Climate Lockdown Coming?
Yes we had a Pandemic Lockdown... is something worse on the Horizon?
Under a “climate lockdown,” governments would limit private-vehicle use, ban consumption of red meat, and impose extreme energy-saving measures, while fossil-fuel companies would have to stop drilling.
In 2000, the Western U.S. entered the beginning of what scientists call a megadrought the worst in 1,200 years which they say is triggered by a combination of a natural dry cycle and human-caused climate change.
Currently (2021) the U.S. Drought Monitor places 70% of the Central and South Western states under extreme or exceptional drought.
More than 60 percent of the continental United States is in drought conditions, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture has declared a disaster area in more than 1,000 counties countrywide.
From California to Utah crops are failing, or not being planted, fisheries and lakes are going dry, the impact on the Nation's food supply will be severe.
Days ago the Hoover Dam reservoir hit a record low, another sign of how extreme the western U.S. drought has become.
A study published in the journal Science recently compared modern soil moisture data with historical records gleaned from tree rings, it found that when compared with all droughts seen since the year 800 across western North America, the 21-year drought that began in 2000 and continued through 2020 (this drought is still ongoing, though the study’s data is analyzed through 2018) was worse than all other megadroughts in this region. And it only seems to be getting worse.Yes we do have a big problem. Bigger than COVID.
COVID was relatively easy to solve, although governments all over the world failed miserably. In the end we got COVID under control thanks to the private sector who made millions by selling countries' vaccines. And then there are still a lot of people not believing in science, distrusting vaccines.
The Climate Crisis is a long way coming. But it is harder to fight as people do in general not make a profit by fighting the climate crisis. (think reducing meat production and fossil fuels...) This is in stark contrast of solving the problem of COVID and making money at the same time.
I think Elon Musk is on the right track by saying, We have to produce ecological sound products that people want. Make an electric car sexier than fossil fuel cars.
Same with plastic, eco-friendly plastic should be made more desirable than ordinary plastic.
I'm afraid that the governments around the world have to make laws to prevent a catastrophe.
To think that the free market will come up with a solution is an elusion. Just like imagine that smoking was allowed everywhere, the percentage of smoking-related health would be far bigger. (And so the costs) so yes, governments have to step in. (Something that is probably a difficult thing to accept in some countries)
The Climate crisis is a huge problem. And I think it would be good to trust science for a change.
I would make an independent team of international scientists who are at the top of their field and listen to their advice. And try to implement this on a world scale...
The NATO should perhaps have a special section dedicated to fighting the climate crisis.
And o boy, now countries have to work together and not be so bloody nationalistic (only thinking in their political interest.) That will be a tough cookie as we've seen the last 40 years.Here's to "trusting Science":
https://nypost.com/2021/06/16/jon-stewa … %20buttonsSo you still think we live on a flat earth? In the center of the universe. You still think we get sick because there are bad spirits around...etc.
No of course not. I hope you get my point.
Science is one thing and this can be trusted. If a scientist says something and proves it then it is true, unless someone else disproves it with theories and practice.
Politics is something else. Your article is about politics and opinions. It's not about science.It's from a late night comedy show, meant to be funny.....so never mind!
You try to back up an argument. Saying that you can't trust science with a comedy show!!! Doesn't work I'm afraid.
Not at all, I just had a momentary lapse in judgement, forgetting that having a sense of humor has been left behind with the dinosaurs.....along with common sense.
We'll just agree to disagree, once again, how's that!No I think we have to make a distinction.
We can trust science. But we can not trust mankind.
Can you agree on that one?
Or as Oppenheimer said: "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."
Elon Musk is by far doing more to help humanity than all the other billionaires and corporations combined.
Most people have no clue just how many things he is pushing forward, a great many advancements we will see in technology related fields will be because of his efforts in the coming decade(s).
The issue I have with both your points on NATO and Science is that they are both easily influenced and corruptable.
You can't trust research on air pollution when it is funded by Exxon/Mobil for example, or when the tobacco companies funded all sorts of research into the safety of smoking cigarettes.In a way, everything is corruptable as it gets more influence. That's difficult to avoid. I trust research by NASA more than from Shell for instance. So I guess there is a gradation of trust.
But I think we should not point the finger at science itself that easily, but to the policymakers.
Science can be used in many ways. You can make a nuclear bomb or nuclear energy... (not the same process I know, but based upon the same knowledge and understanding of the connection between energy and matter.)
Climate Change is a tough one as there are so many interconnected problems and you have to coordinate it on a worldwide scale. So you have to make a lot of agreements...which takes years...
I don't know what's the best approach to be honest.
Sometimes I'm suspicious about the anti-science attitude. Using this to show that climate change is a hoax and only a political way for getting money...etc.
I think this attitude is dangerous. The hostility against scientists, intellectuals, and art is a sign of a degradation of democratic values and freedom of speech.
That's why I prefer to defend science.That is understandable.
Politicians are not trustworthy. Science funded by those with questionable motives is suspect.
It is why when someone comes along like Musk, I do what little I can to support his efforts, his goals and motivations are far clearer to discern than the agendas of a political party trying to push a Green New Deal on the Nation.The Green New Deal. Yeah, right. Like politicians really care about true green-ness for the earth.
Its stated goal of eliminating the use of fossil fuels in a decade and greatly reducing carbon emissions while phasing out the largest source of non-carbon energy we currently have, nuclear power.
That would be awesome, except for a couple of things not considered, for instance...
The economic fact that if the United States were to eliminate its reliance on fossil fuels, this would drive the price of oil down, thereby allowing developing countries to use more of it in their drive to modernize.
Exactly what is going to replace Oil, Coal, Natural Gas and Nuclear Power?
The Green New Deal really didn't have the answer for that.Ken, isn´t the main eliminator for fossile fuels to use less?
With this context, the US has a lot do acomplish if they even want to catch up to the rest of the world.
The USA is by far (almost double compared to Europe and China) the most generous user of energy (in terms of energy use per GDP). With the energy mix (fossiles, nuclear, renewable) that also almost applies to CO2 emission per GDP.
So why not start with getting more energy efficient? This includes all areas of energy use, from industry to household. And it should be easy prey, Europe and to some extent China are ahead and give examples of how to do.
There will be a lot more renewables needed. But one first step is to bypass the thermodynamic efficiency (of combustion engines and convential and nuclear power plants) by directly fetching and supplying electricity with renewables. Will cut primary energy demand by factor 2 to 3. Actually this is what hydroelectric systems do for almost a century already (Hoover dam!!).
Only - if there is more of drought in the US, then more of the hydroelectric (green) energy source will simply dry out. Better look for alternatives and do it fast.
Exxon, Russia, Saudi Arabia .. won´t like it, but yes - demand for fossiles will eventually drop, but not to the extent that developing countries get a free ride. These countries are still developing, because they didn´t take their opportunity when fossiles were cheap. Why now or in the near future?Eliminating fossil fuels is just not realistic, but it would be nice if the Green New Deal at least produced a discussion about changes to our society that would reduce pollution and greenhouse gases.
I believe the focus on fossil emissions has a lot more to do with politics and the ability to tax corporations and nations than it does addressing the problem.
The good ol' Carbon Tax.
If there were an honest concern over saving the planet and averting climate change, we would be ending the record breaking clear-cutting of rainforests in Brazil and various nations in Africa.
We would be turning grazing lands here in the states back into forested areas... I have to give much credit to China, they have worked to turn a vast desert into a forest, if our government put in half that effort to reclaim areas of now depleted farmland and grazeland, who knows how much that would help mitigate what we see transpiring in the West today.Ken, you say that climate change is undeniable, but in fact, many people deny it. I must admit, you have me a bit flummoxed by your obvious concern over this issue.
I can't imagine the reaction to some policy that involved turning grazing lands back into forests.
I agree that the science is not refutable, yet people try to refute it and people believe those who say climate change is a hoax.
It's easy to suggest that we stop clear-cutting. It's another thing to slow the machinery that demands the clear-cutting.
I suspect I'm like a lot of people concerned about the climate and about the damage that we're doing, yet I'm not sure how much effort I've personally put into changing my behaviors. I've always ridden a bike to work. I have always driven fuel-efficient cars. Still, when it's warm, I turn up the air-conditioning and when it's cold, I turn up the heat.
We're a society that believes in mass consumption. It seems antithetical to what's needed to reverse climate change.I recognize there is a problem to be addressed regarding climate change.
I recognize that our politicians and their New Green Deal and Carbon Tax are using this crisis as an excuse to grab power and money... not address the problems of climate change.
So 95% of people will find fault with my position... those who don't believe we are harming the world, the climate, with our actions... and those who believe our politicians are doing the right things with their Green Deals and Carbon Taxes.
This is a real effort to make change:
https://ecobnb.com/blog/2019/07/china-t … advancing/
This is more along the lines of a power grab:
https://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/pricing-carbon
Putting a tax on corporations and power plants simply pushes those costs onto the consumer, typically the poorest in society.
However giving incentives to people to buy EVs, put in Solar Power systems, to farmers to plant trees and convert unused lands, would go much further to getting change to occur.
Give me a tax rebate for buying a new EV, give me a rebate for putting in a Solar Power system and reducing my reliance on Grid power to almost nothing, and I would be happy to do so if it makes economic sense.
As for what is going on to the Rainforests... if it isn't stopped... then nothing we do in Europe or America will matter. The deforestation going on today in those lands will outstrip and outpace any positive changes made elsewhere in the world.Well, maybe this shows that there is room for agreement after all between people who may not be politically affiliated.
Carrots almost always work better than sticks. On this, we agree.What is so sad, is that it is so overly simple to do today.
Let me give you an example, lets say I put in a Solar Power system on my house, finance it for 20 years, the system has enough wattage and battery storage that I can supply my own energy needs 24/7 with rare exceptions of very bad weather (I live in Florida so such a system is possible for year round energy).
The government doesn't have to give me one dime... all it has to do is make it so that I can deduct 75% or more of my yearly costs for financing that system.
Lets say that it costs $300 a month, $3,600 a year, 75% of that is $2,700.
The government is simply refunding back to me my own money, to counter my costs for putting in a renewable energy system and reducing my carbon footprint.
Its a win win scenario... too simple. Why don't we see it?
Power Companies don't want that, that will harm their profits. Oil companies don't want that, cheap electric makes EVs look even more attractive.
Politicians do what the corporations want, they don't do what is best.
The corporations don't have a problem with a carbon tax, they will just push that down onto the consumer and charge them more.
The Oil companies and auto-industry doesn't have a problem with that, they too will just pass the costs to the consumer.
You'll pay a carbon tax... that will do nothing to solve the problem.
Or in a more extreme situation, as I discussed when opening this thread, you will have Climate Lockdowns. Planned Brown Outs, restrictions on travel, restrictions or very high taxes for owning a vehicle, etc.Ken, it seems to be simple. But is it?
Typical energy cost per kWh in the US is ? Some 13..14 ct/kWh.
Energy harvesting of 1 kWp peak power output of a solar panel system is probably some 1200 kWh/year in your climatic conditions.
My experience from running multiple solar power systems is:
Household electricity useage is very limited if fed by solar panels only: some 30% to 40% of energy harvest. Battery backed systems with reasonable capacity only get you max. 60% but make investment double.
My estimate on a solar panel investment of some 10 kWp on your roof will cost some 7k USD without batteries and some 12k with batteries.
Energy savings are generous 35% x 10 x 1200 kWh/year household consumption x 0,13 cents = 546 USD/year.
Your payback period (not NPW adjusted) will then be 7.000 / 546 = 12,8 years. Be assured: this number is always between 10 and 15 years for home run solar panel systems, no matter in old Europe or in the USA.
The problem with batteries: They don´t improve the payback period. And .. do batteries last that long with charging cycles to even only reach the payback time??
Your example with tax breaks is very valid. And i do play the trick in my country on many solar power projects. We don´t get tax breaks for private investments (as on your own roof), but we do get significant advance depreciation write offs for solar energy investments on a professional base.
We can deduct some 50% of investment in the first year. With our tax rates for high income people with is almost a zero investment game. You take your choice of not handing out your money to the tax office but invest the deduction savings into a solar power project as equity. After some years your loans are payed back and you harvest not only energy but money.
.. And then the game starts all over again, because as your earning get higher.. you better make sure to exploit tax breaks with new projects. Almost like a personal Ponzi scheme to avoid taxes...
Your deduction idea is spot on. And i can only confirm that our local electricity provider (panels are not off grid) doesn´t like the concept and tries to delay and counteract wherever they can. But as the solar stuff is government policy, grid providers and energy corporations loose and by now in my state of Lower Saxony (Germany) we have some 180.000 systems installed, that is almost 1 out of 10 on private houses, not to mention professional systems.
I don´t know in the US, but here in G. you can start a business with the purpose of harvesting energy. This your business then leases your private house roof from you and invests and sets up a solar system. (You act as 2 legal persons to make a contract). Then you buy energy from your energy harvesting business, thus creating earnings in your business and at the same time allowing all the tax deduction tricks. .. Well, at least it works this way in G.If you double or more the size of the system, panels and battery storage, then producing enough energy for the home will be no problem.
Your estimations appear to be based on a limited system, where as putting in a system that costs between $20-30k alleviates those limitations you note.
This site will give you an example of what I am trying to convey:
https://www.tesla.com/solarpanels
In addition you can tie into the grid, selling them back your excess power, and then drawing on the grid in times of emergency. But ultimately the goal is to be effectively free of the need of the Grid 99% of the time.Generally an interesting topic.
As i earn money from harvesting and selling solar energy, i am too familiar with the scaling opportunities. However in G. we have household limit of 22 kW for private grid connection. Current cost is some 700 USD / kWp for larger systems up to 1000 USD for smaller (10 kWp) systems.
You certainly don´t have to convince me of the benefits of solar power generation. But it should be done in the most cost effective way and that includes taxation/taxbreaks. May differ from country to country.
With respect to the link you provided: At least in G. Tesla is the most expensive option. My favourite systems are currently from SMA (Core1 converters) and 330..340 W Luxor Half Cells.
And then there are small balcony systems for condos: 2 half cells with built-in converters for DIY installation and hookup. https://www.hello-yuma.de/produkt/yuma- … gJji_D_BwEGermany is more advanced in its Solar Power efforts.
Germany has made more effort to get individuals and small communities involved in it.
America's efforts have mostly been made by power companies and large renewable energy corporations.
Two states have gone out of their way to make Solar Power a reasonable possibility, CA and to a lesser degree NY.
If I were to purchase a Solar Power system, Tesla is the best option in the States, they have the best Battery back-up technology, they have the best software, they make it easy to finance. There is a small tax incentive (one year remaining for 22% of the project cost) but nothing like what I suggested be done... which would make far more people interested in going Solar.
Also as I have stated, there is considerable effort by power companies/corporations to slow/stop the incentives for Solar power and for "regular" people to be able to create their own energy.
In fact, I would go so far as to say if not for Tesla, America would be even further behind the transition to Solar Power in America than it is to EVs... when compared to Germany's efforts.
Tesla (formerly Solar City) efforts account for at least half of the non-corporate Solar projects completed in America today.
Completely agree Ken.
Money is not the thing. As a government you can financially support solar energy or fossil fuels. Money is just an excuse not to do things.
After the COVID suddenly governments all over the world have plenty of money to support projects. So it's simply a matter of choosing what to support.
Personally I live for a 15 years now off the grid and all the solar panels on the roof are supporting all the electricity we need.
Batteries will survive about 15 to 20 years so we have to change them the coming years.
But so does a car. There are always costs. But living on solar gives me the feeling of freedom.
And I think that's far more important than a price tag.
And it's far better than electricity from the ordinary grid that's produced in a less environmentally way. So in a way you have the feeling of actually making a better world.Wish I could go off the grid. Pretty sure I could, but it would mean going right back onto the "grid" of fossil fuels as I would require gas or other means to produce the heat and AC I need. A gas hot water heater, gas home heat, gas range, gas AC etc. would leave me with only charging the car and a very small amount to run lights, refrigerator, etc.
Of course my CO2 emissions would rise considerably.yes, it depends on where you live as well I guess. Where we live we hadn't a choice as there was (and still is) no mains elec.
We use gas bottles for cooking and in the winter for showering. But the hot water is on solar too.
Still, you always need a generator for those cloudy weeks. (a couple of times in the winter)
For AC we use the door.....
I notice that you're more aware of energy consumption than if you're on the grid. We had some guests bringing hairdryers...Our system couldn't cope with them. Same with those old-fashioned spiral hot water boilers.
But well, not exactly things that are essential..
For us solar is great, but I can imagine that if you're living in Scotland for example things are slightly different..
.Yeah, it makes a huge difference. My temperatures will range from -20 to 43C or a bit more on both ends. Opening the door in summer won't help, and I don't think you will get much hot water from a solar hot water heater under overcast skies for weeks at a time at -20C.
There are places in the US where it CAN work, and work very well, but in general I think the further you get from the ocean, and the further either north or south, the less chance of making it work. Remember, that gigantic heat sink called an ocean is of tremendous value in mitigating wild temperature swings.-20 to 43C uff, that's pretty extreme. No, overcast for weeks and -20 doesn't work for solar hot water..
We're living close to the Meditarenan (50km.) But that's more a lake than a sea...
It does get cold though as we're 400m above sea level. In the winter you can still walk in t-shirts at daytime but as soon as the sun sets you've got to heat the woodstove and put on some warmer clothes as the temperature drops rapidly. And it's the rapid drop that does the trick and is a shock for the body. It doesn't get much colder than -2.C so that's a huge difference from where you live.
And lots of houses here are built with an optimistic mind thinking that winter is just a couple of days (often no wall insolation etc.)... Not so.
We had to do a lot of reforms to make our house that was built by the former owners as a weekend house for the countryside, into a liveable all-year-round house. A steep learning curve for us city dwellers...
Thanks by the way for writing in Celsius instead of Kelvin what I think is used in the US, but I still can't get my head around it.It can be extreme. Today's forecast is 39 degrees, with a forecast tomorrow of 41, and it is still June! I think it was 26 when I got up at 7AM this morning. I Shudder to think what it will be in August (probably 25 at noon, LOL). And we're well under freezing most of the winter.
My home was built in the 70's, when insulation was not nearly so important (cheap energy), and I've done considerable to reduce my energy use. I'm total electric, and my bill is less now than it was 20 years ago in spite of inflation.
But you're filling the skies with pollution and CO2 from your wood stove?!?! At least my carbon footprint is almost nil - I burn some gasoline but very little and most of my electricity is hydro.Just from the sideline:
Burning wood is considered CO2 neutral. The wood that you use today in your oven was grown in recent years and helped to take CO2 out of the athmosphere.
Seems to be one of the selfregulatory processes of nature: While the CO2 level is rising, forest growth in the Northern hemisphere is also rising substantially.
Don´t know about the US or Canada, but in central Europe roughly 10% more wood is grown every year than is cut and used for any kind of purpose (including burning in the oven or fueling a poetic camp fire).
We all cannot rest our conscience that we may ( or may not) take our energy from CO2 neutral sources. It is the energy mix that makes all of us CO2 villains. When my electricity were provenly hydroelectric, then someone else were to donate his share of hydro to me :-).Gotta love the rationality behind the wood; it seems rather obvious that burning any organic material puts CO2 in the air. It may be "neutral" over the 100 years of that trees lifespan but it certainly isn't neutral considering today's contributions. That we cut down a CO2 removal tool to provide firewood only makes it worse.
But then humankind is famous for it's ability to rationalize whatever it wants.
I've heard that the US has more trees than it did when the country was formed. Wouldn't doubt it; forest management (at least on private lands) is very good. Public lands not so much, though, except for the planting of new trees by private business that cut down existing ones.Impossible, we clear cut 95% of this nation, between that and disease and infestations we brought over to America, we have destroyed what once would have rivaled the world's greatest forests.
https://www.thevintagenews.com/2016/11/ … -redwoods/
https://www.ourstate.com/american-chestnut/
Its interesting to see comments like yours, I find it hard to believe so many Americans are so oblivious to how much destruction we wrought on this continent, what forests exist today are a fraction of what was.I'm kind of blown away by your environmentalism, Ken.
But maybe we should transition this conversation into one about Capitalism.
We clear-cut the forests because it was profitable to do so. We continue to rape the lands of Brazil because it is profitable to do so. If there's profit in something, people will do it.
This therefore raises the question of to what degree do we move from a system of total free market Capitalism to some form of market regulation. Are we not in this very battle as we speak? Republicans generally favor much less government regulation and interference while Democrats favor more. Yet, Democrats generally are the environmentalists while Republicans are the climate change deniers.
I couldn't agree with you more about the use of carrots to encourage solar and other forms of green energy. That would seem to be more likely to come from the left, would it not? I can't see a world where that's a Republican proposal, ever.
Seems like a conundrum to me.Are there no methods to getting there that don't require the taxpayer to do it?
Elephant ivory is much sought after; the solution was for the world to make it illegal. You want to end clear cutting? Make forests national parks with no cutting. You want more green energy? Make it illegal to build anything but nuclear, hydro or other non-polluting power plants.
All of these, seems to me, are within the conservative mind set as none require the taxpayer to foot the bill for what we want to see. No government funds necessary.Your belief that Democrats are generally environmentalists is where we part ways.
Just read my posts in this thread, I have already explained that Carbon Taxes and Green Deals do nothing to solve the problems.
I see Democrats like Pelosi and Biden (those that control the Party) as even worse than Republicans. They promise to address these issues, but they don't, they use them as an excuse to grab more power and wealth from the people.
Where is Biden, Pelosi, or any of them regarding admonishing Brazil for their record breaking efforts of deforestation?
Where are the Democrats in producing new tax breaks for Solar Systems installed or EVs bought?
Where is the funding for re-forestation efforts (which would help change the course of drought and record temperatures ravaging the West Coast)?
I am not happy with talk about Carbon Tax... that sounds more like towing the line for the IMF, WB, and BiS and their plans for wealth gathering from the people... give the people tax incentives to go Solar, go EV, plant trees.Just because the Democrats haven't been as successful as you want them to be does not make the Republican Party pro-environment.
Fact remains, if you poll Republicans, many more of them think climate change is a hoax. If you poll Republican politicians, many more of them believe climate change is not a concern.
Take pollutants. Democrats support increased regulation and Republicans support decreased regulation, generally speaking. Democrats support improved gas mileage requirements for cars and Republican don't. In my state, we have tax incentives for EV cars and solar panels because of Democrats. Republicans oppose them. The last president ridiculously felt the death of birds from windmills was a more important topic than wind power.
Ultimately, I do agree with you that all these politicians are beholden to big business. And while the Green New Deal may not be the answer, at least it's something that can start a discussion. What have Republicans ever offered up as environmental policy?
Does that mean I'm happy with how Democrats have approached environmental policy? Hardly. But at least they talk about it. As far as Brazil goes, I do know the last president embraced Bolisinaro as an ally and the current one does not."What have Republicans ever offered up as environmental policy?"
About the same as Democrats. At least I see the "green new deal" as no more than a magic wand that they think they can wave and fix all the problems without causing any damage. Not even a starting point for discussion!I did not say or infer that. I said the Democrats that have control of the Party use it as a political tool to gain power and control... they don't do much "fixing" of the issues when they have the opportunity... not now... not when Obama took office and they had complete control of Congress and the Exec office.
Actions speak louder than words, and at no time did we ever come close to leading the way in Environmental or Renewable Energy efforts.
There is a darker side to that.
They don't allow drilling on federal lands and they shut down the pipeline... but that doesn't change anything regarding our use of oil... the only thing it really does is make oil and gas prices go up for Americans and puts Americans out of work.
They ban the use of coal in power plants... but they allow the continued mining of coal which is sold to China and they burn it instead of America. Our electric costs go up, while China reaps the benefits of cheaper coal, and the world is still polluted by it nonetheless.
They DO things... but it doesn't CHANGE anything on the global scale.
What difference does it make if we are burning Oil from America or Oil from Saudi Arabia?
What difference does it make if we are burning that Coal or if China is?
When I see tax deductions for private citizens installing Solar Power systems on their own houses. When I see money going to farmers and land owners to plant trees and efforts made to reforest areas where forests once stood... then I'll believe they are truly interested in making a difference to better the world.How about instead of a non-refundable tax credit for solar cells Uncle Sam just pay for them.
I'm about fed up, as a low income retiree, of seeing what taxes I pay go to subsidize electric cars, solar cells, etc. for the rich while I am denied the same opportunity. Those that have the income to purchase without help are subsidized while those that really struggle to buy it get no help at all.Taxes don't go to subsidize electric cars, solar cells... tax deductions are what is offered, this means those people who invest in those things get to keep more of their own money.
That is what smart people do, find whatever tax deductions and write offs the government allows and use them.
What that also does, is help grow the industry of EVs and Solar Energy, without those tax deductions many people would not have gotten those systems, because it wouldn't have made economic sense.
Solar Energy and EV industries have now developed to the point where they are competitive with their Carbon creating alternatives, their technology has advanced to the point where they will begin to become cheaper than sticking with the 'old' options.
If the government today incentivized people to purchase Solar Power systems, then states like Florida, Georgia, Arizona, etc. would likely become net-zero, nature positive, zero emission states far quicker.
Solar Power systems could use the EVs as storage batteries, in addition to having back-up batteries, the opportunity to make millions of homes in America capable of sustaining their own power needs without ever drawing on Grid power... no electric bills... no carbon footprint.
But the Power companies, the Oil companies, don't want that... better to create a Carbon tax that can be added to the bill people have to pay on their electric bill and at the pump.
Ah, but I mentioned when the nation was formed in 1776. Prior to that we had cut much of the East coast, leaving far less than was here in 1492. Makes a difference.
And no, we never "rivaled the world's greatest forests". We don't have the climate for a rain forest and most of central US was and is prairie. Add in the SW deserts and the high mountains virtually bare of ANY vegetation and there never was the huge forests of the Amazon. It is primarily on the coasts where we have large forests - even where I live in Idaho it is mostly high mountain desert rather than rich forestland.
Now the pandemic is all but over in the UK we’ve decided to get a solar power system installed, with batteries (something I was planning to do last year before the pandemic struck).
However, in the UK the Government no longer offer generous benefits for Solar Power installations; it’s not the main source of Renewable Energy in the UK, currently standing at just 4% (3.1% in 2016 & 3.4% in 2017) of the total energy generated, solar power is just an additional bonus.
Since 2018 more of the UK’s Energy now comes from Renewable Sources, than from fossil fuels, and the vast bulk of that is Wind power (offshore windfarms), typically around 30%; so far the record for wind generation in the UK was last month (Friday 21st May) during a May storm, when for that day Britain’s offshore wind farms generated 62.5% of the UK’s total electricity needs.
Therefore, in the UK, the only incentive householders have for getting solar power is that it cuts the electricity bill significantly, and it’s a long term investment that pays for itself within 10 years. However, once the system is installed, any surplus electricity we produce will be sold to the national grid at wholesale price (not much, just pennies, but it will mount up over time); and it’s a ‘smart battery’ that in the event we need more power e.g. during the winter months, the battery can buy electricity from the national grid when its cheap (in the early hours of the morning), for us to use when electricity is most expensive e.g. at peak times.Currently, the biggest ‘Renewable Energy’ project involving the UK is the building of an artificial island in the North Sea halfway between Norway and the UK. The ambitious project, which started construction in 2020, and with its first phase due to be operational by 2023, involving ten European countries, the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Luxemburg, France, Denmark, Ireland, Norway, Sweden and the UK will provide enough Renewable Energy to meet the needs of 80 million homes across Europe (meeting about 20% of Europe’s Energy needs) and will meet 10% of the UK’s energy needs.
North Sea Wind Power Hub: https://youtu.be/lBnWEK9IUn4
Ken,
I presume you take the drought seriously? Do you believe it's due to man-made climate change or something else. If it's not climate change, why should we worry? Maybe just wait for things to cool off?The evidence of man's impact on planet earth is now undeniable.
https://earth.stanford.edu/news/covid-l … #gs.3xfuxf
https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMI … ed-in-2020
https://www.apple.com/tv-pr/originals/t … ed/videos/
Fascinating stuff, ultimately Humans are having a major impact, but there are cyclical forces in play as well, and I am not sure how much we can mitigate them...
So long as we allow other countries to do things like this:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-55130304
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/ … -palm-oil/
It doesn't matter what we do here, as one article says, the lungs of the earth are being destroyed at such a rapid pace, there is no hope for the future of humanity if it is allowed to continue.
We could stop all transportation globally, cars, planes, ships, etc. it matters not one bit, if the rainforests in Africa and Brazil are destroyed.
The earth, life, may survive, but we won't.
Do you think that vast numbers of people don't trust science, or that they don't trust scientists to be honest? Recognizing that people often believe whatever they want to, it still seems likely that the greater distrust is of scientists with an axe to grind (or a salary to maintain) rather than facts.
I worry about the tendency of anti-intellectualism. People dismaying the truth, coming with alternative truths... People becoming famous by proving that the world is flat. People stating that universities are no good as they are full of communist ideas etc.
I think that's a dangerous route to follow.
Alternative scientists stating that there is no climate crisis given more airtime because the channel broadcasting is political aligned with the fossil fuel industry.
And here we have the problem.
We have to distinguish science from politics and social media.
But yes, science is often connected with lots of money. Especially in the pharma industry. Still, I think the science is ok. If the science is wrong it will be disputed by other scientists.
But yes, money, power and politics are the culprits.
Is the COVID patented for example? I think it shouldn't be, so poorer countries are able to make it themselves instead of relying on the rich countries. That's where ethics kicks in for example.I hope you don't mind if I pop in Peterstreep. As Chris57 would say, just to add my 2 cents.
Combining Wilderness' point with one of my own, I think a different terminology would add to the direction of this issue's, (not believing in science), discussion.
You say you ". . . worry about the tendency of anti-intellectualism." I think the better description would be `anti-elitism'.
My life experience has been that most folks like smart folks, but they don't like smart folks that think they are better because they are smarter.
Of course, there may be some aspects of "intellectualism" whose behavior might not sit well with less-smart folks, but almost every aspect of elitism is not liked by the `non-elites/
I think the difference changes the starting point. Instead of the context of anti-science and anti-intellectualism we now have a starting point of anti-behavior; whether it be snobbish elitism or the corruption of science, (Wilderness' examples).
I have to add that I certainly do think there are some idiots that fit the context of your thought, but I would argue that they are the fringe of the group being labeled anti-science, I don't think they are the norm.
I agree that this is an issue in our public mind right now, but we won't be able to address it correctly until we understand it correctly.
GA
The multimedia is all set up to push this environment issues too.
A swing from Trumps extreme lack of environmental issues. To BIDEN
I've said all along this is coming ten years ago. That's why my tiny houses and FOOD farmingThe drought in the western US suggests that associated climate change is real. A difficult topic to talk about, because it holds the political explosive of climate change being man made (or not). Imho the situation is clear: Climate change is real i don´t care if man made or not, it is obvious that our behavior can make a difference.
Some anecdote: I was in China on business in 2014. At that time this Asian Pacific Economic Conference (APEC) was held in Beijing. I stopped over in Beijing and saw a miracle: Blue sky. Chinese government had shut down local factories for the period of the conference and clear blue sky reemerged, called APEC blue. Man can make a difference.
However i expected another (more political) topic to pop up. The word lockdown is linked to the pandemic. With this pandemic lockdown governments anywhere on our planet were able to test how much personal freedom, human rights could be compromised without counterreaction of the populus.
What a blueprint for anything related to climate change. When do people start an uprising because they can´t water their precious lawn?Related to that, you should watch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XswV_yqPq28
I think you would find it interesting.
The U.S. Drought Monitor, the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, the Journal of Science and on and on.....all nestled under the massive Climate Crisis Umbrella, we all know that umbrella has gone by many, many names over the decades, I remember tales of 'Global Freezing', 'The Coming Ice Age' when I was in high school in the mid-late 70's.
Not too long after that, the bogus {yet massively popular} magazine cover of the poor, pitiful polar bear, with no ice to frolic on. Since the initial talk of global freezing (unless you go back to the 1800's when it was global warming) the doom and gloom crowd have blamed everything from fire to floods...
It really is a shame that {since the 70's} so many people have lived their lives (some like young Greta Thunberg, their ENTIRE life )in fear over something they have absolutely no control over, because mere mortals have God-complexes, thinking they do...thinking everyone, but them, is causing it. For me, the worst part of all of this; children have been made to feel guilty for living, shamed for their mere existence which leaves a deadly carbon footprint behind. NOW, add to that... CRT, have them made to feel guilty, ashamed, inadequate, inferior....because of the skin they are born in!
In the meantime (though kids have it the worst) we are all made to suffer for it, so yeah, the myth is probably what will do us in, in the end, nothing surprises me any longer in this world gone mad.Do you want to know what I really think....
I don't bother much any more on telling people what I really think.
Only to the ones who are awake and doing something about it and by working and sharing.
I can certainly understand that viewpoint.
I can also understand the distrust in certain reporting agencies.
However, it is clear the West is suffering from drought and has been for years.
The videos of dry lakebeds and failed farms are not so easy to falsify.
Human Civilizations have suffered these catastrophes before, self inflicted as much as environmental and out of their control.
The Mayan Civilization is a great example of this, they created a large and successful civilization, with huge cities and trade across the continents, but then they deforested the entire region of Central America, suffered drought on top of that and could no longer support their society.
It collapsed and long before the Spanish arrived the cities were reclaimed by the jungles and civilization was a shadow of itself.
