All Things Environment

[cradleandshoot]

Climate change is a hoax to take your money.

So your position, so eloquently stated, is that the climate is not changing?

Outside of worrying yourself sick, what is your solution? Is it the holy trinity of veggie burgers, electric cars and renewable energy?

No "solution" per se, but before we can have a reasoned discussion of the probable outcomes and possible preparations to minimize the unpleasantness that awaits, we need to proceed from a position of shared acceptance of reality.

Certain parties intransigence is simultaneously irksome and delusional.

I understand your point. Your debating a problem whose possible solution is 100 years down the road. Nobody really knows for certain what the solutions should be. It is ironic that at this time some of the proposed solutions just happen to dovetail very nicely with the personal agendas of certain people. If you are vegan.. meat is the problem. If you despise the internal combustion engine.. electric cars will save the planet. If renewable energy is your thing.. solar panels and wind mills will save the planet. What a coincidence the alleged solutions just happen to fit some people's agenda for other unrelated issues.

hmmm, I'm certainly not a vegan, but I think that the alternative meats, including lab grown, have enormous promise to reduce emissions, reduce water consumption, be completely sustainable, and enable food security globally. We're well away from that, but the current trajectory of meat needs would otherwise be disastrous and incapable of being sustained.

Same for aquaculture. There's no chance of feeding the world through wild caught without destroying our oceans, with disastrous ripple effects.

I don't know anyone who "despises the internal combustion engine". I do know lots of folks who think we can eventually have a great transportation experience without it. Gotta make it affordable and ubiquitous, but certainly foreseeable. EDIT...I do "despise" the a-hole who goes by our house every night making the absolute most sound he can from his machine. Jerk.

Personally, I doubt that wind is the answer, though a piece of the puzzle for now. Tidal has some promise, similarly. Solar seems to have the most promise, if we can get it distributed ubiquitously, at low cost.

In all of this, high storage capacity and more efficient transmission when necessary are key components.

As an American capitalist and entrepreneur, I sure as heck hope that there will be lots of Americans who make a lot of dough off of these efforts.

My point is MD, and i disagree strongly with most of your opinions, is this. When did allegedly climate change become a problem? I remember vividly in HS around 1974 that we were being told global cooling was the problem. I am nowhere near as smart as many of you folks. I can do some simple math. The bugaboo issue is about PPM co2 in the atmosphere. I guess there is proper ratio there that has to be maintained to prevent CC/GW. So that co2 ppm has been a problem for 50 plus or more years. There are no solutions on the horizon that correct that ratio that could be accomplished in the next 20 years as a best case scenario. That means if we do reach some unknowable tipping point it will be 50 plus years until planet earth is back to its happy place. So in the real world it will will take 100 years to correct this. That is an attempt to fix a problem that only exists in the world of computer models. We will spend trillions, and trillions and trillions of dollars hoping to fix a problem any rational scientist will tell you we barely understand. What we will get out of it is tasty veggie burgers, electric cars and some really cool solar panels. That is what we need to do to save the planet?

Not to put too fine a point on it, we're good and f%cked. Period. The current amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has implications for the future that are now manifesting themselves a a higher rate: changes to hydrological cycle - evaporation, precipitation, ocean warming and acidification, ocean current change - heat and nutrient transfer mechanisms.

So, the things we rely upon for life - water, oxygen, and and fairly narrow temperature range, are changing rapidly. Homo sapiens and its progenitors "adapted" via selection pressures over the course of millions of years, with the last 10K representing the "golden age" of hominid expansion due to unusually stable conditions. Earth has not had many periods of said stability throughout its history as discernible via geological analysis. Recent analysis of CO2 release from carbon sinks such as peat bogs and lignin (brown coal) indicagte that the activities of humans have been modifu=ying the biome over the past 4-6K years. Humans have been having an increasing influence on the environment, but the progression has not been linear. The explosion of the population since the turn of the 20th century due to signiifcant reduxtions in infectious disease mortality due to antibiotics and the increase in food production (amusing known as the "green" revolution) have led to a non-linear increase in population. Couple that with increased utilization and "freeing" of stored carbon via use of petroleum products and you arrive at our current situation:

Too many people using too many resources within a rapidly changing system that will not support the current paradigm (energy, water, and natural resource utilization) much longer.

So, who cares what the "Chicoms" are doing? Who cares what any subset of the world population is doing? The is only one space lifeboat (we call it Earth) and we are all stuck in it together. Things are about to get really different, really fast -- see release of methane from thawing of the permafrost in Siberia and the melting of methane hydrate in the oceans (methane is a much more "potent" insulator for solar energy than CO2).

With all of these inter-related systems such as hydrology and meteorology achieving ever-increasing rates of change, it is very, very likely that they will start to interact in ways (cascading inflection points) that we and our "models" have not and cannot accurately predict. However, whatever these changes will be, they will most certainly NOT be beneficial for the continued existence of the human species, which is dependent on a very small operating environment.

If you regard this exposition to be "doom and gloom" and negative, don't read it. Continue blithely on your way to a dusty death...

"To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing." -- Wm. Shakespeare

Only in this case it will be lights out for all of humanity.

I understand your point but you should care what the Chicoms are doing. They represent about one half of the world with the nations under their influence. You take one seriously fatalistic approach about the entire situation. The population of LA lives every day wondering when that 7.5 is finally going to hit. There is no use worrying about the things that we have no control over. One day soon they might spot one of those little asteroids up there that will hit the earth broadside. We wont be able to do anything about that and it may very well be lights out for all of humanity. IMO there is a fine line from being concerned and being paranoid.

"being concerned and being paranoid"

I think fatalistic is the word you were looking for. Deal with reality, or it will deal with you.

An examination of perspective is probably in order. I'd venture to say you are older than me, so the "event horizon" of your inevitable demise is possibly nearer than mine. However, we both have "interests" in other organisms that will remain after our passing.

What sort of responsibility do we owe them?

And do we have the ingenuity (and time) to successfully address the coming challenges.

If one thinks there's no chance at all, then might as well 'party 'till it's 1999', but if you think it's at least worth the battle, then buckle down and get to work.

If the entire planet wants to work together then who knows? All I am saying is it took many decades to get to where we are today. It will likely take many more decades to reach a tipping point. Even if that tipping point is reached it will be many more decades until anything changes. There are folks out there going out of their minds because glaciers are melting and they are worried about what calamities that will bring. News flash... there is not a darn thing anybody can do to change it. What you folks are counting on are solutions that may make a difference in a hundred years or more. That is even if what some folks think will occur is even possible. I'm a gambler and i understand the odds. We are going to go all in for many trillions of dollars betting on a blind hand. No one playing the game even knows what the odds are or the payout will be. Wishful thinking is what you all are betting on.

[PizzaSnake]

If the entire planet wants to work together then who knows? All I am saying is it took many decades to get to where we are today. It will likely take many more decades to reach a tipping point. Even if that tipping point is reached it will be many more decades until anything changes. There are folks out there going out of their minds because glaciers are melting and they are worried about what calamities that will bring. News flash... there is not a darn thing anybody can do to change it. What you folks are counting on are solutions that may make a difference in a hundred years or more. That is even if what some folks think will occur is even possible. I'm a gambler and i understand the odds. We are going to go all in for many trillions of dollars betting on a blind hand. No one playing the game even knows what the odds are or the payout will be. Wishful thinking is what you all are betting on.
[/quote]

Ever bet on a "hand" where the loser dies? Risk analysis tells us when the stakes are high, the appetite for failure must be low.

[PizzaSnake]

Who is helping all of those up and coming 3rd world nations get their coal plants up and running? Who is selling them the coal?

https://phys.org/news/2018-12-china-unb ... wer_1.html
[/quote]

Probably Rio Tinto out of Australia, if I had to hazard a guess. Now, is Australia China's thrall? Maybe.

[jhu72]

That is an old article, written the year after China had a 10 year peak in coal exports in 2017 (lower exports before and after). In 2020, China exported 20-25% of the 2017 amount. China's peak coal export year was 2008. The 2020 exports were 6.3% of what they were in peak export year.

China Coal Export Data

Note that today the USA imports 2-3% of its coal from China.

China is doing her part, perhaps not as much as we would like, but they are not pushing in the wrong direction.

[SCLaxAttack]

Climate change is a hoax to take your money.

So your position, so eloquently stated, is that the climate is not changing?

Outside of worrying yourself sick, what is your solution? Is it the holy trinity of veggie burgers, electric cars and renewable energy?

No "solution" per se, but before we can have a reasoned discussion of the probable outcomes and possible preparations to minimize the unpleasantness that awaits, we need to proceed from a position of shared acceptance of reality.

Certain parties intransigence is simultaneously irksome and delusional.

I understand your point. Your debating a problem whose possible solution is 100 years down the road. Nobody really knows for certain what the solutions should be. It is ironic that at this time some of the proposed solutions just happen to dovetail very nicely with the personal agendas of certain people. If you are vegan.. meat is the problem. If you despise the internal combustion engine.. electric cars will save the planet. If renewable energy is your thing.. solar panels and wind mills will save the planet. What a coincidence the alleged solutions just happen to fit some people's agenda for other unrelated issues.

hmmm, I'm certainly not a vegan, but I think that the alternative meats, including lab grown, have enormous promise to reduce emissions, reduce water consumption, be completely sustainable, and enable food security globally. We're well away from that, but the current trajectory of meat needs would otherwise be disastrous and incapable of being sustained.

Same for aquaculture. There's no chance of feeding the world through wild caught without destroying our oceans, with disastrous ripple effects.

I don't know anyone who "despises the internal combustion engine". I do know lots of folks who think we can eventually have a great transportation experience without it. Gotta make it affordable and ubiquitous, but certainly foreseeable. EDIT...I do "despise" the a-hole who goes by our house every night making the absolute most sound he can from his machine. Jerk.

Personally, I doubt that wind is the answer, though a piece of the puzzle for now. Tidal has some promise, similarly. Solar seems to have the most promise, if we can get it distributed ubiquitously, at low cost.

In all of this, high storage capacity and more efficient transmission when necessary are key components.

As an American capitalist and entrepreneur, I sure as heck hope that there will be lots of Americans who make a lot of dough off of these efforts.

My point is MD, and i disagree strongly with most of your opinions, is this. When did allegedly climate change become a problem? I remember vividly in HS around 1974 that we were being told global cooling was the problem. I am nowhere near as smart as many of you folks. I can do some simple math. The bugaboo issue is about PPM co2 in the atmosphere. I guess there is proper ratio there that has to be maintained to prevent CC/GW. So that co2 ppm has been a problem for 50 plus or more years. There are no solutions on the horizon that correct that ratio that could be accomplished in the next 20 years as a best case scenario. That means if we do reach some unknowable tipping point it will be 50 plus years until planet earth is back to its happy place. So in the real world it will will take 100 years to correct this. That is an attempt to fix a problem that only exists in the world of computer models. We will spend trillions, and trillions and trillions of dollars hoping to fix a problem any rational scientist will tell you we barely understand. What we will get out of it is tasty veggie burgers, electric cars and some really cool solar panels. That is what we need to do to save the planet?

Not to put too fine a point on it, we're good and f%cked. Period. The current amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has implications for the future that are now manifesting themselves a a higher rate: changes to hydrological cycle - evaporation, precipitation, ocean warming and acidification, ocean current change - heat and nutrient transfer mechanisms.

So, the things we rely upon for life - water, oxygen, and and fairly narrow temperature range, are changing rapidly. Homo sapiens and its progenitors "adapted" via selection pressures over the course of millions of years, with the last 10K representing the "golden age" of hominid expansion due to unusually stable conditions. Earth has not had many periods of said stability throughout its history as discernible via geological analysis. Recent analysis of CO2 release from carbon sinks such as peat bogs and lignin (brown coal) indicagte that the activities of humans have been modifu=ying the biome over the past 4-6K years. Humans have been having an increasing influence on the environment, but the progression has not been linear. The explosion of the population since the turn of the 20th century due to signiifcant reduxtions in infectious disease mortality due to antibiotics and the increase in food production (amusing known as the "green" revolution) have led to a non-linear increase in population. Couple that with increased utilization and "freeing" of stored carbon via use of petroleum products and you arrive at our current situation:

Too many people using too many resources within a rapidly changing system that will not support the current paradigm (energy, water, and natural resource utilization) much longer.

So, who cares what the "Chicoms" are doing? Who cares what any subset of the world population is doing? The is only one space lifeboat (we call it Earth) and we are all stuck in it together. Things are about to get really different, really fast -- see release of methane from thawing of the permafrost in Siberia and the melting of methane hydrate in the oceans (methane is a much more "potent" insulator for solar energy than CO2).

With all of these inter-related systems such as hydrology and meteorology achieving ever-increasing rates of change, it is very, very likely that they will start to interact in ways (cascading inflection points) that we and our "models" have not and cannot accurately predict. However, whatever these changes will be, they will most certainly NOT be beneficial for the continued existence of the human species, which is dependent on a very small operating environment.

If you regard this exposition to be "doom and gloom" and negative, don't read it. Continue blithely on your way to a dusty death...

"To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing." -- Wm. Shakespeare

Only in this case it will be lights out for all of humanity.

I understand your point but you should care what the Chicoms are doing. They represent about one half of the world with the nations under their influence. You take one seriously fatalistic approach about the entire situation. The population of LA lives every day wondering when that 7.5 is finally going to hit. There is no use worrying about the things that we have no control over. One day soon they might spot one of those little asteroids up there that will hit the earth broadside. We wont be able to do anything about that and it may very well be lights out for all of humanity. IMO there is a fine line from being concerned and being paranoid.

"being concerned and being paranoid"

I think fatalistic is the word you were looking for. Deal with reality, or it will deal with you.

An examination of perspective is probably in order. I'd venture to say you are older than me, so the "event horizon" of your inevitable demise is possibly nearer than mine. However, we both have "interests" in other organisms that will remain after our passing.

What sort of responsibility do we owe them?

And do we have the ingenuity (and time) to successfully address the coming challenges.

If one thinks there's no chance at all, then might as well 'party 'till it's 1999', but if you think it's at least worth the battle, then buckle down and get to work.

If the entire planet wants to work together then who knows? All I am saying is it took many decades to get to where we are today. It will likely take many more decades to reach a tipping point. Even if that tipping point is reached it will be many more decades until anything changes. There are folks out there going out of their minds because glaciers are melting and they are worried about what calamities that will bring. News flash... there is not a darn thing anybody can do to change it. What you folks are counting on are solutions that may make a difference in a hundred years or more. That is even if what some folks think will occur is even possible. I'm a gambler and i understand the odds. We are going to go all in for many trillions of dollars betting on a blind hand. No one playing the game even knows what the odds are or the payout will be. Wishful thinking is what you all are betting on.

Cradle, a few comments on two of your posts here:

Re: "The population of LA lives every day wondering when that 7.5 is finally going to hit. There is no use worrying about the things that we have no control over." This is a poor comparison for the point you're trying to make. Over the past decades the people of LA has absolutely worried about this and have done things to minimize the risks, e.g. building code changes and disaster recovery plans. They didn't just throw their hands up and say "oh well".

Re: your points on China and tipping points. Suggesting we do nothing because someone else isn't or because we have plenty of time before a correction is necessary seems foolhardy to me. First, we don't know when that tipping point will happen. Assuming we have plenty of time is like the driver who sees an accident up ahead and waits until the last possible second to hit their brakes, only to find they won't work. Using the same analogy, would you not break just because the guy in the next lane over isn't going to? The other guy may not break but you've decreased the size of the ultimate accident if you do.

[PizzaSnake]

That is an old article, written the year after China had a 10 year peak in coal exports in 2017 (lower exports before and after). In 2020, China exported 20-25% of the 2017 amount. China's peak coal export year was 2008. The 2020 exports were 6.3% of what they were in peak export year.

China Coal Export Data

Note that today the USA imports 2-3% of its coal from China.

China is doing her part, perhaps not as much as we would like, but they are not pushing in the wrong direction.

Well, we've got the coal. What are we going to do with it? I know, sue so we can export it...

https://knoema.com/atlas/topics/Energy/ ... inous-coal

[lagerhead]

The US can’t even get its act together in regional greenhouse gas programs, RGGI, CALI, or seasonal NOX and SO2 programs. Most states have their own environmental policies on airborne pollutants.

[PizzaSnake]

Cradle,

Looks like Putin might be more of an immediate thrrat.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... nd=premium

[cradleandshoot]

Climate change is a hoax to take your money.

So your position, so eloquently stated, is that the climate is not changing?

Outside of worrying yourself sick, what is your solution? Is it the holy trinity of veggie burgers, electric cars and renewable energy?

No "solution" per se, but before we can have a reasoned discussion of the probable outcomes and possible preparations to minimize the unpleasantness that awaits, we need to proceed from a position of shared acceptance of reality.

Certain parties intransigence is simultaneously irksome and delusional.

I understand your point. Your debating a problem whose possible solution is 100 years down the road. Nobody really knows for certain what the solutions should be. It is ironic that at this time some of the proposed solutions just happen to dovetail very nicely with the personal agendas of certain people. If you are vegan.. meat is the problem. If you despise the internal combustion engine.. electric cars will save the planet. If renewable energy is your thing.. solar panels and wind mills will save the planet. What a coincidence the alleged solutions just happen to fit some people's agenda for other unrelated issues.

hmmm, I'm certainly not a vegan, but I think that the alternative meats, including lab grown, have enormous promise to reduce emissions, reduce water consumption, be completely sustainable, and enable food security globally. We're well away from that, but the current trajectory of meat needs would otherwise be disastrous and incapable of being sustained.

Same for aquaculture. There's no chance of feeding the world through wild caught without destroying our oceans, with disastrous ripple effects.

I don't know anyone who "despises the internal combustion engine". I do know lots of folks who think we can eventually have a great transportation experience without it. Gotta make it affordable and ubiquitous, but certainly foreseeable. EDIT...I do "despise" the a-hole who goes by our house every night making the absolute most sound he can from his machine. Jerk.

Personally, I doubt that wind is the answer, though a piece of the puzzle for now. Tidal has some promise, similarly. Solar seems to have the most promise, if we can get it distributed ubiquitously, at low cost.

In all of this, high storage capacity and more efficient transmission when necessary are key components.

As an American capitalist and entrepreneur, I sure as heck hope that there will be lots of Americans who make a lot of dough off of these efforts.

My point is MD, and i disagree strongly with most of your opinions, is this. When did allegedly climate change become a problem? I remember vividly in HS around 1974 that we were being told global cooling was the problem. I am nowhere near as smart as many of you folks. I can do some simple math. The bugaboo issue is about PPM co2 in the atmosphere. I guess there is proper ratio there that has to be maintained to prevent CC/GW. So that co2 ppm has been a problem for 50 plus or more years. There are no solutions on the horizon that correct that ratio that could be accomplished in the next 20 years as a best case scenario. That means if we do reach some unknowable tipping point it will be 50 plus years until planet earth is back to its happy place. So in the real world it will will take 100 years to correct this. That is an attempt to fix a problem that only exists in the world of computer models. We will spend trillions, and trillions and trillions of dollars hoping to fix a problem any rational scientist will tell you we barely understand. What we will get out of it is tasty veggie burgers, electric cars and some really cool solar panels. That is what we need to do to save the planet?

Not to put too fine a point on it, we're good and f%cked. Period. The current amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has implications for the future that are now manifesting themselves a a higher rate: changes to hydrological cycle - evaporation, precipitation, ocean warming and acidification, ocean current change - heat and nutrient transfer mechanisms.

So, the things we rely upon for life - water, oxygen, and and fairly narrow temperature range, are changing rapidly. Homo sapiens and its progenitors "adapted" via selection pressures over the course of millions of years, with the last 10K representing the "golden age" of hominid expansion due to unusually stable conditions. Earth has not had many periods of said stability throughout its history as discernible via geological analysis. Recent analysis of CO2 release from carbon sinks such as peat bogs and lignin (brown coal) indicagte that the activities of humans have been modifu=ying the biome over the past 4-6K years. Humans have been having an increasing influence on the environment, but the progression has not been linear. The explosion of the population since the turn of the 20th century due to signiifcant reduxtions in infectious disease mortality due to antibiotics and the increase in food production (amusing known as the "green" revolution) have led to a non-linear increase in population. Couple that with increased utilization and "freeing" of stored carbon via use of petroleum products and you arrive at our current situation:

Too many people using too many resources within a rapidly changing system that will not support the current paradigm (energy, water, and natural resource utilization) much longer.

So, who cares what the "Chicoms" are doing? Who cares what any subset of the world population is doing? The is only one space lifeboat (we call it Earth) and we are all stuck in it together. Things are about to get really different, really fast -- see release of methane from thawing of the permafrost in Siberia and the melting of methane hydrate in the oceans (methane is a much more "potent" insulator for solar energy than CO2).

With all of these inter-related systems such as hydrology and meteorology achieving ever-increasing rates of change, it is very, very likely that they will start to interact in ways (cascading inflection points) that we and our "models" have not and cannot accurately predict. However, whatever these changes will be, they will most certainly NOT be beneficial for the continued existence of the human species, which is dependent on a very small operating environment.

If you regard this exposition to be "doom and gloom" and negative, don't read it. Continue blithely on your way to a dusty death...

"To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing." -- Wm. Shakespeare

Only in this case it will be lights out for all of humanity.

I understand your point but you should care what the Chicoms are doing. They represent about one half of the world with the nations under their influence. You take one seriously fatalistic approach about the entire situation. The population of LA lives every day wondering when that 7.5 is finally going to hit. There is no use worrying about the things that we have no control over. One day soon they might spot one of those little asteroids up there that will hit the earth broadside. We wont be able to do anything about that and it may very well be lights out for all of humanity. IMO there is a fine line from being concerned and being paranoid.

"being concerned and being paranoid"

I think fatalistic is the word you were looking for. Deal with reality, or it will deal with you.

An examination of perspective is probably in order. I'd venture to say you are older than me, so the "event horizon" of your inevitable demise is possibly nearer than mine. However, we both have "interests" in other organisms that will remain after our passing.

What sort of responsibility do we owe them?

And do we have the ingenuity (and time) to successfully address the coming challenges.

If one thinks there's no chance at all, then might as well 'party 'till it's 1999', but if you think it's at least worth the battle, then buckle down and get to work.

If the entire planet wants to work together then who knows? All I am saying is it took many decades to get to where we are today. It will likely take many more decades to reach a tipping point. Even if that tipping point is reached it will be many more decades until anything changes. There are folks out there going out of their minds because glaciers are melting and they are worried about what calamities that will bring. News flash... there is not a darn thing anybody can do to change it. What you folks are counting on are solutions that may make a difference in a hundred years or more. That is even if what some folks think will occur is even possible. I'm a gambler and i understand the odds. We are going to go all in for many trillions of dollars betting on a blind hand. No one playing the game even knows what the odds are or the payout will be. Wishful thinking is what you all are betting on.

Cradle, a few comments on two of your posts here:

Re: "The population of LA lives every day wondering when that 7.5 is finally going to hit. There is no use worrying about the things that we have no control over." This is a poor comparison for the point you're trying to make. Over the past decades the people of LA has absolutely worried about this and have done things to minimize the risks, e.g. building code changes and disaster recovery plans. They didn't just throw their hands up and say "oh well".

Re: your points on China and tipping points. Suggesting we do nothing because someone else isn't or because we have plenty of time before a correction is necessary seems foolhardy to me. First, we don't know when that tipping point will happen. Assuming we have plenty of time is like the driver who sees an accident up ahead and waits until the last possible second to hit their brakes, only to find they won't work. Using the same analogy, would you not break just because the guy in the next lane over isn't going to? The other guy may not break but you've decreased the size of the ultimate accident if you do.

"This is a poor comparison for the point you're trying to make. Over the past decades the people of LA has absolutely worried about this and have done things to minimize the risks, e.g. building code changes and disaster recovery plans. They didn't just throw their hands up and say "oh well"."

The Titanic was suppose to be unsinkable as well. The best engineering in the world was no match for an iceberg. All the planning and money spent trying to minimalize the damage will be tested the next time the really big quake hits. My point is no one on the face of the planet can stop it from happening. In regards to what sort of calamities could occur because of GW/CC, nobody has the slightest clue what might happen. There are climate change models that are all over the board. Once again my point is the same, there is not a darn thing we can do to stop anything that may or may not happen. To expand on your analogy we can slam on the brakes all we want, best case scenario is it will be 100 years before the brakes can stop anything. There are plans to invest trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars without any certainty what disasters we are trying to prevent. No one knows for sure if anything we want to try and do will work. I am reminded of that old analogy about throwing everything against the wall and hoping something will stick. I read some of the solutions being out out there and none of them impress me all that much. I do know we are the precipice of spending a lot of money in the hope that something will work. I don't have a scientists mind but i have enough common sense to wonder how we think we as human beings can change what the planet is doing. That is a noble endeavor but it takes a whole lot of hubris on our part. I have yet to have anyone one this forum or anywhere else for that matter explain to me how this mechanism works. The theory is that if we reduce co2 ppm in the atmosphere to a magic number everything will get back to where it should be... maybe in a hundred years or so. Until then, who knows? This is not about doing nothing, it is a matter IMO of understanding what the end game is and exactly how you get there. What does many trillions of dollars invested in the solution buy us?

[admin]

It was pointed out that we're developing a glut of Climate Threads. For the sake of simplicity, I want to merge them within this thread (which I believe is the oldest). But, I don't want to do this if a person and/or people created the new ones for a reason which I'm not seeing. FWIW, I think Pizza Snake created the two that I want to merge. Any objections?

[cradleandshoot]

That is an old article, written the year after China had a 10 year peak in coal exports in 2017 (lower exports before and after). In 2020, China exported 20-25% of the 2017 amount. China's peak coal export year was 2008. The 2020 exports were 6.3% of what they were in peak export year.

China Coal Export Data

Note that today the USA imports 2-3% of its coal from China.

China is doing her part, perhaps not as much as we would like, but they are not pushing in the wrong direction.

https://theconversation.com/china-finan ... ial-161332

Because we can always trust and believe what the Chicoms are telling us what they will do.

[cradleandshoot]

It was pointed out that we're developing a glut of Climate Threads. For the sake of simplicity, I want to merge them within this thread (which I believe is the oldest). But, I don't want to do this if a person and/or people created the new ones for a reason which I'm not seeing. FWIW, I think Pizza Snake created the two that I want to merge. Any objections?

Not from me.

[admin]

Maybe "All Things Environment" ? The climate discussions are not really the same as discussions of other sorts of pollution, man against nature (lawn care!), etc discussions, but they could all be under one thread.

Changed the Threads name accordingly. We can always change it again including back to it's original name.

[jhu72]

That is an old article, written the year after China had a 10 year peak in coal exports in 2017 (lower exports before and after). In 2020, China exported 20-25% of the 2017 amount. China's peak coal export year was 2008. The 2020 exports were 6.3% of what they were in peak export year.

China Coal Export Data

Note that today the USA imports 2-3% of its coal from China.

China is doing her part, perhaps not as much as we would like, but they are not pushing in the wrong direction.

https://theconversation.com/china-finan ... ial-161332

Because we can always trust and believe what the Chicoms are telling us what they will do.

Let me see if I have this right. China has decreased their usage of coal significantly and continue to. China has decreased their export of coal to an even greater degree. But your problem is the fact that in Q1 the UN releases a study that says China, Japan and South Korea need to stop financing third world coal fired power plant construction. The Koreans pledged to stop after all existing deals are honored. Still waiting on China and Japan to make the pledge.

No one, and I mean no one, is planning or dealing with the issue of how you electrify poor third world countries. The bankers love the coal fired power plant loan business. They make a bigger profit margin on those than renewable power infrastructure. If China and Japan stop funding today, the slack will be picked up by private banks and the profit margins likely goes up. The Australians have signed the pledge, but are looking at getting back into the business. These pledges are not legally binding.

The real problem is not financing, the real problem is burning coal. You are not going to stop third world countries from using coal without a plan and an investment. This is not China's fault, it is reality. Seems to me the world needs an answer, one answer backed by all the big countries.

It would be interesting to understand the deals China already has, and when they signed them. My bet is the bulk were signed after Trump pulled the US out of the Paris Accord.

[PizzaSnake]

It was pointed out that we're developing a glut of Climate Threads. For the sake of simplicity, I want to merge them within this thread (which I believe is the oldest). But, I don't want to do this if a person and/or people created the new ones for a reason which I'm not seeing. FWIW, I think Pizza Snake created the two that I want to merge. Any objections?

“When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe.” - John Muir

[lagerhead]

It would be interesting to understand the deals China already has, and when they signed them. My bet is the bulk were signed after Trump pulled the US out of the Paris Accord.

Are you serious? Any deal the Chinese signed during the trump administration won’t come in line for years. If you believe that you understand the Chinese will not address climate change so now what?

[jhu72]

It would be interesting to understand the deals China already has, and when they signed them. My bet is the bulk were signed after Trump pulled the US out of the Paris Accord.

Are you serious? Any deal the Chinese signed during the trump administration won’t come in line for years. If you believe that you understand the Chinese will not address climate change so now what?

.. this has nothing to do with deals the Chinese have signed with the US. When Trump dumped the Paris Accord, every other country took note. You really think that did not cause other countries to consider decreasing their own commitment?? Fortunately the Euros pretty much stayed onboard expecting or perhaps hoping we would return to out senses when Trump was gone.

[lagerhead]

It would be interesting to understand the deals China already has, and when they signed them. My bet is the bulk were signed after Trump pulled the US out of the Paris Accord.

Are you serious? Any deal the Chinese signed during the trump administration won’t come in line for years. If you believe that you understand the Chinese will not address climate change so now what?

.. this has nothing to do with deals the Chinese have signed with the US. When Trump dumped the Paris Accord, every other country took note. You really think that did not cause other countries to consider decreasing their own commitment?? Fortunately the Euros pretty much stayed onboard expecting or perhaps hoping we would returned to out senses when Trump was gone.

You said China deals signed after trump pulled out!!

[lagerhead]

It would be interesting to understand the deals China already has, and when they signed them. My bet is the bulk were signed after Trump pulled the US out of the Paris Accord.

Are you serious? Any deal the Chinese signed during the trump administration won’t come in line for years. If you believe that you understand the Chinese will not address climate change so now what?

.. this has nothing to do with deals the Chinese have signed with the US. When Trump dumped the Paris Accord, every other country took note. You really think that did not cause other countries to consider decreasing their own commitment?? Fortunately the Euros pretty much stayed onboard expecting or perhaps hoping we would returned to out senses when Trump was gone.

You said China deals signed after trump pulled out!!

Should look at what the euros are doing RWE and EDF trying real hard uh huh.

[jhu72]

It would be interesting to understand the deals China already has, and when they signed them. My bet is the bulk were signed after Trump pulled the US out of the Paris Accord.

Are you serious? Any deal the Chinese signed during the trump administration won’t come in line for years. If you believe that you understand the Chinese will not address climate change so now what?

.. this has nothing to do with deals the Chinese have signed with the US. When Trump dumped the Paris Accord, every other country took note. You really think that did not cause other countries to consider decreasing their own commitment?? Fortunately the Euros pretty much stayed onboard expecting or perhaps hoping we would returned to out senses when Trump was gone.

You said China deals signed after trump pulled out!!

... to be clear. I suspect the Chinese had fewer third world power plant financing deals before Trump was elected President than they did when Trump left office. Probably the Japanese and S. Koreans as well. The UN has been beating this particular drum (stop the third world financing for power plants) for years. Various countries got onboard earlier than others. If a country had not committed to this before Trump, they certainly were not going to commit after Trump was elected and they saw how things shook out. I bet within the next year China and Japan will both come around and Australia will not backslide.