human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
POSTED BY: 1kiki
UPDATED: Monday, September 14, 2026 13:16
VIEWED: 61327
PAGE 7 of 12
Facts can be stubborn things. Facts are not swayed by political hype.
https://heartland.org/opinion/world-climate-declaration-there-is-no-cl
imate-emergency/
https://www.ntd.com/over-1600-scientists-sign-no-climate-emergency-dec
laration_938916.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There's a difference between a climate emergency/crisis and a climate shift. The difference is time frame. I don't buy the idea that we have a crisis at hand that will require draconian action by TPTB. OTOH I accept it as fact that the climate is indeed changing, and that we should mitigate what we can (eg, eliminate our world-straddling military, ban private jets, plant more urban trees, manage our forests better, incentivize agricultural and ranching practices to store more carbon in the soil, solarize in sunshine states, supplement with wind power in windy states etc.) and adapt where we can't (create north-south corridors for species migration, pre-plant long-lived species like trees for pre-adaptation, manage ocean preserves and land reservations to maintain biodiversity, etc.)
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Facts can be stubborn things. Facts are not swayed by political hype.
https://heartland.org/opinion/world-climate-declaration-there-is-no-cl
imate-emergency/
https://www.ntd.com/over-1600-scientists-sign-no-climate-emergency-dec
laration_938916.html
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:From what I can tell, you have been advocating shifting all prosperity to the planet's greatest polluters: China, India, Mexico, Brazil, Russia, Ethanol Industry aka Big Ethanol.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:There's a difference between a climate emergency/crisis and a climate shift. The difference is time frame. I don't buy the idea that we have a crisis at hand that will require draconian action by TPTB. OTOH I accept it as fact that the climate is indeed changing, and that we should mitigate what we can (eg, eliminate our world-straddling military, ban private jets, plant more urban trees, manage our forests better, incentivize agricultural and ranching practices to store more carbon in the soil, solarize in sunshine states, supplement with wind power in windy states etc.) and adapt where we can't (create north-south corridors for species migration, pre-plant long-lived species like trees for pre-adaptation, manage ocean preserves and land reservations to maintain biodiversity, etc.)
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Facts can be stubborn things. Facts are not swayed by political hype.
https://heartland.org/opinion/world-climate-declaration-there-is-no-cl
imate-emergency/
https://www.ntd.com/over-1600-scientists-sign-no-climate-emergency-dec
laration_938916.html
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
Not sure if that is because you want humans to perish, or only just Americans.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Facts can be stubborn things. Facts are not swayed by political hype.
https://heartland.org/opinion/world-climate-declaration-there-is-no-cl
imate-emergency/
https://www.ntd.com/over-1600-scientists-sign-no-climate-emergency-dec
laration_938916.html
SIGNY: There's a difference between a climate emergency/crisis and a climate shift. The difference is time frame. I don't buy the idea that we have a crisis at hand that will require draconian action by TPTB. OTOH I accept it as fact that the climate is indeed changing, and that we should mitigate what we can (eg, eliminate our world-straddling military, ban private jets, plant more urban trees, manage our forests better, incentivize agricultural and ranching practices to store more carbon in the soil, solarize in sunshine states, supplement with wind power in windy states etc.) and adapt where we can't (create north-south corridors for species migration, pre-plant long-lived species like trees for pre-adaptation, manage ocean preserves and land reservations to maintain biodiversity, etc.)
JSF: From what I can tell, you have been advocating shifting all prosperity to the planet's greatest polluters: China, India, Mexico, Brazil, Russia, Ethanol Industry aka Big Ethanol.
Not sure if that is because you want humans to perish, or only just Americans.
How is that?
Who will get poorer if we ban private jets?
Who will get poorer if we pay people to hand-thin forests? Seems like that would be a job opportunity.
Who will get poorer if we pay ranchers to practice management intensive grazing (which requires more ranch-hands) and farmers to plant cover crops? The farmers? The ranch hands and ranchers?
Who will get poorer if we solarize where practical? Son, WE have solar panels and they've saved us a fuck-ton of $$$!
Who will get poorer if we install wind-turbines where practical?
Who will get poorer if we improve the efficiency and robust of our grid?
Who will get poorer if we dismantle our world-straddling empire and stop running up the deficit, or re-allocate the $$$ to other job-creating projects (like those above).
We don't need to compete with the Chinese for the smallest bowl of rice. That's not the way to wealth.
We must have very different ideas of wealth, so please enlighten me how you see this being a problem.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Betting against worst-case climate scenarios is risky business
By David Spratt | September 4, 2023
Scientific observations and data from around the globe show that many of the changes that scientists thought would occur later this century are already here, ahead of schedule.
Many current changes are at the upper limit of scientific projections, and sometimes beyond them. Other events, including sea-surface warming in the North Atlantic and the eye-watering decline of sea-ice around Antarctica, have simply astounded scientists.
The International Monetary Fund notes a growing agreement between economists and scientists that “risk of catastrophic and irreversible disaster is rising, implying potentially infinite costs of unmitigated climate change, including, in the extreme, human extinction.” And a 2020 report concludes that exceeding climate tipping points “could lead to catastrophic and irreversible impacts that would make quantifying financial damages impossible” (emphasis added).
In other words, we cannot put a dollar figure on how much damage climate disruption will cause at the levels of warming towards which we are now heading. It is a case of “deep uncertainty” which occurs when decision makers and stakeholders do not know or cannot agree on the likelihood of different future scenarios.
Writing about the “climate endgame,” Luke Kemp from Cambridge’s Centre for the Study of Existential Risk and his colleagues agree that “prudent risk management requires consideration of the bad-to-worst-case scenarios” because low-probability, high-impact extreme outcomes have damages so large as to perhaps be unquantifiable. They say that large uncertainties about dangerous surprises “are reasons to prioritize rather than neglect them.”
But this is what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and climate research and risk managers in the financial system have overwhelmingly not done.
Policy makers and global leaders seem not to recognize that when risks are existential, a bad outcome means the future is unrecognizably different from before. By downplaying the high-risk possibilities, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others are foolishly conducting a dangerously unprecedented experiment: how much heat—how much change—can human systems tolerate before society collapses?
More at https://thebulletin.org/2023/09/betting-against-worst-case-climate-sce
narios-is-risky-business/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Why the United States undercounts climate-driven deaths
"The system of death surveillance wasn’t designed for a climate-changed world."
Every week between May and October, the Maricopa County Department of Public Health in Arizona releases a heat morbidity report. The most recent report said that 180 people have succumbed to heat-associated illness in the county this year so far. But everyone agrees that number is off.
If previous years are any indication, the true number of heat-related deaths in Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix, is much higher: At the end of last summer, the county revised its initial reports upwards by a factor of five, ultimately reporting a sobering 425 heat-related deaths in total.
This lag plagues not just heat-related mortality reporting, but climate-related death data in general. It’s hard to get a full picture of the true number of mortalities connected to a given disaster in real-time. The full death toll often isn’t revealed until weeks, months, even years after the event occurs. And an unknown fraction of deaths often slide by undetected, never making it onto local and federal mortality spreadsheets at all. For example, a recent retrospective study found the number of people who died from exposure to hurricanes and tropical cyclones in the U.S. in the years between 1988 to 2019 was 13 times higher than the federal government’s official estimates.
That study and others like it indicate that the U.S. is gravely underestimating the health impacts of climate change. “The system of death surveillance wasn’t designed for a climate-changed world,” said Robbie Parks, who coauthored the study on hurricane-related mortalities and works as a researcher at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health.
https://grist.org/health/why-the-united-states-undercounts-climate-dri
ven-deaths/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just about every country in the world is committed to keeping climate change in check. This week, the United Nations issued its first report card for this goal and found that the world is falling behind while time is running out.
Under the 2015 Paris climate agreement, countries agreed to pitch in what they could to slash greenhouse gas emissions. Their initial proposals were nowhere near enough, so the accord created a mechanism called the global stocktake to keep everyone accountable.
Unlike other UN climate change reports that are meant to be informative and shy away from policy recommendations, the stocktake is explicitly meant to spur countries to act. It’s a blunt progress assessment, and it lays out how much further countries must go in their emissions commitments the next time they come to the negotiating table at COP28, which will be held in the United Arab Emirates this December.
“The Paris Agreement has driven near-universal climate action,” the report notes, but “much more is needed now on all fronts.”
The task ahead is immense: According to the report, global emissions need to be slashed 43 percent by 2030 to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, one of the main goalposts of the Paris agreement. But the world has already warmed about 1.2 degrees so far above preindustrial averages and is on track to pass the key threshold in the next few years. So when negotiators reconvene at the next climate summit, the stocktake will shape the discussion.
“It carries a lot of weight,” said European Climate Foundation CEO Laurence Tubiana, who helped negotiate the Paris agreement. “The [stocktake] is looking backwards, but even more importantly setting the direction for the next phase of climate policymaking.”
Among its recommendations, the report unapologetically calls for “phasing out all unabated fossil fuels” and for a “radical decarbonization of all sectors of the economy.”
But in a world facing economic turmoil, energy shocks, and unrelenting opposition from the biggest polluters, there are open questions about whether leaders will heed the message at all, and what they’ll actually do about it.
Coal, oil, and natural gas need to go.
More at https://www.vox.com/climate/23864312/climate-change-stocktake-cop28-du
bai
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
dbl
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Trump wrote: "Shawn Fain, the respected President of the United Auto Workers, cannot even think about allowing ALL ELECTRIC CARS - THEY WILL ALL BE MADE IN CHINA, and the Auto Industry in America will cease to exist! There is already a giant 'E GLUT,' they don't go far or long, are very expensive, and the consumer must be given a CHOICE."
The former president also urged users to vote for him in 2024 as he will "stop this madness" and claimed, without evidence, that Mexico and Canada love "Biden's idiotic policy."
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-auto-workers-strike-1827306
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Trump wrote: "Shawn Fain, the respected President of the United Auto Workers, cannot even think about allowing ALL ELECTRIC CARS - THEY WILL ALL BE MADE IN CHINA, and the Auto Industry in America will cease to exist! There is already a giant 'E GLUT,' they don't go far or long, are very expensive, and the consumer must be given a CHOICE."
The former president also urged users to vote for him in 2024 as he will "stop this madness" and claimed, without evidence, that Mexico and Canada love "Biden's idiotic policy."
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-auto-workers-strike-1827306
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
You forgot to mention the part where EV workers are not union, and even leftist news outlets are saying that the union would be a fool to agree to any terms where EV creation wasn't also unionized.
https://prospect.org/blogs-and-newsletters/tap/2023-09-13-beware-wrong
-auto-deal/
Quote:
According to my sources, the industry strategy is to make the bargaining entirely about wages and working conditions, offer the autoworkers a very generous raise of more than 30 percent, but concede nothing when it comes to the EV sector, and hope that the union takes the deal. That would be a disaster. It would represent the union being bought off for present workers at the expense of an increasingly non-union auto future. Too much of the decline of organized labor over the past several decades has followed exactly this pattern.
The industry hope is to put Fain in a bind, since such a deal might look very good to the rank and file. It would take gumption and leadership for Fain to reject the deal and tell the industry to come back with a bargain that included EVs.
I have a feeling you know that already though, don't you shill?
Your TDS is so strong that if Trump agrees with Democrats on something you will automatically turn on it and come to the defense of corporations.
You are a silly, hollowed out shell of a stupid, stupid man.
--------------------------------------------------
How you do anything is how you do everything.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Name a company with an assembly line that contractually gives the assembly line workers the decision about what the company will build next year and the years after that. It is the customers, not the employees, that tell the company what the assembly line workers should make. It is the oldest conflict in Capitalism: who decides what the customers want from the company and controls the company? Is it the employees who control the company? Or is it the owners who control it? The solution to that conflict, but not in the USA, is the employees owning a significant fraction of the shares and having seats on the board of directors.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I have a feeling you know that already though, don't you shill?
Your TDS is so strong that if Trump agrees with Democrats on something you will automatically turn on it and come to the defense of corporations.
You are a silly, hollowed out shell of a stupid, stupid man.
--------------------------------------------------
How you do anything is how you do everything.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If EVs such a hot demand, why do they have to be mandated by government?
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:For the same reason as seat belts and lead free gasoline and mileage standards and crash safety and safety glass and airbags and anything that is not skin-deep fashion.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
If EVs such a hot demand, why do they have to be mandated by government?
UAW-automakers negotiations pit falling wages against skyrocketing CEO pay
https://angrybearblog.com/2023/09/falling-auto-worker-wages-and-increa
sing-ceo-pay
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
If EVs such a hot demand, why do they have to be mandated by government?
SECOND: For the same reason as seat belts and lead free gasoline and mileage standards and crash safety and safety glass and airbags and anything that is not skin-deep fashion.
UAW-automakers negotiations pit falling wages against skyrocketing CEO pay
https://angrybearblog.com/2023/09/falling-auto-worker-wages-and-increa
sing-ceo-pay
Well then, don't fucking blather on about "giving consumers what they want", dolt. EVs are mandated. You said it yourself.
Jeez, you're such a turd.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Every Trumptard I know has a life full of woe and lamentation because they think and act like you. The auto workers think/act like Trumptards, too, imagining they can keep their same old job making combustion engines forever and ever, climate change be damned since they don't believe it's real. Meanwhile, Toyota is making hybrid cars and Tesla making EVs when Detroit can't because the UAW is attempting to force it into signing contracts for lifetime employment of its assembly line workers.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
If EVs such a hot demand, why do they have to be mandated by government?
SECOND: For the same reason as seat belts and lead free gasoline and mileage standards and crash safety and safety glass and airbags and anything that is not skin-deep fashion.
UAW-automakers negotiations pit falling wages against skyrocketing CEO pay
https://angrybearblog.com/2023/09/falling-auto-worker-wages-and-increa
sing-ceo-pay
Well then, don't fucking blather on about "giving consumers what they want", dolt. EVs are mandated. You said it yourself.
Jeez, you're such a turd.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You get caught out making a ridiculuous statement that EVEN YOU contradict, and your go-to-response is to drag a red herring "Trumptard!" across the topic.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
If EVs such a hot demand, why do they have to be mandated by government?
SECOND: For the same reason as seat belts and lead free gasoline and mileage standards and crash safety and safety glass and airbags and anything that is not skin-deep fashion.
UAW-automakers negotiations pit falling wages against skyrocketing CEO pay
https://angrybearblog.com/2023/09/falling-auto-worker-wages-and-increa
sing-ceo-pay
SIGNYM: Well then, don't fucking blather on about "giving consumers what they want", dolt. EVs are mandated. You said it yourself.
Jeez, you're such a turd.
SECOND: Every Trumptard I know has a life full of woe and lamentation because they think and act like you.
Fucking turd. Address the topic in a logical way. Yanno, like maybe where you don't contradict yourself from one sentence to the next, like what usually comes out of that Mix Master inside your head.
IF YOU CAN.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You do remember that you are the one who does not read beyond the first sentence? Every Trumptard I know closes down their mind within a few words when their beliefs are contradicted. Every one of them. Their brain mechanism automatically hits the brakes hard. What they don't get is that little mental quirk is the reason their lives are a mess. Why would I try to convince you, a Trumptard, of anything? You put the retard in Trumptard, Signym.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
You get caught out making a ridiculuous statement that EVEN YOU contradict, and your go-to-response is to drag a red herring "Trumptard!" across the topic.
Fucking turd. Address the topic in a logical way. Yanno, like maybe where you don't contradict yourself from one sentence to the next, like what usually comes out of that Mix Master inside your head.
IF YOU CAN.
https://angrybearblog.com/2023/09/falling-auto-worker-wages-and-increa
sing-ceo-pay
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, I DO read past first sentences, SECOND. JUST NOT YOURS.
So, let me get this straight:
You SUPPORT the strikers because auto workers aren't sharing in the profits.
And...
You DON'T support the workers bc they want you keep making the same-old-same-old, like "Trumptards" everywhere.
*****
You DON'T support the strikers bc they're not keeping up with "what the customers want"
And...
Customers don't really WANT EVs, they have to be mandated by government 'for our own good'.
*****
There's no point reading ANY of your posts bc, as usual, you just splatter the crap that's swirling around in your head onto the board, with no rhyme or reason.
When you've figured out WHAT you really think... if you ever do... then you might be worth reading.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Oh, I DO read past first sentences, SECOND. JUST NOT YOURS.
So, let me get this straight:
You SUPPORT the strikers because auto workers aren't sharing in the profits.
And...
You DON'T support the workers bc they want you keep making the same-old-same-old, like "Trumptards" everywhere.
*****
You DON'T support the strikers bc they're not keeping up with "what the customers want"
And...
Customers don't really WANT EVs, they have to be mandated by government 'for our own good'.
*****
There's no point reading ANY of your posts bc, as usual, you just splatter the crap that's swirling around in your head onto the board, with no rhyme or reason.
When you've figured out WHAT you really think... if you ever do... then you might be worth reading.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
I feel bad for both Second and Ted.
The cognitive dissonance that they've been living with for decades is about to fracture their brains in two.
I can't imagine living a life without any core values while having two or more opposing belief structures vying for dominance every second of your life.
It must be exhausting.
--------------------------------------------------
How you do anything is how you do everything.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SECONDs brain is already broken. Not a psychiatrist here, but I think in more than just two pieces.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:UAW wants more money but also wants to curtail EVs because that means fewer jobs for UAW union members. (There is a claim on the picket line that EV assembly workers will not be UAW members. Instead, they will be Non-Union. The guys on the picket line are confused. The fact is that EV assembly requires fewer assembly workers, but they would be UAW members at the Big 3. There are companies, but not the Big 3, making EVs where nobody is a member of the UAW. Maybe that is where the picket line confusion is coming from. )
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Oh, I DO read past first sentences, SECOND. JUST NOT YOURS.
So, let me get this straight:
You SUPPORT the strikers because auto workers aren't sharing in the profits.
And...
You DON'T support the workers bc they want you keep making the same-old-same-old, like "Trumptards" everywhere.
*****
You DON'T support the strikers bc they're not keeping up with "what the customers want"
And...
Customers don't really WANT EVs, they have to be mandated by government 'for our own good'.
*****
There's no point reading ANY of your posts bc, as usual, you just splatter the crap that's swirling around in your head onto the board, with no rhyme or reason.
When you've figured out WHAT you really think... if you ever do... then you might be worth reading.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
How about a compromise? UAW workers get more money but they also do NOT get to decide how many EVs the Big 3 build.
Business Insider says that companies like VW predict that EVs will require 30 percent fewer workers than traditional ICE vehicles. “The industry is going through a transition unlike anything we’ve ever seen. There’s a pretty strong chance that there will be fewer people building these cars, fewer people building the parts to these cars, and that will create challenges in some automotive communities” said Brett Smith, director of technology at the Center for Automotive Research.
Any way you look at it, the more EV sales rise, the more jobs are lost. A study done in the fall of 2021 by the Economic Policy Institute shows that if EV sales are 50 percent of all domestic vehicle sales by 2030, 75,000 auto jobs will be gone.
https://jalopnik.com/evs-are-going-to-cost-jobs-across-the-auto-indust
ry-1849413566
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Union workers won't have to worry about that because there's zero chance that 50% of vehicles sold will be EVs in 2030.
There's nearly zero charging infrastructure built, and the contracts out there are going to be nearly 1.5 Million charging stations short of the bare minimum needed for 50% of vehicles needing them. People don't like waiting in line to buy gas now. Nothing is going to make people instantly regret their expensive new toy purchase more than the first time they're waiting 3 hours at a charging station.
Plus, most homes aren't equipped with the 240 volt power you're going to need to have in your garage to charge your vehicle quick enough to do anything with it on a daily basis. Converting this is not a DIY job for most people and it will be prohibitively expensive for most people to do, requiring union electricians on the job and pretty significant collateral damage to the structure to upgrade the power to the garage. That being said, there will be a lot of people who watch a few videos on the University of YouTube and do it themselves anyway.
If the house is detached from the garage, it becomes a lot safer than an attached garage, but it will likely be a lot more work/money to convert to 240, and depending on how far away the garage is you have to now consider the problem of Voltage Drop, which can end up damaging the batteries, and take steps to prevent it. In time, Voltage Drop can kill your power tools which aren't comprised of sensitive electronics that can fail more more easily.
I wonder how many stories we're going to be reading in the future about people losing everything they owned and/or being burned alive in their houses because the botched electrical job to their attached garage or a bad battery ended up burning their house down while they were sleeping. It will be more than one for sure.
https://www.kcra.com/article/lithium-ion-battery-fires-how-to-prevent-
them/43266541
https://www.fire.nsw.gov.au/page.php?id=9393
The strain on the power grids hasn't even begun. It will end up costing people 10 times the current rate for kWh to power their homes once millions of people start adopting these coal-burning vehicles. And once people start dying from the heat during the summer because of blackouts caused by the insane load on the grid they cause, there will be outrage.
Democrats are trying to force a technology that isn't yet viable for anybody other than a niche group of hobbyists and people who like to smell their own farts.
What we've got is good enough for a couple of million of them on the road, but we do not currently have anything close to what would be needed to supply the entire driving country with the power they'd need safely, conveniently and at an affordable price if these things were ever adopted en masse.
--------------------------------------------------
How you do anything is how you do everything.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You aren't good with probabilities.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Union workers won't have to worry about that because there's zero chance that 50% of vehicles sold will be EVs in 2030.
Would you live in a building, cross a bridge, or trust a dam wall if there were a 10 percent chance of it collapsing? Or five percent? Or one percent? Of course not! In civil engineering, acceptable probabilities of failure generally range from one-in-10,000 to one-in-10-million.
So why, when it comes to climate action, are policies like carbon budgets accepted when they have success rates of just 50 to 66 percent? That’s hardly better than a coin toss.
Policy-relevant scientific publications, such as those produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, focus on the probabilities—the most likely outcomes. But, according to atmospheric physicist and climatologist Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, “calculating probabilities makes little sense in the most critical instances” because “when the issue is the survival of civilization is at stake, conventional means of analysis may become useless.”
More at https://thebulletin.org/2023/09/betting-against-worst-case-climate-sce
narios-is-risky-business/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SECOND:Quote:You aren't good with probabilities.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Union workers won't have to worry about that because there's zero chance that 50% of vehicles sold will be EVs in 2030.
Yes. I am.
--------------------------------------------------
How you do anything is how you do everything.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Union workers won't have to worry about that because there's zero chance that 50% of vehicles sold will be EVs in 2030.
SECOND: You aren't good with probabilities.
Would you live in a building, cross a bridge, or trust a dam wall if there were a 10 percent chance of it collapsing? Or five percent? Or one percent? Of course not! In civil engineering, acceptable probabilities of failure generally range from one-in-10,000 to one-in-10-million.
So why, when it comes to climate action, are policies like carbon budgets accepted when they have success rates of just 50 to 66 percent? That’s hardly better than a coin toss.
Policy-relevant scientific publications, such as those produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, focus on the probabilities—the most likely outcomes. But, according to atmospheric physicist and climatologist Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, “calculating probabilities makes little sense in the most critical instances” because “when the issue is the survival of civilization is at stake, conventional means of analysis may become useless.”
He means.... "IF the survival of civilization is at stake"
You know what events would cause a major hiccup in civilization, as we know it?
Full-on nuclear war. Years-long nuclear winter around the globe and deadly radioactive ash straddling the northern hemisphere. Slow painful extinction from radiation poisoning.
The eruption of the Yellowstone supervolcano. A 50 mile diameter chunk of crust and mantle, all blowing skyward. It would destroy North America with ashfall within days, and block the sun for years. Another years-long "winter" scenario that would be an extinction-level event.
A 6-9 mile wide asteroid hitting the earth. Another "winter" scenario. In addition, the last time it happened it seems to have set off a long-lasting volcanic flow in the Siberian 'steppes'. And since the magma emerged thru thick coal beds, it released a fuck-ton of carbon dioxide and sulfur oxides. It wiped out the dinosaurs and most other life on earth.
Of all of those, NUCLEAR WAR is the only one we have a prayer of doing anything about.
So why aren't you agitating about THAT?. Is it worth the risk, if we "get Russia"?
That's pretty irrational (i.e you can't seem to ratio "which is bigger/worse?" and keep that in mind when assessing relative risk.)
We are in an extinction event RIGHT NOW. SOME is directly related to global warming but most is from HABITAT LOSS and POLLUTION.
Salmon fishing ban as stocks collapse. Salmon populations have been declining for decades, thanks to logging near streams and rivers which stir up silt and choke spawning salmon. Dams across major rivers also prevent salmon from spawning. Pollution and overfishing contribute. https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/why-are-there-so-few-salmon-left
Toxic red tides, which kill fish en masse, sea birds and seals, sea lions and other marine mammals. Red tides are made worse by phosphate pollution from farming, which happens extensively off USA's southern Atlantic and Pacific coasts.
https://www.sailorsforthesea.org/programs/ocean-watch/nutrients-feed-r
ed-tide
Along with that, we can look at the "dead zone" that occurs in the Gulf of Mexico every years, thanks to fertilizer and chemical runoff from the Mississippi, and algae blooms in the Great Lakes caused by nitrogen fertilizer runoff from corn (for fuel ethanol) farming.
Plastics and microplastics in the ocean, literally choking sea life to death.
We've used the ocean as our ultimate resource and dumping ground, but it seems we've exceeded even IT'S limits. Some of the solutions to, or mitigations of, global warming overlap with solving or mitigating these other problems:
Better forest management. Hand-thininng and hand-cutting instead of clear-cutting.
Cover-cropping to retain moisture, soil, fertilizer.
Re-est
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
ChatGPT's Environmental Impact Ignored By Climate Warriors
https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/chatgpts-environmental-impact-ign
ored-climate-warriors
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The solution is high prices for fossil fuels. How high? High enough to pay for removing the CO2 from the atmosphere once the fuel is burnt. Things like electric cars, heat pumps, or solar power are just tricks to avoid paying high prices for fossil fuels. Obviously, most people will be enraged that they have to pay higher prices for gasoline and install heat pumps. Such people will instantly see an Anti-Solution. Such people will teil their politicians: "Why do I have to pay insanely high prices I don't wanna pay when the people in China are the REAL producers of CO2? Make them pay instead of me! Threaten them with war if the Chinese don't pay." Instantaneous Anti-Solutions will be everywhere in politics!
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
We've used the ocean as our ultimate resource and dumping ground, but it seems we've exceeded even IT'S limits. Some of the solutions to, or mitigations of, global warming overlap with solving or mitigating these other problems:
Better forest management. Hand-thininng and hand-cutting instead of clear-cutting.
Cover-cropping to retain moisture, soil, fertilizer.
Re-establishment of estuaries and wetlands as 'cleanup' zones before discharge into the ocean.
As you know, SECOND, I do think that climate shift is happening. But there are better sollutions out there beyond a mass knee-jerk imposition of a technology that may (or might not) in the end improve our situation.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Son, if one bad forest fire year undoes 18 years of CA decarbonization, maybe we should ... yanno... ADDRESS THE STUFF THAT HAS THE HIGHEST IMPACT?
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Cut down the forest before it burns will fix the problem. Or cut fire lanes in the forest and hire a huge forest fire department. Or burn the underbrush often enough to prevent forest fires. Or etc. Whatever way suits you. Or do nothing and let the forests burn.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Son, if one bad forest fire year undoes 18 years of CA decarbonization, maybe we should ... yanno... ADDRESS THE STUFF THAT HAS THE HIGHEST IMPACT?
Imagine a world where there were no sewage treatment plants. What a messy and disgusting world that would be. Now imagine a world, the one we live in, where CO2 floods the environment like an overflowing toilet. It is everywhere and it is ruining everything it touches.
Until CO2 is treated as a waste product like sewage there will be CO2 spreading everywhere and making a giant mess. In Baytown, there is a sewage charge of $2.81 for every 1,000 gallons of water your house uses until the use is 2,000 gallons then the price for sewage disposal increases to $6.36 per thousand gallons. There needs to be a disposal charge for how much CO2 you produce and the way to calculate that charge is by how much fossil fuel you burn. The details of how you reduce your fossil fuel burning are up to you. Keep using fossil fuel like you always have will cost you to clean up the mess. Or do something useful to reduce your CO2 disposal cost such as switching to other means and techniques.
https://baytown.org/481/Billing-Info-Due-Dates
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There goes all that carbon dioxide removal!
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Son, if one bad forest fire year undoes 18 years of CA decarbonization, maybe we should ... yanno... ADDRESS THE STUFF THAT HAS THE HIGHEST IMPACT?
SECOND: Cut down the forest before it burns
Quote:Better, but...
Or cut fire lanes in the forest and hire a huge forest fire department.
Quote:Not ideal...
Or burn the underbrush often enough to prevent forest fires.
Quote:Yeah, THAT'S a good idea! Let's do nothing about CO2 at all!
Or do nothing and let the forests burn.
Quote:It's called India
SECOND::Imagine a world where there were no sewage treatment plants.
Quote:You DO know how sewage treatment plants work, don't you?
SECOND: What a messy and disgusting world that would be. Now imagine a world, the one we live in, where CO2 floods the environment like an overflowing toilet. It is everywhere and it is ruining everything it touches.
Until CO2 is treated as a waste product like sewage
They work by speeding up natural processes. Same with CO2 removal.
YOUR idea of decarbonizing the world is the equivalent of telling the world "HEY, STOP SHITTING!" to solve the sewage problem. Well, unlike shitting, we can actually reduce our carbon emissions. But we can't stop them entirely.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Fact: 99 percent of wastewater is just water; the other 1 percent is solids, chemicals, nutrients, fats, and other pollutants.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:It's called India
SECOND::Imagine a world where there were no sewage treatment plants.Quote:You DO know how sewage treatment plants work, don't you?
SECOND: What a messy and disgusting world that would be. Now imagine a world, the one we live in, where CO2 floods the environment like an overflowing toilet. It is everywhere and it is ruining everything it touches.
Until CO2 is treated as a waste product like sewage
They work by speeding up natural processes. Same with CO2 removal.
YOUR idea of decarbonizing the world is the equivalent of telling the world "HEY, STOP SHITTING!" to solve the sewage problem. Well, unlike shitting, we can actually reduce our carbon emissions. But we can't stop them entirely.
https://wateruseitwisely.com/blog/journey-pipes-happens-wastewater/
The major products of the complete combustion of petroleum-based fuels in an internal combustion engine is water (13%), with nitrogen from air comprising most (73%) of the remaining exhaust. Carbon dioxide (13%).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK531294/
Signym, there is the problem. 13% of combustion exhaust is waste needing to be buried.
Only 1% of sewage is a waste needing to be buried. The rest is water or nitrogen.
An average passenger car in operation can emit about 5 U.S. tons of CO2 per year. The average passenger in that car flushes about 0.5 U.S. tons of toilet paper and excrement down the toilet per year. CO2 is at least an order of magnitude larger problem than sewage.
https://today.tamu.edu/2021/09/14/captured-water-carbon-dioxide-from-c
ar-exhaust-could-help-grow-food/
Signym, how much does it cost to run all the sewage treatment plants in America? Call it $66 billion per year in 2019. Since CO2 is about 13 times more waste, it will probably cost about 13 times $66 billion per year. Round that to $1 trillion per year for handling CO2. GDP at this moment is $27 trillion.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/192838/revenue-from-us-wastewater-
treatment-since-2000/
If you only consider working adults paying for taking CO2 out of the air, the cost is $6,000 per year for each of them. Alternatively, rather than spending $6,000 per year on handling waste CO2 because you forever refuse to stop using fossil fuels, you could spend some of that $6,000 per year on buying an electric car and upgrading the electric generating systems.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
SECOND::Imagine a world where there were no sewage treatment plants.
SIGNY: It's called India
SECOND: What a messy and disgusting world that would be. Now imagine a world, the one we live in, where CO2 floods the environment like an overflowing toilet. It is everywhere and it is ruining everything it touches.
Until CO2 is treated as a waste product like sewage
SIGNY: You DO know how sewage treatment plants work, don't you?
They work by speeding up natural processes. Same with CO2 removal.
YOUR idea of decarbonizing the world is the equivalent of telling the world "HEY, STOP SHITTING!" to solve the sewage problem. Well, unlike shitting, we can actually reduce our carbon emissions. But we can't stop them entirely.
SECOND: Fact: 99 percent of wastewater is just water; the other 1 percent is solids, chemicals, nutrients, fats, and other pollutants.
https://wateruseitwisely.com/blog/journey-pipes-happens-wastewater/
The major products of the complete combustion of petroleum-based fuels in an internal combustion engine is water (13%), with nitrogen from air comprising most (73%) of the remaining exhaust. Carbon dioxide (13%).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK531294/
That's assuming the fuel has the general formula CH2. OTOH if you burn methane CH4 you create half of the CO2. That's why methane is such a good intermediate fuel. Methanol, tho lower BTU, is also a solution. (Literally)
Quote:Not necessarily...
Signym, there is the problem. 13% of combustion exhaust is waste
Quote:Or captured. Yanno, there is such a thing as a nitrogen cycle and another such thing as a carbon cycle. It turns out, our wastes overwhelm both. There are several solutions to the problem :
SECOND: ... needing to be buried.
Reduce the amount of waste
Enhance the natural cycles
Industrially bury our waste...the "midden solution" where we bury our waste and hope it doesn't come burping back up.
Fortunately sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate are pretty innocuous compounds, so if we can turn CO2 into Na2CO3 or NaHCO3 we're good to go
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The CO2 that is already in the atmosphere will have to be subtracted at a rate about ten times faster than the CO2 was added. If you think mining coal and drilling for oil was a big deal, imagine undoing/reversing all that work at ten times the normal speed. It will be ultra unnatural, even more so than huge machines moving mountains of rock in the 20th Century to strip mine for coal.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Or captured. Yanno, there is such a thing as a nitrogen cycle and another such thing as a carbon cycle. It turns out, our wastes overwhelm both. There are several solutions to the problem :
Reduce the amount of waste
Enhance the natural cycles
Industrially bury our waste...the "midden solution" where we bury our waste and hope it doesn't come burping back up.
Fortunately sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate are pretty innocuous compounds, so if we can turn CO2 into Na2CO3 or NaHCO3 we're good to go
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:OR WHAT?
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Or captured. Yanno, there is such a thing as a nitrogen cycle and another such thing as a carbon cycle. It turns out, our wastes overwhelm both. There are several solutions to the problem :
Reduce the amount of waste
Enhance the natural cycles
Industrially bury our waste...the "midden solution" where we bury our waste and hope it doesn't come burping back up.
Fortunately sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate are pretty innocuous compounds, so if we can turn CO2 into Na2CO3 or NaHCO3 we're good to go
SECOND: The CO2 that is already in the atmosphere will have to be subtracted at a rate about ten times faster than the CO2 was added.
What is your goal? On what endpoint and timeline was this caculated?
Sounds purposefully alarmist to me. I'd sure like to see the assumptions that this is based on.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You really get carried away with sound-bites, don't you, SECOND?
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Utility says California needs US$370 billion for grids and generation to meet net zero
($370 billion divided by 39 million population equals $9,500 each)
By Will Norman
September 20, 2023
California Independent Systems Operator (CAISO) grid capacity has grown by about 2GW/year in the last two years, Edison said, but will need to increase to around 8GW/year through to 2045 if it is to keep pace with the targets. The report said CAISO’s transmission network currently consists of around 26,000 circuit miles; adding another 120GW of new clean energy capacity – which Edison said is needed – will require another 20,000 miles of 500kV transmission, representing around US$75 billion.
CAISO approved a, somewhat scaled back, transmission plan in May that would add 45 projects with a potential solar PV capacity addition of 17GW over the next decade.
Edison also said that the distribution grid connecting its electricity customers to power will need to be expanded at tenfold its historical rate. An incremental investment of around US$50 billion will be needed to deploy around 1,400 new distribution circuits, the equivalent of 85 new distribution substations, and upgrade more than a third of the existing substations.
“The stakes are higher than they have ever been for expanding the electric system to meet decarbonisation goals safely, reliably and affordably,” said Pedro J Pizarro, president and CEO of Edison International.
The report itself reiterated that: “More than ever before, clarity is urgently needed to ensure the most cost-effective upgrades are built in time to interconnect new resources.”
https://www.pv-tech.org/utility-says-california-needs-us370-billion-fo
r-grids-and-generation-to-meet-net-zero/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We’re past the point of no return on climate emissions — it’s time we turn to carbon removal
by Sir David King and Sware Semesi, opinion contributors - 09/21/23 1:30 PM ET
Covering 70 percent of the planet, the ocean has borne the brunt of damage caused by our disrupted climate — absorbing more than 90 percent of the excess heat trapped on the planet, and 26 percent of all civilization’s carbon dioxide pollution.
While this has shielded humanity and terrestrial ecosystems, the effects in the ocean are alarming: unprecedented warming, acidification, deoxygenation, and a host of related changes that further undermine the stability of our climate. Decreasing emissions must remain an urgent priority of the global community, but the problem is this: Even if we stop all emissions today, existing carbon pollution in the air will continue to warm the planet to devastating levels.
New tools are urgently needed to restore the climate and repair the ocean, particularly carbon dioxide removal, including potential ocean-based pathways.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has made clear that large-scale carbon dioxide removal will be needed this century to hold temperatures to a 1.5 degrees Celsius increase — the goal set out in the Paris Agreement. And if we aspire to ultimately re-cool the planet, carbon dioxide removal is the only tool that can remove the legacy carbon dioxide pollution that otherwise will stay in the atmosphere for hundreds or thousands of years.
More at https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/4213981-were-past-the-p
oint-of-no-return-on-climate-emissions-its-time-we-turn-to-carbon-removal/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I see you avoided answering the question.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:OR WHAT?
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Or captured. Yanno, there is such a thing as a nitrogen cycle and another such thing as a carbon cycle. It turns out, our wastes overwhelm both. There are several solutions to the problem :
Reduce the amount of waste
Enhance the natural cycles
Industrially bury our waste...the "midden solution" where we bury our waste and hope it doesn't come burping back up.
Fortunately sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate are pretty innocuous compounds, so if we can turn CO2 into Na2CO3 or NaHCO3 we're good to go
SECOND: The CO2 that is already in the atmosphere will have to be subtracted at a rate about ten times faster than the CO2 was added.
What is your goal? On what endpoint and timeline was this caculated?
Sounds purposefully alarmist to me. I'd sure like to see the assumptions that this is based on.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I get it. You are playing a game where you will do nothing, support nothing, understand nothing unless I persuade you. I'm not playing that game where I am responsible, per my enemies, for what my enemies do or don't do, believe or don't believe is true. You're the enemy because you are a hopeless mess. There is no way to save you, Signym, other than the supernatural intervenes.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I see you avoided answering the question.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No, I'm merely pointing out that your fatuous statement about "we must capture carbon dioxide at TEN TIMES THE RATE at which it was emitted" was based entirely on... NOTHING.
*****
"We must capture carbon dioxide at ten times the rate it was emitted in order to
...reach pre-industrial levels of atmospheric CO2 in 30 years???
... avoid exceeding the threshold of increasing average global temperature more than 2degC in 15 years???
... make my investment in carbon capture technology profitable??
*****
I mean, WHAT? Apparently even YOU don't know!
Silly, silly man.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Altho it comes from ZH, the article heavily links original source material (ie. Bloomberg etc). I've only included two links. If you want to backtrack to all of the original articles, you'll have to go to ZH.
Quote:
Green Bubble Burst: US ESG Fund Closures In 2023 Surpass Total Of Previous Three Years
Friday, Sep 22, 2023 - 03:55 AM
For years, green and socially responsible investments, aka ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance), have dominated the investing world. However, according to Bloomberg, a seismic shift is underway as BlackRock and other money managers unwound an increasing number of 'green' products amid soaring backlash and investor scrutiny.
Data from Morningstar shows State Street, Columbia Threadneedle Investments, Janus Henderson Group, and Hartford Funds Management Group have unwound more than two dozen ESG funds this year. The latest unwind comes from BlackRock, who told regulators last Friday it plans to close two ESG emerging-market bond funds with total assets of $55 million.
Source: Bloomberg
So far this year, the number of ESG funds closing is more than the last three years combined. This trend comes as investors pull money out of these funds as the ESG bubble has likely popped.
We asked this question in early summer: Is The ESG Investing Boom Already Over?
In January, BlackRock's Larry Fink told Bloomberg TV at the World Economic Forum in Davos that ESG investing has been tarnished:
"Let's be clear, the narrative is ugly, the narrative is creating this huge polarization. "
Fink continued:
"We are trying to address the misconceptions. It's hard because it's not business any more, they're doing it in a personal way. And for the first time in my professional career, attacks are now personal. They're trying to demonize the issues."
By June, Fink's BlackRock dropped the term "ESG" https://www.axios.com/2023/06/26/larry-fink-ashamed-esg-weaponized-des
antis following billions of dollars pulled out of its funds by Republican governors, most notably, $2 billion by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.
The crux of the issue that Republican lawmakers have with radical ESG funds is that they were trying to impose 'green' initiatives on the corporate level to force change in society, and many of these initiatives would be widely unpopular at the ballot box during elections.
Remember these comments from Fink?
Alyssa Stankiewicz, associate director for sustainability research at Morningstar, told Bloomberg, "We have definitely seen demand drop off in 2022 and 2023."
Also, let's not forget about the 'greenwashing' across ESG industry.
Matt Lawton, T. Rowe Price Group Inc.'s sector portfolio manager in the Fixed Income Division, recently concluded: "It's becoming increasingly difficult to find credible sustainability-linked bonds."
The tide is reversing for Fink: "Backfire: World's Fourth Largest Iron Ore Producer Stops Purchasing Carbon Offsets."
Don't forget this: "McDonald's Scrubs Mentions Of "ESG" From Its Website."
Oops, Mr. Fink.
To be clear, closing funds worth a total of $55 million in the grand scheme of things is penny ante stuff. I would need to know how much $ is in "ESG" to know whether this is a significant trend or not.
And removing "ESG" from a fund's name, or from a company website, doesn't necessarily mean a change in policy. But IMHO, unless you're running carbon credits as a SCAM (i.e. selling carbon credits that simply don't exist), it is unlikely to ever be a money-maker. Removing or reducing CO2 is usually a cost, not a source of revenue.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A previous article on BlackRock and ESG. I've included one important link, but if you want to backtrack to the original sources and also see the chart you'll have to go to ZH.
Quote:
BlackRock CEO Drops "ESG" Term After Blowback
Monday, Jun 26, 2023 - 07:00 PM
On Sunday, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink revealed at the Aspen Ideas Festival that he had abandoned the term "ESG" (environment, social, and governance) because it has been highly politicized and even "weaponized," and he is "ashamed" to be part of the debate, according to Axios.
Fink acknowledged at the event that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis' decision to yank $2 billion in assets hurt his firm. Gov. DeSantis pulled state assets managed by the world's largest money manager in late 2022 over "woke" capitalism policies.
Lawmakers from red states have called out BlackRock for its toxic woke capitalism push in corporate America. Besides Florida, states like Louisiana, South Carolina, Utah, Arkansas, West Virginia, Missouri, and Texas have withdrawn funds from the asset manager.
Recall Fink was very nervous earlier this year over the 'demonization' of ESG.
Source: Bloomberg
Last month, seventeen Republican state attorneys filed a motion with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to dispute whether BlackRock could purchase more than $10 million voting stakes in utility companies.
"These elitists are trying to impose restrictions [i.e. decarbonization] on energy companies and utilities that would never win approval at the ballot box.
"Their schemes could raise utility bills for regular Americans, including elderly Hoosiers on fixed incomes, and they could diminish the value of their investment accounts," Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita said in a statement last month.
Fink, 70, said he was "ashamed of being part of this conversation," adding:
"When I write these [investment] letters, it was never meant to be a political statement. … They were written to identify longterm issues to our longterm investors."
Of course, that's nonsense. Fink has been at the center of pushing 'climate change' policies and has even said his company would "force behaviors" on corporate America.
And then there's this...
Video: Blackrock CEO Larry Fink: "Markets don't like uncertainty, markets like actually totalitarian governments... the whole dimension is changing with the deomcratization of governments ... "
https://twitter.com/i/status/1673042281652166657
Axios said at the event:
When pressed on the statement later in the conversation, Fink backtracked.
"I never said I was ashamed," he said, incorrectly. "I'm not ashamed. I do believe in conscientious capitalism."
"I'm not going to use the word ESG because it's been misused by the far left and the far right," he added.
Fink isn't ashamed of ESG... He's furious the scheme to ram woke capitalism down corporations through voting proxies has hit a serious snag and generated serious blowback from lawmakers and average Americans.
Here are some of BlackRock's top holdings...
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/blackrock-ceo-drops-esg-term-after-b
lowback
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A climate scientist on how to recognize the new climate change denial
Delay, deflect, downplay, and other ways fossil fuel companies block climate action.
What do you call it if it’s not climate denialism anymore? What are we facing now?
So there are other D-words. There’s delay. There’s division. Get climate advocates fighting with each other about, like, whether they’re vegans or not or whether they drive a car or not. Get climate advocates fighting with each other so you divide and conquer the movement. That’s division. Delay: “Oh, look, we can fix the problem with geoengineering, with carbon capture down the road. Trust us, we’ll be able to fix it.” So “let us continue to burn fossil fuels now. We will fix it later.” Delay. And that’s what they want. They want people disengaged on the sidelines rather than on the front lines. We see these tactics literally playing out today.
There’s an article that just recently appeared in the Wall Street Journal detailing how Rex Tillerson, the former CEO of ExxonMobil, who had been lauded as the next generation of Exxon leadership — he was not a climate denier. He accepted that climate change is real — there was a real effort by Tillerson and ExxonMobil at that time to present this public face of climate acceptance — because it had already become difficult to deny it was happening. People understood it was happening. It wasn’t credible to deny it. And so it was, “Yes, we accept the science,” but the D-word here is downplaying. And in the article, the Wall Street Journal makes it very clear, based on internal documents that show a different side of ExxonMobil and Rex Tillerson, that they were actively campaigning to downplay the detrimental impacts of the climate crisis while playing up techno fixes like geoengineering. In fact, Rex Tillerson was quoted saying that climate change is an engineering problem.
