• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Global warming discussion V

That was a very complicated strawman when it would have been so much easier to simply say:
'Yes, we are America, and we can indeed do both!'
 
dann said:
That was a very complicated strawman when it would have been so much easier to simply say:
'Yes, we are America, and we can indeed do both!'
Click to expand...


Odd, I said nothing about either curtailing or increasing fossil fuel extraction, nor America, nor Biden. But continue to deflect, I guess, from the fact that the only proposed solution to fossil fuel dependence and climate change that you haven’t routinely denigrated throughout this discussion is posting on the Internet about how bad the fossil fuel industry is. Oh, sorry, I meant “attacking” the oil industry. (Wanna see me attack Russia? Russia sucks! Eat your heart out Zelenskyy!)

But regarding Biden’s comment, in principle doing both would be not only advisable in the short term, but necessary. As I’ve explained before, a massive and effectively mandatory build-out of renewable energy infrastructure would be needed to gain ground on carbon emissions. But besides capital and labor, this would also require large amounts of energy drawn in the short term from existing energy supply streams—that is to say, mostly fossil fuels. To avoid economic or political upheavals that would likely ruin such a project, extraction rate increases would be necessary or at least prudent.

Of course that’s not what Biden is actually doing, or even has the power to do. Any increased production (if there was any) was for fueling everyone’s Labor Day holiday travel two months before a US Presidential election.Yippee!

One of the more pervasive and persistent of the bad habits of thought deriving directly and indirectly from Hegelian philosophy is the idiotic notion that “raising awareness” of a problem is a solution in itself, rather than a sometimes prerequisite for putting actual solutions into effect. This gets especially silly when 90% of everyone and 99% of people in power are already aware of the problem. It’s okay for a fire chief at a fire scene to stand around yelling “this fire should be put out!” when there’s also a company of firefighters there working with ladders and hoses actually trying to accomplish that. But if the whole company is out there raising awareness and nothing else, guess what? New truth wherein we live with the consequences of the unimpeded fire.
 
"We’re America. We can do both."

Myriad said:
One of the more pervasive and persistent of the bad habits of thought deriving directly and indirectly from Hegelian philosophy is the idiotic notion that “raising awareness” of a problem is a solution in itself, rather than a sometimes prerequisite for putting actual solutions into effect. This gets especially silly when 90% of everyone and 99% of people in power are already aware of the problem.
Click to expand...


It is amazing to see Myriad's idealization of U.S. energy policies as attempts to solve global warming while, for whatever reason, he struggles to combat "Hegelian philosophy" and its alleged notion that "raising awareness" is a solution in itself. He appears to be so fond of this strawman of his that he just can't let it go.

He probably hasn't noticed that when "99% of people in power are already aware of the problem" (I assume that he is talking about the problem of global warming, but it's hard to tell what he's going on about), ought to have been aware of the problem since at least the 1980s and yet still do their utmost to increase the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, then it probably isn't because they have misunderstood global warming, Hegel or any other philosophers, but because they don't give a **** about global warming as long as the extraction of fossil fuels remains lucrative for capitalists and politicians like themselves.

Meanwhile, during the Harris-Trump debate:
The young people of America care deeply about this issue, and I am proud that as vice president over the last 4 years, we have invested $1 trillion in a clean energy economy while we have also increased domestic gas production to historic levels.
Click to expand...
Yes, you have indeed!
Does Harris actually think that most young (and old) people aren't aware that the production and consumption of gas increases CO2 emission? Does she think that anybody other than the most naïve viewers of the debate think that gas is 'clean' energy? Does she think that informed people aren't onto the "$1 trillion" being insignificant window dressing?

The question was: "What would you do to fight climate change?"

While it's obvious to the liberal media that Trump Flat-Out Ignores Question About Fighting Climate Change (RollingStone, Sep 10, 2024), Harris gets away with this:
Harris slammed Trump for having called climate change a “hoax,” noting it’s “very real,” posing physical dangers to Americans, and costing them financially. She touted the Biden administration’s investments in renewable energy, as well as, on the other hand, record domestic gas production.
Click to expand...


If I have missed what Harris will do to fight climate change because it was said elsewhere, please let me know. According to Rolling Stone:
“She has been talking about the need to confront the climate crisis, to hold big oil accountable and touting her record as Attorney General,” Stevie O’Hanlon, a spokesperson for the Sunrise Movement, told NPR.
Click to expand...


What exactly does that entail? She has indeed been talking about it, but what is she going to do? How will she "confront the climate crisis"? What will she actually do to "hold big oil accountable"? Increase domestic gas production to new historic levels?
"What would you do to fight climate change?"
:mad:
 
dann said:
It is amazing to see Myriad's idealization of U.S. energy policies as attempts to solve global warming…
Click to expand...


