Climate change could mean the extinction of our species

[filghy2]

Here's some simple math

In 1800 world production of energy from fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) was 97 terawatt-hours. In the latest year it was 137,000 terawatt-hours.
https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption

So fossil fuel consumption increased 1400 times over a period in which world population increased just under 8 times. https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/ That means consumption per person increased 180 times.

It should be clear from this that population growth accounts for only a small share of the growth in greenhouse gas emissions.

[trish]

I may respond to any post that appears in these forums, because I don’t have anyone on ignore. But I can only write for those, like you dear reader, who read those responses: those whose egos and reasoning are not so fragile that they listen to (indeed seek to listen to) all sides of issues about which they are curious.

[MrFanti]

Double post....

[MrFanti]

Topic debate is fine - when it devolves from that.....well....

[MrFanti]

Here's some simple math

In 1800 world production of energy from fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) was 97 terawatt-hours. In the latest year it was 137,000 terawatt-hours.
https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption

So fossil fuel consumption increased 1400 times over a period in which world population increased just under 8 times. https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/ That means consumption per person increased 180 times.

It should be clear from this that population growth accounts for only a small share of the growth in greenhouse gas emissions.
Per capita by vehicle, yes you are correct.
But guess what feeds most electric grids? Fossil Fuels and Nuclear.
Wind and solar can't produce all the urban power that's required to charge 100% EVs and supporting infrastructure (lights, electric rail, machines, etc.....)

And why is that so? Because of the huge population of urban areas.

But hey...if you're comfortable with deforestation many of our green areas, then who am I to debate that!
But it will be interesting to see an concrete jungle where the Amazon rainforest once was.....

If there were only 1000 people on the planet, and only 1000 cars, would there be catastrophic climate change?

[broncofan]

I may respond to any post that appears in these forums, because I don’t have anyone on ignore. But I can only write for those, like you dear reader, who read those responses: those whose egos and reasoning are not so fragile that they listen to (indeed seek to listen to) all sides of issues about which they are curious.
I knew he meant you because he was quoting me. The things you've said to him are much milder than things I've said which is to your credit. You've always shown more self-control on these forums than I have. I'll always enjoy reading what you have to say, and it's his loss that he's so threatened by discourse with you.

We use energy to produce food but we also use it to travel and to manufacture things that aren't essential. It should be pretty clear there are major differences in the way we use energy per person and some of those differences are optional.

We are not reducing global population by 7 billion without a catastrophe. Any manmade problem is proportionally less serious if there are fewer people. Instead of regulating guns we could simply get rid of people and there would be nobody to use them. Nobody recommends this because actually being alive is part of human welfare.

But as filghy pointed out above, population accounts for increases in number of users of energy, but not for per person use which dwarfs population differences. How we use energy is also easier to alter within a generation than how many people there are.

[broncofan]

But hey...if you're comfortable with deforestation many of our green areas, then who am I to debate that!

If there were only 1000 people on the planet, and only 1000 cars, would there be catastrophic climate change?
Let me label this sentence and question I'm quoting A) and B).

He never said A). He didn't say it or imply it. If you want to know what he thinks should be done about deforestation maybe ask him.

B) People accept this point. We don't understand how you plan to roll back population from nearly 8 billion to 1000. How do you plan to do that?

[MrFanti]

So for sake of discussion, I'll disregard the population theory as bunk and false.
So when is the West going to stop raping Africa for that precious Cobalt for EVs?

Or is the attack on climate change such a global top priority at the expense of Africans?

Workers report “colonial-era” abuse at Congolese cobalt mines
https://african.business/2021/11/energy-resources/workers-report-colonial-era-abuse-at-congolese-cobalt-mines/

[broncofan]

So for sake of discussion, I'll disregard the population theory as bunk and false.

?? I'm not sure there's really been much discussion. You remember when you tried to distract from a conversation about gun control by posting an article about marijuana overdose deaths you hadn't read? Sorry. I'm feeling nostalgic:)

[trish]

The article MrFanti posted is about the exploitation of Congolese cobalt miners. I’m surprised to find MrFanti is concerned with worker exploitation anywhere. He must’ve thought the article was about deforestation. Certainly deforestation is often a problem whenever any kind of mine is under a forest, whether it’s a cobalt mine in Africa, a copper mine in Arizona or an open pit coal mine in West Virginia that levels a mountain. Cobalt is used in the manufacture of lithium batteries (like the one you’re probably using right now). Coal is used in…well you know.


All mass production, of food or minerals or other materials, has an effect on the environment, as well as our uses of those materials. That’s exactly why we should choose what we use and how we use it wisely.


Malthus assumed but never proved that human populations must reproduce exponentially. We know empirically this is not the case. Malthus lived before the advent of unions and before effective birth control. When people have fair wages, pensions, social security, don’t need to rely upon their offspring to survive into old age and have the freedom to make decisions about their own reproductive health, then they tend to have birthrates near (and often below) replacement level.

[filghy2]

But hey...if you're comfortable with deforestation many of our green areas, then who am I to debate that!
But it will be interesting to see an concrete jungle where the Amazon rainforest once was.....

At least now I know I'm not on your blocked list.

FYI, the predominant reason for Amazon deforestation is not to build concrete cities but for farming, especially cattle grazing which is subsidised by the Brazilian government. So if you really want to stop it you should eat less beef. Resisting policies to move away from fossil fuels is certainly not going to help the Amazon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_rainforest

[filghy2]

The article MrFanti posted is about the exploitation of Congolese cobalt miners. I’m surprised to find MrFanti is concerned with worker exploitation anywhere. He must’ve thought the article was about deforestation. Certainly deforestation is often a problem whenever any kind of mine is under a forest, whether it’s a cobalt mine in Africa, a copper mine in Arizona or an open pit coal mine in West Virginia that levels a mountain. Cobalt is used in the manufacture of lithium batteries (like the one you’re probably using right now). Coal is used in…well you know.

Mr Fanti proclaims himself to be a libertarian. Don't they believe that governments should not interfere in transactions between private parties? No wonder he never wants to talk about solutions.

The article referred to Chinese-owned mines in Africa. I don't doubt that there are bad things going on, but they also exploit their own workers back home. China is the world's biggest coal producer by a long way, followed by India and Indonesia, all of which have weak worker protections. The number of exploited workers producing coal would be way larger than those producing cobalt for batteries. In any case, the real solution is to pressure governments in these countries to improve worker protections, just as the advanced economies did after the industrial revolution.

[filghy2]

?? I'm not sure there's really been much discussion. You remember when you tried to distract from a conversation about gun control by posting an article about marijuana overdose deaths you hadn't read? Sorry. I'm feeling nostalgic:)

I'm certainly not intending to waste much further time 'debating' with the master of the non sequitur.

I suspect the focus on population is just a handy pretext for dismissing any consideration of how to change peoples' and companies' behaviour; eg "what's the point in us changing when the real problem is the billions of people in the rest of the world?" As we can infer, Fanti does not to raise these other issues because he actually wants something done about them. The 'whataboutism' is just a device to divert discussion away from policy solutions he finds ideologically unpalatable.

