Thursday, June 29, 2017

Need to Address Climate Before 2020

Laurie said...
Arguments here about poverty and the safety net never go anywhere so I am going off topic. My number one issue is really related to the environment. As half a bible verse says "The poor you will always have with you" but the time to address climate change is now. 50 years and even 5 years from now will be too late.

These experts say we have until 2020 to get climate change under control. And they’re the optimists.

Of course I find this humorous since we often get stuck on climate change also...

25 comments:

Laurie said...

If the scientists are right and we act aggressively now we could head off many forms of catastrophe. If they are being overly alarmist there is little harm as we create many jobs by moving quickly to a clean energy future. It is a win for people either way. I am not at all hopeful that we are collectively smart enough to do this.

June 29, 2017 at 3:16 PM
Anonymous said...

We lost this one. I sure hope we were wrong.

==Hiram

June 29, 2017 at 3:29 PM
jerrye92002 said...

Laurie, you are wrong both ways, but it is understandable if you are listening to the "scientists" because there is ZERO scientific evidence telling them (or us) what the "global temperature" (as if there was such a thing) WAS on June 29, 2117. You could get a better answer using tarot cards or a Ouija board. Even the scientists who pushed the Paris climate agreement have stated that IF everybody signs on to the Paris agreement, and IF everybody agrees to the VOLUNTARY targets set by the UN, and IF they are both willing and able (some may not be) to abide by the agreement, and IF they continue those restrictions for 70 years past the expiration of the agreement, and IF the climate models (which run high) are correct, THEN and only then will global temperatures be 0.2 (two-tenths) of a degree lower than if we did nothing at all.

I heard a State legislator say just yesterday that we should be able to get 50% of our energy from wind and solar by 2030. Interesting, since the sun only shines half the time (during the day), and the actual "availability factor" for MN solar is 13.6%, and wind power is better but still low at 33.7%. And since neither are "reliable" in the sense of constant, we STILL need gas-fired backup generators for every "renewable" MW we put in, so renewables essentially cost double.

I am also told that the total CO2 emitted from the mining, transport, refining and fabrication of these materials produces as much CO2 as is saved over their lifetime, much like ethanol fuel. AND solar cells produce 500 times the hazardous waste of a nuclear power plant. And WHY do it at all, if all this doesn't reduce "global warming" by a difference of a few minutes on a July morning?

Global warming may be happening, but humans have essentially nothing to do with it.

June 29, 2017 at 8:13 PM
Anonymous said...

Our policy now and in the foreseeable future is that the scientists are wrong. Now that as a nation we just have to hope we are right and move on.

--Hiram

June 30, 2017 at 5:47 AM
Anonymous said...

For the right climate change is like the gun control debate. They have won it, and now they insist on winning it over and over again. They love revisiting their old hits.

We made a decision in 2016. It's not a decision that I am happy with, but it is one we most assuredly made. We need to learn from it, and move on accordingly. The American people in the clearest way possible decided that climate change was a hoax. So why can't we move on?

--Hiram

June 30, 2017 at 7:13 AM
John said...

Hiram,
I think you are incorrect, I certainly did not cast a vote for Trump because of his anti-science positions. I cast a vote against Hillary's "rob Peter to give to Paul positions".

Hopefully next time the parties give us better options.

June 30, 2017 at 7:40 AM
John said...

Also, don't forget that this is why I am happy when the Federal government is only a small part of our society. Remember that most of the energy is used in the high population density areas of the country who are affected by air pollution and do believe that man is impacting our climate negatively...

So it really makes little difference what the feds do as long as "the coast states" change their ways as they advocate for the country.

Atlantic States Act
Independent States and Businesses

June 30, 2017 at 7:49 AM
Anonymous said...

I certainly did not cast a vote for Trump because of his anti-science positions.

but that was the effect of your vote.Trump was very clear on this.

==Hiram

June 30, 2017 at 8:14 AM
jerrye92002 said...

Also, we have not won until the many states and cities who constitute the "WASI" (We Are Still In [the Paris agreement] group) realize what absolute folly they are engaged in. Here in Minnesota, we already have a Renewable Energy Mandate-- 25 by 25-- that is driving up costs and doing NOTHING for the environment except killing a few birds and using up a lot of valuable land area. According to the EPA, this costly mandate will reduce global temperatures, 100 years from now, by 0.0002 degrees. And now some legislators want to double it to 50%, when it isn't even possible without nuclear breeder reactors. Is that really worth doubling your electric bill? Sorry, but the first step of "doing nothing" (the only sensible course of action here) is to STOP "doing something" about something we can't do anything about.

Let me offer an alternative. If an electric car powered by your solar cells at home make economic sense to you, go for it, and if it happens to reduce CO2 and that makes you feel good about yourself, I won't care one bit. Should I be subsidizing your purchase? No, of course not. It should be the same for power companies. They should be free to compete on the basis of price delivered to the consumer, and how they generate that electricity should be their choice, not a mandate from the State.

June 30, 2017 at 9:15 AM
jerrye92002 said...

And I do wish people would stop conflating "global warming" and "manmade global warming." There is a very essential difference. The former is probably true, in the century time span and is unavoidable at this point in time. The latter essentially does not exist.

Likewise conflating "pollution" (or "clean air and clean water") with the release of CO2. CO2 is NOT a pollutant, not harmful to human beings, beneficial to plants, and too LITTLE of it would doom all life on earth.

June 30, 2017 at 9:20 AM
Laurie said...

While the states and cities can act on their own I think the federal govt opting out of Paris agreement makes a big difference rather than little difference. My quick research on that question resulted in this:

"But can states and cities actually do something substantive on such a global issue? On that front, there are two avenues to watch.

The first is whether state initiatives can build business for renewable-energy companies in the United States. China and Germany, whose solar and wind sectors are most competitive with the U.S., aggressively subsidize their renewable-energy firms in ways that America does not."

'America's Pledge': Can States and Cities Really Address Climate Change?

So, John, your comment sort of implies that you may have moved a little to the left on climate change. If you were in charge how would the US respond to this crisis - minimally, moderately, aggressively? Would you be willing to have more regulations and also some type of support for speeding up our adoption of clean energy? (by support I am talking spending tax $ such as subsidies) Maybe support transit at a higher level?

June 30, 2017 at 9:30 AM
Laurie said...

Here are 2 more climate change links. From the first one I learned that changing to natural gas for energy is not helpful- the methane released from fracking is just as bad as the carbon from coal power plants. I also learned that many politicians who talk in support of fighting climate change do not walk their talk. I still think I will support whichever dem I think has the best chance of winning, rather than evaluate their positions on climate change, as a a mediocre dem is much better than pretty much any GOP candidate.

How to Tell If Your Reps Are Serious About Climate Change

The Race to Solar-Power Africa

I haven't finished reading the second link, but it is much more feel good about bringing solar power to African villages. Maybe this will have significant future impact in power plants that might not be built, but don't think it is doing much for carbon reduction right now. Energy hogs like the US need to lead the way in carbon reduction.

June 30, 2017 at 10:10 AM
jerrye92002 said...

I would just point out that the US Constitution requires that international treaties must be ratified by 2/3 of the US Senate, and that Obama never submitted this "agreement" to the Senate, so we are not participants in it until that happens (which it never will-- remember Kyoto was defeated 99-0). Trump didn't "take us out" because we were never in. I also point out that States and cities cannot legally make treaties with foreign nations.

[Side note: I still think Trump erred. He could have simply set the US "voluntary" standard to zero reduction and "stayed in," without making any payments to the fund since the "treaty" had not been ratified. On the other hand, he could have submitted it to the Senate, seen it defeated and said, "sorry, guys, but I just can't participate." Either way he would have avoided a lot of criticism and "resistance" that his more direct approach created.]

And finally, I point out that in order to pay in the Billions of dollars required to be paid to the "UN climate fund," these states and cities will have to massively raise taxes. If the truth that these billions that do NOTHING for us, along with the Billions that renewable subsidies and mandates will cost, are simply to achieve an almost undetectable temperature reduction 100 years from now, maybe those who want to "stay in" will be pushed "out" (of office).

June 30, 2017 at 10:20 AM
jerrye92002 said...

Here is another question that keeps bothering me. If wind and solar are cheaper than coal and gas and nuclear, why do we need mandates and subsidies to get them online? How can we "promote jobs and the economy" by replacing cheap and abundant energy with costly and unreliable alternatives? Economic growth is not driven by spending a lot of a nation's wealth to do things that should not be done at all.

One definition of economic growth is reduced hours of labor to produce a unit of GDP, otherwise known as "labor productivity." The fact that wind and solar produce great numbers of jobs means our energy sector is becoming LESS productive. We could put all those folks on bicycles hooked to small generators and have "jobs," too, but would it really be the best use of that labor?

June 30, 2017 at 10:41 AM
Laurie said...

The climate agreement is not a treaty.


IS THE PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT A TREATY?

June 30, 2017 at 10:46 AM
jerrye92002 said...

from your cite: Thus no court has ever articulated any test for what would make something a “treaty”, let alone CEI’s grab-bag of ad hoc criteria that “[t]he Paris Climate Agreement is a treaty by virtue of its costs and risks, ambition compared to predecessor climate treaties, dependence on subsequent legislation by Congress, intent to affect state laws, U.S. historic practice with regard to multilateral environmental agreements, and other common-sense criteria.”

Clearly, if there WERE a definition of "treaty," these criteria would define it. For example, it "commits" the US to some $3 billion just in "contributions" to the "UN Green Climate Fund," moneys which Congress should be required to approve. An "Executive Agreement" cannot command Congress to do anything. And any knowledge of the facts underlying the agreement would see the Paris agreement roundly defeated in the Senate, just as Kyoto was. Again, just read the agreement itself.

"The aim of the convention is described in Article 2, "enhancing the implementation" of the UNFCCC through:[8]
(a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change;..."

BY ITS OWN DEFINITION, the Paris agreement is a failure, since it seeks to control CO2 and thus control temperature, yet their own scientists point out that anthropogenic CO2 is a minimal contributor to global temperatures!

How can you "hold temperatures" to /anything/ when you do not have access to the control knob? It as if I said "I want to control my salary so I make no less than $125,000/year. That's a pretty reasonable target, right? Does saying so make it happen?

June 30, 2017 at 11:40 AM
Anonymous said...

If wind and solar are cheaper than coal and gas and nuclear, why do we need mandates and subsidies to get them online?

Speaking more generally on how economics work, to oversimplify a bit, businesses do not consistently produce products which they can't sell for a profit. There are lots of products that don't exist because businesses just can't come up with a way to make money from them. When they do, then they start showing up at Target.

Government subsidies help. How much would you be willing to pay for a car if there were no roads on which to drive them? How much would a 747 be worth if there were no airports at which it could land?

--Hiram

June 30, 2017 at 12:02 PM
Anonymous said...

Thus no court has ever articulated any test for what would make something a “treaty”, l

A treaty is something that says "Treaty" at the top of the first page. Countries do all sorts of things in international diplomacy. They enter into compacts, agreements, treaties, conspiracies sometimes, the list is long and varied.

The president can enter into agreements with the leaders of other countries. Neither country is obliged to consider the internal legal procedures of the other side. If President Trump makes an assertion or enters into an agreement with a foreign country, they have the right to take him at his word, just as we have the right to take others at their word in such agreements. Agreements entered into under international law are binding according to their terms. But binding in international law generally does not mean enforceable.

--Hiram

June 30, 2017 at 12:11 PM
Laurie said...

As Climate Changes, Southern
States Will Suffer More Than Others

-and from my petty vindictive side by response is- good, serves you right voters and leaders from southern red states

OTOH I have plenty of compassion for the vulnerable people around the world that will suffer devastating impacts as a result of climate change. We should honor our commitment to pay the additional $2 billion to the Green Climate Fund.

Trump's climate cuts to impact 'hugely' on vulnerable: Robinson

June 30, 2017 at 1:17 PM
jerrye92002 said...

Sorry, but I call BS. If the US puts $2 billion in the Climate Fund, and another $20 Billion into "green energy," we as a nation, southern states and all, will be out $22 Billion and global temperatures MIGHT, possible but unlikely, be 0.2 degrees lower 100 years from now than if we did nothing at all. Most of that will be in the northern latitudes and not in the southern states, so "studies" to the contrary are not to be believed. And would somebody like to quote the number of global warming "doomsdays" that have already been predicted and passed without incident? At some point the ridicule ought to start.

The other way to look at this is that if the warming is 95% natural (which it is) we'll just have to live with it, regardless of what it is. And since the current measured trend in warming is in line with the same trend as the last 150 years, we don't have anything to worry about anyway. That trend already meets the Paris targets, so why would we not declare victory and sit back? Unless you really enjoy doomsday prophecies with no predictive value?

June 30, 2017 at 2:40 PM
Anonymous said...

$22B

~3% of the annual Defense Budget.

Considering the National Security issues related to climate change, it's a miniscule drop in a very large bucket.

Moose

June 30, 2017 at 3:56 PM
John said...

Laurie,
I haven't joined the ranks of chicken little's screaming the world is coming to the end. And I still believe Mother Nature will react in some way to adjust for man's foibles. (ie maybe some big volcanic activity) However I think it is silly that we don't keep driving towards cleaner energy since it is technically possible now, it creates good jobs and there really is no reason to keep spewing millions of tons a day of waste into our atmosphere.

I was a Boy Scout for a few years... " Leave it as good or better than you found it."

June 30, 2017 at 4:04 PM
John said...

Moose,

Excellent point.
NG The Military is Fighting Climate Change
NPR Climate Change Threatens Military Bases

June 30, 2017 at 4:08 PM
jerrye92002 said...

It is absolutely amazing. Curbing CO2 emissions will do NOTHING (significant) about Climate Change. Beyond that, any and all worries, spending and supposed solutions done for the purpose of reducing CO2 emissions are foolish. Why do so many want to deny this basic scientific truth?

And John, I've repeatedly explained why "green energy" is more expensive, period. So doing it for some reason that is invalid-- reducing CO2-- leaves us with making energy more expensive for NO reason. You say otherwise, but no matter how many times it is repeated, you cannot make it true. Now if you want to suggest we adopt energy sources that cost less and are equally or more reliable, we'll all happily buy it, no mandates or subsidies needed.

June 30, 2017 at 8:44 PM
jerrye92002 said...

Before we leave this topic, please notice that we do NOT need to get "stuck" on it. The proof is conclusive, that manmade CO2 does not matter. After that, all of the other concerns and discussions about renewables, sea level, melting glaciers, climate refugees, security concerns, etc., etc., etc. become moot. In short, we should only "do something" about stuff we can do something about.

July 2, 2017 at 10:51 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)