The idea here is, look, we can continue to extract and burn and sell and burn fossil fuels because we have all these techno fixes, other things that we can do to the climate system: trying to offset the warming by shooting particles into the stratosphere that reflect sunlight or dumping iron into the ocean to fertilize the algae that will take up the carbon dioxide, take it out of the atmosphere. Or massive carbon capture, we’ll just suck the CO2 back out of the atmosphere. That can’t be very hard, right? Well, actually, no. It’s really expensive and really difficult to do. And so [there are] these very elaborate schemes to try to somehow put the genie back in the bottle rather than the obvious solution, which is to keep the genie in the bottle in the first place.
By which you mean what?
Not extracting and burning fossil carbon and putting it into the atmosphere.
Deflection remains one of the key tactics of the fossil fuel industry. And a lot of good people have fallen victim to it. A lot of environmentalists will tell you, yeah, the solution is just us decreasing our carbon footprint. “You need to become a vegan, you can’t have children, you shouldn’t fly.” Ironically, that framing helps the fossil fuel industry even more because it plays to this notion on the right that climate action is about controlling people’s intimate lives (food, children, vacation).
The fossil fuel industry does not want you to switch to a green source of energy instead of burning fossil fuel. The industry wants you only to think of what you will lose if you stop using all forms of energy.
More at https://www.vox.com/climate/23885799/climate-change-denial-fossil-fuel
-companies-exxon-mobil
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Most people will wait until green energy is cheaper than fossil fuel energy before they will switch. At the same time, the cost of ruining the world will never factor into their calculation of when to switch because they will demand to know just how much the ruining will cost themselves, personally. And they will want that cost to be accurate within $1.00. It is impossible to get such people to think about all the garbage, the hundreds of tons of CO2, they personally put into the atmosphere during their lifetime. They will refuse to pay for removing their hundreds of tons of old garbage. Let some future generation do the work and pay for it. The Signyms of this world are not paying and nobody can convince them to change their minds.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
No, I'm merely pointing out that your fatuous statement about "we must capture carbon dioxide at TEN TIMES THE RATE at which it was emitted" was based entirely on... NOTHING.
*****
"We must capture carbon dioxide at ten times the rate it was emitted in order to
...reach pre-industrial levels of atmospheric CO2 in 30 years???
... avoid exceeding the threshold of increasing average global temperature more than 2degC in 15 years???
... make my investment in carbon capture technology profitable??
*****
I mean, WHAT? Apparently even YOU don't know!
Silly, silly man.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
“OK, did I go to China just to make a video about high-speed rail? Yes,” Barber told his 830,000 followers. “But I’m a firm believer in [the fact that] you shouldn’t say something is good and works until you try it out. And after trying out high-speed rail, this is the greatest way to travel, ever.”
“I want this in Canada,” Barber concluded. “This is the way to go.”
Not only are China’s high-speed trains convenient, comfortable, and incredibly fast, but they are also much healthier for our planet than forcing people to get everywhere by driving cars. (And, of course, infinitely more environmentally friendly than air travel.)
China’s high-speed trains are powered mainly by electricity derived from clean energy sources and can transport large numbers of people at a time.
Barber’s followers were suitably impressed by his journey.
“The fact that Canada and [the] USA don’t have this blows my mind,” one commenter wrote.
“Oil companies lobbying the government probably won’t let that happen,” wrote another.
More at https://www.thecooldown.com/green-tech/high-speed-rail-china-train/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Biden Administration’s Next Big Climate Decision
The liquefied-natural-gas buildout — and fossil-fuel exports — challenge progress on global warming.
By Bill McKibben, September 22, 2023
It’s the greatest L.N.G. boom in history, a feat that is all the more remarkable given that U.S. oil-and-gas exports were essentially nil before 2016, when, just days after the Paris climate negotiations ended, congressional Democrats agreed to end the forty-year ban on selling American oil abroad in exchange for extending solar- and wind-energy-industry tax credits in an omnibus spending bill. The first large-scale L.N.G. exports began in 2016; Vladimir Putin provided a rationale for backing increased exports when he launched his attack on Ukraine in 2022 and turned down the gas tap for Europe. The U.S. and others met the challenge, exporting fifty-six billion cubic metres to the European Union last year; the Biden Administration has promised another fifty billion this winter. Projects like C.P.2, though, won’t be done for at least three years, by which time the geopolitical reasoning will presumably have faded, but the infrastructure will linger for decades. The U.S. has now surpassed Russia and Qatar to become the single largest exporter of L.N.G. in the world.
And that’s just the beginning. A new report published last week (I helped present the data at a press conference) showed that more than a third of increases in oil and gas production between now and 2035 is slated to come from the U.S. alone—the authors, who work for the research and advocacy group Oil Change International, based in Washington, D.C., said that this will make the United States the “Planet Wrecker in Chief.” If that sounds odd, given the level of climate action underway since the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, in the summer of 2022, you need to consider the artificial distinction that the world draws between domestic and foreign emissions. It’s a kind of math problem, though not a very hard one.
President Biden has said that he will cut U.S. emissions in half from 2005 levels by 2030; the huge investments in electric vehicles, wind turbines, and the like under the I.R.A. should accomplish a significant fraction of that task. But, at the same time, the Administration has overseen the continued ramp-up of fossil-fuel exports. (Venture Global alone is planning to produce a hundred million metric tons of L.N.G. a year.) The emissions from all that gas don’t officially “count” against the U.S.’s total, because it will be burned elsewhere, and under rules set by the United Nations the country of combustion, not production, is on the hook for it. But the atmosphere doesn’t care where fossil fuel is burned; the resulting carbon dioxide mixes quickly into the atmosphere and raises temperatures everywhere. And, if those emissions are added “into our footprint,” the analyst Jeremy Symons told me recently, “our total emissions in 2030 will be roughly the same as in 2005.” The rules constitute, he said, “the greatest shell game in the history of the world. We’re so focused on domestic emissions that we’ve missed entirely what’s going on with exports.”
More at https://web.archive.org/web/20230923121443/https://www.newyorker.com/n
ews/daily-comment/the-biden-administrations-next-big-climate-decision
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
No, I'm merely pointing out that your fatuous statement about "we must capture carbon dioxide at TEN TIMES THE RATE at which it was emitted" was based entirely on... NOTHING.
*****
"We must capture carbon dioxide at ten times the rate it was emitted in order to
...reach pre-industrial levels of atmospheric CO2 in 30 years???
... avoid exceeding the threshold of increasing average global temperature more than 2degC in 15 years???
... make my investment in carbon capture technology profitable??
*****
I mean, WHAT? Apparently even YOU don't know!
Silly, silly man.
SECOND: Most people will wait until green energy is blah blah blah blah
..
What does this have to do with your incredibly stupid statement?
Oh, NOTHING, you say??
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
FUN FACT: Wind Turbine blades are 100% non-recyclable, consisting each of 35 tonnes of plastic and fiberglass which are either thrown into a landfill to be somebody else's problem another day, or are incinerated, which not only is bad news for future CO2 emissions, but as a bonus are going to end up adding to the insane amount of microplastics that you already have coating the inside of your lungs and are already found littering pretty much every cell in your body.
As of 2022, we have a recorded total of 70,800 wind turbines in the US alone, each consisting of 3 blades.
So, not including all of the blades that have already been buried or burned, we have a combined total of 14,868,000,000 lbs of non-recyclable future waste product that's mostly going to end up in your lungs and contribute to global warming once they reach the end of their life cycle.
Oh... and don't forget that every single tonne of glass fibers produced in the first place results in a carbon footprint of approximately 1.7-2.2 tonnes. So, not including the blades we've already buried or burned, the blades on the existing 70,800 wind turbines currently active in America alone required us to put 12,637,800 to 16,354,800 tonnes of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere before they even made their first rotation.
Clean energy indeed!
Well boys...
Smoke if you got 'em!
Sources:
https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/can-wind-turbine
-blades-be-recycled
https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-many-turbines-are-contained-us-wind-turb
ine-database
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/30003WOK.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&
amp;Client=EPA&Index=1991+Thru+1994&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C91thru94%5CTxt%5C00000009%5C30003WOK.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=hpfr&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-sustainable-sustainablemodern-const
ruction-materials-okpara
--------------------------------------------------
How you do anything is how you do everything.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
FUN FACT: Wind Turbine blades are 100% non-recyclable . . .
Quote:It's as if you two are paid to be stupid by the fossil fuel industry. On the other hand, I sell the fuel but I am not responsible for what boneheads like you two do with the fuel. It is your responsibility, one which you obviously refused. You don't clean up your CO2. See this story about how a seller of natural gas convinces buyers to be irresponsible.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
What does this have to do with your incredibly stupid statement?
Oh, NOTHING, you say??
SoCal Gas spent millions on astroturf ops to fight climate rules
It's a breathtaking fraud. SoCal Gas, the largest gas company in America, spent millions secretly paying people to oppose California environmental regulations, then illegally stuck its customers with the bill. Californians were forced to pay to lobby against their own survival.
The criminal scheme is spelled out in eye-watering detail in a superb investigative report by Joe Rubin and Ari Plachta for the Sacramento Bee, which names the law firms and individual lawyers involved in the scam.
Here's the situation: SoCal Gas is California's private, regulated gas monopoly. They are allowed to lobby, but are legally required to charge their lobbying activities to their shareholders, and are prohibited from raising customer rates to pay for lobbying.
The company spent years secretly violating this rule, in the sleaziest way possible: working with corporate cartels like the California Restaurant Association and BizFed, the monopoly paid BigLaw white-shoe firms to procure people who posed as concerned citizens in order to oppose climate regulations that are essential to the state's very survival.
More at https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/19/cooking-the-books-with-gas/#reichma
n-jorgensen
Quote:
At first glance, a September 2019 meeting before the California Public Utilities Commission in Los Angeles looked like democracy in action. Speakers lined up before the state’s powerful utility regulator to debate the merits of natural gas. One by one, climate activists supported powering buildings with zero-emission appliances running on clean electricity. Burning gas in homes and businesses currently emits a quarter of the state’s carbon pollution that is worsening climate change. More than a dozen business owners followed suit, arguing instead for the preservation of gas. Their activism, however, was far from grassroots.
A concealed contract showed that the nation’s largest gas utility had paid a leading Los Angeles business association to recruit speakers against electrification, and drive them to the meeting using ratepayer money. Speaker Sassan Rahimzadeh, owner of a San Diego dry cleaning company, was recruited to attend. He told The Sacramento Bee he was troubled to learn that the arrangement was charged to customers of SoCalGas.
“As a ratepayer,” he said, “that would concern me big time.”
Read more at: https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article2
77266828.html#storylink=cpy
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SECOND, I was merely pointing out your stupidity ("we must capture carbon dioxide at rate ten times ..blah blah blah") and your attempts to distract away from it by changing the topic. You're STILL trying to distract away from it by name-calling!
Just admit it was a boneheaded statement and move on.
And then we can start discussing your OTHER boneheaded statements!
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Let's move on to your next bone-headed statement:
Quote:This is not the crux of the argument. The question is whether or not proposed control measures WILL BE EFFECTIVE.
Most people will wait until green energy is cheaper than fossil fuel energy before they will switch.
MANY potential control and mitigation measures have nothing to do with, and therefore would be unaffected by, fuel costs. I've already outlined more than a dozen, from reducing our military's world-straddling presence and constant foreign meddling to better forest management, better agricultural practices, urban cooling, environmental remediation, and general conservation (eg more efficient ACs, higher mandated vehicle mileage, better industrial motors etc.)
Limiting the scope to relative fuel price is unnecessarily and misleadingly restrictive. It's almost as if you're (*GASP!) leading to a pre-determined outcome.
Not that you would ever do that!
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And now, to your next boneheaded argument
Quote:Let me start out by repeating one very important fact:
One by one, climate activists supported powering buildings with zero-emission appliances running on clean electricity.
ONE BAD FOREST FIRE YEAR UNDID 18 YEARS OF CALIFORNIA DECARBONIZATION. In other words, wildifire emitted EIGHTEEN TIMES the amount of greenhouse gases that were erduced in one year.
Focusing on whether or not people are burning nat gas in their homes and businesses is like worrying about the cockroach in the room and ignoring the 600-lb gorilla.
Aside from which, there are practical considerations like -
WHERE IS THIS 'CLEAN ENERGY' GOING TO COME FROM?
And how will the grid handle the increased load?
AFAIK California is nowhere near meeting the CURRENT load with 'clean energy'. Activists need to propose something other than magical thinking and hopium.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
FUN FACT: Wind Turbine blades are 100% non-recyclable . . .Quote:It's as if you two are paid to be stupid by the fossil fuel industry.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
What does this have to do with your incredibly stupid statement?
Oh, NOTHING, you say??
Blah, blah, blah...
Try again. That's not an argument to anything I posted here, citing actual government websites that are currently up during the Biden* Administration*.
Refute any of these following truths on their own merit, or SHUT THE FUCK UP BITCH.
FUN FACT: Wind Turbine blades are 100% non-recyclable, consisting each of 35 tonnes of plastic and fiberglass which are either thrown into a landfill to be somebody else's problem another day, or are incinerated, which not only is bad news for future CO2 emissions, but as a bonus are going to end up adding to the insane amount of microplastics that you already have coating the inside of your lungs and are already found littering pretty much every cell in your body.
As of 2022, we have a recorded total of 70,800 wind turbines in the US alone, each consisting of 3 blades.
So, not including all of the blades that have already been buried or burned, we have a combined total of 14,868,000,000 lbs of non-recyclable future waste product that's mostly going to end up in your lungs and contribute to global warming once they reach the end of their life cycle.
Oh... and don't forget that every single tonne of glass fibers produced in the first place results in a carbon footprint of approximately 1.7-2.2 tonnes. So, not including the blades we've already buried or burned, the blades on the existing 70,800 wind turbines currently active in America alone required us to put 12,637,800 to 16,354,800 tonnes of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere before they even made their first rotation.
Clean energy indeed!
Well boys...
Smoke if you got 'em!
Sources:
https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/can-wind-turbine
-blades-be-recycled
https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-many-turbines-are-contained-us-wind-turb
ine-database
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/30003WOK.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&
amp;Client=EPA&Index=1991+Thru+1994&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C91thru94%5CTxt%5C00000009%5C30003WOK.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=hpfr&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-sustainable-sustainablemodern-const
ruction-materials-okpara
--------------------------------------------------
How you do anything is how you do everything.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You Trumptards are all the same, imagining you have a point when you literally know nothing at all and can't learn. By the way, all the emojis you use, Signym, show you are as dumb as Ramaswamy, the coke-snorting salesman wanting to be Trump's VP:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SECOND, I was merely pointing out your stupidity ("we must capture carbon dioxide at rate ten times ..blah blah blah") and your attempts to distract away from it by changing the topic. You're STILL trying to distract away from it by name-calling!
Just admit it was a boneheaded statement and move on.
And then we can start discussing your OTHER boneheaded statements!
“The climate is always changing!” So goes a popular refrain from climate deniers who continue to claim that there’s nothing special about this particular moment. There is no climate crisis, they say, because the Earth has survived dramatic warming before.
Republican presidential hopeful Vivek Ramaswamy recently exemplified misconceptions about our planet’s climate past. When he asserted that “carbon dioxide as a percentage of the atmosphere is still at a relative low through human history,” he didn’t just make a false statement (carbon dioxide concentrations are the highest they’ve been in at least 4 million years). He also showed fundamentally wrong thinking around the climate crisis.
What threatens us today isn’t the particular concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or the precise temperature of the planet, alarming as those two metrics are. Instead, it’s the unprecedented rate at which we are increasing carbon pollution through fossil fuel burning, and the resulting rate at which we are heating the planet.
Consider the warming event that paleoclimatologists point to as the best natural comparison for the rapid greenhouse-driven trend we’re seeing now. The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum happened 56 million years ago, roughly 10 million years after the demise of the dinosaurs, which itself was caused by climate change (a massive asteroid impact event led to a global dust storm and, in turn, rapid cooling). The PETM warming resulted from an unusually large and rapid injection of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from volcanic eruptions in Iceland. Global temperatures increased by approximately 10 degrees Fahrenheit in as little as 10,000 years, rising from an already steamy baseline of 80 degrees Fahrenheit possibly up to a sauna-like 90 degrees Fahrenheit.
That warming rate of about 0.1 degree Fahrenheit per century is extremely rapid by geological standards. But it’s still roughly 10 times slower than the warming today.
Extinctions followed another warming period in our more recent past, when the last ice age ended about 18,000 years ago. Driven by Earth’s changing orbit relative to the sun, and boosted by a heightened greenhouse effect as warming oceans gave up their carbon dioxide in the same way an open bottle of warm soda loses carbonation, the planet warmed by about 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the subsequent 8,000 years.
That rate of warming — which, again, was about 10 times slower than the warming today — was rapid enough to wipe out entire species. Gone were the magnificent woolly mammoths and mastodons, giant ground sloths and saber-toothed cats that had roamed the plains of North America. A combination of climate change and overhunting by paleo-Americans did them in. A few of them got stuck in tar pits and are preserved — some at the La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles.
In the fall of 2017, I participated in a climate change forum at the tar pits museum, which is at the center of those ancient pools of asphalt — the viscous, evaporated remains of crude oil that seeped to the surface from deep below. I couldn’t help but see further irony there: Crude oil from beneath Earth’s surface threatens us today because we’re ensnared by it politically rather than physically.
Paleo-humans survived the end of the ice
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That's what I thought, bitch.
--------------------------------------------------
Political correctness is just tyranny, with a smiley face.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second: Blah blah blah
Yes, I know.... at one time the CO2 was 10x higher than today, and temperature were far higher, and "the world" survived. BUT WE WOULDN'T.
Is today's concentration and temperature rise a "crisis"?
Well, it's not good. But even if .. no, ESPECIALLY IF... it's a crisis, this isn't the time to go frittering around with half-baked responses, "solutions" that require "people" who have no agency - many of whom are living on the edge of poverty- to give up what little that have (and which will never gain wide acceptance), a purely ideological or profit -motivated agenda, fucking around with ideas that are only acceptable to the top 0.1%
How about tackling REAL waste (like war?) What about remediating the environment? Making products that last a lifetime, or can be repaired, and stop advertising the "need" for "the latest", useless product?
Yanno, you could hand out a BILLION solar stoves, and it wouldn't mitigate one space joyride, so stop joyriding into space. Ban private jets. Stop pushing EVs (the latest fad) on people which a) won't work in extremely cold climates and b) may- or may not- be a net positive for the environment and c) would probably overload grid capacity anyway.
I noticed, SECOND, that you're all about stomping on great masses of powerless "insignificant" people but you really, really hate to cross the rich and powerful. How about empowering people so they can shape the world for THEIR needs, and their children's children's needs, and not the needs of VCs and speculators and creditors and the other PsTB that puppeteer the world?
Ya gotta be open-minded, SECOND. Consider all of your options. Tackle the big problems with big payoffs first. Be effective.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Majority Of Carbon Offset Projects Globally Are "Likely Junk"
Analysis found that 39, or 78%, of the 50 environmental projects were categorised as “likely junk or worthless” due to one or more “fundamental failing"
The “vast majority” of environmental projects most commonly used within the voluntary carbon market (VCM) to offset greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions seem to have “fundamental failings” and cannot be relied upon to tackle global warming, according to a joint investigation from the Guardian and non-profit climate watchdog Corporate Accountability.
The investigation analysed the top 50 emission offset projects, selected because they have sold the most carbon credits within the global VCM, and found that most of them exaggerate climate benefits and underestimate the potential harm caused by the project’s activity.
MORE AT
https://www.power-technology.com/news/report-majority-carbon-offsets-j
unk-or-useless/.
This isn't the first, second, or third time I've posted something about the "carbon market". I knew it was bunk when I read a paper for work fifteen or more years ago that it was just a giant scam. And when I saw the technical difficulties the LA air pollution agency had in implementing their own credit trading market, with honesty and motivation, and the speculation and corruption it fostered (people trading credit futures, or buying up credits to corner the market) I knew at its core the whole "pollution credit" concept was a failure.
And you know who LIKES the 'market-based' concept?
BUSINESS and scam artists.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
EPA’s Illegal Power Play
The agency’s ambitious gambit to reorganize America’s electricity will almost certainly be struck down.
By Mario Loyola
September 24, 2023
The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in West Virginia v. EPA last year was a historic defeat for the Environmental Protection Agency. Not only did the Court rule that the 2015 Clean Power Plan, President Obama’s signature climate regulation, was unconstitutional; it also dramatically limited EPA’s power to regulate carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act (CAA) moving forward.
That left the agency with two courses of action. It could take its lumps and focus on proposing regulations with a high chance of surviving federal court review. Or it could stake everything on a final desperate attempt to decarbonize America’s power sector, and go for the win in keeping with President Biden’s commitment to net zero carbon emissions.
On May 23, 2023, EPA chose the latter, proposing carbon emissions standards for power plants far more ambitious than those struck down by the Supreme Court last year. Like other EPA climate regulations, the proposed emissions standards under Section 111 of CAA are not designed to reduce emissions from standard power plants, but rather to force a rapid transition away from reliable and affordable sources of dispatchable power—natural gas and coal—to intermittent renewables and new kinds of power plants that don’t even exist yet. Together with EPA’s electric vehicle mandates, the proposed rule would be a train wreck for the American electricity grid and society as a whole, endangering economic competitiveness and energy security while yielding no measurable climate benefit.
Those hoping for a dramatic finish to Biden’s climate action will not be disappointed: the proposal has so many legal vulnerabilities that it would be a miracle if the rule survives federal court review.
Under the proposed rule, which President Biden hopes to finalize by next summer, large new or modified natural gas plants and existing coal plants would be required to virtually eliminate carbon emissions by 2038, at the latest. Under Section 111(a) “New Source Performance Standards” (NSPS), large new or modified combined-cycle natural gas plants, which currently supply roughly 30% of the nation’s electricity, would be required to achieve close to zero carbon emissions, either by implementing carbon capture and storage (CCS) to capture 90% of carbon emissions by 2035, or by switching from natural gas to 98% “green” hydrogen co-firing by 2038. In addition, under Section 111(d) emissions guidelines, existing coal plants, which currently supply more than 20% of America’s electricity, would be required to virtually eliminate carbon emissions by implementing CCS by 2035.
Interestingly, EPA declined to promulgate NSPS for coal plants because, as it explains, there are no plans to build any new coal plants in the U.S. It declined to promulgate emissions guidelines for existing natural gas plants out of concern for feasibility. Even more interesting, when EPA sent the proposed rule to the White House for regulatory review under E.O. 12866, it contained no emissions guidelines for existing plants at all, and therefore would not have applied to coal plants at all. The White House reportedly sent it back to EPA with orders to put a Section 111(d) rule for existing coal plants in the proposal. This suggests that EPA itself is not very confident in the ability of the Section 111(d) rule to survive court review.
Section 111 of CAA, the same provision at issue in West Virginia v. EPA, authorizes EPA to mandate “the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction which (taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.”
Section 111 sets a high bar, especially after West Virginia v. EPA. The proposed rule falls woefully short. It has at least three
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
An update to a major climate report is a reality check on unproven carbon capture and hydrogen technologies.
By Justine Calma, Sep 26, 2023, 12:00 AM CDT
The biggest difference in this new report is that emerging technologies that have gotten a lot of hype as high-tech fixes to climate change now play a significantly smaller role than expected in 2021. Those technologies, which include hydrogen fuel cells for heavy vehicles and devices that filter CO2 emissions from smokestacks or ambient air, now account for 35 percent of emissions reductions rather than nearly 50 percent.
Why? They just haven’t lived up to the hype, the report says pretty plainly.
https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/26/23889066/climate-change-internation
al-energy-agency-roadmap-hydrogen-carbon-capture
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sea ice levels around Antarctica just registered a record low — and by a wide margin — as winter comes to a close, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).
This year, Antarctica reached its annual maximum coverage on Sept. 10, about 13 days earlier than average. At that time, the annual ice coverage was at a record low of 6.55 million square miles — a whopping 398,000 square miles lower than the previous record low set in 1986.
“It is surprisingly low,” said Twila Moon, an ice scientist at NSIDC. “We have this extreme low minimum and there hasn’t been any ability to recover towards previous higher extents during the Antarctic fall and Antarctic winter. … We’re starting to see this year round influence.”
In a separate announcement on Monday, the NSIDC stated that Arctic sea ice extent at the end of this summer was at its sixth lowest in nearly 45 years of satellite records — extending the worrying trend that the last 17 years have had the lowest Arctic summer sea ice extents on record.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/09/25/antarcti
ca-record-low-ice-arctic-climate/
National Snow and Ice Data Center
https://nsidc.org/home
Antarctic sets a record low maximum by wide margin
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2023/09/antarctic-sets-a-record-low
-maximum-by-wide-margin/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Jeez, no shit, Sherlock.
Originally posted by second:
An update to a major climate report is a reality check on unproven carbon capture and hydrogen technologies.
By Justine Calma, Sep 26, 2023, 12:00 AM CDT
The biggest difference in this new report is that emerging technologies that have gotten a lot of hype as high-tech fixes to climate change now play a significantly smaller role than expected in 2021. Those technologies, which include hydrogen fuel cells for heavy vehicles and devices that filter CO2 emissions from smokestacks or ambient air, now account for 35 percent of emissions reductions rather than nearly 50 percent.
Why? They just haven’t lived up to the hype, the report says pretty plainly.
https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/26/23889066/climate-change-internation
al-energy-agency-roadmap-hydrogen-carbon-capture
That bar (percent of emissions reductions) is pretty low, and they can't even meet that.
A new technology has to go thru proof of concept to bench scale to pilot plant scale to mayber bigger pilot plant scale to industrial scale. It's like putting all your money on fusion when they haven't even gotten past the teeny-tiny smidgen of extra energy SO small that they're still calculating (a month later) to make sure they didn't screw up the measurements or calculations and to determine HOW much energy they produced.
I shake my head in wonderment at the great fuckup/ slush fund that this has become.
Do you want to reduce CO2 emissions right away, proveably? Then switch elecricty production from coal and oil/gasoline to natgas. Et voila! Instant reduction!
Cut the DoD budget. Instant reduction!
How about repairing our rail lines so freight can move quickly, safely, and energy-efficiently. Can do with today's technology!
Solar, but only in the sunshine states. Instant reduction!
Rehabbing homes to be more energy efficient, hazard resistant, and easier to repair or remodel?
Designing and manufacturung products to last longer ane be more repairable?
Stop joyriding in space. Can do right away. Instant reduction!
Impose a 45 mpg highway mileage (or CO2 per mile, if comparing fuels) on all new vehicles, except utility vehicles. Can do right away, and a lot cheaper than EV. Instant reduction!
Cement from fly ash. Can do right away. Instant reduction!
As for the rest (storing carbon in soil, better ranching practices, reforestation, urban cooling, and new technologies)... well, you have to set up test plots and measurements or bench scale and pilot plants. You have to do pretty good estimation of life-cycle saving, making sure you're not emitting more CO2 during the mfr and recycling of this new product v the old. (For example Lego just did the calculation and realized they would be emitting more CO2 using recycled plastic than virgin.)
For example, cover cropping and green manure show the biggest capacity to store carbon on carbon-poor soils. You would have to show that better forestry practices (hand thinning, in-situ black soil creation etc) does meaningfully reduces emissions from forest fires. That EV and carbon capture technologies don't emit more than their current counterparts.
It's a technical problem as well as an economic one, and won't be solved with magical thinking and ideology.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sweden’s Northvolt picks Quebec for new multibillion-dollar EV battery factory
Nicolas Van Praet, Jeffrey Jones
Northvolt AB, a supplier of electric-vehicle batteries to Volkswagen and BMW, has picked Quebec to host a new multibillion-dollar factory as the Swedish manufacturer pushes into North America.
Executives with the Stockholm-based company will join political leaders from the Quebec and federal governments for a formal announcement Thursday in Montreal to detail their plans, according to two sources briefed on the event. The Globe and Mail is not naming the people because they were not authorized to discuss the information.
Northvolt has been scouting sites in North America for an EV battery cell production facility, and chose Saint-Basile-le-Grand in the Richelieu Valley for its project, which is valued at an estimated $7-billion. The factory’s main site would be on land formerly occupied by Canadian Industries Ltd., a maker of chemicals and explosives.
Quebec is trying to make the province a hub for EV battery development, and it is luring companies with its low-carbon hydroelectricity and financial backing in tandem with the federal government. Premier François Legault and his cabinet colleagues have characterized the effort as a new industrial revolution, with capital investment sums the province hasn’t seen since Hydro-Québec undertook major dam projects in the 1950s and 1960s.
“This is big,” Quebec Economy Minister Pierre Fitzgibbon told Radio-Canada earlier this month. Northvolt’s project would be the largest private-sector investment ever made in Quebec, he said. He did not specify the sum being invested.
Quebec has been vying for the plant as Canada seeks to compete with a U.S. clean-tech industry that has been turbocharged over the past year by incentives that are part of President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. That legislation includes US$369-billion in funding for green energy and related technology, as well as EVs and energy efficiency measures. Ottawa and provincial governments have responded with billions of dollars in public funding to lure battery makers and suppliers into building plants in Quebec and Ontario.
The federal and Ontario governments announced a deal in April to provide Volkswagen with up to $13.2-billion in subsidies for production support after the company builds a battery plant in St. Thomas, Ont. In June, Stellantis NV and LG Energy Solution Ltd. reached a deal with those governments for as much as $15-billion in subsidies to restart construction on their EV battery factory in Windsor, Ont.
In Quebec, General Motors Co. is partnering with South Korean battery material maker Posco Chemical Co. Ltd. on a new cathode factory in Bécancour, Que. And Ford Motor Co. announced last month that it’s working with South Korea’s EcoProBM and SK On Co. Ltd. on a $1.2-billion plant that would produce EV battery materials in that same city, backed by $644-million in public funding.
Quebec’s decision to open the taps for battery companies is not universally supported. At a lunch event last week with the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal, National Bank chief executive Laurent Ferreira said he’s “not a big fan” of using subsidies to attract foreign enterprise to Canada when the country could prioritize support for local business instead.
“When we give subsidies to foreign companies, they go directly into the pockets of foreign shareholders who are mainly not Canadian,” Mr. Ferreira told Radio-Canada when asked to expand on his earlier comments. “I have my doubts about this model over the long run in terms of wealth creation.”
Northvolt currently produces batteries for transport and energy storage at a gigafactory in northern Sweden. It emphasizes sustainable production, with the plant powered by emissions-free electricity. It has set a goal to achieve 150 gigawatt hours of annual production capacity by 2030, with a focus on keeping a small carbon footprint through regional sourcing of materia
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yep, there's a lot of $$$ to be made in EV. China has gone big in EV production. Half of Tesla's cars are made in a gigafactory in China, and China has a lot of other makes/models being built, from EV Smart-car-like models for $3000 to luxury models.
