Will our war against climate change be won or lost in our oceans?

[smittymatt]

Does that really matter all that much? Personally I have gone without a car for almost two years. But then I am retired. And I want to control my weight. I will walk the two to two and a half miles to the center of my city rather than taking a bus. If I was working I would have a car, but just a simple reliable one. No gas hog for me.

But let's say that for some reason I had a Hummer and came to realize that AGW is a problem Should I get rid of it? Not necessarily. Any new vehicle comes with an environmental price tag. It is sometimes better to keep driving what one already has.

Then you are leading by example. You don't have a car and are walking or presumably taking public transport instead.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then you are leading by example. You don't have a car and are walking or presumably taking public transport instead.

Yes, but public transport is usually not good enough for people that do work. If I had a job I would have a car. I am still tempted to get one again. I have an extremely clean record. I had a speeding ticket in the late 70's or early 80's Ooh, and I was running my motorcycle with the headlight off too at that time. I forgot to turn it on. The only other ticket that I can remember was a "Fuel conservation ticket" in Montana. I was not going that fast. But I did make the mistake of passing the locals. They know when it is safe to speed. That was a whopping $5.00 paid on the spot in cash. It was Montana's very weak enforcement of their 55 mph speed limit.

 

[Martinius]

Not all such policies will be popular, but 'nudge' psychology can make them less unpopular.

I agree, but there is a large portion of society that will fight against things in their own best interests. We see examples of that every day. I am afraid it will only be when costs get too high and food and other resources become really scarce that people will respond. It may be too late by then.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree, but there is a large portion of society that will fight against things in their own best interests. We see examples of that every day. I am afraid it will only be when costs get too high and food and other resources become really scarce that people will respond. It may be too late by then.

I think that one of the long term policies that need to be invoked are changes in the push to get people out of the cities. That necessitates a bigger carbon footprint. Right now there are massive tax breaks for buying a home. Those may need to be phase out first. Homeowners won't be pleased because that will affect the value of their investment. I have a hard time believing how much my house has gone in value since I bought it. If there was no mortgage tax incentive that alone would tend to end urban expansion.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I agree, but there is a large portion of society that will fight against things in their own best interests. We see examples of that every day. I am afraid it will only be when costs get too high and food and other resources become really scarce that people will respond. It may be too late by then.

I agree - which is why I think it's got to be a top-down strategy. Unfortunately, the short-term of most political cycles means that long-term strategies that may be unpopular are very unlikely to be implemented. Political short-termism is a serious problem in modern democracies.

 

[Martinius]

Yes, politics and the election cycle override a lot. I would be ecstatic but astounded if an elected person actually acted in the best interests of all the people and of the future, rather than for a certain segment of the population, for short term benefits, and to garner votes.

 

[eclipsenow]

What kind of car, if any, do you drive?

What does that have to do with the fact that our oceans could more than soak up any peripheral CO2 emitted while our whole civilisation weans off fossil fuels - including the tiny amount of oil I consume as I frantically campaign to have the powers at play here wean off oil? I'm excited by what Tesla are doing - but cannot afford a Tesla yet. Though prices are coming down. I hope it will be my next car. This is a whole civilisational, economy wide transition climatologists are talking about yet you seek to zoom in on my own personal life and seek to attack me as a hypocrite over the kind of car I drive. Well, I'm not. I drive a small Corolla and oil is just the energy medium of exchange for transport now UNTIL we in Australia have cheaper family-priced EV's to drive.

Yet there are bigger questions at play here - like why did western nations like America and Australia build suburbia? Why does America and Australia consume TWICE the oil per capita of the average European? Easy answer. One word. Suburbia. Europe still has the remains of older more traditional city cores and mass public transport systems that actually work - check out this short 3 minute video.

 

[smittymatt]

What does that have to do with the fact that our oceans could more than soak up any peripheral CO2 emitted while our whole civilisation weans off fossil fuels - including the tiny amount of oil I consume as I frantically campaign to have the powers at play here wean off oil? I'm excited by what Tesla are doing - but cannot afford a Tesla yet. Though prices are coming down. I hope it will be my next car. This is a whole civilisational, economy wide transition climatologists are talking about yet you seek to zoom in on my own personal life and seek to attack me as a hypocrite over the kind of car I drive. Well, I'm not. I drive a small Corolla and oil is just the energy medium of exchange for transport now UNTIL we in Australia have cheaper family-priced EV's to drive.

Yet there are bigger questions at play here - like why did western nations like America and Australia build suburbia? Why does America and Australia consume TWICE the oil per capita of the average European? Easy answer. One word. Suburbia. Europe still has the remains of older more traditional city cores and mass public transport systems that actually work - check out this short 3 minute video.

Your Corolla probably gets 35 MPG which is still pretty good. You don't have to go direct to Tesla either. I got a 2007 Prius in 2016. Now has 170,000 miles and I get 48 MPG.

 

[eclipsenow]

Political short-termism is a serious problem in modern democracies.

What he said

 

[eclipsenow]

Your Corolla probably gets 35 MPG which is still pretty good. You don't have to go direct to Tesla either. I got a 2007 Prius in 2016. Now has 170,000 miles and I get 48 MPG.

I hear you - and every step forward we can make in reducing emissions is important. Global warming is a huge topic. I'm just pointing out that the fuel we put in is only a quarter of the emissions of a car. Yes, gradually weaning off oil is important. But while we're dealing with climate change and cleaning up today's energy systems that run today's cities, we could also ask what tomorrow's cities are going to be like?

Because car FUEL = 1/4 CO2 emissions from that car.
BULDING CAR = 1/4


MAINTAINING CAR INFRASTRUCTURE is 1/2 a car's CO2 emissions: EG:-

 

[smittymatt]

I hear you - and every step forward we can make in reducing emissions is important. Global warming is a huge topic. I'm just pointing out that the fuel we put in is only a quarter of the emissions of a car. Yes, gradually weaning off oil is important. But while we're dealing with climate change and cleaning up today's energy systems that run today's cities, we could also ask what tomorrow's cities are going to be like?

Because car FUEL = 1/4 CO2 emissions from that car.
BULDING CAR = 1/4


MAINTAINING CAR INFRASTRUCTURE is 1/2 a car's CO2 emissions: EG:-
View attachment 310385

View attachment 310388

Not really sure what you are saying with the Because car FUEL and BULDING CAR lines. Looks like you are missing something after BULDING CAR = 1/4.

Anyway, I'm sure a new, environmentally friend car will pay for it's Building CO2 cost many times over during it's lifespam.

Also, based on what you are Subduction Zone are saying, there would be a vast initial CO2 cost to revamping our entire infrastructure for lower emissions down the road. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[smittymatt]

I agree - which is why I think it's got to be a top-down strategy. Unfortunately, the short-term of most political cycles means that long-term strategies that may be unpopular are very unlikely to be implemented. Political short-termism is a serious problem in modern democracies.

Nope, it needs to be a bottom up strategy. eclipsenow stated he is much more concerned about "raising awareness" than leading by example and doing what he can to reduce CO2 emissions in his own little ecosystem. Hence lies the problem. More than enough awareness to the cause has already been raised. We are bombarded by it everyday by the likes of government, media, and Greta Thunberg. Everyone is demanding the government take action while taking little to none themselves.

If the potential problem is so serious, isn't some self-sacrifice worth it to show how serious you actually are?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not really sure what you are saying with the Because car FUEL and BULDING CAR lines. Looks like you are missing something after BULDING CAR = 1/4.

Anyway, I'm sure a new, environmentally friend car will pay for it's Building CO2 cost many times over during it's lifespam.

Also, based on what you are Subduction Zone are saying, there would be a vast initial CO2 cost to revamping our entire infrastructure for lower emissions down the road. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

There is gong to be a cost. But long run it makes sense to dump fossil fuels as soon as possible. Not just because it is bad for the Earth, but because we are running out of oil. It may not seem that way to those with no education in the matter, but there is no doubt about it. It is getting harder and harder to find new sources and those sources are not easily harvested. Fracking temporarily opened up quite a fw new sources, but that is limited too.

So fossil fuels pollute both the air and the areas that they are recovered from. Are getting progressively harder to find, and worst of all cause global warming. It is best to quit using them when we can quit voluntarily.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope, it needs to be a bottom up strategy. eclipsenow stated he is much more concerned about "raising awareness" than leading by example and doing what he can to reduce CO2 emissions in his own little ecosystem. Hence lies the problem. More than enough awareness to the cause has already been raised. We are bombarded by it everyday by the likes of government, media, and Greta Thunberg. Everyone is demanding the government take action while taking little to none themselves.

If the potential problem is so serious, isn't some self-sacrifice worth it to show how serious you actually are?

I would say that we need changes at all levels. But asking for self sacrifice usually does not work too well. It is a desired trait in a leader. That is why I never liked Al Gore. He did believe in AGW, but he was also a profiteer and found how to make himself a multimillionaire and profited immensely off of carbon credits. He also flew around in private jets, though he had a rather lame excuse for that. I would much rather trust a man like Ralph Nader. A bit ditzy but enough of a true believer that the did follow the self sacrifice routs.

 

[eclipsenow]

Not really sure what you are saying with the Because car FUEL and BULDING CAR lines. Looks like you are missing something after BULDING CAR = 1/4.

Mining and smelting and making a car = 25% of the emissions.
Fuel is 25% of the emissions.
Carparks and roads and highways and all the infrastructure cars use are the other 50%.

Anyway, I'm sure a new, environmentally friend car will pay for it's Building CO2 cost many times over during it's lifespam.

Hmm - only if the entire system itself uses clean energy - from the mining and smelting to the manufacturing phase and the construction of the concrete highways themselves. That's going to take quite a bit of retrofitting!

Also, based on what you are Subduction Zone are saying, there would be a vast initial CO2 cost to revamping our entire infrastructure for lower emissions down the road. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Of course. I'm quite happy to use the necessary fossil fuels it will take to wean off fossil fuels. But why are governments subsidising oil companies exploring for new oil when we can't even burn the oil reserves we already have on the books, let alone the gas and coal?

 

[eclipsenow]

If the potential problem is so serious, isn't some self-sacrifice worth it to show how serious you actually are?

Individual efforts only go a tiny fraction of the way.
The fossil fuel energy system is subsidised in a few ways.
Coal doesn't have to pay it's health bill - which is about equal to the coal-fired electricity you buy. That is, if consumers were going to pay the REAL price of coal - they would have to pay double to pay the public health bill as well. Coal and other dirty energy sources kill 6 to 7 million people a year. (About half of that is fossil fuel, the other half are wood and dung smoke being the energy of the poor.)

Also, the governments of the world subsidise fossil fuel companies to the tune of half A TRILLION dollars a year! That's insane - like using petrol to try and put out a fire. It doesn't work. Why are the governments of the world doing this? How does me changing a few light bulbs change this? Trying to call me out as a hypocrite says more about your attitude to climate change than it does about the situation itself.

 

[durangodawood]

If the potential problem is so serious, isn't some self-sacrifice worth it to show how serious you actually are?

I dont care that much for diverting the topic to the character of this or that individual. Thats not where any possible solutions lie.

Human character on average is what it is, and any solutions to large problems will have to work with it, and not hope for some "new age" global revolution of human nature.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Nope, it needs to be a bottom up strategy. eclipsenow stated he is much more concerned about "raising awareness" than leading by example and doing what he can to reduce CO2 emissions in his own little ecosystem. Hence lies the problem. More than enough awareness to the cause has already been raised. We are bombarded by it everyday by the likes of government, media, and Greta Thunberg. Everyone is demanding the government take action while taking little to none themselves.

If the potential problem is so serious, isn't some self-sacrifice worth it to show how serious you actually are?

Yes indeed, I think some self-sacrifice is worth it, and a bottom-up strategy would be great, but there are many people who don't think so, and many people who will agree but are not actually prepared to make a sacrifice. Welcome to the real world.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There is gong to be a cost. But long run it makes sense to dump fossil fuels as soon as possible. Not just because it is bad for the Earth, but because we are running out of oil. It may not seem that way to those with no education in the matter, but there is no doubt about it. It is getting harder and harder to find new sources and those sources are not easily harvested. Fracking temporarily opened up quite a fw new sources, but that is limited too.

So fossil fuels pollute both the air and the areas that they are recovered from. Are getting progressively harder to find, and worst of all cause global warming. It is best to quit using them when we can quit voluntarily.

AUIU, there is, unfortunately, plenty of coal left...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Anyway, I'm sure a new, environmentally friend car will pay for it's Building CO2 cost many times over during it's lifespam.

Last analysis I saw, a new all-electric vehicle is likely to have a bit less than half the footprint of an internal combustion equivalent over a 150,000km life.

That was from August 2018, but I doubt it has improved by very much.