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

[Priaptor]

I must give a counter point to all the banter on this thread.

 

While the vast majority of hyperbole on this thread regurgitates the typical mainstream talking points about climate change and the need to do something I find it ironic who most paint as evil while ignoring the elephant in the room.

 

Most of the absurd ideas involve penalizing with progressive and devastating taxes on those countries who are most cooperative. While all this EV stuff, just to use one issue as an example, may make us feel good, it is like pissing in the wind as it pertains to climate change. Just do the math or ignore the math at  your own peril. With a perfect grid, if the US converted all cars and light trucks to EV we would reduce CO2 by 1.3% at most worldwide. However, the real impact requires an EV to reach 30K miles before the projected benefits kick in so the real impact with a perfect grid is even less. 

 

Over the last 3 decades greenhouse emissions have increased 11.5% worldwide while China's has increased more than 3x, way more than their increase in manufacturing index indicating they are polluting more than just accounting for their manufacturing.

 

OH yeah right, the elephant in the room and the absurd logic. We now have a total dislocation of manufacturing. In order to save money on manufacturing, we now ship our manufacturing to the biggest polluters in the world, namely China, India, Indonesia and Viet Nam. Nothing has added to greenhouse gas emissions more than that. In fact air pollution in Hanoi, like large cities in the other countries I name is so bad, it has become as leading cause of death. Hey but why worry about reality when we can make believe we are doing something with by driving EVs, paying carbon taxes, penalizing the most compliant while the biggest polluters keep on polluting so we can pay less for iPhones and computers WHILE paying much more than we are saving we absurd taxes to protect the environment.

 

I am sure to hear huge uproars over my views, which of course will be taken as uber-conservative, but the reality is, I probably have more in common with ultra-leftists as it pertains to the environment than most of you. Patagonia, of course, who loves to claim they are friends of the environment as those of you who believe it wear their petroleum based polyester manufactured by the biggest polluter in the world, namely Viet Nam, where 90%+ of their energy plants are coal. 

 

If we are serious, it's time to recognize our real issues, face facts and either bring back manufacturing to those locations with cleaner manufacturing indices or demand change in those that are indeed doing the biggest polluting. If time is really of the essence, then giving these "developing countries" decades to meet some demands with no teeth is ABSURD. Same for ecologically destructive behavior here and abroad. Time to call out CA for their egregious water, land and forest management as THE BIGGEST cause of CO2 pollution this century rather than blaming climate change for their current forest fire debacle.   Owen's Lake, another great example of the CA narrative. Or the Colorado River delta, now that is great one. Then there is the ultra left against the self serving left regarding the O'Shaughnessy Dam and amazingly I side with the ultra left when all is evaluated. Or the new green narrative regarding the Salton Sea. The examples of hypocrisy are massive and I could go on but I think that's enough and my point made.

 

But of course, we won't do anything that will really make a difference because as usual, it is easy to manipulate the masses, spew a different narrative and inertia is very hard to break. People will feel good buying their solar panels and EV and everyone can feel good again. 

 

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

 

 

[Priaptor]

7 minutes ago, PYP said:

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.  

No issue with anyone doing what they think is right when what they are doing indeed does have an effect. I by no means am against solar or EV. That was not my intent. In fact, I endorse both but am realistic about both. FPL is actually taking solar pretty seriously and more and more of their grid is now powered by solar, mitigating the need by the individual. However, in our desire to endorse, let us not be blinded to reality and there are some cold hard truths behind solar and lithium. All you have to do is look at some of the ecological disasters at the Chilean lithium pools or the egregious rare earth mining by China, but  I digress.

 

I think the MOST important aspect of controlling climate issues TODAY is for people to accept and endorse reality. What can we do about China and others? Be educated and demand NOW accountability by those doing our manufacturing or start moving that manufacturing to "cleaner manufacturing" countries, whether that be the EU, some South American countries or USA. There is nothing in the short term that will have a bigger effect than that change of political policy. This is not a right or left thing as the most valuable companies in the world, who clearly have "leftward" political perspectives prosper the most from our current polluting policies by shipping manufacturing abroad. 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. 

 

When the world's  second biggest economy is given two decades of a polluting break in worldwide climate talks, no more needs to be said regarding the absurdity of logic. Even more absurd than Kerry's rationale for flying a private jet followed by a huge limousine to a climate talk. 

[Priaptor]

1 hour ago, PYP said:

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.   

Does it really make a difference? I think CA can teach a lot of what NOT to do despite their beliefs that they do it best. They have by far the highest gas prices in America with little change in driving habits. People adapt and don't change. Inertia rules

 

Also, even if did make one think about it, what goal does it achieve other than to grease the palms of the Government who will find a way to waste whatever money they collect. Perfect example are highways. How many ways are we going to find a way to tax highways. Now they are discussing taxing miles driven. From my perch, the more taxes you give the government, the more latitude you give them for rationalize and justify fraud and abuse, which of course, they are never held accountable for. 

 

Again, I have no issues or complaints about rational economic incentives toward cleaner energy but our current strategies will do little to effect change. 

 

I am greedy. I want my rivers and nature back as they were meant to be. But that would require real sacrifice. 

 

 

[Priaptor]

1 hour ago, semente said:

 

We should change our habits, reduce our footprint. The only other thing in our power is the vote. But is there a Green party in the US? Germany seems to be headed in the right green direction.

I am not that familiar with Germany's approach. Could use a primer if you care to elaborate. I say that sincerely and not to pounce. 

[Priaptor]

It is eye opening to see that so many have so much faith in governments to fix problems they largely created and are never held accountable for. By no means am I naively supporting unregulated corporate entities to fix things, as our latest richest companies such as FB, AAPL, NVDA, GOOG, AMZN, etc. demonstrate by not only their reliance and desire to engage and support the biggest polluters in the world BUT that being said, it is like blaming the current healthcare issues on United Health, etc. who just followed the trail of money government lays out for them. 

 

While I appreciate Jud's perspective, it is also important that we recognize, not just here in America but everywhere in the world, that no group of people can be so manipulated and wield so much power while being so influenced by so little money (relatively) than our politicians.

 

While I don't want to change topics, I do wish to use healthcare as the perfect example of how government is influenced, bought off and uses propaganda to enrich some at the cost of so many. LBJ claimed when signing Medicare in 1965 that "if this thing costs more than 500 million dollars I will look like one damn fool". Well JUST 55 years later, this boondoggle now costs over 1 trillion, there is more dislocation of our healthcare system than ever as a result of government created cost shifting and price fixing while payment to caregivers have not only stagnated over the last 30 years, but have decreased on a COLA basis while "administrative costs" (another term for payoffs to corporate healthcare) have increased 17x over the same period of time. Obama admitted to reigning in 15% fraud and abuse as a method to fund Obamacare. A deal was cut with the big insurers to get paid up front for Obamacare but pay later; guess what, that "pay later" never happened and all we saw was a further dislocations of markets. Again, this is not a left right thing; RBRVS instituted under Reagan/Bush, Gingrich's SGR, Bush's DRA act, Trump's surprise billing and so many more I choose not to list have done NOTHING to enhance care and has done everything to cause market dislocations.  So how are they held accountable? They aren't. In fact, they convince an easily malleable and uneducated public that they the Gov't who created the problem is here to fix it, my favorite and the clapping seals called the general public bark their approval . LMAO. Such a clear case as THE ESTEMED Bob Menedez of NJ not only walks free because of a hung jury but is never tried again and continues to preach morality to the rest of us. If I remember correctly, his bribes were a few flights to S. America, hookers and some cash; look at the amazing influence that bought Salomen Melgen, MD. Remember, that was a small one compared to the really big ones

 

Back to environment. The same occurs when huge multi-billion $ corporations hold so much sway with so little money (relatively speaking) over those who can influence so much that this is what you get and we, the people, discuss the micro stuff which never has any real significant influence rather than the macro picture such as the massive dirty manufacturing footprint that really is so much easier to fix than the small stuff. Market dislocations by bad policy and bribes, etc. has led us to this. I understand the perspective of "well I can only do what I can as an individual" but that is no excuse for dismissing the root cause of what and why we are we are.

[Priaptor]

2 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

What about companies which are not interested in cooperation in the name of our future.?

 

Taking into account that it would be 1.3% in the global scale it's not so little IMO. Beside that according to my knowledge the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities in the United States is from burning fossil fuels for electricity, heat, and transportation, the non electric cars are definitely a part of this and not so small one..

 

More than that, much more..

You've omitted the USA and Russia which both are in the top 4 polluters and are the top 2 polluters per capita. 

 

It's also about transport being the source of 15% CO2 emissions worldwide.

 

https://www.c2es.org/content/international-emissions/

 

I would agree with many points you made. And add voting responsible, climate conscious politicians, they really matter 

 

+1 of course!

 

Or Russia.? Important question.

 

IMO both political and if necessary economic pressure strong enough to be efficient and with readiness to take the consequences of both.

 

 

C'mon, it's just a propaganda.. this is much more meaningless than millions of people switching to EVs.. Let's let him/them travel whichever way they want provided they do the right things in  a wider perspective.

 

No way.

 

 

 

Definitely! IMO covid is already a lesson which should've said a thing or two to people on this planet, e.g. about the need of just, solidary one world simply because we all are just vegetables in the same soup.. Has the lesson been learnt.? I'm not sure..

 

I've found some risky statements in this book  but I hope/believe this one is true..

 

 

That's it from me for now, gotta go.

 

First let me correct the facts of what I said. It is the USA who has increased emissions according to some by 11%. In fact, there is great evidence to show that since 2005 USA greenhouse gas emissions have decreased to 1990 levels so the 11% is in fact much lower.

 

As far as companies NOT wanting to cooperate, who are they? Companies such as Apple, etc. who want to increase margins to save you a couple of bucks on their iPhones while doing so at the expense of the environment by manufacturing their stuff by the biggest polluters and then using CO2 spewing transportation to deliver their goods?  Those companies or are we going to to pigeonhole companies like Haliburton and the rest. 

 

I understand the desire to use the "per capita" argument because it is a manipulation of the data and proves a point that some want to prove. America, more than most, actually has been reducing their environmental footprint. IMHO not enough and clearly with some of the stupidest policies around, CA, being the showcase for that. Of course what the "per capita" argument hides, as it is such a good propagandizing tool is that since WWII by far, America had the largest manufacturing index for the world and even now, despite China, America still has the largest manufacturing index with a fraction of the pollution of China, whose much larger population will mitigate their "per capita" footprint. Of course, few developed countries have the geographical disparity of the US and another reason why the "per capita" comparisons don't tell the full story. Kind of difficult to compare the geographical disparity of Germany, France, England, etc. to America. We find similar propaganda as it pertains to "access to healthcare" in America where some love to propagandize the access being restricted to inner city socially economics underprivileged WHEN the real restriction of access and those most vulnerable are those who live furthest from healthcare because of the same geographical disparity. It would be absurd to assume that America could provide less polluting mass transit to this geographical disparate nation when doing so would actually increase emissions because it would serve so few and emit so much.

 

Russia, ok include them. How about the EU's enabling of Russia, can we include them as well or do they get a pass. Yeah, they are dirty and hold them accountable economically. We have a funny perspective in this world. We like to hold some countries accountable through embargos for their political and/or terrorists actions yet no such activities occur to what some believe is our biggest concern, namely Global Warming. 

 

As to the political and economic thing, it is too broad of brush. Both are at fault and unless those who are in power are held accountable nothing will happen. We the people are so polarized that even when it comes to the environment, something "we the people" should cherish will take sides along political lines and ignore the elephant in the room.  I don't have faith in man to ever wake up until of course its too late. 

 

Wait Kerry flying on a private plane spewing CO2 while his limo on standby spewing CO2 while he talks global warming is just "propaganda". LMAO. This is what I am talking about regarding political perspectives. If you can't recognize the hypocrisy and the absolute Marie Antoinette moment than you need to look harder. If we are going to depend on government leaders to lead do you NOT THINK their own acts should set the standards for those they govern? Do you really think that he or anyone should get a pass because in their minds, they deserve "offsets" because in their minds the good the do is worth more than what they pollute not just from their private jet but from their mouth? It is anything but propaganda. It is telling of the whole mess of those who govern with NO accountability and who are so easily bought off. 

 

The switching to EV by the general population I find interesting. Again, I am NOT against it but it does need to be put into perspective. It kind of reminds me of the draught mess in CA. Taking a short shower is nice because it may make you feel like you are doing something but it really is doing almost nothing. Same with "transportation". 29% of American CO2 comes from transportation. 60% of that comes from cars and light trucks. So if every American converted to EV with a PERFECT grid we could reduce global CO2 by just 2%. Also, we need to recognize that it takes 30,000 miles of driving an EV before its benefits outweigh ICE detriments to the environment so a perfect grid really only reduces global CO2 emissions by 1.4%. All it takes is a month of manufacturing by China to mitigate all the benefit of converting every light truck and car in America to an EV with a perfect grid. Which of course brings up the next case of real "renewable" energy which is another fabrication since so much of it is hydroelectric, the further towards the equator, the more the methane (as well as ecological disasters which isn't counted). We count CO2 in 80 year cycles. Unfortunately methane has 88 times the greenhouse effect as CO2 but because it takes 10 years to convert to CO2 its effect is mitigate when using the 80 year cycle which really underestimates the effect. 

 

Personally, I like to recognize the reality, they hypocrisy and the future. Our current micro perspective and vilification of those who can make little change is counterproductive to what is really necessary which few have the spine to enact or even just recognize. 

[Priaptor]

2 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

Wanna fix it without governments.? You seem to have really moved to the left... 😉

That is what you got out of my rant?  LMAO. 

 

No, what my comments claim is that the current corrupt government can and will not fix it. When the leader of the free world admits that there is 15% fraud in abuse in the largest social program they oversee, I think there is a problem. When laws are passed that benefit some at the expense of most there is a problem. When laws that others have to abide by, like insider trading or failure to pay taxes weaponized against some while those in power skate free, there is something wrong. When a 2 trillion dollar company can buy off a politician with just a couple of hundred grand worth of influence there is something wrong. 

 

Lastly, when, like in American, we have these appointed bodies failing to really be held accountable under the Delegation of Powers clause, it is literally a setup for fraud and abuse which has literally spiraled out of control with ZERO accountability except for some scam hearing for the clapping seals in front of the computers while nothing is ever done. 

[Priaptor]

4 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Governments are elected to serve the people but abide to the will of big money corporations.

So we need different, honest, competent people in Government. But many voters seem too irrationally attached to parties (as if they were football clubs), and quite a few are suspicious of coalitions.

 

After the most recent financial crisis Icelanders arrested the bankers and the government and took control of country. It may not have had the perfect outcome but it could be a way of balancing the powers. But it requires civilized and educated populations and competent and honest people willing to come forth and occupy the leading roles. Not many countries would survive such a revolution and the result would be chaos.

Yeah, Iceland did do some good. Agree. America has become a joke politically as has most of the world. The internet has made people dumb not smarter. They have become the copy and paste fact checkers rather than doing some primary research into the aspects of what they claim to be experts in. 

 

One thing Iceland is NOW facing though, ironically, is the potential total instability of their infrastructure and environment as these trillion dollar corporations try to manipulate their government and people with the big $$ of large cloud warehouses that Iceland appears to be "perfect" for. 

[Priaptor]

2 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Ok so we now have a couple of tools we can use:

 

- our vote

 

- our buying choices

 

Perhaps the answer is to stop buying from Apple. In fact the answer may have to come to reducing consumption and increasing corporate profit tax and hunt down tax evasion and shut down tax heavens to re-balance the scales.

US and European governments have been invading countries and toppling regimes for the good of their patrons, the big corporations. Perhaps, through the UN, they should instead be imposing sanctions on regimes/states that harbour money laundry and tax evasion.

Call me a cynic, but the UN, international courts, etc. may be more be more corrupt, duplicitous and economically as well as politically motivated as any local, state or federal government. Don't disagree with the premise just don't trust those you name. 

[Priaptor]

2 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Outdated or practically inexistent (in the case of the UK) constitutions might need a rethink. And they should strive for accountability.

Biggest problems with laws and the Constitution as I see it is the justification and rationalization by some to ignore them with ZERO accountability. The problem with replacing or amending a Constitution is what makes you think those who break the laws now will follow them in the future when no one is held accountable now? Or when a precedent is set that it is OK for some to ignore the laws why others with new laws won't justify the breaking of new laws or Constitutions. 

[Priaptor]

4 minutes ago, semente said:

 

It is a time when democratic governments should stick together and face the money. (but corruption...and nationalist populism)

Well you can't just pigeon hole one POV regarding populism. I don't know, if I look at "nationalist populism" on face value, there is something to be said about the national populist (here in the US)  wanting to bring manufacturing to a cleaner manufacturer like the USA compared to China (and others). There may be no bigger "national populist" than China despite what the mainstream media would have you ignore.

 

The point being terms and tags are just that. We have manipulated the term to mean all bad when in fact, there may be "some" good. Of course, is not the first requirement of a Country's government to look out for the benefit of their citizens? We can tag that as some egregious "national populist" movement but there is room for looking out for the citizens of one's countries as well as to have a cogent, respectable and economically rational world stage approach without the pigeon holing. 

[Priaptor]

28 minutes ago, PYP said:

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.  

Don’t disagree that the individual shouldn’t act appropriately. I live every day in a manner I wish all would live, whether it be environmentally cogent, charitable and law abiding. I have never said or implied that what the other guy does or what we should or shouldn’t be doing should impact what me, as an individual does

 

However, hiding reality from people or manipulating the facts or stats in order to propagandize while ignoring the elephant in the room not only ignores the biggest impediment to fixing things but to a certain extent will breed cynicism of some to say screw it and oppose things on an individual basis. To a certain extent we are currently witnessing this unfortunate paradigm regarding people making the wrong choice regarding COVID vaccines 

[Priaptor]

44 minutes ago, semente said:

 

If we particularise then it becomes a thesis or treaty, not a forum chat over a cup of tea.

 

Nationalism and patriotism are not the same in my view. And even though the goal of a government is to zeal and provide for its citizens I find it morally debatable that such goals can be achieve at any cost (ecological or for example at the demise of citizens of another nation). The US is too powerful for the good of us Earth dwellers, particularly when a nationalist populism takes control of the helm.

It’s not binary and the two are not mutually exclusive. While the mainstream media would love and does love to pose those against, for example, what is going on at the US southern border as nationalist right wing zealots the reality is quite different. It’s easy to frame this and other patriotic/nationalistic arguments in a propagandist way but as I said the reality is quite different. You can frame the description anyway you want with whatever terminology you want but the “globalist” may be more dangerous than the nationalist in absolute terms. 

[Priaptor]

China power crunch spreads, shutting factories and dimming growth outlook | Reuters

 

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. 

 

And The Band Played On.

 

Nothing threatens our environment as well as global economies for that matter than what this article illustrates. 

[Priaptor]

32 minutes ago, PYP said:

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?

I saw that and this has been China’s mantra for awhile BUT this is the same China who also claims to never have had more than 150 COVID cases per day, the same China who can’t be trusted in any policy claim whether it be Hong Kong, human rights violations or Taiwan and the list goes on and on. 

 

The fact that the second biggest economy gets a by from these Paris Accords tells us all we know

 

Personally I don’t trust them and the only way to get them to acquiesce to global demands is monetarily (of course will never happen with today’s governments) because their word means nothing. 
 

This incident is eye opening. Their answer let’s burn more coal.

[Priaptor]

37 minutes ago, PYP said:

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."

Thanks. 

 

That was actually a good article. Finally people are starting to understand that the approach MUST involved carbon removal. 

 

I have been following the company Carbon Engineering for awhile now and the technology has been rapidly moving forward. The author also poignantly says "The strongest opposition to geoengineering research stems from fear that the technology will be exploited by the powerful to maintain the status quo". That is EXACTLY what is happening now with our manufacturing with our biggest companies, on the one hand claiming to support the fight against global warming with participation locally while lobbying very successfully to maintain their status quo of manufacturing in the dirtiest countries in the world. 

 

I understand the author's points, don't disagree with most of what he says, however, just a bit of caution in using some examples to justify the claims of Armageddon.

 

1. Most our "more severe storms" really is how you measure them. There has been lots of controversy regarding this. Of course when measured from a "destructive" standpoint we are worse off because so many more people and so much more infrastructure now resides where these storms hit. Also, statistical modeling is very difficult regarding a planet that is billions of years old, when some of the more recent climate changes, have had such huge impacts on the time in which we actually have records; the mini-ice age is one such example.

2. Another example is the impact of glaciation which most people just don't understand and some that do manipulate the data to claim the end is near. In the US for example, the Wisconsin Glaciation, which started 100,000 years ago and is in its final stages of retraction has been so misunderstood and so manipulated by climate propagandists to be laughable. Of course our glaciers are retracting faster than anticipated BUT much (not all) is the miscalculation from years past of how glaciers actually retract.

3. Lastly, the flooding that is used to rationalize global climate change is also, often, not always a myth. Nothing illustrates this more than SE Florida. Everyone now acknowledges the horrendous flooding in parts of Miami and Ft. Lauderdale with just a little rain; as little as 1". Interesting that just a few miles north, no such flooding happens?  Once again, I think Mr. Keith, author of that article hits the nail on the head with his claim about "the powerful wanting to maintain status quo". The flooding problem is hardly the effect of climate change but everything to do with overbuilding, interfering drainage and the underlying water table so vital to the health of SE FL.  These irresponsible building patterns has literally put the Everglades at risk and is responsible for red tides along the west coast AND THE BAND PLAYED ON because the wealthy can sit there and blame climate change for their utterly irresponsible building activities. 

4. Sinking cities like Jakarta and Miami are used to illustrate climate change. Well, again, this is more to do with interfering with proper drainage into the necessary underlying water tables that allow both cities to exist. Putting pylons in may be a short term fix to some that want to build a 5 million dollar home on make believe land that the Corp Of Engineers constructed 100 years ago but mother nature doesn't like that especially when the supporting underlying water table is destroyed. 

 

The point of the above of course is not to mitigate the threat but to recognize that much of the claims out there are to, as the author claims, "to maintain the status quo" while irresponsible building wreaks havoc on our environment; whether that be huge high rise complexes with fragile underlying water tables, dams, etc. 

 

In any case, thanks good article. 

[Priaptor]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

There are now 30 days a year of fair weather flooding in Miami. There's never been any drainage, as the water table is a couple of feet below ground, so there's nowhere to drain to. (I used to experience this during storms when I lived there for several years.)

 

Within my lifetime (I'm in my mid-60s), the number of days per year of fair weather flooding in Miami is projected to reach 150.

Not sure what you are referring to.  
 

I have met with more engineers than I care to name and have met with and attended more hearings than I care to have attended and there is no doubt that the problem especially in Brickell is inadequate drainage starving the Everglades and leading to other ecological disasters in S FL.  The same catastrophic reason for flooding in the Ft Lauderdale area. The combination of inappropriate drainage, with king tides during a storm with overflow into the intracoastal has required changes in building codes. 
 

The relationship between flooding in areas of Dade and Broward is literally linear to the overbuilding. You think there had never been drainage in Miami?  I think you need to study the complex ecosystem of drainage in the area. There was always drainage and the interference with it has literally wreaked havoc. 
 

Between the overbuilding, stagnation of water and sugar industry getting a by the perfect storm has occurred in SE FL. 
 

Feel free to blame it on global warming if you like. By no means am I ignoring global warming but the current ecological catastrophe of SE FL is hardly that   
 

As I said: And The Band Played On. 

[Priaptor]

30 minutes ago, PYP said:

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 I think that illustrates my point in prior posts. Those who claim to be most concerned about the environment do the bait and switch. Apple will continue to use the dirtiest manufacturers to make their products as the author of the article you reference said the biggest enemy is status quo 

[Priaptor]

Just now, Jud said:

 

I agree that overbuilding has had a tremendous negative impact. My reference to fair weather flooding was meant to emphasize a dimension of the problem where rainwater and drainage aren't involved.

 

South Florida is a very thin layer of dirt and fresh water overlying porous ancient mangrove swamps and coral reefs with seawater flowing through it. The mechanism of fair weather flooding is that the seawater rises and pushes the fresh water layer above ground level. As climate warms and sea level rises, this is happening more often.

Thanks for the clarification. Don't disagree and what you reference as you indicate will get worse as climate change gets worse and as a result of the overbuilding in this fragile ecosystem will have a much more amplified effect than to the contrary, I don't have much hope the Everglades can be saved. Kind of like the Colorado River Delta, too many inertia to care about the ecological and environmental catastrophes. We now release a little bit of water to the delta to give some "life" which winds up doing more damage. Another discussion for another time. Crazy. 

[Priaptor]

5 hours ago, semente said:

 

"Inertia" is not a word I would use to characterise most governments... Let's say that they been kept busy with other affairs.

What about "corruption"?

Revealed: Pandora papers unmask owners of offshore-held UK property worth £4bn

Analysis of leak identifies 600 previously anonymous owners from world leaders to monarchs and oligarchs

 

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/oct/05/pandora-papers-reveal-true-owners-offshore-held-uk-property-london

I think inertia describes whatever processes have been used in the past, regardless of success, failure or legality but is easier to continue than change, including OF COURSE, but not limited to, corruption. 

[Priaptor]

2 hours ago, sphinxsix said:

Owning and using a car in Amsterdam is very problematic - parking permits are expensive and you can wait for one for months. The city is relatively small and there are 3x more bikes in it than cars.

Despite all of that I can sense the difference in the air quality when I get back to Leiden.

More and more scientists are convinced that the quality of air that we breath is a key factor as far as our health is regarded.

 

A citizens’ initiative calling for a ban on private car use in central Berlin would create the largest car-free urban area in the world.

 

Bike parkings in A'dam (a parking for 30 000 bikes is being built in Utrecht).

 

 

 

Air Pollution Linked To Millions Of Premature Births In 2019, Study Finds (forbes.com)

 

For those interested, I link the above. Their math is "fuzzy" and don't necessarily agree with the article in total, however, the absolute results are not the take away but the obvious association between air pollution and health is the key here. 

 

Also, no better city demonstrates the causal relationship than Hanoi. Hanoi is important for a variety of reasons. One is the obvious. The other is to shove it in our faces just how duplicitous our "green" desires are. We ship our manufacturing away to the biggest polluters and make believe all is good as we strive for expensive, minor influences locally. Yes I know I am a broken record, but sometimes that is what is necessary, for everyone to get it. 

[Priaptor]

21 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?’

 

 

Simply brilliant (with an accent on 'simply')...

 

Well this moron was elected and still serves and he isn't even the dumbest in DC. If we are going to start quoting morons in DC the thread isn't big enough. 

 

 

[Priaptor]

15 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

I must admit that I agree with the ones who say that the world needs not only environmental but also systemic change (I didn't always think so, except for my late teens when I felt lots of sympathy for the idea of anarchosyndicalism). 

A really good article, IMO:

 

Think big on climate: the transformation of society in months has been done before

 

 

I like to read all sides in order to frame my opinions and arguments. I find the Guardian not to be too credible but then again as you know I have a conservative slant to things. 

 

To compare the pernicious effects of climate change to the immediate assault of world order regarding Nazism and WWII is beyond absurd, even for the Guardian. Don't buy the comparison. Will refrain from the ever pervasive strawman argument always used on the NET. 

[Priaptor]

1 hour ago, sphinxsix said:

That was my first thought while reading this as well.

But let's think for a moment.

In 1988 when James Hansen warned about the danger, the need to act wasn't that urgent yet, just like in 1989 when George Bush said: "Those who think we are powerless to do anything about the greenhouse effect forget about the 'White House effect'". 

Is it still not urgent nowadays.?

Some scientists say we're past some tipping points and the consequences can be deadly serious.

Are you sure they will not be as serious as the consequences of the WWII or even more.?

Michael Oppenheimer who testified at the same 1988 hearing said:
"I’m convinced we will deal with the problem, but not before there is an amount of suffering that is unconscionable and should’ve been avoided.”....

And now, after 30 years that the 'White House effect' has finally a chance to begin to exist in some way, it still encounters obstacles from people who, let's say 'have a conservative slant to things'.

I must say frankly, I was really surprised to see you posting here, I somehow can't understand how a person clearly caring about environment and simply about the future can have political sympathies like that. 

Please don't take it too personally, it's simply slightly beyond my imagination and your eventual comment on that is more than welcome 

It's funny you see that my conservative POV is inconsistent with caring about the environment. I truly shake my head at "liberals" who believe failed policies of taxing and over-regulation leads to good or can fix anything. In fact, many of the policies instituted under FDR (as listed in the Guardian) have done some of the greatest damage to our environment, income redistribution, healthcare and political system than just about any POTUS in history, but I digress.

 

As a Conservative, the government picking winners and losers just doesn't jive with me. As a Conservative and NOT a Republican (as I think both parties are tainted by corporate $) with some appropriate (not stifling) regulations I think normal and competitive market forces will lead to a better and cleaner environment. A perfect example and by no means the only one, when egregious regulations and stifling taxes were applied to corporate America, how did they act? They moved to China where they basically have a license to pollute, license to abuse human rights as well as avoid taxes that are needed in their country of origin. Liberals like to impose restrictions and high taxes on their own people while allowing the biggest polluters to escape the same restrictions, as we witness in the Paris Accord. Of course corporate America who were screaming at the onset of this dislocation, have over the years embraced the lower costs and regulations but may regret those decisions as their oasis of escape of regulations, taxes and higher cost labor are going to be offset by countries like China "developing" leading to higher labor costs and of course what we are now seeing much higher transportation costs. I can't endorse knee jerk tax and spend policies with the promise that it will lead to a cleaner environment when there is no proof that any such thing will occur with some of the liberal policies. To the contrary their cure, as is often the case (as well as most DC elite), is worse than the disease. I understand people may feel good but little has or will happen with these policies and if we are really going to take climate change as seriously as you and The Guardian want, a real change in behavior MUST start by eliminating the dependence of the US, EU, etc on the biggest polluters in the world. That is a fundamental change that can occur much quicker and have much more impact than some of the quasi change of behavior suggested by the article you refer to. 

 

While I don't want to rehash the Solyndra debacle I think like any industry when competition is removed from the market place by government picking the winners adoption of technology not only slows to a halt but can often (as in our drilling) leading to devastating consequences. I am also not so naive as to think a world without regulations and oversight is "good" but as I always say (from my Conservative perch) is that where it begins is NEVER where it ends; I could literally point to just about every "liberal" policy and make examples. We now have endless number of regulatory bodies with literally no oversight totally violating the Delegation of Powers clause. There is so much special interest swaying policy that it is ludicrous and counterproductive. Our leaders in DC (and elsewhere) are pathetic and their obvious scorn for the lay people is despicable.  If they have no regard to follow the policies, rules, regulations and laws either personally or locally, by state or nationally when they disagree with the political narrative then these laws are not only ineffective but the rule of law just breaks down. 

 

Again, Conservatism in the true sense has much in common with preserving the environment. I think the propaganda of those on left has a compelling message because it is easy to "feel" good about others paying the bill and the individual doing some simple things for the greater good but the real sacrifice required, few will really want to endure. 

 

[Priaptor]

20 minutes ago, PYP said:

The overarching point is:  

 

"The difference between 1941 and 2021 is that now the mobilisation needs to come first. We need to build popular movements so big that governments have no choice but to respond to them, if they wish to remain in office. We need to make politicians understand that the survival of life on Earth is more important than their ideological commitment to limited government. Preventing Earth’s systems from flipping means flipping our political systems."

 

And, while not wanting to compare anything to Nazism, it is clear that climate change will affect every human on the planet with a potential timeframe of forever.   What do we compare that to?    

Do you really think any developed country or their governments are truly committed to climate change?  As I have regurgitated over and over again on this thread, nothing even close compares to the CO2 and other pollutants being spewed into our planet's biggest polluters such as China, India, Indonesia and Viet Nam who we not only support by shipping our manufacturing to but are now literally dependent on them as this COVID crisis has proved.  But what me worry, when I can save a few bucks on an iPhone and sleep well knowing that Apple claims to go "carbon neutral" by 2040. Or we can all pretend we are doing something by supporting clean energy and willing to pay carbon taxes or some other minuscule nonsense when the absolute root cause of the overwhelming pollution and CO2 emissions this planet NOW faces and is also the easiest to fix will not be addressed because the companies benefitting the most buy and pay for those leaders who claim they care.

 

Time for people to unplug from The Matrix. I hear the propaganda being foisted and the usual talking points against what I say; USA per capita CO2, USA biggest polluter if you add all years since the industrial revolution, you don't want underdeveloped countries afforded the same benefit you have, it is impossible to untangle from China, on and on. If global warming and climate change represent the dire emergency that is claimed then there is no better bang for the buck and no faster way to reverse course than by incentivizing companies to manufacture in clean countries. Trust me, the cost of doing that will be much cheaper than the hair brained schemes under consideration where the biggest polluters are held to virtually no standards. 

 

Our governments are now controlled by corporations not the reverse. I am under no false illusion that our governments can or will change. The electorate are too ill informed and busy getting their info from cut and paste articles as their sources and so easily propagandized.