Climate Change

[Leonard]

I listened to a podcast that I wish I could share with everyone but I don't remember it enough to get a link. Essentially the point was that the global carbon system is so complicated almost any point of view can be substantiated.

However the main point of the podcast was to acknowledge that the earth has a natural carbon cycle with or without humans. His job is to determine if and how much humans may be influencing this cycle. And if we are influencing past a certain "point" what are the ramifications and how/should we change it.

Can any of us really believe we aren't influencing it in a negative way.... And it is only getting worse. Forget about CO2 and look at micro plastics it's actually disgusting

 

[Eagle7]

It's both.

If you click through to the article he also talks about climate change itself, and how he's even starting to question his career of driving and flying around the world for a living, which is more honesty and introspection than I expect from "leaders" / celebrities these days


I would re-word this slightly: "Energy production is important for humans". When you frame it that way, it really helps to cut through to the crux of the matter, which is:

Humans have been so focused on what's good for humans, that we've totally ignored what's good for the planet. We've made unimaginable amounts of short-term gains, in exchange for an equal amount of long-term pains.

This is a rather odd statment. Of course energy production is important for humans, what else would it be for? If we don't exist, there's no issue is there.

You realize that the issues we're talking about have only surfaced in the last roughly 150 years? That's just a flicker on the overall timescale of the earth. Being concerned about "what's good for the planet" has an even shorter lifespan. It's not like this is something that's been around for hundreds of years and we've just ignored it. Pretty much everything in the last 150 years is new to the planet and the human race. We're in uncharted territory.

The quality of our lives has improved more in the last 70-80 years than at any time previously in history. We have conveniences that were unheard of even 100 years ago. The last 40 years has really accelerated all that with computer technology.

The biggest problem I see isn't necessarily what we're doing, but how much of it we're having to do because at this point, we have virtually triple the world population compared to even 60 years ago. We need to find a way of generating relatively cheap energy, that doesn't require consuming limited resources. My vote would involve magnetics and movement. Using our own planet as the example, if we could use the motion of the oceans to help move conductors around magnets, that would provide electricity day and night, and not require burning or consuming anything. We have more ocean water than anything else on the surface, so that would enable a constant source of cheap energy that could be put in place for every continent and every culture. Then we can power food production locally, so people don't feel they have to migrate to other countries just to survive.

Cheap, non-destructive power generation would go a long way to enabling local populations to at least survive, and from there begin working on educating them to understand and implement sensible population growth so we don't just overwhelm everything until there's a mass breakdown.

 

[NicolasB]

It's a great time to be 60-70. Bad time to be 20...I'm somewhere in the middle.

 

[Eagle7]

Can any of us really believe we aren't influencing it in a negative way.... And it is only getting worse. Forget about CO2 and look at micro plastics it's actually disgusting

Yeah the micro plastics thing has really started to get attention. They're finding it in everything everywhere. It doesn't seem to be doing anything at the moment, but it's beginning to get studied to find out if it's going to cause issues, and how or if it can be eliminated or reduced. Recent studies show that people wearing face masks has resulted in micro fibers deep in the lungs where they didn't think it was possible for fibers to reach. They don't know if that's a problem yet or not. Depends on what the body decides to do with them, or if it ignores them. Still, if they accumulate, I can't see how this can't cause problems eventually.

I saw where these giant propellors used for wind farms, are shedding micro plastic particles as they oxidize, weather and age, and they're blowing them way out all over the landscape. It's in the land and water systems. They're finding them in wildlife, fish, animals, etc. It's in the soil. It's such a new situation it doesn't seem like they know what this is doing or might do yet, but that's something else we need to look at.

 

[Leonard]

Yeah the micro plastics thing has really started to get attention. They're finding it in everything everywhere. It doesn't seem to be doing anything at the moment, but it's beginning to get studied to find out if it's going to cause issues, and how or if it can be eliminated or reduced. Recent studies show that people wearing face masks has resulted in micro fibers deep in the lungs where they didn't think it was possible for fibers to reach. They don't know if that's a problem yet or not. Depends on what the body decides to do with them, or if it ignores them. Still, if they accumulate, I can't see how this can't cause problems eventually.

I saw where these giant propellors used for wind farms, are shedding micro plastic particles as they oxidize, weather and age, and they're blowing them way out all over the landscape. It's in the land and water systems. They're finding them in wildlife, fish, animals, etc. It's in the soil. It's such a new situation it doesn't seem like they know what this is doing or might do yet, but that's something else we need to look at.

My only input into this is fast consumerism needs to stop. EVERYONE needs to step back and assess what is important in life.
I could continue but I need to order a packet of cheap Chinese screws for delivery tomorrow from Amazon Prime....

 

[Eagle7]

It's a great time to be 60-70. Bad time to be 20...I'm somewhere in the middle.

The thing is, we have the tools, equipment, and brainpower to solve these things if we can get politics out of the way, and let the geniuses who can figure these solutions out, do their thing. No shelving carburetor's that can get 100 mpg because the oil industry might lose some profits. No preventing mass transit because tire companies want people to use up tires so they can make more money. Politics and the love of money and power have a lot to do with what's been going on.

 

[Leonard]

The thing is, we have the tools, equipment, and brainpower to solve these things if we can get politics out of the way, and let the geniuses who can figure these solutions out, do their thing. No shelving carburetor's that can get 100 mpg because the oil industry might lose some profits. No preventing mass transit because tire companies want people to use up tires so they can make more money. Politics and the love of money and power have a lot to do with what's been going on.

We may want to sort this out. Governments don't, they are in the pockets of big business. The only saving grace for this planet is that all 20 year old somethings continue to challenge it.
But then no offense to those same 20 year olds, they don't have the backbone to physically change anything when the state says Fook U ifnu don't like it tough, we aren't going anywhere.
Best case scenario and we see it now, is consumers demanding more from their God's

 

[Eagle7]

My only input into this is fast consumerism needs to stop. EVERYONE needs to step back and assess what is important in life.
I could continue but I need to order a packet of cheap Chinese screws for delivery tomorrow from Amazon Prime....

There's a lot to this that goes beyond the way it appears at first glance on the surface.

You would have to know what it's like to watch your mom spending an hour filling a wash tub with hot water, hand scrubbing all the clothes, emptying the tub, then taking the wet clothes in a basket outside to hang them individually on a clothes line. After that, begin to work on preparing dinner. Hours spent making everything by hand, and baking/cooking it. In the meantime, going out periodically and checking to see if the clothes, towels, sheets hanging on the line are dry, and if they are, taking them down one by one and putting them in a basket. Carrying that into the house, and setting up the ironing board to begin ironing the clothes. Meanwhile, checking periodically in the kitchen to see how the food is coming along. After all the clothes are ironed, folding them and putting them away. Putting the ironing board away. Back into the kitchen to finish up cooking and preparing the meal. Serving it when dad comes home. Then the time spent cleaning and doing all the dishes.

Now compare that to throwing a load of clothes in the washing machine and pushing a button. After they're done, moving them over into the dryer and pushing a button. When they're dry, just hang them up because they're wash and wear, no ironing needed. At the most, 10 minutes of your time instead of hours. Food? Put a frozen dinner in the microwave, 5 minutes later dinner is served. If you have dishes to clean, load them into the dishwasher and push a button.

Basically an entire day's worth of tasks can now be done in less than 30 minutes. That's unprecedented in human history. That frees up the hours of your day for other things, as well as reducing stress. Needless to say, this was overwhelming attractive and everybody wanted it.

Fast consumerism was really about convenience and making everyday living easier. There were good reasons why the whole world wanted to move to America, and the poor of the world still do. We didn't anticipate the population explosion that followed all those improvements though, and now we have that problem to deal with.

 

[Leonard]

There's a lot to this that goes beyond the way it appears at first glance on the surface.

You would have to know what it's like to watch your mom spending an hour filling a wash tub with hot water, hand scrubbing all the clothes, emptying the tub, then taking the wet clothes in a basket outside to hang them individually on a clothes line. After that, begin to work on preparing dinner. Hours spent making everything by hand, and baking/cooking it. In the meantime, going out periodically and checking to see if the clothes, towels, sheets hanging on the line are dry, and if they are, taking them down one by one and putting them in a basket. Carrying that into the house, and setting up the ironing board to begin ironing the clothes. Meanwhile, checking periodically in the kitchen to see how the food is coming along. After all the clothes are ironed, folding them and putting them away. Putting the ironing board away. Back into the kitchen to finish up cooking and preparing the meal. Serving it when dad comes home. Then the time spent cleaning and doing all the dishes.

Now compare that to throwing a load of clothes in the washing machine and pushing a button. After they're done, moving them over into the dryer and pushing a button. When they're dry, just hang them up because they're wash and wear, no ironing needed. At the most, 10 minutes of your time instead of hours. Food? Put a frozen dinner in the microwave, 5 minutes later dinner is served. If you have dishes to clean, load them into the dishwasher and push a button.

Basically an entire day's worth of tasks can now be done in less than 30 minutes. That's unprecedented in human history. That frees up the hours of your day for other things, as well as reducing stress. Needless to say, this was overwhelming attractive and everybody wanted it.

Fast consumerism was really about convenience and making everyday living easier. There were good reasons why the whole world wanted to move to America, and the poor of the world still do. We didn't anticipate the population explosion that followed all those improvements though, and now we have that problem to deal with.

Without dismissing everything you have said that is the extreme. I'm not saying go back to living in caves, but the cheap and fast consumerism model needs to stop! Same with food. A chicken should be a delicacy, enjoyed once in a while. We shouldn't be trying to mass produce nature! A $2 chicken is an abomination

 

[eriegz]

Yes, that was a bad reference. In further reading it was actually the gas wells that froze which caused the plants to reduce capacity which prevented the wells from operating (the wells require electricity to operate) so it was a cascading event. But regardless, I fell for the narrative and deserve the rebuke.

Well I admire your honesty! We all make mistakes from time to time, and I wish more people were as forthcoming as you when they're in the wrong! (The latter half of that statement is NOT directed at anyone on this forum! )

 

[duff]

I don't buy the logic that lower per capita GHG means higher efficiency. Efficiency is a measure of input versus output, and the output here is economic value. A better measure would be GHG per unit of GDP. It's simply asinine to suggest that the average American should look towards the average Chines as a model of environmental efficiency since the standard of living is so vastly different.

The average American lifestyle is significantly less efficient in terms of GHG than most of the rest of the world, including those with similar living standards. The fact that several hundred million air con units in the US produce more coldness per unit of energy than the handful in a third world country is much less relevant to total emissions output than the fact there several hundred million of them.
Linking emissions to GDP when no value is realised by natural carbon sinks, no cost incurred when they are destroyed and no requirement for those producing emissions to make provisions to resolve the expected impacts of climate change is only ever going to allow rich developed nations to justify their (lack of) action.
My original intention was simply to post some well established facts to counter the claims being made in some of the posts as opposed to get into a protracted discussion so I'm bowing out now as this thread clearly highlights why action of climate change is so hard.

 

[Eagle7]

Without dismissing everything you have said that is the extreme. I'm not saying go back to living in caves, but the cheap and fast consumerism model needs to stop! Same with food. A chicken should be a delicacy, enjoyed once in a while. We shouldn't be trying to mass produce nature! A $2 chicken is an abomination

We weren't living in caves. We had a small, single story home in the suburbs. This was about 65 years ago, that's how much things have changed in that short of a period of time. I used that illustration to give you an idea on just what the impact was on people's lives compared to the way they had been. This was in America in the 1950's which was already more advanced than any civilization before it. Now we're in the era of science fiction novels.

I can agree that cheap and fast has it's issues, but realistically it's not going to stop. People like to look back on the 50's, admire the retro look and say how much they wish they had lived in that era, but if they actually did, they'd probably change their minds. We weren't unhappy or felt like we were poor, but there was a lot of daily work, 'chores' that had to be done, and now people don't have to live like that. I wouldn't want to go back.

All of these issues are big issues, they're complex, they're not easily understood in their totality, and they're not going to be easily solved. We're at a point though, where dramatic knee-jerk reactions could be more damaging than the problems they were intended to solve. We have to move carefully and thoughtfully, and not make things worse, which unfortunately, I see happening with this mis-guided push for all-electric.

 

[Leonard]

We weren't living in caves. We had a small, single story home in the suburbs. This was about 65 years ago, that's how much things have changed in that short of a period of time. I used that illustration to give you an idea on just what the impact was on people's lives compared to the way they had been. This was in America in the 1950's which was already more advanced than any civilization before it. Now we're in the era of science fiction novels.

I can agree that cheap and fast has it's issues, but realistically it's not going to stop. People like to look back on the 50's, admire the retro look and say how much they wish they had lived in that era, but if they actually did, they'd probably change their minds. We weren't unhappy or felt like we were poor, but there was a lot of daily work, 'chores' that had to be done, and now people don't have to live like that. I wouldn't want to go back.

All of these issues are big issues, they're complex, they're not easily understood in their totality, and they're not going to be easily solved. We're at a point though, where dramatic knee-jerk reactions could be more damaging than the problems they were intended to solve. We have to move carefully and thoughtfully, and not make things worse, which unfortunately, I see happening with this mis-guided push for all-electric.

'Chores' are what give us purpose.
Without 'chores' we are looking to fill our lives with easy wins to make us happy.
100% of folk would be happier not doing the daily grind and actually having true necessary purpose. When you have that you don't need consumerism to fill the endorphin gap

 

[Eagle7]

'Chores' are what give us purpose.
Without 'chores' we are looking to fill our lives with easy wins to make us happy.
100% of folk would be happier not doing the daily grind and actually having true necessary purpose. When you have that you don't need consumerism to fill the endorphin gap

Doing the laundry, vacuuming, washing and folding loads of diapers (I was the oldest of 4) was something I was very glad to leave behind. That was a purpose I didn't need or want, but didn't have any choice. We didn't have disposable diapers in those days. It's one of the reasons why I never wanted any children of my own, and don't have any. I just didn't want the responsibility. Been there done that.

I enjoy creative things, music, writing, digital artwork. I enjoy a good cup of coffee. I enjoy reading. Everyone is different though, which is why it's so difficult to solve a lot of things. No matter what you say or do, there's somebody who feels the need to oppose you. Just the way it is.

 

[Nova]

The average American lifestyle is significantly less efficient in terms of GHG than most of the rest of the world, including those with similar living standards. The fact that several hundred million air con units in the US produce more coldness per unit of energy than the handful in a third world country is much less relevant to total emissions output than the fact there several hundred million of them.
Linking emissions to GDP when no value is realised by natural carbon sinks, no cost incurred when they are destroyed and no requirement for those producing emissions to make provisions to resolve the expected impacts of climate change is only ever going to allow rich developed nations to justify their (lack of) action.
My original intention was simply to post some well established facts to counter the claims being made in some of the posts as opposed to get into a protracted discussion so I'm bowing out now as this thread clearly highlights why action of climate change is so hard.

None of the objections you raised regarding emissions-vs-GDP makes any sense. GDP is the economic value produced through the consumption of energy, a by-product of which is GHG. The comparison is only meaningful if you compare the two measurements as independent variables - if you are already normalizing GDP according to its related effects on GHG, then the graph would no longer reveal any meaningful correlation.

On the whole, you merely point to "well established" facts as if it is enough to stand on their own and prove everything, and you are unwilling to consider any other similarly well established facts because you consider them to be irrelevant. You refuse to deal with the disparate quality of life between China and the US even though you held up China as a country for "efficiency" comparison. You then point to other countries but do not in any way address the fact that their size and population density are dramatically different from that of the US, and ignoring the fact that the US compares favorably with other countries with large land mass and widely distributed population, such as Canada and Australia. I am not claiming I have all the data, or that even my analysis is correct. I just find it intellectually lazy/dishonest to point to a single set of data and claim that it tells us the whole truth.

 

[R1272]

Anyone that's so worried about CO2 shouldn't buy a 6 cylinder car. That would make you a hypocrite.

 

[richbrown]

Im reading all this crap and I still dont have my email from LOTUS!!!>..

Well said! Can the administrators stop this thread like they’ve done on others before where its gone off the rails. Please save us

 

[NickR]

Well said! Can the administrators stop this thread like they’ve done on others before where its gone off the rails. Please save us

Been avoiding even looking at this thread, like the compulsion to touch an electric fence.
I'll take the fence next time
️

 

[duff]

None of the objections you raised regarding emissions-vs-GDP makes any sense. GDP is the economic value produced through the consumption of energy, a by-product of which is GHG. The comparison is only meaningful if you compare the two measurements as independent variables - if you are already normalizing GDP according to its related effects on GHG, then the graph would no longer reveal any meaningful correlation.

On the whole, you merely point to "well established" facts as if it is enough to stand on their own and prove everything, and you are unwilling to consider any other similarly well established facts because you consider them to be irrelevant. You refuse to deal with the disparate quality of life between China and the US even though you held up China as a country for "efficiency" comparison. You then point to other countries but do not in any way address the fact that their size and population density are dramatically different from that of the US, and ignoring the fact that the US compares favorably with other countries with large land mass and widely distributed population, such as Canada and Australia. I am not claiming I have all the data, or that even my analysis is correct. I just find it intellectually lazy/dishonest to point to a single set of data and claim that it tells us the whole truth.

Unfortunately even after un-watching this thread a little yellow box pops up and shows me your reply.

The figures I presented were to counter a statement that China and India are significant contributors to Climate Change. These figures unequivocally show they are not even close to the US, Canada and Australia when you take into account emissions per capita. I therefore find it difficult to understand why offering these is somehow deemed lazy when people pointing fingers at other nations with no evidence to back it up is somehow deemed acceptable. I am not holding up China and India as models of efficiency, these are the countries that were pointed at by others and hence are the basis for comparison.

I am fully accepting of the fact that there are many contributors to the emissions levels in each country. However if you were to graph emissions against quality of life, GDP, size, population density, etc.... you would still find that the countries I highlighted are larger emitters than those around them. If you start to compare countries based on multiple attributes at once then picking the right ones will certainly get you to a point where you can support an argument that every country with those attributes are similar emitters and hence it must be due to those attributes. Even more so if you are permissive when equating those values - for example the population density of the US is a factor of 10 greater than Australia and Canada, a similar factor to that between the US and India and a far larger factor than that between the US and China. However it is pretty easy for someone to use a different combination of attributes to counter that narrative.

The view I and others have offered is that attempting to justify these emission levels using arguments based on making lots of money and having a cosy lifestyle is always going to support continuing to make lots of money and having a cosy lifestyle. It is self serving because it does not value anything else.

 

[Eagle7]

Well said! Can the administrators stop this thread like they’ve done on others before where its gone off the rails. Please save us

You do realize you don't have to be in here reading it, don't you? It's why I originally asked that this topic be put in its own thread, so people wouldn't get ambushed by it while reading another thread that had gotten off-topic.

When you consider how few are participating in this thread, this is just a glimpse into why it's so difficult to get anything solved or done nowadays.