Environmental Issues

[Old Man Mike]

"Mother Nature will bounce back."

This is correct. But what Mother Nature will not do is to bounce back as a twin of her former self. These levels of disasters not only destroy the postcard idea that humans have of the scenery but eliminate the upper levels of ecosystem food pyramids. This leads to proliferation of lower levels of food chains which are usually called "pests." Ecosystem rebuilds rarely occur as clones of their predecessors and sometimes are dramatically different depending upon the new base water, temperature, soil quality parameters.

Humans can (with money) overpower these deficit situations for their own manicured purposes, but Mother Nature's "flexibility" is generally to alter into something alive but different.

 

[yankeehater]

One of the pests is playing a large part in the fire damage in California. The bark beetle has decimated forests. That along with a disease that hit. Put those together with a drought followed by a year of excessive rains all in forests that are no longer cleared or managed like they were when I was a kid. Here is a recent LA Times article speaking to this and how the experts predicted all of this some years ago.

https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2020-09-13/150-million-dead-trees-wildfires-sierra-nevada

 

[Legacy]

As the smoke permeates Oregon's cities with the most populace along the I-5 corridor and Willamette valley, the homeless and recently homeless from the fires need shelters. In spite of best measures taken to stop it from entering homes, it still gets into houses.

Oregon Convention Center in Portland opened for fire evacuees, homeless people and those seeking refuge from bad air quality

Those with pre-existing pulmonary and cardiac conditions are especially vulnerable. Some of the air contains toxins that have been released by the fires.

 

[snoopdog]

Old Environmental Studies prof here: Yes, we might have screwed up badly enough that there will be a big price to pay (for particularly the people in water-poor countries today, the people in several "formerly" highly productive food growing areas "tomorrow", and our own grandkids by about 2070 or so.)

This is hardly alarmist, as much of the "happening" has already started for anyone truly interested to see. A former student of this myself, I've given up on the issue of the poor water-challenged countries. I can only pray for them. That issue is a slow-painful dying and the chance of salvation is over. We'll just sadly watch that, say that it's always been that way, and turn away.

The issue of the shifting of pressures on high-production grain belts is almost just as "done." Even in the high-tech high-money USA the only real thoughts being slung about are giant water diversions. I get the pain, but the only gigantic water diversion possibility is "The Great Lakes solution." Frankly, if the south and west come for the Great Lakes, I hope that "radical environmentalism" bombs every pipe-laying, pump-creating, earth-gouging piece of technology brought North --- without killing any workers.

As to our grandkids: we don't know the extent of the really big picture impacts. Everyone talks of dried up continental midsections, increased monster storms, globally-displaced populations leading to more wars and more terrorism. That's peanuts compared to worst case scenarios. And since worst case scenarios are NOT zero-percentage scenarios (no matter what whistlers in the dark might want), they should be looked upon as Moral Issues involving conscious choice. Our choices ARE Moral here, whether the results of them are crystal obvious or not.

So what Chicken Little BS am I slinging? That note above about the continuance of heightening temperatures holds a possible monster hidden within it. That note of rising temperatures doesn't make clear (despite the geographic scientists trying to do so for two or more decades) that the greatest temperature rise shifts take place not at the equators but grows increasingly as you go toward the poles. So what? The so what? is the Tundra. That tundra is supposed to stay frozen. It's no longer doing so, and the frozen line retreats further north as we speak, taking in more and more surface. Again so what? Unfrozen tundra releases trapped gases (it also releases trapped long isolated viruses but lets drop that as being too much to contemplate.) If we get a big extra release of CO2 etc, whammo, there go our CO2 mitigation hopes.

The Elephant in the room is that the global climate is a chaotic system governed by myriads of feedback loops which have for centuries taken stray atmospheric temperature excursions and forced them back to a dynamic but limited-variable, mean base, condition. In statistical terms, this mean "control point" is called a "Strange Attractor." The Strange Attractor is far too complicated to be manipulated by us. We aren't anywhere near understanding the forces behind its governance. But we do know something about Strange Attractors in general --- if you stress them, they will allow further and further deviations from normal --- in all imaginable directions. And if you stress them TOO much, they will "shatter" and the attractor (in this case the mean temperature of the planet) will reform after a particularly chaotic period, somewhere with wildly different properties. To make a simplest concrete possibility ---> Earth mean temperature would not just slowly slide upwards but Jump a few degrees "all at once."

Scientists don't talk about that. "We" have taken enough ignorant crap when just rain-pattern changes and glacier loss and ecosystem geographical shifts are described. As close as we get is speaking of the permafrost. ... and keeping fingers crossed that no Strange Attractor shift is imminent. Vaguely, intuitively(?) AMAZON seems to be a little aware of this among the transportation-intensive companies and is pushing non-gasoline fleets and solar energy, harder than we've seen. Nice. I doubt they'll make it in time. So long Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, even Phoenix might not get all their swimming pools filled and gaily dance over the cliff. But hey! What Games are you watching? What exotic foods are you eating? What guns are you firing --- please don't bring them to The Great Lakes.

... and Please GOD: Make our Strange Attractor Flexible and Strong!!!

Mike, IMO the Elephant in the room is the out of control population growth coupled with the economic betterment of virtually all 7.8 billion people on the planet.

The population and economic growth has created an insatiable need for power/electricity to sustain both..... and unfortunately for the planet, both population and planetary GDP will continue to grow.

I won't even bother trying to provide a solution out of this mess, but I am pretty sure that the climate on earth is sure to change as a result.

 

[Old Man Mike]

You're talking about a different room. The Elephant in the "highest GCC risk room" is the possibility of shifting the Strange Attractor. The Elephant in the "Why-didn't-we-jump-in-and-do-something any sooner" (and with enthusiasm) "Room" is the Economic System runs on Oil Issue.

These are two very different foci. The people talking in Room One will tell you that if you risk the Strange Attractor Shift and it happens, you're global economy and a very large % of your population is going down, regardless of Oil availability and use.

The people in Room Two will tell you that if they were honest and the average citizen could handle it, that they are willing to roll those dice and hope that the Tiger doesn't awaken while we're tickling it.

The people in the first room believe that they are doing morally right behavior in presenting information. Most of those people do not believe that Tickling the Tiger is moral.

The people in the second room are of two rather different sorts, but live together because they ultimately believe that they have the same fight. One sort believes that the better moral choice is to maintain the course on fossil fuel economy and silently pray that the bad things which come are not the worst things that could come. The other sort is frankly who-gives-a-damm get-the-money-and-live-well types. They are not particularly interested in other persons' lives.

When a person in room two tries to turn this "you-don't-care" argument on the persons in room one, they are clever but dishonestly manipulative. The persons in room one DO have plans which could mitigate the worst of the troubles, but they do require general cooperation or they will not have enough mass effect. These persons agree that certain sectors of the economy will slump but sustainable technologies ARE lucrative techno-systems and can restore the energy and transportation sectors once they mature.

 

[snoopdog]

Oil? Are we not discussing coal here. China, India and to a lesser extent the US are burning endless amounts of coal to fuel their economies.

Oil and it’s spin off Natural gas are not the problem coal presents, but having said that, the demand for carbon based energy will stay strong just to keep the engines of the economies going.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Coal use in the 21st century vs oil ... I apologize to IE but trying to clear up the assertions in that last post would take a really lot of time. Almost every phrase in those two sentences would have to be severely nuanced to tease out the extreme complexities in those simplified statements. I just can't get up for that. Sorry.

 

[Legacy]

I saw that a NYT article was talking about Climate Change and Finances from a White House report from some finance and trade committee there. I don't swallow pop reports on reports, so I went to the actual document and read it.

This committee is chaired by a Republican politician and has five members. (3Rs and 2Ds). Subcommittees are required to have some similar hoped-for balance and also front line business people, environmentalists, and other issue "shareholders" for wide spread viewpoints. The conclusions of this report were striking given this source, and it will unlikely please the current WH and probably won't splash much elsewise (for greater than the American 45 second attention span) due to the "Oh THAT again" attitude of even the media. Here are some of the major quotes:

"We recommend that:
The United States should establish a price on carbon. It must be fair, economy-wide,
and effective in reducing emissions consistent with the Paris Agreement. This is the
single most important step to manage climate risk and drive the appropriate allocation
of capital. (Recommendation 1)" (this is a HUGE statement if you understand these politics and this history.)

