Climate Change Thread

[Papewaio]

Actually if the subsidies are removed then oil as a fuel source is much more expensive.

[Husar]

I know that what I said is nasty Hus, but isn't it true that overpolution is a problem.

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?

And no.

To which question? Have you not heard of it or would you rather kill people?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...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...

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).

[Husar]

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.

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/

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.

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...

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.

[edyzmedieval]

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

[Husar]

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%

[edyzmedieval]

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 -

A surge in windfarm installations means Denmark could be producing half of its electricity from renewable sources well before a target date of 2020

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...tricity-demand

[Husar]

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!

[Sigurd]

WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO!

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. They we need to be led by carrot to a better way of living reducing 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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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. They we need to be led by carrot to a better way of living reducing 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.

Cannot fault you on the "practicing what you preach" scale, can I?

[Sigurd]

Cannot fault you on the "practicing what you preach" scale, can I?

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. People we 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?

[Pannonian]

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. People we 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?

The most direct and effective solution is to end humanity.

[Sigurd]

The most direct and effective solution is to end humanity.

What if you had to include the survival of humanity and at the same time making sure the future generation had a platform of sustainable development?

[Pannonian]

What if you had to include the survival of humanity and at the same time making sure the future generation had a platform of sustainable development?

Planned economy, whilst minimising footprint.

[edyzmedieval]

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.

[Husar]

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.

[Pannonian]

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.

[Husar]

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.

[Pannonian]

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).

[Montmorency]

And of course it would have to be possible to stop people from using their share and then selling it.

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.

Of course, then we get firms speculating off of derivatives of carbon shares, but that's a separate issue.

[Husar]

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.

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The most direct and effective solution is to end humanity.

Current events suggest that much of humankind has already dispensed with humanity.

[Gilrandir]

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.

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.

Government(s) interfered enough forbidding incandescents and depriving consumers of choice. What about freedom of choice?

[Husar]

Government(s) interfered enough forbidding incandescents and depriving consumers of choice. What about freedom of choice?

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.

[Montmorency]

Are you also in favor of complete legalization of guns and drugs to defend consumer choice?

I am. But not to defend "consumer choice".

It's not the Soviet era. No one is going to be stealing incandescents to push on the black market.

[Gilrandir]

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...

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

[Husar]

I am. But not to defend "consumer choice".

It's not the Soviet era. No one is going to be stealing incandescents to push on the black market.

Exactly, because they are not produced or imported anymore.
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.

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.

ESLs? You probably mean CFLs - Compact Fluorescent Lights.
That's also a strawman or whatever because there are LEDs.

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.

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.

There are many other things which harm nature even more and they are not banned. Why aren't plastic, gasoline, nuclear power plants banned?

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!

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, 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.

[Gilrandir]

ESLs? You probably mean CFLs - Compact Fluorescent Lights.
That's also a strawman or whatever because there are LEDs.


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)?

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.

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?

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!

Speak for your part of the planet and don't you poke your nose into mine.

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?

[Montmorency]

That's how democracy works, doesn't it?

Well, no, it's completely tangential.

And dump-disposed LED have far less impact on soil and water than either CFL or incandescent in any form.

[Gilrandir]

And dump-disposed LED have far less impact on soil and water than either CFL or incandescent in any form.

I expect one would need to sustain the claim, especially in the part that lead and arsenic of LEDs harm the environment less than ??? in incandescents.