A Change in Mind about A Change in Climate

A den of assassins, where anarchists conspire to rule the world and other enlightened stuff

Moderators: chijohnaok, Kameolontti

Forum rules
It's the Gulag of Fun
Message
Author
Gary Childress
Sergeant
Posts: 2361
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 6:14 pm
Location: Pariahville

Re: A Change in Mind about A Change in Climate

#21 Post by Gary Childress » Mon Feb 10, 2020 6:15 pm

nero wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 4:44 pm
Gary Childress wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 4:26 pm


What I worry about, though, is what if climate change is going to result in catastrophic changes to the world or whatever. In that sense maybe it doesn't matter what the other guy is doing, maybe we need to start cutting emissions and such and not worry about everyone else.
The world does not end if there are no cuts in CO2 emissions, but it comes then very expensive. But the thing is as per usual, other reap the benefits and the rest of us face the consequences.

But to get some perspective, a 500 million year perspective, watch the video that I recommended. To have some common ground to base our discussion on. ;)
I just finished Dan Britt's video if that's what you are referring to. It's a good video and very informative. In the last few minutes when the questioner says, "I don't believe it". He reminds me of a geology professor I had in college who taught a general science literacy course I attended called "Great Ideas in Science". He was very patient and fair-minded. One of the young men in the class was an avid believer in "scientific" creationism. The professor, of course, taught the theory of evolution in the class but was very patient and went into detail to help the guy understand science better. I'm not sure if he ever gave up on his creationism but the rest of us learned a great deal from the exchange (the ins and out of the arguments and such). But Professor Britt, handles it very nicely I think.
"Service guarantees citizenship" :(

Welcome to the Maddrive Dogthru!

"One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that one's work is terribly important." - Bertrand Russell

EUBanana
Sergeant Major
Posts: 12366
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:44 am

Re: A Change in Mind about A Change in Climate

#22 Post by EUBanana » Tue Feb 11, 2020 1:05 pm

Gary Childress wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 4:26 pm
What I worry about, though, is what if climate change is going to result in catastrophic changes to the world or whatever. In that sense maybe it doesn't matter what the other guy is doing, maybe we need to start cutting emissions and such and not worry about everyone else.
I'm pretty sure diminishing returns sets in. You can have a dirty coal plant, a clean coal plant, a gas plant, as much hydro power as geography allows, a nuclear plant, and a wind farm. Then you can start banning internal combustion engines. Each one being cleaner, each one being more expensive per GW/h.

It's all for nothing though if your neighbours set up a shit load of coal fired plants because they don't care. In fact if there's a global 'carbon budget' they'll just use yours.

There's basically fuck all we can achieve by greening the economy by government diktat, which is what I've always believed. You're not going to get third world Nigeria to stop industrialising because Greta from Sweden says so.

Ultimately we'll need a) clean power so cheap it makes economic sense to use it over the others - and not using carbon offsets or some other bullshit which is just disguised diktat masquerading as economics - or b) geoengineering. And it seems to me b) is the winner, at least for now. Because it's a hell of a lot cheaper.
“The gap in EU finances arising from the United Kingdom’s withdrawal and from the financing needs of new priorities need to be clearly acknowledged.” - Mario Monti

Anthropoid
Sergeant Major
Posts: 16876
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Location: Marching home to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAzVYCs4BMY">Erica</a>

Re: A Change in Mind about A Change in Climate

#23 Post by Anthropoid » Tue Feb 11, 2020 4:42 pm

Not to mention: Water vapor and methane.

nero
Sergeant Major
Posts: 20960
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm

Re: A Change in Mind about A Change in Climate

#24 Post by nero » Tue Feb 11, 2020 4:44 pm

EUBanana wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 1:05 pm
Gary Childress wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 4:26 pm
What I worry about, though, is what if climate change is going to result in catastrophic changes to the world or whatever. In that sense maybe it doesn't matter what the other guy is doing, maybe we need to start cutting emissions and such and not worry about everyone else.
I'm pretty sure diminishing returns sets in. You can have a dirty coal plant, a clean coal plant, a gas plant, as much hydro power as geography allows, a nuclear plant, and a wind farm. Then you can start banning internal combustion engines. Each one being cleaner, each one being more expensive per GW/h.

It's all for nothing though if your neighbours set up a shit load of coal fired plants because they don't care. In fact if there's a global 'carbon budget' they'll just use yours.

There's basically fuck all we can achieve by greening the economy by government diktat, which is what I've always believed. You're not going to get third world Nigeria to stop industrialising because Greta from Sweden says so.

