Jump to content

What shouldn't be done...about climate change


Kalbear

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

On Greta Thunbergs Wiki

On 13 March 2019, two deputies of the Swedish parliament and three deputies of the Norwegian parliament nominated Thunberg as a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize. The nominating politicians explained their decision by arguing that global warming will be the cause of "wars, conflict and refugees" if nothing is done to halt it. Thunberg responded that she was "honoured and very grateful" for the nomination.[123] If Thunberg receives the Prize later this year, she will become the youngest person ever to receive it.[124]

This is true. The refugee crises and resource conflicts we have seen to date are absolutely nothing to what is coming. If vast swathes of equatorial Africa and South America become uninhabitable and people start fleeing northwards towards the US and Europe not just in their tens of thousands, but in the tens of millions, then what will follow will be pretty horrific.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, maarsen said:

My daughter works for a consulting firm and her speciality is renewable energy. She had just finished a presentation to the natural gas utilities in New York State last week. they are looking at methods to decarbonize now. One option is that no new houses will be allowed to be hooked up to gas pipelines for heating. Other governments and utilities are looking at similar proposals. There is not as much inaction as it seems. Is it enough? we'll see.

were viable alternative options presented for home heating.

 

I have been considering solar thermal heat pumps

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7517663/Ex-Gear-host-Jeremy-Clarkson-brands-Greta-Thunberg-spoilt-brat-says-shut-up.html

I'd say Clarkson is accusing Greta of that for which he is guilty: being a spoiled brat. At least he's not a denier, so I'll give him that.

Quote

We gave you mobile phones and laptops and the internet. We created the social media you use every day

Really? Who is this "we" Jeremy. I don't recall your name on any of the patents for these things. It's like me saying 
"we won the Rugby world cup twice in row". No, "we" didn't, the All Blacks won it, we just watched and basked in reflected glory, which is the worst kind of glory in which to bask. I'm pretty sure the people who actually gave us mobile phones, laptops and the internet can speak for themselves when it comes to where Greta should be and what she's doing. They probably all have more intellectual cred than Clarkson too.

But at least he's not a denier. Though maybe it's worse he's not a denier? 

Also something something freedom of speech, something something deplatorming voices you don't like. [Note: Clarkson is telling her to shut up and go away, I'm just saying Clarkson's a bit of a condescending dick.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I keep wondering how much we have to blame the media once again for these spiteful "Shut up and go home" rants I have witnessed again and again in real life over the course of the last weeks. Because at the same time I noticed that even sympathetic media outlets have adopted the term "wrath speech" in their headlines concerning Thunberg's UN speech. Granted, I haven't watched it myself, but I made it a habit to ask the people ranting about her whether they did and in every single case they didn't. They just flew into a rage upon seeing the headlines.

Granted, they also usually have their personal reasons. At my current school there is a lot of hostility among the teachers because they made themselves think the students just want to skip school. Which is bonkers from my experience, the ones who do protest are usually the most engaged ones who see the need to be clever about it (no protesting during exams, rotating protesters that stay in class to keep the others informed about missed Friday lessons etc.). The ones who have problematic motivation usually stay in class or would in extreme cases skip either way, Friday's for Future or not.

I guess it's more, like how it's usually with detractors, that they feel attacked and project a lot of insecurities about their current lifestyle into whatever Thunberg stands for. They know that flying to a short vacation every tiny holiday is bad, that daily meat consumption is bad, that using a SUV to drive half a kilometer to the bakery on a weekend is bad, but that's they life they have come accostumed to it and project the crazed activist wanting take away their ham sandwich into her rightfully calling out world leaders for their inaction. It is quite similar to the American gun debate, isn't it? Because it's your 'freedom' that is at stake, even if this freedom to pollute in this case is not just bought with the corpses of just a few shot up school children, but an apocalyptic future for all of us. And like in the gun debate, it's not you yourself who profit from keeping things going as it is, but it's huge faceless corporations that for the sake of profit have all drilled into our heads that it would be too bothersome to shorten value creation chains, to use green energy solutions that are already there, to to cut back on truly ridiculous packaging waste and plastic usage. Yes, things like meat, flights and cars will indeed get more expansive, but I doubt it will be much more expensive than they were 60 years ago. We as a global society just have forgotten the worth of things.

And yes, that includes labour. I wonder why it's rarely pointed out how many jobs will be created if producing locally instead of shipping shit across half the globe is being incentivized again, how many jobs will be created thanks to the infrastructure we need for a carbon neutral energy network. Here in Germany, especially in Eastern Germany, we had a huge photovoltaic production sector from 2000 to 2012. Then the subsidies were stopped, our producers lost against Chinese competition and 80.000 jobs were lost. Right now a similar thing happens to the wind power industry, not because of competition (things are too heavy to be profitably shipped from China), but because state projects were frozen. Another 25.000 jobs lost. And yet everyone keeps screeching about 20.000 coal jobs that nobody wants to keep.

At the same time while I was so uplifted by the Desertec project in Marocco, I notice the declining number of investors there, even though it's the best project to end all of Europe's and Africa's energy problems for the next centuries. It's just because of political priorities being totally skewered and that's what Thunberg and our kids are rightfully calling out as the bullshit that it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7517663/Ex-Gear-host-Jeremy-Clarkson-brands-Greta-Thunberg-spoilt-brat-says-shut-up.html

Quote
  Quote

We gave you mobile phones and laptops and the internet. We created the social media you use every day

 

Lol "yeah we launched the lifeboats half-full, but also we had the band learn some new pop tunes and learn a couple comedy skits while the ship was sinking, and one dude painted a big smiley face on the iceberg!  Where's your fucking gratitude?!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, maarsen said:

Heat pumps were the option. 

I would think that in NY, it would be a mix of geothermal, solar thermal and electric heat pumps.  But electric heat pumps in an area as cold as NY is IMO a pretty unappealing option.  I had one in Maryland and it used a huge amount of electricity (in addition to not getting the house very warm).  My carbon footprint from heating was much higher than if I'd had natural gas.  Now, if you can get a nearly carbon free electricity grid that isn't much of an issue, but even states like NY are still many years away on that front. 

Plus, if you ban natural gas hookups, you know that some people are just going to install heating oil or propane heat, and those are both worse than NG.  I think that banning gas heating in a place like New York doesn't make a lot of sense to combat climate change. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Maithanet said:

I would think that in NY, it would be a mix of geothermal, solar thermal and electric heat pumps.  But electric heat pumps in an area as cold as NY is IMO a pretty unappealing option.  I had one in Maryland and it used a huge amount of electricity (in addition to not getting the house very warm).  My carbon footprint from heating was much higher than if I'd had natural gas.  Now, if you can get a nearly carbon free electricity grid that isn't much of an issue, but even states like NY are still many years away on that front. 

Plus, if you ban natural gas hookups, you know that some people are just going to install heating oil or propane heat, and those are both worse than NG.  I think that banning gas heating in a place like New York doesn't make a lot of sense to combat climate change. 

I think the point was that new subdivisions will not be hooked to to natural gas mains. The property developer needs to find different ways of heating those houses or changing the way the houses are built to reduce their energy needs. More insulation in the walls and ceilings is one solution. Ground effect heating  and cooling are also available. 

Living in Canada I am well aware of how cold it can get here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Maithanet said:

I would think that in NY, it would be a mix of geothermal, solar thermal and electric heat pumps.  But electric heat pumps in an area as cold as NY is IMO a pretty unappealing option.  I had one in Maryland and it used a huge amount of electricity (in addition to not getting the house very warm).  My carbon footprint from heating was much higher than if I'd had natural gas.  Now, if you can get a nearly carbon free electricity grid that isn't much of an issue, but even states like NY are still many years away on that front. 

Plus, if you ban natural gas hookups, you know that some people are just going to install heating oil or propane heat, and those are both worse than NG.  I think that banning gas heating in a place like New York doesn't make a lot of sense to combat climate change. 

Like Maarsen was saying I'd be interested in the insulation situation.  Heat pumps do use a decent amt of electricity but going this route is the long term way to go.  Here in upstate NY I have a few customers with heat pumps and their back up (and original) oil or propane furnaces generally only kick in when it's below 20-25.  

Would be good to have people preparing home heating to take advantage of electricity sources becoming greener for home energy needs 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Insulation will reduce your heating needs, but that is true whether you have NG or an electric heat pump.  I am all for having strong new building insulation standards (although having worked on climate planning at the local level, getting those standards passed is a LOT easier than getting them enforced).  At virtually every level of govt there are people willing to give an exception to local building standards if they will invest money in a big construction project. 

My point is that electric heat pumps work less efficiently the larger the gap between the temperature outside and the temperature inside.  If the difference is less than 30 degrees, then heat pumps work very well.  Between 30 and 40 degrees you start seeing a real efficiency drop, and more than 40 degrees you are going to be either running your backup power source or running the system nonstop, with the associated electricity bill and carbon emissions.  If you are somewhere like NY it gets below 25 degrees pretty regularly.  And it seems like the very likely consequence of banning a hookup for NG heat is that more people install a system with heating oil or propane or something, and that is exactly what we're trying to avoid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

call this one of several warnings about the supply side of the fossil fuel situation.  As previously stated, this supply situation will result in a forced transition to alternative energy sources about the time Climate Change goes critical.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/shale-boom-is-slowing-just-when-the-world-needs-oil-most/ar-AAI1N1D?ocid=msnclassic

 

U.S. oil production increased by less than 1% during the first six months of the year, according to the Energy Department, down from nearly 7% growth over the same period last year.

 

Unlike several years ago, when shale production fell due to a global price collapse, the slowdown this year is driven partly by core operational issues, including wells producing less than expected after being drilled too close to one another, and sweet spots running out sooner than anticipated.

The challenges raise the prospect that the technological and engineering advances that have allowed shale companies to unlock record amounts of oil and gas from rock formations have begun to level off.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Lol "yeah we launched the lifeboats half-full, but also we had the band learn some new pop tunes and learn a couple comedy skits while the ship was sinking, and one dude painted a big smiley face on the iceberg!  Where's your fucking gratitude?!"

I see his daughter came out and congratulated Greta on her activism. I imagine there was an interesting offline conversation between them about the situation. Arnie is lending Greta his EV while she's in the USA, I guess he's not offended by a 16 year old girl having a voice and using it.

It's interesting the complainers thinking that the only good way to get an education is to sit in a classroom. Honestly, it's probably the worst way to get an education, but it's the only way we've been able to come up with to deliver education to large numbers of people at the same time. Surely the Internet for which we should all be grateful to Jeremy Clarkson for giving to us, must be able to free students from the classroom to improve their education. It's freed me from my office, I can work from home as effectively as at the office now, and being able to do so a day or 2 a weeks has been a huge benefit to my work-life balance. And potentially reduced my carbon footprint by a tiny amount, but every bit counts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It's interesting the complainers thinking that the only good way to get an education is to sit in a classroom. Honestly, it's probably the worst way to get an education, but it's the only way we've been able to come up with to deliver education to large numbers of people at the same time. 

Yeah its beside the point so I rarely bring it up but I think a few school days lost to these strikes etc are far more educational than the handful of school days would have been for the kids taking part. If Gen X and Millenials had had similar education and familiarisation wtih strikes, protests and rallies we might have actually had the faith in our collective power to turn out in large enough numbers 10-20 years ago that we wouldn't be in this mess. Instead we had decades of the powerful convincing us we had nothing to protest over and destroying public confidence in, and belief in the legitimacy of, collective action.

A school education is about more than basic mathematics and language skills. Its about teaching you skills for life and this? This is pretty damn important right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/29/2019 at 8:29 AM, Werthead said:

This is true. The refugee crises and resource conflicts we have seen to date are absolutely nothing to what is coming. If vast swathes of equatorial Africa and South America become uninhabitable and people start fleeing northwards towards the US and Europe not just in their tens of thousands, but in the tens of millions, then what will follow will be pretty horrific.

The same people who decry any talk of switching to electric, using public transport with the poors, or taking flights to Aspen for vacation, and how the problem of climate change are going to be the very ones who’ll yell these migrants(who’ve probably contributed less to the catastrophes that threaten them then the people trying to deny them sanctuary), shouldn’t be let in as their not their society’s problem. And then unjustifiably victim-blame. Probably complain about  something to do with birth-rates totally disregarding the carbon footprint from these places are less than the US. I do wonder if activists would find more success in convincing the people of the urgency of the situation by appealing to their sense of xenophobia.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the barrier to mass adoption of EVs. Kia just announced its new compact 2L SUV, selling in NZ for $25,000. The Hyundai Kona an EV SUV in more or less the same vehicle size is $73,000. Sure, you'll recover the almost $50K difference over 7 or 8 years, but for people with budgets $73K for a car is simply out of reach. You can't do much about climate change if only the wealthy can afford to have a conscience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

This is the barrier to mass adoption of EVs. Kia just announced its new compact 2L SUV, selling in NZ for $25,000. The Hyundai Kona an EV SUV in more or less the same vehicle size is $73,000. Sure, you'll recover the almost $50K difference over 7 or 8 years, but for people with budgets $73K for a car is simply out of reach. You can't do much about climate change if only the wealthy can afford to have a conscience.

The last sentence is a good description of not only electric cars, but most actions that would mitigate climate change if they were taken by a sufficiently large fraction of humanity. Insulation costs money and so do solar panels. Even something like changing one's diet away from processed and packaged foods requires stores nearby that sells fresh ones and typically extra cash to buy them. And it's even worse in poorer countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Altherion said:

The last sentence is a good description of not only electric cars, but most actions that would mitigate climate change if they were taken by a sufficiently large fraction of humanity. Insulation costs money and so do solar panels. Even something like changing one's diet away from processed and packaged foods requires stores nearby that sells fresh ones and typically extra cash to buy them. And it's even worse in poorer countries.

I plagiarized it a bit, because I recall the president of a developing country once saying something along the lines of "sustainability is something you can think about with a full stomach." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alterion and Anti-Targ make very interesting points. I believe when economy of scales are achieved with mass production and so forth were going to see the demand improve but paying $75,000 for a $25-35,000 car isn't going to cut it with wide swaths of the consumer market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I plagiarized it a bit, because I recall the president of a developing country once saying something along the lines of "sustainability is something you can think about with a full stomach." 

I think he should have said "sustainability is something you generally think about with a full stomach." 

Because as many have discovered, sustainability is something that developing countries need to think about all the time, otherwise they destroy resources that are required for the survival of millions. One could even say that sutainabilityoften turns out to be less of a luxury in developing countries...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You wouldn't see such disparity in the cost of petrol vs electric cars if we stopped allowing the fossil fuel industry to externalise so much of the cost. But we show no inclination to change that at all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...