Climate Action and the Elephant in the Room

[Jimmy Higgins]

The only real solution is to live within sustainable limits of energy, consumption, and resources. Which will never happen.

It will never happen voluntarily but it will happen.

That seems doubtful. People have a tendency to suck at planning. Don't need to fix something until the consequences from the neglect are already apparent. The right-wing has also muddied the waters so much, the general public probably just thinks it is all political.

In order to reduce carbon emissions enough to step back the atmospheric changes, we need a near civilization wide restructuring of how we generate and use energy. Even switching to nuclear doesn't get us there as we need to replace so much to go to an electricity only set up. And you've got idiots out there clinging to their gas stoves like it has the 1st Amendment plastered over it. It'll take a generation or two just to transition a willing population to an electricity via nuclear and renewables only environment. It'll take about as long to distribute the nuclear plants. And we don't have a willing community either, with most being indifferent, but a substantial number being quite adamantly against even recognizing there is an issue.

But to make matters worse, we still have the issue of energy storage. I'm less worried about the strain on the electric grid, I'm more concerned about the sustainability of our automotive use and electric batteries. We were lied to about plastic recyclability. I'm not sold on recycling electric car batteries yet. We are told there is "money" there, but I have doubts.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We are all part of the problem as consumers.

We're part of the problem, but we are far, far from the whole thing.

As a consumer, I can choose to use paper straws, put my soda can in the blue bin instead of the trash, and drive in "eco" mode on the way to work, but as a consumer my efforts are nothing compared to what Exxon could do.

Yet somehow...I'm the problem? Sorry, no. Individuals recycling and being slightly more efficient isn't going to change much until Chevron, BP, and other multi-billion dollar multinationals change their ways. And eventually go away entirely.

It mirrors the tobacco industry in a lot of ways. They knew their product was deadly long before the rest of us did, but the message was "hey, why don't YOU try quitting smoking? If you want to avoid lung cancer, it's your responsibility. We're just here selling a harmless product." Tobacco companies had to be dragged kicking and screaming to stop slow down selling a toxic product, and they're still like "hey, this is up to you" and they keep making cancer sticks by the billions.

We need to treat the fossil fuel industry more like the asbestos industry.

No. Chevron etc are symptoms, not the cause of the problem. They're certainly covering up the harm they're aware of but they're not going out and encouraging you to burn more fossil fuel. No one player can solve a tragedy of the commons situation, it must be done by regulation. Since the commons in question is the world it requires the agreement of basically the entire world to fix. Trying to blame the producers rather than the consumers is a big part of why the problem isn't solved.

That being said, there's little we as consumers can do directly. Little of the consumption is actually under our control and what choices we have will mean little in the long run. Reform has to come from the governments mandating greener ways. And I don't mean AOC's crazy Green New Deal--that's fantasy. In practice the low hanging fruit is the power plants--replace as much as possible with nuke plants. (Address the waste issue with reprocessing.) I do agree with banning new gas appliance installations because they bake in use for long into the future but it's not going to reduce emissions in the short run. (It does, however, have health benefits.) Things like EVs replacing ICE vehicles is pretty much a false economy until we replace the power plants--charging your EV from a fossil fuel plant doesn't save much CO2.

Unfortunately, as with virtually every problem with a long payback time, it's going to be kicked down the road and not solved. We see jokes like Kyoto and Paris, they do nothing but soothe the rabble a bit. Even if they "worked" it would do basically nothing as we would just be exporting the CO2 production to places like China and India--hurting our own economy for no benefit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The only reasonable solution is regulation and policy, but electorates don't support that policy.

I'd think the electorate would be just fine with nuclear power. But the activist class clearly prefers reorganzing society to their prefered eutopia.

No. There is too much public objection to nuclear power because of the fearmongers. And insanity like Fukushima didn't help--there was no reason to evacuate. The expected death toll from staying put was zero--the city could have remained, just don't grow food there for a while.

Or look at Three Mile Island. If you lived at the fence the risk of walking across one street to evacuate was higher than the risk of staying put.

Humans simply do not evaluate low probability/high consequence risk very well.

 

[TV and credit cards]

The only real solution is to live within sustainable limits of energy, consumption, and resources. Which will never happen.

It will never happen voluntarily but it will happen.

That seems doubtful. People have a tendency to suck at planning. Don't need to fix something until the consequences from the neglect are already apparent. The right-wing has also muddied the waters so much, the general public probably just thinks it is all political.

It's like the world's Check Engine light is on.

Meanwhile, while Lizzo walks around looking like a human cupcake and Republicans keeps drag shows out of our middle schools, more than a third of our plants and animals are in danger of extinction.
Soon, all our petty bullshit will be just that.

 

[Elixir]

I'd think the electorate would be just fine with nuclear power.

I think they WOULD be fine with it if they weren’t already FOXwashed against it. As shills of the FF industry, FOX (along with the lesser evils of NewsMax, OAN et al) has fulfilled its obligation to the fossil fuel gods by terrifying the unwashed ignorants of the Right, to the point where avoiding the invisible horrors of “nuclear” is their paramount concern. Climate change is an abstraction. RADIATION!!! is the extant invisible threat.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The only reasonable solution is regulation and policy, but electorates don't support that policy.

I'd think the electorate would be just fine with nuclear power. But the activist class clearly prefers reorganzing society to their prefered eutopia.

No. There is too much public objection to nuclear power because of the fearmongers. And insanity like Fukushima didn't help--there was no reason to evacuate. The expected death toll from staying put was zero--the city could have remained, just don't grow food there for a while.

Or look at Three Mile Island. If you lived at the fence the risk of walking across one street to evacuate was higher than the risk of staying put.

Humans simply do not evaluate low probability/high consequence risk very well.

Humans don't evaluate much well. I think the trouble with nuclear isn't as much its risk, but the unappreciated risk of gas and coal power.

I'd think the electorate would be just fine with nuclear power.

I think they WOULD be fine with it if they weren’t already FOXwashed against it. As shills of the FF industry, FOX (along with the lesser evils of NewsMax, OAN et al) has fulfilled its obligation to the fossil fuel gods by terrifying the unwashed ignorants of the Right, to the point where avoiding the invisible horrors of “nuclear” is their paramount concern. Climate change is an abstraction. RADIATION!!! is the extant invisible threat.

The same people with the No Windmill signs in their front yard would almost certainly be against a nuclear plant being constructed near their home.

 

[rousseau]

The year is 2500, and in every history book on the climate event of the 20th/21st century:

'people were kinda dumb'

 

[Elixir]

In

The year is 2500, and in every history book on the climate event of the 20th/21st century:

'people were kinda dumb'

"... but there were a lot more of them back then..."

 

[ZiprHead]

BP thinks global oil demand peaked in 2019: this is an important signal for the energy transition

Even the oil companies have accepted that oil’s future is shrinking, and could fade away quickly.

hannahritchie.substack.com

Last week, BP published its latest Energy Outlook report. Its headline findings should have got much more attention than they did.

BP thinks that global oil demand peaked in 2019. If this is true, it’s a landmark moment in human history.

BP could be terribly wrong. But the important bit isn’t whether the company is correct or not. What’s newsworthy is what this message signals about the energy transition. Even the oil companies have accepted that oil’s future is shrinking, and could fade quickly.

In its report, BP published projections under three scenarios. These are shown in the chart. Its ‘New Mometum’ scenario follows a similar rate of decarbonisation that we’ve seen in recent years – think of it as following the status quo. It then had two more scenarios of increasing climate ambition.

The downward slope of each is different. I’m sure BP hopes we follow the ‘New Momentum’ scenario, while I’ll be pushing for Net Zero. What’s consistent is that in every scenario, global oil demand peaked in 2019.

 

[Elixir]

The truth of the matter is, we're fucked. BP has produced three conjectures regarding how fucked we will be how soon, but doesn't discuss the inevitability of fuckedness. Whether we end up following the "Net Zero" curve or the "New Momentum" (euphemism for unbridled excessive consumption) curve, there is zero anticipation that steps will be taken that will forestall either climate change or the mass extinction event that is currently in process.
I am glad to have been born early enough to have seen the world as it was when there were 1/4 of its current number of humans, and sorry for those who will never know what they're missing.

 

[Bomb#20]

We are stuck in a system that requires constant economic groth which requires an increasing population along with increasing energy usage and consumption of resources.

Not quite. The more advanced a country gets economically, the fewer kids people have. East Asian is currently in a fertility bust.

Exactly the systemic problem.

Our unemployment rate is low and our immigration program is dysfunctional. We do not have enough people to keep the economy growing.

Why do you believe that?

There's more comprehensive data here:

https://ourworldindata.org/exports/gdp-per-capita-maddison-2020_v22_850x600.svg

This data is also per-capita and inflation-adjusted. We can evidently grow the economy even if we don't add more people, because we can grow the amount of economy per person, which we have been doing quite successfully ever since the industrial revolution. Growing the economy by adding people is a Ponzi scheme. Growing the economy by raising productivity is not a Ponzi scheme.

EVs are seen in popular views as part of a cure. Yet in the background the reporting is the batteries depend on rare earths.

"Rare earths" aren't rare. The rest of the world buys them from China not because there aren't mines all over the world but because China is the low-cost producer.

The only real solution is to live within sustainable limits of energy, consumption, and resources. Which will never happen.

Well, not as long as the faux-environmentalists keep scaring people away from nuclear power.

 

[rousseau]

One other interesting aspect of climate change is that without science and broadcast media we wouldn't know it was happening. I think what many people are expecting is a doomsday scenario where we'll reach a certain point and everything will suddenly be bad, not good.

Where in practice we're seeing localized, random problems all over the globe, with scattered effects. This is the problem, but nobody is seeing the big, catastrophic event, therefore the perception is that there is no problem.

And in line with that, globally we'll be forced to slowly re-organize and change over the next few centuries due to scattered effects. But without science we'd have absolutely no idea what the cause was.

An interesting thing to think about, how an understanding of global warming is basically imposed and can't be avoided.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We are stuck in a system that requires constant economic groth which requires an increasing population along with increasing energy usage and consumption of resources.

Not quite. The more advanced a country gets economically, the fewer kids people have. East Asian is currently in a fertility bust.

Exactly the systemic problem.

Our unemployment rate is low and our immigration program is dysfunctional. We do not have enough people to keep the economy growing.

Why do you believe that?

There's more comprehensive data here:

https://ourworldindata.org/exports/gdp-per-capita-maddison-2020_v22_850x600.svg

This data is also per-capita and inflation-adjusted. We can evidently grow the economy even if we don't add more people, because we can grow the amount of economy per person, which we have been doing quite successfully ever since the industrial revolution. Growing the economy by adding people is a Ponzi scheme. Growing the economy by raising productivity is not a Ponzi scheme.

I think we are running out of productivity increases, without cutting deeply into employment. We've become so productive, we can't get anything done. Corporate consolidation has been an issue with a slown down ability to manage growth. Below that, we have seen employment issues with employee availability causing shortages here and there, like construction.

The only real solution is to live within sustainable limits of energy, consumption, and resources. Which will never happen.

Well, not as long as the faux-environmentalists keep scaring people away from nuclear power.

They can be environmentalists and be wrong. The faux environmentalists are those railing against Wind Mills because they pretend to give a fuck about birds.

The problem with nuclear, and there are a lot, is that it isn't a magic bullet. It only addresses power production. Even if we had 100% nuclear tomorrow, we still will take a long time to adapt to a much higher percentage of electricity based energy use at home. We need northern US heat pumps. We need to figure out how to manage tens of millions of electric car batteries for "recycling". And we need to drag millions of Americans into the 22nd century, who are still pissing their pants over wanting to use lightbulbs that use four times the energy to produce the same amount of light!

 

[Bomb#20]

We are all part of the problem as consumers.

We're part of the problem, but we are far, far from the whole thing.

As a consumer, I can choose to use paper straws, put my soda can in the blue bin instead of the trash, and drive in "eco" mode on the way to work, but as a consumer my efforts are nothing compared to what Exxon could do.

Yet somehow...I'm the problem? Sorry, no. Individuals recycling and being slightly more efficient isn't going to change much until Chevron, BP, and other multi-billion dollar multinationals change their ways. And eventually go away entirely.

It mirrors the tobacco industry in a lot of ways. They knew their product was deadly long before the rest of us did, but the message was "hey, why don't YOU try quitting smoking? If you want to avoid lung cancer, it's your responsibility. We're just here selling a harmless product." Tobacco companies had to be dragged kicking and screaming to stop slow down selling a toxic product, and they're still like "hey, this is up to you" and they keep making cancer sticks by the billions.

We need to treat the fossil fuel industry more like the asbestos industry.

I don't think you can reasonably expect the oil industry to destroy itself, that's just not how organizational dynamics work.

Oh I don't expect it to destroy itself.

Because central planners have been so much better than capitalists about protecting the environment.

The fossil fuel industry will shift to sustainable carbon-neutral production (read synthetic fuels made from CO2 capture) when primary carbon production is taxed at a level that reflects its environmental cost, and cheap easy-to-reach fossil fuel sources are tapped out, and governments stop artificially keeping electricity prices high by obstructing nuclear power, to the point where mining carbon becomes more expensive than recycling it. This is a regulatory problem, not a make-the-multinationals-go-away problem.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We are all part of the problem as consumers.

We're part of the problem, but we are far, far from the whole thing.

As a consumer, I can choose to use paper straws, put my soda can in the blue bin instead of the trash, and drive in "eco" mode on the way to work, but as a consumer my efforts are nothing compared to what Exxon could do.

Yet somehow...I'm the problem? Sorry, no. Individuals recycling and being slightly more efficient isn't going to change much until Chevron, BP, and other multi-billion dollar multinationals change their ways. And eventually go away entirely.

It mirrors the tobacco industry in a lot of ways. They knew their product was deadly long before the rest of us did, but the message was "hey, why don't YOU try quitting smoking? If you want to avoid lung cancer, it's your responsibility. We're just here selling a harmless product." Tobacco companies had to be dragged kicking and screaming to stop slow down selling a toxic product, and they're still like "hey, this is up to you" and they keep making cancer sticks by the billions.

We need to treat the fossil fuel industry more like the asbestos industry.

I don't think you can reasonably expect the oil industry to destroy itself, that's just not how organizational dynamics work.

Oh I don't expect it to destroy itself.

Because central planners have been so much better than capitalists about protecting the environment.

Yes, they have. The US Government got the air cleaner and the water cleaner. That wasn't big business. Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Superfund, etc... that was Government stepping in, because Business didn't give a fuck. They let the rivers burn for decades.

The fossil fuel industry will shift to sustainable carbon-neutral production (read synthetic fuels made from CO2 capture) when primary carbon production is taxed at a level that reflects its environmental cost, and cheap easy-to-reach fossil fuel sources are tapped out, and governments stop artificially keeping electricity prices high by obstructing nuclear power, to the point where mining carbon becomes more expensive than recycling it.

Governments aren't obstructing nuclear anywhere near as much as people (bipartisan) are.

This is a regulatory problem, not a make-the-multinationals-go-away problem.

This is a 20th Century mindset entering the 22nd Century problem. We have tens of millions of Americans that don't even think there is a problem!

 

[Bomb#20]

I think we are running out of productivity increases, without cutting deeply into employment. We've become so productive, we can't get anything done. Corporate consolidation has been an issue with a slown down ability to manage growth. Below that, we have seen employment issues with employee availability causing shortages here and there, like construction.

People have been forecasting the end of progress for, like, ever. Their track record is about as good as predictors of the 2nd Coming.

"Everything that can be invented has been invented." -- The U.S. Patent Office Commissioner, 1889

Well, not as long as the faux-environmentalists keep scaring people away from nuclear power.

They can be environmentalists and be wrong.

They care enough about the environment, sure -- just not enough to educate themselves about it. When others perceive them to be watermelons, they bring it on themselves.

The problem with nuclear, and there are a lot, is that it isn't a magic bullet. It only addresses power production. Even if we had 100% nuclear tomorrow, we still will take a long time to adapt to a much higher percentage of electricity based energy use at home. We need northern US heat pumps. We need to figure out how to manage tens of millions of electric car batteries for "recycling". And we need to drag millions of Americans into the 22nd century, who are still pissing their pants over wanting to use lightbulbs that use four times the energy to produce the same amount of light!

Heat pumps are a good idea, yes, and underutilized; but you can make carbon-neutral gasoline and heating oil and cooking gas from atmospheric CO2 and nuclear power.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think we are running out of productivity increases, without cutting deeply into employment. We've become so productive, we can't get anything done. Corporate consolidation has been an issue with a slown down ability to manage growth. Below that, we have seen employment issues with employee availability causing shortages here and there, like construction.

People have been forecasting the end of progress for, like, ever. Their track record is about as good as predictors of the 2nd Coming.

"Everything that can be invented has been invented." -- The U.S. Patent Office Commissioner, 1889

The existing productivity has come at the cost of lots of jobs, and I made it clear in my statement that I said additional productivity will come at the cost of lots more jobs. We can all be replaced. No doubts there. But unless we manage a nation without 0 employment, that'd be an issue.

Well, not as long as the faux-environmentalists keep scaring people away from nuclear power.

They can be environmentalists and be wrong.

They care enough about the environment, sure -- just not enough to educate themselves about it. When others perceive them to be watermelons, they bring it on themselves.

They can be wrong. It happens.

The problem with nuclear, and there are a lot, is that it isn't a magic bullet. It only addresses power production. Even if we had 100% nuclear tomorrow, we still will take a long time to adapt to a much higher percentage of electricity based energy use at home. We need northern US heat pumps. We need to figure out how to manage tens of millions of electric car batteries for "recycling". And we need to drag millions of Americans into the 22nd century, who are still pissing their pants over wanting to use lightbulbs that use four times the energy to produce the same amount of light!

Heat pumps are a good idea, yes, and underutilized; but you can make carbon-neutral gasoline and heating oil and cooking gas from atmospheric CO2 and nuclear power.

Carbon neutral or carbon free? And how are we capturing that CO2?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Soon, all our petty bullshit will be just that.

Unfortunately this is the mindset, like it's going to happen unless we do something. The problem is we've passed the red lines. We're fucked. But it must be soothing to pretend we aren't. Humans are just another species on the planet.

 

[Bomb#20]

The existing productivity has come at the cost of lots of jobs, and I made it clear in my statement that I said additional productivity will come at the cost of lots more jobs. We can all be replaced. No doubts there. But unless we manage a nation without 0 employment, that'd be an issue.

We were shortening the workweek steadily from the beginning of the industrial revolution until about 1940. Since then we've been stalled at the 40-hour week. No good reason we couldn't resume shortening it.

Heat pumps are a good idea, yes, and underutilized; but you can make carbon-neutral gasoline and heating oil and cooking gas from atmospheric CO2 and nuclear power.

Carbon neutral or carbon free? And how are we capturing that CO2?

Carbon neutral -- it's normal CH4, etc., just not made from dead dinosaurs. The carbon goes into the atmosphere when the fuel is used and comes out when it's recycled. Scientific American had an article on the technology several years ago. IIRC, we'd blow air through some chemical powder that reacts with CO2; when it's absorbed as much CO2 as it can, you heat it up and it emits CO, which we can use as a feedstock to make all sorts of things we normally make from petroleum. They calculated we could stabilize atmospheric CO2 levels by doing this on a scale about the same as the world-wide car industry, and pay for it all with a world-wide 25-cent a gallon carbon tax, assuming we have carbon-free electricity generation.

 

[Bomb#20]

We are all part of the problem as consumers.

... Individuals recycling and being slightly more efficient isn't going to change much until Chevron, BP, and other multi-billion dollar multinationals change their ways. And eventually go away entirely. ... We need to treat the fossil fuel industry more like the asbestos industry.

I don't think you can reasonably expect the oil industry to destroy itself, that's just not how organizational dynamics work.

Oh I don't expect it to destroy itself.

Because central planners have been so much better than capitalists about protecting the environment.

Yes, they have. The US Government got the air cleaner and the water cleaner. That wasn't big business. Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Superfund, etc... that was Government stepping in

Those aren't central planners; those are regulators. Not the same thing at all. It's the distinction between "until Chevron, BP, and other multi-billion dollar multinationals change their ways" and "And eventually go away entirely. ... like the asbestos industry". You want to see what central planners do to the environment, look at Eastern Europe.

This is a 20th Century mindset entering the 22nd Century problem. We have tens of millions of Americans that don't even think there is a problem!

But tens of millions of Americans not thinking there is a problem aren't stopping the rest of us from solving it. We only need to give them a cheaper way to power their lives than polluting. Tens of millions of Americans actively stopping us from building nuclear reactors are a 20th Century mindset entering the 22nd Century problem that's actually preventing the rest of us from doing something about it.