Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2016 - 11:33am PT
|
Without China's participation, efforts to reduce atmospheric CO2 are a waste of time. So, what's China doing? They're building coal fired power plants as fast as they can. They announce their commitment to peaking emissions by 2030. By then CO2 should be over 600ppm. Maybe over 700ppm. Way to step up, China.
China is a convenient scapegoat. Their emissions per capita is way below that of the US. Yes, they are still building coal plants but they also have a lot of older, very dirty, very inefficient coal plants that they are retiring. Replacing those old plants with new, efficient plants is a clear win. They are installing a lot of renewables:
From wikipedia
China’s renewable energy sector is growing faster than its fossil fuels and nuclear power capacity. In 2015 China became world's largest producer of photovoltaic power, at 43 GW installed capacity.[1][2] China also led the world in the production and use of wind power and smart grid technologies, generating almost as much water, wind, and solar energy as all of France and Germany's power plants combined.
They are also making some efforts (not nearly enough) to move their economy from an investment/heavy industry model to a services model.
As I have posted numerous times, China does not make a good scapegoat. India is a little less worrisome because their economy is smaller, but their emissions are still a worry and I see little reason to think they will do anything meaningful.
China's population is a problem, but they had a very aggressive one-child policy to address that. (And that policy is going to cause them other serious problems going forward.) Not really clear what else they can do.
|
|
c wilmot
climber
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2016 - 11:37am PT
|
how many people concerned about climate change are open to limiting the US population through immigration control to ultimately reduce the impact of the USA- the country supposedly causing the most pollution. I hear a lot of talk about climate change- but I rarely hear any rational solution to alter it. Heck we have people who want to go to mars- How much pollution would that cause?
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2016 - 11:51am PT
|
1. Begin trying to reduce emissions in our country, hoping that this will mitigate a process that is active and that engulfs the entire world, pleading with other nations to do the same. What is the assurance this would really have the effect we desire? Is it too late for this option? If we sink all economic resources into such a project, what happens if our hoped-for outcome doesn't materialize?
A lot of the things that we could do is not going to hurt the overall economy. It will produce winners and losers but a dynamic economy does that all of the time anyway.
2. Begin serious planning and preparation within our country do deal with predicted climate changes. Here, in the
United States. Hope that other nations do the same. Help where we can.
If the middle class is buying $40,000 electric sports sedans instead of $40,000 gas guzzline SUVs, what's the difference? Without taking pollution into account, renewables are still more expensive than coal, but the gap has narrowed a lot. This is going to be a big industry. So we have jobs in solar and wind and not in coal. Yes, some companies, employees, and stock holders get hit hard, but the overall economy won't notice.
Better insulated houses and more efficient appliances are a good thing anyway. So would eating a little less red meat.
So I think a tremendous amount could be done that didn't have a negative impact on the overall economy and we should do that.
Yes, if we were smart we would do serious planning for climate change. For instance, I don't think there is any viable way to protect Miami/southern Florida long term. We should plan on relocating Miami over the next 100 years. New Orleans also. Manhattan might be protectable, at great expense.
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2016 - 11:53am PT
|
how many people concerned about climate change are open to limiting the US population through immigration control to ultimately reduce the impact of the USA- the country supposedly causing the most pollution. I hear a lot of talk about climate change- but I rarely hear any rational solution to alter it. Heck we have people who want to go to mars- How much pollution would that cause?
An immigrant to the US will usually use more resources than if they stayed in a less developed country (although they (and their kids) may also have a higher birth rate if they stay). That is a benefit of less immigration.
I think humans in space is a complete waste across the board. I'm also opposed to supersonic plane travel here on earth. But the wealthy are going to spend their money on something. I would rather wealth was more evenly spread.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2016 - 11:55am PT
|
Sorry, but I'm just responding to the OP.
People are confused about climate change. Much like evolution, politicians have gotten involved and thrown out a ton of bad information. Fracking is the same way. I know a lot about it, and there is so much bad info on the web that an intelligent person can't understand it.
Also, it isn't something that we will feel in our lifetimes. It is a long term problem, and we seem to be incapable of making decisions that are painful or economically expensive, when the consequences are in the future. Humans are practically wired that way.
