Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 Next
Comments 7251 to 7300:
-
TVC15 at 07:42 AM on 4 May 2020There is no consensus
Eclectic @ 886
Thank you for the suggested video.
I truly enjoy Potholer54's YouTube Channel. He recently posted a Coronavirus: Science vs. politics video that was informative and entertaining.
-
nigelj at 07:31 AM on 4 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
barryn56
"Climate change IS the default solution, since humans insist on individual 'freedom' above all else, and no-one wants to give up on the status quo (including everyone here, apparently), there's no need to do anything, because - if climate change predictions come to fruition, the human population will collapse, and everything will be fine.'
Oh come on this is pure bulls**t. Many posts above suggest we be more sustainable, look at various alternative economic options, change the energy grid. Maybe they dont go as far as you want, but you dont spell out your own solutions, which I suspect would be in fantasy land.
-
nigelj at 07:26 AM on 4 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
frawhi24 @18
"We also found, as the film underscores again and again, that the intermittency of sunshine and wind is a real problem—one that can only be solved with energy storage (batteries, pumped hydro, or compressed air, all of which are costly in money and energy terms); or with source redundancy (building way more generation capacity than you’re likely to need at any one time,"
A stand alone wind / solar grid reliant purely on storage is currently expensive, but those storage costs have been on a falling trajectory and will fall further and we know whats plausible and what the limiting factors are so can be realistic. Also look at the costs of wind and solar power compared to the alternatives (eg in the Lazard Analysis) and you could do a considerable 'over build' and still be economic.
The other alternative is just to accept some gas fired backup power and this means you need much less storage. We know the maths of this and its economic. The Texas electricity market already approximates this model. And this is still a lot better than burning fossil fuels. You could aslo sequester the CO2 emissions underground, but I dont know the economics of that.
I wouldn't count out nuclear power either. It may have a role to play.
Essentially Heinberg and Fridley have not properly considered all the options, and are exaggerating the problem.
"Altogether, the only realistic way to make the transition in industrial countries like the US is to begin reducing overall energy usage substantially, eventually running the economy on a quarter, a fifth, or maybe even a tenth of current energy."
No doubt we can get energy use to be more efficient but expecting to get it 1000% more efficient is magical thinking, and expecting people to go cold in winter is crazy thinking. You have to base decisions on realistic estimates and predictions of whats achievable.
-
gerontocrat at 04:33 AM on 4 May 2020A leading scientist's transition from climate science to solutions
Making an indidivual commitment to reduce one's carbon footprint can be effective. You can use the same methodology as used in the models to track the progress of covid-19. Simply put, if the ratio R, which is the average number of peple infected by one person, is greater than 1, the covid-19 universe expands.
If an individual person's commitment to reduce her or his carbon footprint persuades on average more than one person to do likewise (i.e. R >1), then the universe of low carbon expands.
That is one of the main reasons why Elon Musk does not need to advertise Tesla electric vehicles ("I want one too!").
Sometimes, you see it on a street where once one roof has gone solar, the rest of the street follows.
Mind you, Prometheus, we are in far worse trouble than you thought.
Behavioural science?
-
michael sweet at 04:33 AM on 4 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
Frawhi24@18,
When I Googled Heinberg and Fridley I ended up here at a white paper by Heinberg. I note that this paper is not peer reviewed. I noticed that 29 out of 30 references appeared to be to popular press articles and only one was to a peer reviewed publication. The one peer reviewed publication was mis-interpreted in the document. The other 3 links I tried were not functional.
Heinburg seems to me to have a preconcieved notion of what is correct. Perhaps if he read more of the peer reviewed literature and less popular press, he would have a different attitude.
I have written a summary of the peer reviewed paper Smart Energy Europe which deals with most of the issues Heinburg raises. I will submit that summary next week to SkS. While it will be easier to generate All Energy using renewable energy if consumption of energy is reduced, current peer reviewed research indicates that it will be possible to supply estimated future energy needs using renewable energy at a reasonable cost.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:49 AM on 4 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
frawhi24 @18,
Thank you for pointing to Heinberg's defense of the film (not really a review, since he participated in its creation).
What stands out to me is the correctness of the need to dramatically reduce the amount of energy used per-person to live a Good Life. What also stands out is the way that the movie and Heinberg fail to investigate the ability of renewables to provide all of that reduced energy demand.
It appears that the defense of the lack of serious consideration of the renewable solution is "The Cost". That is an unjustified basis for Leadership actions when there is an "understood level of risk of harm".
The global community has established the "understood level of risk of harm, open to correction and improvement if good justification is provided". It is ideally less than 1.5 C global warming impact, with an identified maximum impact level of 2.0 C.
As a Structural Engineer I am well aware that when there is an identified limit on negative impacts, failure of a structure to perform acceptably, there is no allowed compromise of that safety performance limit just because of "Cost". Cost savings are not allowed to compromise the meeting of the identified requirements.
So the delays of corrective action by the richest is clearly an unacceptable behaviour. And claiming Cost as the reason to not meet and beat the identified minimum safe performance limit of harm becomes understood to be absurd.
What needs to become the Common Sense Understanding is the unacceptability of any of the richer people failing to expand their awareness and improve their understanding to help achieve and improve on all of the Sustainable Development Goals, and failing to help others better understand and be less harmful, more helpful. And meeting the identified limit of climate change impact is crucial because more climate change impact makes it harder to achieve the other SDGs.
The entire group of the richest need to be required to correct their behaviour and set the example of the ways of living that everyone else should aspire to develop to. The belief that "only those who care need to be helpfully acting better" needs to end. Maintaining higher status should be dependent on proving that the higher status person is more helpful and not harmful to any others.
That leads to the required Common Sense that all competitors for status need to be Governed by expanded awareness and improved understanding applied to help achieve sustainable improvements for the future of all of humanity on this only planet known to be habitable by humanity, and potentially habitable for the next 1 billion years ... Maybe Only One Planet - Potentially Habitable Almost Forever.
I strongly recommend that everyone become very familiar with Two Things (equally important to better understand both - and it does not matter which is better understood first, because constantly pursuing expanded awareness and improved understanding is what is required):
- The ways and means of misleading marketing presented in "Making Sense of Climate Science Denial". Review the many articles shared on SkS related to content of the MOOC, or complete the MOOC.
- Review the Sustainable Development Goals of complete the related "Age of Sustainable Development" MOOC.
Then a person can more successfully critically watch the movie and read any article or "Review".
-
frawhi24 at 00:40 AM on 4 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
For those interested in a more balanced critique of the film, I recommend a review by Richard Heinberg in Resilience. Heinberg, who was featured as an expert witness in the film.
On the pro side, Richard taps into research he did with David Fridley of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory to assess the prospects for a complete transition to solar and wind power. Criticism of renewables was a prominent feature of the film. Here's what Richard wrote in his review:
"We [Heinberg and Fridley] found that the transition to renewables is going far too slowly to make much of a difference during the crucial next couple of decades, and would be gobsmackingly expensive if we were to try replacing all fossil fuel use with solar and wind. We also found, as the film underscores again and again, that the intermittency of sunshine and wind is a real problem—one that can only be solved with energy storage (batteries, pumped hydro, or compressed air, all of which are costly in money and energy terms); or with source redundancy (building way more generation capacity than you’re likely to need at any one time, and connecting far-flung generators on a super-grid); or demand management (which entails adapting our behavior to using energy only when it’s available). All three strategies involve trade-offs. In the energy world, there is no free lunch. Further, the ways we use energy today are mostly adapted to the unique characteristics of fossil fuels, so a full transition to renewables will require the replacement of an extraordinary amount of infrastructure in our food system, manufacturing, building heating, the construction industry, and on and on. Altogether, the only realistic way to make the transition in industrial countries like the US is to begin reducing overall energy usage substantially, eventually running the economy on a quarter, a fifth, or maybe even a tenth of current energy.
Is it true that mainstream enviros have oversold renewables? Yes. They have portrayed the transition away from fossil fuels as mostly a political problem; the implication in many of their communications is that, if we somehow come up with the money and the political will, we can replace oil with solar and continue living much as we do today, though with a clear climate conscience. That’s an illusion that deserves shattering. "On the con side, Heinberg writes --
"The film is low on nuance, but our global climate and energy dilemma is all shades of gray. Gibbs seems to say that renewables are a complete waste of time. I would say, they are best seen as a marginal transitional strategy for industrial societies. Given climate change and the fact that fossil fuels are depleting, finite resources, it appears that if we want to maintain any sort of electrical energy infrastructure in the future, it will have to be powered by renewables—hydro, wind, or solar. As many studies have confirmed, the nuclear power industry has little realistic prospect of revival. The future will be renewable; there simply isn’t any other option.What is very much in question, however, is the kind of society renewable energy can support."
Heinberg also felt the harsh criticism of McKibben was undeserved.
-
barryn56 at 14:17 PM on 3 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
Climate change IS the default solution, since humans insist on individual 'freedom' above all else, and no-one wants to give up on the status quo (including everyone here, apparently), there's no need to do anything, because - if climate change predictions come to fruition, the human population will collapse, and everything will be fine.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 13:11 PM on 3 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
Not to be pedantic Ubrew but the 1st law is: "You have to play." 2nd: "You can't win." 3rd "You can't break even."
-
nigelj at 12:59 PM on 3 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
The trouble is all about the term sustainability and how we define it. The only thing that is truly 100% sustainable for eternity is something like hunter gatherer culture or very simple farming, which treads lightly on the environment and uses only things that regenerate forever like trees, and not metals or fossil fuels (all of which could run out in theory). This is sustainability reduced down to something we cannot get below, unless we obliterate the human race.
But it just doesnt make a whole lot of sense to abandon our civilisation to live like primitives and to stop using the wide range of resources that we have. And 7.6 billion humans burning wood to survive would wipe out our forests.
So as humans the best we can probably do is try to be more sustainable than we are, use materials sensibly, not waste things, and solve the most pressing problems. We can obviously do more to conserve the environment. The UN development goals are a good practical guide.
So in choosing energy resources its about the lesser of the evils, and renewable energy and perhaps nuclear power fit that definition. Gibs, the brains behind the documentary, hasn't thought things through.
-
ubrew12 at 10:40 AM on 3 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
1st law of thermodynamics "You can't win". 2nd law "You can't even break even"
Ubrew's correlaries: 1st law "Every bit of energy you use comes from your environment" 2nd law: "Yeah, it hurts your environment"
Jeff Gibbs movie belabors something we all knew: we lean on our environment for everything we produce. Unhappily for Gibbs, there isn't a smidgen of non-fossil energy that claims otherwise.
I'm deeply moved by what fossil fuel burning is going to do to the coral reefs, the rainforests, and the polar bears. But I'm a climate activist for what it's about to do to us mere humans. For starters, its going to destroy many of our most cherished historical cities. Against this, should we really dismiss 'Plan B' because it has 'sinned' against our environment? Since I used a toilet today, go ahead and dismiss me as well, by that standard.
-
dannyvocal at 08:07 AM on 3 May 2020Animal agriculture and eating meat are the biggest causes of global warming
I have no difficulty in understanding the critiques of many quacky practices, but the question of what to eat, including the morality of one's diet, is much more difficult as there are many conflicting arguments. Even science based organizations like the American Dietetic Association, will tout the benefits of vegetarianism, as long as the eater does not neglect B12 and the 9 essential amino acids. Environmental writer George Monbiot of the UK paper The Guardian (https://www.monbiot.com/2018/04/03/the-day-i-became-a-vegan/) says that becoming a vegan will save the planet. Reading your statistics above leads to more questions than answers - for example, while stating that animal husbandry only contributes 9% of carbon dioxide, you then go on to state that the greenhouse effect is 20 times stronger for methane than for carbon dioxide. 20 times seems a rather large number, one of such magnitude that it would be difficult to argue that the 1.5 billion cows raised only for meat are not competing rather heftily with the 60% of carbon dioxide caused by the belching of cars, trucks and factories. Monbiot also states that food companies are now using bacteria to generate believable steaks, sausages and fish. I can believe that, given how realistic the plant-based burgers are becoming. While I haven't yet found a plant-based milk that enhances my tea, the plant-based chives cream cheese I just bought is absolutely delish! There are always problems I have found with people's arguments - the mere fact of making an argument means it is not going to be: "the benefits of this are... and the costs of this are...." - especially when it comes to a problem as severe as climate change. I also privately (as I never feel sufficiently armed with data to make almost any argument convincing) wonder if the liberal opposition to nuclear power is not also contributing to climate change. I am a liberal myself but I also know from psychology that liberals and conservatives each have their own biases. While I am very aware of how the Trump administration is dismantling all environmental laws, would the considerable influence of anti-nuclear energy among liberals which has for real hindered its research and development in Germany, UK, and the States during the Clinton Administration, not mean that liberals also contributed a great deal to existing climate change at a time (25 years ago) when we could have easily slid from non-renewables to nuclear (and the nuclear being developed at the time was nothing like Chernobyl reactor, it was the Integral Fast Reactor - one of the best books on that is from one of the scientists decommissioned by the Clinton administration (http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/pdfs/P4TP4U.pdf). I know that has nothing to do with diet, but I make this point as with so many people making arguments for and against important positions like vegetarianism/veganism, we must each take our stands in the direction we believe the data support. I think for many vegetarians, giving up meat, as long as they are not excessively narcissistic and self-righteous about it, is a private decision made against the excessively consumerist culture, like replacing our cars with bicycles, practicing minimalism with our possessions, or even using one's typewriter when powering up the PC is unnecessary.
-
bjchip at 07:56 AM on 3 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
Renewables do not resolve the problem. Nuclear does not resolve the problem. No single answer resolves the problem and the use of "Capitalism" guarantees that the problem will not be resolved. I managed to watch a fair bit of it. It is flawed, but not the horrendous thing that some people here seem to think.
I know that Ivanpah had teething problems and that they were ultimately resolved. The film is misleading about that, clearly showing someplace else to declare it a disaster. I almost stopped with that because I've followed Ivanpah's struggle - but the fragility of a renewables-only infrastructure is not imaginary and not merely something that was true in the past. The difficulty of getting electric vehicles to replace cars and trucks but retaining the way we use cars and trucks, is well understood. The environmental cost of the elements and chemical processes that go into the batteries and the cells, and the 25 year lifetimes of the cells, are all too real.
The three smallest wedges here have to replace half of the 3 largest wedges - in 10 years. That isn't going to happen. THAT is what I see as one of the messages that is quite real in this film.
The problem of intermittency is not resolved by any amount of hand-waving. It requires hard engineering to store energy effectively and it is going to require immense changes to our 24/7 culture as well as abandoning entirely the notion that "growth" is the sacrament that mainstream economics and consumer capitalism make it.
"The film suggests that because no source of energy is perfect, all are bad"
I didn't see that. I saw some fairly pointed minor criticisms of specific tech. I didn't see "nothing works". A lot of popular answers won't.
Some see the film's central point as "we cannot use technology to get us out of a jam that technology created in the first place". This is an attractive sound bite and it isn't true. It is one of several flaws in the film.
We can't keep our current economic and social systems and we are going to have to live differently, if we want to retain human civilization. That is what I think the film really intended to point out and it is actually a very pointy point.
We need all of every possible source of non-CO2 emitting energy we can obtain. We need the Germans to reverse their anti-nuclear stance and the New Zealanders to make it clear that nuclear power is acceptable for shipping to New Zealand. We need massive electrification of rail - which doesn't require any batteries to work - to replace as much of our long haul trucking as we can. We need answers from real engineers rather from enthusiasts and cheerleaders - and we need to accept that we are going to have to change a hell of a lot about the way we live over the next few decades.
The Coronavirus has taught us is that we need to work together to solve the big problems. Maybe we will.
-
nigelj at 06:59 AM on 3 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
Joe Wiseman @7
"So Michael has fallen victim to that most powerful of human attributes - greed."
How do you conclude that? The impression I get is he has let his anti capitalist tendences get out of control. He has talked about billionaire capitalists profiting from renewables in disparaging terms. His solutions are to have fewer children and consume a lot less less energy. I would be interested to see if he lives by these principles. People who preach need to practice their principles if they want credibility.
"I mistakenly thought of him (Michael Moore) as "one of the good guys."
I understand what you mean. I saw his Bowling for Columbine about mass shootings and gun control (or lack of) in the USA, and it was entertaining and moving, and made a powerful point about the problems, but it was full of huge distortions. It could not really be called a documentary. M Moore gets his facts wrong and exaggerates and so he plays into the hands of his critics I think. Looks like hes done the same with this latest documentary on energy systems.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:20 AM on 3 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
I find it tragic that "Proponents of one of the many sub-sets of required corrections of developed human activity" fail to acknowledge the diverse collected understanding in the Sustainable Development Goals, all of which needs to be achieved and can be improved upon. An economy driven to be comprised of the most sustainable and least harmful activities has the best chance of "Getting Better Sustainably". All other economic developed activity is destined to end, some of it very tragically ending after doing much harm before it is ended.
But I agree that a fundamental problem is the more fortunate people who do not wish to lose perceptions of status that they would lose if the required corrections were successfully rapidly pursued. They are the portion of the population the future of humanity would be better without.
The SDGs were published in 2015. And every advocate of one of the many required changes should embrace and support the entire understanding of the SDGs, or expand and correct the SDGs with detailed independently verifiable justification.
This movie indeed appears to have been started in the past without any effort put into checking if it was Out of Date in any way. The lack of interest in pursuing expanded awareness and improved understanding to help develop sustainable improvements for humanity is tragically popular.
-
william5331 at 06:07 AM on 3 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
More than monumentally wrong. Most of the manufacturing processes to produce wind turbines and solar panels use electricity as their energy source and the greater the proportion of renewable energy in the mix the lower the amount of fossil fuel that is used in their production. In other words, we are using fossil fuel to wean ourselves off fossil fuel. As it should be. Incidentally, work is being done on using Hydrogen to reduce iron ore rather than coking coal. If this works out, another tranch of fossil fuel use disappears from the production of wind turbines.
-
RedBaron at 03:01 AM on 3 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
@8,
You are right, without changing agriculture it is impossible, but the flaws in the movie suround energy tech mostly
-
Ellesmere at 02:00 AM on 3 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
While the author offers many valid criticisms of the movie, I believe Planet of The Humans addresses a far wider concern than simply a necessary reduction in fossil fuel emissions.
We can blame the filmmakers for begin overly ambitious or impractical in their underlying message. Yet, it's undeniable that more fundamental solutions are needed to save our planet's once-diverse ecosystems, from continued degradation from all forms of development - green technology included.
-
Joe Wiseman at 23:35 PM on 2 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
So Michael has fallen victim to that most powerful of human attributes - greed. Whether for money and/or glory, the result is the same. Another dent in the defenses of already fragile eco-systems. I mistakenly thought of him as "one of the good guys."
-
J1mB0b at 22:15 PM on 2 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
This film is far from climate denial. It clearly says we are changing our climate. I agree the mistakes, old info and missinformation are unforgivable but the general idea that too many humans consume too much is truth. Typical Moore sensationalism. Pretty badly made film too imo
-
Prometheus 1962 at 21:59 PM on 2 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
"the film presents one biased perspective via carefully chosen voices, virtually all of whom are comfortable white men."
I agree with almost all of the article's points, but why the need for this ad hominem? Many advocates of green energy are "comfortable white men" too. Does that mean they're not trustworthy either? Of course not! All this comment does is cast doubt on the rest of the article, making me want to re-read it in case the writer threw in some other fallacy that I might have missed.
Just avoid sophistry, stick to the facts, and we're all better-off.
-
Eclectic at 21:55 PM on 2 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
Gwsb @3 :-
<" ... by power plants using natural gas the amount of CO2 released for generating electricity is reduced by more than 50%. Isn't that great? ">
Okay . . . and then what?
Gwsb, I'm not sure how much irony you're using.
Let's have a look at an analogy :-
~ Instead of a daily beating, you now only beat your wife three days a week. Isn't that great?
Irony, or ironical sarcasm?
-
GwsB at 21:18 PM on 2 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
Both Michael Moore and the environmentalists seem to believe that one should use pictures and cherries to convince as many people as possible. Michael Moore is quite good at that. So he forces environmentalists to defend their position and to use arguments. That is fair isn't it. So where are the real convincing arguments?
Let me give an example: In 2018 natural gas accounted for more kWh of electricity in the US than did coal, but it released less than half the amount of CO2. See https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11 By replacing all coal fired power plants by power plants using natural gas the amount of CO2 released for generating electricity is reduced by more than 50%. Isn't that great?
-
nigelj at 09:06 AM on 2 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
"The film suggests that because no source of energy is perfect, all are bad, thus implying that the very existence of human civilization is the problem while offering little in the way of alternative solutions."
Exactly. I suspect this is all because the films producers clearly hate industrial society, and capitalism and allegedly horrible billionaires that 'profit' from renewables. But it makes no sense to start criticising renewables, because capitalists will keep on building more fossil fuels and profiting from that. Moore and Gibs have shot themselves in their own feet in spectacular fashion.
Sure we need to improve capitalism, or find an alternative, but that is no easy task and will take time, so can't be a precondition to solving the climate problem.
-
abostrom at 08:41 AM on 2 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
How disappointing that Moore could be so careless. Nuff said by me.
-
nigelj at 08:00 AM on 2 May 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Pete @22
I like to think I'm a realist. Mitigating climate change obviously wont be easy.
I agree to the extent we should use the earths resources as sparingly as possible, and minimise waste and we should accept gdp growth cannot continue forever. But I wont be adopting a very basic hair shirt lifestyle either. It doesn't make sense to me because this sort of low tech self flaggelation approach causes problems, and only delays the point where future generations run short of some things, so I support building renewable energy.
-
Pete19387 at 02:43 AM on 2 May 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Thanks nigelj and Eclectic for the good points.
nigelj, you appear to be an optimist. Perhaps I’m a pessimist, but I think I’m a realist.
It may theoretically be possible to totally transform our energy systems in the next 30 years but, for the most part, society doesn’t even see the need, let alone the urgency to do so. My point, and I think the major point of the film, is that there is this magical thinking that by simply switching to renewable energy sources we can continue to grow, consume, and carry on as we always have. It’s a soothing message—and one many of the major green groups have bought into—that all we need is a little relatively-painless tinkering with the technology. (I have been a supporter of, and volunteer with, numerous environmental and conservation groups over the years, and I continue to be involved. These days I mostly donate to groups that don’t have charitable status and thus are free to critique and criticize society's sacred cows.)
As critical as the climate change issue is, I would argue that we have even more immediate and pressing issues including the loss of biodiversity, the degradation of soils and farm lands, and the contamination and loss of fresh water. I am concerned about the unintended consequences of another mad dash for resources like lithium and rare-earth metals to feed our latest technological lurch. (Are there even enough of these relatively rare resources to feed our insatiable appetite?)
Having said that, I’ll 100% agree that renewable sources are better than fossil fuels, and that more renewable sources are better than fewer. My main concern is that society is not even having the conversation about the tradeoffs involved. Rather, the assumption is that we can just engineer our way out the trouble we’re in and carry on as if nothing has changed. But what if the engineering and tinkering are wholly inadequate? Should we continue down this unsustainable path? Who gains and who loses by the choices we are making? Society should be having a conscious conversation about where we’re going. Right now, we’re on autopilot.
To answer your question nigelj, I quite like technology and industry. I have a STEM background, and I’m fascinated and impressed by our cleverness and technology. I like driving my car, using the latest gadgets, flying all over the world on vacation, having fresh food all winter long, and getting wine shipped in from literally the other side of the world. But I’m also cognizant of the dangers, costs, and unsustainably of this way of life, and I’m trying to reduce my impact. I’m also a passionate lover of wildlife, and remote and wild places, and I feel heartsick to see the wild disappearing before my eyes. (As Steve McQueen is reported to have said, “I’d rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than in any city on earth.”)
I’ve always said that our two biggest “environmental” problems are organized religion (humans are “special” and superior to the rest of “creation”), and capitalism (infinite growth in a finite world).
-
Prometheus 1962 at 23:34 PM on 1 May 2020A leading scientist's transition from climate science to solutions
The idea that renting a compact car rather than a midsize or SUV is a "solution" is complete nonsense, as is making an individual commitment to green energy.
We need to be dismantling fossil fuel industries, not using them slightly less.
If this is an example of the scientific community's "solutions" we are in far worse trouble than I thought.
-
Bob Loblaw at 22:47 PM on 1 May 2020DMI show cooling Arctic
An, no Frank, melting ice does not cool the environment. No, melting ice does not cool water - unless you are adding ice to warmer water. In such a case (warm water + ice), the water will cool to zero in proportion to the amount of ice that melts (energy equivalence), and then the ice/water mix will remain at 0C. The ice.water proportions will then change depending on whether you are adding or removing energy from the mix.
In the natural environment, during the melt period, the ice/water mix is already at 0C, and adding energy causes the ice to turn to water - all at 0C. Once the ice melts, continued additions of energy will then warm the water.
...and during that period, knowing temperature is useful. In fact, it can tell you a lot about whether there is ice/snow or water or a mix.
You should seriously sit back and ponder the possibilty that people who have been studying these things for centuries actually might know a few things that you do not know.
-
Bob Loblaw at 22:37 PM on 1 May 2020Models are unreliable
Frank:
Short answer is "yes". It takes energy to melt ice. It takes energy to evaporate water. Freezing and condensation involve the opposite energy conversion. Subllimation (solid-->gas or gas-->solid) is also considered.
All of this is part of the conservation of energy, which is incorporated into the models.
Your statement "...because it's below zero and thus not part of the fusion water/ice at 0 C" makes no sense, Perhaps you can clarify.
-
MA Rodger at 21:47 PM on 1 May 2020Antarctica is gaining ice
Smith et al (2020) 'Pervasive ice sheet mass loss reflects competing ocean and atmosphere processes' compares ICESat data from 2003-2009 with ICESat-2 data from 2018-19 and provides more detail than GRACE 2002-16 but effectively the same conclusion - average Antarctic ice loss - GRACE - 125Gt/year. ICESat-2/ICESat - 118Gt/year.
-
michael sweet at 21:05 PM on 1 May 2020Skeptical Science New Research for Week #17, 2020
The BBC interviews Antonio Guteres, the head of the UN about Covid 19. At the end he says we need to learn from the virus experience and use what we learn to respond to the challenge of climate change.
I thought it was important that climate change action was so strongly supported.
-
Eclectic at 16:40 PM on 1 May 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Pete @19 , yes self-evidently it is a fantasy if we expect to continue our "default" policy of ever-increasing economic growth without limits. And based on profligate use of resources. At some point we must transition to aiming for "quality growth" rather than dollar growth.
But in the near future i.e. this century , we must solve the global warming problem first ~ and as explained earlier, we cannot (politically) solve overpopulation as a pre-condition, because there just isn't time to do that. Nor is it politically possible to go ultra low-tech lifestyle.
Renewables - solar and wind - are our only practical method. Nuclear fission is too expensive & too slow to build (for more than a tiny fraction of the power generation needed). Likewise with the still-over-the-horizon fusion powerplants.
30 years is a long time, but present-day-tech renewables can do the job by 2050 or thereabouts. But what is needed, is a Manhattan-type Project to develop synthetic hydrocarbon fuels (organic base ~ not alcohol, but long-chain hydrocarbons) for ships / planes / heavy vehicles). 30 years should be adequate for all this.
You are right, that there is not yet sufficient urgency in tackling our major problems. History points to the probability that we will continue to dawdle . . . and then desperately ramp-up our efforts later in the day.
-
nigelj at 16:18 PM on 1 May 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Pete @19
"There is NO way that renewables (or nuclear) can scale up to the required level in the time frame we have to eliminate the use of fossil fuels. "
You haven't explained why. You have just made emotive assertions. I will explain in simple terms why we can!
Firstly the Stern Report estimates converting to renewables will cost about 3% of global economic output per year between now and 2050, and other reports estimate roughly the same. This is comparable to what countries typically spend on the military or old age pension per year, therefore its obvious we can find that sort of money with a little bit of repriortising of spending.
Now look at how quickly countries changed and reprioritised industrial production during WW2, in just 5 years, away from things like building construction to armaments and scaled up armaments. So its obvious renewables could scale if we wanted (and some nuclear power, if that is wanted). We wont do it by 2050, but we could get close enough to make a big difference to climate outcomes.
I think the thing standing in the way is ignorance, politics, and lack of motivation, and a focus on other spending, but there is at least a chance those thing can change and some signs they are in some places.
"(Not to mention that renewables generally add to, rather than replace, existing energy sources.)
That is simply not the case. For example the UK has replaced an awful lot of coal production with wind power. And you are confusing a lack of sufficient progress in some places with what is possible if we want.
"In a way, the promotion of renewables is a scam which lets society continue to ignore the problems of overpopulation, economic "growth", and excessive resource use for a little while longer. "
I disagree. You really need to read the comments made by other people before you post your own. Population growth has not been ignored. Its been slowing since the 1970s, and many countries have policies encouraging lower rates of population growth. But there are limits on what such policies can achieve and how quickly rates will fall. They are not a panacea.
Yes high rates of economic growth are unsustainable long term, but rates of economic growth are falling anyway. Do - the-research.
You also seem oblivious of the enormous difficulties in persuading people to make huge reductions in their use of energy and technology. I would suggest its going to be even more difficult doing that than persuading people to build renewable energy, and I'm not persuaded that huge reductions to use of energy and technology etcetera even make sense. They certainly have unpleasant consequences that must be weighed against the climate problem.
Our only hope appears to be a combination of both renewable energy and more realistically achieveable reductions in energy use.
The movie is politically motivated and I'm willing to bet you are as well. You probably dont like the capitalist system, rich people, and 'industrial' society. Is that a correct guess? Hell, neither do I in some ways, but the alternatives are even worse.
-
Pete19387 at 14:20 PM on 1 May 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
I watched this film and was prepared to dismiss it, but it had much of importance to say. (I was a little disappointed by the skewering of Bill McKibben, but that's another story.)
I don't actually think the film was a criticism of renewable energy in general, and it certainly wasn't an endorsement of fossil fuels.
Rather, it was a realistic appraisal of the problem we face. There is NO way that renewables (or nuclear) can scale up to the required level in the time frame we have to eliminate the use of fossil fuels. (Not to mention that renewables generally add to, rather than replace, existing energy sources.) It is a fantasy to expect that we can continue our way of life by replacing fossil fuels with renewables. The simple truth is that we are between a rock and a hard place. In a way, the promotion of renewables is a scam which lets society continue to ignore the problems of overpopulation, economic "growth", and excessive resource use for a little while longer. One way or the other, we are either going to have to make unpleasant and dramatic changes to our way of life, or nature will make those choices for us. I'm not optimistic about our ability to make those changes.
-
John Hartz at 12:57 PM on 1 May 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Two more excellent critiques of the film...
Michael Moore produced a film about climate change that’s a gift to Big Oil by Leah C Stokes, Energy & Environment, Vox, Apr 28, 2020
Inside Clean Energy: 6 Things Michael Moore’s ‘Planet of the Humans’ Gets Wrong by Dan Gerino, InsideClimate News, Apr 30, 2020
-
Frank19385 at 06:04 AM on 1 May 2020DMI show cooling Arctic
Please, stop measuring temperatures during the melt season! It's hidden, because it's latent heat . And the more ice melts the cooler the environment will be. Every kilo of melted ice cools 80 liter water with 1 degree C.
-
Frank19385 at 05:46 AM on 1 May 2020Models are unreliable
I want to know if the climate models take the latent heat of melting ice into account ? Now the temperature in 80 N area is moderated at 0 C in the summer. (see 80 N graph of DMI) If all ice has gone the temperature will increase very fast. Because it looks like the models are interpolating the observed temperatures , they do not see the latent heat of 334 KJ/kg of melting ice. This amount of energy will be replaced by sensibile heat of water 4,18 KJ/kg.K. Also the specific heat of water is almost twice the specific heat of ice 2.108 kJ/kg.K This also explains why the Arctic Amplification only happens from October tot April, because it's below zero and thus not part of the fusion water/ice at 0 C. I read in many papers that AA is not well understood. But I'm sure this is the main cause; It's the specific heat of ice in the Arctic compared with specific heat of water in the rest of the world.
-
michael sweet at 04:56 AM on 1 May 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Jef@10:
There are hundreds of papers describing All Power renewable systems. You are sim[ply uninformed. Here are two: Jacobson 2018 and Smart Energy Europe 2016. Use GOOGLE Scholar to obtain the papers that cite these two papers and you will find much more than you want to read on All Power renewable systems.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:12 PM on 30 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
It is disappointing to see something so obviously contrary to "expanded awareness and improved understanding applied to help achieve a sustainable and improvable future for humanity" be so popular in supposedly more advanced nations.
But I am used to seeing opposition to achieving and improving the Sustainable Development Goals be "Very Popular", especially among the populations of the supposedly more advanced nations.
Any nation that has a significant portion of its population easily impressed by something like this movie is obviously not very advanced, in spite of its developed impressions of advancement and superiority.
Any nation where harmful misleading story-telling can be popular enough to be influential, and is not clearly reducing the ability for harmful misleading story-telling to be influential, is failing to protect itself from being taken over by people who want to rule by Tyranny (Not an extremist claim or hyperbolic. This is a serious problem).
-
nigelj at 07:55 AM on 30 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
jef @10
"All criticism of POTH fails to give hard current facts "
Not by my observation. The link I posted included several facts. Jef has to show in detail why you think its wrong, only then will people listen.
"Advocates for a renewable do not talk about after switching over electrical generation, a monumental task that insures we use up most of the afordable FFs, then we will also electricify all the work that FFs do for us more than doubling the amount of "renewable energy" needed, putting it into dream land. "
Not correct. While converting to renewables is indeed a big task, its technically and economically feasible according to numerous studies that you have not even attempted to refute.
Renewables are inevitable because sooner or later we will run out of fossil fuels. Peak oil and peak coal on wikipedia review the academic estimates and suggest we will run out in 100 - 150 years globally. Its expected that the coal rich USA will run out of economically recoverable coal in just 50 years. So renewables are inevitable, and possibly nuclear power to some extent in some places. That's another argument. The point is we need a new and clean energy grid.
"Every open area will need to be covered in solar, wind, biomass production, and every drop of FFs will be used to accomplish it, and used very rapidly due to the urgency."
No, if a country like the USA was entirely powered by solar farms it would cover less than 0.5% of the land area. Here are some credible calculations and graphics.
"With the global shutdown it is clear that we can cut all energy use in half instantly and cut further as we get smarter about it."
No it is not clear. There has been no significant change in electricity generation. There is less traffic on the roads and less air travel, but only because people are in lockdown and factories have closed. You cannot keep that up for long without severe shortages emerging. Refer to the second link I posted.
The lockdown does not prove we can reduce energy use in a dramatic and long lasting way. It does suggest that we can reduce some energy use, eg more working from home. This might remain after lockdowns are lifted, time will tell.
I do agree with Jef to the extent we must aim to reduce our energy use, but we have to be realistic about expectations. People are unlikely to be prepared to go cold in winter etc, or face supply shortages of consumer goods we take for granted these days. But people clearly are buying more energy efficient appliances, insulating homes, and some are flying a bit less and buying smaller cars. There are some realistic things we can do to be encouraged, but others look like wishful thinking to me.
"If people around the world were told the truth and understand that AGW is not a belief system that you get to believe in or not, then they would make the choice themselves to not have babies or fewer babies which would stop population growth instantly."
Yes, but it still would only have very limited benefit in terms of meeting the Paris Accord goals, because it takes time for the demographics to change as eclectic points out.
More realistic median estimates are population reaching about 10 billion by around the end of this century then slowly falling. Realistic policies might improve this a bit to maybe 9 billion people and falling more sharply. This would obviously help stop warming getting up around 5 degrees but it wont stop us getting to 2 degrees at least. And less people might consume more of the available energy and materials, in one big extravagant party, so we are reliant on some way of discouraging that.
-
william5331 at 06:43 AM on 30 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
With respect to population reduction, it is happening whether we like it or not. There is just a wee overshoot because of the youth demographic of some countries but in many many countries the birth rate is below the replacement rate of 2.1. Read The Empty Planet by Bricker. No need to do anything. Just educate women and even this is not necessary. Just give them affordable (read free in some cases) contraception and they will do the rest. https://mtkass.blogspot.com/2009/02/malthus-pyramid-schemes-starvation-and.html
-
SirCharles at 03:46 AM on 30 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Solar and Wind Cheapest Sources of Power in Most of the World
Solar and onshore wind power are now the cheapest new sources of electricity in at least two-thirds of the world’s population, further threatening the two fossil-fuel stalwarts — coal and natural gas.
The levelized cost of electricity for onshore wind projects has fallen 9% to $44 a megawatt-hour since the second half of last year. Solar declined 4% to $50 a megawatt-hour, according to a report Tuesday by BloombergNEF.
The prices are even lower in countries including the U.S., China and Brazil. Equipment costs have come down, technologies have improved and governments across the world have boosted clean-power targets as they seek to combat climate change. That could squeeze out coal and natural gas when utilities develop new power plants. ...
-
dana1981 at 02:17 AM on 30 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
jef @ 10 - sorry, nothing you said there makes any sense or bears any resemblance to reality.
Note that I'll also have a piece debunking this film in the next week or two.
-
Justino Rodrigues at 01:26 AM on 30 April 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
It seems that this discussion have derrailed a bit. I was able to read almost everything. I decided to join the discussion because very recently I done a compreensive research about this subject. In the end, I have made a article, where I conclude that the position for nuclear energy is not the best, comparatively to renewable technologies.
- Renewable technologies already have the technical potential to supply all primary energy demand, while nuclear energy is still dependent on important technological advancements. Fusion power is also a promising technology, but its technical feasibility was not demonstrated yet.- Nuclear energy is relatively clean and has less land requirements, but its waste management continues to be an expensive and potentially dangerous problem waiting for a definitive solution.
-Nuclear energy is becoming less competitive relatively to renewable technologies (specially wind and solar power) in terms of levelized costs of energy. Moreover, the costs associated to the management of the nuclear waste tend to increase over time, and the decommission costs of a nuclear power plant remain difficult to evaluate.
-Nuclear energy is a relatively safe technology, presenting one of the lowest fatality rates, even considering the nuclear accidents in Chernobyl and Fukushima. However, its potential for catastrophic events is considerable and have a high psychological effect on people’s mind.
-A set of technological developments are taking place which would enable renewable technologies to provide satisfactory stability levels to the electric power system in the future, allowing thus the dismissal of nuclear power plants from that role.
I will not post here all the references I have consulted since it would be messy. Instead, you can read my article. If there any particular subject anyone wants to discuss, I will be glad to do so.
Here is the link.
Thanks to allModerator Response:[PS] Good to see an article with a comprehensive list of sources at the bottom.
-
SirCharles at 00:45 AM on 30 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Can the world run on renewables? Yes, Stanford researchers say.
Additional reporting here => Renewable Energy Could Power the World by 2050
=> 3 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
-
jef12506 at 23:53 PM on 29 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
All criticism of POTH fails to give hard current facts to refute the claims in the documentary they mostly denegrate the makers.
"Renewables" are not! After electriity generation FFs perform 80% of all work around the world. An enormous amount of work.
Advocates for a renewable do not talk about after switching over electrical generation, a monumental task that insures we use up most of the afordable FFs, then we will also electricify all the work that FFs do for us more than doubling the amount of "renewable energy" needed, putting it into dream land. Every open area will need to be covered in solar, wind, biomass production, and every drop of FFs will be used to accomplish it, and used very rapidly due to the urgency.
With the global shutdown it is clear that we can cut all energy use in half instantly and cut further as we get smarter about it.
If people around the world were told the truth and understand that AGW is not a belief system that you get to believe in or not, then they would make the choice themselves to not have babies or fewer babies which would stop population growth instantly.
The promis of a "renewable" future is lie causing way more harm than good.
Moderator Response:[DB] As was the case with your previous comment, nebulous assertions and dismissive, hand-waving claims lacking specific examples are sloganeering and are generally unhelpful to this discussion. For example, read here and here to see specifics that run counter to your claims.
-
GwsB at 23:17 PM on 29 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
The guest author, Ketan Joshi, has a beautiful site, https://ketanjoshi.co/2020/04/24/planet-of-the-humans-a-reheated-mess-of-lazy-old-myths/ It is a pleasure to visit that site and to read the comments.
Moderator Response:[DB] Hyperlinked URL.
-
Eclectic at 22:43 PM on 29 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Wol, as you are doubtless aware, the global desirable goal is zero nett carbon emission by about 2050. Technically, it is likely achievable in a practical sense ~ but political inertia will probably make us overshoot that date (judging by how things are running at present ! )
In comparison, have a look at the projected world population curve if by 2030 the human fertility rate drops to about 1.4 (present day examples : Italy, Japan). Or achieves that 1.4 fertility rate by 2050 . . . or 2070. Unfortunately , those scenarios are extremely unlikely to happen within the next half-century.
Africa & other poverty-stricken regions will not reach a low reproduction rate until they have a large increase in education levels for women, combined with increased wealth (and social security for old age). This seems to be the lesson of history.
Even with a 1.4 rate, miraculously, in the near future ~ the world population would stay high throughout this century [2020-2100]. So without the techological "fix" for carbon emissions, there cannot be a cure for the global warming problem.
If you notice today's amount of heel-dragging & push-back on CO2 emissions, then you might like to imagine the future outrage coming from the political and/or religious firebrands protesting about any suggestion of population limitation as direct governmental policy.
In short, we might achieve timely carbon emission control ~ but (wars and plagues aside) there is zero chance we can do that by population control. Fixing excess resources consumption, ecological pollution, overpopulation etc . . . are all problems which will mostly have to wait until we fix the basic climate/AGW problem.
-
SirCharles at 21:57 PM on 29 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
@6 Wol
"It's only a few years since the UN estimate was a peak of 9Bn. Then in the last year or two, 10Bn."
Source?
Prev 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 Next
