Crying shame

[BruceK]

China gets it, not being hampered by attorneys they can deal with polluters the same way they deal with white collar corruption, firing squads or life in prison.

2 days in Guangzhou 2 years back would suggest China does not "get it". I`ve never seen airborne pollution like it.
In fairness, they are burning coal and smelting iron ore we(and perhaps Canada) sent them, and Australia would be the poorer without those export markets which carried us through the 2008 US originated GFC with relatively little downside effects.

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. HDH. While China IS doing a lot that seems right, there is a fair amount of corruption, graft and payola. I think some of those that have been prosecuted haven't played the "game" or have been so blatant in their sins that in order to save face, China is forced by tradition (honor above all else) to do something about it. The $$ is almighty there and up to a certain point, people are paid to be blind. I could be totally off base with this assumption. Not really that much different than the rest of the world but with terminal consequences.



Mr. s. "...deal with recognized pollution." That is exactly 100% my point to the letter! As I stated, climate change is a money making red herring. Any, all or none of the efforts being made to "combat" climate change may or may not work but somewhere, someone is getting rich. What may or may not come to pass is based purely on SPECULATION and modeling. I'm NOT saying in ANY fashion that the climate is independent of man's actions or that man has no part in what is happening but good grief, NOAA, for example, can't even predict the weather next WEEK accurately.



Meanwhile back at the local dump, garbage is piling up, in large part to over packaging and over consumption, toxic materials are leaching into the aquifers and methane gas is being pumped out by the ton.


Earlier on in this thread (I think) Chesapeake Bay was mentioned. There have been dozens if not hundreds of sewage spills in recent history and I expect more to come. Why? Why have the offenders not been closed down or heavily fined or forced to eliminate the possibilities of future spills? Aw, gee, we haven't got the money. It's too expensive. Yet, the world has spent million upon millions on CFL's (compact florescent lights) to "save energy" while polluting the environment with mercury.


I know, I'm flopping around a lot but there are SO many things that can be done RIGHT NOW to clean up existing and ongoing problems that I just get so frustrated with all this climate change remediation that may or may not have any effect 10, 20 or 100 years down the road.


OK. Rant over...

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. BK. Just saw your post #151. Yup, Guangzhou was brutal but as I mentioned, the Chinese ARE trying to clean up their act. $500+ billion for "green" energy or something around that amount. It took a long time to make the mess and will take a long time to clean it up and they really can't shut down to make all the changes all at once. I'm sure they have a plan.

 

[BruceK]

Greetings,
Mr. BK. Just saw your post #151. Yup, Guangzhou was brutal but as I mentioned, the Chinese ARE trying to clean up their act. $500+ billion for "green" energy or something around that amount. It took a long time to make the mess and will take a long time to clean it up and they really can't shut down to make all the changes all at once. I'm sure they have a plan.

My understanding is they are continuously building coal fired power plants to fuel industry. Good for Australia as an exporter of coal but not good for the air in China,and ultimately elsewhere.Maybe building such power plants is interim,but it`s hard to power smelters on renewables, as Australia (or at least part of it)knows. A necessary evil?
Depending on what happens with tariffs, China may not need so much energy, or so much of our coal.But a world trade recession is not a good way to find out. Note, the world oil price has dropped around 30% in the last month, though I think there are multiple causes for that.

 

[AusCan]

Although China is still building some coal fired power stations, they are leading the world in new solar and wind power installations. In 2016 the amount of solar power installations world wide increased by 50%. The majority of this increase was in China.

Still plenty of work to do there but at least they are not ignoring the problem.

 

[Delfin]

Please, Delfin, show me study that supports the following sentence, which was the basis for your post.

"However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic."

There is no citation, no reference, no nothing that describes where that 0.3% figure came from. It relies completely on the phrase "inspection of a claim...". Inspection by who? How? You have used that sentence to negate the "97% consensus" claim - but where does it come from? Thin air, as far as I can tell. Certainly not a peer reviewed study, as you have just claimed - unless the author simply neglected to mention the study? If it's peer reviewed, please provide the link to it.

While providing contrary data to a climate alarmist is like telling a Jihadi that Mohammed wasn't a prophet, in response to your request here is a journal paper (a.k.a. peer reviewed, therefore true) that assert that the former cartoonist's paper on scientific consensus, Mr. Cook, is bilgewater.

1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514002821?via=ihub

"Overall, data quality is low. Cook׳s validation test shows that the data are invalid. Data disclosure is incomplete so that key results cannot be reproduced or tested."

 

[Delfin]

Carl
The NYT had an article today discussing why the "its all about money" isn't the case. Using the numbers they cited, that may well be the case.

However, not only the carbon tax you've mentioned, but a whole host of budgets, grants and monies for federal and state EPA activities whether for staff, academia, contractors or external study groups seems to have been ignored. I'm not saying what these groups do is unnecessary but expenditures are there none-the-less.

For some reason, those who make the argument that skeptics of AGW must be motivated by money place no value on the vast sums being expended by governments promoting this concept. While I don't think that we will see a carbon tax anytime soon - it was just soundly defeated in liberal Washington State - a whole lot of money directly and indirectly will be spent battling this particular windmill.

One paper that is studiously ignored is Bjorn Lomborg's analysis of IPCC data on what the impact of the Paris Accords would be if completely adhered to. Lomborg is a major greenie, but his paper (peer reviewed, therefore true) found that the impact of spending trillions per the Paris Accords over the next 30 - 80 years would be a reduction in average global temps by 1/5th to 1/20th of a degree. In other words, no impact worth spending $50 on, much less killing poor people over.

You will never hear a climate alarmist acknowledge that this money might be better spent finding cures for diseases, education, etc. That, as much as anything indicates that climate alarmism is a religion, not a science, since it is fundamentally an irrational frame of mind.

So even granting the

 

[Delfin]

Species will adapt and evolve when faced with a relatively slow change, but we are heading for a biological disaster if we continue on the present path.

We're all going to die because they can grow corn in Manitoba? You are aware that contrary to predictions from alarmists, the Sahel is greening, right? Are you so sure a planet as warm as it has been many times before is bad, and if so, could you point me to any evidence of that theory?

I don’t understand the decision by some to do nothing.

What is doing "something" is hideously expensive and won't accomplish anything? Would that be a reason to do "nothing"?

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. BK. I understand China is still building coal plants but I would guess (might be completely wrong) that they are interim and comparatively cleaner than the old plants they may be replacing.

Somewhere I heard that China was planning on opening a new Nuclear power plant every year for the next 20 years.
I agree it WILL be difficult to sustain heavy industry with renewable energy given the current (hehe..) technology but if anyone can find a viable solution, I'd put my $$ on China.


About the ONLY good thing I appreciate about the Chinese government, in some cases, is what they decide to do, is done-good or bad. I use the Three Gorges Dam as an example: https://www.yangtze-river-cruises.com/three-gorges/pros-cons.html Article written in Chinese-English but gives a bit of an overview.


Can you even imagine if any other world government told a goodly number of their citizens "We're going to build X here. You'll all have to move"? HAH!!!

 

[AusCan]

Read the thread again. Possibly the root cause is people, too many. Or Trump because he doesn't like the Paris Accords because they are unfair to the US. Or Al Gore is a genius. Or computer models are ignored or skewed by those with an agenda. Yada yada. Deniers reign on both sides.

So many issues but a few simple facts always emerge. For starters:

• A trip to China and India and try to breathe,
• BTW, give the above two a free pass for a few more decades
• Visit man caused wildfire zones ,
• Examine areas where clear cutting and burning occurs for gaining arable land,
• Note chronically high PM 10 locations,
• Try to grasp the plight of poor nations where wood burning fires for heat and cooking are common etc.
• Overlook the reality of 100s of millions per year of new population
• And of course, pay no attention to above and say the US is at fault

Sunchaser,
I wasn’t specifically referencing this thread in regards to climate change denial. On the whole it has been a most welcome balanced discussion in comparison to some of the earlier OTDE rabble.

I agree that the problem is complex and will require a considerable multi-pronged attack to address the immense problem. I do get frustrated by the suggestion that there is no problem or there is nothing that we can do.

I’m aware of the difficulties in addressing the issues in developing countries after working for many years in places such as India, China, Africa and the Middle East.

Overpopulation is certainly one of the major factors. The fertility rate is now decreasing in almost every country worldwide but there is more that needs to be done to speed up the decrease. The global population is still expected to be increasing for another 100 years.

I do what I can to make a difference. Even though I work in the oil industry, I can make a huge difference there in my day to day decisions. Decisions that make money by avoiding the burning of hydrocarbons simply because it is easier.
I also push for a carbon tax. I can’t believe how people accept a tax on wages but are dead against a tax on something that is harmful.

We are all in this together. Fixing the problem may mean less money in my pocket but I’m ok with that.

Ok rant over.

 

[FF]

"I can’t believe how people accept a tax on wages but are dead against a tax on something that is harmful."


CO2 is plant food and its tiny increase is probably the reason for increased green areas and increased crop production , this is "harmful",,,, How?

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. FF. Water is essential for life yet one tiny drop in the fuel will ruin your diesel engine. Good stuff in the wrong place.

 

[dhays]

I know, I'm flopping around a lot but there are SO many things that can be done RIGHT NOW to clean up existing and ongoing problems that I just get so frustrated with all this climate change remediation that may or may not have any effect 10, 20 or 100 years down the road.

I certainly understand the reason for the rant. There are all kinds of reasons/excuses for not doing anything about man's impact on global warming.



- there are other environmental problems that need to be fixed that we aren't
- how do we know for sure what efforts we make now will be effective in 10, 20 or 100 years?
- what good does it do for the US (or North Amercan, or the EU, or Asia etc...) to reduce carbon emissions if the rest of the world doesn't? (or as our President said "the oceans are small...")


Those aren't easy issues with easy answers. Even so, the consequences of getting it wrong are serious. Not for us maybe, we are a bunch of old, white, wealthy white guys for the most part (apologies to BandB and Janet). However, the consequences of getting it wrong will impact my kids and grandchildren and I actually do care what happens to them.

 

[BruceK]

The world has to do the best it can on the information available. I believe that much of what is advocated is mere tinkering at the edges. Demand for goods and services from an excessive population is the root cause, unless that gets resolved papering over the cracks is symptomatic treatment not addressing the prime cause.
Wind and sun are good generators of electricity but have obvious limitations. They cannot supply heavy power needs all the time, there has to be other forms of generation in the mix. Some states claim they can run solely on renewables but when wind or sun fails and heavy demand remains they want to plug into other states which have a mix of generation for their supply. Realism and commonsense is needed, a Candide like trust of renewables only is appealing but won`t cut it.

 

[ancora]

Not to worry... problem solved by the "Green New Deal." Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's plan would end U.S. use of nuclear energy and fossil fuels- within 10 years." How can you beat that?

 

[MurrayM]

...Demand for goods and services from an excessive population is the root cause, unless that gets resolved papering over the cracks is symptomatic treatment not addressing the prime cause..

Nature has a way of balancing things out.

My money is on a good old pandemic, which has proven fairly effective in knocking back human populations in the past.

Meanwhile, as we're sweating the small stuff, there are bits of rock whizzing around the Universe. Apparently, chunks of crust fell in British Columbia after a dinosaur obliterating asteroid smacked into the Yucatan.

Mind boggling...

 

[MurrayM]

Cheesy, but hints at what may have happened:

 

[AusCan]

The world has to do the best it can on the information available. I believe that much of what is advocated is mere tinkering at the edges. Demand for goods and services from an excessive population is the root cause, unless that gets resolved papering over the cracks is symptomatic treatment not addressing the prime cause.
Wind and sun are good generators of electricity but have obvious limitations. They cannot supply heavy power needs all the time, there has to be other forms of generation in the mix. Some states claim they can run solely on renewables but when wind or sun fails and heavy demand remains they want to plug into other states which have a mix of generation for their supply. Realism and commonsense is needed, a Candide like trust of renewables only is appealing but won`t cut it.

Bruce
I agree with you about the need realism. There are far to many “greenies” that have views unsupported by science and they tend to give the whole movement a bad name. Standard wind and photovoltaic solar power stations will work up to a ratio of about 40% of total power generation. Going higher than this requires some type of storage such as batteries, pumped water systems, molten salt heat banks etc. Electricity to hydrogen conversion is another option. Getting to 100% renewable will be impossible in the short term but there is no reason Australia cannot reach 60% in the next 10 years while decreasing the price of power.

As a side note - The current reason for our sudden spike in electricity prices is due to a huge overestimate of gas reserves over the last 15 years leaving little left over to run domestic gas fired power stations after meeting LNG contracts. The lack of foresight has left both sides of government and the oil & gas industry extremely embarrassed and everyone is trying to sweep the issue under the mat. The electricity companies are loving it.

 

[MurrayM]

Fusion reactors inch closer: https://www.ipp.mpg.de/4550215/11_18?c=14226

 

[MurrayM]

...and while we wait for fusion...

https://www.ted.com/talks/taylor_wi...nuclear_fission_reactors?language=en#t-531501

 

[FF]

"However, the consequences of getting it wrong will impact my kids and grandchildren and I actually do care what happens to them."

IF they are US based its far more likely that the vast debt and unfunded liabilities of the gov debt will effect their lives more than extra plant food in the air.

"Fusion reactors inch closer: https://www.ipp.mpg.de/4550215/11_18?c=14226"

About time , its been forever waiting for fuel cells to mature.

 

[Group9]

But, none of us are so concerned that we are getting rid of our carbon spewing powerboats, whose only purpose is to entertain us, right?

Just checking.

Me, either. When the people who say they believe in that stuff, actually start acting like they believe in that stuff, then I'll get concerned.

 

[MurrayM]

But, none of us are so concerned that we are getting rid of our carbon spewing powerboats, whose only purpose is to entertain us, right?

Just checking.

Me, either. When the people who say they believe in that stuff, actually start acting like they believe in that stuff, then I'll get concerned.

Everything is relative.

We have one vehicle (Honda Element) and I bicycle to work when there isn't snow or ice on the ground. We live in a city of about 9,000 people, so driving across town takes 5 minutes. We don't haul a camping trailer or have motorcycles, ATV's, snowmobiles, or jet ski's. We also don't eat beef or jet around the world for fancy holidays. We have electric baseboard heat where the electricity is derived from hydro, or dammed river systems.

The one negative against us after our rather small boat is a small wood stove in which we burn pellets made from sawmill waste wood. It gets fired up a couple times a day to take the edge off during winter and when the power goes out, like a couple years ago when we got 7 feet of snow in 2 days and the power was out for three days.

Believe or deny human influenced climate change all you want, but our effects on the environment are planetary in scale as evidenced by a radioactive fallout layer from above ground nuclear testing and effects such as this:
https://www.iflscience.com/plants-a...itter-our-oceans-not-only-where-you-d-expect/

In a million years that radioactive layer and fossilized remains of seabirds with stomachs full of plastic will be a significant change in the geologic record. Some have taken to calling it the Anthropocene:
https://www.nature.com/news/anthropocene-the-human-age-1.17085

Call me a dreamer, but I think if shareholders were somehow held partially responsible for the damages, cleanup, and remediation of negative effects caused by the companies they invested in (say, by garnishing a percentage of future dividend payments or profits made from dumping their stock after a disaster) this might make companies/corporations more responsible for their actions and people might be more thoughtful about what they invested in.

Think global, act local, be responsible, and TOHO! (Today Only Happens Once)

 

[Bigsfish]

Great point.

So my neighbor buys an ohm, amp, volt, whatever and is bragging to me how he is helping the world and I should be ashamed. Well, the other day I see him driving a big Mercedes and the tiny electric car is not there. I approached him with “ where is you save the world elf car” being the diplomat that I am. He said it left him too many times and he gave it away. Oh well.

 

[ancora]

I will become a believer when I see all the believing movie stars and politicos flying commercial rather than private planes.

 

[Northern Spy]

Been a few days, and a few pages back, but yes Canada ships a lot of coal to China. Most of it, (the good metallurgical grade) is from Canada. But about one-third of it is thermal coal from the US. By the way, North America's largest coal export port is Vancouver.

If NGOs were really concerned with greenhouse gas emissions and whale strikes in the Salish Sea, they would be protesting and blockading Westshore Terminals.

China does a wonderful job of disinformation and distraction. They essentially provide language we in the West want to hear, whether it is true or not. It is a major part of their diplomacy. It is fairly easy to accomplish with a controlled (or at least moderated) press.

As far as the rest of it goes...

Environmentalism, as it exists and is practiced today, is a luxury for the wealthy and a burden for everyone else. And not the "global injustice" of environmental effects that they would have you believe, but obscene taxes and subsidies that come out of the average Joe's pocket.

Environmentalism has been monetized and politically weaponized to the point that I believe it is starting to unravel.

The Clean Air Act of 1970 and the Clean Water Act of 1972 were revolutionary, needed, and brought dramatic change and wealth to the US. That was true environmentalism. A win-win.

But it seems that some of the more modern propositions and laws seem to be based on self-fullfiling prophecies, because the actual problem ceased to exist. Create a monster and slay it. Often win-lose.

Yes, perhaps have passed the line from skeptic to cynic. But I live in a country, in a time, that governs using fear and emotion, not critical thinking and logic.

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. NS. Pretty astute observations. Partially agree with your China statement but I experienced several things, while visiting China, that lead me to believe there is some truth in their "propaganda".



As far as the rest goes...


I don't think the US of A holds a monopoly in using fear and emotion to sway public sentiments.

Edit: Sorry just saw your location. Canada does not hold a monopoly either.


Environmentalism has, today, become "climate change". As I mentioned (ranted?) previously, modification/remediation of our climate has become the buzz word to the detriment of the REAL environment. That environment we have to live in, here and now. Climate change is the red herring I mentioned in my previous tirade.



I'm pretty sure a large number of municipalities both here and abroad, advocate and supposedly practice recycling yet I've seen garbage pick ups in various areas where the "recycling" container is tossed in with all the other garbage and hauled directly to the land fill. I've checked. NO recycling depot in the area BUT 2 big landfills. Yup. Everyone has to have containers for recycling (tax levy $$).
Great idea but other than the sale of the recycling bins there was no profit in it.



A local 'burg proposed construction of a garbage incinerator with an attached sorting center to generate electricity AND prolong the life of the, over full, local land fill . That was 5 years ago and a few of the population STILL complain about that facility even though it hasn't been built and probably never will. Meanwhile I've lost track of the multiple mega-tons of cardboard and paper in storage because no one wants to buy it. Yup. "Average Joe" is paying for the enlargement of the dump and the storage of the cardboards AND he's the one pre-sorting the garbage to make it easier for recycling.


There goes my blood pressure again! Bring back OTDE I need to say something...

 

[Bigsfish]

RT. Say anything you want, I’m sure we will all appreciate your words of wisdom.

 

[BruceK]

All of which, RTF, suggests what I already believe, that mankind can no longer dispose of rubbish generated by our existence without making things worse, without producing other pollution forms, without people getting annoyed by how it`s done,even if it is only by "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic". It`s symptomatic of where our "civilization" is in its life cycle.

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. B. Thanks but I don't think so...

Mr. BK. "...can no longer dispose...". I disagree. Man is quite able to dispose of garbage in an environmentally safe (by current standards) manner but there is NO profit in it AND a goodly majority, for whatever reason, don't care.



EVERY stage of a products "life" from inception of an idea to you putting that product in your pocket and walking out of the store, involves PROFIT: Sale of the idea, sourcing materials for the item, manufacturing, packaging, shipping, wholesale and finally retail. All $$ in someone's pocket except at the end of life for the item. Don't even mention excess packaging.


I don't know about Aus but years ago, here, when you bought a soda, you paid a deposit on the bottle. Turn in the bottle, get $.02 back in your pocket. NEVER saw bottles on the side of the road or in alleys (unless broken). Kids would scour the landscape for pocket change. Alas it became cheaper to produce and market one use bottles and the inevitable mess ensued. Some states have container (cans/bottles) deposits but not all.