It's going to take the village to save our future;

[nwdiver]

Droughts in the desert are fairly common, this is more of an overpopulation thing. How many decades have people been saying LA was going to run out of water?

The growing population of California has nothing to do with historically low snowfall in the Sierras. That was due to a high pressure weather feature over the state from mid December through March.

Hmmm.... let me see if I can steer this a little more on topic....

One of the things I've struggled with in my efforts to promote clean energy is how to address the subject of climate change.

Obviously if you're willing to install 10kW of solar on your roof and drive an EV and promote EV + PV to your friends for XYZ reason then your views on climate change are largely moot. If you understand that fossil fuels are bad for WHATEVER reason then I really couldn't care less what that reason is...

On the other hand... there is a pro-EV/PV argument that goes far beyond simple economics. To the question, "I have the ability to NOT use fossil fuels but I still do... does that make me a bad person?"..... why, yes..... yes it does. That response... while true in many many ways... is probably not going to further the cause much.

So.... is the drought in California due to our addiction to fossil fuels? More than likely.
Does believing this is true really matter if you're taking meaningful steps to solve the problem? Not really.

At the end of the day I just want to see fossil fuel addiction go away.... If convincing people of the threat of climate change will do that then that's the road I'll travel. If focusing purely on the economic merits of solar is the more effective route then I'll do that... I suspect it's a mix of the two but I'm not sure. Human psychology is a tangled mess....

I feel like I'm stuck between being disingenuous in regards to my motives and pushing people away by telling them a truth they simply do not want to hear.

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Droughts in the desert are fairly common, this is more of an overpopulation thing. How many decades have people been saying LA was going to run out of water?

Only ~10% of water in CA is used in urban settings. ~40% is used for ag, and the other ~50% is earmarked for environmental uses, although whether it could be used for anything else is questionable. It's not a population issue. It's an economic (agriculture) one.

Water Use in California (PPIC Publication)

 

[CHG-ON]

Agreed. The vast majority of water used in CA is for ag. But that does not really change the fact that we are running out of water. CA ag is a huge driver of not only food production, but also of our national economy. And while I have an issue-a big issue-with farming highly water intensive foods in essentially a coastal desert, such as rice in in a desert-WTF? I am deeply concerned that our water source is potentially going away. Yes, I can use use only 48 gal per day in my home. But that will make no dent whatsoever in our water usage. None. Residential usage is so small compared to ag usage that we could use essentially no water in residential and ag would still suck us dry. Something needs to be done to help ag become much more water efficient than it is now. I live in in Santa Cruz County, where 52% of our GDP is from ag. And we are not only sucking our ground water dry, we are now pulling seawater into our aquifers because we are essentially creating a vacuum, which will destroy them for the foreseeable future-if not forever, making them useless for all ag in our community. But we still keep doing it. While we KNOW what the result will be.

Will we, as humans, ever accept the simple fact that we simply cannot continue to rape our earth with no consequence? What will it take for all of us to finally wake up?

I simply do not know.

And we are not the only ones doing this. It is happening all across the planet. I understand that each farmer, person, community is doing this this in order to create a better life and I place no blame, per-se. But I think we may well either be running out of time, or may well have done so already.

Only ~10% of water in CA is used in urban settings. ~40% is used for ag, and the other ~50% is earmarked for environmental uses, although whether it could be used for anything else is questionable. It's not a population issue. It's an economic (agriculture) one.

Water Use in California (PPIC Publication)

 

[beeeerock]

On the other hand... there is a pro-EV/PV argument that goes far beyond simple economics. To the question, "I have the ability to NOT use fossil fuels but I still do... does that make me a bad person?"..... why, yes..... yes it does. That response... while true in many many ways... is probably not going to further the cause much.

Bingo. My purchase of the Model S is directly connected to my intention to install as much solar PV on my house as I reasonably can. I want to be able to drive, as much as I want, and not be a net contributor to the problem. Where I am, the power is about 85% green (Hydro), meaning 15% isn't. My home is all electric (geoexchange), with gas used only for cooking. If my solar contribution back to the grid averages the power used by the car and 15% of what I use in the house, that means my vehicle and home are essentially net zero. Of course, the products in the home, food eaten etc, aren't, but it's a huge step in the right direction.

I'm putting the extra dollars that could be spent on other things (things that many people would think are more prudent!) into this personal investment in sustainability. I choose to do this to be true to myself. And to show my kids (and neighbours for that matter) what is possible. Which is also, in my opinion, morally correct.

It has to start somewhere. This to me is thinking globally and acting locally. I can't simply sit on my hands.

 

[CHG-ON]

A true and honorable man taking responsibility for yourself. Thank you

Bingo. My purchase of the Model S is directly connected to my intention to install as much solar PV on my house as I reasonably can. I want to be able to drive, as much as I want, and not be a net contributor to the problem. Where I am, the power is about 85% green (Hydro), meaning 15% isn't. My home is all electric (geoexchange), with gas used only for cooking. If my solar contribution back to the grid averages the power used by the car and 15% of what I use in the house, that means my vehicle and home are essentially net zero. Of course, the products in the home, food eaten etc, aren't, but it's a huge step in the right direction.

I'm putting the extra dollars that could be spent on other things (things that many people would think are more prudent!) into this personal investment in sustainability. I choose to do this to be true to myself. And to show my kids (and neighbours for that matter) what is possible. Which is also, in my opinion, morally correct.

It has to start somewhere. This to me is thinking globally and acting locally. I can't simply sit on my hands.

 

[Robert.Boston]

To broaden the conversation slightly: the CA water crisis is another example of how too many Americans do not live a sustainable lifestyle. Fossil fuels aren't sustainable; tapping ancient water reserves faster they they are replenished isn't sustainable. Even leaving aside the feedback loop of non-sustainable practices (fossil fuels->CO2->climate change->low snow packs), CA was on a path to crisis on the water issue. The onset of drought has brought the the state to that destination much faster than had been anticipated or planned for.

BTW, we got nearly an inch of snow overnight here. :cursing:

 

[ggies07]

Hmmm.... let me see if I can steer this a little more on topic....

One of the things I've struggled with in my efforts to promote clean energy is how to address the subject of climate change.

Obviously if you're willing to install 10kW of solar on your roof and drive an EV and promote EV + PV to your friends for XYZ reason then your views on climate change are largely moot. If you understand that fossil fuels are bad for WHATEVER reason then I really couldn't care less what that reason is...

On the other hand... there is a pro-EV/PV argument that goes far beyond simple economics. To the question, "I have the ability to NOT use fossil fuels but I still do... does that make me a bad person?"..... why, yes..... yes it does. That response... while true in many many ways... is probably not going to further the cause much.

So.... is the drought in California due to our addiction to fossil fuels? More than likely.
Does believing this is true really matter if you're taking meaningful steps to solve the problem? Not really.

At the end of the day I just want to see fossil fuel addiction go away.... If convincing people of the threat of climate change will do that then that's the road I'll travel. If focusing purely on the economic merits of solar is the more effective route then I'll do that... I suspect it's a mix of the two but I'm not sure. Human psychology is a tangled mess....

I feel like I'm stuck between being disingenuous in regards to my motives and pushing people away by telling them a truth they simply do not want to hear.

I feel the struggle too......

I'm putting the extra dollars that could be spent on other things (things that many people would think are more prudent!) into this personal investment in sustainability. I choose to do this to be true to myself. And to show my kids (and neighbours for that matter) what is possible. Which is also, in my opinion, morally correct.

It has to start somewhere. This to me is thinking globally and acting locally. I can't simply sit on my hands.

I've started doing this as well. It's been hard adjustment over the past year/2 years, but I have finally switched the way I look at buying things. The money I could be throwing away on other things is being saved for an EV and solar and every time I think about purchasing something I ask myself "How does this help the environment or does it continue to hurt it?"


On the CA drought - do you guys know about this? I was amazed out how we are destroying our future crops.......

http://www.newsweek.com/california-farmers-rely-oil-wastewater-weather-drought-319648

 

[Skotty]

It's discouraging at times. Probably what I find most annoying is that if some of us actually manage to save the planet, so to speak, all the rest will claim it wasn't in trouble in the first place because nothing bad happened.

A good example of this is Y2K (computer software failing in 2000 due to only storing dates with 2 digit years). I was a developer who worked on the Y2K problem. There are a lot of folks out there who say the problem was overblown, or even never really existed. Because when Y2K got here, nothing bad happened. Guess why nothing bad happened? Because we saw the problem coming and fixed it. That's why. Had we not done that, chaos would have ensued.

 

[RichardL]

A good example of this is Y2K (computer software failing in 2000 due to only storing dates with 2 digit years). I was a developer who worked on the Y2K problem. There are a lot of folks out there who say the problem was overblown, or even never really existed. Because when Y2K got here, nothing bad happened. Guess why nothing bad happened? Because we saw the problem coming and fixed it. That's why. Had we not done that, chaos would have ensued.

Exactly, always annoys me - I was involved and we did enormous amounts of investigation and fixing prior to the deadline. Then it was called 'hype' because the world did not end!

 

[beeeerock]

Even leaving aside the feedback loop of non-sustainable practices (fossil fuels->CO2->climate change->low snow packs), CA was on a path to crisis on the water issue. The onset of drought has brought the the state to that destination much faster than had been anticipated or planned for.

And what I find most shocking is the complete indifference (apparently) to the issue. The consequences are likely to be more dire than several back to back large earthquakes, but even though it's all visible on the horizon, no alarm bells are ringing. At least I haven't heard them. I'm not sure what scares me more - the potential consequences, or the ignorance/indifference to whole issue!

Actually, I do know which scares me most - it's the latter.

- - - Updated - - -

A true and honorable man taking responsibility for yourself. Thank you

Thank you... but in fairness, the car hasn't been delivered yet and the panels aren't on the roof yet either... but I'm on track! :biggrin:

 

[Robert.Boston]

Unfortunately we are way past midnight on 12/31/99. We will need to do what we can to mitigate the effects, adapt to changing conditions, and limit further accelerations.

 

[nwdiver]

Unfortunately we are way past midnight on 12/31/99. We will need to do what we can to mitigate the effects, adapt to changing conditions, and limit further accelerations.

'It is better to light a candle than curse the darkness'

... nothing says I can't do both... :wink:

Racking hardware arrived today.... now I just need to make this;

Look like this;

Except 6x2 instead of 5x2...

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

I feel like I'm stuck between being disingenuous in regards to my motives and pushing people away by telling them a truth they simply do not want to hear.

I feel the same way, and in conversations I've had with my wife/friends, the reasoning behind why they won't take action seems to be this combination of less personal responsibility as well as the usual prioritization of other things over changing their behavior.

They expect large entities (government, business, etc...) to step in and correct things, and they also don't prioritize going low carbon/carbon neutral as highly as most other things in their life. It sucks, but it is what it is...

 

[nwdiver]

I feel the same way, and in conversations I've had with my wife/friends, the reasoning behind why they won't take action seems to be this combination of less personal responsibility as well as the usual prioritization of other things over changing their behavior.

They expect large entities (government, business, etc...) to step in and correct things, and they also don't prioritize going low carbon/carbon neutral as highly as most other things in their life. It sucks, but it is what it is...

I'm currently reading 'Don't even think about it: why our brains are wired to ignore climate change' it's one of those books containing a lot of explanations that in hind sight are obvious. One of the more amusing studies it references is how people have an 'in-group' that they try to emulate and an 'out-group' that they intentionally distance themselves from. They found that if in Britain they used the energy-efficient Swedes as an example the test group lived LESS efficiently because the British wanted to be 'un-Swedish' BUT if they use the US as an example the British became MORE efficient to be LESS american... I guess that's why there's so many gas-guzzling morons in the US. If you're the most inefficient country with a superiority complex the only direction to go in your mind to become 'more american' is down....

It's a very complex issue but I do think that people are slowly coming around. You know you're beginning to win; when even the deniers begin to deny their denial.

 

[beeeerock]

Saw this article this morning. Not overly deep, but interesting nonetheless...

The Road To Paris: Three Myths About International Climate Talks | IFLScience

Leaders can only do so much. Big corporations control such a huge amount of what we think we have sway over... If we want Exon for instance to get into the electrical generation business, we'll have to stop buying petroleum products in a big enough way that economics make an alternative scenario desirable to them. Otherwise they'll keep doing what they do until humanity ceases to exist. They simply don't care about anything beyond the next quarter's financials.

What I can never get my head around is how corporations are given a life of their own, and bad policy is simply blamed on 'the power of the corporation'. It's like 'the corporation' has a life of its own, and isn't actually run by living breathing humans. How do you make those humans accountable?? They control the corporation, not the other way around!

 

[Robert.Boston]

BP has a very serious internal effort to track renewable energy tech and to enter strategically. Your point is very well taken, @beeeerock: companies will follow demand. The place to look for leadership isn't from ExxonMobile or Peabody Coal, but from ourselves acting individually and collectively.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

Leaders can only do so much. Big corporations control such a huge amount of what we think we have sway over... If we want Exon for instance to get into the electrical generation business, we'll have to stop buying petroleum products in a big enough way that economics make an alternative scenario desirable to them. Otherwise they'll keep doing what they do until humanity ceases to exist. They simply don't care about anything beyond the next quarter's financials.

Dick Cheney didn't elect himself, we are to blame. This nonsense doesn't happen in most other fully developed Western countries, we did it to ourselves.

 

[beeeerock]

Dick Cheney didn't elect himself, we are to blame. This nonsense doesn't happen in most other fully developed Western countries, we did it to ourselves.

Don't be too tough on yourselves until you've had some time to absorb the silliness that goes on north of you. The biggest difference is we don't have the population and economic might to exert much influence beyond our borders, but we do a pretty good job of messing things up within...

When you allow Chinese companies to buy up big chunks of the oil sands and then build - essentially - gulags inside for imported workers (excempt from work safety rules in Canada, apparently) you have to raise your eyebrows. Our Chinese oil sands - Macleans.ca

Apparently it's considered a good idea to exploit the dirtiest oil on the planet for economic gain, even past the point of insanity. I saw one article that calculated the electricity consumed to produce one gallon of gasoline, which turned out to be enough power to drive an EV something like 40 miles... when the resulting gallon of gas would take an ICE an average of 25 miles or something equally ridiculous. They obviously don't realize it, but they're making their own argument for why the sands should be shut down and why EV's have a logical future.

 

[CHG-ON]

My fear, in all sincerity, is that we have gone too far and it is too late for our grand and great grand kids. What have we done to them? And to be frank, each and every one of us is responsible for it. Including me. We, as Americans, have lived a life of plenty and ignorance. We continue to do so. The third world countries are still living that ignorance. I can't blame them for wanting what we have. Can you?

This brings me terrible sadness, in fact.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

My fear, in all sincerity, is that we have gone too far and it is too late for our grand and great grand kids. What have we done to them? And to be frank, each and every one of us is responsible for it. Including me. We, as Americans, have lived a life of plenty and ignorance. We continue to do so. The third world countries are still living that ignorance. I can't blame them for wanting what we have. Can you?

This brings me terrible sadness, in fact.

I think it'll be fine, clearly the environment is a very elastic system. We may be at an insane CO2 level right now, but there's no reason to believe what we're doing can't be reversed in 30-40 years with minimal permanent sea level rise, etc. We don't fully understand how the oceans and atmosphere will absorb/disperse this CO2 once we get our act together. Could be that 50 years of elevated CO2 isn't that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things.

Ice is on the melt at the North Pole and building up at the South Pole.
The Jest Stream is completely jacked up due to the smaller temperature difference between the North Pole and the equator.
Temperatures are clearly heading upward at an "un-natural" pace.

Yes, these are HUGE causes for concern, but I think we'll see CO2 levels start to drop within 20-30 years and then we'll see how Mother Nature handles the cleanup of a "CO2 spill".