Interesting

[Bikeguy]

49 minutes ago, 12string said:

If we think the green energy fiasco is expensive, just wait til we see what the fiasco will cost if we don't try to make green energy less of a fiasco.

Climate change is about to make everything REALLY expensive.  If you can still get it.

OK... I'll add this to the list of environmental issues that should have killed me during my life time.

The ice age  / global cooling  

Acid rain

Whole in the ozone over Antarctica

Global warming / Climate change 

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-were-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year/

[Wilbur ★]

1 hour ago, 12string said:

If we think the green energy fiasco is expensive, just wait til we see what the fiasco will cost if we don't try to make green energy less of a fiasco.

Climate change is about to make everything REALLY expensive.  If you can still get it.

I no longer believe we will have any positive effect, no matter what we do.  You can’t control climate. The world isn’t ending. 

[maddmaxx ★]

5 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

I no longer believe we will have any positive effect, no matter what we do.  You can’t control climate. The world isn’t ending. 

It's not the positive effect that matters.  It's limiting the negative effect.  IMO that's going to be a too late too little no matter what we do.  There are emerging large polluters around the world who aren't going to limit their growth because we are worried.

 

[Wilbur ★]

4 hours ago, maddmaxx said:

It's not the positive effect that matters.  It's limiting the negative effect.  IMO that's going to be a too late too little no matter what we do.  There are emerging large polluters around the world who aren't going to limit their growth because we are worried.

I have read publications claiming we hit peak carbon 20 years ago and have been below that since.  I think we are doing what we realistically can by improving the technologies we have, not by eliminating them. If a government can’t supply and doesn’t monitor the effect of their actions, it tells me this really isn’t a problem.  Why should a country that produces 4.5 % of greenhouse gases be taxed into starvation and insolvency when China and India won’t even address the environment until 2050?  It is just a tax grab. 

[dinneR ★]

5 hours ago, Bikeguy said:

OK... I'll add this to the list of environmental issues that should have killed me during my life time.

The ice age  / global cooling 

The ice age was a few million years ago. How old are you?

[Bikeguy]

26 minutes ago, dinneR said:

The ice age was a few million years ago. How old are you?

https://www.nytimes.com/1975/09/14/archives/climatic-changes-by-aerosols-in-atmosphere-feared-climatic-changes.html

Recent long‐term predictions of climate change have been contradictory. Some forecasters believe a cooling trend has begun that may mark the return to another ice age. Others say a natural 80‐year cycle is nearing its coolest phase and that a marked warming is in store, reinforced by the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide from fuel burning

[Mr. Silly]

14 hours ago, Bikeguy said:

OK... I'll add this to the list of environmental issues that should have killed me during my life time.

The ice age  / global cooling  

Acid rain

Whole in the ozone over Antarctica

Global warming / Climate change 

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-were-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year/

In the linked article, the ice-age prediction by Watt was prefaced with terms like, "if trends continue".  It didn't go into any detain about what trend he was refering to.  That said...

Acid rain is caused by burning coal to generate electricity.  Electrical power companies have moved away from coal in favor on natural gas reducing the amount SO₂ and NO_x.  So making changes reduced the problems caused by acid rain.

The hole in the ozone was caused by Chlorofluorocarbon.  We've greatly reduced the use of freon and CFC are no longer used as propellents for deoderents.  So making changes eliminated the problem with the hole in the ozone.

To go back to Watt's predictions... with the other issues you've listed, trends did not continue and the problems were solved or greatly reduced.  Without additional background on Watt's statements, I have to assume that trends did not contine. 

It is disengenous to claim a problem never existed because actions were taken to address them.

So yeah, we were able to address acid rain and  the ozone hole.   Why can't we at least reduce the impact of global warming?

[Mr. Silly]

9 hours ago, Bikeguy said:

https://www.nytimes.com/1975/09/14/archives/climatic-changes-by-aerosols-in-atmosphere-feared-climatic-changes.html

Recent long‐term predictions of climate change have been contradictory. Some forecasters believe a cooling trend has begun that may mark the return to another ice age. Others say a natural 80‐year cycle is nearing its coolest phase and that a marked warming is in store, reinforced by the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide from fuel burning

Do you have a source you can cite that is more recent than 1975?

[maddmaxx ★]

11 hours ago, Wilbur said:

I have read publications claiming we hit peak carbon 20 years ago and have been below that since.  I think we are doing what we realistically can by improving the technologies we have, not by eliminating them. If a government can’t supply and doesn’t monitor the effect of their actions, it tells me this really isn’t a problem.  Why should a country that produces 4.5 % of greenhouse gases be taxed into starvation and insolvency when China and India won’t even address the environment until 2050?  It is just a tax grab. 

Is that "we" hitting peak carbon.  I ask because China and India are just getting going on killing the environment.

[Randomguy]

16 hours ago, Bikeguy said:

OK... I'll add this to the list of environmental issues that should have killed me during my life time.

The ice age  / global cooling  

Acid rain

Whole in the ozone over Antarctica

Global warming / Climate change 

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-were-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year/

 

Yeah, I wouldn't put much faith in that list, it is pretty silly when you actually read them one by one.  A few legitimately silly 'one guy' date predictions, but almost all trends predicted have proven mostly true or trending that way. 

The hole in the ozone isn't a big deal anymore because collective global government action was taken, and is considered the most successful government/climate action ever taken, and is universally acknowledged as a "spectacular success".  Of course, the hole in the ozone was also a major contributor to acid rain along with a few other pollutants, so there go two at once.

They are really grasping including past ice ages that clearly occurred before major human influence.

Shit is happening, humans have clearly fucked things up over time and there are very few quick fixes that are easy or cheap.  I don't know all the answers, but ignoring the problems we cause doesn't mean they don't exist or that they will just go away or we don't have to worry about them.   Anyway, the author of that list should have thought to check around a bit first before firing off the article for folks that want to believe that that stuff isn't a big deal at all.

[Razors Edge ★]

55 minutes ago, Mr. Silly said:

So yeah, we were able to address acid rain and  the ozone hole.   Why can't we at least reduce the impact of global warming?

I remember when the government, not industry, stepped in to start addressing the CFC issues.  Folks were up in arms over the extra cost and the interference from governments getting in the way.  I worry folks underestimate the role governments play in getting incentives and the "stick" in place to move the yard sticks on things like the ozone hole, acid rain, and climate change.

OTOH, I'm squarely in the "I got mine" column and really no longer care what the kids and grandkids of today's apathetic folks inherit from us.  I got the golden age of just about everything delivered to me, and I am confident the stuff I have and my luck at being an American will let me ride out the next 50 years in relative prosperity.  Some else is left holding the ball at this point.

[Bikeguy]

1 hour ago, Mr. Silly said:

Do you have a source you can cite that is more recent than 1975?

Of course not.  

Soon after the claim we were going to have another ice age, then the banter changed to global warming. 

[Razors Edge ★]

5 minutes ago, Bikeguy said:

Of course not.  

Soon after the claim we were going to have another ice age, then the banter changed to global warming. 

In general, though, you aren't against reducing pollution and increasing efficiency?

[12string]

The Ozone Hole is the perfect example of the current climate change debate.

People like to cite that as s reason why the climate change warnings are just more doomsaying and it will not come to pass.

In the 70's when we were first warned, there was a lot of the same arguments - humans didn't do it, it's too expensive to fix it, we can't fix it, we'll just make xxxx worse trying to fix it, it's just political, other countries aren't doing their part so why should we, just throw up our hands and hope......

The Montreal protocol was adopted in 1987.By 2006 there was measurable and consistent repair in the Ozone layer, and it has continued to repair since then.

The doomsday scenario didn't happen - because we spent the money and effort to fix it.  And Air Conditioners and fire extinguishers still work.

That doomsday scenario was a walk in the park compared to what we face if we don't address the global greenhouse emissions.

I refuse to just give up.  I have grandchildren to think about

[12string]

17 minutes ago, Bikeguy said:

Soon after the claim we were going to have another ice age, then the banter changed to global warming. 

Scientists didn't claim we were having an ice age.  Science warned about a cooling trend and it's damages.  So we listened, and avoided the cooling trend.

It's science, not banter, and it didn't change to global warming after the Ozone danger passed.  Science has been warning about climate changed caused by greenhouse gas emissions for decades.  In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.

[Razors Edge ★]

17 minutes ago, 12string said:

Scientists didn't claim we were having an ice age.  Science warned about a cooling trend and it's damages.  So we listened, and avoided the cooling trend.

It's science, not banter, and it didn't change to global warming after the Ozone danger passed.  Science has been warning about climate changed caused by greenhouse gas emissions for decades.  In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.

I think most folks have heard of London's fog and LA's smog. 

[Mr. Silly]

32 minutes ago, Bikeguy said:

Of course not.  

Soon after the claim we were going to have another ice age, then the banter changed to global warming. 

I looked into Dr Watt's global cooling prediction.  It was based on the rate of increase in NO_x emissions.  Those were reduced by recution in the use of coal.  So, yeah the problem was fixed.

You're cherry picking.  Climate Change due to CO₂ was predicted in 1955.

We know CO₂ concentrations have not halfed since 1955.  

[Bikeguy]

1 hour ago, Razors Edge said:

In general, though, you aren't against reducing pollution and increasing efficiency?

Absolutely not.    Reducing pollution and increasing efficiency are good goals.  (not necessarily connected)  

The next questions are at what cost?   Our jobs?  Our economy?  

So the US, Canada, and Western Europe reduce our emissions to zero (which is impossible and impractical) then what?     Keep in mind EV vehicles here get 60% of the power they use from fossil fuel. 

If we succeed at eliminating our contribution to global warming, then we kill off our industry and farm production, but the rest of  the world doesn't care.   They will just make the stuff we want and ship it here cheaper than we can make it, using fuel.  

This is interesting about air pollution.  https://www.unep.org/interactives/air-pollution-note/  Seems we are doing better than most.  

Here is a list of what countries use fossil fuel for power.   https://www.statista.com/statistics/859266/number-of-coal-power-plants-by-country/   I'm sure the  US, Canada and Western Europe will continue to shut our fossil fuel power plants down.  Which can be a problem for a reliable power grid...  but we will be cleaner. 

What about the the other counties in the world.    Nope.. the world will see a net GAIN in fossil fuel useage. https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/peak-coal/   

India is adding fossil fuel power plants too. India to increase coal-fired capacity in 2024 by the most in at least 6 years

And this... assumes 'the science' about global warming etc.. is indeed correct.   

 

 

[12string]

12 minutes ago, Bikeguy said:

And this... assumes 'the science' about global warming etc.. is indeed correct.   

It is.  There is no longer a legitimate question about it.  It's been proven so many times over.  And never been disproven, just disagreed with by a tiny minority

Your post assumed a whole lot more than that.

We can shrug our shoulders, do nothing, because, hey India isn't doing their part.  The cost will be astronomical and destroy civilization as we know it.  People will mostly still be around.  Oh - and that cost to our food supply?  There won't be much food supply.

OR, we could do our part, develop technology so EVs AREN'T recharged with fossil fuels, make renewable energy cheaper - it can eventually be far cheaper than fossil fuel.  India and China will want in on that cheap energy.  We spent a lot, but not an astronomical lot.  And my Grandkids will go to colleges, raise families in comfort.

[Bikeguy]

9 minutes ago, 12string said:

It is.  There is no longer a legitimate question about it.  It's been proven so many times over.  And never been disproven, just disagreed with by a tiny minority

Your post assumed a whole lot more than that.

We can shrug our shoulders, do nothing, because, hey India isn't doing their part.  The cost will be astronomical and destroy civilization as we know it.  People will mostly still be around.  Oh - and that cost to our food supply?  There won't be much food supply.

OR, we could do our part, develop technology so EVs AREN'T recharged with fossil fuels, make renewable energy cheaper - it can eventually be far cheaper than fossil fuel.  India and China will want in on that cheap energy.  We spent a lot, but not an astronomical lot.  And my Grandkids will go to colleges, raise families in comfort.

We will both see how this plays out.  

Crutchfield is indeed awesome.  

[Mr. Silly]

24 minutes ago, Bikeguy said:

What about the the other counties in the world.    Nope.. the world will see a net GAIN in fossil fuel useage. https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/peak-coal/   

 From your link, It looks like China went from about 800 Gigwatts to 400 Gigawatts.  

That is called a reduction.  It is a reduction of about 50%

29 minutes ago, Bikeguy said:

 I'm sure the  US, Canada and Western Europe will continue to shut our fossil fuel power plants down.  Which can be a problem for a reliable power grid...  but we will be cleaner. 

Where have there been reliability issues due to a migration to cleaner energy sources in the US, Canada or Western Europe?

 

31 minutes ago, Bikeguy said:

So the US, Canada, and Western Europe reduce our emissions to zero (which is impossible and impractical) then what?     Keep in mind EV vehicles here get 60% of the power they use from fossil fuel. 

What is the percentage of power from fossile fuels for an ICE vehicle?  Does an EV use less? (ignoring that you called a 50% reduction an increase earlier)  

[MoseySusan]

5 hours ago, Mr. Silly said:

Why can't we at least reduce the impact of global warming?

 

16 hours ago, Wilbur said:

It is just a tax grab. 

Some people assert taxation is wealth redistribution, and they may also claim that government is a broken and inefficient agency for wealth redistribution,  which happens more directly and efficiently when wealthy people assume agency to target the use of their wealth. I could lean into that assertion if I didn't see a few very wealthy individuals backing space travel capability, which strikes me as hubris. So, I lean into government redistribution because it comes with public accountability.

I also lean into government regulation, not because I want to see industries hamstrung by rules, but because resource management and profit motive are often at odds. The warming climate means industry (agriculture included) has to pivot to more effective manage resources, and in the US the government is using tax incentives and tax money to build those shifting technologies. If we cannot bring the temperature down, we absolutely need to reduce the harmful impacts of the changes, including powerful storms, rising ocean levels, and shifts in population. 

[Razors Edge ★]

29 minutes ago, Bikeguy said:

Absolutely not.    Reducing pollution and increasing efficiency are good goals.  (not necessarily connected)  

The next questions are at what cost?   Our jobs?  Our economy?  

In my working life, we've been juggling both quite well - so about 35 yrs of reduce pollution and increase efficiency couple with economic growth and prosperity.  I definitely don't see a negative long term impact from pushing for a transition away from coal and other fossil fuels. 

It isn't just the West that wants to and is moving away from coal.  We were just lucky to come into our biggest growth spurt before the poor countries like China or India, so we got our excessive polluting done earlier, and have been able to claw back to better and more efficient power production since then.  

22 minutes ago, Mr. Silly said:

That is called a reduction.  It is a reduction of about 50%

Capacity in "development".  Their capacity is still growing - ie adding more coal plants and/or replacing older plants.

BUT

Also reducing growth because other types of power generation is in development and coming on line too.  They have a bit of a "virtuous" cycle going as the world's largest solar panel manufacturer - ie they can sell to themselves in addition to the world.  They're adding solar. They're adding other renewables.  They just want/need to add all sorts of power. 

[12string]

2 hours ago, MoseySusan said:

Some people assert taxation is wealth redistribution, and they may also claim that government is a broken and inefficient agency for wealth redistribution,  which happens more directly and efficiently when wealthy people assume agency to target the use of their wealth. I could lean into that assertion if I didn't see a few very wealthy individuals backing space travel capability, which strikes me as hubris. So, I lean into government redistribution because it comes with public accountability.

I also lean into government regulation, not because I want to see industries hamstrung by rules, but because resource management and profit motive are often at odds. The warming climate means industry (agriculture included) has to pivot to more effective manage resources, and in the US the government is using tax incentives and tax money to build those shifting technologies. If we cannot bring the temperature down, we absolutely need to reduce the harmful impacts of the changes, including powerful storms, rising ocean levels, and shifts in population. 

When we rely on the wealthy to distribute wealth to those who need it (trickle down), they will distribute in whatever way most benefits the distributors

When we rely on the government, aka society, to distribute wealth to those who need it (taxation and regulation), they will distribute it in whatever way most benefits those who need it.

It's just human anture.