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

[setarcos]

Limiting plastic production is limiting one form of artificially produced CO2.

I agree. Unfortunately we've created a whole chain of linked processes which rely on that production - monetarily and practically - which won't be able to be changed without a wholesale reprogramming of human civilization. And also, unfortunately, the implementation of that reprogramming would initially hit the "sub-rich" the hardest. How many people would be willing to sacrifice what little they've gained in life in short term comfort and security for long term benefits after they're gone while watching the lifestyles of the "rich" little bothered and in some cases seemingly enhanced from that sacrifice? The odds are really, really stacked against us. Humanity has created, defined, tolerates, and sustains what it deems worthy of pursuit in this world idealized in the accumulation of material wealth beyond what should be enough for any individual or group and we are all paying for it with our mental and physical wellbeing.

 

[setarcos]

I read an article yesterday about predictions of the upcoming winter, based on the current El Niño affect. El Niño, which is natural, is causing climate change, and has little to do with CO2.

This is a good point to address. I think a lot of people misunderstand the relationship between what naturally occurs in nature an what is artificially induced in nature.
El Niño and La Niña are natural phenomena and do have "degrees" of how they effect other naturally occurring phenomena however those degrees can be effected by and have been scientifically linked to humanities artificial inputs. Both are indicators of the atmospheric and environmental conditions around the world. And both may be indicators of how much artificial influence humanity can have on our world.
Global warming is not a linear event. It is spiky. If we look at the graphic data science has given us, zooming out we can see a pronounced progression upward toward a warming earth and its consequent effects in an unnatural timespan. Zooming in along our current era we myopically see within our recorded history plenty of historically normal data points supplemented by spikes of extremes here and there. As we progress along this graph though the data clearly shows the point at which human induced inputs are accelerating the extreme spikes into normality.
Perhaps an analogy might be like heating glass. Heat it slowly and the crystalline structure can adapt and reorganize. Heat it too fast and it shatters. Heat it even beyond what the glass can endure and still remain glass and we've lost even the shattered glass.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I agree. Unfortunately we've created a whole chain of linked processes which rely on that production..

..all part of the oil-age..
It can't last forever, as there are "limits to growth".

That is not to say that it is not better to manage our decline, rather than ignoring it.

 

[crossfire]

I agree. Unfortunately we've created a whole chain of linked processes which rely on that production - monetarily and practically - which won't be able to be changed without a wholesale reprogramming of human civilization. And also, unfortunately, the implementation of that reprogramming would initially hit the "sub-rich" the hardest. How many people would be willing to sacrifice what little they've gained in life in short term comfort and security for long term benefits after they're gone while watching the lifestyles of the "rich" little bothered and in some cases seemingly enhanced from that sacrifice? The odds are really, really stacked against us. Humanity has created, defined, tolerates, and sustains what it deems worthy of pursuit in this world idealized in the accumulation of material wealth beyond what should be enough for any individual or group and we are all paying for it with our mental and physical wellbeing.

It hasn't been that long since everything that is now packaged in plastic was packaged in glass or other non-plastics. I have seen a dramatic rise in single-use plastics during my lifetime.

 

[setarcos]

..all part of the oil-age..
It can't last forever, as there are "limits to growth".

That is not to say that it is not better to manage our decline, rather than ignoring it.

Good point. Our "oil-age" is a good example of our technology and its implementation often exceeding our grasp of the consequences of its use. That and the fact that even with understanding of those consequences greed and the desire of some to subjugate others often creates situations in which those consequences are ignored.
Human hubris is a factor as well. We often choose present comfort over long term security thinking that any problems that may begin now can be fixed later with human ingenuity.

 

[setarcos]

It hasn't been that long since everything that is now packaged in plastic was packaged in glass or other non-plastics.

No it hasn't. The problem is that with the development of modern contrivances we've taken time and compressed it into shorter and shorter periods in which we stray further and further away from what was before so that it becomes harder and harder to transition back.
Metaphorically Its like calculating your day by how far you could walk from your home and return within a given amount of time. You've set up everything by those calculations...your job, your grocery shopping, what you can carry to where, even whether or not "rest stops" should be built along the way like the pony express stations.
Now add in the development of modern transportation. Suddenly all those calculations change. Job can be further away, rest stops aren't needed as close together, the amount of groceries you need to get at any one time changes because you can carry more in less time and get them from further away etc. etc.. You've recalculated and started building everything to rely on the new methods of transportation.
Now suddenly take the modern transportation away and you see you've got big problems. Not insurmountable problems but incredibly miserable and even life threatening problems to solve.

I have seen a dramatic rise in single-use plastics during my lifetime.

Sad but true. What's even sadder is that we've built a society that promotes success by how much material possessions you own or how many people you can order around with little regard to consequences.
And those that see the unsustainable problems with that and have the strength of character to want to do something about it are far far outnumbered by those who don't or simply don't care.
One major stumbling block is that those who are in a position which can make the most impact on change for the better are also those which have benefitted most from the current system and consequently would be hurt most from any major changes.

 

[Unfettered]

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 believe in being a good steward of the earth. But it must be left to individuals/families to decide what things they do or do not need, and will or will not use, to sustain themselves in the world in which we live. This is the natural order of things and has been since the beginning of time. No creation in nature has ever been denied this right by nature. It is not given to mankind to change this natural order. If people are robbed of this natural right, they are not free, but repressed and civilization, for them, is destroyed. It is immoral in the extreme for governments of any composition to repress persons in their right to pursue and provide subsistence for themselves.

It is immoral enough that governments seize all the land and partition it inequitably, leaving masses of people at the mercy of the favored few landowners to obtain shelter, food and other necessities, but now their means of commerce/exchange, transportation, heating, cooking, etc., are also to be forcibly appropriated and arbitrarily apportioned back to them by a self-appointed aristocracy? How can anyone who claims to care at all for human beings or humankind advocate for this kind of abuse?

Yes, we should take care of the earth. But no, I will not give an inch here. Like you, nature affords me the right to fight for life, and it is challenging enough already. If others would like to surrender to some self-assumed master their means of subsistence, they are free to do so and I sincerely hope they are happy in their circumstances. I have no interest in the green religion. Worship what and how you want and leave me to do the same. That is right. That is moral.

 

[Altfish]

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.

Some things are simple...
* Recycling
* All new houses must have solar panels
* No plastic shopping bags
* Encouraging active travel; ie cycle lanes, better public transport.
* High speed rail instead of short haul flights

You get the idea, none of those things mean that you give up anything.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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'ld say we should start en masse by replacing all energy stations that work on fossil fuels with modern modular nuclear stations, solar stations, wind, water,... whatever works best for the situation at and on the ground. And I feel like this should be a global effort operated through the UN and / or in corporation with other political blocs like EU and whatnot. The more the merrier.

Treat this like a war against emissions. Consider how many billions, trillions, governments around the world are willing to spend on weaponry and personel to fight an actual war. The budget for energy transition shouldn't be different. If you are going to count on private companies to invest and do this transition themselves, it either is not going to happen, or it is going to much too slow.

Because them shareholders want to see a profit, not an investment that will take them decades to recup. You can ask / force them to contribute, but you can't expect them to pay for the whole thing. They'll drag, they'll fight it and it's not going to be done in time.

Also vote in laws that puts a serious break on fossil driven transportation.

We wouldn't have to give anything up. It will only cost a lot, and that might hurt in several ways off course as the economy would take a hit.
So be it. Eat chicken for a while instead of beef.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yes, we should take care of the earth. But no, I will not give an inch here. Like you, nature affords me the right to fight for life, and it is challenging enough already. If others would like to surrender to some self-assumed master their means of subsistence, they are free to do so and I sincerely hope they are happy in their circumstances. I have no interest in the green religion. Worship what and how you want and leave me to do the same. That is right. That is moral.

That is a "cop-out", imo.

Central and local govt. have a responsibility to their citizens.
If it is deemed that it is for the good of the town/city, that a charge should be made for polluting vehicles, for example, we will ALWAYS have somebody who complains that it is "just another tax".

Some people have to live without a vehicle, but are forced to live on the main road. [the poor]
I'm sure they appreciate people not destroying their health through pollution!

..just an example..

 

[muhammad_isa]

I'ld say we should start en masse by replacing all energy stations that work on fossil fuels with modern modular nuclear stations..

Uh, oh..
Atomic dust on your eggs for breakfast, anybody?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Uh, oh..
Atomic dust on your eggs for breakfast, anybody?

Modern modular nuclear stations are quite different from those of the 1960's which were designed with a pencil and a ruler.
This mentality is the problem. They hear "nuclear station" and they think "chernobyl".

In reality, it is one of the safest and cleanest energy sources we have. And only even more so when it comes to modern designs.

You should inform yourself before jumping on your horse after reading the word "nuclear".

Here's a little graph for you:

And note that this data even includes all the old and "dirty" nuclear stations ever build. Including the chernobyl and fukushima disasters (which wouldn't happen with modern reactors).

When given the choice to live next to a nuclear power station as opposed to one that operates on fossil fuels, it's a total no brainer. I'll pick the nuclear station any day of the week.


Atomic dust on eggs? Not gonna happen.
However, keeping the fossil fuel stations, you'll be able to fry those eggs on the hood of your car in no time, any day of the week.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I believe in being a good steward of the earth. But it must be left to individuals/families to decide what things they do or do not need, and will or will not use, to sustain themselves in the world in which we live. This is the natural order of things and has been since the beginning of time. No creation in nature has ever been denied this right by nature. It is not given to mankind to change this natural order. If people are robbed of this natural right, they are not free, but repressed and civilization, for them, is destroyed. It is immoral in the extreme for governments of any composition to repress persons in their right to pursue and provide subsistence for themselves.

It is immoral enough that governments seize all the land and partition it inequitably, leaving masses of people at the mercy of the favored few landowners to obtain shelter, food and other necessities, but now their means of commerce/exchange, transportation, heating, cooking, etc., are also to be forcibly appropriated and arbitrarily apportioned back to them by a self-appointed aristocracy? How can anyone who claims to care at all for human beings or humankind advocate for this kind of abuse?

Yes, we should take care of the earth. But no, I will not give an inch here. Like you, nature affords me the right to fight for life, and it is challenging enough already. If others would like to surrender to some self-assumed master their means of subsistence, they are free to do so and I sincerely hope they are happy in their circumstances. I have no interest in the green religion. Worship what and how you want and leave me to do the same. That is right. That is moral.

First, I think your stance on this is irresponsible and incredibly selfish.

Secondly, you're right about one thing: we should expectn't "the individual" and "the families" to solve this mess.
Instead, "the individual" and "the families" shouldn't even given a choice.

They shouldn't even be able to buy a "dirty" car.

To me it's like with the CFK gasses that destroyed the ozone layer. We didn't just beg consumers to stop buying products that held said gas. Instead, we made it illegal for such products to exist.
Or asbestos in buildings. We didn't beg construction workers to simply stop using it. We made it illegal to use it. Additionally, we gave people incentive and subsidies to remove it from existing buildings. Today over here, when you buy a house that has asbestos in it, you have exactly one year to have it removed and renovated or you face monster fines.


Don't depend on average Joe to "change his ways". Instead, give him no other option.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Atomic dust on eggs? Not gonna happen..

Oh .. and you can guarantee that terrorist groups cannot sabotage, I suppose?

..same goes with high-speed rail .. disaster is far worse, when it DOES occur.
..and the same for air travel.
..when an airliner ditches on a major city.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Oh .. and you can guarantee that terrorist groups cannot sabotage, I suppose?

Terrorist groups can sabotage anything in theory.
However the fact that no nuclear power station has been sabotaged to date, should also count for something.

Nuclear power station are notoriously well protected.

And once again, you're still thinking about the type of stations that were designed in the 50s and 60s.
Stations designed in the last decade are very different. Much smaller, much more secure, much safer.


If it were so easy, don't you think it would have been done by now? I mean, it's not like we are short on terrorists who literally try to create a maximum of chaos and death, right?

..same goes with high-speed rail .. disaster is far worse, when it DOES occur.

..and the same for air travel.
..when an airliner ditches on a major city.

Sure.
Look at the graph.
It includes all data. if safety and disaster is what you are worrying about, then you should, literally, be 613 times more worried about gas power stations then nuclear stations. The number speaks for itself.

Why are you more comfortable with a technology that causes 613 times more deaths?
Do you understand how this is irrational?

It's like people who refuse to fly "because danger", but have no problems spending 10 hours a day in a car, which has a casualty rate (in %, not in absolute numbers) literally 1000s of times higher.

It's completely irrational.

 

[Unfettered]

That is a "cop-out", imo.

Central and local govt. have a responsibility to their citizens.
If it is deemed that it is for the good of the town/city, that a charge should be made for polluting vehicles, for example, we will ALWAYS have somebody who complains that it is "just another tax".

Some people have to live without a vehicle, but are forced to live on the main road. [the poor]
I'm sure they appreciate people not destroying their health through pollution!

..just an example..

I appreciate that. But it is not a cop-out. It is an expression against having someone else's religion imposed on me. That's what it is, and that's all it is. I assure you.

 

[jbg]

Some things are simple...
* Recycling

I wish that were true. Unfortunately I represented a "recycling company" during the early 2000's, for about eight years. Very few "recycled" items are re-used. Almost all of them go into landfill or are incinerated. There's really not much of an end-user taker. It's mostly a "feel-good" action that lets us pretend we're being environmentally conscious.

Some things are simple...
* * All new houses must have solar panels

You still need backup power that works 24-7-265 so again it's "pretend environmentalism." That backup power can't just be cranked up when the wind goes quiet or the skies go overcast.

* No plastic shopping bags

I know that there are plastic bag laws all over the place but most of those seem designed to make us uncomfortable. On Saturday, September 23, 2023 I was leaving the Acme supermarket. I purchased more than I expected. I had to run out to my car to get reusable bags in the driving, Ophelia-whipped rain to load my bags in the shelter of the store. I arrived home thoroughly drenched and chilled. The reason; people in India dispose of bags in the Ganges so we are being punished. We are giving up first-world convenience.

* Encouraging active travel; ie cycle lanes, better public transport.

This is done in New York City, except the "better public transport" part. As part of "vision zero" the City administration had taken the following actions, which I wonder if they are designed to deliberately create traffic jams and make motorists' lives miserable?

1. Shrinking five-lane avenues, such as 9th Avenue in NYC (with happens to lead to a major tunnel) to effectively two lanes when the bike lane and the bus lane aren't counted;
2. Traffic lights which restrict left turns from and to one-way streets;
3. Two bus lanes, 24/7, on Madison Avenue, creating middle-of-the-night traffic jams;
4. Blanket 25 mph speed limits;
5. Massive Citibike racks taking up a lane of traffic for almost the length of a block;
6. Traffic flow constriction on Third Avenue leading north to Queensboro Bridge;
7. Traffic flow constriction on Second Avenue leading to Queens Midtown Tunnel; and
8. The worst, concrete blocks reducing 43rd Street between Third and Lexington Avenues to one lane on the south side of the street for half the block, and the north side of the street for the other half?

Are they creating the "congestion" to allow for the "congestion pricing"?

As far as "better public transport" this is largely impractical at any reasonable cost. The "East Side Access" project to bring LIRR trains into Grand Central was at least ten years late, and a multiple of the original cost. The creation of the "Second Avenue Subway" has created a vestigial stump of a line, basically a train to nowhere. And look at the California "High Speed Rail" boondoggle. Need I say more?

* High speed rail instead of short haul flights

Look at the California "High Speed Rail" boondoggle. Need I say more?

Some things are simple...
************You get the idea, none of those things mean that you give up anything.

Nothing is simple except that you are advocating a system that doesn't work in replacement for a system that works.

 

[jbg]

We wouldn't have to give anything up. It will only cost a lot, and that might hurt in several ways off course as the economy would take a hit.
So be it. Eat chicken for a while instead of beef.

Who is going to pay for this dream....or nightmare?

 

[Heyo]

Who is going to pay for this dream....or nightmare?

Either we do - with $$, or the next generation does - with fighting extreme weather, flooding of all coasts and probably an eco dictatorship that tries to fix all the **** we leave them.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Observing and qualifying climate change is the job of pure science. Remediation is the job of applied science. These are two different areas of science. The former theorizes and correlated the phenomena. This is about the subjectivity of the consensus. It is the objectivity of applied scientists to deal with the real world. This gives applied science a better shot at being right. One would need to test, at real world conditions, and not just throw money at the problem or try to stick it to your political opponents, like the approach of the Left. Applied is about practical application, with practical good I mind for all, and not just the elite and their cronies.

The boneheads in charge of the subjective approach of pure science consensus, would need to get out of the way since they have no clue who to solve an applied problem that has no precedent. They are ignoring natural climate change and approaching it as a fully man made problem, which is naive; pseudo-applied pure science approach. The leaders will set themselves up for security; skim, while harming millions or billions.

The same group of environmentalists boneheads were pivotal in making nuclear power too expensive, thereby leading to the over dependence on fossil fuels, that they now claim is the problem. It was all about saving the earth from their fantasy of nuclear doom and gloom. Nuclear was ready to go in the 1960's, but instead they work hard to put us where we are. They have no clue. They had no vision of the future.

Next, automobiles used to pollute more, with much of that pollution, aerosol smog, that actually reversed the impact of CO2. They gave up nukes, went to oil and then removed the countering aerosols. Next the boneheads, to save the planet cleaned up coal fired plants that also made reversing aerosols and particles. Each time they think they are applied scientists, selling themselves as saviors and do gooders, they screw the pouch. The first thing would be to get the morons in the environmental climate bureaucracy, out of the way, less they screw us all, with good intensions and bad ideas. The global inflation and even the supply side problems, stoking inflation, came from the same do gooders. I think they mistake their underhanded con artist nature for intelligence.

I like the idea of investing in Africa, since that is the continent of natural and man made fire. Those fires gives off trillions of tons of CO2 per year. This rivals all man made sources combined. Regulating the natural fires could give us an CO2 offset, and time, while we develop better technology while not having to disrupt the world economies. We would not have to disrupt people lives, by energy rationing and black outs if with offset with fire control.

We need to invest in nuclear. Also, electric cars is not the way to go in the long term. Almost nobody still does plug in, in terms of computing , internet, and cell phones. Plug in will become obsolete. We live in a wireless world, where hydrogen fuel cells will be leading that frontier, way into the future, when electric cars are junked.

A fuel cell is very similar to a battery and generates electricity. But instead of plug-in, into a vulnerable grid that is not yet even built, you simply replace the portable hydrogen fuel, like filling up with gasoline. There is no combustion, just a chemical conversion of hydrogen to electricity, releasing water, with the rest of the auto, essentially electric.

A tank of hydrogen weighs 10% as much as an electric car battery. This weight advantage gives for extra savings and efficiency. Hydrogen has more energy per pound than gasoline or diesel, so it can be use by heavy machinery, trains, ships, etc, in all weather conditions, even where there is no electric grid. Hydrogen can even be made directly from solar panel electricity, for remote homesteader mobile fuel.

Many of the concerns with hydrogen are already addressed, such as hydrogen fuel tanks will be made of carbon fiber that can be dropped from a skyscraper or shot with a high powered rifle, with no damage. Hydrogen can also be made by catalytic conversion of ammonia at the point of sale, with ammonia safer to transport in bulk.

I'm definitely for hydrogen and nuclear as a pathway to a green climate environment.

Climate proponents only like to show the clean side of things and shove all the dirty aspects behind 'green' technology under the rug thinking nobody will notice.