We haven't had this one for a while, so lets start out simple with a graph of Average Global Temperature throughout History.
https://i.imgur.com/1jWFCjB.png
I feel it makes the conclusion itself rather evident.
Printable View
We haven't had this one for a while, so lets start out simple with a graph of Average Global Temperature throughout History.
https://i.imgur.com/1jWFCjB.png
I feel it makes the conclusion itself rather evident.
NBC News just called it the great freeze – coldest weather in years. Is our country still spending money on the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX?
I blame the chinese, its all justr a scam to impede US industry.
^Nice Trump quote.
Also loved the Spinal Tap reference in the OP.
:thrasher:
And the Earth has been much warmer and much colder in the past (check longer timelines). And will be again. Life is resilient and our doomsayers are, in part, trying to stop change when change is inevitable.
This is not to deny the partial (possibly substantial) anthropomorphic character of the current increase vector. But the biggest contributor is CO2 and the biggest source is the billions more humans than have ever existed before along with their desire for electric power and what not. The biggest greenhouse gas is our continuing to exhale -- so how many billions need to be euthanized?
Obviously, you are not suggesting anything so Malthusian/Kevorkianesque, nor do I disagree with measures to curtail emissions. Yet the aggressive track suggested above would involve a world-wide depression of epic proportions and would spark untold wars etc. This means that the aggressive option isn't all the appealing either.
We will have to take measures to adapt for survival in a warmer world -- look forward to Saskatchewan grain farms, larger seawalls, and elites who will still end up with the best beachfront property -- even if it IS the Berkshires.
I like how they use "Before Christ Excelsior" and "Christian Era" for the timeline.
As for stopping emissions now causing issues, so will not stopping them. If the earth warms by about 4°C, large parts become uninhabitable and the people from there will have to go somewhere. Then we will get either far more immigrants than we already have or we will have to mass-murder them to prevent them from coming here...
There is another "small" issue with the warming scenario in that it will become uncontrollable beyond a certain point as the permafrost begins to melt and sets free enormous amounts of stored methane, which is a 17 times stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, add to that the methane under arctic ice the limited ability of warm water to store CO2, the increase of water in the air, which also has a greenhouse effect...
Surely it may reverse after a few thousand years, but what do we do until then?
I also agree that the number of humans overall is an issue. A lot of people say the planet can sustain even a lot more, but that argument forgets that they all also want to consume more and more... http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33133712
That's right, if all our current humans lived like Americans, we'd need a little over 4 earths to sustain that consumption ressource-wise...
Germany is somewhere close to France in the region of 2.5 earths, but then again I've criticized Europe plenty for taking away other peoples' resources.
And this probably doesn't even account for the use of resources that will end one day.
Keep in mind that oil for example is also a vital ingredient for many medications, then consider that they already found virii below the ice or in the permafrost that weren't around for some 20000 years or so, virii we might be almost helpless against...
Is it really clever to burn such a resource away within a few years just to not have to sit next to strangers on the way to work for example?
https://www.fastcoexist.com/1680136/...s-we-have-left
And to think that a lot of people view a shrinking population as bad because the economy can't grow (and use even more resources...)
Billions of people existing on this planet - CO2. Fine.
But having a ton of air pollutants. A ton of extra CO2. Not fine.
We either do something about it pretty quickly - adopt greener cars, and improve electric cars such as Teslas (although those pose environmental problems too, just not CO2 - we're not efficient at disposing of millions of big batteries yet), curtail emissions, more filters on polluting factories... and fast. Fine.
We don't do the above. Not fine.
Ok wait, that's not fine either. Not fine ^2. It's going to be horrific actually.
Here's a map for reference:
Attachment 18904
Source: https://universe-review.ca/F10-multicell18.htm
They also have some scenarios and so on on that site.
Now just imagine what happens if/when all the people from the yellow and brown areas are forced to move to the green areas...the immigration scares of today will seem small in comparison. And that's assuming they will just begin to migrate over time and not try to invade in force...
This isn't true at all, and I distinctly remember you being corrected on it last time.
The physical presence of more humans actually sequesters carbon from the atmosphere. The carbon that is exhaled is cycled, not added to the atmosphere as that carbon is taken from the atmosphere to begin with to become the food we eat...
The actions resulting from additional humans living on this planet is the real impact, as our emissions from industry, transportation and agriculture (think cows) are the main drivers of CO2/methane concentrations and thus climate change.
To be honest talking about the economy just highlights the lack of understanding about this issue. It's not about preventing a hotter Earth, its about preventing an Earth from getting hotter much, much faster than the biosphere can withstand. Will the economy keep growing if 40% of the biological diversity on Earth collapses and our seas acidify to the point where the coral reefs are all bleached and unable to support life?
Wait arent cows also part of the cycle that nullifies human co2 production?Quote:
agriculture (think cows) are the main drivers of CO2/methane concentrations and thus climate change.
Take longer periods, you will see nothing weird
A greener world less reliant on oil is good in a number of ways, even if you disagree with the OP's argument. In the longer term, there is the effect of less sustained release of carbon currently locked in fossil fuels. More immediately, it means less reliance on the goodwill of the middle east, where there is none for us. For Europe, it also means less reliance on Russia.
Methane is not stable in the atmosphere, and is converted into carbon dioxide in 8-9 years on average (it's also vulnerable to UV radiation, which is why its discovery on Mars is interesting):
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/fe...00409_methane/Quote:
In the lower part of the atmosphere, below about 10-12 km (the troposphere), the key cycles are mediated above all by the presence of what are called OH radicals — colloquially known as the atmospheric detergent. All hydrocarbon chemical species that are emitted can be eventually broken down (or oxidized) by these radicals to CO2 and H2O, and methane is no exception. An average molecule of CH4 lasts around eight to nine years before it gets oxidized. This is a long time compared to most atmospheric chemicals but is fast enough so that there can be significant year-to-year variability.
Thus, the direct effect of this methane should not last long as it comes from a storage that will deplete.
I was referring to CO2 produced through breathing, as you had just said:
I wondered why there isnt a cycle for methane, considering that there has almost certainly been methane production on the same scale as our current cow population throughout the planet's history (somehow I dont believe that dinosaurs didnt have similar bodily functions as modern bovine.) That earth hasnt turned into mars from it indicates there must be some countering force.Quote:
The carbon that is exhaled is cycled, not added to the atmosphere as that carbon is taken from the atmosphere to begin with to become the food we eat...
I presume you mean Venus, although Venus has an atmosphere of 96% carbon dioxide.
I thought we were talking methane.
Yes, and you seemed to be asking why the earth doesn't have more methane than it does. If methane could just accumulate, the planet would get hotter and hotter and thus more similar to Venus; which is a planet with a very strong greenhouse effect. Mars, on the other hand, is a very cold place.
Climate change is not really at issue; with 90+% of scientists agreeing, that's about as settled as you get.
The issue is "pay now or pay later".
There will be a cost to moving from fossil fuels to renewables; offset over time by reductions in health care and expanding tech, engineering and infrastructure opportunities.
Or we pay later in damage control; war, famine and (perhaps) massive human migration. These things all exist...it's just a matter of scale...
So we try to cshock-release all the methane at once by heating the earth as fast as possible and then wait 8-9 years until we're all crisp and the methane is gone again? Surely the people and plants in Africa, India, China, South, Central and North America, Southern Europe etc. could survive a mere 8-9 years of hellish desertification without whining too much about not having any food or water.
Quite a few things were different back then, there was also more oxygen in the atmosphere and insects could grow much larger due to that.
Are you saying that you'd want to revert to a time where spiders groiw so large that they could eat you?
Also here: http://www.livescience.com/44330-jur...n-dioxide.html
There is one thing to keep in mind though: A lot of natural changes are very slow, giving living things centuries to adapt in most cases. Sudden changes on the other hand often lead to extinction, such as that of the dinosaurs. The graph in the OP nicely demonstrates that this could be a comparatively fast change that we are looking that. Now imagine that a lot of the plants and animals we rely on for food just die out because they can't handle the changes so fast. That we have air conditioning is useless if all the crops and trees die because the bees succumbed to the heat for example... (fictional example, I'm not sure which temperature changes would be required to kill off which species, but coral reefs die now already)
I dont need to be persuaded over global warming, it's the cows methane being a great contributor I have problems getting my head around; there must be a way that methane has been extracted from the atmosphere otherwise we'd already be at venus levels after ~3.5 billion years of buildup.
Eh, not really. The stuff we eat, and by extension the CO2 and waste we put out, has been a regular part of the global carbon cycle for millions of years. (cattle is a different issue because they produce methane)
Fossil fuels are essentially carbon materials that have been removed from the global environment for millions, or dozens of millions of years. Sure, Earth was warmer in those days, but the Earth's ecological system nowadays would be in for a shock if all that carbon material is added to the cycle again.
The problem is not exactly cows, rather industrial ag.
Cows have been defecating for a long time (just a guess) the difference is concentration and "disposal".
Instead of broadcast over a large area over time, the present system concentrates an enormous volume; even where the matter is spread for soil enrichment, part of that benefit is lost because of the degradation/elimination of recyclers.
It is a breakdown of what I guess you could call the Fecal Cycle :p
https://www.amazon.ca/Origin-Feces-E.../dp/177041116X
From waste to water.
Here's a look at how our best heat-sink is doing:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/ocean-heat-1.3408706
and the Greenland ice sheet:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ot-rebounding/
Can I say something that sounds really nasty, stop helping people who are overbreeding. Most sibblings used to die but science caught up and most survive. And need recourses.
meant to reply to this yesterday but got caught up.
Yes, the exhale thing is already part of the cycle so to speak. The real greenhouse burden is the sheer number of humans and their concomitant desire for power and services.
My key points really boiled down to:
1) the predicted heat levels are not going to scour life from the planet or eliminate biodiversity. Earth has be much hotter in the past and still had a rich variety and breadth of life forms (source of those fossil fuels as you will recall). I will stipulate that a large "die-off" among current species would engender problems for human beings, it is just that the real doom-and-gloomers (we are killing the planet types) are a bit off base.
2) efforts to ameliorate the anthropomorphic warming that is part of the current up cycle (see this source are warranted, but that our primary response will have to be adaptation to a new normal.
Consider:
In 1900, which a number of sources point to as the last point in history when human greenhouse impact was clearly within the carrying capacity of the planet, humans consumed approximately 50 exajoules of energy from various sources, the bulk of which were non-fossil. Our current consumption is about 550 exajoules (source). In that time span, world population totals have gone from roughly 2 billion to 7.4 billion. Thus our energy consumption per capita has more than tripled.
Trying to take the Earth back to that "carrying capacity" point (and yes it is arguable, but I needed some baseline) would require that we collectively stop the use of 90% of the world's current power use or replace that power use with non-fossil sources (or some combination of both).
Replacement has a LONG way to go also, since non-fossil sources are being used for only 130 exajoules or so of that 550. Worldwide, solar power constitutes less than 60 gigajoules (and remember that giga is 10 to the 9th, whereas exa is 10 to the 18th). Hydropower and nuclear sources constitute no more than 75 exajoules (non-fossil biofuels making up the rest of the 130 exajoule figure noted above).
ALL of the non-fossil alternatives are substantially more costly than the fossil fuels in terms of power generation. A coal-fired power generation plant is cheap in relative terms.
NOT saying we cannot make an impact in the warming trend -- we have already, so we can clearly do so in the other direction -- but the current crop of solution ideas our there (more government control, economic cutbacks, punish the fossil energy companies) can't do more than slow the trend moderately. So yes, we must start and continue to reduce our production of greenhouse gasses, particularly the more persistent forms.
We will have to grow ourselves out of this -- the growth of our species signals the need for MORE, not less power consumption. Solar delivered through our atmosphere is a nothing, so how do we get the unadulterated stuff down here for our use? Fission is useful, but though it's waste is a small amount, the radiation concerns are lengthy ones, can we make fusion practical before my son is old and gray? Can we rework our aging agriculture irrigation systems to be power generating systems at the same time? Maybe Tesla was correct and we have merely to tap into the existing energy that is the earth itself?
In short:
We are too far along in this trend to shift it's direction fast enough to avoid significant consequences. SO, make the necessary adaptations.
Curtailment of energy uses is at best a limited response, though we should convert more and more to non-greenhouse sources as resources allow.
Something "new" will have to be created to truly solve the problem.
So kill them rather than fix the issues? Ever heard of the idea that some people get many children because they hope some of them will survive or pay for their retirement etc.? How about we fix their medical and retirement issues instead of starving their children on purpose?
I think you oversimplify a bit unless you want to say that a world of oversized cockroaches and scorpions in a desert environment would be a nice place for us to live in. As I said above, if we lose species such as bees, we also lose a lot of plants. And if this happens very fast in comparison, evolution is probably not fast enough to adapt unless we are talking bacteria and species that are already very tough.
Again, the immigration is already a big topic now, if the new normal is that half of Africa will come to live in northern Europe, I'm not sure if people will just adapt to that and go "I bought that second car, now I house an African family in my home to adapt to the consequences."
ALL of the non-fossil alternatives are substantially more costly than the fossil fuels in terms of power generation. A coal-fired power generation plant is cheap in relative terms.[/QUOTE]
A few issues/questions:
1) What do we do when fossils run out in 30 years? Just say "that sucks" and watch all our food go bad because the cooling units are offline? Just not drive to work anymore?
2) That non-fossils currently don't produce enough output is hardly a secret, but if we don't invest in them, they never will...
There is a lot of energy coming from the sun, it is completely free of charge and already provides more than enough energy for all the biological life that has developed here. There are also plenty of ways to convert it to electrical energy, you forgot to mention wind farms for example. We may not even have to replace those entire 550 exajoules if we are clever and manage to reduce our usage. A shrinking population would be a nice step, but we are currently working hard in the other direction.
Isn't this why we should try to stop growing? At some future point it will have to happen anyway unless we want to ruin the planet in other ways or just wait until we actually run out of food.
There's also a yellowish-red fusion reactor that sends energy to us all the time for the next few million years or so, then we have this other cosmic friend that moves the entire water of the oceans around all the time...
I think we have plenty of natural energy sources, we just need to begin to use them. Some of the technology was already in development before WW1, that the change is a lot harder now is entirely our fault for focusing on the wrong tech all the time without thinking about the consequences. We can't realistically expect to use fossil fuels for the next 200 years even if there were no warming effects, we'll simply run out... :sweatdrop:
I know that what I said is nasty Hus, but isn't it true that overpolution is a problem. And no.
Seamus:
A full-scale thermonuclear exchange would not "eliminate biodiversity" or "kill the planet". Still a bit of a wrench in our works. On the other hand, there's no such thing as a eco-sustainability race.
Regardless of how you approach it, adaptation to a new normal will be more than painful. But I just want to settle in a corner and mutter litanies until someone removes me.
I basically agree with you, but with a slant to the "hunker down" part.
There can be a "growing out" of the situation, but neither in the sense of GDP or legislative documentation. Rather, catastrophe will reach the point that the current democratic consensus will shift and new, bespoke, forms of top-down control will be birthed to match their new environment. That will be your true Second Industrial Revolution, if you like.Quote:
Something "new" will have to be created to truly solve the problem.
Actually if the subsidies are removed then oil as a fuel source is much more expensive.
Overpollution or overpopulation?
Both are a problem but that doesn't mean intentionally starving people is the only solution.
In other words, what's wrong with you?
To which question? Have you not heard of it or would you rather kill people?
Efforts to curtail growth in human societies have always had a strong negative backlash on one level or another. Growing our way out of this problem is not going to be a volume growth effort, it will have to involve advancement in several areas of energy production. Yes that means we will have to make more of solar, geothermal and nuclear powers -- but the amount of power being used cannot be curtailed enough to make a difference without a world dictatorship plunging 90% of the planet into an agrarian existence. We could reduce emissions to zero tomorrow and STILL have to adapt to a warmer planet and different sea levels which will persist for a substantial period of time. And you are well aware that that kind of radicalized solution won't happen.
And we currently produce enough food to feed the entire global population 1.4 times despite numerous sub-optimal production efforts (not that the food gets to the right spots mind you, just that it is made).
I'm thinking long-term. If you say growth cannot be stopped then I ask you what happens at 50 or 100 billion humans on this planet?
I'm pretty sure at that point it won't be pleasant anymore regardless of how much the ecenomy has grown.
A smaller groth etc. could also be incentivized, e.g. by cutting all the child benefits from the second child on and so on. But even for governments there is no incentive in most cases because population means power, growth of the economy and so on. And so everything grows, even that which shouldn't.
That we have to adapt to a warmer planet is correct, but rather a 2°C warmer planet than one 10°C warmer. :sweatdrop:
As for nuclear energy, you already mentioned that the storage of spent fuel is quite problematic, especially in the long term again. You wouldn't really want some of it to spill into the ground water when your grand grandchildren are alive, would you? It is possible that the storage sites will have to at least be monitored and maintained to some extent for the next few hundred thousand of years. And in the really long term, the fuel is also limited, even more so if we increase use by a large margin.
I was also wondering whether centralized power production is really that great if you consider this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ather-threats/
Perhaps more local power assets would not be damaged as much or could be replaced faster, e.g. by the community having replacements around at all times, whereas this is not economical for corporations. A power outage for more than a month may already lead to a large catastrophe as people would run out of food and suppliers could become unable to supply enough and so on. Almost makes me want to become a doomsday prepper... :sweatdrop:Quote:
The 2008 National Academy of Sciences report said power outages after an extreme solar storm could last months or longer, since transformers take a long time to replace.
Either way it is interesting how much we rely on the availability of electricity these days and how little we seem to have in terms of safeguards should it break down in a catastrophic event. A local emergency power production wouldn't even have to cover all the needs, just enough to continue using refrigerators and some electric ovens to cook. If such energy is provided by renewables, it also provides "free" energy (in terms of fuel cost) when the grid is operational in a normal way. That is one of the reasons I think we should plaster the planet with renewables and advance research in that field as well.
Even for corporations renewables offer interesting investment opportunities such as desertec (and comparable projects), off-shore wind parks and tidal power. Of course the investments can be huge early on, but in the end you get the benefit of not having any fuel costs whatsoever, because the fuel is already plentiful in the sky, sending the energy down for free.
Just want to point out that particularly wind power has been on the upsurge, so much so that investments in this domain have to be carefully considered, given that for example in the UK the generated power exceeded the demand of the consumers, leading the government to essentially pay off the owners/operators of the wind turbines to not produce electricity any more.
Bloomberg article outlining this record payout to wind farms.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...-to-wind-farms
I think similar things happened in Germany, where the energy produced by renewables exceeded consumption. AFAIK that's not a regular occurence so far though. Would be nice if it were though.
I would also like to know whether base power plants such as NPPs were turned off, but I guess not, which makes it likely that renewables AND NPPs etc. produced more than the demand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ewable_sources
This list shows that many smaller countries cover most or all of their power needs with renewables, Costa Rica managed to get 100% of its power from renewables in 2015.
Some notable ones (rounded down):
USA + Netherlands: 12%
France: 17%
China: 21%
UK: 22%
Germany: 32%
North Korea: 71%
Brazil: 83%
Denmark in 2015 managed to get in some unusually windy day 140% of its daily power needs from renewables. EU country, good infrastructure, a lot of investments in renewables - particularly wind turbines (North Sea) - so all of that was done through renewable energy.
They plan to -https://www.theguardian.com/environm...tricity-demandQuote:
A surge in windfarm installations means Denmark could be producing half of its electricity from renewable sources well before a target date of 2020
Denmark has 5.6 million inhabitants, Norway is similar and I think is shown with 98% or thereabouts in Wikipedia.
What I find more impressive is when countries with 50 million or more inhabitants reach 50%+ renewable electric energy.
Helps if they have some industry as well. And even then it probably doesn't mean all their cars run on renewable energy.
WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO! :whip:
This... it is the question we really should focus on. What are you doing to help the climate?
Complaining about those around us is counter productive. Scolding, berating or complaining about people's "normal life" is destroying the planet, creates opposition and anti-movements.Theywe need to be led by carrot to a better way oflivingreducing our negative imprint on the environment.
When we start to do small things - it will not individually matter much globally - but we are pack animals and will follow those who lead.
Here there is an explosion in the electric car marked. It started with the eco-fundies and then the government followed up with carrots (free parking, free ferries, free road tolls, allowed to drive in public transport lanes etc.) then Tesla and increased road tolls and temporary ban of diesel cars on winter days...
I have discarded my diesel for an e-golf and charge it at home with waterfall based energy.
:laugh4: sitting on the high horse is so un-norwegian, but I think I am on the right track. You can do small things, like choosing a power vendor which claim they are not importing dirty coal power and only supply power from the water-based powerplants.
We can't all be eco fundies - which builds their eco houses with solar-panels and ground heat pumps, growing peat on their roofs and a small generator in the stream that flows through their property. Small things will help locally - you get better air in the cities for the asthmatics.
We all know about the elephant in the glass house - the industrializing of 3rd world or former 3rd world nations. And the experts are having difficulties coming up with lasting solutions - solutions which are utopic? Herding populations into super cities which are completely self sufficient, so you can utilize the surrounding land for agriculture and CO2 absorbing plants will generate opposition.Peoplewe just don't like leaving our comfort.
Here some conspiracy for you:
What would need to be done if you wanted to save the world right now? If you were forced to find a solution to stop all pollution (globally) right now/yesterday, what would be the necessary steps?
As a whole, particularly in the concerned industries, moving to renewables should be the main plan in the next 10-15 years.
Let's take for example cars, because they are the ones that technically count the most - with the exception of some countries, like Norway which offers significant incentives like Sigurd mentioned above, electric cars are expensive. Even the cheapest ones, like the planned Tesla Model 3, would make it rather expensive in countries that are not so developed. More investment and efficiency is needed, and that will come with time, but it needs to be sped up.
If you had to stop all pollution right now, the only solution would be for governments to take over corporations, cars and so on and stop using all of it. If you just want to decrease pollution, the government could just release laws that regulate pollution more and threaten to take over corporations if they don't stick to the limits.
I don't see the need for a planned economy though. Instead one could release CO2 shares that are valid for only one year. Calculate the amount of CO2 that we can relatively safely release and that will be the total amount of shares going around. Then all countries and corporations in the world can buy them to be allowed to release the amount of CO2 that is given on the shares they own. Private cars may have to be included in that. And of course it would have to be possible to stop people from using their share and then selling it. One way would be to have a card reader in every CO2-producing device and then you'd have a card(or several) that is loaded with CO2 shares, which has to be entered to use the device. The device would then reduce your CO2 shares during use according to its output specifications. This would create a market with a strict upper output limit provided the limit is enforced everywhere (obviously people would try to hack it, so controls are necessary). There'd be an incentive to reduce the personal output or the output of the corporation to save money for shares up to the point where the shares become almost worthless because noone needs them anymore.
Similar systems are in use in the EU I think, but they don't seem very effective and there does not seem to be any upper limit AFAIK. Neither does it include private use or cover the entire planet.
It will, in the end, go back to planning. If one is averse to planning, one can used government regulated capitalism that will ultimately amount to the same thing. Big tax breaks for pioneers to develop eco-friendly services. Then make these services available and attractive via tax breaks and thus cheaper prices. Then tax the hell out of those who don't switch to the new eco-friendly services.
When you say planned economy, I think of the kind where the government decides to produce a million green shoes next year and so on, not the kind where someone plans what to do beyond instant self-richification. The first usually leads to even more waste of resources, the second should probably be applauded.
I think of planned economy as the government deciding what to do with its human resources, a la the two world wars (particularly the second one). In particular its management of agriculture, which was based on a study of what an individual needs for sustenance, regearing the land to farm, and its effectiveness to the extent that, uniquely among Europe's warring countries, there were zero deaths in Britain from starvation over the course of the war. Much of that was due to continuing imports thanks to the merchant navies of the UK and allies, but agriculture was also made punishingly efficient by planning. Before anyone points out rationing, that's another aspect of a planned economy as well, but it was also one made possible by the planned agricultural economy (which drastically cut back on meat production, turning the land over instead to producing plant crops, which produced consumable calories far more efficiently).
Why? We could give cap and trade another serious go, and it is in fact the closest thing available to a decentralized capitalist instrument. Even some libertarians recognize that this is the "free market" solution that they need, even if it's not the one they think they deserve right now.Quote:
And of course it would have to be possible to stop people from using their share and then selling it.
Of course, then we get firms speculating off of derivatives of carbon shares, but that's a separate issue.
I meant that, when you sell, say, papers for the use of a billion tons of CO2 because that is the most that we can use without ruining the climate, and then someone buys a thousand, uses a thousand tons of CO2 in half a year and sells his paper to someone else, who then uses a thousand tons as well, and there are no checks or controls, then we may end up using two billion tons a year because the same papers are reused. Which is obviously not the idea I had in mind. The idea was just to create a market and artificially limit the "resource" 'CO2 output' so that people can't use it willy nilly and think about how much of it they want to use/can afford. The invisible hand of the market will then make sure putting CO2 into the air has the right price. The limit would obviously be based on the natural law of how much CO2 output nature can handle, so if companies plant lots of trees, they can buy more CO2 output in the future. You could also tax the living whatever out of fossil fuels, but that would be evil government interference and still not necessarily limit use to a level the planet can handle.
Because the market always knows best?
This is exactly what I meant when I said long-term strategies instead of short-term profit are needed. A consumer who buys an incandescent because the market price is lower is not even necessarily helping his own financial interests in the long term. That's because the homo oeconomicus, who is the basis of the idea that the market always knows best, doesn't really exist...
Or to take another angle if you want, why should people be allowed to ruin the path of the country or continent?
Are you also in favor of complete legalization of guns and drugs to defend consumer choice? Why is Heroin banned?
A choice for an incandescent represents an energy consumption that is avoidable and could harm everyone, much like the choice to dump plastic in the ocean. In fact I think more should be done to prevent the latter, such as controlling the plastic load of ships when they leave and enter port and big fines if the difference is beyond a margin of error.
Is the strict adherence to capitalist doctrine worth the potential ruination of the planet?
My answer is if the market incentivizes behavior that leads to a destruction of the resources we require to live on this planet, someone has to step in. To say this will self-regulate is like saying Ebola will self-regulate before the host dies, you can see how well that works.
I am. But not to defend "consumer choice".Quote:
Are you also in favor of complete legalization of guns and drugs to defend consumer choice?
It's not the Soviet era. No one is going to be stealing incandescents to push on the black market.
My reason to adhere to incandescents is not economic - I just don't like the twinkling kind of light ESLs emit. It feels uncomfortable and hospital-like.
Is using incandescents as harmful for human health as heroin and causes similar addiction?
Can you kill someone when you use incandescents like you can with a gun?
Your comparisons are invalid.
There are many other things which harm nature even more and they are not banned. Why aren't plastic, gasoline, nuclear power plants banned?
My solution is apply economic factors to oust something which you consider harmful (make it more expensive) - but not outright ban it. Especially in case of incandescents whose perilous influence upon nature is waaaaaay smaller than oil extraction or exhaust gas pollution. And ESLs, btw, which contain mercury.
Exactly, because they are not produced or imported anymore. :2thumbsup:
As for the legalization, what if the consumer makes a stupid choice?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2732004/
Is drug abuse to combat stress a choice a homo oeconomicus would make?
The "ultimate freedom" is anarchy, but only few people want it.
ESLs? You probably mean CFLs - Compact Fluorescent Lights.
That's also a strawman or whatever because there are LEDs.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
You should see how fast people run to find some incandescents on batteries when the lights go out at night.
If you inhale the exhaust fumes produced while powering an incandescent with fossil fuels for a year, you'll probably not be able to aim your gun before you drop to the floor.
You just need to think a bit further than the immediate circumstances, electric energy does not just come out of nowhere.
But that's what I just said in the part you quoted, we shouldn't stop at light bulbs, it has to be a slippery slope where we ban plastics or at least plastic waste, nuclear energy, coal and gas power plants, cars running on fossil fuels, having babies, overfishing, and so on.
Note that I did not say we should do it right now and destroy everything we built up, see the lightbulbs as a first babystep.
Make the planet great again!
Exactly, that's why I switched CFLs for LEDs as soon as I could...
I haven't bought a new CFL in a long time and don't plan to do so ever again.
CFLs are just a distraction argument for people who missed or omit the existence of LEDs.
http://recyclenation.com/2015/01/how...le-light-bulbs, where:
While LED light bulbs do not contain mercury, many do contain other hazardous substances such as lead and arsenic. Despite this, most communities do not require you to recycle LEDs.
A strawman?
The problem with Westerners is that they don't (as you put it) "think a bit further than the immediate circumstances". You base your conclusions on the framework you know (and consider it universal) and then try to apply that grid onto other countries/cultures/mentalities - and are very surprised it doesn't work the way it works with them.
The most crucial things about using LEDs and CFLs (I called them ESLs - energy saving lamps, because I didn't know the proper word, so thanks for a prompt) is their recycling (the same source):
When it comes time to dispose of CFL light bulbs for whatever reason, make sure you get them to a recycling facility.
If you want to recycle LED light bulbs and ensure those dangerous substances do not enter the waste stream, you may have to hunt for a proper recycling facility.
There are no programs available to recycle incandescent light bulbs, so you will need to put them in the trash.
In Ukraine there is a great problem with garbage disposal in general to say nothing of recycling it. So what do you think will harm nature more IN UKRAINE: a thrown away incandescent or a LED (to say nothing of CFL)?
I may come up with similar nonsensical stories:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...irish-hospital
Does it mean we have to ban using ambulances and opt for having surgeries at home?
ANYTHING around us may cause death. Guns and drugs are more likely to do that (are more lethal, if you remember that semantic argument of ours ~;)) than bulbs. Moreover, some other things which are (allegedly) as much harmful for people as those metioned - I mean alcohol and tobacco - are not banned. Why is that? Inhaling bulbs is more dangerous than smoking?
Speak for your part of the planet and don't you poke your nose into mine. :laugh4:
And you seem to have missed my point: I was against OUTRIGHT BANS on things whose harmful influence upon the environment (or human health) is not much greater than of those you want to replace them with. If you want people to stop using them - phase them out with taxes, financial incentives to buy their safe counterparts, propaganda and other economic/ethical methods. BUT: leave people a choice. That's how democracy works, doesn't it?
Well, no, it's completely tangential.Quote:
That's how democracy works, doesn't it?
And dump-disposed LED have far less impact on soil and water than either CFL or incandescent in any form.
Incandescent bulbs have a lot of glass and metal and stuff and animals cut themselves on it. Or, stepping aside from your level of reasoning: http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2..._lca-pt2_0.pdf
Scroll to the charts and discussion of environmental impacts in Section 7, of filament, CFL, LED 2012, and LED 2017 lamps, across soil, water, and air, from raw materials and manufacturing to disposal and storage.
And for comparisons between lamps: LED simply does better in every category, including hazardous and non-hazardous landfill.Quote:
For the LED lamp in 2017, the profile is similar to that of the 2012 lamp, however the significance of
energy is diminished due to the fact that this lamp is considerably more efficacious. For this reason, the
other impacts are able to gain a slightly higher proportion of the relative impact for each of the fifteen
categories considered. In this analysis, energy in use represents an average of 78.2% of the impact,
followed by raw materials at 19.3% and manufacturing at 2.3%. The transportation and disposal of the
lamp are negligible, at less than 0.2% each.
Meaning that LEDs don't have any of those?
So, you admit it IS hazardous?
Again, a Westerner is applying a grid natural for him unconscious of its inadequacy (or limited adequacy) elswhere.
As far as I know, LEDs give a comparatively narrow ray meant to light a limited area around it. Traditionally, Ukrainian homes have the electricity network oriented towards lighting the whole room with one source of light hanging from the ceiling in the middle of this room. Wall bracket lamps and bedside lamps are used on a limited scale if at all. A room where only such lamps are lit is considered too dark and people are likely to switch on the central light if they stay there. A LED central light will leave most of the room murky. So LEDs may in fact be used only in desk lamps which will not change the overall situation greatly.
Even if the tradition is going to change (which I doubt) should I (and many others) re-design the whole electricity layout to be able to use LEDs and have my place properly lit? And what if in a couple of years they will come up with a new invention which will allow me to rely on central source of light again - should I change the layout back?
Anyway, that is not my message. What I want you to see is: banning one thing which is purportedly bad and not banning other things which are as bad (or even worse) undermines the whole institute of the freedom of choice and individual responsibility which are cornerstones of Western democracy.
Your potatoes and apples and grains are full of poison. Stop growing them immediately.Quote:
So, you admit it IS hazardous?
No.Quote:
whole institute of the freedom of choice
Opposite.Quote:
individual responsibility
Please.Quote:
cornerstones of Western democracy.
Do you live in a mansion? If so, get more than one light. If not, get a lamp with luminous properties suitable for the actual space in which it will be installed. There are many to "choose" from. Non-issue.Quote:
As far as I know, LEDs give a comparatively narrow ray meant to light a limited area around it. Traditionally, Ukrainian homes have the electricity network oriented towards lighting the whole room with one source of light hanging from the ceiling in the middle of this room. Wall bracket lamps and bedside lamps are used on a limited scale if at all. A room where only such lamps are lit is considered too dark and people are likely to switch on the central light if they stay there. A LED central light will leave most of the room murky. So LEDs may in fact be used only in desk lamps which will not change the overall situation greatly.
We have established that available fluorescent and LED lighting is straightforwardly less bad than filament lighting and filament lights.Quote:
What I want you to see is: banning one thing which is purportedly bad and not banning other things which are as bad (or even worse)
The only concern I will give you is if dictats are too fickle or rapid to cope with for the citizen. But it's not happening anytime soon. Even in OECD countries, the filament bulb is used as majority in residential buildings (though almost not at all in industrial/commercial buildings by now). Incandescents are actually proportionally less-used in non-OECD countries in "the Global South", if only because kerosene lighting is still so popular. So don't worry about it too much, your children will take care of you. :eyebrows::wink3:
Come-the-on, a whole paragraph about the spatial difficulties of photon distribution in traditional ukrainian homes regarding the spatial properties and material placement of LED light bulbs when capitalism already has you covered:
http://www.osram.com/osram_com/produ...ic-a/index.jsp
Yes, it's about as glassy as the indandescent, but that was wanted in the first place, no?
Regarding waste and so on, they also last longer than incandescents, that should reduce the glass waste in comparison.
MY potatoes and apples and grains are still natural enough (although the situation is changing), so you might be correct speaking of YOURS. And you don't seem inclined to stop growing them. Anyway, call Monasanto for further information.
This is the level of argument I like.
Beer is straightforwardly less bad than vodka, paper bags are straitforwardly less bad than plastic ones, but somehow the "badder" ones are still not banned. How come and why is it different for LEDs and incandescents? And why CFLs are not banned since they are straightforwardly worse than LEDs?
Banning something in such cases is not a solution, especially in the countries that are all about human rights and freedom.
My concern is not about the speed of implementation, but about the imposition of views WHERE YOU LIVE. And I don't worry at all, WHERE I LIVE incandescents (replaced when needed) will last me my life time.
I will make inquiries about it, but not sure it made its way in here. And the price will aslo matter since if something is labeled as "innovation" it is sure to be not cheap.
Firstly, no, stop being foolish. Secondly, all growing things absorb and concentrate various trace elements such as lead, arsenic, cyanide, etc. from the ground they grow in, without exception. The good thing about toxic materials is that toxicity depends upon quantity and concentration. This is why you don't die at any given moment of the day.Quote:
MY potatoes and apples and grains are still natural enough (although the situation is changing), so you might be correct speaking of YOURS. And you don't seem inclined to stop growing them. Anyway, call Monasanto for further information.
I may need to rethink my stance on renewables, even though I'm not sure whether that is serious or not:
https://scontent.ftxl1-1.fna.fbcdn.n...2f&oe=58A00C30
:laugh4:
Yep, typical moron. Even medieval windmills could be designed to resist rotation in a certain direction, and regardless the same electronic configuration that allows to draw power from one direction of rotation could be used to do the same for the other.
Medieval windmills were built to be rotatable to face the wind.
Working example
I don't mean the facing relative to the wind, but the range of motion of the hub for the blades themselves: counterclockwise vs. clockwise vs. both.
Someone suggested to tell him that the backwards rotation is necessary because we use alternating current. :sweatdrop:
The temperate areas in the Mediterranean might change to desert.
OTOH we might get forest cover in the Arctic:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...nds-to-desert/
Actually you can get leds that shine like an incandescent or fluorescent light and they will brighten more of the room for less power. The ones that mimic an incandescent light generally have an opaque globe around the led and the whole globe will glow.
The other omnidirectional ones look like little Xmas trees with led filaments in gold strands.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90CkXVF-Q8M
Leaving this here for someone who has one hour to spare to watch about climate change.
No, that was one of the points you erred on. The only real issue with LEDs compared to predecessors, like with all complex electronics, is that they require consumption of more extractable metals in the first place (i.e. metal depletion).Quote:
Besides, we seemed to agree that LEDs are more harmful to the environment than incandescents if not properly disposed of (which is an issue for Ukraine).
But you can't make circuits, wires, and filaments from wood. :shrug:
CFCs. Invented by the same genius who added lead to petrol. To demonstrate the safety of his invention, he inhaled a container of leaded petrol and claimed it was harmless. He was hospitalised with lead poisoning afterwards. When he was disabled in later life, he devised a system of pulleys to help lift him from bed. Which later killed him as he got caught up in the strings and was strangled.