Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change

Saying “it is a worthless chart” without

Is the nationals - they were never really on board with climate change in the first place so this is no surprise to anyone

https://www.9news.com.au/national/f...campaign/cf47963e-b9b3-4a8c-84c0-f2f70562dbd7

Greens may yet hold balance of power

 

No, we do not agree. I think it is yet another boondoggle, and scam trying to get money from fools.

Well, trees is how nature has done it for billions of years.

Once again, all I see is you trying to somehow absorb what I say, and make it seem like we are on the same path. We are not, and nothing will replace trees and plants for absorbing CO2.

A tree can absorb from 10 to 40+ kg of carbon per year. And they will do it all year long, and require no "carbon footprint" to create. They need no electricity, and in most places once mature can provide everything they need to live themselves. And most will "operate" with no failure for 1 to 2 centuries or more. No hazardous substances are involved in their manufacture, and leave none behind when they ultimately "fail".

 

Without?

Does not matter, it is worthless. Especially as it states in the definition, it includes not only the subsidies given to the "sexy" forms to artificially lower the cost of that, it also includes the extreme costs (especially governmental) for creating and decommissioning other forms of energy. That makes it a lie, as it pushes down the cost of some artificially, while also raising the price of others artificially.

If say the cost was an equal $100 per mwh for each, then of course all would be equal. But when the government gives solar and wind a $20 per mwh subsidy, that drops their "levelized cost" down to $80. And when it then taxes others like coal and nuclear $50 per mwh to operate, it is now $150 vs $80. That is why that chart is completely bogus. Take away the subsidies (and many are now going away), and the "cost" raises significantly.

In other words, it is like those that like to scream that "per capita" the US is the worst polluter on the planet. Which is factual within terms of the definition, but that definition completely ignores the fact that China is pumping out over twice the CO2 of the US. And while the US has been decreasing for over 2 decades, the emissions from China are actually growing.

I for one have a huge distaste of those who use weighted and slanted definitions and figures to try and make their claims. It is dishonest, and not much different from lying.

Plus, there is a hell of a lot more involved in energy production that simply cost. If you want a functioning power grid, you must have a constant flow of power 27-7-365, no matter what time of day it is, or the weather conditions. And the biggest problem with the "sexy power" is that it is not really "on demand" at all times, does not have much excess production to meet peak needs, and can not be scaled up or down at need.

 

Science has NEVER suggested that.

Please cite who you are charging with saying that.

And, stop attributing that to me, because that is simply false.

 

If you want to claim that, then you have to get specific about the conspiracy.

First, you have to describe how the entire world of climatological sciences is being compromised.

This isn't just the US.

 

Did they? Or did the hyperbole hyping denialists just claim that was the case?

 

Today the government gives tax and other incentives to fossil fuel companies.

The issue with "constant flow" is a real issue. However, clean energy sources are actually more flexible than are point source fossil fuel based electricity factories.

So, let's remember that no actual energy analyst is suggesting that we will be moving toward zero fossil fuel energy in the next 50 years or more. We have a LONG LONG way to go before having a windless or sunless day is going to present a problem.

Until then, clean energy can LOWER your electric bill in many cases.

The wind plants throughout the USA are being built because of free market economics.

Home solar can pay the homeowner immediate dividends when the cost is incorporated in the home mortgage.

Clean energy can benefit you.

 

You DO “get” don’t you that both Australia and Canada are countries with widely dispersed population centres? Plus for these numbers to be where they are they must be factoring in production of coal and oil since Qatar tops the list. This is also why Australia is warning people against long term investment in coal, closing its won coal fired stations to replace them with renewables and batteries and investing in green ammonia and hydrogen

 

Greens will probably win balance of power

 

Let's remember that the opposition to addressing the issue of climate change is not coming from science.

Instead, it is coming from partisan politics.

And, with that dynamic it certainly is hard to create and implement a rational plan that is reasonably informed by science.

 

Well, how about these claims?

Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

“Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.” - NY Times Editorial

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make, the death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” - Paul Ehrlich, Mademoiselle Magazine

Oh, and here are several more predictions by Paul Ehrlich:

Paul Ehrlich predicted that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

“Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born, some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

In "The Progressive Magazine, he assured readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

In Audubon Magazine, Paul Ehrlich stated that American life expectancies would take a major dive, lowering to 42 years of age by 1980.

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China, and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” - Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….” - Life Magazine

“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” - Kenneth Watt, Time Magazine

Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

Oh, and in case some are wondering, those were quotes collected between 1969 and 1970, celebrating the first "Earth Day". And most of those named are still active and doing the exact same thing. The causes are claimed to be different, but the same doomsday predictions. Ignoring that they are the opposite of many of their earlier predictions.

 

Only cheaper because of subsidies. Remove them, and they cost more.

And no, home solar is already a crashing industry. And many are predicting shrinkage soon as many of the subsidies and tax credits once available are not anymore. The current extension until the end of the year is 26%, next year that drops to 23%. And many of the early adopters are now realizing another aspect of solar home cost. That they produce less and less power as they age. Most solar roofs only have a lifespan of 20-25 years, meaning those installed at the turn of the millennium are now only producing a fraction of the power they did when used. Meaning that around every 2 decades they have to be replaced. Just in time to take out a new mortgage when the old one is payed off.

 

If you are going to use someone else’s work post a citation or link otherwise it is ………..
Your quotes came from here

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-s...irst-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year/

and it looks to be a 10l% Astroturf site

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Enterprise_Institute

the selected quotes you note are, in the main, NOT a from climate scientists and certainly not from the IPCC.

And I suggest you print and post this on your wall

 

And tell me, do you believe the quotes to be fake? Because unless you claim they are fake, it does not matter.

Doctor Paul Ralph Ehrlich, Bing Professor Emeritus of Population Studies of the Department of Biology of Stanford University and President of Stanford's Center for Conservation Biology is a scientist who has been speaking out like this for over 5 decades. His 1968 book "The Population Bomb" by many is considered to be a seminal work on the way humans are destroying the planet.

Doctor Kenneth Watt is a professor emeritus at UC Davis, and for almost a decade was beating the drum for "new ice age". Then by the late 1990s he flipped to the "global warming" bandwagon.



I have no idea how old you are, but am old enough to remember this era. And it only got worse after the 1977 blizzard that socked Buffalo and much of New England.

I remember reports of studies that the carbon and use of fossil fuels were making things even worse, blocking out the effects of the sun and making things even colder. Which my science teacher (a geology major) laughed at, saying that most glaciers were still receding, and that the permanent snow line was still moving north, even as there was increased snowfall in more temperate areas. But that snow was not permanent, so was inconsequential to the decreased ice albedo which indicated the planet was still warming.

That was over 40 years ago, and I have yet to see any proof that he was wrong. Or that things are not going to get hotter.

Now tell me, do you claim that the predictions are false? That they were made up and never made? Because that is the only real argument you might have.



It must be remembered, primarily I am a skeptic. And every time I hear alarmist language (be it climate, based on race or religion, or anything else) my immediate reaction is to see if there is anything behind it.

And when such people have a history of speaking as such, I tend to largely ignore it. Especially when I see the demonizing of any who do not join in. Blasting them as "enemies", and then layering upon them all kind of claims.

That is exactly the same kind of thing Hitler and Mao did against their enemies. If you have to attack those that do not agree with you, that is no longer science. And much closer to religion.

 

Batteries are almost 100 percent recyclable...

 

Only if you are talking about lead-acid batteries. In those the acids can be reconcentrated and the lead extracted and reused.

In alkali and lithium-ion batteries, less than 5% can be recycled. And that is primarily the electrodes and little else.

But please, give us a reliable source to say this is wrong.

 

Delete

 

What part of that is difficult to understand??

More unattributed cut and pastes?

 

What some see as an eternal roadblock others, especially Aussies see s a potential gold mine

https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/energy-storage/battery-recycling

 

What part of "show to me the quotes are false" do you not get?

And unattributed pastes? For goodness sakes, it is a copy of an article from the Boston Globe!

I got it, you will reject anything that does not agree with you, I can see that now.

Here, more "unattributed cut and paste".

 

Ohhh, a report!

From two years ago, looking at data from 4 years ago. That in reality says nothing. Is just blathering more about there is a problem. It talks about the things that can be done, but what is being done?

Also, I notice it does not even mention the issues of the toxic waste present in such batteries.

Please let me know when you can actually show something that is being done other than talk about the very problem I just mentioned.

 

again


Quit posting to dated newspaper hyperbole designed to sell advertising space and instead show me the science

 

This is rich coming from someone who seemingly does not know the difference between a research article and a hyped newspaper story

 

I never try to predict US politics, so I'm certainly not going to try to predict Australia's.

 

All of the rest of it isn't.