Ultimately we'll need a) clean power so cheap it makes economic sense to use it over the others - and not using carbon offsets or some other bullshit which is just disguised diktat masquerading as economics - or b) geoengineering. And it seems to me b) is the winner, at least for now. Because it's a hell of a lot cheaper.
The more carbon is emitted, the bigger is the cost. In some areas it is impossible to buy insurance for property against floods, storm surges, among other things.

The first thing to do to reduce carbon emissions is to cut subsides to polluting industries. For example in Finland the tax relief for peat burning power stations. That is fucking crazy. :twisted:

Even more important is to admit that the problem is real, the carbon warms up the planet faster ever before including Permian–Triassic extinction event, Triassic–Jurassic extinction event and Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum.

But alas some think that current warming is just caused natural cycles, or more religious insanity was introduced by Sarah Palin who suggested that destroying our world is no problem, because God will give a new planet to good Christians to live. :shock:

Then some denialists have turned to total nihilism and pollute the planet just for fun. :twisted:

Image
Coal powered Trumpmobil that that emits maximal pollution.

But as I have said earlier, the world does not end even all known carbon reserves are burned. But there will be consequences, 120,000 years when the temperature was about the same as currently, the seal level was seven meters higher. How much that would costs. But we are not here to see when shit hits the fan.

The renewable energy is coming more and more economically viable, eCars and hydrocell cars are readily available. Air travel is the only sector that seems to depend on oil based fuels.

The biggest problem is $30 trillion carbon reserves that the industry naturally wants to burn and so finance denialist industry and (US) politicians. They want their money now, and couldn't care less about those who meet the consequences of the climate change.

The only solution is the have global, gradually rising carbon tax. And it enforced ruthlessly, carbon tariff on the border against cheaters.

Finally that geoengineering is just scifi madness. Actually blocking the incoming incoming Sun energy was experimented 1950-1990, it was called Global Dimming.

A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses. -- Carlo M. Cipolla

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen selbst Götter vergebens. -- Friedrich Schiller

EUBanana
Sergeant Major
Posts: 12366
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:44 am

Re: A Change in Mind about A Change in Climate

#25 Post by EUBanana » Tue Feb 11, 2020 6:10 pm

nero wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 4:44 pm
Finally that geoengineering is just scifi madness. Actually blocking the incoming incoming Sun energy was experimented 1950-1990, it was called Global Dimming.
Considerably more doable than greening the economies of the developing world.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/geoengin ... -an-option
“The gap in EU finances arising from the United Kingdom’s withdrawal and from the financing needs of new priorities need to be clearly acknowledged.” - Mario Monti

nero
Sergeant Major
Posts: 20960
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm

Re: A Change in Mind about A Change in Climate

#26 Post by nero » Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:17 am

EUBanana wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 6:10 pm
nero wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 4:44 pm
Finally that geoengineering is just scifi madness. Actually blocking the incoming incoming Sun energy was experimented 1950-1990, it was called Global Dimming.
Considerably more doable than greening the economies of the developing world.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/geoengin ... -an-option
Blocking solar energy is like treating brain tumor with painkillers; does not cure the underlying problem but gives relief to the symptoms. :roll:

Tinkering with complex climate- and ecosystems does not sound a good idea when there is no certainty about all the consequences to climate, nature and human activities. Just because some rich people fancy to burn their carbon. :twisted:

Of course the plan is that the cost of the geoengineering project comes from the public purse, while lucky few reap the benefits.

Then the idea is to block solar energy going in the oceans in the areas there is no much plankton life. But his make is necessary to control wind also, to prevent harm to photosynthesis in the oceans and on land. And when the CO2 content in the atmosphere is increasing, so the more solar blocking is also necessary. A desperate spiral that leads to global sauna, a dark and hot place. As a Finn I am not too worried, though I miss the hole in the ice to cool down.

A dangerous plan.
A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses. -- Carlo M. Cipolla

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen selbst Götter vergebens. -- Friedrich Schiller

EUBanana
Sergeant Major
Posts: 12366
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:44 am

Re: A Change in Mind about A Change in Climate

#27 Post by EUBanana » Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:24 am

Everyone will reap the benefit. Everybody has been reaping the benefit, it's the bedrock for the industrial world after all.

The cost will ultimately be born by the great mass of humanity, whether its by greening the economy or geoengineering. We have old folks in fuel poverty for example because about 25% of the UK's energy is from wind power and wind turbines are expensive compared to coal plants. The difference is the cost is like, 1% of the price of greening the economy.

As for not knowing the consequences, well, it's not like things like banning internal combustion engines aren't cavalier in any way is it. :roll:
“The gap in EU finances arising from the United Kingdom’s withdrawal and from the financing needs of new priorities need to be clearly acknowledged.” - Mario Monti

nero
Sergeant Major
Posts: 20960
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm

Re: A Change in Mind about A Change in Climate

#28 Post by nero » Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:46 am

EUBanana wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:24 am
Everyone will reap the benefit. Everybody has been reaping the benefit, it's the bedrock for the industrial world after all.

