Cont: Global warming discussion V

[Roger Ramjets]

It depends on what you mean, exactly. There is every reason to cut out the use of fossil fuels entirely, which is pretty dramatic.

No, there isn't. We just have to reduce the amount of fossil fuel we use, by replacing it with cleaner sources and sinking enough CO₂ to counter the rest.

You may say why make a distinction? The reason is how it's perceived. If you tell people that we have to stop using all fossil fuels ASAP, they rightly get upset about it and question whether such a thing is possible. Getting peoples' backs up is counterproductive, and will result in less action being taken. Unfortunately that's what has been happening, and it's partly the activists' fault.

I talk to a rural farmer about electric cars and he says "Sorry, but there's no way an electric vehicle would work for me". And I say don't worry, nobody's taking away your gas truck because we don't need to. A few farmers driving to town once a week in their diesel trucks isn't going to be a problem.

Then I tell him about how solar panels are so cheap now that they pay for themselves in less than 5 years and then you are making money selling power into the grid! He thinks about the exorbitant supply charges and frequent power cuts he is currently putting up with, and sees the opportunity to stick it to the power company (which is exactly what is happening in a big way in Australia right now).

5 years later that rural farmer needs to buy a new truck because the diesel motor blew up again (true story) and the dealer shows him this nice new electric truck with 1000km range, which can be charged off solar for zero running cost. "Oh wow, an electric vehicle is now an option for me!" - and we have mopped up that remaining 1% of fossil fuel use.

But demand we cut out all fossil fuels ASAP and what do you get? A lot of angry farmers telling everyone in earshot about how badly the government is treating them. They drive their tractors into town in protest, it gets on nationwide TV, and everybody is sympathetic to their plight. Now the rest feel that they shouldn't have to go green either, and they vote in a denialist government that rolls back global warming programs and ramps up fossil fuel usage. Congratulations, you just achieved the opposite of what you wanted!

We need to make it clean - not merely cleaner, i.e. no CO₂ emissions at all, which isn't something that is 'just' done. However, any stuff that can be run on electricity is fine as long as that electrical power comes from renewable sources. (That it also has to be affordable for poor people goes without saying - except that this is never a given in capitalism.

No, we need to get to net zero - not the same thing as no CO₂ emissions at all.

And we don't try to do it all at once. A common complaint is that we are only going for the 'low hanging fruit'. But this is what we should be doing - attacking the easy stuff first to get results with less effort. Then go for the harder stuff - which turns out to be not so hard because now we have the infrastructure, experience and acceptance to tackle it that we didn't have before.

Unfortunately, 'better alternatives' is open to interpretation. The alternatives need to be actually good alternatives

I agree. That's why any solution has to come with numbers to support it. But often we get the opposite - people touting 'green' solutions that are just attempts to continue the old ways, like hydrogen powered vehicles or building a few thousand more nuclear reactors.

Then they play up some minor downside to effective solutions that has little effect and/or is easily mitigated. "Wind turbines kill birds!" they say - nevermind that global warming will kill a lot more, and you never hear them complain about pet cats or windows. "Cobalt mining uses child labor!" they wail, when electric cars use only a fraction of the World's cobalt production and new batteries have been developed that use none.

= no CO₂ emission. CO₂ emission cut in half may be a better alternative, but it's no longer viable.

You are wrong. Even cutting it by half would make a big difference. Eventually we will get it down to net zero and even below. But if we set an initial goal that's too hard for people to stomach, we won't even achieve that.

You say it's 'no longer viable' to go for less than 100% reduction. I say once we get the ball rolling it will go faster and faster if we keep pushing it. Now sure, the climate will be worse than if we stopped all CO₂ emissions right now, but it won't be catastrophic. What will be catastrophic is if people do nothing because your demands cannot be met.

 

[Aber]

N Even cutting it by half would make a big difference. Eventually we will get it down to net zero and even below.

UK emissions are now half of what they were in 1990, but that was relatively easy to achieve by substituting gas for coal in electricity generation, reduced steel-making etc.

The next 50% reduction will be harder.

 

[dann]

I leave out your thoughts about how to persuade voters, angry farmers and other consumers. I think it would be better to move them to Social Issues & Current Events:

No, there isn't. We just have to reduce the amount of fossil fuel we use, by replacing it with cleaner sources and sinking enough CO₂ to counter the rest.

You seem to forget that merely reducing means continuing to emit CO₂ to the atmosphere, only less so, but this is not like adding SO₂ to the atmosphere. Nature doesn't make it go away in a few years because less of it is emitted. It adds up. It adds to the the already catastrophic level - and it will be even worse when all the glaciers have sucked up the heatwaves and melted as we know they are doing now.

No, we need to get to net zero - not the same thing as no CO₂ emissions at all.

I never recommended that we stop breathing!

And we don't try to do it all at once. A common complaint is that we are only going for the 'low hanging fruit'. But this is what we should be doing - attacking the easy stuff first to get results with less effort. Then go for the harder stuff - which turns out to be not so hard because now we have the infrastructure, experience and acceptance to tackle it that we didn't have before.

It is not difficult at all to switch to renewables. It's not hard stuff. (Denmark could and should have been doing it much faster than it as been doing.) There is no lack of experience. (That there is no infrastructure is because infrastructure hasn't been done.) What makes it appear to be difficult (and thus be difficult, but not in a science-math-medicine-&-technology way) is the class of rulers feeding off the selling of fossil fuels one way or the other while persuading people that switching to wind and solar is fraught with insurmountable difficulties such as lack of "infrastructure, experience and acceptance".
Don't repeat their arguments for them.

I agree. That's why any solution has to come with numbers to support it.

The numbers are there. We have had them since 1889 (Wikipedia).
As for the people touting 'green' solutions, I don't disagree with you, but they also belong in the other thread, "But Global Warming is a HOAX!!!"

You are wrong. Even cutting it by half would make a big difference.

Cutting anything in half obviously makes a difference, but the part of it that isn't cut still adds to the already catastrophic amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. If those emissions had been cut in half 30 years ago, we wouldn't be where we are now, but they weren't and we are.

Eventually we will get it down to net zero and even below.

Eventually is a word we have heard much too often on this issue. Sometimes it was even more specific: 'by 2030 ... by 2050 ... by the end of this century'.

But if we set an initial goal that's too hard for people to stomach, we won't even achieve that.

Yet another appeal to the "But-Global-Warming-is-a-HOAX!!!" crowd.
Yes, that is indeed what they have been told. So tell them the unvarnished truth for once. Even when a pretty solid majority of voters were convinced of the truth about anthropogenic global warming, nothing was done about it. Trying to make it more appealing to them was never the problem. The problem was the fossil fuel industry and the politicians they bribed - and you shouldn't try to convince those ******** of anything. It can't be done. They'll take your appeal to making it easy "for people to stomach" for what it is: An opportunity for them to continue what they've been doing the whole time: business as usual.

You say it's 'no longer viable' to go for less than 100% reduction. I say once we get the ball rolling it will go faster and faster if we keep pushing it. Now sure, the climate will be worse than if we stopped all CO₂ emissions right now, but it won't be catastrophic. What will be catastrophic is if people do nothing because your demands cannot be met.

We have seen the ball get rolling much too often. We have seen far too many 'not ideal, but it's a good start'. It wasn't!
It needs to be drastic, but drastic doesn't have to be hard - except for Big Oil, and they are the ones for whom it should be made hard. They are the ones who should be made to pay for this.
It is already catastrophic.

 

[dann]

UK emissions are now half of what they were in 1990, but that was relatively easy to achieve by substituting gas for coal in electricity generation, reduced steel-making etc.

The next 50% reduction will be harder.

Indeed: The UK once vowed to be a global climate leader. Now Rishi Sunak is stoking a culture war on green policies (CNN, Aug 1, 2023)

 

[dann]

We aren't sure if it will become mostly uninhabitable. Some places may experience wet bulb temperatures that makes mammalian life impossible, but the key consideration for humans is how we grow food and how we keep our social and economic structures from collapsing.

Some people naively think that we can just grow food farther north as climates warm. There are 2 problems with this, the first is that there is less land at higher latitudes than lower latitudes. The second is that it takes hundreds if not thousands of years for soil and drainage to develop to a point where agriculture is viable.

The other issue is how we maintain our social and trade networks as our port cities flood and can no longer drain their sewage. This along with food shortages will eventually break our ability to produce the advanced technology we have become dependent on.

In terms of making the earth uninhabitable to humans, that's something more likely to be caused by Climate Changes less talked about cousin, Ocean Acidification.

Med projektet håber forskerne at kunne være med til at løse to af verdens største problemer: Sult og klimaforandringer.
Sådan vil danske forskere forvandle CO2 til mad (Videnskab.dk, July 31, 2023)

With this project, the researchers hope to contribute to solving two of the world's biggest problems: Hunger and climate change.
How Danish researchers will turn CO₂ into food

Power to protein: Danske forskere vil omdanne CO₂ til mad (KlimaMonitor, Aug 1, 2023)
Power to protein: Danish researchers are going to turn CO₂ into food

They expect to have a prototype ready next year.


ETA: I forgot this one:
Bill Gates betaler: Danske virksomheder skal lave protein ud af CO2 (Ing.dk, June 19, 2023)
Bill Gates pays: Danish companies will create protein based on CO₂.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I leave out your thoughts about how to persuade voters, angry farmers and other consumers. I think it would be better to move them to Social Issues & Current Events:

Yes, let's push the biggest hurdle to combating global warming into a forum about 'social issues'.

You seem to forget that merely reducing means continuing to emit CO₂ to the atmosphere, only less so, but this is not like adding SO₂ to the atmosphere. Nature doesn't make it go away in a few years because less of it is emitted. It adds up. It adds to the the already catastrophic level - and it will be even worse when all the glaciers have sucked up the heatwaves and melted as we know they are doing now.

I am well aware of that, and what it means.

It is not difficult at all to switch to renewables. It's not hard stuff.

Theoretically sure, but it won't happen unless people do it - which they won't if told they have to stop using all fossil fuels now! Not going to happen so why even consider it?

The numbers are there. We have had them since 1889 (Wikipedia).

That's not the numbers I'm talking about.

As for the people touting 'green' solutions, I don't disagree with you, but they also belong in the other thread, "But Global Warming is a HOAX!!!"

Nope. We are not talking about hoaxes here.

Cutting anything in half obviously makes a difference, but the part of it that isn't cut still adds to the already catastrophic amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. If those emissions had been cut in half 30 years ago, we wouldn't be where we are now, but they weren't and we are.

That's just fearmongering. The current level of greenhouse gas isn't catastrophic.

The problem was the fossil fuel industry and the politicians they bribed - and you shouldn't try to convince those ******** of anything. It can't be done. They'll take your appeal to making it easy "for people to stomach" for what it is: An opportunity for them to continue what they've been doing the whole time: business as usual.

Sure they do, but only because we want them to. If we didn't we would vote out the corrupt politicians.

We have seen the ball get rolling much too often. We have seen far too many 'not ideal, but it's a good start'. It wasn't!

That was then, this is now.

July 5, 2023: World EV Sales Now 16% Of World Auto Sales

August 2, 2023: World EV Sales Now 19% Of World Auto Sales!

The ball is rolling, we just have to keep pushing it.

 

[lomiller]

You seem to forget that merely reducing means continuing to emit CO₂ to the atmosphere, only less so, but this is not like adding SO₂ to the atmosphere. Nature doesn't make it go away in a few years because less of it is emitted. It adds up. It adds to the the already catastrophic level - and it will be even worse when all the glaciers have sucked up the heatwaves and melted as we know they are doing now.

Land ecosystems and he Oceans currently absorb almost 30bn tonnes of CO2 per year. That's more than half of what humans are emitting.

While the airborne fraction has remained relatively stable at ~45% as emissions have increased the amount of CO2 absorbed by Oceans and Land Ecosystems each year is more likely related to atmospheric CO2 concentrations than human emissions. If so the Earth will continue to absorb ~30bn tonnes of CO2 per year even after human emissions decline. If so, atmospheric CO2 levels should stabilize if we reduce emissions by ~50%.

That's not a final answer obviously. We can't have the Oceans absorb CO2 indefinitely either because of Ocean Acidification is perhaps even more dangerous than global warming in the long term, but we have more time to deal with that than we do global warming. (Ocean Acidification is thought to be one of the culprits behind the P-T mass extinction, AKA "The great dying" and the largest mass extinction of complex life in the earths history)

 

[dann]

Yes, let's push the biggest hurdle to combating global warming into a forum about 'social issues'.

So you agree that combating global warming is a social issue rather than a technological one since every technical solution to solve the problem is already there - and has been for decades?

I am well aware of that, and what it means.

Theoretically sure, but it won't happen unless people do it - which they won't if told they have to stop using all fossil fuels now! Not going to happen so why even consider it?

That would be a stupid thing to tell people. The awareness needed is that the lies about the available alternatives - Yes, Virginia, there actually are alternatives - are lies, and that the continued use of fossil fuels will kill them and their descendants.

That's not the numbers I'm talking about.

Nope. We are not talking about hoaxes here.

You don't seem to have noticed the "" in that thread title.

That's just fearmongering. The current level of greenhouse gas isn't catastrophic.

Even Biden has noticed that there's an emergency. When the the remaining glaciers have sucked up heat by melting, the catastrophe will be full-blown. And that is without even more CO₂ added to the current level.
You ain't seen nothing yet.

Sure they do, but only because we want them to. If we didn't we would vote out the corrupt politicians.

'We' have very little understanding of what needs to be done. 'We' have been listening to the propaganda from the fossil-fuel industry and their politicians, which constitutes what 'we' know and 'want'.
And you may not have noticed, that even when 'we' want something sensible like a minimum wage that can pay for our expenses, universal health care and education, and something to be done about global warming, it doesn't happen because politicians don't do what they promised to do. Have you ever actually met representative democracy?!
Obama promised to do something about it, as did Biden. I think even the two Bushes did.
I know that you were brought up with the idea that elected politicians do what "we want them to," but they obviously don't.
You may be the guy who elected them, but you are not the guy who pays them.
But again: This is Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology and not Social Issues & Current Events.

That was then, this is now.

July 5, 2023: World EV Sales Now 16% Of World Auto Sales
August 2, 2023: World EV Sales Now 19% Of World Auto Sales!
The ball is rolling, we just have to keep pushing it.

Many people can't afford those electric cars (see the "hoax" thread), but what's even more important: Where does the power for those electric cars come from? On a windy day in my country, it comes from renewables, but that doesn't appear to be the case in yours.
It would be great if it came from wind and solar, but for the most part it doesn't. I.e. your electric cars run on fossil fuels! The vast majority of cars run on fossil fuels by burning them directly. A few now let the suppliers of the grid burn it for them. And you keep pushing the idea that if only we keep pushing that ball ...
Ever heard of Sisyphus?!
Two steps forward, two steps back. The Biden admin is sending mixed messages on climate (MSNBC, July 31, 2023)

 

[dann]

Land ecosystems and he Oceans currently absorb almost 30bn tonnes of CO2 per year. That's more than half of what humans are emitting.

While the airborne fraction has remained relatively stable at ~45% as emissions have increased the amount of CO2 absorbed by Oceans and Land Ecosystems each year is more likely related to atmospheric CO2 concentrations than human emissions. If so the Earth will continue to absorb ~30bn tonnes of CO2 per year even after human emissions decline. If so, atmospheric CO2 levels should stabilize if we reduce emissions by ~50%.

That's not a final answer obviously. We can't have the Oceans absorb CO2 indefinitely either because of Ocean Acidification is perhaps even more dangerous than global warming in the long term, but we have more time to deal with that than we do global warming. (Ocean Acidification is thought to be one of the culprits behind the P-T mass extinction, AKA "The great dying" and the largest mass extinction of complex life in the earths history)

I am not sure what you are referring to when you say currently:

The key to dissolving carbon dioxide is temperature. Cold water is better at dissolving and absorbing gasses like CO2 compared to warmer water, which is why a large amount of it gets dissolved in the ocean’s chilliest waters, according to the report. When that heavy water sinks to the deep sea, large portions of that CO2 can be stored for a long time.

But as the ocean continues to warm like the rest of the planet, its waters are projected to become less efficient at taking in carbon dioxide, and can even release it back into the atmosphere more rapidly.

The more CO2 the ocean takes up, the more acidic its waters become. After years of working overtime to take in some of the excess CO2 we’ve put in the atmosphere, ocean acidification has already increased 30 percent compared to preindustrial levels, according to the report, and could increase an additional 120 percent by 2100.
When it comes to sucking up carbon emissions, ‘the ocean has been forgiving.’ That might not last (Mar 25, 2022)

The glaciers won't be delivering cold water much longer. They are already sucking up heat as it is.
Greenland ice sheet melting six times faster than in the 1980 (Videnskab.dk, April 23, 2019)
And not just in Greenland, obviously.

 

[lomiller]

I am not sure what you are referring to when you say currently:

It's not a hard word to understand. The Ocean and Land Ecosystems will absorb ~55% of the CO2 humans emit in 2023 just like it has for the last 7 decades and the trend is likely to continue for another decade or two at least. At some point things will change, the Oceans will start emitting CO2 instead of absorbing it and melting permafrost will emit more CO2 than other land ecosystems can absorb but we have not reached that tipping point yet.

 

[lomiller]

The glaciers won't be delivering cold water much longer. They are already sucking up heat as it is.
Greenland ice sheet melting six times faster than in the 1980 (Videnskab.dk, April 23, 2019)
And not just in Greenland, obviously.

When that accelerates another 20X - 50X it will start to become a serious problem. Again though we have not reached that tipping point yet. At present the largest contribution to sea level rise is still ocean expansion

 

[macdoc]

The glaciers won't be delivering cold water much longer. They are already sucking up heat as it is.
Greenland ice sheet melting six times faster than in the 1980 (Videnskab.dk, April 23, 2019)
And not just in Greenland, obviously.

Ummmm you need to check your scale - even Greenland and Western Antarctic will be melting for a long time - centuries - Eastern AA for millenia.

 

[lomiller]

Ummmm you need to check your scale - even Greenland and Western Antarctic will be melting for a long time - centuries - Eastern AA for millenia.

At current rates yes, but the Paleo record shows ice sheets including West Antarctica and Greenland melting much faster than current rates. The problem is that we don't really know how or why that happens. Still, that's an end of century problem, first things first.

 

[lionking]

I know that weather is not climate, but crazy weather conditions are. We are in the middle of winter where I live, and, while it doesn’t snow, overnight temperatures are a few degrees C (say 34F). Last night it was 17C (65F). This rarely happens in summer.

Meanwhile our government continues to open gas fields. Not for our benefit (gas prices are through the roof) but to export mainly to China. Idiocy.

 

[lionking]

It’s not just my imagination:

On Thursday the most unusual heat was observed over the south-east states and our capitals were bathed in sunshine and the warmest maximums in the middle half of winter in more than a decade:
Melbourne 19.8C – warmest in mid-winter for 10 years
Hobart 19.6C – warmest in mid-winter for 20 years
Adelaide 24.7C – warmest in mid-winter for 48 years (26.6C)

 

[Roger Ramjets]

So you agree that combating global warming is a social issue rather than a technological one since every technical solution to solve the problem is already there - and has been for decades?

No, not at all. Knowing that something is technically possible and actually doing it are two different things. We had electric cars since 1890, but they had issues. Gas cars did too, but they solved them quicker and took over the market. As a result there was almost no advance in electric vehicle technology in the next 100 years, while IC engines got better and better.

It's only in the last 10 years that electric cars have become commercially viable, and only in the last 5 years that they have become good enough to replace most gas cars. This positive result is partly due to government incentives, but more because a few visionaries pushed for it and (some of) the public responded positively.

However you may have noticed a large amount of skepticism by the auto industry and the general public, for good reason. While we theoretically have 'had the technology' since the 1890's, making a practical product to replace modern gas cars was a different story. The government could have just said 'no more gas cars it's electric or nothing', but that would have been a disaster. There has to be transition period - preferably market-led - to bring it all together.

That would be a stupid thing to tell people.

But that's what you are saying. Does this mean...

You ain't seen nothing yet.

I'm sure I haven't. But your 'solution' is impossible.

Obama promised to do something about it, as did Biden. I think even the two Bushes did.

Obama was hit with so much partisanship that he was lucky to get anything done at all. Remember solyndra? One company out of dozens that the government invested in, whose tech didn't pan out because other solar products made better progress. And we never heard the end of it. Then Obama was gone and we got Trump, who spent 4 years trying to undo everything Obama did. And he could do that because he had support from the people.

Now Biden is doing so well that even Fox News praises him for it, yet you would never know it from what so called 'progressives' are saying here. Instead of looking at what he is actually doing you focus on one statement he made that we can't just drop fossil fuels overnight - which happens to be true.

I know that you were brought up with the idea that elected politicians do what "we want them to," but they obviously don't.

They mostly do actually. Where they don't it's because they can't. For example Trump did the best he could to get that wall built. If the people wanted to combat global warming instead they would have voted for Hillary.

You may be the guy who elected them, but you are not the guy who pays them.

Even though we do pay them, in a democracy each individual doesn't get to tell government what to do. What a disaster that would be! But collectively we do, even by our apathy.

But again: This is Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology and not Social Issues & Current Events.

Way back at the start of this discussion, the following message was posted by the moderator:-

Hello Members,

It has been noted that there have been a lot of threads created on the topic of global warming...

Since many of the threads cover the same or similar ground, we've decided to keep only this thread for general Global Warming discussions, which will be moderated. Unless the topic is very different from the "general" discussion, new threads and posts about global warming will be moved to that thread if they satisfy the membership agreement.

That policy is no longer being enforced, but the principle remains. The discussion is about Global Warming in general, not just 'the science' or 'the technology'. As such, discussing the practicalities of implementing the science and technology is certainly on topic here.

Many people can't afford those electric cars (see the "hoax" thread),

Why is a thread about global warming being a hoax talking about who can afford an electric car?

Most people can't afford any new car, electric or gas. That is a big problem for those who are advocating the immediate removal of all fossil fuels because there are not nearly enough second-hand electric cars to meet the demand, so most people who can't afford a new one would have to move close to work or give up their job or worse. To implement such a policy without considering the consequences would be very foolish (and rightly get you kicked out of office).

but what's even more important: Where does the power for those electric cars come from? On a windy day in my country, it comes from renewables, but that doesn't appear to be the case in yours.

82% renewable electricity where I live. But even if it was much lower, electricity produced by gas turbines releases much less CO₂ per mile than petrol in IC engines. An electric car can go further on the electricity used to refine the oil than the petrol it produces!

This is what I mean by 'numbers'. Yet the public never hears that one do they? No wonder they fall for arguments like yours.

 

[dann]

No, not at all. Knowing that something is technically possible and actually doing it are two different things. We had electric cars since 1890, but they had issues. Gas cars did too, but they solved them quicker and took over the market. As a result there was almost no advance in electric vehicle technology in the next 100 years, while IC engines got better and better.

It's only in the last 10 years that electric cars have become commercially viable, and only in the last 5 years that they have become good enough to replace most gas cars. This positive result is partly due to government incentives, but more because a few visionaries pushed for it and (some of) the public responded positively.

However you may have noticed a large amount of skepticism by the auto industry and the general public, for good reason. While we theoretically have 'had the technology' since the 1890's, making a practical product to replace modern gas cars was a different story. The government could have just said 'no more gas cars it's electric or nothing', but that would have been a disaster. There has to be transition period - preferably market-led - to bring it all together.

Yes, I did notice "a large amount of skepticism by the auto industry and the general public" - for no good reason. If the reason had been good, some of all the other solutions might have occurred to them - and to you, too. It did occur to some countries, which you'll know if you look at what those countries did. Instead, you repeat the auto industry's skepticism and present it as if its favored solution to climate change, i.e. one that would allow it to continue as usual, was an insurmountable obstacle to doing anything. In other words: If the inability of the auto industry to make good electric cars was the problem, cities should have been rearranged, infrastructure should have been put in place to make the transition from cars to public transport and bikes.
Always looking out for the interests of the industries that were responsible for global warming is what has allowed them to carry on emitting CO₂, so it's no wonder nothing has been done: Cities were built and are still being built based on cars.
Boiled down to basics, your argument is that what big companies, the market economy, unfettered capitalism, require is what's possible. Anything else is an aberration. It is how you turn yourself into a defender of the interests of the auto and fossil fuel industries - in the name of an attempt to stop global warming.

But that's what you are saying. Does this mean...

No, what I said was: "... which they won't if told they (!!!) have to stop using all fossil fuels now!" What I said was that the use of fossil fuel has to stop now.[/] I didn't individualize the problem the way you imply and the way the fossil fuel industry and nowadays MAGA present it. You present the problem the same way the U.S. Minitruth does: 'The commie mob is coming to take your gas stoves, your fridges and your cars - and turn your children gay - (Well, that one is probably just MAGA) with nothing to replace it.' What I have been saying, probably more so in the other thread than here, is that this has to be a societal change, a societal stop for fossil fuels. In Europe, people tend to know this. In the USA, you have been up against a propaganda machine run by and paid for the fossil-fuel and auto industry, and you have bought into their logic to the extent where you now repeat it, or propose (very) long-term 'solutions' to appease the sentiments of those who believe the lie. (As the MSNBC video said: Two steps forwards and two step backwards.)

I'm sure I haven't. But your 'solution' is impossible.

Yes, that's what Big Oil has been telling you. It doesn't get any better because you repeat it.

Obama was hit with so much partisanship that he was lucky to get anything done at all. Remember solyndra? One company out of dozens that the government invested in, whose tech didn't pan out because other solar products made better progress. And we never heard the end of it. Then Obama was gone and we got Trump, who spent 4 years trying to undo everything Obama did. And he could do that because he had support from the people.

Now Biden is doing so well that even Fox News praises him for it, yet you would never know it from what so called 'progressives' are saying here. Instead of looking at what he is actually doing you focus on one statement he made that we can't just drop fossil fuels overnight - which happens to be true.

