Cont: Global warming discussion V

[The Atheist]

Not exactly promising, is it?!

Quite right - it's a disgrace!

Hopefully, everyone will desert the Harris/Walz bandwagon and hop on that of climate-friendly Republicans.
____________________________

Meanwhile, Brazil has a teensy problem that might just be the world's problem: droughts in the Amazon are worsening, and of course, so are fires.

The world's lungs might have COPD.

https://www.dw.com/en/brazil-wildfires-made-worse-by-drought-extreme-heat/a-70088581

 

[dann]

Your choice of wording in the post I responded to.

My choice of wording in the post you responded to?! This:

What else isn't new?!

Will CCS projects be mentioned by Harris & Walz, possibly as the solution to global warming?

Really?

 

[Stout]

Quite right - it's a disgrace!

Hopefully, everyone will desert the Harris/Walz bandwagon and hop on that of climate-friendly Republicans.

The Green Party, what they want is The Green Party. Save the planet with bonus identify politics, all the free Palestine you could dream of and...legal weed.

Why anyone would vote Democrat or Republican is beyond me.

 

[Aridas]

Really?

Yup.

 

[dann]

Yup.

You do you.

 

[dann]

Quite right - it's a disgrace!
Hopefully, everyone will desert the Harris/Walz bandwagon and hop on that of climate-friendly Republicans.

The Green Party, what they want is The Green Party. Save the planet with bonus identify politics, all the free Palestine you could dream of and...legal weed.
Why anyone would vote Democrat or Republican is beyond me.

It is not particularly difficult to understand their reasoning and/or unreasoning:

First we have to save democracy by telling people they have no choice but to vote for our side no matter what, then once we win and voters have no leverage anymore we can worry about shifting things toward policies that the majority of the people support.
T. Ryan Gregory (X, Sep 2, 2024)

I think it's irony. T. Ryan Gregory is usually a pretty smart guy.

Ah yes, the old “vote for our ecocidal and genocidal platform because we might have a secret plan to be less ecocidal and genocidal” ….. except the ******* are actually in government committing ecocide and genocide: so hard to know (spoiler: it isn’t)
Valentenya the climate cat (X, Sep 2, 2024)

Whatever it is, it's fairly obvious that Democrats/liberals on this forum have given up on thinking about global warming because it's not in line with Harris-Walz campaign to do so.
Last summer, there were several pages of this thread. This summer, the thread was dead from June 21 to August 25.

And yes, I am aware that Stout would probably want Democrats to vote for the Green Party to split the vote. The Atheist wants to make it seem as if I would recommend voting for Trump.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

All technology starts out expensive and inefficient.

But unlike a lot of other technologies, CCS will remain expensive and inefficient for as long as it is active.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

But unlike a lot of other technologies, CCS will remain expensive and inefficient for as long as it is active.

how could we know?


or to be more precise:

what other technology will investing in CCS technology and research lead to that will do the same thing, but better and cheaper?

it is counterproductive to argue that we shouldn't invest in technology X because it won't work, or will be too expensive.
We should invest in ALL technology, because some is going to work spectacularly, but we won't yet know which.

We have the money and the people; we don't actually have to pick and chose.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

how could we know?


or to be more precise:

what other technology will investing in CCS technology and research lead to that will do the same thing, but better and cheaper?

it is counterproductive to argue that we shouldn't invest in technology X because it won't work, or will be too expensive.
We should invest in ALL technology, because some is going to work spectacularly, but we won't yet know which.

We have the money and the people; we don't actually have to pick and chose.

Technology designed to clean up pollution is going to need at least as much energy input as what caused the pollution in the first place. At best, CCS is only ever going to be useful after we've transitioned away from fossils to clean* up some of the samage done.

There was a recent Thunderfoot video doing the necessary calculations, as I'm at work I don't have time to run it down and link it.

*Yes, some and at best indications only a small percentage. All CCS methods developed so far are inefficient for capturing atmospheric carbon.

PS and yes we do have to choose, because CCS is a strategy pushed by fossil fuel producers and users as a magic panacaea to keep us from implementing alternative clean technological measures already in place.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Technology designed to clean up pollution is going to need at least as much energy input as what caused the pollution in the first place. .

That would only be true if you were trying to reverse the process exactly.
But there could be many ways to prevent pollution from reaching the atmosphere. There could be catalysts that make it cheap.
Or you could use the exhaust as an ingredient in something else: you can make concrete with it.


And no, we don't have to choose: we can just keep on making the fossil fuel industry pay until the problem they caused is gone: we don't have to accept the first solution they propose.

