Climate Change - General Discussion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-11-2017, 11:41 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
A carbon tax across the board would be the best method to deal with exporting CO2 emissions. As it is now, externalizing the costs of burning fossil fuels has warped the world economy. That simply isn't honest accounting.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2017, 01:06 PM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
Just so you guys understand the kind of ignorance climate change is up against, here is part of the hearings of Kathleen Hartnett for Council on Environmental Quality. It's a real eye-opener. I think I read she used to be an assistant to Nancy Reagan. Rolleyes














https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/poli...d60d7663d3

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like dancefortwo's post
12-11-2017, 03:46 PM (This post was last modified: 12-11-2017 03:58 PM by Thoreauvian.)
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
(12-11-2017 01:06 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  Just so you guys understand the kind of ignorance climate change is up against, here is part of the hearings of Kathleen Hartnett for Council on Environmental Quality.

One of the most effective denialist strategies is to cast doubt on the science. The general public often doesn't know any better, and too often believe the correct information is really politically motivated.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2017, 07:14 PM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
"BONN, Germany — A handful of Democratic governors and scores of other lawmakers and mayors are mounting an insurgency at the United Nations climate conference here, orchestrating a highly choreographed campaign to persuade world leaders that President Donald Trump doesn’t speak for the United States on climate change."

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/1...ump-244814
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thoreauvian's post
12-11-2017, 08:29 PM (This post was last modified: 12-11-2017 08:35 PM by Kaneda.)
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
The Shipping Industry Needs to Deliver Cleaner Cargo Ships, or We’re All Sunk

Posted on November 12, 2017 by Lambert Strether

Lambert here: We could do a lot more local manufacturing, as one source mentions. Or work out a way to eliminate labor arbitrage, as nobody mentions.

By Maria Gallucci, the 2017-2018 Energy Journalism Fellow at the University of Texas at Austin. Originally published at Grist.

QUOTE:
"The platform overlooking the Panama Canal’s Pacific exit is buzzing with energy on a muggy October afternoon. Tourists cram together, jostling for the best views of the blue container ship gliding by in the gray-green water below. The ship’s crewmembers wave from aboard the 690-foot-long vessel, smiling as they end their eight-hour, 48-mile journey.

An employee brandishing a wireless microphone — the canal’s hype man — leads the crowd in a series of cheers, his voice as bombastic as a sports announcer’s. “Let’s give them a round of applause!” he booms in Spanish and then English. The visitors heartily oblige, clapping for the sailors aboard the Greek ship named Em Corfu.

Next in line is a colossal Japanese carrier that just unloaded cars on the Eastern Seaboard of the United States. Its blue metal sides block out the sky. Behind that comes a red tanker hauling liquefied natural gas produced in the United States to terminals in Mexico.

"Watching ships pass through the century-old Panama Canal offers a glimpse into our modern economy. Every day, vessels converge here to move billions of dollars’ worth of food, fuel, cars, clothing, raw materials, and electronics to the far corners of the world.

It’s awe-inspiring. But it’s also fairly alarming.

About 90 percent of everything we buy will travel on ships like these at some point. And all of these behemoths burn fossil fuel, contributing significantly to the warming atmosphere and shifting climate patterns.

Many cargo ships still use “bunker fuel” — the sludgy dregs of the petroleum refining process. The noxious blend is dirt-cheap, making it possible to charge next to nothing to ship goods internationally. All of which means our unbridled consumerism hitches a ride on some of the dirtiest vehicles on earth. (At least they hold tons of stuff, right?)

The industry’s reliance on high-carbon fuel poses a major stumbling block for global efforts to rein in pollution. A few companies are ramping up investment in pilot projects that use renewable fuels and cleaner technologies. And a vocal minority within the industry is clamoring for a maritime climate policy to spur more innovation. But on the whole, there’s widespread reluctance to adopt meaningful change.

Clean shipping advocates plan to spotlight the sector’s emissions at the United Nations Climate Change Conference, which opens today in Bonn, Germany. Known as COP23, the gathering marks two years since the world agreed in Paris on a landmark climate accord — one that the Trump administration plans to abandon. The agreement, however, excluded pollution from international shipping and aviation in its targets to limit global warming. Officials had argued that those industries don’t easily fit into national or regional emissions schemes — and so they were left to regulate themselves.

Experts say regulatory action and big, bold investments will be essential to curbing the shipping industry’s contribution to global warming. Left unchecked, its carbon footprint is expected to soar in coming decades — just as emissions from cars and power plants flatline or decline. That means shipping could cancel out progress in other sectors.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO), the industry’s main regulator, suggests that carbon emissions from shipping could shoot up as much as 250 percent by 2050 as the world’s population grows and economies expand. At that point, the European Parliament estimates the industry could produce 17 percent of global emissions, up from less than 3 percent today.

But Tristan Smith, a leading shipping researcher at University College London’s Energy Institute, notes companies still have little reason to spend their time and money building a greener cargo fleet. “A very large proportion of the sector is really not interested in doing anything until the very last minute that the regulation hits,” he says."

"Men willingly believe what they wish." -Julius Caesar
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Kaneda's post
12-11-2017, 10:13 PM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
(12-11-2017 07:14 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  "BONN, Germany — A handful of Democratic governors and scores of other lawmakers and mayors are mounting an insurgency at the United Nations climate conference here, orchestrating a highly choreographed campaign to persuade world leaders that President Donald Trump doesn’t speak for the United States on climate change."

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/1...ump-244814

And so it begins.
As I've said in other posts, other countries will begin to ban together and take a hard look at a few countries who are contributing the most to destroying the world for human habitation.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Rahn127's post
13-11-2017, 10:19 PM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
(12-11-2017 11:41 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  A carbon tax across the board would be the best method to deal with exporting CO2 emissions. As it is now, externalizing the costs of burning fossil fuels has warped the world economy. That simply isn't honest accounting.

The "dirty" secret on how European countries meet carbon emission targets is to simply import product that are carbon intensive from countries that are not required to comply with the same restrictions as Europe to meet their carbon emission obligations.

Carbon tax regimes do not fully account for the carbon footprint of the feed materials coming into a manufacturing facility. A carbon control regime that caps some countries but allows the import of carbon heavy feed stocks from exempt countries will kill jobs in the country being capped and export them to countries without those controls. On net, no reduction of carbon emissions occur--the emissions just shifted.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BryanS's post
14-11-2017, 11:38 PM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
Why Governor Jerry Brown Was Booed at the Bonn Climate Summit
By Bill McKibben - November 13, 2017 in The New Yorker
For all their tough-on-carbon rhetoric, Governor Jerry Brown, of California, and other leaders are ignoring a key component of the fight against global warming.

Spare a little pity for Jerry Brown. The California governor has been standing up admirably to Donald Trump on many issues, but especially on climate change—even threatening to launch scientific satellites to replace the ones that Washington wants to ground. This week, he’s in Bonn, Germany, at the global climate talks, spearheading the drive to show that America’s states and cities have not forsaken the promises made last year in Paris. On Saturday, barely a minute into his big prime-time talk, Brown was rewarded for his pains with booing. He was visibly startled when demonstrators interrupted his speech and began chanting, “Keep it in the ground!”

Pity him, then, but not too much. For one thing, Brown responded to the challenge Trumpishly—“let’s put you in the ground,” he told the protesters, who were led by indigenous and climate-justice activists. And, for another, they were absolutely right; their slogans illustrated the contradiction at the heart of the planet’s climate policy, one that Brown, if he wanted to, could play a key role in solving.

There are two halves to the climate dilemma: demand and supply. We use too much coal and gas and oil, and we’ve begun to address that through the rapid adoption of renewable energy, the spread of conservation measures, and ideas such as a price on carbon. Brown’s California has been a leader in much of this work. But we also produce too much fossil fuel, and that endless production makes it harder to drive down demand. In fact, it will make it impossible to meet even the modest goals of the Paris accords. A remarkable study, published last year by Oil Change International, found that the world’s developed oil and gas fields—the ones we’re already pumping—contain enough carbon to carry us past the 1.5-degree-Celsius temperature increase agreed to in Paris. (Add coal to the mix and we go way past two degrees, without ever discovering another seam or field.) That’s why campaigners from around the world, meeting in Lofoten, Norway, this summer, signed a declaration calling on governments to begin the “managed decline” of the world’s fossil-fuel-production zones.

Five hundred N.G.O.s—including 350.org, which I helped found—have signed that declaration, but not many political leaders. In fact, heads of governments tend to fall into one of two camps. The first, populated largely by Trump and his followers, sees climate change as nonsense and aims to increase both supply and demand. The other, which includes everyone from Barack Obama to Canada’s Justin Trudeau to Brown, offers inspiring rhetoric on fighting global warming but refuses to rein in fossil-fuel exploration and development. Trudeau, for instance, said at an oil-and-gas conference in Texas this year that “no country would find a hundred and seventy-three billion barrels of oil in the ground and leave them there,” a reference to Alberta’s tar sands. Give Trudeau high marks for honesty—he’s gone all out to build the pipelines necessary to drain that oil—but low marks for math. There’s no way to burn those hundred and seventy-three billion barrels without overwhelming the atmosphere; they would take us thirty per cent of the way to 1.5 degrees, and that from a nation with less than one per cent of the planet’s population.

California is a big oil-and-gas producer, too—the third largest in the United States—and Brown has so far declined to curtail even fracking and urban drilling, the dirtiest and most dangerous kinds. In his Bonn speech, he offered the most tired of explanations: “If I could turn off the oil today, thirty-two million vehicles would stop, and ten million jobs would be destroyed overnight.” But, of course, no one is talking about turning off the flow of oil overnight. That’s the point of “managed decline”—an orderly retreat from the fossil-fuel precipice. And, in truth, no one is better situated than Brown to lead it. California doesn’t depend on oil and gas the way that, say, Russia or Saudi Arabia or Oklahoma does; the state is full of the world’s most vigorous entrepreneurs, many of them making fortunes on the energy transition.

And then there’s the fact that Brown is on the way out, term-limited and hence insulated from the political power of the fossil-fuel industry. He could do his successor—and the rest of the world—a huge favor by, for instance, announcing that California will no longer grant new permits for exploration or major infrastructure development. Such a commitment would shut down nothing except the petroleum industry’s scientifically and economically flawed assumption that it can maintain its business model indefinitely.

The pressure is not just on Brown. Over the weekend, climate activists occupied a German coalfield, and there are increasing calls on Chancellor Angela Merkel to announce a phase-out of coal mining before the Bonn summit wraps up, at the end of this week. Merkel has been pretty steadfast on climate policy, so she might do it. But Brown is something different: he aspires to lead Earth’s fight against climate change, having called a huge conference next autumn, in San Francisco, of governors, mayors, and other “subnational actors” from around the world. That could really be a turning point in the battle, and a way to bypass Trump—but only if Brown and others are willing to get serious about supply as well as demand.

Bill McKibben, a former New Yorker staff writer, is the founder of the grassroots climate campaign 350.org and the Schumann Distinguished Scholar in environmental studies at Middlebury College.

"Men willingly believe what they wish." -Julius Caesar
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Kaneda's post
15-11-2017, 06:30 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
"A startling and honestly distressing view is beginning to receive serious consideration in both academic and popular discussions of climate change ethics. According to this view, having a child is a major contributor to climate change. The logical takeaway here is that everyone on Earth ought to consider having fewer children. Although culturally controversial, the scientific half of this position is fairly well-established. Several years ago, scientists showed that having a child, especially for the world’s wealthy, is one of the worst things you can do for the environment."

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/sc...ncna820781
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thoreauvian's post
15-11-2017, 08:21 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
(15-11-2017 06:30 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  "A startling and honestly distressing view is beginning to receive serious consideration in both academic and popular discussions of climate change ethics. According to this view, having a child is a major contributor to climate change. The logical takeaway here is that everyone on Earth ought to consider having fewer children. Although culturally controversial, the scientific half of this position is fairly well-established. Several years ago, scientists showed that having a child, especially for the world’s wealthy, is one of the worst things you can do for the environment."

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/sc...ncna820781

Damned children! The next logical thing to do would be to euthanize the sick and elderly. They are just a drain on public resources, and by removing them from the population we can take a huge bite out of global warming. I mean, how serious are we going to be about saving the earth?

Or...we could just focus on finding a fix to the problem with engineering and science. I worry less about the world going to hell due to global warming by realizing it is human nature to wait until things get really bad, and then when we really focus on the problem we come up with solutions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: