Cont: Global warming discussion V

[dann]

But America is pouring in LESS than they used to, that's equal to the reductions afforded my a couple of maglev trains and a small fleet of electric short range planes. Celebrate America!

Yes, it is! But America is still pouring in FAR MORE per capita than the vast majority of (even industrialized) countries while bragging about being the country that extracts most fossil fuel. That is what comes from the Democratic line of thinking: "We’re America. We can do both." I.e. 'We payi lip service to the climate struggle.'

You must have me confused with someone else, I wasn't posting here in the 1960s

Stout must be unable to tell the difference between what "the argument used to be" and what "your [= his] arguments now make ... obvious."

Climate Emergency! We are at the beginning of a mass extinction! End fossil fuels now! Climate anxiety! Climate clock, 1.5C!
Nope, not getting an eco-stiffy over a train and a handful of little planes.

Nobody expected Stout to. It's fairly obvious what gets him hard.

So? Some retards took some fiction seriously. Happens all the time. That particular bit didn't change anyone's mind about wind power and it might have even prompted a few people to go look it up.

Yes, they took some fiction seriously. It's what living by 'alternative facts' has made common. And the bit in and of itself may not have changed anybody's mind about wind turbines, and yet it was posted and reposted by people who appeared to think that it would. And since those people already know what they want to be true, they don't care what is actually true, so they will never resort to looking anything up.

 

[arthwollipot]

Again, the casual dropping of a slur. It appears to be contagious.

 

[dann]

Are you interested in global warming and CO₂ emissions?
Is there anything you want to say about the issue?

 

[wobs]

It is fairly obvious that it will only "make a dent in global aviation emissions" if electric planes replace the old planes using conventional fuel, i.e. fossil fuels. I have more faith in the Chinese solution:



Unfortunately, this is bound to disappoint Myriad immensely:

I'm sorry, but it seems as if the maglev trains won't fulfill his dream of a future where the standards of living of the global poor remain where they are because improving them would lead to more CO₂ emissions in his dystopian fantasy. He also wants people in Western countries to give up all comforts and conveniences for the same reason. He imagines that it's the only way to lower CO₂ emissions and save the planet.
You can't please everybody, and Myriad won't be pleased by solutions that don't force austerity on people, especially common people.
So China's new trains look much too comfortable and convenient for Myriad's taste.
Why can't the Chinese continue to use coolie-powered rickshaws?

China's NEW Maglev Trains are RIDICULOUS (The China Adventure on YouTube, July 16, 2025 - 2:14 min.)

I hope Coster-Waldau will go there next.

Maglev is not the solution:

The train that never came - how maglev technology was derailed

This is the first in a series of articles about amazing technologies that promised to change the world but which did no such thing.

techcentral.co.za

Maglevs need entirely new infrastructure, which is more expensive than regular high-speed railways. Since they are only viable between major traffic hubs, it is difficult and expensive to secure the rights-of-way needed for maglev lines.

Maglev engineering skills are scarce and expensive, as are replacement parts when trains break down. This increases the cost of both construction and ongoing maintenance.

Perhaps the key factor in the failure of maglev trains is simply this: increasing the speed of trains has sharply diminishing returns.

If we ignore acceleration and deceleration and assume no intermediate stops, let’s suppose a 200km/h train shaves two hours off what used to be a four-hour journey at 100km/h. Then a 300km/h train reduces the travel time by only 40 additional minutes. At 400km/h, you save only 20 more minutes. At 500km/h, you save 12 minutes more, and at 600km/h, you save an additional eight minutes.[\quote]

Conventional high-speed rail is far more efficient and cheaper per mile. There maybe the odd route where it makes sense, but rarely.

Italy has shown HSR to displace air travel:

 

[dann]

It still remains to be seen if "the train that never came" will succeed in the new Chinese version.
What I like about the article is that it doesn't pretend that nature and technology are what makes it impossible, but capitalism might be. For instance, it's no surprise that "Maglevs need entirely new infrastructure, which is more expensive than regular high-speed railways."
Yes, new infrastructure is always expensive, but the changes tend to be made because they pay off in the long run.

The train that never came – how maglev technology was derailed (TechCentral, Aug 10, 2025)
At twice the price of high-speed rail, and several times the price of light rail, there simply isn’t much of a market for ultra-high-speed maglev trains.
Even if Japan or China makes a few lines work, they are unlikely to run at a profit, and their experience may be impossible to replicate to other advanced economies with different regulatory, geographical or political circumstances.
Rail-based mass transit has proven to be reliable and cost-effective, and has been refined over two centuries. Alternatives like buses and airlines crowd out even more competition.
That will forever relegate maglev train to gadgetbahn status: glitzy to look at, but prohibitively expensive and impractical for the real world.

Anyway, it's important to point out that there is more than one alternative to gas-guzzling airplanes. An electric airplane is not the only one.
In Denmark, I doubt that maglev will ever be implemented due to geographical difficulties, but light rail is a great alternative to both maglev and airplanes - in particular because the electricity to run those trains is only going to become cheaper.

Myriad may object again, 'But, but, but what about transatlantic flights? They can't be replaced by maglev trains!'
No, they can't, but that doesn't mean that an awful lot of other flight routes, most of them, probably, can't be replaced by less CO₂-emitting alternatives. The article only confirms that.

 

[arthwollipot]

Are you interested in global warming and CO₂ emissions?
Is there anything you want to say about the issue?

Wasn't talking about you.

 

[Stout]

Yes, it is! But America is still pouring in FAR MORE per capita than the vast majority of (even industrialized) countries while bragging about being the country that extracts most fossil fuel. That is what comes from the Democratic line of thinking: "We’re America. We can do both." I.e. 'We payi lip service to the climate struggle.'

Soon, a whole bunch of countries will descend on Brazil, have a fancy conference, write some really big numbers down on pieces of paper then pad themselves on the back knowing full well that their citizens don't really want their solutions. Speeches will be made, photo-ops will be staged, jet fuel will be burned, Plants will be displayed along with fancy green lighting and...in the end emissions will continue to climb as the developing world discovers the joys and benefits that follis fuels bring to their daily lives.

Anyway, it's important to point out that there is more than one alternative to gas-guzzling airplanes. An electric airplane is not the only one.
In Denmark, I doubt that maglev will ever be implemented due to geographical difficulties, but light rail is a great alternative to both maglev and airplanes - in particular because the electricity to run those trains is only going to become cheaper.

We're all familiar with these tiny little electric planes. We even have one around here and have had for the past couple of years. It may start flying passengers by as early as next year providing the government gets off it's bureaucratic ass and certifies the thing. It's rather unfortunate that the whole flight shaming thing lasted about as long as what's her name's popularity but the population has spoken, train travel for eco-reasons is dead, long live the jet engine. The people have spoken.

 

[Aridas]

Everything I've been posting has shown that the Democrats, two presidents and one candidate, bragged about increasing the extraction and thus use of fossil fuels. And yet Democrats still want to portray Democrats as the environmentally friendly not-as-bad-as-the-alternative party.

Indeed, Democrats do still want to portray that. It's very much the truth, after all. Democrats are overwhelmingly better than the alternative, even though they're far from perfect.

Case in point? Democrats encourage and support wind power quite a lot. Republicans? They just acted to shut down a nearly finished $4 billion wind farm for no good reason at all. There's plenty more examples of how extreme the difference between the parties is, of course.

The thing about bothsiderism is that it's the tool of the side that is worse to pretend that there's little difference between the options. The greater the gap between the sides, the greater the benefit to the side that's worse. That you are engaging in such significant bothsiderism is not helping your professed cause at all.

 

[dann]

It appears you've been had by the Democrats' way of portraying themselves to the extent that you now want to help them with the portrayal.
Joe Biden says 'no time to waste' as climate team unveiled (BBC, Dec 20, 2024)
You have fallen hook, line and sinker for the Democrats' bothsiderism: "We’re America. We can do both." I.e frack more and extract more oil and gas and at the same time brag about being climate friendly.

Yes, the Republicans are demonstrably worse at portraying themselves as being environmentally friendly because they overtly don't give a ◊◊◊◊ about it and hope that MAGA will enjoy their sticking it to the libs, which they no doubt will. Whereas the Democrats are good at pretending, occasionally and not too loud, because they wouldn't want to alienate their big donors.

It would make an actual difference if Democrats stopped taking money from Big Oil and started actively telling their prospective voters what CO₂ does to the climate, why the shift to solar and wind is absolutely necessary here and now, but this is something they can't seem to figure out how to do. They'd rather pretend that you can increase the production of oil and gas while at the same time being climate warriors.
And that's the bothsiderism you continue to give them credit for with your not-as-bad-as fallacy.


ETA: Meanwhile, in Republican Texas: Wind farms and battery farms in the United States (Wikipedia)

 

[dann]

Soon, a whole bunch of countries will descend on Brazil, have a fancy conference, write some really big numbers down on pieces of paper then pad themselves on the back knowing full well that their citizens don't really want their solutions. Speeches will be made, photo-ops will be staged, jet fuel will be burned, Plants will be displayed along with fancy green lighting and...in the end emissions will continue to climb as the developing world discovers the joys and benefits that follis fuels bring to their daily lives.

Yes, as I pointed out in post 2,016, American children have been indoctrinated to believe that 'follis' fuels are great, and many adult Americans still believe it. And that Biden joined the Paris agreement, promising to do stuff to save the planet sometime in the future while ramping up fossil fuel extraction here and now is obvious hypocrisy. Joining the Paris agreement made no difference whatsoever. It was all for show.

We're all familiar with these tiny little electric planes. We even have one around here and have had for the past couple of years. It may start flying passengers by as early as next year providing the government gets off its bureaucratic ass and certifies the thing. It's rather unfortunate that the whole flight shaming thing lasted about as long as what's her name's popularity but the population has spoken, train travel for eco-reasons is dead, long live the jet engine. The people have spoken.

Stout continues to pretend that "the people" are the ones who decide infrastructure plans in the USA.
If the delusion didn't have consequences, it would be kind of touching, in a when-will-they-ever-learn way.

ETA
Trump Kills Wind Farm For 350,000 Homes To Save His Golf Course View (The Majority Report on YouTube, Aug 26, 2025 - 12:58 min.)

This is more like it!

States vow to fight Trump official’s stop-work order on offshore wind farm (TheGuardian, Aug 24, 2025)
Rhode Island and Connecticut officials say project, slated to power 350,000 homes, is essential to their climate goals

Actually fight?! That sounds like the spirit of resistance. It also sounds as if Stout's "The people have spoken" is nothing but a made-up fairy tale.
But I'll have to see them fight to actually believe it.

 

[dann]

By the way, I am currently vacationing on the island of Ærø. Yesterday, I visited another Danish skeptic on the neighboring island of Als.
I sailed with the ferry 'Ellen' that connects Søby with Fynshav.
Ellen is electric, hence the name.
On Als, we made a stop in Guderup where Northern Europe's tallest sundial is placed, a minor tourist attraction and completely solar powered, obviously.
It was designed by skeptic Mogens Winther and his astronomy students. Since it was erected 26 years ago, fossil fuels were no doubt used to create and erect it.

 

[dann]

Democratic promises given, promises kept?!
A reminder from some old posts of mine:
Joe Biden is producing more oil than Donald Trump did (Newsweek, Jan 9, 2024)
United States produces more crude oil than any country, ever (U.S. Energy Information Administration, March 11, 2024)
Why oil companies are raking in record profits under Joe Biden (CNN, June 11, 2024)

Under President Joe Biden, who campaigned on a pledge of “no more drilling,” America is pumping more oil than any country ever has.
As he campaigned for president in 2020, Joe Biden made a bold promise at a New Hampshire town hall, adding repetition for emphasis: “No more drilling on federal lands. Period. Period. Period. Period.”
Four years later, it appears that Biden may have overpromised.
Why no president has slowed the boom in U.S. oil drilling (WaPo, Aug 16, 2024)

With climate change a top priority for Biden-Harris administration, here’s what that means for fracking (Boston University, Dec 9, 2020)
No, Biden didn't just ban fracking (CNN, Jan 27, 2021)
Update: Biden Promised a Ban – He’s Doing the Opposite (Food and Water Watch, Sep 15, 2021)
Biden Fracking Ban At A Standstill Amid Global Energy Crisis (Earth.org, May 8, 2022)
Joe Biden Broke His 2020 Pledge on Fracking. Good. (Washington Monthly, Mar 7, 2023)
Young People to Joe Biden: You Betrayed Us on Climate Change (BusinessInsider, Mar 16, 2023)

In the 2020 election, Joe Biden ran as a self-proclaimed climate-president. As summarized by CBS, he promised to "develop a clean energy economy ... to build more resilient communities, to reestablish America's global leadership on this issue, and to work toward environmental justice." (...) But a closer look will show that there are vast inconsistencies in the president's promises and policies.
Above all president Biden has revealed his lack of commitment to environmental justice through his acceptance and expansion of the production of fossil fuels.
Joe Biden Approved Drilling Projects, Now Young Voters Are Watching for 2024 (TeenVogue, Aug 10, 2023)

The lesser of two evils is still evil ...

 

[Aridas]

It appears you've been had by the Democrats' way of portraying themselves to the extent that you now want to help them with the portrayal.

Really invested in your narrative, eh? So much so that you'll happily ignore what's actually been said in favor of your straw man.

ETA: Meanwhile, in Republican Texas: Wind farms and battery farms in the United States (Wikipedia)

Nice and misleading. As long as it fits your preferred narrative, though, it's a nice straw to grasp, right?

The lesser of two evils is still evil ...

You're going to a lot of effort to... not really dispute the actual argument made, for all your bluster and outrage.

 

[dann]

Trump Politics and Denmark’s Green Credentials Collide (Bloomberg, Aug 26, 2025)
Trump has halted the US wind-farm project by Danish developer Orsted
Mere months after the US president stunned Danes by threatening to take over Greenland, Trump is now exerting pressure on a national champion in one of Denmark’s most strategic assets: offshore wind.
Wind-farm developer Orsted is caught in the crosshairs after Trump issued a stop-work order on the company’s Revolution project off Rhode Island on Friday — even though the development is already 80% completed. The move wiped 16% off Orsted’s share price, sending the already-struggling energy giant to a record low.

See also the article in The Guardian mentioned in post 2,050.

 

[dann]

Really invested in your narrative, eh? So much so that you'll happily ignore what's actually been said in favor of your straw man.
Nice and misleading. As long as it fits your preferred narrative, though, it's a nice straw to grasp, right?
You're going to a lot of effort to... not really dispute the actual argument made, for all your bluster and outrage.

Trump and MAGA are upfront about their desire to pump out more CO₂ and drill, baby, drill.
Democrats aren't because they attempt to appeal to both the educated, who know about global warming, and the ignorant, who don't.
They brag about turning the USA into the biggest extracted of coal, oil and gas on the planet while pretending to lower CO₂ emissions.
"We’re America. We can do both."
No wonder people are losing faith in both parties, the MAGA party and Republican Lite.
The party of Al Gore is long gone. Establishment Democrats are in Big Oil's pocket.

 

[Aridas]

Trump and MAGA are upfront about their desire to pump out more CO₂ and drill, baby, drill.
Democrats aren't because they attempt to appeal to both the educated, who know about global warming, and the ignorant, who don't.
They brag about turning the USA into the biggest extracted of coal, oil and gas on the planet while pretending to lower CO₂ emissions.
"We’re America. We can do both."
No wonder people are losing faith in both parties, the MAGA party and Republican Lite.
The party of Al Gore is long gone. Establishment Democrats are in Big Oil's pocket.

More accurately, the Democratic Party tries to work for everyone and lift everyone up. There's limited discernment between who benefits. Something of a case in point is shown with the issue of childcare. Lots of people need a hand with child care, but disproportionately people in Republican heavy areas. Democrats have largely supported giving a helping hand to those in need. On the other hand, the Republicans are far more about dragging down the many to give relative benefits to the few. They've generally opposed giving that helping hand. Another case in point is their recent big spending bills to benefit the people? The Democratic Party generally worked to give roughly even benefits to all, while the Republican Party happily screwed over the poor while giving huge benefits to the rich.

Similar applies when it comes to fossil fuels and the energy industry in general. The Democratic Party is not the enemy of fossil fuel companies and usage, they're just not overwhelmingly biased towards the fossil fuel companies, unlike the Republican Party, and at least are willing to acknowledge that change is needed and help pave the way for that change with a somewhat fair hand, unlike the Republican Party. This has never been a secret. Saying that "Establishment Democrats are in Big Oil's pocket" is problematic framing of what's going on in that it ignores the larger picture and context that is the reality of the overall situation, instead choosing cherry-picking and misleading spin.

Those so driven, like the Republican Party propagandists, happily and loudly scream about how the Democratic Party helps out "evil" people (as they frequently do given how relatively even-handed they are) as a diversion and psychological tactic to keep the focus on the supposed wrongs of the Democratic Party and away from how very much worse the Republican Party is on pretty much every front that they scream about. Plenty of people want a Party that fights specifically and only for them and the pet causes they believe in. The Democratic Party is not really that and hostile propagandists tend to be all too happy to play that up to whatever audience they're facing, while deliberately avoiding honest comparisons or downplaying the evils of their side in various ways. For example, by engaging in bothsiderism.

 

[dann]

No, the Democratic Party doesn't try "to work for everyone and lift everyone up" or "to give roughly even benefits to all." If it did, it would despair at how incredibly bad it's been at it, but I think that's a discussion for the thread about what Democrats did (and do) wrong in the Social Issues thread. I would give the Resistance, Democrats like Bernie Sanders and AOC the benefit of the doubt, but since they are actively opposed by the DNC that doubt is pretty exclusive. The establishment Democrats work to give the impression that they work for everybody, but even during campaigns they tell the fossil-fuel companies and the oligarchs that they are basically working for them.

As for global warming, the theme of this thread:

The Democratic Party is not the enemy of fossil fuel companies and usage, they're just not overwhelmingly biased towards the fossil fuel companies, unlike the Republican Party, and at least are willing to acknowledge that change is needed and help pave the way for that change with a somewhat fair hand, unlike the Republican Party. This has never been a secret. Saying that "Establishment Democrats are in Big Oil's pocket" is problematic framing of what's going on in that it ignores the larger picture and context that is the reality of the overall situation, instead choosing cherry-picking and misleading spin.

No, you are right: the Democratic Party is definitely "not the enemy of fossil fuel companies and usage." The Democratic Party is the friend of fossil-fuel companies and fossil-fuel usage. Otherwise, establishment Democrats wouldn't brag about how much they do for both. See posts 2.018 and 2,052.

I can't give them credit for merely acknowledging "that change is needed" and pretending to "help pave the way for that change," which is all they've done while increasing the extraction of fossil fuels immensely: "We’re America. We can do both."
No, you bloody can't!

You are the one who "ignores the larger picture and context that is the reality of the overall situation" while pretending that the campaign rhetoric of establishment Democrats is the one and only truth.

The poor Democrats! They are so, so eager to be good, but, alas, the damn Republicans make it so difficult for them to do the right thing, which is what they would really want to do if only enough people would vote for them the next time, and the next time, and the next time ...

The hypocrisy of the DNC, Biden, Harris etc. is "the larger picture and context that is the reality of the overall situation," but instead of recognizing this conspicuous fact, you are "choosing cherry-picking and misleading spin," the spin of the Democratic Party.

As for establishment Democrats being in the pocket of Big Oil, consider this:

Oil & Gas PACs contributions to candidates, 2021-2022 (OpenSecrets.org)
$2,255,349 to Democrats
$9,542,808 to Republicans

Money from Oil & Gas to US Senators, 1990-2024 (OpenSecrets.org)
IMPORTANT: This money comes from employees or PACs affiliated with the industry, not from the companies themselves.

U.S. oil majors pitch more campaign cash to Democrats as frack battle looms (Reuters, Oct 16, 2020)
The two largest U.S. energy firms, Chevron Corp and Exxon Mobil Corp, have increased their share of campaign donations to Democrats this year, according to latest filings, amid a looming battle over fracking.

But maybe you think that it's a wonderful argument for establishment Democrats that they are less in Big Oil's pocket than their GOP competition.
And the USA still calls itself a democracy! Go figure!

 

[dann]

You've been lied to about Net Zero (Simon Clark on YouTube, July 29, 2025 - 21:35 min.)
2:25--> And fact-driven debate should be the bedrock of how we conduct civil society here in the UK and around the world. Which is why it is so disturbing that politicians are straight up lying to you:
– There is absolutely a playbook that people are using to to try and put people off net zero to try and make it seem really hard, really expensive, really difficult or even impossible.
Let's go through the playbook in five steps:

1: Inflating the cost, e.g. by lying about the price of clean energy by using old instead of current prices.
2: Ignoring cost of 'business as usual', i.e. petending that only new wind and solar parks come with costs (and that taxpayers will have to pay for it all).
3: Ignoring operational savings, e.g. pretending that only wind and solar have maintenance costs.
4: Ignoring co-benefits. Air pollution, energy dependency (e.g. expensive gas from Russia or the USA).
5: Ignoring cost of inaction, e.g. heat waves, floods, societal and economic impacts.

As for Stout's usual, 'But people want oil and gas!', there's this:

The Silent Majority: 89% of us want global climate action (CuriousEarth, May 14, 2025)
Recently, it has seemed at times like the tide is turning against climate action. Media attention has homed in on the costs of decarbonisation and reaching net zero. In the US, key climate policies have been scrapped, and in the UK, the Guardian reported that Reform UK, after winning a local seat, vowed to block renewable energy projects entirely.
Yet, the voice of the people paints a different picture. The 89 Percent Project surveyed over 130,000 people in 125 countries worldwide, and found that the majority want more to be done, not less.And according to the Climate Barometer, a UK think tank, 72% of the UK public supports new onshore wind and solar farms.
What’s more, this isn’t just passive support; the majority are willing to personally financially contribute. In fact, the 89 Percent Project has revealed that 69% of people globally are willing to donate 1% of their income to climate action, yet only 43% believe others would do the same.
This gap between perception and reality suggests a simple yet powerful solution: talk about it. Conversations at work, at the pub or over the garden fence can help us realise that we’re not alone. We are, in fact, the majority.

The lying liars are only winning because they have the money to pay the media and the politicians. They pay people to spread the lies that I think Stout is probably spreading for free.

The examples shown in the YouTube video are mainly, but not only, from the UK.
For instance:
Tories Have Received £8.4 Million from Fossil Fuel Interests, Polluters, and Climate Deniers Since 2019 Election (DeSmog, May 23, 2024)
The economic fantasies of Reform UK - Nigel Farage's fiscal arithmetic is as eye-catching as it is unserious. (New Statesman, May 28, 2025)

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Gulf Stream collapse could start by 2060, Dutch researchers warn

The Gulf Stream, a system of ocean currents that plays a crucial role in the climate, may reach an irreversible point of collapse much sooner than previously thought. Previously, scientists thought the point of no return for the Gulf Stream would happen after 2100.

nltimes.nl

This will dramatically cool Europe and North America while further heating the Southern Hemisphere.

 

[Dabop]

Gulf Stream collapse could start by 2060, Dutch researchers warn

The Gulf Stream, a system of ocean currents that plays a crucial role in the climate, may reach an irreversible point of collapse much sooner than previously thought. Previously, scientists thought the point of no return for the Gulf Stream would happen after 2100.

nltimes.nl

This will dramatically cool Europe and North America while further heating the Southern Hemisphere.