Oh, those poor politician and all the things they would love to do for you but just can't because ... poor politicians!!! For 50 years they have been talking about this, but somehow they never get around to it because ... poor politicians!
Yes, Trump had support from the people because the opposition never really came up with any other arguments than the repetitions of the excuses that they had been told by their political favourites and leaders of industry. And the poor goodie Obama was replaced by the evil baddie Trump, and even though Obama gave up on doing something about global warming, “Democracy is nevertheless better than fascism,” right?!
Why democrats fail at the criticism of fascism! (RuthlessCriticism)

Not even Fox's praise of Biden makes you the least bit suspicious even though I have never heard Fox praise Biden for doing something effective about climate change. I'm pretty sure that you haven't either. But Biden is "doing so well that even Fox News praises him for it." Doing so well doing what, exactly?! Tell us more about "what he is actually doing."
You appear to believe that Biden has just been so fantastic that Fox simply had to give up criticizing him, even though what has obviously happened is that their old favorite has become too much of a liability for Murdoch, the Koch brothers, Big Oil and the rest of Big Industry, i.e. the ones who tell the 'deciders' what to decide. They had already dropped Trump in favor of DeSantis, which also doesn't seem to make you suspicious of their praise for Biden.

They mostly do actually. Where they don't it's because they can't. For example Trump did the best he could to get that wall built. If the people wanted to combat global warming instead they would have voted for Hillary.

The evergreen excuse: They want to do exactly what we want them to do, but they can't because ... poor, well-intentioned politicians. A (long deceased) acquaintance of mine used to say that democracy is the political system that ensures that what a majority of people want isn't done: be it global warming, universal health care, free education, minimum wage. The political system effectively prevents those things from being carried out. The arguments are usually, 1) 'we' can't afford it or 2) the others won't let us, so you should vote for us next time. (And next time, the argument is then 1) 'we' can't afford it', which is the point when frustrated 'swing voters' vote for the other ********, which is what they're there for.)

Even though we do pay them, in a democracy each individual doesn't get to tell government what to do. What a disaster that would be! But collectively we do, even by our apathy.

Apparently, you don't pay them enough, in their opinion, which is why they are for sale to the highest bidder, who isn't "each individual." And again you come up with an excuse for the way your political system works: What a disaster it would be if people actually got to decide instead of handing over the power to decide to politicians. It's the same basic principle in most democratic countries, Western Europe for instance, but the U.S. version of repesentative democracy (here with a reference to the Danish version) is pretty extreme with its PACs and super PACs, gerrymandering, electors and easily bribed Supreme Court judges. And yet you refuse to give up your belief in this system because .... It's a scary thought, isn't it?! That the system doesn't do what you were told it was meant to do. So you tell yourself it's worth it because it would be a disaster if the representatives actually represented people's (or even the majority of the people's) wishes instead of the interests of industry.

[Discussion of moderation snipped]

Why is a thread about global warming being a hoax talking about who can afford an electric car?

Why not?!

Most people can't afford any new car, electric or gas. That is a big problem for those who are advocating the immediate removal of all fossil fuels because there are not nearly enough second-hand electric cars to meet the demand, so most people who can't afford a new one would have to move close to work or give up their job or worse. To implement such a policy without considering the consequences would be very foolish (and rightly get you kicked out of office).

Yes, poverty is always an unfortunate problem for those who aren't poor. If only the poor had been rich, they wouldn't have stood in the way of the good intentions of those of us who can afford those electric cars and buy them for the sake of the environment. I think I mentioned at the beginning of the thread why the problem is a system geared towards private ownership of cars, so I won't repeat it. You, on the other hand, repeat your excuse on the behalf of politicians: 'But they would be kicked out of offcice, so what can they do?! Nothing! And what can we do - other than hope that the next ones or the next ones will actually represent the interests of the people who are obviously too immature to rule themselves.'

82% renewable electricity where I live. But even if it was much lower, electricity produced by gas turbines releases much less CO₂ per mile than petrol in IC engines. An electric car can go further on the electricity used to refine the oil than the petrol it produces!

This is what I mean by 'numbers'. Yet the public never hears that one do they? No wonder they fall for arguments like yours.

What was my argument they fall for again?!
I don't know where you live, but I can see that Texas, iERCOT GENERATION FUEL MIX, 2011-2021, fossil fuels (gas & coal) has gone from 79% (2011) to 61% (2022). It's shocking that solar isn't used more in a state like that. I assume that the vast majority of cars are gas guzzlers.
For all of the USA, I get these percentages:

About 79% of the nation’s energy comes from fossil fuels, 8.4% from nuclear, and 12.5% from renewable sources. In 2019, renewables surpassed coal in the amount of energy provided to the U.S. and continued this trend in 2021. Wind and solar are the fastest growing renewable sources, but contribute just 5% of total energy used in the U.S.U.S. Renewable Energy Factsheet (Center for Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan)

According to the same article, renewable energy consumption is projected to rise to almost 22% ... in 2050.

Wow! That's bound to save the atmosphere while we enjoy each other's company in the cooling centers.

 

[dann]

Swaths of the U.S. are living through a brutal summer. It's a climate wake-up calls for many (AP News, Aug 3, 2023)

The world just got its first real taste of what life is like at 1.5 degrees Celsius (WP, Aug 3, 2023)

Global ocean temperatures soared to the highest level on record this week (CNN, Aug 4, 2023)

Antarctic Sea Ice Is at a 'Very Concerning' Record Low (NYT, Aug 5, 2023)

A paper in the journal Science in 2022 looked at several climate "tipping points" – conditions beyond which changes become self-perpetuating and difficult or impossible to undo. While the concept raised the hackles of some scientists, who suggested it was overly simplistic, the paper suggested even the possibility of such no-going-back points provided compelling reasons to limit warming as much as possible.

About a year later, several global systems that scientists have been concerned about are showing signs of becoming increasingly fragile.

Antarctic sea ice is at a record low, fires in Canada are reshaping terrain and polluting the air and record ocean temperatures are threatening coral. There's even new research published in July that suggests critical Atlantic Ocean currents could collapse sooner than expected, which could trigger rapid weather and climate changes.

But the news isn't all bad: There's some good news in the Amazon. And scientists continue to say that if humanity takes climate threats seriously and quickly moves to end carbon emissions, the scenarios below become less likely or at least less extreme.
How climate change could irreversibly alter Earth's ecosystems (USA Today, Aug 5, 2023)

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Yes, I did notice "a large amount of skepticism by the auto industry and the general public" - for no good reason. If the reason had been good, some of all the other solutions might have occurred to them - and to you, too.

No, people had good reason to believe the 'other solutions' might not be satisfactory.

The first electric car produced in large numbers was the Nissan Leaf. Its stated range was 100 miles, but nobody ever got that. The battery was warranted for 8 years. But in California people were seeing severe capacity loss after only a few years, due to the heat. As someone who has a lot experience with Lithium-Ion batteries I could have told them that would happen. So this car only suited people who lived in temperate climates and didn't drive very far. That's a lot of people, but this car was not a 'solution' for most people in the US.

The current model Leaf gets double that range, but today this is still considered a bit low. The battery still doesn't have active cooling, but they changed the chemistry to make it a bit more tolerant of high temperatures.

Other manufacturers are making better vehicles, but they cost more. Nobody has yet managed to make an electric car for the same price as the equivalent gas car. In 2011 - when the Leaf was introduced - the technology simply wasn't there to get anywhere near the range most people needed at a reasonable price. So you can understand why they were skeptical of the idea that we could change the fleet to electric overnight.

Now you may say that there were 'other' other solutions too, to bridge the gap. But what would they be? Tell people they can't drive cars anymore if they have to go more than 100 miles? Force them to ride in buses (which would also have to be electric) or only work in jobs within walking distance? Now you are talking massive disruption - not just buying an electric car instead of a gas car.

No, what I said was: "... which they won't if told they (!!!) have to stop using all fossil fuels now!" What I said was that the use of fossil fuel has to stop now.[/]

A distinction without a difference. 'The use' is the same as 'all use'. People aren't stupid, they know what it means. If you mean something else you need to spell it out, but as it stands you are saying that nobody will be allowed to use any fossil fuels.

You present the problem the same way the U.S. Minitruth does: 'The commie mob is coming to take your gas stoves, your fridges and your cars

I don't know how it can be interpreted any other way. It certainly sounds like the kind of decree that a communist government would make.

 

[wobs]

Alien archeologist I: Sorry but I don't get this. You say they did have the technology. They had known about it for more than a century, and they had been certain about it for decades. So why didn't they do anything to stop Terra from turning into Venus?!
Alien archeologists II:It wasn't cost effective to save humanity. It wouldn't get them elected.
Alien archeologist I: But that's ******* insane!
Alien archeologist II: I know. One of their scientists, Pris, said it best:

Strawman argument. No one is suggesting we don't do anything to tackle climate change. Its just that the viable methods (nuclear) are ones you don't like.

But what do I mean by viable? Well it doesn't necessarily have to be profitable, but there's a line to draw. A grid based just on wind & solar would be far more expensive than one with a combination of nuclear/wind/solar/other low carbon. Both approaches would cut carbon emissions. Clearly, this is a repeat of what I've said before, but given your post, it clearly needs repeating.