Global Climate Change Science News

[Alan B]

I'm not sure, but I don't think that is the sort of 'consumption' that Scot was on about...

Bollocks! You beat me to it...

[Scot Dutchy]

Sorry Alan.

[Forty Two]

What are you on about? Does that mean that technology and science can offer no solution? You want a good solution - there are probably many - but, if we good do away with most fossil fuel use in exchange for the use of nuclear power, and if we can eliminate all cattle ranching and such activiities, wouldn't that significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

Of course science & technology can maybe offer a solution. But, as yet, there is no guarantee that that will be the case. There is no doubt that there will be amazing technology invented based on science that we have not yet discovered. But that could be just 'whistling in the wind' as far as combating GHG emissions is concerned.

As far as nuclear power is concerned, I assume you mean nuclear fission. That is not a 'clean' energy source. Radioactive waste must be safely stored for up to hundreds of thousands of years. Then there is the de-commissioning of worn-out plants every 50 or so years ( ) again with safe storage of dangerous parts for perhaps millennia.

There are no "guarantees," -- the carbon credit and carbon tax schemes don't guarantee anything, and in fact they don't even promise to potentially solve the problem, as they are often described as too little. What I just referred to are potential solutions because a big push to nuclear and the elimination of cattle ranching wold measurably reduce emissions - not just reduce the rate of increase of emissions.

Now, if nuclear fusion comes on line (again, there is no guarantee that it will, although results from Japan look promising), then that could change the whole story with regard to nuclear power.

Next generation nuke plants are phenomenal. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/ene ... ear-power/

Of course, eliminating "all cattle ranching and such activities" would reduce GHG. But I assume you realise that 'such activities' must also include rice - a major food source and a major source of methane?

Why "must" it? Just the cattle ranching part is one of the biggest greenhouse gas emitters. Sure, if there is a way to produce the rice differently, too, then great. But, I gave you the numbers on the amount of emissions by cows alone. It's massive. It's not just a drop in the bucket.

You're sounding awfully like a "denier" on this issue. Stop "denying" the science!

The Human Race is in a situation where it is shitting all over the floor, then 'science & technology' comes along and says:
"Here's a bucket, you can use that."
"What happens when it is full?"
"We will empty it."
"Suppose where you empty it becomes full. What then?"
"Erm..."

Suppose all you want. I'm proposing solutions that work. What would you propose? Just quitting driving cars and eating cattle and rice? You think that's a more viable option? Carbon credit schemes?

While the Human Race continues to reproduce above the Death Rate, any attempts by 'science & technology' to alleviate or combat the harmful products of our activities could well be 'on a hiding to nothing'. A case of diminishing returns.

When you come up with a suggestion on how to make people stop fucking in the second and third world, have at it. That's where the meaningful population increase is coming from.

Figures given here show a factor of about 2.38 more births than deaths for this year...
The reported drop in fertility in Japan is just a drop in the ocean and has no bearing on the overall world population growth - in case someone mentions it.

This is the only planet we have. There is no other planet that we could expand into and continue polluting.

I've suggested ways to stop polluting. HOw is that something that is inconsistent with your view? Switch much of our power needs to next gen nuclear, and whatever wind and solar we can, and stop cattle ranching. That's a far bigger drop in pollution than anything you've suggested. If your suggestion is - force people the world over to stop having kids - that's great. Sounds like a solid 'guarantee' to me....

[Tero]

Some of the land for cattle ranching is not good for farming. The problem is that they raise cattle in the open, then take them to feed lots to feed corn (which they can't digest well) and soybeans. Skip the feed lots. Slaughter the normal weight cows and feed them to rich people in restaurants.

[Tero]

Tax the kids. Tax deduction for 1 kid, no deductions for 2 kids and a yearly fine of 5000 for every kid over 2, up to age 21.

[Forty Two]

My position has been for some time that the solution to the causes of climate change is technology and science.

Sweet mother of god. :quintuplefacepalm:

What, like reducing our reliance on oil and "beautiful, clean coal" in favor of solar, wind, and various other clean energy sources?

That could be part of the plan, sure. Mainly, though, any thinking person looking at the issue would lean more toward nuclear power as the answer, because the power needs are just too great to be solvable in the near term with solar and wind.

However, one of the bigger greenhouse gas outputs is cattle. That's quite well accepted, and that's one of the reasons why the green movement is giving to have folks become vegetarians or vegans - because if we didn't have the cattle we do, that would be a significant reduction in greenhouse gasses. Do you dispute that?

Of course not.

Of course. https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... t-on-earth

The cognitive dissonance that you are capable of is truly fucking extraordinary.

You obviously don't know what cognitive dissonance means.

D'oh! That's fair. Well, I know what it means, but I did use it incorrectly. I should have said "logical inconsistency".

I've not been in the least logically inconsistent. Calm down. You're like an angry girlfriend.

Your actual position is that the solution to climate change is technology and science... that those evil, far-left, socialist, Marxist, communist Democrats have not yet publicly supported.

I was stating my position. I welcome anyone to agree with it, even communists.

But it's obviously not your position. If it were, you wouldn't be a Trump supporter or a Republican.

But it is my position. And, supporting Trump has nothing to do with it. I'm not a one-issue voter. The problem with the Democrats are their economics and unrealistic economic policies, and their marriage to tax increases and hyper-regulation. Further, Democrats have been partly coopted by the ludicrous Progressive leftists.

The problem with the Republicans was that they were married to big business, and they were partly coopted by the Religious Right.

Trump is neither of those things. And, if you look at his policies and what he's accomplished, rather than the constant propaganda spewed about him, you'd see that he has been quite successful. The EPA released 2017 greenhouse gas (GHG) data collected under the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP), showing overall decreases across sectors and that total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions reported decreased by 2.7 percent from 2016 to 2017. Let's see what the 2017 numbers are. If they are still going down, then that's good, isn't it?

Blinded by partisanship. Jesus. Reminds me of the time Craig T. Nelson said "I've been on food stamps and welfare, did anybody help me out? No."

You are "partisan." Would you ever give Trump credit for anything? Absolutely not. You'd think it a higher duty to make sure you slam him anyway, because it's too important that he be kicked out of the Presidency or at least not reelected. You're as partisan as they come. I've voted for both Republicans and Democrats in my life - as disappointed in both every time. Except Bill Clinton. Overall I thought he was a reasonably good President, despite his mountain of obvious faults, and despite the fact that I didn't support everything he did.

YOU are partisan. If you actually believed the scientific consensus on climate change, you'd vote Democrat or Green, or at the very least, you wouldn't support a scientifically illiterate president who has called climate change a "Chinese hoax". Then, out of nowhere, you state that you have long held the position that the solution to climate change is technology and science. Get the fuck outta here with that shit. Clearly, you hate Democrats and liberals so much that rather than admit that they are better for the planet than your tribe, you stick with the anti-science Republicans and perform all sorts of crazy mental gymnastics to convince yourself and others that a non-climate-denier can support Trump and his party. It's fucking mental.

No, because I've actually looked at the issue and I know for a fact that the Democrats don't offer a solution to climate change. The nonsense carbon taxes and carbon credits are, no matter what you'd like to imagine them to be, giant scams that do something between jack and squat to solve climate change problems.

If you agree that manufacturing meat could be a good way to reduce cattle ranching, and thereby help reduce the emissions caused by that industry, then we agree. Good!

I'm in favor of everything that works.

Can you get away from your blind hate and rage to actually directly agree? Do you think the idea of meat manufacturing to reduce or eliminate cattle, and nuclear power "work?"

Everyone is for everything that works. The question is, what do you think works?

I also think alternative energy sources are good ideas. My preference is nuclear, because of the megawattage that it can produce in comparison to other choices. Nuclear is among the greenest of energies, without the downsides of solar and wind. Nuclear has its own risk and downsides, of course, but on balance that's my preference.

So, what are the inconsistent thoughts or ideas that you think I have? I'll wait.

a. You claim to hold the position that technology and science will solve climate change.
b. You vote Republican and support the most anti-science president in US history.

Anyone who would say anything like "the most anti-science president in US history" is really not thinking rationally about the issue. You're just spouting some MSNPC talking point.

I have news for you - technology will have to solve climate change, or nothing will, because the stupid ass carbon credit bullshit and all the "Paris Accords" you want might sound nice, but they don't DO anything much.

Climate talks are complex and opaque, operating with their own language and process, so it’s important to cut through the terminology and look at what is actually under discussion. Conventional wisdom holds that negotiators are hashing out a fair allocation of the deep emissions cuts all countries would need to make to limit warming. That image bears little resemblance to reality.

In fact, emissions reductions are barely on the table at all. Instead, the talks are rigged to ensure an agreement is reached regardless of how little action countries plan to take. The developing world, projected to account for four-fifths of all carbon-dioxide emissions this century, will earn applause for what amounts to a promise to stay on their pre-existing trajectory of emissions-intensive growth.

Here’s how the game works: The negotiating framework established at a 2014 conference in Lima, Peru, requires each country to submit a plan to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, called an “Intended Nationally Determined Contribution” (INDC). Each submission is at the discretion of the individual country; there is no objective standard it must meet or emissions reduction it must achieve.

Beyond that, it’s nearly impossible even to evaluate or compare them. Developing countries actually blocked a requirement that the plans use a common format and metrics, so an INDC need not even mention emissions levels. Or a country can propose to reduce emissions off a self-defined “business-as-usual” trajectory, essentially deciding how much it wants to emit and then declaring it an “improvement” from the alternative. To prevent such submissions from being challenged, a group of developing countries led by China and India has rejected “any obligatory review mechanism for increasing individual efforts of developing countries.” And lest pressure nevertheless build on the intransigent, no developing country except Mexico submitted an INDC by the initial deadline of March 31 — and most either submitted no plan or submitted one only as the final September 30 cut-off approached.

After all this, the final submissions are not enforceable, and carry no consequences beyond “shame” for noncompliance — a fact bizarrely taken for granted by all involved.

* * *

Perhaps not surprisingly, the submitted plans are even less impressive than the process that produced them. In aggregate, the promised emissions reductions will barely affect anticipated warming. A variety of inaccurate, apples-to-oranges comparisons have strained to show significant progress. But MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change calculates the improvement by century’s end to be only 0.2 degrees Celsius. Comparing projected emissions to the baseline established by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change back in 2000 shows no improvement at all.

The lack of progress becomes even more apparent at the country level. China, for its part, offered to reach peak carbon-dioxide emissions “around 2030” while reducing emissions per unit of GDP by 60-65 percent by that time from its 2005 level. But the U.S. government’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory had already predicted China’s emissions would peak around 2030 even without the climate plan. And a Bloomberg analysis found that China’s 60-65 percent target is less ambitious than the level it would reach by continuing with business as usual. All this came before the country admitted it was burning 17 percent more coal than previously estimated—an entire Germany worth of extra emissions each year.

India, meanwhile, managed to lower the bar even further, submitting a report with no promise of emissions ever peaking or declining and only a 33-35 percent reduction in emissions per unit of GDP over the 2005-2030 period. Given India’s recent rate of improving energy efficiency, this actually implies a slower rate of improvement over the next 15 years. In its INDC, India nevertheless estimates it will need $2.5 trillion in support to implement its unserious plan.

And therein lies the sticking point on which negotiations actually center: “climate finance.” Climate finance is the term for wealth transferred from developed to developing nations based on a vague and shifting set of rationales including repayment of the “ecological debt” created by past emissions, “reparations” for natural disasters, and funding of renewable energy initiatives.

The issue will dominate the Paris talks. The INDCs covering actual emissions reductions are subjective, discretionary, and thus essentially unnegotiable. Not so the cash. Developing countries are expecting more than $100 billion in annual funds from this agreement or they will walk away. (For scale, that’s roughly equivalent to the entire OECD budget for foreign development assistance.)

Somehow, the international process for addressing climate change has become one where addressing climate change is optional and apparently beside the point. Rich countries are bidding against themselves to purchase the developing world’s signature on an agreement so they can declare victory — even though the agreement itself will be the only progress achieved.

An echo chamber of activist groups and media outlets stands ready to rubber-stamp the final agreement as “historic,” validating the vast reservoirs of political capital spent on the exercise. Already, the Chinese and Indian non-plans have been lauded as proof that the developing world is acting and the United States stands as the true obstacle. India won the remarkably inapt New York Times headline: “India Announces Plan to Lower Rate of Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” A formal agreement, notwithstanding its actual contents, will only amplify the demands that we do more ourselves—and, of course, that we contribute hundreds of billions of dollars along the way.

From a political perspective, perhaps this outcome represents “victory” for environmental activists launching their next fundraising campaign or for a president building his “legacy.” But it comes at the environment’s expense. A system of voluntary, unenforceable pledges relies on peer pressure for ambitious commitments and the “naming and shaming” of countries that drag their feet. In this context, true U.S. leadership and environmental activism require the condemnation of countries manipulating the process. Instead, the desperation to sign a piece of paper in Paris has taken precedence over an honest accounting. And once the paper is signed, any leverage or standing to demand actual change in the developing world will be weakened further.

Congressional Republicans, signaling they will not appropriate the taxpayer funds that a climate-finance deal might require, stand accused of trying to “derail” the talks. But opposing such a transfer of wealth to developing countries would seem a rather uncontroversial position. One can imagine how the polling might look on: “Should the United States fight climate change by giving billions of dollars per year to countries that make no binding commitments to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions?[/b]” Certainly, President Obama has made no effort to even inform his constituents that such an arrangement is central to his climate agenda, let alone argue forcefully in favor of it.

The climate negotiators have no clothes. If making that observation and refusing to go along causes some embarrassment, those parading around naked have only themselves to blame.

https://www.politico.eu/article/paris-c ... ina-obama/

[Svartalf]

Tax the kids. Tax deduction for 1 kid, no deductions for 2 kids and a yearly fine of 5000 for every kid over 2, up to age 21.

You don't get it, we need to outgrow the 3rd world countries in production of kids, not get denatalized to the point we have to invite them in, you are wanting us to demolish our last line of defense..

[Tero]

Tax the kids they bring. One adult is not going to eat for long but one adult and four kids will. A penalty of some sort while they are in Europe. Give them more benefits without kids, oatmeal and cheese only if they bring 5 kids. Housing with low heating allowance etc etc.

Same with aid to the poor countries. Give a bonus for those that got vasectomy or tubal ligation, sack of flour only if they did not. Tattoo the info on the wrist for those picking up food.

[Forty Two]

Tax the kids. Tax deduction for 1 kid, no deductions for 2 kids and a yearly fine of 5000 for every kid over 2, up to age 21.

That'll get the soccer mom vote for sure.

You'll have to get that kind of tax passed in the Second and Third Worlds. In the First World, our population increase is through immigration. The US birth rate is 1.8 births per woman. In the EU it's 1.6.

Let's see that proposal put forth by a candidate -- "Candidate Smith wants to tax white people for having kids, and open the immigration borders so all the poor people from countries can move in as space opens up!"

[Forty Two]

Some of the land for cattle ranching is not good for farming. The problem is that they raise cattle in the open, then take them to feed lots to feed corn (which they can't digest well) and soybeans. Skip the feed lots. Slaughter the normal weight cows and feed them to rich people in restaurants.

One, whether it is good for farming or not is irrelevant, as is whether they raise the cattle "in the open". Putting cows inside doesn't make their rumination go away. LOL.

Methane accounted for about 16% of global greenhouse gas emissions in 2015, according to the IPCC. That's not peanuts. Half of that is from cows and sheep. If you can grow the meat in a factory, instead of out in the open, there is no need for the billions of cows and sheep that emit the methane. Clearly, eliminating 8-10% of the methane production is a nice chunk.

[Tero]

Methane is going to be there if animals consume plants. The methane turns into CO2 with time. Whether it’s humans or termites making methane, it is part of biology.

Birning coal is a different matter. It is not part of the balance that plants and animals are involved in. It is additional CO2 that is not related to food.

[Forty Two]

Methane is going to be there if animals consume plants. The methane turns into CO2 with time. Whether it’s humans or termites making methane, it is part of biology.

Birning coal is a different matter. It is not part of the balance that plants and animals are involved in. It is additional CO2 that is not related to food.

Tero, the cows emit about 1000 times the methane as humans.

If we don't need the cows to produce the meat or the milk, because we can grow it on a factory scale, then there is zero emission. If you eliminate the 1.5 billion cows, and a billion sheep. If you don't need them for ranching, the population will drop to an insubstantial level. They are a creation of humans - they would not exist but for animal husbandry of humans.

Yes, burning coal produces greenhouse gases, and I haven't suggested doing nothing about that. What I have suggested is the practical, real world solution of next generation nuclear. That is the only way to get sufficient megawattage to allow us to reduce fossil fuel burning. https://www.ted.com/talks/joe_lassiter_ ... discussion and https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/op ... story.html

[Tero]

Are you some sort of vegan?

The termites will make all the methane in your future world.

[Forty Two]

If we eliminate cows, termites will expand to produce that methane anyway?

Stop denying science, Tero. If you don't support factory production of meat and nuclear power, you don't give a shit about the environment - you're a climate denier!

Not only do you have to agree with the science of climate change as largely man-made, but you also have to agree on the solutions. If you don't, you're a total evil scumbag who has no right to exist on this earth because you are actively acting to help destroy it.

Anyway, I've heard that kind of thing somewhere.

[Tero]

I never said anything about nuclear power.

Some bold dictatorial moves are needed by a future president for storing the waste. Only Swedes and Finns have permanent storage of nuclear waste inside rock.

More than half the emissions are gasoline and coal used for electricity. Cow farts are in the 9%.