The Analysis of Sea Levels.

[mikegarrison]

2 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

There are no easy answers. 

Ever.

Sometimes the right answers are in fact quite easy to recognize. They are just unpleasant to actually do, so people pretend they can't see them.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

16 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

Sometimes the right answers are in fact quite easy to recognize

Enlightened self interest is a rare virtue.

Places with deeply entrenched silver spoons are difficult to shift.

[SunlitZelkova]

On 10/28/2021 at 2:57 PM, MKI said:

Hopefully by then we can go over and screw up Mars instead ;D

I am extremely concerned about this attitude. Humans giving birth, with their offspring then healthily developing in the early stages- all in 0.38g- feels like the 21st century's "Mars' atmosphere definitely is capable of supporting gliders".

On 11/1/2021 at 11:28 AM, DDE said:

It seems COP26 is going to be a flop.

Dinosaurs were, obviously, just as intelligent as any other animal apart from those in the genus Homo. But even if there were some individuals who saw a bizarre looking "star" in the sky on the eve of the K-Pg extinction event, and maybe even started to run away in the final moments, it was simply out of their capability to do anything about it. The effects of CO2 emissions might be the same for homo sapiens.

Of course, there are differences. If preventing your species' extinction is to be compared with walking yourself to the emergency room after having a heart attack, the dinosaurs moved one inch before dying, whereas humans collapsed (will collapse?) a few feet away from the reception desk.

23 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

There is literally no chance of India becoming anything but a failed state and possibly a number of states after a brutal season of Civil War without an inexpensive way to catch up. 

Trying to force them to cut emissions looks like a death sentence from their perspective with far more certain and immediate casualties than the possibility of a changed climate. 

There are a number of issues with this mentality.

This isn't just about changed climate. There is ocean acidification to worry about as well. The fishing industry employs 14.5 million people in India as of 2020, and countless millions more likely depend upon it for their food needs. Their descendants will be out of the job (and food) if the same steps "supposedly" (I use this word to acknowledge potential criticisms of climate change models, not that I myself doubt these requirements) needed to stave off both out of "control" extreme temperatures and weather events are not taken. That's not a good recipe for political and economic stability, combined with potential food crises on the land as well.

If developing countries are allowed to use this reasoning to skip out on environmental action then why should the West do it either? My aunt in Montana has a job providing housing for oil pipeline workers. She will suffer economically if environmental protection measures continue to be put in place and cover more and more areas of the energy industry and other businesses. Using such a logic opens a can of worms for everyone who relies on fossil fuels for their livelihood to use as an excuse to ignore the CO2 emission issue.

Finally, what is "growth"? No one is saying that we need some sort of "reverse Soviet collectivization but with CO2 emissions" which is sloppy and results in needless suffering. If anyone bothered to think about in detail, surely with international cooperation and UN support, there is a stable way to cut back on CO2 emissions for all nations, whether poor or rich. Whether India's population is actually going to be better off in a 2030 with no CO2 emission cuts vs. one with cuts is pure speculation. And even if there "will" be suffering, it would be much better to have it occur now while international cooperation is available and it can be easily managed- because post-2050* when sea levels rise (to be clear on that, I recognize the exact effect this will have on humans is debatable), temperatures get hotter (heat stroke deaths will be a major issue), and the seas become unusable for a variety of reasons (fish no longer edible due to either microplastic contamination or simply being dead/extinct due to the harm to ecosystems as a result of damage to calcifying organisms), the suffering and reaction of the population at large will most likely be unmanageable.

*All of these are simply predictions, which will vary in the "actual" outcome. But they are based on actual data- whereas the collapse of the state of India as a result of CO2 emissions cuts completely ignores political and economy reality.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

41 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

If developing countries are allowed to use this reasoning to skip out on environmental action

 

41 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Joe said "India becoming anything but a failed state"

 

41 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

There are a number of issues with this mentality

I've intentionally overstated the issue - to the degree that I don't think India will fall apart in the next 5 years... but if hamstrung, it could face problems.  Serious problems.  The gist being; I'm not advocating inaction - but rather recognizing the impediments to action.  It's really nice to have an affirmation of what one would like to achieve or see the world do, but its another to figure out how to actually do it (and what the challenges are).

