeated assertions that no research has been done on nuclear energy. The DOE spendings billions every fiscal year on the various facets of nuclear, including the Los Alamos National Laboratory, but also hundreds of millions each year in industry-partnership grants and applied research.