The Paris Agreement on Climate Change

[drayer54]

Saw this article earlier in the week:
Ford's KC plant produces first F-150 to run on natural gas - Kansas City Business Journal

Although it uses a separate fuel system, it will be interesting to see how this progresses.

Getting the vehicles in place is one step. Then you need the infrastructure to support it. That will be the bigger challenge.

 

[IrishLax]

They didn't change the name because they don't think the earth is warming. They changed it so deniers that laugh it off ever crazy winter might understand that global warming doesn't always mean the weather is warmer per se. Rather, the weather as a whole becomes more extreme (drought, hurricanes, blizzards, etc) because of the rising temps.

It's to combat the suber conservative Uncle Eddie that proclaims every blizzard "so much for global warming, hurumph". When in reality, they simply are uneducated regarding the cause and effect of global climate change.

You can't completely disassociate one from the other though. Yeah, part of it is because of ignorant Uncle Eddie, because Eddie can say "sure doesn't look much warmer to me!" But the other half half of it is slightly-less-ignorant Uncle Andrew who has the ability to use Google and find out how unequivocally wrong many of their predictions were.

So completely shifting the focus from temperature increase to much-harder-to-objectively-quantify "extreme weather" and climate change makes their position rather unassailable, and it also keeps the gravy train running to climatologists. We can all obviously agree that pollution is bad, protecting the environment is good, depletion of the ozone layer is bad, etc. The part that inspires controversy is a group of scientists with incentive for there to be a big problem putting out decades of unarguably flawed models and research, and then only recently beginning to own their mistakes.... while simultaneously trumpeting NEW models and NEW narratives as "settled science."

So yeah... I'm not saying climate change doesn't exist or isn't an issue, I'm saying I have no reason to believe the science is particularly accurate, and I'm saying that China/India are the only countries that really matter in the grand scheme of things.

 

[FearTheBeard]

I think transitioning from coal to nuclear while working on improving solar and wind is the way to go. I think its one that can be used sort of as a bridge while we work out the inefficiencies or cost of solar cells. Its nowhere near perfect but with proper storage and safely built facilities its better than coal. Solar and wind is the future and once more money and research starts going to it they will really evolve. On the political side less money needs to be spent subsidizing fossil fuels and spent on r&d for renewables

 

[MNIrishman]

This statement shows a real lack of nuance and and a couple of canards. Burning coal ash produces ash that contains concentrations of NORM than nuclear waste because when you burn it you are left with ash piles. The resulting fly ash and bottom ash however can be reused and once spread out and divided up emit no more radiation than a building because that is where the majority of. Aol ash goes. Into concrete used to build all of our buildings. The same cannot be said for nuclear waste which cannot be repurposed like this.

Gen IV reactors produce virtually no waste.

Silicon production for solar cells is performed in the same way as for all other cup chips and components. Yes there are heavy metal loaded sludge produced and yea during the boom of cups we had issues storing and disposing of the sludge by manufacturers. Again, we have made advances in filtration, extraction, repurposing by precipitation, and also have existing hazardous waste facilities that are able to reduce the heavy metal concentrations in waste water to near zero. Also the solar manufactures know what the problems are because the country manufacturers have already gone through it. There are regulations currently in place to govern the generation of heavy metals in wastewater.As a former employee of an environmental engineering firm I have over 10 years in cleaning up, analyzing, solving and helping property owners identify all manner of environmental issues.

Solar panel production cost is much lower than it would if it were produced using proper cleanup methods because panels are almost exclusively produced in China, where they DON'T clean up the waste. Also, large panel nanolithography like that used in solar panel construction produces more waste than that used for microchips.

Oh no... a piece of mechanical equipment broke down? That has not happened before. This seems sort of petty. Much like cars r other mechanical devices that require near everyday operation they will require maintenance but also can be designed by engineers to withstand such demands. It is not something that can be perfected without there being failures to learn from. This is not even an issue for anyone. As OMM said this is something that is no big deal and will be addressed by manufacturers because who wants to spend that amount if money on a product that will fail.