India is a fascinating place.  Remarkably smart and exceptionally well educated people, some of whom are quite wealthy living alongside the desperately poor in a place with massive internal political and social problems that hamper its development.  It faces immense pressure and recognizes both internal and external threats.  China is both an inspiration as well as a rival (c.f. what's going on with the border and China's control of the headwaters of India's rivers).  Keeping India stable has very real geopolitical ramifications... and, frankly, if they can get stable then they can get off the polluting stuff faster than if forced to by external means.  It has all the problems of a developing economy - but with just enough of the features of a fully functioning modern economy to be able to bootstrap itself out of those problems in the next decade... given the time.

China no longer enjoys the excuse - it has come far enough that it needs to start cleaning up its act if it wants to enjoy the prestige of being a leading economy.  The thing is, China has a population that is starting to wake up to its potential, does not have the same internal issues as India, and has some very capable leaders who recognize that change is necessary.  But China wants to be the master of that change - not beholden to some arbitrary timeline or metrics brokered on the world stage.  I suspect that the grey-brown skies so prominently displayed over the last 10 years will be much cleaner at the end of the decade - because the Chinese decided to clean up their own backyard, not because they were told to.

The key for places like India, in my opinion, is going to be internal demand.

Just as in the United States and Europe (and others) the people have started to demand 'cleaner' 'greener' products and processes, and the industries and businesses have responded to those demands... we need to help Indians to demand (and direct) the change in India.  Absent some massive external loss-leading altruistic investment by the US and Europe to rebuild India (which would look like soft-Colonialism) - that's the only way it will work.

Don't discount the power of things like this: Coronavirus lockdown reveals long-unseen Indian skylines - Axios

...nor the power of the people.

 

 

 

...

 

 

(the 2050 stuff is quite speculative as well, and based on a presumption not of inaction but continued and increased pollution at current rates. ).

Edited November 2, 2021 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[MKI]

41 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

The effects of CO2 emissions might be the same for homo sapiens.

Of course, there are differences. If preventing your species' extinction is to be compared with walking yourself to the emergency room after having a heart attack, the dinosaurs moved one inch before dying, whereas humans collapsed (will collapse?) a few feet away from the reception desk.

A single human can handle and understand the situation easily if they are educated on the subject, but the same can't be said for society as a whole. Where even everyone understand it well enough, that doesn't mean you can change it quickly enough.

The timelines and outcomes are vastly different. In one case you have a mass extinction event that does a lot of damage within hours, and end results that sticks around for decades. For climate change you have a mass extinction event that creeps slowly forward and sticks around for decades(?)

Overtime more people will realize things are bad, and more will do something about. Again, that doesn't mean change will progress much faster, as society as a whole needs to shift, and that isn't easy. 

Take for example the chip shortages the US is seeing. Everyone in the economic chain sees and understands the broad problems of the issue. But that doesn't mean anyone can fix it, or really do much about it quickly enough.

 

Ultimately I think a lot of people are concerned, but this again doesn't directly transfer to actions quickly enough to "catch up" to what is necessary. I firmly believe humanity will catch up with the issue, and eventually reverse the overall effects. But until then we will be playing "catch up" to the rising thermometer and be dealing with a large number of widespread disasters. In the mean time humanity is bound to essentially go through the grinder, until then. 

 

 

 

 

 

[SunlitZelkova]

21 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

decided to clean up their own backyard

In regards to not only India or China, but anywhere, I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding. All of what my post was about was not "X nation failing to live up to international expectations" but "X nation refusing to take action". I.e., not "they need to listen to us", but more so "what you do will affect everyone, so please act logically and in a timely manner in order to solve the issue at hand, because it is extremely important".

The entire effort to lower and eliminate CO2 emissions is based on sovereign decisions anyways- I don't think any nation has yet to implement sanctions on another over climate change related issues.

5 minutes ago, MKI said:

A single human can handle and understand the situation easily if they are educated on the subject, but the same can't be said for society as a whole. Where even everyone understand it well enough, that doesn't mean you can change it quickly enough.

But you need large numbers of humans to have that "intelligent species". It doesn't matter how intelligent an individual is- if they can't work together to solve problems, that is a clear limit of their intelligence.

Just a hypothetical example to display my logic-

Humans work together to solve a major problem like an impending asteroid impact- impressive display of intelligence as a species.

One human can understand that an asteroid is about to impact, designs the device to prevent the impact, but can't get other humans to help build and operate it- impressive intelligence display by the individual (human equivalent of a seal bouncing a ball on its nose on command) but a clear display of the limit of the intelligence of the human species. Unless, of course, the observer does not regard saving one's life as part of the requirement for "intelligence".

To be clear, I would (will?) be very happy to be proven wrong about all of this.

8 minutes ago, MKI said:

The timelines and outcomes are vastly different. In one case you have a mass extinction event that does a lot of damage within hours, and end results that sticks around for decades. For climate change you have a mass extinction event that creeps slowly forward and sticks around for decades(?)

I don't think climate change is an extinction event for humans in the normal sense of the term. Climate change, the acidification of the oceans, and pollution all in combination might be "a" extinction event for humans, but not one where humans cease to walk the Earth (a "pop culture extinction event"). Humans will just evolve in a negative manner to the point that they are no longer human. Emphasis on might however. And I am unsure whether it counts as true evolution- it would just be humans with severe birth defects and health problems continuing to breed, with their offspring having the same effects or more. That might just be widespread defects among the population.

[MKI]

1 hour ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Humans work together to solve a major problem like an impending asteroid impact- impressive display of intelligence as a species.

This isn't society taking on the problem, its what you said a group of people working together. The society I'm talking about is basically everything and everyone.

You could just have a few really rich people/nations, send up Bruce Willis in a super space shuttle to blow an incoming asteroid. Society as a whole is largely unaffected. Even something like a large pandemic, requires parts of society to change a few behaviors that change over time, but again it only affects parts of human behavior in specific circumstances. 

I'd say the closest humanity has gotten close to the scale of cohesion required, is the 2 world wars. Where large portions of the private, and public sector, down to the individual make conscious decisions to support the war effort at a global scale. 

Its one thing to wear a mask, its another to realize watching TV uses energy that is made from burning fossil fuels, transported using fossil fuels, and powered using fossil fuels, all while you eat a TV dinner that contributes to climate change through cow farts. Its not so much people are "intelligent" about it, you can be incredible intelligent and know about these effects... the question is what can you do about it? A society can be incredibly intelligent about the issue and still have a difficult time fixing it. Especially when the problem isn't physical, far reaching, gradual and incredibly far reaching.

1 hour ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I don't think climate change is an extinction event for humans in the normal sense of the term. Climate change, the acidification of the oceans, and pollution all in combination might be "a" extinction event for humans, but not one where humans cease to walk the Earth (a "pop culture extinction event"). Humans will just evolve in a negative manner to the point that they are no longer human. Emphasis on might however. And I am unsure whether it counts as true evolution- it would just be humans with severe birth defects and health problems continuing to breed, with their offspring having the same effects or more. That might just be widespread defects among the population.

Climate change will result in an extinction level event for animal species, not so much humans. Even the worse case scenario wont "end the Earth" akin to a giant asteroid impact. But it will be incredible difficult time for many, and for many animal species the end of the road. There will be more humans directly impacted by "wild weather", then there wont be. 

 

Also widespread birth defects aren't something I've heard being tied directly to climate change. Maybe as an indirect effect from some other thing. These also shouldn't be something passed down, unless its genetic. 

[DDE]

7 hours ago, MKI said:

A single human can handle and understand the situation easily if they are educated on the subject, but the same can't be said for society as a whole. Where even everyone understand it well enough, that doesn't mean you can change it quickly enough.

I understand your point, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree. The bottleneck isn't the insane degree of asabiyyah/sobornost' required, you first hit a stumbling block when you need the powers that be to embrace the issue, and they just can't do that without diluting it to the point of uselessness.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/webmd-and-the-tragedy-of-legible

[kerbiloid]

Every time they tell me to fight against the climate change, I start thinking if I should close my coal mines or stop my oil refineries.

A billion of billionaires is deciding how to prevent the climate change by their efforts.

Honestly, the Mars terraforming is a more realistic subject for mass discussion, as both a student and a billionaire can affect this in equal degree.

Edited November 3, 2021 by kerbiloid

[DDE]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

A billion of billionaires is deciding how to prevent the climate change by their efforts.

Yes, but they do so on their diesel-guzzling megayachts, which induces just a bit of dissonance and disbelief.

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, DDE said:

Yes, but they do so on their diesel-guzzling megayachts, which induces just a bit of dissonance and disbelief.

Everyone can defeat the carbon dioxide by sitting in tram rather than buying a car.

Still the car talks are more popular on these forums than a tram choice.

The sense of guilt and the sense of slef-importance are so sweet for manipulations...

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

This is the kind of thing that Climate activists should be capitalizing on:

Positive effects of COVID-19 lockdown on air quality of industrial cities (Ankleshwar and Vapi) of Western India | Scientific Reports (nature.com)  Some excerpts:

Quote

 

The air quality changes during COVID-19 lockdown over the Yangtze River Delta Region suggest that the reduced human activity and industrial operations lead to significant reduction in PM_2.5, NO₂, and SO₂¹⁴. Significant improvement in air quality, as evidenced from the reduction in Particulate Matter, NOx, SO2 and CO, during the COVID19 lockdown period was observed in the Hangzhou megacity¹⁵

... the TROPOMI sensor, observed a reduction of 10–30% in Nitrogen Dioxide (NO₂) in central and eastern China during early 2020²⁰. 27% reduction was observed in nitrogen oxides concentration in comparison to the last five years,...

Black carbon reduction due to the lockdown imposed restricted anthropogenic activities is observed in Hangzhou city of China...

 

 

Quote

 

Continuous degradation of air quality in some of the Indian metropolitan cities (New Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai), that often exceed the standards set by WHO and Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), India, cemented their regular presence in the list of top 20 polluted cities of the world^28,29,30. .... Due to the mandatory lockdown imposed across the country, 88 Indian cities have observed a drastic reduction in air pollution²³.

Gujarat, which is the industrial state in western India, observed a significant reduction in major air pollutants between the lockdown period (March 25 to April 20, 2020) mainly due to restrictions on traffic and slowdown of production at factories³². According to the CPCB-AQI database, air pollution reduction occurred merely in four days since the lockdown

...resulting in a positive impact during the Pandemic as a blessing in disguise. It not only restricted the spread of infection rate, but also has given a scope to realize the restoration ability of environment and health with reduced ambient air pollutants levels leading to improved air quality.

 

 

Quote

The impact of the measures on the air quality is discussed¹⁶ for the city of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil by comparing the particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and ozone concentrations during the partial lockdown with those of the same period of 2019 and also with the weeks prior to the virus outbreak. A positive impact of the social distancing measures is reported¹⁷ on the concentrations of the three main primary air pollutants (PM₁₀, NO₂ and CO) of the São Paulo and Rio the Janeiro, the two most populated cities, wherein, the CO levels showed the most significant reductions (up to 100%) which was related to light-duty vehicular emissions.

 

Pretty much every part of the planet saw visual proof of what a change in our habits can do.  The problem is that it also came at enormous economic cost... so, the challenge is to find ways to show people other methods than merely stopping industrialization.  Yet the fact of clear skies is a recognizably graphic spur - finding ways to reduce emissions can coincide with economic prosperity.

Los Angeles is a pretty good metaphor.  Multi-decadal efforts, both public and private have shown significant improvements.  50 Years of Progress (aqmd.gov)

It wasn't always easy.

Quote

 

Since the dawn of the war on smog, growth has threatened to sabotage every advance in air quality. It is not enough for a car or consumer product to be cleaner tomorrow than it is today. It must be clean enough to account for the fact that more people will be using more vehicles and more products....

Stage 1 ozone episodes have plummeted from 121 in 1977 to just seven in 1996, and are projected to vanish entirely by 1999. If all emission reduction measures in the 1997 Air Quality Management Plan are carried out, current federal air quality standards can be met by 2010.

 

However, studies have shown adverse health effects at levels below current standards. EPA is considering strengthening the ozone standard and adding a new standard for particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns. Such new standards would require additional emission reductions, particularly from manmade combustion sources.

 

Achieving the proposed air quality standards in the future will require at least as strong a commitment as residents and officials made in the 1940s, when they first decided to do something about a terrible menace called smog.

 

 

 

 

[SunlitZelkova]

19 hours ago, MKI said:

This isn't society taking on the problem, its what you said a group of people working together. The society I'm talking about is basically everything and everyone.

You could just have a few really rich people/nations, send up Bruce Willis in a super space shuttle to blow an incoming asteroid. Society as a whole is largely unaffected. Even something like a large pandemic, requires parts of society to change a few behaviors that change over time, but again it only affects parts of human behavior in specific circumstances. 

I'd say the closest humanity has gotten close to the scale of cohesion required, is the 2 world wars. Where large portions of the private, and public sector, down to the individual make conscious decisions to support the war effort at a global scale. 

Its one thing to wear a mask, its another to realize watching TV uses energy that is made from burning fossil fuels, transported using fossil fuels, and powered using fossil fuels, all while you eat a TV dinner that contributes to climate change through cow farts. Its not so much people are "intelligent" about it, you can be incredible intelligent and know about these effects... the question is what can you do about it? A society can be incredibly intelligent about the issue and still have a difficult time fixing it. Especially when the problem isn't physical, far reaching, gradual and incredibly far reaching.

I think the issue might be the scale of the problem. The asteroid deflection was actually a poor comparison because it requires only a relatively small group of individuals to defeat. On the other hand, the "trifecta" of climate change, ocean acidification, and pollution require more or less everybody changing their behavior to solve.

My main "problem" isn't that society/"the species" has a hard time solving at all- it is that many people (including key people like energy execs and politicians) are actively, perhaps deliberately, ignoring the problem. Hence a limit of the intelligence of humans as a species. Some individuals can see a major problem for the ecosystem slowly approaching that would drastically affect the human species- yet the rest of the population can not be convinced (and thus presumably is physically incapable) of acting to prevent this crisis from occurring. This is where a potential limit of human intelligence- just as a few dinosaurs could have run away (acknowledged the impending danger) as the asteroid sped towards Earth in its final moments, yet the species itself could not actually save themselves- becomes visible.

Of course, I would like to be proven wrong for the sake of various extant life forms.

19 hours ago, MKI said:

Climate change will result in an extinction level event for animal species, not so much humans. Even the worse case scenario wont "end the Earth" akin to a giant asteroid impact. But it will be incredible difficult time for many, and for many animal species the end of the road. There will be more humans directly impacted by "wild weather", then there wont be. 

 

Also widespread birth defects aren't something I've heard being tied directly to climate change. Maybe as an indirect effect from some other thing. These also shouldn't be something passed down, unless its genetic. 

Humans depend on the ecosystems that those animals hold up for everything from fresh water to food though. If that goes away, humans could either (unlikely however) completely go extinct, or begin to adapt to the new ecosystem (however nightmarish it looks like). Without the various food items and nutrients used to keep present day humans healthy and strong, humans could evolve in a negative manner (less "intelligence"), hence human "extinction".

An example of this is during the Miocene when herbivores without high-crowned teeth went extinct due to C4 grasses becoming widespread. Now humans don't have that serious of a disadvantage if the nature of the food supply was to suddenly change over a couple decades, but the lack of "normal" nutrition (plus perhaps medical care too) would have seriously negative effects.

When I mentioned birth defects it was actually related to the pollution aspect only, however, not that I am thinking about it, if climate change and ocean acidification were to seriously affect the food supply, malnutrition could lead to birth defects as an indirect effect of climate change.

4 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

so, the challenge is to find ways to show people other methods than merely stopping industrialization

The thing is though, no one has suggested doing so ("stopping industrialization").

It is entirely up to CO2 emitters how they go about cutting back on emissions- CO2 emitters/energy industry people certainly know better about how to do that than the activists themselves. Even the more radical of climate change action plans at least include some sentences mentioning that green energy "should" be there to replace dirty energy.

Certainly the same industry that built up today's electrical/power supply network from literally nothing is capable of transforming it in the manner necessary to prevent "CO2 problems" from occurring, especially as they have 9 years to do it before major issues become unavoidable.

(Apologies for the hostile sounding tone. It is not directed at you, but at the energy industry officials who refuse to even at least examine the issue in detail)

Actually, I recall hearing that some low lying island nations are drawing up plans for "emergency cuts". It should be noted however that the only reason they feel they need to do this is because no one is making a serious effort to cut down CO2 emissions in an organized and safe manner otherwise.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

2 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

hostile sounding

You don't sound hostile at all - appreciate the discussion! 

4 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

no one has suggested doing so ("stopping industrialization").

Some have...

Probably not the rational ones, but I've met plenty of people in California and Europe who talk about 'radical action needed to save the planet' and they're hard to reason with. 

[FleshJeb]

1 hour ago, SunlitZelkova said:

energy execs and politicians) are actively, perhaps deliberately, ignoring the problem

This is very well documented. Exxon started engaging in a deliberate disinformation campaign in 1989, with the help of the same agency that assisted the tobacco industry in casting doubt on the harmful effects of smoking.

Changing methods of energy production would upset the existing balance of geopolitical power, so it's no wonder there's a lot of organized resistance to it. I think it's both hopeful and alarming that many of the same people who used to deny anthropogenic climate change out have self-interest have been coming out in support of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

Edited November 3, 2021 by FleshJeb

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 hour ago, FleshJeb said:

people who used to deny anthropogenic climate change out have self-interest have been coming out in support

Muller is interesting - he has suggested that because the waste / emissions from Fracking NG are so much less damaging than coal, environmentalists should support it. 

;/

(How many environmentalists do you think are enthusiastically supporting this view?)

 

Edited November 3, 2021 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[SunlitZelkova]

5 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Some have...

It’s unfortunate because even if it is found that the action needed would cause great damage, at least examining the situation in detail would help to calm these “extremist” views.

Instead there is either blanket statements with no data to back them up saying that action to limit CO2 emissions will destroy civilization, and on the other hand, climate activists who either out of emotion or are too “focused”* propose extreme measures that consist of a fantasy and a couple sentences with no consideration of the “other part of the Earth” (the human population).

*One cannot solve a problem by declaring the other end to be “criminal” and enforcing their measures on them. The concerns and needs of the energy industry and its employees should be properly taken into account in addressing CO2 emissions, however unfortunately due to the meme-like nature of present-day Western society, there is a strong tendency to just say “their jobs are outdated Too bad for them” and pretend they don’t exist.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 hour ago, SunlitZelkova said:

their jobs are outdated Too bad for them

That's happening in Coal country.  Thing is, I keep hoping that some bright chemist will discover a way to make coal less polluting.  Would love to be able to squeeze the juice out of it and see it become a viable resource... but I suspect our continued failure to do so means it's not feasible (or at least not economical).

Thing is, I don't have a lot of sympathy for dirty ol' coal.  Like an ex girlfriend; you appreciate the history with them, and how they helped you develop... but at some point, it's time to move on.

 

Speaking of coal; ran across this and found it interesting.

Mapped: The world’s coal power plants in 2020 (carbonbrief.org)

 

Edited November 4, 2021 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[Silavite]

30 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

That's happening in Coal country.  Thing is, I keep hoping that some bright chemist will discover a way to make coal less polluting.  Would love to be able to squeeze the juice out of it and see it become a viable resource... but I suspect our continued failure to do so means it's not feasible (or at least not economical).

Thing is, I don't have a lot of sympathy for dirty ol' coal.  Like an ex girlfriend; you appreciate the history with them, and how they helped you develop... but at some point, it's time to move on.

 

Speaking of coal; ran across this and found it interesting.

Mapped: The world’s coal power plants in 2020 (carbonbrief.org)

 

In addition to the local air pollution and CO2 emissions from coal, there's also the fact that it just isn't economically viable when compared to the rising tide of renewables (and natural gas, due to the lack of maturity in power storage solutions). It's true virtually everywhere that, for building a new power station, a renewable source will be cheaper than coal. It's true in a sizable minority of places that building new renewables is cheaper than running existing coal power stations.

[FleshJeb]

6 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Muller is interesting - he has suggested that because the waste / emissions from Fracking NG are so much less damaging than coal, environmentalists should support it. 

;/

(How many environmentalists do you think are enthusiastically supporting this view?)

 

I had to read a few articles on him. I didn't see any that were complementary about his motivations.

If he could credibly prove that, and establish that drilling companies have ANY history of responsible pollution management, I'd support it.

I've talked to a geotechnical engineer that lives in Tulsa, OK, where fracking is big. Her house has massive cracks in it due to the seismicity induced by the water injection. (Oklahoma has registered more earthquakes than California since fracking began surging.) The gas companies just claim it's not their problem. And that's the least problematic thing about fracking--Once you contaminate an aquifer with fracking fluid, it's staying contaminated for generations.

Now if someone from the oil and gas industry says they're going to start converting their operations over to geothermal but they need cheap leases on public lands and a boatload of subsidies, I'll whip out my checkbook AND drop my pants. I've mentioned this before, but I live near the largest geothermal field in the world. We dump 20 million gallons of treated wastewater into it a day to produce about 900MW on average. We do get lots of minor, unnoticeable earthquakes, but they carefully tune the injection locations and rates to minimize the magnitude.

...aaaand having just returned from a multi-hour deep dive into technical papers on geothermal power production....

The summation is this: https://nick-underwood.com/geothermal/ The U.S. could be generating up to 16% of our electrical needs if we start mass-deploying Enhanced Geothermal System techniques. (As it turns out, one of the early investigations into EGS was lead by a guy I used to work with, who has since passed away.)

EDIT: Additional interesting link: https://openei.org/apps/geovision/executive-summary

Interestingly, the Department Of Energy is currently studying extracting lithium (for batteries) brought up in geothermal brines: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/79178.pdf

2 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Instead there is either blanket statements with no data to back them up saying that action to limit CO2 emissions will destroy civilization, and on the other hand, climate activists who either out of emotion or are too “focused”* propose extreme measures that consist of a fantasy and a couple sentences with no consideration of the “other part of the Earth” (the human population).

Which of these two positions actually has more popular support? Or is this a result of catastrophizing about the catastrophizers and holding them up as equal to the other side?

2 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

One cannot solve a problem by declaring the other end to be “criminal” and enforcing their measures on them.

What happened when we did that to the tobacco industry? The rates of smoking fell precipitously in the U.S. The chlorofluorocarbon industry also took a big hit.

However in an effort to be fair, Subsidy Phase-Out and Reform Catalyst (SPARC) bonds look like an interesting free-market solution. The general idea is that governments phase out fossil fuel subsidies and eventually pay back the bonds (held by private investors) with the savings for not having to pay the subsidies. The bond money can be used for anything that government wishes, including direct payments to consumers that can help offset higher energy costs. This may seem like a net zero situation, but it decouples the money from the fossil fuel industry and allows for the free market and consumer choices to take effect. As much as I detest neoliberalism, sometimes it comes up with really good ideas.  (Within the limited framework that believes money isn't 90% fictional at the macroeconomic level.)

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2014/06/25/90277/subsidy-phase-out-and-reform-catalyst-bonds-2/

Edited November 4, 2021 by FleshJeb

[kerbiloid]

7 hours ago, FleshJeb said:

many of the same people who used to deny anthropogenic climate change out have self-interest have been coming out in support of it.

Many of the same people who used to propagate the anthropogenic climate change theory out have self-interest have been coming out in support of it, by forrcing to buy "greener that previous" goods instead of the already owned ones. 
Even morepeople help them doing it for free.

***

Watching the nowadays show around the gas prices, interesting, how soon will the coal-mining countries reopen their coal mines and follow the Pedant Germany on the Fischer-Tropsch way.

[FleshJeb]

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

forrcing to buy "greener that previous" goods instead of the already owned ones. 

Such as what? I looked around my house and couldn’t find anything “green” that’s objectively a worse economic decision. The appliances are much more efficient than earlier models. Even my truck has double the fuel mileage as my last one (and double the horsepower).

Maybe the compact fluorescent lightbulbs suck, but they’re a minuscule part of my total expenses.

