[KaiserJeep]

Understand that there is only one single action that has meaning at this point in time. That is the reduction of global population to a sustainable number. That will allow the few remaining humans to live without further ecological harm.

As with meaningful action to mitigate CC, there is little hope of voluntary planned reductions. The oil peak, the coal peak, the natural gas peak will all be felt with human casualties, until the number of humans is reduced to that sustainable number.

Ibon and others would say that the Third World is best prepared for this, being a few generations closer to their agrarian or hunter/gatherer ancesters. There would be merit in that position if the population of the Third World had not exploded with access to mechanized agriculture and medicine. There is simply no hope - none at all - that this enlarged population can live as did their grandparents. There isn't enough jungle to slash&burn, nor enough clean water, nor croplands when they are reduced to manual tilling. A bone-chilling die-off approaches for the Third World.

The First World, by virtue of the fact that they have disposable income, will control all of the remaining oil and other FF's, which are traded in open exchanges. This situation will allow a few decades to convert to the new agricultural infrastructure, whatever that is. It might be electrical farm machinery, or coal-to-liquids, or (most likely) a multitude of things.

Advantage: First World, Middle Class people with bad consumer habits. Those will be solved via the increasing cost of food - when it's groceries or a new iPhone, most will choose to eat.

But "fixing Climate Change" is not happening. The lack of affordable FF's will reduce the human population. As to how much cumulative damage is done the ecology before then, who knows? That too will determine the habitability of Earth for the remaining humans.

[onlooker]

Understand that there is only one single action that has meaning at this point in time. That is the reduction of global population to a sustainable number. That will allow the few remaining humans to live without further ecological harm.

As with meaningful action to mitigate CC, there is little hope of voluntary planned reductions. The oil peak, the coal peak, the natural gas peak will all be felt with human casualties, until the number of humans is reduced to that sustainable number.

Ibon and others would say that the Third World is best prepared for this, being a few generations closer to their agrarian or hunter/gatherer ancesters. There would be merit in that position if the population of the Third World had not exploded with access to mechanized agriculture and medicine. There is simply no hope - none at all - that this enlarged population can live as did their grandparents. There isn't enough jungle to slash&burn, nor enough clean water, nor croplands when they are reduced to manual tilling. A bone-chilling die-off approaches for the Third World.

The First World, by virtue of the fact that they have disposable income, will control all of the remaining oil and other FF's, which are traded in open exchanges. This situation will allow a few decades to convert to the new agricultural infrastructure, whatever that is. It might be electrical farm machinery, or coal-to-liquids, or (most likely) a multitude of things.

Advantage: First World, Middle Class people with bad consumer habits. Those will be solved via the increasing cost of food - when it's groceries or a new iPhone, most will choose to eat.

But "fixing Climate Change" is not happening. The lack of affordable FF's will reduce the human population. As to how much cumulative damage is done the ecology before then, who knows? That too will determine the habitability of Earth for the remaining humans.

We do not agree on much but I do agree the human population needs to be reduced greatly and with celerity
And no not via Genocide

[KaiserJeep]

Then WHY do you speak of eliminating the burning of FF's for the energy that warms warms us and grows and preserves and transports our food?

It is literally true today that without FF energy, 90% of the humans cannot eat or live.

OF COURSE, other tech is possible - but if any group of humans backs off on FF consumption, other humans - especially China and India, will burn such until there is no more, and the human population is 10 or 15 or 20 billion when we run out.

It is the Tragedy of the Commons writ large and world-wide, among groups that are seperate political entities. If you have no prescription that causes everybody everywhere to back off FF's simultaneously, then best get them burned and gone as quickly as possible.

That's the default condition - and all this whining about carbon emissions is therefore worse than useless, it's actually harmful, as it will prolong the FF era.

[vtsnowedin]

KJ

If you have no prescription that causes everybody everywhere to back off FF's simultaneously, then best get them burned and gone as quickly as possible.

Or perhaps find an alternative that is better so voluntarily adopted rather then continued use of fossil fuels. There is no reason the first car purchased by a family in China or India will not be an electric only car. The fact that they are already producing and selling them in China is a positive sign.

[KaiserJeep]

Of course there is a reason, and it's an economic reason. Carbon-free energy costs more. The emerging Middle Class in these countries would take a lifestyle hit if they used an EV or implemented Solar PV or a wind turbine to backfill their grid energy.

Not such a burden in the First World. A non-starter elsewhere. If your argument had merit, they would be implementing carbon-free energy today, instead of ICE cars and coal power plants.

Heck, the majority of First World consumers, who could afford carbon-free energy better than any other group, have not bothered.

[vtsnowedin]

Once you add in the cost of the damage done to the environment by fossil fuels and the cost to try to clean it up they are no longer cheaper then renewable energy.
If you look at the projected growth rates for energy types in China you can see that they understand that and are moving away from coal as fast as is practical.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=33092

Current renewable generation in China is dominated by hydroelectricity, which is the country’s second-largest source of generation after coal. Wind and solar currently account for relatively small amounts of generation, at 2.7% and 0.5%, respectively. However, EIA expects substantial growth over the coming decades, consistent with the targets in China’s most recent Five-Year Plan, designed to uphold the country’s commitment to the Paris Agreement within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

In China’s nationally determined contribution (NDC) that it filed as part of the Paris Agreement, the country expressed its intention to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) levels and increase the share of energy consumption from non-fossil sources to 20% by 2030. EIA projects solar capacity to grow to 240 GW by 2040, or by more than 7% per year from 2015 to 2040. Similarly, EIA expects nearly 280 GW of wind capacity to come online between 2015 and 2040, a growth rate of nearly 5% per year.

[vtsnowedin]

And much of that growth in renewable energy will go to charging new EVs bypassing the fossil fuel treadmill altogether.

That’s thanks to China’s continuous support (paywall) for NEVs, which includes government subsidies and license plate controls on diesel cars. NEVs now account for around 0.6% (link in Chinese) of all the vehicles on the road in China as of June, according to data from the Ministry of Public Security. The country wants NEV sales to make up 20% of the total auto market by 2025.

https://qz.com/1492452/car-sales-in-chi ... e-to-grow/

[KaiserJeep]

Be real. In terms of total carbon emissions, things are getting worse not better. If you go and blow a wad of cash on an EV, not one drop of gasoline is saved. We still pump it, refine it, and burn it. If by some miracle, you get 50% of the ICE vehicles off the road, well congrats - you just extended the era of gasoline burning cars twice as long before the stuff gets too expensive to use.

You can see this today with coal. High-sulfer coals that it would be illegal to burn here are being sold to China, India, and other places where they can legally be burned. Net benefit of ruinously expensive emissions regulations: American businesses that can't compete, rich coal magnates such as the Koch brothers, and increased carbon emissions from shipping coal to the other side of the world with bunker fuel, and then burning that coal in power plants without emissions controls.

I see no progress, none at all. In fact, things are worse than before.

[vtsnowedin]

That someone else in a growing population burns a ton of coal you saved by installing an alternative does not mean you did not first save it or that your actions are not positive. After the coal is gone or it's use forbidden your alternative will still be in place and functioning for you while that last user of coal will be on foot or freezing in the dark.

[KaiserJeep]

I look at the whole story. In spite of anything and everything that I do to avoid burning FF's and emitting carbon, somebody else buys the oil and coal and burns it for energy. No net carbon emissions are avoided ever. If you could figure out a way to force the oil and coal magnates to leave in the ground the FF's equivalent to the green power you generated, it would consitute a win.

But that is not ever happening. Every drop of oil and every lump of goal and every therm of gas are getting burned somewhere by someone. All of the green power efforts are wasted with respect to avoiding AGW. In fact every green kWh prolongs the age of FF burning, and allows more people to be born into an ecology about to crash.

Honestly, we are better off doing what we are doing - burning FF's like mad until they become unaffordable. If you really and truly care about the ecosystem, that is what you do. Ironically, it is also BAU for anyone that simply does not care about AGW.

[vtsnowedin]

That is very pessimistic of you. You assume what has been the recent reality will be the future reality but history tells us that times change.
I don't know as times will change fast enough to avoid a major human die-off or extinction event but considering the adaptability and tenaciousness of the human species I would not bet against us.

[Newfie]

My Wife and I had this discussion in very tangible terms. We own our 1887 theee story brownstone. About zip we can donto make it more energy efficient without completly gutting it and staring over and that ain’t gonna happen. But it’s in a walkable neighborhood and being a row house it’s more energy efficient than one might think.

So we moved out of our house and onto the boat, really powered our footprint. But we rent the apartment out, so the house is still there, and producing even more carbon because we lived without AC, no tenant will do that.

What was the net result? Addition to the overall CO2 emissions.

[KaiserJeep]

Thus all green efforts are lost. Really, anybody who thinks different is delusional. Nor is the trend positive, it's very much negative, with China bringing a new coal plant online every 5 days and India every 8 days.

In fact China now burns 3X the coal as does the USA. I do not begrudge them their Middle Class splendor, I just wish they would be greener about it. When it comes to green energy, they talk more than they do. So does the USA.

[jedrider]

No. Human nature is not going to change. We will try to extract the maximum possible under all circumstances. It doesn't mean we shouldn't try to become GREEN. However, I see that nations cannot come to sensible strategies to preserve what wildernesses that they already have, and I can only be pessimistic at our outcome.

[Newfie]

Thus all green efforts are lost. Really, anybody who thinks different is delusional. Nor is the trend positive, it's very much negative, with China bringing a new coal plant online every 5 days and India every 8 days.

In fact China now burns 3X the coal as does the USA. I do not begrudge them their Middle Class splendor, I just wish they would be greener about it. When it comes to green energy, they talk more than they do. So does the USA.

Don’t know how you got that from my post, I said no such thing.

There are things to do that are beneficial on various levels. But they require careful consideration.

[jawagord]

If you thought February was cold you’re right, not to worry doomers “the heat went into the ocean” again.

Averaged separately, the global land-only surface temperature was the 15th highest on record for February at 1.04°C (1.87°F) above the 20th century average.

Meanwhile, the global ocean-only surface temperature was 0.70°C (1.26°F) above average and the second warmest February since global records began in 1880. This value is 0.11°C (0.20°F) less than the record-warm February set in 2016.

The most notable cool temperature departures from average were present across parts of the Northern Hemisphere, specifically across Canada and the contiguous U.S. as well as parts of central Asia, where temperatures were 3.0°C (5.4°F) below average or cooler.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201902

[asg70]

To answer the thread...

NOPE

[Plantagenet]

....China bringing a new coal plant online every 5 days and India every 8 days.....In fact China now burns 3X the coal as does the USA. I do not begrudge them their Middle Class splendor, I just wish they would be greener about it. When it comes to green energy, they talk more than they do.

Obama got the Chinese to say their CO2 emissions will peak in the year 2030, just 11 years from now. No doubt their emissions will be be 4-6x times greater then the US by then and perhaps even more. But not to worry-----China is allowed to emit all the CO2 they want under the Paris Climate Accords.

Cheers!

[asg70]

Obama got...

Mr. "I fly around the world for fun" is back on his blame Obama kick. Obviously someone loves throwing stones in glass houses.

[Plantagenet]

Obama got...

Obama kick....

Sing it, Barack

by Marie Cadden

Only this unique hybrid -

because he has known

the stigma

of the half-cast,

the unease

of the muslim,

the apprehension

of the christian,

the stoicism

of the african,

the ambiguity

of the caucasian,

the tension

of the afro american -

can envision

the sovereignty

of the colour-blind,

can own that song

and sing it.

-----------

Cheers!