Page 16 of 17 FirstFirst ... 6121314151617 LastLast
Results 451 to 480 of 481

Thread: Climate Change Thread

  1. #451

    Default Re: Climate Change

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post

    There is nothing contradictory in those statements.


  2. #452

    Default Re: Climate Change

    Oh, there's obvious tension between "we're fucked" and "the world seems to be finally laying the groundwork for decarbonization and the climate scientists I follow on twitter seem to be more optimistic over the past year." I guess it depends on one's definition of "we're" and "fucked" - the IEA report from a year ago outlining +~3* F by 2100 given contemporary trends would at least probably allow for the survival of global civilization in its familiar form.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  3. #453

    Default Re: Climate Change

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Oh, there's obvious tension between "we're fucked" and "the world seems to be finally laying the groundwork for decarbonization and the climate scientists I follow on twitter seem to be more optimistic over the past year." I guess it depends on one's definition of "we're" and "fucked" - the IEA report from a year ago outlining +~3* F by 2100 given contemporary trends would at least probably allow for the survival of global civilization in its familiar form.
    Business as usual 2010 was 4-5 degrees, literally uninhabitable to 95% of multicellular life on earth.
    Business as usual 2021 is 3 degrees, still fucked but not a hard reset for the planet.
    Optimistic 2021 is 2-2.5 degrees and we are still engaged in massive adaption and a commitment to carbon capture and storage which has yet to begin in earnest.

    So yeah, we are fucked. My only hope is that the trends only accelerate from here. Coal is projected to be removed from US electrical generation entirely by 2027. Countries are pursuing carbon neutral policies despite US absence and without any free-riders to be seen. Carbon heavy industries are preparing for the future, anticipating increasing hostility and investing into new technologies. Plastic industry is pursuing chemical recycling methods to make all types of plastic re-usable. Wonks are slowly turning back the negative perception of nuclear. Economics of renewables is already cost competitive to the point where planned orders of new coal plants in India and other countries have been cancelled, to be filled by solar plants.

    At the same time, the 21st continues to be the century of biochemistry. We are unraveling the multi-faceted phenomenon of aging and scientists are already proposing serious therapies to mitigate its deleterious affects. So we could all be destined to be healthy centenarians, in which case we will all get to die by our own climate choices. Maybe that mentality will finally provide the impetus to make long-term thinking the default instead of the exception.

    Members thankful for this post (2):



  4. #454
    Stranger in a strange land Moderator Hooahguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Fortress
    Posts
    11,672

    Default Re: Climate Change

    Quote Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name View Post
    So yeah, we are fucked. My only hope is that the trends only accelerate from here. Coal is projected to be removed from US electrical generation entirely by 2027. Countries are pursuing carbon neutral policies despite US absence and without any free-riders to be seen. Carbon heavy industries are preparing for the future, anticipating increasing hostility and investing into new technologies. Plastic industry is pursuing chemical recycling methods to make all types of plastic re-usable. Wonks are slowly turning back the negative perception of nuclear. Economics of renewables is already cost competitive to the point where planned orders of new coal plants in India and other countries have been cancelled, to be filled by solar plants.
    This is actually an interesting point- businesses appear to be taking a stronger stance against climate change, even leading the way in some cases. Lots of major companies have committed to a goal of net zero carbon. And last summer, Microsoft stated its goal was to become carbon negative by 2030, which is pretty significant considering their size. And Coca-Cola just tested their first paper bottle (with PepsiCo reportedly in hot pursuit). While segments of the economy are certainly fighting tooth and nail against such changes (hence why federal climate action is still necessary), it is an encouraging trend that an increasing number of companies are adopting policies and practices that are better for the environment due to a combination of risk management, internal pressure from staff, and external pressure.
    On the Path to the Streets of Gold: a Suebi AAR
    Visited:
    A man who casts no shadow has no soul.
    Hvil i fred HoreTore

  5. #455

    Default Re: Climate Change

    Quote Originally Posted by Hooahguy View Post
    This is actually an interesting point- businesses appear to be taking a stronger stance against climate change, even leading the way in some cases. Lots of major companies have committed to a goal of net zero carbon. And last summer, Microsoft stated its goal was to become carbon negative by 2030, which is pretty significant considering their size. And Coca-Cola just tested their first paper bottle (with PepsiCo reportedly in hot pursuit). While segments of the economy are certainly fighting tooth and nail against such changes (hence why federal climate action is still necessary), it is an encouraging trend that an increasing number of companies are adopting policies and practices that are better for the environment due to a combination of risk management, internal pressure from staff, and external pressure.
    Even businesses are now understanding the cost of doing nothing, this is another sign that the culture is moving in the right direction. As we continue to move in this direction, bolder action becomes politically feasible. Question is, to what extent will the GOP successfully curb such action.

    Make no question here, the GOP has been lost and not even big oil is entirely with them on fundamental problems. Royal Dutch Shell has announced a goal of net zero by 2050. An oil company. GM is eliminating gasoline and light duty diesel by 2035.

    We are still fucked. Remember this, we past the 1.5 degree mark a while ago. All of this is deciding how much poorer we want our children to be.


  6. #456
    Stranger in a strange land Moderator Hooahguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Fortress
    Posts
    11,672

    Default Re: Climate Change

    I have a strong feeling that GOP opposition to climate change action is more rooted in a resistance to changing course (and thus being seen as weak by their radical base) than actual belief.
    On the Path to the Streets of Gold: a Suebi AAR
    Visited:
    A man who casts no shadow has no soul.
    Hvil i fred HoreTore

  7. #457
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    11,338

    Default Re: Climate Change

    Quote Originally Posted by Hooahguy View Post
    I have a strong feeling that GOP opposition to climate change action is more rooted in a resistance to changing course (and thus being seen as weak by their radical base) than actual belief.
    The Trump wing genuinely believes that global climate change is either a) nowhere near as bad as the doomsayers claim (since their claim is based on their socialist/anti-corporate ideology more than on the climate) or b) is bad, but is a natural solar/geothermal phenomenon and that there is little to no anthropomorphic causation (again, the doomsayers are claiming it is to justify their attack on corporations, notably the energy industry giants). They have been trained in this belief focus for decades by the deceased dean of right wing talk radio and his associates in conservative media.

    I suspect that you are correct that many (most) of the "establishment" GOP are far more willing to work towards ameliorating climate change concerns but that they ARE scared that doing so will get them "primaried" and replaced.