The cost will ultimately be born by the great mass of humanity, whether its by greening the economy or geoengineering. We have old folks in fuel poverty for example because about 25% of the UK's energy is from wind power and wind turbines are expensive compared to coal plants. The difference is the cost is like, 1% of the price of greening the economy.

As for not knowing the consequences, well, it's not like things like banning internal combustion engines aren't cavalier in any way is it. :roll:
Funny that former colonial exploiters are no caring of the oppressed masses. :lol:

With new tech poor countries in Africa can hop over carbon based economy like they do with telephones: they use mostly mobile phones instead of old steam phones (landline phones). In the same way it is possible to have distributed wind and solar systems instead of concentrated carbon based energy production.

As for the UK, there are power stations "renewable" wood imported from Europe. That is madness. I am also interested from which millennium is your claim the wind power is more expensive than coal powered energy. If so, a carbon tax will fix that problem. ;)

The previous time solar blocking was used, it created drought in Sahel area in Africa during 1980's if you can remember. :roll:
A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses. -- Carlo M. Cipolla

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen selbst Götter vergebens. -- Friedrich Schiller

EUBanana
Sergeant Major
Posts: 12366
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:44 am

Re: A Change in Mind about A Change in Climate

#29 Post by EUBanana » Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:42 am

nero wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:46 am
As for the UK, there are power stations "renewable" wood imported from Europe. That is madness. I am also interested from which millennium is your claim the wind power is more expensive than coal powered energy. If so, a carbon tax will fix that problem. ;)
A tax will NOT fix the problem, and neither will subsidy.

Those are just bullshit. All it does is disguise how these things are not, in fact, economically viable.

The UK doesn't use much coal any more, hasn't for a long time. Maggie Thatcher can be thanked for that :lol:

https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/.
“The gap in EU finances arising from the United Kingdom’s withdrawal and from the financing needs of new priorities need to be clearly acknowledged.” - Mario Monti

nero
Sergeant Major
Posts: 20960
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm

Re: A Change in Mind about A Change in Climate

#30 Post by nero » Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:40 pm

EUBanana wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:42 am
nero wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:46 am
As for the UK, there are power stations "renewable" wood imported from Europe. That is madness. I am also interested from which millennium is your claim the wind power is more expensive than coal powered energy. If so, a carbon tax will fix that problem. ;)
A tax will NOT fix the problem, and neither will subsidy.

Those are just bullshit. All it does is disguise how these things are not, in fact, economically viable.

The UK doesn't use much coal any more, hasn't for a long time. Maggie Thatcher can be thanked for that :lol:

https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/.
You seem to be in good company with the denialists like American Enterprise Institute, the Hoover Institution and The Heartland Institute while denying the man made warming, to take the paradoxical position to challengr established climate science while promoting geoengineering. So what is your position about the man made global warming? To make things clear.

As for the subsidies, especially fossil fuel subsidies you seem to be ignorant about the cruel facts. And anyway why there are so much fossil fuel subsidies anyway. Why support established, harmful practice so heavily? :shock:
David Coady, Ian Parry, Nghia-Piotr Le, Baoping Shang wrote:
Image

Global Fossil Fuel Subsidies Remain Large: An Update Based on Country-Level Estimates

Summary:

This paper updates estimates of fossil fuel subsidies, defined as fuel consumption times the gap between existing and efficient prices (i.e., prices warranted by supply costs, environmental costs, and revenue considerations), for 191 countries. Globally, subsidies remained large at $4.7 trillion (6.3 percent of global GDP) in 2015 and are projected at $5.2 trillion (6.5 percent of GDP) in 2017. The largest subsidizers in 2015 were China ($1.4 trillion), United States ($649 billion), Russia ($551 billion), European Union ($289 billion), and India ($209 billion). About three quarters of global subsidies are due to domestic factors—energy pricing reform thus remains largely in countries’ own national interest—while coal and petroleum together account for 85 percent of global subsidies. Efficient fossil fuel pricing in 2015 would have lowered global carbon emissions by 28 percent and fossil fuel air pollution deaths by 46 percent, and increased government revenue by 3.8 percent of GDP.
More on the subject:

Just 10% of fossil fuel subsidy cash 'could pay for green transition'.

Yes, Fossil Fuel Subsidies Are Real, Destructive And Protected By Lobbying.

This is just batshit crazy. :twisted:
A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses. -- Carlo M. Cipolla

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen selbst Götter vergebens. -- Friedrich Schiller

Post Reply