I’d be amazed to see that too. Where can I find it?

…while, for whatever reason, he struggles to combat "Hegelian philosophy" and its alleged notion that "raising awareness" is a solution in itself. He appears to be so fond of this strawman of his that he just can't let it go.

He probably hasn't noticed that when "99% of people in power are already aware of the problem" (I assume that he is talking about the problem of global warming, but it's hard to tell what he's going on about), ought to have been aware of the problem since at least the 1980s and yet still do their utmost to increase the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, then it probably isn't because they have misunderstood global warming, Hegel or any other philosophers, but because they don't give a **** about global warming as long as the extraction of fossil fuels remains lucrative for capitalists and politicians like themselves.
Click to expand...


I never said any particular actions of any people in power are based on Hegelian philosophy. I said your arguments are. You’ve said nothing since then that changes that perception.

Meanwhile, during the Harris-Trump debate:

Yes, you have indeed!
Does Harris actually think that most young (and old) people aren't aware that the production and consumption of gas increases CO2 emission? Does she think that anybody other than the most naïve viewers of the debate think that gas is 'clean' energy? Does she think that informed people aren't onto the "$1 trillion" being insignificant window dressing?

The question was: "What would you do to fight climate change?"

While it's obvious to the liberal media that Trump Flat-Out Ignores Question About Fighting Climate Change (RollingStone, Sep 10, 2024), Harris gets away with this:

If I have missed what Harris will do to fight climate change because it was said elsewhere, please let me know. According to Rolling Stone:

What exactly does that entail? She has indeed been talking about it, but what is she going to do? How will she "confront the climate crisis"? What will she actually do to "hold big oil accountable"? Increase domestic gas production to new historic levels?
"What would you do to fight climate change?"
:mad:
Click to expand...


I’m not Harris. I’m not Trump. I have no influence over what either of them do or how they do it. Neither, I would wager, does anyone else who will read this. So apart from deciding which if either of them to vote for, which I can guarantee has no chance of affecting the outcome, they are no concern of mine. I assume until events prove otherwise that either of them will do little or nothing to fight climate change. Why waste time even talking about counterfactual what-ifs?

Sometimes, in elections and in environmental crises, there’s no “correct” choice or solution, only trying to minimize the damage.
 
Just a side note here. Republican Party environmentalism is just a little bit different from everyday environmetalism.


HA0872

SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 68, Chapter 201, Part 1, is amended by adding the following as a new section:

The intentional injection, release, or dispersion, by any means, of chemicals, chemical compounds, substances, or apparatus within the borders of this state into the atmosphere with the express purpose of affecting temperature, weather, or the intensity of the sunlight, which may threaten the Sasquatch and its natural habitat, is prohibited.

SECTION 2. This act takes effect July 1, 2024, the public welfare requiring it.
Click to expand...


I wonder if it passed. Hm. Does carbon dioxide qualify?
 
Myriad said:
Sometimes, in elections and in environmental crises, there’s no “correct” choice or solution, only trying to minimize the damage.
Click to expand...
Lesser of two evils.

Why Kamala Harris has embraced America’s oil boom
Tuesday’s presidential debate barely touched on the subject of climate change. But in the few minutes devoted to climate policy, Vice President Kamala Harris aimed at moderates by voicing full-throated support for domestic oil production...

In a state where natural gas helps power the economy, she pivoted from her 2019 call for a ban on fracking — extracting natural gas by creating cracks in the earth’s bedrock...

“I will not ban fracking,” she said. “I have not banned fracking as vice president of the United States. And, in fact, I was the tiebreaking vote on the Inflation Reduction Act, which opened new leases for fracking.”

...the success of Harris’s campaign rests in swing states including Pennsylvania, where some voters’ livelihoods depend on the fossil energy industry.

“It’s a shift in rhetoric, not in policy,” Gerrard said. “The climate advocacy community is solidly in Harris’s camp — they realize Trump would be a horror show. Harris has a greater need to attract voters from states like Pennsylvania that rely heavily on fracking, and those votes are far more likely to be swayed by this rhetoric than the votes of the environmental community.”
Click to expand...
The success of politicians rests on getting people to vote for them. As the article correctly points out, the 'environmental community' isn't going to withhold its votes for Kamala Harris when they know Trump would be so much worse. They also know that if she doesn't win the 'swing' states she will lose, like Hillary did. She can't do anything to help the environment if she loses.

On a technical note, Fracking may not be good for the environment, but natural gas is better than coal.

Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Since 1990, gross U.S. greenhouse gas emissions have decreased by just over 3%...

In 2020, there was a sharp decline in emissions largely due to the impacts of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on travel and other economic activity... In 2022, CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion increased by 8% relative to 2020 and 1% relative to 2021. CO2 emissions from natural gas consumption increased by 5% relative to 2021. CO2 emissions from coal consumption decreased by 6% from 2021....

Emissions from petroleum use increased by less than 1% in 2022.
Click to expand...
The increase in natural gas emissions was more than offset by reduction in coal emissions, while petroleum emissions barely increased. Fracking isn't good, but it's no worse than the alternatives.

Furthermore, natural gas plays much better with renewables than coal does.

How Natural Gas And Renewables Dethroned Coal In America
The period from 2000 to 2023 has seen a dramatic transformation in the U.S. energy landscape. Coal consumption declined by 13.0 quadrillion BTUs, while natural gas consumption increased by 13.4 quadrillion BTUs. Renewable consumption increased by 8.4 quadrillion BTUs over that period.

However, it should be noted that these comparisons are not apples-to-apples. When coal or natural gas are burned for power, most of the energy (60% to 70%) is lost in the conversion to electricity as heat. However, that is not the case for renewables...

On the other hand, renewable energy is not firm power. Natural gas can be used to completely replace a coal-fired power plant. Renewables are better suited to serve marginal demand in a decentralized fashion. As a result, renewables and natural gas have worked well together to cause the massive decline in coal consumption this century.
These trends are expected to continue as technological advancements, economic factors, and policy initiatives drive further efforts to reduce carbon emissions. The U.S. energy sector is poised for a future where renewables play a central role, supported by natural gas as a flexible and reliable energy source.
Click to expand...
 
Cyclone Gabrielle the 'new benchmark' for future storms in New Zealand
- A NIWA study shows climate change led to 10 percent more rain during Cyclone Gabrielle than would have in pre-global warming conditions.

- Nearly a quarter of the rain expected in a year fell on northeastern parts of the country in February 2023. [note: February is late summer in New Zealand, normally the hottest driest period in those areas]

- Researchers say further increases in global temperatures will lead to more extreme storm events...

NIWA's Dr Dáithí Stone said researchers collaborating with MetService, Bodeker Scientific, the University of Waikato and the Norwegian Meteorological Institute compared the MetService forecasts for the storm against conditions that preceded the current 1.1C rise in average global temperatures...

She said the atmosphere - warmed by human activity following the Industrial Revolution - held more water, which fuelled storm systems and increased wind speeds.

"Our findings resemble results from similar experiments looking at tropical cyclones elsewhere in the world, so it's not something specific to New Zealand."
Click to expand...

80 percent chance of another Cyclone Gabrielle in next 50 years, Treasury says
There is an 80 percent chance of another Cyclone Gabrielle-scale weather disaster happening in the next 50 years, at a cost of up to $14.5 billion, a Treasury report has warned...

That probability - from National Emergency Management Agency estimates - was even greater than an Alpine Fault earthquake (75 percent). The likelihood of a Wellington fault earthquake in the next 50 years - a long-feared event - was given at 5 percent...

While the scale of climate change's impacts were uncertain and would depend on the global emissions track, "the trend is clear", the report warned.

"Costs are likely to be pervasive across the economy and society, and the scale of fiscal costs could threaten our long-term fiscal sustainability."... modelling from 2021 suggested that larger and more frequent extreme weather events would create additional Crown costs equivalent to 0.54 percent of GDP by 2061, the report said.

That was less than fiscal pressures from health (3.7 percent of GDP) or superannuation (2.7 percent) over the same period but was likely to be an underestimate because it excluded the effects of sea level rise or temperature change.
Analysis by NIWA had already estimated that 30 centimetres of sea level rise - expected in the coming decades - would expose an extra 20,000 buildings, with a replacement cost of $6 billion, on top of the $12.5 billion replacement value of buildings that are already at risk.
Click to expand...
No doubt insurance companies are looking at this data and bumping their rates up in advance of the inevitable disasters to come. If only there was something we could do to prevent it...
 
UGwfAtEXKt0
Click to expand...


A video of destruction from Helene by a mechanic who usually does car maintenance videos. He says if theres any political or global warming rants he's going to delete the video. Fair enough. Except this is what happens each time there is a disaster like this. Global warming discussion is banned. So much for the free speech global warming deniers.
 
The scam the UK and Europe are playing with wood pellets...which produce 20% MORE c02 than coal makes all the penny ante stuff a rounding error.

UK closes last coal plant but I am suspicious they are burning wood pellets as carbon neutral and that's not correct.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-30/last-coal-fired-power-plant-in-uk-officially-closes/104378430
good read
snip
if I was going to play devil's advocate to my arguments that I'm proposing here, wood pellet, biomass, and biomass in general in the European Union is a full 60% of what they classify as renewable energy.
Click to expand...
snip
And then secondly, when it comes down to comparative emissions, published scientific studies have told us that burning biomass for power emits about 20% more carbon than coal. That is a very, very, very conservative number. And it's three times the amount produced by a natural gas plant per kilowatt of electricity.
Click to expand...
https://www.volts.wtf/p/whats-the-deal-with-burning-wood

pretty scammy all around.
 
The Atheist said:
Oh come on, how can you not get the humour in that?

We have people bleating about general citizens cycling to save 2 kg of CO2 a year and one bloke had just paid millions to create 200 tonnes of it.
Click to expand...
Cycling can save a lot more than 2 kg of CO2 a year, but yes - emissions from space flight is something that should concern us. Right now it's small enough to be ignored, but if Elon Musk gets his way...

However that doesn't mean a cynical attitude is warranted. All it does is play into the hands of the deniers.

The more serious we get about combating global warming, the more complex the situation becomes. Everything we do has an impact, and working out whether something will be a net positive is difficult. We also need take into account the opportunity costs of any actions we take, as well as their technical and political feasibility.

A friend of mine works in IT. In the old days most of her work was onsite, which involved frequent airplane trips around the country and even to Australia. Now it's mostly done remotely. They live on a rural property that is totally self-sufficient, with solar power and an EV for transport. Only problem is the wireless internet connection via Vodafone wasn't good, which made working remotely difficult. So they got Starlink. :)

Musk's satellites are helping people reduce their carbon footprints - but it is enough to offset the CO2 emitted from launching them? The US government is attempting to roll out high speed rural broadband via land-based systems, at a cost of $1.6 Trillion so far. The carbon footprint of this infrastructure is probably higher than using satellites, so those space flights could be a net positive relative to the alternative.

Satellites have other benefits too, from monitoring the climate to help formulate more effective mitigation techniques, to applying space-based interventions and developing spinoff technologies (SpaceX's experience with stainless steel helped Tesla design the Cybertruck, which is now the top-selling Electric truck in the US).

To beat global warming we are going to need a continual presence in space. In the future we will need to lower its carbon footprint, but not right now. So your cynical attitude towards space flights is off-base.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
To beat global warming we are going to need a continual presence in space. In the future we will need to lower its carbon footprint, but not right now. So your cynical attitude towards space flights is off-base.
Click to expand...

Idiotic strawman - I said nothing about space travel; my beef is with space tourism, which is why I used the example of a space tourist.
 
The Atheist said:
Idiotic strawman - I said nothing about space travel; my beef is with space tourism, which is why I used the example of a space tourist.
Click to expand...
Fail.

From your link:-
The Space Industry’s Climate Impact: Part 2

Spaceflight can be a filthy business.

Each rocket that leaves the ground for an orbital destination drags behind it a trail of greenhouse gasses and particles of soot and alumina, depositing material into each layer of the delicately balanced atmosphere. And every satellite that reenters Earth’s atmosphere leaves traces of metals behind as it burns up...

Meanwhile, the space industry is growing incredibly rapidly. The demand for launch is increasing. The greater utilization of LEO means that frequent launches will be required in perpetuity to replenish low-hanging constellations, and rapidly developing space technology means that more launches will be required to replace aging and outdated satellites—while all of those old satellites create their own impact on their way back down to Earth.
Click to expand...

Space tourism is defined as "human space travel for recreational purposes". The article says nothing about that, and you said nothing about it in your post.
 
More 'gold',

Intense downpours forecast for much of the North and South Islands
Rain up to 40mm an hour and severe thunderstorms are threatening large swathes of the country, with forecasters issuing a glut of warnings and watches from Northland and much of the North Island, down to heavy rain expected in the South.

Parts of the South Island could see up to two months' worth of rainfall in a single afternoon, NIWA says...

North Otago, Dunedin and Clutha residents should expect heavy rain possibly exceeding warning criteria for a whopping 33 hours from 3am Thursday, with a high chance the situation will be upgraded to warning level.
Click to expand...

All the roads closures in Dunedin as flooding batters the region
At least 22 roads have been forced to close, some highways are closed and buses have been cancelled due to flooding and slips battering Dunedin.

MetService said Dunedin had 85 millimetres of rain in the past 24 hours and a red heavy rain alert has been issued for North Otago, Dunedin and coastal Clutha until 9pm on Friday.

It said heavy rainfall was expected to continue until this afternoon, with Dunedin city being a particular area of concern.

A state of emergency has been declared in the city as residents were being urged to self-evacuate due to rising flood waters.

Another 70 to 100 millimetres is forecast to fall, meaning the region will have received more than two months worth of rain over three days...
Click to expand...

'Wettest day in over a century' - Otago braces for more downpours as floodwaters drive people from homes, block roads
Roads have closed due to flood, about 100 residents have had to evacuate, slips have caused chaos, some residents have lost power and all buses have been cancelled in Dunedin.

A red heavy rain warning originally set to go until 9pm on Friday has been extended to 11pm as the deluge continues.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom