Which is the best policy for climate change, that of deniers or believers?

It's like the alarmists demand we burn the bridge in front of us, because its harming the fish or some such. So they destroy the bridge, which was the only way to cross the deep ravine, and now they got nothing, and everyone starves to death.

There is no thought on the left, there never is. Just do X because it makes them feel good about themselves, and none of them have thought much about what happens afterwards.

 

I dunno about that. Germany seems to have figured it out.

Renewable energy sources supplied nearly 65 percent of Germany’s electricity last week, with wind turbines alone responsible for 48.4 percent of power production nationwide, Clean Energy Wire reported. As a result, fossil fuel plants ran at a minimum output and nuclear facilities were shut down at night.

“These figures show that the envisaged goal [of the German government] of 65 percent renewables by 2030 is technically feasible,” Bruno Burger, a researcher with the solar research institute Fraunhofer ISE, said in a statement.

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/renewa...-65-percent-of-germanys-electricity-last-week

 

I think they envision strip mining entire mountain tops to gather enough lithium to build school bus sized batteries, to store wind energy in. not realizing how short lived a concept that will be, how short a lifespan batteries have, and how many times new battery plants end up with dead battery cells, which don't work like they were supposed to.

If the world thought the USA strips the worlds precious resources before, imagine how much they would hate us if we looted the world's lithium supply for a billion batteries.

 

Speaking of Germany's energy:

The Tragedy of Germany’s Energy Experiment - New York Times

 

Extremists like Joe Biden who pledged to eliminate fossil fuel energy by 2035?

 

~ The same thing has happened in Australia. Possible - but not practical.

 

This here should have been
/endthread

 

Their renewable systems produce a percentage of the base current. The base current has to be regulated with traditional systems to handle the demand load. Traditional systems have a "gas pedal". You can ramp them up or down easily to meet instant demand needs. Renewable systems are nowhere near as efficient at this. That's a problem they have not "figured out".

Now what was the opportunity cost to produce this 60 percent, and how sustainable is it? How many resources did Germany throw at this endeavor, and how could they have been otherwise used? What was the environmental impact of all these wind farms, power transmission lines, and new grid infrastructure?

 

Yep.

Increasing costs of fossil fuels if/when they become scarce will force transition to alternatives as you say.

Fossil fuels most certainly are renewable. As more carbon is released from fossil fuels the planet will transition back to faster deposition of organic matter more similar to the Carboniferous and Mesozoic periods most responsible for the fossil fuels we have today. Because we lack Pangaea there may be different rates of formation of inland seas, etc., but Pangaea actually formed from isolated continents so who knows, that condition may re-form as well.

There are coal and oil precursors being deposited today, albeit on a smaller scale—because we lack sufficient carbon in the environment. If sea level rise increases as some predict, that in itself would hasten the transition of much existing peat to coal.

Of course what you mean is fossil fuels are not regenerating as fast as usage and with that I agree. But fossil fuels are being formed presently and will increase in the future if we release more carbon from fossil fuels.

Another thing to consider is the huge resource of quickly renewable carbon fuel sources such as cellulosic ethanol that would exist in a world similar in climate to the Carboniferous period. Again, though, not in our lifetime.

I’m pretty skeptical of peak oil predictions. Instead of being correct historically, they tend to become less correct as time progresses and extraction and detection technology advances.

I see electric vehicles extending supplies drastically in the near term if we can come up with the gonads to use non fossil fuel sources to charge them (nuclear) as vehicles account for around 70% of US petroleum use.

 

Your struggle is not understanding balance.

Let's see if I can explain the concept in simple terms.

- My husband is not currently ambulatory, and with an Aspie kid at home, I've taken on 3 times times the load. I'm hiring a housekeeping service to help. I am not out of jobs to do; but it does take the edge off.
- I am growing my own vegetables and herbs. I still need to buy some, but I am far less dependent on the grocery store than I used to be.
- I bought my husband a shaving kit. He still needs to go to the barber once in a while, but now he can do a lots himself.

Are there any ways in which non fossil fuel energy can help you, without removing the need for fossil fuels completely? Will it help?

I say yes.

 

Friedman was criticising liberal democrats, right? Who else do conservatives and libertarians criticize?

I assumed it. If he wasn't criticizing liberalism, who or what was he criticizing? Why the quote? Most people are for the free market. So, why the quote?

As for the rest of your comment, what's the point of all that? Are you saying that thwarting climate change cannot be done?

 

Currently the Red path is the Wisest - Blue has become the party of Science deniers w/r to the overall enviro equation.

 

The very first step to improve our chances of thwarting extreme climate change is to get rid of Donald Trump.

 

Yes, black is white, up is down, good is bad, bad is good, and blue are the anti-environmentalists.

Good grief, where do these people come from?

 

It's someone who is skeptical of anthropogenic climate change and there is no point in doing something about it, or nothing can be done about it. .

That's it.

There are crazies on both sides of the fence, so let's ignore them.

 

There are 33 million acres we are talking about here, and about 60% of it is owned by the federal government. So don't give me this CA is to blame crap.

I live in San Diego, and I recall that prior years it's been gradually reaching higher temperatures each year.

We are living in drought, so that is why there is more dry brush.

Not doing anything about ACC is the ultimate reason. You fix things by going to root causes. The correct thing to do is get a comprehensive world wide cooperation to do something about ACC. The fires in CA is just one of the many symptoms of ACC

You have a problem with calling Trump an environmental arsonist, which is emotional language which no rational person would take literally, noting that it is precisely the kind of language Trump uses at all of his detractors, noting that Trump said global warming was a chinese hoax, noting that when Trump took office, he installed an Oil lobbyist in charge of the EPA, the guy who, when he was OK AG, sued the EPA 14 times. so 'my sentiments exactly", but you don't have a problem with Trump calling Biden a trojan horse for socialists and communists.

You don't have a problem with all the lies Trump says of Biden

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...-trump-made-about-bidens-positions-was-false/[/QUOTE]

 

Not sure where these crazy Blue radicals came from - So left are thee nutters that they demonize Michael Moore as being on the right.

The NGD says " we will not transfer our pollution problems to other nations" - Good plan. Blue's policy is to do exactly that .. not only does it transfer our pollution problems to other nations .. it increases pollution.

Blue is also now the "Neocon" party in second Orwellian Twist.

 

I think no policy should ever be set, as government should not exist. For the sake of this exercise I'll answer anyways.

No, the best course of action is to not set any policy, until we know for certain the correct course of action.

Government "policy" always injures someone.

 

The state of California could do a controlled burn or ask the federal government to do a controlled burn.

 

Now, where did you hear this? From Biden's website:

"The Biden Plan will:

1. Ensure the U.S. achieves a 100% clean energy economy and reaches net-zero emissions no later than 2050. On day one, Biden will sign a series of new executive orders with unprecedented reach that go well beyond the Obama-Biden Administration platform and put us on the right track. And, he will demand that Congress enacts legislation in the first year of his presidency that: 1) establishes an enforcement mechanism that includes milestone targets no later than the end of his first term in 2025, 2) makes a historic investment in clean energy and climate research and innovation, 3) incentivizes the rapid deployment of clean energy innovations across the economy, especially in communities most impacted by climate change."

The GOAL is to be 100% clean energy by 2050. That's not a hard deadline. So, in contrast to your fear mongering, you'll probably be able to drive your gas powered car until you die.

You didn't answer my question though:

How are hydrocarbons as energy source renewable, which is what you claimed?

 

Wow. "He will demand congress" I am sure that will scare them right into it.

Biofuels..

 

Sure thing, conservatives will support biofuels and pigs fly.

BTW: Energy return on energy invested (EROEI) for corn-based ethanol is between 0.8 and 1.6, one of the worst energy sources you can imagine, and possibly a net-energy drain. Sugarcane ethanol is much better, but that would work for Brazil, not the US.

Ethanol is about 10% of US gasoline fuel use, yet, uses 40% of the US produced corn. You can see how scaling up will be difficult. Why? Energy density in corn is low.

 

There is research on biofuels now on a number of fronts. They are extracting it from fungus. It has been suggested that Kudzu might be a good source. When the oil fields are depleted there won't be much choice.

Why is it that ethanol could only be used by Brazil? Are their scientists smarter than ours?

We are not talking about corn as a total replacement for gasoline as gasoline is used today. Only what cannot be handled efficiently with other methods decades from now..

The Air Force has qualified bio fuels for all of their equipment.
https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Dis...works-to-home-grow-biofuels-for-dod-industry/

 

So, for things that can be electric, that appears to be good news. How much of their economy isn't able to be powered by electricity?

 

I have no homework to do. You asked me to do your homework. If you want to read what the IPCC said about CO2 saturation (which you don't, but what the hay) I told you where to go. I'm not going to look it up again just for you. None the less here is a decent summary: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08...-of-increasing-carbon-dioxide-on-temperature/