You can see this here in this video, go to 40:30 for specifics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9YwfTerAdA
We may be doing the same on a global scale to ourselves, certainly seems like we are destroying the West Coast.The West, in particular, California, succumbed to Environmentalists, who wanted all trees and all vegetation and all {dangerous brush which starts forest fires} protected. Maybe they should get back to lumbering and reforesting, all while clearing out moisture-robbing, water-stealing vegetation, brush, tree stumps, undergrowth etc.....as they go!
Of course we know, that will never happen.
This clip may do a better job:
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?view … uUtG%252Fw"Whereas climate change, pollution, and environmental destruction have exacerbated systemic racial, regional, social, environmental, and economic injustices (referred to in this preamble as ‘‘systemic injustices’’) by disproportionately affecting indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, de-industrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities and youth (referred to in this preamble as ‘‘frontline and vulnerable communities’’)
https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres … s109ih.pdfBiden is proposing a climate plan, called "A Clean Energy Revolution," It has many of the same aims as the Green New Deal, but is less ambitious. The end date more distant and the cost is less expensive. While the Green New Deal proposes to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions and utilize renewable energy sources by 2030, "A Clean Energy Revolution" targets 2050. The Green New Deal could cost up to nintety three trillion dollars. Biden's plan proposes investment by the Fed up to around a trillion dollars; investment from the private sector, state, and local buy-in, around five trillion dollars.
ninety trillion vs 6 trillion.
No trillion sound even betterThe 93 trillion number came from a biased interest lobby group. I wouldn´t trust too much.
But i had a look at the current energy mix for primary energy
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/
Doing a little interpretation of the figures i would assume that the total primary energy consumption of the US would be cut in half after making everything renewable (production and consumption). This would save some 1 Trillion per year. For a realistic 10 Trillion bill not too bad to get packpack within 10 years, and that is not even accounting for the climate stabilization (less storms, no droughts,...).
Imho the GND or whatewer you call it will even have its commercial legitimacy if the price tag were 20 Trillion, just saying.
However, articles like this one are very convincing
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/u … on-dioxideFor certain, something should be done, that is why the initial post of this thread was why lock down's are possible in the near future.
So long as we have a Dem controlled government, it will be probable.We already have rolling black and brown-outs.
I can't tell by the above comment if you're advocating for government action or against it. It sounds like you assume Dems would advocate for a climate lockdown. Not sure how that would work. What should we advocate? Carbon tax? More penalties for companies that do damage?If we had a Congress that was truly serving the people what we would have is federal tax breaks for people who put in Solar Power systems with back-up battery storage, that covers 75% or more of the costs, making payments for the system deductable.
We do not have that because the Power Companies & Oil Companies make sure no such incentives pass... they do not want people to be able to generate their own power, or lock in costs for 10-20 years.
If Congress were really concerned about the Environment & Air pollution, they would be paying Farmers to re-forest unused and fallow lands, they would fund programs that plant forests in regions that were once forested but have been harvested and now lay bare.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45688.pdf
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ … ics-477620
The focus on TAXING Carbon emissions/footprints...
The focus on LOCKDOWNS and RESTRICTIONS on travel...
These are control mechanisms, theft, and political power grabs...
We agree there are major environmental issues to be concerned about.
You make positive change by stopping nations from clearcutting rainforests; by incentivizing regular people to convert to Solar, to convert to EVs, Bike Riding; by funding reforestation efforts and renewable energy efforts NOT Biomass related.
Lets see where the focus is in their efforts to solve the problem.
Related Discussions
- 84
It is time to talk about climate again - while we still can.
by Scott Belford 2 weeks ago
I hope all those climate deniers out there are eating crow and feeling bad for helping to get things this bad so...
- 55
Fun in the Global Warming Debate
by Will Apse 11 years ago
The Koch brothers are climate change skeptics, Their business is chemicals, coal and transportation- three areas likely to be hit hard by any moves to a low carbon economy.They have respect for science, though, and decided to partly fund a new study at Berkeley run by a climate skeptic Professor,...
- 207
Can the Earth Survive Four Years of a Trump Presidency?
by Scott Belford 6 years ago
There are two major would shaping forces at risk with a Trump presidency; an economic meltdown brought on by a sharp decline in American productivity, and, a much more important one, the environment. I will leave the economy to another forum, for it is the environment I am much more worried...
- 67
The Devolution of National Politics in the United States
by mbuggieh 9 years ago
In May of 1950 President Harry Truman signed a bill---passed by Congress, that created the National Science Foundation. In signing the bill, Truman noted:"Throughout our history, scientists and scientific knowledge have contributed to our progress as a Nation. If you want to keep up that...
- 166
Does Global Warming or Climate Change Really Exist?
by ThunderKeys 11 years ago
I'm confused. I've read and heard arguments that global warming is really just part of a natural temperature change process for the earth. I've also read that it's completely man-made? Is it one or both of these? Please explain.
- 108
CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL: 100 REASONS WHY
by sannyasinman 13 years ago
Global Warming is not man-made. http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138