US coasts sea level rise 10 to 12 inches by 2050

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Hmmmm. Maersk, the biggest shipping company in the world, is spending a lot of money to increase the costs of fuel for their competitors while Maersk gets in bed with the new fuel providers to make sure they’ve got a supply. In the process, it obsoletes their competitors smaller ships. Isn’t that the kind of things big nasty corporations do? Are they doing this out of the goodness of their heart? Or is all fair in love snd saving the world?

Look at what happened when COVID closed all the restaurants: the little guys got bankrupted while the big chains have survived just fine.

This system is called fascism. Big business and big government work together to consolidate wealth and power to a privileged few who enjoy the benefits. But everybody else gets poorer and loses freedoms. Business and government own or control everything and citizens own nothing, lose freedoms, and their choices in all matters are limited.

[Ericson38]

And when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine, natural gas, oil and coal go up more for EU. Here's Germany, today-

https://www.agora-energiewende.de/en...03.2022/today/

Not good situation to be in with dicey connection to Russia for what it needs to conduct business for 24 hours.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by lestersails

It costs what it costs, bro. Either the user pays for it or the people that don't use it pay for it. It has to be paid for. I think it fair to say that we live in a world where, for most things, if you want something you have to pay for it. I do not think any system based on '2 flights a year' concept is gonna fly (pun intended).

The climate changers are certainly imaginative at dreaming up new hardships. Wind powered aircraft that rely on updrafts? If all passengers did not have to keep schedules, it might have some merit. But glider aircraft are really only practical for hobbyists. They would be grounded in foul weather so their fly routes would be subject to constant change.


While setting hardship rules, why not limit flights to three one ways per year. That way nobody would get to return home.



Sequestering carbon is a needless expense, since CO2 has no significant effect on climate. So the whole discussion can stop.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

List the person and year they made the assertion or posed the theory .

Joseph Fourier proposed a greenhouse effect in 1824. (For the second time)

Eunice Foote demonstrated the GHG qualities of CO2 in 1856.

John Tyndall independently demonstrated the GHG qualities of CO2 in 1859.

[Bycrick]

Montanan — Deforestation has increased not just in this century, but since they made the empty promises that you refer to. As long as Brazil needs land to feed its people and to provide export earnings, they’ll cut down anything they can get at. As long as Indonesia needs export earnings and oil palms produce a salable product, they’ll be out there chopping down forests. When it’s a choice of food and jobs today, an education for their kids tomorrow, as opposed to a bunch of foreigners telling them to save the world in umpteen years, I can tell you which one wins. As long as Russia and Venezuela, for example, generate the majority of their hard currency income from petroleum, it won’t go away. F f

Look at your post. In summary it says, even with all the promises and commitments, we haven’t met our goals, but this time we might. That doesn’t sound like I should break out celebratory champagne.

As for the Maersk story. They’re the biggest shipping line in the world. They can afford 8 new super ships running on absolutely non polluting fuel. They can ship from China to Panama with zero carbon. But when it gets here, they unload the 15000 TEU onto a bunch of smaller ships all up and down the coast. All those little guys are going to have to absorb the costs. It’s just like the railroads in the 1880s. They bought up all the coal mines, cut their fuel costs and drove the smaller railroads out of business by selling them coal at inflated prices.

As for me, I haven’t deforested any land in years. I’m not at Sean’s level by any means, but I’ve done my part without joining the children's parade to save the world.

[Bycrick]

Lestersails — Thsnks for this comment.
There is actually a serious question to ask about the Maersk proposal. Is it a Nirvana scam? Have they proposed a too-bold, too far off, goal to take the heat off of themselves now? Corporations do not actually have much of any accountability for what they say they will be doing 25 years hence."
I agree with it completely, except there might be more than one serious question in the gift-horse's mouth. A neither do "benevolent governments."

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by lestersails

How an oenologist might describe this: The nose has notes of fear of change and progress with a definite paranoia on the tongue and a faint finish of an anarchist.
Thankfully such people are a tiny minority, else we'd all still be in caves, hitting critters over the head with rocks.

