Cont: Global warming discussion V

[Roger Ramjets]

A carbon tax is still an incentive, in that it is a disincentive to go for fossil fuels, which equates to an incentive to opt for the alternative.

The alternative being not burning fossil fuels (so not an incentive to do anything).

How someone achieves that is up to them. Or they can keep doing it and pay the tax. If the tax is set at the correct level then the money collected should be enough to reverse the harm caused. For example, it could fund carbon capture from the atmosphere. This may be insanely expensive, but that's the price you should pay to reverse the damage you are doing.

I don't know that much about road user charges in NZ, but ULEZ schemes in the UK target older, more polluting cars: EVs are exempt from charges in those zones.

RUC in NZ is used for one purpose only - to fund road maintenance and construction. That's why the charge is is per km, why it's higher for heavy trucks, and why off-road vehicles are not included.

 

[arthwollipot]

You said that, even if everyone adopts austerity, the difference will be tiny. The effect for one person, then, will be a tiny part of a tiny effect- i.e. the actions of one person make no effective difference.
Maybe I've got you wrong- perhaps you could clarify.

"A small number is not zero" is pretty clear already, in my opinion.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

But that's the thing. Not only does everyone have to contribute (which as Roger points out is a problem), even if everyone does, the measurable difference will be tiny compared to the big industrial polluters. Not nothing, sure, but tiny.

"A small number is not zero" is pretty clear already, in my opinion.

We all know what you meant - that the difference will be so small that it might as well be nothing.

I hate to say it, but this is just another Global Warming denial tactic. And people will continue doing it until Mother Nature rubs their noses in it.

Unfortunately some of us already got our noses rubbed in it. Today I went to Awatoto where the local model aeroplane club was having their annual open day. It took almost 12 months to get the flying field back into service after Cyclone Gabrielle. One of the pilots told me that he is moving to the Czech Republic because it's too expensive to live here. This year his insurance bill (house/contents/car) was NZ$15,000. The pension is NZ$25,792 per year.

 

[The Atheist]

It took almost 12 months to get the flying field back into service after Cyclone Gabrielle.

We've always had cyclones, and Gabrielle did far less damage than Bola, all the way back in the '80s.

One of the pilots told me that he is moving to the Czech Republic because it's too expensive to live here. This year his insurance bill (house/contents/car) was NZ$15,000.

Unless he drives a Lambo or Bugatti I'm calling BS on that. I pay just over 1/10th of that for the same combo.

 

[arthwollipot]

We all know what you meant - that the difference will be so small that it might as well be nothing.

Oh, please continue to tell me what I really mean when I say things. Since you're an expert and all.

It's not nothing, and it should be done. It's not what will save the world.

 

[8enotto]

I do my personal bit to get more distance out of my paycheck first. Nearly everyone does.

Show me a way to have a vehicle and legally use it that costs me less than old standards, I am interested.
I already have no heating or cooling costs for my house, hot water is solar, yard care is at minimal cost and I pay very little taxes on petroleum products. I use very little.

I am not in a competition to be greener than anyone else. You do what works for you and hopefully that makes some other small difference to add to everyone else's.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Between the people saying individual efforts to combat Global Warming can only be 'tiny', and those who outright deny its effects, I fear our noses won't just be rubbed in it, they'll be bloodied by it.

Meanwhile...

World's first year-long breach of key 1.5C warming limit

For the first time, global warming has exceeded 1.5C across an entire year, according to the EU's climate service.

World leaders promised in 2015 to try to limit the long-term temperature rise to 1.5C, which is seen as crucial to help avoid the most damaging impacts...

The latest climate warning comes amid news that the Labour Party is ditching its policy of spending £28bn a year on its green investment plan in a major U-turn. The Conservatives also pushed back on some key targets in September.

This means the UK's two main parties have scaled back the type of pledges that many climate scientists say are needed globally if the worst impacts of warming are to be avoided...

But wait, there's more!

The world's sea surface is also at its highest ever recorded average temperature - yet another sign of the widespread nature of climate records. As the chart below shows, it's particularly notable given that ocean temperatures don't normally peak for another month or so.

The chart above is very troubling. I hope that trend doesn't continue, because if does it could be extremely bad news for people living in areas susceptible to 'tropical' cyclones.

Tasman Sea warm enough to support a tropical cyclone

The oceans off the NSW and Qld coast are extremely warm and theoretically could provide enough energy to bring a tropical cyclone into NSW waters.

The map below shows that the temperatures off the Coffs Coast and north are currently above 26.5 °C, which is 2-3°C above average for this time of year.

According to The University of Western Australia, “ocean temperatures of at least 26.5 °C, from the surface down to 50 m deep, are needed to provide sufficient energy to [a tropical] disturbance to turn it into a tropical cyclone. Heat energy from warm water helps keep circulating winds moving”...

The oceans are expected to continue to warm over the coming months, as peak ocean temperatures typically occur in March or April. This is later than our ‘summer’ because large water bodies such as the ocean take much longer to warm up than the land.

In a Warming World, Climate Scientists Consider Category 6 Hurricanes

For more than 50 years, the National Hurricane Center has used the Saffir-Simpson Windscale to communicate the risk of property damage; it labels a hurricane on a scale from Category 1 (wind speeds between 74 – 95 mph) to Category 5 (wind speeds of 158 mph or greater).

But as increasing ocean temperatures contribute to ever more intense and destructive hurricanes, climate scientists Michael Wehner of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and James Kossin of the First Street Foundation wondered whether the open-ended Category 5 is sufficient to communicate the risk of hurricane damage in a warming climate...

“Our motivation is to reconsider how the open-endedness of the Saffir-Simpson Scale can lead to underestimation of risk, and, in particular, how this underestimation becomes increasingly problematic in a warming world,” said Wehner, who has spent his career studying the behavior of extreme weather events in a changing climate and to what extent human influence has contributed to individual events.

According to Wehner, anthropogenic global warming has significantly increased surface ocean and tropospheric air temperatures in regions where hurricanes, tropical cyclones, and typhoons form and propagate, providing additional heat energy for storm intensification. When the team performed a historical data analysis of hurricanes from 1980 to 2021, they found five storms that would have been classified as Category 6, and all of them occurred in the last nine years of record.
In addition to studying the past, the researchers analyzed simulations to explore how warming climates would impact hurricane intensification. Their models showed that with two degrees Celsius of global warming above pre-industrial levels, the risk of Category 6 storms increases by up to 50% near the Philippines and doubles in the Gulf of Mexico...
“Even under the relatively low global warming targets of the Paris Agreement, which seeks to limit global warming to just 1.5°C above preindustrial temperatures by the end of this century, the increased chances of Category 6 storms are substantial...

 

[The Atheist]

Between the people saying individual efforts to combat Global Warming can only be 'tiny', and those who outright deny its effects, I fear our noses won't just be rubbed in it, they'll be bloodied by it.

Highly likely, I'd say.

Let me know when you get China to stop buying 50 million tonnes of Australian coal a year.

Trying to guilt people into saving 3.2 kg of carbon emissions a year from their personal lives is asinine in the face of industrial coal and petrochemical use.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

But that's the thing. Not only does everyone have to contribute (which as Roger points out is a problem), even if everyone does, the measurable difference will be tiny compared to the big industrial polluters. Not nothing, sure, but tiny.


Do your personal bit, absolutely. It will make you feel better. But it won't solve the problem.

"A small number is not zero" is pretty clear already, in my opinion.

We all know what you meant - that the difference will be so small that it might as well be nothing.

I hate to say it, but this is just another Global Warming denial tactic. And people will continue doing it until Mother Nature rubs their noses in it.

Oh, please continue to tell me what I really mean when I say things. Since you're an expert and all.

Well, it's pretty clear to me, too. A difference that is too small to measure or even notice is, to all intents and purposes, no difference at all. Perhaps you should have gone even further out of your way to make your point in a way that others could understand it.

It's not nothing, and it should be done. It's not what will save the world.

Sure: 'it's not nothing, but it's almost nothing, and won't make any difference'. That doesn't sound like a recommendation to me. Why do you think it should be done, if it so pointless?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Highly likely, I'd say.

Let me know when you get China to stop buying 50 million tonnes of Australian coal a year.

