Speaking about EV projections, as I periodically do on this thread, the IEA has now updated their projection for the 2030 EV fleet. The best-case scenario has now doubled to 250 million EVs on the world’s roads. Even the more pessimistic case calls for 130 million, slightly more than last year’s best case.
The current best case would be about 25% of the current global fleet.
As for sales volumes, in 2018 ~81 million cars were sold. Compare this with projected EV sales in 2030 of 43 million–a better than 50% market share–or under the more conservative case, 23 million or about 23%.
The EIA put the current number of EVs on the road at about 5 million.
Ever the optimist, I think even the best case estimate may be too conservative, though that’s not (yet) based on a whole lot of evidence–chiefly just on a noted tendency of such modeling exercises in the past (by the IEA and others) to badly underestimate the non-linear growth trends that can happen and have happened with, for instance, solar power. Well, that and my perception of the value offered to the consumer by BEV technology, once it hits purchase-price parity.
Killiansays
Re #101 Richard Creager said We are not telepaths.
1. The post you refer to also have exactly zero to do with you, so why are you commenting? What is the term for someone who interjects on the internet for no other reason than to cause trouble? Troll. Or ass. I’ll let you choose for yourself.
2. The tiny point you are now trollishly “piling on” about was but an illustration, an e.g., of the rationality of the thought process. The caveat provided sufficed; it did not require a dissertation. Coupling that with #1 above, please stop trolling.
3. Were you sincere, rather than trolling, you’d have read the exchange(s) in question to be full of bullshit by the other party and would address that.
Bye, troll.
patrick027says
re 102 Kevin the Chemist – irrigation will have vastly greater effect than combustion on atmospheric H2O – which (from memory) has an atmospheric residence time somewhere between 1 and 2 weeks (10 or 11 days??). CO2 is in the troposphere the moment it leaves the smokestack/tailpipe; it will get into the ‘free troposphere’ quickly. You may have meant to ask about oceanic uptake, and sequestration by land vegetation?
zebrasays
#93 patrick,
But you left out the part about how you stop people from burning fossil fuels.
I’ve pointed out many times that if you make the grid (at any and all scales) operate as a common carrier, the market will sort out the relationships between buyers and sellers. That solves the problem of which non-FF sources are chosen by which consumers.
But, Ukraine isn’t going to buy electricity from Spain if it can generate it with gas from Russia. And Russia isn’t going to sit idly by and let it happen, even if Ukraine wanted to.
A transition towards long-term sustainability in global energy systems based on renewable energy resources can mitigate several growing threats to human society simultaneously: greenhouse gas emissions, human-induced climate deviations, and the exceeding of critical planetary boundaries. However, the optimal structure of future systems and potential transition pathways are still open questions. This research describes a global, 100% renewable electricity system, which can be achieved by 2050, and the steps required to enable a realistic transition that prevents societal disruption. Modelling results show that a carbon neutral electricity system can be built in all regions of the world in an economically feasible manner. This radical transformation will require steady but evolutionary changes for the next 35 years, and will lead to sustainable and affordable power supply globally.
A global transition needs effort and investment, but each step can realistically lead to gradual, evolutionary change. A sustainable and carbon neutral electricity system based on 100% RE is technically feasible and economically viable globally by 2050 due to the reasonable total system LCOE (26–72 €/MWh) with a global average of 52 €/MWh (uncertainty range 45–58 €/MWh). Ongoing RE and storage cost decreases will position renewable electricity as the least cost source globally, and displace fossil fuel-based electricity, even with market mechanisms, unless the system is distorted by subsidies54. However, each regional energy transition will proceed rather uniquely. Each country will have a specific optimal electricity supply mix, but solar PV will become the dominating source of electricity globally. Beyond 2040, PV will generate more than half of global electricity demand, and almost 70% in 2050. The 2020s will be most challenging due to the substitution of very high capacities of newly retired fossil fuel and nuclear capacities, and high capex. The transition will require a capex of around 22.5 trillion € (uncertainty range 19–25.5 trillion €), which is comparable to current power sector-related investments. Lifetime extensions of old fossil capacities and investments in new ones would result in additional challenges that complicate system development. For decades the RE share has grown slightly. However, despite discussions about defossilization and decarbonization of the energy system, GHG emissions keep on growing. In order to fulfill the Paris Agreement requirements as well as the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals, a greatly accelerated transition should be started soon.
Strategic approaches to restoring ecosystems can triple conservation gains and halve costs.
Strassburg BB et al
Abstract
International commitments for ecosystem restoration add up to one-quarter of the world’s arable land. Fulfilling them would ease global challenges such as climate change and biodiversity decline but could displace food production and impose financial costs on farmers. Here, we present a restoration prioritization approach capable of revealing these synergies and trade-offs, incorporating ecological and economic efficiencies of scale and modelling specific policy options. Using an actual large-scale restoration target of the Atlantic Forest hotspot, we show that our approach can deliver an eightfold increase in cost-effectiveness for biodiversity conservation compared with a baseline of non-systematic restoration. A compromise solution avoids 26% of the biome’s current extinction debt of 2,864 plant and animal species (an increase of 257% compared with the baseline). Moreover, this solution sequesters 1 billion tonnes of CO2-equivalent (a 105% increase) while reducing costs by US$28 billion (a 57% decrease). Seizing similar opportunities elsewhere would offer substantial contributions to some of the greatest challenges for humankind.
Comment in
Restoration where it pays off. [Nat Ecol Evol. 2019]
PMID: 30568285 DOI: 10.1038/s41559-018-0743-8
Mal Adaptedsays
The page one editorial in the latest issue of Science magazine is titled A call to climate action. It pulls no punches. For example:
…it is also abundantly clear that absent climate change mitigation, adaptation strategies will in many cases become overwhelmed, leading to unacceptable costs to both human and natural systems. The top priority must remain the elimination of the greenhouse gas emissions that are driving climate change…
and
The climate crisis requires societal transformation of a scale and rapidity that has rarely been achieved. Indeed, the last time such a change took place was sparked by global economic depression and World War II. What enabled action then was a perceived existential threat and broad support in society. Today, we are faced with such a threat, but widening wealth disparities and special interests impede the needed change.
Now that’s what I call a forced response! IMHO it’s significant on multiple levels. I, at least, find it rather bracing.
nigeljsays
Alan 2102 @106, looks interesting. Here is another plan for 100% renewable energy globally. The first link is a brief summary, the second the details:
Regarding last months UV. You were right: MMT does include money creation. I think I read an article that gave a distorted picture of it all. I should have cross checked on wikipedia.
Killiansays
Re #107 Mal Adapted said …it is also abundantly clear that absent climate change mitigation, adaptation strategies will in many cases become overwhelmed, leading to unacceptable costs to both human and natural systems.
…The climate crisis requires societal transformation of a scale and rapidity that has rarely been achieved. Indeed, the last time such a change took place was sparked by global economic depression and World War II.
But haven’t you heard? People won’t!
What enabled action then was a perceived existential threat and broad support in society.
Now, where have we heard before the proper framing for climate comms is long-tail risk? We could have taken this tack ten years ago… right? Except, I guess things are only true after a Ph.D. says them….
Today, we are faced with such a threat, but widening wealth disparities and special interests impede the needed change.
Yes, but short of the mark; economics of any kind impedes change and cannot be part of our future.
Now that’s what I call a forced response!
Really? And what did you call it all the times I said all that?
IMHO it’s significant on multiple levels. I, at least, find it rather bracing.
Again, why was it not all the many times I’ve said it? And, yes, I am making a point: The people who understand the problems and solutions best have been saying these things for a very long time. The people whose words you now find “bracing”, but for ten years have ignored or even belittled when said by me, still don’t fully understand the problems and are far wrong on the solutions.
It should make an impression on you that I have written the same things for years, and didn’t need to be a scientist to figure these things out. There are ways of approaching problems that are more effective than science, and a hell of a lot faster, but come from the kind of observation done in natural sciences – because Mollison, and others, were natural scientists. (He worked for CSIRO and was a lecturer at university), and, of course, much of what we understand comes from TEK, and there are no better observers of nature.
So, maybe, just maybe, you can come to realize a Ph.D. is not the only road to knowing. And, maybe, just maybe, start listening.
Killiansays
Re #106 alan2102 said Strategic approaches to restoring ecosystems can triple conservation gains and halve costs.
Been telling you that for years. We call it speeding up succession. Also, so long as the response to this emergency is framed as economic, we will continue to fail. Any analysis focused on economics is necessarily a FAIL.
Besides, we can do better than any approach that begins from science and economics. WE always start from, with, for and through Nature, thus get inherently better outcomes.
Strassburg BB et al
Abstract
International commitments for ecosystem restoration add up to one-quarter of the world’s arable land.
Why not all of it? Design all human spaces permaculturally and we end up using virtually all space in a restorative manner. Nature begins in your yard and becomes more “wild” as you move away from the home/community.
Fulfilling them would ease global challenges such as climate change and biodiversity decline but could displace food production and impose financial costs on farmers.
Yeah, not if we do it permaculturally. So, hey, docs, get the hell out of the way till you’ve learned what we have long known: How to live integrated with Nature.
Here, we present a restoration prioritization approach capable of revealing these synergies and trade-offs, incorporating ecological and economic efficiencies of scale
Bzzzt! Wrong. Regenerative systems, nee sustainable systems, are inherently place-based. Efficiencies are found in massive connectedness. Ask the mycelia and trees.
and modelling specific policy options. Using an actual large-scale restoration target of the Atlantic Forest hotspot, we show that our approach can deliver an eightfold increase in cost-effectiveness for biodiversity conservation compared with a baseline of non-systematic restoration.
Isn’t that like saying their approach is better than no approach? Are supposed to be impressed by that?
A compromise solution avoids 26% of the biome’s current extinction debt of 2,864 plant and animal species (an increase of 257% compared with the baseline). Moreover, this solution sequesters 1 billion tonnes of CO2-equivalent (a 105% increase) while reducing costs by US$28 billion (a 57% decrease). Seizing similar opportunities elsewhere would offer substantial contributions to some of the greatest challenges for humankind.
Yeah, do it all regeneratively and simplify in the doing, and the numbers would be off the charts.
zebrasays
#105, 108, 107,
Please see #104.
So what’s your plan?
Not the plan for “what I would do if I were God-Dictator of the world”, or “what We could do if there were a Kumbaya World Order wanting to prevent AGW”.
What’s the plan to get Australia to stop selling coal? Or Norway to stop selling oil?
Those are a couple of actually democratic countries with a reasonable level of environmental sensibility. And then there are all the others…
One more study/pitch about a fantasy future way of doing things if only people cared does nothing to change the difficult reality, nor does one more plea for if only to occur.
Richard Creagersays
Killian # 102: Sincerity demands I read the entire exchange as full of bullshit by Hank Roberts and address that? Fine: Sincerely, I’ve followed RC closely nearly since inception, learned thankfully, appreciate the time and effort of the posters, moderators and informed commenters, read nearly every comment thread. Still waiting for Hank Roberts’ first bullshit. Rather he has aimed me toward interesting resources, sharpened my search skills, set an example for universally courteous digital interaction I cannot match (thus this interchange). I appreciate the content of some of the ideas you espouse, permaculture and related, that if widely or universally adopted, could support a significantly lower carbon-footprint culture. You have sent me thru some interesting and informative google walks. Thank-you. You stridently urge people to accept these ideas. The world would benefit. Let me cue you in. Tone matters. When someone doesn’t immediately acknowledge the validity of your position and you respond with ad homs, it hurts your argument. When you behave insultingly, people feel insulted and are less open to your ideas. Just sayin’. This is too important for self-indulgence. So do us all a favor; rein in your hubris.
Ukraine isn’t going to buy electricity from Spain if it can generate it with gas from Russia.
Are you sure about that? The two are currently fighting a low-grade war, after all. Seems to me Ukraine might rather like to stop paying the enemy for the essentials of life–and particularly so if the price is better, which it could potentially be.*
The bigger problem is that *Russia* is going to keep on using Russian gas (and oil, which is dirtier) for all sorts of things that could be done in a less-polluting and more climate-friendly manner.
But I have to think there that the ongoing economic failure, which will only worsen as Russia is left behind by a world in technological and social transformation, will leave them so self-evidently the ‘sick man of Europe’ (once again) that change will be forced upon them. Plus, Putin won’t live forever, and has failed so far to provide a succession plan. Not a stable situation over decadal time scales.
*Interestingly, Ukraine has a not-bad solar resource, comparable to and probably a bit better than Germany’s:
Somewhat ironically, though, the best resource is in Crimea including two notable solar parks, which of course the Russians grabbed.
“Ukraine adopted a feed-in tariff (FIT) which is one of the highest in the world – UAH 5.0509 (EUR 0.46) per kWh. Europe’s largest solar park at the time, the 100 MW Perovo Solar Park was completed at the end of 2011.” (Perovo is in Crimea.)
Domestic PV in Ukraine appears to be doubling every 3-4 years, according to one of the few parts of the Wiki article that seems to have been updated lately:
And, says here that total deployment cracked 2 GW in the first quarter of 2019, during which they added nearly 700 MW. Not bad… potentially, they could be selling solar electricity during those times when it’s “sunny Ukraine,” if the interconnections are built.
Al Bundysays
Nigel,
I haven’t seen much evidence that Killian is trying to convince anyone. He seems more the toddler who’s pretending to be a superhero, “Mr Perfecto” for his legions of adoring imaginary friends.
And you are addicted to his game. Get some help, dude. Maybe a local friend to “confess” to (and pay a token “fine” to if you fall off the sanity wagon)
Al Bundysays
Nigel,
One more thing that might help:
When tempted to interact with Killian in a way that isn’t 100% affirming, remember that you are hurting innocent people as well as this site.
mikesays
to mal at 107: Our species is geneerally sleepwalking it’s way into the sixth extinction event. Wake up calls, calls to action, etc. are only heard by folks who are already awake. I would love to be wrong about this, but I don’t see how a call for climate action by a magazine like Science is going to make any difference. If the call to action came from Fox News or the Republican party I would get a little excited and wonder if things have changed.
I had a little back and forth recently with my cousin on Facebook over whether cruise ship vacations were reasonable. I clearly think not, my cuz says maybe she has a carbon bank account and should be able to go on a fricking cruise vacay once ever two years. My cuz is a stalwart democrat and Hillary supporter, so it’s not that she denies global warming, it’s just that she is not interested in facing the fact that she may be a high emitter, to use Kevin Anderson’s term, who authentically believes she is entitled to this lifestyle and does not believe that any other person/generation/species is footing the bill for a first world lifestyle that includes airflight and cruise ships on a somewhat regular basis.
I don’t know what more I can say to my friends and family who live high emitter lifestyles. Does anyone think a call to action from Science magazine is going to result in big change? I do not, but I would love to be wrong.
Warm regards
Mike
Al Bundysays
Zebra,
You’re right. The world might split into autocratic GOPpers, democratic socialists, and technocentralists.
Until the cost of renewables including capital costs drops below the incremental cost of fossil fuel (ignoring fossil sunk cost) there will be no financial incentive to even consider shutting down fossil infrastructure. Look at coal plants. Duct tape and coat hangers and still they’re gasping for one more decade of subsidized spewing…
Killiansays
Re 112, et al., hypocrite said “Tone matters” *after* hypocrite said, “…justified only in your own mind… We are not telepaths. What’s the term for the opposite of hearing voices, where one imagines that others hear and should share one’s thoughts?
Hypocrite is not holier than thou, thee, we, nor any, and should not enter conversations not relevant to hypocrite – or trolls.
Worse, hypocrite thinks the thread was about Hank. It was not. Hank responded to logic I used in a post responding to nigelj. My response to Hank was in no way rude nor disrespectful and was solely regarding his asnalysis of my logic. Thus, when I said he should have read the thread it was referring to the source of the exchange between Hank and I, which provided the context for my logic. So, on your way hypocrite.
Killiansays
Re #112 hypocrite said “tone matters”
Yet, hypocrite troll has a history of interacting with me solely to…”177
Richard Creager says:
16 Jan 2018 at 1:27 AM
Thomas 148
Re: my “flippant comment” @ 134, re: Killian 91, re:77, re:73; I’ll work on “thinking properly”. But as a lay-lurker here for the science, it’s often hard not to jump in and tweak Killian in his hubris, given the way it flaps in the wind.”
I do congratulate troll on joining nigelj on the banned list.
Killiansays
Re #117 mike said to mal at 107: Our species is geneerally sleepwalking it’s way into the sixth extinction event.
…I had a little back and forth recently with my cousin on Facebook over whether cruise ship vacations were reasonable. I clearly think not, my cuz says maybe she has a carbon bank account and should be able to go on a fricking cruise vacay once ever two years. My cuz is a stalwart democrat and Hillary supporter, so it’s not that she denies global warming, it’s just that she is not interested in facing the fact that she may be a high emitter
Yes, there is denial on this. Surely you’ve noticed the recent rhetoric of not blaming Average Janes and Joes, it’s all the Corporations’ fault, and gov’ts. This is a truly bizarre conclusion given without consumption there are no Inc’s – and no govt’s, for that matter. The call is not for people to not consume, it’s for Inc’s to give us products that don’t slow down our consumption one iota, yet give us a sustainable economy.
The combination of ignorance, delusion and selfishness inherent in such a stance literally cannot be overstated. I suspect the source of such “memes” are Capitalist.
I have noted all this so very many times with the simplification of, “I want my EV and my latte,” or similar.
The only thing I can suggest is to track down the now handful of papers from scientists and analysts stating there is a very real risk – at least 1/20, if not significantly higher – of the end of civilization this century. There was a new one out I saw yesterday.
Ask her if she’d even walk outside if there was a chance 18 times a year she’d die. Try to find a way to make the numbers real to her.
Does she have kids/grandkids? Point out that it is virtually certain, if she keeps up her cruising, they will suffer early deaths and live during the end of civilization.
And, of course, cruise ships are the single biggest per capita polluting/carbon source on the planet, so…
nigeljsays
Al Bundy @115, 116, you are right, although I had already considered all of that. I have mostly managed to “stay on the wagon” by an effort of will – but some comment set me off and this ridiculous wrestling match started again.
zebrasays
#114 Kevin McKinney,
“low grade war”
My point exactly, in my subsequent sentence that you omitted:
“And Russia isn’t going to sit idly by and let it happen, even if Ukraine wanted to.”
Easy enough for Russia to “upgrade” a bit to put pressure on Ukraine should they move to seriously reduce FF consumption.
And, “a world in technological and social transformation”??
Well, there’s a world full of actors just like Russia, and they seem to be doing pretty well at promoting a global social transformation in the wrong direction.
The Kumbaya World Order I mention in #111 is becoming less and less likely with the tendency to autocratic nationalism. In the US, that trend seems to be coming from both Right and Left.
Does anyone think a call to action from Science magazine is going to result in big change?
Thanks for your thoughtful response. IMO the Science editorial is significant as an unequivocal departure from scientific detachment, on page one (as it were) of the flagship journal of the American scientific establishment. I agree it’s unlikely to result in big change. At the least, however: as the global ecological and economic damage from AGW escalates along with the human tragedy, if anyone asks “Why didn’t scientists warn us?”, I’ll refer them to that piece.
What’s the plan to get Australia to stop selling coal? Or Norway to stop selling oil?
Dramatically oversimplified, 1) make wind and solar cheaper than operating existing coal plants, thereby killing demand for coal, and 2) transition AFAP to EVs, electrified mass transit, and ride sharing, thereby killing the market for gasoline and diesel. (There will still be a market for oil for lubricants and chemical feedstocks, so Norway may be able to continue selling oil, albeit at lower prices and/or volumes for quite a while.)
So, how are those going?
Well, #1 is going quite swimmingly, at least in the US:
#2 is going, though not as rapidly as I’d wish. See my #101, above.
Needless perhaps to say, I’d also take other measures, such as continuing the ongoing global extension of carbon pricing (thereby putting both coal and oil at increased competitive disadvantage), enforcing standards such as CAFE and the like, and also air pollution regs whereever needed and/or possible–to name just a few extant possibilities.
Until the cost of renewables including capital costs drops below the incremental cost of fossil fuel…
See my previous comment on that. Ignoring quibbles like operating cost vs. incremental fuel cost, essentially what you’re talking about is already happening, and quite a bit of it, too. That’s why we’re seeing many US coal plants (and not just US ones, either) retired ‘prematurely.’
nigeljsays
Another plan to deal with oil exporting countries might be for the importing countries to put a tariff on their oil exports. Normally I dont like tariffs, but desperate times call for desperate measures. Of course there may be problems with WTO rules, although America got around this with its tariffs on the basis of “national security”. Of course it will require moral courage from politicians, so don’t hold your breath.
zebrasays
#125 Kevin McKinney,
Kevin, you are the last person I would expect to give a reference that actually contradicts your claim (and supports mine).
Reading the whole thing, we learn that despite the (projected) costs being lower, renewables are not getting built at the rate normal economic considerations would dictate.
Which gets us back to my #104. Your article states that, despite law in Ohio that supposedly approaches the common-carrier model I suggest…
“In Ohio, it’s partly because regulators have allowed utilities to pass the costs of some uneconomic coal plants on to customers.”
Gosh, who would have thought something like that could happen?
The question is, Kevin, how to achieve political progress; we’ve known that the answers to the physical/engineering/economic questions support our position for a long time now.
To sum up my last several comments, I am simply fed up with people not being willing to get beyond the Tonto fallacy. “If only we”… but there is no we. It doesn’t matter if [planting a billion trees, or blah, or blah, or blah, or fill in the blank,] “would be a solution”, what matters is how to get the billion trees planted.
The video clip in this Guardian article has 3 minutes of the child who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave responding to a grown-up asking him questions about his beliefs no climate change. I felt it was interesting enough to take a full transcript give the child is actually 72 years-old and has some rather grown-up toys at his disposal.
MORGAN “Prince Charles is very very passionate about a lot of issues. One of which is, is climate change. I assume you talked about that.”
TRUMP “We did.”
MORGAN “Did he manage to pursuade you about the merits of the science on climate change.”
TRUMP “Well we were gong to have a 15 minute chat and it turned out to be an hour and a half and he did most of the talking. He is really into climate change and I think that’s great. I mean, I want that, I like that.”
MORGAN “Did you listen to him about that?”
TRUMP “I totally listened to him and he also talked about architecture. He’s very much involved and I’ve know this for years – I think the achitecture was earlier – but he very much loves architecture and…”
MORGAN “What did he say to you abut climate change?”
TRUMP “What he really wants and what he really feels warmly about is the future. He wants to make sure future generations have climate that is good climate, as opposed to a disaster, and I agree. I did mention a couple of things. I did say, ‘Well, the United States right now has among the cleanest climates there are based on all statistics.’ And it’s even getting better because I agree with that we want the best water, the cleanest water. Crystal clean, (?) crystal clean (?)air(?).””
MORGAN “What people want, do you mind me saing this, what people want to hear from you about climate change is that you basically understand that almost every scientist that looks into this believes climate change is a very real and present danger and if we don’t tackle it now, and America has to lead the way along with China and India, then we’re going to be in serious trouble. Do you accept that?”
TRUMP “Well you know, you just said it. China, India, Russia, many other nations, they have not very good air, not very good water in the sense of pollution and cleanliness. If you go to certain cities, I’m not going to name cities but I can, if you go to certain cities you can’t even breathe, and now that air is going up, so we have a clean, in terms of a planet, your talking about a ver small, you know, a very small distance between China and the US or other countries….”
MORGAN “(?)John(?) (?)I think(?) there’s mutual responsibility…”
TRUMP “No…but they don’t do the responsibility.”
MORGAN “But do you personally believe in climate change?”
TRUMP “I believe there’s a change in weather, and I think it changes both ways. Don’t forget, it used to be called global warming, that wasn’t working, then it was called climate change. Now it’s actually called extreme weather, because with extreme weather you can’t miss. Look, we have a thing now with tornados. I don’t remember tornados in the US to the extent. But when you look back 40 years ago we’ve had the worst tornado binge that we’ve ever had. In the 1890s we had our worst hurricanes and I would say we’ve had some very bad hurricanes.”
MORGAN “Were you able to give Prince Charles any comfort that you as the US President are taking this seriously?”
TRUMP “I think I was. Yes. I think we had a great conversationand it was about, as you would call it, climate change. But, ya. I think we had a very very good…”
MORGAN “Has he moved you a little bit?”
TRUMP “I’ll tell you what moved me is his passion for future generations. He’s really not doing this for him. He’s doing this for future generations. He really (?)feels(?)…. This is real. He believes that. He want’s to have a world that’s good for future generations…”
MORGAN “And you want?”
TRUMP “…and I do to. And that really (?). He’s Prince Charles. He doesn’t have to worry about future gnerations in theory unless he’s a very good person who cares about people. And that’s what impressed me maybe the most – his love for this world.”
So he ‘thinks its great’ that Prince Charles is ‘into’ climate change but the child himself is in total denial about it. So whether or not you believe the child about wanting ‘a world that’s good for future generations,’ his actions in providing such a world will not take account of the impact of climate change.
Al Bundysays
Kevin,
Yeah, but:
Coal is dispatchable so it “qualifies” for bonus bucks since it can ensure the lights stay on no matter what (Speaking GOPpish here).
Environmental remediation timelines generally begin when the plant or mine closes. The goal is to push the date back far enough while distancing your capital from the installation. Then, after you’ve sucked down enough bonus bucks and the individual on-paper “company” that owns the albatross has 87 cents in its bank account, shut down and declare bankruptcy (again, GOPpish, where one preaches Personal Responsibility…
…for the poor).
The alternative is to close now, switch to renewable, and bleed like a stuck pig cleaning up the mess you made…
…naw, the rich should never accept personal responsibility for anything they trash.
And, “a world in technological and social transformation”??
Yep. Fossil is going down, and sooner than you think. For many applications, we will be seeing products that are unequivocally superior to FF, and we’ll be seeing them cheaper than FF. At the same time, awareness and concern about that whole wrecking the climate thing is going to keep growing. I’m guessing that before 2040, fossil fuel use will already be starting to feel rather like medical bloodletting–quaint, archaic, and faintly disgusting.
Well, there’s a world full of actors just like Russia, and they seem to be doing pretty well at promoting a global social transformation in the wrong direction.
The Kumbaya World Order I mention in #111 is becoming less and less likely with the tendency to autocratic nationalism. In the US, that trend seems to be coming from both Right and Left.
Your concerns are well-founded. Looking at the Putins, Bolsonaros, Orbans and Trumps of the world can’t be anything but disquieting. Maybe I should mention the Xis and Modis, too, while I’m at it. To ask the classic question “What could possibly go wrong?” would be to invite a very long list of answers.
Yet that list of dangers isn’t the whole story. Putin is playing a losing hand in the long run; Russia basically has oil, and oil is *not* the future–as the Saudis well know. Neither is the political snake oil peddled by Bolsonaro or Orban; it leads to internal conflict which inevitably becomes debilitating and forces some kind of change. Ditto Trump, if he is re-elected (God forbid!)
Anyway, I don’t expect to see a Kumbaya world, ever. The best case will be a lot more mess and muddling through–even if we muddle through traffic that doesn’t burn dinosaur corpse residue.
alan2102says
This particular one has been all over the news. Most of the stuff I will post will NOT be all over the news; this is an exception.
Typical headline: “Giant Floating Islands That Turn Atmospheric CO2 into Fuel Could Prevent Climate Change, Scientists Say”
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Jun 3. pii: 201902335. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1902335116.
Renewable CO2 recycling and synthetic fuel production in a marine environment.
Patterson BD1,2, Mo F3, Borgschulte A4, Hillestad M5, Joos F6,7, Kristiansen T8, Sunde S9, van Bokhoven JA10,11.
Abstract
A massive reduction in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning is required to limit the extent of global warming. However, carbon-based liquid fuels will in the foreseeable future continue to be important energy storage media. We propose a combination of largely existing technologies to use solar energy to recycle atmospheric CO2 into a liquid fuel. Our concept is clusters of marine-based floating islands, on which photovoltaic cells convert sunlight into electrical energy to produce H2 and to extract CO2 from seawater, where it is in equilibrium with the atmosphere. These gases are then reacted to form the energy carrier methanol, which is conveniently shipped to the end consumer. The present work initiates the development of this concept and highlights relevant questions in physics, chemistry, and mechanics.
MAL:
” IMO the Science editorial is significant as an unequivocal departure from scientific detachment, on page one (as it were) of the flagship journal of the American scientific establishment. … if anyone asks “Why didn’t scientists warn us?”, I’ll refer them to that piece”
Overpeck & Conde’s alarming 2019 Science editorial is in scientific substance the antithesis of Spencer & Christy’s anodyne 1990 production-
Precise Monitoring of Global Temperature Trends from Satellites
Science 30 Mar 1990: Vol. 247, Issue 4950, pp. 1558-1562
DOI: 10.1126/science.247.4950.1558
but it perfeclty mirrors its form. Same journal, same page, same media profile, same political pontification.
Killian #119,120 Hypocrite, no. Try not to get too carried away (8X hypocrite in 2 short posts, you think you’re DT with the nicknames? seems clever, does it?). I’ve just made some valid observations based on things you’ve said, reinforced by your re-quotes. I’m calling you on your personal attacks on those who challenge positions you advocate. Ad homs. The difference is, I’m not urging people to endorse my solution, and insulting them if they disagree. As stated I have learned from you and support much of what you advocate. Please continue to explicate and advocate. If you feel insulted it’s just an insult, no fallacy of logic involved. My tone was a simple taste of soup for the chef. Sorry I misread the object of your derision; your comment was a response to Hank’s comment and while, yes, I had read the entire exchange as it developed, apparently my telepathic ergologic failed me. No, Killian, I don’t interact with you solely, that would be your hubris talking again, but I don’t comment often and recently, as childish personal interactions increasingly dominate the open threads, that “flapping hubris” has occasionally drawn my fingers to the keyboard.
mikesays
To Mal:
On the question of adequate warning about AGW from scientists, I would always start with James Hansen’s testimony to Congress way back when, but, I doubt I will actually take part in that back and forth, if it ever comes. It just feels pointless. I can think of better things to do, like take care of my grape vines and coppice my walnut trees. That’s work I like.
To KM: Yes, my cuz has grandkids and she love them. In defense of her cruise vacations, she came back with questions about whether my food supply is delivered by fossil fuel trucking, etc. She lives in a large home in a somewhat remote location and believes she has accumulated a carbon bank account by only driving to town twice a week. I just shrug it off. Of course, the carbon bank she has access to belongs to our grandchildren, but she is too angry and defensive about her actual carbon footprint to acknowledge that.
I posted on facebook today about the yahoo story that we are all going to die
and made some mention of the combination of capitalism and our species insatiable appetite for consumption as a possible culprit. I think capitalism and the market both shape and respond to our collective appetite, so it’s not just that nasty capitalism at fault, we all need to glance in the mirror occasionally when we wonder why the world is going downhill.
Cheers
Mike
Fred Magyarsays
“Your concerns are well-founded. Looking at the Putins, Bolsonaros, Orbans and Trumps of the world can’t be anything but disquieting.”
LOL! Ya think? Hey come take a walk on the wild side with me for a day or two.
I’m a US citizen, South Florida resident, I was born in Brazil and my ancestry is Hungarian. You should come to dinner some time when my family is arguing about Orban in Portuguese, Trump in Hungarian and Bolsonaro in English… We talk about Putin in German ;-)
Cheers!
Killiansays
Re #123 zebra said #114 Kevin McKinney,
“low grade war”
…Well, there’s a world full of actors just like Russia, and they seem to be doing pretty well at promoting a global social transformation in the wrong direction.
The Kumbaya World Order I mention in #111 is becoming less and less likely with the tendency to autocratic nationalism. In the US, that trend seems to be coming from both Right and Left.
Yet, even groups like ExReb are marching around telling **gov’ts** to DO SOMETHNG!, as it were.
LOL… hahahahaha….
Localization, bio-regionalization, simplicity… as stated many, many times.
The answers lie in our mirrors, like it or not.
Killiansays
So… a thought on Extinction Rebellion: All the possies on this forum please note the two movements that have gotten the world’s attention are both telling it like it is… as I told you… a long time ago… over and over.
You’re welcome.
Please listen.
My analysis is wholistic, holistic, comprehensive, systemic. That’s why it is so much more accurate than yours.
Learn.
Killiansays
Rupert Read of Extinction Rebellion gets a lot right, some wrong. Clearly doesn’t fully understand what the other side of the climate crisis would need to look like, but gets impressively close compared to most.
“So he ‘thinks its great’ that Prince Charles is ‘into’ climate change but the child himself is in total denial about it.”
Wrong. He did not deny climate change. He pointed out that “weather” changes all the time, which is true. From your script, clearly he told the truth:
TRUMP “I believe there’s a change in weather, and I think it changes both ways. Don’t forget, it used to be called global warming, that wasn’t working, then it was called climate change. Now it’s actually called extreme weather, because with extreme weather you can’t miss. Look, we have a thing now with tornados. I don’t remember tornados in the US to the extent. But when you look back 40 years ago we’ve had the worst tornado binge that we’ve ever had. In the 1890s we had our worst hurricanes and I would say we’ve had some very bad hurricanes.”
Weather extremes have always occurred, DJT understands that – everyone does.
Has DJT even been exposed to the physics of “AGW”? I have no idea – it’s not likely. Few people have been except scientists working in that field. It’s complicated science involving many parts. Want to improve the understanding? Post the science on a website. It may be many tens of pages in length. Who would take the time to read it? Who knows. Right now, no thorough explanation exists, except perhaps in expensive text books. There are good websites – some posted by BPL, Hank R, nigelj, and others, but none which begin with the absolute basics so the average person might understand it. Maybe it isn’t possible – I don’t know. If the people can’t understand how AGW works, why would you be surprised that they don’t believe it?
But this we do know: for the next 5.5 years, it is more important for the survival of the US that we have a man like DJT who wants to MAGA, than it is to worry about AGW. We will deal with AGW later if necessary. There’s plenty of time – the beach at the ocean looks exactly as it has since anyone can remember. Too many have cried wolf over the centuries to get excited about those doing it today. Let’s get that website going – just the basic physics for starters and be sure to explain the role of the various layers in the atmosphere. I still am unsure about some of that stuff.
zebrasays
#130 Al Bundy,
Putting aside just how “dispatchable” coal really is, the problem is that neither Right nor Left want there to be a real market to decide just how much of bonus bucks there should be… if any.
As in the Ohio case I quoted in #128; we know the Republicans are hypocrites, but there is also opposition to the common carrier model from the other side.
KIA 140: for the next 5.5 years, it is more important for the survival of the US that we have a man like DJT who wants to MAGA, than it is to worry about AGW.
Arguably true, but as your quote makes plain, he fails to understand the first thing about it–such as the difference between weather and climate.
Want to improve the understanding? Post the science on a website.
Like this one, you mean?
Or did you have something more like “The Discovery of Global Warming,” which is linked under the “Science Links” heading in the sidebar to the right of this page, along with about 20 other such?
Dude have you been paying attention at *all*?
But this we do know: for the next 5.5 years, it is more important for the survival of the US that we have a man like DJT who wants to MAGA, than it is to worry about AGW. We will deal with AGW later if necessary.
Wood Mackenzie and the ESA expect US energy storage annual deployments to reach over 4.3 gigawatts (GW) by 2024 with utility procurements, changing tariffs, and grid service opportunities serving to drive the market forward. In 2019, energy storage deployed is expected to double compared to the previous year, and a major increase will follow in 2020 as several large front-of-the-meter projects come online, leading 300% growth over 2019.
KillingInaction: But this we do know: for the next 5.5 years, it is more important for the survival of the US that we have a man like DJT who wants to MAGA, than it is to worry about AGW. We will deal with AGW later if necessary. There’s plenty of time – the beach at the ocean looks exactly as it has since anyone can remember. Too many have cried wolf over the centuries to get excited about those doing it today.
AB: Dude, scientists have never “cried wolf” before. Please stop painting scientists with brushes bought, built, and soaked by others. Remember, eliminating “crying wolf” is one of science’s primary purposes. Like eclipses. People surely lost their lives as sacrifices before scientists said, “Stop crying wolf! It’s just an eclipse and we can time them.”
Scientists’ previous cry of warning, ozone depletion, was not only spot on but scientists helpfully showed how to solve the problem. Do you agree, or do you believe that the 1970s question, “will the natural decline in temperature as we exit the Holocene’s thermal peak be larger than the unnatural increase in temperature resulting from ongoing human activity?” was “crying wolf”? Seriously, is positing a scientific question “crying wolf”? Is the scientific community bound by the “crying wolf” of journalists, politicians, and others? Do you believe in society sending you to prison for my crimes?
So now scientists are giving a stark warning: We must start now. We must be significantly down the road within ten years. We must get-er-done asap and even that is going to result in serious problems. In fact, there seems to be a reasonable probability that we’re going to kill off the biosphere (the latest paper on co-extinction, where thermally robust species go extinct because a thermally intolerant species stops providing needed ecosystem services), or at least degrade it to the point that it will never again be anything except a collection of neuron-free extremophiles (the sun is getting hotter so there isn’t much time for a do-over).
And you decree that the proper response is to accelerate towards apocalypse because there have always been non-scientist losers who have stood on street corners with signs, “The end is near”? WTF do crazies on corners have to do with science and scientists??
Dude, this isn’t a “debate” where folks select a side to advocate and their goal is to “win”. Even if your side “wins” 2 + 2 will never equal -894.6
Al Bundysays
Kevin McKinney: Fossil is going down, and sooner than you think.
AB: If the future is non-nuclear and hydro-power declines as rivers are re-wilded and population increases and energy consumption per capita skyrockets in the developing world and fossil reserve owners don’t want to take an immediate zero in Yahtzee so will instead take a low score in Chance then sure, fossil can go down at an amazing rate…
…and not decline at all. A much smaller percentage of a much larger pie is still going to give you planetary diabetes.
Al Bundysays
KillingInaction,
The beach does not look anything like it used to. If you mean “sand”, well, plastic is increasing at all scales, from turtle-hunting bags to micro-plastic hormone-disrupters.
And if you take your head out of the sand and go scuba diving, you’ll find that where not so long ago there was a gorgeous reef there’s often either a pretty ghost town of bleached coral or, after enough bleachings, a landscape of slime, seaweed, (and jellyfish?)
Villages falling in the ocean in Alaska is fake news?
That Miami’s “beach” is often concrete and traveled by cars is more lies?
————
Killian: So… a thought on Extinction Rebellion: All the possies on this forum please note the two movements that have gotten the world’s attention are both telling it like it is… as I told you… a long time ago… over and over.
You’re welcome.
Please listen.
My analysis is wholistic, holistic, comprehensive, systemic. That’s why it is so much more accurate than yours.
Learn.
AB: You win First Prize for the most self-aggrandizing, insulting, and dismissive-of-one-and-all post!
Speaking about EV projections, as I periodically do on this thread, the IEA has now updated their projection for the 2030 EV fleet. The best-case scenario has now doubled to 250 million EVs on the world’s roads. Even the more pessimistic case calls for 130 million, slightly more than last year’s best case.
The current best case would be about 25% of the current global fleet.
As for sales volumes, in 2018 ~81 million cars were sold. Compare this with projected EV sales in 2030 of 43 million–a better than 50% market share–or under the more conservative case, 23 million or about 23%.
The EIA put the current number of EVs on the road at about 5 million.
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/05/30/iea-predicts-250-million-evs-on-the-road-by-2030/
Ever the optimist, I think even the best case estimate may be too conservative, though that’s not (yet) based on a whole lot of evidence–chiefly just on a noted tendency of such modeling exercises in the past (by the IEA and others) to badly underestimate the non-linear growth trends that can happen and have happened with, for instance, solar power. Well, that and my perception of the value offered to the consumer by BEV technology, once it hits purchase-price parity.
Re #101 Richard Creager said We are not telepaths.
1. The post you refer to also have exactly zero to do with you, so why are you commenting? What is the term for someone who interjects on the internet for no other reason than to cause trouble? Troll. Or ass. I’ll let you choose for yourself.
2. The tiny point you are now trollishly “piling on” about was but an illustration, an e.g., of the rationality of the thought process. The caveat provided sufficed; it did not require a dissertation. Coupling that with #1 above, please stop trolling.
3. Were you sincere, rather than trolling, you’d have read the exchange(s) in question to be full of bullshit by the other party and would address that.
Bye, troll.
re 102 Kevin the Chemist – irrigation will have vastly greater effect than combustion on atmospheric H2O – which (from memory) has an atmospheric residence time somewhere between 1 and 2 weeks (10 or 11 days??). CO2 is in the troposphere the moment it leaves the smokestack/tailpipe; it will get into the ‘free troposphere’ quickly. You may have meant to ask about oceanic uptake, and sequestration by land vegetation?
#93 patrick,
But you left out the part about how you stop people from burning fossil fuels.
I’ve pointed out many times that if you make the grid (at any and all scales) operate as a common carrier, the market will sort out the relationships between buyers and sellers. That solves the problem of which non-FF sources are chosen by which consumers.
But, Ukraine isn’t going to buy electricity from Spain if it can generate it with gas from Russia. And Russia isn’t going to sit idly by and let it happen, even if Ukraine wanted to.
So, what’s the plan?
Full text is free.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30842423
Nat Commun. 2019 Mar 6;10(1):1077. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-08855-1.
Radical transformation pathway towards sustainable electricity via evolutionary steps.
Bogdanov D1, Farfan J2, Sadovskaia K2, Aghahosseini A2, Child M2, Gulagi A2, Oyewo AS2, de Souza Noel Simas Barbosa L3, Breyer C4.
Abstract
A transition towards long-term sustainability in global energy systems based on renewable energy resources can mitigate several growing threats to human society simultaneously: greenhouse gas emissions, human-induced climate deviations, and the exceeding of critical planetary boundaries. However, the optimal structure of future systems and potential transition pathways are still open questions. This research describes a global, 100% renewable electricity system, which can be achieved by 2050, and the steps required to enable a realistic transition that prevents societal disruption. Modelling results show that a carbon neutral electricity system can be built in all regions of the world in an economically feasible manner. This radical transformation will require steady but evolutionary changes for the next 35 years, and will lead to sustainable and affordable power supply globally.
PMID: 30842423 PMCID: PMC6403340 DOI: 10.1038/s41467-019-08855-1
Free PMC Article
concluding paragraph:
Discussion
A global transition needs effort and investment, but each step can realistically lead to gradual, evolutionary change. A sustainable and carbon neutral electricity system based on 100% RE is technically feasible and economically viable globally by 2050 due to the reasonable total system LCOE (26–72 €/MWh) with a global average of 52 €/MWh (uncertainty range 45–58 €/MWh). Ongoing RE and storage cost decreases will position renewable electricity as the least cost source globally, and displace fossil fuel-based electricity, even with market mechanisms, unless the system is distorted by subsidies54. However, each regional energy transition will proceed rather uniquely. Each country will have a specific optimal electricity supply mix, but solar PV will become the dominating source of electricity globally. Beyond 2040, PV will generate more than half of global electricity demand, and almost 70% in 2050. The 2020s will be most challenging due to the substitution of very high capacities of newly retired fossil fuel and nuclear capacities, and high capex. The transition will require a capex of around 22.5 trillion € (uncertainty range 19–25.5 trillion €), which is comparable to current power sector-related investments. Lifetime extensions of old fossil capacities and investments in new ones would result in additional challenges that complicate system development. For decades the RE share has grown slightly. However, despite discussions about defossilization and decarbonization of the energy system, GHG emissions keep on growing. In order to fulfill the Paris Agreement requirements as well as the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals, a greatly accelerated transition should be started soon.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30568285
Nat Ecol Evol. 2019 Jan;3(1):62-70. doi: 10.1038/s41559-018-0743-8.
Strategic approaches to restoring ecosystems can triple conservation gains and halve costs.
Strassburg BB et al
Abstract
International commitments for ecosystem restoration add up to one-quarter of the world’s arable land. Fulfilling them would ease global challenges such as climate change and biodiversity decline but could displace food production and impose financial costs on farmers. Here, we present a restoration prioritization approach capable of revealing these synergies and trade-offs, incorporating ecological and economic efficiencies of scale and modelling specific policy options. Using an actual large-scale restoration target of the Atlantic Forest hotspot, we show that our approach can deliver an eightfold increase in cost-effectiveness for biodiversity conservation compared with a baseline of non-systematic restoration. A compromise solution avoids 26% of the biome’s current extinction debt of 2,864 plant and animal species (an increase of 257% compared with the baseline). Moreover, this solution sequesters 1 billion tonnes of CO2-equivalent (a 105% increase) while reducing costs by US$28 billion (a 57% decrease). Seizing similar opportunities elsewhere would offer substantial contributions to some of the greatest challenges for humankind.
Comment in
Restoration where it pays off. [Nat Ecol Evol. 2019]
PMID: 30568285 DOI: 10.1038/s41559-018-0743-8
The page one editorial in the latest issue of Science magazine is titled A call to climate action. It pulls no punches. For example:
…it is also abundantly clear that absent climate change mitigation, adaptation strategies will in many cases become overwhelmed, leading to unacceptable costs to both human and natural systems. The top priority must remain the elimination of the greenhouse gas emissions that are driving climate change…
and
The climate crisis requires societal transformation of a scale and rapidity that has rarely been achieved. Indeed, the last time such a change took place was sparked by global economic depression and World War II. What enabled action then was a perceived existential threat and broad support in society. Today, we are faced with such a threat, but widening wealth disparities and special interests impede the needed change.
Now that’s what I call a forced response! IMHO it’s significant on multiple levels. I, at least, find it rather bracing.
Alan 2102 @106, looks interesting. Here is another plan for 100% renewable energy globally. The first link is a brief summary, the second the details:
https://www.ecowatch.com/jacobson-renewable-energy-plan-2474464419.html
https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CountriesWWS.pdf
Regarding last months UV. You were right: MMT does include money creation. I think I read an article that gave a distorted picture of it all. I should have cross checked on wikipedia.
Re #107 Mal Adapted said …it is also abundantly clear that absent climate change mitigation, adaptation strategies will in many cases become overwhelmed, leading to unacceptable costs to both human and natural systems.
…The climate crisis requires societal transformation of a scale and rapidity that has rarely been achieved. Indeed, the last time such a change took place was sparked by global economic depression and World War II.
But haven’t you heard? People won’t!
What enabled action then was a perceived existential threat and broad support in society.
Now, where have we heard before the proper framing for climate comms is long-tail risk? We could have taken this tack ten years ago… right? Except, I guess things are only true after a Ph.D. says them….
Today, we are faced with such a threat, but widening wealth disparities and special interests impede the needed change.
Yes, but short of the mark; economics of any kind impedes change and cannot be part of our future.
Now that’s what I call a forced response!
Really? And what did you call it all the times I said all that?
IMHO it’s significant on multiple levels. I, at least, find it rather bracing.
Again, why was it not all the many times I’ve said it? And, yes, I am making a point: The people who understand the problems and solutions best have been saying these things for a very long time. The people whose words you now find “bracing”, but for ten years have ignored or even belittled when said by me, still don’t fully understand the problems and are far wrong on the solutions.
It should make an impression on you that I have written the same things for years, and didn’t need to be a scientist to figure these things out. There are ways of approaching problems that are more effective than science, and a hell of a lot faster, but come from the kind of observation done in natural sciences – because Mollison, and others, were natural scientists. (He worked for CSIRO and was a lecturer at university), and, of course, much of what we understand comes from TEK, and there are no better observers of nature.
So, maybe, just maybe, you can come to realize a Ph.D. is not the only road to knowing. And, maybe, just maybe, start listening.
Re #106 alan2102 said Strategic approaches to restoring ecosystems can triple conservation gains and halve costs.
Been telling you that for years. We call it speeding up succession. Also, so long as the response to this emergency is framed as economic, we will continue to fail. Any analysis focused on economics is necessarily a FAIL.
Besides, we can do better than any approach that begins from science and economics. WE always start from, with, for and through Nature, thus get inherently better outcomes.
Strassburg BB et al
Abstract
International commitments for ecosystem restoration add up to one-quarter of the world’s arable land.
Why not all of it? Design all human spaces permaculturally and we end up using virtually all space in a restorative manner. Nature begins in your yard and becomes more “wild” as you move away from the home/community.
Fulfilling them would ease global challenges such as climate change and biodiversity decline but could displace food production and impose financial costs on farmers.
Yeah, not if we do it permaculturally. So, hey, docs, get the hell out of the way till you’ve learned what we have long known: How to live integrated with Nature.
Here, we present a restoration prioritization approach capable of revealing these synergies and trade-offs, incorporating ecological and economic efficiencies of scale
Bzzzt! Wrong. Regenerative systems, nee sustainable systems, are inherently place-based. Efficiencies are found in massive connectedness. Ask the mycelia and trees.
and modelling specific policy options. Using an actual large-scale restoration target of the Atlantic Forest hotspot, we show that our approach can deliver an eightfold increase in cost-effectiveness for biodiversity conservation compared with a baseline of non-systematic restoration.
Isn’t that like saying their approach is better than no approach? Are supposed to be impressed by that?
A compromise solution avoids 26% of the biome’s current extinction debt of 2,864 plant and animal species (an increase of 257% compared with the baseline). Moreover, this solution sequesters 1 billion tonnes of CO2-equivalent (a 105% increase) while reducing costs by US$28 billion (a 57% decrease). Seizing similar opportunities elsewhere would offer substantial contributions to some of the greatest challenges for humankind.
Yeah, do it all regeneratively and simplify in the doing, and the numbers would be off the charts.
#105, 108, 107,
Please see #104.
So what’s your plan?
Not the plan for “what I would do if I were God-Dictator of the world”, or “what We could do if there were a Kumbaya World Order wanting to prevent AGW”.
What’s the plan to get Australia to stop selling coal? Or Norway to stop selling oil?
Those are a couple of actually democratic countries with a reasonable level of environmental sensibility. And then there are all the others…
One more study/pitch about a fantasy future way of doing things if only people cared does nothing to change the difficult reality, nor does one more plea for if only to occur.
Killian # 102: Sincerity demands I read the entire exchange as full of bullshit by Hank Roberts and address that? Fine: Sincerely, I’ve followed RC closely nearly since inception, learned thankfully, appreciate the time and effort of the posters, moderators and informed commenters, read nearly every comment thread. Still waiting for Hank Roberts’ first bullshit. Rather he has aimed me toward interesting resources, sharpened my search skills, set an example for universally courteous digital interaction I cannot match (thus this interchange). I appreciate the content of some of the ideas you espouse, permaculture and related, that if widely or universally adopted, could support a significantly lower carbon-footprint culture. You have sent me thru some interesting and informative google walks. Thank-you. You stridently urge people to accept these ideas. The world would benefit. Let me cue you in. Tone matters. When someone doesn’t immediately acknowledge the validity of your position and you respond with ad homs, it hurts your argument. When you behave insultingly, people feel insulted and are less open to your ideas. Just sayin’. This is too important for self-indulgence. So do us all a favor; rein in your hubris.
My previous comment refers to 105, 106, 107.
zebra, #104–
Are you sure about that? The two are currently fighting a low-grade war, after all. Seems to me Ukraine might rather like to stop paying the enemy for the essentials of life–and particularly so if the price is better, which it could potentially be.*
The bigger problem is that *Russia* is going to keep on using Russian gas (and oil, which is dirtier) for all sorts of things that could be done in a less-polluting and more climate-friendly manner.
But I have to think there that the ongoing economic failure, which will only worsen as Russia is left behind by a world in technological and social transformation, will leave them so self-evidently the ‘sick man of Europe’ (once again) that change will be forced upon them. Plus, Putin won’t live forever, and has failed so far to provide a succession plan. Not a stable situation over decadal time scales.
*Interestingly, Ukraine has a not-bad solar resource, comparable to and probably a bit better than Germany’s:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Ukraine#/media/File:Solar_Map_of_Ukraine.png
Somewhat ironically, though, the best resource is in Crimea including two notable solar parks, which of course the Russians grabbed.
“Ukraine adopted a feed-in tariff (FIT) which is one of the highest in the world – UAH 5.0509 (EUR 0.46) per kWh. Europe’s largest solar park at the time, the 100 MW Perovo Solar Park was completed at the end of 2011.” (Perovo is in Crimea.)
Domestic PV in Ukraine appears to be doubling every 3-4 years, according to one of the few parts of the Wiki article that seems to have been updated lately:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Ukraine#/media/File:Domestic_PV_installations_in_Ukraine.png
And, says here that total deployment cracked 2 GW in the first quarter of 2019, during which they added nearly 700 MW. Not bad… potentially, they could be selling solar electricity during those times when it’s “sunny Ukraine,” if the interconnections are built.
Nigel,
I haven’t seen much evidence that Killian is trying to convince anyone. He seems more the toddler who’s pretending to be a superhero, “Mr Perfecto” for his legions of adoring imaginary friends.
And you are addicted to his game. Get some help, dude. Maybe a local friend to “confess” to (and pay a token “fine” to if you fall off the sanity wagon)
Nigel,
One more thing that might help:
When tempted to interact with Killian in a way that isn’t 100% affirming, remember that you are hurting innocent people as well as this site.
to mal at 107: Our species is geneerally sleepwalking it’s way into the sixth extinction event. Wake up calls, calls to action, etc. are only heard by folks who are already awake. I would love to be wrong about this, but I don’t see how a call for climate action by a magazine like Science is going to make any difference. If the call to action came from Fox News or the Republican party I would get a little excited and wonder if things have changed.
I had a little back and forth recently with my cousin on Facebook over whether cruise ship vacations were reasonable. I clearly think not, my cuz says maybe she has a carbon bank account and should be able to go on a fricking cruise vacay once ever two years. My cuz is a stalwart democrat and Hillary supporter, so it’s not that she denies global warming, it’s just that she is not interested in facing the fact that she may be a high emitter, to use Kevin Anderson’s term, who authentically believes she is entitled to this lifestyle and does not believe that any other person/generation/species is footing the bill for a first world lifestyle that includes airflight and cruise ships on a somewhat regular basis.
I don’t know what more I can say to my friends and family who live high emitter lifestyles. Does anyone think a call to action from Science magazine is going to result in big change? I do not, but I would love to be wrong.
Warm regards
Mike
Zebra,
You’re right. The world might split into autocratic GOPpers, democratic socialists, and technocentralists.
Until the cost of renewables including capital costs drops below the incremental cost of fossil fuel (ignoring fossil sunk cost) there will be no financial incentive to even consider shutting down fossil infrastructure. Look at coal plants. Duct tape and coat hangers and still they’re gasping for one more decade of subsidized spewing…
Re 112, et al., hypocrite said “Tone matters” *after* hypocrite said, “…justified only in your own mind… We are not telepaths. What’s the term for the opposite of hearing voices, where one imagines that others hear and should share one’s thoughts?
Hypocrite is not holier than thou, thee, we, nor any, and should not enter conversations not relevant to hypocrite – or trolls.
Worse, hypocrite thinks the thread was about Hank. It was not. Hank responded to logic I used in a post responding to nigelj. My response to Hank was in no way rude nor disrespectful and was solely regarding his asnalysis of my logic. Thus, when I said he should have read the thread it was referring to the source of the exchange between Hank and I, which provided the context for my logic. So, on your way hypocrite.
Re #112 hypocrite said “tone matters”
Yet, hypocrite troll has a history of interacting with me solely to…”177
Richard Creager says:
16 Jan 2018 at 1:27 AM
Thomas 148
Re: my “flippant comment” @ 134, re: Killian 91, re:77, re:73; I’ll work on “thinking properly”. But as a lay-lurker here for the science, it’s often hard not to jump in and tweak Killian in his hubris, given the way it flaps in the wind.”
I do congratulate troll on joining nigelj on the banned list.
Re #117 mike said to mal at 107: Our species is geneerally sleepwalking it’s way into the sixth extinction event.
…I had a little back and forth recently with my cousin on Facebook over whether cruise ship vacations were reasonable. I clearly think not, my cuz says maybe she has a carbon bank account and should be able to go on a fricking cruise vacay once ever two years. My cuz is a stalwart democrat and Hillary supporter, so it’s not that she denies global warming, it’s just that she is not interested in facing the fact that she may be a high emitter
Yes, there is denial on this. Surely you’ve noticed the recent rhetoric of not blaming Average Janes and Joes, it’s all the Corporations’ fault, and gov’ts. This is a truly bizarre conclusion given without consumption there are no Inc’s – and no govt’s, for that matter. The call is not for people to not consume, it’s for Inc’s to give us products that don’t slow down our consumption one iota, yet give us a sustainable economy.
The combination of ignorance, delusion and selfishness inherent in such a stance literally cannot be overstated. I suspect the source of such “memes” are Capitalist.
I have noted all this so very many times with the simplification of, “I want my EV and my latte,” or similar.
The only thing I can suggest is to track down the now handful of papers from scientists and analysts stating there is a very real risk – at least 1/20, if not significantly higher – of the end of civilization this century. There was a new one out I saw yesterday.
Ask her if she’d even walk outside if there was a chance 18 times a year she’d die. Try to find a way to make the numbers real to her.
Does she have kids/grandkids? Point out that it is virtually certain, if she keeps up her cruising, they will suffer early deaths and live during the end of civilization.
And, of course, cruise ships are the single biggest per capita polluting/carbon source on the planet, so…
Al Bundy @115, 116, you are right, although I had already considered all of that. I have mostly managed to “stay on the wagon” by an effort of will – but some comment set me off and this ridiculous wrestling match started again.
#114 Kevin McKinney,
“low grade war”
My point exactly, in my subsequent sentence that you omitted:
“And Russia isn’t going to sit idly by and let it happen, even if Ukraine wanted to.”
Easy enough for Russia to “upgrade” a bit to put pressure on Ukraine should they move to seriously reduce FF consumption.
And, “a world in technological and social transformation”??
Well, there’s a world full of actors just like Russia, and they seem to be doing pretty well at promoting a global social transformation in the wrong direction.
The Kumbaya World Order I mention in #111 is becoming less and less likely with the tendency to autocratic nationalism. In the US, that trend seems to be coming from both Right and Left.
Mike:
Thanks for your thoughtful response. IMO the Science editorial is significant as an unequivocal departure from scientific detachment, on page one (as it were) of the flagship journal of the American scientific establishment. I agree it’s unlikely to result in big change. At the least, however: as the global ecological and economic damage from AGW escalates along with the human tragedy, if anyone asks “Why didn’t scientists warn us?”, I’ll refer them to that piece.
Zebra, #111–
Dramatically oversimplified, 1) make wind and solar cheaper than operating existing coal plants, thereby killing demand for coal, and 2) transition AFAP to EVs, electrified mass transit, and ride sharing, thereby killing the market for gasoline and diesel. (There will still be a market for oil for lubricants and chemical feedstocks, so Norway may be able to continue selling oil, albeit at lower prices and/or volumes for quite a while.)
So, how are those going?
Well, #1 is going quite swimmingly, at least in the US:
https://energynews.us/2019/03/25/midwest/analysis-new-wind-solar-cheaper-than-operating-most-existing-coal-plants/
#2 is going, though not as rapidly as I’d wish. See my #101, above.
Needless perhaps to say, I’d also take other measures, such as continuing the ongoing global extension of carbon pricing (thereby putting both coal and oil at increased competitive disadvantage), enforcing standards such as CAFE and the like, and also air pollution regs whereever needed and/or possible–to name just a few extant possibilities.
AB, #118–
See my previous comment on that. Ignoring quibbles like operating cost vs. incremental fuel cost, essentially what you’re talking about is already happening, and quite a bit of it, too. That’s why we’re seeing many US coal plants (and not just US ones, either) retired ‘prematurely.’
Another plan to deal with oil exporting countries might be for the importing countries to put a tariff on their oil exports. Normally I dont like tariffs, but desperate times call for desperate measures. Of course there may be problems with WTO rules, although America got around this with its tariffs on the basis of “national security”. Of course it will require moral courage from politicians, so don’t hold your breath.
#125 Kevin McKinney,
Kevin, you are the last person I would expect to give a reference that actually contradicts your claim (and supports mine).
Reading the whole thing, we learn that despite the (projected) costs being lower, renewables are not getting built at the rate normal economic considerations would dictate.
Which gets us back to my #104. Your article states that, despite law in Ohio that supposedly approaches the common-carrier model I suggest…
“In Ohio, it’s partly because regulators have allowed utilities to pass the costs of some uneconomic coal plants on to customers.”
Gosh, who would have thought something like that could happen?
The question is, Kevin, how to achieve political progress; we’ve known that the answers to the physical/engineering/economic questions support our position for a long time now.
To sum up my last several comments, I am simply fed up with people not being willing to get beyond the Tonto fallacy. “If only we”… but there is no we. It doesn’t matter if [planting a billion trees, or blah, or blah, or blah, or fill in the blank,] “would be a solution”, what matters is how to get the billion trees planted.
The video clip in this Guardian article has 3 minutes of the child who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave responding to a grown-up asking him questions about his beliefs no climate change. I felt it was interesting enough to take a full transcript give the child is actually 72 years-old and has some rather grown-up toys at his disposal.
So he ‘thinks its great’ that Prince Charles is ‘into’ climate change but the child himself is in total denial about it. So whether or not you believe the child about wanting ‘a world that’s good for future generations,’ his actions in providing such a world will not take account of the impact of climate change.
Kevin,
Yeah, but:
Coal is dispatchable so it “qualifies” for bonus bucks since it can ensure the lights stay on no matter what (Speaking GOPpish here).
Environmental remediation timelines generally begin when the plant or mine closes. The goal is to push the date back far enough while distancing your capital from the installation. Then, after you’ve sucked down enough bonus bucks and the individual on-paper “company” that owns the albatross has 87 cents in its bank account, shut down and declare bankruptcy (again, GOPpish, where one preaches Personal Responsibility…
…for the poor).
The alternative is to close now, switch to renewable, and bleed like a stuck pig cleaning up the mess you made…
…naw, the rich should never accept personal responsibility for anything they trash.
zebra, #123–
Yep. Fossil is going down, and sooner than you think. For many applications, we will be seeing products that are unequivocally superior to FF, and we’ll be seeing them cheaper than FF. At the same time, awareness and concern about that whole wrecking the climate thing is going to keep growing. I’m guessing that before 2040, fossil fuel use will already be starting to feel rather like medical bloodletting–quaint, archaic, and faintly disgusting.
Your concerns are well-founded. Looking at the Putins, Bolsonaros, Orbans and Trumps of the world can’t be anything but disquieting. Maybe I should mention the Xis and Modis, too, while I’m at it. To ask the classic question “What could possibly go wrong?” would be to invite a very long list of answers.
Yet that list of dangers isn’t the whole story. Putin is playing a losing hand in the long run; Russia basically has oil, and oil is *not* the future–as the Saudis well know. Neither is the political snake oil peddled by Bolsonaro or Orban; it leads to internal conflict which inevitably becomes debilitating and forces some kind of change. Ditto Trump, if he is re-elected (God forbid!)
Anyway, I don’t expect to see a Kumbaya world, ever. The best case will be a lot more mess and muddling through–even if we muddle through traffic that doesn’t burn dinosaur corpse residue.
This particular one has been all over the news. Most of the stuff I will post will NOT be all over the news; this is an exception.
Typical headline: “Giant Floating Islands That Turn Atmospheric CO2 into Fuel Could Prevent Climate Change, Scientists Say”
Here’s what the scientists actually said, FYI.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31160448
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Jun 3. pii: 201902335. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1902335116.
Renewable CO2 recycling and synthetic fuel production in a marine environment.
Patterson BD1,2, Mo F3, Borgschulte A4, Hillestad M5, Joos F6,7, Kristiansen T8, Sunde S9, van Bokhoven JA10,11.
Abstract
A massive reduction in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning is required to limit the extent of global warming. However, carbon-based liquid fuels will in the foreseeable future continue to be important energy storage media. We propose a combination of largely existing technologies to use solar energy to recycle atmospheric CO2 into a liquid fuel. Our concept is clusters of marine-based floating islands, on which photovoltaic cells convert sunlight into electrical energy to produce H2 and to extract CO2 from seawater, where it is in equilibrium with the atmosphere. These gases are then reacted to form the energy carrier methanol, which is conveniently shipped to the end consumer. The present work initiates the development of this concept and highlights relevant questions in physics, chemistry, and mechanics.
KEYWORDS:
carbon dioxide recycling; maritime structures; renewable energy; synthetic fuel
PMID: 31160448
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1902335116
MAL:
” IMO the Science editorial is significant as an unequivocal departure from scientific detachment, on page one (as it were) of the flagship journal of the American scientific establishment. … if anyone asks “Why didn’t scientists warn us?”, I’ll refer them to that piece”
Overpeck & Conde’s alarming 2019 Science editorial is in scientific substance the antithesis of Spencer & Christy’s anodyne 1990 production-
Precise Monitoring of Global Temperature Trends from Satellites
Science 30 Mar 1990: Vol. 247, Issue 4950, pp. 1558-1562
DOI: 10.1126/science.247.4950.1558
but it perfeclty mirrors its form. Same journal, same page, same media profile, same political pontification.
Are we witnessing the convergent evolution of political playbook Best Practices and mainstream science journalism in the wake of April’s Nation co-sponsored conference on climate crisis communicatiion at the Columbia School of Journalism?
Killian #119,120 Hypocrite, no. Try not to get too carried away (8X hypocrite in 2 short posts, you think you’re DT with the nicknames? seems clever, does it?). I’ve just made some valid observations based on things you’ve said, reinforced by your re-quotes. I’m calling you on your personal attacks on those who challenge positions you advocate. Ad homs. The difference is, I’m not urging people to endorse my solution, and insulting them if they disagree. As stated I have learned from you and support much of what you advocate. Please continue to explicate and advocate. If you feel insulted it’s just an insult, no fallacy of logic involved. My tone was a simple taste of soup for the chef. Sorry I misread the object of your derision; your comment was a response to Hank’s comment and while, yes, I had read the entire exchange as it developed, apparently my telepathic ergologic failed me. No, Killian, I don’t interact with you solely, that would be your hubris talking again, but I don’t comment often and recently, as childish personal interactions increasingly dominate the open threads, that “flapping hubris” has occasionally drawn my fingers to the keyboard.
To Mal:
On the question of adequate warning about AGW from scientists, I would always start with James Hansen’s testimony to Congress way back when, but, I doubt I will actually take part in that back and forth, if it ever comes. It just feels pointless. I can think of better things to do, like take care of my grape vines and coppice my walnut trees. That’s work I like.
To KM: Yes, my cuz has grandkids and she love them. In defense of her cruise vacations, she came back with questions about whether my food supply is delivered by fossil fuel trucking, etc. She lives in a large home in a somewhat remote location and believes she has accumulated a carbon bank account by only driving to town twice a week. I just shrug it off. Of course, the carbon bank she has access to belongs to our grandchildren, but she is too angry and defensive about her actual carbon footprint to acknowledge that.
I posted on facebook today about the yahoo story that we are all going to die
https://www.cntraveller.in/story/world-environment-day-humans-will-perish-31-years-warns-latest-climate-change-study/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR2tWRx27cODc_12joQLd0GsM2nd4ZMcxw90rhrUINHTmEsyJHFzYHpiKLM
and an NYT piece about the race to see the natural world before tourism ruins it:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/03/travel/traveling-climate-change.html?fbclid=IwAR3xwRLnyWr4EMMxVYnpGRYhlipVswC_q6VGy10V2ZTtVV1YcPjOLQr9FTU
and made some mention of the combination of capitalism and our species insatiable appetite for consumption as a possible culprit. I think capitalism and the market both shape and respond to our collective appetite, so it’s not just that nasty capitalism at fault, we all need to glance in the mirror occasionally when we wonder why the world is going downhill.
Cheers
Mike
“Your concerns are well-founded. Looking at the Putins, Bolsonaros, Orbans and Trumps of the world can’t be anything but disquieting.”
LOL! Ya think? Hey come take a walk on the wild side with me for a day or two.
I’m a US citizen, South Florida resident, I was born in Brazil and my ancestry is Hungarian. You should come to dinner some time when my family is arguing about Orban in Portuguese, Trump in Hungarian and Bolsonaro in English… We talk about Putin in German ;-)
Cheers!
Re #123 zebra said #114 Kevin McKinney,
“low grade war”
…Well, there’s a world full of actors just like Russia, and they seem to be doing pretty well at promoting a global social transformation in the wrong direction.
The Kumbaya World Order I mention in #111 is becoming less and less likely with the tendency to autocratic nationalism. In the US, that trend seems to be coming from both Right and Left.
Yet, even groups like ExReb are marching around telling **gov’ts** to DO SOMETHNG!, as it were.
LOL… hahahahaha….
Localization, bio-regionalization, simplicity… as stated many, many times.
The answers lie in our mirrors, like it or not.
So… a thought on Extinction Rebellion: All the possies on this forum please note the two movements that have gotten the world’s attention are both telling it like it is… as I told you… a long time ago… over and over.
You’re welcome.
Please listen.
My analysis is wholistic, holistic, comprehensive, systemic. That’s why it is so much more accurate than yours.
Learn.
Rupert Read of Extinction Rebellion gets a lot right, some wrong. Clearly doesn’t fully understand what the other side of the climate crisis would need to look like, but gets impressively close compared to most.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbzhc1BlvvI
129 – MA Rodger
“So he ‘thinks its great’ that Prince Charles is ‘into’ climate change but the child himself is in total denial about it.”
Wrong. He did not deny climate change. He pointed out that “weather” changes all the time, which is true. From your script, clearly he told the truth:
TRUMP “I believe there’s a change in weather, and I think it changes both ways. Don’t forget, it used to be called global warming, that wasn’t working, then it was called climate change. Now it’s actually called extreme weather, because with extreme weather you can’t miss. Look, we have a thing now with tornados. I don’t remember tornados in the US to the extent. But when you look back 40 years ago we’ve had the worst tornado binge that we’ve ever had. In the 1890s we had our worst hurricanes and I would say we’ve had some very bad hurricanes.”
Weather extremes have always occurred, DJT understands that – everyone does.
Has DJT even been exposed to the physics of “AGW”? I have no idea – it’s not likely. Few people have been except scientists working in that field. It’s complicated science involving many parts. Want to improve the understanding? Post the science on a website. It may be many tens of pages in length. Who would take the time to read it? Who knows. Right now, no thorough explanation exists, except perhaps in expensive text books. There are good websites – some posted by BPL, Hank R, nigelj, and others, but none which begin with the absolute basics so the average person might understand it. Maybe it isn’t possible – I don’t know. If the people can’t understand how AGW works, why would you be surprised that they don’t believe it?
But this we do know: for the next 5.5 years, it is more important for the survival of the US that we have a man like DJT who wants to MAGA, than it is to worry about AGW. We will deal with AGW later if necessary. There’s plenty of time – the beach at the ocean looks exactly as it has since anyone can remember. Too many have cried wolf over the centuries to get excited about those doing it today. Let’s get that website going – just the basic physics for starters and be sure to explain the role of the various layers in the atmosphere. I still am unsure about some of that stuff.
#130 Al Bundy,
Putting aside just how “dispatchable” coal really is, the problem is that neither Right nor Left want there to be a real market to decide just how much of bonus bucks there should be… if any.
As in the Ohio case I quoted in #128; we know the Republicans are hypocrites, but there is also opposition to the common carrier model from the other side.
K 138: My analysis is wholistic, holistic, comprehensive, systemic. That’s why it is so much more accurate than yours.
BPL: You forgot “hubristic.”
KIA 140: for the next 5.5 years, it is more important for the survival of the US that we have a man like DJT who wants to MAGA, than it is to worry about AGW.
BPL: I think you got those clauses reversed.
KIA, #140–
Arguably true, but as your quote makes plain, he fails to understand the first thing about it–such as the difference between weather and climate.
Like this one, you mean?
Or did you have something more like “The Discovery of Global Warming,” which is linked under the “Science Links” heading in the sidebar to the right of this page, along with about 20 other such?
Dude have you been paying attention at *all*?
OK, I guess not.
#136, Fred Magyar–
Thanks for the invitation. It sounds like a whole lot of fun.
But I guess I really need to work on my languages first. I’ll get back to you, should I ever master Hungarian.
The US battery storage market breaks out:
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/06/05/us-energy-storage-market-grows-232-in-first-quarter/
A good discussion of the “storage-plus overtaking gas peaker” phenomenon:
https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2019-05-21/why-california-nixed-a-natural-gas-power-plant-in-favor-of-batteries
KillingInaction: But this we do know: for the next 5.5 years, it is more important for the survival of the US that we have a man like DJT who wants to MAGA, than it is to worry about AGW. We will deal with AGW later if necessary. There’s plenty of time – the beach at the ocean looks exactly as it has since anyone can remember. Too many have cried wolf over the centuries to get excited about those doing it today.
AB: Dude, scientists have never “cried wolf” before. Please stop painting scientists with brushes bought, built, and soaked by others. Remember, eliminating “crying wolf” is one of science’s primary purposes. Like eclipses. People surely lost their lives as sacrifices before scientists said, “Stop crying wolf! It’s just an eclipse and we can time them.”
Scientists’ previous cry of warning, ozone depletion, was not only spot on but scientists helpfully showed how to solve the problem. Do you agree, or do you believe that the 1970s question, “will the natural decline in temperature as we exit the Holocene’s thermal peak be larger than the unnatural increase in temperature resulting from ongoing human activity?” was “crying wolf”? Seriously, is positing a scientific question “crying wolf”? Is the scientific community bound by the “crying wolf” of journalists, politicians, and others? Do you believe in society sending you to prison for my crimes?
So now scientists are giving a stark warning: We must start now. We must be significantly down the road within ten years. We must get-er-done asap and even that is going to result in serious problems. In fact, there seems to be a reasonable probability that we’re going to kill off the biosphere (the latest paper on co-extinction, where thermally robust species go extinct because a thermally intolerant species stops providing needed ecosystem services), or at least degrade it to the point that it will never again be anything except a collection of neuron-free extremophiles (the sun is getting hotter so there isn’t much time for a do-over).
And you decree that the proper response is to accelerate towards apocalypse because there have always been non-scientist losers who have stood on street corners with signs, “The end is near”? WTF do crazies on corners have to do with science and scientists??
Dude, this isn’t a “debate” where folks select a side to advocate and their goal is to “win”. Even if your side “wins” 2 + 2 will never equal -894.6
Kevin McKinney: Fossil is going down, and sooner than you think.
AB: If the future is non-nuclear and hydro-power declines as rivers are re-wilded and population increases and energy consumption per capita skyrockets in the developing world and fossil reserve owners don’t want to take an immediate zero in Yahtzee so will instead take a low score in Chance then sure, fossil can go down at an amazing rate…
…and not decline at all. A much smaller percentage of a much larger pie is still going to give you planetary diabetes.
KillingInaction,
The beach does not look anything like it used to. If you mean “sand”, well, plastic is increasing at all scales, from turtle-hunting bags to micro-plastic hormone-disrupters.
And if you take your head out of the sand and go scuba diving, you’ll find that where not so long ago there was a gorgeous reef there’s often either a pretty ghost town of bleached coral or, after enough bleachings, a landscape of slime, seaweed, (and jellyfish?)
Villages falling in the ocean in Alaska is fake news?
That Miami’s “beach” is often concrete and traveled by cars is more lies?
————
Killian: So… a thought on Extinction Rebellion: All the possies on this forum please note the two movements that have gotten the world’s attention are both telling it like it is… as I told you… a long time ago… over and over.
You’re welcome.
Please listen.
My analysis is wholistic, holistic, comprehensive, systemic. That’s why it is so much more accurate than yours.
Learn.
AB: You win First Prize for the most self-aggrandizing, insulting, and dismissive-of-one-and-all post!