Cont: Global warming discussion V

[dann]

USA:

Tuesday was the hottest day in over a decade for parts of the East Coast. When will this extreme heat wave end? (CNN, June 25, 2025)
A long-lasting extreme heat wave reached its dangerous crescendo Tuesday, bringing the hottest day in a decade to some major East Coast cities and putting millions of already fatigued Americans at risk.

Heat Safety Tips and Resources (National Weather Service)
Heat is the leading weather-related killer in the United States, resulting in hundreds of fatalities each year.

 

[dann]

In a different direction than usual for this thread -
Europe has installed so many renewable energy sources that it is now facing an unusual problem: electricity is too cheap.

Welcome to Australia. So much excess energy is being transferred from solar panels to electricity producers that it can’t be used during daylight hours. The miniscule feed in tariff (something like 3 cents per kilowatt hour) will soon disappear.
Meanwhile our city of Melbourne has just had its second hottest winter night in a row. At 8pm, it’s 18C. It rarely gets that hot at night in summer.
Yes I know weather is not climate, but enough extreme weather observations around the world is.

Cheap electricity and excess energy are luxury problems!
It could be put to good use in schools, offices and other places of work. Install electric ventilators and air purifiers!
Australia's air quality culture criticised as experts point to ventilation as key in COVID-19 fight (ABC.net.au, Aug 24, 2021)
(Australia actually seems to me more aware of this than most European countries.)

 

[3point14]

Jesus Murphy, I've had plates of spaghetti that are less convoluted that that post. But go ahead, continue to whinge about the supply side and ignore the fact that pretty much everybody loves and lives the glorious benefits of fossil fuels if it makes you feel better about loving and living the benefits.

"Pretty much everybody loved the benefits of Thalidomide"...

 

[dann]

Yes, as with the glorious fossil fuels, it was those pesky side effects of Thalidomide that were so hard to live with. Back in the day, leaded gasoline was pretty popular, too. So was Radithor: "A Wall Street Journal article describing the Byers incident (published in August 1990) was titled "The Radium Water Worked Fine Until His Jaw Came Off"."

Skeptical Inquirer Volume 49, No. 4 - July/August 2025​

After Decades of Skepticism, How Are We Doing?
UFOs, the Media, and Our Culture: Everywhere and Nowhere
Twenty Years of Health Scams and Wellness Trends
A Look Back at Cold Fusion
A Brief History of Climate Denialism
The Force behind The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe
1,000 Episodes! An Insider’s Take on The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe
Close Encounters at the Crossroads of Critical Thinking and Science Fiction
The Younger Dryas Impact: A Failed Hypothesis
Remembering Joe Nickell (1944–2025)

 

[Stout]

Thalidomide, TEL, Radithor, all banned with the ban having no noticeable effect on society as a whole. Much like the CFCs in your fridge. Did anybody even notice or care about the ban?

Were we trying to make some sort of argument in favour of banning fossil fuels? I sure hope not given the opposition to the idea of using less fossil fuels that I keep running into ITT.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Thalidomide, TEL, Radithor, all banned with the ban having no noticeable effect on society as a whole. Much like the CFCs in your fridge. Did anybody even notice or care about the ban?

No noticeable effect, are you sure? Your ignorance is not a valid argument, and weasel words like 'society as a whole' won't get you off the hook.

Were we trying to make some sort of argument in favour of banning fossil fuels? I sure hope not given the opposition to the idea of using less fossil fuels that I keep running into ITT.

The damage to the environment caused by fossil fuels is well known, the only dispute is over whether it's acceptable. Many people argue that they have a right to treat the atmosphere as their own personal sewer no matter how much it harms it others (and themselves). With such opposition a blanket ban on fossil fuels is not possible at this time, nor is it practical. But this opposition hasn't prevented us from using less. Fossil fuels are being replaced with cleaner energy sources at an increasing rate around the world.

Now is not the time to throw in the towel with the argument that it's having 'no noticeable effect'. We need to keep pushing for the phasing out of fossil fuels until they are no longer a major problem, just like we did with Thalidomide (not banned), TEL (not banned), radiation therapy (not banned), and CFCs (not banned).

 

[Myriad]

Thalidomide, TEL, Radithor, all banned with the ban having no noticeable effect on society as a whole. Much like the CFCs in your fridge. Did anybody even notice or care about the ban?

Were we trying to make some sort of argument in favour of banning fossil fuels? I sure hope not given the opposition to the idea of using less fossil fuels that I keep running into ITT.

To be fair, the opposition seems to be to the idea of using less energy, not to using less fossil fuels specifically. As if you can opt for a non-fossil-fueled plane when you fly to tropical islands for a vacation, or when you buy fresh raspberries in mid winter you can choose what kind of energy was used to cultivate and transport them.

 

[dann]

Several solutions to the problem of CO₂ emissions from airplanes are mentioned in this article:

The future of flight: How to make aviation fossil-free (Vattenfall, May 27, 2024)
All these solutions cost more than fossil-based kerosene however, and fuel costs represent around 20–30 per cent of airlines’ total expenditure.
But if costs are spread evenly over all passengers, such as it will under the EU rules with minimum blend-ins, prices do not need to rise that much, and over time, prices will go down, says Mikael Nordlander.
But most of all, as it is now, fossil-based fuels are heavily subsidised since they are not paying for the damage they are making, he says.
“There are studies that show about 1/5 of the global economy is set to be destroyed due to climate damage by 2050 if we continue like now. Fossil fuels are not picking up the bill.”

It would be better to clamp down on the fossil-fuel industry instead of subsidizing it. You can't do that by taking cold showers and having only locally produced turnips for dessert instead of sub-tropical raspberries.

 

[Stout]

No noticeable effect, are you sure? Your ignorance is not a valid argument, and weasel words like 'society as a whole' won't get you off the hook.


The damage to the environment caused by fossil fuels is well known, the only dispute is over whether it's acceptable. Many people argue that they have a right to treat the atmosphere as their own personal sewer no matter how much it harms it others (and themselves). With such opposition a blanket ban on fossil fuels is not possible at this time, nor is it practical. But this opposition hasn't prevented us from using less. Fossil fuels are being replaced with cleaner energy sources at an increasing rate around the world.

Now is not the time to throw in the towel with the argument that it's having 'no noticeable effect'. We need to keep pushing for the phasing out of fossil fuels until they are no longer a major problem, just like we did with Thalidomide (not banned), TEL (not banned), radiation therapy (not banned), and CFCs (not banned).

Yep, there's an awful lot of people willing to use the atmosphere as their own personal sewer...an awful lot. "Fossil fuels are being replaced with cleaner energy sources at an increasing rate around the world." Yes, this is true but nowhere near fast enough however we can wring our hands in the meantime and wait for that replacement to actually have a meaningful effect.

https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2025/co2-emissions

(not banned)

You know what I mean, right?

 

[Stout]

To be fair, the opposition seems to be to the idea of using less energy, not to using less fossil fuels specifically. As if you can opt for a non-fossil-fueled plane when you fly to tropical islands for a vacation, or when you buy fresh raspberries in mid winter you can choose what kind of energy was used to cultivate and transport them.

It's most defiantly about using less fossil fuels. An electric plane isn't going to get you to many "exotic" destinations and unless you know those mid winter raspberries are coming from a renewable energy powered hydroponic vertical farm you can safely assume that purchasing them is going to cause a baby polar bear to drown.

 

[Stout]

Several solutions to the problem of CO₂ emissions from airplanes are mentioned in this article:

It would be better to clamp down on the fossil-fuel industry instead of subsidizing it. You can't do that by taking cold showers and having only locally produced turnips for dessert instead of sub-tropical raspberries.

Nothing new there. By clamp down, do you mean making fossil fuel energy so scarce that only the wealthy can reap the benefits of it? I mean the wealthy will have the means to get those sub-tropical raspberries leaving those locally produced turnips toe only option for the poor. Or are you thinking a total overhaul of the current system, an eco-Communist paradise where everybody has to eat those delicious turnips for desert after they've enjoyed their meal of government bugs?

 

[Myriad]

It's most defiantly about using less fossil fuels. An electric plane isn't going to get you to many "exotic" destinations and unless you know those mid winter raspberries are coming from a renewable energy powered hydroponic vertical farm you can safely assume that purchasing them is going to cause a baby polar bear to drown.

The people you're talking about appear to believe that they, or civilization in general, can continue to use as much energy as we want without interruption, as long as the right changes are made in the source(s) of that energy. (Yes, the passive voice there is critical, because we have to stay vague about who will do this or pay the costs of doing it, as long as it's someone else.) You disagree, of course, and so do I, but you have to be clear that's what you disagree with, or else they'll just keep "correcting" your "misinterpretation." They don't want anyone to give up anything, just to cause (using their authoritative power over governments and corporations) the people and infrastructure providing the uninterrupted flow of goods and services to somehow immediately start using cleaner energy.

 

[dann]

Nothing new there. By clamp down, do you mean making fossil fuel energy so scarce that only the wealthy can reap the benefits of it? I mean the wealthy will have the means to get those sub-tropical raspberries leaving those locally produced turnips toe only option for the poor. Or are you thinking a total overhaul of the current system, an eco-Communist paradise where everybody has to eat those delicious turnips for desert after they've enjoyed their meal of government bugs?

It shouldn't come as a surprise to you that that is not what I mean. Clamping down on the poor instead of on the wealth would be ineffectual:
According to Google's AI:

O2 emissions are heavily skewed by income, with the richest individuals contributing disproportionately to global emissions. Specifically, the richest 1% of the world's population is responsible for a far larger share of emissions than the poorest 50%, despite the latter group representing a significantly larger portion of the global population.

Here's a breakdown:

• Richest 1%: The world's wealthiest individuals, often with average incomes of $310,000 or more, are responsible for a substantial portion of global CO2 emissions, sometimes more than the emissions of the poorest 66% of the population.
  
• Poorest 50%:
  Conversely, the world's poorest individuals, often with average incomes around $2,000, contribute a relatively small fraction of the total emissions.
  
• Income Inequality:
  This disparity in emissions is directly linked to income inequality. Higher incomes often correlate with higher consumption of goods and services that contribute to carbon emissions, such as transportation, food, and energy.
  
  
• Impact of the Wealthy:
  The emissions of the wealthiest individuals often stem from their lifestyle choices, including frequent air travel, large homes, and high-carbon consumption patterns.
  
  
• Cumulative Emissions:
  Looking at cumulative emissions over time, high-income countries have historically emitted far more CO2 than lower-income countries, although emissions are shifting with rising economies.

I am thinking of "a total overhaul of the current system" of production and transportation. They have to become independent of the burning of fossil fuels, which is already happening but too slowly. Your childish fantasies about meals of the poor enjoying "their meal of government bugs" while "the wealthy will have the means to get those sub-tropical raspberries" sounds like the MAGA lie that it is: 'They are coming to take away your stoves!'

 

[dann]

The people you're talking about appear to believe that they, or civilization in general, can continue to use as much energy as we want without interruption, as long as the right changes are made in the source(s) of that energy. (Yes, the passive voice there is critical, because we have to stay vague about who will do this or pay the costs of doing it, as long as it's someone else.) You disagree, of course, and so do I, but you have to be clear that's what you disagree with, or else they'll just keep "correcting" your "misinterpretation." They (!) don't want anyone to give up anything, just to cause (using their authoritative power over governments and corporations) the people and infrastructure providing the uninterrupted flow of goods and services to somehow immediately start using cleaner energy.

Notice Myriad's continued appeal to the MAGA philosophy - "You [= Stout] disagree, of course, and so do I" - in his quest for universal austerity!

1) Using as much energy as we want is evil in Myriad's world view because consumption is bad. This is the only reason why he doesn't want to acknowledge that using as much energy as we want is not the problem. The problem is how that energy is produced: i.e. by means of burning fossil fuels and thus emitting CO₂. Myriad is not a fan of ending global warming. He is a fan of austerity. Ending global warming by changing the way energy is generated is a threat to his austerity gospel, which is why he remains a staunch opponent of it, even though it's pretty obvious to everybody else at this point that global warming can't be ended by showering cold and recycling aluminum cans.

2) Myriad is terribly concerned about "who will do this or pay the costs of doing it," in spite of the fact that it is already being done (but too slowly). Myriad's nightmare scenario is that the problem of global warming will be solved in a way in which people don't have to give up creature comforts like taking hot showers etc. That wind and solar generated energy is slowly getting cheaper than energy generated by burning fossil fuels and thus emitting CO₂ is a threat to Myriad's dystopian austerity gospel!

3) "They don't want anyone to give up anything." The horror!
And it's not true at all. I do want some people to give up something. I want the 1% to give up their control and abuse of the planet and its population, but I also know that this is not something that they will volunteer to do.
The irony is that Myriad's idea of the forces of evil is described as "(using their (!) authoritative power over governments and corporations)," since "they" (i.e. people like me and others who aren't content with the way things are going) are actually powerless. We don't have any "authoritative power over governments and corporations" whatsoever. On the contrary, governments and corporations are the ones who have power over us, and the way they are using that power is what has caused not only global warming but also accelerating income inequality, which forces austerity on a majority of the population.
But as Myriad has made it clear in post after post: That austerity is good! Imagine how bad things would be in Myriad's dystopian fantasy world if ordinary people weren't forced to live paycheck to paycheck and instead were able to consume enough to live healthy and fulfilling lives!

 

[Myriad]

Notice Myriad's continued appeal to the MAGA philosophy - "You disagree, of course, and so do I" - in his quest for universal austerity!

1) Using as much energy as we want is evil in Myriad's world view because consumption is bad. This is the only reason why he doesn't want to acknowledge that using as much energy as we want is not the problem. The problem is how that energy is produced: i.e. by means of burning fossil fuels and thus emitting CO₂. Myriad is not a fan of ending global warming. He is a fan of austerity. Ending global warming by changing the way energy is generated is a threat to his austerity gospel, which is why he remains a staunch opponent of it, even though it's pretty obvious to everybody else at this point that global warming can't be ended by showering cold and recycling aluminum cans.

2) Myriad is terribly concerned about "who will do this or pay the costs of doing it," in spite of the fact that it is already being done (but too slowly). Myriad's nightmare scenario is that the problem of global warming will be solved in a way in which people don't have to give up creature comforts like taking hot showers etc. That wind and solar generated energy is slowly getting cheaper than energy generated by burning fossil fuels and thus emitting CO₂ is a threat to Myriad's dystopian austerity gospel!

3) "They don't want anyone to give up anything." The horror!
And it's not true at all. I do want some people to give up something. I want the 1% to give up their control and abuse of the planet and its population, but I also know that this is not something that they will volunteer to do.
The irony is that Myriad's idea of the forces of evil is described as "(using their (!) authoritative power over governments and corporations)," since "they" (i.e. people like me and others who aren't content with the way things are going) are actually powerless. We don't have any "authoritative power over governments and corporations" whatsoever. On the contrary, governments and corporations are the ones who have power over us, and the way they are using that power is what has caused not only global warming but also accelerating income inequality, which forces austerity on a majority of the population.
But as Myriad has made it clear in post after post: That austerity is good! Imagine how bad things would be in Myriad's dystopian fantasy world if ordinary people weren't forced to live paycheck to paycheck and instead were able to consume enough to live healthy and fulfilling lives!

[/hilite]

 

[Roger Ramjets]

It shouldn't come as a surprise to you that that is not what I mean. Clamping down on the poor instead of on the wealth would be ineffectual:
According to Google's AI:
O2 emissions are heavily skewed by income, with the richest individuals contributing disproportionately to global emissions. Specifically, the richest 1% of the world's population is responsible for a far larger share of emissions than the poorest 50%, despite the latter group representing a significantly larger portion of the global population.
Richest 1%: ... often with average incomes of $310,000 or more... Poorest 50%: ... often with average incomes around $2,000, contribute a relatively small fraction of the total emissions.

We need a new category of logical fallacy - argument by AI.

That info comes from Oxfam, whose numbers are 'based on research with the Stockholm Environment Institute'. They say:-

The richest 1 per cent (77 million people) were responsible for 16 per cent of global consumption emissions in 2019... The richest 10 per cent accounted for half (50 per cent) of emissions.

Another site has a chart with more detail. It says the top 1% produced 15% of emissions, the next 9% produced 34%, the middle 40% produced 43%, and the bottom 50% produced 8%.

The majority of GHG emissions are produced by what we would call low to middle income earners, ie. us. That means we are not off the hook. If we literaly ate the 1% it would only reduce GHG emissions by 15% at best.

But there's a much bigger problem with those numbers. The method they used to assess GHG emissions by the rich is based largely on the activities of their businesses, not personal emissions. This grossly skews the numbers because most of those emissions are a result of producing goods and services that the less wealthy consume. In reality, 'clamping down' on 'the poor' would actually be quite effective, because we wouldn't be buying stuff that has a high carbon footprint - which means that stuff wouldn't be produced so the 1%'s emissions (as measured by SEI) would also go down. GHG emissions are driven by demand, not supply.

The correct way to deal with the problem is to reduce GHG emissions across the board - whoever is doing it. Oxfam argues that taxing the rich is the asnwer. It may be for helping the poor, but not for stopping global warming.

 

[Stout]

The people you're talking about appear to believe that they, or civilization in general, can continue to use as much energy as we want without interruption, as long as the right changes are made in the source(s) of that energy. (Yes, the passive voice there is critical, because we have to stay vague about who will do this or pay the costs of doing it, as long as it's someone else.) You disagree, of course, and so do I, but you have to be clear that's what you disagree with, or else they'll just keep "correcting" your "misinterpretation." They don't want anyone to give up anything, just to cause (using their authoritative power over governments and corporations) the people and infrastructure providing the uninterrupted flow of goods and services to somehow immediately start using cleaner energy.

If you want to put it that way, then yes. I totally agree. I suppose it's possible to dream of living in an everything being produced in a renewable energy world be it wind, solar, or dilithium crystals, but it's a pretty useless concept when discussing limiting warming to 1.5C. Maybe it's a climate anxiety coping strategy.

 

[dann]

We need a new category of logical fallacy - argument by AI.

That info comes from Oxfam, whose numbers are 'based on research with the Stockholm Environment Institute'. They say:-

Another site has a chart with more detail. It says the top 1% produced 15% of emissions, the next 9% produced 34%, the middle 40% produced 43%, and the bottom 50% produced 8%.

The majority of GHG emissions are produced by what we would call low to middle income earners, ie. us. That means we are not off the hook. If we literaly ate the 1% it would only reduce GHG emissions by 15% at best.

But there's a much bigger problem with those numbers. The method they used to assess GHG emissions by the rich is based largely on the activities of their businesses, not personal emissions. This grossly skews the numbers because most of those emissions are a result of producing goods and services that the less wealthy consume. In reality, 'clamping down' on 'the poor' would actually be quite effective, because we wouldn't be buying stuff that has a high carbon footprint - which means that stuff wouldn't be produced so the 1%'s emissions (as measured by SEI) would also go down. GHG emissions are driven by demand, not supply.

The correct way to deal with the problem is to reduce GHG emissions across the board - whoever is doing it. Oxfam argues that taxing the rich is the asnwer. It may be for helping the poor, but not for stopping global warming.

That depends on what the taxes from the rich are used for and how exactly the rich are taxed:
If the taxation is for their fossil fuel consumption - be it in their factories or private jets - it will be very effective, and even more so if it is used to subsidize wind turbines and solar panels instead of the extraction of fossil fuels.

Your Oxfam link also tells us that "the annual emissions of the 1% cancelled out the carbon savings of 1 million onshore wind turbines."

You fall for Myriad's favourite argument when he is spreading his austerity gospel, i.e. that the poor people's consumption of goods is somehow responsible for the emission of CO₂ from the factories that produce them (and the planes, ships and trucks that transport them).
Again: With a few exceptions, it is not the buying and consumption of those goods that emits CO₂. It's the production of the goods, and those factories are still owned by the 1%, who will burn fossil fuels in the process of production as long as the state lets them do so or even encourages them to do so by subsidizing it.
And the state will continue to do so as long as it's what the 1% pay their politicians to decide.

So Oxfam is right: Taxing the rich (but the right way, as I have described above) would help reduce CO₂ emissions, and subsidizing wind and solar power instead of fossil-fuel extraction would be the final nail in the coffin of Big Oil.

It works much like the shift from fossil-fuel driven cars to bicycles and subways: For most of the previous century, it was made attractive for people to buy gas-guzzling cars at the expense of pedestrians and bikers. As I have mentioned before, European cities like Copenhagen are reversing that trend, and it works wonders.

 

[dann]

The people you're talking about appear to believe that they, or civilization in general, can continue to use as much energy as we want without interruption, as long as the right changes are made in the source(s) of that energy. (Yes, the passive voice there is critical, because we have to stay vague about who will do this or pay the costs of doing it, as long as it's someone else.) You disagree, of course, and so do I, but you have to be clear that's what you disagree with, or else they'll just keep "correcting" your "misinterpretation." They don't want anyone to give up anything, just to cause (using their authoritative power over governments and corporations) the people and infrastructure providing the uninterrupted flow of goods and services to somehow immediately start using cleaner energy.

Congratulations, Myriad! Mission accomplished! The resident spokesperson for the fossil-fuel industry totally agrees with your austerity gospel:

If you want to put it that way, then yes. I totally agree. I suppose it's possible to dream of living in an everything being produced in a renewable energy world be it wind, solar, or dilithium crystals, but it's a pretty useless concept when discussing limiting warming to 1.5C. Maybe it's a climate anxiety coping strategy.

 

[Stout]

It shouldn't come as a surprise to you that that is not what I mean. Clamping down on the poor instead of on the wealth would be ineffectual:
According to Google's AI:

I am thinking of "a total overhaul of the current system" of production and transportation. They have to become independent of the burning of fossil fuels, which is already happening but too slowly. Your childish fantasies about meals of the poor enjoying "their meal of government bugs" while "the wealthy will have the means to get those sub-tropical raspberries" sounds like the MAGA lie that it is: 'They are coming to take away your stoves!'

Lol, the richest 1%. Now do the richest 10% and you may have the beginnings of an argument. If you really want to slap down those eco-commie creds, do the richest 50%.

Just substitute beans and rice for bugs.

You know they're talking about gas stoves in new construction, right? Trump nixed that proposal because he realized it was racist. Or something.

ETA: Ninjad by Roger