Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[Norbert]

That is precisely one of their powers... Accusing them of political motivation solves nothing - especially without proof.

Accusing the last republican president of calling climate change a hoax, or accusing republican senators (plus Manchin) of not reflecting the intent of the voters (including republican voters) regarding solar, may also solve nothing. I would say that in general, the republican party prioritizes the interests of the oil and coal industry over the need to prevent climate change. I'm wondering if you would agree with that in general. And I'm wondering if you have the same priority. Still speaking in general, I also think that this priority of the republican party is primarily a political priority, not a perceived constitutional obligation.

Given for example all the science and scientific explanations that have already happened, I'm not sure what could change the position of the republican party. Maybe you would have an idea. So it seems to be more about understanding what happens, first. Because then it might be easier to "solve" something.

 

[JRP3]

Corporate media working with big oil to clean up their image but not the environment.

 

[DrLOAC]

That is precisely one of their powers... Accusing them of political motivation solves nothing - especially without proof.

It’s blatantly obvious SCOTUS is playing Calvinball with the law. They have a desired partisan result and pick the argument or even outright make up the facts to reach that result.

 

[Norbert]

So... how much of a "major question" is the coal industry?

It appears that both the percentage of electricity generation from coal, and the job numbers in the coal industry, are in rapid decline and trending towards zero-like in 10 - 20 years, resulting mostly from mere economic competition.

This is assuming that the number of coal-dependent jobs will be proportional to the direct number of coal-mining jobs. The number of coal-dependent jobs includes for example transportation, and is a multiple of coal-mining itself. However that is also a reason why coal will remain too expensive and is heading downward economically. The April 2022 numbers are less than a quarter of the 1985 numbers.

So the states most affected need to work on alternatives for their employment numbers right now. The future of coal is already a myth, and will soon be like floppy disks for computers, Cathode Ray Tubes for TV sets, Vinyl records for music, or VHS tapes for recording movies.

Attempts to push coal via lobbying will only result in people being misdirected into dead-end jobs. At least one article had the impression that the coal industry already needs to pay high wages in order to find people willing to (still) work in this industry. Apparently these jobs aren't as valuable as they might seem to be. Keeping coal is wasteful, artifical, and generally pointless. And not worth the indirect cost of climate change.

So what will replace coal? While it is good for solar to have natural gas power plants in stand-by as a complement (until battery tech is ready), for obvious reasons it would be much better to avoid an increase in the fuel consumption of natural gas. So increase solar as quickly as possible to cover the loss of electricity from coal.

Therefore I would think this is the right time to support solar both as an investment in CO2 reduction as well as as a bridge to future electricity generation, avoiding wasteful detours into technologies that will become obsolete later on.

 

[eevee-fan]

So... how much of a "major question" is the coal industry?

It appears that both the percentage of electricity generation from coal, and the job numbers in the coal industry, are in rapid decline and trending towards zero-like in 10 - 20 years, resulting mostly from mere economic competition.

This is assuming that the number of coal-dependent jobs will be proportional to the direct number of coal-mining jobs. The number of coal-dependent jobs includes for example transportation, and is a multiple of coal-mining itself. However that is also a reason why coal will remain too expensive and is heading downward economically. The April 2022 numbers are less than a quarter of the 1985 numbers.

So the states most affected need to work on alternatives for their employment numbers right now. The future of coal is already a myth, and will soon be like floppy disks for computers, Cathode Ray Tubes for TV sets, Vinyl records for music, or VHS tapes for recording movies.

Attempts to push coal via lobbying will only result in people being misdirected into dead-end jobs. At least one article had the impression that the coal industry already needs to pay high wages in order to find people willing to (still) work in this industry. Apparently these jobs aren't as valuable as they might seem to be. Keeping coal is wasteful, artifical, and generally pointless. And not worth the indirect cost of climate change.

So what will replace coal? While it is good for solar to have natural gas power plants in stand-by as a complement (until battery tech is ready), for obvious reasons it would be much better to avoid an increase in the fuel consumption of natural gas. So increase solar as quickly as possible to cover the loss of electricity from coal.

Therefore I would think this is the right time to support solar both as an investment in CO2 reduction as well as as a bridge to future electricity generation, avoiding wasteful detours into technologies that will become obsolete later on.

Yep, with automation and machinery, the job numbers are dismal. The locals know it but the media spins it as a job creator in the area. The real reason is investor profits of those in power.

 

[RSpanner]

THIS>

UK to award £54M to 15 projects developing innovative carbon removal technology​

UK to award £54M to 15 projects developing innovative carbon removal technology

The UK government is awarding £54 million to 15 projects to develop technologies that remove carbon emissions from the atmosphere. The money will help projects further develop their greenhouse gas removal technologies, which include a machine that can pull carbon dioxide out of the air, a plant...

www.greencarcongress.com

Not being up to date at all, I wonder if anything like this is going on the the old U.S of A. ?

 

[RSpanner]

Sure, they blocked Trump's termination of the "Dreamers" executive order. Conservative judges follow the law and the Constitution, not politics.

It was a 5-4 decision by the SC. Now it is a packed court and not going in that direction again.

 

[Norbert]

Yep, with automation and machinery, the job numbers are dismal. The locals know it but the media spins it as a job creator in the area. The real reason is investor profits of those in power.

And electricity generation from coal is also heading towards zero within 10 - 20 years if the trend that started around 2007 continues. It is now less than half of the 2007 amount.

Apparently, as of 2020, no more new coal plants are planned in the US, and the last one just completed was a very small one in Alaska. Many exisiting coal plants will reach the end of their expected life span in the coming years. The coal industry ran out of reasons to justify its existence, even if some act like they need to protect or revive the heart of America or something. Even if last century coal helped to bring about the industrialization, it is now time to say good bye coal.

 

[Norbert]

Many here may have read the original version. This is a fresh update.

The CO2 problem in six easy steps (2022 Update)

RealClimate: The CO2 problem in six easy steps (2022 Update)

RealClimate: An update to one of most-read older posts.

www.realclimate.org

 

[mspohr]

Opinion | New Climate Promises, Same Old Global Warming

“Net zero emissions” sounds like an ambitious goal, but for most corporations, it’s just kicking the can down the road.

www.nytimes.com

 

[mspohr]

Nearly $2tn of damage inflicted on other countries by US emissions

Research puts US ahead of China, Russia, India and Brazil in terms of global damage as climate expert says numbers ‘very stark’

www.theguardian.com

The US has inflicted more than $1.9tn in damage to other countries from the effects of its greenhouse gas emissions, according to a new analysis that has provided the first measurement of nations’ liability in stoking the climate crisis.

The huge volume of planet-heating gases pumped out by the US, the largest historical emitter, has caused such harm to other, mostly poor, countries through heatwaves, crop failures and other consequences that the US is responsible for $1.91tn in lost global income since 1990, the study found.


This puts the US ahead of China, currently the world’s leading emitter, Russian, India and Brazil as the next largest contributors to global economic damage through their emissions. Combined, these five leading culprits have caused a total of $6tn in losses worldwide, or about 11% of annual global GDP, since 1990 by fueling climate breakdown.

 

[SDRick]

It looks like the Dartmouth study focused on cumulative economic losses from 1990 to 2014. It would be interesting to see what the numbers look like say from 2000 to 2022 or why the study stopped at 2014.

 

[mspohr]

Climate adaptation bill for African countries to dwarf health spending

Eleven nations least responsible for global heating must spend up to 22% of GDP on dealing with effects of it

www.theguardian.com

African countries that are the least responsible for the climate crisis will have to spend up to five times more on adapting to global heating than they do on healthcare

The analysis shows the 11 nations are among the least to blame for the greenhouse gas emissions that are heating the planet. On average, they emit 27 times less per person than the global average.

A measurement of global liability found the US has inflicted more than $1.9tn (£1.6tn) in damage to other countries from the effects of its greenhouse gas emissions.

 

[SmartElectric]

African countries that are the least responsible for the climate crisis will have to spend up to five times more on adapting to global heating than they do on healthcare

There is one positive for Africa, by lagging those that participated in the industrial revolution, they skipped over (or had a limited deployment of) technologies such as wired communications, biofuel (corn ethanol), health insurance schemes and the mini-mall.

Distributed solar is cheaper than building large scale industrial stream driven turbine power plants powered by fossil fuel, long distance transmission capacity.

About us - Distributed Power Africa

dpaafrica.com

Small personal mobility electric vehicles suitable for rough roads

Africa’s EV revolution will roll in on two wheels, not four

Electric vehicles are still rare on the continent. But as production costs fall and the price of oil rises, investors and governments are looking to nurture the market.

qz.com

Drones delivering health supplies by air

Healthcare by air: Rwanda’s life-saving medical drones

The east African state was the first in the world to use drones to deliver blood and essential medicines to rural hospitals. The breakthrough came following an agreement between the government and US manufacturer Zipline, and two centres now operate in the east and west of the country

www.theguardian.com

^ Imagine North America / Europe in the horse/buggy era before the gas car and paved roads having access to power from the sun in every village, with personal vehicles that do not require any large scale infrastructure (gas stations, paved roads for gas tanker trucks, harbors for gas tanker ships, etc).

 

[JRP3]

Article about end of life solar panels, seems to lean a bit towards FUD and at the end it's noted the article had to be updated 4 times so far to correct errors. Additionally I question the 25-30 year life span of panels when that period is the typical warranty period not end of life.

California went big on rooftop solar. Now that's a problem for landfills

California, a national leader in the solar market, has no plan for safely recycling more than 1 million photovoltaic panels that will soon need to be discarded.

www.yahoo.com

 

[eevee-fan]

Article about end of life solar panels, seems to lean a bit towards FUD and at the end it's noted the article had to be updated 4 times so far to correct errors. Additionally I question the 25-30 year life span of panels when that period is the typical warranty period not end of life.

California went big on rooftop solar. Now that's a problem for landfills

California, a national leader in the solar market, has no plan for safely recycling more than 1 million photovoltaic panels that will soon need to be discarded.

www.yahoo.com

Same FUD as those claiming EV battery lasts the warranty period then have to be discarded in the landfill. But when you ask whether they replace their ICE upon expiration of powertrain warranty, you get a blank stare. Same with non-thinkers being swayed by FAUX anti-mask propoganda... do you wear underwear? Yes. Do you wash your underwear? Yes. So why don't you change out your cloth mask and wash them? Oh, yeah. LOL

 

[JRP3]

However cloth masks are not very effective compared to N95 and KN95 especially against newer variants.

 

[eevee-fan]

However cloth masks are not very effective compared to N95 and KN95 especially against newer variants.

It's still better than nothing, as in it changes how far out of the air you are inhaling and also how far out your exhale gets, thus spread... like how a screen door does not block with wind nor dust but does limit how far it gets into your house. Personally, I wear N95 with the outlet valve for easier/cooler breathing.

 

[DrGriz]

However cloth masks are not very effective compared to N95 and KN95 especially against newer variants.

Agree that cloth masks were only logical when more effective masks weren't available.

When we need to wear masks now (which is not most of the time) we only wear N95s. You can't wash them, but they do fine sitting out in the sun and can be reused until their elastic bands stretch out too much.

 

[SDRick]

Are masks a bit off topic or am I missing something?