We're not cutting co2 emissions any time soon

[KonstantinosM]

Part of what I do at work, involves shoveling a bunch of ice on a display and then melting it down with hot water. Unnecessarily wasteful is how I would summarize our way of life here in the states.

At home, I have an instant water heater. The bathrooms are built with one knob for both the hot and cold water, so you can only get a bunch of hot water all at once and let it run, I like cold showers but the way the system is built I'd have to turn all the power off to get cold water at a decent pressure.

That water heater dumps 18 kilowatts at least to heat water and it's a pretty standard model. The hot water goes over a bunch of pipes in an air conditioned home.

My car has a tank that takes more than 20 gallons of gas and due to traffic I only get about 17 mpg.


I know of two girls in the same place I work that drive trucks while not doing anything that needs a truck. One of them wants to get an even bigger truck. Like a huge one. I thinks something like a ram 2500.

There's no train here, just cars and the bus system is a joke.

At a local park I saw a light-bulb pointed at an american flag, turned on in the bright day's sun... I think the bulb consumed more than 1 KW per hour. Just left on.


People keep talking about mitigating climate change and recycling and all that, but if you see what companies throw out, even the ones that advertise themselves as eco friendly and green than you'd know it's all talk.


So when next years emissions numbers come out, and we're still at an all time high

And the next one's, and the next one's, and the one's after that, all near or new all time highs I won't be surprised. All that's left is adapting to it. Like an obese man buying bigger clothes.

edit: extra letter typo

[1714168540]

1714168540

[Jet Cash]

Carbon dioxide is the life breath of trees and other green vegetation. At the moment we have a carbon dioxide famine, and this is leading to desertification. It is ironic that the "green" activists are attempting to deprive the world of oxygen producing plants. Water vapour is the major cause of the greenhouse effect, and this is removed from all the reports, and this distorts the results. When a plant is deprived of carbon dioxide, it "gasps for breath" and opens its pores. This leads to the evaporation of water, and a transfer from the ground into the atmosphere. It is easy to understand how this leads to desertification.

[KonstantinosM]

Carbon dioxide is the life breath of trees and other green vegetation. At the moment we have a carbon dioxide famine, and this is leading to desertification. It is ironic that the "green" activists are attempting to deprive the world of oxygen producing plants. Water vapour is the major cause of the greenhouse effect, and this is removed from all the reports, and this distorts the results. When a plant is deprived of carbon dioxide, it "gasps for breath" and opens its pores. This leads to the evaporation of water, and a transfer from the ground into the atmosphere. It is easy to understand how this leads to desertification.

There is no lack of co2 in the air. The very fact that it's increasing year over year is because plants can't eat all of it out of the atmosphere. You'll notice that co2 goes up and down in a saw like pattern as it's going up.

If there was a co2 famine the concentration of co2 in the atmosphere would be decreased.

Also I find the oxygen producing role of plants not that useful. The atmosphere is currently 20% oxygen. Even if no more oxygen was produced we've got our supply for thousands of years.

There is no set-point for carbon dioxide.

Under current conditions a sudden increase of carbon dioxide, will cause a lot more plants and plant matter to die due to the change in precipitation patterns and the rate of evaporation.

Yes, plants eat co2, but that doesn't mean that more co2 on a global level is good for plants.


The earths current sensitivity to co2 is affected by many factors. The primary ones are albedo (reflectivity) which is affected by where the landmasses currenlty are on the planet and how much energy the sun is putting out.

Over time the sun has been burning hotter (over the long term, not over the last decade or so).


For most plants co2 is the limiting factor.


There is also another major consideration being missed and that is the rate of change. Plants and ecosystems can't just up and move as the climate changes.

Climate change at the rate we're driving it is past the point where plants can adapt. They're not calling our times the sixth mass extinction for no reason.

I'll also put the whole thing in a simple analogy.

Even though water is necessary for human survival
What a drowning man needs in his throat is not more water
but more air.

Similarly, even though co2 is what plants use as food
what a heat stressed, dried up plant doesn't need more of
is co2, which would change the conditions around the plant
to make its existense impossible.

[Jet Cash]

You are missing my point. The quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere does not have a significant impact on the greenhouse effect. Water vapour is the most significant factor, and you just have to look at the cloud cover in most countries to see this.  However, water vapour is not included in many of the climate reports, and certainly not in the reports publicised by those who seek the switch to electric cars to gain more control over private transport.

[odolvlobo]

The quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere does not have a significant impact on the greenhouse effect. Water vapour is the most significant factor ...

According to the EPA, CO₂ in the atmosphere is the predominant factor (https://climatechange.lta.org/wp-content/uploads/cct/2015/02/EPA-climate-forcing-2014.pdf). Regardless of the effect of water vapor, CO₂ has a significant impact.

As for water vapor:

It’s true that water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect. On average, it probably accounts for about 60% of the warming effect. However, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature. This is because the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere limits the maximum amount of water vapor the atmosphere can contain. If a volume of air contains its maximum amount of water vapor and the temperature is decreased, some of the water vapor will condense to form liquid water. This is why clouds form as warm air containing water vapor rises and cools at higher altitudes where the water condenses to the tiny droplets that make up clouds.

[odolvlobo]

...
My car has a tank that takes more than 20 gallons of gas and due to traffic I only get about 17 mpg.
...

I believe that electric cars will be outselling gasoline-powered cars within 10 years. Electric cars are much more efficient than gasoline-powered cars, and as more electricity is generated by non-fossil fuel technologies, I think that fossil fuel usage could drop by 50%.

[SaltySpitoon]

...
My car has a tank that takes more than 20 gallons of gas and due to traffic I only get about 17 mpg.
...

I believe that electric cars will be outselling gasoline-powered cars within 10 years. Electric cars are much more efficient than gasoline-powered cars, and as more electricity is generated by non-fossil fuel technologies, I think that fossil fuel usage could drop by 50%.

Unless you live in a few select countries (Canada/Brazil/Norway/France etc, you can assume your power is coming primarily from coal burning plants.

The highest efficiency coal plants are in the mid 30 to 40ish % efficient. Modern gasoline engines in cars are about 30% efficient with older models being lower, and some newer models being in the upper 30% range, with diesel vehicles being more efficient than gasoline. The world needs to change its power supply (not to solar...) before electric cars are any better for the environment than gasoline or diesel burning cars.

Anything climate related is such a weird topic now because its been politicized. Imagine sitting around a holiday table with family and discussing astronomy or gravity and having it as a politically polarizing topic.

[Jet Cash]

That stupid girl that has gone to America in a carbon fibre boat to pretend that she has a zero carbon footprint sums it all up. She is funded by big money. Carbon fibre is an intense user of resources and creates large amounts of emissions in its production, and the crew is flying home by plane. That just about sums up the whole of the mentality of the climate change sheep.

[Thekool1s]

That stupid girl that has gone to America in a carbon fibre boat to pretend that she has a zero carbon footprint sums it all up. She is funded by big money. Carbon fibre is an intense user of resources and creates large amounts of emissions in its production, and the crew is flying home by plane. That just about sums up the whole of the mentality of the climate change sheep.

LMAO!! you have got to be kidding me? How is 'she' suppose to reach her destination then? Is 'she' suppose to walk whenever she wants to travel? You sound like an orangutan right now... The awareness 'She' is creating will help decrease carbon emissions which will be many thousand folds over what her carbon footprint is. Think of her carbon footprint as an investment which will yield results of many thousand folds over in the coming years.

[KonstantinosM]

Anyway, I can confidently bet that our overall emissions will go up and we'll reach new all-time highs in the coming years, because so far, climate activism and targets and the UN talks have been all-talk no action.

Whenever they put new laws or targets in, they either put giant loopholes in them or they ignore where the majority of emissions are coming from.

The one thing I want to see is if the increases in emissions have been incorporated in current climate models or not. We can't afford to delude ourselves when it comes to this problem.

[Thekool1s]

We can't afford to delude ourselves when it comes to this problem.

I think it's too late already. But hey that's my pessimistic self speaking. Besides CO2 Emissions there are things like this "50 Minutes to Save the World" : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wthTmQHmuZ0 which we are sleeping on.

[KonstantinosM]

We can't afford to delude ourselves when it comes to this problem.

I think it's too late already. But hey that's my pessimistic self speaking. Besides CO2 Emissions there are things like this "50 Minutes to Save the World" : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wthTmQHmuZ0 which we are sleeping on.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm also inclined to believe we've already jumped over the side of the mountain, but it's still possible that we make a softer landing or even cling on the side of it.

I don't fully believe people like McPherson (people who think near term extinction due to climate change is inevitable) because I disagree with him on many issues. There's some stuff that I'm inclined to believe, like the aerosol masking effect and I personally believe that losing more ice in the arctic during the summer months will alter the energy balance of the planet nearly catastrophically.




I don't personally want to see billions starve and millions perish in resource wars. Our own indifference over the coming few years will decide the future of many people. I do hope technology will develop to the point that nothing bad happens. And there's precedent for that, but we shouldn't take it for granted.


I'm going to watch that video you linked. I'm always looking for documentaries about climate change and I'm surprised I never came across it. At least I think I haven't.

[Thekool1s]

I do hope technology will develop to the point that nothing bad happens.

The technology is already there... Solar, wind, wave, nuclear and so on. Unfortunately, everybody has been put to sleep. I find it funny how we haven't learned anything from the past. There are stories like Noah's flood, he warned everyone about it but no one listened instead, he was made fun of and ridiculed. Today the same thing is happening again and the naysayers are mocking and ridiculing anybody who tries to warn them. If I'm to look at the past then I know what's coming next. It seems inevitable but I hope I'm wrong...

I'm going to watch that video you linked. I'm always looking for documentaries about climate change and I'm surprised I never came across it. At least I think I haven't.

Yeah please do it is about Coral reefs and how they are on the brink of extinction...

[Carlton Banks]

At the moment we have a carbon dioxide famine

Water vapour is the most significant factor, and you just have to look at the cloud cover in most countries to see this.

you have no clue what you're talking about, you're actually worse than the death cult breathing tax climate change people


provide a credible link for either of these claims, I would stand that you cannot

[Carlton Banks]

The highest efficiency coal plants are in the mid 30 to 40ish % efficient. Modern gasoline engines in cars are about 30% efficient with older models being lower, and some newer models being in the upper 30% range, with diesel vehicles being more efficient than gasoline. The world needs to change its power supply (not to solar...) before electric cars are any better for the environment than gasoline or diesel burning cars.

you see, this is where you guys are getting this so incredibly wrong


you don't have to threaten me with breathing taxes or certain extinction of human life to convince me that we can and should improve the efficiency of vehicles and powerplants, or that the current designs pollute in several ways that are not controversial.

what's wrong with compromising on your propaganda, when I can be so easily convinced that electric vehicles and non-fossil fuel power plants are good ideas that *I am* willing to pay for, for what I consider to be good reasons?

[xtraelv]

Carbon dioxide is not the only consideration.

Petrol and diesel engines emit carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter.

When concentrated in urban areas it creates pollution in the form of smog - that kills people.

Having more efficient public transport in high density areas, electric vehicles and bicycles in highly populated areas improves life in cities.

Outside of big cities it doesn't make sense to use electric vehicles. High efficiency engines and hybrid is more suitable.

But the effect of purchasing new also has to be considered. If we can extend the life of existing vehicles - rather than scrapping them and buying new it reduces the pollution created by manufacturing processes, stripping of resources and energy consumed by endless consumerism.

Taxing and carbon emission standards only shift the problem to developing countries that have even lower standards.

For instance - carbon taxing an aluminium smelter may cause it to shift from a country that has mainly renewable power sources to a country that is still largely dependent on coal fired power generation.

Multi-national minerals company Rio Tinto is threatening to close its Tiwai Point aluminium smelter in Bluff and move its production offshore if the Emissions Trading Scheme is enacted because they say it will increase power prices.

Source: https://thestandard.org.nz/rio-tinto-threatens-new-zealand-with-capital-flight/

Buying cheap goods from China because local goods are too expensive - produced with energy from coal fired power stations.

The projects approved by China amount to nearly 40 percent of the world's total planned coal-fired power plants, according to the Global Coal Exit List database run by German environmental organisation Urgewald and 30 other partner organisations.

The new China projects would be more than Germany's existing installed power capacity of approximately 200GW by the end of 2018.

Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/ajimpact/china-plans-coal-power-projects-globally-190919081115665.html

Causing unnecessary carbon emissions through waste. Stupid politicians making rules that will make little worldwide difference but affect peoples livelihoods.

Dutch farmers caused hundreds of kilometres of traffic jams with their tractors as they protested restrictions aimed at reducing emissions from farms.

Source: https://www.dw.com/en/dutch-farmers-protest-causes-worst-ever-rush-hour/av-50667231

The average Tesla driver makes $320,000 dollars a year, according to a report cited by the Los Angeles Times in an 2015 article. The Times detailed how Tesla has secured nearly $3 billion dollars in government subsidies. In California, where consumers get a rebate for purchasing an electric vehicle, 83 percent of the rebate recipients had incomes over $100,000. Americans in the top 20 percent of income earners received about 90 percent of the federal tax credits for electric vehicles.

Source: https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2018/02/28/electric_vehicle_subsidies_hurt_the_poor_and_help_the_rich.html

I am always amazed by people who build "eco friendly houses" that are far bigger than an ordinary person needs to live in.

[Carlton Banks]

Plants and ecosystems can't just up and move as the climate changes.

if (that's an if) weather patterns and ecosystems are changing significantly, plants literally will up and move, as plants have multiple ways of propagating their offspring, and it always involves making use of either ecosystems or weather patterns (e.g. wind carries seeds; birds eat seeds and excrete them elsewhere)

nature's got it covered, and has been like this since the beginning of life. it's a dynamic system that has survived because of how well it adapts to adversity, and has done so in far more adverse conditions; for instance pre-life nothingness

Life started from amino acids & proteins created from natural processes, then winding themselves into naturally occurring RNA (how this naturally occurring RNA became the early bacteria that started life is, I believe, still unknown). This all happened with very high levels of CO₂, 10%+, and virtually zero% oxygen.

To think that 0.04% CO₂ levels can turn the Earth back into a planet that cannot support life is incredibly short sighted, and frankly, more than a little hubristic.

[PopoJeff]

Plant trees. They need CO2. And they make O2

[Jet Cash]

Here is an interesting video about solar cycles and climate change.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDOgWeTAas0

It contains some interesting facts such as global warming preceding the rise of CO2 by about 600 years. It illustrates this with facts such as the colonisation of Greenland around 850AD because of its verdant pastures and warm climate, and how this changed 100 years later to become the freezing country we know and love. It reminds us of the ice age that caused the Thames to freeze over a few hundred years ago.

Man certainly does have a major impact on the environment, but the misuse of water, which is causing the drying up of underground aquifers , and the leeching of minerals from arable land as a result of corporate ownership of farms, and far more significant. Don't let us forget the massive deforestation that leads to desertification either.

[Viper1]

Here is an interesting video about solar cycles and climate change.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDOgWeTAas0

It contains some interesting facts such as global warming preceding the rise of CO2 by about 600 years. It illustrates this with facts such as the colonisation of Greenland around 850AD because of its verdant pastures and warm climate, and how this changed 100 years later to become the freezing country we know and love. It reminds us of the ice age that caused the Thames to freeze over a few hundred years ago.

Man certainly does have a major impact on the environment, but the misuse of water, which is causing the drying up of underground aquifers , and the leeching of minerals from arable land as a result of corporate ownership of farms, and far more significant. Don't let us forget the massive deforestation that leads to desertification either.

That video is part of..... izzit.org is an educational initiative of the Free To Choose Network... izzit.org seems to distribute things like anti climate change videos from the heartland group. Both the free to choose network and heartland group conveniently get funding from "anonymous" funds DT and DCF (the freedom network gets close to half of it from them and I didn't bother checking into the heartland group as much). Those funds seem to primarily fund conservative anti climate change organizations. Another almost half part of their funding comes from the John Templeton Foundation. Peeling a bit back from that rabbit hole it's appearing that it has a very religious right wing / conservative slant in terms of what their agenda is.

And yes I'm well aware that one can find the same sort of thing on the rah rah rah climate change we're all doomed side of things. We must do solar and wind power right now today and not talk about the mountains of toxic waste it will produce. God forbid we think about things like nuclear energy cause you know... no where near the same number of jobs or money would be created from that and "green renewable" sounds so awesome compared to !!!!!!nuclear bombs!!!!!!.

I think I'll stick with actual real scientists. I know very well what they're like and how they think. I'd trust what the majority would produce far more then something like those the right and left pump out. Course, I don't really trust anyone completely so there's that.