Cont: Global warming discussion V

[The Great Zaganza]

Simple question: what is more effective at reducing CO2 emissions: replacing all gas cars with electric one, or reducing the total number of cars by 2/3rds and dramatically increase public transport and bike lanes?

Keeping the concept of "cars" as the default mode of transport is the problem, not the way they are powered.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Wrong. It has had an effect. And it's accelerating.
Right now we are in the 'bootstrap' phase. Producing renewable sources has a carbon cost too - until we use renewables to make renewables. Then the effect will be very dramatic. Temperatures will continue to rise of course, until we reach net zero. But the rate of rise will decline - whereas with 'business as usual' it would be accelerating.

The problem is, people look at the numbers and say "Oh no, the temperature keeps rising no matter what we do! Nothing's working! Might as well throw in the towel and just put up with whatever happens. ". But this would be a huge mistake. If we do nothing it will be much much worse. Even if we only manage to get the temperature to level off it will be a lot better than climbing exponentially. We can a handle a stasis even if it's bad, We can't handle it continuously getting worse.

Curiouser and curiouser.
I made that post as an experiment, to see what the reaction would be- and the reaction was entirely as I expected. RR's, and this one:

You are misguided in your understanding of AGW. Temperatures will continue to rise even if we stopped cold turkey all fossil carbon emissions.

https://royalsociety.org/news-resou...d stay elevated,stopped increasing [Figure 9].

You see, I have already had this conversation, with Skeptical Greg:

You have offered nothing to show that some trendy dietary changes are having a measurable impact on rising Global temperatures, when the facts are that increased meat consumption is contributing to increasing GHG 'S the population notwithstanding.

You are conflating two different issues: measures taken to achieve net zero emissions, and a fall in global temperatures.
Temperatures will continue to rise for 20 years even after we reach net zero. Demanding an immediate effect is misguided.
What we need to do is to work towards net zero, so that after this has been done, temperatures will eventually start to fall. Reducing emissions, by whatever means, is how we achieve that goal. Reducing red meat consumption is one way of doing that.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explain...op-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached/

SG demanded evidence of something scientifically impossible. Not one other poster picked up on this. I was the only one who pointed out that this was an impossible demand, and supplied the scientific evidence to back this up.
From the rest of you guys- nothing. Silence. Crickets.
So I decided to see what would happen if I posted what SG said. I was careful to use very similar language:

Has the rise in renewables, and the accelerated shift towards renewable technologies, led to any effect on rising global temperatures? No. So none of this means anything, right?

And look what happened! Suddenly, everyone's keen to jump all over me! Well, well, well.
I'm left wondering, then, why SG gets a free pass with the numerous lies and falsehoods he's posted on this thread, but I don't?
Why are identical wrong claims acceptable from one poster, and not another?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Claiming that eclectic cars are better for the environment only works if you ignore a ton of issues, from getting the resources to decommission, as well as building new infrastructure and taking away electric power from efficient uses.


Simple question: what is more effective at reducing CO2 emissions: replacing all gas cars with electric one, or reducing the total number of cars by 2/3rds and dramatically increase public transport and bike lanes?

Keeping the concept of "cars" as the default mode of transport is the problem, not the way they are powered.

 

[The Atheist]

In Norway, a country with similar population to New Zealand, but longer driving distances and much colder, 25% of the fleet is electric and over 80% of new cars sold are EVs. By the end of this year they are expected to have more EVs than petrol cars on the road.

Why can't we do that?

Utter bollocks. Norway's GDP is double that of NZ, and so are average incomes.

Add to that, their government massively subsidises EVs (no irony there given their entire economy was boosted by oil) while in NZ they're so much more expensive than ICEs that the majority of Kiwis can't afford to change.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

OK, I take your point, to an extent. TGZ is trying to claim that consumer pressure didn't help create the American EPA. Semantically, that may be right, but that's not the main point: the EPA came into being because of public pressure, something both TGZ and dann claim is impossible.

I don't think that I've seen either of them claim that? In fact, it quite looks like what you had quoted from TGZ directly refutes your claim here.

OK, there's an easy way to find out: let's ask them.
dann and The Great Zaganza: Do you believe that public pressure can lead to meaningful changes in government policies, such as the creation of an Environmental Protection Agency?

 

[dann]

Has 'public pressure' done much to end CO₂ emissions so far? Has it done more than your going vegetarian?
What it has accomplished is to make Big Oil change its advertising and gaslighting campaigns and politicians pretend to be environmentalists while doing their utmost to increase fossil fuel extraction.

 

[Aridas]

Has 'public pressure' done much to end CO₂ emissions so far?

Looks like Cosmic Yak indeed has more of a case when it comes to you.

End? No. Drive all the government efforts to reduce emissions, reduce pollution, and speed conversion to cleaner energy that have actually happened? Yes. The very fact that politicians feel the need to even acknowledge that it's an issue is the result of public pressure, for that matter.

Consumer pressure can be fairly said to be of little to no consequence when it came to the formation of the EPA. Public Pressure, including the part of that demonstrated by protests, weighed very heavily in the EPA's creation. That public pressure has often not been enough to overcome other forms of pressure wielded by the big polluters in political decision making does not invalidate it so much as make clear that more pressure continues to be needed and sustained.

 

[dann]

The very fact that politicians feel the need to even acknowledge that it's an issue is the result of public pressure, for that matter.

And that's what the so-called public pressure resulted in: Window dressing accompanying business as usual - or worse than usual:

With climate change a top priority for Biden-Harris administration, here’s what that means for fracking (Boston University, Dec 9, 2020)
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)
Young People to Joe Biden: You Betrayed Us on Climate Change (BusinessInsider, Mar 16, 2023)

With the currently eligible alternative being the drill-drill-drill guy.

 

[Stout]

Simple question: what is more effective at reducing CO2 emissions: replacing all gas cars with electric one, or reducing the total number of cars by 2/3rds and dramatically increase public transport and bike lanes?

Keeping the concept of "cars" as the default mode of transport is the problem, not the way they are powered.

This is true and it's the whole basis behind the idea of the 15 minute city. Problem is, people love their cars. Even the most strident sign carrying eco-warriors love their cars and given that, eliminating cars is a tough sell when it comes to the majority of the population so we're, realistically. looking at EVs being the better alternative.

 

[Stout]

And that's what the so-called public pressure resulted in: Window dressing accompanying business as usual - or worse than usual:

But we need that fracked gas to fuel all those propane fueled patio heaters that eco socialists like to relax on after a hard day spent bitching about fracking.

 

[dann]

Interesting idea, but what makes you think they're eco socialists?
I live next door to a restaurant that heats its outdoor tables with electric patio heaters - even when nobody's there. He also advertises about how sustainably he's running his business. I'm pretty sure that he's not a socialist and that his pretense eco friendliness is only for show.

 

[Stout]

No, the eco socialists are just the customers. Yes, the restaurant owner is getting ahead of the curve and expecting criticism and if his outdoor heaters are powered by renewable energy then he has a point which is why I specifically said propane patio heaters.

The amount of fuel those things go through in a day is outrageous. I used to walk by 11 of them every day, during the summer and they were only on because the patios were in the shade.

 

[Aridas]

And that's what the so-called public pressure resulted in: Window dressing accompanying business as usual - or worse than usual:



With the currently eligible alternative being the drill-drill-drill guy.

That is hardly all that public pressure has resulted in, though. It's also resulted in dramatically increased investment in getting various sustainable energy sources into play, increased the rate of transitioning away from the dirtier energy sources, holding the polluters accountable at all, and so on. Frankly, I still think that it's a great thing that rivers downstream of certain factories aren't turning various poisonous colors a day. I think that it's a great thing that CFC's were banned because of public pressure (consumer pressure separately helped make that easier to do, of course). More could be said, but only looking at set backs is hardly going to give a good understanding of reality.

As noted, public pressure isn't the only kind of pressure when it comes to the political process, though. That it is often insufficient to overcome other pressures is not some negation of it's value so much as a reflection of how it's not the only factor in play and that we thus need to keep in mind the larger picture of what pressures are actually in play. Big polluters' massive and expensive campaigns to weaken public pressure can easily be considered a fine acknowledgement of how meaningful public pressure actually is, for that matter.

And yeah, the currently eligible alternative is the guy who told big polluters that using a billion dollars to help him get elected would buy them an end to accountability and consideration of the public interest. That's way worse than drill-drill-drill.

 

[dann]

This is true and it's the whole basis behind the idea of the 15 minute city. Problem is, people love their cars. Even the most strident sign carrying eco-warriors love their cars and given that, eliminating cars is a tough sell when it comes to the majority of the population so we're, realistically. looking at EVs being the better alternative.

You make up your stories as you go along without a shred of evidence for anything. People love their cars because they depend on them - primarily to get to work and back. And unless cities are built right, there usually isn't any viable alternative. As soon as there is, people get rid of their cars, and it's not a tough sell at all.

COPENHAGEN — Soren Jensen sold his car six years ago and joined the rivers of rolling humanity who bicycle through Copenhagen every day. He quickly lost about 50 pounds on his hour-a-day bike commutes, while saving time and a small fortune.
“I had a Mercedes but it sat in the garage all the time because it was so much easier to get everywhere by bike,” said Jensen, a 51-year-old who works in a downtown investment bank. He got rid of the car, which was costing him about $500 a month, after moving from the suburbs to the city and finding that he didn’t need it anymore.
“I don’t miss it at all,” the 6-foot-7 Jensen added before setting off on the ride home on a warm summer evening. He said he’d been looking forward to it all afternoon. “The hour on the bike is time I don’t have to spend in a gym. I got healthier and look forward every day to all that fresh air. Life’s good.”
Copenhagen has taken bicycle commuting to a whole new level (LA Times, Aug 8, 2019)

Those who still depend on them will soon have to switch to electric cars, which will be fine when electric power is no longer produced by burning fossil fuels. But I'm sure the fossil-fuel industry is doing its utmost to prevent it from happening.

 

[dann]

That is hardly all that public pressure has resulted in, though. It's also resulted in dramatically increased investment in getting various sustainable energy sources into play, increased the rate of transitioning away from the dirtier energy sources, holding the polluters accountable at all, and so on. Frankly, I still think that it's a great thing that rivers downstream of certain factories aren't turning various poisonous colors a day. I think that it's a great thing that CFC's were banned because of public pressure (consumer pressure separately helped make that easier to do, of course). More could be said, but only looking at set backs is hardly going to give a good understanding of reality.

As noted, public pressure isn't the only kind of pressure when it comes to the political process, though. That it is often insufficient to overcome other pressures is not some negation of it's value so much as a reflection of how it's not the only factor in play and that we thus need to keep in mind the larger picture of what pressures are actually in play. Big polluters' massive and expensive campaigns to weaken public pressure can easily be considered a fine acknowledgement of how meaningful public pressure actually is, for that matter.

And yeah, the currently eligible alternative is the guy who told big polluters that using a billion dollars to help him get elected would buy them an end to accountability and consideration of the public interest. That's way worse than drill-drill-drill.

'Getting various sustainable energy sources into play' is part of the pretense, which is why it is accompanied by increased extraction of fossil fuels. There isn't much actual 'transitioning away from the dirtier energy sources' going on. Like I said above: window-dressing, astroturfing. All of it is meant to make you think that an awful lot of transitioning is taking place when not much is.

It is true that "Big polluters' massive and expensive campaigns to weaken public pressure" wouldn't exist without the public pressure, but unfortunately, it also shows that this is all your 'public pressure' has accomplished.
There is really no difference between drill-drill-drill and an end to accountability. Accountability never existed in the first place - unless you are thinking of politicians being accountable to the donors that they depend on to get elected. And drill-drill-drill is already going on.

 

[Stout]

You make up your stories as you go along without a shred of evidence for anything. People love their cars because they depend on them - primarily to get to work and back. And unless cities are built right, there usually isn't any viable alternative. As soon as there is, people get rid of their cars, and it's not a tough sell at all.

People love their cars period. Sure, maybe in a big city like Copenhagen you can live without a car but the minute you decide that you want to get out of your neighborhood, out into the countryside, say, then the car is king. Want to go pick of a packet of baseboard moulding from Home Depot? Car. Take the cat to the vet? Car. Make a Costco run? Car. Take the kids to the hockey arena? Car.

There's really a "from my cold dead hands" thing going on here with cars and always will be until we get everybody living in dense urban areas.

 

[dann]

People love their cars period. Sure, maybe in a big city like Copenhagen you can live without a car but the minute you decide that you want to get out of your neighborhood, out into the countryside, say, then the car is king. Want to go pick of a packet of baseboard moulding from Home Depot? Car. Take the cat to the vet? Car. Make a Costco run? Car. Take the kids to the hockey arena? Car.

There's really a "from my cold dead hands" thing going on here with cars and always will be until we get everybody living in dense urban areas.

You may think you have come up with a marvellous argument, but you haven't. People do all of those things - except one - with bikes and/or cargo bikes. The one thing they can't do is pick up very large stuff at Home Depot. When they have to, they rent a van.
People love their bikes period. All it requires is the adjustments to infrastructure that Big Oil is trying to prevent from happening.

You are still making it up as you go along.
Copenhagen:

Copenhagen:

Amsterdam --> Canada (this one even has a clip of taking the cat to the vet!):

"When we were moving back to Canada, we knew we'd need a car, but we couldn't afford one after the move. Thankfully, we found an electric bakfiets, and not only did it take the place of a car, it also saved us thousands of dollars in the process."

 

[Aridas]

'Getting various sustainable energy sources into play' is part of the pretense, which is why it is accompanied by increased extraction of fossil fuels.

