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

[Heyo]

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?

The "idiot" phase (trying to be a leader in climate efforts) was before Merkel, with the SPD/ Green Party coalition. Merkel already rowed back to a position where we wouldn't hurt our economy much more than others.
(That is the momentary economy. I agree that it would have been a smart move to invest more into R&D in the long run. But politicians usually don't think further than the next election.)

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??

At the time it was a smart move. With R&D you have a diminishing ROI when you try to force it. It takes nine month to gestate a child, no matter how many women you assign. Cheap Russian gas was the option of choice to transition from coal and oil to 100% renewables.

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.

We had solar thermal heating in the '80s and it proved to just break even. The installations were basically obsolete the moment they were paid for (and a pain in the back to dispose of).
Photo voltaic has improved much so that today it is more efficient to have a small thermal element and lots of PV for a heat pump.

Germany has two problems to solve in the near future. 1. Storage. We sell (or give away for free) our excess energy to Norway because they have the gravity storage capacity. Some form of battery, e.g. pressure storage in old gas fields would make us more independent and reduce the transportation losses. 2. Distribution. Our grid, while being very robust already, is not capable to transport all the wind energy produced in the north to the industrial centres in the west and the south.

 

[sayak83]

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

Bingo!

Do not pretend to speak for the poor or the peasants. Are you helping the hundreds of thousands of people who are losing their homes and livelihood due to catastrophic floods (Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, China), are you paying compensation for the death of poor people due to heatstrokes from Europe to Africa because they cannot afford to stay indoors, are you paying for the rising diseases caused by migration of tropical diseases to temperate zones where people have less immunity. The solutions offered will not damage the livelihood of the poor at all, but will help them from falling into destitution due to increased eco-climatic extremes that are battering the world and against which they cannot afford to protect themselves against.

 

[Left Coast]

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

Thank you! I'll take a look. I forgot that this is your industry.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

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.

@Valjean @sayak83

Not to mention the dwindling rare Earth materials used in advanced electronics that we will need to study climate change and coordinate and communicate with other nations. Threats to global telecommunication and research infrastructure is also a threat to global climate efforts. So many things all connected.

 

[Quintessence]

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.

The consensus for at least a decade among relevant experts is that we're already in a human-induced sixth mass extinction event. That's actually the major problem, not climate change. Climate change is merely symptomatic of this far more significant problem of human overpopulation and overexploitation of their environment - with technology being the major culprit that facilitated all this. But folks basically worship Techne here and the West has done a great job brainwashing the rest of the human world into thinking technological "progress" and economic "growth" are measures of success and an unquestioned good.

 

[Valjean]

The consensus for at least a decade among relevant experts is that we're already in a human-induced sixth mass extinction event. That's actually the major problem, not climate change. Climate change is merely symptomatic of this far more significant problem of human overpopulation and overexploitation of their environment - with technology being the major culprit that facilitated all this. But folks basically worship Techne here and the West has done a great job brainwashing the rest of the human world into thinking technological "progress" and economic "growth" are measures of success and an unquestioned good.

Alas, this is beyond the evolved capacity of bipedal apes to address. Never, during our evolution, were we numerous enough to have a major impact on the environment, nor was long-term planning ever possible -- or selected for. We're not psychologically capable of dealing with the problems our technological cleverness generates.

We seem incapable of stopping ourselves or reducing our numbers. We're a failed species; a planet-wide, ecological infection undermining every biological system, depleting resources and vital habitat, exactly like a bacterial pathogen.
Barring unusual events like meteorite impacts, mass extinctions unfold more slowly than we're adapted to pereive or respond to effectively.

 

[Quintessence]

Alas, this is beyond the evolved capacity of bipedal apes to address. Never, during our evolution, were we numerous enough to have a major impact on the environment, nor was long-term planning ever possible -- or selected for. We're not psychologically capable of dealing with the problems our technological cleverness generates.

I'd agree and disagree with this assessment. Humans as animals have more or less been ecosystem engineers for a long time - for tens and thousands of years at least. What changed are the tools and ideas - the most significant ones of which led to the development of agriculture and wanton exploitation of others - that permitted more substantial alteration of landscapes, nature, and the "wrong races" of humans. It was, and is, never just about numbers. And the capacity is definitely there to deal with these things.

 

[icehorse]

Sadly, the oligarchs and politicians act as if they think the planet is infinitely ****-with-able. Of course it's not.

If we somehow got the collected willpower:

- heavily incentivize women who had 0 or 1 children before menopause
- quickly phase out subsidies in areas like gas, oil, agriculture. You want a hamburger, great, it costs the environment a LOT to make, so that'll be $40 please. You want to drive a car, awesome, gas is $20 / gallon (or whatever).
- make a MASSIVE redirect of R&D subsidies to alternate energy, fusion.
- Be honest about alternate energy, e.g., EVs aren't really "green". The lithium requirements alone are unsustainable.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

That's good enough for me.

 

[BlueIslandGirl]

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.

All this discussion about these numbers and those numbers and net zero and blah blah are a complete waste of time.

@Alien826 nailed it. It's simple (and yet the most wicked problem humans have ever faced).

We as a species are in catastrophic ecological overshoot caused by industrial civilization. Climate change is just one of MANY symptoms of overshoot. The only "solution" is to "dramatically change our way of life" or "have nature do it for us." Take your pick, indeed. There is no technology that will get us out of this mess.

The folks at Protect Thacker Pass wrote up some good ideas for a path forward. Humanity will mostly likely not choose this path. Solutions | Protect Thacker Pass

 

[sayak83]

@Valjean @sayak83

Not to mention the dwindling rare Earth materials used in advanced electronics that we will need to study climate change and coordinate and communicate with other nations. Threats to global telecommunication and research infrastructure is also a threat to global climate efforts. So many things all connected.

You are correct. Hopefully however in 20 years time Calcium batteries will be developed enough to compete with lithium batteries. That should ease the supply problems. Technology is evolving, as computers show.

 

[BlueIslandGirl]

You are correct. Hopefully however in 20 years time Calcium batteries will be developed enough to compete with lithium batteries. That should ease the supply problems. Technology is evolving, as computers show.

The problem isn't the battery chemistry. The problem is cars. And phones. And all other things that require batteries. It matters not what the chemistry used is. Also mines and supply chains and manufacturing plants and so on take DECADES to put into place. DECADES. Lithium isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Billions of $$ have been put into the lithium battery supply chain.

 

[sayak83]

The problem isn't the battery chemistry. The problem is cars. And phones. And all other things that require batteries. It matters not what the chemistry used is. Also mines and supply chains and manufacturing plants and so on take DECADES to put into place. DECADES. Lithium isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Billions of $$ have been put into the lithium battery supply chain.

Lithium will not be replaced in electronic applications. But large scale storage batteries will switch to Calcium or other materials. I also provided a 20 year time frame for that reason only

 

[BlueIslandGirl]

Lithium will not be replaced in electronic applications. But large scale storage batteries will switch to Calcium or other materials. I also provided a 20 year time frame for that reason only

Gotcha.

I kinda think in 20 years or so we'll be too busy with collapse to worry about battery chemistries, but then again, humans are resilient and find ever more ways to dig up and destroy the planet to keep this party going just a bit longer so I could be off by a few decades

 

[jbg]

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.

And your proof that #1 will accomplish anything is? In other news, it was hot at the U.S. Open during the semi-finals, Men's and Women's finals. Some people took some dramatic "action" to halt the festivities, see Stopping Tennis to Call Attention to Climate Change.

The article (link in text shows that "climate activists" will stop at nothing to disrupt and derail society. The "activists" glued themselves to the stadium, endangering themselves, others and law enforcement. The event that was disrupted was the Women's Semifinals. Wimbledon was similarly disrupted, as has bridge traffic.

When will society stand up for itself?

Meanwhile, the semi-finals and finals have been played in hot weather, which some news sources claim is unprecedented for New York. Not so fast. On Sunday, September 11, 1983 is was 99° on the day of the Men's Finals in New York City, and, going from memory, 97° the day before. I can't recall whether it was 1985 or 1989, but similar, not quite as severe conditions prevailed. This is not at all new or unprecedented.

 

[BlueIslandGirl]

And your proof that #1 will accomplish anything is? In other news, it was hot at the U.S. Open during the semi-finals, Men's and Women's finals. Some people took some dramatic "action" to halt the festivities, see Stopping Tennis to Call Attention to Climate Change.

The article (link in text shows that "climate activists" will stop at nothing to disrupt and derail society. The "activists" glued themselves to the stadium, endangering themselves, others and law enforcement. The event that was disrupted was the Women's Semifinals. Wimbledon was similarly disrupted, as has bridge traffic.

When will society stand up for itself?

Meanwhile, the semi-finals and finals have been played in hot weather, which some news sources claim is unprecedented for New York. Not so fast. On Sunday, September 11, 1983 is was 99° on the day of the Men's Finals in New York City, and, going from memory, 97° the day before. I can't recall whether it was 1985 or 1989, but similar, not quite as severe conditions prevailed. This is not at all new or unprecedented.

Gluing oneself to a stadium isn't dramatic social action; it's a minor symbolic action meant to raise awareness and **** people off. @Alien826 was talking about massive, strategic, social action on a global scale.

Life on Earth is in catastrophic ecological overshoot because of human industrial civilization. Every day we continue this way of life degrades the carrying capacity of Earth a bit more. Climate change is just one of many symptoms of overshoot. Wildlife loss, habitat loss, species loss, pollution, etc. are all other impacts as we destroy not just our own habitat but the habitat of all the species we share this planet with. It can't last much longer. A few decades at most.

 

[setarcos]

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.

You would have to start with everyone's complete mental "reprogramming" - for lack of a better word - on what everyone should universally value and find valuable. Terms such as rich, poor, middle class, poverty, extravagance, exploitation, greed, hoarding, etc. which are tied to exchangeable "valuable" items would have to be rendered meaningless. The current zero sum game the world is playing would have to be dismantled. The current popular process whereby someone can only excel when someone else loses would have to be replaced by a process whereby everyone agrees to either win or lose together, no one would be indentured by another either via labor, debt, skill or lack thereof, education or lack thereof, etc. Everyone would have to agree on where best to utilize the resources available for the best results overall.
Competition except for unrealistic amusement, expectation of personal reward and advancement beyond ones "neighbor" would all have to go the way of the dodo.
And those who would seek to exploit the "system" in some manner for their own gain would have to be somehow rendered ineffective or irrelevant.

In other words, As long as you have people thinking that they deserve more comfort, security, or materials than others as some sort of reward or status symbol because of their skill, genealogy, or some other hubris not much is gonna get accomplished except temporarily for a very fortunate few.

 

[BlueIslandGirl]

You would have to start with everyone's complete mental "reprogramming" - for lack of a better word - on what everyone should universally value and find valuable. Terms such as rich, poor, middle class, poverty, extravagance, exploitation, greed, hoarding, etc. which are tied to exchangeable "valuable" items would have to be rendered meaningless. The current zero sum game the world is playing would have to be dismantled. The current popular process whereby someone can only excel when someone else loses would have to be replaced by a process whereby everyone agrees to either win or lose together, no one would be indentured by another either via labor, debt, skill or lack thereof, education or lack thereof, etc. Everyone would have to agree on where best to utilize the resources available for the best results overall.
Competition except for unrealistic amusement, expectation of personal reward and advancement beyond ones "neighbor" would all have to go the way of the dodo.
And those who would seek to exploit the "system" in some manner for their own gain would have to be somehow rendered ineffective or irrelevant.

In other words, As long as you have people thinking that they deserve more comfort, security, or materials than others as some sort of reward or status symbol because of their skill, genealogy, or some other hubris not much is gonna get accomplished except temporarily for a very fortunate few.

The "reprogramming" would also have to include the reality that climate change is just one of many symptoms of ecological overshoot, and that we human mammals cannot flourish on an Earth without flourishing ecosystems and the millions of species we share the planet with. We would have to be reprogrammed to prioritize the natural world, and to understand true wealth is flourishing natural communities.

All the "climate solutions" being peddled these days will make ecological overshoot worse and thus are no solutions at all. So perhaps the first step in this reprogramming would require people being willing to see that.

All of this is extremely unlikely to happen, which means that it's likely we'll continue degrading the carrying capacity of Earth and eventually human populations will crash, along with all the other species that are crashing now. I've read that some scientists believe it will require 10 to 20 million years for the Earth to recover from our rapaciousness and destruction. Whatever the length of time, it will need to be enough time for the microplastics and forever chemicals and nuclear waste and the other detritus of human civilization to be captured in a layer of rock deep underground for future anthropologists, if there are any, to discover.

 

[jbg]

Gluing oneself to a stadium isn't dramatic social action; it's a minor symbolic action meant to raise awareness and **** people off. @Alien826 was talking about massive, strategic, social action on a global scale.

What exactly do these "glue artists" want society to do? At what cost? And to accomplish what?

Life on Earth is in catastrophic ecological overshoot because of human industrial civilization. Every day we continue this way of life degrades the carrying capacity of Earth a bit more. Climate change is just one of many symptoms of overshoot. Wildlife loss, habitat loss, species loss, pollution, etc. are all other impacts as we destroy not just our own habitat but the habitat of all the species we share this planet with. It can't last much longer. A few decades at most.

All of this is extremely unlikely to happen, which means that it's likely we'll continue degrading the carrying capacity of Earth and eventually human populations will crash, along with all the other species that are crashing now. I've read that some scientists believe it will require 10 to 20 million years for the Earth to recover from our rapaciousness and destruction. Whatever the length of time, it will need to be enough time for the microplastics and forever chemicals and nuclear waste and the other detritus of human civilization to be captured in a layer of rock deep underground for future anthropologists, if there are any, to discover.

So if humans are an evolutionary mistake should we all do a mass "die-in" for the benefit of "all the species we share this planet with"?

 

[BlueIslandGirl]

What exactly do these "glue artists" want society to do? At what cost? And to accomplish what?

I guess they want society to pay attention and to change somehow... I have no idea what specific changes they are asking for. I know what I'd ask for, but then I'm not gluing myself to stadiums or art. I prefer to resist development more directly.

So if humans are an evolutionary mistake should we all do a mass "die-in" for the benefit of "all the species we share this planet with"?

I don't consider humans an "evolutionary mistake" necessarily - I don't think evolution has intention. If we think about species that aren't "fit", usually they die out. Humans got along pretty well for 300,000 or so years (we believe...) in our current form; it was only when we shifted from hunting and gathering to settlements and agriculture that things began to go drastically wrong, very quickly (in evolutionary timescales). Personally I don't think WE are the mistake, I think this culture is the mistake.