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

[sphinxsix]

On 9/14/2020 at 3:47 PM, semente said:

 

 

In Leiden, where I live I mostly use my car to do some more substantial shopping, beside that I mostly use a bike. I rarely walk - I like to bike..  I admit I haven't driven as little as recently during the corona crisis, in years. Last Sunday I decided to go to Amsterdam by car. When I sat behind the wheel (after putting the bike into the car of course!) I had noticed there were spider webs on both side mirrors of the vehicle.. 

Some statistics - there are 2.1 more bikes than cars in the Netherlands.

In Amsterdam this number increases to 3 times.. 

 

Three years ago the biggest bike parking garage was opened in Utrecht with the planned space for 22 000 bikes in the future..

 

https://www.dw.com/en/utrecht-opens-worlds-biggest-bicycle-parking-lot/a-40184815

 

[sphinxsix]

Back in the 80s James Hansen warned about the possible consequences of the global warming and its causes. 30 years later his predictions proved to be very accurate. In 1989 George Bush said: "Those who think we are powerless to do anything about the greenhouse effect forget about the 'White House effect'; as President, I intend to do something about it,''.
Let's go back in time for a minute - this is an article from The New York Times from the same year (1989) which ends with the sentence:
"The threat [of the global warming] cannot be addressed unless America assumes a major role. Far from leading the charge, the White House hasn't even joined it.".

 

https://www.nytimes.com/…/the-white-house-and-the-greenhous…

 

This OTOH is an article from The Guardian published in 2018 on the 30th anniversary of James Hansen's US Senate testimony. It ends with the quote from the climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer who testified at the same 1988 hearing about sea level rise:
"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.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/…/james-hansen-nasa-scientist-c…

 

We, humans proudly call ourselves - homo sapiens.

 

Encyclopædia Britannica:
"Homo sapiens, (Latin: “wise man”) the species to which all modern human beings belong. Homo sapiens is one of several species grouped into the genus Homo, but it is the only one that is not extinct."

 

I'm leaving the conclusions to all the followers of this thread.. 

 

[semente]

8 hours ago, sphinxsix said:

Back in the 80s James Hansen warned about the possible consequences of the global warming and its causes. 30 years later his predictions proved to be very accurate. In 1989 George Bush said: "Those who think we are powerless to do anything about the greenhouse effect forget about the 'White House effect'; as President, I intend to do something about it,''.
Let's go back in time for a minute - this is an article from The New York Times from the same year (1989) which ends with the sentence:
"The threat [of the global warming] cannot be addressed unless America assumes a major role. Far from leading the charge, the White House hasn't even joined it.".

 

https://www.nytimes.com/…/the-white-house-and-the-greenhous…

 

This OTOH is an article from The Guardian published in 2018 on the 30th anniversary of James Hansen's US Senate testimony. It ends with the quote from the climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer who testified at the same 1988 hearing about sea level rise:
"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.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/…/james-hansen-nasa-scientist-c…

 

We, humans proudly call ourselves - homo sapiens.

 

Encyclopædia Britannica:
"Homo sapiens, (Latin: “wise man”) the species to which all modern human beings belong. Homo sapiens is one of several species grouped into the genus Homo, but it is the only one that is not extinct."

 

I'm leaving the conclusions to all the followers of this thread.. 

 

 

It big corporations and common people who put men in charge of the white house...

[John Dyson]

This whole CO2 thing is complex..   Some countries do regulation different than others.  Some countries succeed by different kinds of regulation...

 

I just recently started looking at the CO2 stats, and the information is *interesting.*   Even though the one of the major polluters (US)  hasn't been pushing international regulation, they have generally been in a montonically downward per-capita usage.  The closest country to compare with (a nearby neighbor) hasn't had a monotonic decrease.  A lot of EU countries have a wobbling per-capita, sometimes decreasing, sometimes increasing.   There are other countries who are effectively ballooning, and that is where the squeeky wheel is.  This shows me that talking/rhetoric about a problem is not the same as being effective at solving it.

 

As long as there is ongoing decrease -- not just dependent on economic variations -- then something is being done correctly.  Where there are increases -- there AT LEAST should be local tweaks to help push downward.   (For example, instead of new coal plants, go to natural gas.)   Where I live, I see windmills all over the place where the wind is 'right', and those nations going to that level of even frustratingly marginal benefit -- that is a good thing.  Some nations don't have the much of the right kind of interface between land and water -- but some places can do well by taking advantage of tides, some nations have easy access to geothermal.   IMO, almost any situation that is using new coal (legacy is less to be criticized, but needs to eventually change) is going backwards.

 

There are all kinds of things that go into needed energy usage, including lots of legacy industry and different sizes of the countries requiring more travel (less important recently because of COVID.)   Trending down is good -- any nation that maintains a monotonic trend downwards just needs encouragement.  Nations that bounce around need to better understand the problem, and work to solve it.   Nations that are simply grossly increasing need STRONG encouragement that they will notice.   Emerging nations actually have a real advantage -- because they can make the right choices NOW.   On the other hand, even with the cost of change, many of those already with infrastructure are working the issue, and those with downward numbers show that.

 

IMO -- just look at the recent numbers, work on the problem where usage & per-capita usage are going up, and make the changes (actual changes) that work well within the local culture and governmental scheme.   Edicts will never work and will not optimize the results.

 

There is always the pressure of economic forces -- if you work to save CO2, then someone else will do the 'easy thing' and simply generate more.   There CAN be some economic advantage to that -- perhaps some kind of tax on coal might be a good thing.  That will not destroy current coal industries, but will push back to find better forms of energy that are easy to manage the CO2.  (A general tax on CO2 won't fix the problem -- it will just generally raise the cost/overhead until technology has caught up -- still have some years before that scheme would be beneficial, but maybe not all that many decades.)

 

As you can tell -- my thinking is evolutionary but not revolutionary.   Revolution creats chaos and will definitely hurt the most vulnerable now.   There is a happy medium, and the best way to fix software bugs, or fix other bugs -- look at the data, see where the increases are.   (The static values are also important, but as long as there are decreases, there is progress being made.)   Doesn't take a lot of regression to totally undo all of the other peoples progress.

 

The  most efficient way to make progress on the problem, because of the resource and inability to focus globally, is to focus where the growth problem is.

 

John

 

[semente]

On 9/19/2020 at 3:24 AM, John Dyson said:

I just recently started looking at the CO2 stats, and the information is *interesting.*   Even though the one of the major polluters (US)  hasn't been pushing international regulation, they have generally been in a montonically downward per-capita usage.  The closest country to compare with (a nearby neighbor) hasn't had a monotonic decrease.  A lot of EU countries have a wobbling per-capita, sometimes decreasing, sometimes increasing.   There are other countries who are effectively ballooning, and that is where the squeeky wheel is.  This shows me that talking/rhetoric about a problem is not the same as being effective at solving it.

 

Has the montonically downward per-capita usage in the US dropped to or below average EU wobbling per-capita usage levels?

 

How does it compare?

[John Dyson]

23 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Has the montonically downward per-capita usage in the US dropped to or below average EU wobbling per-capita usage levels?

 

How does it compare?

Per-capita is higher, but the US has lots of disadvantages, including old & original  infrastructure.  Progress is being made monotonically  though.

The nearby neighbor, with less industry does have similar per-capita.  The nearby neighbor has much stronger policies than the US, but not monotonic decrease.

 

I am NOT claiming that the US is some perfect use of CO2, but instead that political command regulation itself doesn't solve the problem.   The best way to do things is in an ORGANIC approach rather than command economy.

 

I am pretty sure that if the US took the command approach, many events would not have happend, and there would not have been a monotonic decrease.

 

So, I am not arguing virtue of pre-existing conditions.  I am arguing for the virtue of organic/semi-free market approaches instead of political, command decision approaches   This is especially true when there are political  'punishers' in this world, and those who take advantage of false-status (those strong economies, INCREASING pollution more than we all could decrease, increasing the use of coal, but still  claiming third world status.)

 

Command approaches create non-productive forcing functions, but a strong guidance with an 'organic' system doesnt' distort progress with strange driving functions.

 

Here is another example -- the US has massive natural gas that does NOT need development of new resources - it is the side effect of other energy product.  Instead, there are countries who are purchasing natural gas from political/strategic enemies who are developing new resources.   That 'command'/political decision instead of optimizing the problem at hand creates inefficiency and needless excess production.

 

Organic approaches, with decreasing CO2 production has allowed the US to be able to economically defend itself better from external entities who had effectively forced it to do things that are contrary to their interests.   The ultimate inefficiency is being twisted into external political/military conflictcs -- but the independence removes that distortion.  Basically, this has opened up more freedom to be free.

 

This is not at all about the virtue of any one country, it is about the virtue of organic instead of political command decisions.  In a larger scale sense, the old command economies are an extreme case of the command folly.

 

John

 

[semente]

As with Covid, will the Capitalist West prove less efficient at tackling Climate Change than Socialist China?

 

Has the world started to take climate change fight seriously?

A surprise announcement at this year's UN General Assembly has transformed the politics of cutting carbon, says the BBC's chief environment correspondent, Justin Rowlatt. As the meeting of the so-called "global parliament" comes to an end, he asks whether it might just signal the beginning of a global rush to decarbonise.

 

You probably missed the most important announcement on tackling climate change in years.

It was made at the UN General Assembly.

It wasn't the big commitment to protect biodiversity or anything to do with the discussion about how to tackle the coronavirus pandemic - vitally important though these issues are.

No, the key moment came on Tuesday last week when the Chinese President, Xi Jinping, announced that China would cut emissions to net zero by 2060.

The commitment is a huge deal on its own, but I believe his promise marks something even more significant: China may have fired the starting gun on what will become a global race to eliminate fossil fuels.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54347878

 

 

 

 

[John Dyson]

On 9/30/2020 at 7:19 AM, semente said:

As with Covid, will the Capitalist West prove less efficient at tackling Climate Change than Socialist China?

 

Has the world started to take climate change fight seriously?

A surprise announcement at this year's UN General Assembly has transformed the politics of cutting carbon, says the BBC's chief environment correspondent, Justin Rowlatt. As the meeting of the so-called "global parliament" comes to an end, he asks whether it might just signal the beginning of a global rush to decarbonise.

 

You probably missed the most important announcement on tackling climate change in years.

It was made at the UN General Assembly.

It wasn't the big commitment to protect biodiversity or anything to do with the discussion about how to tackle the coronavirus pandemic - vitally important though these issues are.

No, the key moment came on Tuesday last week when the Chinese President, Xi Jinping, announced that China would cut emissions to net zero by 2060.

The commitment is a huge deal on its own, but I believe his promise marks something even more significant: China may have fired the starting gun on what will become a global race to eliminate fossil fuels.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54347878

 

 

 

 

Communist countries have a history of not meeting their goals.   Sometimes, in other cases, lofty goals distort progress also.

It isn't that I am claiming that there is anything wrong with Chinas goals -- but it would be a 'great leap forward' if they did.  Maybe multiple 5 yr plans might allow changing some directions in the meantime?  (I am using some coded language here.)

 

Are they still building new coal plants?

 

When the US quits making progress, then maybe some careful nudges might be in order.  Same for other countries.

Even a few bounces in the CO2 production aren't all that bad, as long as the trend is in the right direction.

 

 

John

 

[sphinxsix]

58 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Communist countries have a history of not meeting their goals.   Sometimes, in other cases, lofty goals distort progress also.

It isn't that I am claiming that there is anything wrong with Chinas goals -- but it would be a 'great leap forward' if they did.

 

+1  

Also the fact that they claim they've set up such goal doesn't necessarily mean they really have, I'm afraid..

I wouldn't trust China (or e.g. Russia) with such things.

 

[semente]

13 hours ago, John Dyson said:

Communist countries have a history of not meeting their goals.   Sometimes, in other cases, lofty goals distort progress also.

It isn't that I am claiming that there is anything wrong with Chinas goals -- but it would be a 'great leap forward' if they did.  Maybe multiple 5 yr plans might allow changing some directions in the meantime?  (I am using some coded language here.)

 

Are they still building new coal plants?

 

When the US quits making progress, then maybe some careful nudges might be in order.  Same for other countries.

Even a few bounces in the CO2 production aren't all that bad, as long as the trend is in the right direction.

 

 

John

 

 

I hope you are right.

 

I do understand that things are different at a Federal level in some parts of the Union but the US does not currently inspire confidence to those sitting on this side of the pond. None at all I'm sad to say...

