"But Global Warming is a HOAX!!!"

[dann]

I have added the numbers to keep it short:

1) What is the real problem. (As noted above, you have done this. Cut and paste as needed.)
2) Where. Might not need that one since we are talking about a global problem.
3) Why current approaches don't address the problem.
4) When. Not sure what you should use there, but this is for you to decide.
5) How. This seems to be the sticking point with most reading your posts. If you think this requires a different political system than what is in place now, then say so.

1) Global warming caused by (primarily) the burning of fossil fuels.
2) Everywhere, but more in some places than in others. North America being one of those places.
3) Burning less fossil fuel adds to the current amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere - only a little less so, and on an individual basis it doesn't address the big polluters. Instead, it lets them continue to pollute.
4) Since the industrial revolution and only getting worse. Decades of people, many of them well-intentioned, saving energy by buying LED lamps, Teslas, recycling bottles, taking cold showers and bicycling didn't change that.
5) The vast majority of my specific references about how to do this have been to Denmark and (Western) Europe.

The people arguing with you are not stupid. I'm not stupid. Most are not going to pick through a series of posts that are a wall of text to pick out the parts that matter. Keep it short and to the point. Don't get bogged down in the details. At least not until you have made a concise argument.

I think the people arguing with me should do so based on my arguments, which requires that they read through the texts they argue against. If those people present several arguments. I attempt to answer as many of them as possible.
My arguments have been concise. That Myriad and varwoche pretend that I don't answer their questions is a diversion tactic. See varwoche's most recent post where he pretends that I have proposed a "utopian vision of a benevolent dictatorship" as the solution to global warming.
I know that Fox may present Denmark as a benevolent dictatorship, but ...

So a short question, to you, Doubt: What do you think of varwoche's post? It is very short, not a wall of text, so I expect you to read it all.

To me, it sounds like a utopian diversion technique:
'I have a dream, of a future where bold technological innovators have liberated mankind from the scourge of having to burn fossil fuels.'

 

[dann]

When trying to imagine solutions, it seems that a lot of people, e.g. dann, are hindered by binary thinking. If a particular measure doesn't fully solve the problem, screw it. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Saving energy, as recommended by the owners of the grid, particularly at times of peak load, doesn't stop CO₂ emissions. Switching to wind and solar does. As pointed out to varwoche again and again and again, with electricity based on wind and solar, I can ******* boil myself to death in the shower and be as frivolous with my consumption as I want to, I can have the air-conditioning running with open windows in July, and I can heat my flat with a whole arraignment of hairdryers in January, with the windows still open and without adding an iota of CO₂ to the atmosphere. And for the same reason, I don't have to get pissed off by my neighbor doing the same.

That doesn't mean I'm optimistic. Seeing as we don't live in dann's utopian vision of a benevolent dictatorship where a wise, compassionate ruler mandates a solution, we'll need bold technological breakthroughs to avoid catastrophe. In the meantime, we mitigate as best we can.

I don't think varwoche sees the irony of accusing me of having utopian visions while resorting to a pipe dream of "bold technological breakthroughs" as the way "to avoid catastrophe" - as if the perfect technological breakthroughs to avoid global warming didn't already exist and were already being implemented.
That they are lacking behind in this respect in countries dominated by the fossil fuel industry and its allies, the car manufacturers, has nothing to do with a lack of technological breakthroughs, however much they like to pretend that it does.

 

[Checkmite]

I'm honestly not sure what dann thinks the ultimate answer to mitigating climate change is.

Like, he IS completely correct that the most comprehensive solution - maybe even the only really effective one - would be for society to transition totally away from using fossil fuels for energy production...but at the same time he also strenuously, voluminously rejects voting for politicians with environmentally-friendly policies and messaging as a valid means for beginning that transition because according to him they'll just never do it in the end no matter what they say (because politicians, amirite?), and I'm not quite sure what he imagines WOULD catalyze that transition since voting doesn't work.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Saving energy, as recommended by the owners of the grid, particularly at times of peak load, doesn't stop CO₂ emissions. Switching to wind and solar does. As pointed out to varwoche again and again and again, with electricity based on wind and solar, I can ******* boil myself to death in the shower and be as frivolous with my consumption as I want to, I can have the air-conditioning running with open windows in July, and I can heat my flat with a whole arraignment of hairdryers in January, with the windows still open and without adding an iota of CO₂ to the atmosphere. And for the same reason, I don't have to get pissed off by my neighbor doing the same.




I don't think varwoche sees the irony of accusing me of having utopian visions while resorting to a pipe dream of "bold technological breakthroughs" as the way "to avoid catastrophe" - as if the perfect technological breakthroughs to avoid global warming didn't already exist and were already being implemented.
That they are lacking behind in this respect in countries dominated by the fossil fuel industry and its allies, the car manufacturers, has nothing to do with a lack of technological breakthroughs, however much they like to pretend that it does.

There are a few things you consistently ignore as well though.

Solar cells currently are expensive, fragile and made from chemicals that are limited in amounts and often currently fuel horrible civil wars in Africa. Making them, transport etc is definitely NOT CO₂ free at the moment so it takes a while for them to actually start reducing greenhouse gasses.
Not to mention that their peak output in most countries is when the least amount of energy is needed. I have them on my house and my peak energy consumption has a nice inverse connection to their peak energy production.
Wind turbines also do not magically appear from the ground, and cause a lot of different collateral damage to wildlife (especially birds) and if placed in the sea to sea life.

The seasonal aspect means you need something to store the energy till needed and batteries again are not magically environmentally neutral things that appear out of nowhere.

Wind and solar also take up a lot more space than conventional power generators.

Another problem that is occurring (at least in the Netherlands) is that as more people start installing solar cells on their houses the power network is becoming overloaded as it was never designed to take energy in two directions at irregular intervals, so the energy grid needs to be completely reworked and copper is a scarce resource as well.

All these things can be solved, but that will take time and a lot of investment, which politicians are loath to spend on something that won't benefit people right now. You might want that to be different, but it is the truth nonetheless.

So while that transition is taking place, I do try to do my bit by putting the heat a degree lower than I would normally do in the winter. Taking shorter showers. Installing a more energy efficient heating system. Etc.
Because when we all did that during Covid, it DID have an impact.
So yes, we should not stop pushing the large corporations to change, but imo neither should we discourage individual efforts, even if those are small.

 

[Doubt]

I have added the numbers to keep it short:

5) The vast majority of my specific references about how to do this have been to Denmark and (Western) Europe.

Interesting but not quite what anybody here wants to know. What is your proposed solution? Alternative sources, apparently. Good. How do you get there other than what is already happening? Outside of Denmark, even Texas is building wind farms.

Given that this is a global problem, focusing on Denmark is not actually addressing the scope. Although that is just as much an issue for those questioning you as it is for you. If you are only addressing Denmark and everybody else is looking at the global issues then everybody here is not even trying to discuss the same subject.

My arguments have been concise. That Myriad and varwoche pretend that I don't answer their questions is a diversion tactic. See varwoche's most recent post where he pretends that I have proposed a "utopian vision of a benevolent dictatorship" as the solution to global warming.
I know that Fox may present Denmark as a benevolent dictatorship, but ...

Maybe your arguments are, but the walls of text in the discussion does not make it easy to pick out of the responses.

So a short question, to you, Doubt: What do you think of varwoche's post? It is very short, not a wall of text, so I expect you to read it all.

As I stated above, I am now thinking you and everybody else are not quite on the same subject.

That said, outside of Denmark, alternatives might not get us where we need to be on a global problem. Way back in the early days of this board I did a fairly deep dive into energy consumption world wide comparing population density to total energy consumption. The results would not surprise anyone. Australia, for example, consumes more energy per person than say, Denmark. Given the size of Australia, it is a lot harder to get rid of things like internal combustion engines that it is in Europe.

This gets into issues of personal and industrial use, which for you might not be much of a factor given you live in a place with a relatively high population density. For those of us in places where the population is thinner, personal consumption does matter. It won't be easy to fix just on the production end. One of the reasons why is the internal combustion engine. They are easier to do away with in a place with high density. So your arguments about Denmark are good. But it is not so easy in say, Australia where the population density is a tiny fraction of Denmark's.

I think most of the issues you have with others here go away once you make it clear you are not addressing the subject as a global issue. But then again, why aren't you addressing it as a global issue since that is what the thread is about?

 

[gnome]

Sorry, I didn't notice this one till now:




Hmmm ...



That would be a no to the idea that the Paris Agreement helps move the world in the right direction, especially now when glaciers seem to melt at a much faster pace than predicted, so you will have to elaborate on what you mean when you talk about "international agreements like the Paris accords."

What I mean is that the best progress will not occur unilaterally, that it will be the result of committed cooperative action. Of the two major parties in the US, one has shown willingness to join in such cooperation, and one has consistently refused. I do not think they can be considered equal in this respect.

 

[newyorkguy]

I have a friend/colleague who lives in a Midwestern state. Last month he was supposed to host a Zoom meeting and make a presentation. About an hour before the scheduled start of the meeting a severe band of rainstorms swept through his area. Torrential rains, winds of 80-100 mph. He lost power and the meeting was cancelled. We rescheduled for this month.

I called him the other day to ask how he was doing. The rain storms swept through on a Friday evening. He'd been without power, he told me, until the following Tuesday. When it was restored the repair crews working in his neighborhood were from a utility located several states away working under a utility industry mutual aid plan. Since then, he told me, there have been a couple equally strong systems move through but luckily they missed his immediate neighborhood. He said he has lived there about ten years and never saw a summer like this one. That neighbors who lived there much longer say they never saw a summer like this one either. He said he expects things to only get worse.

I asked him, "Are you reusing your water bottles?" He replied, "What?!?" So I repeated my question: "Do you reuse your water bottles?"

He hung up on me!

(This is actually a true story. Well, except for the last part. )

 

[shemp]

Weather here has been nice for the last week or so. Therefore, global warming is a lie!

 

[Trebuchet]

Buildings have been destroyed by flooding on the Mendenhall River in Juneau, Alaska. This is due to a glacial outburst flood of waters held in the Suicide Basin, held back unsuccessfully by the Mendenhall Glacier.
Suicide Basin used to be the Suicide Glacier. But it can't be any more, because it's gotten too warm.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Like, he IS completely correct that the most comprehensive solution - maybe even the only really effective one - would be for society to transition totally away from using fossil fuels for energy production...but at the same time he also strenuously, voluminously rejects voting for politicians with environmentally-friendly policies and messaging as a valid means for beginning that transition because according to him they'll just never do it in the end no matter what they say (because politicians, amirite?), and I'm not quite sure what he imagines WOULD catalyze that transition since voting doesn't work.

Revolution!

Only a communist state has the power to tell people what they have to do when they don't want to. And any who refuse will be the first against the wall...

That's how seriously we have to treat this situation. Some people say such a cure would as bad as the disease. Others suggest it's not the only way (or even a viable way) to do it. Don't listen to them. Communism isn't that bad, really (I promise). What would you rather be - red, or dead?

 

[Myriad]

Revolution!

Only a communist state has the power to tell people what they have to do when they don't want to. And any who refuse will be the first against the wall...

That's how seriously we have to treat this situation. Some people say such a cure would as bad as the disease. Others suggest it's not the only way (or even a viable way) to do it. Don't listen to them. Communism isn't that bad, really (I promise). What would you rather be - red, or dead?

Yeah, I can see that. "Comrade, taking cold shower is subversive act to embarrass our wise and esteemed leader who provide ample sustainable hot water for all by pumping carbon into ground. To cure your bourgeois Western delusion, you will reuse same water bottle ten years in gulag."

 

[dann]

I'm honestly not sure what dann thinks the ultimate answer to mitigating climate change is.

Like, he IS completely correct that the most comprehensive solution - maybe even the only really effective one - would be for society to transition totally away from using fossil fuels for energy production...

So far so good. Now let's take a look at the other half of the post where the distortion of the facts and arguments I have presented gets into overdrive:

... but at the same time he also strenuously, voluminously rejects voting for politicians with environmentally-friendly policies and messaging as a valid means for beginning that transition because according to him they'll just never do it in the end no matter what they say (because politicians, amirite?), and I'm not quite sure what he imagines WOULD catalyze that transition since voting doesn't work.

No, my point isn't rejecting "voting for politicians with environmentally-friendly policies and messaging as a valid means for beginning that transition." The same distortion was made when Myriad played the dictator of logic: "logic dictates that if one candidate on a slate promises to take action on climate change, one can either vote for that candidate or not."

For some reason, nobody is interested in what happens to those promises once the "politicians with environmentally-friendly policies and messaging" are elected:

No, Biden didn't just ban fracking (CNN, Jan 27, 2021)
Update: Biden Promised a Ban – He’s Doing the Opposite (Food and Water Watch, Sep 15, 2021)
Biden Fracking Ban At A Standstill Amid Global Energy Crisis (Earth.org, May 8, 2022)
Joe Biden Broke His 2020 Pledge on Fracking. Good. (Washington Monthly, Mar 7, 2023)
But, but, but ...

Also: With climate change a top priority for Biden-Harris administration, here’s what that means for fracking (Boston University, Dec 9, 2020)

Once politicians with "environmentally-friendly policies and messaging" are in office, the messaging may continue in the form of symbolic gestures to make it appear as if "a valid means for beginning that transition" is in place, but the policies never really materialize because other things become much more important: For Obama, it was the alleged impossibility of doing two things, health care and global warming: for fracking Biden: see the logic in the examples above.

I could present more examples of how this works, but they are covered by my links to my posts in another thread about representative democracy.

Have you ever actually met representative democracy?!
It's the whole idea of representative democracy! It's in its nature!
It's the whole point of representative democracy. (Do you want another link?! OK, here's a very short one!)

My argument is not that voting doesn't work. Voting accomplishes what voting is supposed to accomplish, which isn't what you guys seem to think it is. What I argue is that voting doesn't work for voters in a system that allows candidates to lie (First Amendment guaranteed!) and sets them free to go back on each and every promise they made once they are in office.

I notice that nobody has attempted to seriously contradict this - in this or in the other thread. Instead, you repeat the distortion: 'He's telling us not to vote! Appalling!'
But, no, I'm not. I am telling you what happens when you vote.

Since this already borders on tl;dr, I'll end with a question:
What do you think is the difference between North America and Europe in this respect? (Not that Europe is doing enough. It isn't.)
This appears to reflect the European stance of fracking:

“Fracking wouldn’t be consistent with our net-zero objectives and we should be pursuing renewables rather than enabling a new fossil fuel industry,” Allen tells IE, stressing that using shale gas as “a bridge fuel” would only delay decarbonisation.
Europe’s energy crisis is reviving the fracking industry ()

(However: "On Thursday, Truss lifted the ban on shale gas fracking." And "Viktor Orbán’s (!!!) cabinet announced a package to ramp up domestic gas production and mitigate “the effects of the energy crisis caused by the prolonged war and Brussels’ misguided sanctions.”")

 

[dann]

Revolution!

Only a communist state has the power to tell people what they have to do when they don't want to. And any who refuse will be the first against the wall...

Yes, everywhere else people pay their taxes because they want to. The state just doesn't have to power to tell people that they have to, and it knows that the freedom-loving citizens would never let it have it. They can drive as fast as they want to, drunk if that's what they feel like - what's to stop them?! - and nobody is ever forced to join the army and go to war.
It is so fracking great to live in a country where the state doesn't have the power to tell people what they have to do if they don't want to.

That's how seriously we have to treat this situation. Some people say such a cure would as bad as the disease. Others suggest it's not the only way (or even a viable way) to do it. Don't listen to them. Communism isn't that bad, really (I promise). What would you rather be - red, or dead?

And that's how the communist state of Denmark managed to ruin the landscape with all those fracking windmills that spoil the romantic view of the ocean, lower property values and kill all the songbirds!

And Myriad hasn't yet recuperated from the shock of being told that energy production without CO₂ emission is not only possible but already a reality. He probably never will. 'It's just can't be real, can it? It's gotta be communist propaganda, hasn't it?'

Yeah, I can see that. "Comrade, taking cold shower is subversive act to embarrass our wise and esteemed leader who provide ample sustainable hot water for all by pumping carbon into ground. To cure your bourgeois Western delusion, you will reuse same water bottle ten years in gulag."

 

[dann]

Interesting but not quite what anybody here wants to know. What is your proposed solution? Alternative sources, apparently. Good. How do you get there other than what is already happening? Outside of Denmark, even Texas is building wind farms.

If reading texts weren't such a problem for you, you would have noticed my references to Texas. Your ignorance of what I've written requires that I write very long texts to explain things to you, which I refuse to do. Since you are only guessing at what my arguments have been, a discussion with you becomes rather pointless.

Given that this is a global problem, focusing on Denmark is not actually addressing the scope. Although that is just as much an issue for those questioning you as it is for you. If you are only addressing Denmark and everybody else is looking at the global issues then everybody here is not even trying to discuss the same subject.

You may not have noticed, but CO₂ emission spreads to the atmosphere. It doesn't stay above the country that emits it. My references to Denmark were as an example: The technology to produce CO₂-emission-free energy already exists. It doesn't require new bold technological innovations as some people seem to think. And there isn't a country on Earth where the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine - except at the sparsely populated areas north and south of the Arctic/Antarctic circles part of the year. And yet: RUNNING ON RENEWABLE ENERGIES (Antarctic Station)

Maybe your arguments are, but the walls of text in the discussion does not make it easy to pick out of the responses.

Your questions and comments based on what you haven't read are pretty annoying.

As I stated above, I am now thinking you and everybody else are not quite on the same subject.

That said, outside of Denmark, alternatives might not get us where we need to be on a global problem. Way back in the early days of this board I did a fairly deep dive into energy consumption world wide comparing population density to total energy consumption. The results would not surprise anyone. Australia, for example, consumes more energy per person than say, Denmark. Given the size of Australia, it is a lot harder to get rid of things like internal combustion engines that it is in Europe.

Yes, the per-capita consumption of energy in Australia is very high, even though the country has an awful lot of space for both solar panels and wind turbines. (Finding new spots in densely populated Denmark can be a problem. It wouldn't be in Australia.) You aren't very clear, but I assume that your reference to getting rid of internal combustion engines is your way of saying that Australia needs gas guzzlers more than densely populated countries, but I don't see why. If you have the electricity, a Prius or a Tesla will work just as well in Australia as everywhere else. If you are talking about electricity generators in outback regions, solar and wind could replace them.

This gets into issues of personal and industrial use, which for you might not be much of a factor given you live in a place with a relatively high population density. For those of us in places where the population is thinner, personal consumption does matter. It won't be easy to fix just on the production end. One of the reasons why is the internal combustion engine. They are easier to do away with in a place with high density. So your arguments about Denmark are good. But it is not so easy in say, Australia where the population density is a tiny fraction of Denmark's.

So far, you have presented nothing but claims about the special difficulties in sparsely populated areas like Australia, but you haven't argued the point. You need to write much more if you want people to understand what that point is. What makes it difficult to do away with fossil-fuel engines in low-population-density areas? Again: They have much more room for solar panels and windmills, and the vast majority of the population in Australia live, work and breathe in cities similar to those in the rest of the world. There is no reason why renewables wouldn't work as well there as in Denmark or other densely populated countries.

Windmills and solar are very practical in sparsely populated areas with no access to the grid. Off-grid/Hybrid (Viking Wind)

I think most of the issues you have with others here go away once you make it clear you are not addressing the subject as a global issue. But then again, why aren't you addressing it as a global issue since that is what the thread is about?

I am. And you think wrong. That's not the issue I have with others, and I don't think it's the one others have with me, i.e. the difference between global and local.
You need to elaborate on what makes Australia so special that it has to emit much more CO₂ per capita than the vast majority of other countries. It's up there with Canda and the USA: Per capita CO₂ emissions: AUS, CAN, USA, DEU, GBR, DNK, ISL, NOR, SWE, CHN, NZL (Our World in Data).

 

[Checkmite]

My argument is not that voting doesn't work. Voting accomplishes what voting is supposed to accomplish, which isn't what you guys seem to think it is. What I argue is that voting doesn't work for voters in a system that allows candidates to lie (First Amendment guaranteed!) and sets them free to go back on each and every promise they made once they are in office.

What you're saying is that in theory voting could work, but in practice it doesn't, because the people that are elected won't keep their promises.

So, again, since you think voting does not work as a practical matter of fact, what DO you think would work instead?

 

[dann]

What I mean is that the best progress will not occur unilaterally, that it will be the result of committed cooperative action. Of the two major parties in the US, one has shown willingness to join in such cooperation, and one has consistently refused. I do not think they can be considered equal in this respect.

I never claimed that they were equal in that respect. What you write is correct: One has consistently refused, at least in recent years. I am not sure, but I don't think the old Bush was quite as bad as Junior. Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency and signed the Clean Air Act.

And the other party may have "shown willingness to join in such cooperation," but chairman Gordon MadDonald (the JASON climate report) said that Carter had been "a disaster" (Parrot, Igloo, p. 127).
And another one from the same book, p. 280, this time about Clinton (with VP Al Gore!!!):

By the end of Clinton's first year, green lobbyists felt mussed - romanced for votes, abandoned at sunrise. "What started out like a love affair," the head of the National Wildlife Federation told Newsweek, had come to feel "like date rape."

Kinda what environmentalist are saying about Biden now, isn't it.
And nothing much was done about global warming during Clinton-Gore's two terms in office.

So what do you think happened to Biden's ... I don't know what to call it ... I'll go with virtue signaling? Was Putin enough of a distraction/justification to go back on the promise to do something about fracking?!

 

[dann]

What you're saying is that in theory voting could work, but in practice it doesn't, because the people that are elected won't keep their promises.

So, again, since you think voting does not work as a practical matter of fact, what DO you think would work instead?

No, voting does work "as a practical matter of fact." Voting in a representative democracy just doesn't 'work' in the sense that you are obviously thinking of. It works as a way to make sure that the citizens of a country agree to leave decision-making to elected representatives who are not bound by promises or any other obligations to the voters. It does so both in theory and in practice. People hand over power to these people who then owe them nothing in return. On the contrary, that power is now a commodity that the elected representatives can sell to the highest bidder. (More so in some countries than in others.) And the representatives are well aware of what they owe their donors - even without having signed a binding contract because that would be illegal.

I don't just think that voting doesn't 'work' in the sense of making elected representatives do something to accommodate people's wishes, give them what they need. That only works if they can persuade their voters to want books to be banned, CRT to be outlawed and abortion to be illegal.

I know it doesn't work to get universal health care, a proper minimum wage, free education, taxation of millionaires and billionaires or an end to global warming, i.e. things that would benefit the majority of the population, things a majority of the population actually want. You know that, too.

There are many other kinds of voting than the one in representative democracy. They usually aren't as explicit as representative democracy is about liberating the elected representatives from any and all obligations to their voters. Most of time, when you elect people, they don't really exercise any real power over you.

You may elect a union representative, for instance, or other kinds of spokespersons. There will usually be meetings where the people who elected them debate the demands that that their representative should make. They don't come with the explicit condition that, as soon as they are elected, they no longer have to listen to their voters or do what they tell them to do.
I think this is pretty unique for representative democracy. I can't think of any other circumstances where people would be willing to put up with that kind of arrangement.

 

[Samson]

No, voting does work "as a practical matter of fact." Voting in a representative democracy just doesn't 'work' in the sense that you are obviously thinking of. It works as a way to make sure that the citizens of a country agree to leave decision-making to elected representatives who are not bound by promises or any other obligations to the voters. It does so both in theory and in practice. People hand over power to these people who then owe them nothing in return. On the contrary, that power is now a commodity that the elected representatives can sell to the highest bidder. (More so in some countries than in others.) And the representatives are well aware of what they owe their donors - even without having signed a binding contract because that would be illegal.

I don't just think that voting doesn't 'work' in the sense of making elected representatives do something to accommodate people's wishes, give them what they need. That only works if they can persuade their voters to want books to be banned, CRT to be outlawed and abortion to be illegal.

I know it doesn't work to get universal health care, a proper minimum wage, free education, taxation of millionaires and billionaires or an end to global warming, i.e. things that would benefit the majority of the population, things a majority of the population actually want. You know that, too.

There are many other kinds of voting than the one in representative democracy. They usually aren't as explicit as representative democracy is about liberating the elected representatives from any and all obligations to their voters. Most of time, when you elect people, they don't really exercise any real power over you.

You may elect a union representative, for instance, or other kinds of spokespersons. There will usually be meetings where the people who elected them debate the demands that that their representative should make. They don't come with the explicit condition that, as soon as they are elected, they no longer have to listen to their voters or do what they tell them to do.
I think this is pretty unique for representative democracy. I can't think of any other circumstances where people would be willing to put up with that kind of arrangement.

I am totally impressed with that post, they may be old ideas, but I never heard them collated.

 

[dann]

There are a few things you consistently ignore as well though.

Solar cells currently are expensive, fragile and made from chemicals that are limited in amounts and often currently fuel horrible civil wars in Africa. Making them, transport etc is definitely NOT CO₂ free at the moment so it takes a while for them to actually start reducing greenhouse gasses.

That's an impressive list, and no, I don't ignore them! In a comparison with fossil fuels, I don't need to point out the more or less irrelevant things solar and wind have in common with fossil fuel:
I have no doubt that you have to pay for solar panels, but they seem to be worth buying. As for their alleged fragility, they seem to be able to stand alone in fields, unobserved and surrounded by grazing sheep, without suffering much damage. Making and transporting them is DEFINITELY free if the power to do so comes from wind and solar.
It doesn't seem to have occurred to you in this context that the making, transporting and building of fossil-fuel plants also isn't CO₂ free - unless, of course, it's being done using wind and solar power. The difference is that those plants will be used to burn fossil fuels and they will never, ever, start reducing greenhouse gasses.
On the contrary, they will add to them. That is the major difference!

Not to mention that their peak output in most countries is when the least amount of energy is needed. I have them on my house and my peak energy consumption has a nice inverse connection to their peak energy production.
Wind turbines also do not magically appear from the ground, and cause a lot of different collateral damage to wildlife (especially birds) and if placed in the sea to sea life.

If only wind turbines grew on trees like fossil-fuel power plants!
Let me add that electric cars kill birds, insects, turtles and porcupines. It all adds up!
The problem with peak energy production and consumption is well known. One of the ways to solve it, is to let solar produce hot water when the sun is out for use when it isn't. At my beach house, I used solar to drive ventilation to keep the house dry out of season.

The seasonal aspect means you need something to store the energy till needed and batteries again are not magically environmentally neutral things that appear out of nowhere.

All the environmentally neutral things only appear out of nowhere in fossil-fuel plants, which are good for the birds and the bees, and the tortoises and the little children.
(Batteries should obviously be manufactured and transported in a way that doesn't damage the environment - just like everything else.)

Wind and solar also take up a lot more space than conventional power generators.

They do, indeed! Nothing but problems with those damned wind turbines and solar panels. (Even a densely populated country like Denmark seems to get away with finding spots to put them. It's almost magical.)

Another problem that is occurring (at least in the Netherlands) is that as more people start installing solar cells on their houses the power network is becoming overloaded as it was never designed to take energy in two directions at irregular intervals, so the energy grid needs to be completely reworked and copper is a scarce resource as well.

Man, there's nothing but problems with those damn renewables. At this point, I wonder why anybody bothers. No, wait, it was something to do with global warming, if I remember correctly.
Yes, the power grid needs to be redesigned. I don't know how they overcome that problem in the Netherlands (maybe they don't?!), but in Denmark they redesign it. I haven't heard about copper being a major obstacle in that context, but maybe that's just me.

All these things can be solved, but that will take time and a lot of investment, which politicians are loath to spend on something that won't benefit people right now. You might want that to be different, but it is the truth nonetheless.

Yes, all those things can be solved and require investments, so they are being solved, investments have been and are being made, and those investments and solutions pay off and are benefitting people right now and will be benefitting them even more in the years to come.
You might want that to be different (do you?!), but it is the truth nonetheless.

So while that transition is taking place, I do try to do my bit by putting the heat a degree lower than I would normally do in the winter. Taking shorter showers. Installing a more energy efficient heating system. Etc.

Just to be absolutely sure that we are on the same page: The use of electricity only stops contributing to CO₂ emissions when it is produced by solar and wind instead of fossil fuels. Many people don't seem to have understood this.

Because when we all did that during Covid, it DID have an impact.

Is this a Dutch thing?! I didn't hear about anybody heating their houses less, taking shorter showers or installing more energy efficient heating systems during Covid. Why would they do that? (I mean, for reasons other than the usual pre-pandemic ones.)
That people burned a little less fossil fuel during the first two years of the pandemic was probably mainly due to three things: A drastic reduction of air travel, reduced traffic due to working -from-home recommendations, and the temporary lockdown of restaurants, movie theatres, schools etc. Some people may have resorted to bicycling to avoid public transport (I do), but that won't have had much of an impact. (And all in all, it still only made a small dent in the graphs of CO₂ emissions.)

So yes, we should not stop pushing the large corporations to change, but imo neither should we discourage individual efforts, even if those are small.

Now, you're talking - as long as you are in the clear about how little impact those individual efforts have on decreasing emissions.
I am not sure what you mean when you talk about "pushing the large corporations to change." I don't think the fossil-fuel industry can be persuaded or nudged to give up their business. For them to stop extracting and selling their product, they need to be rendered unprofitable. Making them pay for the damages they have done are still doing would be a way to gol

 

[dann]

I am totally impressed with that post, they may be old ideas, but I never heard them collated.

There are several articles at Ruthless Criticism, but they don't reference global warming, and they are probably tl;dr for most people.


ETA: Oh yes, I found one. It looks good, but I have only read the last paragraph:

The consumer – a useful idiot on behalf of imperialist energy policy

This imperialist goal – to establish a global crisis-proof energy basis for one’s own nation – is offered to the general public, but under an entirely different logo, and that is: We protect the climate! The perpetrator who stands there is certain, namely: all of us. And so that we mend our ways, the state and the free press are ready to help us with calculations of all kinds. This bears some amusing fruits. In the automobile sector, something like efficiency classes with refrigerators is introduced, so one learns that the small VW Polo actually produces less CO2 than the large BMW. One might think: a Polo is better to drive. But of course the premium segment of BMW should not be harmed, so one can then read up again on how much a 6-cylinder BMW of the 7-series consumes as opposed to a Chrysler luxury car – and in that sense the 7 is then, of course, optimal under the climate protection point of view. We now know, too, that a Mallorca flight produces 10 tons of CO2 per head, but a train ride from Bremen to Rostock only as much as 35 kg per head – so where do we go? No, not to Rostock, because the airline and tourism industry would then be hurt! One should, of course, continue to fly to Mallorca, and that can even be done with a clear conscience, if one does something like plant a tree – so one restores the CO2 balance! It is difficult to imagine that such a little box-tree can offset the CO2 emissions of a Mallorca-flight, but it also doesn’t have to be imagined, because the reversal of logic jumps forth: an environmental protection act is here intended as a license to pollute! Anyone who wants to fly to Mallorca plants a tree, and because the short-term memory of the consumer is well known to be short, the national site custodians and corporate executives rush to aid this memory: One increases the price of plane tickets with a CO2 charge so that one doesn’t have to plant the tree any more ... The following balance comes out of the bottom line: 1. the major airlines continue to fly to Mallorca and produce 10 tons of CO2 per head; 2. the same result has now become more expensive for consumers; 3. humans are offered a sale of indulgences for the guilty conscience that they are given by the journalists, and indeed for consequences the little guy doesn’t cause, but the state and capital. And thereby a dirty trick is added to the stupidity. But nothing else should be expected of national capitalistic sites that want to reconcile ecology with the economy.
Climate Change (RuthlessCriticism)

(It is translated from German, which explains why the examples are VW, BMW, Bremen, Rostock and Mallorca.)