What climate action to people favor or be willing to accept?

[jbg]

Every time there is disastrously bad weather, we are treated to saturation coverage about “Global Warming“ or “climate change.“ There are graphic descriptions of fires, mudslides, heat waves, and wind, storms, including hurricanes, and tornadoes. There are calls for “action” to prevent further disasters. In this thread, I am putting to one side question of whether what we are experiencing is worse there in the past or not. I am also avoiding the question as to whether or not there actually is man-made climate change. I am pretty certain that the human race is actually putting yourself in harms way.

Last spring, people ranged from hysterical to mildly upset about gasoline that was between five dollars per gallon at six dollars per gallon.

What I do want to hear are people’s suggestions for what we need to change in order to preserve the planet for future generations. What technology are we willing to give up? How we are willing to change our dwellings? Whether we are willing to give a vacation homes or frequent long-distance travel? Are we willing to give up meat consumption?

I would like to hear peoples views on this.

 

[Stevicus]

Every time there is disastrously bad weather, we are treated to saturation coverage about “Global Warming“ or “climate change.“ There are graphic descriptions of fires, mudslides, heat waves, and wind, storms, including hurricanes, and tornadoes. There are calls for “action” to prevent further disasters. In this thread, I am putting to one side question of whether what we are experiencing is worse there in the past or not. I am also avoiding the question as to whether or not there actually is man-made climate change. I am pretty certain that the human race is actually putting yourself in harms way.

Last spring, people ranged from hysterical to mildly upset about gasoline that was between five dollars per gallon at six dollars per gallon.

What I do want to hear are people’s suggestions for what we need to change in order to preserve the planet for future generations. What technology are we willing to give up? How we are willing to change our dwellings? Whether we are willing to give a vacation homes or frequent long-distance travel? Are we willing to give up meat consumption?

I would like to hear peoples views on this.

Realistically, I don't think people will really want to give up too much. Sure, they might go along with recycling efforts, support bans on plastic bags at the stores - and various other minor things that don't have much of an impact. We're living in a time when things like electricity and cars have become necessities - not just luxuries. We might be able to reduce consumption to some degree, but if anything is severely curtailed or interrupted for any length of time, chaos will likely ensue.

I recall several years ago when a gas pipeline was damaged, and 70% of the gasoline supplies into the Phoenix metro area were cut off for about two weeks. While they did truck in quite a bit of gas, there were still shortages and gas lines, which led to some violent altercations. The NYC blackout was even worse, with wholesale looting and chaos. That's just a preview of what would happen quite quickly if everyone's power supply was suddenly cut off.

 

[sayak83]

Every time there is disastrously bad weather, we are treated to saturation coverage about “Global Warming“ or “climate change.“ There are graphic descriptions of fires, mudslides, heat waves, and wind, storms, including hurricanes, and tornadoes. There are calls for “action” to prevent further disasters. In this thread, I am putting to one side question of whether what we are experiencing is worse there in the past or not. I am also avoiding the question as to whether or not there actually is man-made climate change. I am pretty certain that the human race is actually putting yourself in harms way.

Last spring, people ranged from hysterical to mildly upset about gasoline that was between five dollars per gallon at six dollars per gallon.

What I do want to hear are people’s suggestions for what we need to change in order to preserve the planet for future generations. What technology are we willing to give up? How we are willing to change our dwellings? Whether we are willing to give a vacation homes or frequent long-distance travel? Are we willing to give up meat consumption?

I would like to hear peoples views on this.

What we need to do has very little to do with individual actions. These are (broadly) the things that need to be done:-
Creating a global moratorium against installing new coal power plants immediately.
Commitment on phasing out existing coal power plants without Carbon Capture in a 20 year time horizon.
Commitment of doing the same for natural gas power plants within a 40 year time horizon.
Funding for rapid development of EV/Hydrogen infrastructure coupled with commitment of phasing out all transportation petrol and diesel fuels that are not blended with at least 40% biofuels by 2040.
Commitment on 40% blending targets for aviation and shipping fuels with biofuels by 2040.
Creation of national and international disaster management funds to tackle damages caused by extreme weather events with the money coming through a global CO2 and CH4 emission tax that is directly taken from the oil/coal/natural gas producers. The tax amount will be progressively increased to account for the increased damage caused by additional units of emissions.
Emission tax on meat products and other Greenhouse Gas intensive agriculture practices.

Just to be clear. No individual will be forbidden to do anything. But certain choices will be costlier than other choices simply to account for the increased climate change related economic and environmental damage caused by them.

 

[Heyo]

Every time there is disastrously bad weather, we are treated to saturation coverage about “Global Warming“ or “climate change.“ There are graphic descriptions of fires, mudslides, heat waves, and wind, storms, including hurricanes, and tornadoes. There are calls for “action” to prevent further disasters. In this thread, I am putting to one side question of whether what we are experiencing is worse there in the past or not. I am also avoiding the question as to whether or not there actually is man-made climate change. I am pretty certain that the human race is actually putting yourself in harms way.

Last spring, people ranged from hysterical to mildly upset about gasoline that was between five dollars per gallon at six dollars per gallon.

What I do want to hear are people’s suggestions for what we need to change in order to preserve the planet for future generations. What technology are we willing to give up? How we are willing to change our dwellings? Whether we are willing to give a vacation homes or frequent long-distance travel? Are we willing to give up meat consumption?

I would like to hear peoples views on this.

I think people prefer that other people cut down on their CO2 emissions.

 

[jbg]

What we need to do has very little to do with individual actions. These are (broadly) the things that need to be done:-
Creating a global moratorium against installing new coal power plants immediately.
Commitment on phasing out existing coal power plants without Carbon Capture in a 20 year time horizon.
Commitment of doing the same for natural gas power plants within a 40 year time horizon.
Funding for rapid development of EV/Hydrogen infrastructure coupled with commitment of phasing out all transportation petrol and diesel fuels that are not blended with at least 40% biofuels by 2040.
Commitment on 40% blending targets for aviation and shipping fuels with biofuels by 2040.
Creation of national and international disaster management funds to tackle damages caused by extreme weather events with the money coming through a global CO2 and CH4 emission tax that is directly taken from the oil/coal/natural gas producers. The tax amount will be progressively increased to account for the increased damage caused by additional units of emissions.
Emission tax on meat products and other Greenhouse Gas intensive agriculture practices.

Just to be clear. No individual will be forbidden to do anything. But certain choices will be costlier than other choices simply to account for the increased climate change related economic and environmental damage caused by them.

I get it. So the rich can keep doing what they are doing and the "peasants" get locked down.

I think people prefer that other people cut down on their CO2 emissions.

Bingo!

 

[Left Coast]

What we need to do has very little to do with individual actions. These are (broadly) the things that need to be done:-
Creating a global moratorium against installing new coal power plants immediately.
Commitment on phasing out existing coal power plants without Carbon Capture in a 20 year time horizon.
Commitment of doing the same for natural gas power plants within a 40 year time horizon.
Funding for rapid development of EV/Hydrogen infrastructure coupled with commitment of phasing out all transportation petrol and diesel fuels that are not blended with at least 40% biofuels by 2040.
Commitment on 40% blending targets for aviation and shipping fuels with biofuels by 2040.
Creation of national and international disaster management funds to tackle damages caused by extreme weather events with the money coming through a global CO2 and CH4 emission tax that is directly taken from the oil/coal/natural gas producers. The tax amount will be progressively increased to account for the increased damage caused by additional units of emissions.
Emission tax on meat products and other Greenhouse Gas intensive agriculture practices.

Just to be clear. No individual will be forbidden to do anything. But certain choices will be costlier than other choices simply to account for the increased climate change related economic and environmental damage caused by them.

Did these targets come from somewhere? Were they put out by an activist group, etc? I'm curious what the logic is behind each bullet and what the actual associated costs and other downstream effects will be.

 

[Yerda]

Every time there is disastrously bad weather, we are treated to saturation coverage about “Global Warming“ or “climate change.“ There are graphic descriptions of fires, mudslides, heat waves, and wind, storms, including hurricanes, and tornadoes. There are calls for “action” to prevent further disasters. In this thread, I am putting to one side question of whether what we are experiencing is worse there in the past or not. I am also avoiding the question as to whether or not there actually is man-made climate change. I am pretty certain that the human race is actually putting yourself in harms way.

Last spring, people ranged from hysterical to mildly upset about gasoline that was between five dollars per gallon at six dollars per gallon.

What I do want to hear are people’s suggestions for what we need to change in order to preserve the planet for future generations. What technology are we willing to give up? How we are willing to change our dwellings? Whether we are willing to give a vacation homes or frequent long-distance travel? Are we willing to give up meat consumption?

I would like to hear peoples views on this.

I don't eat meat, I don't have children and I don't drive. I gave up flying about a decade ago. I feel like I've made a decent start.

I could give up dairy and reduce my consumption of plastics and other high carbon materials.

I'd pay higher taxes.

Would happily support coordinated global action to destroy the oil industry and would like to see every billionaire launched to Mars. Who's in?

 

[Alien826]

There are two choices.

1. Dramatically change our way of life ourselves, and try to control the negatives as much as possible.

2. Have nature do it for us.

Take your pick.

 

[Heyo]

What we need to do has very little to do with individual actions. These are (broadly) the things that need to be done:-
Creating a global moratorium against installing new coal power plants immediately.
Commitment on phasing out existing coal power plants without Carbon Capture in a 20 year time horizon.
Commitment of doing the same for natural gas power plants within a 40 year time horizon.
Funding for rapid development of EV/Hydrogen infrastructure coupled with commitment of phasing out all transportation petrol and diesel fuels that are not blended with at least 40% biofuels by 2040.
Commitment on 40% blending targets for aviation and shipping fuels with biofuels by 2040.
Creation of national and international disaster management funds to tackle damages caused by extreme weather events with the money coming through a global CO2 and CH4 emission tax that is directly taken from the oil/coal/natural gas producers. The tax amount will be progressively increased to account for the increased damage caused by additional units of emissions.
Emission tax on meat products and other Greenhouse Gas intensive agriculture practices.

Just to be clear. No individual will be forbidden to do anything. But certain choices will be costlier than other choices simply to account for the increased climate change related economic and environmental damage caused by them.

Before you can implement any of these you'll first have to get an international consensus that 1. we want to preserve conditions that are conductive to human life and 2. we are collectively and individually responsible to do so.
No one country can safe us. Even if the US would stop burning fossil fuels tomorrow, it would delay the catastrophe by 10 years (max) but not stop it.

The problem is not what technically has to be done, the problem is a diplomatic one. We have to overcome nationalism and the tendency to demand that others have to do something first before we follow - if we follow.

If you start doing something and others follow, you are a leader - if others don't follow, you are an idiot. Germany was that idiot from 1995 'till about 2010 hosting 3 of the first 6 COP and really doing something. Some followed and even surpassed us, Denmark for example. But most of the world slacked. Germany has stopped trying to be a leader and be seen as the idiot.

I could go on about the history, especially mentioning the US leaving the Paris agreement but to keep it short here's the summary: the world has decided that we don't want to stop global warming and leave it to future generations to deal with the consequences.

 

[sayak83]

Before you can implement any of these you'll first have to get an international consensus that 1. we want to preserve conditions that are conductive to human life and 2. we are collectively and individually responsible to do so.
No one country can safe us. Even if the US would stop burning fossil fuels tomorrow, it would delay the catastrophe by 10 years (max) but not stop it.

The problem is not what technically has to be done, the problem is a diplomatic one. We have to overcome nationalism and the tendency to demand that others have to do something first before we follow - if we follow.

If you start doing something and others follow, you are a leader - if others don't follow, you are an idiot. Germany was that idiot from 1995 'till about 2010 hosting 3 of the first 6 COP and really doing something. Some followed and even surpassed us, Denmark for example. But most of the world slacked. Germany has stopped trying to be a leader and be seen as the idiot.

I could go on about the history, especially mentioning the US leaving the Paris agreement but to keep it short here's the summary: the world has decided that we don't want to stop global warming and leave it to future generations to deal with the consequences.

This is neither true nor false...which is what happens when things are painted in black and white. International commitments to reduce GHG have been made by all countries and there is significant international pressure for the countries to comply as well. And compliance is happening. Here is current data.

On existing emission policies alone (no further change) the world will warm by appx 2.7 C
On the approved and binding 2030 targets by the countries, warming at the end of the century will be around 2.4 C
If the non binding pledges till 2030 are included, the warming drops to 2 C. This is where we want to reach

Even if the nonbinding pledges are realised by 2035 with some additional emission reduction by 2040, we should be able to get to median 2 C warming scenario.

While a lot of talk is going on about us being unable meet 1.5 C warming target, that target was not realistic. Fundamentally I feel 2 C warming scenario is achievable and we could survive it if funds are kept for climate adaptation.
Home

 

[sayak83]

Did these targets come from somewhere? Were they put out by an activist group, etc? I'm curious what the logic is behind each bullet and what the actual associated costs and other downstream effects will be.

I can probably give you references for each if given time.
But here they came from my 12 years of experience in energy and climate research and 4 years of teaching experience in graduate level climate and energy technology curriculum in University.
Energy and Climate is my bread and butter so to say.

 

[Valjean]

It's quite likely already too late, and carbon abatement policies, even if actually implemented, would only draw out the extinction event. There is more to global warming than just fossil fuel usage.

Example: What measures must we take to slow the outgassing of methane and CO2 from the warming and increasingly snow-free arctic tundra? The outgassing creates more warming and melts more reflective snow, which releases more greenhouse gas, which melts more permafrost, releasing more gas......

The rapid thawing of permafrost has enormous implications for climate change. There are an estimated 1,400 gigatons of carbon frozen in permafrost, making the Arctic one of the largest carbon sinks in the world. That’s about four times more than humans have emitted since the Industrial Revolution, and nearly twice as much as is currently contained in the atmosphere.

-- How Thawing Permafrost Is Beginning to Transform the Arctic

 

[Nakosis]

Every time there is disastrously bad weather, we are treated to saturation coverage about “Global Warming“ or “climate change.“ There are graphic descriptions of fires, mudslides, heat waves, and wind, storms, including hurricanes, and tornadoes. There are calls for “action” to prevent further disasters. In this thread, I am putting to one side question of whether what we are experiencing is worse there in the past or not. I am also avoiding the question as to whether or not there actually is man-made climate change. I am pretty certain that the human race is actually putting yourself in harms way.

Last spring, people ranged from hysterical to mildly upset about gasoline that was between five dollars per gallon at six dollars per gallon.

What I do want to hear are people’s suggestions for what we need to change in order to preserve the planet for future generations. What technology are we willing to give up? How we are willing to change our dwellings? Whether we are willing to give a vacation homes or frequent long-distance travel? Are we willing to give up meat consumption?

I would like to hear peoples views on this.

Mandated vegetarianism.

 

[PureX]

I don't think we have to "give up" things. We just have to change the way we currently do things.

For example, it is currently illegal for me to drive anything around my town but a massively over-built, over-powered, overly expensive, and inefficient automobile. When I could live in very much the same way as I live, now, using an encapsulated golf cart, or a Cushman type utility vehicle. I never need to go faster than about 45 mph or further than a few miles. And using these kinds of vehicles would save a huge amount on fuel and carbon emissions. Not to mention saving us all a LOT of money with virtually no appreciable inconvenience to a great many of us.

But we all know that the oil companies are going to bribe our politicians to keep those vehicles off the roads, just as they have been doing for many decades. The problem is letting go of the profit motive in favor of saving the only planet we can live on. And so far, it's the profits that we can't give up. And by "we" I don't mean you and I.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Mandated vegetarianism.

 

[sayak83]

It's quite likely already too late, and carbon abatement policies, even if actually implemented, would only draw out the extinction event. There is more to global warming than just fossil fuel usage.

Example: What measures must we take to slow the outgassing of methane and CO2 from the warming and increasingly snow-free arctic tundra? The outgassing creates more warming and melts more reflective snow, which releases more greenhouse gas, which melts more permafrost, releasing more gas......

-- How Thawing Permafrost Is Beginning to Transform the Arctic

The situation is not that desperate. There is as yet no consensus of how much, if any, net CO2 will be released by a thawing permafrost. Evidence so far is limited. One should not jump to catastrophic conclusions based on this. There is a risk, but do not know yet how real it is.
How Much Worse Will Thawing Arctic Permafrost Make Climate Change?

 

[Heyo]

On existing emission policies alone (no further change) the world will warm by appx 2.7 C

If the policies are met. Germany and the EU are failing theirs frequently. That is mainly because they were unrealistically high but also because we don't want to be the idiots any more.

 

[sayak83]

If the policies are met. Germany and the EU are failing theirs frequently. That is mainly because they were unrealistically high but also because we don't want to be the idiots any more.

Pioneering new technology is not idiocy. It is good business. I notice that Germany under Merkel had the best economy in Europe. Perhaps you were being smart then and idiots now?
Relying on Russian gas and Middle Eastern oil seems far more idiotic compared to relying on home grown solar, wind and nuclear installations. Is this not clear even after the Ukraine war??
If Germany and other European countries developed solar thermal heating systems (widespread in China and well established technology) instead of relying of cheap Russian gas then much could be different.

 

[Yerda]

There is more to global warming than just fossil fuel usage.

This is true.

There is also a great deal more to the ecological breakdown we are driving than climate change. We have broken through dozens of ecological ceilings beyond which we are inviting catastrophe. Our soil use, fresh water depletion, deforestation, pollinators being wiped out, fish populations obliterated, loss of biodiversity that is starting to look like it may be a genuine mass extinction event. We are even affecting the circulation of moisture in the air and the currents in the ocean. Climate change is just one piece of the jigsaw - the whole picture is the destruction of the systems that life on Earth depends upon.

Anyway, have a lovely day, RFers. I'm away to buy an SUV, invest in Shell stock, and eat a steak.

 

[sayak83]

Did these targets come from somewhere? Were they put out by an activist group, etc? I'm curious what the logic is behind each bullet and what the actual associated costs and other downstream effects will be.

Here is good reference report from Internation Energy Agency on what needs to be done to get to net zero CO2 emissions in a staged manner by 2070. I am not directly quoting from this report, and relying more on my experience of reading and analyzing many such policy documents and also on my own technological experiences. But this should be a good start.
https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/a...a/Energy_Technology_Perspectives_2020_PDF.pdf