It's just The Next Big Investment to replace that real estate/ stock bubble, infrastructure and Road and Belt initiative bubble, and the Walmart market but it may - or may not - save the environment.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:$$$ to be made, yes. But EV is very dirty, pollution-wise. China is the world's largest coal burning engine, no?
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Yep, there's a lot of $$$ to be made in EV. China has gone big in EV production. Half of Tesla's cars are made in a gigafactory in China, and China has a lot of other makes/models being built, from EV Smart-car-like models for $3000 to luxury models.
It's just The Next Big Investment to replace that real estate/ stock bubble, infrastructure and Road and Belt initiative bubble, and the Walmart market but it may - or may not - save the environment.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
eFuel really does sound like the solution - if you care about the environment. Mass transit busses, the legacy type, all with zero emissions, can lead the way. And it is actually possible, and proven so, unlike all of these Libtard ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And rare earth mining and extraction is a horror show.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Yep, there's a lot of $$$ to be made in EV. China has gone big in EV production. Half of Tesla's cars are made in a gigafactory in China, and China has a lot of other makes/models being built, from EV Smart-car-like models for $3000 to luxury models.
It's just The Next Big Investment to replace that real estate/ stock bubble, infrastructure and Road and Belt initiative bubble, and the Walmart market but it may - or may not - save the environment.
JSF: $$$ to be made, yes. But EV is very dirty, pollution-wise. China is the world's largest coal burning engine, no?
Quote:
From where I'm standing, the city-sized Baogang Steel and Rare Earth complex dominates the horizon, its endless cooling towers and chimneys reaching up into grey, washed-out sky. Between it and me, stretching into the distance, lies an artificial lake filled with a black, barely-liquid, toxic sludge.
Dozens of pipes line the shore, churning out a torrent of thick, black, chemical waste from the refineries that surround the lake. The smell of sulphur and the roar of the pipes invades my senses. It feels like hell on Earth.
(follow the link)
https://ychef.files.bbci.co.uk/976x549/p02n9y28.webp
Quote:
JSF: eFuel really does sound like the solution - if you care about the environment. Mass transit busses, the legacy type, all with zero emissions, can lead the way. And it is actually possible, and proven so, unlike all of these Libtard ideas.
JSF, as you know I looked into eFuel, and the problem with it is there are only a few places on earth where it can be made from windpower. Production will be limited. There won't be enough to power the whole world.
*****
I've come to think that there are two fundamental flaws how people think about solving climate change, somewhat related
1) A breakthrough technology will save us, and
2) There will be a single, brilliant fix.
So some people ride the EV hobby-horse. Or the carbon-capture hobby-horse. Some people thump fusion or thorium reactors. Other people pin their hopes on eFuel, or wind power, or solar, or tidal power.
Looking for that breakthrough technology to invest in/ save us is venture-capitalist thinking, but it's not focused on solving the problem.
Many of these technologies don't even exist yet. Of those that do, their lifetime benefit may not have been demonstrated.
So, while I'm all for continued research... after all, our family personally benefits from high-efficiency 20% conversion solar panels (which finally got the the point of generating more electricity than consumed during manufacture) it took decades- literally- to get to that point. (I once field-tested an early Arco pilot plant for test-mfring solar panels, and that was all the way back in 1970. We had our solar panels installed almost 50 years later.)
In other words, don't expect a Big Breakthrough any time soon.
There are a number of things we can do with the technology that we have today, and conservation is one of them. So here are some facts:
Once space joyride emits more GHGs that the poorest billion people emit in a whole year.
The DoD is that largest single institutional user of fuel in the whole world, and that doesn't even count emissions from its manufacturing
Air travel is wasteful, and private jets are PARTICULARLY wasteful. It's been estimated that private jets emit almost FIVE TIMES as much GHGs per passenger than commercial jets.
https://www.bbc.com/news/59135899
One bad fire year in CA undid eighteen years of CA decarbonzation.
*****
Instead of expecting some brilliant new technology to save us, or expecting all of the burden of lowering living standards to fall on Typical America, why don't we start with the largest and most wasteful sectors/ people? (Yanno, that whole "eat bugs" thing? TPTB... they're not about to eat bugs, are they?)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:And rare earth mining and extraction is a horror show.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Yep, there's a lot of $$$ to be made in EV. China has gone big in EV production. Half of Tesla's cars are made in a gigafactory in China, and China has a lot of other makes/models being built, from EV Smart-car-like models for $3000 to luxury models.
It's just The Next Big Investment to replace that real estate/ stock bubble, infrastructure and Road and Belt initiative bubble, and the Walmart market but it may - or may not - save the environment.
JSF: $$$ to be made, yes. But EV is very dirty, pollution-wise. China is the world's largest coal burning engine, no?Quote:
From where I'm standing, the city-sized Baogang Steel and Rare Earth complex dominates the horizon, its endless cooling towers and chimneys reaching up into grey, washed-out sky. Between it and me, stretching into the distance, lies an artificial lake filled with a black, barely-liquid, toxic sludge.
Dozens of pipes line the shore, churning out a torrent of thick, black, chemical waste from the refineries that surround the lake. The smell of sulphur and the roar of the pipes invades my senses. It feels like hell on Earth.
(follow the link)
https://ychef.files.bbci.co.uk/976x549/p02n9y28.webpQuote:
JSF: eFuel really does sound like the solution - if you care about the environment. Mass transit busses, the legacy type, all with zero emissions, can lead the way. And it is actually possible, and proven so, unlike all of these Libtard ideas.
JSF, as you know I looked into eFuel, and the problem with it is there are only a few places on earth where it can be made from windpower. Production will be limited. There won't be enough to power the whole world.
Production IS limited.
This is proof of concept, and practice.
Once any new technology, or breakthrough, occurs, many efforts are focused upon greater efficiency of that process. Greater productivity, greater production. If there is no shortage of wind there, we can use more of it to make more.
With government regulations and goals to eliminate emissions, gobs of government $$ can be thrown at this avenue, with known and proven results, instead of wasting on Libtard dreams.
Single solution? No.
Using the blending which can be done, eFuel can be used in every nation on earth, right away.
Do I care if Chile gets all of the money, just for the land to build the processing plants? No. More power to them.
Unless, of course, they run out of CO2 around there.
While China and India are racing to pollute the environment as quickly as possible, eFuel could be the premier solution for the nations which pretend to be climate-conscious.
EV as environmentally friendly is a fallacy.
eFuel is not a fallacy, despite it's current limitations.
Solar taking 50 years to break even might be a pipe dream, for current demands. Solar really should have had greater gains in efficiency by now.
Concepts like having a nuke facility in some remote location, just to produce eFuel, might be worth looking into - better than coal burning in metro areas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My guess is that poduction will ALWAYS be limited.
eFuel is very energy- -intensive, and its benefit comes from the fact that it is produced using "green" energy. In this case, wind power from the winds that relentlessly circle the globe in the belt from the southern tip of S America to the Antarctic.
There are very few places ON EARTH where you can squeeze out so many KW per hour from the wind, or equivalent green energy. Probably hydroelectric power, but that has its own set of problems.
Eventually they might reduce the energy required to react these compounds into fuel, but the thermodynamics is that the amount of energy that needed to create a compound is ALWAYS greater than the amount of energy that you eventually release by burning it. It's just physics and arithmetic.
I accept that eFuel is one approach, but given the energy required to make it, I still think it'll be limited. If there's research reveals sufficient locations with suitable energy density and capacity, then ... great!
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Let's just say it. Everybody who put solar panels on their roofs in the last 25 years has some serious regrets.
--------------------------------------------------
Political correctness is just tyranny, with a smiley face.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:We did, and no, we don't.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Let's just say it. Everybody who put solar panels on their roofs in the last 25 years has some serious regrets.
--------------------------------------------------
Political correctness is just tyranny, with a smiley face.
We get a "pass thru" bill each month from SCE for taxes, fees, grid maintenance etc (but not electricity generation) of about $12-$17/mo depending on usage. Our generation bill is totaled up at the end of our contract year... net electricity drawn from the grid... and our bill has averaged close to $0 over the past 5 years.
At the time we purchased our panels, I calculated the payback period to be somewhere in the realm of 6.5 years; after that, it's all gravy. Since rates have gone up hugely since installation, the payback period is probably in the realm of 5 years; in other words, the system has paid for itself by now.
I can understand regretting if you haven't done your financial homework, intend to install in an area without enough sunshine, haven't sized your system properly, don't understand the contract, don't choose the right panels etc but for us it's worked out fabulously. I recommend it to all my neighbors because they could all benefit.
And,while you're a smart guy, SIX, you sometimes reach incredibly boneheaded conclusions based on feelings and ideology instead of reality.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You're in California. I meant in America.
How much is it per kWh there again?
How much was the install?
No leaky roof yet? No big panel repair bills yet?
The semi-regular hail storms we get in these parts would thrash those panels, not to mention the 45" of snow that turned into ice that was on everybody's roof about 3 winters ago.
Plus there's trees everywhere. Even with the two I cut down I have 300 foot tall sycamores all along the houses across the street blocking the light from hitting my roof.
They say it costs about $15,000 to $25,000 to install a solar panel roof. It would take about 22 to 30 years for me to break even on that, long after the panels were busted and jacked my roof up more than it already is... assuming that we don't all end up paying $3 per kWh after EVs are all over the road.
--------------------------------------------------
Political correctness is just tyranny, with a smiley face.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
You're in California. I meant in America.
Oh, yeah, cute SIX.
Fuck off.
Quote:Frankly, I don't know. I'm not paying anymore, so it doesn't concern me.
How much is it per kWh there again?
Quote:
How much was the install?
Cheap enough at the then-prevailing rates to make sense.
Quote:
No leaky roof yet? No big panel repair bills yet?
No. I went with a long-established company with a good rep that (BTW) hires veterans. And no panel repairs... these panels are physically more durable than most, solid copper across the back, wired in parallel so a leaf falling across a cell doesn't bonk the entire panel, and each panel with its own inverter.
There's only one problem with them: They won't operate off-grid. You need a voltage across them in order to create electricity, and if the grid fails, there goes the solar panel! We're looking into a backup. Battery is way too expensive to make sense, but a small generator is all we'd need to get the solar panels up and running again in the AM.
Quote:
The semi-regular hail storms we get in these parts would thrash those panels, not to mention the 45" of snow that turned into ice that was on everybody's roof about 3 winters ago.
Oh, jeez, give me a fucking break, SUX. I wouldn't recommend solar panels for anyone under those conditions.
You know how I posted there was no one, single, magical technology? That a variety of approaches are necessary? Well, solar panels are one solution for one area, but not for everyone. I think you're just jealous that we can make electricity from sunshine and you can't.
For people in your situation I'd recommend great insulation and efficient heating and AC. My sis's furnace heat exchanger is SO efficient, the exhaust gas is too cold to make it all the way to the roof. They have to vent thru a hole on the first floor, and their gas bills are SUPER cheap.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I looked it up. It's still under 20 cents per kWh in California. That's not too much more than mine at 13.75 cents per kWh.
How much power are you using in a month to break even in less than 6 years?
My highest month this year with A/C running nearly 24/7 was only 580 kWh, and I always have 8 LED lights on 24/7. I'm not exactly sparing with my electricity usage like I am with my gas usage. That was $79.75, not including the BS service charges that are around $30-$35 per month even if you didn't use any electricity and that they'd still charge if I had solar power.
It creeps up a bit during winter when the blower for the furnace is on, but nothing like summer time. 6 months out of the year I'm using less than 250-300 kWh.
You must be 1,500 to 2,000 kWh per month or more or something.
I'm not jealous that solar doesn't work out here. Even if my neighbors cut all their trees down and global warming made it so that it never snowed here again, I probably wouldn't even live long enough to break even if I installed solar panels.
--------------------------------------------------
Political correctness is just tyranny, with a smiley face.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think it depends. We don't have a flat rate. We don't even have tiered rates (i.e. over a certain KWh your rate goes up.) We have what is called Time of Use... the highest rates are between 1600 and 2000, right when solar panels basically stop working and home use goes up as people get home, turn on the AC, start cooking etc. So SCE has got it figured how to collect the most $$, even from people with solar panels.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I looked it up. It's still under 20 cents per kWh in California. That's not too much more than mine at 13.75 cents per kWh.
Quote:
How much power are you using in a month to break even in less than 6 years?
Again, I don't know. I'd have to look it up bc right.mow it's gotten to a certain "lifestyle". I could more easily tell you our water use over 2 months (12-25 CCF) thsn electricity.
Quote:Like I said, I'd have to check. We keep our A/C about 77 during the day but drop it to 73@ night. But we cool it down only in the back bedrooms, bc even tho we have central AC, our house is "zoned" that allows us to control temp in 3 different areeas. One zone we almost never turn on.
My highest month this year with A/C running nearly 24/7 was only 580 kWh, and I always have 8 LED lights on 24/7. I'm not exactly sparing with my electricity usage like I am with my gas usage. That was $79.75, not including the BS service charges that are around $30-$35 per month even if you didn't use any electricity and that they'd still charge if I had solar power.
It creeps up a bit during winter when the blower for the furnace is on, but nothing like summer time. 6 months out of the year I'm using less than 250-300 kWh.
You must be 1,500 to 2,000 kWh per month or more or something.
Also, we have elecric range and oven, that's the way the house came. But when our oven died in a shower of sparks, I replaced it with a more- efficient convection oven, and when our range started zapping me when I touched it, we replaced it with an induction range.
Quote:You might not. Everybody's use, rate, climate, solar roof space etc is different. But here, where summers are hot and sunshine is bright, I can't understand why anyone would NOT go solar.
I'm not jealous that solar doesn't work out here. Even if my neighbors cut all their trees down and global warming made it so that it never snowed here again, I probably wouldn't even live long enough to break even if I installed solar panels.
Apparently there are horror stories about people getting $2000 bills at the end of the contract year for which they're not prepared bc their systems are small. OTOH they've probably saved $200-300/ month and if they had set some of that savings aside instead of hemorrhaging every single $ from their account, they would recognize that they had actually saved money.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I just can't imagine the phrase "saving $200-$300 per month" on electricity.
I went for years without any A/C, but now that I have one that cools my whole house until it's almost uncomfortably chilly unless it's been in the mid to high 90's for more than 4 or 5 days straight, I've never had a power bill during the summer that was more than $175... and that includes my gas.
My typical electric portion of the bill 6 months out of the year is less than $70-$80. I can't imagine I've ever even had a single month where the electric portion was over $130, and if it even got that high it's only a once in every 3 or 4 year occurrence.
Plus you get a bunch of dipshits installing them half the time. Your roof is not made for harvesting solar power. It's made for keeping the house dry and mold-free. Unless things are different in California (which they may be), this isn't union work with well-paid people who are headed by veterans. They cut corners and do shoddy jobs, damaging your roof in the process and then doing whatever they can to not take the blame after the fact.
The only way I'd ever consider solar power on my property is in my back yard, on the ground. And the price would have to come down a LOT before I'd think about it. As it stands now, even if I were to set the entire system up myself and avoid paying somebody else to hook up the system it is just prohibitively expensive and wouldn't ever pay for itself before the panels were damaged or just stopped working right.
--------------------------------------------------
Political correctness is just tyranny, with a smiley face.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SIX, you seem determined to argue against putting solar panels on your roof, and I've posted over and over again that I would never recommend them for anyone in your climate.
So can you please drop that argument, and accept the fact that it's worked out very well for us, but it wouldn't for you?
