Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[DragonWatch]

We have talked about this since I was a child.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/clim...9be954-233e-11ea-bed5-880264cc91a9_story.html

FYI ~ comments above about leadership. This nation has not experienced good leadership since the sixties, if ever. I have been a leader from the front, and the rear. I have mentored leadership since childhood including as an assistant professor in leadership at the college level. My preferred position is from the rear or the person that takes action for the better of all ~ NOT me.

When a religion has banked 111 billion, and their truth is the only truth. They are gambling humanity will become extinct and choose to guarantee it. Problem with this dogma is the extinction of most life as we think we know it. I like the word dogma; except it is an insult to our loving Sadie ~ blak-ish lab/hound mix.

 

[mspohr]

Australia climate denial

McCormack concedes Australia must do more to fight climate crisis – but links fires to 'self-combusting manure'

“Climate change is not the only factor that has caused these fires. There has been dry lightning strikes, there has been self-combusting piles of manure, there has been a lot of arsonists out there causing fire.”

He added: “For those running around saying we should abandon coal right now, what are we going to do with our electricity over summer if we shut them all down today? Coal provides almost two-thirds of our energy needs.”

 

[mspohr]

100% Wind, Water, & Solar Energy Can & Should Be The Goal, Costs Less | CleanTechnica

Is it gonna be costly? Oh, yeah. The team figures about $73 trillion will be needed to get it done worldwide. But that’s hardly the end of the financial discussion. They say the world can get to 80% renewable energy by 2030 and complete the transition by 2050. And doing so will pay some pretty hefty dividends — money that can be used to offset the cost. Global energy needs would be reduced by 57%. That in turn would reduce the amount of money the world spends on energy each year from $17.7 trillion to $6.6 trillion, a savings of $12.1 trillion a year. But it’s the social cost savings that are truly staggering — you know, things like death and disease caused by pollution from burning fossil fuels. The team pegs those costs at $76 trillion a year now but claims they will be reduced to $6.8 trillion annually by transitioning to 100% clean energy

 

[DragonWatch]

We have talked about this since I was a child.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/clim...9be954-233e-11ea-bed5-880264cc91a9_story.html

FYI ~ comments above about leadership. This nation has not experienced good leadership since the sixties, if ever. I have been a leader from the front, and the rear. I have mentored leadership since childhood including as an assistant professor in leadership at the college level. My preferred position is from the rear or the person that takes action for the better of all ~ NOT me.

When a religion has banked 111 billion, and their truth is the only truth. They are gambling humanity will become extinct and choose to guarantee it. Problem with this dogma is the extinction of most life as we think we know it. I like the word dogma; except it is an insult to our loving Sadie ~ blak-ish lab/hound mix.

As to leadership as discussed by me. Please note that at no time did I say I was myself either good or bad as a leader. Like art, that would be in the eye of the beholder.

There are two peeks, the high and the low. The academy breeds that publicly wanted me out and ones that asked to join my commands or pulled me aside to acknowledge how I positively changed their lives. Full disclosure ~ I never had financial gains for my leadership style or publications.

 

[rays427]

100% Wind, Water, & Solar Energy Can & Should Be The Goal, Costs Less | CleanTechnica

Is it gonna be costly? Oh, yeah. The team figures about $73 trillion will be needed to get it done worldwide. But that’s hardly the end of the financial discussion. They say the world can get to 80% renewable energy by 2030 and complete the transition by 2050. And doing so will pay some pretty hefty dividends — money that can be used to offset the cost. Global energy needs would be reduced by 57%. That in turn would reduce the amount of money the world spends on energy each year from $17.7 trillion to $6.6 trillion, a savings of $12.1 trillion a year. But it’s the social cost savings that are truly staggering — you know, things like death and disease caused by pollution from burning fossil fuels. The team pegs those costs at $76 trillion a year now but claims they will be reduced to $6.8 trillion annually by transitioning to 100% clean energy

These numbers seem unreal. The total worldwide estimated GDP for 2019 is $88 trillion. So if we are going to save $76 trillion a year then worldwide GDP would drop to $12 trillion. In addition if this $76 trillion is based on saving lives then the number of folks will spike and we will need a whole lot of extra energy. The only cost of world energy I could find was from 2011 and it was around $6 trillion. Oil price at that time was over $100 per barrel so I would assume that the current cost for energy is less unless renewables are causing one heck of a spike.

 

[ohmman]

In addition if this $76 trillion is based on saving lives then the number of folks will spike and we will need a whole lot of extra energy.

This is the first time I've heard the "we need climate change to kill a lot of the population or they'll use too much energy" argument.

 

[nwdiver]

In addition if this $76 trillion is based on saving lives then the number of folks will spike and we will need a whole lot of extra energy.

We don't have a deficit of energy. We have a surplus of stupid. Solar is effectively infinitely scalable, with no real resource bottlenecks and the cost declines ~20% for every doubling of production. There will be resource barriers to population growth but energy won't be one of them.... so long as we stop behaving like morons.

 

[David_Cary]

This is the first time I've heard the "we need climate change to kill a lot of the population or they'll use too much energy" argument.

I think it was air/water pollution they were referring - which in the short term is a lot more than climate change unless I am missing something.

I think some of those dollar savings are over years and some are per year. Which gets fairly confusing unless really spelled out. The $76 trillion in savings is probably over 20 or 30 years - like from now until 2050.

And the savings are probably calculated like $1 million for every child saved - although that doesn't mean that child would have produced $1M. And if they did, it was over 80 years.

 

[winfield100]

We don't have a deficit of energy. We have a surplus of stupid. Solar is effectively infinitely scalable, with no real resource bottlenecks and the cost declines ~20% for every doubling of production. There will be resource barriers to population growth but energy won't be one of them.... so long as we stop behaving like morons.

@nwdiver
Dr Richard Perez of SUNY is a most excellent resource.
Did you read his paper on how the great blackout of ?2003? In the NE US could have been avoided with ~500 megawatts of PV, costing _less_ than the losses of the blackout, and be producing free energy additionally.
Think I saw him at a solar conference at Geo Wash Univ in wash DC, maybe 10-15 years back
Excellent speaker, very knowledgeable
Perez.page

 

[mspohr]

I think it was air/water pollution they were referring - which in the short term is a lot more than climate change unless I am missing something.

I think some of those dollar savings are over years and some are per year. Which gets fairly confusing unless really spelled out. The $76 trillion in savings is probably over 20 or 30 years - like from now until 2050.

And the savings are probably calculated like $1 million for every child saved - although that doesn't mean that child would have produced $1M. And if they did, it was over 80 years.

More from TFA

We have to slash carbon emissions by 55% over the next 10 years or we are all dead ducks. That includes the billionaires who frolic in Davos as well as the migrants who congregate at national borders.

Add those two together and you get $80 trillion a year in benefits. Multiply that by the 10 years between now and 2030 and the transition to clean energy could save the world $800 trillion in avoidable costs. And, of course, all the energy generated by renewables won’t be given away. It will be sold at market prices, bringing in trillions more dollars.

But let’s say you’re a skeptic. Okay, cut those estimates in half. You still wind up with more than $400 trillion in savings over a decade on an investment of $76 trillion — more than a 500% return on your investment. What person wouldn’t jump at that deal?

Oh, you can’t put an accurate price on social costs, you say? Fine, ask yourself this question: How much would you pay to give your children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren a sustainable world where they can live long and productive lives free of cognitive impairment, emphysema, cardiovascular disease, and pulmonary issues? If you said “nothing,” stop reading immediately and go order yourself a MAGA hat.

 

[DragonWatch]

What the . . . does this have to do with climate change?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...3dc6ce-113f-11ea-9cd7-a1becbc82f5e_story.html

As the population expansions fewer and fewer will enjoy the spoils of expansion. We, as humans will destroy all that once will have been ~ extreme extinction.

Thanks to my wife, she came with an Irish setter. After the age of seventy, and six beautiful loving dogs ~ we are focusing on smaller dogs. What I observed over the years was that breakers “F’d” up the Irish setter bread. To the point that despite our age and desire for smaller dogs ~ we more than likely will never get another pure bread. The temperament was the first noticeable flaw. The last dog court actually not stomach store bought food. I had to prepare in large batches, organic chicken, vegetables and oatmeal.

The same will happen with the critters required to produce fur coats. Look at the bison ~ if you can find one.

Since man did not creat hell; can you name the country most engulfed in the flames of hell right now?

 

[ohmman]

I think it was air/water pollution they were referring - which in the short term is a lot more than climate change unless I am missing something.

I think some of those dollar savings are over years and some are per year. Which gets fairly confusing unless really spelled out. The $76 trillion in savings is probably over 20 or 30 years - like from now until 2050.

And the savings are probably calculated like $1 million for every child saved - although that doesn't mean that child would have produced $1M. And if they did, it was over 80 years.

You're correct that it appears they're simply using air pollution to determine mortality numbers. They attribute 90% of air-pollution related mortality to energy emissions (seemingly a bit aggressive), and used data from 2013 for their estimates. I have seen different climate-related mortality numbers in other studies, usually associated with flooding and forced migration. This study doesn't include that data.

Original study is here.

Here are the charts they use to support their $/kWh societal cost metrics. I just paste them here because I am terribly annoyed to see a line chart representing different countries on the X axis. They imply a trend, but independent countries aren't a time series.

 

[mspohr]

You're correct that it appears they're simply using air pollution to determine mortality numbers. They attribute 90% of air-pollution related mortality to energy emissions (seemingly a bit aggressive), and used data from 2013 for their estimates. I have seen different climate-related mortality numbers in other studies, usually associated with flooding and forced migration. This study doesn't include that data.

Original study is here.

Here are the charts they use to support their $/kWh societal cost metrics. I just paste them here because I am terribly annoyed to see a line chart representing different countries on the X axis. They imply a trend, but independent countries aren't a time series.

Lack of basic graphing skills.

 

[David_Cary]

I think when you try to justify climate costs with fanciful "avoided costs" than include a $ value for people's lives in faraway places, you lose the average person.The empathy just doesn't travel that far.
What it looks like is elites trying to make my gas and beef more expensive. And don't get me started on those darn windmills......

And of course, looking at air pollution mortality numbers, there really isn't a faraway cost. My diesel with emissions cheats in my rural area isn't killing anyone in the Philippines. Yet you took my VW diesel away.

And to be fair, the India and Philippine problem, is not likely fixable with any US action. Yet you are trying (I think) to justify the GND based on $ mortality numbers from there. How do you think that is going to work out for the average voter?

We may all agree on the desired endpoint but how to get there is a really tough question - a political and financial question.

 

[winfield100]

I think when you try to justify climate costs with fanciful "avoided costs" than include a $ value for people's lives in faraway places, you lose the average person.The empathy just doesn't travel that far.
What it looks like is elites trying to make my gas and beef more expensive. And don't get me started on those darn windmills......

And of course, looking at air pollution mortality numbers, there really isn't a faraway cost. My diesel with emissions cheats in my rural area isn't killing anyone in the Philippines. Yet you took my VW diesel away.

And to be fair, the India and Philippine problem, is not likely fixable with any US action. Yet you are trying (I think) to justify the GND based on $ mortality numbers from there. How do you think that is going to work out for the average voter?

We may all agree on the desired endpoint but how to get there is a really tough question - a political and financial question.

@David_Cary
I cannot tell if your comment is sarcastic sardonic or serious
My spouse has asthma,
I’ve been “coal rolled” a bunch of times
Are you old enough to have driven in LosAngeles, or New York City or similar in the early 1970’s?
When you could see particulates floating in the air, and not see a mountain literally right next to you
Flown into Houston Texas and remarked “what’s that brown bubble surrounding the city”
And other cities.
We are so immersed in pollution, we don’t see it
We used to be warned not to pick fruits or food next to highways to avoid the lead poisoning from the tetraethyl lead emissions of cars.

 

[mspohr]

I think when you try to justify climate costs with fanciful "avoided costs" than include a $ value for people's lives in faraway places, you lose the average person.The empathy just doesn't travel that far.
What it looks like is elites trying to make my gas and beef more expensive. And don't get me started on those darn windmills......

And of course, looking at air pollution mortality numbers, there really isn't a faraway cost. My diesel with emissions cheats in my rural area isn't killing anyone in the Philippines. Yet you took my VW diesel away.

And to be fair, the India and Philippine problem, is not likely fixable with any US action. Yet you are trying (I think) to justify the GND based on $ mortality numbers from there. How do you think that is going to work out for the average voter?

We may all agree on the desired endpoint but how to get there is a really tough question - a political and financial question.

So, you are saying that people don't care about getting sick and dying from pollution?

 

[mspohr]

Latest from the idiot:

‘I never understood wind’: Trump goes on bizarre tirade against wind turbines
“They’re made in China and Germany mostly,” Trump said of wind turbines, of which there are more than 57,000 across the US, according to the American Wind Energy Association. “But they’re manufactured tremendous if you’re into this, tremendous fumes. Gases are spewing into the atmosphere. You know we have a world, right? So the world is tiny compared to the universe. So tremendous, tremendous amount of fumes and everything.

“You talk about the carbon footprint, fumes are spewing into the air, right? Spewing. Whether it’s in China, Germany, it’s going into the air. It’s our air, their air, everything, right?”

 

[Webeevdrivers]

Latest from the idiot:

‘I never understood wind’: Trump goes on bizarre tirade against wind turbines
“They’re made in China and Germany mostly,” Trump said of wind turbines, of which there are more than 57,000 across the US, according to the American Wind Energy Association. “But they’re manufactured tremendous if you’re into this, tremendous fumes. Gases are spewing into the atmosphere. You know we have a world, right? So the world is tiny compared to the universe. So tremendous, tremendous amount of fumes and everything.

“You talk about the carbon footprint, fumes are spewing into the air, right? Spewing. Whether it’s in China, Germany, it’s going into the air. It’s our air, their air, everything, right?”

And he will most likely be voted in again. We are at our place in Palm Springs right now. Most neighbours speak of this guy as the chosen one. Especially the religious ones and the older women. Some want to see the two term limit removed so he can be president for life. The whole thing is bizarre.

 

[ohmman]

I think when you try to justify climate costs with fanciful "avoided costs" than include a $ value for people's lives in faraway places, you lose the average person.The empathy just doesn't travel that far.

I have said a few times that I think the biggest challenge with real climate change action is that the effect is too far separated from the cause. Humans respond to incentives (and disincentives) but typically only if they're really, really close to each other. While I don't think that a revenue-neutral carbon tax fixes everything, nor would it be my sole or first choice for action (prohibitive legislation with weaning would probably be), I do think it brings those incentives front and center to consumers, and would be a faster, more acceptable method of changing behavior.

Some of us care about future generations, regardless of whether they're blood relatives, local to us, or on the other side of the world. But you're right that you can't make everyone care about them. You have to bring those costs right under the noses of consumers. We're all climate hypocrites to some degree or another. We need our choices to have the proper incentive directly in front of us. We humans are too dumb to connect the longer dots.

 

[JRP3]

We are at our place in Palm Springs right now.

You're getting an extremely distorted viewpoint.