 

[Stout]

Whatever it is, it's fairly obvious that Democrats/liberals on this forum have given up on thinking about global warming because it's not in line with Harris-Walz campaign to do so.
Last summer, there were several pages of this thread. This summer, the thread was dead from June 21 to August 25.

And yes, I am aware that Stout would probably want Democrats to vote for the Green Party to split the vote. The Atheist wants to make it seem as if I would recommend voting for Trump.

So, what was stopping you from the typical natural disaster porn that a lot of other people do to keep the alarm bells ringing. Any flood/fire event will do. Not much happening in the way of climate change protests/action as the usual suspects are too busy with free free Palestine.

Remember the word your eco-hero Greta Thunberg used when she offered up her single solution to what John and Jane Q Public could do about climate change.

"Vote"

Now someone could vote for the party that's promising to deliver on climate issues or go for the other guys and simply hope they take the drastic steps needed to mitigate this issue. That someone could either "split the vote" if they wanted to be cynical or show their support if they wanted to be serious.

CoP 29 is coming up soon...fight!

 

[The Atheist]

how could we know?

You're looking at it all wrong, and it's part of why we should actually embrace global warming. It's sort of like religion in that you must either subscribe 100% to the doctrine or be damned.

Carbon capture tech will allow people to continue on their way, using fossil fuels and not giving up their toys. The only way forward is to take the extreme path of ceasing CO2 production as soon as possible, so CCS must be shunned.

Funnily enough, with all the slurs of Communism being thrown around today, the only political system that fits with that is Communism, hence my moniker for Green Parties as Greenmunists.

Those people know best, after all, so everyone else should just STFU and let them run every aspect of our lives.

it is counterproductive to argue that we shouldn't invest in technology X because it won't work, or will be too expensive.
We should invest in ALL technology, because some is going to work spectacularly, but we won't yet know which.

We have the money and the people; we don't actually have to pick and chose.

How many unsuccessful drug treatments are there for every successful one? How many small incremental changes to treatments for HIV have led us to the point where it is no longer a death sentence?

What you're saying is correct - there are already promising techs but they need more cash.

As above, that doesn't suit the Luddites.

 

[Stout]

Carbon capture tech will allow people to continue on their way, using fossil fuels and not giving up their toys. The only way forward is to take the extreme path of ceasing CO2 production as soon as possible, so CCS must be shunned.

It will if you close your eyes and cross your fingers. Current global CO2 emissions are in the neighbourhood of 40 billion tons/year with the world's largest atmospheric scrubber being capable of removing 36 thousand tons of CO2/year. You do the math.

Yep, over a million of these things in operation just to keep up with current emissions.

 

[The Atheist]

It will if you close your eyes and cross your fingers. Current global CO2 emissions are in the neighbourhood of 40 billion tons/year with the world's largest atmospheric scrubber being capable of removing 36 thousand tons of CO2/year. You do the math.

No need - I know what it is and you clearly missed the point I was making, which is simply that we should be exploring all options.

 

[dann]

how could we know?

or to be more precise:
what other technology will investing in CCS technology and research lead to that will do the same thing, but better and cheaper?

it is counterproductive to argue that we shouldn't invest in technology X because it won't work, or will be too expensive.
We should invest in ALL technology, because some is going to work spectacularly, but we won't yet know which.

We have the money and the people; we don't actually have to pick and chose.

Did you see the articles I linked to in post 1,674?

Exclusive: Over $12bn in subsidies awarded for technologies like carbon capture experts call ‘colossal waste of money’
How Exxon chases billions in US subsidies for a ‘climate solution’ that helps it drill more oil

A handful of wealthy polluting countries led by the US are spending billions of dollars of public money on unproven climate solutions technologies that risk further delaying the transition away from fossil fuels, new analysis suggests.

These governments have handed out almost $30bn in subsidies for carbon capture and fossil hydrogen over the past 40 years, with hundreds of billions potentially up for grabs through new incentives, according to a new report by Oil Change International (OCI), a non-profit tracking the cost of fossil fuels.

To date, the European Union (EU) plus just four countries – the US, Norway, Canada and the Netherlands – account for 95% of the public handouts on CCS and hydrogen.
The US has spent the most taxpayer money, some $12bn in direct subsidies, according to OCI, with fossil fuel giants like Exxon hoping to secure billions more in future years.

The industry-preferred solutions could play a limited role in curtailing global heating, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and are being increasingly pushed by wealthy nations at the annual UN climate summit.

But carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects consistently fail, overspend or underperform, according to previous studies. CCS – and blue hydrogen projects – rely on fossil fuels and can lead to a myriad of environmental harms including a rise in greenhouse gases and air pollution.
US leads wealthy countries spending billions of public money on unproven ‘climate solutions’ (TheGuardian, Aug 29, 2024)

It's not that 'we' don't have the money or the people. It's that the people who actually have the money want to invest a tiny fraction of it in technology that makes it appear as if they are doing something to combat global warming while continuing to extract and burn fossil fuels to make even more money and even more CO².

The CCS projects enable the fossil fuel industry to continue to make global warming worse, not better.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The CCS projects enable the fossil fuel industry to continue to make global warming worse, not better.

and you think that by stopping CCS you will be stopping the uninterrupted history of governments subsidizing and shielding the oil industry?

you need to pick a better battlefield - if not CCS, there would be some other fig leaf the Fossil Lobby would pull out to give Politicians their talking points: Trump still talks of "clean coal".

CCS is NOT the problem - and you are playing the Industry's game by attacking it and not the industry and its lobbyists and pet politicians.


If you think that that is a battle that can't be won through direct attack, then finding something else, something better is the best way to undermine them - son't waste time badmouthing it until you can present an alternative.

 

[dann]

Don't fall for the fossil fuel industry's gaslighting and distractions

No, I don't think "that stopping CCS" will stop "the uninterrupted history of governments subsidizing and shielding the oil industry," nor do the articles I've linked to promote that idea.
What they tell you is that CCS is a distraction. It helps the fossil fuel industry's image, and it's doubtful that it is meant to do more than that. What I said was that it "makes it appear as if they are doing something to combat global warming while continuing to extract and burn fossil fuels to make even more money and even more CO2."

So "CCS is NOT the problem," but it helps the fossil fuel industry's attempts to make it seem as if it is part of the solution. You seem to think so, too!
You continue, I am "playing the Industry's game by attacking it [CCS] and not the industry and its lobbyists and pet politicians," which is a very obvious strawman:
1) I do attack the fossil fuel industry, its lobbyists and pet politicians.
2) Among other things, I do so by attacking their various attempts to make it seem as if they are going green and are interested in fighting global warming whereas you play the industry's game by defending one of their misdirection projects, i.e. CCS technology.

You get me entirely wrong when you end with this:
"If you think that that is a battle that can't be won through direct attack, then finding something else, something better is the best way to undermine them - son't waste time badmouthing it until you can present an alternative."

The only way to win this battle is by means of direct attacks against the fossil fuel industry, its lobbyists, its pet politicians and its many attempts at misdirection. There is no real alternative to that.
Too many people, also in this thread, fall for those attempts at misdirection. You yourself have fallen for the idea that their CCS project offers some kind of hope. Others have fallen for the idea that the consumers are the bad guys - to some extent because they can't distinguish between the fossil fuel industry's astroturfing and don't understand how the apparent consensus is manufactured in capitalism. Others think that they themselves as consumers can force the industry to stop the extraction of fossil fuels.

The Troll Army of Big Oil (Climate Town on YouTube, Jan 30, 2023)

As the globe bakes under some of the longest, hottest heat waves in recorded history, reducing emissions to curb climate change is clearly an existential imperative. But climate change driven by human activity and the burning of fossil fuels has been in the news for more than 110 years. By the 1980’s, Congress was already seriously discussing the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So what happened? Since then, the fossil fuel industry has set out to reshape the narrative surrounding climate change, global warming, and the consequences of burning fossil fuels. It's a decades-long, multi-billion dollar campaign to influence our politics, gaslight people to question scientific consensus, and maintain our addiction to fossil fuels.
Big Oil’s decades-long gaslighting campaign (MSNBC on YouTube, July 23, 2023)

Oil companies are pouring billions into technologies to capture CO2 at fossil fuel plants or even suck it out of the air. They have made big promises — but where are the results?
Why carbon capture needs a reality check (DW Planet A on YouTube, Aug 30, 2024)

There are already very effective technological ways to avoid pumping more CO² into the atmosphere. That they aren't being implemented isn't because they aren't technologically feasible. They are!
As for CCS:

Occidental Petroleum, or Oxy for short, is one of several fossil fuel companies investing in direct air capture — and advertizing this.
"And this is where critics worry that it could be history repeating itself.
Huge emitters hiding behind technology that is still in the works instead of making significant efforts to cut emissions elsewhere."
(...)
"It's greenwashing at its finest!"
From the DW video

 

[dann]

We're America! We can do contradiction in terms!

Please tell me that this is a parody account!

On my watch, we’ve responsibly increased our oil production to meet our immediate needs – without delaying or deferring our transition to clean energy.
We’re America. We can do both.
President Biden (X, Aug 31, 2024)

(It's not made any better by the graphics!)

Because they put CCS on all that, right? … Right?
Nils Markusson (X, Sep 2, 2024)

Responsibly?! It's just adding a word that's meaningless in the context. Like Donald Trump's perfect phone calls to Ukraine or to Raffensperger.

If it's not a parody account, I'm with Jessica on this one:

I'm no climate scientist but I'm pretty sure you can't save the planet while destroying the planet.
Jessica Wildfire (X, Sep 4, 2024)

Why not. He ended the pandemic while infecting 1 million/day and most of the DNC.
Dan Jago (X, Sep 4, 2024)

almost literally gaslighting
Jon Jones (X, Sep 4, 2024)

"Yes, the planet got destroyed.
But for a beautiful moment in time
we created a lot of value for shareholders."
FundamentalLack (X, Sep 3, 2024)

 

[dann]

Another record

August 2024 – Surface air temperature and sea surface temperature highlights:

Global Temperatures
* August 2024 was the joint-warmest August globally (together with August 2023), with an average ERA5 surface air temperature of 16.82°C, 0.71°C above the 1991-2020 average for August. 
* August 2024 was 1.51°C above the pre-industrial level and is the 13th month in a 14-month period for which the global-average surface air temperature exceeded 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
* The global-average temperature for the past 12 months (September 2023 – August 2024) is the highest on record for any 12-month period, at 0.76°C above the 1991–2020 average and 1.64°C above the 1850–1900 pre-industrial average. These values are identical to those recorded for the previous two 12-month periods, ending in June and July 2024.
* The year-to-date (January–August 2024) global-average temperature anomaly is 0.70°C above the 1991-2020 average, which is the highest on record for this period and 0.23°C warmer than the same period in 2023. The average anomaly for the remaining months of this year would need to drop by at least 0.30°C for 2024 not to be warmer than 2023. This has never happened in the entire ERA5 dataset, making it increasingly likely that 2024 is going to be the warmest year on record.
(...)
Europe and other regions
* The average temperature for European land for August 2024 was 1.57°C above the 1991-2020 average for August, making the month the second warmest August on record for Europe after August 2022, which was 1.73°C above average.
* European temperatures were most above average over southern and eastern Europe, but below average over northwestern parts of Ireland and the United Kingdom, Iceland, the west coast of Portugal, and southern Norway.
*Outside Europe, temperatures were most above average over eastern Antarctica, Texas, Mexico, Canada, northeast Africa, Iran, China, Japan, and Australia.
* Temperatures were below average over far eastern Russia and Alaska, the eastern United States, parts of southern South America, Pakistan and the Sahel.
Copernicus: Summer 2024 – Hottest on record globally and for Europe (European Commission, Copernicus, Sep 6, 2024)

June-August 2024 were hottest ever recorded: EU monitor (TheAustralian, Sep 6, 2024)

 

[Myriad]

1) I do attack the fossil fuel industry, its lobbyists and pet politicians.
2) Among other things, I do so by attacking their various attempts to make it seem as if they are going green and are interested in fighting global warming whereas you play the industry's game by defending one of their misdirection projects, i.e. CCS technology.

The only way to win this battle is by means of direct attacks against the fossil fuel industry, its lobbyists, its pet politicians and its many attempts at misdirection. There is no real alternative to that.
Too many people, also in this thread, fall for those attempts at misdirection. You yourself have fallen for the idea that their CCS project offers some kind of hope. Others have fallen for the idea that the consumers are the bad guys - to some extent because they can't distinguish between the fossil fuel industry's astroturfing and don't understand how the apparent consensus is manufactured in capitalism. Others think that they themselves as consumers can force the industry to stop the extraction of fossil fuels.

After years of trying to figure out what you’re actually advising your readers here to do about climate change, and what effects you expect those actions to have, I might have stumbled upon the answer in Hegelian philosophy. It seems you’re proposing to confront the thesis of past and present fossil fuel emissions and fossil fuel industry complicity with the antithesis of rejecting fossil fuel industry propaganda, which will force a new synthesis to spring into being that will solve the problem.

Such distractions as technological innovation, conservation and other changes in consumer expectations and behavior, and political action within existing political systems, are irrelevant compared to the inexorable forces of the advance of history into the new truth of a new era, which can be brought about by enough people writing and posting about fossil fuel industry wrongdoings. Does that about sun it up?