*****
FWIW I looked at our usage. Unfortunately the bill only shows NET usage, not solar-generated + SCE generated. I'd have to calculate the average panel KWh and add it back in, but FWIW we used a net 450 KWh during mid-Aug to mid-Sept, which happens to be the hottest time of the year. During the winter, our "usage" is negative - i.e. we generate more than we use. That's where we make our $$.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Pope Francis lambasts climate change skeptics and ‘irresponsible’ Western lifestyles | October 4, 2023
Pope Francis has made his strongest statement yet on the accelerating climate crisis, pinning blame on big industries and world leaders as well as “irresponsible” Western lifestyles, in a blistering statement on Wednesday.
“Our responses have not been adequate, while the world in which we live is collapsing and may be nearing the breaking point,” the pontiff wrote in a 7,000 word encyclical called Laudate Deum (“Praise God”). https://www.humandevelopment.va/en/news/2023/laudate-deum-apostolic-ex
hortation-of-pope-francis.html
“Some effects of the climate crisis are already irreversible, at least for several hundred years, such as the increase in the global temperature of the oceans, their acidification and the decrease of oxygen,” he wrote.
The pope leveled heavy criticism at climate change deniers and delayers.
“Despite all attempts to deny, conceal, gloss over or relativize the issue, the signs of climate change are here and increasingly evident. No one can ignore the fact that in recent years we have witnessed extreme weather phenomena, frequent periods of unusual heat, drought and other cries of protest,” he wrote.
Climate change will likely only get worse and ignoring it will heighten “the probability of extreme phenomena that are increasingly frequent and intense,” he wrote.
The pope paid particular attention to the disproportionate responsibility of rich countries for climate change.
“If we consider that emissions per individual in the United States are about two times greater than those of individuals living in China, and about seven times greater than the average of the poorest countries, we can state that a broad change in the irresponsible lifestyle connected with the Western model would have a significant long-term impact,” he wrote.
He also leveled blame at leaders and businesses which he said prioritize short-term profits and gains over climate action. “Regrettably, the climate crisis is not exactly a matter that interests the great economic powers, whose concern is with the greatest profit possible at minimal cost and in the shortest amount of time.”
He even directed criticism at his own church, referring to “certain dismissive and scarcely reasonable opinions that I encounter, even within the Catholic Church.”
The pope’s statement is a follow-up to his 2015 encyclical letter Laudato Si (“Praised Be To You”), which was the first ever ponitifcal writing completely dedicated to ecological issues, which have been a cornerstone of his papacy.
It comes ahead of the UN COP28 climate conference, which starts at the end of November in Dubai, where countries will undergo “global stocktake” to assess how quickly they are progressing towards climate goals.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/04/world/pope-francis-climate-change-encyc
lical-intl/index.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Does that include private jets, mega-mansions, ginormous yachts, joyrides in space, and war?
Pope Francis lambasts climate change skeptics and ‘irresponsible’ Western lifestyles
Bc if it doesn't, he's a hypocrite.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fuck Pope Francis.
Unless you're an altar boy. He'd enjoy that.
Quote:
Pope Francis has made his strongest statement yet on the accelerating climate crisis, pinning blame on big industries and world leaders as well as “irresponsible” Western lifestyles, in a blistering statement on Wednesday.
Meanwhile, in reality...
Here's the Pope's house:
https://i.ibb.co/dJNTj9H/Interior-Sistine-Chapel-Vatican-City.webp
What was your heating bill last year, huh Frank?
I don't want to hear one more fucking word out of you about irresponsible lifestyles.
--------------------------------------------------
Political correctness is just tyranny, with a smiley face.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:6ix, your words reveal your inner self as do the Pope's words:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Fuck Pope Francis.
I don't want to hear one more fucking word out of you about irresponsible lifestyles.
23. It is chilling to realize that the capacities expanded by technology have given those with the knowledge and especially the economic resources to use them, an impressive dominance over the whole of humanity and the entire world. Never has humanity had such power over itself, yet nothing ensures that it will be used wisely, particularly when we consider how it is currently being used. In whose hands does all this power lie, or will it eventually end up? It is extremely risky for a small part of humanity to have it.
Rethinking our use of power
24. Not every increase in power represents progress for humanity. We need only think of the “admirable” technologies that were employed to decimate populations, drop atomic bombs and annihilate ethnic groups. There were historical moments where our admiration at progress blinded us to the horror of its consequences. But that risk is always present because our immense technological development has not been accompanied by a development in human responsibility, values and conscience. We stand naked and exposed in the face of our ever-increasing power, lacking the wherewithal to control it. We have certain superficial mechanisms, but we cannot claim to have a sound ethics, a culture and a spirituality genuinely capable of setting limits and teaching clear-minded self-restraint. It is not strange that so great a power in such hands is capable of destroying life, while the mentality proper to the technocratic paradigm blinds us and does not permit us to see this extremely grave problem of present-day humanity.
https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documen
ts/20231004-laudate-deum.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:6ix, your words reveal your inner self as do the Pope's words:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Fuck Pope Francis.
I don't want to hear one more fucking word out of you about irresponsible lifestyles.
23. It is chilling to realize that the capacities expanded by technology have given those with the knowledge and especially the economic resources to use them, an impressive dominance over the whole of humanity and the entire world. Never has humanity had such power over itself, yet nothing ensures that it will be used wisely, particularly when we consider how it is currently being used. In whose hands does all this power lie, or will it eventually end up? It is extremely risky for a small part of humanity to have it.
Rethinking our use of power
24. Not every increase in power represents progress for humanity. We need only think of the “admirable” technologies that were employed to decimate populations, drop atomic bombs and annihilate ethnic groups. There were historical moments where our admiration at progress blinded us to the horror of its consequences. But that risk is always present because our immense technological development has not been accompanied by a development in human responsibility, values and conscience. We stand naked and exposed in the face of our ever-increasing power, lacking the wherewithal to control it. We have certain superficial mechanisms, but we cannot claim to have a sound ethics, a culture and a spirituality genuinely capable of setting limits and teaching clear-minded self-restraint. It is not strange that so great a power in such hands is capable of destroying life, while the mentality proper to the technocratic paradigm blinds us and does not permit us to see this extremely grave problem of present-day humanity.
https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documen
ts/20231004-laudate-deum.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
Oh! Are you offended that I would dare talk about the Pope like that?
Go tell tell him your thoughts on abortion and see what your new savior thinks about you.
Fuck Pope Frank and fuck you too.
Here's some revealing words for you, cunt.
http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=65116
--------------------------------------------------
Political correctness is just tyranny, with a smiley face.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You also called the Pope a pedophile.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Oh! Are you offended that I would dare talk about the Pope like that?
Go tell tell him your thoughts on abortion and see what your new savior thinks about you.
Fuck Pope Frank and fuck you too.
6ix, you have always been a dirtbag, but every Trumptard I know is the same, although some hide what they are, unlike you. But when I dig, the filthiness of their souls are there, even for the most ostentatiously religious Trumptard. Your people are blind to the powerful connection between what they are inside their heads and the troubles they have in the outside world. And so they turn to Trump as Mein Führer, the man who will set right their life. "Trump will be fine. And he will be your next President." Put on that bumper sticker so the world will know you are a Nazi.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Al Gore Doesn’t Say I Told You So
The former Vice-President revisits his early advocacy for the environment and explains his optimism about two existential crises.
By David Remnick, October 6, 2023
Gore: The climate crisis is really a fossil-fuel crisis. There are other components of it, for sure, but eighty per cent of it is the burning of fossil fuels. And scientists now know—and this is a relatively new finding, a very firm understanding—that, once we stop net additions to the overburden of greenhouse gases, once we reach so-called net zero, then temperatures on Earth will stop going up almost immediately. The lag time is as little as three to five years. They used to think that temperatures would keep on worsening because of positive-feedback loops—and some things, tragically, will. The melting of the ice, for example, will continue, though we can moderate the pace of that; the extinction crisis will continue without other major changes. But we can stop temperatures from going up almost immediately, and that’s the switch we need to flip. And then, if we can stay at true net zero, half of all human-caused greenhouse-gas pollution will fall out of the atmosphere in twenty-five to thirty years. So we can start the long and slow healing process almost immediately, if we act.
Q: What’s required?
We have to find a way to shift out of our dependence on fossil fuels: coal, oil, and gas. And, of course, the fossil-fuel industry, and the financial institutions that have grown codependent on them—
Q: The banks—
The banks and the other large lenders, and associated industries, have, for more than a hundred years, built up a legacy network of political and economic influence. Shockingly, they have managed to convert their economic power into political power with lobbying, and campaign contributions, and the revolving-door phenomenon—where fossil-fuel executives go into the government.
I mean, the last President of the United States made the C.E.O. of ExxonMobil the Secretary of State. It’s almost hard to believe, but that is a symbol of how fossil-fuel companies have penetrated governments around the world. When ExxonMobil or Chevron puts its ads on the air, the purpose is not for a husband and wife to say, “Oh, let’s go down to the store and buy some motor oil.” The purpose is to condition the political space so that they have a continued license to keep producing and selling more and more fossil fuels.
Q: Well, you’re not only an evangelist for climate change; you also are a politician, a seasoned politician.
I’m a recovering politician.
Q: You’re looking better already. Tell me, why is it impossible for politicians to run on this successfully? What are the barriers preventing a day-to-day politician, on the state or national level, from making this an effective electoral cause?
The polluters have gained a high degree of control over the processes of self-government. I’ve often said that, in order to solve the crisis, we have to pay a lot of attention to the democracy crisis. Our representative democracy is not working very well. We have a dual hegemonic ideology called democratic capitalism, and the democracy part of our ideology has been cannibalized, to some extent, by economic actors, who have found ways to convert wealth into political influence. Wealth has always had its usefulness in the political sphere, but much more so in an era in which the candidate who raises the most money, and can buy the most media presence, almost always wins the election. And there’s been kind of evolutionary pressure as to people who go into politics: people who don’t want to put up with that kind of routine shy away from it now. Those who like it are more likely to run and get elected.
Q: Yet another climate summit is coming up, this time in the Middle East. It seems odd who is leading it. How do you feel about that?
Yeah, it’s absurd. This year, the annual United Nations Climate Conference is in the United Arab Emirates, and they have named the head of their national oil
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fuck off, Al.
--------------------------------------------------
Political correctness is just tyranny, with a smiley face.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The reason why politicians haven't been able to sell "net zero" is because there is no practical substitute for fossil fuels. Yeah, we can cut waste and substitute green energy for a portion. But in order to get to net zero, the elites want to cut everyone else's living standard drastically. And nobody wants some fat cat to be telling THEM to suck it up and do without ... not while the fat cat gets all the cream.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There are plenty of substitutes for fossil fuels, but people want cheap fuel, not green energy. The reality is that fossil fuels are far cheaper to make than Green energy. To make it really easy to understand, imagine a world powered only by burning wood -- the perfect Green fuel. No petroleum. No natural gas. And no coal because it was buried too deep. The Fat Cats that own all the forests become fabulously rich selling firewood. Assume that the Fat Cats can think ahead and realize that they need to replant the trees sold for firewood. That is kind of a big assumption because so many rich people don't actually think more than a decade ahead, but trees take decades longer to grow.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
The reason why politicians haven't been able to sell "net zero" is because there is no practical substitute for fossil fuels. Yeah, we can cut waste and substitute green energy for a portion. But in order to get to net zero, the elites want to cut everyone else's living standard drastically. And nobody wants some fat cat to be telling THEM to suck it up and do without ... not while the fat cat gets all the cream.
Suddenly this world fueled by the perfect renewable green fuel, firewood, is totally turned upside down by strip-mined coal. There will be no more waiting for trees to slowly grow. Instead, as much coal as the world wants is being dug out of the ground and sold. Going from Firewood World to Coal World will make a totally different group of rich people. It is also guaranteed to ruin the world once enough coal has been burnt. We are now living in something very much like Coal World because coal is cheaper than wood in Firewood World. Other fossil fuels even cheaper than coal are now available. In every imaginable world, coal will always be cheaper than wood, the perfect renewable green fuel.
The Science of a Wood-Burning Locomotive
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
October 19, 2023 - The Alaska Department of Fish and Game announced the snow crab harvest season was canceled for the second year in a row.
Billions of snow crabs have disappeared from the ocean around Alaska in recent years, and scientists know why: Warmer ocean temperatures caused them to starve to death.
Snow crabs are cold-water species and found overwhelmingly in areas where water temperatures are below 2 degrees Celsius, though they can function in waters up to 12 degrees Celsius, according to the study. Warmer ocean water likely wreaked havoc on the crabs’ metabolism and increased their caloric needs.
The amount of energy crabs needed from food in 2018 — the first year of a two-year marine heat wave in the region — may have been as much as quadrupled compared to the previous year, researchers found. But with the heat disrupting much of the Bering Sea’s food web, snow crabs had a hard time foraging for food and weren’t able to keep up with the caloric demand.
Normally, there is a temperature barrier in the ocean that prevents species like Pacific cod from reaching the crabs’ extremely cold habitat. But during the heat wave, the Pacific cod were able to go to these warmer-than-usual waters and ate a portion of what was left of the crab population.
“2018 and 2019 were an extreme anomaly in sea ice in the Bering Sea, something that we’d never seen before,” Szuwalski said. “There was maybe 4% of the coverage of ice that we’ve historically seen, and to know whether or not that’s going to continue going forward is hard to say.”
What’s happening with Alaska’s crabs is proof the climate crisis is rapidly accelerating and impacting livelihoods, Szuwalski said. He knew this was going to happen at some point, but he “didn’t expect it to happen so soon.”
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/19/us/alaska-crabs-ocean-heat-climate/inde
x.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
The reason why politicians haven't been able to sell "net zero" is because there is no practical substitute for fossil fuels. Yeah, we can cut waste and substitute green energy for a portion. But in order to get to net zero, the elites want to cut everyone else's living standard drastically. And nobody wants some fat cat to be telling THEM to suck it up and do without ... not while the fat cat gets all the cream.
You can't even bother trying to talk reason with a simpleminded cultist.
--------------------------------------------------
Political correctness is just tyranny, with a smiley face.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Airlines say they’ve found a route to climate-friendly flying
Aviation produces about 2.5 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions. If you add in the heat-trapping effects of water vapor in contrails and other pollutants, air travel accounts for about 4 percent of the warming across the planet induced by humans to date. It may seem like a small slice of the climate change problem, but if left unchecked, aviation’s carbon dioxide emissions are poised to double by 2050. “The biggest problem is that demand is rising,” said Gökçin Çinar, an assistant professor of aerospace engineering at the University of Michigan. Even as aircraft grow more fuel-efficient per passenger, more flyers will lead to more greenhouse gases.
However, decarbonizing aircraft is a huge technical challenge. To get a 400,000-pound airliner off the ground, up to 35,000 feet, and across an ocean, you need to squeeze an enormous amount of energy into a tiny space at the lowest weight possible. This trait is called specific energy, which is measured in watt-hours per kilogram or megajoules per kilogram. The best lithium-ion batteries top out around 300 watt-hours per kilogram. Jet fuel has a specific energy around 12,000 watt-hours per kilogram. And as an airplane burns fuel, it gets lighter, increasing its efficiency and range, whereas a dead battery weighs just as much as a live one. Swapping a gasoline engine for an electric motor in a car is trivial in comparison.
More at https://www.vox.com/climate/23922939/airline-united-climate-change-sus
tainable-fuel-emissions-offset-saf
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Airlines say they’ve found a route to climate-friendly flying
NO, NOT REALLY. The article continues...
Quote:At the same time, the DoD is also looking at SAF, leading to increased demand for a scarce fuel. Flying will NEVER be net zero. The DoD won't be either.
However, demand [for air travel] is high and supplies are minuscule, making SAF [sustainable aviation fuel] upward of four times as expensive as conventional fuel. For most airlines, fuel is already their biggest or second-biggest expense.
So airlines are stuck in a holding pattern where their cheapest and easiest option for decarbonization doesn’t really work while their best bet is still wildly expensive. The consulting firm McKinsey estimated that decarbonizing aviation would require $175 billion in investments each year until 2050, almost $5 trillion in total. At the same time, demand for flights is poised to climb, and the window for keeping warming in check across the planet is sliding shut. Companies are also bracing for more emissions regulations as governments turn their attention to the climate impacts of aviation.
Air travel is thus one of the most difficult climate change problems, and some airlines are candid that they don’t quite know how to land at net zero. “We do not have the solutions we need at scale in a commercial capacity to really change the way we fly without focused, concerted engagement by the industry to demand a different way of flying,” said Lauren Riley, United’s chief sustainability officer. “Our emissions will go up before they go down.”
Just eliminate private jets, make flying way more expensive, and cut the DoD budget.
Quote:
That’s why they’re trying out a suite of tactics across both incremental and breakthrough advances. But technology alone won’t clean up the skies; it will also take pressure from policymakers and passengers to get to the destination of net-zero.
...
There are some important caveats to SAF. “It is not ‘zero emissions’ but ‘net-zero emissions’ when you look at the life cycle,” Çinar said. “It’s still the same combustion process.” Burning SAF produces carbon dioxide, as well many of the same pollutants as conventional fuels like nitrogen oxides and soot.
The carbon accounting can also get tricky. It takes energy to refine, process, and transport SAF. If that energy comes from burning fossil fuels, SAF will lead to a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions. And if you clear wilderness to plant BIOFUEL CROPS* to make SAF, that also increases its carbon footprint. Nevertheless, the overall climate impact is still far smaller than conventional fuels.
* They've already tried this trick with gasoline-ethanol blend, and all it did was lead to more corn growing in overfertilized fields and nitrogen runoff (and algae blooms). And if 'they' (in the EU) think that manure-spreading causes too much N2O emissions, just wait until people start throwing fertilizer everywhere on everything.
Quote:
Greenhouse gas emissions from global production and use of nitrogen synthetic fertilisers in agriculture
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-18773-w
This article is what I call it 'greenwashing'. There's no way to make air travel (or war-making) climate friendly, and they're both unnecessary expenses. Yeah, I know the airlines and the MIC just want to keep on making money, but these are two sectors that should shrivel. The associated companies should find another way to make $$.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Why not just ban all flights, except on dirigibles with solar-powered motors? Even hot air balloons are banned because of propane-fueled flame.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
This article is what I call it 'greenwashing'. There's no way to make air travel (or war-making) climate friendly, and they're both unnecessary expenses. Yeah, I know the airlines and the MIC just want to keep on making money, but these are two sectors that should shrivel. The associated companies should find another way to make $$.
While we're banning, no more engines on ships. Instead, only sailboats. One exception: wood-burning paddle boats are allowed, but not coal-burning. And bring back the steam engine locomotive burning wood, not coal.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Second's just fine with wasting energy if you're rich or it's in the name of war.
It's candles for you though, and you'll eat bugs and like it.
--------------------------------------------------
Political correctness is just tyranny, with a smiley face.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Speaking to the cause of war: Confederate slave owners worried about not having slaves to pick cotton, but somehow the descendants of Confederates got along without slaves. Now they feel threatened enough to start another war because of their worries about not having gasoline for their cars, but somehow the descendants of the descendants will get along without gasoline (the kind of gasoline made from crude oil).
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Second's just fine with wasting energy if you're rich or it's in the name of war.
It's candles for you though, and you'll eat bugs and like it.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
When Idiot Savants Do Climate Economics
By Christopher Ketcham | Oct 29, 2023
https://theintercept.com/2023/10/29/william-nordhaus-climate-economics/
William Nordhaus, who turned 82 this year, was the first economist in our time to attempt to quantify the cost of climate change. His climate-modeling wizardry, which won him the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 2018, has made him one of the world’s most consequential thinkers. His ideas have been adopted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, global risk managers, the financial services industry, and universities worldwide that teach climate economics. Nordhaus’s work literally could affect the lives of billions of people. This is because his quantification of the immediate costs of climate action — as balanced against the long-term economic harms of not acting — is the basis of key proposals to mitigate carbon emissions. It’s not an exaggeration to suggest that the fate of nations and a sizable portion of humanity depends on whether his projections are correct.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has assumed Nordhaus is to be trusted. The integrated assessment models used at the IPCC are based on Nordhausian visions of adaptation to warming that only marginally reduces global gross domestic product. If future GDP is barely affected by rising temperatures, there’s less incentive for world governments to act now to reduce emissions.
Nordhaus’s models tell us that at a temperature rise somewhere between 2.7 and 3.5 degrees Celsius, the global economy reaches “optimal” adaptation. What’s optimal in this scenario is that fossil fuels can continue to be burned late into the 21st century, powering economic growth, jobs, and innovation. Humanity, asserts Nordhaus, can adapt to such warming with modest infrastructure investments, gradual social change, and, in wealthy developed countries, little sacrifice. All the while, the world economy expands with the spewing of more carbon.
His models, it turns out, are fatally flawed, and a growing number of Nordhaus’s colleagues are repudiating his work. Joseph Stiglitz, former World Bank chief economist and professor of economics at Columbia University, told me recently that Nordhaus’s projections are “wildly wrong.” Stiglitz singled out as especially bizarre the idea that optimization of the world economy would occur at 3.5 C warming, which physical scientists say would produce global chaos and a kind of climate genocide in the poorest and most vulnerable nations.
In a journal article published last year, Stiglitz and co-authors Nicholas Stern and Charlotte Taylor, of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science, declared that Nordhausian integrated assessment models are “inadequate to capture deep uncertainty and extreme risk.” They fail to incorporate “potential loss of lives and livelihoods on immense scale and fundamental transformation and destruction of our natural environment.”
Climate change is one of the instances, Stiglitz and Stern told me in an email, in which “it is generally agreed there is extreme risk — we know there are some really extreme events that could occur — and we know we cannot pretend (i.e., act as if) we know the probabilities. Nordhaus’s work doesn’t appropriately take into account either extreme risk or deep uncertainty.”
In other words, the economist who has been embraced as a guiding light by the global institution tasked with shepherding humanity through the climate crisis, who has been awarded a Nobel for climate costing, who is widely feted as the doyen of his field, doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Among most scientists, it’s lunacy to discuss optimization of anything anywhere when the globe hits even 2 C warming. Climate researchers Yangyang Xu and Veerabhadran Ramanathan, in a widely cited 2017 paper, defined 1.5 C warming as “dangerous” and 3 C or greater as “catastrophic,” while above 5 C was “beyond catastrophic,
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:Speaking to the cause of war: Confederate slave owners worried about not having slaves to pick cotton, but somehow the descendants of Confederates got along without slaves. Now they feel threatened enough to start another war because of their worries about not having gasoline for their cars, but somehow the descendants of the descendants will get along without gasoline (the kind of gasoline made from crude oil).
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Second's just fine with wasting energy if you're rich or it's in the name of war.
It's candles for you though, and you'll eat bugs and like it.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
God, that's your THIRD favorite topic, innit??? Can you POSSIBLY stick to the topic w/o mentioning Russia, Trump, or the Confederacy???
UNLIKE YOU, I happen to think climate change- and environmental degradation in general- is a REAL issue, not to be muddied with pointless virtue-sigalling, fundamentally conflicted rhetoric, and emotional hobby-horses.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Climate Change Policy Contradictions
Countries and companies are doing the right things to steer away from the damages of climate change, but are at the very same time making deliberate choices that swamp the effect of those other, better things. A report released by the United Nations and several climate organizations this week found that governments in aggregate still plan to increase coal production until 2030, and oil and gas production until at least 2050, global net-zero agreements be damned.
https://productiongap.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/PGR2023_web.pdf
In total, countries that hold the world’s oil, gas, and coal deposits still plan to produce 69 percent more fossil fuels than is compatible with keeping warming under 2 degrees Celsius, the riskier cousin to the 1.5-degree-Celsius goal each of those countries pledged to aim for. Many experts now consider that goal impossible, because of global reluctance to phase out fossil fuels. One expert who worked on the UN report called this “insanity,” a “climate disaster of our own making.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/08/insanity-petrostat
es-planning-huge-expansion-of-fossil-fuels-says-un-report
The scientist James Hansen, famous for his early warnings about climate change, suggested in a paper released last week with a suite of high-level colleagues that warming is accelerating more rapidly than is presently understood: Global warming will exceed 1.5-degree-Celsius in the 2020s.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfclm/kgad008
The report sets out starkly the fundamental conflict driving the climate crisis: fossil fuel burning must rapidly be cut down to zero, yet petrostates and companies intend to keep on making trillions of dollars a year by increasing production.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/21/revealed-oil-secto
rs-staggering-profits-last-50-years
In the places still extracting and using the most fossil fuels, like the U.S., leaders aren't yet paying a political price for promoting clean energy and pursuing climate action while simultaneously promoting and pursuing policies that have the exact opposite ends. But at some point, that internal contradiction must become so obvious to the average citizen, or so untenable in the face of the damage it has done, that one way or another it collapses. And only when it does will the world have a real chance at closing off the widening gyre of loss that is coming for us.
Oddly enough, the difference between the world we have and the one we could have is buried in two contrasting modeling reports by two of the world’s most important energy-information organizations. Whereas the International Energy Agency projected that we’d hit peak fossil-fuel use in 2030, the U.S. Energy Information Administration came to a very different conclusion: It saw demand for fossil fuels rising through at least 2050.
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/narrative/index.php?=all-open
The difference between the two agency’s models is how they treat government policy. “It’s important to understand we are modeling exactly what’s on the books as it is written,” Michelle Bowman, a senior renewables analyst at the U.S. EIA, told me. If a policy is set to expire, the U.S. EIA treats it as expiring. It doesn’t take into account policies that countries have talked about but have had yet to implement. The international agency’s analysis, in contrast, assumes countries will follow through with more climate-friendly policies and renew the ones they already have on the books. “Look how different things could be,” Bowman said. The difference is night and day, despair and hope.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2023/11/climate-change-pol
icies-contradictions/675967/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Climate Change Policy Contradictions
Countries and companies are doing the right things to steer away from the damages of climate change, but are at the very same time making deliberate choices that swamp the effect of those other, better things. A report released by the United Nations and several climate organizations this week found that governments in aggregate still plan to increase coal production until 2030, and oil and gas production until at least 2050, global net-zero agreements be damned.
https://productiongap.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/PGR2023_web.pdf
It turns out that we don't have any viable alternatives to the sources we've been using and people are only willing to pay much higher prices for things like these when the economy is good.
Who could have seen any of this coming?
--------------------------------------------------
Political correctness is just tyranny, with a smiley face.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:People like you base everything on price. They would only stop burning fossil fuels if stopping is cheaper than continuing to burn. Burning up the World? They don't care because it is all a hoax as they have been told many times by the people who sell fossil fuel and by Trump. They don't care about anything beyond price and that is why, ironically, they struggle and strain to have enough money. From my decades of experience with such people, they will never be able to make the connection between their enduring difficulties in life and their self-sabotaging ideas about how to live.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
It turns out that we don't have any viable alternatives to the sources we've been using and people are only willing to pay much higher prices for things like these when the economy is good.
Who could have seen any of this coming?
It is the "nothing matters" attitude of Trumptards. To them, global warming and the rising tide of authoritarianism are nothing. Loss and misery are just inevitable parts of existence, so why do anything? Instead, buy the cheapest energy since nothing matters.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Texas Board of Education opposes depiction of climate change, evolution in new science textbooks
By Edward McKinley, Austin Bureau | Nov. 14, 2023 6:42 p.m.
The Republican-led State Board of Education preliminarily rejected several new science textbooks on Tuesday over their presentation of climate change and evolution, a sign the books may be watered down before a final vote later this week.
Publishers were allowed until Wednesday to make changes that address criticism from board members, such as altering the depiction of the oil and gas industry.
“(The book) emphasizes the negative effect of fossil fuels. If that's what's presented to our children, that would have a negative effect on our state’s GDP,” board member Julie Pickren, R-Pearland, said about one of the textbooks. “It is factually inaccurate to the way that the negative effects of fossil fuels are presented because it is stated as fact and it is theory.”
Pickren said the book should include information about the harms of Chinese lithium mines, which are part of the supply chain for electric vehicles, to balance out the information highlighting fossil fuels' impact on global warming.
In discussions over another book by the publisher Edusmart, Member Aaron Kinsey, R-Midland, said he felt its photos “are encouraging a negative view” of the oil and gas industry.
“The selection of certain images can make things appear worse than they are and I believe there was bias,” said Kinsey, whose district encompasses the state’s most active oil and gas fields. He declined to answer when asked several times by another member what changes he would suggest to address his concerns.
“You want to see children smiling in oil fields?,” said Aicha Davis, D-Dallas. “I don’t know what you want.”
More at https://www.expressnews.com/politics/article/climate-change-textbooks-
18491484.php
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The 2023 state of the climate report: Entering uncharted territory
This report is part of our series of concise and easily accessible yearly updates on the state of the climate crisis.
Climate-related all-time records
In 2023, we witnessed an extraordinary series of climate-related records being broken around the world. The rapid pace of change has surprised scientists and caused concern about the dangers of extreme weather, risky climate feedback loops, and the approach of damaging tipping points sooner than expected (Armstrong McKay et al. 2022, Ripple et al. 2023). This year, exceptional heat waves have swept across the world, leading to record high temperatures. The oceans have been historically warm, with global and North Atlantic sea surface temperatures both breaking records and unprecedented low levels of sea ice surrounding Antarctica (figure 1a–1d). In addition, June through August of this year was the warmest period ever recorded, and in early July, we witnessed Earth's highest global daily average surface temperature ever measured, possibly the warmest temperature on Earth over the past 100,000 years (figure 1e). It is a sign that we are pushing our planetary systems into dangerous instability.
. . .
Conclusions
The effects of global warming are progressively more severe, and possibilities such as a worldwide societal breakdown are feasible and dangerously underexplored (Kemp et al. 2022). By the end of this century, an estimated 3 to 6 billion individuals — approximately one-third to one-half of the global population — might find themselves confined beyond the livable region, encountering severe heat, limited food availability, and elevated mortality rates because of the effects of climate change (Lenton et al. 2023). Big problems need big solutions. . . .
More at https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci
/biad080/7319571?login=false
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:People like you base everything on price. They would only stop burning fossil fuels if stopping is cheaper than continuing to burn. Burning up the World? They don't care because it is all a hoax as they have been told many times by the people who sell fossil fuel and by Trump. They don't care about anything beyond price and that is why, ironically, they struggle and strain to have enough money. From my decades of experience with such people, they will never be able to make the connection between their enduring difficulties in life and their self-sabotaging ideas about how to live.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
It turns out that we don't have any viable alternatives to the sources we've been using and people are only willing to pay much higher prices for things like these when the economy is good.
Who could have seen any of this coming?
It is the "nothing matters" attitude of Trumptards. To them, global warming and the rising tide of authoritarianism are nothing. Loss and misery are just inevitable parts of existence, so why do anything? Instead, buy the cheapest energy since nothing matters.
Do you have a brain defect or something, son?
I'm going to be working on my house again today. I haven't had a job since summer of 2019 and even in Biden*'s economy I'm not worried about money.
Have fun at work today so you can pay off all your interest, honey.
--------------------------------------------------
Political correctness is just tyranny, with a smiley face.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME