Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Smurf1976]

I find it a bit disappointing that many posts here are about alternative energy and not climate change. One feels that many are turning the cheek on the real and devastating changes that are occurring now.

It comes down to the pragmatic reality that there's really only two approaches to solving the problem.

Since most aren't at all keen on talking about population reduction, that leaves technological approaches, of which alternative energy is the most significant, as where the discussion ends up.

Same happens in all contexts. For example it's not hard to find some current or former politician who's strongly in favour of addressing climate change but also advocates that we do things like putting 8 million people in Sydney. Etc. In other words, they're pinning their hopes on technology which in practice is mostly about alternative energy.

I agree with your point though and for the record the same applies on the other side of the equation. There's plenty of people, professional and public, who in the context of discussions on energy wish that certain segments of the community would at least acknowledge that climate change isn't the only issue of concern and allow the discussion to focus on the other things also.

Personally I think a far more comprehensive approach is needed to the whole situation. There's more to the climate issue than how we generate electricity or power cars and there's more to the energy issue than what's going up the stack. A lot more in both cases.

Pragmatically though, anyone taking on the population issue is taking on everyone from various religions through to central banks, governments and big business. Technological approaches realistically have fewer barriers since at worst you're "only" taking on the big oil companies or someone with $100 billion, a relative pittance compared to what's entailed with the population issue.

 

[sptrawler]

It comes down to the pragmatic reality that there's really only two approaches to solving the problem.

Since most aren't at all keen on talking about population reduction, that leaves technological approaches, of which alternative energy is the most significant, as where the discussion ends up.

Same happens in all contexts. For example it's not hard to find some current or former politician who's strongly in favour of addressing climate change but also advocates that we do things like putting 8 million people in Sydney. Etc. In other words, they're pinning their hopes on technology which in practice is mostly about alternative energy.

I agree with your point though and for the record the same applies on the other side of the equation. There's plenty of people, professional and public, who in the context of discussions on energy wish that certain segments of the community would at least acknowledge that climate change isn't the only issue of concern and allow the discussion to focus on the other things also.

Personally I think a far more comprehensive approach is needed to the whole situation. There's more to the climate issue than how we generate electricity or power cars and there's more to the energy issue than what's going up the stack. A lot more in both cases.

Pragmatically though, anyone taking on the population issue is taking on everyone from various religions through to central banks, governments and big business. Technological approaches realistically have fewer barriers since at worst you're "only" taking on the big oil companies or someone with $100 billion, a relative pittance compared to what's entailed with the population issue.

Maybe population reduction is the most current topic and one which in reality does have to be addressed, maybe it is being addressed as we speak?
In reality it isnt, the mortality rate isnt high enough.

 

[moXJO]

During 9/11 in the US all the planes were grounded. There was something from memory about the temperature or uv going up as the vapor trails from planes were masking it.
I wonder if anymore data from this was gathered during coronavirus?

Bit of an update here.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/covid-19-could-help-solve-climate-riddles1/

 

[Smurf1976]

Maybe population reduction is the most current topic and one which in reality does have to be addressed, maybe it is being addressed as we speak?

I certainly don't advocate drastic measures, killing people off and so on.

Realistically though if emissions are to be reduced then it's either we have fewer people or we emit less per person which, if we're going to maintain a modern lifestyle, leads down the technology path.

 

[sptrawler]

I certainly don't advocate drastic measures, killing people off and so on.

Realistically though if emissions are to be reduced then it's either we have fewer people or we emit less per person which, if we're going to maintain a modern lifestyle, leads down the technology path.

Technology can only cope with so much.
Currently the infection rate is good, the target group is good , one more criteria and bingo.

 

[qldfrog]

For the people not aware of roman time dog days..a warm period before industrial area
https://www.thegwpf.com/the-roman-warm-period-vs-the-current-warm-period/

 

[rederob]

For the people not aware of roman time dog days..a warm period before industrial area
https://www.thegwpf.com/the-roman-warm-period-vs-the-current-warm-period/

What was the climate of Australia like back then?

Honestly, the idea that any part of the world is a natural representation of global climate is logically flawed. Less smart is quoting from a site that does not use climate science to inform its readers.

 

[rederob]

Since most aren't at all keen on talking about population reduction... .

Given a population of less than 5% of the global population (ie USA) has contributed half the additional CO2 since the industrial revolution, it is impossible for population to be the problem.
Instead, per capita energy intensity is the main problem, along with type of energy used, and Europe has been solving this by transitioning to renewables.

 

[basilio]

Given a population of less than 5% of the global population (ie USA) has contributed half the additional CO2 since the industrial revolution, it is impossible for population to be the problem.

Good point but not quite all or nothing situation .

The overall issue is the impact we have on the environment and resources. Deflecting the discussion to the millions of Indians/Chinese/Africans doesn't recognise the overwhelming impact of a consume and waste culture that is the heart of modern society.

 

[moXJO]

Europe has been solving this by transitioning to renewables.

Not really. If you move your manufacturing to a place where there are lax polluting laws it's not much better for the planet.
Massaging figures doesn't help.

 

[rederob]

Not really. If you move your manufacturing to a place where there are lax polluting laws it's not much better for the planet.
Massaging figures doesn't help.

China has added more renewables capacity than any other country on the planet. So your point fails.

 

[moXJO]

China has added more renewables capacity than any other country on the planet. So your point fails.

No it doesn't. Manufacturing plant in China will produce more pollution then if it were in Europe.
They are producing a huge % of world emissions.
Per capita emissions is a bad metric on the size and scale of some countries. It also won't save sht as far as the planet is concerned.
Even the difference between China and India emissions are huge.

 

[rederob]

No it doesn't. Manufacturing plant in China will produce more pollution then if it were in Europe.
They are producing a huge % of world emissions.
Per capita emissions is a bad metric on the size and scale of some countries. It also won't save sht as far as the planet is concerned.
Even the difference between China and India emissions are huge.

First, if you cannot use data, then don't make spurious claims.
Next, high per capita CO2 emission are largely responsible for the situation we got into regarding increased global CO2 emissions. The third world, plus China are playing catch-up.
When I first starting commenting about climate change Australia had equivalent total CO2 emissions to about 1 billion people in India. So your idea that per capita emissions is a poor metric is nonsensical.

 

[moXJO]

First, if you cannot use data, then don't make spurious claims.
Next, high per capita CO2 emission are largely responsible for the situation we got into regarding increased global CO2 emissions. The third world, plus China are playing catch-up.
When I first starting commenting about climate change Australia had equivalent total CO2 emissions to about 1 billion people in India. So your idea that per capita emissions is a poor metric is nonsensical.

For shifting emissions via manufacturing it's a bad metric. Pretending you are green while you offshore emissions. Bit like dumping your nuke waste on the cheap off the coast of Africa. Someone else's problem while you feign green.

Whats the argument from certain sources?
"emerging countries can pollute more to raise their economies" or something similar.
Western countries simply shifted emissions to higher polluting spaces.
Not only that, but we get cheap disposable goods that last a fraction of the time. We simply throw out goods now that we wouldn't have done in the past.


Since you like using 'totals' as an indicator. What's the total emissions out of China?

 

[moXJO]

China has added more renewables capacity than any other country on the planet. So your point fails.

Should also point out that China was the biggest builder of coal plants as well.

 

[rederob]

Should also point out that China was the biggest builder of coal plants as well.

That is not and argument.
The industries leaving USA and Europe relied heavily on coal power, so there is effectively a net reduction in CO2 by transferring them to China, as China has made massive investments in renewables to meet their energy demands. Note how coal intensity has declined in their energy mix.

Furthermore, China's economies of scale mean more production with comparatively less energy, so transferring industry to China achieves efficiencies.

 

[moXJO]

so transferring industry to China achieves efficiencies.

Cost efficiencies, not environmental ones.

 

[rederob]

Cost efficiencies, not environmental ones.

With regard to CO2 emissions there are net environmental benefits, and China's laws on particulate scrubbing are world class.
You need to do some research as you are relying on very outdated thinking. For years now China has been literally closing down and cleaning up thousands of businesses that were heavy pollutants and can no longer meet increasingly more stringent environmental standards.
China has a long way to go because when it began to industrialise there were very few impediments to harming the environment as the goal was to "produce" at any cost.

 

[moXJO]

That is not and argument.
The industries leaving USA and Europe relied heavily on coal power, so there is effectively a net reduction in CO2 by transferring them to China, as China has made massive investments in renewables to meet their energy demands. Note how coal intensity has declined in their energy mix.

.

Crude and gas is also up.

 

[moXJO]

With regard to CO2 emissions there are net environmental benefits, and China's laws on particulate scrubbing are world class.
You need to do some research as you are relying on very outdated thinking. For years now China has been literally closing down and cleaning up thousands of businesses that were heavy pollutants and can no longer meet increasingly more stringent environmental standards.
China has a long way to go because when it began to industrialise there were very few impediments to harming the environment as the goal was to "produce" at any cost.

Manufacturing in Germany is a completely different beast to China. Both in emission controls and also costs.
All of this wasn't to slight China either. Big business is interested in the most cost effective measures they can get.
China has made huge leaps in a short space of time. But as soon as costs increase till it is no longer economically viable, business will shift.
Great if you are in a first world country. Just offshore our smog.

There are attitudes in third world countries where the dollar outweighs the environment until they achieve a middle-class.