The Climate Change Debate Thread (Second Thread)


valamhic

Banned
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
19,843
James Delingpole reports on the Polish event. I've learned that it is an annual one due for next year again. China is building 35 news airports by 2035. USA with support from Jair Bolsonaro’s Brazil, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait – is not involved. So in reality the USA, China, Brazil, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, India and France are gone, either cannot or will not act. You could take all of Africa out of it and most South American countries out too because of the chaotic governments there.

There is just the remainder of the EU, Canada, Australia left. There can be no improvement by next year's gig showing that my prediction of it effectively ending in mid 2019 is on course. Usually one bout of mass hysteria is knocked off its pedestal by another or by some other emergency.

USA with fire support from Jair Bolsonaro’s Brazil, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait – is

Delingpole: Another UN Climate Summit Ends in Failure
 

valamhic

Banned
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
19,843
Well, D'uh.

The vast bulk of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere was released during the previous parts of the Industrial Revolution by western countries.

India and China have always said that it is unfair to expect them to stunt their industrialisation by paying for problems mostly caused by the western powers. In fairness, most of the current reduction in CO2 emissions should be led by the western industrialised countries - it was they who profited the most from them, as the plutocrats like the Kochs continue to do.

That is why neither China nor India would sign up for the Kyoto Protocol, but they did sign up for Paris, which recognised their special position. Both (up until recently at least) were surpassing their commitments.

China, India Become Climate Leaders as West Falters | Climate Central

As was pointed out to valhamic recently, by someone else, I should not be your librarian and educator. You should not be commenting on the Paris Agreement if you are essentially ignorant about what it says.
The Paris Accord says that western countries must reduce their carbon footprint, vast amounts of money must be transferred from western countries to undeveloped countries as a direct transfer to help them cope with climate change. (only the USA paid 1 billion so far, the rest paid nothing). India can continue with business as usual which is it doing and China can continue with business as usual for 12 years, after which they agreed to negotiate again.

The principle is based on population to wealth ratio. You divide the GDP by the population and the higher answers pay and cut while the lower answers receive and increase. Socialism!
 

valamhic

Banned
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
19,843
Can Owde or Gandy tell us which countries paid money into this fund since 2012? Breal points out that the USA paid 1 billion under Obama by 2012.

How much have other countries paid since then. I would be particularly interested in France, Germany and Canada, rich countries with climate change elected governments
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
45,136
That's a form of geo-engineering is it not?
Yes, because it would have to be deployed on a massive scale to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

What I am pointing out is that it is high-risk. After many attempts, no feasible technology has been developed. By the way, the planet already has an excellent carbon capture technology - trees.

You could say that same about another panacaea - nuclear fusion. At the best estimate, we probably will not see a working reactor before 2040, and then maybe never. Can't bet the farm, or the planet, on that either. But we already have an excellent source of nuclear fusion energy, it is called The Sun.

I agree CCS and nuclear fusion are technologies that should be developed, but they are no excuse for inaction on de-carbonisation.
 

silverharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
15,807
Yes, because it would have to be deployed on a massive scale to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

What I am pointing out is that it is high-risk. After many attempts, no feasible technology has been developed. By the way, the planet already has an excellent carbon capture technology - trees.

You could say that same about another panacaea - nuclear fusion. At the best estimate, we probably will not see a working reactor before 2040, and then maybe never. Can't bet the farm, or the planet, on that either. But we already have an excellent source of nuclear fusion energy, it is called The Sun.

I agree CCS and nuclear fusion are technologies that should be developed, but they are no excuse for inaction on de-carbonisation.

there is an excuse, the cost will go down in the future. As you say fusion could start being a thing in 20 to 30 years, its an engineering problem at this stage. give it 30 or 40 years and you could 3D print concrete blocks out of captured CO2 from the atmosphere. When did government become so negative and sadomasochistic instead of inspirational?
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
45,136
there is an excuse, the cost will go down in the future. As you say fusion could start being a thing in 20 to 30 years, its an engineering problem at this stage. give it 30 or 40 years and you could 3D print concrete blocks out of captured CO2 from the atmosphere. When did government become so negative and sadomasochistic instead of inspirational?
Nuclear fusion will be less of a benefit if the temperature of the planet has already gone up another degree or so.

We are ignorant of nuclear fusion - for example, how much will be cost to product a watt of electricity by fusion power? If fusion electricity is way more expensive than solar in 2040, then why bother to deploy it on a large scale?
 

Trampas

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 30, 2007
Messages
15,278
Excellent letter in today's IT. Perhaps somebody could link to it. There is nothing like a few statements of fact to show up the happy clappy Paris/Katowice brigade.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
45,136
Excellent letter in today's IT. Perhaps somebody could link to it. There is nothing like a few statements of fact to show up the happy clappy Paris/Katowice brigade.
It is here.

Be prepared for climate change

The letter is a polemic against a previous letter from some Catholic clerics who calim that climate change raises important moral issues.

This letter ends:

We might be better engaged in adaptation measures to deal with the inevitable.
No comfort to climate change deniers there, and a statement I would agree with, though what is "inevitable" is up for grabs. After all, that is what the Paris and Katowice Agreements are all about. Yes, climate change raises moral issues, but primarily it is about risk and insurance against worse and more impoverished lives for our children.
 

Iarmuid

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
1,646
primarily it is about risk and insurance against worse and more impoverished lives for our children.
Certainly for the earnest among your fellow travellers , god bless em, it is about that, but let's be honest at the horse trading fest characterised by the annual COP circus is primarily about pure power and politics.
 

Trampas

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 30, 2007
Messages
15,278
It is here.

Be prepared for climate change

The letter is a polemic against a previous letter from some Catholic clerics who calim that climate change raises important moral issues.

This letter ends:



No comfort to climate change deniers there, and a statement I would agree with, though what is "inevitable" is up for grabs. After all, that is what the Paris and Katowice Agreements are all about. Yes, climate change raises moral issues, but primarily it is about risk and insurance against worse and more impoverished lives for our children.
That writer goes on...…….."the only certainty in our future is the next ice age". The reason it is a certainty is that we have had a dozen or so ice ages in the past couple of million years. Before "climate change"....aka "global warming" started to occupy minds the received wisdom is that we were living in an inter-glacial period. Perhaps we should prepare.
 

valamhic

Banned
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
19,843
there is an excuse, the cost will go down in the future. As you say fusion could start being a thing in 20 to 30 years, its an engineering problem at this stage. give it 30 or 40 years and you could 3D print concrete blocks out of captured CO2 from the atmosphere. When did government become so negative and sadomasochistic instead of inspirational?
Just imagine being back at the year 1718. You are in the company of a group of 9 people, 6 of whom are engineers with inventive minds. Coal is just catching on. How much of the modern world would be predicted. Next imagine the government is involved with a minister for invention. As the same question.
 

valamhic

Banned
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
19,843
That writer goes on...…….."the only certainty in our future is the next ice age". The reason it is a certainty is that we have had a dozen or so ice ages in the past couple of million years. Before "climate change"....aka "global warming" started to occupy minds the received wisdom is that we were living in an inter-glacial period. Perhaps we should prepare.
I would rather be too hot than too cold and I think the public know it. The first thing is the lack of food, hunger. Hungry kids, hungry people and weapons =
 

Breeal

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2015
Messages
5,745
Excellent letter in today's IT. Perhaps somebody could link to it. There is nothing like a few statements of fact to show up the happy clappy Paris/Katowice brigade.
Climate Change has been exposed as a religion for years now, anyone disagreeing with the doctrine of Climate Change gets labelled a blasphemer, it's a belief system with no evidence to back it up and completely based on doomsday prophecies.
 

JCR

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
6,325
Yes, because it would have to be deployed on a massive scale to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

What I am pointing out is that it is high-risk. After many attempts, no feasible technology has been developed. By the way, the planet already has an excellent carbon capture technology - trees.

You could say that same about another panacaea - nuclear fusion. At the best estimate, we probably will not see a working reactor before 2040, and then maybe never. Can't bet the farm, or the planet, on that either. But we already have an excellent source of nuclear fusion energy, it is called The Sun.

I agree CCS and nuclear fusion are technologies that should be developed, but they are no excuse for inaction on de-carbonisation.
I agree that de-carbonistation is essential but based on everything I've read on gradual reduction aims and the fact that it seems to be written into the recent report that these aims in themselves are inadequate what choice is there other than geo-engineering?

I'm not personally arguing for a softly softly carbon emissions reduction plan so that economies do not suffer inordinately and lets work on other measures instead but it seems to be written into our chances of keeping the overall warming figure down sufficiently.

What's happening now with emissions policy is just not going to work.
 

Steve Case

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2012
Messages
2,407
Like Steve Case, I am not comfortable with geo-engineering.
Holy cow, after all these years we agree on something.

There is no such thing as painless geo-engineering, and a global programme
might well create worse problems than the ones it meant to solve.
Yes, what could possibly go wrong?

And, by the way, it is mostly climate change deniers who seem to like geo-engineering.
Uhm no. That's not true.

Bill Gates, by the way, funds this effort at CCS (carbon capture and storage)
- I happen to know that many scientists, including ones in the IPCC, think we
will need this technology.
Sequestering CO2, removing a biologically essential component from the
atmosphere, is stupid.

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds


Bill Gates Is Investing in a Technology That Turns CO2 into Clean Fuel
I didn't know he was stupid enough to believe in perpetual motion machines.

It should be added that many Government and privately funded efforts to invent
a feasible CCS technology have failed.
Good!
 

valamhic

Banned
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
19,843
I agree that de-carbonistation is essential but based on everything I've read on gradual reduction aims and the fact that it seems to be written into the recent report that these aims in themselves are inadequate what choice is there other than geo-engineering?

I'm not personally arguing for a softly softly carbon emissions reduction plan so that economies do not suffer inordinately and lets work on other measures instead but it seems to be written into our chances of keeping the overall warming figure down sufficiently.

What's happening now with emissions policy is just not going to work.
All governments should set up a fund to allow people like you pay in optionally and people like me not pay. Why can you force me to pay to Mugabe's palace fund.?
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
45,136
I agree that de-carbonistation is essential but based on everything I've read on gradual reduction aims and the fact that it seems to be written into the recent report that these aims in themselves are inadequate what choice is there other than geo-engineering?

I'm not personally arguing for a softly softly carbon emissions reduction plan so that economies do not suffer inordinately and lets work on other measures instead but it seems to be written into our chances of keeping the overall warming figure down sufficiently.

What's happening now with emissions policy is just not going to work.
I think we would both agree on an aggressive carbon-reduction program, with research into carbon capture as a contingency.

I agree that carbon-capture will almost certainly become vital later in the century - we will need to remove large quantities of carob dioxide from the atmosphere and store it. However, my concern is that it might become a substitute for de-carbonisation in the shorter term - I do not think that would work.
 

gandyalf

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2015
Messages
2,411
I think we would both agree on an aggressive carbon-reduction program, with research into carbon capture as a contingency.

I agree that carbon-capture will almost certainly become vital later in the century - we will need to remove large quantities of carob dioxide from the atmosphere and store it. However, my concern is that it might become a substitute for de-carbonisation in the shorter term - I do not think that would work.
Yes to reforestation and leaving the black stuff in the ground, and as far as the rest of it is concerned, necessity is the mother of invention. Humanity is very intuitive and resourceful, we know what's broke and we know how to fix it.
ASAP.
 
Top