General / Off-Topic Recycle or Die! (the elite environmental thread)

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Two links this morning, the first a look at the kind of situation we will see as the new normal under AGW:

'Northern California hit by mega power cuts over wildfire fears':




Roughly 800,000 people forced to have no power from the grid due to the extreme conditions that could lead to massive fires. AGW is right here right now with all those people. Fingers crossed they all get through it ok (no playing of Elite though, unless you have your own energy supply).

And the second story looks like a big editorial look at the companies (private and state owned) we could (and should) be putting much of the blame on for the current growing AGW crisis:

'Revealed: the 20 firms behind a third of all carbon emissions':




lots of graphs and tables and links to pleanty of info around the subjects discussed. It's an informative read.

Do I understand right, that according to the left it's the oil companies, not the end users that are responsible for the emissions?
 
Still good news for the environment. The human activities are really good for our planet.

Since early September, large oil patches have soiled more than 130 beaches over a vast area stretching at least 2000 kilometers along the Atlantic coast in Brazil

The victim is a very fragile ecosystem. The most virgin beaches of the country are affected.

"These beautiful beaches are dirty. It's dramatic. It will take years, decades to find nature as we knew it in this region"

147158
 
Whether or not anthropogenic climate change is "believed in" by this or that segment of this population or that population is irrelevant, the real issue is the response.

People who don't understand the issues have no way of assessing how rational or irrational any given response is. Ignorance will always be the barrier to formulating an appropriate response (and avoiding inappropriate ones), to just about anything.

They are GMO plants that fix their OWN nitrogen from the air, and Thorium nuclear power supplies to generate electricity. Renewables are insufficient, and not fast enough.

Most of the aversion to GMOs is insanity, but Thorium-based reactors, as promising as they are, aren't mature enough to expect to take over the industry in the short term and without relatively rapid adoption, probably aren't much use as a bridge to better methods of energy generation.

people put eating above hot summers and always will.

The problem is that people put eating cheap today over eating at all tomorrow. Most climate 'alarmists' aren't worried about the climate for it's own sake, they are worried about the tangible economic issues that will negatively impact them. It's a matter of foresight.
 
Well, you should know that's how the climate change movement is perceived here; punish America. Secondly, why not snip the rest of the post and focus on that part, if that was your only take away from his post? The way the quote shows up on my page has all but the first paragraph buried.

Oh man, this goes to show the misinformation.
 
Well, you should know that's how the climate change movement is perceived here; punish America. Secondly, why not snip the rest of the post and focus on that part, if that was your only take away from his post? The way the quote shows up on my page has all but the first paragraph buried.
J.B. I don't think it is the case, of sane minded people, to blame and punish America. However: When your glorious leader, pulls out of things like the Paris agreement and vehemently denies, that man has had an affect on the climate. Plus the majority of the people, voted the idiot into the White House. Then most Americans, from an uneducated outsiders view, are also idiots and and therefore, an easy target; for those who wish to lay blame.

In short: By the actions of some of the population, from the top down. They have given support/ammunition to the propaganda, of those said 'blamers'.
 
Do I understand right, that according to the left it's the oil companies, not the end users that are responsible for the emissions?

I don't think left or right politics comes into it?

We have evidence that as far back as the 1980's the biggest oil companies knew about the AGW they would be helping evolve over the coming decades, they did their own research into it all, and those records are now public records (we covered that somewhere back in this thread and a quick internet search will find the info for you).

We also have all the overwhelming scientific studies that show AGW is real (and the negative effects of it are here right now, as reported in most of the articles in this thread).

We also have the info in the link from the Climate Accountability Institute that attempts to show the role (in terms of a percentage) of the big oil firms in the increase in global CO2 levels over these last decades. It gives them a 30% responsibility directly, i think the point of this new editorial batch of stories is to dig deeper into much of the background that has led us to where we are right now, from vested interests distorting science to corruption in government ensuring these huge corporations carry on generating vast profits on the back of their knowing about inflating the AGW issues in the world as we witness them today. For a comparison i think you can very much look at the Tobacco industries history, it seems to be very similar to that (just much worse).

So not a left/right political issue so much as a reveal on how the science and facts stack up in terms of a large slice (30%) of increased CO2 levels since the 1950's, and whom is directly responsible for that. It's going to become very important information in the future when we all (pretty much) will be looking for liability in the courts to help cover the direct costs of AGW to our lives etc. It's going to be interesting :)
 
I don't think left or right politics comes into it?

We have evidence that as far back as the 1980's the biggest oil companies knew about the AGW they would be helping evolve over the coming decades, they did their own research into it all, and those records are now public records (we covered that somewhere back in this thread and a quick internet search will find the info for you).

We also have all the overwhelming scientific studies that show AGW is real (and the negative effects of it are here right now, as reported in most of the articles in this thread).

We also have the info in the link from the Climate Accountability Institute that attempts to show the role (in terms of a percentage) of the big oil firms in the increase in global CO2 levels over these last decades. It gives them a 30% responsibility directly, i think the point of this new editorial batch of stories is to dig deeper into much of the background that has led us to where we are right now, from vested interests distorting science to corruption in government ensuring these huge corporations carry on generating vast profits on the back of their knowing about inflating the AGW issues in the world as we witness them today. For a comparison i think you can very much look at the Tobacco industries history, it seems to be very similar to that (just much worse).

So not a left/right political issue so much as a reveal on how the science and facts stack up in terms of a large slice (30%) of increased CO2 levels since the 1950's, and whom is directly responsible for that. It's going to become very important information in the future when we all (pretty much) will be looking for liability in the courts to help cover the direct costs of AGW to our lives etc. It's going to be interesting :)

Because of the idea that those who provide energy, not those who consume are responsible. The same people who march against climate change are marching if their energy bills raise by 1%.
It is just too convenient to blame someone else instead of changing individual behavior, right?
Climate Accountibility Institue - unknown think tank...
 
Because of the idea that those who provide energy, not those who consume are responsible.

While I think the claim that energy companies are entirely responsible for the use of the fuels they extract and process is silly, they aren't entirely divorced from it either. They do manipulate demand, by various means, to ensure they can continue to sell their product. Often this has left few practical alternatives for customers.
 
Two links this morning, the first a look at the kind of situation we will see as the new normal under AGW:

'Northern California hit by mega power cuts over wildfire fears':

OK you are completely ignorant of what is going on in California with wildfires.

PGE and SDG&E have 50+ year old distribution grids, and have done f all nothing to maintain them.

In high winds (called Santa Ana's which have been around for as long as recorded history in CA), the AC transmission lines bang together and drop sparks.

The sparks ignite the chaparral, which is evolved to burn with flammable stored resins - in fact most species seeds won't germinate without the seed husks being fired, and the wildfires run. Fuel buildup has occured for decades due to urban sprawl and aggressive fire management, so smaller less dangerous fires have not been tolerated. Many species of pines have similar fire ecology patterns. Crown fires only occur as a result of this fuel build up.

The result is insane firestorms that wreck communities.

The power companies have been financially held accountable for previous community burns resulting from their poorly maintained grid.

They have tried repeatedly to pass on the accountability of fire lawsuit losses to consumers through direct fee increases, and thus far the courts have blocked their nefarious efforts.

The latest tactic employed by these power companies is to shut down the grid when high winds are forecast, "to protect consumers from wildfire potential". If these horrible monopolies actually had reinvested their insane profits into updating and maintaining the grid there would be no need to "protect consumers" from their product.

California power companies have a long history of corruption, including manufactured power shortages to purchase more expensive power from other generators and then gouge customers for the increased rates. They literally have pulled cheap generation facilities offline during peak demand to extort these energy prices. We had a state Governer recalled (fired) as a result of the fiasco.

This isn't a global warming thing. This is a money thing.

Monopolies are bad. Government monopolies are worse.
 
Because of the idea that those who provide energy, not those who consume are responsible. The same people who march against climate change are marching if their energy bills raise by 1%.
It is just too convenient to blame someone else instead of changing individual behavior, right?
Climate Accountibility Institue - unknown think tank...

Changing individual behaviour is not going to solve the problem. You have been disinformed on purpose.
Forget that approach. It's simply doomed to fail because the effect is too small to matter. Even with theoretical 100% effort from the entire human population.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-your-carbon-footprint-is-meaningless
Fighting global warming takes systemic change, collective action, and cooperation (witting or not) among much larger populations, not just those motivated (and privileged) enough to make changes by themselves.
It takes legislation to shift the most carbon-intensive industries—energy production, transportation, and food production—who will not change on their own.

It is vastly bigger than any one person could possibly match, and requires major international policy changes, which are very very hard to do. Look at the major industrial processes which are the main sources of CO2, like metal smelting or Fertilizer/chemical industries. We just don't have a suitable technology in place to substitute for the simplest thing: the HEAT.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envi...nge-steel-cement-industrial-heat-hydrogen-ccs
To put that in perspective, industrial heat’s 10 percent is greater than the CO2 emissions of all the world’s cars (6 percent) and planes (2 percent) combined.
We always hear about the meat, the cars, the flying etc. Nobody talks about industrial processes. But THAT is what we have to tackle.

Trying to mess with everybody's life is not the way forward, and never was. Chucking blame at each other is pointless too.
We need an Engineering solution, with technology that we don't have yet. That's going to cost money and time. And we are short of both.

When the tobacco industry got caught lying about cancer and heart disease, and lung disease etc, who paid the money?
The sick smokers or the lying companies?

When the opioid crisis got blown open who paid?
The Pharma firms like Perdue, that told everybody how safe the meds were, or the addicts?

That's how the world works, so please, spare us the Personal Responsibility mythology stuff. Know where that crapola comes from?
That's right, the industries who are trying to wiggle away and leave us holding the bag.

The OIL companies are going to have to pay. Period. They know it.
That's why there's all this effort to bankroll politics, disinform and polarize public opinion, push " Personal Responsibility" an oldie but a goodie, and install judges.
They are as transparent as ever.

Provoke libs to blame conservatives for stuff that doesn't matter, and jump up and down over people eating regular food.
Fool conservatives to shout " but but Personal Responsibility!" and buy straws and such nonsense.
And slink away from the bills while everybody blames each other.

I am on your side, and you should be on mine. Because they are definitely against us.
 

From your source:

When an oil spill occurs in an area with many naturally occurring seeps, responders may have a hard time telling the difference between spilled oil and seep oil. The difference is important because the environmental impacts of oil are determined not only by the amount of oil released into the environment, but also by the type of oil and the speed at which it will disperse. Natural seeps release oil slowly over time, allowing ecosystems to adapt, whereas oil spills f
 
From your source:
Cherry picker

From the same article.

The waters off of Southern California are home to hundreds of naturally occurring oil and natural gas seeps. These seeps, which probably have been leaking for thousands of years, contribute about five million gallons of oil to the ocean annually. Slicks from larger seeps are visible by satellite, and have been known to travel as far as 100 miles down the coast. Some are even persistent enough to become features on nautical charts!

I've personally walked beaches with thousands of tar blobs washed ashore from seeps.

Acute spills are not permanent terminators to ecosystems. Ecosystems recover. 100 years is a blink of an eye. I don't think the same could be said for ushima. LOL My text was modified from the Japanese Nuc plant name. F u k u s h i m a.
 
Last edited:
Cherry picker

From the same article.

The waters off of Southern California are home to hundreds of naturally occurring oil and natural gas seeps. These seeps, which probably have been leaking for thousands of years, contribute about five million gallons of oil to the ocean annually. Slicks from larger seeps are visible by satellite, and have been known to travel as far as 100 miles down the coast. Some are even persistent enough to become features on nautical charts!

I've personally walked beaches with thousands of tar blobs washed ashore from seeps.

Acute spills are not permanent terminators to ecosystems. Ecosystems recover. 100 years is a blink of an eye. I don't think the same could be said for gently caressushima.

So? What matters is the actual environmental impact.
 
'The IPCC’s special report on the ocean and cryosphere':


“All people on Earth depend directly or indirectly on the ocean and cryosphere,” the report warns, noting that “human communities in close connection with coastal environments, small islands, polar areas and high mountains are particularly exposed” to changes, such as sea level rise and melting glaciers.

It is “virtually certain” that the global ocean has warmed unabated since 1970, the report stresses, while “global warming has led to widespread shrinking of the cryosphere”.

These changes are increasingly pushing adaptation responses “to their limits”, with the most vulnerable people having “the lowest capacity” to respond. Sustainable development and climate change resilience depend “critically on urgent and ambitious emissions reductions coupled with coordinated sustained and increasingly ambitious adaptation actions”.

In this detailed Q&A, Carbon Brief unpacks what the report says about how climate change is affecting the Earth’s ice and oceans – and the wider impacts that is having on sea levels, marine life and human society, as well as extreme events and potential “tipping points”.

Good detailed analysis for those that are interested in the science of the topic :)
 
Cherry picker

From the same article.

The waters off of Southern California are home to hundreds of naturally occurring oil and natural gas seeps. These seeps, which probably have been leaking for thousands of years, contribute about five million gallons of oil to the ocean annually. Slicks from larger seeps are visible by satellite, and have been known to travel as far as 100 miles down the coast. Some are even persistent enough to become features on nautical charts!

I've personally walked beaches with thousands of tar blobs washed ashore from seeps.

Acute spills are not permanent terminators to ecosystems. Ecosystems recover. 100 years is a blink of an eye. I don't think the same could be said for gently caressushima.
It is an action of the nature. The nature regulates itself. It does not need human activities to amplify negatively the things.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom