The world is still falling short on limiting climate change, according to U.N. report (NPR, Sep 9, 2023)
The president of Brazil ...
The president of Brazil ...
Cont: Global warming discussion V
- Thread starter lobosrul5
- Start date
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
Especially big ships like this. If we stop using fossil fuels and make ships run on electricity instead, how will we transport all that oil? You greenies didn't think of that, did you?
Oh wait...
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
Germany’s not-so-green fix to save the car engine
Some say this is just Big Oil lobbying to keep the internal combustion engine alive, but the 800,000 workers and 68% of Germans who are petrol-heads have their own reasons...
I know you love the idea that the opposition to going green is made out of people, ordinary people. Sheep farmers in NZ, auto workers in Germany and, I guess, gas stove owners* in the USA.
But why are they reluctant to support a carbon-emission-free future?
Because industrialists and right-wing parties (supported by those industrialists) can get them riled up with lies about what it will mean: 'They are coming to take everything away from you!'
As I have mentioned before and illustrated with examples from actual reaiity: If the alternatives are not only there but also made feasible for ordinary people, they don't mind selling their cars and switching to bikes and public transport because they can see the advantage for themselves in doing so.
Here is a post from a very different thread (about fat-shaming):
You missed this part of the article you link to:
But the article makes the same (deliberate?) error as so many others:
What isn't 'open to criticism'?!
Yes, it's true: If power from the grid used to produce that E-fuel or hydrogen isn't generated by means of renewables and if the new fuel isn't transported by electric vehicles (or E-fuel vehicles) but instead is based on fossil fuels, it isn't CO2 neutral, obviously.
But with carbon-neutral production and transport of E-fuel, those cars will actually be just "as green as batteries and hydrogen" are on the same conditions, and there is the extra advantage that it will also solve the problem with planes and ocean-going vessels:
You also ignore the last paragraph about the 'landing zone', which is no surprise since it wasn't what has your interest, i.e. making it seem as if the little people are the main problem:
That sounds pretty good to me, but it remains to be seen how German car manufacturers and the FRG with its interest in remaining a "Capital Standort" will try to **** it up. The little people don't have much of a say on this issue anyway.
*We are switching from gas to electric stoves in Denmark, too, but it hasn't really been an issue because we have not powerful fossil-fuel or car-manufacturing industrialists to lobby against it. It will happen more or less by itself when gas becomes more expensive than wind and solar-generated electricity.
But why are they reluctant to support a carbon-emission-free future?
Because industrialists and right-wing parties (supported by those industrialists) can get them riled up with lies about what it will mean: 'They are coming to take everything away from you!'
As I have mentioned before and illustrated with examples from actual reaiity: If the alternatives are not only there but also made feasible for ordinary people, they don't mind selling their cars and switching to bikes and public transport because they can see the advantage for themselves in doing so.
Here is a post from a very different thread (about fat-shaming):
You missed this part of the article you link to:
But the article makes the same (deliberate?) error as so many others:
What isn't 'open to criticism'?!
Yes, it's true: If power from the grid used to produce that E-fuel or hydrogen isn't generated by means of renewables and if the new fuel isn't transported by electric vehicles (or E-fuel vehicles) but instead is based on fossil fuels, it isn't CO2 neutral, obviously.
But with carbon-neutral production and transport of E-fuel, those cars will actually be just "as green as batteries and hydrogen" are on the same conditions, and there is the extra advantage that it will also solve the problem with planes and ocean-going vessels:
You also ignore the last paragraph about the 'landing zone', which is no surprise since it wasn't what has your interest, i.e. making it seem as if the little people are the main problem:
That sounds pretty good to me, but it remains to be seen how German car manufacturers and the FRG with its interest in remaining a "Capital Standort" will try to **** it up. The little people don't have much of a say on this issue anyway.
*We are switching from gas to electric stoves in Denmark, too, but it hasn't really been an issue because we have not powerful fossil-fuel or car-manufacturing industrialists to lobby against it. It will happen more or less by itself when gas becomes more expensive than wind and solar-generated electricity.
Unfortunately, the Arab nations seem to be more interested in "climate resilience" than in CO2-neutrality.
G20 Summit affirms commitment to climate change, focuses on climate financing (BusinessToday, Sep 10, 2023)
I bet they are committed to climate change!
G20 leaders paper over serious divisions on Ukraine and climate change (France24, Sep 9, 2023)
Can't imagine why any ordinary person would object to tossing out their possessions and replacing them with shiny new ones regardless of the items' present condition or expected service life. Isn't that our favorite thing to do? Must be all that corporate advertising constantly pushing us to buy shiny new things that's now keeping us from wanting to buy shiny new things. It couldn't be concerns about the costs, because ordinary people are rich. The ordinary people who matter, anyhow.
Your imagination goes into overdrive when you imagine that "our favorite thing to do" is to replace our possessions "with shiny new ones." And it has just as little to do with reality when you imagine that "corporate advertising [is] constantly pushing us to buy shiny new things."
I am the one who has stressed from the very beginning that your fantasy about the "frivolous high-energy luxuries" of ordinary consumers is absurd. You have described the consumption of ordinary people an addiction, but most people's consumption is neither frivolous nor luxurious - unlike the 1%ers and their private jets.
This is an actual example of corporate advertising, only one minute long, and it is less about buying "shiny new things" and more about being able to buy anything at all:
Life Runs On Energy, Connected by Oil and Natural Gas, Energy Transfer TV Commercial
Cell phones, hair products, corrective lenses, sneakers, cars, lipsticks, footballs, beer and T-shirts. They would allegedly all disappear out of our lives if it weren't for petroleum products.
And then you come along and support the message of the stupid fossil-fuel commercial by complaining about ordinary people's allegedly "frivolous high-energy luxuries," which you want them to give up voluntarily, those bloody addicts:
You actually live up to the image of the environmentalist boogeyman presented by the fossil-fuel industry! Like I said: 'They are coming to take everything away from you!'
By the way, gas (and other) stove commercials are usually more about families being together - alt least the ones I've seen - than about "shiny new things," but that wouldn't live up to your idea of consumerism run amok, would it?!.
Broil King - 2013 Television Commercial - Family Time
My argument against Broil King would be that it runs on propane instead of (solar and/or wind-generated) electricity, whereas you would object to it for being one of those "shiny new things."
Stoves usually aren't for very long, which rarely comes as a surprise for anybody.
I am the one who has stressed from the very beginning that your fantasy about the "frivolous high-energy luxuries" of ordinary consumers is absurd. You have described the consumption of ordinary people an addiction, but most people's consumption is neither frivolous nor luxurious - unlike the 1%ers and their private jets.
This is an actual example of corporate advertising, only one minute long, and it is less about buying "shiny new things" and more about being able to buy anything at all:
Life Runs On Energy, Connected by Oil and Natural Gas, Energy Transfer TV Commercial
Cell phones, hair products, corrective lenses, sneakers, cars, lipsticks, footballs, beer and T-shirts. They would allegedly all disappear out of our lives if it weren't for petroleum products.
And then you come along and support the message of the stupid fossil-fuel commercial by complaining about ordinary people's allegedly "frivolous high-energy luxuries," which you want them to give up voluntarily, those bloody addicts:
You actually live up to the image of the environmentalist boogeyman presented by the fossil-fuel industry! Like I said: 'They are coming to take everything away from you!'
By the way, gas (and other) stove commercials are usually more about families being together - alt least the ones I've seen - than about "shiny new things," but that wouldn't live up to your idea of consumerism run amok, would it?!.
Broil King - 2013 Television Commercial - Family Time
My argument against Broil King would be that it runs on propane instead of (solar and/or wind-generated) electricity, whereas you would object to it for being one of those "shiny new things."
Stoves usually aren't for very long, which rarely comes as a surprise for anybody.
Last edited:
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
No, I ignored it. In this context e-fuels are a scam. They may have a small role to play in the future for cases where there is no alternative, but those cases are shrinking. By the time e-fuels are truly carbon neutral we probably won't need them.
No, they won't. By that time electricity will be 'net positive', and using it to produce e-fuels will be less effective than using it to power vehicles directly.
We already have answers to the problem with planes and ocean-going vessels. We had ocean-going vessels for thousands of years without needing fossil fuels to power them, and we managed without airplanes during all that time too. By the 1930's, clipper ships were making the round trip from London to New Zealand and back in 90 days, at speeds similar to modern freighters. Modern ships could use wind and solar to ply the seas autonomously at very low cost and zero emissions.
The 'little' people are the problem. Car manufacturers would be dead without 'little' people buying their products. Actually that is what is happening right now, and gas car manufacturers are panicking because they can see where things are headed. Even if electric cars did nothing to stop global warming, people will still prefer them because they are nicer to drive, cheaper to run and more reliable. The tipping point is almost upon us, but right now the majority are still Luddites resisting change.
Car companies are run and staffed by people. Politicians are also people. And most resist change simply because it's in their nature, not because they are rich or in the pockets of Big Oil.
When I bought my first house in 1978 it had a gas stove. I removed it immediately. Why anybody would prefer that dirty, smelly, dangerous stuff over electricity is beyond me. But I was raised in a rural area where gas wasn't an option.
Electric cars face the same problem only worse. Everybody is familiar with gas cars and their characteristics. They don't want electric because they don't appreciate how much better it is.
In 2011 Nissan aired an advert that illustrates this reluctance brilliantly:-
"What if everything ran on gas?".
The scary thing about that advert is how easily we can imagine it being reality.
If Tesla could get the same mileage from a battery that you've been getting by pretending not to understand sarcasm, electric cars would never even need recharging!
Some consumption is frivolous, and some isn't. Voluntarily reducing the consumption that is, has been my (apparently intolerably radical) suggestion.
Petroleum products are currently used to manufacture all of those things. That much is true. It's nice that you can imagine a world where that's not the case, but that world doesn't exist yet.
The propaganda value of the ad is in two points that it deceptively implies without stating. One is that those things cannot be made without fossil fuels. The other is that people can't do without any of those things. Both of those points are false.
You appear to agree that the first one is false, and you fault the industry for using such propaganda to support that idea. Yet you agree with and vigorously defend the propaganda about the second one. Stop falling for it. You're smarter than that.
And you support the message of the very same commercial by insisting that no one can or should ever do without anything. OMG how could anyone survive without hair gel, beer, and polyester football jersey wall decorations?
The irony (one out of many) here is that the most effective way to get manufacturers to change their processes to make those things sustainably would be to boycott the ones made from oil and gas. That is to say, give them up voluntarily until sustainable ones are available.
You're way misinterpreting which problem I'm talking about here. I object to forcing people who can't afford it (which includes most Americans, according to studies) to toss a working major appliance and purchase a replacement. You're opposed to voluntary sacrifices, but seem awfully eager to cheer for involuntary ones.
Not many people of median financial means want to keep their gasoline cars or gas stoves specifically because they're gas. They want to keep them because they're already paid for or nearly paid for, and they can't afford a new one.
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Speaking for myself, I'd prefer an electric car. I could technically afford one, too. It's just not particularly justifiable for me to actually do so, though, all in all. At present, I've managed to put myself in a situation where my daily car usage average is maybe a mile or two, possibly less, not counting the rare longer trips, and I drive a small car with decent gas mileage. A tank of gas tends to last me a couple months.
It's hard for me to justify spending much at all for that kind of usage, really. I'd pay more for an electric car, but that bar is still much lower than the lowest prices that I've seen even for used electric cars.
Last edited:
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Ditto.
I do about 2000 miles a year in a 13-year-old Honda Jazz which I bought 10 years ago. I'd like an electric car, and could afford one, but I can't justify it either economically or ecologically.
An electric bike is very cheap. An ordinary bike will be cheaper still. And healthier, too.
Using a car for a daily transport need of "maybe a mile or two" isn't very practical. Have you considered walking?
Forget 10,000 steps – walking just 5,000 is enough to lower your risk of death, says science (BBC ScienceFocus, Aug 9, 2023)
Last edited:
I might have believed that your talk about people desiring shiny new things were sarcasm if you hadn't been going on about people, ordinary people, being consumption addicts:
But congratulations if you have now left that attitude behind.
Intolerable as a means to do something effective about CO2 emissions, yes, but only radical as consumer criticism and pretending that consumption and not production was the major problem.
It's dishonest to pretend that I haven't been able to "imagine a world" where energy for production comes from wind and solar. For months, I have been telling you how far the Danish and other grids have already come in that transition - without your appeal to austerity. (As if your imaginary world of sacrifice-eager consumers were anything but a pipe dream.)
for the first point only!No, it doesn't imply that at all. It merely implies, and rightly so, that people wouldn't want to do without (many/some(/all) of those things. Some people like to use those hair products and that lipstick. I've got nothing against that even though I don't use them myself.
The important thing is the lie the ad tells people: That they'd have to do without those things. Your alternative is to persuade them to give up those things voluntarily, which confirms the picture of environmentalism in the commercial: This is what they, the environmentalists, want to take away from you!
As mentioned above, you don't get the second one right. But since you claim that I have said that people can't do without those things: Where exactly did I say that?
What I have been saying repeatedly is that they shouldn't have to give up those things.
You are the the one who wants to give them up voluntarily, i.e. which is what fossil fuel says about environmentalism!
No, I say the exact opposite of the commercial: People can have those things with solar and wind! Whereas you want to tell people to give up the things that they think make life worth living: People's frivolous consumption of hair gel, hair color, footballs and T-shirts and other frivolous high-energy luxuries!
The irony is that there is no reason to give up those goods "made from oil and gas." It's the energy used to manufacture those products that's the problem. And that problem is being solved by switching from fossil fuels to wind and solar, which can't go fast enough. By telling people to give them up instead of telling them what they can do to continue to have access to them without ruining the climate, i.e. switch from fossil fuels to wind and solar, you help the fossil-fuel industry propaganda against the switch.
Let's ignore that your 'solution' is to tell people to stop using their working appliances like water heaters! I approve of your presentation of consumers as people whose consumption is limited by what they can afford instead of your usual presentation of them as a population of people with an addiction to shiny new things.
And what you think I seem to be is wrong: Since gas stoves emit fossil fuels and electric stoves don't if the power comes from wind and solar, the solution is the one Cuba used when it replaced the population's energy-wasting fridges.
(And yes, I know, capitalism would never allow that kind of solution even though Cuba is a piss-poor country in comparison to the USA.)
Exactly! Your chimera of frenzied consumers addicted to new shiny things was just that: imaginary. People are limited by what they can afford, which is why they usually can't just switch from gas guzzlers to electric cars. They are ruled by capitalist scarcity, their everyday austerity forced upon them by the laws of capitalism, i.e. their limited income.
And yet they are the same people you would like to sacrifice their frivolous consumption.
I hope you can leave that idea entirely behind. It will help decrease the cognitive dissonance.
If you'll remember this, I think we've come a long way!
Is he finally waking up?!
Or is it just another one of those 'let's-give-the-electorate-what-they-want-to-hear' speeches?
This sounds good, but is he actually going to do anything about it? Will he send solar panels to Angola and similar countries?
Promises, promises - and still not fast enough:
Or is it just another one of those 'let's-give-the-electorate-what-they-want-to-hear' speeches?
This sounds good, but is he actually going to do anything about it? Will he send solar panels to Angola and similar countries?
Promises, promises - and still not fast enough:
Well good for Andrew Weaver. Some of you may recall that I said the same thing a few years ago over on another thread where people were worshiping at the alter of staving off 1.5C. It's nice to see that the science is catching up to me.
Pepole do care to though, just not enough. Take these guys for instance. They care, being all radical and activisty, it's just that they care more about getting fishfaced on buckets at the full moon party.
It's also helpful to realize that denialism comes in many flavours. We've got the God-did-it, the climate has always fluctuated type of denialism we all know and then there's the other type, the more subtle type. The somebody needs to do something type. Somebody needs to fix this mess without it costing me money of inconveniencing me in any way type. Screaming about the 1% or the oil companies or demanding a world where everybody just downs tools, goes into the wind and solar industries and outputs enough product to completely replace the existing energy system, pronto!
The trick is to try and create a bottom up system where people actually want the necessary changes and are willing to put aside ideas like living your best life possible in order to bring about those changes. This demanding top down changes, demanding these changes be foisted on all of us hasn't yielded much in the way of results. The politicians know we'll riot if they try and, belíve me, there'll be rioting on a massive scale if the power goes out when the wind isn't blowing at night.
But hey, if we can't convince radical activists not to gobble up fossil fuels for a holiday the bottom up idea is looking as feasible as the top down leaving resilience and adaptation as the most useful courses of action.
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Yes, I've certainly considered walking and have walked to work at times. I live very close to work to cut down travel time. I fairly certainly pay a bit extra for rent, though, as a result. Even so, walking gets very unpleasant when dealing with various conditions - heat, cold, rain, snow, and so on.
My second most visited place, the grocery store, is not within reasonable walking distance, though, and carrying groceries home would be problematic both walking and on a bike. Hiring a ride would be cumbersome and probably be worse on overall impact than using my car anyways. Delivery is a more recently available option and has been used as needed, but has a number of drawbacks, too. Relative lack of variety and a higher price threshold are notable, as well as the value to be found in physically browsing the store. On a more minor note, I usually end up shopping after work - and work ends after 11 PM. It's... quite inconvenient for me to do so before work, but possible, hence why it's a minor note. On a separate note, the grocery store that I normally frequent has the only local electric car charging spot that I'm aware of and it's nearly always available late at night when I visit. Still, if it were just work and groceries, I could probably get by without a car.
The more fundamental need for the vehicle is the access it allows to family and friends. I live in a sorta suburban area with friends scattered, some at longer distances (all at distances unsuitable for biking with no or effectively no bike supportive infrastructure anyways), and no public transport options that I've really seen here in the first place, much less ones that would be usable for my desired travels to visit the various friends/family.
I'm not particularly attached to driving, either way, but there really isn't much real alternative for me. I've managed to greatly minimize how much driving I do and how much gas I consume, but access to friends and family is something that I'm simply not willing to give up.
Last edited:
Tell us more about the results yielded by your preferred down-top changes. What exactly have they yielded so far?
You are new to the thread, so you may not have noticed that I have described in some detail and in post after post the changes that have been "foisted on all of us" in my country and in my town where there have been no riots at all. On the contrary, actually: People switch from cars to bikes because it has been made convenient to do so. No reason to riot at all - unless fossil fuel pays people to do it.
As for riots caused by the wind not blowing at night, you sound as if you have been inspired by the lies about renewables that were told when the grid in Texas broke down (without causing much rioting, by the way). Have you been listening to the fossil-fuel propaganda and believed every word they said?
Politicians don't fear that "there'll be rioting on a massive scale" caused by inefficient solar panels and wind turbines. It's not the reason why they don't make the switch. They fear that they won't get any PAC contributions and that fossil fuel will campaign against them.
A much more likely scenario than your riots.
Because 'teaching the controversy' went so well, I assume.
Maybe this is a good sign:
"Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Republican, is giving away free copies of his recent book called “The Kids Guide to the Truth About Climate Change."
At least it is if the reason why he is handing out free copies is that he can't sell the ****. (It's not on Amazon, for instance.)
Mike Huckabee’s New Children’s Book About Climate Change Is Filled With Scary Misinformation (CleanTechnica, Aug 7, 2023)
Yes, I read all about the bike lanes. We have them here too and they're a great addition to an urban environment but the trick, at least it is around here, is to get people actually using them. Sure there was lots of demand that they be built and by now, this place should look like Amsterdam given the amount of people who said they would switch to cycling if there was a proper infrastructure. Still waiting on that European cycling culture to make an appearance.
These feeble little steps are not enough though, that's why Andrew Weaver said the quiet part out loud. 1.5 C is a done deal, full stop. There's now way "we" are going to bike lane or ban private planes out of it that's all just smoke, mirrors and wishful thinking.
The pandemic lockdown of 2020. Now there's something that was foisted on us by the government that actually reduced emissions and put us on track to averting 1.5C. Mmmmm imagine if that lockdown was not only permanent but escalated every year.
So....how to bring the emissions of the average European in line with those of the average Angolan? They still need their emissions lowered, at least according to Biden. Oh, and speaking of Biden, the guy with his finger on the nuclear button, I hope he hasn't gotten any ideas form watching The 100.
These feeble little steps are not enough though, that's why Andrew Weaver said the quiet part out loud. 1.5 C is a done deal, full stop. There's now way "we" are going to bike lane or ban private planes out of it that's all just smoke, mirrors and wishful thinking.
The pandemic lockdown of 2020. Now there's something that was foisted on us by the government that actually reduced emissions and put us on track to averting 1.5C. Mmmmm imagine if that lockdown was not only permanent but escalated every year.
So....how to bring the emissions of the average European in line with those of the average Angolan? They still need their emissions lowered, at least according to Biden. Oh, and speaking of Biden, the guy with his finger on the nuclear button, I hope he hasn't gotten any ideas form watching The 100.
novaphile
Quester of Doglets
If you're keen, panniers work really well on a bike.
Both my current road bike, and touring bike have MTX racks on the back, and the panniers just slide on and off that rack and click into place.
That style served me really well in the last ten or so years of riding to work.
(Note. If you want to carry the panniers but not use them, they fold/roll/zip up into the sides of the top-of-rack bag which is about the size of a shoe box).
If for some reason, you need to carry a really heavy load of groceries, a bike trailer would be the go. There's footage online for a bicycle delivery company that delivers fridges, lounge suites, etc. using bike trailers.
When I walk to the local grocery stores (two within two kilometers of my home) I use a 'day-pack' back pack. It can hold a surprising amount of stuff and has a 'belly band' that helps if you want to carry a heavy load.
I used my bike to go to the feed store recently for dog food. I ended up with two 3kg bags of food, one in each pannier, and that worked quite well. I've never tried to haul the 20kg sack of chicken feed up on the bike though, my instinct is that much load up high on the rack would make the bike unstable. Hence using a trailer.
Last edited: