Cont: Global warming discussion V

[Cosmic Yak]

Drax, the fake renewable energy plant, complete with bonus carbon sequestration scheme.

OK, now I know what it is. Doesn't seem to be especially important or relevant. Why do you bring it up?

Yet Canada still burns buckets of fossil fuels, despite the hydroelectric. The answer is, of course, more hydroelectric but, really, it's not all that much in the favour of the people who run around, well, used to run around, bleating about fossil fuels and how we need more wind and solar.

Canada gets 70% of its energy from hydro. Plus there's nuclear and renewables. Is this part of your argument to prove renewables aren't happening? Because it isn't working.

Energy Fact Book, 2024-2025: Clean power and low carbon fuels | Canadian Centre for Energy Information

The development of clean power and low carbon fuels is critical for Canada to meet climate goals. The majority of electricity generation in Canada comes from non-greenhouse gas emitting sources and Canada is a world leader in hydroelectricity, nuclear power and hydrogen.

energy-information.canada.ca

All that run-of-the-river small scale hydroelectric crashed and burned years ago.

Not according to the Canadian government. What is your source for this claim?

 

[Stout]

Drax was heralded as being sort of a big deal. Turns out it wasn't

I'm not making an argument about renewables not happening, what I'm saying is that new hydro electric projects are not in the list of demands for renewables, in fact, there is/was significant opposition to them.

I watched the small projects develop, and die. They were like tidal and wave generating stations. Somebody came up with the idea, somebody else, usually government funded them, they were tried out...and failed. Think of the present day Climeworks projects.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Drax was heralded as being sort of a big deal. Turns out it wasn't

Well, it produces 6% of the UK's electricity, so it looks fairly significant to me.

I'm not making an argument about renewables not happening, what I'm saying is that new hydro electric projects are not in the list of demands for renewables, in fact, there is/was significant opposition to them.

Well, no. Your first point was that hydroelectric projects only happen in authoritarian states. I pointed out this was untrue, and, rather than acknowledge that, you simply moved on to state that Canada was heavily reliant on fossil fuels. Once again, I showed that this was incorrect, and once again you ignored that correction and have moved on to claim that new hydroelectric projects are not happening.
Now, I can post sources about new HE projects in the UK, but, if you continue like this, I don't see the point. It's just an endless regression of claims with you: debunk one, and you just retreat to the next one, without ever revising your position in light of the evidence.

I watched the small projects develop, and die. They were like tidal and wave generating stations. Somebody came up with the idea, somebody else, usually government funded them, they were tried out...and failed. Think of the present day Climeworks projects.

I looked up Climeworks: incorrect claim again. Not bothering with links, though. Currently not worth the effort.

 

[Stout]

Read up on Drax then go watch the heroic climate activist walk up to the place and kick it square in the crotch. Even the guy she was interrogating confessed that the whole thing was nothing more than a showpiece.

Where did I say that hydroelectric ONLY happens in authoritarian states. I men, I'm not writing a lot of words here and I just said, yes really, I just said Canada brought Site C online after years of delays and there probably won't be another project like this on the books, possibly ever. China OTOH has another massive one on the books though.

Outside of the sheer number of Climeworks plants we'd need just to keep up with yearly emissions, even if the things worked as advertised (do the math on this, it's hilarious) they're not delivering.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Read up on Drax then go watch the heroic climate activist walk up to the place and kick it square in the crotch. Even the guy she was interrogating confessed that the whole thing was nothing more than a showpiece.

So your point about Drax is not that it's fake, or insignificant, but that it's not that eco-friendly? You could just have said that, like days ago.

Where did I say that hydroelectric ONLY happens in authoritarian states. I men, I'm not writing a lot of words here and I just said, yes really, I just said Canada brought Site C online after years of delays and there probably won't be another project like this on the books, possibly ever. China OTOH has another massive one on the books though.

Once again, that's another completely untrue claim, but hey, let's not masturbate over facts, right? Much better to keep throwing out untruths so we can feel better about being cynical and apathetic, right?

Outside of the sheer number of Climeworks plants we'd need just to keep up with yearly emissions, even if the things worked as advertised (do the math on this, it's hilarious) they're not delivering.

Do the math? Like, data math? No, sorry, I've already spent my load over Canadian hydropower.
OTOH, you could always back up your own claim with evidence. Sceptics' forum and all that.

 

[Stout]

Cynical? Yea, sure. Decades of "raising awareness" and international conferences certainly haven't led to significant Global reductions, maybe we could try joining hands, and sing a chant to Gaia and try to heal the world that way. These little bandaid-on-a-brain tumor solutions aren't getting us anywhere near to dealing with this "climate emergency" where the world as we know it is going to end once we hit 1.5C worth of warming.

It feels good to pretend to care, which is why most people do it.

I thought data was your thing and you'd jump at the chance to rub one out with the Climeworks calculation. I could spoiler it for you and point out that I've already done it upthread.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Cynical? Yea, sure. Decades of "raising awareness" and international conferences certainly haven't led to significant Global reductions,

Wasn't true the first time you said this, still isn't true now.

maybe we could try joining hands, and sing a chant to Gaia and try to heal the world that way.

Also still the same strawman. Untrue the first time, untrue and boring the second time.

These little bandaid-on-a-brain tumor solutions aren't getting us anywhere near to dealing with this "climate emergency" where the world as we know it is going to end once we hit 1.5C worth of warming.

No, it isn't.

It feels good to pretend to care, which is why most people do it.

That's just your personal cynicism, and I fail to see how it will help to generate any kind of solution to the problem of global warming.

I thought data was your thing and you'd jump at the chance to rub one out with the Climeworks calculation. I could spoiler it for you and point out that I've already done it upthread.

I do like evidence: it tells me whether my conclusions are correct or not. Maybe that's just me. You, however, have explicitly rejected evidence as any kind of deciding factor in your own conclusions, so I see no point in showing you any.
If you have, in fact, already posted some data, I have obviously missed it. Perhaps you could re-post it?

 

[Stout]

There is no "solution" anymore. That ship sailed long ago and anything being done with renewables will only serve to slow down the process a little. Lifestyle absolutely curb stomped concern for global warming on the list of people's priorities and continues to do so. All that bad stuff they've been warning you about? That's going to happen and the best thing you can do now is to hope your government is working on resilience by creating the soon to be needed infrastructure to cope with the climate changes that are already happening.

The evidence is in. The only stat that matters is global emissions are increasing. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, skeptic.

 

[wobs]

Cynical? Yea, sure. Decades of "raising awareness" and international conferences certainly haven't led to significant Global reductions, maybe we could try joining hands, and sing a chant to Gaia and try to heal the world that way. These little bandaid-on-a-brain tumor solutions aren't getting us anywhere near to dealing with this "climate emergency" where the world as we know it is going to end once we hit 1.5C worth of warming.

Before Paris Agreement, we were looking at about a 4C increase. After all the COPs etc, we are looking at about 2.4C With a margin for error depending on whether actions happen that have been pledged and assuming no additional action is taken).

That is significant.

Yes its not enough, but its not a binary issue.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

There is no "solution" anymore. That ship sailed long ago and anything being done with renewables will only serve to slow down the process a little. Lifestyle absolutely curb stomped concern for global warming on the list of people's priorities and continues to do so. All that bad stuff they've been warning you about? That's going to happen and the best thing you can do now is to hope your government is working on resilience by creating the soon to be needed infrastructure to cope with the climate changes that are already happening.

Cynicism and apathy. Like I said. Very sad to see.

The evidence is in. The only stat that matters is global emissions are increasing. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, skeptic.

OK, here's some data for you to mock.
CO2 emissions have fallen in every continent except Asia, with a small increase in South America.

CO₂ and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change. The world needs to decarbonize to reduce them.

ourworldindata.org

You can also see (if you bother to click the link, that is) that quite a number of countries have managed to combine economic growth with reducing CO2 emissions.
No, we're not there yet, but we have made significant progress, and that progress will continue. I will add that, if people follow the likes of stout, then the impetus will falter. Only by keeping the pressure on can we ensure that politicians continue to make the right decisions.
Or you could just sit back, like stout, and watch the world go to ◊◊◊◊. I'm not sure the small measure of satisfaction to be gained from this will outweigh the enormous damage the would ensue, but some here seem to think it a price worth paying to get that little hit of 'told ya' smugness. I do not count myself among that number.

 

[ohms]

You can also see (if you bother to click the link, that is) that quite a number of countries have managed to combine economic growth with reducing CO2 emissions.
No, we're not there yet, but we have made significant progress, and that progress will continue.

Notably, China's emissions look to have fallen in 2024 and continued to fall in the first three months of 2025 despite increased production.

Analysis: Clean energy just put China’s CO2 emissions into reverse for first time - Carbon Brief

For the first time, the growth in China’s clean power generation has caused the nation’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to fall despite rapid power demand growth.

www.carbonbrief.org

 

[Stout]

Or you could just sit back, like stout, and watch the world go to ◊◊◊◊. I'm not sure the small measure of satisfaction to be gained from this will outweigh the enormous damage the would ensue, but some here seem to think it a price worth paying to get that little hit of 'told ya' smugness. I do not count myself among that number.

Dude! I'm the one saying we need to make massive reductions in emissions in order to have any meaningful impact on AGW while you're the one saying these feeble reductions that we're currently making are good enough. Please pay attention.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Dude! I'm the one saying we need to make massive reductions in emissions in order to have any meaningful impact on AGW while you're the one saying these feeble reductions that we're currently making are good enough. Please pay attention.

Do please quote me as saying that.

 

[arthwollipot]

 

[Stout]

Do please quote me as saying that.

You know, you may be on to something there. Here I was thinking that all the eco-activists had hung up their signs because they'd com to the realization that they actually couldn't live without the benefits of oil but maybe....maybe they've just decided that the status quo approach is enough and all this fearmongering about mass extinctions and gluing themselves down like speed bumps might just have been a little over the top.

Carry on then.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

You know, you may be on to something there. Here I was thinking that all the eco-activists had hung up their signs because they'd com to the realization that they actually couldn't live without the benefits of oil but maybe....maybe they've just decided that the status quo approach is enough and all this fearmongering about mass extinctions and gluing themselves down like speed bumps might just have been a little over the top.

Carry on then.

So that's a 'no', then.

 

[Stout]

I know, it can be painful to herald a couple of examples of emissions reductions only to have them called feeble. almost as painful as facing up to the fact that your lifestyle is responsible for killing the planet. It's not your fault though. You've had years of activists telling you that it really isn't that you a "victim" of Big Oil and really all you need to do is beak off about climate change and demand someone, anyone...do something.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I know, it can be painful to herald a couple of examples of emissions reductions only to have them called feeble.

Strawman. You said I'd claimed these reductions were enough. That is not true.

almost as painful as facing up to the fact that your lifestyle is responsible for killing the planet.

Again, I will ask you what about my lifestyle is killing the planet.

It's not your fault though. You've had years of activists telling you that it really isn't that you a "victim" of Big Oil and really all you need to do is beak off about climate change and demand someone, anyone...do something.

No idea what you're talking about. Not anything in my life, that's for sure. To whom were you talking here?

 

[Stout]

If you're living in a developed nation, then your lifestyle is killing the planet.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

If you're living in a developed nation, then your lifestyle is killing the planet.

OK. I don't. What now?