The Reef Ain't Dead

[Exile]

Originally Posted by lestersails

A point of agreement!
Humans and their governments are notoriously bad at objectively assessing risks that are very low in predicted likelihood but catastrophically severe. There is some very interesting behavioral economics data on this.
Nuclear may well need to be part of the mix (especially for supporting a primarily renewable grid that generates no juice if the sun is set and wind is not blowing). Battery capacity can play a role here as well - it will be interesting to see how that might play out.
There are actually two major rubs with nuclear. One is the catastrophic risks that you allude to. The other is dealing with the waste from normal operations - I don't know about France, but in the US, no one wants nuclear waste in their state. We know exactly how much such waste the plants generate and there is no solution to it on the horizon. We can't build nuclear plants if we have nowhere to put the waste. Some have pointed out that expired solar panels and wind blades are a waste problem - true, but that is nothing compared to nuclear.
I really, really hope ITER (fusion) can be made to work. No doubt it will be harder than it seems today and we can't bet the planet waiting for it. But it is a hopeful technology and could be awesome.

Like most complex issues, I honestly believe there are more points of agreement than not. If only we can get past the personal politics and the personalization generally. I've never had much doubt that everyone I've clashed with over the years on these threads is well-intended and sincere in their beliefs. Even StuM, who if he hasn't already unsubscribed is about to remind us how little much of this has to do with the GBR.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Remarkable.

Point stands. I've NEVER seen you consider or propose anything except to crow about the reduction from fracking. And rag on others who do think action is necessary. And now you want to export fracking. Conservation seems to be a dirty word to you. And being proactive about anything... fuggedaboudit.

Same old.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by lestersails

All true enough, but two different kettles of fish. You are annotating past progress. I was projecting how that cannot be sufficient for what we need going forward. I acknowledged that coal to natural gas has helped with some metrics. It is mathematically impossible that that will do what we need going forward, even if coal goes to zero and is fully replaced by gas.

Maybe so, but I think it may be the single largest source of reduction. So if it's part of a multi-faceted approach . . . . And yes, I am aware that fracking/natural gas is only a transitional remedy, and may pose known and yet-to-be uncovered problems. But not unlike huge solar and wind arrays in some areas which have helped large population centers significantly reduce their fossil fuel consumption, it could make a big difference in the foreseeable, i.e. relative near-term future. But some of the emotional/political obstacles to adopting it are just as difficult to overcome as nuclear.

[lestersails]

But it is worth noting - the discussion has shifted from whether there is AGW to how to mitigate it.
That is progress!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Point stands. I've NEVER seen you consider or propose anything except to crow about the reduction from fracking. And rag on others who do think action is necessary. And now you want to export fracking. Conservation seems to be a dirty word to you. And being proactive about anything... fuggedaboudit.

Same old.

It's all about "me" then, isn't it? And now we get the inevitable pushback on what exactly "you" do in terms of conservation, and what exactly "you" are proactive about. Never heard much beyond wanting to keep that private (understandable), yet you are quick to make assumptions about others. What exactly does any of this accomplish in your mind? Other than getting an ad hominem response in kind, reporting it to the mods, and getting the discussion suppressed or ended? Seems pretty chicken-s**t to me, and I'm going to decline by not making such judgments about fellow sailors. You have no idea what I do or don't do conservation-wise or otherwise, and I hardly think anyone cares in any event. Keep it civil or inflict your baseless assumptions somewhere else.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by lestersails

But it is worth noting - the discussion has shifted from whether there is AGW to how to mitigate it.
That is progress!

So noted!

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

It's all about "me" then, isn't it? And now we get the inevitable pushback on what exactly "you" do in terms of conservation, and what exactly "you" are proactive about. Never heard much beyond wanting to keep that private (understandable), yet you are quick to make assumptions about others. What exactly does any of this accomplish in your mind? Other than getting an ad hominem response in kind, reporting it to the mods, and getting the discussion suppressed or ended? Seems pretty chicken-s**t to me, and I'm going to decline by not making such judgments about fellow sailors. You have no idea what I do or don't do conservation-wise or otherwise, and I hardly think anyone cares in any event. Keep it civil or inflict your baseless assumptions somewhere else.

We were discussing possible reductions in US consumption, you were assuming the defensive position, I was therefore using "you" hypothetically. Of course I don't know what you drive. Or even if.

Point stands; your described position has been that you are still unsure about whether CC requires serious action, and you seem to avoid or deflect any discussion of what can be done in terms of voluntary or policy reductions in discretionary uses. I think that's accurate, but of course please correct me.

And you go full ad-hom whenever I annoy you. That's pretty clear too.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

We were discussing possible reductions in US consumption, you were assuming the defensive position, I was therefore using "you" hypothetically. Of course I don't know what you drive. Or even if.

So I gather the myriad of times you've personalized played this before (rather than sticking to the topics) were "hypotheticals" too? Sorry, you simply don't like that the fossil fuel industry has (unwittingly) achieved such large emissions reductions via fracking, and so start making the discussion personal. It's unfortunately a longstanding, oft-repeated pattern. You are absolutely correct that fracking is not the end all and be all, and nobody's "crowing" about it (like scoring a touchdown???). But every currently known energy source has its drawbacks, and there are no panaceas. If your agenda is actually about helping the environment, I don't see how you ignore, dismiss, or even downplay natural gas as a viable stopgap at this point in time and given the current state of technology. Certainly trying to suppress civil discussion in an internet forum every time it's brought up isn't going to lend any credibility. Among other things, natural gas is actually cheaper than any viable alternatives at this time, so it eliminates one of the main concerns over renewables, namely the disproportionate impact on lower income/working people, and economies overall, here and in the developing world. But then if the agenda is an irrational hate-on for the fossil fuel industry, or the desire for a new socioeconomic order, then yea, I can see why fracking would arouse such emotions.

Point stands; your described position has been that you are still unsure about whether CC requires serious action,

Correct, along with many, many others, including some portion of actual climate scientists and some highly credentialed environmentalists. Except I'm not sure if "serious" is a helpful criterion for triggering actions which may be needed. More like a rational, objective balancing of risks, costs & benefits, something which is necessarily dependent not on whether AGW "exists" or is having an "impact," but on whether that impact is significant enough to warrant commensurate remedies. If not, then we're just back to moralizing, virtue signaling, and casting aspersions on Escalade drivers, none of which matters a wit to the environment.

and you seem to avoid or deflect any discussion of what can be done in terms of voluntary or policy reductions in discretionary uses. I think that's accurate, but of course please correct me.

OK, I will. The only line of thought I recall pursuing is questioning whether what is often categorized as "discretionary" uses are really significant enough to make any sort of meaningful difference, the point being that most uses are not in fact discretionary. IOW, it's neither the Escalade drivers nor the celebrity "environmentalists" flying to CC conferences in their private planes that are a significant source overall of high consumption in wealthy countries. But they do make for convenient cries of hypocrisy! from both sides. We could avoid much of that divisive nonsense here if (mostly) you would be willing. It only serves to trivialize. Meanwhile, personal consumption has declined (not incl. the pandemic), and is likely to decline further

And you go full ad-hom whenever I annoy you. That's pretty clear too.

The answer seems pretty clear; perhaps you should consider not being so annoying? There's an obvious difference between differing, well-reasoned opinions on the risks & benefits when it comes to fracking, for example, or the amount of impact AGW may produce. As opposed to making assumptions about peoples' personal lives or their intentions, repeatedly misconstruing and distorting others' posts (classic strawman stuff), or the long list of stereotypes and labels you like to pin on people based on their race, skin color, religious faith, and political leanings. This is clearly ad hominem, not to be confused with calling it out which is not. Figure out some of these bright line distinctions and you'll quickly see how much more civil, less ad hominem, and on-topic these threads become.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

But then if the agenda is an irrational hate-on for the fossil fuel industry, or the desire for a new socioeconomic order, then yea, I can see why fracking would arouse such emotions.

Right. Good place as any to leave it.

[GordMay]

MIT researchers calculated the carbon emissions for “a homeless person, who ate in soup kitchens, and slept in homeless shelters" in the U.S.A.

That destitute individual will still, indirectly, emit some 8.5 tons of carbon dioxide, each year - more than double the world average.
Estimated average for U.S. resident = 20 metric tons
Estimate for U.S. homeless person = 8.5 tons
Average for the world (U.S. included) = 4 tons

“Leaving our mark” ~ MIT Tech Talk (2008)
MIT class tracks carbon footprint of different lifestyles; finds even the smallest U.S. footprints are relatively large.
➥ https://news.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/techtalk52-23.pdf
➥ https://news.mit.edu/2008/footprint-tt0416


Meanwhile, the very idea of an individual ‘carbon footprint’ was an ingenious marketing scam, designed to manipulate our thinking about one of the greatest environmental threats of our time.
“The carbon footprint sham: A 'successful, deceptive' PR campaign” ~ by Mark Kaufman
➥ https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-...campaign-sham/

And selective accounting helps burnish the low-carbon claims, made on behalf of Saudi oil, which have become a key part of Aramco’s corporate identity.
“Aramco emissions filings fail to account for full climate toll”
Aramco touted its green credentials to investors, but the oil giant excludes emissions generated from many of its refineries and petrochemical plants in its overall carbon disclosures, according to a review of public filings by Bloomberg Green. Including all such facilities might nearly double Aramco’s self-reported carbon footprint, adding as much as 55 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent to its annual tally—or about the emissions produced by Portugal.
➥ https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/20...l-climate-toll

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Exile

...or the long list of stereotypes and labels you like to pin on people based on their race, skin color, religious faith, and political leanings...

Please don't do this. No one has, to my recollection, done any of those things in this forum and you should not accuse them of such.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

MIT researchers calculated the carbon emissions for “a homeless person, who ate in soup kitchens, and slept in homeless shelters" in the U.S.A.

That destitute individual will still, indirectly, emit some 8.5 tons of carbon dioxide, each year - more than double the world average.
Estimated average for U.S. resident = 20 metric tons
Estimate for U.S. homeless person = 8.5 tons
Average for the world (U.S. included) = 4 tons

“Leaving our mark” ~ MIT Tech Talk (2008)
MIT class tracks carbon footprint of different lifestyles; finds even the smallest U.S. footprints are relatively large.
➥ https://news.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/techtalk52-23.pdf
➥ https://news.mit.edu/2008/footprint-tt0416

Interesting, and helps show how wealthier nations consume more energy overall and per capita. And as poorer, developing nations become wealthier . . . .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Please don't do this. No one has, to my recollection, done any of those things in this forum and you should not accuse them of such.

You're obviously new to these forum threads.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by GordMay

MIT researchers calculated the carbon emissions for “a homeless person, who ate in soup kitchens, and slept in homeless shelters" in the U.S.A.

That destitute individual will still, indirectly, emit some 8.5 tons of carbon dioxide, each year - more than double the world average.
Estimated average for U.S. resident = 20 metric tons
Estimate for U.S. homeless person = 8.5 tons
Average for the world (U.S. included) = 4 tons

“Leaving our mark” ~ MIT Tech Talk (2008)
MIT class tracks carbon footprint of different lifestyles; finds even the smallest U.S. footprints are relatively large.
➥ https://news.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/techtalk52-23.pdf
➥ https://news.mit.edu/2008/footprint-tt0416

Hey GordMay,
If you are trying to imply that reduced carbon footprint = poverty, that is bogus and a straw man argument attempt.
The person burning dried dung to stay warm and cook their food is not going to have a renewable alternative. But I currently heat and cook with natural gas and it is conceivable that I could switch to solar/wind. If developed countries would properly price fossil fuels and their costs, people would migrate away in droves.
Exile is half right about natural gas - it IS an example of how fairly subtle cost changes can induce major changes in behavior. It is NOT anything close to being able get us where we need to be.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Exile

You're obviously new to these forum threads.

You can see my numbers, so you know I am (~5% of you).

I had a minor typo - I meant this thread in CF. People have been pretty darn good in this thread. Your post raised 'race', 'religion', and 'politics'.

I politely asked you not to.