"The report, which presents 53 recommendations to mitigate the risks to financial markets posed by climate change, concludes that:
Climate change poses a major risk to the stability of the U.S. financial system and to its ability to sustain the American economy;

Climate risks may also exacerbate financial system vulnerability that have little to do with climate change; including vulnerabilities caused by a pandemic that has stressed balance sheets, strained government budgets, and depleted household wealth;

U.S. financial regulators must recognize that climate change poses serious emerging risks to the U.S. financial system, and they should move urgently and decisively to measure, understand, and address these risks;

Existing statutes already provide U.S. financial regulators with wide-ranging and flexible authorities that could be used to start addressing financial climate-related risk now;

Regulators can help promote the role of financial markets as providers of solutions to climate-related risks; and

Financial innovation is required not only to efficiently manage climate risk but also to facilitate the flow of capital to help accelerate the net-zero transition and increase economic opportunity."

"Climate change poses a major risk to the stability of the U.S. financial system and to its ability to sustain the American economy.

Climate change is already impacting or is anticipated to impact nearly every facet of the economy, including infrastructure, agriculture,
residential and commercial property, as well as human health and labor productivity.

Over time, if significant action is not taken to check rising global average temperatures, climate
change impacts could impair the productive capacity of the economy and undermine its
ability to generate employment, income, and opportunity.

Even under optimistic emissions-reduction scenarios, the United States, along with countries around the world, will have to
continue to cope with some measure of climate change-related impacts."

"This reality poses complex risks for the U.S. financial system.

Risks include disorderly price adjustments in various asset classes, with possible spillovers into different parts of
the financial system, as well as potential disruption of the proper functioning of financial markets.

In addition, the process of combating climate change itself—which demands a
large-scale transition to a net-zero emissions economy—will pose risks to the financial
system if markets and market participants prove unable to adapt to rapid changes in policy,
technology, and consumer preferences.

Financial system stress, in turn, may further exacerbate disruptions in economic activity, for example, by limiting the availability of credit
or reducing access to certain financial products, such as hedging instruments and insurance."

The Report listed several GCC phenomena which are already sufficiently documented and which relate directly to the concerns of the committee. These include:
Regional drops in agricultural yields
Regional deficits in water availability (these guys are talking about the US not Bangladesh)
Loss of water quality
Loss of soil quality
Increased ranges of pests
Increased virulence of pests
Negative variations in fisheries (note that many food related businesses require PREDICTABILITY)
Negative variations in crops
Disruptions in distribution systems due to extreme weather
Loss of biodiversity and helpful ecosystems (easiest example is pollinators)
Unpredictability and stability of river water levels (transport issue)
Failing forests
Burning forests --- with biological sophistication this list can go on nearly forever.

The committee noted that the 2019 bankruptcy of a $71 billion dollar asset company (PG&E) was partly attributable to GCC related things.

The committee also noted that many commonly existing structural materials degrade much more quickly under the impacts of added heat, moisture, excessive changes.

As the once-upon-a-time GCC guy for Kalamazoo talks (way back in the 90s) all this "news" comes a bit bittersweet. ... and with no less doubt that we won't do a damm thing about it.

Much of OMM's points both on humans and on our environment can be fleshed out with the stories of impacts of the multiple, severe wildfires. Biologists are examining the causes of a massive bird die-off., which very likely could affect the multitude, range and virulence of pests next year. Massive die-offs were observed in Jan of marine birds in Alaska and along the West coast. It has continued as migratory land birds are "dropping out of the skies". Birds such as hummingbirds help propagate crops. The land birds help keep insects and pests under control.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...an-heat-wave-blob-pacific-alaska-common-murre

https://www.audubon.org/news/the-southwest-facing-unprecedented-migratory-bird-die

 

[Bluto]

Much of OMM's points both on humans and on our environment can be fleshed out with the stories of impacts of the multiple, severe wildfires. Biologists are examining the causes of a massive bird die-off., which very likely could affect the multitude, range and virulence of pests next year. Massive die-offs were observed in Jan of marine birds in Alaska and along the West coast. It has continued as migratory land birds are "dropping out of the skies". Birds such as hummingbirds help propagate crops. The land birds help keep insects and pests under control.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...an-heat-wave-blob-pacific-alaska-common-murre

https://www.audubon.org/news/the-southwest-facing-unprecedented-migratory-bird-die

The climate debate and the false narratives as well as the crazy ass propaganda promulgated by the GOP, conservatives and Republicans in general is the prime reason I never even consider a vote for them. They have taken the greatest existential risk humanity has faced and hitched it to the culture war bandwagon. That in my estimation is one of the most irresponsible power plays in human history.

 

[snoopdog]

The climate debate and the false narratives as well as the crazy ass propaganda promulgated by the GOP, conservatives and Republicans in general is the prime reason I never even consider a vote for them. They have taken the greatest existential risk humanity has faced and hitched it to the culture war bandwagon. That is my estimation is one of the most irresponsible power plays in human history.

So who is up for an all out war on China, by far the greatest threat to the planet due to Emissions and pollution.

When Bush was talking WMD’s in Iraq, the real weapon of mass destruction is China growing out their economy with the use of endless amounts of coal.

I think as long as China is allowed to pollute the planet without any regulation, any talk of limiting emissions simply rings hollow.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Because I see the Sins of others doesn't relieve me of my own responsibility not to sin. That's New Testament as well as any other major spiritual belief system.

The argument that "they" will then outcompete us is equally fallacious. There is no unilateral disarmament necessary here. Coal use is dying rapidly in this country. (Even China is dropping off its ridiculous planet-crushing curve. India has its rise flattening.)

Regardless of China/India though, the technological pathway to non-fossil energy has been shown viable (He!l, even Amazon wants to do it.) The capture of the 21st century Energy-tech market will be an economic Giant. Even people obsessed with nothing but Profit will, if they get their heads out of their a$$es, be rolling in their gold.

But as this won't positively impact the next "quarter", the short-term grabasses will just short term grabass.

 

[snoopdog]

Because I see the Sins of others doesn't relieve me of my own responsibility not to sin. That's New Testament as well as any other major spiritual belief system.

The argument that "they" will then outcompete us is equally fallacious. There is no unilateral disarmament necessary here. Coal use is dying rapidly in this country. (Even China is dropping off its ridiculous planet-crushing curve. India has its rise flattening.)

Regardless of China/India though, the technological pathway to non-fossil energy has been shown viable (He!l, even Amazon wants to do it.) The capture of the 21st century Energy-tech market will be an economic Giant. Even people obsessed with nothing but Profit will, if they get their heads out of their a$$es, be rolling in their gold.

But as this won't positively impact the next "quarter", the short-term grabasses will just short term grabass.

See this comment is the crux of the entire matter. The belief that all these greedy people who control how the "world operates" stick with oil, gas and coal at break even operating revenue at best, instead of rebuilding the global infrastructure for clean energy at enormous profits is incredibly naïve.

If there was an opportunity to make a nickel of profit transitioning quickly from carbon to renewable, the carbon world would cease to be a thing.

Carbon is a "thing" because it currently is as essential as air for the life blood of the global economy. As soon as another source of renewal energy (probably Hydrogen) is available, Carbon will be gone.

But the topic has somehow morphed into.... Donald Trump is root of all evil and the only thing holding back the transition over to a clean, renewable energy source. AND, he is making sinners out of you and me to boot for the double win!! Crazy and naïve is all I can say.

 

[Legacy]

Today, due to whistleblower claims, the Hanford contractors involved in the long-running effort to build the site’s Waste Treatment Plant have agreed to pay a $57.75 million settlement to the U.S. Justice Department. Whistleblower claims alleged fraudulent overcharges that inflated the hours of labor and billed for work that was not actually performed.

The settlement announced Tuesday with Bechtel Corp., AECOM Energy & Construction, and an AECOM subsidary covers work undertaken to build the Waste Treatment Plant. The on-going construction at Hanford has taken up billions of federal dollars to develop a complex able to treat and stabilize hazardous chemical and radioactive wastes for long-term storage.

Hanford was created in World War II to produce plutonium for atomic weapons, including the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan. For more than 40 years, it produced most of the plutonium for the nation’s nuclear arsenal. In this century, Hanford has been the focal point of a marathon cleanup. The Columbia River flows along the site for approximately 50 miles (80 km), forming its northern and eastern boundary.

A statement released Tuesday by Joseph E. Harrington, first assistant attorney general for the Eastern District of Washington.
“It is stunning that, for nearly a decade, Bechtel and AECOM chose to line their corporate pockets by diverting important taxpayer funds from this critically essential effort."

Teri L. Donaldson, the inspector general for the Department of Energy, said “Bechtel National Inc., AECOM Energy & Construction Inc. and (the AECOM subsidiary) Waste Treatment Completion Company LLC, engaged in a massive scheme to submit tens of millions of dollars of false claims to the U.S. Government for unallowable and unjustified costs over a period of years – a pattern of conduct that continued even after U.S. authorities notified the defendants that these costs were unallowable.”

The whistleblowers, no longer employed by the contractors are Kip Daily, a scheduler; Scott Turner a scheduler and planner; Justin Rohrer, a millwright and union steward; and Julee Levee, a turnover transition specialist, according to the attorneys and court documents.The whistleblowers were awarded a 23.8% share of the settlement, according to their attorneys.

In 2016, Bechtel and subcontractor URS agreed to pay $125 million to settle allegations of subpar work and accusations of using taxpayer dollars illegally to fund a multiyear lobbying campaign. The case began when whistleblowers Dr. Walter Tamosaitis, Donna Busche and Gary Brunson — all key former managers on the vitrification plant project — filed a sealed complaint in federal court in 2013. The U.S. Attorney for Eastern Washington said: “The use of federal taxpayer dollars to pay lobbyists in an attempt to elicit more taxpayer dollars is unacceptable,”

After more than three and a half years of investigation into their claims, the U.S. Department of Justice agreed to join the case at the first of this month on some of the plaintiffs’ allegations of nuclear quality violations and illegal lobbying. The case was unsealed after settlement agreement was filed Wednesday. The whistleblowers together are expected to receive 15 percent to 25 percent of the settlement — up to $31.25 million — under the False Claims Act, which allows whistleblowers to collect a portion of any damages awarded.

Tamosaitis also filed a workplace retaliation lawsuit after he was demoted subsequent to bringing his concerns to management about working not being completed. Dr. Tamosaitis and his research team were charged with trying to figure out how to keep the sludge mixed so it could be pumped into the WTP processors. Bechtel and URS were to receive and split a $6 million bonus if the mixing issue was resolved by the end of July 2010. Dr. Tamosaitis opposed Bechtel’s claims that mixing issues regarding the sludge had been resolved. Tamosaitis settled his separate federal whistleblower retaliation lawsuit against Hanford contractor URS for $4.1 million dollars.

Bechtel recrently lost two multi-billion dollar contracts for cleanup at Hanford when they came up for bid and is appealing them.
https://www.enr.com/articles/48582-bechtel-protest-of-big-hanford-cleanup-award-is-second-at-site

 

[Legacy]

A Montana judge, Brian Morris, has ruled that Trump's acting BLM head, William Pendley, has "served unlawfully as the Acting Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Director for 424 days" and ordered him to be removed as leader of the BLM, a role that typically requires Senate confirmation. The Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA) limits a person to serve in an acting capacity for 210 days, Pendley had been serving for 424 days. The Interior Secretary David Bernhardt had extended Pendley’s tenure four times, the court noted. Later, Pendley gave himself the authority to remain the temporary leader of the agency through "succession orders." Trump appointed Pendley deputy director of policy and programs. Pendley, as acting BLM leader, wrote a succession order that the deputy director of policy and programs was to lead the agency, using authority under his Acting position in an attempt to legitimize his authority.

The judge ordered that certain decisions made by Pendley, including the issuance of some resource management plans, "would have no force and effect and must be set aside as arbitrary and capricious." The judge gave the Interior Department and the plaintiffs in the case 10 days to submit examples of actions Pendley took that might be set aside.

This article has the best explanation of the issues involved and impact on Trump Admin "Acting" officials decsions as well as some background history of Pendley.

Montana judge ousts Trump’s BLM director and throws into doubt a range of land management decisions

Montana Gov Steve Bullock brought the lawsuit. Excerpts from article:

The BLM manages 27 million acres in Montana, nearly one-third of the state. In his lawsuit, Bullock sought to protect two vast swaths of land in the southwest part of the state — the Lewistown and Missoula areas. Pendley had signed resource management plans for both of them; the one for Lewistown would have opened up 95 percent of the 650,000-acre area to leases for oil and natural gas drilling. Judge Morris said that Pendley “actually exercised powers reserved to the BLM director.”

“The President cannot shelter unconstitutional ‘temporary’ appointments for the duration of his presidency through a matryoshka doll of delegated authorities,” (Judge) Morris said, referring to the popular Russian nesting dolls.

“If this case becomes a template in other districts, then it would follow that all other land use plans that have been approved during Pendley’s illegal tenure could also get thrown out,” said Aaron Weiss, deputy director of the Center for Western Priorities. “The potential implication there is stunning — effectively erasing all of the planning work BLM has finalized over the last year, possibly longer.”

He said in an email that resource management plans were “the products of YEARS of work and designed to stay in place for 20 year spans, and lay out where oil and gas companies can expect to drill down the road. They also affect grazing, mining, and recreation.”

Collin O’Mara, president of the National Wildlife Federation, said the Montana ruling would encourage his organization and other environmental groups to reexamine BLM decisions that might have been signed by Pendley, a longtime critic of federal land management before joining Interior.

BLM drew up similar resource management plans for a portion of Bears Ears National Monument in Utah, O’Mara said. (A separate, larger portion of Bears Ears was covered by Trump’s executive order.) He said a reexamination of BLM policies could also affect an oil and gas lease sale in Chaco Canyon in New Mexico.

Morris’s order could also call into question decisions made by officials in similar positions across the administration, which has not nominated people to fill 133 of the more than 750 key positions that require Senate confirmation.

 

[Irishize]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This issue is a great litmus test for whether you actually care about saving the earth rather than creating pretext for massive new exercise of state power <a href="https://t.co/Pp95QrPEar">https://t.co/Pp95QrPEar</a></p>— Wesley Yang (@wesyang) <a href="https://twitter.com/wesyang/status/1315300194435706880?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 11, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Legacy]

Murkowski says she’ll use appropriations to block Alaskan mine
Spending bill language calls for a rigorous environmental assessment of the project's risks

Sen. Lisa Murkowski issued her strongest objection to date against the Pebble Mine project, a proposed mining site of copper, gold and molybdenum near the ecologically sensitive Bristol Bay, pledging to use the federal appropriations process to protect the region.

Speaking virtually at a convention of the Alaska Federation of Natives on Thursday, Murkowski, R-Alaska, chairwoman of the Senate Interior-Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, said she would use spending legislation to protect Bristol Bay, home to the world's biggest salmon run and one of its largest commercial fisheries. She is also chairwoman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.(cont)

Alaska mining executive resigns a day after being caught on tape boasting of his ties to GOP politicians
Tom Collier, who stood to get a $12.4 million bonus if Pebble Mine went ahead, resigned in the wake of secretly recorded talks with environmentalists posing as potential investors

Excerpt:

Collier and Ronald Thiessen, CEO of the Canadian parent company, Northern Dynasty Minerals, were recorded separately suggesting that GOP politicians would not block Pebble Mine even though some had raised concerns about its environmental impact.

Collier, who served as chief of staff to then-Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt under President Bill Clinton, stood to receive $12.4 million in bonuses if the federal government approved a key permit for the mine and it could be upheld in court. Speaking to EIA investigators, who were posing as possible investors in the project, he touted his effort to funnel money to Republican politicians in Alaska and defeat those who sided with Democrats against the mine.

“I’ve supported all the Republican candidates in the state,” said Collier, who is registered as an independent. “I meet with the two senators, the congressman, the governor on a regular basis and they welcome me as someone they know supports the Republican Party.”

“Now, having said that, it’s entirely possible that we may have [former vice president Joe] Biden as a president, and if we do, I’m gonna brush off my Democratic credentials and start using them a little more actively than I do,” he added.

 

[dublinirish]

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...announcement-when-watch-mission-b1209506.html

 

[Bluto]

Sure has been hot lately. Just sayin…

 

[drayer54]

Sure had been hot lately. Just sayin

Those of who live in states where we are allowed to have our thermostats below 78 because we have a smart energy policy are quite comfortable. Just sayin

 

[TorontoGold]

Those of who live in states where we are allowed to have our thermostats below 78 because we have a smart energy policy are quite comfortable. Just sayin

Global warming is a state by state issue lmao.

 

[Bluto]

Those of who live in states where we are allowed to have our thermostats below 78 because we have a smart energy policy are quite comfortable. Just sayin.

Global warming is a state by state issue lmao.

The argument seems to be that as long as one can comfortably ignore the problem then the problem does not exist. Nicholas II and the aristocracy in France engaged in this same type of magical thinking. Wonder what those blokes are up to these days?

 

[drayer54]

The argument seems to be that as long as one can comfortably ignore the problem then the problem does not exist. Nicholas II and the aristocracy in France engaged in this same type of magical thinking. Wonder what those blokes are up to these days?

I'm not ignoring the problem. I just believe climate policy poses a more significant threat than climate change.

The WSJ hit on this today.

 

[Rockin’Irish]

I don’t understand why the big push for all electric vehicles. IMO, the much more intelligent approach would be to push for hybrid vehicles that can alternate between electric and petroleum power (such as the Honda Accord Hybrid). This would be an interim step in order to give time for:

- consumers to adapt
- all electric vehicles to be more affordable to the average consumer
- the power grid to be fortified and expanded
- plug in power stations to be built (start with our current plethora of gasoline station locations)
- advancements in battery technology to increase mileage/efficiency, reduce charging times and reduce battery waste

Then dovetailing into full electric vehicle implementation. The climate is going to keep changing no matter what we do but we can help to lessen our impact on the change.

 

[TorontoGold]

I'm not ignoring the problem. I just believe climate policy poses a more significant threat than climate change.

The WSJ hit on this today.

I agree that climate policy, or lack thereof, poses a more significant threat. Since without strong policies the world will continue to become an oven.

I would trade some gas companies going bankrupt vs the state of Florida going underwater etc.

 

[drayer54]

I agree that climate policy, or lack thereof, poses a more significant threat. Since without strong policies the world will continue to become an oven.

I would trade some gas companies going bankrupt vs the state of Florida going underwater etc.

I'm not convinced the consequences are so dire, nor are our actions that effective. I'm also not willing to sacrifice my quality of living on the off-chance it is correct.

The Germans will soon learn to embrace the consequences of that choice and return to dirt burners. Our NE states are also examples of energy policy gone wrong, but at least they are getting the LNG that could be going to Europe.

 

[Bluto]

I'm not convinced the consequences are so dire, nor are our actions that effective. I'm also not willing to sacrifice my quality of living on the off-chance it is correct.

The Germans will soon learn to embrace the consequences of that choice and return to dirt burners. Our NE states are also examples of energy policy gone wrong, but at least they are getting the LNG that could be going to Europe.

Why are you not convinced? Based on everything I have read in the past twenty some odd years a couple of things seem clear to myself.

First, researchers at large oil companies understood that burning fossil fuels would lead to catastrophic warming as early as the 80’s.

Second, the models developed by climate scientists seem to have been too conservative in terms of predicting the negative effects and how long it would take for those to develop.

Lastly, based on those models the agencies I have and am currently working with and or for are using 10 feet of sea level rise as a baseline for site planning purposes.

Anyhow, the longer we keep our collective heads in the ground regarding this the larger the impact it will have on everyone’s “quality of life”. It’s coming for everyone one way or another.

 

[Bluto]

I agree that climate policy, or lack thereof, poses a more significant threat. Since without strong policies the world will continue to become an oven.

I would trade some gas companies going bankrupt vs the state of Florida going underwater etc.

I’ve joked around with some colleagues that we could all invest in a salvage company to explore and recover stuff from the “Lost City of Miami”.

 

[TorontoGold]

I'm not convinced the consequences are so dire, nor are our actions that effective. I'm also not willing to sacrifice my quality of living on the off-chance it is correct.

The Germans will soon learn to embrace the consequences of that choice and return to dirt burners. Our NE states are also examples of energy policy gone wrong, but at least they are getting the LNG that could be going to Europe.

Honestly what would convince you? There are 1000s of studies that there terrible consequences we are feeling today. What more would change your mind?

Bolded is essentially why nothing will be done about climate change. I'm excited though to see the crazy advancements on heating/cooling solutions that will come out for "reasons" that surely won't be related to climate change.

I’ve joked around with some colleagues that we could all invest in a salvage company to explore and recover stuff from the “Lost City of Miami”.

It's actually sad that it could be a legit reality. But hey, at least Exxon isn't suffering *puts on gimp suit that says "I love corporate serfdom"*

 

[drayer54]

Again, I'm not saying Climate Change isn't real. The threat has been politicized and turned into a capitalist gain for many mega-donors on one side of the aisle. My own company is looking at a huge chunk of change to spend after the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, which was a partisan handout to Dem causes/donors for the climate. It's total bullshit.

 

[TorontoGold]

I was today years old when I learned lobbying is only done by oneside and that it is just a political issue. I hope my second day being born I can figure out whether Florida being underwater is worse than a carbon tax. Because as we know, it's a Captialist Gain lmao wtf.