Growing demand has far more to do with the increased extraction. Demand has certainly been curtailed by the increase in cleaner alternatives, though, and at increasing rates as investments into sustainable energy increases. The rise of solar and wind have been quite notable, in particular.

There isn't much actual 'transitioning away from the dirtier energy sources' going on. Like I said above: window-dressing, astroturfing. All of it is meant to make you think that an awful lot of transitioning is taking place when not much is.

This is half true, at best. It's true that there's not been much transitioning away from the dirtier energy sources in aviation and shipping. There's not really a clean alternative when it comes to fuel for planes and ships at present. Industry is more mixed given how much it encompasses, but total usage of dirtier energy sources isn't projected to change meaningfully anytime soon. Power generation and car usage of dirtier fuels, on the other hand, are on track to decrease greatly over time, at present.

It is true that "Big polluters' massive and expensive campaigns to weaken public pressure" wouldn't exist without the public pressure, but unfortunately, it also shows that this is all your 'public pressure' has accomplished.

Not true, as the examples that were pointed out show plenty well. Still, one question just keeps arising as you echo one of the lines that big polluters want you to be thinking. What, exactly, do you think would work better? Government cracking down on or nationalizing the big polluters, for example? That's the kind of thing that wouldn't even be close to being on the table without public pressure, much less actually happening.

Going a bit further - Public Pressure on ExxonMobil Works. Little Else Does.

More is gone into in that article, but really, what's your goal when you keep trying to deny the main force that has had and could have a positive effect on the larger situation?

 

[dann]

Growing demand has far more to do with the increased extraction. Demand has certainly been curtailed by the increase in cleaner alternatives, though, and at increasing rates as investments into sustainable energy increases. The rise of solar and wind have been quite notable, in particular.

So you are aware that fossil-fuel extraction is increasing instead of decreasing. And it is not as if decreasing it isn't urgent.

This is half true, at best. It's true that there's not been much transitioning away from the dirtier energy sources in aviation and shipping. There's not really a clean alternative when it comes to fuel for planes and ships at present. Industry is more mixed given how much it encompasses, but total usage of dirtier energy sources isn't projected to change meaningfully anytime soon. Power generation and car usage of dirtier fuels, on the other hand, are on track to decrease greatly over time, at present.

You are right, in most places there hasn't been much transitioning away from fossil fuels - and not just in aviation and shipping. The clean alternatives are there - also for them. That those alternatives aren't being implemented is because shipping and aviation companies aren't forced to use them - as they should be. Instead, capitalism rules: Fossil fuels are still cheaper, so that's what's being used and abused.
"On track to decrease greatly over time" - yeah, that's what people hear from the fossil-fuel industry and their paid politicians while fossil-fuel extraction continues to increase.

Not true, as the examples that were pointed out show plenty well. Still, one question just keeps arising as you echo one of the lines that big polluters want you to be thinking. What, exactly, do you think would work better? Government cracking down on or nationalizing the big polluters, for example? That's the kind of thing that wouldn't even be close to being on the table without public pressure, much less actually happening.

Going a bit further - Public Pressure on ExxonMobil Works. Little Else Does.

More is gone into in that article, but really, what's your goal when you keep trying to deny the main force that has had and could have a positive effect on the larger situation?

And what exactly has the public pressure on ExxonMobil accomplished? Tell me about it 'cause I really want to know. I see nothing but claims that it has in the article.
So ExxonMobil is no longer a member of some organizations.
The conclusion celebrates it as a victory:

ExxonMobil’s decision to cut ties with the most flagrantly obvious purveyor of disinformation in its trade association roster is not a sign that the company is on the road to reforming itself—but rather that pressure from shareholders, litigators, affected communities, Indigenous peoples, youth and other activists is working. It also shows that reaching the climate goals ExxonMobil claims to support won’t be driven by the fossil fuel industry, but by those working to hold it accountable.

And yet:

Meanwhile, many of the associations ExxonMobil retains membership in are actively obstructing climate progress.

So is the big victory is that ExxonMobil is now a less "flagrantly obvious purveyor of disinformation" than before?! Will the disinformation become more subtle and less conspicuous from now on?
I guess it will. I see no sign anywhere in the article that something significant has been accomplished by 'public pressure'.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

It's not public pressure that has caused the switch to solar and wind - it's because it's cheaper and has lower investment costs.

People have protested for responsible use of Nuclear Power, and have gotten nothing! There is no permanent storage space, the US uranium mining and enrichment sites are a nightmare, and don't get me started on Hanford.

Nothing is done about these, because it's too expensive - protests don't mean anything compared to money.