Cont: Global warming discussion V

[Aridas]

So you are aware that fossil-fuel extraction is increasing instead of decreasing. And it is not as if decreasing it isn't urgent.

Sure.

You are right, in most places there hasn't been much transitioning away from fossil fuels - and not just in aviation and shipping. The clean alternatives are there - also for them. That those alternatives aren't being implemented is because shipping and aviation companies aren't forced to use them - as they should be. Instead, capitalism rules: Fossil fuels are still cheaper, so that's what's being used and abused.
"On track to decrease greatly over time" - yeah, that's what people hear from the fossil-fuel industry and their paid politicians while fossil-fuel extraction continues to increase.

And, more relevantly, the relevant scientists dealing with the projections of what's happening.

And what exactly has the public pressure on ExxonMobil accomplished? Tell me about it 'cause I really want to know. I see nothing but claims that it has in the article.
So ExxonMobil is no longer a member of some organizations.

As part of the consequences of other victories against it that public pressure made possible, yes, which I expect that you would similarly just try to insult as not being a full and total immediate solution.

With that said, you seem to be ignoring the more important question asked.

What, specifically, do you think would work better?

Further, I suppose that I'll add another question. Regardless of what that supposed solution might be, how would you expect to either implement or maintain it without public pressure on your side?

 

[macdoc]

nah nothing to see here - move on move on

Solar PV and wind account for 95% of the expansion, with renewables overtaking coal to become the largest source of global electricity generation by early 2025. But despite the unprecedented growth over the past 12 months, the world needs to go further to triple capacity by 2030, which countries agreed to do at COP28.11 Jan 2024

World added 50% more renewable capacity in 2023 than in 2022 and next 5 years will see fastest growth yet, but lack of financing for emerging and developing economies is key issue

https://www.iea.org/news/massive-ex...o-achieving-global-tripling-goal-set-at-cop28

Quit harping on aviation ..it's only 2.5% of emissions and very efficient transport.

Shipping already cleaned up a lot of its pollution by switching to low sulphur fuels which unfortunately contributed to record year in global heat increase.

Electrification for transport is not going to happen quickly but it IS happening....more quickly in some regions than others.

There are other climate villains like fast fashion and red meat to rant about.

 

[Aridas]

It's not public pressure that has caused the switch to solar and wind - it's because it's cheaper and has lower investment costs.

Caused the switch? Did I say that it was causing the switch? That would be a step further than I would go.

Public pressure has aided solar and wind technologies in becoming more viable throughout and is helping speed the transition to them. That's not the same thing as causing the switch, but it's certainly relevant to it.

People have protested for responsible use of Nuclear Power, and have gotten nothing!

Nothing? All those regulations popped out of thin air, eh?

There is no permanent storage space, the US uranium mining and enrichment sites are a nightmare, and don't get me started on Hanford.

Nothing is done about these, because it's too expensive - protests don't mean anything compared to money.

Public pressure is rather divided when it comes to nuclear power, regardless, which greatly reduces how effective it is. Not exactly a great argument against how meaningful public pressure has been and can be, unless one is being dumb and trying to ignore the parts of context that don't align with some preferred narrative.

 

[macdoc]

People have protested for responsible use of Nuclear Power, and have gotten nothing! There is no permanent storage space, the US uranium mining and enrichment sites are a nightmare

Mostly red herrings.
Somehow France manages all those things effectively with 70% of their power from nuclear. Ontario Canada also with 58%

n 2021, about 58% of Ontario's electricity production came from nuclear power. As well as their use for electricity, Candu power reactors produce almost all the world's supply of the cobalt-60 radioisotope for medical and sterilization use.5 Mar 2024

Canada is the 10th largest economy in the world and 40% of that is Ontario with effectively no carbon production.

n the past 10 years, more than 34 gigawatts (GW) of nuclear power capacity were added in China, bringing the country's number of operating nuclear reactors to 55 with a total net capacity of 53.2 GW as of April 2024. An additional 23 reactors are under construction in China.6 May 2024

Japan: Nuclear plant restarts and retirements. The first two reactors to restart after the March 2011 accident at Fukushima Daiichi did so in August and October 2015. Since then, a further nine have restarted, and another 14 operable reactors are at various stages in the process of restart approval.25 Mar 2024

25 Jan 2024 — Nuclear energy already provides around a quarter of the world's low-carbon electricity. It offers large amount of reliable, dispatchable power providing

Nuclear power plants in the world 2023

Statista
https://www.statista.com › ... › Energy
4 days ago — Operable nuclear power reactors worldwide 2023, by country ... As of May 2023, there were 436 nuclear reactors in operation in 32 countries around the world.

Nuclear power generation is likely to break records in 2025 as more countries invest in reactors to fuel the shift to a low-carbon global economy, while renewable energy is likely to overtake coal as a power source early next year, data has shown.

China, India, Korea and Europe are likely to have new reactors come on stream, while several in Japan are also forecast to return to generation, and French output should increase, according to a report on the state of global electricity markets published by the International Energy Agency (IEA) on Wednesday.

Electricity demand is also expected to increase around the world, fuelled largely by the move to a low-carbon economy. Electric vehicles and heat pumps, as well as many low-carbon industrial processes, require electricity rather than oil and gas.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...tput-expected-to-break-global-records-in-2025

So stop the whinging about "nothing being done" ....

 

[Stout]

You may think you have come up with a marvellous argument, but you haven't. People do all of those things - except one - with bikes and/or cargo bikes. The one thing they can't do is pick up very large stuff at Home Depot. When they have to, they rent a van.
People love their bikes period. All it requires is the adjustments to infrastructure that Big Oil is trying to prevent from happening.

I wouldn't say it's a marvelous argument, but I don't live in Copenhagen and see about 200 cars for every bike I see despite the city spending millions of dollars on bike paths.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I wouldn't say it's a marvelous argument, but I don't live in Copenhagen and see about 200 cars for every bike I see despite the city spending millions of dollars on bike paths.

Millions of dollars is nothing.

In 2010 the small city I live in became New Zealand’s first 'Model Community' to demonstrate that carefully planned, sustained investment in walking and cycling can have a positive impact on a community. With funding of NZ$4 million from the New Zealand Transport Agency and NZ$2.4m local contribution (total NZ$6.4 million = ~US$3.8 million), more than 100km of new pathways were constructed linking the city and its four nearby towns. In 2012 the NZTA provided a further NZ$11 million to expand the project and promote it.

The city's roading budget last year was NZ$83 million. The amount allocated to cycle ways is a drop in the bucket compared to what's being spent on roadways for polluting gas cars and trucks.

These shared walkways aren't useless. They have helped to reduce road traffic by allowing pupils to cycle or walk to and from school, like they used to in the old days before all their parents got monster sized SUVs to ferry their little darlings around in safety. The most busy time on the road in my city is - school start and finish times!

In 2022 the NZ government introduced the Transport Choices package 2022-24 with NZ$350 million drawn from the Climate Emergency Response Fund, which is funded proportionally to money received from the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme. This money isn't coming out of taxpayer's pockets, but indirectly through increased prices of products and services they buy from businesses who have to pay for carbon credits. They could avoid that by purchasing things with a lower carbon footprint.

Unfortunately last November we had a change of government. People like you decided that they didn't want any of 'their' taxes being spent on boondoggles like giving citizens a cheap alternative to driving polluting gas cars everywhere. The National government has suspended funding so they can use that money (which was collected from polluters to mitigate global warming) to hand out tax cuts to the rich.

Even more unfortunately, last year we were hit by a 'tropical' cyclone which toasted most of the area causing billions of dollars worth of damage. As result my rates will go up 59% in the next 3 years. Insurance rates are rising by a similar amount. The cause? Global Warming of course.

I'm happy to pay increased rates because I know my city will put the money to good use. If I wasn't happy I wouldn't be protesting, but I sure would be turning up to council meetings and grilling them on what they were doing to combat Global Warming. If the current government keeps going the way they are now my local MP will be getting an earful too.

If only the World had gotten serious about reducing emission 10 years ago we might not be being having to front up with billions to fix the damage now. And this is just the beginning. In the next few years the true cost of burying our heads in the sand will become apparent.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

People love their bikes period. All it requires is the adjustments to infrastructure that Big Oil is trying to prevent from happening.

Maybe Big Oil is behind it over there, but where I live it's the general public who are 'driving' it (literally). This is understandable - life's tough enough as it is without having to worry about your carbon footprint.

Those who still depend on them will soon have to switch to electric cars, which will be fine when electric power is no longer produced by burning fossil fuels. But I'm sure the fossil-fuel industry is doing its utmost to prevent it from happening.

Actually it's fine now. Even if your electricity is 100% generated from fossil fuels, an EV still less polluting than a gas car. But in most places electricity isn't all fossil-fuel powered, and it's getting cleaner all the time so if you get an EV now then you are positioned to make maximum savings.

Furthermore if you are rich enough to afford a new EV, you will be helping poorer people to afford one when you sell it. Please buy the cheapest one that meets your needs and that depreciates fast! You will be doing the planet a favor, and since you are rich it won't be a problem. Just think of it as a way to partially make up for being one of the World's biggest polluters.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

We didn't get EPA rules by changing our consumer behavior.

No, that would be public pressure. Public pressure forces democratic governments to act.

It's not public pressure that has caused the switch to solar and wind - it's because it's cheaper and has lower investment costs.

No, that would be consumer behaviour. The law of supply and demand forces industries to adapt.

Anyone else seeing a pattern here, or is it just me being stupid again?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Energy Companies are NOT consumers - they are producers.
And it should be noted that while energy production became cheaper, energy costs didn't drop to the same degree.
Consumers didn't choose, they got the choice made for them.

Seriously, how weak is your ego that you have to keep on litigating arguments publicly long after everyone has moved on?

 

[dann]

Maybe Big Oil is behind it over there, but where I live it's the general public who are 'driving' it (literally). This is understandable - life's tough enough as it is without having to worry about your carbon footprint.

The logical fallacy is pervasive and almost always overlooked.
And Big Oil not only prevents sensible adjustments to infrastructure to take place, it deliberately ruined sensible infrastructure in the first place to make room for cars:

Intro 0:00
Public transportation 7:47
The history 13:21
Outro 17:50
How The Auto Industry Carjacked The American Dream (Climate Town on YouTube, April 8, 2021 - 18:50 min.)

The current state of things is what makes Stout and others like him think that cars are just something that appeals to human nature and fulfills everybody's innermost deams, as if the conditions that make people depend on cars grew out of the soil: "People love their cars period."

I wouldn't say it's a marvelous argument, but I don't live in Copenhagen and see about 200 cars for every bike I see despite the city spending millions of dollars on bike paths.

A couple of bike paths don't do the trick. You have to do something akin to (or even better than) what was done in cities like Amsterdam or Copenhagen.
You aren't much for documentation. You just come up with what you think is an amazing argument for cars. Did you, for example, notice that "millions of dollars" spent "on bike paths" miss the other side of the equation: the billions of dollars* spent on cars and their roads?

Some people don't like videos and prefer text. However, one of the things I love about the (as always) excellent video from Climate Town is the footage of big-city streets before they were usurped by cars: the first minute of the video!

The fossil-fuel and auto industries have manipulated people's thinking to the extent where it doesn't even occur to them to try to look outside the box. Much the same way that the tobacco industry made us believe that smoking was healthy.
(By the way, what do you think of the Danish way of taking the cat to the vet or the kids to the ice-hockey arena? Kids love it. I doubt that cats are big fans, though.)


