Where can the left and right agree--Energy

[homersapien 11,367]

13 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

The sale of “carbon credits” is a perfect example of this. 

You don't like using the free market system to force change? You prefer authoritarian command and control?

Or you just don't recognize the need to address the problem?

[homersapien 11,367]

14 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Just because they haven't committed to pollution reduction goals doesn't mean they're not trying. They haven't committed for the exact reason you state - it doesn't benefit them. They can develop clean energy on their own timeline and not worry about answering to anyone else. That doesn't mean they aren't outpacing us. Despite what you may think, clean energy actually is a good long-term investment. Once again, if they grab the lead in getting these technologies to the rest of the world, they will have a huge financial advantage. Additionally, it won't do a ton of good for the Chinese government to drastically boost their power in the rest of the world if they have people revolting over the pollution at home, so they do have an incentive to get their act together.

You also ignore the investment that Chinese companies can make on their own. Yes, the government is Communist, but they've opened themselves up to a more Capitalist-driven economy, which has given them a huge boost. Just like American companies, they look out for their bottom line. Developing these technologies is just good business.

You and others that refuse to acknowledge that it's possible that other countries just might be doing some things better, do so at all our peril. Pigeonholing them with your own definition of what you think they are, rather than recognizing what they are doing, is foolish. It dismisses the possible threats against us and the benefits we might adopt from benevolent countries. Far too much of our population is resting on laurels.

You continue to show rigid and linear thinking whenever it comes to anything that doesn't toe the MAGA line. Your comment in another thread about how MAGAs want authoritarianism ("Just think about all the good things Trump could do without radical liberals trying to stop everything.") does not indicate an open mind.

 

You know what's funny?

These folks are criticizing China for acting the exact same way they are proposing we act. 

Prioritize productivity, improve lifestyle for their people and kick the can down the road.  Avoid as much short term pain as possible.

 

 

Edited July 28, 2022 by homersapien

[wdefromtx 3,159]

43 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You don't like using the free market system to force change? You prefer authoritarian command and control?

Or you just don't recognize the need to address the problem?

Maybe you’ve been duped…..again….

 

[autigeremt 6,600]

3 hours ago, Leftfield said:

I agree, there must be some balance, but there is going to be pain any way you look at it. It's true that the poorest will have the hardest time dealing with increased energy prices if we push hard for a transition, but they will also have the hardest time dealing with a hostile climate, and the longer it takes us to change, the worse it will get for them.

 

The US alone will make little difference to global climate issues. Why gamble with our overall future ability just to appease the irrational? 

[autigeremt 6,600]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

You don't like using the free market system to force change? You prefer authoritarian command and control?

Or you just don't recognize the need to address the problem?

Your party has built a new legacy of forcing change. Don’t shy from it just own it. 😉

[wdefromtx 3,159]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

Again, that data is showing absolute emissions and not emissions emitted per person - which portrays a different perspective, which is just as real.

Look , the problem is ultimately caused by the amount of emissions the entire human species is contributing.  (Nature (physics) doesn't care about what countries they live in.)  So, if you look at the problem that way - the emissions each individual human emits, people in China - and just about every other country - is currently outperforming the U.S.  You may not care for that perspective, but it is a fact.

The U.S. produces far more emissions per person than any other country in the world.  That's due to our lifestyle (like buying huge SUVs to haul groceries and the large pool I operate.)

I understand why you are uncomfortable with that perspective (I am too) but it is nevertheless a valid one and it's one we need to keep in mind before pointing fingers at other countries.  (I bet your God gets it.)

I tried to explained it the best I could, but I can't force you to understand it.

 

 

The whole discussion here is about reducing emissions. Nice try on the per capita way of looking at things to try to make it seem like the US isn't doing it's part to reduce emissions. I agree that the per capita for the US is higher than China or India. But that is not a fair comparison and in fact further reinforces my point and others on here that the US cannot just abandon fossil fuels and expect countries like China and India to jump straight to "clean energy." 

Do you understand why China has a lower per capita than the US? It has nothing to do with commitment to prevent GW.

If you were to objectively look at the data and facts you would realize that the US reduced it's per capita CO2 from 2005 to 2020 by 28%. While China increased theirs by 12%. They increased their overall contribution to the world CO2 emissions by 68% and now they are almost a third of all the CO2 being emitted. While we reduced our contribution by 14%. India and other countries follow the same trend as China although not on as large a scale. But I do expect India to start catching China. 

Not sure what you gain by politicizing this topic. This constant outcry that the US is not doing enough is just crazy. We have been constantly reducing emissions while other increase theirs. 

Wind, solar, etc. is not the solution to getting major CO2 emissions down quickly. 

[jj3jordan 2,051]

Is there a “good” number for CO2 emissions? I mean that is the gas that allows plants to grow.  Do we really want to shut that down?  I still think CO2 is getting a bad rap. Modeling and all that but nothing provable outside the “model”. If we had all this CO2 wouldn’t we be choking on it being heavier than air?

[Leftfield 2,595]

2 hours ago, autigeremt said:

The US alone will make little difference to global climate issues. Why gamble with our overall future ability just to appease the irrational? 

You're saying that people who are heeding scientific evidence that the climate is headed toward catastrophic (for humans) conditions are irrational. I'm assuming that means you do not believe we are in any danger? If so, none of my answers are going to be satisfactory to you.

Be that as it may, someone is eventually going to have to lead the transition. Despite the fact that our prestige has eroded in recent years, the US is still respected in much of the world, and is still looked to as a leader in new technologies and initiatives that benefit humanity. The rest of the world would likely start to move in the same direction sooner if we take the reigns, rather than smaller countries that don't get much notice. And considering we are one of the greatest polluters, a greater change would be made sooner. We also stand to benefit financially, as mentioned, if we are the first to be able to develop sustainable energy sources that can provide power on massive scales. Also, putting a small dent in curbing overall climate change does not mean we would not see pronounced improvements in local environmental conditions if we can eliminate other, more polluting, sources of power. 

This is the problem with not recognizing the threat were are under. If a giant asteroid were headed toward Earth, would you be asking why we should lead the charge to do something about it, since other major countries have thrown up their hands and said "oh well"? I understand skepticism, as it took me a while to come around on this issue myself, but far too many people have been sounding the alarm for far too long. Those that believe this to be a hoax would have to believe the even more ridiculous notion that millions of people are all in on the same scam. I can understand disagreement on the exact timeline, but the fact is this is happening.

 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

13 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

You're saying that people who are heeding scientific evidence that the climate is headed toward catastrophic (for humans) conditions are irrational. I'm assuming that means you do not believe we are in any danger? If so, none of my answers are going to be satisfactory to you.

Be that as it may, someone is eventually going to have to lead the transition. Despite the fact that our prestige has eroded in recent years, the US is still respected in much of the world, and is still looked to as a leader in new technologies and initiatives that benefit humanity. The rest of the world would likely start to move in the same direction sooner if we take the reigns, rather than smaller countries that don't get much notice. And considering we are one of the greatest polluters, a greater change would be made sooner. We also stand to benefit financially, as mentioned, if we are the first to be able to develop sustainable energy sources that can provide power on massive scales. Also, putting a small dent in curbing overall climate change does not mean we would not see pronounced improvements in local environmental conditions if we can eliminate other, more polluting, sources of power. 

This is the problem with not recognizing the threat were are under. If a giant asteroid were headed toward Earth, would you be asking why we should lead the charge to do something about it, since other major countries have thrown up their hands and said "oh well"? I understand skepticism, as it took me a while to come around on this issue myself, but far too many people have been sounding the alarm for far too long. Those that believe this to be a hoax would have to believe the even more ridiculous notion that millions of people are all in on the same scam. I can understand disagreement on the exact timeline, but the fact is this is happening.

 

It's not about just sitting around doing nothing, it is about finding real solutions to lower emissions while reliably meeting energy needs. EV's, wind, solar are not going to be able to effectively do so.

Not sure why no on here is not talking about sustainable fuels? Still a ways off, but I see this as the future for transportation anyways. Needs more investment to get it available on a large scale.

 https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a39643783/porsche-carbon-neutral-e-fuel/#:~:text=Porsche is investing %2475 million,is also almost carbon neutral.

https://www.iata.org/en/programs/environment/sustainable-aviation-fuels/

Edited July 28, 2022 by wdefromtx

[Leftfield 2,595]

5 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

The whole discussion here is about reducing emissions. Nice try on the per capita way of looking at things to try to make it seem like the US isn't doing it's part to reduce emissions. I agree that the per capita for the US is higher than China or India. But that is not a fair comparison and in fact further reinforces my point and others on here that the US cannot just abandon fossil fuels and expect countries like China and India to jump straight to "clean energy." 

Do you understand why China has a lower per capita than the US? It has nothing to do with commitment to prevent GW.

If you were to objectively look at the data and facts you would realize that the US reduced it's per capita CO2 from 2005 to 2020 by 28%. While China increased theirs by 12%. They increased their overall contribution to the world CO2 emissions by 68% and now they are almost a third of all the CO2 being emitted. While we reduced our contribution by 14%. India and other countries follow the same trend as China although not on as large a scale. But I do expect India to start catching China. 

Not sure what you gain by politicizing this topic. This constant outcry that the US is not doing enough is just crazy. We have been constantly reducing emissions while other increase theirs. 

Wind, solar, etc. is not the solution to getting major CO2 emissions down quickly. 

Per capita is important to the conversation because it can indicate what structural changes are occurring. A society that utilizes more mass transit will have less emissions that one that depends on cars. A less consumer-driven economy will have less emissions than one that has millions of trucks running products back and forth, as well as fewer factories building those products.

China's emissions have been increasing because of the inertia from moving to a more capitalist economy. Quality of life has increased, as has consumerism. Capitalism brings many great things, but the simple fact is you need more power to supply it. China has been building at a breakneck pace for decades now, and of course has many more people than we do, so power demands have skyrocketed. That does not mean they are not trying to develop alternatives. In addition to developing sustainable energy sources, they are investing huge amounts into natural gas, which, as was pointed out in the video, has been a main driver of US emission reductions. As much of a boon as natural gas has been, if China builds a large amount of infrastructure based on natural gas, that will obviously drive up the price on the world market, which means it won't be as cheap as many think it will.

Everyone agrees that some mix of fossil fuels will be needed, but we must put some urgency on developing sustainable resources.

Edited July 28, 2022 by Leftfield

[AUDub 11,147]

2 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Is there a “good” number for CO2 emissions? I mean that is the gas that allows plants to grow.  Do we really want to shut that down?  I still think CO2 is getting a bad rap. Modeling and all that but nothing provable outside the “model”. If we had all this CO2 wouldn’t we be choking on it being heavier than air?

This is what passes for seriousness here. 

[Didba 5,256]

*Throws up due to living on Texas's ERCOT grid

[jj3jordan 2,051]

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

This is what passes for seriousness here. 

What is not serious or true about my post?  Please expound.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

China is polluting worse now than 15 years ago despite having a population growth that is less than the US. Kinda crazy that so many on here are still trying to claim that other countries such as China are doing more than the US. Yes China industry has increase dramatically over this time period, and pollution did not increase at the same rate which is good. However, US industry increased as well and we still reduced emissions. 

For those that don't think we are one of the leaders in this effort, I suggest you move to China where they are doing as great as you think. 

[AUDub 11,147]

1 hour ago, jj3jordan said:

What is not serious or true about my post?  Please expound.

Fine we'll go into details.

[Leftfield 2,595]

1 hour ago, wdefromtx said:

China is polluting worse now than 15 years ago despite having a population growth that is less than the US. Kinda crazy that so many on here are still trying to claim that other countries such as China are doing more than the US. Yes China industry has increase dramatically over this time period, and pollution did not increase at the same rate which is good. However, US industry increased as well and we still reduced emissions. 

For those that don't think we are one of the leaders in this effort, I suggest you move to China where they are doing as great as you think. 

I never said countries such as China, I said China. And just because I'm disappointed in the pace at our transition does not mean I think we aren't doing better than many, but we're clearly not taking the lead.

You are being overly aggressive at constructive criticism.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

1 minute ago, Leftfield said:

I never said countries such as China, I said China. And just because I'm disappointed in the pace at our transition does not mean I think we aren't doing better than many, but we're clearly not taking the lead.

You are being overly aggressive at constructive criticism.

 I’m sure how you come up with the conclusion that we aren’t taking the lead. The results of the reductions speak for themselves. 
 

Some smaller countries have made more reductions, but you can’t compare them to the US because of population, industry, etc. But, that by no means makes them a leader. In fact they probably have used technology and advancements made in the US to help. 
 

So you really think China is doing better than the US with the clean energy transition? 

[Leftfield 2,595]

18 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

 So you really think China is doing better than the US with the clean energy transition? 

If current levels of investment don't change, I think they will be in a decade or so. 

[SaturdayGT 719]

We spend like 25 billion each year on climate studies....all this money pays for careers...and without looking, climate issues pulls a good 25% in favor for democrat votes. ..its an "Ill scratch your back if you scratch mine"...type money pyramid  thing...nobody wants to give up the money...nobody wants to give up yhe votes for power.....theres a real truth behind it, but who do you trust?...I dont feel its the Republicans....I would say they would cover up for the the businessess that create the so called "problem" but dems seem to be the big business doners these years...this is a political mess...

[AUDub 11,147]

21 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Is there a “good” number for CO2 emissions?

Yes. Ideally as close to net zero as possible. 

21 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

I mean that is the gas that allows plants to grow.  Do we really want to shut that down?  I still think CO2 is getting a bad rap.

Plants grow just fine with the co2 already present in the carbon cycle. You're sort of dealing with a delicate balance. Now some plants will grow better with higher levels of CO2. Other plants, and some animals, will react differently. Shellfish, for example, do not react well to the increased acidity excess CO2 in our oceans presents.

Compare it to an engine. Fuel is a good thing, right? Naturally, more would be better? Not necessarily. Engines are carefully designed around balance of fuel and air. Too much fuel, you'll run rich, which can have all kinds of effects such as running rough. Way too much fuel, you'll flood it. 

21 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Modeling and all that but nothing provable outside the “model”. If we had all this CO2 wouldn’t we be choking on it being heavier than air?

The amount needed to be immediately dangerous to human physiology is around 10 times what's present in the atmosphere. 

Edited July 29, 2022 by AUDub

[wdefromtx 3,159]

14 hours ago, Leftfield said:

If current levels of investment don't change, I think they will be in a decade or so. 

I don't agree, but I respect your opinion about that. Time will only tell. 

[homersapien 11,367]

23 hours ago, autigeremt said:

Your party has built a new legacy of forcing change. Don’t shy from it just own it. 😉

Change is good if necessary. And the function of government is to encourage or make such necessary changes for the future and to address problems in the present.

Your party has ignored needed change with short term thinking and greed, which ultimately makes the necessary - and inevitable change - even more  difficult.  Furthermore it has exacerbated problems - such as our widening wealth and income disparity and shrinking middle class - by channeling benefits to the wealthy while ignoring the poor and middle class. 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

13 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Change is good if necessary. And the function of government is to encourage or make such necessary changes for the future and to address problems in the present.

Your party has ignored needed change with short term thinking and greed, which ultimately makes the necessary - and inevitable change - even more  difficult.  Furthermore it has exacerbated problems - such as our widening wealth and income disparity and shrinking middle class - by channeling benefits to the wealthy while ignoring the poor and middle class. 

The truth behind the politics of God, guns, gays.  The next victims are public education and Social Security.

The phony christians, the phony patriots, the ignorant just eat this stuff up.

[homersapien 11,367]

On 7/28/2022 at 12:35 PM, wdefromtx said:

The whole discussion here is about reducing emissions. Nice try on the per capita way of looking at things to try to make it seem like the US isn't doing it's part to reduce emissions. I agree that the per capita for the US is higher than China or India. But that is not a fair comparison and in fact further reinforces my point and others on here that the US cannot just abandon fossil fuels and expect countries like China and India to jump straight to "clean energy." 

Do you understand why China has a lower per capita than the US? It has nothing to do with commitment to prevent GW.

If you were to objectively look at the data and facts you would realize that the US reduced it's per capita CO2 from 2005 to 2020 by 28%. While China increased theirs by 12%. They increased their overall contribution to the world CO2 emissions by 68% and now they are almost a third of all the CO2 being emitted. While we reduced our contribution by 14%. India and other countries follow the same trend as China although not on as large a scale. But I do expect India to start catching China. 

Not sure what you gain by politicizing this topic. This constant outcry that the US is not doing enough is just crazy. We have been constantly reducing emissions while other increase theirs. 

Wind, solar, etc. is not the solution to getting major CO2 emissions down quickly. 

No I was specifically addressing the idea that "we shouldn't be concerned about emissions simply because China emits WAY more than we do".

I was putting a different perspective on that flawed reasoning.  (Apparently the resistance to that perspective is overwhelming which is not surprising to me.)

Because of our standard of living in the U.S. (as illustrated by our per capita emissions), we must show leadership in order to encourage other countries - who are trying to emulate our standard of living - to work aggressively to minimize their per capita emissions as their standard of living rises.

I am sure that even you can appreciate the problem if countries such as India and China - with their populations -  increase their standard of living using our current model. 

Just imagine if their huge populations emitted the same amount per capita as we do.  Solving the problem - which affects the entire globe, including us - would be a non-starter. 

Now imagine China and India pointed their fingers at the U.S. and say why should we make an effort to reduce emissions (per capita) when the U.S. emits so much more per capita than we do? 

That's exactly why U.S. leadership is so critical.  We need to show China and India it is possible to have a high standard of living without a high emissions rate per capita. 

(Even better, we show them how to do it while selling them the means to do so.)

If they simply emulate our pattern we are all doomed.

That's why it is important we show leadership and move aggressively on reducing emissions per capita.  It's in everyone's interest including ours.

A global problem requires a global perspective.  It also takes rational analysis to understand the perspective.

 

Edited July 29, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,367]

On 7/28/2022 at 10:02 AM, wdefromtx said:

Maybe you’ve been duped…..again….

Maybe I have. 

I have not parsed the carbon trading proposal in detail.  Perhaps I'll get to it when I have more time.  I have not parsed carbon trading market in detail.  Perhaps I'll get to it when I have more time.

My understanding it's designed to provide incentives for individual companies to increase energy efficiency, which I understand but am still skeptical as I don't know the potential faults it has in actual practice.

I just generally like the idea of market-driven policy's (capitalism) instead of "command and control" policies as a matter of principle. 

(But I will say , beware of industry-generated propaganda to oppose otherwise good ideas. This looks suspicious in that regard.)

 

 

Edited July 29, 2022 by homersapien