Cont: Global warming discussion V

[arthwollipot]

Yes, that makes sense, especially in Australia where a car parked in the sun becomes an oven after half an hour. More places should do that.

 

[novaphile]

Yes, that makes sense, especially in Australia where a car parked in the sun becomes an oven after half an hour. More places should do that.

Wowsers!

Solar Program Updates

13 December 2019

We’re pleased to provide an update on the completion of the solar shaded car park project at the centre.

Construction has been completed and features over 430 new shaded spaces with a solar capacity of 1 megawatt (MW), which is in addition to the existing 1.3MW installed on the centre’s roof space.

Our solar shaded parking provides a new level in customer comfort through protection from the elements, especially in the hotter summer months and during wet weather.

Nearly 3,000 solar PV panels have been laid across the centre car park, ensuing customers can benefit from these improved facilities when they visit.

https://www.castleplaza.com.au/centre-info/learn-about-our-solar-program

That's a fair old chunk of solar panels.

Makes my eight panels look a bit tiddly.

 

[arthwollipot]

Back in 2019, too.

 

[FatherLukeduke]

Back in 2019, too.

And yet...

Australia has highest per capita CO2 emissions from coal in G20, analysis finds

Australia used twice as much electricity as China on a per capita basis and 48% of it came from coal plants, thinktank says

That is down from 64%, so...well done? Australia still has a staggeringly dirty economy, the only worse CO2 polluters being small petro-states, so don't get too carried away with the back slapping.

On the other hand, in terms of global CO2 output, it doesn't really make any difference.

 

[arthwollipot]

And yet...

Australia has highest per capita CO2 emissions from coal in G20, analysis finds


That is down from 64%, so...well done? Australia still has a staggeringly dirty economy, the only worse CO2 polluters being small petro-states, so don't get too carried away with the back slapping.

On the other hand, in terms of global CO2 output, it doesn't really make any difference.

And we still export our coal to China, India and all the others too, so you're not wrong.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

FYI:

'Staggering' rise of rooftop solar to put all other power generation in the shade, report finds

I know. I had this example in mind when posting.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Have you seen where I have claimed that?

We may have a different opinion of what significant means.

I will consider it significant when the temp starts to level off or actually go down.

You do love your moving goalposts, don't you?
"There are no realistic alternatives."
"OK, there are, but you can't make people choose them."
"OK, you can, but that won't have any significant effect."
"OK, there is a significant effect, but that's only in one country: it's not global."
Etc etc

Face it: you like being pessimistic and miserable. Nothing anyone can do will ever change that.
In the meantime, I will continue to observe the many positive changes going on around the world, and be happy about them.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

You do love your moving goalposts, don't you?
"There are no realistic alternatives."
"OK, there are, but you can't make people choose them."
"OK, you can, but that won't have any significant effect."
"OK, there is a significant effect, but that's only in one country: it's not global."
Etc etc

Face it: you like being pessimistic and miserable. Nothing anyone can do will ever change that.
In the meantime, I will continue to observe the many positive changes going on around the world, and be happy about them.

Funny. I didn't say OK to any of those things..

The only positive change going on around the world is temperature. Why do you think anything else really matters?

I'm the most optimistic person I know, and I am anything but miserable.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

How will that figure into the global goals?

Each country is responsible for its own emissions. If every country meets its targets then the global goals will will be achieved. If some exceed their targets then others might get away with doing less, but only so much of that can be tolerated.

In 2022 China produced 29.2% of the World's GHG emissions, the US produced 11.2%, India produced 7.3%, the EU produced 6.7%, Russia produced 4.8% and Brazil produced 2.4%. These are the biggest emitters whose reductions will have the most impact.

Australia could argue that their 1.1% contribution is so low that any reduction will be negligible. So could many other countries. But collectively the 'rest of the World' contributes 38.4%, higher than China and India combined. So other countries can't just sit back and expect the big emitters to do the heavy lifting for them.

China may be the largest emitter in absolute terms, but if you look at the numbers per capita the picture is quite different.

Though the number has risen a lot since the turn of the century, the average Chinese person is still only responsible for half as much GHG as the average American. Furthermore 76% of GHG produced in China comes from power and industry, much of which is used to produce products made for the West. Therefore an American (or anyone else with a similar living standard who buys Chinese made goods) can't justify putting all the blame on China when they as individuals are much bigger polluters.

But you ask how do Australia's rooftop solar figures into the global goals? Firstly the obvious way, it reduces GHG emissions. By itself that might not make much difference, but with other countries applying similar measures the combined effect will be very significant.

Secondly it means Australia can meet its obligations, which strengthens the global initiative and encourages other countries to do their bit - including the big emitters. China knows it has a big role to play, so it is rapidly deploying wind, solar, and nuclear as well as electric vehicles and other cleaner technologies. At the same time it is exporting that technology to other countries so they can reduce their carbon footprint too.

We are all in this together. Nobody can justify saying "My contribution is so small on a global scale that it's irrelevant.". That's freeloading. If everyone did it we wouldn't get anywhere, and everyone would suffer. We can tolerate a small amount of it, but the people who do it shouldn't be surprised if we take a dim view of their stance.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

You do love your moving goalposts, don't you?
"There are no realistic alternatives."
"OK, there are, but you can't make people choose them."
"OK, you can, but that won't have any significant effect."
"OK, there is a significant effect, but that's only in one country: it's not global."
Etc etc

Face it: you like being pessimistic and miserable. Nothing anyone can do will ever change that.
In the meantime, I will continue to observe the many positive changes going on around the world, and be happy about them.

Funny. I didn't say OK to any of those things..

Yes, you did:

They are certainly realistic ways to reduce emissions.

Yes they have those alternatives

That's you saying OK, those alternatives are realistic.

Here you are accepting that enough people in Australia have chosen solar power to make a difference in that country, and shifting the goalposts to a global scenario:

How will that figure into the global goals?

Seems clear to me, at least, that you did accept each point that was made, but then moved the goalposts every time.

The only positive change going on around the world is temperature. Why do you think anything else really matters?

Yes, I do. Pollution. Deforestation. Sustainable development. Lots of things matter as well.

I'm the most optimistic person I know, and I am anything but miserable.

Then you must move in some terminally depressed social circles:

I really do appreciate your position dann. I am just to cynical about human nature ( selfishness and greed) to effectively argue about these human induced problems, whether the humans are on the giving or the receiving end.

I'll just watch for a while.

Yes they have those alternatives, what do you propose we do to encourage them to take those alternatives?

I'll take cynical, you can have unrealistic..

I personally do not equate cynicism with optimism, nor with happiness.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

We've already determined that while these solutions are all well and good, they're nowhere near enough to avert climate disaster.

We have?

Not only was 1.5C set as a sort of doomsday marker that we all need to avoid, now, depending on your source... we're already there.

Nope.

Here is what the IPCC actually said:-

All 1.5°C scenarios... include some overshoot above 1.5°C of global warming during the 21st century... The level of overshoot may also depend on natural climate variability...

The impacts of climate change are being felt in every inhabited continent and in the oceans. However, they are not spread uniformly across the globe, and different parts of the world experience impacts differently. An average warming of 1.5°C across the whole globe raises the risk of heatwaves and heavy rainfall events, amongst many other potential impacts. Limiting warming to 1.5°C rather than 2°C can help reduce these risks, but the impacts the world experiences will depend on the specific greenhouse gas emissions ‘pathway’ taken. The consequences of temporarily overshooting 1.5°C of warming and returning to this level later in the century, for example, could be larger than if temperature stabilizes below 1.5°C. The size and duration of an overshoot will also affect future impacts.

1.5°C is an arbitrary limit, chosen because it was seen as being achievable. The climate won't blow up if we go a bit over it, it will just be worse.

You might ask, if 1.5°C isn't a 'doomsday marker', why are people so adamant about not exceeding it? The reason is that if we don't set a marker and do the best we can to stick to it, the 'acceptable' temperature will keep climbing until it does cause a climate catastrophe.

