Climate Change Thread

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

[Hooahguy]

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

[Hooahguy]

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

[ReluctantSamurai]

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.

[Montmorency]

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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

[ReluctantSamurai]

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....