Global warming solutions (on topic)

[Phil1111 910]

9 minutes ago, billvon said:

Agree with consumption.  But debt and GDP are just abstractions that we use to get people to work.  In the end analysis, all value comes from labor, and to a large degree money, debt, mortgages and the like are just ways to get people to work (and to value that work.)

Of course that system isn't working well nowadays.  The problem is that there's no good replacement that works to accurately value the externalities that we're talking about here (resource depletion, CO2 increases, plastic trash in the ocean, air and water pollution etc.)  Carbon taxes are an imperfect way to do it, but may work.

GDP, the measure of all goods and services is the states measure of the value of consumption. IMO an overemphasis of the use of leverage, i.e. debt, the idea that consuming more and more. Borrowing more to get what you "need". Drives the externalities that you reference.

How I Fit 5 Years of My Trash In This Jar   Imagine families in condos living like this and driving bicycles, electric scooters and electric cars. People who engage in recycling, limited consumption of crap they really don't need. Can still have fun, leading active, fulfilling lives. All while living western style lives with all the benefits it involves.

Compare her with this piece of SH*t: Donald Trump Plans To Repair, Use ‘Beautiful Boeing 757’ For Rallies, Again  Imagine the waste of resources that moving a B757 around involves just to stroke trump's ego.

[billvon 2,395]

23 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

GDP, the measure of all goods and services is the states measure of the value of consumption. IMO an overemphasis of the use of leverage, i.e. debt, the idea that consuming more and more. Borrowing more to get what you "need". Drives the externalities that you reference.

Agreed.  Debt is currently how we grow our money supply, but it also carries the burden that expansion of the economy is required to support it.

Consumption in and of itself isn't a problem (IMO) - if you consume local goods (for example, books that get handed down from generation to generation) it's not a big load on the environment.  It's the disposable-everything culture that plays in to problems with pollution (due to the need to dispose of it) resource utilization (because discarded goods are removed from the resource base) and fossil fuel usage (because they are mostly plastic.)

[gowlerk 1,905]

5 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Most often defined as rising GDP.

Doesn't China have both a shrinking population and a rapidly expanding GDP?

[Phil1111 910]

13 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Doesn't China have both a shrinking population and a rapidly expanding GDP?

Yes, many developed countries have shrinking and ageing populations. Not to be confused with wrinkling and ageing populations...but I digress. As well their GDP is growing. Unfortunately for many similar countries their debt is often rising as fast or faster.

[wmw999 2,120]

The very significant differences in living standards among populations means that

a. people who have that expect to keep it

b. people who don't, hope to have it

And those living standards are driven in part by the desire on the part of the government for a standard-model growing economy (rampant consumption), and on the part of the people by the advertising industry (who really only exist to increase the desire for standard of living).

Wendy P.

[billvon 2,395]

12 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Doesn't China have both a shrinking population and a rapidly expanding GDP?

It should be noted that the #1 way to slow population growth is to educate and empower women.  Two of the charities I contribute to (Tostan and Camfed) do exactly that.  It's a way to slow population growth and give us breathing room to solve the rest of our problems.

[Bigfalls 110]

19 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Sorry thats a common misconception.

Oxfam released a study that found the richest 10 percent of people produce half of the planet’s individual-consumption-based fossil fuel emissions, while the poorest 50 percent — about 3.5 billion people — contribute only 10 percent. Yet those same 3.5 billion people are “living overwhelmingly in the countries most vulnerable to climate change,” according to the report. According to the data used by the report, individual consumption — as opposed to consumption by governments and international transport — makes up 64 percent of worldwide climate emissions.

^This,^ see above and:

Private Planes, Mansions and Superyachts: Calculating Billionaires' Massive Carbon Footprint

'We found that billionaires have carbon footprints that can be thousands of times higher than those of average Americans....

Residents of the U.S., including billionaires, emitted about 15 tons of CO2 per person in 2018. The global average footprint is smaller, at just about 5 tons per person.

In contrast, the 20 people in our sample contributed an average of about 8,190 tons of CO2 in 2018. But some produced far more greenhouse gases than others.

Brent will be along soon to explain "per capita" and blame China. Rather than personal responsibilities and individual outcomes of personal choices.

Let's consider them the normal load on the camel's back.  The little people (us) are the straws.

[piisfish 135]

13 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Doesn't China have both a shrinking population and a rapidly expanding GDP?

They have an expanding GDP thanks to all the MAGA shit they are manufacturing for the US

[brenthutch 383]

On 6/29/2021 at 6:47 PM, olofscience said:

Prior to the development of nitrogen fertilisers, crop productivity was extremely limited by nitrogen. Famines and crop failures were quite regular. We've managed to remove that limitation in the 20th century with the Haber-Bosch process causing the boom in food production that Brent keeps attributing to CO2.

Two things,

1. Haber-Bosch uses fossil fuels

2. The observed greening of the planet is also occurring in areas that are not fertilized

Edited July 5, 2021 by brenthutch

[olofscience 420]

6 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Two things,

1. Haber-Bosch uses fossil fuels

2. The observed greening of the planet is also occurring in areas that are not fertilized

1. Haber-Bosch needs fossil fuels as much as cars need fossil fuels. Meaning it doesn't - you can run it from electricity from a hydroelectric dam for example.
2. For the areas that are not fertilized, the greening is due to the temperature increase due to climate change (which you sometimes say isn't happening), especially in high latitudes

(off topic comment removed)

[billvon 2,395]

6 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Haber-Bosch uses fossil fuels

Nope.  The Haber-Bosch process combines hydrogen and nitrogen to make ammonia, a critical component of fertilizers.  Nitrogen comes from the air.  Hydrogen currently comes from natural gas; it can just as easily come from water.

This is one of those cases where you use a science-y sounding term you don't understand to make an argument, thinking that will lend it credibility.  But you have to understand what you post if you want to make an effective argument.

[murps2000 86]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Here is a preview 

 

“The Sahara Desert, which was thought to be in a pattern of inexorable growth as recently as a generation ago, is now greening. The same process that occurred all those millennia ago is happening again.

It’s counterintuitive, but it’s real—and the effects are profound. In areas where water is suddenly introduced, the resulting genesis in plant life feeds off excess carbon dioxide in the air. With greenhouse gas emissions from human industrial activity, an excess of carbon dioxide is very much present, creating a virtuous cycle of climate activity that is already transforming the natural landscape. At the current rate, estimates suggest that the Sahara will continue to green at a rate of a percentage point every year.“

Last I checked the Sahara was already warm.

 

https://www.theventuremag.com/greening-deserts/

Is this where you got that quote?

https://www.independent.com/2019/01/10/greening-sahara/

Here is another article which at least explains how a warming ocean is contributing.

Also Hutch, old buddy, how you can look at that graph and see global temperatures trending downward overall is baffling.

[brenthutch 383]

16 minutes ago, billvon said:

Nope.  The Haber-Bosch process combines hydrogen and nitrogen to make ammonia, a critical component of fertilizers.  Nitrogen comes from the air.  Hydrogen currently comes from natural gas; it can just as easily come from water.

Then why do they use natural gas and not water?

[olofscience 420]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

Then why do they use natural gas and not water?

It's cheaper because they don't have to pay for the consequences yet.

[olofscience 420]

12 minutes ago, murps2000 said:

Is this where you got that quote?

Got me wondering because he was always posting the same kind of graph with the wrong temperature baseline, but brent never cites his sources.

Anyway, it's from a climate sceptic: http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

Why use this biased source brent? He's clearly trying to sell his books in the sidebar. Why don't you use the NASA GISS data? It's here: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/

[brenthutch 383]

14 minutes ago, olofscience said:

It's cheaper because they don't have to pay for the consequences yet.

As a reminder, this is an on-topic thread discussing global warming solutions.  For the usual climate change denial there are half a dozen other active threads.

[brenthutch 383]

15 minutes ago, olofscience said:

It's cheaper because they don't have to pay for the consequences yet.

Ah yes, economic realities, the arch enemy of green fantasies.

[olofscience 420]

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Ah yes, economic realities, the arch enemy of green fantasies.

They've effectively been subsidised. If they had to contribute towards the costs of Houston's proposed $26 Billion seawall, hydrogen from biomass or water will get competitive very quickly.

[brenthutch 383]

Just now, olofscience said:

They've effectively been subsidised. If they had to contribute towards the costs of Houston's proposed $26 Billion seawall, hydrogen from biomass or water will get competitive very quickly.

“If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we would all have a merry Christmas”.  Again your green fantasies are dashed by economic realities.

[olofscience 420]

14 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

“If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we would all have a merry Christmas”.  Again your green fantasies are dashed by economic realities.

I thought you were against subsidies.

And in fact, I can quote:

On 7/22/2020 at 2:20 AM, brenthutch said:

I am against subsidies of all kinds, pass the true cost onto the end consumer and let the free market decide.  Same with government spending, if you want a program? Pay for it.  If you want a tax cut?  Forego the government program.  It drives me crazy when the Ds want more spending and the Rs want to cut taxes, and after some hard knuckles bargaining, they decide to raise spending AND cut taxes.

I'll just add to that - you want fossil-fuel derived hydrogen? Pay for it. Pass the true cost onto the end consumer and let the free market decide.

Edited July 5, 2021 by olofscience

[olofscience 420]

Just to bring the discussion back on topic, one of the simple things to alleviate global warming: painting roofs white.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/15/whitest-ever-paint-could-help-cool-heating-earth-study-shows

[brenthutch 383]

48 minutes ago, olofscience said:

I thought you were against subsidies.

Non-sequitur

[kallend 1,623]

1 hour ago, olofscience said:

 

Why use this biased source brent? He's clearly trying to sell his books in the sidebar. Why don't you use the NASA GISS data? It's here: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/

Why?  Because He's a troll, that's what trolls do, and people keep feeding him.

[ryoder 1,381]

55 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Just to bring the discussion back on topic, one of the simple things to alleviate global warming: painting roofs white.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/15/whitest-ever-paint-could-help-cool-heating-earth-study-shows

Now I would think the Proud Boys and the GOP would be wholly onboard with this!

[olofscience 420]

Somebody's got to take up the slack.

Back to the topic again - DC is actually making a comeback for long-distance electricity transmission as High Voltage DC (HVDC). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current

The increased efficiency actually improves the viability of wind and solar since the wind is always blowing somewhere, and the sun is always shining somewhere. HVDC combined with battery storage, means that power distribution can be balanced to compensate for areas with reduced wind or solar output. New offshore wind farms are usually set up with HVDC.

This, almost 100 years after Tesla won the war of the currents. Whatever happens, his legacy will live on thanks to a certain car company.