The IPCC calculated future trends in GHG emissions based on various scenarios. The 'business as usual' scenario would result in a temperature rise exceeding 5°C, which would be catastrophic. However this is unlikely because we are no longer on a 'business as usual' trajectory. Despite your assertion that current efforts are 'nowhere near enough' they are having a significant effect, and it is increasing.

The only question is will we continue making progress, or will too many chicken out in favor of short-term personal gain? Shell (yes, that Shell) recently calculated two scenarios based on 'security through self interest' leading to a 2.2°C rise, and 'security through mutual interest' resulting in a peak of ~1.7°C dropping to 1.24°C by 2100. Both scenarios assume that fossil fuel usage will decline, at either 1 percentage point per year or 2 percentage points. Yes, a miserable 1% could make all the difference. So far we appear be headed on the 1% slope, which won't be nice but won't be catastrophic either. But if we could manage an extra 1% it would be a lot better.

The problem with any initiative like this is that we can't run a 'control' experiment to show people what would be happening if we did nothing. So they look at the numbers and think it isn't working. But people in general are not good at evaluating stuff like this, which is where we get to the real problem - how to convince them not to throw in the towel because they aren't seeing the results they expect.

 

[Stout]

Yes, that's what I've been saying all along. 1.5C is an abritary target, one that will never be met because very few people are willing to live in an avert 1.5C world. Sure, they may say they are and willing to get behind activists making unreasonable demands but when push comes to shove, very few people would be happy with the living conditions they demand their government would need to impose on them to make that target.

When you get someone like Joe Biden coming out and stating that the only thing scarier than nuclear war is hitting 1.5C (then muttering something about in the next 20-10 years) you gotta wonder just how grounded in reality these people really are.

Same with net zero by 2030. Write down some big numbers while noshing on canapés at a big international conference my look good but there' no way no how your citizenry is going to want to live in that world either. Hey, maybe you're an Extinction Rebellion fan, then you know 1.5C is already here and demand net zero by 2025. Hummm, yea, sure guys.

So keep doing the happy happy joy joy dance at the small victories and laughing at the identity politics that has dragged climate change discussions down into the muck while shifting your real world attention to resilience and adaptation, which, I'm pleased to see, is finally entering the discussion.

Here's a great example of identity politics to have a giggle at. One that twists common sense so hard that it screams in agony.

Same-sex couples vulnerable to negative effects of climate change

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Yes, we should just adapt to the grain producing plains of the Americas, Europe and Asia becoming deserts.

After all, we should not try to get economic damage now.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Yes, that's what I've been saying all along. 1.5C is an abritary target, one that will never be met because very few people are willing to live in an avert 1.5C world.

The IPCC's 1.5C number is an average taken over 10 years. By the time we hit that, many places around the World will have experienced much higher temperature increases, and some already have. People living in those places know the consequences of not 'averting'.

By the time we reach the IPCC's 1.5C mark we will have already experienced several years above it. But that's just the global average. Increased energy in the atmosphere causes local variations that are much greater. Stronger heat waves, more droughts, more rain, more cyclones, even more cold in some places. This isn't climate disaster, but many people will experience local disasters like they have never seen before (I already have). Those people will become believers.

Those who aren't directly affected will wonder when their time is coming. Eventually everybody will be calling for action because it will be affecting everybody. Insurance rates will skyrocket, economies will falter, conflicts will flare up and mass migrations will strain our societies.

All this will happen before we hit the IPCC's 1.5C mark. By then the majority will be quite willing to live in an 'avert 1.5C world'. And then they'll be pining for it. When this happens, expect to see a rapid change in sentiment and a dramatic increase in support for mitigation efforts.

Sure, they may say they are and willing to get behind activists making unreasonable demands but when push comes to shove, very few people would be happy with the living conditions they demand their government would need to impose on them to make that target.

The activists you are talking about are extremists. Few people will be getting behind their unreasonable demands, but governments are quite capable of meeting targets without being unreasonable. Of course some people will say that any 'impositions' are unreasonable, but that too is unreasonable. As the need for action becomes more obvious those people will be increasingly ignored. Some of them will probably become extremists too - if they aren't already.

When you get someone like Joe Biden coming out and stating that the only thing scarier than nuclear war is hitting 1.5C (then muttering something about in the next 20-10 years) you gotta wonder just how grounded in reality these people really are.

Excuse me, that is reality.

There is a non-zero probability that Russia will use nuclear weapons against Ukraine. We are very concerned about that, but if it happens it will only directly affect Ukraine and Russia. Going much above 1.5C will have a much greater effect on the World at large than a few nukes (if you will remember we did that already in 1945, and it wasn't the end of the World).

Same with net zero by 2030. Write down some big numbers while noshing on canapés at a big international conference my look good but there' no way no how your citizenry is going to want to live in that world either. Hey, maybe you're an Extinction Rebellion fan, then you know 1.5C is already here and demand net zero by 2025. Hummm, yea, sure guys.

Net zero is theoretically achievable by 2030, but few think it can realistically be done that quickly. In 2020 China pledged to reach net zero before 2060. New Zealand hopes to do it by 2050. I will probably be dead by then, but I hope to live long enough to see good progress towards that goal.

I don't know where you got the idea that I might be an an Extinction Rebellion fan. Reaching net zero by 2025 is obviously impossible. Why would you put these words in my mouth? Seriously, why would you?

Here's a great example of identity politics to have a giggle at. One that twists common sense so hard that it screams in agony.

Same-sex couples vulnerable to negative effects of climate change

And now we see why. It's all just a joke to you. The serious things happening in the world are merely a backdrop to what really matters to you - boosting your ego in an attempt to become an alpha male. IOW, a typical 'skeptic'. Luckily we don't all act like animals when important matters are being discussed.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

The point of 'small victories' is that they are cumulative. Every single that that is done, from individual up to governmental and international steps, move us further in the right direction. Surely the reason it's taking time, and that the positives are small (though I would actually dispute that) is that we are working towards achieving sustainable targets without having to go all sackcloth and ashes? There are a lot of things to balance: developing countries need to develop, the big players in industry need to be steered onto the correct course without bankrupting economies, economies in general need to be weaned of fossil fuels, infrastructure made greener, maintenance of living standards...It takes time. I'm happy that the work has started. Could we do more? Absolutely. Should we? For sure. I'm not complacent- just hopeful.

 

[Stout]

The IPCC's 1.5C number is an average taken over 10 years. By the time we hit that, many places around the World will have experienced much higher temperature increases, and some already have. People living in those places know the consequences of not 'averting'.

Yes, I'm aware of that and we're seeing every single anomalous weather event being attributed to climate change, today. Every one, with predictions that things are going to get much, much worse unless we, ugh, make small changes in the right direction?

The activists you are talking about are extremists. Few people will be getting behind their unreasonable demands, but governments are quite capable of meeting targets without being unreasonable. Of course some people will say that any 'impositions' are unreasonable, but that too is unreasonable. As the need for action becomes more obvious those people will be increasingly ignored. Some of them will probably become extremists too - if they aren't already.

I don't know about that. Seems to me Greta Thunberg had a lot of support and she was an extremist who used a lot of words to not say much beyond "we need to stop burning fossil fuels". Extinction Rebellion was formed alongside Thunberg and it was in 2020, when their website went live that they issued their net zero by 2025 demand. Support Thunberg, support XR.

And now we see why. It's all just a joke to you. The serious things happening in the world are merely a backdrop to what really matters to you - boosting your ego in an attempt to become an alpha male. IOW, a typical 'skeptic'. Luckily we don't all act like animals when important matters are being discussed.

Oh relax, read the article again. Everybody knows that the elderly and disabled are far more at risk from the effects of climate change that the LGBTQ. That piece belongs in The Onion.

 

[Aridas]

Oh relax, read the article again. Everybody knows that the elderly and disabled are far more at risk from the effects of climate change that the LGBTQ. That piece belongs in The Onion.

The elderly, the disabled, the poor, those who live in less well developed countries...

FWIW, when I had tried to read it, I was unable to reach the page for whatever reason. On a quick search about archive.ph, I saw a claim that as a site, it's dead and I'm just not interested in digging further.

Thus, I can't really comment on the article you cite itself, where it's from, or what audience it was directed towards, which makes it difficult to substantiate your claim in meaningful context. On a quick search of the topic, though, it looks like you're poking at a standing issue. Same-sex couples are one of the groups that are disproportionately at risk due to climate change. Not really either ground-breaking news there or something that's worthy of too much attention beyond potential consideration by disaster preparedness organizations.

The risks to everyone are already reasonably well documented, after all, as are the more general at risk groups.

 

[Stout]

The elderly, the disabled, the poor, those who live in less well developed countries...

FWIW, when I had tried to read it, I was unable to reach the page for whatever reason. On a quick search about archive.ph, I saw a claim that as a site, it's dead and I'm just not interested in digging further.

Thus, I can't really comment on the article you cite itself, where it's from, or what audience it was directed towards, which makes it difficult to substantiate your claim in meaningful context. On a quick search of the topic, though, it looks like you're poking at a standing issue. Same-sex couples are one of the groups that are disproportionately at risk due to climate change. Not really either ground-breaking news there or something that's worthy of too much attention beyond potential consideration by disaster preparedness organizations.

The risks to everyone are already reasonably well documented, after all, as are the more general at risk groups.

Must be a problem on your end. Archive.ph is not dead and I used it to archive the article from the Los Angles Blade that was published 6 days ago. I certainly can't be the only one who's getting sick of links to that end up being paywalled.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I don't know about that. Seems to me Greta Thunberg had a lot of support and she was an extremist who used a lot of words to not say much beyond "we need to stop burning fossil fuels". Extinction Rebellion was formed alongside Thunberg and it was in 2020, when their website went live that they issued their net zero by 2025 demand. Support Thunberg, support XR.

I support Greta Thunberg when she is being reasonable, same as I do anyone else. Has she called for global net zero by 2025? If so then then I don't support her on that.

On December 2, 2020 the New Zealand government (led by Jacinda Ardern) officially declared a “climate emergency”, and launched an initiative requiring many public agencies to become carbon neutral by 2025. But in an article on the website "newsroom", Marc Daalder pointed out that this represented less than 1% of our total emissions. Greta Thunberg then mockingly tweeted "In other words, the government has just committed to reducing less than 1 per cent of the country's emissions by 2025", which is 100% true if you ignore any other things the government was doing to reduce emissions. Was it unreasonable to expect more?

The article she cited continued...

New Zealand, for the record, will come nowhere close to meeting the IPCC’s recommendation that countries reduce emissions to 45 percent below 2010 levels by 2030. In 2030, our net emissions will be just 6 percent below 2010 levels, according to projections from the Ministry for the Environment.
The Government says its net zero public sector target is leading by example.

That’s true – and there’s value in leading by example, but you can’t lead by example alone. Right now, the Government is modelling what it wants us to do – buy EVs, live and work in more energy efficient buildings and reduce emissions in all other aspects of our lives – but expecting us to pick up the burden without giving us the regulatory tools to do so.

I think that's a pretty fair criticism, and I'm with Thunberg's take on it (note: she never suggested setting a goal of net zero for the whole country by 2025).

On June 13, 2021 the New Zealand government introduced the Clean Car Discount scheme, which offered up to $8,625 for new EVs and $3,450 for used vehicles (I missed out on that by 2 years). It also placed a small surcharge on 'heavy polluting' vehicles, which the news media dubbed the 'ute tax'. Of course this immediately created a backlash from farmers who need such vehicles, and the National party promised to repeal the act when they got into power. National also promised to make EVs pay road user charges, the exemption from this (until 2% of the fleet is electric) being the only other incentive the government offered to EV owners.

Was the Clean Car Discount a response to criticism from Thunberg and others, or was the government intending to do it anyway? I hope it was the latter, but wouldn't be surprised her 'activism' was a factor. If so then I thank her for it.

