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

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.

Given that climate projection models have substantially different outcome profiles 10, 20 and 50 years out - it is problematic to devise quantitative responses designed to reduce CO2 effects that will have predictable outcomes. Placing your attention on austerity is a flat out no go. Californians vote every year for gas taxes, "road diets", extra bike lanes etc., but 57% of car registrations are for SUVs. Austerity is not a sexy choice for wealthy people.

The chicken little Gretta ranting at no one that matters (the UN) after a carbon-fiber sailing yacht pleasure cruise is defocusing our attention from change effect mitigation.

Do you really want to screw Joe Blow commuter trying to get to work at his wage slave job by carbon taxing the manure out of his transportation expenses (the guy still has to work you idiots, and geography in other parts of the world is not equivalent to your dinky backwater island)?

Lobby for canceling insurance in floodplains. Lobby for canceling building permits and insurance along coastlines. Lobby for energy distribution infrastructure. Lobby for agricultural research, lobby for updated building codes that include better insulation - better storm tolerance - include passive heating and cooling etc. Positive responses people can get behind.

Jumping up and down screaming you Americans are rich, and everything is your fault, and you need to suffer because waaaa is less effective than an Open letter to FDEV.

Change the narrative. Go for what people can do, not what they can't do.
Wait, what? LOL no.
 
There should be little compassion for anybody's precious hurt little feelings, when extinction is facing us. And it is.
The problem is bigger than the political/tribal element so many are crying about here.

It's a Science and Engineering issue.
Yes, there will need to be diversion of funds to solve it, as there is with every such problem. But- I've never understood the suggestion that the problem could be tackled by taxation. No LAWYER ever solved an Engineering problem AFAIK- we sort of need the actual engineers.

But we simply can't buy a new planet. No matter how much money is available. Think you can escape this problem with money? Nope.

The approach cannot be made on an individual basis, it has to be done by policy at an international level. Let me illustrate:


WE'RE NUMBER ONE!! Or we were. It's nothing to be proud of, let me tell you. The CO2 output is equivalent to 900 cars. And that is merely ONE industry we have here burning our methane.

On the local roads, there are 1 million vehicles registered, with a population of 1.3 million people, which includes people under 18 and over 90 who are obviously not driving, averaging out to 1.something cars per driver in my little country. We are too rich for our own good, and we need to invest in a train system or we shall die of road traffic. There isn't enough road to accommodate the cars. It can take 4 hours in traffic to cover 30 miles.

Every molecule of ammonia made generated a molecule of CO2.
The chemistry is the Haber process: https://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/equilibria/haber.html
The source of Hydrogen here is Natural Gas, or Methane: CH4. And Nitrogen from the atmosphere- N2.
Ammonia is NH3. To get the 3 H per half a Nitrogen molecule, the process byproducts are CO2 and 1/2 H2O.

Or:


A sizeable chunk of that nitrogen goes into soybean and corn feed, for animal protein biosynthesis in the meat industry. Yes, you may be eating our Trinidad & Tobago methane if you buy meat from the US, or feedstock from their farms- some of it is going to feed Hogs in China too. Some goes into the leafy greens eaten by Vegans.
It is all deliciously flatulent. Some of it gets recycled into methane by the animals. Or by the humans that ate the animals, that ate the feed, that grew off the fertilizer that came from the methane.

That's another problem. Farts. Let's leave that out.

This problem affects food supplies, international trade, the chemical industry, the shipping industry, restaurant chains, groceries, and livelihoods in multiple countries, and can't be magicked away or altered by anything you or me could possibly do individually. If Governments do not act together, we are going to pay. It's a Game of Thrones situation, with no means of stopping the apocalypse. And since Governments get voted in, people's beliefs matter.

The best solutions are NOT going to be popular.
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.
So transportation is necessary. Not everyone lives in a neat little railway accessible space in a beehive complex. We are not all going to live in Megacity one, the need for individual transportation will always exist.

You're a Doctor, would you every prescribe artery narrowing as a strategy to move resources and wastes into and out of vital organs? Of course not, but we choose to eliminate roadways, and purposefully slow traffic to create inefficiencies and waste. As a California city native, I've spent more of my life in traffic than you can imagine.

We need the Haber process, there is no alternative for industrial scale nitrate soil enrichment. We'd better be forward thinking about phosphate production as well, the nexus between our needs there and population demands are not promising. We are not giving up Haber, ever. Go ahead kill billions and give up Haber. China just lifted its tariffs on American Soy and Pork - people put eating above hot summers and always will.

Do you live near a decommissioned nuclear reactor? I do. It will be there for more than a thousand years because no one wants to store the waste or the irradiated building materials. Is that cost factored into the "cleanliness" of nuclear power? No, it is not. Irrespective of whether it is a Thorium reactor or conventional, the parts still get irradiated.

We have tremendous wind power generation potential in the US, but lack the grid infrastructure for its distribution. Constructing and maintaining distribution grids is a job creator and will have powerful positive benefits for decentralized power generation. No one is selling that as much is "we're going to take away your car".

Raising temperature is not an apocalypse. We've had global temperatures that far exceeded our current averages in geologic history and life flourished. Alarmism provokes foolish emotional responses. Settle down, worry less about cow farts. Remember the great plains had Bison herds that covered multiple states in the US. Spectacular farts. We survived. We'll see greater methane release from permafrost melts anyways. We will not starve our way to survival.
 
Raising temperature is not an apocalypse. We've had global temperatures that far exceeded our current averages in geologic history and life flourished. Alarmism provokes foolish emotional responses. Settle down, worry less about cow farts. Remember the great plains had Bison herds that covered multiple states in the US. Spectacular farts. We survived. We'll see greater methane release from permafrost melts anyways. We will not starve our way to survival.
Rising temperatures will be an inconvenience for some. On the other hand, if we experienced massive global cooling that would be a completely different story.
 

Industrial chemistry or any other technology from WW2 era is not a permanent solution to any problem.
Genetically modified food sources are probably inevitable, but is only the most likely replacement tech.

Animal food sources with direct nitrogen fixation, myostatin receptor knockout, IGF hyperexpression etc would rapidly run existing natural sources into bankruptcy because they could not match the production efficiency.

Adding rhodopsin receptor protein as mitochondrial outer membrane protein elements would drastically reduce the need to feed, and speed up growth but that is something best kept for transhuman changes. The effect on food consumption isnt something I can calculate.


Do you live near a decommissioned nuclear reactor? I do. It will be there for more than a thousand years because no one wants to store the waste or the irradiated building materials. Is that cost factored into the "cleanliness" of nuclear power? No, it is not. Irrespective of whether it is a Thorium reactor or conventional, the parts still get irradiated.
The point of Thorium reactors is the use of the waste. They can consume the Plutonium, which is the primary problem.

Irradiated materials are hazardous, and constitute a problem probably suitable for future fusion tech to dispose of. Thorium tech is only suitable as a bridging tech to better sustainable sources.

An alternative feedstock for Haber could be H2 from electrolysis of water, if power becomes cheap and plentiful.
 
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':


A power company is cutting electricity to around 800,000 homes, businesses and other locations in Northern California, in an attempt to prevent wildfires.

Large swathes of the San Francisco Bay Area - though not the city itself - have lost power, angering residents.

The region’s utility company, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), has warned the shutdown could last several days.

The company's transmission lines started the deadliest wildfire in California’s history last year.

With weather forecasts predicting high winds, the move is intended to prevent the risk of fallen power lines igniting more wildfires.

"The conditions are ripe: dry fuel, high winds, warm event. Any spark can create a significant event," said Ray Riordan, director of the Office of Emergency Management in San Jose, during a press conference on Tuesday.

The National Weather Service has issued a red flag warning for the Santa Cruz Mountains, North and East Bay regions until Thursday, warning that conditions could result in "the strongest offshore wind event in the area since the October 2017 North Bay fires".
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':


The Guardian today reveals the 20 fossil fuel companies whose relentless exploitation of the world’s oil, gas and coal reserves can be directly linked to more than one-third of all greenhouse gas emissions in the modern era.

New data from world-renowned researchers reveals how this cohort of state-owned and multinational firms are driving the climate emergency that threatens the future of humanity, and details how they have continued to expand their operations despite being aware of the industry’s devastating impact on the planet.

The analysis, by Richard Heede at the Climate Accountability Institute in the US, the world’s leading authority on big oil’s role in the escalating climate emergency, evaluates what the global corporations have extracted from the ground, and the subsequent emissions these fossil fuels are responsible for since 1965 – the point at which experts say the environmental impact of fossil fuels was known by both industry leaders and politicians.

The top 20 companies on the list have contributed to 35% of all energy-related carbon dioxide and methane worldwide, totalling 480bn tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO2e) since 1965.
lots of graphs and tables and links to pleanty of info around the subjects discussed. It's an informative read.
 
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.
 
Top Bottom