[Ben]

Climate Crisis Is Killing Off Key Insects and Spreading Insect-Borne Diseases:
https://truthout.org/articles/climate-crisis-is-killing-off-key-insects-and-spreading-insect-borne-diseases/

[MrFanti]

Climate Crisis Is Killing Off Key Insects and Spreading Insect-Borne Diseases:
https://truthout.org/articles/climate-crisis-is-killing-off-key-insects-and-spreading-insect-borne-diseases/
Yep!
When all the natural land areas are slowly being reduced due and turned into concrete & asphalt due to "urban growth" (i.e., over population) what does one expect?

The planet is a finite size and can only tolerate a finite amount of humans - an example of this is are desert environments complaining about lack of water. Well duh, those desert environments can't handle multiple cities of millions....

But hey, if one chooses to believe that the planet can handle an infinite amount of humans, then go on......

[Stavros]

Yep!
When all the natural land areas are slowly being reduced due and turned into concrete & asphalt due to "urban growth" (i.e., over population) what does one expect?

The planet is a finite size and can only tolerate a finite amount of humans - an example of this is are desert environments complaining about lack of water. Well duh, those desert environments can't handle multiple cities of millions....

But hey, if one chooses to believe that the planet can handle an infinite amount of humans, then go on......

If you took a keener interest in demography -plenty of posts on the subject in this section over the years- you would be aware that most demographers think 10 billion is the maximum and that human growth is already slowing and more generally will show a marked decline around 2050. That doesn't make it easy for people like you who will be around long after I am gone, and there is then the question of balanced or unbalanced societies with regard to cohorts of old and young, but you could look on the bright side and believe that green policies and population decline will make Planet Earth more appealing in 2082 than Mars. Maybe even cheaper.

But who has the greater obsession with transforming precious arable land into concrete -China or Israel?

[Ben]

It's increasingly difficult to remain optimistic...

Major sea-level rise caused by melting of Greenland ice cap is ‘now inevitable’: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/29/major-sea-level-rise-caused-by-melting-of-greenland-ice-cap-is-now-inevitable-27cm-climate

[Ben]

Criticism intensifies after big oil admits ‘gaslighting’ public over green aims:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/17/oil-companies-exxonmobil-chevron-shell-bp-climate-crisis

[Ben]

War Spending Like This as the Climate Emergency Grows Is a Global Nightmare:
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/09/22/war-spending-climate-emergency-grows-global-nightmare

[Ben]

Lula's Win a Victory for Amazon Rainforest and Global Climate:
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/10/31/lulas-win-victory-amazon-rainforest-and-global-climate

[Ben]

The human species is insane...

Climate crisis: past eight years were the eight hottest ever, says UN: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/06/climate-crisis-past-eight-years-were-the-eight-hottest-ever-says-un

[Ben]

Addressing Climate Change Will Not “Save the Planet”

The dismal reality is that green energy will save not the complex web of life on Earth but the particular way of life of one domineering species.
https://theintercept.com/2022/12/03/climate-biodiversity-green-energy/

[filghy2]

It looks like the next move of the climate change denialists in the Republican Party will be to punish companies that try to take the environment into account. So much for intellectual consistency from the party of free enterprise.
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/voices-why-2023-will-be-the-year-of-the-climate-culture-wars/ar-AA15QzNV

It's hard to see any rationality behind this. Companies presumably do this because they think it serves their long-term interests to plan for a transition to clean energy rather than putting their heads in the sand. Yes, fossil fuel fuel producers will lose from this, but many other companies will gain. Industries rise and fall all the time due to technological change and other factors, but we don't take the view that existing producers must be preserved at all costs.

[broncofan]

It is irrational on many levels. They are boycotting investment firms that take pledges to avoid investing in companies with a large carbon footprint. Are investment firms not allowed to consider whatever factors they want when choosing what to invest in (subject to their fiduciary duties)?

They also oppose scope 3 reporting, which would just require companies to publicly report the environmental impact of their suppliers. If investors are interested in that information and it can be reported accurately, then it should be made available. Their concern that it would harm stock prices is based on the fear that people would be interested in that information and make investment choices based on it.

The first response is really like trying to punish pension funds and investment funds who wouldn't want to invest in tobacco companies or arms suppliers for social reasons (or externalities).

As you point out, it really is a case of "free-market" Republicans interfering on the behalf of entrenched companies.

[Ben]

Doomsday Clock set at 90 seconds to midnight: https://thebulletin.org/2023/01/press-release-doomsday-clock-set-at-90-seconds-to-midnight/

[MrFanti]

And from Canada...
There Is No Climate Emergency, Say 500 Experts in Letter to the United Nations
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/there-is-no-climate-emergency-say-500-experts-in-letter-to-the-united-nations/

[Luke Warm]

And from Canada...
There Is No Climate Emergency, Say 500 Experts in Letter to the United Nations
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/there-is-no-climate-emergency-say-500-experts-in-letter-to-the-united-nations/

That’s a right wing organization funded by Exxon among others. There were also “experts” who said smoking cigarettes didn’t cause cancer. Big deal.

[MrFanti]

That’s a right wing organization funded by Exxon among others. There were also “experts” who said smoking cigarettes didn’t cause cancer. Big deal.

Problem is, there are also left wing funded organizations as well.

Which is why IMHO science and politics should not mix and stay as far as part as possible.

[blackchubby38]

Here in NYC we had a snow drought that was finally broken on February 1st. Now I'm not going to lie, considering what a pain in the ass in can be to walk on the streets and sidewalks here whenever there is a significant snowfall, it was refreshing to have a mild winter for a change. Especially since it was only 13 years ago this happened:

//abc7ny.com/nyc-christmas-blizzard-new-york-city-2010-snowstorm/5788832/

That was a start of a particular rough winter. I remember seeing remnants of snow on the ground until late April/Early May.

Having said all that, its still kind of weird to be having a 62 degree day in the middle of February. Or seeing the sun shine in morning like its late March/early April. I'm used to the cold and grey days where if you look out the window, it could be either 10:30 in the morning or 4:00 in the afternoon.

There is still plenty of time for there to be a significant snowstorm here and spring is still 5-6 weeks away. But I'm starting to wonder if this winter was just a blip or the beginning of the new normal. Because there is truly something wrong when you start feeling pollen allergy symptoms two days after Valentine's Day.

[MrFanti]

it was refreshing to have a mild winter for a change.
I do find it a bit "peculiar" to hear folks say on the one hand:

-"Climate change & Global Warming"!!!

But yet on the other....

-"I'm really enjoying these mild winters"

Personally, I hate mild winters....

[Stavros]

Climate Change is presented as a universal problem, but its impact not only changes from one country or region to another -we can understand this in terms of 'micro-climates'- but can differ in a relatively small area, as a study of Manhattan has shown, and in the case of NYC, one can assume the micro-climate of Long Island is different from that in the Bronx.