You dismiss Thunberg's criticism by associating it with 'activists making unreasonable demands', but what about the other side?

The term 'Ute Tax' was coined by Groundswell NZ in their successful attempt to derail the government's efforts to ease the transition to low carbon transport.

On 5 July 2021, McKenzie invited farmers across New Zealand to participate in a nationwide "Howl of a Protest" campaign on 16 July to protest the Government's new and proposed freshwater regulations, winter grazing rules and indigenous biodiversity regulations. Protesters were encouraged to bring their utes, tractors and dogs into towns across New Zealand ranging from Gore in the South Island to Kerikeri in the North Island. Protests were organised in 20 towns including Alexandra, Gore, Invercargill, Mosgiel, Oamaru, Greymouth, Blenheim, Thames, Hastings, Palmerston North, and Kerikeri.

On 16 July, Groundswell staged protests in 57 cities and towns across New Zealand including Auckland, Christchurch, Dunedin, Mosgiel, Whangārei, Dargaville, Kerikeri, Kaitaia, Levin, Dannevirke, Te Awamutu, Amberley, Greymouth, Alexandra, Wānaka, Invercargill, Timaru, Gisborne, and Hastings...

In Dunedin, a counter-protester holding a sign which read "No farming on a dead planet" had it ripped from her by a bystander. National Party Member of Parliament Nicola Willis attended the Wānaka protest. Timaru's streets were occupied by hundreds of utes, trucks, and tractors as South Canterbury farmers and tradespersons protested the Government's regulations.

In Gisborne, protesters travelled in 350 vehicles on Gisborne's main road. Notable participants included All Blacks veteran Ian Kirkpatrick. The Hastings protest saw 800 vehicles drive through the city with one local organiser comparing it to the 1981 Springbok Tour. [Anti-apartheid protests]

On 21 November, Groundswell NZ held its "Mother of All Protests" across 70 towns and centres including Kaitaia, Whangārei, Auckland, Tauranga, New Plymouth, Taupō, Wellington, Nelson, Greymouth, Christchurch, Timaru, Temuka, Geraldine, Waimate, Fairlie, Alexandra, Balclutha, Bluff, Gore, Invercargill, Mosgiel, Oamaru, Palmerston, Queenstown, Stewart Island, Te Anau, and Wānaka.

In mid October 2022, Groundswell announced that it would hold a nationwide tractor protest on 20 October to protest against the Government's plans to charge farmers for greenhouse carbon emissions from 2025. McKenzie described the carbon emissions pricing scheme as an "assault on food production and rural communities". Protest convoys were planned for the major cities of Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin as well as several smaller centres...

Protest numbers were smaller compared to earlier protests with low turnout being blamed on farmers being busy during that time of the year. Groundswell's October protests also attracted several activists from the anti-vaccination group Voices for Freedom.

That's the kind of activist crap I am putting up with here in New Zealand. I watched those 800 entitled farmers drive their polluting vehicles through the city center in person, and only barely managed to keep my mouth shut (don't want another run-in with the police...).

Thunberg's tweet strongly implied that New Zealand wasn't doing enough. She was right. The government then did more, but unfortunately due to anti-climate activism we have gone backwards. The current government says they are committed to 'halving' emissions by 2050, while eliminating the few measures implemented so far. They say they will unveil their 'better' plans in June. I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Stout]

We've got the same "climate emergency" thing going on here with my city boasting that they're going all net zero by 2030 by giving city employees EVs to drive around in and buying things like electric lawnmowers. What they don't say is that all their heavy equipment (excavators, dump trucks etc.) is contracted out and their emissions aren't reflected in the city's emissions budget. Looks good on paper though.

I haven't seen any protests against EVs however there is a bit of right wing press opposed to the idea. Not so much against the EVs themselves but against the idea that the government is forcing them on us. Hell, I'd buy one but I don't drive anywhere near enough to justify an expensive vehicle so I'll stick with my 28-year-old truck that, if things keep going the way they are, will last another 28 years, should I live so long.