*I notice that Roger Ramjets pointed this out.

 

[dann]

Public pressure forces democratic governments to act.

Public pressure forces democratic governments to adjust their campaign slogans to make people think that they are being heard. It's what persuades voters to vote even when they know it won't change anything.
So this time some people will vote for Biden because he just drills, drills, drills but at least pretends that he'll change things unlike the guy who has "drill, drill, drill as his campaign slogan.

 

[dann]

So you are aware that fossil-fuel extraction is increasing instead of decreasing. And it is not as if decreasing it isn't urgent.

Sure.

I believe you. You are indeed aware that fossil-fuel extraction is increasing instead of decreasing. And yet ...

And, more relevantly, the relevant scientists dealing with the projections of what's happening.

Unfortunately, those scientists are not the deciders. Politicians and the people and companies that pay them are.

As part of the consequences of other victories against it that public pressure made possible, yes, which I expect that you would similarly just try to insult as not being a full and total immediate solution.

What other victories?! Didn't you just agree with me "that fossil-fuel extraction is increasing instead of decreasing"??!

With that said, you seem to be ignoring the more important question asked.

What, specifically, do you think would work better?

No, I don't ignore anything. You ignore my answer because it doesn't appeal to you.

Further, I suppose that I'll add another question. Regardless of what that supposed solution might be, how would you expect to either implement or maintain it without public pressure on your side?

'Public pressure' is what the fossil-fuel industry and car manufacturer pay people to create when they have decided what they want to be done. It's what their paid politicians can refer to when they pretend to bow to 'public pressure' while ignoring all the actual popular movements hoping to put an end to CO₂ emissions.

 

[dann]

Mostly red herrings.
Somehow France manages all those things effectively with 70% of their power from nuclear. Ontario Canada also with 58%

Canada is the 10th largest economy in the world and 40% of that is Ontario with effectively no carbon production.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...tput-expected-to-break-global-records-in-2025

So stop the whinging about "nothing being done" ....

At least in Denmark, nuclear can't compete.
Long article (in English):

When 16 experts in, among other fields, energy and economics published a memo that looked more closely at the potential for nuclear power in Denmark last year, this caused a stir and controversy. Namely, the memo concluded that nuclear power does not make sense in this country, which provoked opposition from several fronts.
Now an updated version of “Facts about nuclear power in Denmark” is on the table.
“The purpose of this second version of the memo is still to get the most important facts about nuclear power in Denmark on the table. In the first version of the memo, we created an open debate and invited comments and input. We have received many of them. We would like to thank you for that,” the authors write.
The “second improved and expanded version of the memo” was corrected, expanded, and further elaborated based on the many comments. But despite the fact that several assumptions that improve the business case for nuclear power in this country are now included in the calculations, the controversial energy technology—still—ends up at the bottom of Denmark’s energy system.
Researchers publish new version of facts about nuclear power: “Significantly more expensive in Denmark than wind and solar” (Ingeniøren, June 14, 2023)

And I doubt that it is very different in most of the world:

“Today, wind and solar in Denmark require neither subsidies nor price guarantees from the state. On the contrary, in the latest tender for the 800–1000 MW Thor Offshore Wind Farm, the Danish state expects a revenue of DKK 2.8 billion over a few years. By comparison, the construction of a nuclear power plant in England requires a guarantee of around 80 øre/kWh for 35 years. This is significantly higher than the price point on the electricity market in Denmark before gas prices rose in 2021 as a result of the war in Ukraine.”

See graphs in the link.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Public pressure forces democratic governments to adjust their campaign slogans to make people think that they are being heard.

Is this a universal rule, or are you just talking about America? Are you claiming that not one democratic government has enacted any meaningful environmental policies at all?

It's what persuades voters to vote even when they know it won't change anything.

You seem very sure that every electorate shares your cynicism. Is this just your own subjective viewpoint projected onto everyone else, or do you have any evidence that this is, indeed, what voters think?

So this time some people will vote for Biden because he just drills, drills, drills but at least pretends that he'll change things unlike the guy who has "drill, drill, drill as his campaign slogan.

Is Trump's campaign slogan really "drill, drill, drill"? I find this implausible. And yes, this may well be hyperbole- but that hyperbole serves no useful purpose.
Plus, again, there are more than two countries in the world. It's not just Denmark and the US, you know.
I'm actually wondering, dann, if you aren't a shill for Big Oil. You spend an inordinate amount of time on this thread telling people that there's nothing they can do to influence the fossil fuel companies. Not individuals, not swathes of the public, and not governments. No-one, according to you, can affect these companies in any way. So we might as well just give up, right? Just shrug our shoulders and sit back and watch as our planet boils. This claimed helplessness plays right into the hands of the fossil fuel industry, don't you think? You are doing everything you can to dissuade people from taking any action at all against these businesses. Big Oil must absolutely LOVE you.

 

[The Atheist]

I'll just correct a couple of errors here.

Unfortunately last November we had a change of government. People like you decided that they didn't want any of 'their' taxes being spent on boondoggles like giving citizens a cheap alternative to driving polluting gas cars everywhere.

Utter nonsense - cars and transport played zero part in the change of government.

The cause? Global Warming of course.

More complete nonsense.

The damage was caused by lax rules around logging that allowed logging companies to leave their waste lying on the ground.

Without the debris being washed down rivers there would have been some minor flooding in your area - the slash was 100% responsible for the disaster in HB and East Coast.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Energy Companies are NOT consumers - they are producers.

A great deal of solar power is produced by individuals, not by energy companies. The Australian situation discussed upthread is one example of this.

And it should be noted that while energy production became cheaper, energy costs didn't drop to the same degree.

People with solar panels of their roofs are selling electricity back to the grid.
The high cost of energy is largely being driven by high gas prices as a result of the Ukraine war. Where is this cost coming down? In America, or around the world?

Consumers didn't choose, they got the choice made for them.

People choose to use solar panels. Moreover, in the UK at least, consumers can choose which company supplies their electricity.
Then there's supply and demand: if people didn't want renewables, businesses would not use them. It's a basic rule of economics: you can't force people to buy something they don't want. You find out what they want, and produce that. It's called marketing.

Seriously, how weak is your ego that you have to keep on litigating arguments publicly long after everyone has moved on?

I will continue to point out your dishonest debating tactics as long as you continue to employ them. My ego has nothing to do with this.

 

[Aridas]

Unfortunately, those scientists are not the deciders. Politicians and the people and companies that pay them are.

I'm having great difficulty understanding how this is supposed to counter what I said. Are you saying that everything is being made up, even by the climate scientists trying to get climate action happening faster?

What other victories?! Didn't you just agree with me "that fossil-fuel extraction is increasing instead of decreasing"??!

Yup, exactly as I predicted.

No, I don't ignore anything. You ignore my answer because it doesn't appeal to you.

You. Didn't. Give. An. Answer. In. The. First. Place.

'Public pressure' is what the fossil-fuel industry and car manufacturer pay people to create when they have decided what they want to be done. It's what their paid politicians can refer to when they pretend to bow to 'public pressure' while ignoring all the actual popular movements hoping to put an end to CO₂ emissions.

*headdesk*

Congratulations, you've cherry picked in what should be an incredibly embarrassing way.

 

[Aridas]

Is Trump's campaign slogan really "drill, drill, drill"? I find this implausible.

To get a little more technical, "Drill, Baby, Drill" has been a more general vote Republican slogan for quite a while. "Drill, Drill, Drill" is just a variation that Trump's used.

For recent news on the Biden Administration front there, though -

Oil and gas companies must pay more to drill on public lands under new Biden administration rule

Not what he promised, but better than either nothing or the Republican alternative. Also, it's true that the Biden Administration has approved a lot of drilling, but, well, the situation is a bit more complex, if we're to allow for oil advocates to weigh in.

Why Biden’s Oil Drilling Permits Surge Is Not What It Seems

The Biden administration’s pace of oil and gas leasing isn’t just slow – it’s the slowest in half a century.

 

[dann]

Is this a universal rule, or are you just talking about America? Are you claiming that not one democratic government has enacted any meaningful environmental policies at all?

You seem to ignore everything I've written for the past year or so.

You seem very sure that every electorate shares your cynicism. Is this just your own subjective viewpoint projected onto everyone else, or do you have any evidence that this is, indeed, what voters think?

It doesn't seem to come as a surprise to voters (and it shouldn't!) when they vote for politicians promising one thing and then doing the opposite once elected, and yet voters keep making the same mistake election after election.

Is Trump's campaign slogan really "drill, drill, drill"? I find this implausible. And yes, this may well be hyperbole- but that hyperbole serves no useful purpose.

I think everybody else knows about this: Trump says he would ‘drill, drill, drill’ and close borders if he returns to the White House

Plus, again, there are more than two countries in the world. It's not just Denmark and the US, you know.
I'm actually wondering, dann, if you aren't a shill for Big Oil.

You should keep up on what is happening in the world, the real world, instead of fantasizing about it.

You spend an inordinate amount of time on this thread telling people that there's nothing they can do to influence (!) the fossil fuel companies. Not individuals, not swathes of the public, and not governments.

They are companies and act like companies. There is really no persuading or influencing them not to act like companies.

No-one, according to you, can affect these companies in any way.

Strawman! I never said or implied what you claim.

So we might as well just give up, right?

Strawman.

Just shrug our shoulders and sit back and watch as our planet boils.

Strawman.

This claimed helplessness plays right into the hands of the fossil fuel industry, don't you think?

And more strawman. It's really all you've got, isn't it?

You are doing everything you can to dissuade people from taking any action at all against these businesses.

Now we're getting somewhere! I am all for taking action against these businesses.
But taking actual action against these businesses is very different from going vegan, taking cold showers and appealing to business owners and politicians to, please, do the right thing and not drill, drill, drill so much!

Big Oil must absolutely LOVE you.

If they were even aware of my existence, they would hate me more than you do.

 

[dann]

I'm having great difficulty understanding how this is supposed to counter what I said. Are you saying that everything is being made up, even by the climate scientists trying to get climate action happening faster?

No, I'm not. I don't understand what makes it so difficult for you to understand what I'm saying: Scientists do science. Politicians and captains of industry decide. And most of them don't give a **** what science and/or scientists think or say. If scientists don't say what they want to hear, they buy scientists to say it. Some of them come cheap. You can buy a whole think tank full of them for a pittance.
I can recommend David Lipsky's The Parrot and the Igloo: Climate and the Science of Denial, which I more or less summarized in this forum last year as I was reading it.

Yup, exactly as I predicted.

You predicted nothing. I pointed out your contradiction in terms: On the one hand, you appear to be aware "that fossil-fuel extraction is increasing instead of decreasing." On the other hand, you talk about "victories against it that public pressure made possible."
The contradiction is so obvious that you should be able to see it on your own instead of getting upset and claiming that it is an "insult" when I point it out to you.

You'll probably still think this is an attempt to insult you, but nevertheless:
Considering the fact that an actual increase in fossil-fuel extraction has taken place, it is absurd to talk about victories made possible by public pressure and portray me as if I'm just demanding too much, i.e. "a full and total immediate solution."
We are talking about an increase! An actual increase!

You understand that this is the opposite of a solution, don't you? It's an actual exacerbation!

You. Didn't. Give. An. Answer. In. The. First. Place.

I. Give. Answers. All. The. Time. In fact, I have been doing it since last year. Keep up!

*headdesk*

Congratulations, you've cherry picked in what should be an incredibly embarrassing way.

Whatever. You should keep up with the reality of global warming and the people who are responsible for it.