Cont: Global warming discussion V

[Myriad]

A previous thread discussed what level of emission per individual is congruent with the world average, and what level and what types of consumption are consistent with such a level. The bottom line is that such a level is possible but challenging in European countries, and nearly impossible in the U.S. apart from certain "alternative" lifestyles (homeless; off the grid; multiple roommate urban household; religious orders). Ones household electricity and fuel usage is only a part of it. Food, consumer products, services, recreation, and taxes (i.e. the carbon your government and its contractors emits on your behalf for roads, schools, military etc.) are all significant elements, any of which can stress or exceed the strict "budget" required to stay under the threshold.

And that doesn't account for anyone's fair global share of existing property and infrastructure and the past emissions (that are still in the atmosphere) from manufacturing or building it all. Given the significance of past emissions, shouldn't owning a mansion be a factor in how someone's fair share of present emissions is assessed, even if the mansion wasn't originally built specifically for them and regardless of how they heat or cool it today? How about living in a place with fully developed paved roads and utilities? After all, many people who need solidly built homes and reliable infrastructure don't have them yet. Once some fair formula for that adjustment is developed and applied, I doubt many Europeans at all, let alone Americans, will still be under the global mean threshold.

And that challenging threshold isn't the level you have to meet to not be contributing to climate change. It's the level you have to meet to be contributing to climate change no more than the average present day human. To not be contributing at all requires much stricter curtailments still. Using some solar- and wind-generated electricity, weather permitting, doesn't get you there, or anywhere close.

Dann appears to have missed Stout's point, which is that austerity cannot solve climate change because no one will stand for it. Can't live without a bedroom window (never mind the billions who live with no bedroom), without a game console, without air conditioning (to be fair, that one's becoming literally true in many places), without a two-ton SUV, without vacations in the tropics, without a twenty room mansion, without an acre of solar panels and a gigawatt-hour of batteries devoted entirely to my own needs, without a private jet. I do agree with Stout, except that sometimes I find a few scattered individuals who are capable of understanding that when you can't save a system from itself, the next best thing is to minimize your dependency on that system.

 

[novaphile]

I don't believe that Dan has missed Stout's point.

I have all the creature comforts and only have 1.5 kilowatts of solar panels.

All of the things you list, can be addressed without loss of living standards.

Here's some examples that I have personally done:

1. Solar panels on the roof.
2. Solar thermal panels for the hot water system.
3. Insulated the ceilings.
4. Double glazed windows on the main rooms.
5. Plug-in hybrid vehicle.
6. External shutters on the windows.
7. Shading off the North wall (Southern hemisphere peeps would do this on the South wall)
8. Fruit and nuts in my own garden.
9. Chickens (eggs, weed control, soil enrichment).
10. Composting.
11. Inverter style room air-conditioners (heating and cooling).

Note that people building new homes can do far more than I've done, at much lower cost.

People who moan and cry about cold showers, no windows, dirt floors, etc. are just lying.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Dann appears to have missed Stout's point, which is that austerity cannot solve climate change because no one will stand for it. Can't live without a bedroom window (never mind the billions who live with no bedroom), without a game console, without air conditioning (to be fair, that one's becoming literally true in many places), without a two-ton SUV, without vacations in the tropics, without a twenty room mansion, without an acre of solar panels and a gigawatt-hour of batteries devoted entirely to my own needs, without a private jet. I do agree with Stout, except that sometimes I find a few scattered individuals who are capable of understanding that when you can't save a system from itself, the next best thing is to minimize your dependency on that system.

Myriad doth protest too much. His over-the-top universal claims of over-the-top generalizations are refuted by literally billions of counter-examples, of which this is but one.

• Although I have bedroom windows, they probably decrease my personal consumption of energy. During the summer, those windows are covered by drapes during the day but are open at night. The typical 40° F swing between night and day in my local climate allows the house to cool down so much at night that I rarely feel any need to run air conditioning. During the winter, the drapes are open during the day in the one bedroom that gets sunlight, and are closed at night to minimize heat loss. By the way, my heat pump does not kick in unless the inside temperature drops below 65° F. I confess that the reason that seldom happens is that, during the winter, I use an electric space heater to make whatever room I happen to be in more comfortable.
• I have never owned a game console.
• My air conditioning runs when the temperature inside my house exceeds 78° F, which rarely happens for reasons explained above.
• I have never owned an SUV or a two-ton vehicle of any description.
• I have never vacationed in the tropics.
• I have never owned or lived within a 20-room mansion.
• I do not have an acre of solar panels, never have, never will.
• I do not have a gigawatt-hour of solar batteries devoted to my own needs.
• I do not have a private jet.

I suspect Myriad is putting us on, knowing full well that extraordinarily few humans would be unable to live without all nine of the things he believes to be essential.

ETA: After posting the above, I discovered that my state derives over 60% of its electrical energy from renewable sources: hydro, wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, and biomass.

 

[dann]

I do agree with Stout, except that sometimes I find a few scattered individuals who are capable of understanding that when you can't save a system from itself, the next best thing is to minimize your dependency on that system.

I would never try to 'save the system from itself'. The 'system' is the problem. It shouldn't be saved. It should be confronted.
And the allegedly 'next best thing' is useless. Trying to 'minimize your dependency on the system' doesn't affect the system at all. It does nothing to minimize CO₂ emissions, i.e. it does nothing to stop the destruction of the planet we live and thus depend on.
Attempts to 'minimize your dependency' on that are in vain.
What Myriad and others are actually doing is an attempt to convince themselves and others that it's possible to do so and that it's what they're actually doing: minimizing their dependency on the 'system'.
They aren't. They're just letting the ongoing CO₂ emissions continue in a way that makes them feel good about themselves because they don't want to do anything against the way things are currently going.
It's much like the attitude of draft resisters or conscientious objectors who do nothing to stop the war but like the idea that at least they've managed to minimize their own participation in it. Until the bullet hits them.
A draft resister is not a war resister. It takes more than resisting the draft.
And a 'dependency minimizer' is not a 'global warming resister'. It's a wanna-be system saver who has already given up on saving anything and instead tells himself that at least he doesn't do it ... much ... and definitely less so than many others.
Just look at my neighbor who doesn't even push his own lawnmower and yet takes hot showers when he's finished mowing the lawn!
Somehow, that way of thinking is much more satisfying than trying to overcome the system that celebrates occasions like this.

 

[Myriad]

I would never try to 'save the system from itself'. The 'system' is the problem.

Fine, we agree on that.

It shouldn't be saved. It should be confronted.

More use of passive voice to conceal a complete lack of any prescriptive action.

The only meaningful way to confront the system is with sabotage or violence, and I don't condone that.

The most objectionable aspects of the system, however, are those that actively encourage wasteful consumption by psychological manipulation in the interest of someone's profit. Not participating in the consumption and thus not enriching the purveyors is the closest to confrontation possible short of criminal acts, though I acknowledge it's rare enough to have no large-scale effect. (The manipulation is very effective. "Some young adults are saving resources and using housing space efficiently by living in their parents' homes which was once a very common arrangement. Quick, before rents start dropping, portray them as pathetic slackers!")

And the allegedly 'next best thing' is useless. Trying to 'minimize your dependency on the system' doesn't affect the system at all. It does nothing to minimize CO₂ emissions, i.e. it does nothing to stop the destruction of the planet we live and thus depend on.

The planet is not threatened with destruction. It's survived far more extreme changes in the past. Same for the biosphere. What's threatened is present human infrastructure, social structures, and activities, which constitute the system. Which you've agreed shouldn't be saved.

What Myriad and others are actually doing is an attempt to convince themselves and others that it's possible to do so and that it's what they're actually doing: minimizing their dependency on the 'system'.
They aren't. They're just letting the ongoing CO₂ emissions continue in a way that makes them feel good about themselves because they don't want to do anything against the way things are currently going.

I have limited my own CO₂ emissions quite effectively, the very act you've made every effort to denigrate. Do you want me to limit someone else's CO₂ emissions? If so, please state exactly how. Please use active voice, verbs that represent actual actions a person can recognizably do, and actual direct objects that have clear existence and identities. Note how "the system should be confronted" fails on all three of those qualifications.

It's much like the attitude of draft resisters or conscientious objectors who do nothing to stop the war but like the idea that at least they've managed to minimize their own participation in it. Until the bullet hits them.
A draft resister is not a war resister. It takes more than resisting the draft.
And a 'dependency minimizer' is not a 'global warming resister'. It's a wanna-be system saver who has already given up on saving anything and instead tells himself that at least he doesn't do it ... much ... and definitely less so than many others.
Just look at my neighbor who doesn't even push his own lawnmower and yet takes hot showers when he's finished mowing the lawn!
Somehow, that way of thinking is much more satisfying than trying to overcome the system that celebrates occasions like this.

"Overcome the system," that's an improvement, active voice! But it fails the other two requirements. The subject is me; fill in verb and direct object. Do what to what, specifically? You never answer this, which has thoroughly convinced me that you cannot. You express wishes for certain things you want to happen, but I"m not a magic wishing star. I can only act via cause and effect. For example you've advised me to sequester carbon, but when I asked where I should get the carbon and how I should sequester it you had no constructive suggestions. You say you want to confront the system, but you defend it with vagueness.

 

[Stout]

Here's the problem

Most people, the vast majority of people, love the system, LOVE it. They love oil and all the benefits it brings and couldn't imagine life without it. Just look at how much hate Just Stop Oil got when they tried to confront the system. Hate from John and Jane Q. Public, not some agents of the fossil fuel industry when they brought the public's life to a standstill.

Oh yes, the everybody drop tools and instantly electrify everything because unless we do we're going to hit 1.5C and the planet is going to catch fire. Ain't going to happen. Electric wakeboard boats $300K

Canadians downgrade climate as a priority, economy bigger worry: poll…

archived 11 Jul 2025 10:11:56 UTC

archive.ph

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Climate breakdown tripled death toll in Europe’s June heatwave, study finds

Heat caused 2,300 deaths across 12 cities, of which 1,500 were down to climate crisis, scientists say

www.theguardian.com

 

[Stout]

Climate breakdown tripled death toll in Europe’s June heatwave, study finds

Heat caused 2,300 deaths across 12 cities, of which 1,500 were down to climate crisis, scientists say

www.theguardian.com

What? Did these researchers also compare quality of life and population to "that of a hypothetical world in which humans had not heated the planet by burning fossil fuels or destroying nature." It's not hypothetical, it's the 17th century. Sheesh.

So what's this I'm reading about electricity rationing in The Netherlands?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Here's the problem

Most people, the vast majority of people, love the system, LOVE it. They love oil and all the benefits it brings and couldn't imagine life without it.

True. But that's because they don't know what they like, they like what they know.

Today I got extra insulation installed in my ceiling. Some outfit called me a while ago and I said no, not interested - I already have insulation thanks. Then a pipe fitting started leaking in the ceiling. I was crawling around in there trying to fix it and got wool insulation in my lungs. It was horrible. That's when I realized I didn't love what I had. The new insulation is a polyester mat which is thicker and works much better - and doesn't get in your lungs. Turns out I qualify for a government grant that pays 90% of the cost. It was a no-brainer!

We often miss out on good stuff because we are too afraid of change. Remember all the howls about LED lighting? Well I changed over many years ago, when LED bubs were much more expensive than today. Why? Because I was sick of turning on a light and it going 'pop' - I even had nightmares about it. LEDs also provide more natural light at much lower power so they don't burn out the fittings and you can leave them on without worrying about the electricity bill. But many people bucked them because they were different. Why are we so afraid to try new things?

Just look at how much hate Just Stop Oil got when they tried to confront the system. Hate from John and Jane Q. Public, not some agents of the fossil fuel industry when they brought the public's life to a standstill.

Naivety. Yes, 'just stop oil' is what we need to do. But you won't get anywhere telling people to 'just stop' their normal routine. Oil needs to be replaced with something else that makes it unnecessary. That could be another form of energy, or doing things differently, or both. It could be showing people that alternatives exist, making those alterrnatives better and helping people use them - all positive actions that will get a much better response than just insisting we must stop what we are doing.

Oh yes, the everybody drop tools and instantly electrify everything because unless we do we're going to hit 1.5C and the planet is going to catch fire. Ain't going to happen. Electric wakeboard boats $300K

All at once? No. But as technology improves we can go more and more electric, to the point where the bit we can't don't matter. Problem is if we don't start the technology doesn't improve because there's no demand for it. That's why governments around the world are incentivizing people to make the change. But of course there is oppostion to that. People naturally don't want to change and will reflexively buck it unless there's a carrort along with the stick. Successfully combating global warming means applying not just science and technology, but also psychology.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

What? Did these researchers also compare quality of life and population to "that of a hypothetical world in which humans had not heated the planet by burning fossil fuels or destroying nature." It's not hypothetical, it's the 17th century. Sheesh.

No, it isn't. By the 17th century humans had being destroying nature on a large scale to the point where parts of Europe had lost most of their forests in an unsustainable demand for wood and arable land. The price of firewood skyrocketed. England solved the crisis by turning to coal, with immediate consquences.

The only reason this didn't noticably heat the planet was the low global population. But even if lifestyles didn't change, the effect would. Western populations were inexorably growing, and with it the destruction of forests and increased coal consumption. In London the pollution got so bad that people were literally dying from it. Extending that situation to the entire globe would be catastrophic, but it's what you are proposing as a hypothetical, which certainly was not the 17th century. They were burning fossil fuels and destroying nature as fast as they could.

So what's this I'm reading about electricity rationing in The Netherlands?

I presume you are talking about rationing of new connections to the grid? Increased electricty use requires increased grid capacity. Problem is TenneT, the govement owned copration that runs Dutch electricity grid, had been relying too much on natual gas to provide much of the country's energy needs, and didn't build out enough extra grid capacity for the future. Then the Ukraine war happened. Finally in 2024 the Groningen gas field was permanently closed due to gas extraction causing earthquakes that 'caused extensive damage to buildings over the years'.

However on the plus side more than 2.6 million Dutch homes now have rooftop solar, most with battery storage. The government is encouraging this trend as it takes pressure off the grid and imroves resiliance. EVs could be a big help here too, provided they have vehicle to home capability.

The way to make progress is to work through the inevitable problems that occur, not throw your hands up in horror and scream 'it's not working!'

 

[The Great Zaganza]

the reason for the delay in Global Warming is the huge Heat Sinks of the Ocean and Glaciers - they are full, so now heating will accelerate.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

https://www.npr.org/2025/07/08/nx-s1-5448805/pakistan-becoming-one-of-the-worlds-biggest-markets-for-solar-power

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

The problem is the economic system we have now only, ahem, 'works' when there is GDP growth. Any human intervention that prevents or reverses GDP growth will be strongly resisted, even if that intervention is necessary to prevent economic collapse in the future.

Listen to the news for a week and record how many times you hear something about the need for economic growth mentioned. We're hopelessly addicted and are going to kill ourselves.

 

[dann]

Acyn on X, July 27, 2025
Trump: And the other thing I say to Europe: we will not allow a windmill to be built in the United States. They're killing us. They're killing the beauty of our scenery. Our beautiful plains. I’m not talking about airplanes… they won’t let you bury the propellers.
[with a video, 1 min.]

Chidi on X, July 27, 2025
Europeans watching this will be wondering if education is illegal in the United States.

jthomasmadden on X, July 27, 2025
While education is not illegal in the U.S.A., it is strongly disfavored by a large segment of the populace.

 

[dann]

In no particular order:

Read Starting Somewhere on X, July 28, 2025
Refusing to fund public transportation is one of the single most devious ways this country makes life more expensive and forces us to funnel our money to corporations.

Read Starting Somewhere on X, July 28, 2025
Reading about the big 3 car companies lobbying to destroy street cars back in the day, and so much intentional defunding or withholding funds from transit since, is radicalizing.

RoseLikesFootball on X, July 28, 2025
Car-dependency enforced through infrastructure was a trap lobbied for by oil & auto corporations. Now just in order to safely and efficiently leave one’s house in most of the country, one must pay these corporations most of their paycheck. It’s indentured servitude.

Nick Kinney on X, July 29, 2025
Mass urban transit is too expensive, they said.
National high-speed rail is too expensive, they said.
Your car payment will be about $750, they said.
BTW, we need to add a lane to the highways, they said. It’ll be expensive, they said. But there are all these cars, they said…

Skyward on X, July 29, 2025
Home defaults at a record high.
Car repossessions at a record high.
Credit card debt at a record high.
Jobs market is awful.
Everything is expensive.
Government is set against us.
Might be time.

@Zelda_KT on X, July 28, 2025
Ya, almost as if capitalism is unsustainable in an enclosed system where prices only go up and wages have to stay low to keep corporate profits rising.

How The Auto Industry Carjacked The American Dream (Climate Town on YouTube, April 8, 2021 - 18:57 min.)

 

[dann]

How America Got Hooked On Cars (CNBC on YouTube, Feb 11, 2025 - 15:40 min.)
Americans drive much more than in any other country – twice as much as the average German, for example. And the actual experience of driving isn’t quite as romantic as the image. Drivers are often stuck in traffic. Cars pump out pollution. Less walking means less exercise. Cars also can kill people. Some skeptics say, indeed–cars are awesome. But they got a lot of help from favorable policies and strong lobbies. CNBC spoke with some researchers and looked at numbers to get the full picture of why Americans became so dependent on cars.
Chapters:
0:00 - 01:37 Introduction
01:41 Chapter 1: A nation hooked on cars
03:47 Chapter 2: How we got here
08:00 Chapter 3: Cars are subsidized 11:32 Chapter 4: Solutions

 

[arthwollipot]

 

[dann]

Climate Scientists Look to Fight Back Against DOE’s ‘Antiscientific,’ ‘Deceptive’ Climate Report (InsideClimateNews, July 30, 2025)
Several top scientists are weighing how to respond to a new climate report issued by the Trump administration that they are calling "deceptive," "cherry-picked," and "anti-scientific."
The U.S. Department of Energy released a 150-page report Tuesday titled "A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate," which argues that human-caused climate change "appears to be less damaging economically than commonly believed," and "aggressive mitigation strategies could be more harmful than beneficial."
That flies in the face of most published scientific research on the topic ...

 

[dann]

Bilsalget steg i juli - elbilen er stadig i front (DR.dk, Aug 1, 2025)
20% more cars sold in Denmark in July 2025 than in the same month in 2024. In total, 13,811 new cars.
67.2% were EVs. In July 2024, it was only 51.5.

And yet, Tesla disappeared from the Top-10 list of most sold cars.
In July 2024, Tesla sold 706 cars in Denmark. This year, it was only 336.
Tesla er igen trillet ud af liste over danskeres foretrukne (DR.dk, Aug 1, 2025)

 

[dann]

BREAKING NEWS: Danish renewable-energy company needs $9.4 billion:

'Aldrig nogensinde før har et dansk selskab bedt sine aktionærer om at komme med så mange penge' (DR.dk, Aug 11, 2025)
Kapitalforhøjelsen skyldes problemer i USA, hvor den amerikanske præsident, Donald Trump, harcelerer over havvind.
Det betyder konkret, at Ørsted ikke kan sælge en andel i det store Sunrise Wind-projekt, som skal sikre bæredygtig energi til 630.000 hjem i New York.
Derfor skal den danske energigant finde pengene andre steder.

'This is the first time ever that a Danish company has asked its stockholders to come up with so much money'
The capital increase is due to problems in the United States where U.S. President Donald Trump is complaining about offshore wind.
In concrete terms, this means that Ørsted cannot sell a share in the large Sunrise Wind project, which will ensure sustainable energy for 630,000 homes in New York.
So the Danish energy giant must find the money elsewhere.

Denmark's Orsted seeks $9.4 billion as US wind market falters (Reuters, Aug 11, 2025)
Wind generator Ørsted’s shares sink as it makes $9bn cash call (Guardian, Aug 11, 2025)
Orsted made a bet on U.S. wind business. It failed and now it's turning to Denmark for help (MorningStar, Aug 11, 2025)

So I guess it will be 'clean coal' for New York from now on.