(Judging by the exhaust, Russian jet engines already run on coal :p)

[DDE]

35 minutes ago, FleshJeb said:

(Judging by the exhaust, Russian jet engines already run on coal :p)

Hey, you gotta be able to run your fighter jets on diesel or vodka if the apocalypse comes.

5 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

It’s unfortunate because even if it is found that the action needed would cause great damage, at least examining the situation in detail would help to calm these “extremist” views.

Instead there is either blanket statements with no data to back them up saying that action to limit CO2 emissions will destroy civilization, and on the other hand, climate activists who either out of emotion or are too “focused”* propose extreme measures that consist of a fantasy and a couple sentences with no consideration of the “other part of the Earth” (the human population).

The bigger problem is that they begin to tack on pet initiatives that have little to nothing to do with climate. Many are so millenarian that they want to replace the entire economic basis as a first step to addressing emissions - indeed, some seem to assume no further action would be needed because the capitalist economy is artificially kept on fossil fuels. Obviously this sort of ideological baggage makes others deny them outright, and helps bolster the ranks of AGW deniers, business-as-usual proponents, and AGW enthusiasts.

The typical celebrity environmentalist is their own worst enemy.

Edited November 4, 2021 by DDE
Got my Marxist terminology mixed up

[SunlitZelkova]

3 hours ago, FleshJeb said:

Which of these two positions actually has more popular support? Or is this a result of catastrophizing about the catastrophizers and holding them up as equal to the other side?

Each has extremely popularity… amongst its respective propagators. I don’t think it is a tactic being used to sway people as much as it just appears to be the most reasonable conclusion within the logic of each of their respective supporters.

Because otherwise, as far as convincing people en mass goes, both are pretty poor arguments.

3 hours ago, FleshJeb said:

What happened when we did that to the tobacco industry? The rates of smoking fell precipitously in the U.S. The chlorofluorocarbon industry also took a big hit.

Yes, but tobacco is just a “nice have” and regardless of its size is in no way vital to people’s livelihoods or the economy (within a much wider context, ignoring whether smoking creates social engagement opportunities which improves mental health and so on a la a statement provided by some forum members awhile back + the various people employed by it).

Trying to place restrictions alone on something as vital as the energy industry would be much more difficult.

To state my thought more clearly, i.e., both cases have people whose livelihoods should (have been?) taken into account, but with the energy industry other factors make restrictions alone difficult.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but despite its size, certainly even the tobacco lobby was/is dwarfed by those connected to dirty energy.

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, FleshJeb said:

Such as what? I looked around my house and couldn’t find anything “green” that’s objectively a worse economic decision.

Every year you can buy a new car, better than previous. Do you?

Or do you keep using the previous one while it's enough good, even if worse than the this year one?

But wait, the car which you have bought three years ago (and was advertised as so much cleaner than the previous one, now decade-old), is dirty as a steam locomotive, as you can now learn from the caring people, defending the ecology from the morlocks like you, with their smoking three-year old cars.
You should quickly replace the car with the new one, even if the current one is enormously clean for the decade-earlier you. Of course, for additional money which you would otherwise not bring to the "cleaner" car manufacturer.

***

What's for all this? For life expectancy and for healthy old age.

Spoiler

As we can see, though the "greeening" efforts and costs raised significantly since 1970, the life expectancy in the developed countries doesn't grow so fast, and GDP per capita doesn't affect the life expectancy for the top countries as well.

So, it looks possible to constatate that the developed countries have almost reached the life expectancy ceiling and the further growth of costs in the best case makes longer the assisted living duration.

So, the measures of post-1990 are mostly venting into the locomotive whistle rather than into rotating its wheels.
Or, in other terms, the additional costs get spent on third-party needs, and all above the 1990s ecological measures  is just selling a health&death fear rather than something actually healthy&wealthy.

1 hour ago, FleshJeb said:

(Judging by the exhaust, Russian jet engines already run on coal :p)

Judging by exhaust, the French ones do. Because SSJ is equipped with them. :p)

54 minutes ago, DDE said:

Hey, you gotta be able to run your fighter jets on diesel or vodka if the apocalypse comes.

And btw about vodka. Ask Brasil about the ethanol jets.

 

Edited November 4, 2021 by kerbiloid