• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Almost 50 Years Of Dealing With The Energy Crisis

disciple Clint

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2018
15,259
5,997
Pacific Northwest
✟216,150.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
How do you know it has happened naturally over the earth's history?

I'll tell you: because of the research by the very same people who say that today's warming cannot be accounted for fully by the natural systems and cycles and that the only thing that helps make the data match up is if we include human factors.

So you know all about the earth's climate from the same people who are telling you humans are having a measurable and negative impact on climate today.



I've read far more of the science than you have. That's the benefit of a PhD in geology.
And like some PhD's you honestly believe that you know it all, but hold on if you have done so much reading you undoubtedly know that they are many other PhD's who have actual experience not just book knowledge and they do not agree with your position.
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,632
5,006
✟987,331.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I am not talking about no-fly zones in Ukraine. I am talking about keeping drones and planes from flying over nuclear power plants right here in the United States. The no fly area should be big enough so that a plane or drone crossing its threshold could be shot down if it refused to comply with the order to change course.
I have just found a map (12 years old) that shows that some nuclear facilities are protected by no fly zones in the U.S. but there are others unprotected (like the ones in my low-regulation red state, ugh!)
This should be changed.
R.e9a1b0b81776798ba5596235d8fcd845 (842×534) (bing.com)

The rules regarding no-fly zones over nuclear plants are NOT regulated by red state governments.

From a nuclear plant regulatory perspective, the NRC and the FERC have jurisdiction. If this is considered a national security issue (which it is), then Homeland Security has the overall responsibility, with various DOD organizations and cyber intelligence branches also involved. This issue is a federal matter.

I should add the FAA, who certainly could require no-fly zones.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You are sadly probably 100% correct. We are not the smartest creature to dominate the foodchain.

It's a shame that we are collectively too stupid and too lazy to do any heavy lifting because it's only going to get harder and harder the longer we debate it.

On the bright side we might actually off ourselves with a nuclear war before we suffer the worst of our climate meddling!

I don't know if it's stupidity or laziness....

In many ways it's completely rational. We often lack the information early on in some great advancement or understanding of reality to see what possible problems will arise from it.

So it's not obvious why gasoline and automobiles are a problem for anyone....until really the 70s or 80s. Even then, it's not a problem we had any grasp of the magnitude of or even a reason to believe science won't come up with a good solution. We had every reason to continue on...

By the time we realized the severity of the problem, it's basically too late. We still don't understand it fully.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I agree with all that you have stated. I just a bit more optimism.

An example is transportation. You focus on the reality that we are still years away from alternatives in fueling airplanes and ships. I agree. The use there is likely to continue to rise. I focus on the enormous shift in the fueling of autos and trucks that will greatly accelerate in the next few years. The issue here is supply chain and the ability to keep up with demand for electric vehicles. The huge change in 2021 was the move toward electric trucks. Ford can't produce fast enough to meet demand.

As far as natural gas being "less dirty", it is much, much less dirty than oil and coal. Unless we have are willing to build lots more nuclear plants, natural gas will be in the mix for many decades.

I also believe that you have minimized the efforts in so many industries to increase efficiency and to develop new processes that use less petroleum. Carbon neutrality may be a lofty goal, and perhaps unreachable. However, having that goal is driving companies and countries toward less use of petroleum.

I'm not trying to minimize the progress made....I have no doubt that it has pushed total catastrophe off at least 50 years.

What you don't seem to acknowledge is that despite this, because we have so many more people, we have only increased consumption. Year after year....despite cleaner systems, more pollution is produced. The problem continues unabated.

Why are you optimistic?
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,632
5,006
✟987,331.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I'm not trying to minimize the progress made....I have no doubt that it has pushed total catastrophe off at least 50 years.

What you don't seem to acknowledge is that despite this, because we have so many more people, we have only increased consumption. Year after year....despite cleaner systems, more pollution is produced. The problem continues unabated.

Why are you optimistic?

Perhaps our differences are semantic in nature.

As you say, we have pushed total catastrophe off 50 years. More focus should push catastrophe out even further. Having so many countries having carbon-free goals is a HUGE plus. It may take longer for each country than their goals, but almost all countries are showing improvements.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Perhaps our differences are semantic in nature.

Perhaps.

As you say, we have pushed total catastrophe off 50 years. More focus should push catastrophe out even further. Having so many countries having carbon-free goals is a HUGE plus. It may take longer for each country than their goals, but almost all countries are showing improvements.

Are they? I haven't seen any nation that has actually managed to reduce their total carbon footprint. If there's one or two I'd be surprised.

What I have seen is "progress" being described as "we only polluted this much....and although it's more than we polluted over the last decade....it's less than we would have polluted if we didn't make those changes".

If someone is describing that as progress, you need to keep in mind they aren't able to accurately assess all the current, sometimes completely new problems of the current decade.

They are lying to you.

That's simply not progress. Progress is a significant decrease in total carbon footprints worldwide....and the only thing that solves the problem (and prevents catastrophe entirely) is a total end of fossil fuels entirely. I'm not going to applaud a continued increase in the carbon footprint just because it's "less" than the increase we estimate would have happened otherwise.

I can't be optimistic because I've looked really hard at the basics of the problem.

The changes happening right now are caused by pollution from decades ago. It's a delayed effect. The pollution today will be felt in coming decades. Delayed effects.

Catastrophe (think widespread famine and violence killing billions) comes at "best estimate" 2 degrees Celsius increase. To avoid this....we would have to stop our total worldwide carbon footprint (every single nation) entirely....tomorrow. Our best estimate is that if we did this (and we won't, because we can't) we only see an increase of 1-1.5 degrees Celsius.

In practical terms it means that all the changes that you're optimistic about are too little too late, in addition to the ways you realize they simply aren't enough.

We aren't stopping our total carbon footprint tomorrow. We aren't even going to decrease it 10 years from now. It's done.

If you want to delay catastrophe? You need to reconsider how it will happen...because it will happen. End democracy. Establish an authoritarian military state. They have a much better track record at suppressing violence and forcing large groups to suffer through difficulty. I don't think you have the stomach to support that sort of thing. I don't know how to choose a considerate and gentle authoritarian who is also willing to do whatever it takes to hold this society together. Those are contradictory personality traits.

You would do better to look at it this way....our way of living, our society, the entire world has terminal pancreatic cancer. It's dying. Whatever comes through the other side of the changes that will happen will be wildly different.

Now....how do you want to spend the remaining time? We can desperately attempt to fix the dying patient, keep it on life support. In this analogy the painful chemo, days of sickness, experimental treatments, may result in some extra time....but don't kid yourself into thinking it will be pleasant. It's going to be very rough. Lots of suffering, lots of poverty, famine, and violence.

Option two is getting your affairs in order. Want to leave whoever is left with the best of possible outcomes? See above. Stop all the debating about policy, and rights, and freedom and get everyone together for a big fight. It's our best chance of winning the fight that's coming. No more sympathy for victims, and lots of praise for ruthlessness. Get the largest group possible in board, eliminate or completely suppress all others. It's ugly but that's an option.

The last option? Enjoy the time we have left. Don't spend your time in hospital waiting rooms....spend it on a beach in Aruba. It appears that is what most of our world leaders have decided. I'm not complaining. It's mostly because of Democracy. If they go with either of the other two options....they won't win elections. We aren't changing anything significantly enough to rock the boat before it hits the iceberg. We don't want to, frankly, we can't.

I don't know if you understand that and I don't want to bother going to grear details to explain it. If you don't understand that a brief partial business lockdown, like we had in 2020, had a devastating effect on the economy and resulted in widespread social upheaval, homelessness, job loss, etc....then you won't understand why a drastic permanent change in these interrelated systems will be much much worse.

Politicians in France tried a minor price increase on gasoline to slow use and fund green tech. Minor. The resulting riots, started by people who had long work commutes, threatened the removal from office of those politicians....and they reversed the increase.

Truckers in Canada engaged in a completely peaceful and nonviolent protest....against a vaccine mandate that amounted to a loss of bodily autonomy. The result? The government completely suspended their most basic right...a fundamental right...the right to own property. Their bank accounts were frozen. They were forced from their trucks. People were forced from helping them. They had to quit protesting or starve. Immediate suspension of rights.

You think they're going to make widespread systemic changes to the economy? No. Why? Why would they ever commit economic suicide? It only will work if every nation does it....it only works if every nation agrees on both the problem and solution. Something that never happens.

I honestly don't care what anyone chooses. I understand all the options and why some seem more attractive than others. I get it. You want to feel good about yourself and blame others? Fine. Just don't complain when others point out your hypocrisy. Do you support forced social cohesion? Ok. Just don't complain if it turns out they don't have your best interests in mind. Your best interests and those of the group aren't the same. Want to continue on as normal? Enjoy the remaining days? Ok. Just don't complain when your streets are flooded, houses burn down from wildfires, and your beachfront property is swept away by hurricanes. We aren't rebuilding it for you. We aren't going to save you.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
This current study uses data created from current models. It takes data learned recently about the cascading effects of methane release, wildfires, and other natural events that resulted from climate change....and included them in current models....to predict temperature increase outcomes in 2 scenarios.

https://phys.org/news/2020-11-greenhouse-gas-emissions-global.html

1. We stop all emissions right now.
2. We manage to stop all emissions in 100 years.


In scenario 1....it's a temp increase of 2.2 degrees Celsius. Completely devastating. A potentially uninhabitable environment on most of the planet and a bloodbath fight over whatever is left.

Scenario 2....that's worse than 1. Nobody will be around to go over these predictions and see who was right. Let's not even bother with predictions.

Why are we even bothering with the discussion? Are you really lying awake at night? Worried about the future of your kids?

Teach them how to use firearms and emotionally manipulate others. That's my best advice for navigating the economics of the future.
 
Upvote 0

Gene2memE

Newbie
Oct 22, 2013
4,660
7,218
✟344,328.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Are they? I haven't seen any nation that has actually managed to reduce their total carbon footprint. If there's one or two I'd be surprised.

A number of European states - France, Norway, Denmark, Spain, and Greece for examples - have substantially reduced their total emission footprints (including carbon) since the early 2000s. By substantially, I mean by 25% or more (some more than 50%).

Sweden would be the poster child for success in this arena, having cut total emission by nearly two thirds since a peak in the early 1970s.

(Of course, a part of this has been 'offshoring' of emissions by sending manufacturing and other work to developing nations.)

Globally, CO2 emissions have flatlined at a range of 35-36 billion tonnes since about 2012 or 2013 (excluding 2020/2021 drops due to COVID-19). Developed world (OECD) emissions are down by about 10% since 2007, with EU emissions down by 15-16% (also excluding COVID-19 falls).

We aren't stopping our total carbon footprint tomorrow. We aren't even going to decrease it 10 years from now.

The outcome from COVID-19 and expanded emissions reduction pledges will be interesting.

Pre-COVID forecasts have emissions increasing to about 42-46 billion tonnes by 2050 and then flatlining after that.

However, if countries live up to the emissions reduction pledges, it looks like emissions could actually peak in the 2030-2035 range and then flatline and gradually decline after that.

Still unlikely to be enough to avoid 2 degrees of warming though.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: mark46
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,632
5,006
✟987,331.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
A number of European states - France, Norway, Denmark, Spain, and Greece for examples - have substantially reduced their total emission footprints (including carbon) since the early 2000s. By substantially, I mean by 25% or more (some more than 50%).

Sweden would be the poster child for success in this arena, having cut total emission by nearly two thirds since a peak in the early 1970s.

(Of course, a part of this has been 'offshoring' of emissions by sending manufacturing and other work to developing nations.)

Globally, CO2 emissions have flatlined at a range of 35-36 billion tonnes since about 2012 or 2013 (excluding 2020/2021 drops due to COVID-19). Developed world (OECD) emissions are down by about 10% since 2007, with EU emissions down by 15-16% (also excluding COVID-19 falls).



The outcome from COVID-19 and expanded emissions reduction pledges will be interesting.

Pre-COVID forecasts have emissions increasing to about 42-46 billion tonnes by 2050 and then flatlining after that.

However, if countries live up to the emissions reduction pledges, it looks like emissions could actually peak in the 2030-2035 range and then gradually flatline after that.

Still unlikely to be enough to avoid 2 degrees of warming though.

Norway will be carbon neutral within a decade. The Paris goals are percentage reductions from 1990.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
33,502
20,784
Orlando, Florida
✟1,518,118.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
I don't know if it's stupidity or laziness....

In many ways it's completely rational. We often lack the information early on in some great advancement or understanding of reality to see what possible problems will arise from it.

So it's not obvious why gasoline and automobiles are a problem for anyone....until really the 70s or 80s. Even then, it's not a problem we had any grasp of the magnitude of or even a reason to believe science won't come up with a good solution. We had every reason to continue on...

By the time we realized the severity of the problem, it's basically too late. We still don't understand it fully.

Global Warming has been discussed in popular American media since at least the 1950's. Like this ("The Unchained Goddess", Frank Capra, 1958):




But most people, I am reckoning, kicked the ball down the field, so to speak, and in addition, the oil and gas interests spent a large amount of money to ensure they did so.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
A number of European states - France, Norway, Denmark, Spain, and Greece for examples - have substantially reduced their total emission footprints (including carbon) since the early 2000s. By substantially, I mean by 25% or more (some more than 50%).

Sweden would be the poster child for success in this arena, having cut total emission by nearly two thirds since a peak in the early 1970s.

(Of course, a part of this has been 'offshoring' of emissions by sending manufacturing and other work to developing nations.)

This is why I say "progress" really only should be measured by total global emissions.

From what I checked very briefly on Google, France 2000 was emitting around 6-7 (million?) metric tonnes. In 2019....455 million metric tonnes.

*Edit...sorry, I was looking at "per capita". France 2000 is around 400 million metric tonnes.

I don't know what is going on with the math....but it seems clear that a lot of the "progress" isn't happening at all. That, or the measurement is changing...or it's being moved around....it's ridiculous.

We're clearly being lied to about progress. The reasons why are pretty obvious.


Globally, CO2 emissions have flatlined at a range of 35-36 billion tonnes since about 2012 or 2013 (excluding 2020/2021 drops due to COVID-19). Developed world (OECD) emissions are down by about 10% since 2007, with EU emissions down by 15-16% (also excluding COVID-19 falls).



The outcome from COVID-19 and expanded emissions reduction pledges will be interesting.

Pre-COVID forecasts have emissions increasing to about 42-46 billion tonnes by 2050 and then flatlining after that.

However, if countries live up to the emissions reduction pledges, it looks like emissions could actually peak in the 2030-2035 range and then flatline and gradually decline after that.

Still unlikely to be enough to avoid 2 degrees of warming though.

Yeah...I don't even think the scientists are being honest. What would be the point of telling everyone they're doomed? Nobody is going to warn anyone that the ship is sinking. They're going to want to get in any lifeboats first.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Global Warming has been discussed in popular American media since at least the 1950's. Like this ("The Unchained Goddess", Frank Capra, 1958):




But most people, I am reckoning, kicked the ball down the field, so to speak, and in addition, the oil and gas interests spent a large amount of money to ensure they did so.

Yeah I'm obviously guessing about the time it reached a significant number of the population's consciousness.

I'm sure we can find early studies, the occasional tv show, a movie mention....pre 60s and 70s. I'd say that generally though, the majority of the population had a decent idea of what the terms meant around those decades. There's no way they fully understood the problem.

I doubt a majority pre-90s saw it as a serious problem. Even in the 90s, the attitude was "science will fix it". Well, science disagrees.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
33,502
20,784
Orlando, Florida
✟1,518,118.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Yeah I'm obviously guessing about the time it reached a significant number of the population's consciousness.

I'm sure we can find early studies, the occasional tv show, a movie mention....pre 60s and 70s. I'd say that generally though, the majority of the population had a decent idea of what the terms meant around those decades. There's no way they fully understood the problem.

I doubt a majority pre-90s saw it as a serious problem. Even in the 90s, the attitude was "science will fix it". Well, science disagrees.

The closest analogy is probably what happened with cigarettes. We've known cigarettes aren't good for you for well over a century, ever since British and German researchers started noticing more lung disease in statistical analyses of smokers. By the 1950's, articles on smoking causing lung cancer started appearing in Reader's Digest, and in 1964 the Surgeon General wrote a report stating definitive evidence that smoking caused lung cancer. But the US didn't implement a comprehensive anti-smoking program until the late 90's - 30 years later. Largely due to the significant influence that tobacco companies had over lawmakers and public perception of smoking.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Do my posts seem gloomy? I'm not gloomy...there are reasons to be optimistic.

Population bombs.

A population bomb occurs whenever many people stop having children a nation ends up with a large elderly population in need of care, and not enough people to care for them.

50% of women over the age 35 don't have children in the US. Fun. There's lots of reasons for this like the need for 2 parents working, flat wages, feminism pushing the message that motherhood is bad and women need to pursue careers and be a boss!

So we're headed into some significant difficulties well before the worst of climate change gets us.

If you think that's bad, you should see the population bomb forming in China.

Fun times.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The closest analogy is probably what happened with cigarettes. We've known cigarettes aren't good for you for well over a century, ever since British and German researchers started noticing more lung disease in statistical analyses of smokers. By the 1950's, articles on smoking causing lung cancer started appearing in Reader's Digest, and in 1964 the Surgeon General wrote a report stating definitive evidence that smoking caused lung cancer. But the US didn't implement a comprehensive anti-smoking program until the late 90's - 30 years later. Largely due to the significant influence that tobacco companies had over lawmakers and public perception of smoking.

Look....I'd like to blame the oil companies. They are the worst offenders. It's not as if I ride a bike to work though.

It's everything. I looked at the carbon footprint of smartphones. From creation to the end of a 2 year use cycle and the purchase of a new phone (because they are designed to lose performance after 2 years)....

The carbon footprint is roughly the same as all the cars in the world driving for a year.

That's a problem that didn't exist until recently.

How many products are significant contributers? Probably a lot.

I don't see any way out. None. Our entire economy is designed for the creation and consumption of products and services.
 
Upvote 0

Ponderous Curmudgeon

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2021
1,477
944
66
Newfield
✟38,862.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Look....I'd like to blame the oil companies. They are the worst offenders. It's not as if I ride a bike to work though.

It's everything. I looked at the carbon footprint of smartphones. From creation to the end of a 2 year use cycle and the purchase of a new phone (because they are designed to lose performance after 2 years)....

The carbon footprint is roughly the same as all the cars in the world driving for a year.

That's a problem that didn't exist until recently.

How many products are significant contributers? Probably a lot.

I don't see any way out. None. Our entire economy is designed for the creation and consumption of products and services.
citation on the cell phones would be appreciated and what do you have against working to solve the problem even if it means attempting to change our economy?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: FireDragon76
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Is anyone here old enough to remember Hungry Hungry Hippos? It's a child's game. Look it up.

That's the best case scenario I can imagine for the near future. Global geopolitics isn't whatever you think it is. It's anarchy. There's no real rules because there's no real enforcement. The US strategy has changed depending upon the region, but it's almost always for the benefit of the US. For example, our middle east strategy looks like this....

Topple or destabilize or isolate anyone who isn't willing to sell the US oil for far cheaper than they should. That's what we've been doing. That's the game. We've been doing it well. Is it awful, sure. Is it immoral? I bet many people think so. Does it cause a lot of suffering? Yup.

Those are dumb questions though....the question you should ask is what this nation would look like if gasoline was 20$ a gallon?

Yeah...we aren't going to be ok with that. It would be extremely difficult, possibly impossible, for our leaders to be protected from the inevitable violence of 350 million armed civilians.

So it's gonna turn into Hungry Hungry Hippos. Think of the US, China, Russia, and perhaps some Euro-Australian or Japan-S Korean alliance. We won't be fighting each other, but we won't exactly be cooperating. Instead, we will be picking off weaker targets and grabbing up whatever resources of value they have. China has already started buying Africa....Russia is currently gobbling up Ukraine.
 
Upvote 0