Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

GreatApe wrote: »

I think the net zero target is too aggressive it will burden costs too high especially trying to move heating away from NG

The world target is zero, then negative from 2050-2100 to restrict heating to 1.5C+ giving us a 2:1 probability of avoiding runaway and catastrophic warming.

There is no 80% option, the costs of not acting are more than the costs of acting, so the simple economics confirms that all the 'burden of cost' arguments are false, anti-AGW, denialist, space wastage.


Please note - I am only responding to some of GA's posts as we now have 4 posters pushing a denial, apologist, mis-information etc etc.. I would prefer to ignore all his posts, but am wary of ignoring 4 posters and their combined actions on here. Apologies in advance for my extra posts, and I will try to keep them to a minimum, and short (for me). M.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

And as the article went on:

....“Cook’s organization labels Duke Energy “Public Enemy #1”

It is the use of hyperbole such as this that is losing the liberal left the political war in the US. Ask most Americans who public enemy #1 is and they will probably nominate some mass murderer or Hilary Clinton. The immediate priority of Trump voting middle America is more likely to be immigration, defence, healthcare or employment rather than climate change. Yes, the American public do support climate change action but reject the cost attached to it.

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Please note - I am only responding to some of GA's posts as we now have 4 posters pushing a denial, apologist, mis-information etc etc.. I would prefer to ignore all his posts, but am wary of ignoring 4 posters and their combined actions on here. Apologies in advance for my extra posts, and I will try to keep them to a minimum, and short (for me). M.

....and one of those has a 7.8kWh solar array, 3 ASHPs...and planted 1000 trees in his back garden!!

GreatApe

JKenH wrote: »

“Bernie Sanders has laid out an ambitious 10-year, $16.3tn national mobilization to avert climate catastrophe, warning that the US risks losing $34.5tn in economic productivity by the end of the century if it does not respond with the urgency the threat demands.”

Interesting that one of the candidates feels confident he can make predictions on productivity 80 years ahead. I wonder if anyone in 1919 would have been able to make any realistic predictions about what the world would look like in 2020. If climate catastrophe occurs as predicted, productivity will be the least of our problems.

Sanders and co are watermelons

A lot of the communist ideology now hides behind the green lobby but their ideology is exactly as it was before they out on their veils

They went from claiming capatilism is crap and doesn't work not being a viable argument because just look around so much plenty in capatilism to saying...well okay it works but you are destroying mother earth!!! Which is nonsense propaganda



Having said this

If any country can decarb rapidly it is the USA
If I were the republican party I would embrace reducing CO2 as a cost to keep the commies out of power.

I'd probably do it via nukes just to spite them :D don't you love politics
Joking aside mass nuclear builds work and the USA already has the world's best fleet and the most experience.

They only need 30 additional nuclear stations to go to ~72% nuclear 6% hydropower 2% solar gets them to 80% non fossil and 20% NG and more can be built if necessary

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

The world target is zero, then negative from 2050-2100 to restrict heating to 1.5C+ giving us a 2:1 probability of avoiding runaway and catastrophic warming.

I'm not worried about that and don't much believe in it either (that is to say I don't believe it will be a big net negative)

We will have the technology to do anything and everything sometime this century probably before 2050 when general AI arrives. But I suspect you're not worried about that and don't much believe in the possibility of AI. Only I don't call you names for not believing in AI even though most scientists believe it is inevitable and close.....

There is no 80% option, the costs of not acting are more than the costs of acting, so the simple economics confirms that all the 'burden of cost' arguments are false, anti-AGW, denialist, space wastage.

There is always an option, to say otherwise is simply to scare and control

Please note - I am only responding to some of GA's posts as we now have 4 posters pushing a denial, apologist, mis-information etc etc.. I would prefer to ignore all his posts, but am wary of ignoring 4 posters and their combined actions on here. Apologies in advance for my extra posts, and I will try to keep them to a minimum, and short (for me). M.

Still claiming the moral high ground

Don't dilute your purity by engaging in conversation with 'the deniers'

pile-o-stone

https://www.treehugger.com/climate-change/there-arent-any-climate-deniers-anymore-point-they-are-all-climate-arsonists-and-nihilists.html

"Perhaps a decade or two ago, one could accept that there might be climate skeptics, who honestly questioned the science of climate change and whether it was happening at all. Then you got climate deniers, who in the face of all evidence said 'it's orbital mechanics or sunspots or this always happens.'

It is hard to believe that today anyone still believes that nothing is happening or that it is sunspots. What we have now are people who just don't care, or have other interests that take priority."

"At the root of climate nihilism is the endless pursuit of fossil fuels to power the economy, regardless of the ecological consequences.... The nihilists are basically saying: "To hell with carbon budgets in the Paris climate agreement. To hell with scientists raising alarm bells about the melting of the polar caps and ice on Greenland. To hell with farmers who are not going to have water to irrigate crops. To hell with the billions of people who rely on rivers fed by glaciers for their drinking water. To hell with plant and animal species that are going extinct. To hell with those who have to endure more intense hurricanes. We simply don't care."

JKenH

pile-o-stone wrote: »

https://www.treehugger.com/climate-change/there-arent-any-climate-deniers-anymore-point-they-are-all-climate-arsonists-and-nihilists.html

"Perhaps a decade or two ago, one could accept that there might be climate skeptics, who honestly questioned the science of climate change and whether it was happening at all. Then you got climate deniers, who in the face of all evidence said 'it's orbital mechanics or sunspots or this always happens.'

It is hard to believe that today anyone still believes that nothing is happening or that it is sunspots. What we have now are people who just don't care, or have other interests that take priority."

"At the root of climate nihilism is the endless pursuit of fossil fuels to power the economy, regardless of the ecological consequences.... The nihilists are basically saying: "To hell with carbon budgets in the Paris climate agreement. To hell with scientists raising alarm bells about the melting of the polar caps and ice on Greenland. To hell with farmers who are not going to have water to irrigate crops. To hell with the billions of people who rely on rivers fed by glaciers for their drinking water. To hell with plant and animal species that are going extinct. To hell with those who have to endure more intense hurricanes. We simply don't care."

Obviously the message is not getting across. To cope with these irrational attitudes the Guardian apparently issued the following advice to their staff to ramp up the hyperbole


We've recently been reviewing the language we use in our coverage of the environment, and whether the terms we use accurately reflect the phenomena they describe. We want to ensure that we are being scientifically precise and rooted in facts, while also communicating clearly with readers on this very important issue. The phrase 'climate change', for example, sounds rather passive and gentle when what scientists are talking about is a catastrophe for humanity. Increasingly, climate scientists and organisations from the UN to the Met Office are changing their terminology, and using stronger language to describe the situation.

Therefore we would like to change the terms we use as follows:

Use climate emergency, crisis or breakdown instead of climate change
Use global heating instead of global warming
Use wildlife instead of biodiversity (when appropriate)
Use fish populations instead of fish stocks
Use climate science denier or climate denier instead of climate sceptic

The original terms are not banned, but do think twice before using them. if you think a specific term is needed to help people find your story online, then please check with the
audience team.

The updates will appear in the style guide from today. Please do let me know if you have any
further suggestions.

Many thanks.

Katharine Viner
Editor-in-chief
Guardian News & Media

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

....“Cook’s organization labels Duke Energy “Public Enemy #1”

It is the use of hyperbole such as this that is losing the liberal left the political war in the US. Ask most Americans who public enemy #1 is and they will probably nominate some mass murderer or Hilary Clinton. The immediate priority of Trump voting middle America is more likely to be immigration, defence, healthcare or employment rather than climate change. Yes, the American public do support climate change action but reject the cost attached to it.

I'm glad you posted that, nice to see you slowly and steadily revealing your true self.

So we have the 'liberal left' losing the political war - when it seems that almost all of the democratic front runners are polling around 5-10% ahead of Trump, and of course Hilary won by 3m votes. I believe the Democrats 'won' the 2018 mid terms by around 5-8m votes.

Yes, the MAGA hard right Trumpsters would class Hilary as enemy number one, as they ignore the real issues and continue to fight the 2016 election.

Immigration (illegal) was not an issue in America by the end of the Obama years, as it was at a historic low, but with Trumps actions and threats, plus policy decisions that have caused disruption in S. America, it has quickly spiked under him, but even then, the US is a vast country, full of opportunity, in which immigrants contribute to the GDP and have far lower crime rates.

Defence is not an issue, after all the US spends more on defence than the next 10 or so countries added together do. Defence spending is simply a dog-whistle to the far right. [Fun fact - which country has the biggest air force, answer, the US Air Force. Which country has the second biggest air force, answer, the US Navy. M.]

Healthcare is a problem, but Obamacare improved things, and many on the left are campaigning for universal healthcare for all, but again the right block this as there's a vast amount of Big Pharma money donations to them - a shame for a country that spends twice as much per head as most developed countries on healthcare, but gets less for the money, and has a shorter life expectancy.

Employment - now that's a funny one since the US solar industry employs more people than the FF industry and there are far, far more jobs in a renewable world.

Cost - another interesting one, given that a low carbon renewable future is economically superior to the one they are currently facing under extreme AGW.

So it's nice of you to list all the 'problems', but a shame you gave false, extreme right claims.

RE is the future, it's also the thread, if you feel so strongly, then perhaps you could pop to the Energy Board and raise your views, opinions and concerns there instead.

Thank you.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I'm glad you posted that, nice to see you slowly and steadily revealing your true self.

After all you have written about me of late I feel a different man. Maybe I need a new identity to go with it.

Martyn1981 wrote: »

RE is the future, it's also the thread, if you feel so strongly, then perhaps you could pop to the Energy Board and raise your views, opinions and concerns there instead.

Thank you.

The last time I looked the thread was Green, ethical, energy issues in the news . The post from me you are taking issue with was in direct reply to your “Public Enemy #1” post. Several of your “news items” today are either pure politics or direct digs at FF companies with very little RE content. POS appears to have taken over your previously useful RE news posting leaving you to concentrate on your favourite pastime - FF bashing.
If anyone has shown his true colours of late it is you, Mart.

zeupater

Hi All

... although both wings of politics tend to claim ownership of the 'truth' (as in "whatever the opposition say, the 'truth' is", which invariably means that whatever follows is dubious!), the position occupied by the majority of the general public includes elements of what would be classified by purists as both left & right wing thinking .... my left side tends to lean to the left whilst the right side leans to the right & like the vast majority of well balanced individuals, it's the mass & connectivity occupied by the centre that stops everything splitting apart & falling off in opposite directions ....

... probably time to reconsider & leave politics well to one side .... there are plenty of threads elsewhere on the forum where schizophrenics of politics can be discussed at length without resorting to doing so on the G&E board ... neither the left or the right 'own' ethics, renewables or environmental issues, although many activists consider they have a moral right to do so as a form of spin & disinformation for political point scoring! ...

I know a number of individuals that would classify themselves as generally having left or right wing 'thinking', but there's always a good appreciation that on this particular subject it's not a case of day & night, black & white, or even various shades of grey ... think of it as being yin & yang where the majority of those that lean to the left have some right wing tendencies, with the opposite also being the case for those that would lean to the right ...

... it's not a case of right & left, it's one of right & wrong!

HTH
Z