The point I was trying to make was that there are significant logistical and maintenance challenges associated with using hundreds of generators in hard-to-access locations when you COULD just use one power plant. The visual was for creative illustration and to break up a wall of text.

I don't disagree with this but there are numerous countries that don't have nuclear technology nor do we want them to have it so this is not.an option for them. Further like OMM eloquently stated increased nuclear production is a significant military and societal risk. See his post for much more than I can say.

Just as nuclear isn't a one-size-fits-all solution, neither are wind and solar. You didn't address the BIGGEST problem for these power generation methods, which is that they have arbitrary production curves that in no way correlate with demand.

This is not entirely true Solar and Wind are very quickly catching up to fossil fuel related costs, albeit with limited subsidies that are not as good as the ones fossil fuel companies get. Further investment, further research and more comprehensive infrastructure will b bring the costs down. Just like most markets...right?

The cost is still only one of the major challenges. The figures I've seen for cost mostly address a "best-case scenario" situation, like that power company in Oklahoma talking about wind or solar companies discussing prices in Arizona. What would the price of solar be in northern Michigan? How would we maintain offshore wind turbines when the icebreakers can't get through?

I posted this link earlier in the science thread. They took a 1milligram sample of helium, blasted it with a huge laser and created plasma for 0.1 SEC. While awesome and promising this represents the bottom of the barrel for available tech.

Of course. That's why I promoted it as a potentially-promising research area and not a solution.

.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/12/us/climate-us-emissions-2020-intl/index.html?utm_medium=social&utm_content=2021-01-12T13%3A45%3A03&utm_term=link&utm_source=twCNN

Hopefully Biden will get us back in the agreement and we can make more progress but I digress..... THis is crazy haha. 10% decrease last year

Last year's dramatic plunge means the US has met a key emission-cutting target set by the Obama administration.
Under the 2009 Copenhagen Accord, the US pledged that by 2020, it will have cut its emissions by 17% from 2005 levels. Because of the pandemic, emissions were 21.5% lower in 2020, compared to 2005.
"However, 2020 should not in any way be considered a down payment toward the US meeting its 2025 Paris Agreement target of 26-28% below 2005 levels," the authors of the Rhodium Group report said.

WE DID IT!!!

 

[SouthSideChiDomer]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/12/us/climate-us-emissions-2020-intl/index.html?utm_medium=social&utm_content=2021-01-12T13%3A45%3A03&utm_term=link&utm_source=twCNN

Hopefully Biden will get us back in the agreement and we can make more progress but I digress..... THis is crazy haha. 10% decrease last year


WE DID IT!!!

An absolute backdoor cover of a checkpoint.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

A thread started by Ghost Cacky and revived by Cacky 2.0. Now we just need a visit from the future by time-traveling Cyborg Cacky to confirm how shitty everything gets.

 

[zelezo vlk]

Cyborg Cack comes from the future with no warnings about the environment, only to let us know that Cane's enters the spicy chicken sandwich competition, only to blow away Chikfila and Popeye's offerings, and immediately assume supremacy over Ameircan fast food chains

 

[Nothingman]

Cyborg Cack comes from the future with no warnings about the environment, only to let us know that Cane's enters the spicy chicken sandwich competition, only to blow away Chikfila and Popeye's offerings, and immediately assume supremacy over Ameircan fast food chains

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Im not for sure who this other Cacky was but he seems like he was genuinely smart and and an overall great guy.

 

[Irishize]

So in this case, lockdowns work.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Not so fast: In the future all restaurants are Taco Bell.

 

[NDFAN420]

I'm not sure that much of this matters. The largest polluters are gearing up right now, China and India and importing oil over 25% more than a year ago, and that's after record oil storage buildup earlier this year. Plus China is building hundreds of new coal burning plants.

A vegan won't eat a dead and decomposing animals because of morals, but will surely burn those suckers up in their cars going to get that kale and soy whatever.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

 

[TorontoGold]

I'm not sure that much of this matters. The largest polluters are gearing up right now, China and India and importing oil over 25% more than a year ago, and that's after record oil storage buildup earlier this year. Plus China is building hundreds of new coal burning plants.

A vegan won't eat a dead and decomposing animals because of morals, but will surely burn those suckers up in their cars going to get that kale and soy whatever.

A lot of veg/vegans I know do it more for the health impacts, and I do find more performative people tend to side with the morals side of things.

Chick fil a (problematic CSR aside) is king.

 

[rileys07]

Good point

Good point

A group of arrogant world leaders decided that they will change the laws of nature and dictate which direction global temperatures go because they all signed a piece of paper.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in taking care of God's green Earth. Don't pollute, don't dump toxic chemicals into the water, etc. But my frustration with the politics of the issue is this; if the situation is as dire as the alarmists make it out to be then it's too late, and we're all doomed. And if it's not nearly that bad, then we have time to make better decisions and better plans then things like the Paris Accord. And by the way, how sizeable was the carbon footprint to have all of these world leaders travel to Paris for this summit? They could have done it remotely by phone or web cast. Oh wait, no photo ops in that.

Nice comments. Climate is ever changing. No government can change that. Just more taxes to push this stuff.

 

[GATTACA!]

Cack 3.0 coming back to visit IE in 2075

 

[MNIrishman]

Nice comments. Climate is ever changing. No government can change that. Just more taxes to push this stuff.

I'd expect:

1) Public acknowledgement that past alarmist sentiment was either misinformed or at least mistimed, and we know better now for X reasons.
2) An acknowledgement that it doesn't matter what Denmark does if China is committed to using coal for their industrialization.

 

[NDFAN420]

A lot of veg/vegans I know do it more for the health impacts, and I do find more performative people tend to side with the morals side of things.

Chick fil a (problematic CSR aside) is king.

unless they had been leading an excessively unhealthy lifestyle before, an omnivore becoming a herbivore isn't "healthy".

 

[TorontoGold]

unless they had been leading an excessively unhealthy lifestyle before, an omnivore becoming a herbivore isn't "healthy".

A lot of variables for sure, but for the average person moving towards more lentil based meals over ground beef for example would lead to better health. FTR I am very much an omnivore.

Of course depends on preparation of the meals too.

 

[NDFAN420]

A lot of variables for sure, but for the average person moving towards more lentil based meals over ground beef for example would lead to better health. FTR I am very much an omnivore.

Of course depends on preparation of the meals too.

for sure, we didn't evolve to eat so much ground beef.
Minh Souphanousinphones: How many cows do you people eat in a year?
Hank Hill: Wait, we figured this out once...

 

[Old Man Mike]

The science on all this is pretty clear, though. (And Yeh, it doesn't apply to every last individual due to our variety of genetics, so please don't hold me to Absolutisms --- which are WAY UN-scientific.)

A. our physical systems evolved over millions of years to optimize on a diet of certain natural foods. These were the sorts of things that hunter-gatherers could harvest and utilize using basic preparation via fire. So, you are looking at a "naturally synchronized" diet of fruits and nuts and some sorts of vegetables and quantities of wild (read: non-fatty) game animals roasted over the fires.
B. there were no FATTY animals protein sources in this diet with the exception of a few fish species, where those were even available --- or if you were an eskimo, animals with blubber. Eggs by the way are largely pure protein with some mixture of fats in the yolks. (unknown fact: those fats are in a biochemical equilibrium, which can be driven towards more "bad" fats or more "good" fats depending on heat. Cooking them hard produces more "bad" fats, while the best proportions would be by just slurping them down. I eat mine soft-boiled.)
C. there was no refined grain in those diets. Anthropologists have seen a shrinkage in the robustness of skeletons once the cultures became grain-growing "bread-emphasizing" societies --- perhaps losing four inches of average height. We have gained all this lost robustness back in modern times (see how micro-sized the renaissance suits of armor, even for Kings, were, for instance). This occurred once good infant health care was achieved, along with better understanding of vitamin deficiencies --- caused by non-natural diets. We survive and even to a degree thrive despite bad diets, by using supplements and doctors.

So, OK. Cheeseburgers taste great --- It was the first thing that IronMan wanted after his rescue. I get it. I could eat three right now. But I'd be stupid to do so. We do NOT need that amount of fatty animal protein and in fact must employ other actions to offset our love for the juicy fatty salty taste.

Do I hate this? Yep. At age 80, I double hate it as I know that it is DIRECTLY bad for me, and I can't adjust (to a degree) by playing a couple of hours of hoops. Should we get rid of most of this beef and pork? Yeh, we should, directly for ourselves and secondly for the Earth burden it causes. Will we? Hah! You know THAT answer.

For me, I'll do it. My knowledge as an old Environmental Studies prof tells me that is the moral decision. My doctor tells me that this is the medically imperative decision.

 

[TDHeysus]

pls delete

 

[NorthDakota]

I dont follow the climate change stuff very close but my basic understanding of nuclear power is that it f'ing owns.

Any of our science nerds here able to tell me why we don't focus on nuclear energy more?

 

[Bluto]

I dont follow the climate change stuff very close but my basic understanding of nuclear power is that it f'ing owns.

Any of our science nerds here able to tell me why we don't focus on nuclear energy more?

Needs lots of water for cooling.

Logistics and safety concerns surrounding the transportation and storage of waste material.

When things go wrong, they go really wrong. See Chernobyl and Fukushima.

 

[Old Man Mike]

There are significant hazards surrounding the mining operations side of this.

Humans are involved; we eff up anything in unpredictable ways.

Transportation of wastes (even high-level wastes) must be done by ground transport. This provides soft targets for terrorist mischief.

We absolutely MUST have a LARGE super-engineered burial facility (see the French facility.) Until that happens all BS about these issues is nonsense.

The utilization of solar technologies is do-able and no one should be doubting that. It is also capable of being installed a LOT more rapidly than has happened so far. There are obviously entrenched economic and political interests which are VERY powerful who have slowed that progress deliberately. BUT that resistance is cracking (see: FORD). Not "If" but when these technologies take off in macro-amounts, the "new" nuclear plants built will become highly expensive white elephants, testimonies to bad long-term planning.

(I used to teach the Energy Issues materials for the Enivironmental Studies program, so I have read almost all the materials about that aspect of "future decision making" up until my retirement. Dipping into the issue from time to time, the thing doesn't change much.)

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

I dont follow the climate change stuff very close but my basic understanding of nuclear power is that it f'ing owns.

Any of our science nerds here able to tell me why we don't focus on nuclear energy more?

There are lots of reasons why but ultimately the big one is waste and waste managment on a scale needed to handle the energy demands for our country.

Second IMO is the security risks associate with making, transporting and storing material.

Third is construction of facilities. My state decided to build 2 new reactors with a cost of $9 billion. They are currently not even 1/3 of the way constructed and the budget was up to $25 billion and climbing and the state and energy provider decided to scrap both reactors and halt construction. Now we have spent $25 billion and have a pile of steel and concrete no one can use for anything. The residents of the state floated these costs with the expectation that our rates would be kept as low as possible. Now we have high rates and already shelled out the money for the most part. Total scam and a huge waste of money we will never get back. But someone got rich.

FTR one of my degrees is in Marine Biology and Environmental Engineering with a second degree in Civil Engineering focusing on Structural.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Also I have a work history that involved turning over the former Charleston Navy base property to the local municipality and had to assess and remediate the contamination over 300 acres. This was primarily oil, petroleum and heavy metal Wade in the soil and groundwater. It’s a total mess and may never be cleaned up totally. I’ve seen first hand the mess left and the difficulty in cleaning it up if you could even call it that. Usually it’s cleaned up to the point that exposure to humans is limited or somewhat mitigated but the contamination is hardly ever fully cleaned up.

 

[Old Man Mike]

"Nuclear power f'ing owns."

smh ............ from a nerd.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

I’m just hoping we can get to a neutral or net negative carbon status. Maybe learn how to sequester carbon dioxide and use it create energy. Unfortunately the free engergy of this process is difficult to achieve