• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Cont: Global warming discussion V

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 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.
 
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
 
Last edited:
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)
 
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)
 
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?
 
Last edited:
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!'
 
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!'


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."

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 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.
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.


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.


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:
 
It is amazing to see Myriad's idealization of U.S. energy policies as attempts to solve global warming…


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.


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:


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.


I wonder if it passed. Hm. Does carbon dioxide qualify?
 
Sometimes, in elections and in environmental crises, there’s no “correct” choice or solution, only trying to minimize the damage.
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.”
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.
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.
 
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."

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.
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


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.
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.
https://www.volts.wtf/p/whats-the-deal-with-burning-wood

pretty scammy all around.
 
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.
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
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.

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.

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...

'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.
 
Back
Top Bottom