Trying to guilt people into saving 3.2 kg of carbon emissions a year from their personal lives is asinine in the face of industrial coal and petrochemical use.

Industries aren't just burning fossil fuels and consuming other resources for the hell of it. If consumers didn't consume as much <insert the latest things you didn't need or even knew you wanted but were marketed to want them> then that would make a huge difference.

People often perceive reducing their consumption as austerity, but I think that's just because we've been marketed to our whole lives to judge our state of being by how fancy the stuff we own is and how much of it we have. I think many people lack a reason (other than to work to pay bills) to get out of bed in the morning, so instead they distract themselves from their meaningless lives by acquiring stuff to temporarily make themselves feel better. The idea of not doing that terrifies them because they would then have to address the lack of meaning in their life.

The other side of this is that the quality, durability and reparability of goods will have paramount over the profit of manufacturers. The EU has legislation to make repair more affordable for certain products, but it needs to be the default for all goods (apart from a few with exceptional requirements that make it impractical) if we are going to live within the limits of our planet.

 

[arthwollipot]

Well, it's pretty clear to me, too. A difference that is too small to measure or even notice is, to all intents and purposes, no difference at all. Perhaps you should have gone even further out of your way to make your point in a way that others could understand it.

Well, I wasn't going to, but you've dragged me there.

Sure: 'it's not nothing, but it's almost nothing, and won't make any difference'. That doesn't sound like a recommendation to me. Why do you think it should be done, if it so pointless?

Your problem here is in conflating "it's not what will save the world" with "it's pointless". They are not the same statement, and in fact they are quite far from being the same statement.

There can be a point to doing something that will not save the world. It might make your personal life better. It might help to clean up your local environment. It might encourage others to help.

Just because it's not what will save the world doesn't mean that it isn't still worth doing.

Is that a little bit easier for you to understand?

 

[The Atheist]

If consumers didn't consume as much <insert the latest things you didn't need or even knew you wanted but were marketed to want them> then that would make a huge difference.

Refer back to my comment about Milton Friedman.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

We've always had cyclones, and Gabrielle did far less damage than Bola, all the way back in the '80s

I remember it well. But the heaviest damage was in Gisborne. Gabrielle came lower down and toasted much of Hawke's Bay. Devastation far beyond anything I have ever seen here in 65 years.

Cyclone Gabrielle

Severe Tropical Cyclone Gabrielle was a severe tropical cyclone that devastated parts of the North Island of New Zealand and affected parts of Vanuatu and Australia in February 2023. It is the costliest tropical cyclone on record in the Southern Hemisphere, with total damages estimated to be at least NZ$13.5 billion (US$8.4 billion), of which the cost of insured damage is at least NZ$1.73 billion (US$1.07 billion). The total cost in the Hastings District alone is estimated to surpass NZ$2 billion (US$1.25 billion). It was also the deadliest cyclone and weather event overall to hit New Zealand since Cyclone Giselle in 1968, surpassing Cyclone Bola in 1988.

Unless he drives a Lambo or Bugatti I'm calling BS on that. I pay just over 1/10th of that for the same combo.

Please tell me which insurance company you are with.

My bills for this year:-

House (2 bedroom flat): $1738.58
Contents: (just the basics): $797.89
Car (cost $10,000 in 2019): $525.67
Total: $3062.14

 

[The Atheist]

I remember it well. But the heaviest damage was in Gisborne.

And Northland, BOP, Taranaki and other parts of North Island. Someone could do an inflation-adjusted comparison. Anyway, the point stands - we've had cyclones since before global warming was an issue. Even in the 19th century.

Most of the damage caused by Gabrielle was unscrupulous forestry owners allowing slash to build up.

Please tell me which insurance company you are with.

AA. Yours is a lot less than his $15k. 80% less, in fact, so it's not insurance companies raising premiums that's causing his bill.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

And Northland, BOP, Taranaki and other parts of North Island. Someone could do an inflation-adjusted comparison. Anyway, the point stands - we've had cyclones since before global warming was an issue. Even in the 19th century.

Most of the damage caused by Gabrielle was unscrupulous forestry owners allowing slash to build up.



AA. Yours is a lot less than his $15k. 80% less, in fact, so it's not insurance companies raising premiums that's causing his bill.

Not sure if it's comparable, but I read an article the other day that said the average premium for a new driver in the UK is ~£1400, which is ~$2900 NZ.

Perhaps the insurance companies will save us by making it too expensive to own environmentally damaging products!

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Your problem here is in conflating "it's not what will save the world" with "it's pointless". They are not the same statement, and in fact they are quite far from being the same statement.

There can be a point to doing something that will not save the world. It might make your personal life better. It might help to clean up your local environment. It might encourage others to help.

Just because it's not what will save the world doesn't mean that it isn't still worth doing.

Is that a little bit easier for you to understand?

No, it still doesn't make sense.
All of the little improvements you mention- cleaning up your local environment, encouraging others to help- are how the process of saving the world gets underway. All those small, local improvements add up to a large, global improvement. The old slogan 'think globally, act locally' is based on this, and it's true.
If, OTOH, someone believes that their own contribution is so negligible that it will make no discernable difference, and that the only way things will improve is if everyone acts together, which is unlikely, seeing as you're saying that no one person's actions will have any real effect, then everyone will wait until everyone else does something, and nothing will ever happen.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

No, it still doesn't make sense.
All of the little improvements you mention- cleaning up your local environment, encouraging others to help- are how the process of saving the world gets underway. All those small, local improvements add up to a large, global improvement. The old slogan 'think globally, act locally' is based on this, and it's true.
If, OTOH, someone believes that their own contribution is so negligible that it will make no discernable difference, and that the only way things will improve is if everyone acts together, which is unlikely, seeing as you're saying that no one person's actions will have any real effect, then everyone will wait until everyone else does something, and nothing will ever happen.

I think it's more to do with the wish that technology is going to do all the heavy lifting and everyone can just carry on behaving pretty much the same as we've always done.

The problem is that the numbers don't add up. Renewable sources of energy are defuse, so we are going to have to find ways to use a lot less energy along with technological change.

In 2024, the big house building companies in the UK are still allowed to construct thousands of new homes with gas boilers for heating, no solar panels on the roof, no water tank for a thermal store and holes in window frames for ventilation. Supply of housing is limited and keeps prices inflated. Our government tells us the UK is a world leader in reducing our CO2 emissions. If that is the case then humanity is screwed because the UK is well off the path of what we need to be doing NOW.

 

[The Atheist]

Not sure if it's comparable, but I read an article the other day that said the average premium for a new driver in the UK is ~£1400, which is ~$2900 NZ.

That's for a new driver - the average premium is 1/3 of that.

https://www.moneyhelper.org.uk/en/blog/car-insurance/what-is-the-average-cost-of-car-insurance

I've made the comment a number of times that the thing which drives measures against climate change will be insurance premiums, but they will rise far too late to matter.

 

[arthwollipot]

No, it still doesn't make sense.
All of the little improvements you mention- cleaning up your local environment, encouraging others to help- are how the process of saving the world gets underway. All those small, local improvements add up to a large, global improvement. The old slogan 'think globally, act locally' is based on this, and it's true.

It makes a difference, yes, but it is not enough. If everybody did all the things that are being recommended, it still would not be enough. Not unless the energy, construction, agriculture and logistics industries also do their part.

If, OTOH, someone believes that their own contribution is so negligible that it will make no discernable difference, and that the only way things will improve is if everyone acts together, which is unlikely, seeing as you're saying that no one person's actions will have any real effect, then everyone will wait until everyone else does something, and nothing will ever happen.

Which is why I have never, even once, said that individuals should not act. In fact, I have said - repeatedly - that they should.

Perhaps you're reading what someone else is saying. Because I have not been saying what you're saying I'm saying.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

That's for a new driver - the average premium is 1/3 of that.

https://www.moneyhelper.org.uk/en/blog/car-insurance/what-is-the-average-cost-of-car-insurance

I've made the comment a number of times that the thing which drives measures against climate change will be insurance premiums, but they will rise far too late to matter.

Unfortunately with cars it's having the opposite effect. People are holding on to old polluting vehicles because new efficient vehicles are too expensive, and of course insurance rates for them are also expensive. The FUD purveyors jumped on this and spread the lie that only EVs attract high insurance rates, and now everyone believes it. As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and he is us".