A bi-monthly open thread related to climate solutions. This month will start off with COP-26 and many targets and plans and mechanisms will be proposed and discussed. Look out for the updated impacts of the evolving NDCs such as this one from Climate Resource, suggesting that the world could be on track for just a little less than 2ºC warming (relative to the pre-industrial) (if everyone does what they pledge and we are lucky with respect to climate sensitivity). Please be respectful and constructive.
EP and everyone,
The TTTD’s throttle has another possible configuration: slice the stator like a bagel and use hydraulics to squeeze the halves back together at full throttle. To reduce torque relax the hydraulics a bit.
This keeps the stator/rotor fields aligned regardless of torque, but man, we’ve all tried to squeeze like poles together. How about circular radial both-poles??
Thoughts?
Torque changes occur at BDC, when there is little field interaction. All it takes is a simple “if torque is too high click one pawl lower and vice versa” thing with each rotation of the shaft.
And this here’s a great use for the reply button!
EP,
Yes, some forms of capital are durable. Public infrastructure and stuff generally fits.
Agriculture sure has a lot of machines. Capital? Well, how did it come to be? Somebody believed a farmer’s promise to pay.
Factories provide a cool test. They’re, like, way valuable capital, right?
Uh, labor’s a bit cheaper over there? Well, we can get spiffy new machines and cut people off at the knees, uh, I mean “save $0.0002 per widget*, too.
What’s real capital?
Intellectual capital, you know, the real reason that factory shuttered. Ask any carpenter whether new or renovation is harder.
Human capital (public schools etc), ecosystem capital,
Others I’m sure, including societal capital, a new fucking category that is measured in “reverse GOPpers”.
Reality Check: Nothing is going to change anytime soon if ever.
Richard: Fellow RC, by the time you read this Justin and I will be on our way to St Louis to pick up Nina.
My 2018 Camry hybrid has been converted for cruising.by taking out the front passenger seat. We’ll get 50mpg easy.
Then its off to Stanford, with a stop back in Bellevue to say bye to my folks.
I’m taking my shot
really?
50 mpg…. I count it over and find that a diesel can do quite much better.
“Read the amperemeter!” I say. People never learnt economy driving.
And when I see how the heavy teslas are driving,…”read the amperemeter”, I say.
Hybrids and Teslas, I would not have it thrown after me.
Doing the numbers–yet again, as these results are comparable to many, many previous iterations.
https://about.bnef.com/blog/the-lifecycle-emissions-of-electric-vehicles/
The Honda Insight, back in about 1990, got 70 mpg. The CRX HF was rated about 52, but many were getting closer to 60 on the highway. I think the Diesel Rabbit got over 50 back in the 1980s.
Ladiea and gentlemen.
Engineer poet does not dare to participate here.
I am of the Paris convention where 1 mil= 10 km, and the distance from pole to equator is 10 000 Km. One liter is 1 cubic decimeter.
Def: One mile is 1.6 km. One gallon is 4.5 liter.
We discuss liter pr mil in those terms. one Volkswagen burns slightly above one liter pr mil auf der Bundesstrasse where the earth is flat, and definitely more at bottom throttle on the Autobahn. But a Renault 4L could come down to 0.6 liter. A Citroen 2CV even below that again.
I looked after, and 2 freak fellows in Norway seem to have some worlds records from Nordekapp to Oslo and Gøteborg & cetera. According to the net they have managed 0.29 Liter / mil in a 1.5 liter Ford mondeo diesel on long distance. and managed world records 1200 Km on heavy electric veicles scaled for 600 km. They obviously read the amperemeter and listen to the engine.
And it seems that they have grasped what I have also understood. As low tours rpm as possible. Very fine pedal. Let it rather roll by itself on the road, and avoid any kind of acceleration deceleration., Keep the enine as noiseless and unremarkable as possible by the feeling that you are driving a smooth steam- engine.
I have managed to save one jerrycan of gasoline for my own consumption on 50 Km drive with a Volvo B18 jeep 4wd terrain waggon in military colonne, where max allowed speed, is 50 Km/ h.
The world records on flat road are well below one deciliter pr 10 km with one cylinder Diesel.
Turbo diesel and modern high compression common rail gasoline injection also improoves the economy radically and makes cleaner exhaust exept for nitrouis gases “NOx” that entails that you have a very sublime combustion engine indeed.
The 3 liter 4 cyl side valved low compression Ford T could also run much cheaper if only allowed to roll smoothly quietly by itself hardly with breaks on those days roads.
Das Kapital,…
I shall try and do my very best and enlight you all on it.
Just you wait.
I have a new and quite updated material suggestion along wityh the CO2 climate disspute that will really scratch and discriminate and make those of us who allready got it halfway at least and who believe in holy water and the sun and the litosphere and in photosynthesis and the galaxies even more rich…,..
…. and those wo could not grasp even such elementary things… to obey, to pray, and to pay!
I’m guessing someone (many people) gave Climate Resource a big slap … resulting in this update:
Updated warming projections for NDCs, long-term targets and the methane
pledge. Making sense of 1.8°C, 1.9°C and 2.7°C.
https://data.climateresource.com.au/ndc/20211109-ClimateResource-1-9C_to2-7C.pdf
Has anyone here even read some the NDCs submitted to COP26? I know I have. Weeks ago now. Does anyone here know what kinds of things are included in Conditional targets? Why they are offered as conditional and what’s being assumed in these kinds of NDCs? I know I do.
Suddenly, Climate Resource have decided to speak about these matters ..AFTER the Horse has bolted and all manner of SPIN and BS is being made about their earlier “report” on 3 Nov.
They also chose to address several other dubious aspects to the WILD EYED LITERAL Assumptions they were including in their “Fake News” at best MISLEADING promotion about sub 2C warming projections from COP26 NDCs …..
This is serious shit. COP26 and NDCs are not a childs game. This is DEADLY SERIOUS SHIT! It deserves better, much better and much more respect given to the peoples these issues are seriously already impacting!!!
Groups like this and their publicity seeking self-serving cheer squads should hang their heads in shame at being so cavalier and sloppy with the facts in their presentations aka misrepresentations …… and for being so stupid.
Lastly I ask … has the PEER REVIEW gone on strike or on permanent vacation?
BUT still the Fake News and hyperbole continues …… the assertions of a 50-50 probabilistic chance at sub-2C in the report based UNSUBSTANTIATED UNFUNDED ASSUMPTIONS NOT FIT FOR THE INTENDED PURPOSE does not equate to an historical moment.
This conclusion made on page 2 still equals Garbage Out!
It is not worth mentioning or even worth the time calculating such an “effect” in the first place.
This commentary discusses why we need “net zero” and the related removal of CO2 from the atmosphere (in various ways) , and discusses mitigation in general:
https://skepticalscience.com/The_Keeling_Curve_What_Road_Will_We_Take.html
While concepts like net zero and draw down of CO2 from the atmosphere worry me a bit because they could encourage delaying of stopping emissions, I can’t really fault the arguments in the commentary.
a good easy to follow explanation summary of options, challenges nigel.
I particularly appreciate this qualification comment by Evan near the end ….
The purpose of this simple model is to illustrate the challenges for stabilizing the climate. This is not a prediction of what will happen, just an illustration of what it will take to do what we need to do.
Almost all electricity demand in Western countries can be met with wind and solar.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/wind-solar-western-165643180.html
The few times it can’t are (for example) when you get prolonged periods of anticyclonic gloom, very dull and calm, the worst conditions for renewable energy generation.
I wonder if it is better for countries with cloudy climates like the UK to install solar power stations in sunny countries like the Mediterranean or N Africa and buy the electricity from them. The UK is in a good location to harness wind energy, as long as the turbines can be engineered to withstand severe gales.
Adam. You are not the only person to have considered that. Look up Desertec on Wikipedia.
There are other possibilities that I find more interesting.
Some products take large quantities of electric energy to produce and are easily stored and transported. And may be in high demand at any time. Aluminium and magnesium for instance..
Another important solution might be to locate processes that necessarily give off a lot of heat, to places and even to times of the year when heat is needed also for other purposes.
Some of the most expensive and wasteful inventions of mankind is the idea of uniform climate and environment, artificially. To expect anything everywhere and at any time. Instead of better adapt to specialize on and utilize and sell, earn from, the natural swingings and extremes.
Research from world’s top climate analysis coalition contrasts sharply with last week’s BS optimism
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/09/cop26-sets-course-for-disastrous-heating-of-more-than-24c-says-key-report
No single country that we analyse has sufficient short-term policies in place to put itself on track to its net zero target.
https://climateactiontracker.org/publications/glasgows-2030-credibility-gap-net-zeros-lip-service-to-climate-action/
https://climateactiontracker.org/global/cat-net-zero-target-evaluations/
On current policy and actions you’re looking at 2C to 3.6C in 2100 at a minimum according to climate tracker …
aka when Pollyanna’s’ optimism bias morphed into full blown self-delusion rather than admit COP26 a failure.
I know I shouldn’t criticize or complain, be negative or realistic, and I know this is will be a minor side issue and will pass, yet it still really pisses me off when public figures and experts (who have done so much good work on climate over years) are so desperate they’ll jump at any opportunity to make themselves feel better for a second…… rather than face reality.
I’m starting to get the impression of COP26 as a contrived stitch up. Where world leaders get to present their inadequate action as fixing the problem. This really is dangerous stuff.
https://twitter.com/SteB777/status/1455992503983910918
Lumumba Di-Aping, a Sudanese veteran climate negotiator, has excoriated Obama’s plenary speech today:
“The First Resolution that should be agreed in Glasgow is for Annex I polluters to grant the citizens of small island developing states the right to immigration”
“Small Island States should not be drowned alive. And president Obama should stop this new line of greenwashing: United States as a country – from President Bush to Biden – and including Trump- has been goading the world into this apocalypse”
“For the last 25 years the G7, captured by Carbon-men, fossil-fuel barons and financiers orchestrated strategy of ‘destruction-by- inaction’, deregulation of atmospheric space and removal of any legally binding constraints as evidenced in NDCs”
The U.S. has always been the biggest blocker to progress on climate change.
https://worldat1c.org/a-brief-history-of-the-united-states-and-the-un-climate-change-negotiations-bf7525d4ef13
Dr.R Check
There are things that you do not take for serious, believinjg that Australia, that is only a british prisoner and slave colony instructs and rules the world.
Get yourselof a Globus and wiew the proportions.
Al Gore was quite ingenious.
Only because of a microscopic electional loss in Florida, he drove up the very Hollywood and too0k stangle grip on
1, the American way of life
2, The Chineese way of life and
3, The oil pipeline between Saudi Arabia and Pentagon
Srangle grip, beat that! ,
When will Australia do the same?
And set Guinness world record of Conspiracy.
Greta Thunberg is but a sweedish neutral state schoolgirls answer to this..
But the Swedes have certain traditions. They delivered St.a Birgitta of Vadstena as an example, who could punish and instruct and correct the pope and become Europas patron saint for that. Later, they organize and deliver the nobel prices.
Beat that also, when will Australia do the same?
You hardly even aspire the cunning way.
“The U.S. has always been the biggest blocker to progress on climate change.”
If the USA stopped all use of FFs today, AND started REMOVING as much CO2 as we now spew into the atmosphere, it would make no difference to climate change because the rest of the world spews on. The US spews ~13% of the total.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions#Fossil_CO2_emissions_by_country/region
Of course this doesn’t account for all the emissions involved from offshoring of our production and then the fuel costs to transport that production here.. I guess you accidentally “forgot”.
Which is the second-largest national contribution, after only China. No one country, including China, can solve the crisis single-handedly.
Which is the whole point of having the UNFCCC in the first place.
That is such a daft argument you should be ashamed of attaching your name to it.
via COP26 Scientists Group looking for co-signatures from scientists.
https://www.scientistswarningeurope.org.uk/
Press Conference / 06 Nov, 2021 / 30 mins key issues from paper below
World Scientists Warnings into Action – Economics by Prof. Tim Jackson
https://unfccc-cop26.streamworld.de/webcast/world-scientists-warnings-into-action-paper-econom
eg like a few others Tim directly challenges the notions of and the reality behind of Net Zero and by 2050 …. bringing it back to credible climate science and the real carbon budgets being blown that will make it impossible to hit 1.5C or less …… in about 5 years from now
Now is the only time for action …. right now and that is what the protests outside COP26 are demanding, now.
Zero Carbon sooner …. arriving at a 2030 or 2050 or even a 2100 end point is not the point … it is how much Carbon GHGs are emitted between now and then – that is the ONLY thing that matters.
Summary extract:
The time for empty commitments for the distant future of 2050 is over. Large-scale, rapid, transformative changes in our economies, societies, cultures and politics are necessary on a timescale of superhuman speed.
• Inertia must be overcome to ensure that essential and massive action is well underway in the five-year period 2022-2026. Unprecedented global collaboration is needed now. Our short-term action or inaction will determine our common future. The science is clear and irrefutable; humanity is already in advanced ecological overshoot.
https://www.scientistswarningeurope.org.uk/signature
WORLD SCIENTISTS’ WARNINGS INTO ACTION, LOCAL TO GLOBAL
Barnard, P., Moomaw, W.R., et al
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f1ae1adb73f3a2bde426178/t/6166ee3c774a872fce6ad5e4/1634219142543/ScientistsWarningIntoAction-Paper
Greta definitely gets the science the words and the framing right.
Unless we achieve immediate, drastic, unprecedented, annual emission cuts at the source then that means we’re failing when it comes to this climate crisis.
The 2030 Ambition Gap between COP26 NDCs and staying below 1.5C is 19-23 GtCO2e
see climate action tracker graph in this thread
https://twitter.com/LasseClimate/status/1458141422251503617
Thanks. The Tim Jackson segment is definitely worth watching.
I just wish more of the intelligence on display here could find its way into governments.
Solutions:
1. Mammoth Solar the biggest solar farm in US built in Indiana
https://eu.indystar.com/story/news/environment/2021/11/09/indiana-solar-panel-farm-largest-united-states-doral-renewables-energy-mammoth-starke-county/8529759002/
2. Solar Impulse Foundation 1000 cleantech solutions
https://solarimpulse.com/solutions-explorer
3. The “Investment in Infrastructure and Jobs Act (IIJA)” law: $66 billion over five years in funding for passenger rail, of which $12 billion for high-speed rail and an additional $39 billion for public transit.
4. Pathway for 145 countries to get to 100% Wind-Water-Solar (WWS) for all purposes by 2035
https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/WWS-145-Countries.html
“Pathway for 145 countries to get to 100% Wind-Water-Solar (WWS) for all purposes by 2035”
https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/WWS-145-Countries.html
What are the credentials of the authors of the paper in Electrical Engineering, particularly as they relate to the dynamics, stability and reliability of local, regional, and national power grids?
It would also give me more confidence in the paper if one of the authors hadn’t filed a lawsuit when one of his papers was criticized:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Z._Jacobson#Criticism_and_lawsuit
Jacobson is the lead author and is an electrical engineer. Its not hard finding that stuff out. Jesus wept you can be dumb at times.
I did not say he was not an EE. He may be. Why don’t you post a link to your unsupported claim that he is.
Then post evidence describing his expertise in power grid dynamics, stability, and reliability. Thanks.
Hopefully this doesn’t get anywhere: “Supreme Court to weigh EPA authority to regulate greenhouse pollutants. From standpoint of climate action advocates, there are some truly ‘worst case’ possibilities … but also some less worrisome outcomes…..”
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/11/supreme-court-to-weigh-epa-authority-to-regulate-greenhouse-pollutants/
Un-elected bureaucrats should not make laws, rules, or regulations.
It is likely that many of their rules/regulations result in new “taxes”. Per the Constitution, new taxes are to come from the US House of Representatives.
https://history.house.gov/institution/origins-development/power-of-the-purse/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CAll%20Bills%20for%20raising%20Revenue,amendments%20as%20on%20other%20Bills.%E2%80%9D
;)
If you say so. I guess (sarc). Please provide an example of some bureaucratic law that has become a tax. Bet you cannot.
KIA: Un-elected bureaucrats should not make laws, rules, or regulations.
BPL: Un-elected bureaucrats are appointed precisely IN ORDER TO make rules and regulations, since there are too many for congress to consider individually where intricate problems like environmental regulations are concerned.
Different readers here will have different takes on this–and clearly in one dimension this is just another trade group, existing to further the common enterprise model–but long-duration storage is a real need for decarbonization in this reality, so:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20211110005632/en/
FWIW, I’m quite interesting in ESS–they’re rolling out a flow battery about now.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ess-inc-signs-contract-long-130000312.html
https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2021/09/30/ess-to-supply-energy-storage-batteries-to-sb-energy/
We got back to Frank’s field (he owns it) this morning. I’ve started teaching Justin about science, power, and how human minds work. He arrived a skeptical skeptic about climate. Now he”s an eager student.
He was questioning his Christianity. Now he’s my first disciple.
Nina is Security, of course. Unlike a gun, a bluenose pitbull can’t be used against us.
To clarify, book3’s Justin arrived in Frank’s Field via quite appropriate means (for this trilogy) over Halloweekend.
Remember? The Perfect Pandemic was 2019’s Halloween improbability.
Where we are really going if we are brutally honest:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIyKmqEdgR4
about that World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency paper
https://www.scientistswarningeurope.org.uk/warnings-to-humanity
six core areas for urgent global action – energy, pollutants, nature,
food systems, population stabilization and economic goals.
(paper) https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f1ae1adb73f3a2bde426178/t/6166ee3c774a872fce6ad5e4/1634219142543/ScientistsWarningIntoAction-Paper
I like how this paper is presented and broken down into sections. I also like how it seems to cover all (?) the most sensible appropriate action strategies …. political, social, technological, regenerative etc. I have seen over the recent months… to address biodiversity, LtG and emissions reduction problems. While not going into great detail of how these things can/will be solved it does provide many examples and the overall direction. Including being holistic and the needs for changes in mindsets and equity approaches.
So from those points of view I think it is a good summary of the key issues and approach to solutions needed, which they are trying to fix at Glascow but failing badly. The difficult part of this summary call to action paper is how complex and challenging the shifts required are. And so very different applications in different kinds of countries and social settings. It’s mind-boggling to me. Really hard to capture all at once and comprehend it.
Seems to me the first world nations at COP26 are really missing the boat of what’s required. They might talk about driving EVs but totally fail at addressing the complexities and solutions needed for transportation .. and how that one word impacts upon so many aspects of societies, ghg emissions, ecology and a sustainable rational local/national economy.
I’m finding it impossible for me to see the leap being made from today to where this paper points to where solutions are being implemented globally and being lived. So many of it’s concepts and solution approaches are / would be alien to most modern first world / G20 / OECD societies and their political systems. Yet they are calling for massive changes between now and 2030 in these systems.
I get the need, I cannot get the how it can be done. Because despite all the surface changes like smart phones and the internet, so little has really changed in how people, nationalities and countries and the world operates, and it’s primary values, since I was a child in the 60s.
And so this paper and so many other activists/people of late are emphasizing “Our biggest challenges are not technical, but social, economic, political and behavioral” Those very things that have changed the least since the end of WW2.
—————
And a very critical negative issue that keeps being highlighted at COP26 …
UNEP Gap report authors, when questioned at their session today, claimed that their assessments are “value-neutral”. They don’t include “fairness” and “equity” in their assessment as it is subjective!! They put the G20 countries in one table with no distinction between the Annex-1 and non-Annex-1, G20 parties. The differences in some of these countries in terms of per capita capita energy use, emissions, and incomes is HUGE! But that’s not all… … net zero is only a necessary but not a sufficient condition to determine whether warming stays below 1.5 or 2 deg. C….that measure is the carbon budget
“Do scientists have time for equity?” … the reply was…SILENCE
see Thread – https://twitter.com/KanitkarT/status/1458103533979459593
@KevinClimate says
This is a key thread that unpicks the insidious tendrils of colonialism embedded deep in all us relatively wealthy modellers (& I’m no exception). We mean well, but our privilege is etched in our DNA .. & we disguise it from ourselves & others as value neutral. We must do better!
aka Cognitive Dissonance .. it affects everyone, scientists, economists, activists, and politicians alike.
and article not based on declared NDCs however, but on cumulative emissions under the curve that represent a fair share of the remaining carbon budget.
Deconstructing declarations of carbon neutrality
Table 1 shows the years in which net-zero emissions must be reached for some countries to keep within the fair share of the remaining carbon budget, assuming linear reductions. It also shows the carbon debt owed to the world for past emissions (at $30/tonne of CO2).
Just the 11 countries shown in the table (excluding the EU) owe the world a carbon debt of $26 trillion, even at a moderate carbon price of $30 per tonne of CO2. And yet, the current contributions of developed countries, even in the form of low-cost loans, are many orders of magnitude lower than this.
https://twn.my/title2/resurgence/2021/347/cover02.htm
Misc thread comments by others :
I wonder why there is only single division: developed/undeveloped countries – world is more complex.
In Paris at #Cop2015 @KevinClimate brought up these same issues with the UNEP Gap report authors in the Q&A
Kalmus @ClimateHuman this is brilliant. such a clear pointing-out of the climate injustice baked into this process, hiding in plain sight in “reasonable-seeming” setups.
Has someone worked out what equitable reduction curves would look like for each country?
RC comment – of course not!!! The whole COP system is setup to avoid such things being exposed.
Funny how fairness and equity is subjective but accepting the existing condition of massive unfairness and inequity is not.
Extraordinary considering that equity was written into the founding UNFCCC,
RC comment: the most insidious thing to me surrounding COP26 are those who deny, distract from and misrepresent the critical importance of
1) the historical CARBON DEBT of cumulative emissions – especially the Per Capita numbers for that.
2) the current per Capita emissions in context of historical and development needs
3) constraint from GDP per capita -year eg China $10,00 pp vs USA $60,000 ; First world/G20 vs the South
4) accountability for and actions to be the first to reverse being the Cause of the current warming and destructive impacts of today
5) Carbon debt & year to net zero for a fair share of remaining carbon budgets
https://twn.my/title2/resurgence/2021/347/cover02_files/image001.png
Politically, Economically, Socially, Rationally and Scientifically COP26 is so far away from the reality of where it should be it may as well be happening in another solar system.
There is no such thing as “equity”. That is leftist psychobabble. It means nothing.
KIA. Of course there is such a thing as equity. I suggests pick up a frigging dictionary if you can find your own hand. Almost any would do, but from Mirriam Webster:
EQUITY
formal : fairness or justice in the way people are treated
In making these decisions we should be governed by the principle of equity.
2finance : the value of a piece of property (such as a house) after any debts that remain to be paid for it (such as the amount of a mortgage) have been subtracted
We’ve been slowly paying off our mortgage and building up equity in our house.
a home equity loan [=a loan based on the amount of equity you have in your home]
3: a share in a company : a share of a company’s stock
Fairness and justice looks good to me. Looks like basic human decency. Doesn’t look like psychobabble to me.
Do you have a problem with fairness and justice? Do think people should NOT be treated fairly or justly?
How do you treat your own family? Surely it would be fair and just? Do you think its ok to treat others to a different standard?
Don’t know how Kiwi’s do it, but here in the USA, we all have equal opportunity. That is fair, and it is just. We do not all have equal outcomes, and that is what leftist radicals seem to want. It is impossible, exists nowhere on earth, thus their definition of equity does not exist in real life. Not just in the USA, but anywhere.
Again, read for comprehension and understanding: “There is no such thing as “equity”. That is leftist psychobabble. It means nothing.”
Not true. Sexism still propagates in the workplace and women still get paid less than men in some cases for the same job which cannot be explained by ability, just one example.
KIA. You say “there is no such thing as equity” This is defined as fairness and justice, as previously pointed out It certainly exists as a concept, and it certainly exists in the real world as a behaviour, because you just quoted an example yourself with equal opportunity! Do you mean that perfect fairness and justice is impossible? This is an arguable position, but why don’t you just say so! Your comments are ambiguous and lack precision and clarity. This is one reason why you fail to convince anyone of anything.
And while perfect fairness and justice is almost certainly impossible we can at least improve the situation. But some dim wits think that because perfection is impossible its not worth even trying to improve the situation.
“we all have equal opportunity.”
That is just obviously untrue. Sure, some folks manage to play really awful cards superlatively well, and vice versa. But the cards are very often worlds apart.
here in the USA, we all have equal opportunity
clear evidence of delusional that. an idiot who believes in fantasy. who is so dumb he believes notions of equal opportunity has something to do with equity in the context of the UNFCCC negotiations?? Yes, definitely an idiot.
or merely Plain stupid and under-educated? Or intentionally disruptive argumentative over nothing by lying and talking crap like all typical trolls do? Alcoholic poisoning perhaps. Who knows and who cares?
Absolutely true of the selfish.
Yup.
“There is no such tings as “equity” That is leftist psychobabble. It means nothing.”
I found it with definitions on Merriam webster.
R.Check has written:
“funny how fairness and equity is subjective but accepting the existing condition of unfairness andv inequity is not.”
Is n`t that clear enough also in the light of Merriam Websters definitions?
English teachers, I say, English teachers. I say no more, English teachers!……
Think of immigrants from Afganistan, Syria, Belarus, Mexico, Cuba, and Venesuela having to obey under that. What will they be like and have to talk like inside of the USA?
Equality , similarity, likeness comensurables, congruence, unlikeness and unequalities, incommensurables, incongruence,..
Could a Killian be likely to fight and disqualify also such words and conscepts?
Probably not. Because he hardly ever learnt, trained on, and had to grasp for his possible career, what that might be.
LOL, even when we agree, you bark words, incoherently.
These are serious times. We need serious people. Please act like it.
Ladies and Gentlemen
The world has got a much easier formula for this, about the prussian dicipline, Wachtmeisters and u0pper brass lower officers political military and culoturalo police on the streets, , the knowitalls.
“Also schloss er messerscharf dass, nichts sein kann,was nicht sein darf!”
AMEN!
Those employees of the proper blood in charge are stricty due not to see or to know the difference between descriptive and normative.
They were bloody certified Knowitalls all of them, They were Blood group A for Arians.
There you have it.
Meaning:
He concluded sharp as a knife that it cannot be or “there is no such thing,…..” that should not be, according to his scriptures, instructions, and orders.
Can and should are modal verbs.
In Prussian, that also comes on rhyme d/o
Thus learn that by heart and use it wherever appliciable..
All quite pertinent and enlightening of course. And if I may so boldly add ::
Kyríes kai kýrioi, diafonó entelós me aftón ton treló.
óso ki an prépei na timoúme tous megálous mas ypárchoun ória!
Sígoura, ypárchoun, sígoura?
O kósmos échei mia polý pio éfkoli fórmoula gia aftó, schetiká me tin prosikí peitharchía, tous Wachtmeisters kai tous anóterous oreichálkinous katóterous politikoús stratiótes kai tin astynomía culoturalo stous drómous, tous malakas.
«Epísis schloss er messerscharf dass, nichts sein kann, was nicht sein darf!» AMIN!
Aftoí oi kommounistés tou katállilou aímatos pou eínai ypéfthynoi ofeíloun afstirá na min vlépoun í na gnorízoun ti diaforá metaxý perigrafikoú kai kanonistikoú.
Ítan aimatovamménoi pistopoiiménoi poustoí óloi tous, Ítan omáda aímatos A gia tous Areianoús. Oríste to échete.
Simasía: Katélixe sto sympérasma kofteró san machaíri óti den boreí na eínai í «den ypárchei káti tétoio,….» pou den tha éprepe, sýmfona me tis grafés, tis odigíes kai tis entolés tou.
Boreí kai prépei na eínai tropiká rímata.
Sta prosiká, aftó érchetai epísis se omoiokatalixía d/o
Máthete loipón aftó apó kardiás kai chrisimopoiíste to ópou eínai dynató……
You all know it makes perfect sense.
Will google translate take this, or did you perhaps allready use google translate?
The duplicity of the first world nations, leaders, media, and power-brokers plus their accompanying cognitive dissonance and denial to be found in COP26 and Net Zero by 2050 rhetoric is never ending. The “disconnected from the real world” speeches by people like Obama firmly belongs in this group mindset as well.
But when this overwhelming constant duplicity and disinformation (including that sometime presented as “scientific reports” (sic)) is challenged and pointed out it falls on deaf ears, fails to be reported by the media at COP26, because it is being presented by people and groups stuck outside the building who do not have a seat at the table in Glasgow.
It’s precisely why they are kept outside in the first place!
such as the
Deconstructing declarations of carbon neutrality
The current push for all countries to pledge to halt their net carbon emissions is both inadequate to keep global warming in check and unfair to the developing world.
by T Jayaraman and Tejal Kanitkar
Given their past emissions, developed (first world) countries should in fact consume none of the remaining carbon budget. Theoretically, they should stop emitting immediately and start removing CO2 from the atmosphere (now!!!), so that at least the remaining carbon budget is available to developing countries.
However, while such a demand makes an important political point, this is physically unfeasible, though of course the developed countries are nowhere near acknowledging this responsibility. They will therefore consume a part of even the remaining carbon budget.
As the extent to which higher levels of development, well-being and income are achievable through non-fossil-fuel-based development remains unclear, a minimum requirement for the future is that rich countries stay within a fair share of the remaining carbon budget. This is essential to the future of developing countries. However, as is clear, pledges to achieve net zero by 2050 by these (first world) countries violate even this basic minimum requirement.
Regrettably, an influential section of the climate policy modelling literature has promoted the illusion that the three-way compatibility between temperature goals, carbon neutrality and equity is feasible through large-scale recourse to speculative ‘negative emissions’, ostensibly through widespread expansion of carbon capture by the biosphere. The (climate modelling experts) are also promoting the illusion that not resorting to any serious increase in emissions at all is indeed the means to guarantee the successful development of the Third World. […]
The twin burden of low-carbon development and adaptation to climate impacts is onerous, especially for less developed economies, and no doubt requires serious, concerted action. But the current push for net-zero declarations from all is a pseudo-scientific discourse, based, in the final analysis, on empty and inadequate promises by the rich – an attempt yet again, for the umpteenth time since the climate convention was signed, to postpone serious and immediate mitigation.
RC: A much more accurate framing of the reality as it is, from this short article
https://twn.my/title2/resurgence/2021/347/cover02.htm
At this point only a relative handful of western/first world climate scientists, climate policy modellers and analysts get these truths. The Politicians their citizens and the Media surely do not get it either.
A theme Kevin Anderson quite rightly keeps coming back to again and again and again @COP26
JKSteinberger’s analyses & references will be glossed over during mainstream love-ins at #COP26 Instead, dodgy pledges polished by analysts to give 1.8°C will underpin the pre-determined COP report; “well done, but room for improvement”.
Quote Tweet
Prof Julia Steinberger had already laid out the future back in Jul 14
We’re barrelling head first into a cataclysmic climate disaster of planetary scale, and our governments and economies are COMPLETELY disregarding the emergency exit that would spare us. We’re not going to make it, and it’s not because “solutions” don’t exist. A Thread….
see https://twitter.com/KevinClimate/status/1456725945818173445
While knowing how to solve all the problems/causes seems insurmountable at present at least there is the semblance of a more accurate more truthful state of the world arising from many more voices than before …. including what is driving the denial and misrepresentations … it’s still very little known but it’s out there. It is accessible albeit messy and disjointed
The dodgy pledges polished by climate analysts to give 1.8°C are based on vague long-term targets for Net Zero emissions that are inconsistent with current short-term 2030 targets pledges and already known cumulative Carbon Budgets,
Let alone being inconsistent with current national policies and mitigation actions, coupled with an unproven very high energy use future ability to sequester enormous amounts of carbon sometime in the never-never.
Not one of these dodgy pledges or dodgy analyses includes a policy strategy or action plan to lower energy demand across the board by addressing high fossil fuel energy use being driven by the excessive unnecessary over-consumption of goods and services by the mega wealthy in the world.
The low hanging fruit that nobody can see staring them in the face and hitting them on the head every day!
Blah blah blah. :)
Everyone already knows that the #1 best strategy to effectively dealing with any type of pollution is to stop the pollution occurring in the first place.
Not surprisingly a rapid legally enforceable reduction in consumption and production by Industry was the singular primary action plan to stop the atmospheric pollution causing the hole in the Ozone layer.
Unsurprisingly it worked.
Yet here we are, 26 COPs and 31 years later, the so-called “smartest people in the room” are still pretending they do not know a thing about pollution and how to stop it.
That collectively we and they know nothing!
That we and they can do nothing more to stop it!
While we, the deeply complicit in this collective denial, will let “them” get away with it again.
Without a peep.
Without a word.
Without complaint.
Without a grain of intelligence to be seen among the lot of us.
(present company excluded, of course) ;-)
What cognitive dissonance, denial, duplicity, first-world exceptionalism and grandiose self-delusion looks like when you see it in real life: Barack Obama has a nerve preaching about the climate crisis
Who precisely is “we” in this scenario? The young people who were children when Obama took office did not clear the way for a 750% explosion in crude oil exports, as he did just a few days after the Paris agreement was brokered in 2015. Nor did they boast proudly about it years later, as ever-more research mounted about the dangers of continuing to invest in fossil fuels. Speaking at a Houston, Texas gala in 2018, the former president proudly took credit for booming US fossil fuel production. “Suddenly America is the largest oil producer. That was me people,” he boasted jokingly to an industry-friendly crowd. “Say thank you.”
The UN-backed 2021 Production Gap Report found that world governments are now on track to produce double the amount of fossil fuels in 2030 than is compatible with keeping warming below 1.5C. Obama’s approach to boosting gas and renewables simultaneously, which he dubbed the “All of the above” doctrine, still appears to be a guiding principle of the Biden administration.
Young people also didn’t use the US Export-Import Bank to direct $34bn to 70 fossil fuel projects around the world. Neither did they deploy the National Security Administration to surveil other countries’ delegations at the climate talks in Copenhagen in 2009. And they have not joined other wealthy nations at the UN Framework Conventions on Climate Change (UNFCCC) talks to keep conversations about the enormous climate debt they owe the rest of the world off the table. […]
[ RC : Obama and VP Biden did all of that … yes ]
The global north is responsible for 92% of excess carbon dioxide emissions since the dawn of the industrial age. The United States alone is responsible for 40% of those – a fact its negotiators in Republican and Democratic administrations alike have long sought to obscure. “If equity’s in,” said top Obama-era climate negotiator Todd Stern at climate talks in Durban, South Africa in 2011, “we’re out.”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/10/barack-obama-climate-crisis-cop26-speech
[ RC : How do you know when a Politician is Lying? His lips are moving!!! And a Leopard never changes it;s spots, retired or not! You gotta laugh, because if you do not you’ll cry or worse … ]
A Brief History of the United States and the UN Climate Change Negotiations
With or without a seat at the table, the U.S. has always been the biggest blocker to progress on climate change.
https://worldat1c.org/a-brief-history-of-the-united-states-and-the-un-climate-change-negotiations-bf7525d4ef13
The Climate Debt Keeps Growing
Rich Countries Still Refuse to Pay Their Share
By Mohamed Adow
October 28, 2021
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2021-10-28/climate-debt-keeps-growing
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2020-04-13/climate-debt
[ RC : It’s valued at tens of Trillions in loss and damages, in Reparations …. and the global South still can’t even get the promised financial loans of a mere $100 billion per year yet. ]
$57 Trillion Additional Climate Debt Calls for Policy Action by G20 (w tables/graphs)
https://www.cgdev.org/blog/57-trillion-additional-climate-debt-calls-policy-action-g20
https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-a-warming-planet/the-climate-debt-the-us-owes-the-world
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263415190_On_the_Concept_of_Climate_Debt_Its_Moral_and_Political_Value
https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/ad_hoc_working_groups/lca/application/pdf/4_bolivia.pdf
https://twn.my/title2/resurgence/2021/347/cover02.htm
AKA the great and good things being dismissed to be ignored forever at UNFCCC COP Meetings ….
Cop26 draft text annotated: what it says and what it means
The draft text is the most important document that will emerge from the Cop26 climate summit in Glasgow. Unlike the last major climate conference, in Paris in 2015, what emerges here will not be a new treaty, but a series of decisions and resolutions that build on the Paris accord.
Those Cop decisions have legal force in the context of the Paris agreement, so this is a powerful document.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2021/nov/10/cop26-draft-text-annotated-what-it-says-and-what-it-means?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Mitigation is UN-speak for cutting emissions, so these are the key paragraphs. It is significant that this part of the text explicitly recognises the IPCC advice that emissions cuts of 45% are needed by 2030 – to have that stated so clearly, rather than alluded to vaguely, is a big win for those who want to focus on 1.5C rather than the upper limit of 2C in the Paris agreement.
The explicit reference to the UN synthesis report – basically, an assessment of countries’ national plans by the UN, similar to the Climate Action Tracker research – is also important, as is the explicit mention of how far countries are above the 2010 level of emissions.
In among the legalese and the jargon, this adds up to a clear warning – we are not doing well enough on emissions cuts and must do better.
Setting up a work programme may not sound like much, but in United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change terms this is dynamite. Having a work programme means that this item is permanently on the agenda for Cops and cannot be ignored. So every time there is a Cop – which is every year – this gap between what countries are aiming for in their NDCs and the level of emissions cuts needed to stay within 1.5C and 2C will be addressed.
This is a big step forward. Some will be disappointed that the language on bringing forward NDCs is only “urging” rather than mandating, but the work programme is a definite win.
And here’s potentially the most important paragraph in the whole document. Under the Paris agreement, countries need only revise their NDCs every five years. This is not enough to stay within 1.5C, as under that framework we would be stuck with the current inadequate NDCs – which imply heating of 2.4C, according to Climate Action Tracker – until 2030 effectively, because in 2025 under the Paris agreement the discussion will move on to post-2030 targets.
Scientists say we need to cut emissions by 45% this decade, for a 1.5C limit to be viable, so if countries stick rigidly to the Paris timetable the 1.5C threshold will almost certainly be breached.
Developing countries, and some major developed economies, are desperate for countries to be forced to come back to the negotiating table yearly until the NDCs are aligned with 1.5C.
Paragraph 30 of this document is what would achieve that aim. Some are unhappy that it is urging rather than mandating, and some are concerned that the reference to the Paris temperature goals could be interpreted as 2C rather than the all-important 1.5C.
But a reference to the Paris temperature goals includes 1.5C, proponents argue, and this was probably the strongest language available to ensure this gets through. This text would bring countries back to the table next year for their NDCs to be subject to scrutiny and with a clear focus on updating them.
It’s good to see some of the always-*intended* “racheting up of ambition.” After all, intentions are good, but no substitute for plans–let alone implementation.
Clearly, though, we need to keep pushing, hard.
Reality Check quotes KA: “Unpick the top down view of leadership and replace it with something much messier and more collaborative. The voices outside the Blue Zone need to be heard inside it.”
Richard: But how? You’d have go go deep into left field, deep enough that reality merges with metaphor and religion to rewrite trajectory.
It takes parables. At least, that’s what the way sparse data suggests: they were the only Words that survived. The rest were destroyed. What bureaucrat has the skill to fake Jesus’ style? Imagine Victor trying to pass off his work as Dr. Mann’s.
I’ve pondered the parables a bit differently. After all, the point of parable is to speak indirectly…
As child I had a religious experience. I had decided to read the Bible. I opened it to Revelations, of course, and saw about five words.
I slammed it shut. It wasn’t a sequence of thought but instant Knowledge:
The words described me.
I was not to deliberately read the Bible (but incidental stuff, even study of the sort one gets in church was fine).
I was to believe nothing.
Justin3’s arrival ended my (hypothetical) personal Bible restriction.
It’s time to read Revelations. But as hypothetically instructed (and because of my scientific bent) I’ll continue to be open-minded in my experiment in the new scientific field of improbability.
I’m not sure what comes later (I’ll likely be shot dead), but this experiment is testing whether there might be a connection between a hypothetical metaverse’s collective conscious and me. A positive result is defined as “a pre-declared Story so improbable that it’s less common than pencils passing through tables.”
Hey bubbas, watch this.
My parable–or one of them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1Bc8IndJaE
“the point of parable is to speak indirectly”
So they serve multiple purposes. They speak to the species, of course. But they are also mentoring.
Audience matters.
Why speak indirectly in parables, when direct, plain, unambiguous language is easier to understand. And remember if you have a wide audience, the average IQ is 100..
There’s a place for both, but the short answer is that parables engage precisely because they require effort to interpret. It’s related (IMO) to the power of the Socratic method of instruction via question.
I used to say “Questions are more powerful that statements.”
Now I say “Which are more powerful: statements, or questions?”
There is–I dare assert–still a place for the plain declarative statement.
Hr. McKinney
My Father once told:
“If you pull the pig by its ears, it goes backwars, and if you pull by its tail, it goes forward. Such are Pigs, and you get them to where you want them!”
I shall never forget it, and it shows to be the cunning way also with many humans. And that may even be some part of old, greek wisdom. Wherefore Socrates did as he did.
” it shows to be the cunning way also with many humans”
Much more difficult than that — have to understand game theory, which is a pig that constantly shifts strategy.
Suggest it’s pointless to predict tech mitigation adoption, might as well work out Navier-Stokes instead — much easier LOL
PP says ” have to understand game theory, which is a pig that constantly shifts strategy.”
Ha ha true. This describes Victor quite well.
@ R the Weaver and all
So you ponder on Parabels also.
After haveing thought it a bit over, I can suggest that Parabels are often used in order to discuss Universalia different from Particularia.
Then try Wiki on that.
Revelation. “The Revelation of Saint John.” I don’t know why everybody calls it “Revelations.”
Fellow RC on RC: (present company excluded, of course) ;-)
RC: Really? I give you the opportunity to at least try.
Now, I don’t believe shit beyond worm food and I don’t disbelieve anything that isn’t as laughable as the bureaucratic rendition they call the Bible, but…
I just watched Starman with Justin and it isn’t the movie I saw long ago. Back then I watched whales beach. I saw him diss air conditioning. I heard him tell her how he, like the whales, is choosing his own death. Back then he died. Today, he went home.
Which version did you guys see? And am I overlaying and merging two movies?
I B puzzled.
A video on recycling lithium batteries. It looks like a 90% lithium recovery rate is quite the stretch goal….
Yo, Killian! If we need most of the planet’s lithium to “go electric” (is this ‘if’ correct?), and we stretch a battery’s life to 20 years, how sustainable are EVs et al? Are they really way more sustainable than the pure fossil fuel age was?
https://youtu.be/u-38O6jSyiQ
Richard. You can’t recycle fossil fuels once they are burned. You can recycle lithium. All other things being equal , that makes lithium more sustainable than fossil fuels.
I might need a reframing of the question after saying: Sustainability is a threshold, so saying “more sustainable” doesn’t really make sense, so perhaps, “Are they really a significant step towards sustainability compared to pure fossil fuel age was?” a more accurate question.
Short answer, no. Invoking Diminishing Returns of Complexity, we have new problems, new destruction from these vehicles, so making that threshold of sustainability impossible. Ending up short of that threshold makes little sense. Add to that the fact that in the most perfect cases EVs only have about 25% greater benefits over ICE’s and most of the “cost” of a car comes on the front end: The creation of the product. Therefore, any ICE > EV exchange that is prior to the end of life of the ICE diminishes the gains from changing to the EV. Given a fair number of people buy a new car every 2 or 3 years, it’s pretty obvious in those cases an EV will have little to know overall improvement. (Recognizing in specific aspects each has benefits over the other: No direct CO2 creation vs no additional destruction and consumption of rare earth metals, e.g.)
Can’t say for sure that you’re wrong, but I’m very far from certain your argument is correct.
Are EVs more ‘complex’, for one? Mechanically, no–quite the contrary. But batteries? Software? It’s not obvious (to me, at least) how those comparisons should properly be conducted.
I seriously question the assertion that “in the most perfect cases EVs only have about 25% greater benefits over ICE’s.” In terms of lifetime global warming potential, this EU analysis found that new BEVs had only 45% of the impact of ICEs–arguably (depending upon how you intended your statement) that would equate to 222% greater benefits.
And the fact that some number of people buy a new car every 2 or 3 years seems to me to be misinterpreted. If they’re going to do that in either case, then the net effect of increasing BEV market share is simply to take the ICEs off the road faster, resulting in more improvement sooner.
This bit, too, seems backwards: “Therefore, any ICE > EV exchange that is prior to the end of life of the ICE diminishes the gains from changing to the EV.” The embodied emissions of the ICE are already a given; cutting short the ongoing operational emissions sooner rather than later clearly decreases the lifetime impact of that ICE–but does not increase the lifetime emissions of the BEV that replaces it. So, over time, *less* warming impact, not more. (That, IIRC, was the logic of the old “cash for clunkers” program, which had the virtue of taking the high-emissions vehicles off the road permanently, not just dumping them into the secondary market.)
True, it would reshuffle the timing of the emissions, distributing the smaller total forward in time somewhat. But if natural sinks (god forbid!) should decrease (as I believe there is already some tentative indication), even that would be a win of sorts.
Link for the study mentioned above:
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/system/files/2020-09/2020_study_main_report_en.pdf
You’ve read that Kevin? ;-0
discussing this topic is equivalent to discussing nuclear power.
saw a good graph from a study the other day, can’t find it now.
essentially, fleets cars are replaced every 2-3 years, avg mean new car replacement is >10 years and the life cycle up to 20 years.
resource and energy use to produce new EVs is about 50% greater than for an existing ICE.
for a car using avg global ff/renew energy mix it takes over 10 years before the EV becomes equal to or slightly less than an ICE in regard to GWP … this doesn’t include toxic wastes (ff vs renew) nor cost to recycle the car at end of life.
the only case where EVs used less energy/resources/GWP was when it was powered directly by renewables/nuclear power for more than 10 years – the longer the better ….. but the typical average current combined GHG emissions from energy use from production to end of life was (+20%?) higher for EVs than ICE vehicles.
all debatable of course, bring our multiple papers at 30 feet and shoot!
fwiw not definitive but – China’s Coming EV Battery Waste Problem
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-38O6jSyiQ
there is still this thing called Limits to growth. right? and we’re currently using non-renewable resources at a rate 1.5 – 2 times the capacity of the earth to deliver.
The SYSTEM surrounding EVs production is to match the projected future capacity of 40 million new vehicles per year. That is fucking madness writ large. ICE or EVs it;s still madness.
And just like the deadly pollution from the burning of fossil fuels … the producers are never held accountable for REPROCESSING back to a SAFE condition or making good the damages caused by the pollution and waste products of what they sell … oil, gas and coal and vehicles.
How much would an EV cost to buy and operate if the manufacturers and power generators were materially and criminally liable to make good the damages caused by the fossil fuel use in the resource mining, and production and operation of, and the end of life recycling of the vehicles they produced or provided operating energy to.
the internet, computers and phones are cheap because the E-Waste and Toxins and recycling needs of batteries etc was not built into the price of the products.
eg Apple and apple users falsely claim they are not responsible for the treatment or working conditions injuries and pay of Chinese workers nor the accumulated toxic waste they are leaving behind across the world from mining, to recharging electricity required to landfill waste and the excessive use of water, and the toxic waste it leaves behind everywhere.
iow essentially EVs are no better than ICE vehicles .. both are destroying the world in which we live… because they are being produced and used in the very same DESTRUCTIVE SYSTEM.
Without fixing the real cause of the problems, ie the System, technology is irrelevant. iow even Renewable Energy is a cop out weak excuse of a solution.
RE is more properly named RE-Buildables … it is NOT “renewable energy” at all – it is manufactured products no different than a Ferrari is renewable energy … because RE is in fact Non-Renewable Resource Rich Toxic products of the existing System.
Until and unless the System and it’s Values are changed or the System collapses entirely (imminently likely in the short term) then nothing changes, nothing improves, nothing is “renewable” or non-toxic and self-sustaining.
Buying an EV is not going to fix or change anything. The same as COP 26 didn’t fix or change a thing. It’s BAU all the way down to the Turtles.
Only the delusional are optimistic about “renewable energy”, EVs and the future. :)
Are EVs more ‘complex’, for one? Mechanically, no–quite the contrary. But batteries? Software? It’s not obvious (to me, at least) how those comparisons should properly be conducted.
Straw Man, Kevin. That wasn’t even mentioned.
I seriously question the assertion that “in the most perfect cases EVs only have about 25% greater benefits over ICE’s.” In terms of lifetime global warming potential, this EU analysis found that new BEVs had only 45% of the impact of ICEs–arguably (depending upon how you intended your statement) that would equate to 222% greater benefits.
The assertion is not mine, so you’ll have to complain to the analysts that made it. If there’s new info, great, but having not seen the latest info shouldn’t really be labeled “wrong.”
And the fact that some number of people buy a new car every 2 or 3 years seems to me to be misinterpreted. If they’re going to do that in either case, then the net effect of increasing BEV market share is simply to take the ICEs off the road faster, resulting in more improvement sooner.
Soooo…. EVs doing the same negative returns damage to themselves rather than ICE’s is a step up? Particularly given the unique ecosystem destruction they cause that ICE’s don’t. And the question wasn’t about BEV’s, so my point stands correct. No moving of goalposts, please. You should have addressed the question asked then added the BEV info as a positive change, no?
This bit, too, seems backwards: “Therefore, any ICE > EV exchange that is prior to the end of life of the ICE diminishes the gains from changing to the EV.” The embodied emissions of the ICE are already a given; cutting short the ongoing operational emissions sooner rather than later clearly decreases the lifetime impact of that ICE–but does not increase the lifetime emissions of the BEV that replaces it.
That’s all nice and all, Kev, but I didn’t say “emissions.” That was not a mistake. Straw Man Moved goal posts. Nice. Very creative.
;-)
Then there’s the whole extending the life of a suicidal system… and all… but, by all means, let’s keep cheerleading really shitty responses to climate, resource limits, collapse and extinction.
Wow… the typos and bad edits in that post. Been running on little sleep the last week.
Oops.
Dr.Weaver
There is more to it.
Litium resources are scarce, but probably not the worst problem.
The worst problem as I can see it is that huge heap of highly purified materials mixed together in the modern hi- tech exotic devices, that you find on the junkyard in special heaps and containers. . I tried and managed to extract the very easiest from it 35 years ago, namely pure Gold. and got micrograms.
But, what a work and what a mess. And today there is notb even much gold in it and good old tin- solder will also be forbidden because it contains lead.
Common cars are hardly very much iron and steel anymore, that can be butchered and re- cycled. It is epoxy and polyuretan and PVC and Teflon, and a severe mess of copper aluminium magnesium calsium nickel mangan palladium together with “rare earths”. and coboldphosphate.
How can you possibly butcher and sort and extract, rinse,, and re- cycle that?
That was the possible metals on the junkyard. Then you have further all the plastics and the glasses that are thrown quite blindly and careless together.
Lithium batteries will be replaced by hydrogen fuel cells and iron-air batteries.
Carnac speaks. He should remain retired.
Dr Genosse Levenson Freshman error planetaqry astronomer::
Get consciuos about your use of modal verbs first before going to space or on the net.
The very fameous sentence:
“Houston, we have had a problem..”……..
…………came out because of an error in a very fameous EMV Cell battery in vacuum on the way from one fameous planet to the next.
Carbo, I made no error. Your use of English is far from the best. You are in no position to correct anybody. You might want to take a course in English as a Second Language (ESL).
Genhosse:
Do not be so proud when you actually teach us that litium batteries will be verbum in futurum replaced by hydrogen and iron- air batteries.
Such thoughts and arguments do betray your lacks of higher formation, your being a “freshman”, to describe it in your own teaching, and instructing style.
You seem to be lacking conseps of modal thought as such , You seem to lack learnings and trainings of hypotetical and conditional thinking as such, in a peculiar way.
The fallout of understanding of modality and of verbum in conditionjalis is an early signal of mental decay also, and a bit ugly. It is that fameous “higher spiritual” you see, that is clearly corroded and vital parts of those fameous higher brain windings that has fallen out or perhaps never were integrated.
Try not to keep up with Nostradamus, at least here.
.
More solutions:
5. Divest from all fossil fuels
https://divestmentdatabase.org/
6. Transform agriculture from a cause to a solution:
https://www.nature.org/en-us/what-we-do/our-insights/perspectives/three-things-nature-based-solutions-agriculture/
7. Reserve half of the Earth for all the other species, as no biodiversity means ecosystems collapse, followed by unsustainable living conditions for too many species, ours included:
https://www.half-earthproject.org/
Too late now. It’s on auto-pilot.
Eat, drink, and be merry! Party like it’s 1999!
:)
6. So long as profit (investment) is the goal, sustainability cannot be achieved. Not will not, cannot, and this gets down to thermodynamics. See: Steve Keen’s Minsky model and how it shifted from including profit to excluding it and defining flows in terms of thermodynamics. (Money flow is actually a proxy for energy flows.)
7. This is bassackwards thinking that seems to arise from the concept of a pristine Nature, which has not existed ever. Humans and our pre-homo sapiens sapiens ancestors have always been part of Nature and have always been co-creating with Nature. The latest evidence suggests the effects are now definable starting as long as 85k ya: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf9776
The most bio-diverse areas of the planet have humans co-creating within them in the mode noted in the link above.
It REALLY helps to understand regenerative systems and design. Or to listen to those who do. None of us, I’d wager, would ever suggest separating humanity and Nature and would instead promote reintegration. I’m certain none of us are the promulgators of that half Earth concept.
K: So long as profit (investment) is the goal, sustainability cannot be achieved.
BPL: It is exploitation from the working class! As are rents and interest! And salaries! Only wages are legitimate! Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your brains!
I would not shout out your ignorance so loudly if you wish to be taken seriously. Psst: Neo-classical Econ and all the variants are garbage. If you’re going to shout nonsense on Econ at least make it heterodox nonsense so it *seems* to be sane.
https://twitter.com/BRAVENEWEUROPE1/status/1459963191597936643?s=20
It helps even more to listen to experts in biology, those who understand best how life sustains itself on Earth. What they propose and I support, among many others, is protecting a life-supporting nature, not a pristine one. If what you mean by pristine is nature without humans, then of course it existed before evolution added our genus to the tree of life and Homo Sapiens became the most invasive species, in the last 300 years in particular.
I suggest that we all learn in depth what the project proposes and act upon it, including in the regenerative/sustainable design I and many others are involved in.
The UN’s 2020 Emissions Gap report says the emissions of the richest 1% are 30x higher than what is compatible with staying under 1.5 degrees. And national climate policies do basically nothing to change this.
GRAPH – Differences between the USA and the rest – the richer vs the poorer nations highlight inequalities.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FDqaiDBXIAA4q9S?format=jpg&name=medium
The emissions of rich US Americans are extreme to the point of being violent. Emissions in China and India are a fraction of the Western average. Even the rich Chinese emit *less than the poorest 50%* of Anglo-Americans.
Until the COP process produces a binding enforceable agreement to cap fossil fuel use and scale it down on a clear annual schedule for each nation in line with Equity ideals enshrined in the UNFCCC it’s basically all just hot air. T
But the key time-frame for cutting GHG emissions is between now & 2030 … not by 2050 or 2100. Globally we’re currently emitting 40 billion tonnes of CO2 each year. At that rate of emissions, we only have 8 yrs for a ‘likely’ chance of not exceeding 1.5°C into the future.
The Net-Zero scam out to 2050 and the Equity between & within nations remains the elephant in the room.
Absolutely key to climate change is the present situation where millions of poor, vulnerable & low emitting citizens are already living (& dying) with. This is only set to get worse; the policy makers of first world high emitting per capita nations know this, and they consciously choose to pay lip service to such concerns. Within their own countries as well as globally.
Allowing our “leaders” to again go home from COP26 doing nothing to halt these excessive emissions in the short and medium terms, as they’ve done for the last 30 years, means we’re all doomed eventually, The only hope left now is for widespread continual high level disruptive protests and civil resistance to demand emissions are slashed.
As time moves on climate change is becoming less a battle between rich and poor nations in the global north and south, than a battle for survival between the very rich people and the rest of society in every nation. The fight to protect the planet is shifting in ways that could soon exacerbate conflicts within countries.
What is needed are initially large sustained cuts in consumption by the wealthiest high income earners of society. Especially the excessive lavish sort and high intensity consumption that produces a lot of carbon dioxide. But with that shift being centered within society wide systemic changes across all sectors and all industries based upon a shift to sustainable values that reject excess and waste.
There will be higher costs and restrictions for those who value a glamorous lifestyle mainly in the transportation and travel sector. But we have seen in the pandemic that massive changes in behavior are actually possible. The future suggests this could either be about enlightened self-interest or something far worse. Pitchforks come to mind.
Believe me, you have to listen to this on climate and net zero! Its quite short only five minutes. Talk about frank use of speech. Its really good.
https://skepticalscience.com/honest-gvmt-ad-net-zero-2050.html
Mrkia: There is no such thing as “equity”. That is leftist psychobabble. It means nothing.
Richard: I agree, but only because of focus. Reality Check is correct in that most of the downtrodden are in the nations of the global south. Leftists are correct that in the US et al a higher proportion of the downtrodden aren’t of European ancestry.
But you are right in bitching about the definitions.
How can an equitable global civilization that treats everyone reasonably work when even those trying to help insist on using definitions and policies that focus on groups, be they “races” or “nation’s”?
About as reality-focused as “money”.
Downtrodden white guys who grew up in poverty and were beaten as kids, as well as those that have (insert reason) are going to have a cohesive response to that shit: a single raised finger (maybe one on each hand).
Get rid of the fake garbage and deal with real individuals. The job will be done when Facebook Boy’s spawn have no better chance at life than the spawn of anyone else.
The billionaires are wicked smart. The more focus you all give to fake crap the more real stuff they accumulate.
Fight amongst yourselves. Yeah, as if that’ll work.
My suggestion? Read some Jesus, not as a figurehead that protects the powerful but as the brilliant man he was.
To find solutions to a problem under presing time constraints, adaptation does not help. It needs exaptation.
Please see this video:
Why is “theory based practice” a useful approach when transforming culture? – Prof. Dave Snowden
During times of uncertainty, the way we did things in the past (the essence of case based approaches that underpin most books on the subject) is positively dangerous as it entrains past practice in a new era. So how do we manage the evolutionary potential of the present and avoid the false promise of idealistic future state definitions? How do we make cultural change resilient and sustainable?
Why is “theory based practice” a useful approach when transforming culture? – Prof. Dave Snowden
Mrkia: what is wrong with inheriting assets that your parents or other relatives worked for. Can you explain?
Richard: Sure. Ask most any wealthy person their fears with regard to their own children. Most are scared that their cherished goal, to make life as unfair as possible to the benefit of their children, will fuck up their kids. And the data suggests that said fear is well founded.
Ya know, the dead are dead. It makes zero difference whether one dead person or another amassed lots of metric.
In some ways access to family wealth has helped me personally. I don’t have to worry about retirement. I know that if my car dies and I’m left with a hunk of junk and a payment I can call my brother.
Heck. I didn’t die back in March because I asked for a couple of bucks. Just a couple.
Ya know, it sucks having to beg for water. His help got me past that. Others don’t have that option.
And it piles on. It just isn’t fair. I see in negotiations how I could nuke the other party. I often see laughable attempts to rip me off.
About half the time I let them because none of this is fair.
So, to answer, protecting the “rights” of dead (or ‘going to be dead’) people really warps their kids.
Or do you think I’m normal? ;-)
Nigel,
Jesus as a child was obviously a way smart pain in the ass. Once he ditched his family during a trip. When they finally found him he was unrepetant. He showed little or no concern for the Hell he put his mom through. Instead, he made a wisecrack, pretending to confuse the words “father” and “Father”.
During his adventure we learn that he was way into study and writing, yet…
Only the parables and snippets remain, none of which was penned by his own hand.
Yeah, right. As if Jesus never wrote anything. You tell me where all his plain communication is today. I say it was likely burned.
Parables are like encryption. And not even the speaker/writer knows their spread. Yeah, there is the surface layer priests try to comprehend for their flock. But what about people nowadays? Lots has changed. Lots has been learned since his time.
And what about me? The parables sing differently depending on situation and audience.
So if Jesus spoke plainly he’d have to learn and guess and make lots of errors across thousands(?) of pages. And maybe he did. But fat lot of good it did. Only the parables (and some disses aimed at the “always wrong” (aka his disciples) survived.
Kevin, thanks for sharing. Your work always makes me more peaceful. Here’s a parable from the Weavers founding document, which utilized magic in its printing (remember Moses’ tablets?):
There once was a species of salmon who didn’t die after spawning, but lived with their offspring and returned to the sea. Now, these salmon,like some current species, were all female, so women’s lack of consideration by not raising the toilet seat when they were through wasn’t a problem.
Gals, want to know why you’ll put anything back anywhere except The Seat? Because you see yourselves as civilized and men as animals, hopefully horses. Thus, picking up a sock is cleaning the stalls, but approaching an up seat is moving your self-position towards “beast”. On a related note, Weaver’s of my gender and persuation tend to see women as kites. …I love when she’s secure enough to shed her name and soar…
Salmon. The salmon lived in nests and laid fertile eggs that hatched without sperm. They guarded their eggs fiercely.
One year the eggs didn’t hatch. The same thing happened the next year and the next. They faced the extinction of their species. But they had so many eggs!
One salmon was different. It didn’t really associate well with the others. And it didn’t lay eggs. This strange salmon pondered the predictament, and, by analyzing other species’ reproductive habits, realized that its species had changed from asexual to sexual, and that the strange stuff he excreted instead of eggs, well, that was what the other salmon needed.
Excitedly, he returned to his group and explained how all that was lacking was this tiny bit of DANA, of which he had unlimited quantities. They were impressed, “Great! Now go lay some eggs and… Our eggs?! We worked hard laying these eggs. Go lay your own.”
BPL,
Thanks for the correction. Kind of like how lots of folks (including me) call the “Aldi” grocery store “Aldi’s”
Mrkia,
Inherited wealth also screws up the wealthy because once they have secured more metric than they could ever use they turn to Dynasty building instead of helping build a better future for everyone. And the choice folks have to make isn’t fair. My parents’ junk mail contains myriad requests from institutions who want to carve a big slice out of “my” inheritance.
And I can’t mention anything. The whole topic is toxic. Keep your mouth shut or energise that fear of vultures elderly folks often get. I remember my dad dissing my grandmother over her fear that my parents would strip her bare. But the tax laws are clear: do the transition of intergenerational wealth in an insane way that leaves the elder exposed, or pay taxes.
A question back at you, Mrkia:
Do you believe individuals should play on a level playing field or should the field be contoured according to the previous generation’s score in the game of Life?
And the wealth transfer stuff is breaking down. Yes, my parents are dying, but my wife and her mom ended up in a sick race to the death. Her family is sickeningly rich; a park in Vancouver is named after them. Her mom ended up in a luxury assisted living place, which was inadequate so she paid to have two units merged, along with a nice private patio and yard. IIRC it was over $20,000 a month. Her mom was a misogynist who believed wealth should pass through the male children. So Julie would get the interest after her mom died, but her half’s principle would pass to her brother. Talk about an opportunity for relationships to shred!
When people live to 90+, inheritance becomes a weird game of passing the torch to the next dying person in line.
Mrkia, you are focused on jealousy and such. But the system you fervently support not only destroys so much, but it magnifies jealousy in ways that breaks relationships.
RtW: Jesus as a child was obviously a way smart pain in the ass. Once he ditched his family during a trip. When they finally found him he was unrepetant. He showed little or no concern for the Hell he put his mom through. Instead, he made a wisecrack, pretending to confuse the words “father” and “Father”.
BPL: They were in a caravan and people would often leave children with close relatives like cousins if they had something else to do.
RtW: Only the parables and snippets remain, none of which was penned by his own hand.
BPL: And you know this how?
RtW: Yeah, right. As if Jesus never wrote anything. You tell me where all his plain communication is today. I say it was likely burned.
BPL: Or he never wrote anything because writing required writing materials, which were scarce and expensive.
You do love to argue: There is nothing in the Christian tradition that suggests that a single word in the Bible was written by Jesus. Cause, you know, if there were you’d have the Gospel According to Mathew, Mark, Luke, John and Jesus.
Good lord…. the nonsense just to get a dig in…
Here we have the teachers, the classical archaeologists and philologists and even philosophers and theologists arguing.
I never found anything wrong with that history, just the 12 year old Jesus coming victorious shining out of it and the others confused and worrying and knowing less. Probably the intensional way that it has been quite carefully and cunningly stated and in archaic greek, Nota bene.
Who were they? what was it? Fact or fiction, we can use both.
As far as I can judge it, they have done their very best to tell and to write down also that.
You lack having had a try also on the old norse SAGA in qvasi – original, in a foreighn language just faintly known to you, in school where it really did matter for your social participance and for your careers and integrities.
Thus became teachers of systematics and linguistics and thought both of you.
BPL: Or he never wrote anything because writing required writing materials, which were scarce and expensive.
RC: So all he needed to do was that loaves and fishes maneuver … one pen and a piece of paper would have turned into thousands. THat means as “Cheap as chips!”
“Oh Dear God, please save us all from the Lunacy of the Lunatics!” cried Jesus on the Cross … and BORE HOLE it all!
Thanks, Richard. One apostrophic question: “Weaver’s” or “Weavers'”? Kinda makes a difference!
:-)
“Do you believe individuals should play on a level playing field or should the field be contoured according to the previous generation’s score in the game of Life?”
There is no such thing as a “level playing field”, because even if the “field” is level, we each have different abilities to succeed, accumulate wealth, learn, invent, invest, etc. Some make good decisions, some make bad decisions, some get very wealthy, invent rockets, orbit the planet, and have super-models for wives, some can barely pay their bills, some live in tents under overpasses. That’s life. Equal opportunity, unequal outcomes. Most want to avoid living in tents under overpasses – that is incentive to succeed. Take that incentive away with too many handouts and you end up with “the projects”, and entire segments of society dependent on those handouts – that is what we have today, made far worse by teaching those people that they are victims – telling them it is Whitey’s fault. Better plan is to have a robust economy where everyone who is willing to work can find a job and succeed. Of course, you can mess that up with open borders which hurt the low-skilled citizens the most. That’s where we are today.
Because Gates, Jobs, Bloomberg, Soros, Buffet, Walton, etc accumulated lots of wealth, does not mean someone else can’t accumulate wealth. When you create a new, useful product you can sell, you are creating new wealth. There is no limit to the amount of wealth that can be created. That is why the USA, one of the freer nations on the planet, has had a better outcome and higher standard of living than most of the others – because the people were allowed to create and take risks. A lot of them have been successful. But you don’t have to be creative – all you need to do is be willing to work and you’ll usually do OK if you don’t break laws and go to jail, etc.
We should all have the opportunity to do as well as possible and we should all have the opportunity to pass the fruits of our labor on to whoever we want – in many cases that would be our children. Tax the wealth of people so they cannot pass it on to others, and they will move to a location where they can. If you can’t accumulate wealth, you’ll end up with the Soviet system – everyone gets to keep just enough of the fruits of their labors to almost make it through the year, except maybe one person in the family may die if the winter is a little too harsh. There is no incentive to produce more than you need and everyone lives in abject poverty and misery. The experiment has been tried many times and the outcome is always the same.
On jealousy, I asked if those who seem to think inherited wealth is somehow a bad thing, are jealous of the wealth of successful people. Wealthy people employ a lot of people, poor people don’t. Wealthy people can help others, poor people have limited ability to help others. Wealthy people are a good thing. I’m hoping to be one some day, but congratulations to you – it sounds like you’re already there. Should we confiscate your wealth? :)
Income Inequality and Economic Inequality are not the same things.
pernicious- bad, hurtful
synonyms for pernicious
damaging
dangerous
deadly
destructive
detrimental
devastating
harmful
lethal
malicious
nefarious
noxious
poisonous
ruinous
toxic
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/pernicious
‘Pernicious’ Effects of Economic Inequality – Paper explanatory by Paul Piff
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC7KQSdxR0
Does money make you mean? | Paul Piff Ted Talk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ8Kq1wucsk
Poverty’s Pernicious and Persistent Toll on Young Children
https://www.childtrends.org/blog/povertys-pernicious-and-persistent-toll-on-young-children
By some accounts, global economic inequality is at its highest point on record. The pernicious effects of this broad societal trend are striking: Rising inequality is linked to poorer health and well-being across countries, continents, and cultures.
In roughly 70% of studies examining the health impacts of economic inequality, data indicate that societal health worsens as economic inequality intensifies (Wilkinson & Pickett, 2006, 2009). When economic inequality deepens on a societal scale, the evidence suggests that it is both societies and individuals that suffer.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1745691616673192
Nah, “everyone suffers and loses out”? Nah, surely not! So what’s the difference between income inequality and economic inequality and wealth inequality? Maybe the Know it All buffoon knows? And knows how to use those different words in a sentence too? LOL, nah, no way.
“Inequalities. The evidence is everywhere. Not all inequalities are harmful, but those that are perceived as being unfair tend to be. Under the shadow of sweeping technological change and the climate crisis, those inequalities hurt almost everyone. They weaken social cohesion and people’s trust in government, institutions, and each other. They are wasteful, preventing people from reaching their full potential at work and in civic life, hurting economies and societies. And when taken to the extreme, people can take to the streets. “
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/future-development/2020/01/22/inequalities-in-human-development-in-the-21st-century/
That could not be true, because the Idiot Know It All has a Theory that he already knows it all. :)
Equality and Equity are not the same thing. The UNFCCC and Climate action speak about INEQUITY and JUSTICE
Equity vs. Equality: What’s the Difference?
Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome.
In the illustration below, two individuals have unequal access to a system — in this case, the tree that provides fruit. With equal support from evenly distributed tools, their access to the fruit still remains unequal. The equitable solution, however, allocates the exact resources that each person needs to access the fruit, leading to positive outcomes for both individuals.
While the tree appears to be a naturally occurring system, it’s critical to remember that social systems aren’t naturally inequitable — they’ve been intentionally designed to reward specific demographics for so long that the system’s outcomes may appear unintentional but are actually rooted discriminatory practices and beliefs.
https://onlinepublichealth.gwu.edu/resources/equity-vs-equality/
Difficult different nuanced word meanings semantics and their clever definitions, is just not Fair nor Equitable for Idiot KIAs on this forum! :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_(economics)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_equity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergenerational_equity
Meaning of Equity 1 formal : fairness or justice in the way people are treated
Inequity meaning – a lack of fairness or justice
a : justice according to natural law or right specifically : freedom from bias or favoritism
b : something that is equitable
Then there is also the more extreme version of : Iniquity – Absence of moral or spiritual values, lawlessness. · Gross immorality or injustice; wickedness. · Lack of righteousness or justice;
Human development report. 2019 : beyond income, beyond averages, beyond today: inequalities in human development in the 21st century
https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3846848?ln=en
Reducing inequalities and ensuring no one is left behind are integral to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/inequality/
Essential Meaning of Equality
: the quality or state of being equal : the quality or state of having the same rights, social status, etc. racial/gender equality the ideals of liberty and equality women’s struggle for equality
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_inequality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
Not surprisingly living under a Capitalist system is not deemed a Human Right… anywhere. ;)
Meanwhile, politicians and national govts everywhere will pass the laws they choose to pass. And will do the things they want to do and can get away with.
Richard the Weaver said back a page:
“What the fuck is worth saving of the current system?”
“I coulda sworn there was more than Killian and some crickets here. You all have an opportunity, here. Speak your minds”
Its a good question, but define what you mean by the system. Because its a very vague and broad term. Probably why you didn’t get a response.
https://www.climate-resource.com/tools/ndcs
Well, pledges are “pledges” as we all should know from the events of the last thirty years regarding climate, *and from the whole written history regarding mankinds powerstruggles*. But most of course won’t know that, otherwise we wouldn’t be where we are.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/11/12/facing-climate-collapse-at-the-eleventh-hour/
“The central conclusion from the overall linear increase in temperatures relative to emissions is that nothing short of a complete cessation of CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions will significantly stabilize the climate, and there is also a time delay of at least several decades after emissions cease before the climate can begin to stabilize.” https://climateandcapitalism.com/2021/08/19/the-ipcc-report-key-findings-and-radical-implications/
“- remember no Cop document has ever named fossil fuels.” !!!!!!!!! (Damian Carrington at 10.20 saturday in this https://www.theguardian.com/environment/live/2021/nov/13/cop26-live-third-draft-text-expected-as-climate-talks-go-into-overtime ).
Now it has just been mentioned in a completely anti-scientific way due to the wellplanned usual coup by the usual suspects in the last minutes….: “”The fossil fuel lobby, led by India (apparently… KJ), held its line, dramatically (nonsense. The usual preplanned coup of pseudo-drama. KJ) succeeding in watering down – at the last minute and without due, transparent process (the phrase tries to hide the facts of the coup, as scetchy preplanned long before the COP26 even started. These meetings are theater as every stalinist party congress, just smarter and under the liberal-totalitarian ideology “The language” is the UN gobbledegook as created by the apparatchicks of the US-China-EU-Russia-favoured dictatorships and other tyrannies like that of the ruling indian maharadja Modi. A condensed variety of all hypocritical language tricks through history…KJ).” https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/13/heres-the-truth-our-leaders-at-cop26-have-failed-us-the-rest-is-spin
Blah Blah Yadda Yadda,
Short and not so sweet:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/11/12/strong-winds-climate-change-have-failed-move-opinions-many-americans/
So, however more we refine the science, and however more the effects of change become visible, and however more we advance the technology, it comes down to partisanship and self-interest. Even those Republicans who say they are concerned are still going to vote for politicians who will block progress, and all the Russians and Saudis and others will do whatever it takes not to lose whatever economic/status level they now enjoy.
And we will see if all the young folks railing against the status quo will actually put down their phones and get out and vote.
A few years back I think I was writing here that it was going to be a slow process, with serious disruption and suffering inevitable. And that long-term thinking was the best chance to minimize the long-term negatives. But we may be close to a catastrophic tipping-point, and I don’t mean melting sea-ice or permafrost.
Zebras comments. We all KNOW its very difficult mitigating the climate problem for various reasons and is likely to be a slow process. Nobody gets points for stating the obvious. We all know there’s a lot of climate change denialism in America and a big tribal divide. Again its obvious.
What Zebra doesn’t get is “long term thinking” is not something humans are great at either, so faces the SAME impediments as mitigating climate change.
The “blah blah blah” is coming from Zebra.
Its much better to concentrate energy on on promoting the things we CAN do and that are realistically possible. Kevin McKinney gets this.
Although I think Reality Checks information on lack of progress is useful because at least it has some specifics in it.
I think more and more Republicans, and right-leaning independents are believing in AGW. The high temps and other evidence is helping to convince them. I think AGW CO2 theory is likely true. I would like to see the calcs on one monster web page, starting with the fundamentals of IR heat transfer, and showing how CO2 absorbs IR and prevents cooling to space. Show all of the algebra when going from one equation to another, don’t skip steps because it is “obvious”. Include calcs for each layer of the atmosphere, and calculated reduction in IR cooling for 2 x concentration, 4x, etc.
The unhinged stances taken by many Dems turns off at least 1/2 the voters. The recent revelation that public school libraries, and other places in schools are including porn and worse, and the attempt to justify that by teachers, school boards, and administrators will turn off even more voters to the Dem side. As occurred in Virginia, this type of stuff may doom any hope Dems have of achieving their goals in the USA:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eog_UDtpaVs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGnMA92oygQ
Start at 1:20:20 in this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-83MuAdTzws
On your remarks about repeat comments, I’m amazed at the quantity of words they post – of course much of it is just copied/pasted.
KIA. Here are the calcs you requested:
https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
As you can see its complicated, no surprise there. I’m afraid it cannot be simplified, other than to generalities, or stated with school level physics and algebra. If you don’t have the necessary expertise it will probably mean nothing to you. I do not fully understand the paper, but Arrhenius wrote it in 1895, and used it to predict that industrialisation would cause 1 degree c of warming in the 20th century which is reasonably accurate. This gives the paper considerable credibility.
Thanks Nigel. I’ve seen that and will look again. It’s kind of hard to read – they type isn’t very friendly.
I’d think scientists could put it into a more modern format that is easier to read.
How much is this unintelligent idiot going to pay these Scientists to do that for him? After he was espousing today that : …. each individual being responsible for his own well-being, thus, requiring people to work to provide for their needs.
Yes indeed. Do be responsible for your own pathetic incompetence and shortcomings!!!!
Get to work providing for your own needs instead of always looking for handouts here. You are a lazy insidious user – go learn to read and think for yourself unaided.
No one here owes you anything! Ask a government social worker for advice.
The climate goals must be rephrased into one-year steps
The huge effort to reduce CO2 emissions is mostly phrased in a way, that makes a) look the goals unreachable b) are on time scales, that don’t push politics into action.
At least that is, what media transport. That might be different in working groups – maybe… but I doubt it. Otherwise the goals might one day also appear in the media in that way?!
For example let’s say we want to reduce the emissions to about 5 % of the current emissions in 30 years.
That means 95% reduction. Thats a huge goal. And 30 years means: the politicians from today most likely will not be accounted for that, maybe they do not even live then. Also it can’t be planned if the planning time is until the next election (4 years typical).
But rephrasing it into one-year steps would mean: reduce emissions by 10% every year. Thats also not easy, but 10% is easier to achive then 95%, and one year means: the politicians can be held accountable for it.
(milestones of 4 years for typical election periods can also be used, or 2 years for “half time of your gouvernment responsibility”).
If we reduce the emissions by 5% each year, after 30 years that would mean reducing down to about 23% in theat time, instead of 5%, Thats a rededuction by 77%. It’s not enough, but it is much more than what has been achieved ofer the last decades. And it’s better than waiting until the 30 years evaporated while politics just die nothing more than numbing phrases.
So, I think by making the time intervals shorter and the goals adapted to these intervals less frightening and “more realistic”, I think the resistance against the change will flatten. 5% … 10% looks like what can be done… some interesting tasks for the engineers…
Let the exponentials be with you! :-)
eg
China calls for concrete action not distant targets in last week of Cop26
Senior Beijing adviser also defends scale, depth and detail of country’s ‘unappreciated’ climate actions
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/08/china-calls-for-concrete-action-not-distant-targets-in-last-week-of-cop26
What do practical action plans actually look like?
China’s documented plans aka Laws of the land add more new wind and solar power capacity by 2030 than the entire installed electricity system of the US. They even have a credible track record of world leading achievement in this area. But of course this is not the narrative the powers that be wish to see heard in the rest of the world, and so it pretty much doesn’t exist. It’s like if a tree falls in the forest but no one hears or sees it, then it never happened, right? :)
Insert here: the accepted “truth” that the Chinese and China itself is ‘evil and a security threat to whole world’ narrative Works for Russia too; eg the Russiagate ‘scandal’ looks to have been created by the Hillary Clinton campaign!
OMG who would have “guessed” that was the case, given the publicly available evidence since back in early 2017??? rofl
PS
Please do not buy Russian gas via Pipelines to Germany. Or Oil from Venezuela That’s really bad. Because buying Saudi-Bahrain-Qatar-UAE-Kuwaiti Oil and Gas or Canadian/USA oil and gas via pipeline = Very Good = Not Evil Actors. :)
Taking that Moral High Road really makes the biggest difference .. it delivers much less CO2 emissions.
Here’s an interesting discussion from Roger Hallam a Welsh environmental activist, a co-founder of Extinction Rebellion – while acknowledging it’s not for everyone.
How to Stop the Climate Crisis in Six months | 4 September 2021 |
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5B9AZ_YKlw
or at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkZT0tSdUog
“We have to move quickly. What we do, I believe, in the next three to four years will determine the future of humanity”. Sir David King. Former Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Government.
Given there is a real world out there and we have 3-4 years to stop it being destroyed, we have to engage in nonviolent direct action to stop governments imposing upon us the greatest act of criminality in the history of humanity: namely destroying the livelihoods and lives of the next thousand generations. This video gives you the key elements of success which people are adapting as they step into their responsibilities to force political change.
Nothing is more important. We have to do whatever it takes. We can no longer afford to lose. And that means taking risks.
—
related refs perspectives from the 20 mins Theory section
https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/montgomery-bus-boycott
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery_bus_boycott
https://calendar.eji.org/racial-injustice/may/14
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Riders
In November 2018, five bridges across the River Thames in London were blockaded as a protest. In April 2019, Extinction Rebellion occupied five prominent sites in central London: Piccadilly Circus, Oxford Circus, Marble Arch, Waterloo Bridge, and the area around Parliament Square. In August 2021, the Impossible Rebellion targeted London.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_Rebellion
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/17/thousands-gather-to-block-london-bridges-in-climate-rebellion
—-
and a quote form the video
from 38 mins https://youtu.be/f5B9AZ_YKlw?t=2290
another scientist goes full on XR and gets arrested in Glascow.
https://twitter.com/ThierryAaron/status/1458144369404436486
12 November 2021
Scientist Rebellion: researchers join protestors at COP26
Scientists are among hundreds of demonstrators at the COP26 climate conference — and want more to join them. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03430-5
Hr Australia
The diameter of the globe interests me.
I had a colleague down in New Zealand, a typical exported rascal from downtown Dublin, but he also had global interests, so we slowly managed to understand each other by hard effort and some good will from each sides I think. Our wiews of many things were remarkably, diametrically opposite. It cleared up at last when we could not agree on anything at all. In order to proove that he was wrong, I challenged him to discuss the path of the sun over the sky from east to west during day. That also showed to be quite opposite. He found the solution. “It must be the same sun!” As we sat on opposite sides of a table showing it for sure up in the air.
Later I came to know that they actually grow Kiwi- fruit in the garden in Schwaben, Germany, that has got winter snow but warm enough for peaches Prune du Pesche, Prunus persica.. And wines. Too warm for me in the summers but I manage to adapt.
That Kiwi is hardly used by me- us in the kitchen exept for cake- decoration, Where it tastes very near to Gooseberries, Ribes uva crispa, that is our alternative from the gardens, also growing wild. And to my opinion bewtter.
It was the fashionable burgeoise “high class” berry or fruit of choise with many high cultivars in the 19th century until “mors uva crispa” the gooseberry killer came from America and took it all.
Today the gooseberries come back from the wild and can really make the better again on the fruit platters together with apples and pears and plums and grapes. They were as I told the upper class and fashionable sort during all the 18th century making also best wines and marmelades and cakes..
The Ribes family seems to have reservoir in Europe west of Ural and north of Tyrkia with Mt.Ararat that is the southern reference. And should be our favourite choise.
Then we can discuss permaculture with “regenerative” and possible avoidance of long transport, and living and eating, thinking and performing according to season, with Killian. As we also take Vivaldis 4 seasons serious for reference.
I never tried Kenguru, but we have exotics like moose and reindeer, “minke” whale, sheps and horses that all feed freely in the wild.
Camels are very popular in Arabia and Somalia. Darwin tried all and also ate his way arond the globe and said that the cougar- Pumas was the very best. I am eating the wild flora anywhere, then you must also know the trees with flowers and buttons. Much of it is safe and good medicines. Others may be only for poison-murder.
I see for many of you that you have not got Carl von Linne, J. von Liebig, Robert Boyle, A. Humboldt, and Darwin on Pensum. Only Carl Marx, Lenin, Adam Smith, and Milton Friedman. . and that is below us in the grades. It is what fills peoples thoughts and opinions with rubbish globally and in the climate..
To The Moderators
Someone once said:
So in the “recent comments” list, we have 4 of the usual suspects, one of which has 7 in a row.
Given the new format, it would be extremely helpful if you could expand the recent comments list, so that we could be aware of new participants or contributions from those who are not addicted to controlling the column-inch market.
It’s great to be able to engage in a sub-thread, and easy to bookmark and check up on it for responses and new input. However, with numerous very long and repeat comments in the main thread, scrolling through all the different threads looking for comments that might catch our interest is getting overly difficult.
Thanks for your consideration.
…… the benefits of everyone’s work yeah? Is that what they call it? Work? Fucking work, seriously? Oh really, how nice. What an idiot!
Aaaaaah, for there is nothing like basking in the blessed light of freedom, individual liberty, and equal opportunity but f*** that equity business, that sucks. Thank god for people like KIA who carries his Freedom Pitchfork everywhere he goes. lol
EQUAL FREEDOM BRO …
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/15/new-england-once-hunted-and-humans-for-money-were-descendents-of-the-survivors
Doors were slammed shut on Indigenous people in Glasgow, literally and figuratively. Now it’s time not just to open them, but to tear them down …. and recent analysis from Cop26 showed that Australia’s per capita emissions from coal power nearly doubled those of China. In fact, Australia tops the class in this field.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/15/empty-words-no-action-cop26-has-failed-first-nations-people
EQUAL FREEDOM BRO …
This map shows evidence of mass killings from 1788 until 1928: a sustained and systematic process of conflict and expansion.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/ng-interactive/2019/mar/04/massacre-map-australia-the-killing-times-frontier-wars
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY BRO …
‘It is vital indigenous peoples are able to directly access finance, so when they undertake actions on the climate crisis it is from a position of strength.’
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/15/indigenous-peoples-clear-vision-cop26-not-delivered
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNDER THE LAW BRO …
The sitting justices face a once-in-a-lifetime crisis of legitimacy that could determine the future of the US
‘The supreme court today faces another critical test of its legitimacy as it prepares to deliver major rulings on abortion, gun rights, and government funding for religious schools.’
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/15/us-supreme-court-democracy-america
GHG CLIMATE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO ENJOY THE EFFECTS BRO ….
Communities in western Canada who were forced to flee their homes this summer by wildfires and extreme heat are once again under evacuation orders after overwhelming floods across the region.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/15/canada-floods-evacuation-wildfires-rain
THOSE EVIL COMMUNISTS BRO….
China urges developed countries to take the lead in cutting out coal
After dilution of Cop26 wording, China says developing nations cannot make green transition without support
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/15/china-urges-developed-countries-to-take-the-lead-in-cutting-out-coal
EQUITY IS ONLY FOR SUCKERS, COMMUNISTS, ASTROLOGERS, AND LIBERALS …. HA, F*** THEM BRO …. :)
Gosh, RC, that stuff is really sad to hear about.
Zebra. Your sarcasm is noted. You come across as making fun of the bad treatment of indigenous people, which isn’t a terribly pleasant thing to do..
859 pm….
When is it time to take a drink in Australia?
Unbiased Objective Data driven Scientist BPL says: “The Soviet Union polluted the hell out of itself.”
RC: Whereas Capitalist United States of America still looked like the Garden of Eden….. beautiful, clean as a whistle, pristine, and as full of life as the day it was created by God. Full of Freedom, Liberty, Rainbows, Peace and Love!
And yet people wonder why talk-fests like COP26 go nowhere and fail to achieve what was required to make a real sustainable difference. People live in such completely different worlds (of differing mostly delusional realities) .. where never the twain shall meet. Reading this might help a few more repair their own self-created delusions. https://read.realityblind.world/view/975731937/
Thanks, RC, very important information.
If you think the Soviet Union wasn’t a major polluter, you don’t know anything about the Soviet Union. Period.
The tu quoque is a logical fallacy. If I say the Soviet Union was a polluter, I am not saying the USA was NOT a polluter. Try to respond to what I said, instead of what you want me to have said.
I’d add as well that the 1970s-1990s US did a lot to clean up its pollution act. I remember what it was like prior to the Clean Air Act, etc.
Of course, today we have one of the two major parties trying to undo all that, and corrupting and undermining the democratic process to do so. So there’s that, too.
Yes but bpl, could you practice what you preach …. such as try to respond to what I said (and meant by it) instead of what you want me to have said?
Did I say the Soviet Union wasn’t a major polluter? No, I did not. The humorous part about the USA counter-example was to humor you. People live in such completely different worlds (of differing mostly delusional realities) .. where never the twain shall meet https://read.realityblind.world/view/975731937/ Happens at COP, happens everywhere. :)
I never lost sight of the context of you intimating/suggesting that capitalism does not pollute as bad as ” some half-assed socialism” https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/11/forced-responses-nov-2021/#comment-797550
I think you missed RtWs points, but suggesting that Capitalism and ‘Capitalist Governments’ mindset’s psychology and the accompanying Economic systems are the solution and not the cumulative cause of today’s extreme climate crisis. Ahem.
You appeared to be missing the point, aka reality blind. https://www.istockphoto.com/photos/tar-sands I was trying to help you out of a hole. :)
STOP LINE 3
a really good 40 mins long interview with Greta by juice media/honest govt ads people. She doesn’t do many long interviews, and she says how much she s the Honest Government Ads., they make a difference etc.
We need to talk about Honesty | with Greta Thunberg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MibVpT2XUb4
a sample: https://youtu.be/MibVpT2XUb4?t=635
Please remember .. … they know exactly what they are doing!
Don’t sugar coat the truth. Enough of the fantasy rah rah optimism being pushed by the delusional out there.
There is no making a silk purse out of a pigs ear. As much as they try.
Wow, RC. That Greta is really something. Great that you shared this with us.
“Oh poor me, equity is such a big and difficult word it makes my head hurt! Climate Equity, like Greta and every other Theiving Communist Leftie Eco-terrorist, is a right bitch! “
from https://youtu.be/MibVpT2XUb4?t=1573 .
Yes, RC, youtube is an excellent source of information. It would have been terrible if you hadn’t posted this and we had missed out.
:)
That is great! She came up with a new AGW theory at 27:14: “….. climate crisis was created, it started when we started to exploit other people and steal other people’s lands and resources……”
NASA should test that new theory. I have been reading the apparent FAKE NEWS that AGW was caused by CO2 in the atmosphere. Instead, as espoused by Greta, it started because Europeans are mean aholes. You cannot make this stuff up. Some of the best psychobabble available on the internet today.
:)
More Marxist claptrap from Reality Check:
Ahistorical nonsense. England had imperial colonies long before industrialization; the East India Company was established in 1600, for Pete’s sake! There wouldn’t be a coal-fired steamship for more than 200 years. And by replacing the need for human and animal labor with artificial “muscles”, the quality of life for many, including many of the “colonized”, was improved. The improvements in India alone included the introduction of railways, which made the transport of food far easier and essentially eliminated famines.
There is only the most tenuous of connections, and the connection between colonization and slavery runs the opposite direction; chattel slavery was introduced to the USA due to a suit brought by an African (Anthony Johnson) seeking to be declared the owner-for-life of another African (John Casor) because it was Johnson’s tradition. It was arguably the first and worst of all mistakes of “multiculturalism”.
Nonsense on stilts. This isn’t a matter of international or inter-racial “equity”, it is a matter of planetary survival. Injecting bogus political dogma into the issue is just one of the obstructing tactics used by the planetary rapists; by making “equity” the issue and simultaneously making it impossible to achieve, it will persuade many that the goal is impossible and to do nothing.
Forget “equity”. Especially forget “climate justice”; the population of Niger continues to grow at a blistering pace, creating a problem that did not need to exist at all. This is partly on those pushing food “aid”, but mostly on the Nigeriens themselves. It’s time to put that responsibility where it belongs.
If we’re going to fix the climate problem, we ALL have to embrace GHG reduction as fast as technically possible. This precludes ANY increases in emissions, by ANYONE. We also need to undertake CO2 mineralization and oceanic de-acidification, which will require schemes like spreading crushed dunite on well-watered land and in intertidal zones. Those without the technical and human capital to contribute to this are just going to have to sit it out, settling for not being a part of the problem.
Multiple errors.
1) That colonialism preceded industrialization does not excuse or negate the harms imposed by the former–many of which are integral to the current political reality, and to the current global political system. (If you can call it that.)
2) That some benefits followed from colonization does not excuse or negate the harms that flowed from it, either. Especially since technology transfer can be achieved without violent conquest or colonial exploitation and theft.
3) No, the Johnson-Parker-Cason case of 1654 did not “introduce chattel slavery to the USA.” Slaves had already been imported to what is now US territory by 1619, and anyway, the ruling was made in the colony of Virginia and only affected that colony. As a colonial precedent, it has some significance as a milestone, but slavery was an established practice throughout the Americas; it would certainly have developed along much the same lines had the Johnson case never occurred.
Moreover, it’s all rather moot because RC’s OP never even mentioned slavery at all; it appears to be something of a pet peeve that E-P brought in entirely gratuitously. (Possibly he couldn’t resist the chance to defend white supremacy yet again?)
4) Equity is indeed a necessary component of achieving durable emissions reductions, because no developed nation will be content to ‘settle for not being a part of the problem.’ There is quite simply no prospect of imposing inequitable zero emissions regimes that will not lead to climate war.
5) Less consequentially, but perhaps tellingly still, Niger is *not* the same country as Nigeria. The former has all of 22 million inhabitants and is exceedingly underdeveloped; the latter has 213 million and arguably the most dynamic city in Africa–Lagos, which at 23 million+ is “the fourth-highest GDP in Africa and houses one of the largest and busiest seaports on the continent.”
Yes. E-P is living in a vacuum labelled denial. He shares a room with KIA.
Which is where he thinks venezuela nigeria and the rest of the global south, india and china are living …. unconnected to history and the powerful nations and corporations of the world. It is quite nuts. It’s as if no one ever wrote a book called “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” and that secret bank accounts, profit shifting, and tax havens do not exist. Or The School of the Americas was actually for Kindergartners and Play Groups.
Besides that Nigeria and Lagos is a shit hole. For the very same reasons already provided and easily discovered, except for the blissfully ignorant and arrogant.
Can you provide some historical context to the struggle in the Niger Delta region?
It’s really a long history. The first commercial export of oil was in 1958, but before then there had been some very serious encounters with forces whose major interest was to exploit and subjugate the people in the Niger Delta.
https://www.un.org/africarenewal/magazine/april-2014/there%E2%80%99s-no-need-more-oil-wells-nigeria
The Ogoniland area of southern Nigeria is one of the most polluted places on Earth.
https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/revisited/20210702-polluted-by-the-oil-industry-life-in-nigeria-s-ogoniland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_slums_in_Nigeria
It’s time to put that responsibility where it belongs.
Yes, squarely upon the elites, the 1 percenters of global north, today’s pernicious privileged decedents of colonialism, of rapists and murderers and thieves. And their corrupt global institutionalized capitalist systems of inequity, power and control of other nations. ….. with their lazy ignorant citizens who reject knowledge and truth for self-righteous fantasies and their own insatiable self-importance.
Contrary to the culturally brainwashed planetary survival is intrinsically a matter of international, and national, and inter-racial / social “equity” …. leading to recompense, repair and reparations for Loss and Damages already caused and ongoing cooperation as equals not as Owners and Chattels. This requires a universal shift in values and value itself.
Without that nuclear power plants are a waste of time and likely will never be built at scale to fix anything. The whole world will look like the worst places of Nigeria and the Alberta Tar Sands.
given the disgusting formatting in my last comment above — I must say I literally hate all the changes made in this sites design. All of them. It was a complete waste of time. If you paid for this Gavin you were seriously ripped off … or what you asked for was just ridiculous.
Others have said as much to no effect. Making Real Climate as good as and as effective as any COP meeting.
Oh, well, RC, scientists are not always the best graphic designers… not in their background. Maybe now they will take a course before attempting it in the future.
RC. Yes I agree the web redesign is awful. Not blaming Realclimate as such, because they maybe couldn’t afford the best software redesign, but it would be better to go back to the old software.
FWIW, I the only real problem I have with the redesign is that it still won’t go to new comments on tablet or Android phone. It’s fine on desktop, AFAIC.
Kevin. I just tried my android phone. I just bought a new Samsung phone with the latest Android version. It goes to the exact response, but only if you go though the process twice, which is just ridiculous requiring much scrolling. Like we discussed before with the desktop computer.
I also don’t like the light coloured text and light coloured boxes around replies because its all hard to read. Please, in what way is it an improvement?
And there’s no preview box. How is that an improvement? I liked that box because I could see if html formatting was working properly. I don’t use that much so I need to check.
Agree totally with your comments on equity and colonialism and the rest.
I mean some of the copy and paste text comes out very light coloured and is hard to read.
What Would It Look Like If We Treated Climate Change as an Actual Emergency?
If we accept the facts of climate change, we also have to accept the radical changes necessary to address it.
by Jason Hickel https://twitter.com/jasonhickel/
According to Climate Action Tracker, 73% of existing “net-zero” pledges are weak and inadequate—“lip service to climate action.”
Right now existing government policies (still) have us hurtling toward 2.7 degrees of heating in the coming decades.
Such a world is not compatible with civilization as we know it. The status quo is a death march.
[ The Glasgow COP 26 Climate Pact is a Suicide Pact not a global agreement to make necessary changes. ]
The single most important intervention is the one that so far no government has been willing to touch: cap fossil fuel use and scale it down, on a binding annual schedule, until the industry is mostly dismantled by the middle of the century. That’s it. This is the only fail-safe way to stop climate breakdown. If we want real action, this should be at the very top of our agenda.
[ THIS should have been done back when Kyoto was still a thing … but LIARS and the LAZY won out, where everyone (including the climate scientists) simply laid down, said and did nothing about it. Let’s not rock the boat people. Right? ]
How fast this needs to happen depends on the country. Rich countries are responsible for the overwhelming majority of the excess emissions that are causing climate breakdown. They also have levels of energy use that are vastly higher than other countries, and vastly in excess of what is required to meet human needs, with most of the surplus being diverted to service corporate expansion and elite consumption.
It sounds simultaneously dramatic but also so obvious. Fossil fuels account for three quarters of greenhouse gas emissions, and they have to go.
The tricky part is that once we accept this reality, we have to face up to the fact that scaling down fossil fuels fast enough to avoid catastrophe means fundamentally changing the economy. And I mean fundamentally.
The truth is that rich countries are going to have to get by with less energy. A lot less.
[ meaning – LESS Consumption. Less buying unnecessary products and services. LESS Travel. Fewer Cars. Less GDP. Negative Economic Growth for years possibly decades. But a higher overall standard of living for all. A much smaller Stock Market .. maybe NO stock market? Deflation! Massive systemic changes form top to bottom. The end of what people think is defined as today’s version of Capitalism and Politics in the west and globally. ]
Fortunately, there’s another way. It is possible to keep global heating under 1.5 degrees, but it requires that we shift into emergency mode. And it requires us to be honest with ourselves about the reality of what has to change. No fairy tales.
[ meaning NO more of the fake versions of HOPE such as: COP2 6 made some “real progress” …. and NO MORE of the if you do not believe or agree with the biggest egos in climate science then “you are a Bad Actor doing the bidding of the fossil fuel industry” kind of paranoid delusional BS rhetoric I have heard of late! iow No more Fairy Tales! No more Mystical Thinking either! ]
So, Emergency Crisis Mode …. right?
First, we have to nationalize the fossil fuel industry and the energy companies, bringing them under public control, just like any other essential service or utility.
[ Just like in the weeks and months and Years in the USA post-Pearl Harbor in 1941.. ]
At the same time, we need to scale down less-necessary parts of the economy in order to reduce excess energy demand: SUVs, private jets, commercial air travel, industrial beef, fast fashion, advertising, planned obsolescence, the military industrial complex and so on. We need to focus the economy on what is required for human well-being and ecological stability, rather than on corporate profits and elite consumption.
[ Just like in the weeks and months and Years in the USA post-Pearl Harbor in 1941. And like what the UK and most of Europe and the USSR was like post-September 1939!!! ]
Second, we need to protect people by establishing a firm social foundation—a social guarantee. We need to guarantee universal public healthcare, housing, education, transport, water, and energy and internet, so that everyone has access to the resources they need to live well.
[ A bit like the Covid pandemic …. We’re all in this together! Oh yeah, in our dreams maybe, right? :) ]
How do you pay for a social guarantee? Any government that has monetary sovereignty can fund it by issuing the national currency; think of quantitative easing, but this time for people and the planet.
[ That’s shit easy! It’s been proven to work like a peach. ]
Third, we need to tax the rich out of existence. As Thomas Piketty has pointed out, cutting the purchasing power of the rich is the single most powerful way to reduce excess energy use and emissions. This may sound radical, but think about it: it is irrational—and dangerous—to continue supporting an over-consuming class in the middle of a climate emergency. We cannot allow them to appropriate energy so vastly beyond what anyone could reasonably need.
In addition to cutting excess consumption at the top, this approach will reduce inequality and eliminate the oligarchic power that POLLUTES OUR politics.
[ End of story .. it is that simple, and easy to do. The options of how to do it are known and are endless. ]
Fourth, we need a massive public mobilization to achieve our ecological goals. We need to build our renewable energy capacity, expand public transport, insulate buildings, and regenerate ecosystems. This requires public investment, but it also requires labor. There’s a lot of work to do, and it won’t happen on its own. This is where the climate job guarantee comes in.
Finally, we need a strong commitment to climate reparations. Rich countries have colonized the atmosphere for their own enrichment, while inflicting the majority of the costs onto the global South. This is an act of theft—theft of the atmospheric commons on which we all rely—and it needs to be repaired. We need to support our sisters and brothers in the South who already bear the overwhelming brunt of a catastrophe that they have done little to create.
And renewable technologies should be transferred for free to countries that cannot easily afford them, with patent waivers if needed, to facilitate the fastest possible energy transition globally.
[ Think of it as sending massive shipments of free armaments, oil and food to the UK, Soviet Union, Australia, and China during WW2 …. it’s not rocket science. It’s simply logical and basic common sense! ]
What would such a world look like? Our cynicism and fear would melt into hope and solidarity. We would feel the thrill and camaraderie of being part of something big, something transformative, something together. There would be a lot less needless commodity production, and a lot fewer bullshit jobs. Our society would be more equal, and poverty would be a thing of the past. Our economy would be organized around human needs and resilience rather than around endless capital accumulation. And most importantly, emissions would fall rapidly, year after year, in a dramatic break from the failure of the past several decades. Our planet would begin to heal.
But ultimately we need coordinated action, which is why [something like] the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty is so important. We know that the only way governments will get rid of nuclear weapons is for everyone to agree to do it together. So too with fossil fuels.
It will require an extraordinary struggle against those who benefit so prodigiously from the status quo—as has every movement that has ever changed the world, from the Civil Rights movement to the anti-colonial movement. It requires doing the hard work of community organizing, building wall-to-wall solidarities strong enough to hold up against political attacks.
[ This means that Governments the world over must change, or they will be thrown out of office. Do I hear people;s heads exploding in the distance? Yes, I believe I do! :) ]
This decade is the linchpin of history. We cannot afford to just sit back and wait to see what happens.
[ We have run out of time. Nothing is more important. We have to do whatever it takes. We can no longer afford to lose. And that means taking risks. see https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/11/forced-responses-nov-2021/comment-page-2/#comment-797835
I really appreciate the unexpected synchronicity and coincidences of what just happened above. Remember, sometimes the biggest impetus to sudden massive political action is seeing another failure of bau. That straw that ends up breaking the camels back, kind of thing. An I am not going to take this shit anymore kind of moment. ]
I’m confused, RC, I don’t use twitter but I thought it was limited in how long a comment might be.
Hr Check
I have said the same and you cannot obey..
Entia non multiplicanda præter necessitatem, I wrote.
Perhaps think inn terms of Kiwi and shark and coconut and Kenguru, and how to serve it.. Not all together at the same time, That only confuses people. How to serve a shark, or a Kenguru or a Kiwi?
Svartadaudir, that is the national icelandic Schnapps. It is potatoe- schnapps mixed with grains from Australia, the best they can brew and distill and rinse it. And then only with a dash of 3 allowed national remedies:
1, Carum carvi L. seeds as wild as possible. That gives the Aqva vita. Then
2, Juniperus communis L. berries. That gives the “schenefer” or “Gin”- effect. And then
3, Artemisia vulgaris L The “Vermuth”- or absinth- effect.
Angelicum archangelicum L is not Australian. It is Norways contribution to the worlds pharmacopø, giving the fameous Benedictiner- effect. It is the European Ginseng that cures everything., especially known to cure the great plague, the Svartadaudir in anxient time.
Svartadaudir is Islands sugestion, and with no Kengurus, But they have both horses and sharks. The large Lamna nasus L. is brought on land and buried in the sands on the shore. And the natives piss it down ceremonially.
Then after 3/4 year it is dug out again shredded and hanged in the wind under roof. and when seasoned also in the winds, taken with fish- oil for the Thorrablot festval in the mid- winter with a small glass of proper Svartadaudir for each piece.
That is yhow to use it and to serve it in the climate because they have no Kengurus and Coconuts and Kiwis. But, they exel in very fine berries in the heathers.
Moral:
Try and make it as simple easily obvious as possible for The People and for your visitors- tourists from worldwide in the climate. That will be adored, reported , and visited again. And they pay for it.
What simple easily obvious looks like
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOILZ_D3aRg
Exellent, Thankyou.
You see it rules allready on short distance, and should be settled there first of all.
We have a lot of instructions on this. Do not fill new wine in old sacks. Clean the beacher first on the inside so that it can also be clean on the outside…….
Sorry, here’s the original link to the article, without my zippy commentary. :)
What Would It Look Like If We Treated Climate Change as an Actual Emergency?
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2021/11/what-would-it-look-like-if-we-treated-climate-change-as-an-actual-emergency/
and @zebra, please do get your facts right. It was 12 in a row! Funny thing is, when I stopped, I though I had sent in about half a dozen posts. :)
Please be kind and empathetic because it totally screwed up my plans for the day! Now go forward and contribute something much more useful and on topic like your comment here:
But we may be close to a catastrophic tipping-point, and I don’t mean melting sea-ice or permafrost.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/11/forced-responses-nov-2021/comment-page-2/#comment-797814
Touche! :)
He’s wrong. He often is. It’s very weird to have so many erstwhile allies who are so invested, so serious, knowledgeable, yet still get it wrong.
If you don’t have a true definition of regenerative (aka sustainability on steroids), how do you test your ideas against reality? You cannot. If you don’t fully accept the risk assessment, how do you manage your time frames to meet the risk? If you don’t understand how Nature functions, how do you mimic her?
The most effective way to end a product in market capitalism is stop buying it, Oil is involved in the production of almost everything we produce and do. Stop doing that, oil *industry* collapses. But the wells are still there. Nationalize them as they fail and use them through the transition to create regenerative systems.
Simplicity creates the new system and ends the old one at the same time.
That is “The single most important intervention.” You get emissions down to near zero in years, not decades. Then you have the cryosphere beginning to stabilize by the same time you were intending to end FFs, 2050-2060.
Killian: Simplicity creates the new system and ends the old one at the same time.
RC: I readily agree. How to create the changed Mindset to create the concept of Simplicity being the norm seems the main problem to me – especially when most are living in a world of make believe.
Perhaps more British Columbias more often will do it.
An anecdote: Friend buys cheap arts and crafts nick knacks direct from china for personal use for years now. Free delivery via the post on avg takes 3 weeks, sometimes less. Small letter Package arrived today, it took 5 months and 3 weeks to arrive. Ponder that.
Mr.Reality Check from Australia:
It may come because of Migraine on your bodily private personal side.
If so, then pleace do not perform it and believe that you can cure it here.
Many large prophets and teachers emperors and politicians and saints in history and in the litterature were “diven and inspired” from such and similar physiological and natural difficulties- dis- eases.
Get yourself a facultary diagnosis first in order better to understand yourself and your opinions and standpoint and point of wiew at least, and publish it. Then live 0n and perform further officially according to that.
Then we may be able to show consideration and to serve and to help you better.
There ar good rules published for that category of patients, and traditional medication is light analgetica for the case that your brains explode, and then Tinctura Cannabis from anxient on and today rather Ergotamines.
I myself have now and then faint but obvious visionary symptoms of Migraine and can live with it being enlighted and aware of it, and I do not perform and cure it officially on the websites, in the climate.
Do not project your private pains and diseases and websites on other people in order to cure and enlight yourself.
I can still hear those heads exploding. :)
“We have to move quickly. What we do, I believe, in the next three to four years will determine the future of humanity”. Sir David King. Former Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Government.
Is that fearmongering, exaggerated, motivating or perhaps rage inducing to you?
OK, so back to Roger Hallam and his activist theory in case you missed it before …. good food for thought this:
see from https://youtu.be/f5B9AZ_YKlw?t=370
Who said?
Climate scientists: concept of net zero is a dangerous trap!
https://theconversation.com/climate-scientists-concept-of-net-zero-is-a-dangerous-trap-157368
In 2021 the COP26 at Glasgow has not changed the above prognosis. Nothing much at all changed in Glasgow. Window dressing. Some semantics. A dash of etymology, kick the can down the road yet again, that’s about it.
Except for the fact that many more people have woken up and are going to be much more serious and effective and action orientated from now on in. In ways maybe similar to the big changes in the anti-war movements and protests post-1968 – after the MLK jr and RFK murders, and the Democratic Party convention riots, police brutality and so on.
https://rebellion.global/about-us/
https://fridaysforfuture.org/what-we-do/
https://www.scientistsforxr.earth/about-us
Well, RC, I really appreciate all that stuff you have posted. I don’t have arthritis yet but even just my short replies have made my hands tired. And I didn’t have to read anything from some new contributor to RC since if they did submit a comment, I didn’t see it, because it was buried. Always best to fill up the bandwidth and prevent any crazy new ideas polluting people’s thoughts!
Hr. R Check
I am not so upset about this, knowing that it was also French, who showed that they have a Gendarmerie that can keep demonstrating masses in Paris at distance when it really matters..
The civil participants assembled here in town before going to Paris and I could examine them. Our most fameous climate activist was clearly mad, not adressable. But our lovely former minister of Finance did her best as allways to talk with people. And the sub- director of YARA (the ammonium industries and fertillizers) could tell me essencials of their apatite- resources that are another very critical global resource problem. They showed highly aware of industrial and agriculture ecology. . And Rasmus Benestad could discuss air pollution and photochemical smog.
James Hansen performed in “The Peoples Theater” next door, impossible for anyone further to get in there, and the Climate Surrealists were giving out their “alternative” pamphlets in the hall, He just got scared by seeing me as I have taken him by elementary instrumental cheating before.
So I could whish them all well and give them green litght.
That 1.5 deg was quite a surprize and more than they could hope and pray for according to the mentioned minister, so that is a special French variety of political “doubblethink”. Do not be so upset about that, Remember that it took place in Paris.
I found a recent article from Bjørn Lomborg, who seems not quite mad and surrealistic.
His mission and philosophy, thye point of wiew of an econo9mist, is that climate is not the worst problemj of humanity. Freswater phosphate waste and garbage, threats to food production, powrity and pandemic diseases are worse and more threatening and adaption mitigation may tackle the problems of 2-3 deg. So rather invest effort and money in that before that is too late also.
It makes sense at least. Lomborg seems fully to accept the CO2- AGW- theory and goes for transition to “sustainables” and away with big oil and big coal.
I believe Lomborgs ideas is what can adjust and correct surrealism if I get the chanse to visit and enlight them again. At the moment they have thrown me out and closed their very shop and discuss censorship against them, on their own net, in the mainstream media.
That is indeed a result from recent years. The surrealists are sinking back and together in their own and closed peoples republic.
So thanks France for its proper gendarmerie at home and contributions to worlds civilization, Perhaps also its Legion d`etragers for its honourable retreats elsewhere in the world.
Ladies and Gentlemen
Im can give you alolo a formula of what is going on, climate, capitalism, limits to growth, CO2, global politicfs and sustainability, Permaculture , regeneration and all that.
Formula:
If you want to stop the car then take it by its Nucleus and existencial essence the otto or diesel- motor. Not periphaerically by blocking the roads and stealing the cars and so on.
Youn can do 3 things.
1, turn off the fuel.
2 Block the air inlet, or
3, Plug the exhaust- pipe. Allow no exhaust to come out.
“Hææææææ?” No, Damned…!
The car stops as consequent and pitifully, by all 3 means. Just try it.
3, that was the discharge- permission, mostly forgotten. But as vital and essencial as air for breathing and cheap fuel on the tank for driving.
That exhaust- mjanifold with a pipe out to the atmosphere is the low- pressure side and “reservoir” to the engine. Take that away or stop that, and the very system and engine ceases to run and to work.
Similarly, If you have got House- occupants and need to get them out,….
1, …..Turn off the electricity. They will use candles and gas- cookers.
2, Turn off their freshwater. They carry water.
3, But throw a bitty of concrete into their WV toilet, that was their vital and necessary discard- permission,…. …they vanish!
Discard- permissions is more and more what it is about.
Until quite recently, progressive “scientific” capitalistic observance was not yet aware of that. They only thought in terms of scarce and limited, inlet- resurces and availability, and enough Dollars hard cash currency at hand plus accessible Mafia and corrupt memberships and networks to get access to that.
But it has shown to upgoing and enlighted and experienced people for quite long time allready that the other side or end of it is rather what is becoming more and more scarce and less and less available, more and more expensive, and that even rules over anything else.
The environmentalist moovements have understood it. When you have no access to money, to copper mines coal mines oil wells gas resources and pipelines big “corn” and peanut soya banana coffee Coca and brewery business, then rather take your strangle- grip on the exhaust- pipes, the rubbish, the garbage, and peoples sewage systems, that also has become a more and more scarce and limited resource.
The indulgence letter industries related to this is allready flourishing and was a weighty point in the Glasgow negosiations. How to buy yourself permjissions and paper certificate letters for admission to the worlds restricted capacity for sinful behavious, and those permissions can be purchased furter on the free market as the brand new alternative currency.
I have seen the same 3 times at least, alternative paper currency bills within closed systems when needs were there and hard cash was scarce because it had ran out.
I forgot to mention this was a good comment with several great points I agree with.
Guest (O.) says … 14 Nov 2021 at 11:26 AM
The climate goals must be rephrased into one-year steps and
rephrasing it into one-year steps would mean: reduce emissions by 10% every year.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/11/forced-responses-nov-2021/comment-page-2/#comment-797815
Yes!!! at least 10% ghg reduction per year upon the highest first world emitters is what’s required initially.
And the goals need to be more than a promise. There needs to be some higher level of accountability here. There must be a cost of failure, and a cost to not setting equitable targets to be achieved each year.
The yearly targets must also reflect a scale or degree of responsibility for the impacts of a nations cumulative emissions and a nations capacity (wealth) and obligation to act — 95% of that rests with the top ~20 to 30 highest per capita & cumulative emitting first world nations.
And such a system of accountability must be verified by external third party evaluations. Screw these self-declarations. The current system of self-reporting is totally fraudulent and not to be trusted.
That is surely, delusional thinking on my part, all pie in the sky, Pollyanna fantasy.
Unfortunately bank robbers and drug runners do not volunteer to be stop what they are doing. They do not simply walk away from the riches they are chasing and the riches they have already got and wish to hold onto. Neither do the people running the nations who are most responsible for global heating and the damage being done to others today and tomorrow.
They will need to be forced to comply eventually if anything is ever going to be done. Which is why doing nothing is still the most highly likely outcome of continuing with the UNFCCC global political system
Plus shipping and aviation must be included in the numbers. All emissions and actual ff use must be included, when currently they are not.
Where does aviation emissions get counted? All of it to be set in the airlines home country — because that is where the “profit / corporate reporting” from its operations is to be found. The same could apply to shipping. Whereas any country could to apply Carbon Levies or a Carbon /Import adjustment Tax onto those airlines/shipping companies every time they land or come into port.
another good point was that politicians and whole nations not being accountable.
It is, I posit, precisely why the UNFCCC was designed as it is. For the most powerful first world nations, those most responsible for the harm done, those who have been the main recalcitrant by submitting inadequate goals, threatening to quit, and blocking the most rapid effective actions to stop GHG emissions, so long term they could more easily avoid accountability and responsibility and continue to keep driving their economic and global ambitions.
All fantasy mystical thinking on my part. Not going to happen without some overwhelming irresistible “force” being applied. Someone or something needs to be wielding a very big stick that will inflict substantial national pain for non-compliance.
—
Maybe an alternative solution is progressively applying an agreed global ban to the extraction, transportation and use of fossil fuels? Lining up all the nations in order of culpability for harm caused and applying that Ban to worst egregious emitters first then down the line to finally cover all nations, while tightening the restrictions applied to each nation more and more each year?
No, that’s not going to work either. Everyone knows that psychopathic serial killers do not quit voluntarily nor do they submit to another authority willingly. Meeting with an overwhelming force seems to be the only effective option to make them stop.
But there is no overwhelming global force out there to stop any nations forest destruction, their damaging land use actions, their wasteful excessive consumption of resources, nor their fossil fuel use and overall GHG emissions.
What a pity it isn’t the indigenous peoples of the world who are totally responsible for all this destruction and harm … they’d be wiped out overnight. Problem solved.
By the year is really irrelevant. You gotta do things in the cycles that makes sense for that thing.
RC: “Maybe an alternative solution is progressively applying an agreed global ban to the extraction, transportation and use of fossil fuels?”
That is the long-term goal, right? It will not be total ban – we’ll need FFs for lubricants, plastics, fertilizer?, military jet-fuel, etc.
Shut off FF use today and you’d have billions of deaths from starvation by this time next year. Not to mention armed rebellion against the tyrants.
Still more Marxist “take the means of productinon” claptrap from Reality Check:
There’s one huge problem with this: dislocate people’s lives enough, and they will vote out the government and vote in one which makes their lives bearable in the short term. If the government assumes dictatorial powers, you’ll get a rebellion instead.
If you want a collapse of infrastructure and population, you might be onto something. You’re also a monster.
This goes without saying. But what kind of changes, at what rate, is fundamental to the question. There are any number of ways of accomplishing this end, and on the list is simply destroying large populations and their fossil-powered infrastructure; that’s essentially what Stalin did with the Holodomor. But you have to recognize one crucial thing: energy != fossil fuels.
All forms of “renewables” embody lots of fossil energy, and thus carbon. Reducing quartz to silicon takes carbon. Steel towers require a reductant for the iron and a massive concrete base, and wind turbine blades require petroleum-based resins. Getting to zero is far more difficult than it looks… at least by the “green” path.
Ironically, the most-effective carbon-free option is also the safest: nuclear energy. It uses something like 1/6 the steel and 1/10 the concrete required to get the same amount of energy from wind. The problem is that the historical method of building nuclear energy at large scale requires infrastructure that is rare world-wide (massive forges to make the heavy reactor vessels) and is subscribed years in advance. Doing a rapid roll-out of nuclear energy requires a re-think.
Ideally, a shift to nuclear power would be done with an eye toward re-using as much exising infrastructure as possible, not only for cost reasons, but to avoid the GHG emissions associated with replacing it. There happens to be a technology which can work as a drop-in replacement for coal-fired boilers: pebble-bed modular reactors, either gas-cooled or lead-cooled. It appears that gas-cooled PBMRs could be built using prestressed cast-iron construction pressure-vessel containers which could be made by almost any foundry, and lead cooling requires no pressure vessel at all.
I’ve done an analysis of the coal-fired 4-plex of plants at Monroe MI, and concluded that each 850 MW(e) unit likely requires about 2600 MW(t) to drive it (I can’t find straight heat-rate figures so I had to make an inference). This could be done with 9 300 MW(t) PBMRs each. At a core size of 3.5 m diameter and 10 meters tall, 9 units spaced 10 meters on-center with a 5-meter distance to the outer wall could be housed in a building barely larger than 30×30 meters. The steam generators and reheaters would probably be larger than the reactors themselves. I have to do some more analysis on this and make a few phone calls to foundries to get some idea of feasible production rate, but it wouldn’t surprise me if a 10%/year coal-boiler replacement rate is feasible for the electric sector; the total amount of material required is minuscule compared to other consumption.
There is a further advantage to the use of nuclear energy. Fuel is a tiny part of the total cost and nuclear physics considerations make it desirable to run it at 100% all the time, so if the system is designed to meet peak load it will have lots of excess capacity the rest of the time. This excess capacity can be used to de-carbonize things that don’t usually run on electricity, pushing the decarbonization effort even faster.
Best of all, repowering an economy with nuclear heat replacing fossil-carbon heat will not replace governments or incite rebellions. It will let things keep while we decide our next moves.
While this may be desirable in the interest of reducing the GINI coefficient and thus political instability, since energy != fossil fuels not just the rich countries but ALL countries can have lots of energy without breaking the climate. It will make it easier to fix the existing problem, because nobody is going to complain about nuclear energy being used to mine, crush and spread dunite to take CO2 out of the atmosphere and de-acidify the oceans if they have plenty of energy themselves. This is not possible in a world where fossil and “renewables” are all there is, and all are in demand for immediate needs.
Oh, FFS. No. Just… NO! That’s what Venezuela did. Would you want to live in today’s Venezuela? Would you want to FORCE billions of people to live in today’s Venezuela? If so, you’re a monster.
A “fair” but rapidly-shrinking share of fossil energy? Rebellion, I tell you. Get. A. Clue.
See? THIS is what happens when you eliminate the preview and don’t have HTML checking.
BACK OUT THESE CRAPPY CHANGES ALEADY!
Would you want to live in today’s Venezuela? Would you want to FORCE billions of people to live in today’s Venezuela? If so, you’re a monster.
OK, so you’re clueless about the world. Fine. I am not the monster.
And stop being so stupid to assign all these copy and pastes from referenced original material / various ideas out there misrepresenting it AS IF I was the one who said it …… You. Get. A. Clue!
I do not want to FORCE billions of people to live in the dysfunctional corrupt shit hole basket case of today’s United States of America!
See, there is proof I am no monster!
And you missed the bits where I included the ideas of Governments everywhere Nationalizing the entire Fossil Fuel Industry as being an immediate logical part of the solution. :)
correction, sorry …. E-P didn’t miss “nationalize the fossil fuel industry”
While I cannot predict the future, where or when, I believe once the unavoidable coming social disruptions become entrenched in society, the food water power shortages are regular and common place, and the govt security forces lose control, then rebellion and violence is all but guaranteed to follow in one place after another. As the global supply chains increasingly falter the disruptions in other countries will spread like a dominoes falling.
imho these things need to be faced up to, openly discussed and addressed. And soon. We’ve already run out of time.
1,000,000 Dominoes Falling is Oddly Satisfying
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQQN_79QrDY
It’s only Physics! :)
More solutions:
8. The 15-minute city, as our success or failure to solve the climate emergency depends on how we organize our living and work in urban areas:
https://mayorsofeurope.eu/news/paris-mayor-unveils-15-minute-city-plan-in-re-election-campaign/
9. Integrated energy – mobility/farming/manufacturing/…clean, renewable systems:
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/14/1054942590/solar-energy-colorado-garden-farm-land
10. One of the most wicked problems to solve is the economy. We need a radical change, but we don’t seem to agree on what to experiment with, urgently. We also need a much better answer to the questions: what is the economy for, how do we measure its performance, what space should it occupy in human society, how do ensure that it functions based on the laws of nature, etc. Here is one that recognizes the need to function on the laws of nature and within planetary boundaries:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/degrowth-case-for-constructing-new-economic-paradigm/
Reflections on COP26 “We will have to find new methods to ensure that our elected representatives change their minds and practices “
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wczb8CJ-cO0
Deputy PM “In the meantime, we’ve got to make a buck.”
Activists have staged the 10th day of protests in the NSW Hunter region, stopping coal-laden trains from entering the world’s largest coal terminal, the Port of Newcastle.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2021-11-15/coal-protests-disrupt-exports-port-of-newcastle/100620614
#InsulateBritain Emma speaks after trial today
https://twitter.com/bearwitness2019/status/1460695200028930056
No surprises in the above. What is somewhat surprising to me overall, after not looking at the topic for several years, is the how common it is in the public domain now for otherwise long respected credible climate scientists (as far as scientific papers are concerned) to quickly abandon their long practiced scientific method, the critical importance of observations, data and facts with a nuanced expert analysis of same etc. when they decide to venture out into the arena of policy, presenting their preferred socio-political actions to address climate change (mitigation etc); including their personal conclusions about how bad and how fast the short term impacts are going to be (or will not be) and what this means in practical real life terms to the many different societies around the world.
The range of views is stunningly broad. There is no consensus anywhere to be seen except among like minded smaller groupings of working academics and scientists .. there are cliques who talk among themselves but otherwise are isolated from all others. The arguments/disagreements world views that do occasionally appear in public indicate the deep undercurrents of animosity now endemic in climate related circles. The faux politeness is often quite palpable.
Similar to how Hansen pointed out the scientific reticence in his peers over a decade ago and how that manifested such as his name never being mentioned in “polite circles” or sneered at if it was. It’s as if whole groups of scientists no longer even exist to some other groups. Even when names are mentioned responses can deny their existence by silence.
The other thing I have noticed is the reticence of almost all scientists to use clear descriptive terms what exactly +1.5C, or +2C or a plus 2.5C or worse, of tipping points happening will actually look like… and then what they will cause. How it would manifest / appear in peoples lived experiences, what those impacts would really cause in the different regions and societies in which they live today.
They tend to not go past sterile terms such as heatwaves, droughts, floods, heavy precip, agricultural / food disruption and so on. These generic descriptions are not fit for purpose imv. It can amount to meaningless they are so vague. I suspect it’s intentional. Maybe there is some truth to the idea a desire to “not rock the boat” pervades the whole sector.
The same as they continue to only talk about global mean surface temps and never address the real issues of actual real world temperatures – both averages and maximums happening now and when the global mean hits 2C. The real world in which people live and work does not exist in a theoretical averaging of a +1.5C or 2C or a 3C GMST world. Is this one of the reasons why Greta, the FFF, XR and so many others are first demanding govts, scientists, everyone, start telling the truth?
What I am saying is there is a distinct and consistent lack of meaning being conveyed in what the majority of climate scientists and various reports say….. especially about near term growing impacts and adaption needs at local and regional levels of society across the nations of the world.
eg it is meaningless to say 90% of coral reefs will be gone when temps pass 2C ….. what needs to be said is what they actually MEANS to both life in the oceans and to humanity and biodiversity and the HARM that is going to do globally and locally.
Food and water insecurity does not mean sometimes the shop shelves are partially empty, it means people will be murdered and women raped. It means social collapse, violence, gangs and theft. Houses being burnt down and no police or fire-brigades operating. It means no water coming out of your kitchen taps. Sewerage systems not working. Businesses shuttering and mass unemployment, sickness and deaths.
And what happens when a minority do provide descriptive meanings; they are often immediately set upon publicly by self-appointed gatekeepers with ad hominem attacks, dismissed as being “unscientific” (without any evidence to support such a claim) or labelled as extreme radicals or otherwise silenced (blocked on social media), ignored and eventually ostracized by their peers. And privately blacklisted and/or gaslighted to journalists who are told to ignore them as unreliable outliers.
So let’s not rock the boat people. We must remain optimistic, select only the best possible outcomes, and always be hopeful no matter what the evidence, reason and facts or the historical lessons and experts in other fields than climate science data and the models, specifically, might suggest. :)
“We have to move quickly. What we do, I believe, in the next three to four years will determine the future of humanity”. Sir David King. Former Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Government.
Like, what does that supposed to mean? It means there comes a point in time which when passed it no longer matters what governments decide to do or say at a COP meeting.
Catastrophic compounding and cascading disasters become impossible to stop, avoid, mitigate or adapt to. BAU and the status quo disappear, suddenly, almost overnight for some. Societal collapse in varying degrees of disorder and harm depending on location (and Luck) become embedded in the new interconnected climatic and human systems that are now operating.
Literally nothing can now be done to change or shift the trend. This new trend becomes reality.
It might happen in 3 to 4 years as Kings suggests. Might take a decade, or possibly two decades. No one knows. Science doesn’t know. Scientists cannot make these kinds of predictions. You should know that already. But collectively Science and scientists can definitely observe and record a Trend, a likelihood with a degree of confidence, statistically. Even in human behavior they can do that reasonably well.
Surely it is obvious we have already, collectively, run out of time. Which ever year the “tipping point is”, the year this “point of no return is”, is utterly irrelevant now.
But no. This is not the case. It’s been agreed and accepted that continuing to discuss 2050 and 2100 is quite acceptable and rational. Even the overwhelming majority of Climate Scientists appear to agree with this fact. I base this conclusion of the evidence of their collective silence and inaction.
“When all are guilty, no one is; confessions of collective guilt are the best possible safeguard against the discovery of culprits, and the very magnitude of the crime the best excuse for doing nothing. ”
― Hannah Arendt
Cheers. Be Happy. Dance like no one is looking! :)
“Good can be radical; evil can never be radical, it can only be extreme, for it possesses neither depth nor any demonic dimension yet–and this is its horror–it can spread like a fungus over the surface of the earth and lay waste the entire world. Evil comes from a failure to think. It defies thought for as soon as thought tries to engage itself with evil and examine the premises and principles from which it originates, it is frustrated because it finds nothing there. That is the banality of evil.”
― Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil
“Before mass leaders seize the power to fit reality to their lies, their propaganda is marked by its extreme contempt for facts as such, for in their opinion fact depends entirely on the power of man who can fabricate it.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism
Here, try this one then. Many things get done, no one ever talks about them or implements them at places like COP26 …. can v road.
Page 22 .. WHAT COULD AN EQUITABLE FOSSIL FUEL PHASE OUT LOOK LIKE?
http://civilsocietyreview.org/report2021/
CSO Equity Review on a globally just fossil fuel phaseout, which shows (1) country fair shares of climate action – US falls way short; (2) how & why countries should phase out FF on different timelines, some w/intl support.
Plus, stop blaming India for the text changes …. iow stop believing proven liars. In particular the USA in general and whoever sits in the oval office from time to time in particular.
Already seeing articles blaming India for #COP26 “phase down” instead of “out” coal language. REALLY important to see full context here. The problem is not India; the problem is the US & rich countries refusing to couch fossil fuel phaseout in the context of global equity.
https://twitter.com/brandoncwu/status/1459620330515935243
Do you own a car? You do realize that the US only spews 13% of the global CO2 each year, right?
If you own a car, will you walk your talk and give it away, take it to the recycler to be crushed, or sell it TODAY?
Are you in the USA? Is your heat or electricity produced using FFs? What is your t-stat setting? What is the temperature outside now?
Jason Hickel – For me the main implication of this paper is that capitalism isn’t going to cut it. The system devours the planet and yet fails to meet basic needs. Why? Because it is organized around corporate profit and elite accumulation rather than human well-being.
Previous research has shown that no country currently meets the basic needs of its residents at a level of resource use that could be sustainably extended to all people globally. Using the doughnut-shaped ‘safe and just space’ framework, we analyse the historical dynamics of 11 social indicators and 6 biophysical indicators across more than 140 countries from 1992 to 2015.
full access – The social shortfall and ecological overshoot of nations
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-021-00799-z.epdf?sharing_token=8_Gm1d5Z5cpYt7JQpiGLH9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PBFqS1dj0Hsy99C3sXCTdz0C3eELLP0TYfVupJ0kdy5lCAd5IEbQdwOr57m6ELwGeW6O49KgPwNVV2Hkay67MqiU2ojjWFfdy55h1kadG3hT5UUHzN1eKY4-n1QYi1LCk%3D
Andrew Fanning
Actions needed to reverse current trends and move towards the Doughnut of social and planetary boundaries clearly depend on the extent of a country’s social shortfall and/or ecological overshoot.
with USA timeline graphic
https://twitter.com/AndrewLFanning/status/1461370133658537986
To the IPCC WGIII group, and to conservative centrist climate scientists who refuse to consider the notion of degrowth as a viable economic alternative pathway to survival of human societies/civilization in a rapidly warming world papers and concepts like the one above simply do not exist.