There is actually a serious question to ask about the Maersk proposal. Is it a Nirvana scam? Have they proposed a too-bold, too far off, goal to take the heat off of themselves now? Corporations do not actually have much of any accountability for what they say they will be doing 25 years hence.

You are still missing the point. The is not progress. It is regression. One large operator who sets the standards and controls the technology and production of an industry will abuse their power to control all others. Consider the example of Microsoft. In the early days of petroleum, Mr. John D. Rockefeller dominated the industry with his Standard Oil Company. In the history of steel making and the railroad industry, similar oligarchies emerged. Of course in modern times we have large media and big tech conglomerates. And then there are the giant retailers, both walk in stores, and on line marketers.



Such concentration of ownership and control is always detrimental to society.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Sequestering carbon is a needless expense, since CO2 has no significant effect on climate.

Please provide the name of one scientific institution or professional society in any country that endorses this assertion.

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Because renewables are intermittent, conventional plants with boilers must be be kept at idle to switch on to the grid at any moment. So renewables require constant use of coal, gas, or nuclear.

To be clear, your use of the word "must" is simply incorrect. This is demonstrated to be false, as previously mentioned, power consumption dropped by 30% when renewables were less available in germany as the price of power was increased. When this consumption change varies by 90%, the remaining 10% supplied from energy storage it is possible to have only renewable power. My electrical power is only renewable power.

Another thing about wind turbines is that they tend to kill birds.

It is nothing compared to roadkill from cars. Regardless, engineers in germany are working on video recognition algorithms to slow turbines to avoid killing birds at the expense of power production, though the power production reduction is rather minimal.

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Amazing how the cranks like to rant nonsense. Seandepagnier seems to think that many of us can we can quit our jobs

Considering computers are better than humans at most existing jobs this is valid. What is your job? I am curious to know if you could simply quit.

or ride to them on bicycles regardless of the distance and the weather. Wonder how he would feel about biking 40 miles a day through - 17 deg C, snow storms, road ice, torrential rain, or 40 knots of wind?

Considering I did ride 18 miles each way to a job year round in colorado for over a year when I worked for someone else, it is certainly possible. I generally averaged 18mph, but the top speed I was able to achieve on flat ground 40mph and was amazing to keep pace with the freight train even though it was running at it's usual speed as I became quite fit. I realized working for people who have more money than I did was not something I wanted to be a part of and did not continue this work.

The biggest issue was the cars packing the snow down to ice making it more dangerous to ride a bike. Without the cars it would have been completely safe. There were days it snowed 2 feet, and was -15C.

Solar panels and wind turbines that might be productive 20 to 40 per cent of the time are going to power the world? He forgot that conventional plants have to be kept running at idle to put on line

It would be nice to stop repeating flawed arguments. They don't need to be "kept idle" any more than you need a diesel engine in a boat. You can wait for a while until conditions are more favorable to use renewable energy.

Originally Posted by newhaul

Would like to see him ride that here . We got 3 inches of rain in the last 2 days . freezing last week with snow

And here you go again about rain, freezing snow and yes I absolutely rode the bike through this. I navigated the dismal swamp canal when it was frozen over breaking ice using sail and muscle power as even with full sail and 20 knots of wind the ice stopped the boat and I could walk on the ice, but but throwing the boom across and jibing, and eventually winching the boat using lines to shore I broke through the ice.

Originally Posted by newhaul

Because we feel like doing it .

(in reference to burning all the worlds resources in 2-3 generations)

Thank you for the honesty and to make this point clear. I can feel like doing all kinds of offensive things too and use your excuse to "justify" it, but instead I will use your excuse as evidence of your low levels of moral values as this is a purely selfish statement.

Originally Posted by newhaul

Then go back there if you feel so strongly about being in a first world country.

I am working on it, but consider where I was born, what I know, and that it is important to also prevent first-world countries from doing what they are doing.

Originally Posted by newhaul

For a smart seeming individual you are not to bright . How did the groceries you eat get to the store ? It's called DIESEL.

First of all, I do not choose for them to use diesel. I take partial responsibility. Secondly.. the diesel they use is < 10 gallons per year to deliver my food, as the truck delivers food for thousands of people. This is close to the 1% of current rate of consumption needed. It seems you are bringing up the same flawed argument that if someone causes a small amount of harm, it somehow justifies you causing 100 times as much.

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” - Mark Twain

You should read this statement over and consider who it might apply to.

Originally Posted by Allied39

The whole solar panel deal I find entertaining. The above mentioned silicone. And what about the aluminum to make the frames? Mined in Bolivia, bauxite shipped? trucked? to smelters? Clean fellows those smelters.

Not all solar panels have aluminum frames. Most of mine don't. Regardless, the aluminum can be reused (not recycled) after 40 years of solar panel use. The glass can be reused, and the PV cells themselves can be recycled into new cells using < 5% of the original energy used to create them.

And I was told just last week that 275watt solar panels can be bought in Georgia for $60. HUH? Yeah, apparently they replace them every two years?!?
need replacing? Gee....do ya think? Real green that is.

Are you sure they are replaced every 2 years? Generally they last at least 40 years, but it takes 2 years to recuperate the cost of the panels in saved power.

Yeah, so I have never thought that solar panels themselves have no carbon footprint, unless simply plucked from between the rear cheeks of some hippy.....and pretty sure thats not the case.

Check the figures, the footprint of PV solar power is break even for carbon sequestration meaning we could not use them to reduce the amount of CO2 in the air from direct air capture. This comes out to 70-90 gram of CO2 per kwh. Wind is 8-30 (onshore vs offshore). natural gas is around 450 gram (not considering 3.5% that leaks from pipelines which doubles the warming effect), and coal 1200. There is a footprint for all of these and no one should claim there is not. Compare the differences in footprints, and consider that powering sequestration, only wind is possible to be negative, and this means it would produce that much less usable power in doing so. The other forms of power have no potential to achieve this though solar may in the near future. The best option is reduction of energy use.

I mention this to the fellow gloating about fuel prices. $4 a gallon? No problem....gets to $10 and I'll be driving the same cars....just pass that cost along.....maybe to you.

If the fuel cost $30 a gallon, it won't change my behavior. So we might as well make this the price.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Another thing about wind turbines is that they tend to kill birds.

Wind turbines are the least of worries for birds.

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by lestersails

It costs what it costs, bro. Either the user pays for it or the people that don't use it pay for it. It has to be paid for. I think it fair to say that we live in a world where, for most things, if you want something you have to pay for it.

This is certainly not true for air travel currently, or many other examples for that matter.

I do not think any system based on '2 flights a year' concept is gonna fly (pun intended).

Would 0 flights a year work better? I would prefer none. We can scrap the current fleet and convert airports into parks. I was being generous to those 1% of people who do 95% of all flying. If you do not limit consumption in this way, it is like saying people with more money should have more rights. Do you believe this to be fundamentally just?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Wind turbines are the least of worries for birds.

As the serial owner of three INDOOR felines, and a frequent observer of outdoor cats, I can verify the hunting prowess of puddy tats. They are dreadfully inefficient at generating power though, and further research into this area has been abandoned.

[seandepagnier]

a breakdown of which types of birds and how many by each killing source would be more revealing, but despite this, the numbers will show wind turbines are not a great threat and can be mitigated with video recognition as the number of wind turbines increases.

[Montanan]

“The Earth is a fine place and worth fighting for.” – Ernest Hemingway

“We are living on this planet as if we had another one to go to.” -Terri Swearingen

“The Earth should not be a worse place after my life than it was when I was born here.” – Rob Stewart

“God gave us the earth, to till and to keep in a balanced and respectful way.”- Pope Francis

[Bycrick]

Ah, get rid of airplanes. No fresh fruit in the supermarkets out of season. Wait months for your spare part. Amazon over-night delivery becomes plural instead of singular. Half the countries in the world go back to subsistence farming and fishing because there aren’t any tourists. It doesn’t cost anything to deliver his food, because they’re delivering for 1000 other people. So one just the cost of delivering his food. Right.