    For the Trump wing (and that wing is flying the GOP bird these days), defeating socialism's pernicious threat is of much greater importance than a climate change threat they doubt. For a sad number of them defeating socialism is also more important than pesky little things such as the rights and limitations of the Constitution etc. Remember, they can understand "better dead than red" but have a little trouble with a Pearson's r or Chronbach alpha, so they presume all of that is egghead intellectual bullshit that they can ignore and/or ridicule.
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

    Members thankful for this post (2):



  8. #458
    Senior Member Senior Member ReluctantSamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,342

    Default Re: Climate Change

    Even businesses are now understanding the cost of doing nothing, this is another sign that the culture is moving in the right direction. As we continue to move in this direction, bolder action becomes politically feasible.
    And yet, the lure of continuing to make billions on fossil fuels is predominate. Case examples of that are rampant here in the US...the debacle in Texas being the latest example. Another example can be found in India:

    https://scroll.in/article/967951/ind...-deeply-flawed

    However, the push and focus on renewable do not mean India is cutting down its focus on coal. According to Coal India Limited, in the next five years, it is going to open 55 new coal mines and expand at least 193 present ones. Together, these two steps will ensure an increase of 400 million tonnes in coal production. CIL has about 463 coal blocks with which the country can continue thermal power production for another 275 years.

    Karthik Ganesan, who is a research fellow at the Council on Energy, Environment and Water, said, “India’s coal demand could grow by up to 30% by 2030, and we need to source that coal and have reliable supply options.”
    There is serious push-back on all of this, especially on indigenous groups likely to be severely impacted by the opening of new mines, but will it be enough to overcome the stated policies of the Mohdi government?

    Another example would be China:

    https://www.powermag.com/chinas-econ...wered-by-coal/

    When China faced economic upheaval a decade ago, the government provided massive amounts of stimulus into the economy, with state-owned enterprises spending large sums of money to offset a collapse in exports, which resulted in increased electricity demand. China increased its construction of coal-fired generators, and its coal consumption increased by 13% between 2009 and 2011, according to BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy 2020.
    While other countries, such as Japan and India, are building coal-fired power plants, China is adding the most coal-fired capacity of any country by orders of magnitude. China added 32 GW of coal-fired capacity in 2018, and 44 GW of new coal capacity in 2019. Almost 100 GW are under construction, and another 105 GW are either permitted or applying for permits.


    In an apparent move to stimulate its domestic economy, China has surged its new coal plant permitting. Between March 1 and March 18, 2020, authorities in China permitted more coal-fired capacity for construction (7,960 MW) than they did in all of 2019 (6,310 MW). China’s local governments favor coal-fired power plants as tools for economic development and for the baseload power they provide, which is essential for reliability, particularly when a pandemic like COVID-19 hits and hospitals need electricity to operate medical equipment 24/7, keeping people alive. China has substantial domestic coal reserves—142 billion metric tons as of the end of 2019—13% of the world’s total, and as such, coal is a secure energy source and a reliable generating fuel.
    Of the top three coal producers, only the US has shown a decline in coal usage (mainly because of the switch to natural gas & renewables):

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuar...ly-burned-out/

    However, coal has largely fallen out of favor for electricity production as price declines in natural gas and, to a lesser extent, renewables have made it harder for coal plants to make money in electricity markets. The average US coal plant is now over 40 years old, and there is not a single commercial coal plant under construction in the country. Some scenarios have coal generation remaining flat for the next couple of decades, but most market fundamentals and societal goals indicate further declines.

    In the past decade, over 500 coal-fired power units have been retired, or announced their retirement. Further, it is estimated that over 85% of existing coal plants will be uneconomic compared to local renewables by 2025. These dire conditions have many states with regulated electricity markets scrambling to either financially support uneconomic coal plants or provide securitization strategies to allow them to retire early while still making good on their debts. As demand for coal has declined, almost a dozen coal mining companies have filed for bankruptcy in the past 5 years.
    Mixed bag amongst the top three coal producers/consumers, but the top two are definitely planning to expand production to increase energy self-sufficiency, and promises to the poor of increased employment opportunities---critical in economies recovering from the pandemic.

    Economics of renewables is already cost competitive to the point where planned orders of new coal plants in India and other countries have been cancelled, to be filled by solar plants.
    Given what I just sourced (and I'm not trying to insult you with "my sources are better than yours") I'd like to see contradictory information

    Even if the world dropped CO2 emissions to zero tomorrow, there would still be a 20-25 year overrun in the deleterious effects on climate.

    Also, many climate change topics just discuss the overall temperature increase, but there's really two separate numbers to look at:

    https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...n-heat-content

    More than 90 percent of the warming that happened on Earth between 1971-2010 occurred in the ocean. Heat already stored in the ocean will eventually be released, committing Earth to additional surface warming in the future.
    This is where the "overrun" happens. So far, our oceans have saved our butts from catastrophic temperature rises, and scientists have only a vague idea of how much more heat the oceans can store. Suffice it to say, that at some point, the 90% withdrawal rate will decrease, or come to a 50/50 equilibrium, and land surface temps will climb as a result.

    I DO agree with ACIN on one point---we are fucked....unless....we develop more carbon capture technology and make it profitable for businesses to do so.
    Last edited by ReluctantSamurai; 02-24-2021 at 19:28.
    High Plains Drifter

    Member thankful for this post:



  9. #459

    Default Re: Climate Change

    Committed reactionaries have rejected climate change as a hoax because it is a liberal bete noire, and liberal socialists are betes noires, so what more needs to be said?

    When mercenary hacks offer trivially-false deflections to mere observations of the world, as they have done for 30 years now (and all of us here have been misled to some degree by their platforming), it is merely a convenient pretext for the culturally-motivated deniers to latch onto, predicate to an associative intuition or predisposition; the latter don't actually care about what a fact of the matter might be in this domain or any other. Postmodern conservatism is primarily concerned with establishing or gleaning a Verisimilitudinal (sic) order of the world, rather than factuality or truth as such.

    It's all signalling.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  10. #460

    Default Re: Climate Change

    Quote Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai View Post
    Given what I just sourced (and I'm not trying to insult you with "my sources are better than yours") I'd like to see contradictory information

    Even if the world dropped CO2 emissions to zero tomorrow, there would still be a 20-25 year overrun in the deleterious effects on climate.
    Why you coming at me so hot. I said planned coal plants have been cancelled for solar, not that all coal construction has halted. If I recall correctly, China has for a few years been saying that peak emissions from their industry wouldn't be until 2030ish.

    The models I've seen scientists talk about I would think take into account the time it takes between emission and impact. So when they say 3 degrees by 2100, that's already factoring in recent (up to 2019) emissions.
    Don't focus on the absolute, that's always depressing. Focus on the rate of change. https://twitter.com/Peters_Glen/stat...05408213901312


  11. #461
    Senior Member Senior Member ReluctantSamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,342

    Default Re: Climate Change

    Why you coming at me so hot.
    I guess I did a poor job of explaining my reply wasn't personal...

    I said planned coal plants have been cancelled for solar
    Maybe here in the US, and countries in the EU like Germany, but elsewhere that doesn't seem to be the case...but maybe I'm just looking in the wrong places...

    China has for a few years been saying that peak emissions from their industry wouldn't be until 2030ish.
    Unless China is making extensive use of scrubbing technology, or some other form of carbon capture, it seems unlikely, given their extensive expansion of coal plants current and planned, that they will even come close to that...

    The models I've seen scientists talk about I would think take into account the time it takes between emission and impact. So when they say 3 degrees by 2100, that's already factoring in recent (up to 2019) emissions.
    If those models don't include the "overrun" factor due to the oceans releasing heat they've already stored, then 3 degrees might be an under estimate...

    Focus on the rate of change.
    I am. And the rates for warming are increasing at a much faster rate than previously predicted, especially in the Arctic regions. Personally, I think the SSP3-7 scenario that Peters illustrates (3-5 degrees), might be the most likely trend we'll see in the coming decades. But that's just the pessimist in me, or maybe because not a single country that signed on to the Paris Climate Agreement, is on target to reach their 2030 goal....
    Last edited by ReluctantSamurai; 02-25-2021 at 04:30.
    High Plains Drifter

  12. #462

    Default Re: Climate Change

    Quote Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai View Post
    Maybe here in the US, and countries in the EU like Germany, but elsewhere that doesn't seem to be the case...but maybe I'm just looking in the wrong places...
    https://www.independent.co.uk/climat...-a7751916.html

    https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20.../vietnam-coal/

    https://www.reuters.com/article/phil...-idUSL4N2HQ1Z9

    https://electrek.co/2020/04/22/swede...l-power-plant/

    https://www.powermag.com/companies-a...n-coal-plants/

    Idk, these are just random google searches for *country* cancel coal plant. I would expect this trend to continue though: https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth


  13. #463
    Senior Member Senior Member ReluctantSamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,342

    Default Re: Climate Change

    Of course those are some hopeful signs......with some caveats

    I'll start with this: the top five carbon emitters in 2020 in order---China, United States, India, Russian Federation, Japan. These five produce more carbon emissions than the rest of the world combined. And while it's important to get reductions in every country producing carbon emissions, reductions for the top five will have a greater impact on the world as a whole.

    My focus is on those five.

    First, India. The link from the Independent is four years old. Much has changed in India since then, especially changes wrought by the pandemic. The current Modi regime is anything but environmentally friendly:

    https://www.newframe.com/indias-modi...al-safeguards/

    The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government has proposed changes to the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process, which was originally designed to safeguard the country’s diverse ecology. In March, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change issued a revised draft policy on evaluating the environmental impact of large projects.

    Among the many changes, the draft proposes a mechanism to legitimise some actions currently listed as violations, such as projects starting construction without a valid clearance. It also expands the list of projects exempted from public consultation, a crucial part of the EIA process.

    Although Modi has publicly advocated for clean power and committed to increasing India’s renewable energy target to 450GW as part of a stronger climate action plan, his government, in January this year, passed an ordinance to amend the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act of 2015 to open up the coal sector for commercial mining to all local and global firms after easing restrictions.

    Under the new provisions, Modi launched the auction of 41 coal blocks, many of which are located in dense forests in Central India. Challenging this decision, the Jharkhand government has approached the Supreme Court of India to halt the auction. The Chhattisgarh government has raised red flags over blocks being located in biodiversity-rich forests spanning across an elephant reserve.

    The biggest statistical evidence of India regressing under the Modi regime lies in the 2020 Environmental Performance Index­, which ranks the country 168th out of 180 countries, behind all South Asian nations except Afghanistan, which scored the 178th place.
    Now whether this deregulation passes court tests remains to be seen. Personally, as long as Modi, and authoritarian leaders of his ilk remain in power, the world environment is going to take a hit.

    Next, China. There's conflicting numbers concerning China, with some stating coal production is down, some up. I'll start with this, from a BP global energy report for 2020:

    https://www.bp.com/en/global/corpora...ergy/coal.html

    The Good:

    World coal consumption fell by 0.6% (-0.9 EJ), its fourth decline in six years, displaced by natural gas and renewables, particularly in the power sector (see electricity section). As a result, coal’s share in the energy mix fell to 27.0%, its lowest level in 16 years.
    The Bad (as far as China is concerned):

    Coal consumption continued to increase in some emerging economies, particularly in China (1.8 EJ), Indonesia (0.6 EJ) and Vietnam (0.5 EJ) [althought the above japantimes link seems to suggest a marked falling off of coal consumption in Vietnam] with the latter posting a record increase in part related to a sharp drop in hydroelectric power. Growth in India, usually a key driver of coal consumption, was only 0.3% (0.1 EJ) – its lowest since 2001. These increases in coal consumption were more than offset by falls in demand in the developed world, led by the US (-1.9 EJ) and Germany (-0.6 EJ), with OECD coal consumption falling to its lowest level in our data series (which goes back to 1965).

    Global coal production rose by 1.5%, with China and Indonesia providing the only significant increases (3.2 EJ and 1.3 EJ respectively). As with consumption, the largest declines in production came from the US (-1.1 EJ) and Germany (-0.3 EJ).
    The Ugly (from the above powermag link):

    While global coal consumption decreased in 2019 by 0.6%, China’s coal consumption increased by 2.3%, and accounted for 57.6% of its energy use and 51.7% of the world’s total coal use. Despite the world’s lower coal usage, the global coal fleet increased by 34 GW in 2019—the first increase in net capacity additions since 2015. Nearly two-thirds (43.8 GW) of the 68.3 GW of newly commissioned capacity was constructed in China.
    Then there's this (a bit dated, but still plenty of relevant info):

    https://newint.org/features/2019/10/16/how-green-china

    China’s decisive move away from coal as a primary source of energy is probably one of the few pieces of good news in terms of humankind’s efforts to avoid the worst of climate change. In a remarkably short time span, coal’s share of China’s energy pie dropped from 72 per cent in 2005 to 59 per cent in 2018; at the same time, wind power has grown 173 fold, nuclear 5.4 fold and solar energy from virtually nothing to producing 170 gigawatts (GW) a year, according to government figures.
    Hopeful, but then comes the pandemic (again):

    Pushing for positive climate action requires a level of intellectual investment that most members of the public, including journalists, are not ready to make. This problem looks worse in light of the current data: even though China has been relatively successful so far in slowing emissions growth, after a period of plateauing between 2014-17, emissions have started rising again due to new stimulus spending in infrastructure aimed at staving off an economic slowdown.
    Then there's this offset:

    As the country, albeit belatedly, embraces and appreciates clean air, green forests and abundant coastal waters, it tends to push those same problems out of its borders. China has quickly become the world’s largest financier and builder of coal-power plants overseas. Based on a recent estimation, Chinese financial institutions and corporations are funding about 102 gigawatts of coal-power plants overseas, which is close to the total electricity capacity of Italy.

    But cutting down coal consumption at home while building up coal capacities abroad is no contradiction under Xi’s ecological nationalism. The state-owned enterprises that lose out on their coal plants in China are effectively paid off by a Chinese state that is using all available means to export its coal technologies abroad: the resilience of these enterprises is a key part of the ‘national strength’ that the leadership is keen to build up. The same goes for having increasingly strict fishery regulations domestically to preserve the depleted coastal environment while strengthening a formidable deep-water fishery fleet to exploit more efficiently the high seas, and introducing a decisive natural forest logging ban, which turns timber traders to look elsewhere. Exporting environmentally destructive industries abroad and cutting them at home are both means of strengthening the nation – this, rather than any conception of a global commons that needs protecting, is what drives China’s environmentalism.
    A mixed bag, to say the least.

    The United States is next, but will require an entire post in itself....
    Last edited by ReluctantSamurai; 02-25-2021 at 08:57.
    High Plains Drifter

  14. #464
    Senior Member Senior Member ReluctantSamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,342

    Default Re: Climate Change

    Now for the US, another mixed bag. First, energy consumption by sector (there's a jillion sources for this info, this one is simple and to the point):

    https://www.e-education.psu.edu/ebf301/node/457

    U.S. Energy Consumption by Energy Source, 2019
    Total = 100.2 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu)

    • Petroleum: 37%
    • Natural Gas: 32%
    • Coal: 11%
    • Nuclear electric power: 8%
    • Renewable Energy: 11% (10.2 quadrillion Btu)


    Renewable energy is broken down as follows:

    • Hydroelectric: 22%
    • Biomass: 43%
      • Wood: 20%
      • Biofuels: 20%
      • Biomass Waste: 4%

    • Wind: 24%
    • Solar: 9%
    • Geothermal: 2%
    Use of coal is declining steadily and is being replaced by natural gas and renewable energy. Gas is still a carbon emitter, but much less than coal or oil. Unlike ending pharmaceutical addictions, the US can't just go "cold turkey" from coal and oil. There has to be a transitional period of the infrastructure to renewable energy sources. Fracking, the major source of the recent natural gas supplies, is fraught with problems and a topic in, and of itself.

    With the transportation sector being the largest consumer of energy, the switch to electric vehicles is a huge plus:

    https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmu...-yes-heres-why

    When looking at all these factors, driving the average EV is responsible for fewer global warming emissions than the average new gasoline car everywhere in the US. In some parts of the country, driving the average new gasoline car will produce 4 to 7 times the emissions of the average EV. For example, the average EV driven in upstate New York has emissions equal to a (hypothetical) 231 mpg gasoline car. And in California, a gasoline car would need to get 122 mpg to have emissions as low as the average EV.
    The use of renewable energy in the US is growing steadily:

    https://www.c2es.org/content/renewable-energy/

    • Renewable energy is the fastest-growing energy source in the United States, increasing 100 percent from 2000 to 2018.
    • Renewables made up more than 17 percent of net U.S. electricity generation in 2018, with the bulk coming from hydropower (7.0 percent) and wind power (6.6 percent).
    • Solar generation (including distributed) is projected to climb from 11 percent of total U.S. renewable generation in 2017 to 48 percent by 2050, making it the fastest-growing electricity source.
    • Globally, renewables made up 24 percent of electricity generation in 2016, much of it from hydropower (16 percent).
    • Renewable ethanol and biodiesel transportation fuels made up over 12 percent of total U.S. renewable energy consumption in 2018, up from 7 percent in 2006.
    All good signs, but is the transition happening fast enough? An interesting look at the current performance ratings:

    https://ccpi.org/ranking/

    Rankings are based on each country’s overall score. This is calculated from the individual scores in four categories, consisting of 14 indicators. Click on a country name for greater detail. No country performs well enough in all index categories to achieve an overall very high rating. The first three overall positions therefore remain empty. The results show that, even if all countries were as committed as the current frontrunners, efforts would still be insufficient to prevent hazardous climate change. The countries with high rankings also have no reason to ease up. Even greater efforts and actions by governments are needed to set the world on track to keep global warming well below a 2°C increase.
    Not very encouraging....

    Next up, Japan and the Russian Federation.
    Last edited by ReluctantSamurai; 02-25-2021 at 16:27.
    High Plains Drifter

  15. #465
    Senior Member Senior Member ReluctantSamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,342

    Default Re: Climate Change Thread

    An overview of Japan's energy usage:

    https://www.enerdata.net/estore/energy-market/japan/

    Total energy consumption has been decreasing since 2010 (by 2%/year on average) to 420 Mtoe in 2019.

    Slower economic growth coupled with structural trends in the transport sector (shift to electric cars and reduced car use among young generations) and the gradual phaseout of oil-fired power plants are reducing the oil demand.

    Gas consumption increased by 21% following the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in 2011 and has declined since 2013 by -2.2%/year on average.

    Coal consumption is declining slightly since 2013, by 1%/year, and reached 186 Mt in 2019. It increased rapidly between 2000 and 2007 (3%/year) with most of the utilities switching to this cheap fuel.

    In the government's latest Energy White Paper (2020), renewables are recognised as a major energy source for Japan's future. The plan aims to raise the share of renewables in the power mix to 22-24% (including hydropower) in 2030, with plans to make renewables Japan's main power source by 2050.

    GHG emissions dropped by 3.9% in FY 2019 for a fifth straight year and by 12% from FY 2013 to FY -2019.

    The long-term goal, announced in June 2019 in the long-term growth strategy under the Paris Agreement, is to become carbon neutral in 2050.
    Again all relatively good news, but is carbon neutrality by 2050 fast enough?

    The outlook for the Russian Federation is not so good:

    https://link.springer.com/article/10...25-019-00016-8

    Russia, ranking fourth in the world in primary energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions, adheres to the strategy of “business as usual” and relies on fossil fuels. Decarbonization of the energy sector is not yet on the horizon: a skeptical attitude towards the problem of global climate change prevails among stakeholders. GDP energy intensity remains high, supported by relatively low energy prices and high cost of capital. The share of solar and wind energy in the energy balance is insignificant and is not expected to exceed 1% by 2040.
    Russia is definitely a fossil fuel addict, and a large portion of their GDP depends on fossil fuel exports:

    For Russia, as for many other resource-rich and energy-exporting countries, the energy transition creates new long-term challenges, questioning the sustainability of the entire economy, which is highly dependent on hydrocarbon export revenues. Since the beginning of the 2000s, Russia has managed to increase energy exports dramatically: from 2000 to 2005, exports grew by an unprecedented 56%, exceeding the total energy exports of the USSR, providing an incredible acceleration of the national economy and strengthening the country’s position on the international stage as an “energy superpower”.

    According to estimates by the Energy Research Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences (ERI RAS), with the transformation of the global markets and reduced call for Russian hydrocarbons, the contribution of oil and gas to Russian GDP will decline by approximately half, from 31% in 2015 to 13–17% by 2040 (depending on the scenario). Therefore, climate-related policies that target a reduction in GHG emissions from hydrocarbons can substantially affect the Russian economy.
    Climate change is not prominent phraseology in Russia:

    [...]the climate agenda and the drive for decarbonization are not yet essential factors in the energy strategy of the Russian Federation. Indeed, the Paris Agreement is mentioned only once in the draft version of the “Russian Energy Strategy Up to 2035”, a key document defining the country’s strategic priorities in this critically important industry, which was submitted to the government by the Energy Ministry in 2015 but not approved until now[...]

    [...]skepticism concerning the anthropogenic nature of climate change is prevalent among stakeholders, as senior representatives of the Russian Academy of Sciences and many state officials publicly express their doubts regarding the very concept of anthropogenically driven climate change.
    Despite that, GHG emissions have decreased in Russia largely due to the increase of nuclear/hydro/and natural gas energy sources.

    Use of renewables is only a very small part of Russia's energy consumption, and will seemingly remain so in the coming decades:

    The Russian energy balance is strongly dominated by fossil fuels, with natural gas providing 53% of total primary energy demand, and coal and oil-based liquid fuels each accounting for 18%. Carbon-free sources of energy are represented primarily by large-scale hydro and nuclear power (which enjoy strong state support). The total share of renewables (including hydro, solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal) was just 3.2% of Russia’s primary energy consumption in 2015. By the end of 2015, total installed renewable power generation capacity was 53.5 GW, representing about 20% of Russia’s total installed power generation capacity (253 GW), with hydropower providing nearly all of this capacity (51.5 GW), followed by bioenergy (1.35 GW). The installed capacity for solar and onshore wind amounted to 460 MW and 111 MW, respectively, as of 2015. [that's MW not GW!]

    Since then, annual renewable capacity additions rose from 57 MW in 2015 to 376 MW in 2018 (320 MW solar, 56 MW wind). What is more important is the significant decline in capital expenditures in renewables auctions during the past 2 years, by 35% for wind and 31% for solar, according to the Energy Ministry. This process was not smooth; some capacity auction rounds have struggled to attract bids for a number of reasons, just over 2 GW of renewable capacity was awarded in tenders between 2013 and 2016, while the 2017 auction resulted in a total of 2.2 GW of wind, solar, and small hydro awarded in a single round, and in 2018, 1.08 GW of capacity was allocated among 39 projects. In 2017, five waste-to-energy projects were also introduced to the capacity market scheme, with a total capacity of 335 MW. But in 2018, the tender for waste energy capacity failed because of the strict new requirements for bidders to provide performance guarantees.
    Outlook for the Russian Federation getting on board with climate change policies is not good mainly because of government views on the importance of carbon reduction:

    Russia’s attitude towards the energy transition is quite controversial: trying to introduce in a traditional centralized manner some components of this trend. First, with regard to new technologies, the country is essentially refusing to accept the main driver of the trend—the decarbonization agenda. Existing strategic documents (primarily a draft version of the “Russian Energy Strategy Up to 2035”, which was submitted to the government by the Energy Ministry in 2015, but not approved until now) do not take the energy transition into account.
    High Plains Drifter

  16. #466

    Default Re: Climate Change Thread

    While those five are important, we can't dismiss the rest of the world. Nigeria could very well have more people than the US by end of the century. As more people in Africa, SE Asia and SA move up the tiers of income, their energy needs will increase and it is just as important they are scaling with clean energy.

    Europe seems to be well on track already, let's call that area's goals "promising": https://twitter.com/_HannahRitchie/s...72408461369345

    Russia will be the last to change for sure. I don't know anything about Indian politics, the push on coal for cheap widespread electricity could very well be a poor attempt by Modi to keep his popularity after pissing off all the farmers. When are the next elections?

    Japan has clear path forward to transition, I'm not sure what the hold up is besides Fukushima throwing a wrench in their short term plans. Tbh if population trends continue I think they will see something like a 50% reduction in total population by 2100 in which case they wouldn't be emitting much assuming they haven't already hit carbon neutrality by then.

    Reductions are the most important thing right now, but I have no doubt carbon removal and sequestration technologies will be developed/deployed by any and all countries who start to feel the strain of climate change. It is going to be wild seeing the shit people try.


  17. #467
    BrownWings: AirViceMarshall Senior Member Furunculus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Forever adrift
    Posts
    5,710

    Default Re: Climate Change Thread

    Interesting read on how well nations are doing in achieving the reality of their climate commitments:

    https://ccpi.org/download/the-climat...ce-index-2021/
    Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar

  18. #468
    Senior Member Senior Member ReluctantSamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,342

    Default Re: Climate Change Thread

    Interesting that the majority of the worst performers are countries with authoritarian governments...

    After some checking:

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...v9RtLeQP7Q-iYc

    Very, VERY, long read, with an interesting conclusion:

    There has been critique of democracy, saying it relies too much on the supposedly naive belief that citizens will push for greener decisions, when they in reality are not at all compelled to do so. Shearman and Smith criticizes democracy, saying it is intertwined with capitalism and that it promotes individual and selfish behaviour while failing to protect the common resources of the world. They question if protection of one political philosophy or another is important when the most concerning issue is the preservation of the human species and as China and Russia continues to assert themselves internationally, ideas of what is desirable and not whenit comes to governance and values of a country are blurred. When the environmental threat intensifies, even the West might agree that any form of order is preferable to disorder, and thus put democracy on hold while handling more pressing issues.

    In the six African cases used for this thesis there were many different aspects which played in regarding the way autocracies and democracies handled their policy-making and project implementation, including levels of economic growth, conflict and ambition. However, broadly speaking, the performance was quite similar between all the cases and differed only to a minor extent in some areas, meaning the type of government did not affect the performance extensively. In general, the autocratic countries did, in line with the theory, perform better than expected and actually had an extensive focus on climate change. However, unsurprisingly, they lacked in public participation, but seeing as they did not perform considerably worse than the countries with bigger participation perhaps it is not as important as it has been proclaimed to be. Although, it is worth remembering that despite perhaps being environmentally preferable, autocracies are not preferable from a human rights perspective.
    Or is it the other way around:

    https://theenergymix.com/2018/08/12/...limate-change/

    And a view from the pro-democracy side:

    https://issues.org/exceptional-circu...ump-democracy/

    It seems there is quite a debate on the role of authoritarian vs democracy in climate change....
    Last edited by ReluctantSamurai; 02-28-2021 at 15:12.
    High Plains Drifter

  19. #469
    Senior Member Senior Member ReluctantSamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,342

    Default Re: Climate Change Thread

    Interesting (and short) read on possible reasons for the accelerated rate of warming happening in Earth's polar regions, which no model, as of yet, has successfully explained. The article has a bunch of embeded links to follow, which are quite informative in their own right:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...roblem/618159/
    High Plains Drifter

  20. #470

    Default Re: Climate Change Thread

    Some more good news, Noah Kaufman was named to the WH Council of Economic Advisors, he is a proponent of a carbon tax. He now joins Yellen, Kerry and Buttigieg as high ranking officials who are in favor of the policy.

    The American Petroleum Institute sees the writing on the wall and is now shifting from anti-climate change propaganda to supporting "economy-wide carbon pricing"
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/clima...te-carbon-tax/

    Lastly, Senator Romney said he is "very open to a carbon tax, carbon dividend". Elections have consequences and the boldness of both individual actors and institutions continues to grow.


  21. #471
    Senior Member Senior Member ReluctantSamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,342

    Default Re: Climate Change Thread

    A microcosm of the battle being waged to reduce carbon emissions here in the US:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...kern-oil-field

    This week the county approved an ordinance that would allow thousands of new wells to be drilled over the next 15 years. The decision comes despite deep opposition from local farmers and environmental groups, and it puts the county directly at odds with a state that has branded itself as a trailblazer on climate and set ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In doing so, Kern has become a microcosm of a debate happening across America – and around the world – about how to tackle the climate crisis in communities that are built on fossil fuels.

    “Kern county runs on oil,” as the county chairman, Phillip Peters, concisely puts it.
    It’s a complicated problem. Kern is also a leader in renewable energy production, accounting for roughly 25% of California’s supply, but officials argue there is not yet enough revenue from the new industries. For Kern, a county where nearly 20% live below the poverty line, expanding oil production means expanding the budget.

    Roughly one in seven workers in Kern are employed by the industry or tied to it. A county analysis done last year found that the oil and gas industry funded the county to the tune of almost $200m a year. Roughly half of that, $103m, went to Kern county schools.

    The ordinance, a scaled-back version of one that originally passed in 2015 but was struck down after an environmental review, will allow for roughly 40,000 wells to be permitted through 2034. It also requires producers to take steps to soften their impact on the environment, including paying into funds to help mitigate some of the negative impacts.

    The cash comes with a high cost. Each year, the American Lung Association ranks cities in the region among the worst in the US for air quality and gives the county an F rating for both ozone and particle pollution. More than 30% of kids under 17 are diagnosed with asthma in Kern, more than double the rate across the state. Dozens of peer-reviewed studies done in high oil-producing areas across the country have found that living close to a drilling site correlated with high rates of cancer and respiratory and cardiovascular disease. And close to 60% of those living within a mile of the current oil and gas wells are people of color, according to a 2014 report from the National Resources Defense Council.
    A familiar story. Infuse just enough money into a local economy to provide jobs and services, but ignore the true costs of the pollution created, and the health damages to the local residents, while making billions on the main.

    Kern County also follows a growing trend for California in general:

    https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics...l-15825548.php

    California approved 1,646 drill permits in the first nine months of 2020 — a 137% increase over the 694 permits it approved during the same period last year, according to data from the state Geologic Energy Management Division, the agency that regulates oil and gas extraction.

    Environmentalists say the increase is emblematic of a disconnect between Newsom’s rhetoric and a lack of strong policies to confront climate change, which many experts believe contributed to a record-setting wildfire year in California in which 4.2 million acres burned and more than 30 people died.


    Newsom’s administration defended the permit approvals by noting that oil production in California is down overall and that few of the approved wells have actually been drilled. Although the state issued far more permits this year, the number of new wells drilled plummeted by 77% — with just 51 dug through Sept. 30, compared with 223 last year. That’s largely because oil prices dropped as people traveled less during the coronavirus pandemic.

    Environmentalists say that lack of drilling is of little comfort because permit holders could start work at any time within two years, the length of the permits, as the economy and travel presumably rebound.
    So why is Gov. Newsom so reluctant to take action against the oil & gas industry? One possibility being raised by his critics:

    https://capitalandmain.com/gavin-new...d-driller-0619

    On June 1, in the midst of the turmoil created by the coronavirus pandemic and the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration quietly issued 12 fracking permits to Aera Energy, a joint venture owned by ExxonMobil and Shell.

    The fracking permits are the latest example of California’s oil industry benefiting from regulatory or deregulatory action during the COVID-19 pandemic and came just months after the Newsom administration said it supported taking actions to “manage the decline of oil production and consumption in the state.” Aera, which also received 24 permits from the California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) on April 3 during the early days of COVID-19, has well-connected lobbyists in its corner who work for the firm Axiom Advisors.

    One of them, Jason Kinney, headed up Newsom’s 2018 transition team and formerly served as a senior advisor to Newsom while he was lieutenant governor. He is also a senior advisor to California’s Senate Democrats. The other, Kevin Schmidt, previously served as policy director for Newsom when the latter was lieutenant governor. Aera paid Axiom $110,000 for its lobbying work in 2019 and, so far in 2020, has paid $30,000, lobbying reports reveal.

    Axiom’s lobbying disclosure records show both Kinney and Schmidt listed as lobbyists and Aera as one of the firm’s clients. Kinney’s wife, Mary Gonsalvez Kinney, was also the stylist for Newsom’s wife–Jennifer Siebel Newsom–dating back to their time spent living in the San Francisco Bay Area. Kinney and Schmidt did not respond to repeated requests for comment for this article.

    Kinney and Schmidt are not the only two with Newsom ties. Aera CEO Christina Sistrunk sits on the governor’s Task Force on Business and Jobs Recovery, created to craft an economic recovery plan in response to the ongoing COVID-19 economic fallout.

    Aera is one of the state’s top drillers and accounts for nearly 25 percent of California’s production, its website claims. Aera landed 490 drilling permits from CalGEM in the first quarter of 2020, according to data collected by FracTracker, and 651 permits in 2019.
    I think the situation in California is a snapshot of the inter-connected web of local economies, oil & gas industry, and the outright bribery of government officials to keep the dependency on fossil fuels ongoing. While the energy companies make billions, the locals suffer from the pollutants produced, and the planet suffers from the continued production of carbon emissions...
    Last edited by ReluctantSamurai; 03-12-2021 at 13:09.
    High Plains Drifter

  22. #472

    Default Re: Climate Change Thread

    It's not so much bribery as there is absolutely nothing in Kern County besides farming, oil, and aerospace. This is where Kevin McCarthy's district is. They are going to get their oil and gas.
    Don't ever stop in Bakersfield.

    At the same time California has deployed so much solar it is depressing energy prices: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ting-sunburned
    California has also saved consumers over $100 billion from its efficiency standards: https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/defa...fmc_id=3587711

    Volvo has also now pledged electric only cars by 2030.

    US renewables generated more electricity than coal for the first time ever: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/2...fmc_id=3587711
    Two climate bills that will/have passed the House of Representatives to keep an eye on:
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...fmc_id=3587711
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...fmc_id=3587711

    Contrary to earlier posts, Japan actually has been making significant strides in reducing CO2 emissions by increasing overall carbon energy efficiency. https://twitter.com/Peters_Glen/stat...91723369246723

    China's new 5 year plan draft includes an increase in nuclear capacity from 52 to 70 gigawatts by 2025. Big moves.

    By 2025, fridges will no longer be made using high global warming potential chemicals: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/1...per-pollutant/

    Geo-engineering experiments are moving forward: https://www.economist.com/science-an...climate-change

    COVID gave us an extra year due to the massive decrease in emissions in 2020. Also an opportunity to continue the momentum downward with these massive fiscal efforts. https://twitter.com/Peters_Glen/stat...13620995936258

    Biden admin causing Trump era energy leases to be re-evaluated or cancelled: https://www.sltrib.com/news/2021/03/...ency-reverses/


  23. #473
    Senior Member Senior Member ReluctantSamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,342

    Default Re: Climate Change Thread

    It's not so much bribery as there is absolutely nothing in Kern County besides farming, oil, and aerospace. This is where Kevin McCarthy's district is. They are going to get their oil and gas.
    Precisely for the reasons laid out...energy company bribes. Energy companies realize the writing on the wall. But they aren't going to go quietly until they can extract every last drop of oil & gas that they can. What's happening in Kern Co. is repeated everywhere there is fossil fuel to be extracted not only here in the US, but across the world.

    US renewables generated more electricity than coal for the first time ever
    There is no debating this. But it doesn't mean that energy companies aren't going to fight the inevitable with every means they can. Focusing on coal only obscures the fact that fossil fuel is still king. Despite the largest % growth of all energy sources, solar power represented only 1% of total energy production in the US:

    https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/

    Oil and gas still represent the vast majority of US energy consumption...69%. Renewable energy, while making great strides in capacity, still only represents about 11% of total consumption. Because of fracking, the US remains the largest producer of oil and gas in the world.

    Contrary to earlier posts, Japan actually has been making significant strides in reducing CO2 emissions by increasing overall carbon energy efficiency.
    Don't think you read my post correctly. When presenting data for Japan, I actually acknowledged Japan's efforts to lower carbon emissions by 2050. My only counterpoint was whether 2050 is soon enough to achieve carbon neutrality.

    China's new 5 year plan draft includes an increase in nuclear capacity from 52 to 70 gigawatts by 2025. Big moves.
    Big moves indeed, if they actually carry out the draft. Meanwhile some other big moves that China is actually carrying out:

    While global coal consumption decreased in 2019 by 0.6%, China’s coal consumption increased by 2.3%, and accounted for 57.6% of its energy use and 51.7% of the world’s total coal use. Despite the world’s lower coal usage, the global coal fleet increased by 34 GW in 2019—the first increase in net capacity additions since 2015. Nearly two-thirds (43.8 GW) of the 68.3 GW of newly commissioned capacity was constructed in China.
    And perhaps you overlooked the fact that China is the largest financier of overseas construction of coal-fired plants in the world. This goes a long ways to offset some of the gains made at home in China.

    COVID gave us an extra year due to the massive decrease in emissions in 2020.
    And the majority of the decrease came in the first six months of the pandemic. Emissions are on rise again:

    https://www.carbonbrief.org/global-c...ssions-in-2020

    The peak of the decrease in emissions this year occurred in the first half of April, the researchers say in a briefing document. This was when lockdown measures in response to Covid-19 were at their most comprehensive – particularly in Europe and the US [...] For the year as a whole, the researchers estimate that CO2 from fossil fuels and industry (FF&I) – which includes emissions from burning fossil fuels, manufacturing cement and other industrial processes – will decline by 2.4GtCO2 compared to 2019. This has “never been seen before”, the researchers say, and is equivalent to a drop of 7% in global emissions.
    So yes, a 7% decrease was a very good thing. But there is going to be a rebound as vaccination gets more widespread, and nations begin to jump-start their economies. How much of a rebound is uncertain:

    On the five-year anniversary of the Paris Agreement, which is marked this week, the researchers note that “the growth in global CO2 emissions has begun to falter”. However, the rebound in emissions seen in the aftermath of previous global crises suggests that the way countries stimulate their economies after Covid-19 lockdowns will play a key role in future emissions.

    Prof Corinne Le Quéré, a Royal Society research professor of climate change science at the University of East Anglia, told journalists that “this year alone will not change anything” in terms of the pace of warming, but economic stimulus packages “will have a massive effect”.

    Also referring to the Paris global warming limits, Prof Pierre Friedlingstein, chair in mathematical modelling of climate systems at the University of Exeter, told the press briefing that “we need sustained reductions in emissions of 1-2GtCO2 per year over the next 20-30 years to limit warming well below 2C”.
    The pandemic has had the effect of temporarily reducing emissions the past year, but the global response the next several years will be crucial. Will it be the quick and easy way of economic growth through the continued use of fossil fuels, or taking the opportunity to advance the use of cleaner energy sources? Looking at the current success rate of countries pledged to very modest goals of the Paris Agreement (and many countries are on a pace to not even meet those), I'm not so sure emissions will be reduced far enough to stay below even 2 degrees Celsius...

    Biden admin causing Trump era energy leases to be re-evaluated or cancelled
    This is a good thing, but what happens in 2022 and 2024 if the Republicans control both Houses of Congress and the White House? Executive orders are mostly a short-term remedy. What's needed is long-term legislation that cannot simply be reversed or stopped by a simple stroke of the President's pen.

    And don't forget the overrun feature built into the Earth's long-term feedback loops. The Earth's oceans have absorbed 90% of the excess heat created by carbon emissions to this point. Even if carbon emissions were cut to zero tomorrow, there will be a 20-25 year period where atmospheric warming continues as the oceans release that heat back into the atmosphere. I don't believe the world will meet the target of <1.5 degrees, or even <2 degrees Celsius by 2050 unless carbon capture technology is accelerated rapidly through investment, and in parallel, making it profitable to do so.

    And the narrative has to be expanded from the macro to the micro.

    How many people who purchase hundreds of cases of bottled water or soda every year, ever consider how much fossil fuel went into producing all that plastic? Or the millions who consume fast food thereby contributing to the continued dominance of Big Agri-business and all of their carbon emitting farming practices? How many people who pull up to the gas pump actually think about what the true cost of that fuel they are pumping is? Some, as evidenced by the increasing use of electric vehicles. But there are still far too many who prefer that big, gas-guzzling SUV or the fancy sports car. How many people consider the true cost when they turn up the thermostat in winter (or down during summer)? There are literally millions of homes that need insulation, window upgrades, and other such energy-saving modifications, and too many people just don't care (and I realize that many can't afford them, either). I have a neighbor who is a perfect example: a big brick colonial built in the '30's---still has the original iron-frame, single pane windows---no insulation at all---an inefficient 30 year old conventional furnace---and an old conventional hot water tank. Yet he just bought a new Cadillac Escalade for a cool $80,000.

