The Environmental thread + Conventional (HI-FI) wisdom is almost always invariably wrong

[PYP]

In the U.S., very little can be done unless Congress appropriates funds and creates policy for subsidies and tax breaks.  Where I live the sun is shining almost all the time.   How many home owners use solar?  Very few.  We purchased our solar panels when there were tax breaks.  Without the subsidies at the time, the cost/benefit equation wouldn't work.

 

In my subdivision, only two neighbors have solar.  Storage systems aren't ideal, but with a grid-tied system you always have power -- sometimes from the power company and sometimes from your solar panels.    

 

Policy requires leadership and Ms. Thunberg is correct that we don't have that in the U.S. government at the moment.  

 

Folks were hoarding toilet paper when the virus hit.  What happens when the food supply is affected by climate change?  Watch out!

[PYP]

Isn't treating a finite resource as finite just common sense?  It should be.  No need to politicize it or turn it into a religion.  Do we want clean water and clean air for ourselves and the generations that follow?  Do we want the world to be able to feed itself?  It cannot do that right now.  It is estimated that "food insecurity" in the developing world will nearly double this year to 265 million.  The pandemic has made this worse, of course, but it nothing compared to the soon-to-be and long-term effects of climate change.  That is a fact.  Scientists agree on this much.  

 

And even the non-thinkers among us should see how science is needed in times of stress, like this pandemic.  Hasn't this pandemic illustrated the we may not have the leaders we need (worldwide) to address these issues?  What kind of leadership will be needed when food becomes scarce and whole communities need to move inland from the coasts?  Those are two very real possible outcomes.  So, yes, passions can run high because these issues were raised eloquently in the 70s and we still delay.

 

OK, I'll get off my soapbox now.  

 

  

[PYP]

2 hours ago, sphinxsix said:

The Guardian's comment on that:

 

What China's plan for net-zero emissions by 2060 means for the climate

 

Completely agree that the message sends a very strong signal internally.  It is basically:  be a good citizen and use clean sources.  That will force industry to move toward renewables.  

 

And look at the economics of renewable energy (from the Guardian article): 

 

Large-scale solar photovoltaics and onshore wind projects are now the cheapest form of new power generation for at least two-thirds of the world’s population. It will soon be cheaper to build new solar and wind plants than to continue to operate existing coal plants. The cost of electric cars and buses continues to plunge, and they will be as cheap as their polluting alternatives within the next five years.

[PYP]

9 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

 

Was it to be posted on 'Just for Laughs' thread or did you want to suggest that air over America will be cleaner and if so - in literal or metaphorical sense.? 

Or was it supposed to be about ..wisdom gone wrong..? 

 

 

Less hot air, that is for certain.  And pollution comes in many forms.  

[PYP]

interesting story about billionaires donating to causes meant to reduce global warming:  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-16/creo-syndicate-is-the-secret-club-for-billionaires-who-care-about-climate-change?srnd=premium&sref=u0jApUg1

 

You might have also seen that Jeff Bezos has allocated nearly $800 million of what he says will be $10 billion to address global warming.  

 

In the US, if Biden can establish subsidies, which should be able to be done without legislation (that is, Congress), that will help move consumer choices toward sustainable sources of energy.  The current thinking is that subsidies are a better sell than a carbon "tax".

[PYP]

On 11/17/2020 at 8:17 AM, John Dyson said:

The problem about the US is that our politicians confuse what is good for their personal benefit instead of what is good for the country. 

 

So -- bottom line -- I don't want the US to make any promises until it I can trust the politicians -- alas, given historical performance the politicians will do something politically expedient, but damage the ALREADY damaged (from previous trust of a bad-government) US (and worlds' people.)   Academic idealogical decisions can be very damaging, like we have recently seen manifest.

 

John

 

 

 

Don't know if this article will make you more optimistic, but this approach of imbedding climate change considerations into all U.S. executive branch agencies is one important step:  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/17/climate/biden-climate-change.html

 

Of course, the next administration after Biden could do what this one did -- give the appointed posts to industry insiders or folks who have no idea what the agency does, but moving the rulings to the non-political appointee level slows down any reversal.  As others have said, this administration will have been one of the most environmentally destructive cabals ever.

 

It seems a majority of Americans understand climate change is important, but they don't want any negative effects to the economy.  Done correctly, the economy could embrace climate change and have excellent growth as well.  A tall order, but possible.  

[PYP]

U.S. Stimulus deal includes raft of provisions to fight climate change:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2020/12/21/congress-climate-spending/   

 

"It will cut the use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), chemicals used in air conditioners and refrigerators that are hundreds of times worse for the climate than carbon dioxide. It authorizes a sweeping set of new renewable energy measures, including tax credit extensions and new research and development programs for solar, wind and energy storage; funding for energy efficiency projects; upgrades to the electric grid and a new commitment to research on removing carbon from the atmosphere. And it reauthorizes an Environmental Protection Agency program to curb emissions from diesel engines."

 

“This is perhaps the most significant climate legislation Congress has ever passed,” said Grant Carlisle, a senior policy adviser at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

 

 

[PYP]

With a massive, nationwide effort the United States could reach net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050 using existing technology and at costs aligned with historical spending on energy, according to a study led by Princeton University researchers.  

 

Five scenarios to get there:

 

https://www.princeton.edu/news/2020/12/15/big-affordable-effort-needed-america-reach-net-zero-emissions-2050-princeton-study

 

 

 

[PYP]

1 hour ago, sphinxsix said:

Global warming is hitting the Western U.S. hard before summer even begins, with an early heat wave and severe drought threatening lives.

New York Times readers shared their experiences with the devastating effects of climate change.

 

Climate Change Batters the West Before Summer Even Begins Global warming has been fueling disasters in the region for years. Now, an early heat wave and severe drought are threatening lives and leaving water in perilously short supply.

 

It is cooler where I live.  Only reached 113 F/45 C today.  When you first go outside, your body cannot comprehend what it experiences at first.  When folks complain about the heat, I usually say:  "Yes, it has warmed up nicely." 

 

But these are deadly serious conditions.  And yet water is wasted.  Energy is wasted.   We simply don't understand the severity yet.   In Las Vegas, they are in the process of eliminating grass in yards (schools and other places are allowed).  That small measure, which would seem rather logical, has taken a very long time to implement.   We are moving too slowly - period.   

[PYP]

Excellent article on carbontech:   https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/23/magazine/interface-carpet-carbon.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

 

"Advocates of carbon utilization, or carbontech, as it’s also known, want to remake many of the things we commonly use today. But with one crucial difference: No emissions would have been added to the environment through their fabrication. Carbontech sees a future where the things we buy might be similar in their chemistries and uses but different in their manufacture and environmental impact. "

 

"Concrete is a good example. A composite product made from cement that binds together sand and gravel (ingredients typically known as “aggregate”), concrete is one of the most vexing challenges in addressing climate change. Its cement content accounts for about 7 percent of annual global CO2 emissions, at the same time as it is resistant to commercial innovation, largely because it has a standardized recipe that satisfies most building codes. In the past few years, CarbonCure, a Canadian company, has successfully introduced a workaround. It takes recycled CO2, supplied by contractors who capture it from factory exhaust, and injects the gas into a mix so that it can infiltrate and mineralize in the concrete. The upshot is twofold: CO2 is sequestered (producing concrete this way reduces emissions by 5 to 8 percent compared with typical mixes), and the addition of the gas creates a stronger material."

[PYP]

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/20/us/utah-water-drought-climate-change.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

 

The Southwest in the U.S. is in severe draught conditions.

 

Groundwater and streams vital to both farmers and cities are drying up in the West, challenging the future of development.

 

In the little mountain town of Oakley, about an hour’s drive from Salt Lake City, the spring that pioneers once used to water their hayfields and filled people’s taps for decades dwindled to a trickle in this year’s scorching drought. So town officials took drastic action to preserve their water: They stopped building.

 

Farmers and ranchers — who use 70 to 80 percent of all water — are letting their fields go brown or selling off cows and sheep they can no longer graze. Gov. Spencer Cox of Utah said all but one of the fields on his family’s farm had dried up.

 

“These towns are canaries in the coal mine,” said Paul D. Brooks, a professor of hydrology at the University of Utah. “They can’t count to go to the tap and turn on the water. Climate change is coming home to roost right now, and it’s hitting us hard.”

[PYP]

1 hour ago, sphinxsix said:

 

New York air quality among worst in world as haze from western wildfires shrouds city. Smoke from wildfires in the west caused hazy skies as air quality index surged to 157 in Manhattan, well above threshold of 100

 

check out this graphic of how the smoke travels and reflect upon the fact that the distance from Portland, Oregon to Manhattan, NY is 2,900 miles!!!    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/07/21/climate/wildfire-smoke-map.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

 

 

[PYP]

8 hours ago, Iving said:

I don't understand why we are fooling with tipping points in nature. Can't we do without a few things. I don't have any valve / pure Class A amps. 

 Efficiency is one thing I like about Class D amps.  The other, if done right, is sound.  I feel like I'm having my cake and eating it too.   Just had more solar cells installed.  While it is still blasting hot here -- the solar is less efficient at these temperatures and the AC is cranking away -- our electric bill is nearly $0.   So, I don't think about the system being on all day.  Everyone is wired differently.  For me, this arrangement provides pleasure above and beyond the music.  

[PYP]

10 minutes ago, Priaptor said:

Sorry to those who may be insulted or incensed by the rant but I needed to vent. 

You are pointing out some valid contradictions and the question is what does an individual does.  On the most personal level, I am indeed happy with solar on my house (+ solar water heater) which saves energy and results in a nearly $0 bill during a string of 100 degree days last month.  And I will ditch my hybrid and get an EV when the time comes.  My own view is that personal conservation comes first.   Not trying to be pious.  

 

Then we vote for the folks who do not ignore the problem and try to address it.   As we all know, the political fight in the U.S. will be intense and take a long time.  What can be done about China?  I don't know.  They recently announced the end of pushing coal plants in other nations and that is a start.  Our military is looking to move toward alternative fuels and that is good.

 

I believe we need an "all of the above" approach and leave no opportunity on the table.  Will there be enough time?  We really aren't taking climate change seriously enough.  That is certain.  

[PYP]

36 minutes ago, Priaptor said:

I will again restate, does the logic of saving a 100 bucks on an iPhone make sense in the scheme of what is proposed to charge for climate change taxes? Add to that transportation costs both monetarily and by climate effects and it is a no brainer. Remember, transportation beyond light trucks make up a huge environmental footprint to add to the biggest polluters in the world. 

It makes sense for economists to fully price a product, which would include the carbon footprint.  At least then folks know what they are buying and the true cost to the planet.  Overall, I think we are moving in the right direction, but too slowly.   As the situation worsens, some solutions won't be viable any longer.   

[PYP]

8 hours ago, semente said:

We needs strong and honest politicians, free (from business-interference) media, a more educated population and competent researchers/thinkers to help us mould this new world.

Where there’s a will...

We can already see the difference that strong leadership has made in some countries during the pandemic.  Will these be the same nations that lead the way in climate change policy?  

 

I believe social awareness does change and makes a difference over time.  And generational differences will help.  Young folks are already helping to change the conversation, but while many can vote now they won't be in organizations in positions of power for some time.  What happens in the  meantime?  

[PYP]

3 hours ago, semente said:

The change must come from the gorvernments, 

Yes, plural:  federal, state, municipal and community.   If voters made this a priority, the politicians would need to show results.  For voters to make this a priority, they need good information and people like Greta who organize large groups and keep the issue in front of us.  

 

It is impossible, however, to wade into the aftermath of the destruction caused by a hurricane, etc. and say in essence:  this is caused by our choices and we need to change now.   But the poor people who have been affected, surely re-assess whether to re-build or leave, and governments then need to make the difficult decision about whether they encourage re-building in the same area or help move populations to safer places or, when possible, protect that area from further destruction.  

 

Many difficult choices now and in the near future.   And politics has become a fundraising task instead of developing leaders who can step up when needed.  

[PYP]

I know it isn't baseball, but as per baseball:  

 

"The distribution of ... hits has changed over the decades, but one fact is absolutely clear: Most hits are singles. 

Games are won mostly by singles. 

Division titles are won mostly by singles. 

A World Series is won mostly by singles. 

Legacies are created mostly by singles."

 

Accordingly, individuals need to do their part, as do national governments, all governments, manufacturing of cement and steel (and other things) need to be less carbon intensive, the military has to reduce its carbon footprint, new jet fuel needs to be developed and implemented, polluting governments need to be held accountable, our young folks need to continue to push for change, voting needs to include all eligible people, etc.    

 

It seems to me that we cannot wait for a perfect all-in-one solution that is completely equitable in the short-term.  We need to move on all fronts simultaneously.  If you believe that some social scientist have it right when they characterize the workings of government as "muddling through," and you believe a systemic change, although needed, is nearly impossible, then an "all of the above" approach is needed now.  

[PYP]

2 hours ago, Priaptor said:

An interesting article, hardly from a "right" viewpoint of the absurd and ironic logic of the world, including "green companies" relying on coal utilizing countries for their manufacturing. 

Agree that such companies have outsourced their carbon footprint as a workaround.  Shame on them.  Of course, they have lots of company in doing so, unfortunately.

 

There were were two comments in the article that is somewhat optimistic given China's tendency to achieve the goals they set:

 

"China's focus on energy intensity and decarbonization is unlikely to abate, analysts said, ahead of COP26 climate talks - as the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference is known - which will be held in November in Glasgow and where world leaders will lay out their climate agendas.

 

China, the world's biggest energy consumer and source of climate-warming greenhouse gas, has said it aims to bring carbon emissions to a peak by 2030 and to net zero by 2060."

 

Is that achievable and is it fast enough to make a difference?

[PYP]

Very sobering -- eliminating emissions is just the beginning (bolding added):  https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/01/opinion/climate-change-geoengineering.html

 

"Eliminating emissions by about 2050 is a difficult but achievable goal. Suppose it is met. Average temperatures will stop increasing when emissions stop, but cooling will take thousands of years as greenhouse gases slowly dissipate from the atmosphere. Because the world will be a lot hotter by the time emissions reach zero, heat waves and storms will be worse than they are today. And while the heat will stop getting worse, sea level will continue to rise for centuries as polar ice melts in a warmer world. This July was the hottest month ever recorded, but it is likely to be one of the coolest Julys for centuries after emissions reach zero.

 

Stopping emissions stops making the climate worse. But repairing the damage, insofar as repair is possible, will require more than emissions cuts.

 

To cool the planet in this century, humans must either remove carbon from the air or use solar geoengineering, a temporary measure that may reduce peak temperatures, extreme storms and other climatic changes. Humans might make the planet Earth more reflective by adding tiny sulfuric acid droplets to the stratosphere from aircraft, whitening low-level clouds over the ocean by spraying sea salt into the air or by other interventions."

[PYP]

31 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

 

Guardian: Some of America’s most prominent companies, including Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and Disney, are backing business groups that are fighting landmark climate legislation, despite their own promises to combat the climate crisis.

Can someone explain how a billionaire is concerned about taxes?  Really.  Is there no limit to the pathological greed that leaves us without the ability to feed people and preserve the planet?    I guess some of these folks haven't flown far enough into space during their trips to get that experience of looking down at the planet and realizing "this is it, we don't have anything else."  

[PYP]

3 hours ago, sphinxsix said:

Scott Pio who has worked as an organiser in former President Donald Trump’s International Rapid Response Team and is currently a Republican state legislative candidate in Virginia..

 

..suggests taking all boats out of the water to lower sea levels. ‘When you take things out of bath water, the bath water decreases, does it not?’

 

I'm going to try that today with my ducks, battleships and G.I. Joe scuba guy!  Will report back.  

 

Hey, don't make fun of this guy.  He may have discovered the best way to solve the supply chain issues (no more supplies!) as well as how to significantly reduce pollution and free up lots of fuel for other uses.  ;) 

[PYP]

6 hours ago, sphinxsix said:

Please do! 

 

I can't give a definitive answer yet.  I was splashing so much that lots of water was lost that way.  But maybe Scott could consider taking the water out of the oceans instead and placing it on the land (basically what I did).  That should work, right?  Would fix the droughts in the west, put out forest fires, etc.  This guy is destined to be president of the U.S.  No doubt.  

[PYP]

Some private equity funds are seeing green, as in money, in destroying our planet:  https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/13/climate/private-equity-funds-oil-gas-fossil-fuels.html?campaign_id=2&emc=edit_th_20211014&instance_id=42666&nl=todaysheadlines&regi_id=137764409&segment_id=71608&user_id=e7ce617addfc9551bcae3b7539221c8d   Are these some of the same people lobbying the U.S. congress to defeat bills that will help the planet?  

 

"Private Equity Funds, Sensing Profit in Tumult, Are Propping Up Oil

 

Since 2010, the private equity industry has invested at least $1.1 trillion into the energy sector — double the combined market value of three of the world’s largest energy companies, Exxon, Chevron and Royal Dutch Shell — according to new research. The overwhelming majority of those investments was in fossil fuels, according to data from Pitchbook, a company that tracks investment, and a new analysis by the Private Equity Stakeholder Project, a nonprofit that pushes for more disclosure about private equity deals.

 

Only about 12 percent of investment in the energy sector by private equity firms went into renewable power, like solar or wind, since 2010, though those investments have grown at a faster rate, according to Pitchbook data.

Private equity investors are taking advantage of an oil industry facing heat from environmental groups, courts, and even their own shareholders to start shifting away from fossil fuels, the major force behind climate change. As a result, many oil companies have begun shedding some of their dirtiest assets, which have often ended up in the hands of private equity-backed firms."

[PYP]

Can a Carbon-Emitting Iron Ore Tycoon Save the Planet?

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/16/business/energy-environment/green-energy-fortescue-andrew-forrest.html?searchResultPosition=1

 

"The iron and steel sector emits around 7 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide (more than all of the world’s cars). And unlike coal, it can’t be phased out unless we no longer want new appliances or buildings. Wrenching transformation is really the only option if international climate goals are to be met.

 

Nearly 90 percent of the carbon released by the steel-making process comes from reducing it to “pig iron” in a blast furnace or smelter powered by fossil fuels. Fortescue’s engineers have built a miniature mill that they said could do the same thing with electrodes and a pressurized brew of metals and other materials. Sitting on a counter, it resembled a water heater crossed with an espresso machine.

 

At least one other company, Boston Metal, which counts Bill Gates as an investor, has found a way to do something similar. But Fortescue’s scientists say they’ve figured out a process that works at lower temperatures (no hotter than a cup of coffee), allowing for easy on and off cycles with intermittent, renewable energy."