A ‘Third Way’ to Combat Climate Change: Microclimates - TheWaterChannel (https://thewaterchannel.tv/thewaterblog/a-third-way-to-combat-climate-change-microclimates/)

See How Temperatures In Manhattan Differ From Block To Block - Gothamist (https://gothamist.com/news/see-how-temperatures-in-manhattan-differ-from-block-to-block)

[Ben]

More dire warnings. We're collectively saying, because of global warming, that future generations have no value...
Scientists deliver ‘final warning’ on climate crisis: act now or it’s too late: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/20/ipcc-climate-crisis-report-delivers-final-warning-on-15c

[filghy2]

I do find it a bit "peculiar" to hear folks say on the one hand:

-"Climate change & Global Warming"!!!

But yet on the other....

-"I'm really enjoying these mild winters"

Only if you thought milder winters were likely to be the only consequence of climate change, which would make you a fool. Have you failed to notice there's been an increase in extreme weather events around the world in recent years?

[filghy2]

More dire warnings. We're collectively saying, because of global warming, that future generations have no value...

It's not only that, because the effects will be felt within the lifetimes of most of us. It's not like 30 years ago when it seemed far off in the future. Collectively we are saying that we are prepared to accept huge risks in our future just to avoid some cost and inconvenience in changing our ways now.

What the sceptics never consider is the cost of being wrong. If the scientists turn out to be too pessimistic, the worst outcome is that we spent too much on transitioning to renewable energy sources and energy efficiency. If they turn out to be right (or even too optimistic) the potential worst outcomes are much worse.

[filghy2]

And from Canada...
There Is No Climate Emergency, Say 500 Experts in Letter to the United Nations
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/there-is-no-climate-emergency-say-500-experts-in-letter-to-the-united-nations/

Perhaps you don't care, but you really should do some basic research to save embarassing yourself. People who have looked into the so-called 500 experts have found that only a few actually worked in climate science and many were not even scientists.
https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/letter-to-un-was-not-signed-by-500-experts-on-climate-science-breitbart/

"I categorized all 506 signatories according to their self-identified field of expertise. Only 10 identified as climate scientists, and 4 identified as meteorologists. (Together, that’s 2.8% of the total.) Signatories in totally unrelated academic fields (for example, psychology, philosophy, archaeology, and law) outnumbered climate scientists by two to one.

The most prevalent groups of signatories were geologists (19%) and engineers (21%)—many of whom were implicitly or explicitly involved in fossil energy extraction. Most of the rest were physicists, chemists, and mathematicians. A large fraction of the signatories were not scientists, but rather business executives, writers, activists, and lobbyists (totaling 11.3%)."

An analysis of 75 Australian signatories came to similar conclusions, with only few having published peer-reviewed research on the subject.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-27/who-are--scientists-professionals-who-say-no-climate-emergency/11734966

[Ben]

Tuesday was world’s hottest day on record – breaking Monday’s record:

Tuesday was world’s hottest day on record – breaking Monday’s record | Climate crisis | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/05/tuesday-was-worlds-hottest-day-on-record-breaking-mondays-record)

[filghy2]

Another piece of worrying climate news. The sea ice around Antarctica has not reformed this year as it usually does in winter - apparently a one in 7.5 million year event.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-24/antarctic-sea-ice-levels-nosedive-five-sigma-event/102635204

[completely_nailed]

It's all bull

[Stavros]

It's all bull

Three words that sum up the new policy options on climate change led by the Telegraph since the Uxbridge by-election and the claim ‘the people’ can’t afford the measures being taken. So this is the moment not to change policy, but scrap it completely.

Because science is bullshit, right?

[Stavros]

More on the above, as one of the founders of Extinction Rebellion, Roger Allam has, according to the Telegraph, attacked London Mayor Sadiq Khan's Ultra-Low-Emissions-Zone proposals --

"The founder of Extinction Rebellion (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/environment/2022/03/15/extinction-rebellion-founder-confronted-daughter-tactics/) has hit out at Sadiq Khan’s ultra-low emissions zone (Ulez) (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/hybrid-electric-cars/london-ulez-expansion-complete-guide-car-compliant/) as “intrusive” and “regressive” for the lowest-paid Londoners.Roger Hallam made the comments in a thread on social media site X, in which he also attacked “urban middle-class neo-liberal Left” thinkers behind the Mayor’s road charge.
He was responding to a Guardian column by Prof Devi Sridhar that argued in favour of Ulez and low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs). Hallam criticised supporters of the schemes for a “total lack of sensitivity and self-awareness”, claiming it showed a “myopic privilege”."
Extinction Rebellion founder hits out at Ulez as protesters have tyres slashed (yahoo.com) (https://uk.style.yahoo.com/extinction-rebellion-founder-hits-ulez-070000711.html)

Looks like the Proletariat are going to have to re-organize around, ahem, "Citizen's Assemblies' courtesy of the leadership of ER, who presumably will then delay all Green Policies that eat into the wages of the poor until 'After the Revolution'....so those stuck in the middle of this 'climate crisis' or climate crisis, are now being hammered from the right and the left, if that is what ER's situationist-style politics amounts to....

[Ben]

Republican hopefuls shrug when asked about climate crisis during debate:
Republican hopefuls shrug when asked about climate crisis during debate | US elections 2024 | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/24/republican-hopefuls-shrug-when-asked-about-climate-crisis-during-debate)

[Ben]

Noam Chomsky and Bill McKibben on Global Warming - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O3cNc2JoMA)

[Stavros]

Rishi Sunak has decided, or has been advised that the public don't want to fund Net Zero policies in their current form. So the PM is to tinker with the details while claiming the Govt is still committed to Net Zero as a policy. The details indicate that it is the belief that winning the Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election was a public rejection of ULEZ in the Constituency, the irony being that the Ultra Low Emission Zone policy in Boris Johnson's seat was the policy of the man himself when he was London Mayor.

Thus, the science has again become irrelevant, it is all about 'the pound in your pocket', and whether or not it is too expensive to implement schemes such as ULEZ, too demanding to expect a full transition away from fossil fuel driven vehicles by 2030, and yet again the 'why are we doing it when others are not'? So much for the 'Going it alone' justiification for Brexit, and the curious situation that now puts the UK on the same trajectory as the EU when it comes to EV's.

For Sunak though, what he thinks could be a vote winner, has angered some in his own party, but it remains to be seen if enough of them exist to threaten his leadership. As for Climate Change....we're doomed!

Rishi Sunak considers weakening key green policies - BBC News (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66857551)

[Ben]

Study Reveals Climate Change NIGHTMARE May Now Be Inevitable - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXpAgVPLUbY)

[Ben]

Who are the polluter elite and how can we tackle carbon inequality?

Who are the polluter elite and how can we tackle carbon inequality? | Greenhouse gas emissions | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/22/who-are-polluter-elite-how-can-we-tackle-carbon-inequality)

The jet set: 200 celebrities’ aircraft have flown for combined total of 11 years since 2022:


The jet set: 200 celebrities’ aircraft have flown for combined total of 11 years since 2022 | Travel and transport | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/21/the-jet-set-200-celebrities-aircraft-have-flown-for-combined-total-of-11-years-since-2022)

[MrFanti]

Who are the polluter elite and how can we tackle carbon inequality?

Who are the polluter elite and how can we tackle carbon inequality? | Greenhouse gas emissions | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/22/who-are-polluter-elite-how-can-we-tackle-carbon-inequality)

The jet set: 200 celebrities’ aircraft have flown for combined total of 11 years since 2022:


The jet set: 200 celebrities’ aircraft have flown for combined total of 11 years since 2022 | Travel and transport | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/21/the-jet-set-200-celebrities-aircraft-have-flown-for-combined-total-of-11-years-since-2022)

Report: China emissions exceed all developed nations combined
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57018837

And yet, the western world continues to do business with them....

[filghy2]

What wasn't mentioned is that China still has lower emissions per capita than the USA (10.95t vs 17.9t) and many other developed countries. That seems like the more relevant metric for the burden of responsibility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_ capita

Not doing business with China would only reduce world emissions if the economic activity switched to countries that use lower emissions energy sources.

[Mirgofino]

One of the main solutions to the climate crisis is for us humans to move away from a meat diet towards a plant-based diet, because it releases so many areas where making crops to feed the animals are destroying rain forests. And one of the deep tragedies of the human race is that relatively few seem to want to do so. Some even fight against it, which is like looking at someone slowly killing themselves while praising the weapon they do it with. This, combined with other factors where humans live as if we are on an infinite planet with infinite "resources" makes it logical, but very sad, that some philosophers simply talk about the human race as a failed species now.

[MrFanti]

How does the growing global population and increasing consumption affect biodiversity?
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/biodiversity/how-does-the-growing-global-population-and-increasing-consumption-affect-biodiversity/

[MrFanti]

One of the main solutions to the climate crisis is for us humans to move away from a meat diet towards a plant-based diet, because it releases so many areas where making crops to feed the animals are destroying rain forests. And one of the deep tragedies of the human race is that relatively few seem to want to do so. Some even fight against it, which is like looking at someone slowly killing themselves while praising the weapon they do it with. This, combined with other factors where humans live as if we are on an infinite planet with infinite "resources" makes it logical, but very sad, that some philosophers simply talk about the human race as a failed species now.
Here's to hoping that land for a plant-based diet is still around after everything green gets paved over with asphalt and concrete.....

[Ben]

Colombia vows to put nature at the heart of global environmental negotiations: Colombia vows to put nature at the heart of global environmental negotiations | Biodiversity | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/feb/23/colombia-names-cali-as-host-city-cop16-biodiversity-summit-aoe)

[Stavros]

When Boris Johnson's Parliamentary seat in Uxbridge and South Ruislip was retained by another Conservative, the explanation was that the Londoners in that constituency were registering their opposition to the Mayor of London's Ultra-Low-Emission-Zone policy, because of the costs to drivers living in the area having to pay as they go. And yet, a key aim of the policy has been a success. If anything it exposes the problem even more: policies that work that are unpopular on one level, but succeed in another. Do Londoners -and other urban dwellers around the UK and the world- want less pollution, and cleaner air, or just a few more quid in their pockets -and sick children?

"Sadiq Khan has hailed what he said was remarkable progress in improving London’s air quality under his tenure as mayor, after a study showed roadside pollutant levels falling faster in the city than elsewhere in the UK."
Ulez helped London cut road pollution faster than rest of UK, report says | Air pollution | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/08/sadiq-khan-hails-remarkable-progress-in-improving-london-air-quality)

[Helvis2012]

It's already here; it's happening right now.

[Ben]

‘Tone-deaf’ fossil gas growth in Europe is speeding climate crisis, say activists | Fossil fuels | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/26/tone-deaf-fossil-gas-growth-in-europe-is-speeding-climate-crisis-say-activists)

World’s top fossil-fuel bosses deride efforts to move away from oil and gas | Fossil fuels | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/20/fossil-fuels-oil-and-gas-clean-energy)

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=Ben;2085201]‘Tone-deaf’ fossil gas growth in Europe is speeding climate crisis, say activists | Fossil fuels | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/26/tone-deaf-fossil-gas-growth-in-europe-is-speeding-climate-crisis-say-activists)

World’s top fossil-fuel bosses deride efforts to move away from oil and gas | Fossil fuels | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/20/fossil-fuels-oil-and-gas-clean-energy)[/QUOTES

Soft targets, are there no other causes of climate change?

[filghy2]

I've no idea why you think it's a soft target, but fossil fuel burning has accounted for over 75% of global greenhouse gas emissions (in terms of warming contribution).
https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/causes-and-effects-climate-change

Yes, there are other sources that also need to be addressed, but it makes obvious sense to focus most attention on fossil fuels.

Perhaps you should leave the 'whataboutism' to Mr Fanti.

[Stavros]

I've no idea why you think it's a soft target, but fossil fuel burning has accounted for over 75% of global greenhouse gas emissions (in terms of warming contribution).
https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/causes-and-effects-climate-change

Yes, there are other sources that also need to be addressed, but it makes obvious sense to focus most attention on fossil fuels.

Perhaps you should leave the 'whataboutism' to Mr Fanti.

Soft targets in the sense that it is easy for people in the countries we live in to protest against BP, Shell and Exxon, because they are right here -less easy to focus on Deforestation which is happening in Brazil, Siberia, Indonesia and parts of Africa because they are not right here, and because in most cases we do not have much if any impact on either the Governments, or in the case of Brazil, the people illegally felling the Amazon rain forest to clear the land for livestrock and meat production. While the proportionality might not be in question, this aspect of climate change is surely the most difficult to deal with, precisely because so much of it is out of our control. The environmental devastation of Israel has also been neglected, even though a substantial amount of historic agricultural land has been transformed into concrete. The impact on the world's climate profile might not be great, but within that small area of land, it has been profound.

In any case we always return to the fact that until renewable sources of energy have the capacity and the efficiency to replace fossil fuels, they will continue to dominate. So I hope that clarifies the 'whataboutery' you refer to, and at least I do try to answer the question unlike a certain person on these boards.

[filghy2]

As with any problem, it makes sense for countries to focus on things within their control that they can feasibly do something about. There's still much more that can be done in our own countries - the main barrier is political will. If it's difficult enough for climate campaigners to influence their own governments what would be the point in shifting their attention to other governments that are even harder to influence?

I think you are being too pessimistic about the capacity for renewables to replace fossil fuels. Technology in this area is advancing rapidly, though it depends a lot on government policy to give it a push along. There is also scope to do a lot more on energy efficiency.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/04/electricity-generation-solar-wind-renewables-ember/

There's an old and wise saying that we should not make the perfect the enemy of the good. Even if we can't fix every part of the problem we can still make substantial progress that makes a difference. Too much pessimism on this plays into the hands of the 'donothingists'.

[Stavros]

I agree, it is just that I often get frustrated with the attacks on the oil companies, particularly what I think of as the counter-productive antic of Extinction Rebellion and other 'direct action' tactics, because there is so much more to this problem. If I am pessimistic on one level, it is because the anti Climate Change activists in media outlets like Murdoch's (utterly dire0 TalkTV or GB News, with the Telegraph leading the way, have latched on to public discontent, in London at least, with the costs of Ultra-Low Emission Zones, even though the data shows that London's air has improved since they were introduced. That is not to say London has clean air, I was there with a friend on Sunday and she remarked on how different it is from the town she lives in on the continent, albeit not close to any industry. The focus on costs when money is tight does not require much energy, but it does sap the longer term strategy, with now Labour appearing to roll back parts of its commitments to the Net Zero pledges Govt has made.

So even where we do have a direct impact, it looks like at the political level it will not have much impact, as, if Labour does form the next Govt, it will inherit a mess yet take a tame approach to policy and not achieve much, as the inability to achieve anything of lasting importance seems to be the common experience of government these days.

One can only hope the technology moves beyond the political to offer cost effective solutions.

[filghy2]

I share your scepticism about some of the tactics of climate activists. I can never understand why they think people will be won over by annoying stunts like throwing substances at artworks. That seems to be more about making themselves feel righteous. But I don't think the whole climate movement should be equated with the radical fringe.

[MrFanti]

Overpopulation Is Still a Huge Problem: An Interview with Jane O’Sullivan
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2024-03-25/overpopulation-is-still-a-huge-problem-an-interview-with-jane-osullivan/

THE OVERPOPULATION PROJECT
https://mahb.stanford.edu/breaking-news/the-overpopulation-project/

[filghy2]

Are you endorsing their policy ideas, or is this another link you didn't bother to read past the heading? They seem to think it's not just about population. https://mahb.stanford.edu/ideas-for-action/
1450728

[Stavros]

Overpopulation Is Still a Huge Problem: An Interview with Jane O’Sullivan
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2024-03-25/overpopulation-is-still-a-huge-problem-an-interview-with-jane-osullivan/

THE OVERPOPULATION PROJECT
https://mahb.stanford.edu/breaking-news/the-overpopulation-project/

The Overpopulation project is a neo-Malthusian organization. The link below offers a different perspective, though the author is, I believe, wrong to cite sources that claim the world's population will be c12 billion by 2100, as most demographers believe the world's population will peak at c10 billion, and that there will be a gradual decline from 2050 onwards.

That said, he makes a telling point, which is of some importance given the position in the US where Trump and his backers are opposed to family planning and the empowerment of women, thus-

"The first way to look at population is as a pure numbers game. More people means more consumers and more emitters, so the thing to do is slow the rise of population. Specifically, since most of the new people are going to come from poor or developing countries, the question is specifically how to slow population growth there.Luckily, we know the answer. It is family planning (http://www.drawdown.org/solutions/women-and-girls/family-planning) that enables women to have only children they want and choose, and education of girls (http://www.drawdown.org/solutions/women-and-girls/educating-girls), giving them access to income opportunities outside the home. We know that women, given the resources and the choice, will opt for smaller families.
Those are the two most powerful levers to bend the population curve. They are also, in and of themselves, an enormously powerful climate policy. When Paul Hawken and his team investigated and ranked carbon-reduction solutions for their Drawdown project (https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/5/10/15589038/top-100-solutions-climate-change-ranked), they found that the combination of the two (call it the female-empowerment package) carried the most potential to reduce greenhouse gases later this century, out of any solution. (Together they could prevent 120 gigatons of GHGs by 2050 — more than on- and offshore wind combined.)"
I’m an environmental journalist, but I never write about overpopulation. Here’s why. - Vox (https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/26/16356524/the-population-question)

This is behind a paywall but looks interesting-
Meet the New Population-Control Movement - The Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/03/population-control-movement-climate-malthusian-similarities/673450/)

[Ben]

'HORRIFYING' Heat Waves Could Kill 'THOUSANDS' At Once | The Kyle Kulinski Show (youtube.com) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyflqakycs4)

[filghy2]

It's happening already. There's a bunch of recent cases where tourists in Greece have died while walking in very hot conditions, most notably Michael Mosley.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/16/tourist-dead-greek-island-near-corfu

[filghy2]

More on the dangers of excessive heat
https://www.vox.com/climate/354977/heat-wave-wet-bulb-temperature-climate

[Ben]

This is a big problem:
Climate change deniers make up nearly a quarter of US Congress:
Climate change deniers make up nearly a quarter of US Congress | US Congress | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/05/climate-change-denial-congress)

[Stavros]

On the one hand there has been negative attitudes to Nuclear Fusion, that it always seems to be 30 years away from becoming the energy revolution that will halt the worst aspects of Climate Change, and propel humankind into a new future...

Is the dream of nuclear fusion dead? Why the international experimental reactor is in ‘big trouble’ | Energy | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/aug/03/is-the-dream-of-nuclear-fusion-dead-why-the-international-experimental-reactor-is-in-big-trouble)

On the other hand, it is also being claimed that the uses of what we currently know about and can use in Nuclear Fusion research has positive applications, though it doesn't seem to be directly connected to climate change issues. I think the key might be the investment promising returns, if profit is the key driver of the research, thus

Fusion power might be 30 years away but we will reap its benefits well before | Physics | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/science/article/2024/aug/11/nuclear-fusion-research-tae-power-solutions-cancer-propulsion)

[Ben]

Climate Crisis Is the Defining Issue of Our Time. Where Was It at the Debate?
Climate Crisis Is the Defining Issue of Our Time. Where Was It at the Debate? | Truthout (https://truthout.org/articles/climate-crisis-is-the-defining-issue-of-our-time-where-was-it-at-the-debate/)

[MrFanti]

This is a big problem:
Climate change deniers make up nearly a quarter of US Congress:
Climate change deniers make up nearly a quarter of US Congress | US Congress | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/05/climate-change-denial-congress)
And there's $$$ in climate change solutions as well. Those folks are getting rich off clean energy just as the fossil fuel folks.

[Ben]

Trump would be an "Extinction-Level Event" for the Planet, Turbocharging Climate Change. Vote Accordingly. (https://www.juancole.com/2024/11/extinction-turbocharging-accordingly.html)

[Paladin]

Trump would be an "Extinction-Level Event" for the Planet, Turbocharging Climate Change. Vote Accordingly. (https://www.juancole.com/2024/11/extinction-turbocharging-accordingly.html)

the chicoms and India produce more pollution the the US, Canada and Europe Combined.

[filghy2]

the chicoms and India produce more pollution the the US, Canada and Europe Combined.

US emissions per capita are still much higher, so China and India could equally say why should we do anything if a rich country like the USA won't.

It's a disingenuous argument anyway, because nobody is saying the US should act alone. The whole point is to have an international agreement for all countries to reduce emissions, and that's what Trump wants to pull out of.

[Paladin]

US emissions per capita are still much higher, so China and India could equally say why should we do anything if a rich country like the USA won't.

It's a disingenuous argument anyway, because nobody is saying the US should act alone. The whole point is to have an international agreement for all countries to reduce emissions, and that's what Trump wants to pull out of.

Look in the mirror when you make that statement. The US and Europe are the cleanest energy producers in the world. China does not produce anywhere near the energy that the US does yet they have a much higher level of pollution. They IMPORT most of their fuel, and it's not cleanly produced. You are the one being disingenuous .

[filghy2]

The US and Europe are the cleanest energy producers in the world.

How much of that is due to policies that Republicans opposed and intend to reverse? Any reduction in emissions intensity has been due to increased energy efficiency and moving away from fossil fuels, and the US hasn't gone nearly as far as Europe.

We're talking about climate change here, and burning fossil fuels produces CO2. There is no such thing as non-polluting oil or coal, regardless of where it comes from.

[Paladin]

How much of that is due to policies that Republicans opposed and intend to reverse? Any reduction in emissions intensity has been due to increased energy efficiency and moving away from fossil fuels, and the US hasn't gone nearly as far as Europe.

We're talking about climate change here, and burning fossil fuels produces CO2. There is no such thing as non-polluting oil or coal, regardless of where it comes from.

When you all walk or pedal a bicycle to work and everywhere else and grow all your own food in your yard, then you can complain about CO2.

Europe paid dearly for their over reliance on non-carbon energy (and their over reliance on natgas from russia) when the ruskies invaded Ukraine.

Are you people even living here in the US? I know stavros is not. If not, please correct your own internal issues before denigrating the US, and if you live in western Europe, go visit a US or WW1 or WW2 cemetery to refresh your memory on what language you would be speaking if it was not for US. If you live in eastern Europe go visit a death camp memorial to see what would have been all over everywhere if not for US.

[tslvr]

This is just the end of the last ice age. This rock has gone through many changes in the last 4 billion years and will continue to do so.

[Stavros]

This is just the end of the last ice age. This rock has gone through many changes in the last 4 billion years and will continue to do so.

Are you saying human beings have had no impact on Planet Earth? None at all?

[filghy2]

This is just the end of the last ice age. This rock has gone through many changes in the last 4 billion years and will continue to do so.

The problem is that humans have only existed for tiny fraction of that time, and CO2 levels are already above any seen in that period.
https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/

Yes, the earth and some forms of life will continue, but that doesn't mean that we will. Many species have become extinct due to climatic changes they were unable to adapt to (eg dinosaurs).

Even if we are able to survive it may be a very difficult existence. In the past people could just move to a cooler environment, but that's going to be almost impossible due to national borders and a far bigger population.

I always find it ironic when 'do nothingers' say that people in future will adjust, even though they are refusing to make any adjustments themselves.

[Paladin]

Gasoline is now down 26 cents / gal from last Tuesday. Still too high (and the 110 Octane I need for my DVC is over $10 / gal), but we will get back to 2019 levels soon enough, and that WILL lower prices on Everything that needs to be shipped around the planet.

Europe will now take steps to import US NatGas instead of ruisian exports.

[Stavros]

Gasoline is now down 26 cents / gal from last Tuesday. Still too high (and the 110 Octane I need for my DVC is over $10 / gal), but we will get back to 2019 levels soon enough, and that WILL lower prices on Everything that needs to be shipped around the planet.

Europe will now take steps to import US NatGas instead of ruisian exports.

Seriously?

Where does the EU’s gas come from? - Consilium (https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/eu-gas-supply/#:~:text=Norway%20and%20the%20United%20States,coun tries%2C%20the%20UK%20and%20Qatar.)

[filghy2]

Gasoline is now down 26 cents / gal from last Tuesday. Still too high (and the 110 Octane I need for my DVC is over $10 / gal), but we will get back to 2019 levels soon enough, and that WILL lower prices on Everything that needs to be shipped around the planet.

This reminds me of Rupert Murdoch's prediction that the Iraq invasion would lead to oil prices falling to $20 a barrel. In fact, they ended up rising as high as $140.

As some wise person said, "Never make predictions, especially about the future".

[Paladin]

Seriously?

Where does the EU’s gas come from? - Consilium (https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/eu-gas-supply/#:~:text=Norway%20and%20the%20United%20States,coun tries%2C%20the%20UK%20and%20Qatar.)

so,,,,, they are STILL buying it from the ruskies!!!

[Stavros]

so,,,,, they are STILL buying it from the ruskies!!!

I suggest you write to your King and his Prince, who both seem to have a direct line to Vladimir Putin that they use on a regular basis, or maybe it's ok for you Americans to fist the Russians while you complain that Europeans get barely 3% of their gas resources from Russia, presumably because they are foolish enough to honour contracts that were signed before Trump and Musk's boyfriend went rogue.

[Paladin]

I suggest you write to your King and his Prince, who both seem to have a direct line to Vladimir Putin that they use on a regular basis, or maybe it's ok for you Americans to fist the Russians while you complain that Europeans get barely 3% of their gas resources from Russia, presumably because they are foolish enough to honour contracts that were signed before Trump and Musk's boyfriend went rogue.

It wasn't always 3% and russian oil is still exported into europe as well.

I don't have a king, and neither does any US citizen. we took care of that about 250 years ago.

[Paladin]

Gasoline here was about 99 cents / gal for permium back in 2003. I had two cars that Required premium fuel, so I remember that quite well. Then when o took over it shot up to some $4 / gal, then back down under Trump to about $1.85 / gal, then to nearly $5 / gal under the demented dolt, and it's still more than $1.25 higher then back at the end of 2019. These are FL prices, not CA where it was $1.5-$2.5 higher. I still have one car that Requires premium 93 octane plus 2-3 gallons per tank of 110 octane just to run it safely. The other 3 cars run better on premium, but won't damage themselves on regular (87 octane).

Yeah, 4 cars, and only because I can't fit 5.

[Ben]

Climate denial a unifying theme of Trump’s cabinet picks, experts say
Loyalists selected for important roles have offered staunch support to fossil fuels and downplayed climate crisis:

Climate denial a unifying theme of Trump’s cabinet picks, experts say | Climate crisis | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/27/trump-cabinet-picks-climate-change)

[MrFanti]

Climate denial a unifying theme of Trump’s cabinet picks, experts say
Loyalists selected for important roles have offered staunch support to fossil fuels and downplayed climate crisis:

Climate denial a unifying theme of Trump’s cabinet picks, experts say | Climate crisis | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/27/trump-cabinet-picks-climate-change)


On the other side of the ugly 2 party bird, there's this:

Addressing Modern Slavery In The Clean Energy Sector
https://assets.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/documents/resources/reports/Addressing-Modern-Slavery-in-the-Clean-Energy-Sector.pdf

And contrary to what's being portrayed, NO ONE is doing it for the good of planet - they're doing it to get rich.....
The 10 Richest Green Energy Billionaires In 2021
https://www.forbesmiddleeast.com/billionaires/world-billionaires/the-10-richest-green-energy-billionaires-in-2021

[filghy2]

On the other side of the ugly 2 party bird, there's this:

Addressing Modern Slavery In The Clean Energy Sector
https://assets.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/documents/resources/reports/Addressing-Modern-Slavery-in-the-Clean-Energy-Sector.pdf

And contrary to what's being portrayed, NO ONE is doing it for the good of planet - they're doing it to get rich.....
The 10 Richest Green Energy Billionaires In 2021
https://www.forbesmiddleeast.com/billionaires/world-billionaires/the-10-richest-green-energy-billionaires-in-2021

Do you think it's going to help if the US abandons clean energy and leaves China to dominate the market? https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/22/global-climate-china-us-00191049

Unless you are proposing to do away with capitalism, the issue isn't whether people make money. It's whether they make money out of things that adversely affect the rest of society.

[Paladin]

Do you think it's going to help if the US abandons clean energy and leaves China to dominate the market? https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/22/global-climate-china-us-00191049

Unless you are proposing to do away with capitalism, the issue isn't whether people make money. It's whether they make money out of things that adversely affect the rest of society.

We are not abandoning clean energy. Our energy production is orders of magnitude clean than china and india.

[filghy2]

We are not abandoning clean energy. Our energy production is orders of magnitude clean than china and india.

I'm not sure Trump got the memo on that. Most energy analysts don't seem convinced that a man who thinks climate change is a hoax is not going to hamper the clean energy transition.
Trump’s administration is expected to hinder the renewable energy transition in various ways. One anticipated step will be gutting Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), a cornerstone of recent American climate policy incentivizing renewable energy development. Alongside this, there may be an increase in oil and gas leases on federal lands, a shift that will directly benefit the fossil fuel industry. Such actions would slow growth of the U.S. clean energy sector, placing the nation at a competitive disadvantage as other regions, notably China and Europe, surge ahead in low-carbon technology, green investment, and renewable capacity.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidcarlin/2024/11/07/donald-trump-and-the-climate-consequences-of-the-2024-us-election/

This article outlines a range of policies promoting clean energy that the incoming administration has signalled its intention to unwind.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-election-climate-pollution-oil-gas-clean-energy-f6ad39e23613396a7536fb1dc25fca62

[MrFanti]

More of what's NOT being told to the general public...

Foreign countries are lining up to exploit Africa’s critical minerals
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/africaatlse/2024/10/28/foreign-countries-are-lining-up-to-exploit-africas-critical-minerals/

The energy transition in North Africa - Neocolonialism again!
https://www.tni.org/en/article/the-energy-transition-in-north-africa

Green exploitation is still exploitation
https://africanarguments.org/2023/11/green-exploitation-is-still-exploitation/

[MrFanti]

It's all about $$ and the pillaging of the African continent....

Unmasking Green Colonialism in EU-Namibia Hydrogen Deal
https://www.ejiltalk.org/unmasking-green-colonialism-in-eu-namibia-hydrogen-deal/

Uğur Akkuş: Turkish Billionaire Leading Europe's Green Energy and Clean Water Revolution
https://forbesdenmark.com/ugur-akkus-turkish-billionaire-leading-europes-green-energy-and-clean-water-revolution

[Stavros]

It's all about $$ and the pillaging of the African continent....

Unmasking Green Colonialism in EU-Namibia Hydrogen Deal
https://www.ejiltalk.org/unmasking-green-colonialism-in-eu-namibia-hydrogen-deal/

Uğur Akkuş: Turkish Billionaire Leading Europe's Green Energy and Clean Water Revolution
https://forbesdenmark.com/ugur-akkus-turkish-billionaire-leading-europes-green-energy-and-clean-water-revolution

Yes, Mr Fanti, but...

Two more articles you might like, particularly the map of resources in Nick Dearden's article.

Problem is that the 'Plunder of Africa' could not take place without the approval of the men in charge of the countries involved, most of them millionaire or by now Billionaires who send their children to elite schools in the UK, France, the US and so on. Africa is not populated by sheep, it's Governing classes know exactly what they are doing, just look at Angola, which was once described as an 'African Marxist' country around the same time it was inviting Shell, BP and Exxon to extract its oil wealth, which it then sold to the wicked USA.

Maybe Africa needs a new generation of Marxists, you know, like proper ones, the revolutionary type...?

Africa is not poor, we are stealing its wealth | Corruption | Al Jazeera (https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2017/5/24/africa-is-not-poor-we-are-stealing-its-wealth)

Stealing a continent: How the plunder of Africa has evolved — RT Africa (https://www.rt.com/africa/605798-west-robbery-africa-natural-resources/)

[Paladin]

The chicoms are going after everything in Africa in a big way.

[Ben]

Put the Planet first...
Put the Planet First | Ted Rall's Rallblog (https://rall.com/2024/11/27/put-the-planet-first)

[MrFanti]

The chicoms are going after everything in Africa in a big way.
Yep.....and then sell to the West

[Paladin]

I'm going to do my part for climate change. It's been soooo cold here that I'm going to fire up my convertible with the 480 CI engine that has NO "smog control" devices, 10.5:1 compression ratio, runs on premium fuel plus some 110 Octane race gas, and bum around the area this weekend.

[filghy2]

I'm going to do my part for climate change. It's been soooo cold here that I'm going to fire up my convertible with the 480 CI engine that has NO "smog control" devices, 10.5:1 compression ratio, runs on premium fuel plus some 110 Octane race gas, and bum around the area this weekend.

Maybe you can also get some whale skin hubcaps and throw your styrofoam containers out the window.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JoKJsjtLxw

[filghy2]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-arctic-could-be-functionally-ice-free-in-just-a-few-years/
"The Arctic is likely to become “ice-free” by midcentury—and could pass that grim milestone much sooner—unless much more is done to combat climate change"

[Paladin]

Maybe you can also get some whale skin hubcaps and throw your styrofoam containers out the window.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JoKJsjtLxw

Was this post your admission?

Do you walk or pedal a bicycle EVERYWHERE you go?

Never heard of a whaleskin hubcap, that was a rather poor attempt at a nonexistent analogy, and I don't like Styrofoam anything.

I recycle as much as I can here. I just don't need you or any overblown hollwyood asshole to tell me that I'm polluting the planet while they are riding around every their privates jets take them to.

[filghy2]

Never heard of a whaleskin hubcap, that was a rather poor attempt at a nonexistent analogy, and I don't like Styrofoam anything.

It was a hit song from the 1990s, though maybe the satire is lost on you. This is the relevant section.

You know what I'm gonna do?
I'm gonna get myself a 1967 Cadillac Eldorado convertible
Hot pink, with whale skin hubcaps
And all leather cow interior
And big brown baby seal eyes for head lights (yeah)
And I'm gonna drive in that baby at 115 miles per hour
Gettin' 1 mile per gallon
Sucking down Quarter Pounder cheeseburgers from McDonald's
In the old fashioned non-biodegradable styrofoam containers
And when I'm done sucking down those greaseball burgers
I'm gonna wipe my mouth with the American flag
And then I'm gonna toss the Styrofoam containers right out the side
And there ain't a goddamn thing anybody can do about it, you know why?
Because we've got the bomb, that's why
Two words, nuclear fucking weapons, OK?
Russia, Germany, Romania, they can have all the democracy they want
They can have a big democracy cakewalk
Right through the middle of Tiananmen Square
And it won't make a lick of difference
Because we've got the bombs, OK?
https://genius.com/Denis-leary-asshole-lyrics

[filghy2]

Do you walk or pedal a bicycle EVERYWHERE you go?

I do my bit. I walk, cycle or take public transport if it's feasible. I only have one small car and I drive less than 3000 km per year.

As usual, you miss the point anyway. Nobody is seriously suggesting we have to go to net zero right now. The aim is to do so over the next 15 years or so. Nobody is saying we have to return to some pre-industrial existence. The technology to transition away from fossil fuels exists and it is getting better and cheaper all the time.

[Paladin]

It was a hit song from the 1990s, though maybe the satire is lost on you. This is the relevant section.

You know what I'm gonna do?
I'm gonna get myself a 1967 Cadillac Eldorado convertible
Hot pink, with whale skin hubcaps
And all leather cow interior
And big brown baby seal eyes for head lights (yeah)
And I'm gonna drive in that baby at 115 miles per hour
Gettin' 1 mile per gallon
Sucking down Quarter Pounder cheeseburgers from McDonald's
In the old fashioned non-biodegradable styrofoam containers
And when I'm done sucking down those greaseball burgers
I'm gonna wipe my mouth with the American flag
And then I'm gonna toss the Styrofoam containers right out the side
And there ain't a goddamn thing anybody can do about it, you know why?
Because we've got the bomb, that's why
Two words, nuclear fucking weapons, OK?
Russia, Germany, Romania, they can have all the democracy they want
They can have a big democracy cakewalk
Right through the middle of Tiananmen Square
And it won't make a lick of difference
Because we've got the bombs, OK?
https://genius.com/Denis-leary-asshole-lyrics

Never heard of it. but he's ignorant. He's also a dumass because there were at least 8 countries with the bomb back then including russia.

Even the worst mileage Cadilacs back in the day got over 10MPG. My DVC gets 8-12 MPG, on par with current behemoth Suburban Uhttack Vehicles.
There was no such model as a 1967 ElDorado Convertible

[filghy2]

Never heard of it. but he's ignorant. He's also a dumass because there were at least 8 countries with the bomb back then including russia.

Even the worst mileage Cadilacs back in the day got over 10MPG. My DVC gets 8-12 MPG, on par with current behemoth Suburban Uhttack Vehicles.
There was no such model as a 1967 ElDorado Convertible

You don't know the meaning of this word, apparently
"Satire: the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues"

[Paladin]

You don't know the meaning of this word, apparently
"Satire: the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues"

Attempting to call someone an asshole is not satire...

[filghy2]

Well, first, he wants to bring back US oil independence (by oil I also mean natural gas as appropriate) and extend it to oil dominance. This will have several effects:

It will lower the global price of oil, which will weaken petrol-chemical dependent countries like iran and russia.
It will lower the price of fuels here dramatically. This will have the further effect of lowering the transportation component of all goods and services sold here, and thus actually help LOWER prices for goods of all types here, because even if inflation goes to zero, that does not mean prices will drop.

Second he wants to lessen the regulatory burden here, which is the opposite of the feckless, foppish dolt has done for the past 4 years. It's actually needed for the above to take full effect. And no I do NOT mean pollute the hell out of the US. Our energy production is among the cleanest in the world.

Here's some data on pollution from different energy sources, both greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollution. It shows that oil is clearly the second most polluting energy source after coal, and way more polluting than the other sources.
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

How exactly can a big expansion in oil production not be bad for the environment? I'm pretty sure it's not going to cause coal-fired power stations to be closed down.

[filghy2]

PS: the major concern about fossil fuels is the pollution produced in their consumption, not in their production. Focussing only on the latter is obviously a red herring to divert attention from the main issue. No matter how 'clean' the production process might be, oil is still going to be polluting when the fuel is used for transport, etc.

Here's some data on carbon intensity per $ of GDP by country. The US is 49th worst out of 164 countries, which doesn't seem consistent with the claim that it is among the cleanest in the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_intensity_of_GDP

[Ben]

China HUMILIATES US With Record-Breaking High Speed Rail | The Kyle Kulinski Show (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi5eWpvvcNg)

[MrFanti]

China HUMILIATES US With Record-Breaking High Speed Rail | The Kyle Kulinski Show[/URL]

And on the other side of China....
China is building six times more new coal plants than other countries, report finds
https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-six-times-more-new-coal-plants-than-other-countries-report-fin

[Ben]

And on the other side of China....
China is building six times more new coal plants than other countries, report finds
https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-six-times-more-new-coal-plants-than-other-countries-report-fin

Needless to say, plenty of problems in China. But they're on the right track w/ high speed rail and solar.

[Ben]

Los Angeles on fire...
Los Angeles on Fire - CounterPunch.org (https://www.counterpunch.org/2025/01/08/los-angeles-on-fire/)

Yes, we need to call out the climate criminals right now:
Yes, We Need To Call Out The Climate Criminals Right Now (https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/yes-we-need-to-call-out-the-climate-criminals-right-now)

[MrFanti]

Needless to say, plenty of problems in China. But they're on the right track w/ high speed rail and solar.

Yes, they are - but with all that coal, a few steps backwards and in the wrong direction.

[Ben]

Yes, they are - but with all that coal, a few steps backwards and in the wrong direction.

Agreed. Plenty of problems w/ China. But we have to work collectively to phaseout the use of fossil fuels. It's either global cooperation or extinction.
Maybe, just maybe the fires in Los Angeles -- because it's affected the celebrity class and the super-rich (Paris Hilton, a member of the super-rich and, sadly, owns a private jet so her concern around climate breakdown doesn't really exist but, sadly, lost her home in the LA fires) will finally be the spark to transition off fossil fuels.
The way to do it: nationalize the fossil fuel industry and then gradually phase them out. Plus we need to produce for need and not profit.
This pathological profit-seeking motive is driving us to environmental destruction. And, too, it's not fair on other species. I mean, if we wanna commit suicide. Fine. But we should not drag down everything else w/ us. I mean, elephants, hawks, tigers etc. etc. are not producing this environmental nightmare. We are.

1479786

[MrFanti]

Agreed. Plenty of problems w/ China. But we have to work collectively to phaseout the use of fossil fuels.


Building six times MORE coal factories than any other nation is NOT "collectively phasing out".....

[MrFanti]

China’s Coal Demand and Production Will Continue to Grow in 2025
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Coal/Chinas-Coal-Demand-and-Production-Will-Continue-to-Grow-in-2025.html

[MrFanti]

China "Leading The Way" again....🙄
Testimony: China-Backed Cobalt Mines In Congo Exploit 40,000 Child Workers
https://ewtn.co.uk/article-testimony-china-backed-cobalt-mines-in-congo-exploit-40000-child-workers/

[Ben]

Data on Corporate Pollution and Emissions Now Threatened Under Trump | Truthout (https://truthout.org/articles/data-on-corporate-pollution-and-emissions-now-threatened-under-trump/?utm_source=Truthout&utm_campaign=7f7b3fdfae-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2025_02_16_06_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bbb541a1db-aa145b40b7-650150957)

[filghy2]

Looks like references to climate change in research supported by the US government are being forbidden. This is truly Orwellian stuff.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/21/trump-scientific-research-climate