We won't accept it as a species until it hits us in the face. By that time, consequences will occur and it will be too late. In a sense.
The physics of the problem are pretty straightforward. That said, I doubt that the current political leadership in this country will do anything about climate change.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2016 - 12:52pm PT
|
Base, you make it sound like fracking is safe. But then I hear about all these cases where they claim it contaminates the ground water. What's the deal?
In response to the question in the OP, the folks in Bolivia are pretty concerned about it. La Paz is just about out of water.
This is not a small thing.
|
|
AP
Trad climber
Calgary
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2016 - 01:33pm PT
|
In regards to fraccing:
Groundwater contamination usually occurs due to casing integrity issues and poor cement jobs (including cementing just above and below a producing zone instead of cementing to surface). Better regulations and engineering practices will dramatically decrease the probability of this occurring.
Of course this costs money and many companies will only do what they have to (just squeak by and not exceed regulations).
The chances of fraccing up into the groundwater is non existent (assuming good casing integrity) unless there are major faults that continue up to shallow depths. Almost all faults peter out long before the surface.
I know there have been cases of gas in ground water caused by naturally occurring shallow coal seams which water wells have drilled through.
Gas analysis can determine which zone the gas comes from.
Reports of ground water contamination should be investigated by impartial groups conducting a thorough analysis.
The oil and gas industry, like all others, should not be self regulated. This is the job of the govt
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2016 - 04:04pm PT
|
Damn, Malemute -- that is an overwhelming number of relevant links might I say! A person could learn a lot about the subject from these links (if you can get past the inclusion of punters like Hawking and Sagan -- not to mention Asimov).
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2016 - 05:42pm PT
|
I'm kind of surprised that somebody on the denier team did not challenge my challenge to them of coming up with a plausible scenario where some new piece of information could make them concede that, indeed, the other team is correct in the science.
I assumed that somebody would throw this right back in my face. So, let me tell you how I might plausibly change my opinion.
Let me start off by saying that it is highly improbable that this could happen because of the checks and balances in the science community. Having said that. Let's say that essentially all climate models that predict catastrophic human-caused global warming depended on this "constant" -- you know, values like 3.47 or 0.000037. Now let's say that the guy who came up with that constant suddenly realized that he was supposed to be using "metric". If I, as a climate modeler depended on the value of this constant for my model going one way or the other; I would concede that I was wrong after finding out about this new piece of information.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2016 - 05:58pm PT
|
Thanks for the recommendation on the Tyson video, Malemute! I didn't see that the first time through. As Trump might say, "Very effective!".
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
Shetville , North of Los Angeles
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2016 - 06:01pm PT
|
TGT2....When did you start wearing coveralls..?
|
|
10b4me
Mountain climber
Retired
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2016 - 06:10pm PT
|
Trump has changed his mind about climate change. Lol.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2016 - 06:10pm PT
|
EdwardT said
I'm not saying the consensus is wrong,... just that we (mankind) are not going to effectively address this issue anytime soon.
This, to me, is like not voting or voting for Johnson in the last election. You are being a punter. What needs to be clarified is the veracity of the science vs. the reasonable solutions that can be taken to mitigate the problem. As Malemute has been saying all along, there are a few individuals - the Koch brothers, in particular, that are invested in obfuscating the facts.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2016 - 06:51pm PT
|
This, to me, is like not voting or voting for Johnson in the last election. You are being a punter.
Apparently, you're a moron.
What needs to be clarified is the veracity of the science vs. the reasonable solutions that can be taken to mitigate the problem.
Or maybe not.
Reasonable solutions? Enlighten us to reasonable solutions that would reverse the trend of rising CO2 levels. The key word being "reasonable. Something the global leaders would agree to and stick by.
I've asked this question for years. People offer clean energy options. Unfortunately, they're little more than bandaids on a severed artery.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2016 - 06:58pm PT
|
Probably, by this time no matter what is done Miami will sleep with the fishys. Sad.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2016 - 08:08pm PT
|
Ed, Rick, Bob and the rest of your team -- you want to rebut Asimov and Hawking and Musk and Sagan, et al? They must've missed the blog you read.
|
|
McHale's Navy
Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2016 - 09:09pm PT
|
^^^^^^That rascal!
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!