Climate change and human responsibility

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Coal is used for steel.

Steel is used in windmills, solar panels, etc.

Uh... yeah? Eventually technologies will be developed that don't trace any of their materials back to burning of fossil fuels. In the meantime some fossil fuels will need to be used for essential purposes such as the one you pointed out.

There's nothing wrong with continuing some level of fossil fuel use over the next 3-4 decades. That's why it's called "phase out", as in, you wean off it gradually over time, not all at once.

The reality that people like Mathgod, who’s post is not even worth replying to, fail to understand is that the issue comes down to resources and overpopulation. It doesn’t matter the mode. It’s good to work towards the goals and CO2 reduction strategies to lessen the impact but to think the whole world order and human civilization is just blustering ahead with use of fossil fuels because “big oil” has just hoodwinked everyone is insane. It literally sounds like the ramblings of a crazy person.

We'd be further along on the innovation timeline if not for their lies. It's the truth.

For the sake of civility, I'm not going to share my opinion of what your posts sound like.

[Zarley]

It's interesting this topic popped back up as the Globe has an article today dealing with the naivety around mass electrification. Essentially there is a massive delta between predictions / targets and the actual capital investment needed to support electrification.

Not a surprise to anyone who pays attention to energy, but it's rare to see this reported in the media.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/busi...ity-expansion/

A recent report from Royal Bank of Canada predicted Canadian electricity consumption will rise by 50 per cent over the next decade alone. Earlier this year, one by the Canadian Climate Institute said the nation’s electricity generation capacity will need to grow between 2.2 and 3.4 times larger by mid-century than it is today. Last year, another report by the Institut de l’énergie Trottier – Polytechnique Montréal said electricity production from variable sources such as wind and solar must grow dramatically to achieve net-zero objectives.

The investment required to build all that capacity has been likened to wartime spending. But Canada’s major utilities aren’t preparing for anything of the sort. Nor are major planning bodies such as Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) and the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) telling them to. That’s the main take-away from annual reports and planning outlooks published by these organizations and reviewed by The Globe and Mail, and interviews with decision makers within these organizations.

“I don’t think you can point anywhere to any utility that is actually pursuing this in its system plans, or its capital plans,” acknowledged Jason Dion, mitigation research director at the Canadian Climate Institute, a co-author of the report his organization released in May.

This summer, the AESO published a report examining scenarios for reaching a net-zero grid in Alberta by 2035. It was openly skeptical about achieving that target, noting the various scenarios explored “face significant implementation challenges,” not the least of which is that there’s just 13 years remaining. Then there’s the cost: achieving net zero would require capital investments of between $44-billion and $55-billion, it said.
To understand utilities’ skepticism, it’s worth noting that new generating plants aren’t the only way to satisfy rising demand. BC Hydro hopes to achieve significant savings through energy efficiency initiatives, along with programs that encourage users to shift consumption to times of the day when there’s more power available. That’s partly why its latest 20-year plan predicted no need for new capacity until 2037.

More importantly, though, not everyone believes buildings and vehicles will be rapidly electrified. Prof. Winfield said current government policies by no means assure that outcome. “So there’s a question on the part of the utility: is that demand growth actually really going to be realized?”

Kevin Dawson, the AESO’s director of forecasting and analytics, said his organization doesn’t think electrification will proceed as quickly as aggressive think tanks assume. “When we look at it, there’s a certain amount of inertia in the system – there’s a certain amount of cost advantage that the historical technologies have, that might take some time to overcome,” he said.

TransAlta’s Mr. Van Melle questioned whether utilities could afford rapid mass electrification. “If you were to electrify everything that is now using some sort of fossil fuel, the companies that would have to do it don’t have that sheer amount of capital to invest,” he said. “I don’t think it’s possible.”

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

The deification of fossil fuels in this thread is extremely cringe.

Humans needed an energy source to do things they wanted to do. They used fossil fuels because there was nothing better at the time. Simple as that. Once something better comes along, it should be used instead of the worse thing that was used previously.

Indeed, there should be a process of phasing out fossil fuels, and it needs to happen relatively quickly.

Why aren't we further along in this process than we currently are, stems from decades of climate change denial funded by big oil. There are all kinds of green technologies being worked on atm; it's not hard to find out what these are. It would be foolish to suggest that we wouldn't have been at the stage of innovation we are at now, much sooner, if not for the obnoxious lies spread by big oil.

As for the "going back to 3rd world conditions" argument, that is an absurd false dichotomy. Asking people to curb their greed is not the same as "knocking them back to the stone age".

Fossil fuels no longer offer the excessive net energy production they did during the coal and oil revolutions. The good and easily gotten stuff is gone. Gas is plentiful but also becoming ever more difficult and energetically expensive to maintain as a globally traded commodity. This, well before climate change, is the reason we need to be racing as hard as we can to replace it as our primary energy source.

Other green tech is not the panacea media portrays it to be. It also has poor net energy contributions on a system level and have not led to meaningful reductions in emission intensity or other important impact measures such as land use or human mortality. Those problems scale exponentially as the penetration of these technologies increase.

Do not take the spectre of reducing net energy lightly. It is not “giving up a few excesses and luxuries”. For you, perhaps. For most of the planet, absolutely the difference between life and death. Allowing the bottom to fall out for ideological reasons is a sure fire recipe for human civilization to cannibalize itself completely, and in my mind is equivalent to advocating for the immediate death of billions of people and this is no exaggeration.

[MoneyGuy]

My yard is much bigger than average and except for treed areas all grass. I’ve lived there 39 years and have never watered it. I use rain water for the trees and plants on the deck.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

Other green tech is not the panacea media portrays it to be. It also has poor net energy contributions on a system level and have not led to meaningful reductions in emission intensity or other important impact measures such as land use or human mortality. Those problems scale exponentially as the penetration of these technologies increase.

Hence the need for constant improvements to current green technologies and development of new ones. This requires substantial funding from the public and private sectors. Private investment hasn't been sufficient to this point which means public funding has to pick up the slack.

Do not take the spectre of reducing net energy lightly. It is not “giving up a few excesses and luxuries”. For you, perhaps. For most of the planet, absolutely the difference between life and death. Allowing the bottom to fall out for ideological reasons is a sure fire recipe for human civilization to cannibalize itself completely, and in my mind is equivalent to advocating for the immediate death of billions of people and this is no exaggeration.

It's not clear what you're referring to here. What do you mean by "letting the bottom fall out" leading to billions of deaths? It sounds an awful lot like the argument that I hear often from climate change deniers, which goes something like you can't significantly cut global C02 emissions without starving billions of people to death. It's a silly argument because it's not at all true. The only thing I'm calling for here is carbon pricing in all relatively wealthy nations, with the money being devoted to green technology R&D. The benefit is two-fold, it leads to a reduction in consumption in the first world, which means less importing cheap goods from communist China. At the same time, we accelerate the pace of green technology advancement.

Canada has carbon pricing, and that's great. But every G20 country should have it, IMO. I don't see how this would equate to "starving out billions of people".

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

It is not a strawman at all. There are about 3 million things fossil fuels are used for and that is exactly the point you seem unable (actually, unwilling) to grasp here. You have no clue the literal millions of products and uses fossil fuels are involved with, and that's not meant to be an insult it's just true and is the problem- same for millions of other people. The adage "careful what you wish for" couldn't ever be more glaring than this precise example. Abandoning fossil fuels in 30 years will be a literal nightmare, for, as you put it, billions of people around the world.

It's also not anymore of a strawman than arm wavey "people are working on it" declarations. Who? Where? What do you mean? You think people are working on transporting food to sub-saharan Africa because fossil fuels are going to be zero in 30 years??? Really?????

We can go back to wooden boats I guess? Then we'd be cutting down trees though... also food will take about 50x longer to get there.. also... also... also... also...

you are massively underestimating fossil fuel's role in human development to this point. What's a word grander than massively? You're doing that adjective underestimating. I actually think you're purposefully trying to not think about it, because it is scary.

I'm doing what?? I don't know about what? You have zero ideas what I know. I assure you, I know more than most. This is easily the most ignorant post on the thread.


Literally everything fossil fuels are used for that has carbon emissions is being worked on. Everything!

You mentioned steel:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottca...il-free-steel/

This is growing fast.



There are hard to decarbonize sectors, for sure. But almost all of it can be done. Maersk is looking to switch all it's tankers to methanol by 2050 which can be made with renewable energy. Aviation will likely go with a combination of renewable synthetic fuels for long/intercontinental and electrification for shorter flights. Medium/heavy duty vehicles are already being electrified.

Tell me what areas you know of that I haven't thought about? I'll literally show you who's working on it and where they're at

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Hence the need for constant improvements to current green technologies and development of new ones. This requires substantial funding from the public and private sectors. Private investment hasn't been sufficient to this point which means public funding has to pick up the slack.



It's not clear what you're referring to here. What do you mean by "letting the bottom fall out" leading to billions of deaths? It sounds an awful lot like the argument that I hear often from climate change deniers, which goes something like you can't significantly cut global C02 emissions without starving billions of people to death. It's a silly argument because it's not at all true. The only thing I'm calling for here is carbon pricing in all relatively wealthy nations, with the money being devoted to green technology R&D. The benefit is two-fold, it leads to a reduction in consumption in the first world, which means less importing cheap goods from communist China. At the same time, we accelerate the pace of green technology advancement.

Canada has carbon pricing, and that's great. But every G20 country should have it, IMO. I don't see how this would equate to "starving out billions of people".

Are we not seeing the impact of what pricing the general consumer out of energy is doing? What people like you have been screaming for the last decade is effectively leading to every day people not being able to afford to fill up their cars or heat their homes. You will find out over the next two winters how painful this can really be. Well not you personally, you are still going to enjoy cheap natural gas by simple virtue of Canada not being tied to the global market, but Europeans are really going to struggle.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Coal is used for steel.

Steel is used in windmills, solar panels, etc.

I'd like to be the pedantic ####### that points out a logical fallacy here.

You don't achieve anything by waiting for Nirvana. everything is about net lifecycle impact. A 6 million KWH / year windmill weight ~25 tons costs what 100 tons of CO2 to produce at worst? Assuming 50% utilization of the windmill burring 3 million KWH / year of natural gas gives you like a 2-3 month ROI on the CO2 for melting the steel on a windmill. And that ignores new methods of steel making like EAF, where the number could be as low as 35-40 tons of CO2

It's a fun narrative for the O&G faithful to say that the other options create emissions too, but there is a long way between current emissions and net 0.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by #-3

I'd like to be the pedantic ####### that points out a logical fallacy here.

You don't achieve anything by waiting for Nirvana. everything is about net lifecycle impact. A 6 million KWH / year windmill weight ~25 tons costs what 100 tons of CO2 to produce at worst? Assuming 50% utilization of the windmill burring 3 million KWH / year of natural gas gives you like a 2-3 month ROI on the CO2 for melting the steel on a windmill. And that ignores new methods of steel making like EAF, where the number could be as low as 35-40 tons of CO2

It's a fun narrative for the O&G faithful to say that the other options create emissions too, but there is a long way between current emissions and net 0.

Yes I do agree with this post but would say I think the main issue of debate that I have with Street Pharma and Mathgod is not so much the content of their posts necessarily or even that we should not proceed down this path, but the timeframe to get these advancements done. 30 years is a blink of an eye. Also, I think it is WAY harder than they do. If you look at energy transitions or transformations from previous energy forms, first off nothing is "phased out" and secondly it sure as heck doesn't happen in 30 years.

For example, Street Pharma says above 'oh methanol boats'. Oh really? All ships are just going to immediately transition to methanol? How? Who pays for it? Also methanol is also created from fossil fuels not only RNG. Or are we making it a global rule that all RNG is made only and none from fossil fuels? And how are we to do this all? Who agrees to it? We can't even agree with other countries that murdering and genocide in Ukraine is a bad idea but we are going to somehow get the whole world to agree to stop using fossil fuels? When 3rd world countries are actually modernizing and trying to use more?

Mathgod says the public sector has to pay for it because the private sector won't, but then stops his sentence there. Why won't the private sector fund more? If these investments made money, wouldn't they? What is holding them back?

All that said I agree you need a carbon tax. But it's a Shell game (pun intended). You know who is about to receive hundreds of millions of taxpayer subsidy to go install a gigantic climate capture project? CNQ, Suncor, all the majors partnered in Pathways. So let's see;

1. the government installs a carbon tax to try and stimulate economic investment in carbon capture projects;
2. proponents pursue projects and submit applications, and major oil and gas producers do so;
3. proponents say the government has to pay them to subsidize the project.
4. government gearing up to give them the lions share of capital for the project.

So they impose a tax, and then fund the oil company to do the project, and then the oil companies own the assets and infrastructure, and then the project won't be done for like, many years anyway.

That's a good example of the type of economic evaluations going on- as to why the private world isn't chasing around green projects with as much gumption as we all want them to. It's because they don't make much money, unfortunately. Not as much as fossil fuel projects. Because there is demand for fossil fuel projects still and the energy cost of fossil fuels is so much substantially cheaper than alternatives. Renewable / green projects don't compete very well with other capital projects. And that isn't to say there aren't many other capital projects in green or renewables or whatever other energy sources that do make money, there are. But ya, it might mean governments need to supply large subsidies for these types of projects. So we are to just crap all over private investors for not doing it? But they're goal / point / reason for being is to make money. So are we saying that all of society needs to change? Which societies? All societies around the world?

Anyway. It's not happening in 30 years.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Leondros

Are we not seeing the impact of what pricing the general consumer out of energy is doing? What people like you have been screaming for the last decade is effectively leading to every day people not being able to afford to fill up their cars or heat their homes. You will find out over the next two winters how painful this can really be. Well not you personally, you are still going to enjoy cheap natural gas by simple virtue of Canada not being tied to the global market, but Europeans are really going to struggle.

When Europeans freeze, it'll be the fault of environmentalists, not the fault of Putin. Got it.

If ordinary people are unable to heat their homes, that's more than anything an indictment of the economic system as a whole. Ordinary people struggling more and more to get by, while corporate profits keep growing and the ultra-rich keep getting richer...

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

All that said I agree you need a carbon tax. But it's a Shell game (pun intended). You know who is about to receive hundreds of millions of taxpayer subsidy to go install a gigantic climate capture project? CNQ, Suncor, all the majors partnered in Pathways. So let's see;

1. the government installs a carbon tax to try and stimulate economic investment in carbon capture projects;
2. proponents pursue projects and submit applications, and major oil and gas producers do so;
3. proponents say the government has to pay them to subsidize the project.
4. government gearing up to give them the lions share of capital for the project.

So they impose a tax, and then fund the oil company to do the project, and then the oil companies own the assets and infrastructure, and then the project won't be done for like, many years anyway.

That's a good example of the type of economic evaluations going on- as to why the private world isn't chasing around green projects with as much gumption as we all want them to. It's because they don't make much money, unfortunately. Not as much as fossil fuel projects. Because there is demand for fossil fuel projects still and the energy cost of fossil fuels is so much substantially cheaper than alternatives. Renewable / green projects don't compete very well with other capital projects. And that isn't to say there aren't many other capital projects in green or renewables or whatever other energy sources that do make money, there are. But ya, it might mean governments need to supply large subsidies for these types of projects. So we are to just crap all over private investors for not doing it? But they're goal / point / reason for being is to make money. So are we saying that all of society needs to change? Which societies? All societies around the world?

Anyway. It's not happening in 30 years.

What are you going on about carbon capture? That's not really what I'm talking about. I'm talking about (relatively) carbon-free energy sources such as solar, wind, geothermal, and yes nuclear.

No I don't want society to "crap on" the private sector. I just simply want genuine cooperation between all sectors.

I don't have a crystal ball and I can't say whether or not it'll happen in 30 years. But it's sad when people contribute to the problem by spreading cynicism.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Anyway. It's not happening in 30 years.

Do you agree not should happen as quickly as it can, whatever that is, or only if it makes money?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Yes I do agree with this post but would say I think the main issue of debate that I have with Street Pharma and Mathgod is not so much the content of their posts necessarily or even that we should not proceed down this path, but the timeframe to get these advancements done. 30 years is a blink of an eye. Also, I think it is WAY harder than they do. If you look at energy transitions or transformations from previous energy forms, first off nothing is "phased out" and secondly it sure as heck doesn't happen in 30 years.

30 years is what the IPCC consensus is that we need to keep below 2°. It's not a prediction, it's a goal. You can be pessimistic, I can be optimistic, but the future is unwritten and I see good things being done. Getting to carbon neutrality by 2050 is going to be the hardest thing humans have done collectively. I'm aware. I'm just not a "can't do it, don't try" kind of guy

For example, Street Pharma says above 'oh methanol boats'. Oh really? All ships are just going to immediately transition to methanol? How? Who pays for it? Also methanol is also created from fossil fuels not only RNG. Or are we making it a global rule that all RNG is made only and none from fossil fuels? And how are we to do this all? Who agrees to it? We can't even agree with other countries that murdering and genocide in Ukraine is a bad idea but we are going to somehow get the whole world to agree to stop using fossil fuels? When 3rd world countries are actually modernizing and trying to use more?

I don't believe I said "oh methanol boats". I said the largest shipping company on the planet has said what their path to carbon neutrality is because they want to try. They have said carbon taxes need to increase and regulations are required.

With government signals (taxes, multinational declarations of intent, and regulation), companies will have security on what's going to be required to operate in the future and will start working towards it. If the carbon tax on a TV made in Bangladesh and shipped to Canada includes the carbon from the shipping, they'll do their best to find more carbon neutral delivery methods. That's how carbon taxes work

Mathgod says the public sector has to pay for it because the private sector won't, but then stops his sentence there. Why won't the private sector fund more? If these investments made money, wouldn't they? What is holding them back?

Consistent government signals and consolidation. Create and market and help it scale, then let the market take over. See solar, LED bulbs, etc. It works really well.

All that said I agree you need a carbon tax. But it's a Shell game (pun intended). You know who is about to receive hundreds of millions of taxpayer subsidy to go install a gigantic climate capture project? CNQ, Suncor, all the majors partnered in Pathways. So let's see;

1. the government installs a carbon tax to try and stimulate economic investment in carbon capture projects;
2. proponents pursue projects and submit applications, and major oil and gas producers do so;
3. proponents say the government has to pay them to subsidize the project.
4. government gearing up to give them the lions share of capital for the project.

So they impose a tax, and then fund the oil company to do the project, and then the oil companies own the assets and infrastructure, and then the project won't be done for like, many years anyway.

Carbon capture won't ever be viable IMO. It's not really scalable and the time scale needed to scale and implement won't work with the time frame needed to cut emissions. The actual carbon reduction is probably much, much less than advertised. I think this is wasted money, but there are very smart people that are proponents

That's a good example of the type of economic evaluations going on- as to why the private world isn't chasing around green projects with as much gumption as we all want them to.

Huh? There was more investment in renewables than o&g this year....

It's because they don't make much money, unfortunately. Not as much as fossil fuel projects. Because there is demand for fossil fuel projects still and the energy cost of fossil fuels is so much substantially cheaper than alternatives. Renewable / green projects don't compete very well with other capital projects. And that isn't to say there aren't many other capital projects in green or renewables or whatever other energy sources that do make money, there are. But ya, it might mean governments need to supply large subsidies for these types of projects. So we are to just crap all over private investors for not doing it? But they're goal / point / reason for being is to make money. So are we saying that all of society needs to change? Which societies? All societies around the world?

Anyway. It's not happening in 30 years.

Hopefully there are more people who are positive than you and want to help get it done. Right now there are literally millions of people and trillions of dollars being spent to do it.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Do you agree not should happen as quickly as it can, whatever that is, or only if it makes money?

I don’t think anyone disagrees that this should happen as fast as possible. But the following article really puts it in perspective the kind of cost we are looking at.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/decarbonization

This problem literally dwarfs everything humanity as dealt with from a cost perspective. I truly believe the only way to achieve such a thing would be a complete overhaul of the world order and the systems that have been developed. I simply don’t have the optimism that what needs to get done will get done with the systems we currently have. Ie. Economies, trade, capitalism, spiritualism, etc.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

but to think the whole world order and human civilization is just blustering ahead with use of fossil fuels because “big oil” has just hoodwinked everyone is insane. It literally sounds like the ramblings of a crazy person.

Hey, how dare you bring up the great Niel Young!!

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Leondros

I don’t think anyone disagrees that this should happen as fast as possible. But the following article really puts it in perspective the kind of cost we are looking at.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/decarbonization

This problem literally dwarfs everything humanity as dealt with from a cost perspective. I truly believe the only way to achieve such a thing would be a complete overhaul of the world order and the systems that have been developed. I simply don’t have the optimism that what needs to get done will get done with the systems we currently have. Ie. Economies, trade, capitalism, spiritualism, etc.

You argue that we can't afford to do it. Problem is, we can't afford not to do it.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

You argue that we can't afford to do it. Problem is, we can't afford not to do it.

Well I am not arguing that. I argue somewhere between your extremely idealistic stance and Mr Coffee’s extremely rigid stance on how the world deals with this. I think we fail to meet the targets, I think we make a good amount of progress but ultimately will have to deal with a lot of impacts of climate change. It certainly Lu won’t be the end of the world. I also believe oil and gas specifically will continue to be around for better part of the century.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

You argue that we can't afford to do it. Problem is, we can't afford not to do it.

While I agree with your overall point, I do find it interesting to read about some recent protests that were protesting both the increasing cost of living, and inaction on climate change when the two objectives are diametrically opposed.

As you said, we can't afford not to do it - but we will be driving costs of everything up. I think that's just reality.

Personally, I see the increasing cost of living as a natural consequence to our choices to action climate change. To me, things are working, but potentially not at the pace we really need. To get to that pace, it'll take an overhaul of modern society which I don't think we're quite ready for.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Leondros

Well I am not arguing that. I argue somewhere between your extremely idealistic stance and Mr Coffee’s extremely rigid stance on how the world deals with this. I think we fail to meet the targets, I think we make a good amount of progress but ultimately will have to deal with a lot of impacts of climate change. It certainly Lu won’t be the end of the world. I also believe oil and gas specifically will continue to be around for better part of the century.

I completely agree with you, so I may be doing a poor job of communicating.

How is my stance extremely rigid? I am trying to frame realism for some of these aspirations for zero fossil fuels in 30 years. That is all I'm saying that it isn't realistic, and to go look at how intricately woven into the fabric of society fossil fuels are.

I think that if we push too hard on these things you actually risk buckling buy-in altogether too. How does one generate buy-in to the necessary idea Mathgod is proposing if you're going to completely upheave every single thing about everybody's lives? I think that leads to mass chaos, unrest, war, civil disobedience, etc. And then where are we? No different than the changes and problems that climate change threatens in the first place.

Maybe it's just inevitable.

For the record though not once have I stated do not try. Do not try hard, etc. I am saying that 30 years is nowhere close to realistic to phase out.

[Street Pharmacist]

While I agree the pace needs to increase, there are lots of things happening that are hard to see. As with lots of tectonic societal changes it can change slowly, them all at once. For example: solar in Alberta. Most people who aren't interested in this stuff I talk to from Alberta tell me there's only a little solar in Alberta. That was true two years ago. Now?

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I'm doing what?? I don't know about what? You have zero ideas what I know. I assure you, I know more than most. This is easily the most ignorant post on the thread.


Literally everything fossil fuels are used for that has carbon emissions is being worked on. Everything!

You mentioned steel:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottca...il-free-steel/

This is growing fast.



There are hard to decarbonize sectors, for sure. But almost all of it can be done. Maersk is looking to switch all it's tankers to methanol by 2050 which can be made with renewable energy. Aviation will likely go with a combination of renewable synthetic fuels for long/intercontinental and electrification for shorter flights. Medium/heavy duty vehicles are already being electrified.

Tell me what areas you know of that I haven't thought about? I'll literally show you who's working on it and where they're at

Okay, please let me know on the following (note, this list is not comprehensive):

Solvents
Ink
Upholstery
Tires
Dresses / Clothes
Diesel fuel
Motor oil
Bearing grease
ballpoint pens
football / soccer cleats
boats
insecticides
floor wax / all wax
Putty
Curtains
vitamin capsules
dashboards
percolators
skis
car bodies
Faucet washers
food preservatives
fertilizers
antihistamines
cortisones
dyes
life jackets
tv cabinets
bags, golf bags, back packs
tool boxes / tool racks
anything plastic
petroleum jelly
antiseptics
sports balls
deodorant
rubbing alcohol
shag rugs
perfumes
shoe polish
transparent tape
clotheslines
soap
shoes
refrigerants
linings
paint
epoxy
car batteries
solar panels / windmills
mops
umbrellas
roofing
speakers
water pipes / piping
antifreeze
heart valves
enamel
candles
lotions
toothbrushes
crayons
pillows
awnings
sun glasses
parachutes
dishes
surf boards
eyeglasses
lipstick
insect repellant
telephones / cellphones
detergents
cameras
paint brushes / brushes
bandages
anesthetics
dentures
cold cream
fan belts
fridges / appliances
movie film
artificial turf
artificial limbs
contact lens
shaving cream
toothpaste
hair curlers
ammonia
methanol
gasoline
heating homes / commercial buildings / anything
drinking cups
pillows


there's more. Far more but this is a good list to start.