Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

[fskimospy]

Are you pushing for taxes to cover every negative externality of any product? If so then a lot of cities will owe a shit ton of money for the light pollution and other externalities they produce. Or is somehow fossil fuels the one and only thing you believe we should "care about what the market thinks"?

The idea that costs associated with light pollution are even on the same planet as those associated with climate change is an exercise in absurdity. In a perfect world all negative externalities would be accounted for. In our imperfect world however we can probably just focus on the giant, planet altering ones first and then revisit light pollution later.

You’re grasping at straws here because you know you’re wrong.

And are you bothering to consider the net balance of positive and negative externalities of products such as fossil fuels, such as that while they "emit carbon" they also have the positive externality of allowing billions to enjoy standards of living above what was typical in the 18th century?

That is not a positive externality. An externality is a cost or benefit accrued to someone who is not a party to the transaction. The people using fossil fuel power to enjoy higher standards of living are definitely parties. This is untrue for carbon emissions as we will all be impacted by climate change regardless of how much fossil fuel energy we personally consume.

 

[glenn1]

Don't have a carbon tax if that's the sticking point. Instead divert funds from the military in a Manhattan style program to research, develop and deploy renewables and better storage solutions. That's a matter of national security as well since it's likely our grid can be taken down at need by cyberwarfare.

Public funding of research can be tied to condition where those who participate are paid well for discoveries, but all IP remains the property of the government who license out to private companies which compete with each other in th market to manufacture whatever product is developed. This includes technologies for electric or carbon neutral fuel sources for vehicles.

I'm fine with that but just dumping money on a problem doesn't always result in a solution. You could throw a trillion or ten trillion dollars into a "Manhattan Project" style effort and it won't magically produce new battery technology, or materials, et cetera any more than "building a wall" would stop illegal immigration even if you spent the funds to build said wall. Folks like @fskimospy will need to come to terms with the fact of things like that no amount of R&D money is probably going to result in a vehicle powered by non-fossil fuels that actually meets the needs and use cases of the poor and middle class at a cost they can afford in the next couple decades. Or that solar power generation would still need to be supplemented by fossil fuel baseload generation for the foreseeable future. Moving from a low percentage of "renewable energy" things to a larger but still minority share of the energy mix is easier (say 5% to 15%), scaling from 15% to 80% is an entirely different story and I think most vastly underestimate the scope of what they think can be accomplished - if was as easy as they think the market would have already moved way faster to make the switch.

 

[Denly]

From scanning this thread at least "both side" aware of climate change is real and CO2 need to reduce, that's a major improvement there.

It is funny people arguing tax, cost and stuff but didn't ask what did I do to help. Do you drive a vehicle with under 30mpg just because you can? Do you compost? Do you reuse water to water your plants?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm fine with that but just dumping money on a problem doesn't always result in a solution. You could throw a trillion or ten trillion dollars into a "Manhattan Project" style effort and it won't magically produce new battery technology, or materials, et cetera any more than "building a wall" would stop illegal immigration even if you spent the funds to build said wall. Folks like @fskimospy will need to come to terms with the fact of things like that no amount of R&D money is probably going to result in a vehicle powered by non-fossil fuels that actually meets the needs and use cases of the poor and middle class at a cost they can afford in the next couple decades. Or that solar power generation would still need to be supplemented by fossil fuel baseload generation for the foreseeable future. Moving from a low percentage of "renewable energy" things to a larger but still minority share of the energy mix is easier (say 5% to 15%), scaling from 15% to 80% is an entirely different story and I think most vastly underestimate the scope of what they think can be accomplished - if was as easy as they think the market would have already moved way faster to make the switch.

The main problem isn't technology but IP. I've been following the developments of technology in this field for many years and it turns out that companies quietly acquire the IP of more promising innovation and bury it. Then court battles start like Apple/Samsung and most times we see nothing. Find a promising technology, sell it and become rich, the buyer chooses not to implement because it's profitable to pay lawyers or to protect one's existing investments from competing technologies.

Regarding electric vehicles there is much improvement that needs to be done and much which can and again the IP people are waiting to pounce and others to kill and bury.

Well screw em.

Back to vehicles, we don't need to radically redesign them. Instead, phase out (in a hurry) their fuel source where possible and substitute biologically produced alternatives. There are organisms which exist that produce the equivalent of fossil fuel by taking carbon from the atmosphere and use the sun as power resulting in a zero carbon burden. The entire infrastructure for distribution exists, no trillions of investment needed for that. What it requires is a huge investment in something which would limit opportunities for companies who would then be forced to reinvent themselves.

The nice thing is that little profit need be made by government investment lowering the costs of fuel and providing a key item for commerce to be plentiful, reliable, and free of world political nonsense driving up prices when the King of Oilvania farts.

Note this isn't "someday in the distant future", this is here and now and only one possibility, but provided benefits to the economy even if government funded.

One gallon or 100 trillion, this fuel produces only what it takes from the environment and to which it returns.

Renewables can cut net production of CO2 and we lower our impact on ourselves, because that's what this is really about. The environment is secondary to most people, but put them in a room, raise the temp and lower the oxygen and suddenly it's the most important thing there is. Globally that's a sign that we're already dead.

 

[K1052]

The main problem isn't technology but IP. I've been following the developments of technology in this field for many years and it turns out that companies quietly acquire the IP of more promising innovation and bury it. Then court battles start like Apple/Samsung and most times we see nothing. Find a promising technology, sell it and become rich, the buyer chooses not to implement because it's profitable to pay lawyers or to protect one's existing investments from competing technologies.

Regarding electric vehicles there is much improvement that needs to be done and much which can and again the IP people are waiting to pounce and others to kill and bury.

Well screw em.

Back to vehicles, we don't need to radically redesign them. Instead, phase out (in a hurry) their fuel source where possible and substitute biologically produced alternatives. There are organisms which exist that produce the equivalent of fossil fuel by taking carbon from the atmosphere and use the sun as power resulting in a zero carbon burden. The entire infrastructure for distribution exists, no trillions of investment needed for that. What it requires is a huge investment in something which would limit opportunities for companies who would then be forced to reinvent themselves.

The nice thing is that little profit need be made by government investment lowering the costs of fuel and providing a key item for commerce to be plentiful, reliable, and free of world political nonsense driving up prices when the King of Oilvania farts.

Note this isn't "someday in the distant future", this is here and now and only one possibility, but provided benefits to the economy even if government funded.

One gallon or 100 trillion, this fuel produces only what it takes from the environment and to which it returns.

Renewables can cut net production of CO2 and we lower our impact on ourselves, because that's what this is really about. The environment is secondary to most people, but put them in a room, raise the temp and lower the oxygen and suddenly it's the most important thing there is. Globally that's a sign that we're already dead.

We have all the requisite technology already, just a matter of economies of scale and incremental advances continuing to bring prices down on batteries at this point. Battery pack cost is set to fall below $100/kWh in the next few (2-4) years at which point it's game over for fossil fuels. The diesel scandals have actually accelerated the move since the Euro and Chinese markets aren't going to swallow that technology anymore and even the bigs like BMW/VW/Benz all chase Tesla now who is doing what they said couldn't be done.

 

[theeedude]

Is there anything that Republican party touches where the result is not a disaster of some sort?

 

[mikeymikec]

IP != workable solution.

 

[glenn1]

We have all the requisite technology already, just a matter of economies of scale and incremental advances continuing to bring prices down on batteries at this point. Battery pack cost is set to fall below $100/kWh in the next few (2-4) years at which point it's game over for fossil fuels. The diesel scandals have actually accelerated the move since the Euro and Chinese markets aren't going to swallow that technology anymore and even the bigs like BMW/VW/Benz all chase Tesla now who is doing what they said couldn't be done.

It's a bit more than a matter of "economies of scale" and "incremental advances" and you can't always force technology just by throwing money at the problem. If it were then the military would be absolutely leading the way with battery powered armored vehicles and solar powered aircraft. They don't because the technology isn't feasible, not because they just feel like burning oil. There's so much low hanging fruit that could be harvested in this realm (everything from LEED certified buildings that cost trivially more than "standard" buildings to solar powered water heaters that have significantly better ROI and payback time than whole-house PV systems) that looking at a huge and regressive "solution" like a carbon tax seems counterproductive. As I said before, you could raise the costs of fossil fuels 10x or even 100x and it's not going to make someone buy an non fossil fuel solution if it doesn't meet their needs. Hell, we can't get folks to adopt things like electric powered gardening tools nowadays even though they'd be better suited for most (and cheaper ever device life) than a gas-powered mower or whatever.

 

[fskimospy]

From scanning this thread at least "both side" aware of climate change is real and CO2 need to reduce, that's a major improvement there.

It is funny people arguing tax, cost and stuff but didn't ask what did I do to help. Do you drive a vehicle with under 30mpg just because you can? Do you compost? Do you reuse water to water your plants?

While in some ways conservatives now admitting that liberals were right all along and climate change is real is an improvement but it's still a pretty small one. All it's really resulted in is different excuses as to why we should still do nothing.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

While in some ways conservatives now admitting that liberals were right all along and climate change is real is an improvement but it's still a pretty small one. All it's really resulted in is different excuses as to why we should still do nothing.

I swear, every time I hear/read someone say 'renewables/electric vehicles can't cover 100% of use cases, so we should do nothing' I want to punch something.

 

[glenn1]

I swear, every time I hear/read someone say 'renewables/electric vehicles can't cover 100% of use cases, so we should do nothing' I want to punch something.

Thankfully no one is stopping you from buying renewables or electric vehicles if they do meet your needs. The question is whether others should be allowed to not buy if they don't meet their needs, or at least buy without suffering hugely punitive costs and hassles for doing so.

 

[JSt0rm]

From scanning this thread at least "both side" aware of climate change is real and CO2 need to reduce, that's a major improvement there.

It is funny people arguing tax, cost and stuff but didn't ask what did I do to help. Do you drive a vehicle with under 30mpg just because you can? Do you compost? Do you reuse water to water your plants?

its too late. Whoever was in charge in the 80's and 90's should of done something. We all know who that generation is.

 

[K1052]

It's a bit more than a matter of "economies of scale" and "incremental advances" and you can't always force technology just by throwing money at the problem. If it were then the military would be absolutely leading the way with battery powered armored vehicles and solar powered aircraft. They don't because the technology isn't feasible, not because they just feel like burning oil. There's so much low hanging fruit that could be harvested in this realm (everything from LEED certified buildings that cost trivially more than "standard" buildings to solar powered water heaters that have significantly better ROI and payback time than whole-house PV systems) that looking at a huge and regressive "solution" like a carbon tax seems counterproductive. As I said before, you could raise the costs of fossil fuels 10x or even 100x and it's not going to make someone buy an non fossil fuel solution if it doesn't meet their needs. Hell, we can't get folks to adopt things like electric powered gardening tools nowadays even though they'd be better suited for most (and cheaper ever device life) than a gas-powered mower or whatever.

I have no idea why you are on about the military. The highways aren't congested with M1 tanks trying to get to work.

Energy efficiency programs (federal and state) go hand in hand with clean power. Some states have individually made a lot of headway on this as when they pass a RPS there is basically always a building efficiency component. This is in no small part how electricity consumption has effectively become mostly decoupled from population and economic growth.

 

[JSt0rm]

Thankfully no one is stopping you from buying renewables or electric vehicles if they do meet your needs. The question is whether others should be allowed to not buy if they don't meet their needs, or at least buy without suffering hugely punitive costs and hassles for doing so.

price parity is coming soon. The issue is trump putting tariffs on solar because its competing with coal. Basically we need all the boomers to leave all positions of power then we may have a chance (we dont have a chance. its too late).

 

[JSt0rm]

I just got a bmw i3 and aside from looking weird its a great car. Better torque 0-40 then my cayman and no gas ever.

 

[JSt0rm]

I have no idea why you are on about the military. The highways aren't congested with M1 tanks trying to get to work.

Energy efficiency programs (federal and state) go hand in hand with clean power. Some states have individually made a lot of headway on this as when they pass a RPS there is basically always a building efficiency component. This is in no small part how electricity consumption has effectively become mostly decoupled from population and economic growth.

A tank cant site for 20 minutes at a dc charger every day. I dont know why he would bring this up...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/willia...s-enamored-of-electric-vehicles/#21a797505466

https://electrek.co/2017/10/18/us-army-electric-revolution-official-talks-all-electric-brigades/

http://www.climatechangenews.com/20...end-2-4-billion-on-electric-vehicles-by-2020/

 

[K1052]

I just got a bmw i3 and aside from looking weird its a great car. Better torque 0-40 then my cayman and no gas ever.

On our second i3 ourselves. There is no better city car that I've ever driven. Hits 40 in the blink of an eye and you can park it anywhere.

 

[glenn1]

I have no idea why you are on about the military. The highways aren't congested with M1 tanks trying to get to work.

The U.S. military is the single biggest user of fossil fuels in the world. If they could power their vehicles using renewable energy it would be a bigger savings in carbon emissions than every Prius ever made put together by far. The DoD uses nearly the equivalent of the entire capacity of PV electricity generation in the entire United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_usage_of_the_United_States_military

<snip> According to the 2005 CIA World Factbook, if it were a country, the DoD would rank 34th in the world in average daily oil use </snip>

 

[digiram]

Money spent on cleaning up the environment and getting rid of pollution is money well spent. Regardless of whether you believe in climate change or not, don't you want your kids to live in a cleaner world? I remember the jokes of the the boston harbour pollution as a kid in Boston, and now it is gorgeous. Take a stroll through the harbor on almost all my visit to see family there. I lived in Buffalo most of my life, and the great lakes cleanup has done wonders for my city. Property value has skyrocketted in the west side where I grew up. It's amazing.

 

[K1052]

The U.S. military is the single biggest user of fossil fuels in the world. If they could power their vehicles using renewable energy it would be a bigger savings in carbon emissions than every Prius ever made put together by far. The DoD uses nearly the equivalent of the entire capacity of PV electricity generation in the entire United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_usage_of_the_United_States_military

<snip> According to the 2005 CIA World Factbook, if it were a country, the DoD would rank 34th in the world in average daily oil use </snip>

Decarbonizing the US grid largely decarbonizes the military's electrical supply....since they buy from the grid.

Average daily us fuel consumption is almost 400M gpd. Military makes up 13M-ish of that.

 

[K1052]

Money spent on cleaning up the environment and getting rid of pollution is money well spent. Regardless of whether you believe in climate change or not, don't you want your kids to live in a cleaner world? I remember the jokes of the the boston harbour pollution as a kid in Boston, and now it is gorgeous. Take a stroll through the harbor on almost all my visit to see family there. I lived in Buffalo most of my life, and the great lakes cleanup has done wonders for my city. Property value has skyrocketted in the west side where I grew up. It's amazing.

Yes, reduced NOX/PM/SO2 has immense and tangible benefits as does strict prohibitions on dumping industrial runoff and untreated sewage.

 

[Viper1j]

Thank you for helping create the political fiasco, sheeple. Don't join cults...ever. This whole thing has always been, and will always be, leftist fear mongering, while trying to extract money and raise taxes. Here is a clue: No amount of money is going to change what mother nature wants to do. If you think I'm wrong, try bribing tornadoes. Fuckme running!
There is a Trump cult and there is a climate change cult. Both are misguided.
Again- Climate doesn't care about money and it's going to do what it's going to do,with, or without us. Don't make your sucker bets and stop listening to people who are paid to make you a believer. IOW..don't be an idiot.

Couldn't have said it better...

 

[zinfamous]

Thank you for helping create the political fiasco, sheeple. Don't join cults...ever. This whole thing has always been, and will always be, leftist fear mongering, while trying to extract money and raise taxes. Here is a clue: No amount of money is going to change what mother nature wants to do. If you think I'm wrong, try bribing tornadoes. Fuckme running!
There is a Trump cult and there is a climate change cult. Both are misguided.
Again- Climate doesn't care about money and it's going to do what it's going to do,with, or without us. Don't make your sucker bets and stop listening to people who are paid to make you a believer. IOW..don't be an idiot.

The irony here is that you are the one that is actually listening to people that are explicitly paid, $$$$$$$$$, to make you believe that man-made global warming is false. THis is the energy industry, and this is no secret.

Meanwhile, Climate scientists, who make like, $, aren't really paid anything to make you believe anything. They just collect and look at data, and advice as all scientists have always done.

But somehow you think you aren't part of a cult, after obviously speaking falsely about the money disparity with the industry that is spending mad cash to convince you of a lie.

 

[Blackjack200]

@Perknose
Dave, I've been a bit of a jerk in your thread. For this, I apologize.
Do I believe in climate change? Yes I do. Do I agree with the way some people think they can solve it? No. I'm a proponent of personal responsibility, for being good stewards of the planet. I disagree that growing government, more regulations and taxes is going to solve it. I don't think throwing money at it, via taxation, is the answer. You will always have people who don't give a shit how they pollute, or litter. I do applaud you for caring.

Do you oppose the massive government spending on the military, paramilitary and police forces, surveillance, prisons, border patrol, drug enforcement, etc., or do you only oppose "growing government" when it's paying for something you don't want?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The U.S. military is the single biggest user of fossil fuels in the world. If they could power their vehicles using renewable energy it would be a bigger savings in carbon emissions than every Prius ever made put together by far. The DoD uses nearly the equivalent of the entire capacity of PV electricity generation in the entire United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_usage_of_the_United_States_military

<snip> According to the 2005 CIA World Factbook, if it were a country, the DoD would rank 34th in the world in average daily oil use </snip>

The US military is invested in blowing things up. They aren't looking for a solution because they can kill with fossil fuels. There's nothing that's not addressable, it's just a matter of the proper solution.

If you or anyone else can come up with a solar powered tank then congrats. You won the Universe by breaking the established laws of physics. If all solar energy was absorbed that touched the machine it still couldn't work. You would have to extract more power than it is provided, a neat trick. It could however move on carbon net-zero fuel I've described.

"Throwing money" at things is hardly what I'm suggesting. I'm talking on a focused R&D system and unless you are suggesting that the ultimate technology came gushing out of the ground to power an REO more than a century ago I'd disagree.

We're not talking about extracting energy from the vacuum nor inventing Unobtanium. This is a matter of existing or next level technology. It was far harder to build a Bomb or get to the Moon in terms of science and technology which existed at their beginnings.

It's a matter of will and money to implement what we have now and coordinated research to move on. We aren't inventing Star Trek here. Honestly, you represent a major hurdle, or the attitude you project. Cars will never work, if God had intended us to fly he'd given us wings, we'll never get to the Moon.

That's not a rational argument against the obtainable.