Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 Next
Comments 11751 to 11800:
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:10 AM on 2 March 2019A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
nigelj,
Responding regarding:
- Directly linking environmental concerns with social concerns
- Increased conservative attitudes as people get older
I will start by pointing out the potentially radical awareness and understanding that the 'addition' of Rebate to a Carbon Fee is linking a social concern with an environmental action. A Carbon Fee alone is an economic action that can change behaviours regarding the 'environmental concern'. There is no 'environmental need' to add a rebate component. A constantly increasing Carbon Fee is all that needs to be implemented (not some calculated carbon cost, just the Carbon Fee increasing as required to achieve the required result). Of course, just focusing on the environmental concern also leads to the obvious result of 'acceptable' actions being whatever the powerful winners of the competitions for status are happy with. And the logical conclusion of that competition is people with higher status not being happy with anything that would reduce their developed perceptions of status. The winners can be expected to only be happy with maintaining and increasing their perceptions of status regardless of 'consequences suffered by Others'.
Conservative attitudes will definitely been seen to develop as the part of the brain that allows rational consideration of the potential consequences of an impulsive thought becomes a working part of the human brain. That capability develops in most minds by the age of 25. And that development 'would make a person more conservative than they were before it fully developed'. But the socioeconomic-political environment a person develops in can also significantly affect their development of helpful critical thinking (as opposed to the type of critical but incorrect rationalization that can so easily be done instead). And admittedly in cultures with competitions for impressions of status relative to others that allow more freedom regarding actions and perceptions of status, many people will resist putting that ability to helpful purpose, because they have been building personal perceptions of status on understandably harmful actions. And some people will resist giving up developed perceptions of status for themselves or the group they have joined (or created to help them resist losing understandably undeserved perceptions of status)that is well used by many people.
Climate Action needs to be understood to be an 'added required correction' to the other identified changes of direction of development and corrections of what has developed that are presented in the Sustainable Development Goals (and all of the other similar presentations of what is needed for humanity to have a sustainable better future). The GND is a sub-set of the SDGs (the SDGs are more comprehensive than what is in the GND and the developed understanding is that achieving all of the SDGs is required - only achieving some of the SDGs actually achieves nothing sustainable). But the GND is a Good Step in the Right direction for correcting leadership thinking and for correcting the system that has been incorrectly developing popular thinking in the USA.
Greta was correct to declare that the problem was 'the lack of responsible leadership by the attendees at Davos'. Some may be trying to behave responsibly. But obviously only having some winners have to admit (because of popular pressure) that they need to correct things in ways that will be helpful to the future of humanity and diminish their developed perceptions of status, particularly the ones unjustifiably fighting against a 'loss of undeserved status within their Tribe of Winners' is not Good Enough.
Climate Science has unwittingly exposed the unacceptability of the socioeconomic-political systems that have developed, and exposed the reality that many people and groups with developed perceptions of higher status are not deserving of their perceived status (and will fight to Conserve their undeserved Winning, including taking control of or forming United Conservative Labelled Tribes that will support Their resistance to being corrected). That will not be corrected by 'clearer presentation of technical facts'. The resistance to correction is not playing a fact-based game. Exposing the type of game actually being played is required. It is a misinformation game filled with appeals related to incorrectly developed harmful perceptions of "Values", incorrect perceptions used to trigger resistance to the developments and corrections identified in the SDGs. Note that the SDGs are open to improvement (that is how they developed), and so is the GND. But those improvements will not negate any of the key awareness and understanding that has already been established (just like new climate science is highly unlikely to not change the majority of the currently developed awareness and understanding of climate science and the required corrections of developed human activity).
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:15 AM on 2 March 2019A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
scaddenp,
All 'learning' involves improving (increasing and correcting) a person's awareness and understanding. And learning can be accomplished at any age.
Being helpful can be learned, especially when awareness and understandings have been established (that are open for continuous improvement) that can be used as the basis for better identifying what is helpful (like the Sustainable Development Goals).
Achieving the economic corrections required to keep the global warming below 1.5C or 2.0C in ways that do not make more people desperately poor is the required solution.
Other actions that pragmatically side-step the social circumstances can trigger or fuel (has triggered and fuelled) violent actions, like the yellow-vest protests in France (and worse in Syria and the Sudan).
And a carbon tax and rebate is less action than what is now required because of the pragmatic leadership actions through the past 30 years. And the conservative middle appears to have little will or ability to support even a weak implementation of Carbon Fee and Rebate in the USA (the middle appear to have become powerless pragmatics remaining loyal in the New GOP or retiring from politics).
The social elements are probably in the GND for Good Reasons. Pragmatic leadership actions can be seen to have made WW2 the debacle it became (corrective actions were started too late). And the inattention by Republicans and Democrats to the plight of the poor propelled Trump to the Thin Win of the Presidency he achieved, not because he cared to help the poor, but because he took advantage of the tragedy that had been created by Pragmatic Leadership on both sides.
Admittedly, resistance to correction is a powerful thing. There is indeed plenty of evidence that it is very easy to tempt people to believe that they do not have to correct their thoughts. However, pragmatically 'getting along' by letting people be harmfully incorrect is not very helpful, and is potentially very harmful (in spite of developed perceptions misleading people to want to believe otherwise).
Things like the GND and SDGs justifiably question and challenge developed perceptions of how Good the developed political leadership Really is in the USA and around the planet. The likes of Trump are right about change being required, but their type of change (increased resistance to correction of awareness and understanding) is not helpful.
As to the question of me becoming like a climate science denier in a Red State: The scary thing is the way that Sally Kohn's "The Opposite of Hate" exposes how even people who were Good Neighbours can be tempted to do horrible things to their neighbours. It is even easier to get supposedly Good People to do harm to people they do not know (Sally's book also exposes how people who have behaved horribly can learn to become helpful). I would hope that I could not be tempted to become like a harmful denier in a Red State or a member of a harmful political tribe (or a harmful radical Eco-warrior that would cause harm to loggers by putting spikes in trees). I hope to resist having that happen to me by striving to constantly improve my awareness and understanding of how to be helpful (having that objective over-power the Other Moral Urges that can lead to the systemic development of harmful Values that can be hard to correct but do need to be corrected).
-
MA Rodger at 00:14 AM on 2 March 2019The Big Picture (2010 version)
If you look up 2017 Primary Energy Use from the table on page 8 of the BP 2018 Review of World Energy (13,551 million TOE or 157,000 TWh or 17.9TW or 0.035Wm^2) it comes out below 20TW.
As this SkS graphic (perhaps a little out-of-date now) shows (from this thread), Primary Energy Use is tiny on a global scale.
-
John Hartz at 00:06 AM on 2 March 2019What's in the Green New Deal? Four key issues to understand
Recommended supplemental reading:
The Green New Deal and the Strength of Ambiguity by Alan Neuhauser, US News & World Report, Mar 1, 2019
Teaser: The proposal is forcing Democrats to pick a side and propelling the environment into a top 2020 campaign issue.
-
Eclectic at 23:51 PM on 1 March 2019The Big Picture (2010 version)
Apologies ~ that should have been Terawatt-years annually
. . . or just plain Terawatts, of course.
-
Eclectic at 23:36 PM on 1 March 2019The Big Picture (2010 version)
AEBanner @207 ,
on my back-of-envelope calculations :-
Earth surface area : 510 million sq. Km
multiply by +2 watts/squ. meter (of solar-origin greenhouse) imbalance
= 1020 Terawatt-years of warming.
The ubiquitous Wikipedia shows humans' energy consumption about 20 Terawatt-years. (You could probably add slightly to that, to allow for an inefficiency fudge factor . . . but then you probably ought to subtract hydro power and a tiny amount for solar power etc.)
So ~ human "industrial" heat production would be roughly 50x smaller than the additional warming "from AGW".
AGW effect was less than 1 watt/squ.m. say fifty years ago . . . but human industrial power was also much less, then, too.
Overall, your energy idea seems dead in the water. ( Barring an embarrassing error on my envelope! )
-
AEBanner at 22:24 PM on 1 March 2019The Big Picture (2010 version)
Anthropogenic energy could be causing global warming
AEBanner
The sum total of all the primary energy used since 1966 is enough to explain the measured warming of the Earth's atmosphere. Energy data was taken from the BP website.
I have corrected the link to my post on wordpress, as below.
https://wordpress.com/read/blogs/154908990/posts/50
I should be very pleased to receive constructive comments here.
-
Eclectic at 21:45 PM on 1 March 2019What's in the Green New Deal? Four key issues to understand
Nowhearthis @11 ,
you made a lengthy post earlier today on another thread.
The essence of your post, was that the recent rise of atmospheric CO2 from 280ppm to the modern-day 400ppm . . . had only a small component due to human burning of fossil fuels.
It follows, that you are asserting that the 280 up to 400ppm rise has a mostly natural causation.
Please, Nowhearthis, inform the readers here at SkS about the natural mechanism you believe is predominantly causing that large atmospheric CO2 rise. (And preferably show it in a "confirmed" way . . . and without using terms like "may be".)
If you cannot demonstrate such natural mechanism, then your whole argument that the observed global warming is uncorrectable . . . does simply fall flat on its face.
Or were you also trying to argue that CO2 has inherently negligible global warming effect anyway? (An argument which would leave you with zero logical credibility.)
-
MA Rodger at 21:31 PM on 1 March 2019New research, February 4-10, 2019
nowhearthis @21,
You appear to exhibit all the markers of someone in denial over AGW.
To pick up on one comment you make:-
" We mus also understand the CO2 is a small part of the atmosphere and most generation is outside human control."
What do you mean by this statement concerning the "most generation" of CO2? The 'generation' of elevated atmospheric CO2 levels over the last century or so is all due to humankind. So presumably you are talking of something else. As you insist "we mus(t) understand", what is it you are actually talking about?
-
nigelj at 16:20 PM on 1 March 2019What's in the Green New Deal? Four key issues to understand
"What demonstrated proof exists to show the GND will reverse climate change."
None. We cannot test the Green New Deal on some artifical planet in a laboratory. We only have one shot at this thing, the real world.
Neither could we be sure the very first experimental vaccines or the very first motor car would work. We had to build one and try it out.
What we know for a fact is certain aspects of the green new deal would work. More renewable electricity generation would be built assuming political support continued for the plan. We also know for a fact this would at least slow down climate change. We can't guarantee exactly how much, but we can estimate approximately and sufficiently for practical purposes. We can also have good confidence in the other aspects of the GND.
You got a better plan? Do you appreciate the considerable risks climate change has for humanity?
(I dont agree the Green new Deal is entirely the best approach but its certainly one possible way. The socio-economic provisions complicate the plan.)
-
nowhearthis at 15:40 PM on 1 March 2019What's in the Green New Deal? Four key issues to understand
I asked this fundemental question on another topic and got lots of avoidance and reinforcment of the causes of CC, but no actual answer/citation. I'll tune it to this topic: What demonstrated proof exists to show the GND will reverse climate change.
Please omit claims that use terms like "can", "may", 'appears', etc. and state "does", "confirmed", "has" etc. The former is 'faith' the latter is 'reality'.
Moderator Response:[JH] The Green New Deal is a proposal for action by the US and the US only. The mitigation of man-made climate change will require a concerted and coordinated effort by all countries of the world because the Earth's climate system is global. Your question is therefore illogical and your post borders on sloganeering which is prohibited by this site's Comments Policy.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
nowhearthis at 15:23 PM on 1 March 2019New research, February 4-10, 2019
I believe people in Africa (or any country for that matter) consume food and require crops to meet that demand. You also must understand humanity doesn't exist in a vacuum, 3rd world societies want 1st world benefits. They will work and evolve to achieve that and that's a game changer for the climate change solutions proffered today. Regardless the reference was largely related to the 'total solution' picture conveyed by RedBaron. Easily the most insightful and enlightening comments I've heard in this discussion. The reference to 'tax payer funded' is grounded in reality. Can you name a single large, scale, privately funded CO2 reduction effort?
I've reviewed IPCC documentation - NONE, shows a proven, difinitive, demonstrated solution. Certainly CO2 climate issues can be demonstrated - that is a cause NOT a cure. We mus also understand the CO2 is a small part of the atmosphere and most generation is outside human control. Additionally, that CO2 is largely the reason this planet is inhabitable. I absolutely demand validation from any medical practitioner, for their advice, therapies and medications - you don't? Few things in life are certain, but demanding reasonable proof and not operating on assumption, makes sense to me.
Re. nuclear detonations, I didn't intend to distract, only point out a possible reality. Hiroshima? It was miniscule (15kt) vs today's weapons technologies that can yield thousands of times that. A serious exchange could easily be cataclismic and render climate change concerns irrelevant.
I keep going back to the fundemental issue. I've seen no proof FF reduction cures climate change, particularly in a localized context, if you have proof provide it. If there is an IPCC paper not littered with "appears", "can", "may", etc. and uses "does", "has", "did", etc. I must have missed it, please send me the liink/reference. I hear lots of avoidance and see many pretty graphs, but nothing answering the basic question: Where is there proof the climate change mitigation strategies actually work?
-
nigelj at 10:58 AM on 1 March 2019A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
Scaddenp @48, yes. I have written detailed letters to Labour imploring them to be practical and remember centre voters. If you don't win enough votes you can't to a thing. Helen Clark understood it. However there is the risk you end up with weak policies, so its not an easy balance.
Lian Dann is right. The underlying plan is probably just a cgt on investment property, probably a sellable proposition. Clobbering small business is not.
I agree I think it was a mistake to put socio-economic values in it the GND. I think what has happened in America is growing tribalism, and The Democrats are hurting form Clintons loss, and have reacted by swinging left. Some media commentary is saying this. As a result they have sort of exploded, and dumped everything possible in the Green New Deal possibly without thinking of the strategic implications.
However The Democrats did need a "branding exercise" of some sort because its become unclear what they really stand for. But better to keep it separate from environmental stuff.
-
scaddenp at 10:19 AM on 1 March 2019A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
nigelj, I think things are better here because the political fights have always looked to the center and swinging voters. The policies of the extremes on either end cant be sold to the electorate and politicians know it. If for instance Labour goes ahead with a CGT, they will be committing politcal suicide if they dont make it a lot more palatable to the right (or at least centre-right). You already see the processes at work for that. I doubt even the Greens (at least ones with any political experience) would try and sell something like Green New Deal to the electorate.
-
scaddenp at 10:13 AM on 1 March 2019A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
OPOF - literature doesn't usually conflate moral foundation with values but I guess idea is pretty similar. The idea that one can "govern" others is fundamentally at odds with concept. Foundations/values are what govern the pre-conscious reaction to something. Since it is pre-conscious, it is what it is, and you cant change it. What happens in the conscious mind after that is largely rationalization of the pre-conscious judgement.
Helpfulness will be used to justify that conclusion (eg a right-wing denier is going claim that peoples job, hard-earned income, and freedoms are at jeopardy thanks to leftist plot. Spot the rationalization?)
You arent going to change that with discourse. I ask again, can you think of any argument that would change your values to that of a red-state denier?
-
John Hartz at 09:57 AM on 1 March 2019What's in the Green New Deal? Four key issues to understand
scaddenp: recommended supplemental reading:
Our kids need us to act fast on climate change by Heather McGhee, Grist, Feb 27, 2019
-
nigelj at 09:47 AM on 1 March 2019A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
Scaddenp @44
"The drivers which switch behaviour though depend on working with human psychology rather convincing people to do things because it is "morally right".
True in the main. One example in NZ is conservatives, despite being tribal, and historically a bit sceptical of immigration and multiculturalism have become more accepting of immigration and multi culturalism, and why? Not so much moral lecturing I admit. It's the potential to make money! And to be seen to be open minded?
But I think over time this all alters the psche as well, and deeper lingering xenophobic attitudes possibly disappear as well.
I say "in the main" because it seems to escape you that moral judgements are inescapable. Eg most of us agree stealing is wrong. This is appealing to morality and both sides have reached agreement on it. I think the issue here is it takes considerable time to solidify society wide agreement on basic morals and elements of criminal law.
"What is hard to do (impossible), is change the voter of a tribal elector. (Betrayal, Disrespect). And unfortunately a host of other things including attitudes to race where it is tied into tribal identity (apparently so in much of US)."
Yeah true, tribalism can become like a vicious self reinforcing cycle and then we have a war. Terrible thing. America are falling into this cycle.
How far can people bend? Take the UN development goals (and forget the UN label). I could believe the majority of conservatives could embrace these. There's nothing to suggest they are alien to underlying values of fairness, purity, authority etc. The main sticking point is how much should one country help another? And also how they are achieved? Is itindividual initiative or state action, and here conservatives are suspicious of "big government".
Now here is where we have a big sticking point because some things require some level of "big government", eg universal healthcare. No matter how much we try to find a psychological or economic mechanism to justify universal healthcare that appeals to conservatives (eg it gives us a strong productive population) it still comes up with a, ideological fight about big v small government ideology. How the hell does one resolve that?
Personally I think we have to make a rational case for things like universal healthcare and hope most people accept it. Fortunately in NZ both sides do seem to accept "moderately sized government" and the fight is around the edges of issues, and is not as tribal and ideologically driven as America. We are a pretty pragmatic lot in NZ.
OPOF,
Helping others is a fine basic value to encourage. I think it sits at the top of the values pyramid. The issue is conservative resentment of things like tax payer funded welfare programmes. It seems to conflcit with their deeply seated disllike of so called big government, however fortunately a rational economic case case can be made for many government programmes thus avoiding too much moralising on it.
Not that moralising and rational / economic cases are mutually exclusive. I think we can do both.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:25 AM on 1 March 2019A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
scaddenp,
All I am saying is that all Values can be governed by improved awareness and understanding of the essential importance of helping Others including helping to develop sustainable improvements, and make required corrections of unsustainable harmful developments, for the benefit of the future of humanity.
There are indeed competing values. A set of six have been pretty well identified by studies and been presented comprehensively by Jonathan Haidt in "The Righteous Mind". What was not presented in the book is the importance of Helpfulness governing how all the other Values are Valued.
All of those Values can be, and need to be, Governed by the Value of 'Helpfulness - Do no harm', which is One of the Six.
The other values related to Fairness, Loyalty, Purity/Cleanliness, Acceptance of Hierarchy, and Liberty can all be understood to be able to be limited/governed in their acceptability by Helpfulness. Making any of the other Values more important than Helpfulness is not helpful, and can actually be very harmful. That can be understood by everyone.
-
Ger at 08:46 AM on 1 March 2019Prices are not Enough
Some research done in Asia of the potential of CO2eq avoidance gives between 18.7 to 22 tons/ha/year CO2 equivalent, which can be reduced with water management (60%), removal of straw from field (30%) and slow release fertilizers. Mainly CH4 is the source.
source: Vietnam average rice cultivation emissions (https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/959124), thO2 is from own calculation for a particular area in the Mekong from the Biomass resource map ESMAP 2018.
If RedBaron is mentioning 5 - 20 ton, it will be CH4 and N2O avoidance, not so much CO2. As for avoiding CH4 etc., a mineral book keeping method does work, regulating how much minerals are optimal instead of dumping tons of manure and loads of artifical fertilizers onto pastures.
Pushing a Emissions Trading System ETS where (developing) countries can trade their (simple) avoided GHG gasses with developed countries to fund better equipment (power plants, tractors) and infrastructure (dykes, roads, efficient transport, irrigation).
-
scaddenp at 07:07 AM on 1 March 2019What's in the Green New Deal? Four key issues to understand
Well as per my comment elsewhere, I am not a fan. While stated green goals are laudable, it has a social agenda likely to simply alienate the centre and further polarize the politics. It makes me angry to see politicians (of all colours) choose to further cultural wars on an issue as important climate change.
-
scaddenp at 06:57 AM on 1 March 2019The Big Picture (2010 version)
I cant see anything either. Doesnt matter whether I login to wordpress or google, I see nothing. You arent going to get any traction unless you put it on public site. It is likely you can see it because you are are owner and it believes you to be logged in. Trying opening it with a different browser from the one you log into it with. I suspect you also need to change the visibility settings for your blog.
-
scaddenp at 06:48 AM on 1 March 2019New research, February 4-10, 2019
MA Rodgers - I grabbed the "Sustainable Energy without all the hot air" graph primarly because I knew it existed and was in a hurry. Unfortunately, the graph is developed over several pages to explain all its subtlety. This page has similar data (to 2011) but lacks the population-perspective.
-
scaddenp at 06:41 AM on 1 March 2019A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
Biological determination is relatively new hypothesis, but immutability of values has been long observed. Whatever the underlying mechanisms, they seem set at an early age.
OPOF - what I am claiming is about values. Behaviours are mutable - provide there isnt a perceived conflict with internal values. Which is just as well because behaviours are primarily what we want to change. Changing attitudes to plastic are a good example of where things want to go. So.. these are achievable:
Recycling - if it has become the accepted thing, (people look down their noses if you dont), then a social instincts easily rule. Heavy handed forcing though might provoke backlash based on perceived loss of freedom.
Switching to electric vehicles. Same as above but if EV also has status then so much the easier.
Buying renewable power - carbon tax is your friend since buying renewable is avoidance of tax. You might even get better uptake if carbon tax revenue was spent on something reprehensible ( but a lot harder to get the tax into law).The drivers which switch behaviour though depend on working with human psychology rather convincing people to do things because it is "morally right".
What is hard to do (impossible), is change the voter of a tribal elector. (Betrayal, Disrespect). And unfortunately a host of other things including attitudes to race where it is tied into tribal identity (apparently so in much of US).
-
nigelj at 05:52 AM on 1 March 2019What's in the Green New Deal? Four key issues to understand
"It targets fossil fuel use as the main problem, but animal agriculture is the main problem...fossil fuel is the lesser problem...by a fair margin."
Looks like you are wrong.
"On top of those two problems is the largest problem of all...overpopulation. The greenhouse gas footprint of humans, 7.3 billion or so (last count), is the only problem that can't be solved by fiat, policy or acceptable pain."
In fact population is already below replacement levels in countries like S Korea and Germany and we know what policies have driven this. Could be expanded globally if we wanted. The population problem is not unsolvable
-
Sunspot at 05:36 AM on 1 March 2019What's in the Green New Deal? Four key issues to understand
Current world population is estimated to be 7.7 billion. (Google)
-
william5331 at 05:24 AM on 1 March 2019What's in the Green New Deal? Four key issues to understand
Excellent program, much needed and likely to be very effective if followed. Unfortunately a complete waste of time and effort. https://mtkass.blogspot.com/2018/01/wasted-effort.html
-
AEBanner at 05:01 AM on 1 March 2019The Big Picture (2010 version)
New thoughts about the cause of global warming
To the Moderator
I'm sorry you have had difficulty accessing my post on wordpress. I have again tried the following link, via Google, and it loaded without any trouble at all.
https://wordpress.com/post/hotgas.club/50
I agree that is somewhat pretentious to call my idea a theory, so I have re-phrased it simply to be "new thoughts". Clearly, I cannot cite previous work because, as far as I know, this is original. However, the figures on which the work is entirely based come directly from the BP Statistical database, as qouted in my post.
I really should be grateful for a critical review of what I have written.
-
swampfoxh at 04:02 AM on 1 March 2019What's in the Green New Deal? Four key issues to understand
I'm confounded. I've been tracking the literature on this site for six years. Where is it that the Green New Deal is something special? There is not a single new idea in any of it, unless we consider its ourageousness, "new". It targets fossil fuel use as the main problem, but animal agriculture is the main problem...fossil fuel is the lesser problem... by a fair margin. On top of those two problems is the largest problem of all...overpopulation. The greenhouse gas footprint of humans, 7.3 billion or so (last count), is the only problem that can't be solved by fiat, policy or acceptable pain. So, eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we shall not see the future.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:34 AM on 1 March 2019A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
scaddenp and nigelj,
As I have mentioned, my guiding objective is improving awareness and understanding to help develop sustainable improvements for the future of humanity.
A large diversity of sub-values can be gathered under that Universal Rule.
And no matter what pre-disposition a person is born with, they can learn to develop within that governing principle.
The human behaviour problems that develop are almost certainly due to the envirnment the individuals experienced and developed in. 'Breaking Cycles of Harm' is a well established understanding. And groups like AA rely on the ability of people to, with personal effort and support, behave different.
As more people become aware of that, the systems will change, and so will the types of people that develop in the socioeconomic-political systems.
Admittedly a few 'highly-resistant to correction' people will need to be kept from being able to significantly affect or influence Others (be kept from participating in public competitions for development of impressions relative to Others). But the majority should be expected to want to be more helpful, less harmful, by improving their awareness and understanding.
-
AEBanner at 01:44 AM on 1 March 2019The Big Picture (2010 version)
Energy Theory for Global Warming
I should like to offer an alternative theory to explain global warming.Please visit my post at https://wordpress.com/post/hotgas.club/50
I should like to receive your comments here.
AEBanner
Moderator Response:[DB] Even after a mandatory login with Google, your site would not load. Unless you have observational evidence to support it, your conjecture does not rise to the level of a theory.
-
John Hartz at 01:16 AM on 1 March 2019What's in the Green New Deal? Four key issues to understand
Suggested supplemental reading:
The Hard Lessons of Dianne Feinstein’s Encounter with the Young Green New Deal Activists, Opinion by Bill McKibben, New Yorker Magazine, Feb 23, 2019
The Climate Science Behind The Green New Deal - A Layperson's Explanation by Marshall Shepherd, Science, Forbes, Feb 24, 2019
This is an emergency, damn it by David Roberts, Energy & Environment, Vox, Feb 23, 2019
A Green New Deal Is Technologically Possible. Its Political Prospects Are Another Question. by Lisa Friedman & Trip Gabriel, Politics. New York Times, Feb 21, 2019
Don't trust the adults in the room on climate change, Opinion by Kate Aronoff, Comment is Free, Guardian, Feb 25, 2019
A Green New Deal is fiscally responsible. Climate inaction is not, Opinion by Justin Talbot Zorn, Ben Beachy & Rhiana Gunn-Wright, Comment is Free, Guardian, Feb 25, 2019
-
Evan at 00:43 AM on 1 March 2019What's in the Green New Deal? Four key issues to understand
I think the following sentences from this article spell it out well and deserve to be repeated.
"How much more global warming can occur before its net physical impacts become unacceptably negative?
The science community’s answer is that we’ve already passed that point; that it’s time to act now."
-
michael sweet at 23:18 PM on 28 February 2019What's in the Green New Deal? Four key issues to understand
I think Dana's commentaries are always good.
In the USA I think most people feel bad for other countries but in the end will not do anything to help out those countries. Suggesting that "curbing climate change could also prevent trillions of dollars in damages globally", while true, does not appeal to many voters
With the cost of sea level rise on the US East coast alone you could justify saying curbing climate change would save the USA alone trillions. Add in the wildfires, floods and increased hurricanes affecting the USA already and people will listen.
The cost of the GND will be lower than the cost of currently occuring damage. In addition the cost of the GND is less than current subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. Emphasing that installing renewable energy saves money rather than discussing how much it costs appeals to more people. Renewable energy will be cheaper to install until at least 50% of the electrical system is renewable.
Emphasize that most of the electrical generating system (especially coal plants) is old and will have to be replaced in any case. The choice is buiilding new fossil plants or new cheaper renewable plants.
Emphasize the benifits of the GND, do not focus on hypothetical problems from the fossiil fuel industry.
-
Postkey at 20:54 PM on 28 February 2019There’s one key takeaway from last week’s IPCC report
Does anyone know if this is the case?
" . . . the IPCC report is faulty, based on ten year old CO² emissions data . . . yet the IPCC report neglected to include the last ten years of emissions in it's calculations."
-
MA Rodger at 18:25 PM on 28 February 2019New research, February 4-10, 2019
Correction to #18.
Of course a 1750-2008 integration would be 'above 1t(C) not 10t(C). That does allow the possibility for it being, say, an integration over a shorter period, perhaps since 1900, and showing tons(CO2) not tons(C).
-
MA Rodger at 18:19 PM on 28 February 2019New research, February 4-10, 2019
scaddenp @17,
Certainly, if it were Cumulative Emissions it would have a very different shape from the Current Emissions graph. It doesn't help itself by labelling its y-axis "Average pollution rate (tons CO2/y per person)" and no title.
But even with that I struggle. I note from the source (where it's Figure 12) that it dates back to 2008. (I haven't found a web-page using the graph that may better put it in context.) Cumulative Per-Capita CO2 are in excess of 300 tons(carbon) by 2010 for UK US & Germany. (A graphic based on CDIAC data is here - usually 2 clicks to 'download your attachment') Integrating over, say since 1750, 260 years would put all three over 10t(C)/year/capita. And the UK would be ahead of US. Mind, China would be a tenth the level, about 1t(C)/year/capita which is about what is shown.
So it remains all rather odd to me.
-
nigelj at 16:52 PM on 28 February 2019What's in the Green New Deal? Four key issues to understand
Nice concise analysis of the main issues. I think agonising and debating over a cost benefit analysis is not the right way to look at this climate problem, because the debating and agonising will never stop. Instead look at total costs and their feasibility and impacts on the economy. Studies like the Stern Report estimate changing to renewable energy would cost 2% of gdp per year, over 30 years. Do it in a compressed 15 year time frame and it would be 4% a year.
This is almost identical to what America spends on the military each year. That is not going to bankrupt the economy, because the rest of the economy could be trimmed and it would barely be noticed provided everyone got behind the issue. It's well short of war spending during WW2.
It's more a question of how the GND is all best funded. The GND proposes a big government spend, which in turn has options of deficit spending, tax increases, or federal reserve credit creation. Alternatively the process could be driven largely by carbon fee and dividend or cap and trade.
I come down on the side of carbon fee and dividend, because it looks politically feasible, and less of a problem than governments taking on more debt, but time is running out. If people cant get it sorted out, the only realstic option of meeting Paris time frames could well be a massive government funded infrastructure programme!
-
nigelj at 16:02 PM on 28 February 2019A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
OPOF and Scaddenp. Academic research suggests people are born either liberal or conservative as below:
academicearth.org/electives/born-republican-born-democrat/
So perhaps core values might be pretty fixed and with a biological origin. But I know conservatives sometimes accept liberal positions and vice versa, on specific issues. People often get a little bit more conservative as they age and circumstances change. So some level of significant change is also clearly possible at least on some specific issues. The mechanism is obviously complicated.
But I'm all for finding common ground etc as well.
None of these things are mutually exclusive.
-
scaddenp at 11:49 AM on 28 February 2019A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
Depends on what you mean by "changing their minds". Core values, (Schwatz framework or similar) nope. Not in the ordinary course of things, or more to point by methods that only involve discourse. Happy to be presented with empirical evidence to the contrary for someone over age of around 7.
Consider what it would take to change your values to that of a right-wing Red-state voter. A bit of a struggle?
Far better to recognize that and work to create change within the context of other peoples values, working with them not against them.
-
scaddenp at 10:42 AM on 28 February 2019New research, February 4-10, 2019
MA rodgers - different quantity - it is not CO2 per capita but historical contribition to CO2 emissions (ie integrated from pre-industrial). Which countries have contributed most to our currently elevated CO2. UK got an early start in the industrial revolution.
-
MA Rodger at 10:17 AM on 28 February 2019New research, February 4-10, 2019
scaddenp @12,
I'm not sure that graphic is up-to-date or even accurate. The US emitting close to the UK per capita figures? Germany per capita lower than the UK? China's total emissions less than the US?
This one seems a better representaion.
Moderator Response:[DB] The image is not displaying for some reasons. Link to it added.
Image display issues fixed.
-
scaddenp at 09:57 AM on 28 February 2019New research, February 4-10, 2019
Well nuclear war could be beneficial for climate - removes a lot of FF users and the associated fire and dust have option for massive (if short term) aerosol load in the atmosphere (aka nuclear winter) while contributing comparatively very little heat.
Personally I would have rather thought the point of climate solutions was to improve the lot for humanity so I dont think this one stacks up.
The increase in CO2 since pre-industrial works results in the equivalent of 4 hiroshimo bombs per second. I suspect nowherethis was expecting a different number.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:50 AM on 28 February 2019A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
There is a misconception that people cannot change their minds.
Some of the more recent writings on the topic are trending towards the understanding that each person is born with a pre-disposition, but the environment they grow up in can make significant changes to that pre-disposed starting point and foundation (no one is born to be harmful).
Sally Kohn's "The Opposite of Hate" is only one of many books exposing that the 'systems' are creating problems.
The developed socioeconomic political systems will only stop resisting correction 'after they are corrected'.
And I agree that the correction requires public support, which means changing the minds of people to develop heartfelt pursuit of helping develop sustainable improvements for the future of humanity.
-
Daniel Bailey at 09:07 AM on 28 February 2019New research, February 4-10, 2019
Sigh. From 1945-2009 there were 2,402 surface and underground nuclear weapon tests. Of those, 527 were conducted above-ground. Of those, some 458 were conducted in the first 20 years of nuclear weapons testing.
Looking at those peak years of testing, the forcing from those 20 years of peak tests of the nuclear weapons on the Earth came to about one eight-millionth of a Watt per square meter (8 x 10-6 W m-2) of power.
For comparison, the 1.8 Watts per square meter (1.8 W m-2) of CO2 radiative forcing as of 2011 generates approximately twenty nine billion, trillion Joules of energy (29 x 1021 J) over the Earth's surface in a single year, or more than ten thousand times as much energy in a year than the entire combined nuclear weapons program of the world had generated in those 20 years.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nuctestsum.html
Annex B Report from 2008
http://www.laradioactivite.com/site/pages/RadioPDF/unscear_artificielle.pdf
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/
https://skepticalscience.com/nuclear.html -
scaddenp at 08:55 AM on 28 February 2019New research, February 4-10, 2019
"Nowhere have I seen any peer-reviewed, difinitive science to demonstrate these Draconian measures (mostly to reduce CO2) actually makes a measurable difference."
Draconian is rhetoric. What makes ending FF subsidies, transition to renewables "draconian". We havent seen any CO2 reductions to make a difference but the IPCC reports WG1 and WG3 are full of peer-reviewed papers on why increased CO2 is causing warming; why changes of GHG have changed climate in past; and what effectiveness of mitigation strategies IPCC wG3. I am guessing that you didnt look very hard. Since you have come to this site, then hopefully you are not just looking for some shallow excuse for inaction.
-
scaddenp at 08:47 AM on 28 February 2019New research, February 4-10, 2019
If you look at who is creating the problem however, the population problem is about the too many rich westerners rather than too many africans. It is the affluent west which are largely responsible for all the extra CO2 in the atmosphere.
It could become too many rich Chinese, but the important part of the equation is the extent to which increasing affluence leads to increased FF use.
You can prove things in mathematics but not science. Do you demand the such nonsensical certainty before you take a doctors advice? Demanding absolute certainty before any action is taken is an impossible criteria and is frankly a rhetorical excuse for inaction.
There is some fundimental physics at work here. We directly measure the increase in irradiation of the globes surface from increased GHG. If you decrease GHG, that radiation goes down. Now in summer your hemisphere gets more radiation at surface than at winter. Do you need proof that decreasing radiation in winter will make it cooler? Ditto for decreasing GHG. Supporting evidence without resorting to physics, would be to note that in other times when GHG levels have been lower, then the climate got colder and warmed again when they rose.
I am guessing "promoting taxpayer funded projects" is an idealogical beef. By all means suggest an effective alternative way to reduce FF consumption which is compatiable with your ideology. This thread is a good place to do it.
-
nowhearthis at 07:08 AM on 28 February 2019New research, February 4-10, 2019
Special thanks to Red Barron for an extensive discussion on the issue. I'm still studying it and your links.
While this page may not specifically state "solutions", much of the debate revolves around things purported as "solutions". Before making major changes to society, perhaps we should validate they are worthwhile. I beleve those affected will demand that. Nowhere have I seen any peer-reviewed, difinitive science to demonstrate these Draconian measures (mostly to reduce CO2) actually makes a measurable difference. All I hear are promises and avoidance - THAT IS A PROBLEM.
We see policies proffered by "progressive" politicians, promoting taxpayer funded projects (rail, transit, bike paths, fuel source shifts) with no proof they are effective. The issue has become a religion and an us vs them sinkhole. Until skeptics and supporters alike can be shown proof these sacrifices work without question, the debate will continue.
Red Barron brings up a powerful point: The remediation equation is more complex than what politicians promote and much of the answer exists outside the developed societies. Further, those who believe the problem is anthropogenic, must acknowledge our massive planetary population increases, offset those 1st world sacrifices sold as "solutions". Planetary population is 7.5b and has doubled in my lifetime, the U.S. represents a little over 4% of that. Big players like China, India, Pacific Rim, Middle East, etc. aren't making the sacrifices sold to us as "solutions". We can't do it alone and the Paris framework wasn't a realistic answer IMO.
Once again, I ask: Is there a paper, study, analysis, etc. that PROVES (not promises or predicts) we can reverse climate change? -or- If sound mitigation methods exist (as Red Barron posits); is it realistic to think we can get the entire planet to make the sacrifices that will drastically degrade their current quality of life for future promises? DOUBTFUL!
This needs to be figured out; wars have started over much less. Raising the question: What is the effect of a few hundred nuclear detonations in the atmosphere and do we have a solution for that?
-
scaddenp at 06:31 AM on 28 February 2019Prices are not Enough
Michael, I dont think RB has pushed farming as silver bullet, but as a potentially important "wedge" to help. When you have food production that depends on growing grain to feed to animals/birds, then there is definitely carbon advantage to convert land use from grain production to direct managed grazing.
Of more concern to me here in NZ, is whether it is possible to reproduce carbon capture observed in prairie soils outside of that environment and how much does it depend on grass types with limited climate range? The only places where grazing has recorded a soil carbon gain instead of loss here is where grazing was introduced onto badly degraded soils formerly used for grain. As RB has pointed out, there is no shortage of badly degraded soils to work with however.
I am persuaded by literature that he has provided, that a lot more work should go into research of low-input managed grazing techniques with different pasture types, rather than the high-input irrigated grazing that typifies most of our dairy systems. Our meat production occurs almost exclusively on low input, hill country, ex-forest soils and so far I cant any find any examples of enhanced soil carbon in these systems.
-
scaddenp at 06:16 AM on 28 February 2019Prices are not Enough
jcfanclub - the predominant carbon prices mechanisms discussed are:
1/ fee and dividend. You tax the carbon and return 100% of what is collected to tax payers on per capita basis. If your FF consumption is "average" then what you get back in dividend should cover the increased cost of FF. However, it creates powerful incentives to reduce FF use and thus benefit from the dividend. I cannot see how anyone could "perpetuate the problem" so as to gain from it.
2/ ETS. Emitters have to buy carbon credits from carbon sequesterers. That certainly creates a convenient revenue scheme for those able to sequester carbon, but how is it possible from them game the system to encourage emissions?
I find it hard to imagine a carbon tax scheme where the revenue beneficiaries could work to perpetuate emissions. Can you provide an example?
-
william5331 at 05:29 AM on 28 February 2019Prices are not Enough
I think the author is way off the mark. The only system likely to actually achieve the aim of reducing our carbon output is Tax and Dividend a la James Hansen
There are a couple of vital aspects of this policy.
1/ The tax can be small to the point of insignificance at first but built into it is an increase each year. This can be arithmetic (1,2,3,4...) or geometric (1,2,4,8...) but the inevidability is the important part. People will be divesting from fossil fuel long before it is an economic necessity to avoid taking a 'hair cut'. Where will they shift their money to. Predominately to renewable energy.
2/ Insteas of stifling the economy and making the government the bad guys (look at Macron in France with his fuel tax. Jeeesh!!) money is put into the hands of the poorest who will spend it all just to keep their heads above water. The government becomes the hero of the people. Mony is not put into the hands of the rich which they squrrel away as happens with, for instance, Cap and Trade. What the economists call velocity (the rate money circulates in the economy) increases instead of decreasing as with C&T.
https://mtkass.blogspot.com/2009/12/jim-hansens-climate-change-solution.html
Prev 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 Next
