Jump to content

Climate: Il fait VRAIMENT CHAUD (fka un petit)


Week
 Share

Recommended Posts

The bigger problem is that electrical production is not working on a reasonable pace for supporting said electrical vehicles. That is less of an issue in places that have favored infrastructure and modernization (Europe comes to mind) but it will become something of a barrier in many other places. 

Mostly, the electrification of vehicles is one aspect of fighting climate change, and while we're making progress there we are not making enough progress everywhere else. Emissions are going up and continue to go up worldwide, we're getting more coal plants coming on line (including the most coal plants created in a single year in China's history), we're seeing more countries going it alone due to geopolitical ramifications, and we're seeing larger increases in damage than models predicted. It's not a great sign all around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fossil fuels account for 63% of electricity production around the world, about 40% of total emissions comes from energy production. All road transport accounts for about 11% of total emissions. Not only does more electricity need to be generated if private car use is to move to majority (let alone total) EV, but electricity generation needs to move away from fossil fuels ASAP.

It is interesting that there is a coherent solution to deal with the light vehicle part of the 11% problem, but there does not seem to be any coherent solution at either a national or global level for the 40% problem. Part of that 40% problem is installation of non-fossil fuel electricity production is helping to deal with an ever increasing demand rather than enabling countries to mothball fossil fuel power plants. It takes so much time to build any new electricity generation that by the time it is up and running electricity demand has basically caught up to its output capacity. If you want to mothball a plant that produces 0.5% of your current year electricity production you would need to build plants with an output of maybe 1% of current year production so that by the time that generation comes online its output exceeds the increased demand.

Do we need to do something about the demand side of electricity and not just keep trying to address supply?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Do we need to do something about the demand side of electricity and not just keep trying to address supply?

Many years ago, I got irked at my old incandescent light bulbs burning out every few months, so I took advantage of a sale at Home Depot and bought a box of four compact fluorescent bulbs.  Changed them out within a couple of weeks. My next electric bill was only about 75% of what it should have been despite no other changes in electrical use. I went out and bought more. Cut the electric bill dang near in half - plus those curly cue light bulbs tended to last for years instead of months. 

Energy efficient appliances be a thing.

Last year, I went and bought some solar lights - little deals about the size of a paperback book. Just stick them in a sunny windowsill, and if need be, they give out light for a good six hours. I also see other miniature solar panels used to charge up laptops and cell phones. Walking through Home Depot and elsewhere, I see quite a few appliances that use a tiny fraction of electricity compared to their predecessors. This tells me, that done correctly and with a bit of creativity, it be more than possible to get by with a mere fraction of grid power. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/3/2023 at 6:54 AM, ThinkerX said:

Again, you make the mistake of going with the global average instead of acknowledging major regional differences in the effects of climate change.

Yes, because I assume the people reading this aren't morons.

Look, I get your point but I'm not a politician and I'm not trying to convince American conservatives. My country's warming is higher than the global average so explaining averages isn't something I have to do. If anything, I might explain why the averages are misleading because they tend to make climate change seem benign, when even +1,2C is already proving quite scary here.

I'm more concerned by the fact you talk of "sides" and "climate change proponents." Respectfully, I'm not at the point where I think of myself as a "proponent" of climate change anymore, because everyone I meet now accepts it. Sorry if I forget juste how dumb some people are, but that's not on me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd missed this article by Monbiot when it came out. Anti-Americanism aside (this isn't the right thread :P), I find his view of the future rather accurate:

Quote

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/dec/09/us-world-climate-collapse-nations

Thanks to such failures of care over many years, we now approach multiple drastic decision points, at which governments must either implement changes in months that should have happened over decades, or watch crucial components of civic life collapse, including the most important component of all: a habitable planet. In either case, it’s a cliff edge.

As we rush towards these precipices, we are likely to see an ever more violent refusal to care. For example, if we in the rich nations are to meet our twin duties of care and responsibility, we must be prepared to accept many more refugees, who will be driven from their homes by the climate and ecological breakdown caused disproportionately by our economies. But as this displacement crisis (that could be greater than any dispossession the world has ever seen) looms, it could trigger a new wave of reactive, far-right politics, furiously rejecting the obligations accumulated by our previous failures to act. In turn, a resurgence of far-right politics would cut off meaningful environmental action. In other words, we face the threat of a self-perpetuating escalation of collapse.

 

This is what has been terrifying me for some time now: how climate change fueling the far-right might doom us all. Climate change is bad, but not in itself an insurmountable problem. The problem is that it creates negative "political feedback loops" which have the potential of making it much worse through geopolitics. An increasingly divided humanity will be unable to face the environmental crisis and turn on itself instead, thus causing civilization to actually collapse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Rippounet said:

This is what has been terrifying me for some time now: how climate change fueling the far-right might doom us all. Climate change is bad, but not in itself an insurmountable problem. The problem is that it creates negative "political feedback loops" which have the potential of making it much worse through geopolitics. An increasingly divided humanity will be unable to face the environmental crisis and turn on itself instead, thus causing civilization to actually collapse.

Pretty much what I have been saying with the addition that many of these far-right climate change deniers can legitimately point to a near lack of climate change issues in their immediate areas. Others, when forced to acknowledge the reality of climate change (one biggie being increasing difficulty getting homeowners insurance in certain coastal areas) will agree that artificial climate change is a reality, but that it is deliberate to bring about the tyrannical 'one world order.'  Added to all this is the 'I am old enough to remember these fool scientists predicting an ice age - they were wrong then and wrong now' mentality, which is further reinforced by limited climate change offsets brought about by the switch to EV's and Green Energy - though they refuse to make the link between the two.

Edited by ThinkerX
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

Pretty much what I have been saying with the addition that many of these far-right climate change deniers can legitimately point to a near lack of climate change issues in their immediate areas.

I hear you, but the moment climate change becomes undeniable, the far-right switches to "defending the national culture" from refugees and pushing "national preference" for access to public services.

I suppose another way to put it is that both the "far-left" and the far-right can "use" climate change to push for their preferred policies. And that's kinda "structural." The problem I see is that a transition from neo-liberalism to some form of neo-fascism can be rather smooth and effortless (for most voters/citizens), whereas whatever the left can offer will always require a level of individual effort that makes it unpalatable to most people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For added measure there are those who completely acknowledge all the science around climate change but believe there is no reason to do anything drastic about it because technology will come to the rescue (CCS, geo-engineering, fusion, Elon Musk etc). 

It's an absurdity for Monbiot to say changes need to be implemented in months. Since the necessary changes can't be implemented in that time frame, hence the need for them to have been implemented over a course of decades prior to today. So what he's really saying is that it's too late to avert the looming catastrophe.

It's also not just the right that opposes world government, it's just that the left uses different arguments. But world govt is coming anyway, the only question is how bad things will get before the world wakes up to the need for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It's an absurdity for Monbiot to say changes need to be implemented in months. Since the necessary changes can't be implemented in that time frame, hence the need for them to have been implemented over a course of decades prior to today. So what he's really saying is that it's too late to avert the looming catastrophe.

Well, it is in fact too late to avoid some catastrophes. However, it will never be too late to prevent further damage.

It's not that Monbiot is wrong, but speaking in terms of deadlines is probably counter-productive. He should have reminded the reader exactly what measures should be implemented in months and why... Though in context we can easily assume he means the measures which would have been necessary to remain under +1,5C (like a moratorium on new fossile fuel extraction, at the very least), which has been considered the limit for a "safe" warming of the planet.

14 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

For added measure there are those who completely acknowledge all the science around climate change but believe there is no reason to do anything drastic about it because technology will come to the rescue (CCS, geo-engineering, fusion, Elon Musk etc).

Aye. I've seen environmentalists use Stanley Cohen's three types of denialism: litteral (it doesn't exist), interpretative (it's not so bad), implicative (I have reasons not to do anything about it myself).

At this point in time, the overwhelming majority of people accept the reality and dangers of anthropogenic climate change. However, what many people still indulge in is implicative denialism, which means denying the moral imperative to do something substantial about climate change and the environmental crisis generally speaking.
And there's never a shortage of arguments to support not acting.

14 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It's also not just the right that opposes world government, it's just that the left uses different arguments. But world govt is coming anyway, the only question is how bad things will get before the world wakes up to the need for it.

I have to confess that at this point I think we are moving quickly away from the perspective of world government, not closer.

Maybe that was a possibility after the first climate change meetings, but now? Disintegration of international cooperation and "order" seems considerably more likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I don't remotely see how a world government or alliances is likely at all any time soon. The US and China are significantly more apart, Russia is doing its own thing, there's more breakaway stuff in Africa than before, the EU fragmented a couple years ago and is clearly fragmenting more with Poland and Hungary, there's the Taiwan thing...

And then there's just the individual governmental pushes of "blah first" that we are seeing popping up like wildfire. 

A sad human instinct is tribalism, and one of its effects is to ensure your tribe is okay compared to others. As resources and perceived resources become scarcer that will mean less cooperation, more xenophobia, and overall significantly more individualism. And that (as the ipcc projections agree with) will make for the worst of outcomes for preventing climate change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/13/2023 at 9:56 AM, Rippounet said:

Aye. I've seen environmentalists use Stanley Cohen's three types of denialism: litteral (it doesn't exist), interpretative (it's not so bad), implicative (I have reasons not to do anything about it myself).

At this point in time, the overwhelming majority of people accept the reality and dangers of anthropogenic climate change. However, what many people still indulge in is implicative denialism, which means denying the moral imperative to do something substantial about climate change and the environmental crisis generally speaking.
And there's never a shortage of arguments to support not acting.

Religion and fatalism play a major role. Either the climate is not changing because us mere humans don't have the power to cause such a change, or the climate is changing because it is God's will and there is nothing us mere humans can do to stop it.

Also, some people will never be reached by scientific arguments or evidence. There is a non-insignificant percentage of flat Earthers out there, despite the fact that this particular theory can be disproven by merely looking at the horizon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ars has a nice collection of all the counterexplanations to climate change being not manmade. Not hugely new info for anyone on this board, but it's a good collection and refresher.

Quote

 

Orbital wobbles are responsible for far more than glacial cycles. They can be traced back throughout geological time, adding a regular variation to the long-term background climate and alternating the rock types laid down in sediments. Coal formed in seams largely because orbital wobbles altered climate and sea levels, inundating swamps on a regular cycle. Orbital wobbles can even be found in the alternating layers of 2.5-billion-year-old “Banded Iron Formations,” huge iron ore deposits that formed just as oxygen was beginning to rise in Earth’s atmosphere.

As for when the next glacial age will happen, “the next window where everything is really nicely aligned and you can be sure that you would have entered glacial inception… is in 50,000 years,” said Crucifix. But current CO2 levels will prevent that: “Humans… have modified the history of glaciations,” said Crucifix. “So whatever happens, we won't have a glacial Inception for a very long time… maybe 100,000 or 500,000 years” unless CO2 levels are reduced.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A glimmer of hope - majority of people across the western US are in favor of green energy regardless of political affiliation. Then again, the poll could be wrong.

 

New poll shows surprising point of consensus for voters from across the political spectrum — ‘broad majorities’ agree (msn.com)

A recent “Conservation in the West” poll conducted by Colorado College found that two-thirds of voters in the American west want to see 100% of their energy come from clean, renewable sources like solar and wind in the next 15 years. More than 60% of voters said they’d like their members of Congress to prioritize clean air and water and wildlife habitats and recreation.

The poll spanned more than a decade and surveyed voters in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/14/2023 at 2:56 AM, Rippounet said:

I have to confess that at this point I think we are moving quickly away from the perspective of world government, not closer.

Maybe that was a possibility after the first climate change meetings, but now? Disintegration of international cooperation and "order" seems considerably more likely.

Y'know how people start to believe that markets will have a never-ending party, and then all of a sudden the pronouncements of lone, crackpot voices in the wilderness are proven true and a crash happens? Similar thing here: nationalism, isolationism and rejection of the fact of global interdependance (much like rejection of the fact of climate change) are on the ascendant and appear to be entrenching. A collapse is coming and it will wake the majority up to the need for better and stronger global governance structures than those that exist and are failing today.

Not saying it's happening this decade or even next, but I can see it happening in most of our lifetimes, assuming we reach or exceed current life expectancy. The accelerating climate problems are going to force everyone's hand. Those who join hands will fare better than those who retreat into themselves and try to go it alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2023 at 6:59 AM, Gorn said:

Religion and fatalism play a major role. Either the climate is not changing because us mere humans don't have the power to cause such a change, or the climate is changing because it is God's will and there is nothing us mere humans can do to stop it.

Also, some people will never be reached by scientific arguments or evidence. There is a non-insignificant percentage of flat Earthers out there, despite the fact that this particular theory can be disproven by merely looking at the horizon.

I'll interpret this as you not purporting to speak for all religions and religious people. There are a lot of people of faith who do not hold any of the attitudes you might be attributing to us. Unfortunately a lot of the religious people with substantial political power do have those harmful views so you are correct that the prevailing religious influence on policy is working against meaningful action.

I'm convinced at least 50% of flat Earthers are just trolls who know it's BS. Just like a lot of 2020/2022 US election deniers also know nothing was stolen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

A glimmer of hope - majority of people across the western US are in favor of green energy regardless of political affiliation. Then again, the poll could be wrong.

 

New poll shows surprising point of consensus for voters from across the political spectrum — ‘broad majorities’ agree (msn.com)

A recent “Conservation in the West” poll conducted by Colorado College found that two-thirds of voters in the American west want to see 100% of their energy come from clean, renewable sources like solar and wind in the next 15 years. More than 60% of voters said they’d like their members of Congress to prioritize clean air and water and wildlife habitats and recreation.

The poll spanned more than a decade and surveyed voters in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. 

Bro, it's the US. Majority opinion doesn't matter if big money thinks otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am very supportive of EVs, but to say that we are "there" with charging is absolutely not true. I bought a car a few months ago in CA, and I couldn't get an EV because I don't have a reliable place to charge it.

Not to mention the points above about electricity generation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2023 at 11:24 PM, The Anti-Targ said:

Y'know how people start to believe that markets will have a never-ending party, and then all of a sudden the pronouncements of lone, crackpot voices in the wilderness are proven true and a crash happens? Similar thing here: nationalism, isolationism and rejection of the fact of global interdependance (much like rejection of the fact of climate change) are on the ascendant and appear to be entrenching. A collapse is coming and it will wake the majority up to the need for better and stronger global governance structures than those that exist and are failing today.

That's wildly optimistic.
Eventually, perhaps. I do share the fantasies of the environmental crisis being a catalyst for the unification of our species. However, as things stand now, with reactionary forces gaining ground, just getting to the point where it actually becomes a possibility will entail a devastation I find difficult to comprehend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too lazy to track down the relevant articles, but I have seen claims lately of newly developed solar panels with 45% efficiency (double that of the current ones) and major breakthroughs in battery technology - double the current duration. Might be hype, might be premature. If true...potential gamechangers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ThinkerX said:

Too lazy to track down the relevant articles, but I have seen claims lately of newly developed solar panels with 45% efficiency (double that of the current ones) and major breakthroughs in battery technology - double the current duration. Might be hype, might be premature. If true...potential gamechangers. 

Are you talking about multi-junction solar cells?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...