Climate Change

[Yellowtail]

50 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Irrelevant. Climate change will not be solved by governments doing nothing. Governments passing legislation to force and encourage changes to fossil fuel and land use are crucial. That is the elephant in the room. Individuals  installing solar panels won't cut it because most can't afford them. Help needs to be provided to poorer countries to assist hem in adopting new technologies such as solar panels.

Of course, you should not have to alter your lifestyle at all.

50 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Solar panels can only be installed by house owners in the main. Only the rich capitalist pig dogs who own the apartment blocks and their own houses can install solar panels. Mere mortals don't have that option do they?

If solar panels are so cheap and effective, why do the rich capitalist pig dogs who own the apartment blocks and their own houses install solar panels? Do the greedy pigs care more about destroying the planet than they care about all the money they could save? 

[ozimoron]

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Of course, you should not have to alter your lifestyle at all.

My point is how can I install solar panels as a condo tenant? I have altered my lifestyle. I live in an area where I can walk everywhere and do so. Meaningful action on climate change can only occur on a macroeconomic level, like closing coal fired power stations, removal of fossil fuel subsidies, preventing land clearing and the like.

 

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

If solar panels are so cheap and effective, why do the rich capitalist pig dogs who own the apartment blocks and their own houses install solar panels? Do the greedy pigs care more about destroying the planet than they care about all the money they could save? 

There's obviously very little incentive for greedy rich capitalist pig dog landlords to expend capital to save their tenants from having to pay power bills and most such owners don't own the entire building anyway. Again, government legislation to force developers to install solar panels is the only way this is going to occur on a wide scale.

[Yellowtail]

9 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

The IPCC reports are compiled by scientists in the main. But don't let that stop your deflection on policy makers receiving their facts from them

I do not doubt there are a lot of scientists involved in the research, nor do I doubt the results of the research, but again, it appears to be a report on the status and current projections related to climate change, not a prioritized list of policy changed that should be implemented. 

 

Do you think positions read the report and based on the data, decided to disallow the use of natural gas stoves, while doing nothing about new coal-fired generators being built?

 

 

[ozimoron]

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I do not doubt there are a lot of scientists involved in the research, nor do I doubt the results of the research, but again, it appears to be a report on the status and current projections related to climate change, not a prioritized list of policy changed that should be implemented. 

 

Do you think positions read the report and based on the data, decided to disallow the use of natural gas stoves, while doing nothing about new coal-fired generators being built?

Have you thought about reading what the IPCC actually does? It is up to each country's politicians to implement policies to meet IPCC targets and agreements. The IPCC is not in the business of telling countries how to achieve emission goals since every country is different.

[Yellowtail]

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

My point is how can I install solar panels as a condo tenant? I have altered my lifestyle. I live in an area where I can walk everywhere and do so. Meaningful action on climate change can only occur on a macroeconomic level, like closing coal fired power stations, removal of fossil fuel subsidies, preventing land clearing and the like.

Have you quit using air conditioning? 

 

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

There's obviously very little incentive for greedy rich capitalist pig dog landlords to expend capital to save their tenants from having to pay power bills and most such owners don't own the entire building anyway. Again, government legislation to force developers to install solar panels is the only way this is going to occur on a wide scale.

As I understand it, many of the "greedy rich capitalist pig dog landlords" sell the electricity to their tenants?

 

If you live in a multi-floor condo building, there is not enough roof area to power more than a couple units anyway. 

 

 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

Have you quit using air conditioning? 

I rarely do use it. As I said, what an individual does has minimal effect on climate change. 99% of the world's population never uses aircon at home.

 

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

 

As I understand it, many of the "greedy rich capitalist pig dog landlords" sell the electricity to their tenants?

None do, they may take a rake but that's a different topic.

 

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

 

If you live in a multi-floor condo building, there is not enough roof area to power more than a couple units anyway.

Which is why governments are required to force changes in the way electricity is generated in power stations.

[Bkk Brian]

11 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I do not doubt there are a lot of scientists involved in the research, nor do I doubt the results of the research, but again, it appears to be a report on the status and current projections related to climate change, not a prioritized list of policy changed that should be implemented. 

 

Do you think positions read the report and based on the data, decided to disallow the use of natural gas stoves, while doing nothing about new coal-fired generators being built?

 

 

I would suggest you read the reports again. They full of actual policy recommendations.

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

Have you thought about reading what the IPCC actually does? It is up to each country's politicians to implement policies to meet IPCC targets and agreements. The IPCC is not in the business of telling countries how to achieve emission goals since every country is different.

I know what they do, and I've said as much several times. Someone else linked to the report implying the IPCC was telling countries how to achieve emission goals, not me. 

 

And again, it makes little sense for climate scientists to decide how best to achieve emission goals, these policies are political, not scientific. 

 

Realistically, it should be economists drafting the policies. 

[ozimoron]

Just now, Yellowtail said:

I know what they do, and I've said as much several times. Someone else linked to the report implying the IPCC was telling countries how to achieve emission goals, not me. 

 

And again, it makes little sense for climate scientists to decide how best to achieve emission goals, these policies are political, not scientific. 

 

Realistically, it should be economists drafting the policies. 

I agree with that. The scientists define the problem, politicians decide how to fix it. Fossil fuel companies pay politicians not to fix it.

[Yellowtail]

13 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

I would suggest you read the reports again. They full of actual policy recommendations.

I just checked the table of contents again, I did not see policy recommendations, what page are you on? 

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

So the people burning the fuel bear no responsibility, it is all the fault of the fuel provider? 

 

Sure people can do something. But the point is the oil companies are trying to point responsibility away from the fact the burning fossil fuels is bad for the environment, both due to pollution and of course climate change. So they talk about their net zero targets  which only means that in the production of fossil fuels their aim is not to produce net CO2, methane, etc. But the fuel will still get burnt. And, as satellites have shown us recently, their contribution to adding methane to the atmosphere has been badly underestimated. So their net zero targets are very suspect.

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

 

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

 

Are the mid 2000s not thirty years away? 

 

 

That's referring to the first decade of the 21st century.

[Yellowtail]

18 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I rarely do use it. As I said, what an individual does has minimal effect on climate change. 99% of the world's population never uses aircon at home.

Why assume you would be the only individual doing something? 

 

But everone on the planet eats, and fossil fuel an petroleum products are in large part responsible for feeding them. 

 

18 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

None do, they may take a rake but that's a different topic.

That's not true. The landlord pays the for the electricity and resells it to the tenant. Any installed solar panel output would be money in their pocket.  

 

18 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Which is why governments are required to force changes in the way electricity is generated in power stations.

Unfortunately, because wind and solar do not provide power continuously, fossil fuel will still be required for at least another fifty years.  

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

What looks like a PR ad about being a responsible corporate citizen proves "The oil industry continuously sends out propaganda material to undermine the danger of climate change."

Because they're distracting from the main issue that the primary goal should be to replace fossil fuels. Instead they focus on using them more efficiently. But as the world economy grows, even if use is merely more efficient, net emissions will be a lot higher than if fossil fuels were replaced.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

Why assume you would be the only individual doing something? 

There's a tendency for the right wing to pass the responsibility to act on individuals and claim the high moral ground because they installed a solar panel to save themselves some money. Anything except admit that it's a global problem which requires global cooperation. Individual effort is like peeing into the ocean.

 

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

 

But everone on the planet eats, and fossil fuel an petroleum products are in large part responsible for feeding them. 

Sure, about 1% of fossil fuel use. Nobody is suggesting or ever has suggested banning fossil fuels entirely, especially not products derived from fossil fuels.

 

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

 

That's not true. The landlord pays the for the electricity and resells it to the tenant. Any installed solar panel output would be money in their pocket.  

Nope, 100% of the cost of the electricity is recouped from the tenant. Is that not true?

 

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Unfortunately, because wind and solar do not provide power continuously, fossil fuel will still be required for at least another fifty years.  

Batteries and other storage mechanisms. Again, fossil fuels will always be used but to suggest that since we can't remove them 100% so we shouldn't remove them at all is ridiculous logic.

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

It is clear that oil money has take over the universities, just look the large percentage of peer reviewed publications that undermine the dangers of climate change. 

From their point of view, every little bit helps. And as is your usual wont, you indulge in rampant exaggeration.

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

What is it you think the oil industries should do anyway? Without them countless people would starve and freeze to death. 

Stop engaging in distraction from the real issues. Devote a lot more money to cleaning up the pollution they're causing. Capping leaking methane gas wells, but those that are abandoned and currently in use would be a great start.

And again, more ridiculous extreme statements.

[Yellowtail]

14 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Sure people can do something. But the point is the oil companies are trying to point responsibility away from the fact the burning fossil fuels is bad for the environment, both due to pollution and of course climate change. So they talk about their net zero targets  which only means that in the production of fossil fuels their aim is not to produce net CO2, methane, etc. But the fuel will still get burnt. And, as satellites have shown us recently, their contribution to adding methane to the atmosphere has been badly underestimated. So their net zero targets are very suspect.

One of "examples" you provided of "...the propaganda the oil industry is continuously sending out to undermine the danger of climate-change..." was an oil company showing what the were doing to reduce their carbon footprint and develop renewable energies. How does imply fossil fuels are not bad for the environment?

 

Yes, burning fossil fuel is bad for the environment, and most people, including the fossil fuel industry acknowledge that. 

 

[Misab]

Her is a quote from;

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/what-are-small-modular-reactors-smrs

 

It might be an alternative to fossil fuels when we talk electricity

 

What is the status of SMRs?

Both public and private institutions are actively participating in efforts to bring SMR technology to fruition within this decade. Russia’s Akademik Lomonosov, the world’s first floating nuclear power plant that began commercial operation in May 2020, is producing energy from two 35 MW(e) SMRs. Other SMRs are under construction or in the licensing stage in Argentina, Canada, China, Russia, South Korea and the United States of America.

More than 70 commercial SMR designs being developed around the world target varied outputs and different applications, such as electricity, hybrid energy systems, heating, water desalinisation and steam for industrial applications. Though SMRs have lower upfront capital cost per unit, their economic competitiveness is still to be proven in practice once they are deployed.

[Yellowtail]

\

14 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Because they're distracting from the main issue that the primary goal should be to replace fossil fuels. Instead they focus on using them more efficiently. But as the world economy grows, even if use is merely more efficient, net emissions will be a lot higher than if fossil fuels were replaced.

Who is they? Why is it the fossil fuel industry's responsibility to find an alternative? The are selling a product that virtually every county on the planet wants to buy, and there is no sign od this changing anytime soon, and it's not because of "...the propaganda the oil industry is continuously sending out to undermine the danger of climate-change...".

 

[Misab]

3 minutes ago, Misab said:

Her is a quote from;

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/what-are-small-modular-reactors-smrs

 

It might be an alternative to fossil fuels when we talk electricity

 

What is the status of SMRs?

Both public and private institutions are actively participating in efforts to bring SMR technology to fruition within this decade. Russia’s Akademik Lomonosov, the world’s first floating nuclear power plant that began commercial operation in May 2020, is producing energy from two 35 MW(e) SMRs. Other SMRs are under construction or in the licensing stage in Argentina, Canada, China, Russia, South Korea and the United States of America.

More than 70 commercial SMR designs being developed around the world target varied outputs and different applications, such as electricity, hybrid energy systems, heating, water desalinisation and steam for industrial applications. Though SMRs have lower upfront capital cost per unit, their economic competitiveness is still to be proven in practice once they are deployed.

look here:    https://www.energy.gov/ne/advanced-small-modular-reactors-smrs

 

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

How many people moaning about the oil companies are sitting in air-conditioned spaces, refrigerate and cook their food and utilize vehicular transportation?  

Well, in countries which strongly encourage their citizens to use less energy, the per capita rate is far lower than in countries which don't. Europeans consume far less energy per capita than do Americans. Of course, they have far better public transport systems than does the United States.

 

And there's this:

Can nudges help to cut household energy consumption?

Closer to home, a 2011 UK-based study by Paul Dolan of the London School of Economics and Robert Metcalfe of the University of Oxford tested how the impact of social norms, with and without information on energy-saving behaviour affected gas usage. 

The study found that households provided with both the norm and the information reduced consumption by 9%, an effect almost twice as big as when they were given the social norm alone. The reduction in energy usage was also longer lasting among those households that received the norms and information combination.

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/behaviour-change-energy-consumption

 

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

\

Who is they? Why is it the fossil fuel industry's responsibility to find an alternative? The are selling a product that virtually every county on the planet wants to buy, and there is no sign od this changing anytime soon, and it's not because of "...the propaganda the oil industry is continuously sending out to undermine the danger of climate-change...".

 

Where did I say they should find an alternative? Who's doing the distracting now?  I did say they should be doint a lot more to clean up the messes that they are responsible for. And I noticed that you completely ignored that point.

[Yellowtail]

16 minutes ago, placeholder said:

From their point of view, every little bit helps. And as is your usual wont, you indulge in rampant exaggeration.

You (apparently) claim that oil company involvement on university campuses proved they are working to "...undermine the danger of climate-change...", yet oil companies, automotive companies, engineering companies, aerospace companies and any number of other companies have been involved on university campuses for quite a long time. Companies need competent graduates, where else would they get them?  

[Yellowtail]

11 minutes ago, Misab said:

Her is a quote from;

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/what-are-small-modular-reactors-smrs

 

It might be an alternative to fossil fuels when we talk electricity

 

What is the status of SMRs?

Both public and private institutions are actively participating in efforts to bring SMR technology to fruition within this decade. Russia’s Akademik Lomonosov, the world’s first floating nuclear power plant that began commercial operation in May 2020, is producing energy from two 35 MW(e) SMRs. Other SMRs are under construction or in the licensing stage in Argentina, Canada, China, Russia, South Korea and the United States of America.

More than 70 commercial SMR designs being developed around the world target varied outputs and different applications, such as electricity, hybrid energy systems, heating, water desalinisation and steam for industrial applications. Though SMRs have lower upfront capital cost per unit, their economic competitiveness is still to be proven in practice once they are deployed.

That nuclear is not gaining significantly more traction amazes me. 

 

EVs could actually make environmental sense were we getting the bulk of our electricity from nuclear. 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

That nuclear is not gaining significantly more traction amazes me. 

 

EVs could actually make environmental sense were we getting the bulk of our electricity from nuclear. 

Fukushima. Nuclear waste storage. Ukraine. What's so amazing?

[Yellowtail]

28 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Sure, about 1% of fossil fuel use. Nobody is suggesting or ever has suggested banning fossil fuels entirely, especially not products derived from fossil fuels.

You are talking only about fertilizer. A lot of energy is used farming. 

28 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Nope, 100% of the cost of the electricity is recouped from the tenant. Is that not true?

Wrong. The panels would offset the what the "greedy rich capitalist pig dog landlords" have to pay to the electric provider, but the "greedy rich capitalist pig dog landlords" can still charge the tenant full price for every KWh they use, which means all the power the panels generate is pure profit. 

28 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Batteries and other storage mechanisms. Again, fossil fuels will always be used but to suggest that since we can't remove them 100% so we shouldn't remove them at all is ridiculous logic.

Batteries in any significant capacity are still a long way out. 

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You are talking only about fertilizer. A lot of energy is used farming. 

Wrong. The panels would offset the what the "greedy rich capitalist pig dog landlords" have to pay to the electric provider, but the "greedy rich capitalist pig dog landlords" can still charge the tenant full price for every KWh they use, which means all the power the panels generate is pure profit. 

Batteries in any significant capacity are still a long way out. 

Many houses are now installed with solar panels and batteries that provide more electricity to the grid that they use, to the extent that early subsides for feeding the grid have been cancelled. Local panels and storage also obviates the need for distribution which is why utilities gold plated the distribution grid when they saw that coming and charge consumers for it.

[Yellowtail]

19 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Where did I say they should find an alternative? Who's doing the distracting now?  I did say they should be doint a lot more to clean up the messes that they are responsible for. And I noticed that you completely ignored that point.

What does who's doing the distracting now mean? I thought we were trying to have a discussion. 

 

I ignored the point because to respond to it would require an example, which we all know is virtually impossible to get around here. 

 

But to be clear, I generally support make companies clean up their messes. But I do not agree that companies that were operating legally and under what was acceptable regulation fifty years ago should be made to meet new regulations. 

 

[Bkk Brian]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

I just checked the table of contents again, I did not see policy recommendations, what page are you on? 

Mitigation of Climate Change Summary for Policymakers

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_SPM.pdf

 

You can lead a horse to water but.........................

 

There is no table of contents, start from page 31.

 

Hint it does not say this is for policy makers to implement what it does do is give the facts and what can be done in design, access, and technology access and adoption, including information and communication technologies, influence patterns of demand and ways of providing services, such as mobility, shelter, water, sanitation, and nutrition.

 

Note title of paper "for Policymakers" why do you think that is?