Author
Topic: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy
(Read 531707 times)

MikeDeTiger · « **Reply #9100 on:** November 15, 2023, 11:02:12 AM »

Quote from: FearlessF on November 14, 2023, 06:08:32 PM

“Anyone who willfully denies the impact of climate change is condemning the American people to a very dangerous future. Impacts are only going to get worse, more frequent, more ferocious and more costly,” Biden said, noting that disasters cost the country $178 billion last year. “None of this is inevitable.”

I mean....still better than the tens of trillions of dollars the Green New Deal would cost.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #9101 on:** November 15, 2023, 11:04:03 AM »

There really is no "Green New Deal". It was a vague resolution meaning squat, which is pretty typical.

The "Inflation Reduction Act" puts $37 billion a year into "this" stuff, which is a pittance of course.

MikeDeTiger · « **Reply #9102 on:** November 15, 2023, 11:19:04 AM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on November 15, 2023, 11:04:03 AM

There really is no "Green New Deal". It was a vague resolution meaning squat, which is pretty typical.

The "Inflation Reduction Act" puts $37 billion a year into "this" stuff, which is a pittance of course.

And?

My math is still correct, inasmuch as no one I'm aware of assessed any version of GND resolutions to cost less than multiple trillions.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #9103 on:** November 15, 2023, 11:40:19 AM »

It's hard to cost out a "resolution" to "do good". It had no specifics in it at all.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #9104 on:** November 15, 2023, 12:02:02 PM »

And as I remember it, any discussion of a "green new deal" included things that FAR exceeded a scope of being environmentally-related. It was pretty much a smorgasbord of everything desired in both democratic socialism and environmentalism.

Which incidentally is why any discussions that talked about the price tag were so high. Because the scope was "let's do EVERYTHING we want to do all at once and call it the Green New Deal."

Cincydawg · « **Reply #9105 on:** November 15, 2023, 12:09:00 PM »

According to The Washington Post (February 11, 2019), the resolution called for a "10-year national mobilization" whose primary goals would be:^[88]

Quote

"Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.""Providing all people of the United States with – (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature.""Providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States.""Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.""Repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including . . . by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible.""Building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and 'smart' power grids, and working to ensure affordable access to electricity.""Upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification.""Overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in – (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and (iii) high-speed rail.""Spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible.""Working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible."[89]

It was all about "goals", not a thing about how to do it, or even appropriate monies.

MikeDeTiger · « **Reply #9106 on:** November 15, 2023, 12:39:01 PM »

I understand that.

My point remains.

After 651 pages, have we not figured anything out yet? Despite the resident cynics' views that nobody really knows anything and anybody who says they do is scamming us, I think there's ample evidence at this point from valid research to make some rough principles and guidelines from which to begin moving in directions that make sense.

Very roughly:
1) climate change is real
2) it's still unclear the extent to which human activity is causing it, but increasingly clear that human activity has some effect
3) the consequences are not doomsday scenarios
4) "we" (governments, probably) can make some small, meaningful changes that help mitigate consequences
5) most people (government types) aren't talking/don't want to talk about them
6) the things they are trying to drum up support for are economically disastrous and literally deadly, most often to the poor
7) people who obfuscate this appear to mainly be trying to increase government control in various sectors
8) I have little use for those people

#8 is very important. Believe that nobody really knows what's going on or any ways to move forward if you like....me, I'm rolling hard with 4, 5, and 8.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #9107 on:** November 15, 2023, 01:07:56 PM »

Excellent summary. We're all for a clean environment, we know humans tend to make things worse. I'm open to "solutions", entirely open, but I'd like to know what they will cost and how much good they will do.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #9108 on:** November 15, 2023, 01:24:58 PM »

Note that not everything has to be done by a government. There is a group called the Science Based Targets Initiative that takes and monitors pledges from companies to align their emissions with the 1.5C goal.

https://sciencebasedtargets.org/companies-taking-action#dashboard

You can search by company. utee's employer is on there, as is mine.

And it's not just some hand-waving BS. You publicly commit to your target, it must be approved, and then you report your progress periodically to show that you're actually doing it.

And I can say that several of our largest customers are pushing HARD on us to meet our targets because as they buy our products (and inherent the embodied emissions in what we sell them), our progress helps them meet their targets.

So even though we (as a global society) are not doing enough, there ARE people who are actually doing something.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #9109 on:** November 15, 2023, 01:30:42 PM »

I'm sure companies see some great PR benefits in this. I was peripherally involved in something akin to this way back in the day, the company made all these public statements of what they were going to do, reported on it 3-4 years, and then it all disappeared. This related to municipal solid waste reductions. Y'all may recall that "crisis" ca. 1990, the landfills were all full, or so they said. (They weren't.)

Companies do spend a lot on PR. Maybe this is more than that, I don't know of course, but my GUESS is the actual impact on climate change is infinitestimal. The BIG sources of CO2 are transportation and electricity generation.

847badgerfan · « **Reply #9110 on:** November 15, 2023, 01:39:05 PM »

I'd rely on the private sector MUCH more than I would the Government. And the later can take their mandates and shove them up their collective asses.

MikeDeTiger · « **Reply #9111 on:** November 15, 2023, 01:46:49 PM »

Quote from: betarhoalphadelta on November 15, 2023, 01:24:58 PM

Note that not everything has to be done by a government. There is a group called the Science Based Targets Initiative that takes and monitors pledges from companies to align their emissions with the 1.5C goal.

I know, and honestly I'd rather things not be done by governments, but rather by private citizens and companies. But it seems like so much of the stuff I see companies virtue-signaling about is a blatant pander for a better ESG score, which involves so much other crap I don't agree with or find useful that it's hard to believe they're actually doing anything I'd be in favor of.

Obviously I don't know what all, or most, companies are actually doing.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #9112 on:** November 15, 2023, 01:51:50 PM »

It made for some interesting work for 2 years or so, and several useless patents. Other companies were doing the same. It all ended up a big nothing.

We had these 1 liter bottles of stuff in the fridge taking up space, and it would cost a ton to dispose of them as waste. Finally, the company we were working with asked if we had a liter they could have for some other work, and we mailed all of them. My buddy had talked about putting them in his gas tank.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #9113 on:** November 15, 2023, 05:39:00 PM »

Net-Zero Targets: Sustainable Future or CO2 Obsession Driven Dead-end? | Climate Etc. (judithcurry.com)

Intermittent energy sources such as solar and wind will not be able to replace the firm (dispatchable) power generation from fossil fuels without massive energy storage on the order of several months worth of energy consumption. In the absence of such energy storage technology, one has to conclude that renewables are not viable alternative to fossil fuels. Only nuclear energy is a viable “stock limited” resource where the stocks are much larger than the jack pot from fossil fuels.

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy

MikeDeTiger

Re: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy

MikeDeTiger

Re: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy

MikeDeTiger

Re: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy

847badgerfan

Re: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy

MikeDeTiger

Re: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy