Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

michaels

GreatApe wrote: »

Reality 2008 - 2018

USA per capita emmissions down 16%
Germany per capita emmissions down 11%

In fact the USA figures are even better than this 16% reduction because they have also reduced oil imports from about 3 billion barrels towards net zero.

The left like to think the world works on 'will' especially 'political will' if only we can protest enough then the 'will' will solve it all. Poverty homelessness despair illnesses cancer sadness depression and wind power it's all just a lack of will......those evil right wingers lack will when we are in power we will will into existence prosperity and wealth and the cure to cancer

Clearly reality doesn't work off will but works off economics and technology and productivity.

Having said that the USA could and should deploy more and more wind and solar
If they maintain a -16% per decade figure that's pretty good
I suspect in a 'do nothing scenario' this reduction will in fact accelerate as near AI allows more economic more rapid deployment of alternatives and BEVs make the grid and solar/wind deployment more productive

The epa justify reducing fuel efficiency standards using the following logic:
Less fuel efficient cars cost more per mile to drive so mileages will be lower and as accidents are generally per mile driven this will lead to fewer deaths and injuries. Thus increased fuel efficiency is bad for health. QED

GreatApe

JKenH wrote: »

There is a fundamental difference between the Right who tend to be more optimistic that things will work out (not just regarding climate change) and the Left who are more pessimistic in outlook and feel greater need for intervention by the state.

It's worse than that many on the left (the majority I would say) believe and propagate the idea that the world and humanity is in a terrible state when the reality is that if you could choose when to be born the sane answer is today not any other time in history. And if you could pick the future then 10 years from now will be much better still than today

Of course they can't admit that so they make up all sorts of nonsense and bias, because to admit today is better than 20 years ago and 20 years from now will be better still would be to admit free market capatilism has been a huge success

I like to look and think about housing
The world will need 5 billion good quality homes for 10 billion humans
Under the current system the world is build about 500 million additional new homes per decade

That really is amazing
Each decade the world is building almost 20 UKs worth of infrastructure

The rich are getting richer. Boo hoo
The poor are going from shanty towns and mud huts to high rise apartments at a rate almost unimaginable

GreatApe

michaels wrote: »

The epa justify reducing fuel efficiency standards using the following logic:
Less fuel efficient cars cost more per mile to drive so mileages will be lower and as accidents are generally per mile driven this will lead to fewer deaths and injuries. Thus increased fuel efficiency is bad for health. QED

Sounds like an internet fact to me. Just like the claim nuclear is going to be too cheap to meter which no nuclear vendor claimed but it still persists as 'fact'

Any proof that is their justification?

Martyn1981

michaels wrote: »

The epa justify reducing fuel efficiency standards using the following logic:
Less fuel efficient cars cost more per mile to drive so mileages will be lower and as accidents are generally per mile driven this will lead to fewer deaths and injuries. Thus increased fuel efficiency is bad for health. QED

Actually the argument put out by the EPA, and to be clear this isn't the 'normal' EPA but Trump's hard right & in the pockets of the oil industry EPA, is that higher fuel efficiency cars cost more to buy, and newer cars are safer, so more expensive newer cars will mean people driving less safe older cars instead of buying a new car, leading to more deaths!!!!

Obviously it is BS, and the opposite is true when the health impacts of fuel emissions, and the cost of AGW are included.

What is most interesting is that the car industry and car lobbyists have not, and did not argue for the changes (brought in by Bush junior) to be reversed. They are happy to build to whatever standard is required.

The reversal is down to pressure from the oil industry who will sell less product.

Normally this would not matter thanks to California's waiver, allowing them to set a higher standard, to which the industry will work as they can't lose all of Cali's business, and don't want to build two different vehicles - however Trump has refused to renew the waiver (I think it's been renewed ~100 times (every 6 months)) so it's no up to the courts.

Obviously this move by Trump, and the change to the lightbulb laws only benefits the FF industries.

Edit - here we go:

California vows fightback after Trump voids state's right to set emissions rules

In a statement, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Andrew Wheeler, said the decision ensures nationwide rules that provide “much-needed regulatory certainty for the automotive industry” and “promote economic growth by reducing the price of new vehicles to help more Americans purchase newer, cleaner, and safer cars and trucks”.

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

There is a fundamental difference between the Right who tend to be more optimistic that things will work out (not just regarding climate change) and the Left who are more pessimistic in outlook and feel greater need for intervention by the state.

Yes, spot on, the right are in denial and hoping the problem will just go away whilst they keep making profits today ....... at the cost of others future.

Luckily the left's realism might just force change past the denialists and dotards before it's all too late ..... if it's not already.

Martyn1981

GreatApe wrote: »

Reality 2008 - 2018

USA per capita emmissions down 16%
Germany per capita emmissions down 11%

In fact the USA figures are even better than this 16% reduction because they have also reduced oil imports from about 3 billion barrels towards net zero.

The left like to think the world works on 'will' especially 'political will' if only we can protest enough then the 'will' will solve it all. Poverty homelessness despair illnesses cancer sadness depression and wind power it's all just a lack of will......those evil right wingers lack will when we are in power we will will into existence prosperity and wealth and the cure to cancer

But 'the left' were in power for most of that period (Barack Obama 2009-2017) and since the right (Trump) got in, things have gone the other way:

Report: US 2018 CO2 emissions saw biggest spike in years

After years of decline, US carbon emissions are rising again


Plus it's now been revealed that fugitive methane emissions from US fracking have been even worse than the horrific levels they were thought to be, so US CO2e emissions may well have been under-reported:

Fracking may be a bigger climate problem than we thought

The Natural Gas Industry Has a Methane Problem

and not just fracking:

Study Suggests EPA May Seriously Underestimate Methane Gas Emissions

Martyn1981

GreatApe wrote: »

It's worse than that many on the left (the majority I would say) believe and propagate the idea that the world and humanity is in a terrible state when the reality is that if you could choose when to be born the sane answer is today not any other time in history. And if you could pick the future then 10 years from now will be much better still than today

Of course they can't admit that so they make up all sorts of nonsense and bias, because to admit today is better than 20 years ago and 20 years from now will be better still would be to admit free market capatilism has been a huge success

Made up claim. Naughty.

The World is getting better and better, but we do need to fix problems we've created, and luckily science and technology (that stuff you deny!) is delivering lots of lovely solutions and alternatives so the future can be even better than better.

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Yes, spot on, the right are in denial and hoping the problem will just go away whilst they keep making profits today ....... at the cost of others future.

Luckily the left's realism might just force change past the denialists and dotards before it's all too late ..... if it's not already.

Do you have a problem with "profit" Mart? You seem to treat it as if it's something undesirable.

A shining example of the Left's realism is the price cap on energy bills. I don't know if you've noticed, but there's been a reduction in investment since this occurred....and that's probably investment in renewables & the infrastructure that enables more renewables. There's also been a raft of smaller energy companies going bust as well.

(The actual bill may have been a Tory one, but the policy was a response to Labour's manifesto pledge.)

The overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of this planet are not philanthropists.....they want profits today & not when they're dead. If you think that's going to change in a meaning way before "too late" arrives, you're kidding yourself.

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

Do you have a problem with "profit" Mart? You seem to treat it as if it's something undesirable.

Nope, no problem with profits, hence why I've never treated it as something undesirable. Perhaps you are confusing the 'profits' made by the FF companies (and the tobacco companies (and even VW via dieselgate)) at the expense (externality costs) of everyone else as desirable?

This seems a bit like your many claims that my support for RE will bankrupt the country.

Perhaps if people on here focused on RE and reality, there would be less support for FF's and strawman arguments.

Martyn1981

Looks like the Guardian's approach to AGW news has been noted internationally:

Words Matter: At The Guardian, Climate Change Is Out, Climate Crisis Is In

The Guardian has decided to update its style guide so that certain terms more accurately describe the environmental crisis facing our global community. Henceforth, instead of saying “climate change,” writers for The Guardian will use the more forceful “climate emergency, crisis or breakdown.” “Global warming” will be replaced by “global heating.”

“We want to ensure that we are being scientifically precise, while also communicating clearly with readers on this very important issue,” explains editor-in-chief, Katharine Viner. “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 we’re in.”

Viner notes that UN secretary general Ant!nio Guterres now speaks of a “climate crisis,” and says, “We face a direct existential threat.” Climate scientist Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, a former adviser to Angela Merkel, the EU, and the Pope, also uses the phrase “climate crisis.” Professor Richard Betts, who leads the Met Office’s climate research, says “global heating” is a more accurate term than “global warming” to describe the changes taking place to the world’s climate.