Great Barrier Reef "cooked" to death

[Iaangus]

Originally Posted by MarkJ

Nice to see people jump down my throat for a 1 line gag.

The truth behind the joke is not about Global Warming, but WHITE MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING.

Because its the Great Barrier Reef Australians blame Australians where as most of the CO2 emmissions are from Indonesia, China, India and the test of smoggy Asia.

Yes, Australians do cause a proportion of bleaching from agricultural water runoff.

Anyway, I shall amble off to my corner whilst the zealots accuse anyone who isn't a GreenPeace member of being the problem.

What??? The GBR bleaching is not caused by conservative white males in the USA? Thanks for sharing the load, I'm getting tired.

[chala]

Originally Posted by boatman61

No one expected whats come out off Syria and N Africa.. least of all Merkel and the EU..

Sure Angela had a plan, we all have plans, B.n Lad.. to had plans. Her plan was to get 1 million of displaced, keep the good one and dump the “deplorable” to other members of the E C.
Europe with all its conflicts and for time immemorial has been using for displaced the simplest plan of waiting for winter. Due to GW other plans had to be used but plans the Europeans do have.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by chala

Sure Angela had a plan, we all have plans, B.n Lad.. to had plans. Her plan was to get 1 million of displaced, keep the good one and dump the “deplorable” to other members of the E C.
Europe with all its conflicts and for time immemorial has been using for displaced the simplest plan of waiting for winter. Due to GW other plans had to be used but plans the Europeans do have.

[chala]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

their depth of concern about climate change and its potential effects is shown to be pretty deep.

And shall be.

[seandepagnier]

Because its the Great Barrier Reef Australians blame Australians where as most of the CO2 emmissions are from Indonesia, China, India and the test of smoggy Asia.

Yes, Australians do cause a proportion of bleaching from agricultural water runoff.

You are aware that australians emit 20x more per capita than indians?

So by this logic I should personally be able to cause as much pollution as china, then claim that the real problem is china and india because that is more than what I am doing.


What is crazy about all of this, is despite the global warming, burning oil is actually a dangerous addiction. It enables people to be more greedy/impatient and undertake more worthless activities than ever, and become lazy and incompetent in the process.

Consider sailing.

When I meet similar sailors who also refuse an engine in their boat, I can say these people are very much more interesting and intelligent, and mostly just much better sailors.

Cruisers who use engines are pathetic, like overweight people who use wheelchairs.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Efficiency and cleanliness is happening naturally as technology improves largely because it leads to greater profits for energy producers/sellers. This has always been true.

Taking the lead in conservation really means asking people to use less energy. Technological advances make it easier to do that because it allows us to get the same result we expect and are accustomed while using less energy. Things like improved insulation of homes also helps. But if by "conservation" you mean asking people to do without things they are accustomed to having, the masses will never embrace that, especially when they can clearly see those asking them do to it using WAY more energy than themselves.

We already have naturally "taken the lead" in pretty much all kinds of technology, including energy, because developed countries have companies that are always striving do things better/cheaper and that leads to technological innovation in order to accomplish that.

We will "wean" ourselves off fossil fuel dependence when other sources of energy become less expensive than fossil fuels and not until. That's reality and AGW worriers attempts to synthetically make fossil fuels more expensive via carbon tax schemes ultimately have been and will be rejected when the masses of people realize that it's they who ultimately will have to come up with the $$$ and they can't afford it. Telling them that you are only carbon taxing those evil big corporations only works until folks realize that evil big corporations ALWAYS pass on their increased costs to consumers. Ultimately, big corporations pay NO taxes and consumers pay ALL taxes and consumers also vote, at least as long as we live in a democracy. Few voters who are struggling to provide for themselves and their families (that's almost everybody) will opt for a tax increase on themselves when they don't see a direct benefit that outweighs the cost to them. You've already tried scaring them into doing it by talking about points of no return and weather catastrophes, etc. but folks have noticed that your frightening predictions didn't come true, so that scaremongering approach hasn't worked. Now its time to wait until climate science catches up with the AGW rhetoric and eventually it will become clear, and pretty obvious to everyone what must be done, if anything. We're not even close to there yet. Patience, my son...

Of course we share technology with less developed countries and that means they don't have to go through every step that we did or make the same mistakes. But what we cannot do is to ask them to for forgo development in order to comply with standards that may make sense to (some of) us but they see as preventing them from progressing towards a similar standard of living that we currently enjoy.

We can all talk about this until we're all blue in the face but the majority of people on earth will not embrace changes you say we need to make until it's obvious to them that it's in their own self interest to do so. Increasingly, the trend towards one world government run by the "elites" that might dictate changes to us (for our own good, of course) but that may make no sense to us, is being roundly rejected (Brexit, Trump, etc.) in favor of doing things the old fashioned way, and that will take time.

Your conclusions seem incomplete at best and agenda-driven at worst.


In economics, Jevons's paradox (/ˈdʒɛvənz/; sometimes the Jevons effect) occurs when technological progress increases the efficiency with which a resource is used (reducing the amount necessary for any one use), but the rate of consumption of that resource rises because of increasing demand.[1] Jevons's paradox is perhaps the most widely known paradox in environmental economics.[2] However, governments and environmentalists generally assume that efficiency gains will lower resource consumption, ignoring the possibility of the paradox arising.[3]

In 1865, the English economist William Stanley Jevons observed that technological improvements that increased the efficiency of coal-use led to the increased consumption of coal in a wide range of industries. He argued that, contrary to common intuition, technological progress could not be relied upon to reduce fuel consumption.[4][5]


Jevons's paradox indicates that increased efficiency by itself may not reduce fuel use, and that sustainable energy policy must rely on other types of government interventions.[7][20] As Jevons's paradox applies only to technological improvements that increase fuel efficiency, the imposition of conservation standards or other government interventions that increase costs do not display the paradox and can be used to control the rebound effect.[7] To ensure that efficiency-enhancing technological improvements reduce fuel use, efficiency gains can be paired with government intervention that reduces demand (e.g. green taxes, cap and trade, or higher emissions standards). The ecological economists Mathis Wackernagel and William Rees have suggested that any cost savings from efficiency gains be "taxed away or otherwise removed from further economic circulation. Preferably they should be captured for reinvestment in natural capital rehabilitation."[6] By mitigating the economic effects of government interventions designed to promote ecologically sustainable activities, efficiency-improving technological progress may make the imposition of these interventions more palatable, and more likely to be implemented.[21]






While I'm no fan of excessive government, a properly functioning dynamic government plays a vital role in society; indeed it can be said to be the epitome of the society that created it. If the population isn't aware of the things their elected government is doing to them, for whatever reason, they get what they deserve. That the majority of the powers that be in the current dysfunctional US government are playing one side of the populace against the other for their own personal gain is fairly transparent, and I'm not a very cynical person. It's just natural to take advantage of a situation, keeping the most important component (oneself's interests) foremost in any endeavor.

How's Brexit working out for the English working class?



As for the Trumpster, since he's made hardly a statement that he hasn't changed, denied or reversed, who knows what's gonna happen. I only hope that he hires an executive assistant that has a good memory and can prompt him at the appropriate times...

Originally Posted by Exile

JT speaks some important truths & provides a needed dose of reality. No, it doesn't reveal a lack of knowledge, provide an excuse not to do anything, suggest a lack of caring, play into the hands of the evil oil cos., or provide any fodder for our gang of (mostly) well-intended but ineffectual virtue-signalers on this forum.

Saying something is real doesn't make it so....

[Lake-Effect]

Thank you jt. Naturally, I have some quibbles.

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Efficiency and cleanliness is happening naturally as technology improves largely because it leads to greater profits for energy producers/sellers. This has always been true.

This is demonstrably not true.

It is notable that the U.S. death rates for coal are so much lower than for China, strictly a result of regulation and the Clean Air Act (Scott et al., 2005). It is also notable that the Clean Air Act is one of the most life-saving pieces of legislation ever adopted by any country in history.

Profit does not seek to clean up after itself, or play safe. Regulation and oversight is always required. Health and safety acts. Even the financial industry is incapable of operating safely on its own, or was 2008 just a bad dream? Safety (worker and environmental) and responsibility are costs, not profit centers, and they often have to be rammed down companies' throats.

Taking the lead in conservation really means asking people to use less energy. Technological advances make it easier to do that because it allows us to get the same result we expect and are accustomed while using less energy. Things like improved insulation of homes also helps. But if by "conservation" you mean asking people to do without things they are accustomed to having, the masses will never embrace that, especially when they can clearly see those asking them do to it using WAY more energy than themselves.

Yeah yeah, Al Gore. I guess the American dream is permissible for everyone but him, huh? Anyway...You are indeed correct regarding personal efforts at conservation; but there's also bigger aspects of conservation, such as planning for petroleum to be available in say 500 years (for pharmaceuticals, plastics, lubricants, etc) instead of just burning it off in the next hundred or so.

BTW, it's probably not possible anymore, but ask someone who lived through the rationing and personal sacrifices of WWII if they think it was worth it or not. Because they gave up a hell of a lot more than any 1st worlder is ever going to have to give up to tackle climate change.

We already have naturally "taken the lead" in pretty much all kinds of technology, including energy, because developed countries have companies that are always striving do things better/cheaper and that leads to technological innovation in order to accomplish that.

Development of alternatives and renewables is still sluggish. Funding for such development is still about 1/10 of the money that goes to hydrocarbon tax breaks and subsidies. Not to mention what governments spend on health problems and mess left from using fossil fuels. While there's more profit in burning the dirty stuff, corporations won't aggressively pursue cleaner, renewable options. And complex solutions like nuclear power can't and won't (and shouldn't) be done by private corporations alone. Government is a necessary partner. Some people recognize this.

We will "wean" ourselves off fossil fuel dependence when other sources of energy become less expensive than fossil fuels and not until. That's reality...

No, that's unwillingness to forecast, to plan and to act proactively, before a small problem becomes a bigger one. I won't dwell on carbon taxation, or how well it's working in the jurisdictions that have adopted it.

Now its time to wait until climate science catches up with the AGW rhetoric and eventually it will become clear, and pretty obvious to everyone what must be done, if anything should have been done sooner.

Hell of a gamble.

But what we cannot do is to ask them to for forgo development in order to comply with standards that may make sense to (some of) us but they see as preventing them from progressing towards a similar standard of living that we currently enjoy.

That's a misrepresentation of what would be asked of developing countries, but it fits with your unwillingness to support the funding, technical help and leadership that's required.

We can all talk about this until we're all blue in the face but the majority of people on earth will not embrace changes you say we need to make until it's obvious to them that it's in their own self interest to do so.

And there's the rub. All us old farts on CF are sitting at the top of the pyramid, with our savings and our boats and our safe 1st world countries... we will likely never have a moment's hardship from climate change, even if it was 4x as severe as predicted. Our kids will probably end up experiencing some hardship and disruption; our grandkids will get walloped. And of course those developing or yet to develop nations are already seeing some effects from anomalies in weather/climate. Read some of the links from Gwynne Dyer for how rosy things look for them.

Increasingly, the trend towards one world government run by the "elites" that might dictate changes to us (for our own good, of course) but that may make no sense to us, is being roundly rejected (Brexit, Trump, etc.) in favor of doing things the old fashioned way, and that will take time.

The old fashioned way. Ah yes... not doing anything hard until its totally unavoidable? Actually, that's kind of a new take on things; i suspect our ancestors would be shocked at our failure to exercise foresight.

Originally Posted by Exile

JT speaks some important truths & provides a needed dose of reality. No, it doesn't reveal a lack of knowledge, provide an excuse not to do anything, suggest a lack of caring, play into the hands of the evil oil cos., or provide any fodder for our gang of (mostly) well-intended but ineffectual virtue-signalers on this forum.

I appreciate that it's a sincerely held viewpoint and one held by many. Thank you jt for sharing it. Nonetheless it's based on some false premises, misunderstandings about how we got to here and what was required to make things as good as they are today. And some common misconceptions about what taking action might look like, but in fairness we haven't been able to actually discuss that much, as long as people dispute that there's a problem.

[boatman61]

[QUOTE=jimbunyard;2272172]

How's Brexit working out for the English working class?

QUOTE]

I'll let you know If/When it finally happens.. if I live long enough..
In the meantime we are still in the EU while influence's are brought to bear from all quarters to force us to stay in.. Wankers still Rool.

[chala]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Small scale approaches are really not the solution. Large scale solutions are needed.

It depends.
Small domestic thermal accumulators (12 kWh up) would be perfect for cold countries and could be used in a large scale.
But so long PV owners can store energy at no cost into the grid nobody will be buying small domestic thermal accumulators.

[jimbunyard]

[QUOTE=boatman61;2272186]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

How's Brexit working out for the English working class?

QUOTE]

I'll let you know If/When it finally happens.. if I live long enough..
In the meantime we are still in the EU while influence's are brought to bear from all quarters to force us to stay in.. Wankers still Rool.

Was wondering about that...so you think the Brexiters were counting on the drop in the pound immediately after (and still continuing) the vote so they could point to any rise when/if the departure took effect as proof that exiting was a good thing?

Seriously though, am I right in assuming you think exiting the EU will be a good thing for the UK? Care to elaborate? I've not heard anything really from an individual about it...

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by GordMay

In the interest of accuracy:
It was not the ubiquitous they, but the UN themselves.

The UN Report ➥ https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/

An Excellent Analysis ➥ http://www.economist.com/news/intern...ced-dont-panic

Gord - my refence was to this statement

Originally Posted by kmacdonald View Post
From what I understand and have been told, we have passed the point of no return without elimination of 6 Billion+ humans in the very near future.

Not the population projection.

[boatman61]

[QUOTE=jimbunyard;2272213]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Was wondering about that...so you think the Brexiters were counting on the drop in the pound immediately after (and still continuing) the vote so they could point to any rise when/if the departure took effect as proof that exiting was a good thing?

Seriously though, am I right in assuming you think exiting the EU will be a good thing for the UK? Care to elaborate? I've not heard anything really from an individual about it...

Well.. being old enough to remember life pre Common Market and then EU.. all that's happened for the man in the street is constant price rise's, decreasing wages and countless regulations to change our way of life..
All our access to cheap imports from Commonwealth countries was closed off.. ahh..!! the days of free trade country to country..
I live abroad as the pension is inadequate for living in the UK.. the choice between starving or freezing in the winter.. 520euro a mth don't go far when a bedsitter would cost near that a month..
My berth in Portugal costs me 1600euro/year.. including water and electric for just under 12metres.
In the 1980's I could earn £9-10/hr for a semi-skilled job.. today that same job is around £7.50/hr.
A 3bed house that would have cost you £10,000 then is £375,000 today..
Has being an EU Member been good for the working man.. no..
However.. politicians, civil servants and lawyers have thrived and we get an annual influx of 200,000 EU citizens every year taking up our space jacking up accommodation prices and holding down wages.. lets face it.. 2-3euro an hour in an Eastern newcomer makes the prospect of a £7.50/hr country seem like bliss.
I believe 6mths upto June this year saw 235,000 fresh EU citizens pour in mainly from Romania as the panic about us closing our doors hit.
Polands pissed.. amongst others.. as we are not in the Euro the GBP is good foreign currency.. there's around 2million Poles in the UK.. many of whom send money home.. imagine that revenue stream being cut..
No.. many in the EU do not want us to go because they feed off us.. but they'd never admit it..

[chala]

Originally Posted by Juho

That's easy. Stop burning fossils (coal, oil, gas).

Can Finland do without the use of coal,oil.gas and how?

Originally Posted by Juho

Politicians should thus create new rules that directly reduce burning of fossils

The rules exist and are implemented in some states of Europe since 2015.

For example in one state;
Reduction of global energy usage per inhabitant:
2020 -16%, 2035 -43%, 2050 -54%
Reduction of electricity usage per inhabitant;
2020 -3%, 2035 -13%, 2050 -18%

CO2 reduction per inhabitant from 6.5to in 1990 to 1.5to in 2050

In my view they can achieve a better reduction of electricity in 2050 than
-18%

[Juho]

Originally Posted by chala

Can Finland do without the use of coal,oil.gas and how?

Yes. What is special in Finland is that it is quite cold up here. Isolation of houses has improved and can still improve. Heat pumps are a new and efficient technology (need some electricity). We heat our own house mostly by traditional means, using firewood from the nearby woods. If renewables do not give Finland enough electricity (I don't want to burn all the forests), there is always the possibility of building new nuclear power plants. Personally I'd be happy also with saving energy and cutting our consumption level.

Power for vehicles is one step trickier question than generation of electricity and heat. Biodiesel, electric cars etc. are a partial solution. We should probably fly less than today. On water, sailboats of course .

The rules exist and are implemented in some states of Europe since 2015.

For example in one state;
Reduction of global energy usage per inhabitant:
2020 -16%, 2035 -43%, 2050 -54%
Reduction of electricity usage per inhabitant;
2020 -3%, 2035 -13%, 2050 -18%

CO2 reduction per inhabitant from 6.5to in 1990 to 1.5to in 2050

In my view they can achieve a better reduction of electricity in 2050 than
-18%

Still too much talk and too little actions. The EU carbon trade arrangements have been very inefficient. If I could decide, we would start cuts today (e.g. -10% in 2017, -95% in 2025) and not after some planning period and countless large meetings with no tangible results. I would be also happy to set carbon related customs duties to products of countries that are not happy to follow the same rules.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Juho

Yes. What is special in Finland is that it is quite cold up here. Isolation of houses has improved and can still improve. Heat pumps are a new and efficient technology (need some electricity). We heat our own house mostly by traditional means, using firewood from the nearby woods. If renewables do not give Finland enough electricity (I don't want to burn all the forests), there is always the possibility of building new nuclear power plants. Personally I'd be happy also with saving energy and cutting our consumption level.

Power for vehicles is one step trickier question than generation of electricity and heat. Biodiesel, electric cars etc. are a partial solution. We should probably fly less than today. On water, sailboats of course .



Still too much talk and too little actions. The EU carbon trade arrangements have been very inefficient. If I could decide, we would start cuts today (e.g. -10% in 2017, -95% in 2025) and not after some planning period and countless large meetings with no tangible results. I would be also happy to set carbon related customs duties to products of countries that are not happy to follow the same rules.

I got this from a left leaning political website...

"In some communities, wood smoke accounts for as much as 82 percent of particulate matter—tiny particles that can cause serious respiratory problems—emitted during the winter. Moreover, because that smoke is being produced right in (or outside) your house, the probability of exposure is greater—and that can have significant health effects. Existing research suggests that young children living in homes heated by wood-burning stoves "had a greater occurrence of moderate and severe chronic respiratory symptoms" than children in homes without those stoves. And it's not just that these particulates might be hard on your lungs: Wood smoke has high concentrations of toxic chemicals like benzene, formaldehyde, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, all of which are considered possible carcinogens by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The good news is that the most modern stoves—which must be manufactured under EPA requirements—are a good deal cleaner than the old models. But while the new versions cut down on emissions by more than two-thirds, they can still produce particulate matter concentrations about 100 times greater than oil or gas furnaces. And outdoor wood boilers—which have become more popular in recent years—are typically even bigger emitters than stoves."

It seems to me that if you're so eager to mandate cuts to others, that maybe you should first take that particulate spewing wood stove to the dump and replace it with something that generates less pollution. It poses a MUCH bigger threat to your neighbors than burning fossil fuels to generate that heat would.