Global Warming

[Xann]

It's in China's interest to turn it around and I'm told we're going to start seeing it.

Xi and his successors may not be as prone to the machinations of the polluting energy scum? That's got to be good news.

[CVByrne]

3 hours ago, VILLAMARV said:

Yeah, literally nobody thinks that. This is a strawman argument.

I also find it strange. But given that during the last 30odd years individuals have been presented with contradictory evidence, talking head salespeople spreading division through news media and successive governments enthralled by the corporate power of huge companies I find it hard to lay blame at the feet of those individuals. The bullshit evidence from tobacco companies claiming smoking wasn't causing illnesses bought them a lot of time to carry on regardless, but it wouldn't be right to blame individuals for believing it. The fraudulent activities of the corporation were the issue - and it was solely about protecting profits. I believe something similar is afoot here

The ending there is veering into strawman territory again, eh. What protests achieve if they are successful is highlighting a cause, creating something that provokes thought and conversation. As was very much acheived by the Grand National protests for example. And proven by the thread on here having a couple of pages of a few people talking about who won or fell in a race and many pages more with loads of people discussing the issues they were trying to highlight.

The idea that protests are stupid because they wont affect real change is a reductionist argument that misses the point entirely.

In some instances, the appeal to individuals to think has ended up affecting real change of course. But it's not the sole reason to protest, it would be the end of a very very long process.

Why some protests are picked up on in the media and why some protests/marches/gatherings are ignored is an interesting question to me. It's not an accident. It's also not an accident that media run with 'hate the messenger' coverage at the same time as our government is trying to pass ever more Laws around stopping dissent.

If you don't like protests or protesters then cool, there's a thread for that. But inventing answers to questions nobody is asking seems a strange way to vocalise it.

So many words without actually saying anything. It's just a lot of complaining. That's the problem. We're doing more than anyone in global warming. Europe is only 9% of global co2 emissions and it's falling.

I don't care about the number of people in UK or Europe actually don't believe in man made climate change because we who do are the majority and it's an entrenched political view now. So we are doing what we can. All the protesting about it. You'd swear we were the worst offending countries not the leading edge. It's a joke.

What I will level at you and of course you won't respond with an answer just more words without saying anything is list your solutions to the the problem. Lost the exact things you want every citizen of the UK to do and tell me why and what it will do. That's the thing permanently lacking. No solutions just protesting and complaining.

Just a bunch of victims with no agency. 

[CVByrne]

30 minutes ago, Xann said:

It's in China's interest to turn it around and I'm told we're going to start seeing it.

Xi and his successors may not be as prone to the machinations of the polluting energy scum? That's got to be good news.

It's not that simple. Oil, gas and coal are just cheaper forms of energy for the world at the moment. The way we win is making other forms of energy cheaper without the huge up front investment required in infrastructure. That's the key barrier for so many developing countries.

Energy prices are so key to economic stability. Look at Pakistan, the damage done because EU had to turn to LNG because of war in Ukraine and bid prices up. They've had mega inflation as a result. 

Energy is the underpinning of the world economy. Wind and Solar are not solutions to the problem given the level of global energy consumption. Fusion is end game. Big leap in battery technology are what makes renewable energy take a leap forward. 

[Xann]

18 hours ago, CVByrne said:

It's not that simple...

It is really, the whole hydrocarbon market is a another blag managed over decades of market protection.

It makes the Brexit con look modest.

People just keep getting mugged off, and now they've shit on their kids.

Edited July 9, 2023 by Xann

[CVByrne]

38 minutes ago, Xann said:

It is really, the whole hydrocarbon market is a another blag managed over decades of market protection.

It makes the Brexit con look modest.

People just keep getting mugged off, and now they've shit on their kids.

The cost of energy is a measurable thing. What do you want countries who have coal or oil fired plants to do? Take Pakistan or Indonesia. 

Just explain in a response what they should do to generate electricity. 

[Xann]

8 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

Just explain in a response what they should do to generate electricity. 

Nationalise energy and use the proceeds to facilitate change.

Should've been decades ago, but you know, people got distracted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_Energy

 

[sidcow]

19 hours ago, CVByrne said:

It's not that simple. Oil, gas and coal are just cheaper forms of energy for the world at the moment. The way we win is making other forms of energy cheaper without the huge up front investment required in infrastructure. That's the key barrier for so many developing countries.

Energy prices are so key to economic stability. Look at Pakistan, the damage done because EU had to turn to LNG because of war in Ukraine and bid prices up. They've had mega inflation as a result. 

Energy is the underpinning of the world economy. Wind and Solar are not solutions to the problem given the level of global energy consumption. Fusion is end game. Big leap in battery technology are what makes renewable energy take a leap forward. 

They're really not. 

Wind and Solar are much cheaper. 

There is a lot of talk about much of Africa actually leapfrogging Coal and Gas precisely because it's so expensive.  The actual cost of building enormous stations, building a network of pylons, mining, drilling, buying and transporting coal and gas is prohibitively expensive.  

It's actually massively cheaper to build a wind and solar farm on the edge of a town and run the electricity straight into it than to build a whole coal and gas network. 

The only single reason there is any discussion about coal and gas is because of the staggering amounts of money Coal and Gas lobby business and Government with. 

Edited July 9, 2023 by sidcow

[VILLAMARV]

On 08/07/2023 at 16:11, CVByrne said:

So many words without actually saying anything. It's just a lot of complaining.

The problem with that notion is it's in black and white. You're entitled to your opinion. You're wrong. But you're entitled to be.

Quote

That's the problem.  

Are you seriously suggesting that the problem with global warming is that people complain about the status quo?

Quote

We're doing more than anyone in global warming. Europe is only 9% of global co2 emissions and it's falling.

Who is we? Do you mean to cause it, or positively affect it? Spurious statistics are definitely part of the problem imho. But it's selective reasoning either way. People in 'the west' have the highest levels of energy use per capita on the globe. Pointing at someone's 9% figure as some sort of get out of jail free card is reductionism in the extreme.

Quote

I don't care about the number of people in UK or Europe actually don't believe in man made climate change because we who do are the majority and it's an entrenched political view now.

And yet you're the one who bought it up.

Quote

So we are doing what we can.

Do you think we're doing ALL we can? I think we could do much more.

Quote

All the protesting about it. You'd swear we were the worst offending countries not the leading edge. It's a joke.

Why? But you're doing the fallacy thing again - you don't like the protests, ok, But no one swears anything of the sort.

Quote

What I will level at you and of course you won't respond with an answer just more words without saying anything is

So that's a thing you actually wrote.

Quote

list your solutions to the the problem. Lost the exact things you want every citizen of the UK to do and tell me why and what it will do.

What a ridiculous response. I always love the point in conversation or debate where people who've run out of things to say use this deflectionary nonsense as some sort of shield against criticism of the status quo or their own words. Or both. So I suggested you're engaging in strawman arguments and provided an answer to your question about what could be acheived with protest. I said I believe the thing that's holding us back is the desire to protect the capital and power of individuals and corporations around the world seemingly before we actually try and affect change and your response is to say this? I feel that's a disingenuous attempt at narrowing the debate. And that's before I mention the controlling, demanding nature of this as a reply. Does shouting demands usually garner the results you want in your world?

But to interact with you on a level of respect way above anything your response has offered me here, what I feel we lack is the will to do anything about the problem. How about instead of focussing on reducing emissions we focus on reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. Instead of inventing the idea of buying up countrys carbon credits and pointing the finger elsewhere we invest in energy production on a localised level - and as others have touched upon - a production focussed on benefitting the end users and not the middle men. Instead of focussing on the individual why don't we focus on the problem? The idea for instance that people should stop burning wood at home, while companies benefit from biomass power stations and so on is simply laughable. Take out the large polluters first, then worry about the little guys. Instead of subsidising the energy companies, subsidise insulating homes, subsidise the empowerment of the individual. Yet we the individuals, can indeed do our bit. Vote with your spending power, pay a penny more per unit by signing up to green energy providers, buy local produce, stop buying stuff you don't need that's been shipped around the world unnecessarily, vote for people who wish to reinvest in a manufacturing sector with the aim of affecting uneccessary transport systems and industries that rely on slave labour, build your own water wheel or wind turbine or solar system, or better still, all 3. remove yourself from the clutches of the energy companies as much as possible. Reduce our individual energy consumption, educate yourselves, learn about passive systems, pelton wheels and hydraulic ram pumps etc etc etc. The possibilities are plentiful. Of course those sorts of things scaled up to national or global levels wouldn't be cheap under the current status quo, but then that's where the will comes in. Sometimes the moral cost far outweighs any economic cost. Surely the survival of the humans is a good reason to try at least? And they are not realistically applicable for everyone - so again I have issues with the way you posed the question. It's not neccessarily about finding a one-size fits all answer and applying it to each individual. 

The way that we produce and consume energy in the present paradigm is unsustainable, we've been sold the line of gradual market driven incremental change for decades now and it doesn't appear to be having any meaningful effect does it? Global Warming really doesn't care about the economic paradigm or game theory or AK47's.

Quote

That's the thing permanently lacking. No solutions just protesting and complaining. Just a bunch of victims with no agency.

Solutions are seemingly in short supply I agree, but the notion that all we have is protesting and complaining is just drivel. Bigoted, zealoted drivel at that.

7 hours ago, CVByrne said:

The cost of energy is a measurable thing.

We could always start measuring things with meaning rather than making meaning out of the things we can measure.

You know that money makes the world go round thing? Yeah, that's not a truism either is it?

[CVByrne]

On 09/07/2023 at 12:03, sidcow said:

They're really not. 

Wind and Solar are much cheaper. 

There is a lot of talk about much of Africa actually leapfrogging Coal and Gas precisely because it's so expensive.  The actual cost of building enormous stations, building a network of pylons, mining, drilling, buying and transporting coal and gas is prohibitively expensive.  

It's actually massively cheaper to build a wind and solar farm on the edge of a town and run the electricity straight into it than to build a whole coal and gas network. 

The only single reason there is any discussion about coal and gas is because of the staggering amounts of money Coal and Gas lobby business and Government with. 

Wind and Solar require large capital investments and the developing countries don't have the capital to do that. All those countries have already build the coal and oil firing plants and that's how they power their economies. So what we're talking about is transitioning to renewable which is a massive capital investment. 

Further more solar produces no energy at night and wind produces no energy without wind. We don't have the battery technology to store power generated by these so they can't be relied upon for consistent power that modern economies require. That's why at best it will be a mix of renewables with controlled energy production (oil/gas/nuclear).

These are the huge barriers facing the majority of countries in the world. Europe accounts for only 8% of global co2 emissions. China for example, 60% of the electricity production comes from coal. Coal is twice as much co2 as gas. Coal fire plans can be converted to work from gas. So staying with fossil fuels but moving from coal to gas would have a huge impact on reducing co2 emissions for China

We keep forgetting Europe is essentially irrelevant (8% global co2) when it comes to global co2 emissions. So this idea oil and gas lobby to the UK government matters much. They're just aiming to slow our transition at best to renewable. 

[LondonLax]

35 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

Wind and Solar require large capital investments and the developing countries don't have the capital to do that. All those countries have already build the coal and oil firing plants and that's how they power their economies. So what we're talking about is transitioning to renewable which is a massive capital investment. 

Further more solar produces no energy at night and wind produces no energy without wind. We don't have the battery technology to store power generated by these so they can't be relied upon for consistent power that modern economies require. That's why at best it will be a mix of renewables with controlled energy production (oil/gas/nuclear).

These are the huge barriers facing the majority of countries in the world. Europe accounts for only 8% of global co2 emissions. China for example, 60% of the electricity production comes from coal. Coal is twice as much co2 as gas. Coal fire plans can be converted to work from gas. So staying with fossil fuels but moving from coal to gas would have a huge impact on reducing co2 emissions for China

We keep forgetting Europe is essentially irrelevant (8% global co2) when it comes to global co2 emissions. So this idea oil and gas lobby to the UK government matters much. They're just aiming to slow our transition at best to renewable. 

The reason China accounts for a disproportionately high amount is because we outsource our manufacturing to them, because they cut corners and do things cheaper. Then we point the finger at them and say ‘they are the problem’.

Consumption at western levels is a much bigger problem than consumption at Chinese levels. 

Edited July 10, 2023 by LondonLax

[villa89]

I think that graph pretty much sums it up. People talk about climate change but nobody has ever actually done anything about it. It's cheap to dig holes in the ground and burn fossil fuels for energy and politics is usually concerned with the short term not the long term.

Eventually the west will wean itself off fossil fuels but by then it will probably be too late. Once the west sorts itself out you will still have another few decades of 3rd world countries still using fossil fuels.

What's really interesting is how much the climate will change over our lifetimes. In 25 years will we see Scotland baked in 25C heat for 8 months of the year? Or more storms? Or more rain, no snow etc.  

Edited July 10, 2023 by villa89

[OutByEaster?]

The problem is that solutions to global warming don't match with the doctrine of the last century, our single underlying religion  - growth and profit..

If we're asking what individuals should be doing, it's in changing attitudes to things like fashion, the consuming of things - buy a t-shirt you're going to wear for the next twenty years, don't buy a car every three years because you need a newer model to look good or feel good, even an electric one - we need to fundamentally address a world based on the unsurvivable idea of continual, eternal, permanent growth, the permanent new, we need to reintroduce the idea that you mend things, that recycling isn't just about which bin you put your packaging in, encourage people to buy less, use less, own less things - the exact opposite of the absolute prevailing idea of our times.

When we reach a point where we judge the success of a company on something other than profit, we'll be in a position to properly address the problems of climate change.

Right now, Shell will introduce renewables when they're cost effective, they'll dig new wells when that's cost effective, they'll spend tens of millions on PR and bad science in order to keep existing carbon based facilities open if it's cost effective - the CEO may pay lip service to green issues, to global concerns, to geo-politics, to global energy security and all of those things, but they are all subservient to profit. Making a profit in the next quarter, year, two years, those are the things that matter most to the people who can do most about climate change - and they are in opposition to us succeeding in challenging it.

I think we're too far gone, too committed to solving this within the paradigm of our existing global system, unable to take the biggest steps, and too far along now to stop a crisis that will cost hundreds of millions of lives.

 

[CVByrne]

4 minutes ago, villa89 said:

I think that graph pretty much sums it up. People talk about climate change but nobody has ever actually done anything about it. It's cheap to dig holes in the ground and burn fossil fuels for energy and politics is usually concerned with the short term not the long term.

Eventually the west will wean itself off fossil fuels but by then it will probably be too late. Once the west sorts itself out you will still have another few decades of 3rd world countries still using fossil fuels.

What's really interesting is how much the climate will change over our lifetimes. In 25 years will we saw Scotland baked in 25C heat for 8 months of the year? Or more storms? Or more rain, no snow etc.  

Except Europe. Our Co2 emissions have dropped from 3.5bln kilotonnes in 2006 to 2.7bln in 2019. We're just too small and as we reduce our co2 emissions our contribution as a % to global co2 levels falls further meaning any future reductions have less and less impact.

You talk about the West. The West contributes 27% of Global Co2 emissions and that level falls every year

[OutByEaster?]

In order to properly address a global crisis, we may need to stop thinking about us and them, about the West and China, about people belonging to countries or about each country taking its own responsibility in its own way, we may have to remove the autonomy of our corporations and banks - if reducing carbon use and encouraging renewables in a part of the world makes a difference to our survival, then we may have to co-opt Citibank and empty out their coffers in order to pay for it - we may have to take the profit of Blackrock this year, and next year and use it for the good of the planet - even if that means just removing trillions of dollars from the US economy and giving it to China - we will need to think outside of the chains of our system.

We aren't going to do that, the idea itself sounds ridiculous, and it's our inability to think outside of the way our economy is built that means we aren't going to be able to address the coming crisis. We place the structure of our banking system and the rights of shareholders and companies above our own survival and we live in a world that's unable to see around that conceptually. 

 

[magnkarl]

1 hour ago, CVByrne said:

Wind and Solar require large capital investments and the developing countries don't have the capital to do that. All those countries have already build the coal and oil firing plants and that's how they power their economies. So what we're talking about is transitioning to renewable which is a massive capital investment. 

Massive wind farms are for sure. Solar not so much. I've got solar on my roof which I installed myself with very basic experience, I keep adding panels when I can and then I just need an electrician to do the last hookups at the converter or regulator. 

I think people get caught up in the size of everything. You don't need a massive whooper of a wind farm or solar farm to make a lot of energy, if all new builds were required to have solar we'd quickly get to a very sustainable point. The same goes for the smaller modular windfarms next to roads like in Korea. In Europe we seem to be so caught up in pillaging nature to save the climate, but in reality there are better ways to do things, just that it won't leave the kind of profit for massive wind and solar companies like the system we have now.

In an ideal world you've got smaller modular nuclear plants for current stabilisation and renewable energy on top.

Solar panels aren't all that expensive, and compared to the oil spillage, destruction of nature and plastic problems surrounding wind farming there's very few drawbacks. The latest reports about bird populations in Norway and around the Isle of Man where there's big wind farms is dire reading. They're finding plastics from the turbines in pretty much all dead animals for miles around the plants and populations of birds and fish are down with 70-80% due to collisions and noise pollution under water.

Edited July 10, 2023 by magnkarl

[CVByrne]

1 hour ago, LondonLax said:

The reason China accounts for a disproportionately high amount is because we outsource our manufacturing to them, because they cut corners and do things cheaper. Then we point the finger at them and say ‘they are the problem’.

Consumption at western levels is a much bigger problem than consumption at Chinese levels. 

It doesn't matter. China is part of the global trade economy. The one thing that we know will not happen as no government would last if they did was enforce consumption changes. Essentially cause a recession in the west to drive down our demand for goods manufactured in China. That drops demand and then drops their energy as a result. This would put millions out of work and is just not even a discussion topic as it would never happen. We also can't control how China gets it's energy. 

Solutions need to be found within a growing energy demand environment. 

Edited July 10, 2023 by CVByrne

[LondonLax]

37 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

Except Europe. Our Co2 emissions have dropped from 3.5bln kilotonnes in 2006 to 2.7bln in 2019. We're just too small and as we reduce our co2 emissions our contribution as a % to global co2 levels falls further meaning any future reductions have less and less impact.

You talk about the West. The West contributes 27% of Global Co2 emissions and that level falls every year

Again, you are just talking about the emissions we produced within our borders. 

What about the emissions we produced in China ordering our clothes, cars, phones and TVs from there? 

[CVByrne]

41 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

The problem is that solutions to global warming don't match with the doctrine of the last century, our single underlying religion  - growth and profit..

If we're asking what individuals should be doing, it's in changing attitudes to things like fashion, the consuming of things - buy a t-shirt you're going to wear for the next twenty years, don't buy a car every three years because you need a newer model to look good or feel good, even an electric one - we need to fundamentally address a world based on the unsurvivable idea of continual, eternal, permanent growth, the permanent new, we need to reintroduce the idea that you mend things, that recycling isn't just about which bin you put your packaging in, encourage people to buy less, use less, own less things - the exact opposite of the absolute prevailing idea of our times.

When we reach a point where we judge the success of a company on something other than profit, we'll be in a position to properly address the problems of climate change.

Right now, Shell will introduce renewables when they're cost effective, they'll dig new wells when that's cost effective, they'll spend tens of millions on PR and bad science in order to keep existing carbon based facilities open if it's cost effective - the CEO may pay lip service to green issues, to global concerns, to geo-politics, to global energy security and all of those things, but they are all subservient to profit. Making a profit in the next quarter, year, two years, those are the things that matter most to the people who can do most about climate change - and they are in opposition to us succeeding in challenging it.

I think we're too far gone, too committed to solving this within the paradigm of our existing global system, unable to take the biggest steps, and too far along now to stop a crisis that will cost hundreds of millions of lives.

 

This is what the core of it is. To solve climate change by reducing consumption and overturning capitalism to be replaced by some other form (likely based around Marxism). For this to happen would require revolution and with that mass bloodshed. 

It's clear to most people who look at the actual data that a solution based on capitalism and growth is not possible without the revolutionary technology breakthroughs (nuclear fusion, advanced carbon trapping). So the only other viable solution is to fundamentally change the western capitalist system. To do that requires revolution.

[CVByrne]

8 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Again, you are just talking about the emissions we produced within our borders. 

What about the emissions we produced in China ordering our clothes, cars, phones and TVs from there? 

We don't produce those emissions. We can't change how China generates it's electricity. If we significantly reduce our spending on goods and services we will cause a global recession / depression which will reduce energy consumption and co2 emissions. Is making millions and millions unemployed worth the trade off?

The only other solution as stated above is overturn the capitalist system. Which would require revolution and mass bloodshed to achieve. 

[CVByrne]

49 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

In order to properly address a global crisis, we may need to stop thinking about us and them, about the West and China, about people belonging to countries or about each country taking its own responsibility in its own way, we may have to remove the autonomy of our corporations and banks - if reducing carbon use and encouraging renewables in a part of the world makes a difference to our survival, then we may have to co-opt Citibank and empty out their coffers in order to pay for it - we may have to take the profit of Blackrock this year, and next year and use it for the good of the planet - even if that means just removing trillions of dollars from the US economy and giving it to China - we will need to think outside of the chains of our system.

We aren't going to do that, the idea itself sounds ridiculous, and it's our inability to think outside of the way our economy is built that means we aren't going to be able to address the coming crisis. We place the structure of our banking system and the rights of shareholders and companies above our own survival and we live in a world that's unable to see around that conceptually. 

Exactly. It's a crazy mess to try solve and there lacks any kind of global leadership or will to do anything like that. So the only available option is to massively increase the funding for R&D on the technologies. Batteries, Carbon Trapping and Nuclear Fusion. We manage the impact of climate change as best we can and try to reduce the co2 emissions as best the global governments can achieve. The new technologies can reverse the levels of co2 in the atmosphere and the hope is they can before the ecosystem damage is too severe. It's just hope though