    People have to not only change the way they think about energy consumption, but how they live their lives to reduce their carbon footprint.
    Last edited by ReluctantSamurai; 03-13-2021 at 03:12.
    High Plains Drifter

    Member thankful for this post:



  24. #474

    Default Re: Climate Change Thread

    You don't have to be such a downer bro.


  25. #475
    Senior Member Senior Member ReluctantSamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,342

    Default Re: Climate Change Thread

    It's the difference between what's possible, and what's probable. You are more optimistic than I am...and good on you. Someone has to be...I am not. Humans don't seem to change until they are at the precipice, and we aren't there...yet.

    I just keep looking at the grading of countries in the Paris Agreement and there are far more in the insufficient to critically insufficient category than in the <1.5 degree Celsius compatable category. And most countries in the agreement had set themselves very modest goals five years ago....

    Look at the chart on pg 9 of the PDF, and tell me you aren't both concerned and angry that so many countries are in the orange and red?

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...mgxnLgKj448C6-
    Last edited by ReluctantSamurai; 03-14-2021 at 23:16.
    High Plains Drifter

  26. #476
    Senior Member Senior Member ReluctantSamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,342

    Default Re: Climate Change Thread

    If you've got several hours to kill, this monster study is chock full of info:

    https://environmenthalfcentury.princ...2020_FINAL.pdf
    High Plains Drifter

  27. #477
    Senior Member Senior Member ReluctantSamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,342

    Default Re: Climate Change Thread

    And ACIN wonders why I have a pessimistic view on climate change:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...nergy-projects

    Almost five years after countries signed the landmark Paris Agreement on climate change, financial institutions are still providing billions of dollars to companies extracting and burning the earth’s most-polluting resources.

    Since the start of 2016, banks extended more than $1.6 trillion of loans and underwriting services to fossil-fuel companies planning and developing oil, gas and coal projects, according to a joint report by 18 climate organizations published on Thursday. The top three — Citigroup Inc., Bank of America Corp. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. — lent and underwrote a combined $295 billion.

    Together, the 12 projects spotlighted in the report have the potential to produce at least 175 gigatons of additional CO2 emissions, according to the report, which was coordinated by German climate group Urgewald. That’s almost 75% of the remaining carbon budget, which is required to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celcius, according to researchers at Climate Analytics.

    “Instead of adopting a rigorous approach that would prevent the expansion of fossil fuels and facilitate their phase-out, global banks are refusing to break with the fatal growth trend of fossil extraction,” said Lucie Pinson, executive director of Reclaim Finance, a Paris-based advocacy group that contributed to the report.

    In China, the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China has plowed more than $14 billion into the country’s coal industry.

    U.S. banks led the funding of domestic projects such as the oil drilling and fracking in the Permian Basin, which covers parts of Texas and New Mexico. Bank of America lent more than $54 billion to companies involved in the basin during the past five years
    The full report with case studies, and detailed information on the banks involved:

    https://www.ran.org/bankingonclimatechaos2021/

    The two biggest benefactors by a wide margin are TC Energy Corp (major shareholder is the Royal Bank of Canada), and Exxon-Mobil.
    Last edited by ReluctantSamurai; 03-24-2021 at 12:26.
    High Plains Drifter

    Member thankful for this post:



  28. #478

    Default Re: Climate Change Thread

    https://www.aol.com/climate-change-m...091902355.html
    Climate change is making Kyoto's cherry blossoms bloom the earliest in 1,200 years

    Cherry blossoms in Kyoto, Japan reached peak bloom on March 26 this year — the earliest the event has occurred in 1,200 years of records. Why so soon? Climate change,...
    https://news.yahoo.com/cherry-blosso...NZec9pbK-m6v67
    It's cherry blossom season, but DC isn't ready to open up

    The distinctive white and pink petals reached full bloom last Sunday, about a week earlier than expected.
    Cherry blossoms bloomed about a few weeks earlier than usual in Japan and South Korea. It bloomed about a week earlier in the States.
    Last edited by Shaka_Khan; 04-02-2021 at 02:04.
    Wooooo!!!

  29. #479
    Senior Member Senior Member ReluctantSamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,342

    Default Re: Climate Change Thread

    Cherry blossoms bloomed about a few weeks earlier than usual in Japan and South Korea. It bloomed about a week earlier in the States.
    A corollary to that, that doesn't get much attention outside the science community: pollinators are not keeping in sync with the plants they are supposed to pollinate, hence many trees and crops are not producing fruit, or producing in much lower quantities. Flora are adapting much quicker to climate changes, while insects and other pollinators are much, much slower in timing their emergence and activities to changes in their environment.
    Last edited by ReluctantSamurai; 04-02-2021 at 03:05.
    High Plains Drifter

  30. #480
    Senior Member Senior Member ReluctantSamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,342

    Default Re: Climate Change Thread

    This is what I fully expected to happen as struggling economies across the globe strive to recoup losses. It follows a similar pattern following the financial crisis of a decade ago:

    https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2021

    Global energy demand is set to increase by 4.6% in 2021, more than offsetting the 4% contraction in 2020 and pushing demand 0.5% above 2019 levels. Almost 70% of the projected increase in global energy demand is in emerging markets and developing economies, where demand is set to rise to 3.4% above 2019 levels. Energy use in advanced economies is on course to be 3% below pre-Covid levels.

    Demand for all fossil fuels is set to grow significantly in 2021. Coal demand alone is projected to increase by 60% more than all renewables combined, underpinning a rise in emissions of almost 5%, or 1 500 Mt. This expected increase would reverse 80% of the drop in 2020, with emissions ending up just 1.2% (or 400 Mt) below 2019 emissions levels.

    Coal demand is on course to rise 4.5% in 2021, with more than 80% of the growth concentrated in Asia. China alone is projected to account for over 50% of global growth. Coal demand in the United States and the European Union is also rebounding, but is still set to remain well below pre-crisis levels. The power sector accounted for only 50% of the drop in coal-related emissions in 2020. But the rapid increase in coal-fired generation in Asia means the power sector is expected to account for 80% of the rebound in 2021.
    While renewables are also making significant gains, those gains will be more than offset by projected use of easily accessible fossil fuel. Just like a long-term addiction, giving up fossil fuels is going to be a long, painful process. With the earlier article noting the continued massive funding of fossil fuels by banks and other lending institutions since 2016, it's going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to reach even the modest goals for reducing carbon emissions by 2050....
    High Plains Drifter

Page 16 of 17 FirstFirst ... 6121314151617 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO