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

Cont: Global warming discussion V

The Atheist said:
Maybe a case of Not Betteridge's Law.

Is global warming accelerating?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment...eat-has-them-on-edge-warming-may-be-worsening
Click to expand...
Don't worry, if it get's too bad Ghaia will fix the problem herself. Oil tankers, drilling rigs and refineries can only withstand so much 'weather'. If that's not enough then a few strategically placed earthquakes, heatwaves and cold snaps should do the trick. The only question is how long before we realize the 'disasters' aren't random?
 
Why were climate models so wrong about 2023? Neil deGrasse Tyson learns about why 2023 was hotter than we expected it to be and what effects need to be factored into future climate modeling with climatologist at NASA Goddard Institute, Gavin Schmidt.
How 2023 Broke Our Climate Models with Neil deGrasse Tyson & Gavin Schmidt (Star Talk on YouTube, Jan 23, 2024 - 16:38 min.)
Click to expand...
 
lobosrul5 said:
Are you saying the climate activists of the world are going to take over and send all the polluters to concentration camps?!?!
Click to expand...

Nah, I'm saying that the governments in North America and Europe will (continue to) demonise people fleeing regions of the world most badly affected by climate change, that the numbers of these people will be huge and the solution used by the governments will be concentration camps. Obviously they will not call them concentration camps!
 
Last edited:
Ivor the Engineer said:
Nah, I'm saying that the governments in North America and Europe will (continue to) demonise people fleeing regions of the world most badly affected by climate change, that the numbers of these people will be huge and the solution used by the governments will be concentration camps. Obviously they will not call them concentration camps!
Click to expand...

I believe that the normal euphemism is 'refugee camps'.

:)
 
Why humans are not going to be successful in tackling climate change / environmental degradation:

1) Everyone's contribution to the problem is "small"; there's always some other person or group to point the finger at.

2) The scale and rate of change necessary would put any country that took effective action at a huge economic disadvantage. It would have to be a whole world at once effort. As we're all bickering about historic and current injustices, the chances of cooperation on that scale is approximately zero.

3) The cost is huge. Whole industries would have to be transformed, vastly scaled back or eliminated entirely.

4) Loss aversion, particularly for those with political influence (i.e. the wealthy), who are probably gambling on their higher position in the tree saving them and their children.

5) Human want is more powerful than rationality. Got the latest phone/car/clothes/computer? What was wrong with the previous one(s) you had? Probably nothing or very little, but you either were persuaded by the marketing hype or forced to "upgrade" by planned obsolescence or the inability to repair it.
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
Why humans are not going to be successful in tackling climate change / environmental degradation:

1) Everyone's contribution to the problem is "small"; there's always some other person or group to point the finger at.

2) The scale and rate of change necessary would put any country that took effective action at a huge economic disadvantage. It would have to be a whole world at once effort. As we're all bickering about historic and current injustices, the chances of cooperation on that scale is approximately zero.

3) The cost is huge. Whole industries would have to be transformed, vastly scaled back or eliminated entirely.

4) Loss aversion, particularly for those with political influence (i.e. the wealthy), who are probably gambling on their higher position in the tree saving them and their children.

5) Human want is more powerful than rationality. Got the latest phone/car/clothes/computer? What was wrong with the previous one(s) you had? Probably nothing or very little, but you either were persuaded by the marketing hype or forced to "upgrade" by planned obsolescence or the inability to repair it.
Click to expand...

And yet the process of gaining international agreement, and initiating international action, is already happening.
I guess it's just easier to assume that everyone apart from you is lazy, stupid and greedy, and so you might as well just give up.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
And yet the process of gaining international agreement, and initiating international action, is already happening.
I guess it's just easier to assume that everyone apart from you is lazy, stupid and greedy, and so you might as well just give up.
Click to expand...

The last time the world met the wealthy countries gave a whopping $700 million to help those countries harmed by the effects of climate change. The estimate for the actual cost of those harms is ~$400 billion, so as long as climate change can stay on hold for 400-500 years were right on track! There were over 2400 lobbyists from the fossil fuel industry at COP28.

We don't appear to be reducing our energy consumption or degradation of the environment.

Nature is pointing a loaded gun at the head of humanity with its finger twitching on the trigger and there are people running fossil fuel power stations to "mine" bitcoins.

We are going to annihilate ourselves because we're just "clever" monkeys whose best idea for a measure of human flourishing is increasing GDP.
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
Why humans are not going to be successful in tackling climate change / environmental degradation:

1) Everyone's contribution to the problem is "small"; there's always some other person or group to point the finger at.
Click to expand...

This is true. It's always industry or governments' problem to deal with. Or some other country's problem. It's really just another form of climate denialism that too horrifying to think about let alone discuss so instead we focus on the bandaid-on-a-brain tumor solutions like planting a tree in our back yard.

I'm sure we're all aware of the conditions under which carbon emissions recently, temporarily, decreased.

2) The scale and rate of change necessary would put any country that took effective action at a huge economic disadvantage. It would have to be a whole world at once effort. As we're all bickering about historic and current injustices, the chances of cooperation on that scale is approximately zero.
Click to expand...

Also true. Not even these super progressive countries that elect young female leaders have come anywhere close enough to bring their emissions in line with any sort of climate justice model. New Zealand may have a per capita emission that's half that of the US however that's still nowhere near enough.

3) The cost is huge. Whole industries would have to be transformed, vastly scaled back or eliminated entirely.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. There seems to be a lot of wishful thinking out there that converting everything to wind and solar will/would be an easy fix. Sure, it's nice to sit back and dream of solar powered cruise ships but until those things become the norm the entire industry needs to go on hiatus.

5) Human want is more powerful than rationality. Got the latest phone/car/clothes/computer? What was wrong with the previous one(s) you had? Probably nothing or very little, but you either were persuaded by the marketing hype or forced to "upgrade" by planned obsolescence or the inability to repair it.
Click to expand...

True as well. I just ordered 500 pounds of plastic from China, just for the hell of it. Bought three new computers even though the other ones were working just fine and now I'm thinking that the TV might be a little small and the appliances need an upgrade.

2023 may have been the hottest year on record but 1024 just said..."hold my beer"
 
Cosmic Yak said:
And yet the process of gaining international agreement, and initiating international action, is already happening.
Click to expand...

What, that process famously described as Blah Blah Blah?

The total emissions cost for COP 28 appears to be top secret. Wonder why?
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
Nature is pointing a loaded gun at the head of humanity with its finger twitching on the trigger and there are people running fossil fuel power stations to "mine" bitcoins.
Click to expand...

In 2023, Bitcoin mining used 30% more electricity than the https://www.statista.com/statistics/323410/domestic-electricity-volumes-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/.

Stout said:
This is true. It's always industry or governments' problem to deal with.
Click to expand...

Quite right - just erect a quick SEP field and the problem goes away.

Well, thinking about it does, anyway.

Stout said:
Also true. Not even these super progressive countries that elect young female leaders have come anywhere close enough to bring their emissions in line with any sort of climate justice model. New Zealand may have a per capita emission that's half that of the US however that's still nowhere near enough.
Click to expand...

The few paltry measures Jacinda undertook have been reversed by the new government anyway.

Electric vehicles have gone from being subsidised to heavily taxed.

Also, NZ is a very bad example of green energy production. We're lucky that we have [almost] unlimited hydro power which was built because it's cheap, years before the climate became an issue.

Stout said:
2023 may have been the hottest year on record but 1024 just said..."hold my beer"
Click to expand...

It's started well, with Scotland setting a new all-time high temperature for the UK in January, a startling 19.6[/sup]o[/sup] C.
 
The Atheist said:
The few paltry measures Jacinda undertook...
Click to expand...
'Paltry'? Right. The clean car discount gave similar incentives to what other countries offer, only fairer. The government was also working successfully with industry to cut fossil fuel use ($650 million allocated in 2022 for 'decarbonizing' industry), and attempting to engage with the agricultural sector. That's far more than any previous government here did.

...have been reversed by the new government anyway.
Click to expand...
To be fair, they promised to do that and people voted for them anyway. The majority of Kiwis don't care about the environment, only themselves.

Electric vehicles have gone from being subsidised to heavily taxed.
Click to expand...
Electric vehicles weren't subsidized, low emission vehicles were - and high emission vehicles were penalized. This was agnostic to motive power. Of course the media then branded it the 'ute tax' because it's true, the average 'ute' in New Zealand is highly polluting.

In 2023 19% of new cars sold were EVs, up from 13.5% in 2022. With hybrids included the total proportion of 'clean' cars sold exceeded 50%. The Clean Card Discount scheme was working.

Also, NZ is a very bad example of green energy production. We're lucky that we have [almost] unlimited hydro power which was built because it's cheap, years before the climate became an issue.
Click to expand...
Hydro only accounted for 60% of electricity generation in 2023. It's not unlimited. In fact it is very limited because almost all of the viable hydro sites have already been taken, and it is expected to contribute less in the future (46-50% by 2035).

New Zealand now imports all of its petrol and diesel and doesn't produce any locally. Natural gas fields are in decline, and coal use is also declining. This makes now a good time to target these fuels for reductions. Unfortunately the current government's solution is to drill baby drill. And they weren't secretive about it. They are reversing direction on cutting emissions because we want that.
 
We've still got the incentives and tax breaks for low emission vehicles in place. They're working, I'm seeing lots of hybrids around however EVs come with a unique set of hurdles that are beginning to be addressed. 50% of the population rents, is a landlord going to be required to install a certain amount of charging stations? Nobody knows. Condo owners are being forced to do electrical system assessments on their buildings (over the next 3 years) so there's progress being made there but none of these measures are going to make any meaningful impact on the "climate emergency" so many politicians are quick to pronounce.

We've got the hydroelectric generation thing going on too but I just read an article saying that water levels are low and we've been buying power from elsewhere. Presumably some of it is wind but no doubt a significant percentage is gas fired. Better than coal for sure but it just goes to show that we prefer the abundant, constant electricity supply rather than having to deal with shotrages that are (probably) caused by climate change.

On the upside, it's the middle of winter and my thermostat is set to 19.5 C. The heat has come on for a total of four days so far due to the weather being so mild.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
'Paltry'? Right. The clean car discount gave similar incentives to what other countries offer, only fairer. The government was also working successfully with industry to cut fossil fuel use ($650 million allocated in 2022 for 'decarbonizing' industry), and attempting to engage with the agricultural sector. That's far more than any previous government here did.
Click to expand...

And still fell far short of what was needed to meet the Paris goal.

Roger Ramjets said:
Hydro only accounted for 60% of electricity generation in 2023. It's not unlimited. In fact it is very limited because almost all of the viable hydro sites have already been taken, and it is expected to contribute less in the future (46-50% by 2035).
Click to expand...

I sometime wonder if you actually are in NZ - there's no shortage of sites to have hydro projects, except for one tiny little problem: public opposition.

Whanganui river alone would support another two projects, Grey River already has one new one mooted, and you could easily add several to Waikato, but good luck getting Iwi to let that happen. The west coast of South Island is a prime site for more and they could even happen under National.

The reason we don't have more hydro is because oil was so cheap we built Marsden Pt at 1/10th the cost of new hydro. Good plan that!
 
The Atheist said:
I sometime wonder if you actually are in NZ - there's no shortage of sites to have hydro projects, except for one tiny little problem: public opposition.

Whanganui river alone would support another two projects, Grey River already has one new one mooted, and you could easily add several to Waikato, but good luck getting Iwi to let that happen.
Click to expand...
Dams affect the environment, and often not in a good way. Maori aren't the only people concerned about this.

How clean is the Waikato River?
The hydro dams along the upper river slow down water flow, which in turn affects its quality. Before the dams were built, it took six days for a drop of water to reach the sea from Lake Taupō. Now it takes a month. The increased time that water is held in dams allows the growth of free-floating algal cells (called phytoplankton), especially during the summer. Phytoplankton changes the colour and appearance of the water, making it greener and reducing clarity.

Between Lake Taupō and Lake Ohakuri (the first hydro dam on the River), the character of the river water changes dramatically – sediment, nutrient and mineral levels increase considerably.

Eight hydro dams are dotted along the 125 km middle reach of the River. Nuisance aquatic plants and phytoplankton growth occur because water is held in the hydro lakes.
Click to expand...

Until recently my brother was a conservation officer in DOC. He worked on some important conservation projects in the area such as Blue Ducks and Kiwis. He's no woke liberal or tree-hugging greenie, but he has intimate knowledge and understanding of the issues with dams. The Hawke's Bay Regional Council came up with a plan that would would flood a section of the Tukituki River river for irrigation storage. My brother was dead set against it. This wasn't a power dam but the issues were similar:-
There is also concern that the project will degrade the condition of the Tukituki River. The expansion of agriculture in the Canterbury region, also reliant on large irrigation schemes, has led to a significant deterioration in the water quality in the region. The risk of water quality degradation as a result of the Ruataniwha dam is particularly great because the modelling for the project assumes that 37% of the irrigated land will support dairy cows which are associated with high rates of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution...

The environmental harms from the project are certain. Dams generally reduce the flow of a river, and the occasional flushing of the river, where extra water is released from the dam to simulate floods, is unlikely to shift the gravels and scour the rocks of algae. This means that the river system will undergo ecological and morphological change...

Another sources of controversy for the Ruataniwha dam project was the proposal to deregister 22 hectares protected conservation estate and swap it for 170 hectares of nearby private farm land so that the deregistered conservation land could be flooded. Forest and Bird took the Minister of Conservation and the HBRIC to court arguing that the swap was not permissible under the Conservation Act 1987.
Click to expand...
Partly as a result of that legal challenge the Regional Council has abandoned the project.

I grew up on a farm that bordered the Tukitiki river. We drew drinking water from it, and spent many hours swimming and trout fishing in its clear waters. It would be a real shame to see the water quality deteriorate in the pursuit of profit.

BTW this is the same regional council that doubled the rates and moved the payment date forward by 6 months during the pandemic. People like me were stuck at home with no income worrying about how we would survive, then we received a shock bill with a due date only 2 weeks away. The stink from that was so great that they had to move the date back (and I paid it on the 2nd to last day).

The west coast of South Island is a prime site for more and they could even happen under National.
Click to expand...
The same National that killed the Lake Onslow pumped hydro scheme? Hard to believe they would support anything that required public funds (gotta save it for tax cuts!).

The Atheist said:
The reason we don't have more hydro is because oil was so cheap we built Marsden Pt at 1/10th the cost of new hydro. Good plan that!
Click to expand...
New Zealand currently has over 5,000 MW of hydro capacity. The proposed Grey River scheme would add 11.1 MW, an increase of 0.2%. To meet future requirements for renewable energy with hydro we would have to build hundreds of similar dams.
 
At a personal level what are you prepared to do or have already done?

Here are some ideas. If you haven't done them how do you justify your behaviour to yourself*? Perhaps writing down why you haven't made a change might highlight what you perceive the barrier(s) to be.

  • Eat less or no meat.
  • Learn to prepare food from ingredients.
  • Fly less.
  • Insulate your home better.
  • Buy less stuff, particularly tat.
  • Walk, cycle or use public transport more often rather than hopping in the car.

As an additional bonus, the above changes to behaviour will improve your wellbeing. Don't try to do them all at once!

*I don't care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom