Climate change and human responsibility

[FireGilbert]

I believe in man made climate change and can't stand the deniers but some of the tactics of the good guys really bug me.

-There is naivety on the impact removing fossil fuels will have on the economy. Where are we going to get plastics and steel without oil and coal? What is going to happen to all those jobs and the associated jobs and the small towns supported by them? We can transition the economy to renewables but this should be a gradual process over many decades.

-The wealthy traveling around the world on private jets but it's okay because they purchase carbon credits. Yeah no. I don't want to live in a society where only the 1% get to enjoy the luxuries of international travel and other high energy activities. We are all in this together. Practice what you preach.

-I am not a fan of carbon taxes as they disproportionately impact the lower classes who cannot afford any increase in their cost of living. What's that you say, you will be refunding money back to the lower classes? Well then you are a watermelon not an environmentalist. Hence the reason for a long term solution. Government funding should be gradually reallocated instead of attempting a quick fix through a tax.

-Finally the protests that disrupt traffic and people going about their daily business do not work. You are not gaining support you are gaining enemies. Start a grassroots movement instead, promoting your cause, debunking myths, and getting involved in politics.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I just want to see one leader be honest about climate change and provide a realistic long term solution

[Canadianman]

What if it's a big hoax and we make the world a better place for nothing???

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by zamler

I'd love to see a coherent plan to replace fossil fuel energy, and replace crude oil used in producing millions of products. Show me the math.

The solution, like the problem, is very complex. The petrochemical industry is not going away. It is just going change. Change in the way we use it and how much we use it. We'll use the hydrocarbon molecule for power generation, but in more efficient power plants that can then sequester the carbon pollution. We'll still use oil in the production of some plastics, but shift others to renewable sources of oils. We will continue to develop new technologies and improve the ones we have to shift away from reliance on the hydrocarbon molecule. There is no rapid single bullet solution, but we have to do everything we can to get off of the hydrocarbon economy as quickly as we can. This will include renewables, new generation nuclear, and probably many technologies currently in their infancy or on the drawing board. The math isn't 1+1=2. It's way more complex than that, and there are a lot of variables we have to solve to complete the equation.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Canadianman

What if it's a big hoax and we make the world a better place for nothing???

Doing what the alarmists want us to do will kill a lot of people. That's not nothing to me.

The world would definitely a better place for the survivors though.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Canadianman

What if it's a big hoax and we make the world a better place for nothing???

Thanks for the contribution. Care to explain how we do that, as it wouldn't be for nothing, it would be in exchange for, well, pretty much everything.


Why do people think the solution is just sitting there, and the only reason we aren't doing it is because we choose not to?

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

So here’s the thing. Maybe I’m misreading your posts, but it’s this attitude that strikes me as someone who is firmly dismissive of any argument on this. If I’m wrong about that, I apologize.

I'm dismissive because it doesn't matter, we need to brainstorm solutions not argue over who may or may not be correct about a prediction. That solves NOTHING.

You find the “12 years to the initiation of the doomsday clock” claims a bit “alarmist”. That’s fine, I can see that.

It's being used a political weapon.

But let’s imagine an example (pie in the sky) where the entire scientific world agrees that we need to replace fossil fuels within 12 years. All the politicians agree, everyone agrees... there is zero way to make that happen? I don’t buy that. It would be a nightmare process to avoid a potential nightmare scenario, but it could definitely happen.

You refuse to believe we can't replace all carbon energy, because? How about we find out from a scientific perspective. Again, show me the math.

There is never going to be a coherent plan on this, it needs (if proven to be necessary) a MASSIVE overhaul. Feels like we kinda missed the soft 40 year rollout and that’s why people are angry.

We need to stop polluting, making products we don't need, stop destroying natural habitats, stop dumping billions of tons of plastic in the ocean, stop burning forests so we can graze livestock. I could go on and on. Carbon output is barely scratching the surface when it comes to ways we are destroying this planet.

[codynw]

There may be an answer to this already, but I'm gonna ask it anyways. Why don't we just plant a ####load of trees everywhere? Obviously that's not a permanent solution, but it's better than the whole lot of nothing that we're doing right now. And it might slow things down long enough for us to come up with a permanent solution.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Nope, still brutal. And now you have made it worse by putting words in my mouth to try and project me to have an extreme position (which I do not hold) in order to try and make your argument. I am not in denial.

I know you're not, I'm just using your post as an example. I know you understand the issue and are taking a position to garner discussion. I'm just challenging that "position" you're talking about and presenting the counter argument. I believe we are closer on the issue than this engagement displays.

And the issue isn't whether or not there is climate change (except for the extreme crazies, like Trump), the issue is what do we do about it?

That is the big question. Unfortunately there are two extremes on this as well. One (the denier) is that we do nothing as it would be detrimental to the economy and impossible to get off big oil. Two (the tree hugger) is that we immediate kill all oil production and try and survive on renewables. The reality is somewhere in the middle.

What we need to do is recognize the problem. What do we have to control and what are the best ways of doing this without causing significant harm to the economy. Obviously we have to eliminate as much CO2 and methane production as possible. So we have to focus our efforts on that. Find ways to sequester CO2 from fossil fuel use. Find ways to prevent further methane release from permafrost and existing oil wells.

Another thing we have to do is also recognize that there are changes in the economy happening. For example, the coal industry is dying. More jobs exist in the renewable economy than exist in the coal industry. Evolution in the economy happens, we just have to wait for it and go with it. Same thing will happen with the petrochemical industry. The important thing is to continue to shift until we see critical mass and a natural adoption of new technologies. We will solve the problem if we commit and put our minds to it. As long as we continue to "dialogue" the longer it takes to commit to solving the actual problem.

[zamler]

We could reduce energy usage probably by 30% straight away if everyone bought in and really wanted to. Drive less, vacation less, buy less crap. But no one is going to do that because the lifestyle we lead is the lifestyle we want.

You don't want the 50mpg puddle jumper you want the nice SUV that gets half that. Sure some people need a large people mover most do not, I can easily prove this by watching traffic for 5 minutes.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by zamler

We could reduce energy usage probably by 30% straight away if everyone bought in and really wanted to. Drive less, vacation less, buy less crap. But no one is going to do that because the lifestyle we lead is the lifestyle we want.

You don't want the 50mpg puddle jumper you want the nice SUV that gets half that. Sure some people need a large people mover most do not, I can easily prove this by watching traffic for 5 minutes.

Exactly. I agree 100%.

That’s why this is a political issue.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by New Era

I know you're not, I'm just using your post as an example. I know you understand the issue and are taking a position to garner discussion. I'm just challenging that "position" you're talking about and presenting the counter argument. I believe we are closer on the issue than this engagement displays.



That is the big question. Unfortunately there are two extremes on this as well. One (the denier) is that we do nothing as it would be detrimental to the economy and impossible to get off big oil. Two (the tree hugger) is that we immediate kill all oil production and try and survive on renewables. The reality is somewhere in the middle.

What we need to do is recognize the problem. What do we have to control and what are the best ways of doing this without causing significant harm to the economy. Obviously we have to eliminate as much CO2 and methane production as possible. So we have to focus our efforts on that. Find ways to sequester CO2 from fossil fuel use. Find ways to prevent further methane release from permafrost and existing oil wells.

Another thing we have to do is also recognize that there are changes in the economy happening. For example, the coal industry is dying. More jobs exist in the renewable economy than exist in the coal industry. Evolution in the economy happens, we just have to wait for it and go with it. Same thing will happen with the petrochemical industry. The important thing is to continue to shift until we see critical mass and a natural adoption of new technologies. We will solve the problem if we commit and put our minds to it. As long as we continue to "dialogue" the longer it takes to commit to solving the actual problem.

I guess we have different definitions of dialogue,because to me it means finding ways to implement feasible, working solutions - discussing some of the things you've mentioned, plus searching for other possible solutions. But bleating out that we need action, not discussion, solves nothing. And the garbage we get from people like Elizabeth May accomplishes nothing but animosity and divisiveness. Meanwhile real solutions remain a long way off.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by codynw

There may be an answer to this already, but I'm gonna ask it anyways. Why don't we just plant a ####load of trees everywhere? Obviously that's not a permanent solution, but it's better than the whole lot of nothing that we're doing right now. And it might slow things down long enough for us to come up with a permanent solution.

Because it is impossible. I remember reading an article about this but can't find it right now. IIRC we would have to plant over a trillion and a half trees to counter just the carbon being produced in one year. That doesn't account for the increases or decreasing the built up carbon. Considering there are about 5 trillion trees on the planet, that means we need to plant the equivalent of 25% of existing trees. Also take into consideration the large areas where trees won't grow or can't grow and we're limited in where those trees can grow. So how much land do you think you need to plant and grow 1,500,000,000,000 trees? If IIRC the area was side of Asia, Europe, and Australia combined. We don't have the land to do so without killing off a large percentage of the people on the planet as we would consume pretty much all of our farmlands to plant trees.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Exactly. I agree 100%.

That’s why this is a political issue.

How is that political? It is a far and wide sweeping societal issue.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by zamler

How is that political? It is a far and wide sweeping societal issue.

Because we need forced change in industry to change habits. For example: People are still going to buy the plastic dollar store item, wrapped in more plastic necessary, shipped from China. Because it’s all they can afford. In addition, there are countless fossil fuel industry jobs that would be on the line. Those people need to be protected if you’re going to dial back that industry. That’s done through effective government.

We can’t just convince everyone to change their habits, as you illustrated.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by New Era

Because it is impossible. I remember reading an article about this but can't find it right now. IIRC we would have to plant over a trillion and a half trees to counter just the carbon being produced in one year. That doesn't account for the increases or decreasing the built up carbon. Considering there are about 5 trillion trees on the planet, that means we need to plant the equivalent of 25% of existing trees. Also take into consideration the large areas where trees won't grow or can't grow and we're limited in where those trees can grow. So how much land do you think you need to plant and grow 1,500,000,000,000 trees? If IIRC the area was side of Asia, Europe, and Australia combined. We don't have the land to do so without killing off a large percentage of the people on the planet as we would consume pretty much all of our farmlands to plant trees.

There was just recently an article that suggested that planting the 1.5 trillion trees required was possible as in there was enough room to plant the trees.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.theg...nopy-emissions

No farmlands or urban areas are touched although some tree cover is added to grazing lands.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Because we need forced change in industry to change habits. For example: People are still going to buy the plastic dollar store item, wrapped in more plastic necessary, shipped from China. Because it’s all they can afford. In addition, there are countless fossil fuel industry jobs that would be on the line. Those people need to be protected if you’re going to dial back that industry. That’s done through effective government.

We can’t just convince everyone to change their habits, as you illustrated.

I don't think we can regulate ourselves out of climate change, but at the same time I am not against specific regulations. For example I think companies should be forced to take back packaging that is not bio friendly.

Originally Posted by GGG

There was just recently an article that suggested that planting the 1.5 trillion trees required was possible as in there was enough room to plant the trees.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.theg...nopy-emissions

No farmlands or urban areas are touched although some tree cover is added to grazing lands.

I'm all for this but doesn't it take decades for these trees to become meaningful carbon sinks?

[Enoch Root]

Also, 1.5T trees aren't an all or none solution. Half a trillion trees would still be great.

Having said that, planting that many trees is a mind numbingly large endeavor. If you had a machine that could plant 1 tree per minute, working 24/7, it would take 10,000 of them 300 years to plant 1.5T trees.

And that doesn't address the small detail of the cost, or the land

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Also, 1.5T trees aren't an all or none solution. Half a trillion trees would still be great.

Having said that, planting that many trees is a mind numbingly large endeavor. If you had a machine that could plant 1 tree per minute, working 24/7, it would take 10,000 of them 300 years to plant 1.5T trees.

And that doesn't address the small detail of the cost, or the land

Or tree size. And we’d be talking about 10,000 of these machines which shouldn’t be running on fossil fuels. Okay so it seems this idea is not feasible.

[you&me]

If we're planting 1.5 Trillion trees, wouldn't it mean those trees already exist?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by zamler

I don't think we can regulate ourselves out of climate change, but at the same time I am not against specific regulations. For example I think companies should be forced to take back packaging that is not bio friendly.

I'm all for this but doesn't it take decades for these trees to become meaningful carbon sinks?

I am not against these sorts of ideas, but those are the types of solutions being offered up now, and that is the problem: targeting individual examples, and thus missing others. It makes for an unlevel playing field, and that is the challenge.

Excessive packaging is as annoying as anything. But where do you start? And who decides what is excessive? And unless all countries are involved equally, it just creates unfair advantages to those not restricted.

Let's go back to the SUV example above: do we try and make people drive smaller vehicles? (who decides who qualifies for an SUV and who doesn't?) Or do we try to reduce the number of oil tankers carrying oil half way around the world?

Again, who decides? Because unless everyone is playing by the same rules, you aren't accomplishing anything, you are just giving economic advantages to those that won't follow the rules.