[sphinxsix]

The today Guardian:

"The Urban Institute estimated that in 2018 more than 1.2 million Americans left their homes for climate-related reasons. One 2018 study, published in the Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, predicts that one in 12 Americans in the southern half of the country will relocate over the next 45 years due to slow-onset climate influences alone. While mega-disasters like the wildfires in the western US capture our attention, slow-onset disasters such as sea-level rise or annual flooding are even more likely to cause permanent displacement.

With such an imminent threat looming over the country – and the world – the time for action is now."

 

climate-change-migration

 

 

[semente]

Also in the Guardian:

 

First new deep coalmine in UK for 30 years gets go ahead

Planning permission granted to Cumbria project that will extract 2.7m tonnes of coal per year

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/oct/02/first-new-deep-coalmine-in-uk-for-30-years-gets-green-light

[sphinxsix]

On 9/30/2020 at 1:19 PM, semente said:

No, the key moment came on Tuesday last week when the Chinese President, Xi Jinping, announced that China would cut emissions to net zero by 2060.

The commitment is a huge deal on its own, but I believe his promise marks something even more significant: China may have fired the starting gun on what will become a global race to eliminate fossil fuels.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54347878

 

On 10/1/2020 at 7:45 PM, John Dyson said:

Communist countries have a history of not meeting their goals.   Sometimes, in other cases, lofty goals distort progress also.

It isn't that I am claiming that there is anything wrong with Chinas goals -- but it would be a 'great leap forward' if they did.  Maybe multiple 5 yr plans might allow changing some directions in the meantime?

 

The Guardian's comment on that:

 

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

 

This page will track a selection of the planet’s vital signs, from carbon dioxide levels to Arctic sea ice, and automatically update from reliable feed sources, providing a visual representation of the climate crisis:

 

Global heating - the vital statistics from a warming world. 

 

 

[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.

[semente]

11 hours ago, PYP said:

 

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.

 

Meanwhile UK and USA struggling to send a very strong "wear a mask" signal...

[semente]

Today The Guardian has a piece on the Count Us In campaign.

 

It's worth visiting the Count Us In website: https://steps.count-us-in.org/

 

[semente]

I understand and respect if Chris decides to remove this post but one cannot avoid alerting to the link between corruption by big Corporations in a thread about the environment.

 

 

[sphinxsix]

It's quite a gloomy part of the thread - the environmental part of it, and that's probably justified, so OTOH some optimism expressed recently by a Guardian journalist.

 

"Leaded petrol, acid rain, CFCs … the last 50 years of environmental action have shown how civil society can force governments and business to change.."

 

Why the green movement can overcome climate crisis.

 

Let's just hope it will work again with much more complex situation we are in.

Have a good day, everybody!  

 

[sphinxsix]

Yesterday Shell attempt to gaslight the public on Twitter..

 

📊 What are you willing to change to help reduce emissions? #EnergyDebate

— Shell (@Shell) November 2, 2020

 

Some of the replies:

 

I’m willing to hold you accountable for lying about climate change for 30 years when you secretly knew the entire time that fossil fuels emissions would destroy our planet 😇 https://t.co/ekj1Va1Cp0

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) November 2, 2020

 

What am I willing to do? Hold you accountable for 2% of cumulative global GHG emissions, equivalent to those of my entire home country of Canada. When you have a concrete plan to address that, I'd be happy to chat about what I'm doing to reduce my personal emissions.

— Prof. Katharine Hayhoe (@KHayhoe) November 2, 2020

 

I don’t know about you, but I sure am willing to call-out-the-fossil-fuel-companies-for-knowingly-destroying-future-living-conditions -for-countless-generations-for profit-and-then-trying-to-distract-people-and-prevent-real-systemic-change-through-endless greenwash-campaigns. https://t.co/O3ReJPv81Q

— Greta Thunberg (@GretaThunberg) November 2, 2020

 

FUCK YOU for permanently destroying our planet and gaslighting us all the while. You had your chance to be part of the solution. Now we're doing everything we can to put you out of business and send your executives to prison and we won't stop. pic.twitter.com/Fmp61ceoOl

— Peter Kalmus (@ClimateHuman) November 2, 2020

 

This is like Freddy Krueger asking what you’re willing to change to get better sleep. https://t.co/NA7WcsZMPG

— Bill Weir (@BillWeirCNN) November 2, 2020

 

 

[semente]

Pathetic b'tards.

[Solstice380]

19 hours ago, semente said:

Pathetic b'tards.

Yeah, the respondents shown above are pathetic.  They have zero perspective.  And they ALWAYS blame someone else.  They are pushing a good cause but blaming the energy companies for what we asked for?  Seriously? Keep sucking up that gas and electricity, people.  They may have provided it but we sure buy it.  It’s like drugs... is the addict or the pusher the problem?

 

Face it, we need and use energy.  We are moving to a greener energy base, but too slowly.  More money needs to be prioritized for improving all the efficiencies.  The golden triangle still holds for this situation: Time, performance, and money.   If you need performance it takes time and money.  If you don’t have money you need time to get performance.  You all know how that one works.  Many people think these things happen instantly, and for free.  I’m not talking just money, either.  What about the kids in Africa digging out Cobalt with their bare hands for batteries and magnets, etc.?  Lithium mines in northern China ravaging the environment?

 

https://www.ft.com/content/c6909812-9ce4-11e9-9c06-a4640c9feebb

 

Can’t just focus on the trees and miss the forest if you really want to solve these problems and not just whine about it. 

 

[sphinxsix]

7 hours ago, Solstice380 said:

Yeah, the respondents shown above are pathetic.  They have zero perspective.  And they ALWAYS blame someone else.  They are pushing a good cause but blaming the energy companies for what we asked for?  Seriously?

 

Are you sure these are the respondents who are pathetic, not Royal Dutch Shell.?

Maybe you'll be interested e.g. in this article:

 

The oil giant Shell issued a stark warning of the catastrophic risks of climate change more than a quarter of century ago in a prescient 1991 film that has been rediscovered.  However, since then the company has invested heavily in highly polluting oil reserves and helped lobby against climate action

 

Some quotes from the article:

'Despite this early and clear-eyed view of the risks of global warming, Shell invested many billions of dollars in highly polluting tar sand operations and on exploration in the Arctic. It also cited fracking as a “future opportunity” in 2016, despite its own 1998 data showing exploitation of unconventional oil and gas was incompatible with climate goals.'

' Shell has recently lobbied successfully to undermine European renewable energy targets and is estimated to have spent $22m in 2015 lobbying against climate policies. The company’s investments in low-carbon energy have been minimal compared to its fossil fuel investments. Shell has also been a member of industry lobby groups that have fought climate action, including the so-called Global Climate Coalition until 1998; the far-right American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec) until 2015; and remains a member of the Business Roundtable and the American Petroleum Institute today.'

'Bill McKibben, a leading US environmentalist, said: “The fact that Shell understood all this in 1991, and that a quarter-century later it was trying to open up the Arctic to oil-drilling, tells you all you’ll ever need to know about the corporate ethic of the fossil fuel industry."

 

Well, I personally didn't ask for any of these and I doubt anyone here did. 

 

One more quote:

 

'Patricia Espinosa, the UN’s climate change chief, said change by the big oil companies was vital to tackling global warming. “They are a big part of the global economy, so if we do not get them on board, we will not be able to achieve this transformation of the economy we need,” she said.

The investments the oil majors are making in clean energy are, Espinosa said, “very small, the activities in which they are engaging are still small and do not have the impact that we really need.”

Espinosa, who visited Shell’s headquarters in the Hague in December, said: “They are clear that this [climate change] agenda has to do with the future of their company and that business as usual, not doing anything, will lead to crisis and losses in their business.”

 

Some more info:

 

Wiki - Royal_Dutch_Shell - Controversies

 

 

[sphinxsix]

BTW On 5 April 2019, Friends of the Earth Netherlands (Milieudefensie) together with six NGOs and more than 17,000 citizens, sued Shell, accusing the company of harming the climate, while knowing about global warming since 1986. 

You may think it's unlikely the case against Shell can be won but here in the Netherlands, a couple of years ago, the environmental group Urgenda with nearly 900 co-plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in against the Dutch government demanding stronger environmental action and has won it:

 

In ‘Strongest’ Climate Ruling Yet, Dutch Court Orders Leaders to Take Action

 

Dutch supreme court upholds landmark ruling demanding climate action

 

 

[semente]

[sphinxsix]

3 hours ago, semente 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..?