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

[Zak Gordon]

'Super funds and investors with $34tn urge leaders to speed up climate action':

Super funds and investors with $34tn urge leaders to speed up climate action

Fund managers call on world leaders to bring in carbon pricing and phase out coal power ahead of G20

www.theguardian.com

Superannuation funds and investors representing US$34tn in assets – nearly half of the total under management across the globe – have called on world leaders to bring in carbon pricing and phase out coal power to limit global heating to 1.5C.

Released ahead of a G20 leaders meeting in Osaka, Japan, the statement by 477 institutional investors urges world leaders to accelerate their response to the climate crisis to ensure the goals of the 2015 Paris climate deal can be met.

This is a pattern we are going to see much more of. As our whole modern capitalist system is one of the very first things under threat under AGW and the climate threat, so it figures the 'penny will drop' on all those individuals and companies that have so much invested in the system. This might be the very first real chance of real change, as all these interests wake up to the truth of our situation.

 

[[VR] optimal_909]

@jason and Zak
You can't eat optimism. I try not to be a pessimist or an optimist but a realist in all this. And I certainly wish things were different.

@optimal_909
Throwing words like hyperbole into the discussion isn't very constructive. Let me give an example: The most hyperbole thing I can think of is the stupid optimism and trust in humans being able to do anything, because we're human u know. That hyperbole cause us not to see Mother Natures iron fist lurking ahead.

The other day I did quick calculation. If the US was to replace gasoline in cars with pure bioethanol, they would have to use more than all of the current agricultural land just for that. That leaves no room for biodiesel and more important no food production. How is that supposed to work?!?

I can show you my calculation, but it's pretty simple and a good way to understand how "realistic" many of the "solutions" are. Start by finding out how many miles are driven in gasoline fueled cars per year. Then find an average milage for those cars running on ethanol (lower than gasoline). Next calculate how many gallons of ethanol you need per year. Then figure out how many acres of land you need to produce the sugar needed for the ethanol. Finally compare that number to the current agricultural land area.

Saying that biofuels is the solution to anything is hyperbole.

Whether Earth is spelled wrong does not change the argument's truth value. That's a really cheap rhetoric trick. I think you can do much better

I think credibility is very important in such studies, exactly because it involves loads of hypothesis that is built upon trust on those who did the research. Like your example of ethanol, of the lack of sanity and misguided public opinion has lead Germany close its nuclear reactors, that are a key element of any action against climate change - they achieved that Germany started burning more filthy stuff like lignite.

I think I already linked this video into this thread. I may not like or agree with every point, or the way the point was taken, but being frank about this topic should be the very first step we'd need to make.

 

[WeComeInPeace]

I think credibility is very important in such studies, exactly because it involves loads of hypothesis that is built upon trust on those who did the research. Like your example of ethanol, of the lack of sanity and misguided public opinion has lead Germany close its nuclear reactors, that are a key element of any action against climate change - they achieved that Germany started burning more filthy stuff like lignite.

I think I already linked this video into this thread. I may not like or agree with every point, or the way the point was taken, but being frank about this topic should be the very first step we'd need to make.

I largely agree with this jerk on many of the subjects he spits out. We cannot feed the current population with our currently available technology without fossil fuels. I'm even a petrolhead, which I guess he is as well. Where he is horrifyingly wrong is in his faith that we will find a solution. Why?

First of all we have used roughly 50% of the crude oil reserve. Any idiot with a mind capable of understanding what Cadogan obviously has understood, should also be able to understand the follwing: Any limited resource will run out at a certain time. The cumulated production follows a sigmoid function, and the best current approximation we have of that is the logistic function. The derivative of the logistic function shows that once you have used roughly half of a limited resource like crude oil, the production will drop as fast as it has increased.

This was first stated by M. King Hubbert, a geophysicist working for Shell in the 1950's. Hubbert's Peak Theory is as cut in stone as thermodynamics. You can understand it if you understand basic highschool math and accept that magic is only possible in a fairy tale. No market mechanism can change the size of the resource, and when other idiots than Cadogan triumphantly points out that the current US oil production has increased to the level of the 1970 peak Hubbert predicted, then they are wrong. Shale oil etc is not the adventure it is supposed to be. It's a mess, it's got very low Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROI) and once EROI reaches a point where you have to use more energy to extract oil than the oil contains production will stop.

Therefore we have painted ourselves into a corner. Fossil fuels, fertilizers and pesticides have facilitated a large increase of the population size, but when oil production starts dropping we have no alternative. We are up the creek, and the is no paddle. We have three choices: We kill a lot of humans (not popular), we use the remaining fossil fuels to build as much "sustainable" energy and agriculture as possible, or we wait for the iron fist of Mother Nature. I personally vote for number two, but it will still mean a disastrous future with famines and war. Hopefully just less of it. Cadogan votes for number three, which if we continue with business as usual is 20-30 years away. I agree with Cadogan on Mother Nature being ruthless. When she strikes she does not discriminate and she packs a punch.

On your critique of my sources: You don't belive the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, but you believe a patronising petrolhead with a Youtube channel?!?

 

[jasonbarron]

I largely agree with this jerk on many of the subjects he spits out. We cannot feed the current population with our currently available technology without fossil fuels. I'm even a petrolhead, which I guess he is as well. Where he is horrifyingly wrong is in his faith that we will find a solution. Why?

First of all we have used roughly 50% of the crude oil reserve. Any idiot with a mind capable of understanding what Cadogan obviously has understood, should also be able to understand the follwing: Any limited resource will run out at a certain time. The cumulated production follows a sigmoid function, and the best current approximation we have of that is the logistic function. The derivative of the logistic function shows that once you have used roughly half of a limited resource like crude oil, the production will drop as fast as it has increased.

This was first stated by M. King Hubbert, a geophysicist working for Shell in the 1950's. Hubbert's Peak Theory is as cut in stone as thermodynamics. You can understand it if you understand basic highschool math and accept that magic is only possible in a fairy tale. No market mechanism can change the size of the resource, and when other idiots than Cadogan triumphantly points out that the current US oil production has increased to the level of the 1970 peak Hubbert predicted, then they are wrong. Shale oil etc is not the adventure it is supposed to be. It's a mess, it's got very low Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROI) and once EROI reaches a point where you have to use more energy to extract oil than the oil contains production will stop.

Therefore we have painted ourselves into a corner. Fossil fuels, fertilizers and pesticides have facilitated a large increase of the population size, but when oil production starts dropping we have no alternative. We are up the creek, and the is no paddle. We have three choices: We kill a lot of humans (not popular), we use the remaining fossil fuels to build as much "sustainable" energy and agriculture as possible, or we wait for the iron fist of Mother Nature. I personally vote for number two, but it will still mean a disastrous future with famines and war. Hopefully just less of it. Cadogan votes for number three, which if we continue with business as usual is 20-30 years away. I agree with Cadogan on Mother Nature being ruthless. When she strikes she does not discriminate and she packs a punch.

On your critique of my sources: You don't belive the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, but you believe a patronising petrolhead with a Youtube channel?!?

On the issue of trust: it's unwise to completely trust any organization/academy/center of learning that is part of a multi billion dollar industry no different than Big Oil, or Big Pharma or Big Defense, that has a massive financial gain in convincing you of their agenda. The climate change industry literally funds itself by convincing the average Joe/Jill on the street that the world is ending in 12/20/30 years and to be totally freaked out by this. They even handily supply a "bad guy" so these woke types can all smugly forgive themselves their carbon footprint (for reference check any of Patrick's comments) while self righteously pointing the finger at people who "amorally decided to have children and drive SUV's," implying or even outright saying that i'ts this demographics fault that we will all be rampaging the streets and eating each other any day now. When there's as much economic wealth redistribution at stake as there is, even a small sliver of common sense must assert itself and recommend a bit of healthy skepticism.

 

[[VR] optimal_909]

I largely agree with this jerk on many of the subjects he spits out. We cannot feed the current population with our currently available technology without fossil fuels. I'm even a petrolhead, which I guess he is as well. Where he is horrifyingly wrong is in his faith that we will find a solution. Why?

First of all we have used roughly 50% of the crude oil reserve. Any idiot with a mind capable of understanding what Cadogan obviously has understood, should also be able to understand the follwing: Any limited resource will run out at a certain time. The cumulated production follows a sigmoid function, and the best current approximation we have of that is the logistic function. The derivative of the logistic function shows that once you have used roughly half of a limited resource like crude oil, the production will drop as fast as it has increased.

This was first stated by M. King Hubbert, a geophysicist working for Shell in the 1950's. Hubbert's Peak Theory is as cut in stone as thermodynamics. You can understand it if you understand basic highschool math and accept that magic is only possible in a fairy tale. No market mechanism can change the size of the resource, and when other idiots than Cadogan triumphantly points out that the current US oil production has increased to the level of the 1970 peak Hubbert predicted, then they are wrong. Shale oil etc is not the adventure it is supposed to be. It's a mess, it's got very low Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROI) and once EROI reaches a point where you have to use more energy to extract oil than the oil contains production will stop.

Therefore we have painted ourselves into a corner. Fossil fuels, fertilizers and pesticides have facilitated a large increase of the population size, but when oil production starts dropping we have no alternative. We are up the creek, and the is no paddle. We have three choices: We kill a lot of humans (not popular), we use the remaining fossil fuels to build as much "sustainable" energy and agriculture as possible, or we wait for the iron fist of Mother Nature. I personally vote for number two, but it will still mean a disastrous future with famines and war. Hopefully just less of it. Cadogan votes for number three, which if we continue with business as usual is 20-30 years away. I agree with Cadogan on Mother Nature being ruthless. When she strikes she does not discriminate and she packs a punch.

On your critique of my sources: You don't belive the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, but you believe a patronising petrolhead with a Youtube channel?!?

On your last sentence and Cadogan.
One is a scientific (?) article, the other is a well justified drivel of an auto* journalist - I hope it is obvious I didn't link it to counter that article - only as an expression of my opinion. I like the blunt way he presents the situation in the face of the 'climate change hipsters', but I disagree with him on the point that we need to consume more hydrocarbons it to find a solution - shortage and crisis catalyses innovation and behavioral change. Otherwise he votes two as well.

All credible sources I read in the past (contradicting myself, but that includes The Economist as well) quoted oil supply assured in this century, and possibly beyond - so citation is needed for the imminent supply shock. Also, if oil supply end would be nigh', I don't think it would as dirt cheap as it is for many reasons. My favorite example of consumer-idiotism is the bottled Fiji water. That is de facto rain water that is being carried across the globe at a profit. If shale oil is that inefficient, it still has way to go if it is still worth it at such low oil prices.

I think the global society has started some self-adaptation with indirect benefits. The biggest thing is population growth now in fact is driven by longer life expectancy in most hotspots. Even India's growth is stalling, leaving Sub-Saharan Africa the remaining one with population boom. However, I do agree, that severe climate change is inevitable - in fact I'm considering plotting a long-term way out to Patagonia for my family...

*I do own two cars and also have two company cars for the family. While forming an opinion on this topic while being a petrolhead is contradictory, I still have peace of mind as both my own cars are 18-20 year-old, and I consider my two-ton V8 barge enviromentally friendly compared to any newly build EVs, especially when these days I'm communiting more-and-more with public transportation.

 

[Patrick_68000]

People who "amorally decided to have children and drive SUV's

Very well seen! You start to open your eyes.

And these predators should be heavily penalized by very high financial taxes to temper them in their ardor of uncontrolled proliferation and their toxicity which pollutes my environment and my oxygen.

( )

For tomorrow in France, they predict in certain regions a temperature of 45 ° Celsius. Never seen in the history of the country.

In recent days, the government has also introduced the "differentiated circulation" for all these predators polluters and destroyers.

Depending on the pollution rate of the vehicle, it is simply forbidden for the driver to drive.

I think they should go even further and ban the circulation of all the 4x4, the SUVs, and the motorcycles and also facilitate the transport of trucks on the trains.

 

[WeComeInPeace]

We still live in a World where two humans die per second, but four is being born, and the extrapolation of the birth rate used by UN in their medium prognosis would not be accepted anywhere else in science:

Regarding Cadogan: He's a provocative son of a gun, but even though I'm probably what he would consider a greenie lunatic, I tip my hat for him saying what very few other people dare to admit. Even at my University, when I try to point out that the numbers doesn't add up, people normally answer either "You HAVE to think positive" or "You're probably right, but nobody dares to admit that". Well, we can't eat positive thoughts and we can't run an engine on it either.

Getting out of the cities within the next couple of decades might be a clever move, but I'm too old for that. Furthermore, you have to build some sort of self-sufficiency, and I'm definitely too old for that. Finally you have to figure out how to keep your stuff safe when billions of very hungry people show up on the horizon.

Edit: I don't think Cadogan is a 100% jerk so I've watched some of his other videos. He cherry picks a lot, and he hates the green hippies, but he has some points that I've personally concluded as well. Like that the uranium reserve used in the current type of nuclear power plants would last for ~10 years if it was to replace fossil fuels. Or that building an electric truck is wishful thinking. So I think he's a jerk, but a jerk with some very important points

 

[[VR] optimal_909]

We still live in a World where two humans die per second, but four is being born, and the extrapolation of the birth rate used by UN in their medium prognosis would not be accepted anywhere else in science:

View attachment 135819

Regarding Cadogan: He's a provocative son of a gun, but even though I'm probably what he would consider a greenie lunatic, I tip my hat for him saying what very few other people dare to admit. Even at my University, when I try to point out that the numbers doesn't add up, people normally answer either "You HAVE to think positive" or "You're probably right, but nobody dares to admit that". Well, we can't eat positive thoughts and we can't run an engine on it either.

Getting out of the cities within the next couple of decades might be a clever move, but I'm too old for that. Furthermore, you have to build some sort of self-sufficiency, and I'm definitely too old for that. Finally you have to figure out how to keep your stuff safe when billions of very hungry people show up on the horizon.

Edit: I don't think Cadogan is a 100% jerk so I've watched some of his other videos. He cherry picks a lot, and he hates the green hippies, but he has some points that I've personally concluded as well. Like that the uranium reserve used in the current type of nuclear power plants would last for ~10 years if it was to replace fossil fuels. Or that building an electric truck is wishful thinking. So I think he's a jerk, but a jerk with some very important points

If only two die per second, that is because current elderly vastly outlive their parents, especially outside the Western world - but death rate will soon catch up.

At 39, I recon I'm old enough to last only until good time last. I'm worried about the kids, therefore I'm considering a way out off the beaten track that should remain a decent place without too much migration pressure - Patagonia.

Cadogan: No wonder he is self publishing. Maybe he a jerk, but we could say he is non-conformist. For a good laugh, look up his video about BP's premium gas commercial.

Edit: Actually one of the things I like about Elite that despite all challenges, it shows a future in which we made it.

 

[jasonbarron]

My advice to people is to quit acting like things are so bad and just get on with your lives. Almost all of you are old and happily childless, so what's it to you? The world is clicking along nicely right now (and my money is on things being about the same 12/20/30 years from now, despite the near hysterical levels of melodramatic information breathlessly delivered at every turn), but say that I'm wrong; what do you care? You're not going to be around to see it, and since you're all nihilists and anti-children then it really seems like a non issue. So the planet shrugs us off it's back some day, or a meteorite wipes everything out, it's not like this stuff is anything but a hypothetical to you. On the other hand, guys like me with a lot to live for, I'm happy, have a thriving family and so forth, it's a much much more relevant issue to me.

 

[Zak Gordon]

The being childless part is not always a marker for not giving a darn though. Trump and people like him (CEO's of Big Oil/Big Industry etc) has kids and they mostly like him seem to care only about how much money they can make today and tomorrow and have little concern for a decade from now.

Still you also have people that do have kids (like you and I) that also want humanity to have a future and care about that. So what can we do? Well i do what i can to ensure my carbon 'footprint' is as small as possible and educate myself on the options and strategies i can use to improve that in the future. Then i use my vote and my voice (threads like this) to spread that awareness around. Many people are doing this and feel the same as you and I, in that we care about and want a future for humanity, and that is why we are seeing the environmental issue becoming a bigger concern in our lives and politics.

It is the children of today that are (rightly) the most concerned, and i see that as a positive step forward for all of us. At some point the penny will drop as we collectively understand the worthlessness of wealth if no one is around to spend it!

 

[Shinji Ikari]

My advice to people is to quit acting like things are so bad and just get on with your lives. Almost all of you are old and happily childless, so what's it to you? The world is clicking along nicely right now (and my money is on things being about the same 12/20/30 years from now, despite the near hysterical levels of melodramatic information breathlessly delivered at every turn), but say that I'm wrong; what do you care? You're not going to be around to see it, and since you're all nihilists and anti-children then it really seems like a non issue. So the planet shrugs us off it's back some day, or a meteorite wipes everything out, it's not like this stuff is anything but a hypothetical to you. On the other hand, guys like me with a lot to live for, I'm happy, have a thriving family and so forth, it's a much much more relevant issue to me.

IOW, if it's fine now then screw the future...

And you don't know what being a nihilist is...

 

[Patrick_68000]

For the first time in France, more than 45 ° under shelter.

The previous record dates from 12 August 2003, with 44.1 ° at Saint-Christol-lès-Ales and Conqueyrac, in the Gard department.

Global warming, pollution, massive disappearance of living species, all these things are views of the mind, certainly ...

 

[Talarin]

First of all we have used roughly 50% of the crude oil reserve....

This was first stated by M. King Hubbert, a geophysicist working for Shell in the 1950's. Hubbert's Peak Theory is as cut in stone as thermodynamics.

Yep, I can clearly see that Peak Oil is upon us via the actual data. Oh wait - no Hubbard got it horribly wrong. Production is still increasing. Proven stocks are still increasing.

In the shorter term, crashing economies by withdrawing energy supply because something will run out eventually is a terribly flawed idea - and will last precisely as long as it takes for the first food riots to take place.

 

[Patrick_68000]

Near the town of Nîmes. Do not forget the bacon.

 

[WeComeInPeace]

Yep, I can clearly see that Peak Oil is upon us via the actual data. Oh wait - no Hubbard got it horribly wrong. Production is still increasing. Proven stocks are still increasing.

In the shorter term, crashing economies by withdrawing energy supply because something will run out eventually is a terribly flawed idea - and will last precisely as long as it takes for the first food riots to take place.

I'm sorry but it wasn't Hubbert that was wrong. It is you. You cannot compare shale oil with classical crude oil. It's like running out of apples, and then renaming the apple tree to apples.

When we started extracting crude oil, if you spent energy corresponding to 1 liter of oil you could extract ~100 liters of oil. That made sense. The ration 1:100 is called Energy Returned On Energy Invested (EROI). Today crude oil has an EROI of ~1:10 whereas shale oil and oil sands have much lower EROI typically 1:2-1:4, meaning that you produce much more CO2 to extract 1 liter of oil.

EROI is dropping over time, and when the ratio reach 1:1 it is no longer sensible to extract.

On top of that shale oil uses a LOT of water, which is also becoming sparse.

The prediction Hubbert made was about the US crude oil reserves, and he was spot on. 1970.

Edit:

Furthermore the estimates of the shale oil reserves are overly optimistic:

EIA forecasts count on all proven shale reserves being recovered, along with a high percentage of unproven resources, by 2050.
"The nature of these reservoirs is that they decline quickly, such that production from individual wells falls 70 to 90 percent in the first three years,"

Doubts over US shale's rapid growth – DW – 11/14/2018

The fracking of hard-to-reach oil reserves has helped the US regain its crown as the world's top crude oil producer. But even the International Energy Agency (IEA) is now worried that the shale boom has been overhyped.

www.dw.com

Whenever you read estimates of reserves, be skeptical. There are huge economical interests in keeping those numbers high to attract investors. On top of that there is politics, but that subject is illegal on this forum

 

[WeComeInPeace]

Near the town of Nîmes. Do not forget the bacon.

View attachment 135918

We know that you can't say that a heatwave is necessarily caused by global warming, but if you look at the 40 highest recorded temperatures in France, 21 of them has been after 2000. Looking at the 40 lowest temperatures, none has been since 2000. You have to go back to 1985 to find a "record low".

List of extreme temperatures in France - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Patrick_68000]

I'm sorry but it wasn't Hubbert that was wrong. It is you. You cannot compare shale oil with classical crude oil. It's like running out of apples, and then renaming the apple tree to apples.

When we started extracting crude oil, if you spent energy corresponding to 1 liter of oil you could extract ~100 liters of oil. That made sense. The ration 1:100 is called Energy Returned On Energy Invested (EROI). Today crude oil has an EROI of ~1:10 whereas shale oil and oil sands have much lower EROI typically 1:2-1:4, meaning that you produce much more CO2 to extract 1 liter of oil.

EROI is dropping over time, and when the ratio reach 1:1 it is no longer sensible to extract.

View attachment 135931

View attachment 135932

On top of that shale oil uses a LOT of water, which is also becoming sparse.

The prediction Hubbert made was about the US crude oil reserves, and he was spot on. 1970.

Edit:
View attachment 135933

Furthermore the estimates of the shale oil reserves are overly optimistic:

EIA forecasts count on all proven shale reserves being recovered, along with a high percentage of unproven resources, by 2050.
"The nature of these reservoirs is that they decline quickly, such that production from individual wells falls 70 to 90 percent in the first three years,"

Doubts over US shale's rapid growth – DW – 11/14/2018

The fracking of hard-to-reach oil reserves has helped the US regain its crown as the world's top crude oil producer. But even the International Energy Agency (IEA) is now worried that the shale boom has been overhyped.

www.dw.com

Whenever you read estimates of reserves, be skeptical. There are huge economical interests in keeping those numbers high to attract investors. On top of that there is politics, but that subject is illegal on this forum

Yes, to find the oil, the companies have to dig deeper and deeper into the sea, at higher and higher costs.

 

[Patrick_68000]

We know that you can't say that a heatwave is necessarily caused by global warming, but if you look at the 40 highest recorded temperatures in France, 21 of them has been after 2000. Looking at the 40 lowest temperatures, none has been since 2000. You have to go back to 1985 to find a "record low".

List of extreme temperatures in France - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I agree with the "heatwave" aspect.

But over time, the climate has changed a lot in France.

There are not really seasons.

Since years we do not really know when it's winter, spring, summer and fall.

Sometimes we can have the four seasons in one month.

 

[WeComeInPeace]

I agree with the "heatwave" aspect.

But over time, the climate has changed a lot in France.

There are not really seasons.

Since years we do not really know when it's winter, spring, summer and fall.

Sometimes we can have the four seasons in one month.

When I was a kid, sometimes the sea between Denmark and Sweden froze during the winter, so that you could practically walk across, had it not been for the icebreaker ships. Nowadays ice is very rare in the winter, and you certainly can't walk on it.

 

[Patrick_68000]

The 45°under shelter was reached, for the first time, commented Météo-France.

Comparing this level to that reached on a normal August day in the "Death Valley" in California.

New record for today : The absolute record was recorded in Gallargues-le-Montueux (Gard) with 45.9° C under shelter at 4:00 PM.