Peak Oil News and Message Boards

I wonder when we might see activists (or purported activists) blowing up coal-fired generators to force replacement?
Currently, nothing changes unless TPTB can see a clear path to profit.
Once CC problems reach serious levels, every nation has an incentive to destroy neighbouring FF-burner plant.
Reductio ad absurdum: Imagine a chess-board where every square is at war with the other 63 squares.

ozcad wrote:I wonder when we might see activists (or purported activists) blowing up coal-fired generators to force replacement?

So far almost all the protests are nonviolent, with activists either protesting peacefully or doing sit-ins and being arrested to try to symbolically shut down the coal-fire power plant.

There is one group---the Climate Extinction activists in England ---- who have started doing more violent protests, but hopefully they will return to using non-violent protest tactics.

ozcad wrote:Currently, nothing changes unless TPTB can see a clear path to profit.
Once CC problems reach serious levels, every nation has an incentive to destroy neighbouring FF-burner plant.
Reductio ad absurdum: Imagine a chess-board where every square is at war with the other 63 squares.

I don't think war is necessary, especially since any war would just result in the release of even more hydrocarbons. Greta Thunberg has the right idea----what we really need is a binding UN treaty that mandates reductions in CO2 emissions. And we almost had it, too. The 2009 COP meeting in Copenhagen was all set set to ratify a treaty that had been drafted in Bali two years earlier that required mandatory CO2 emissions reductions. China and India had finally agreed to participate. It was great. All the world's leaders had gathered to sign this important treaty. But then Obama got in a stupid tiff with the Chinese after he barged into a meeting of non-aligned nations that the Chinese had called. Obama pushed his way onto the stage, showing up the Chinese, and took over the microphone like he was still a community organizer in Chicago taking over some little community group.

Needless to say the Chinese took offense. It may be trite, but China felt they had "lost face" when obama pushed them aside and took over their meeting. Obama tried to apologize and asked for a meeting with the Chinese leader, but the Chinese sent a low level assistant to an assistant to the meeting with the American President, thereby insulting him right back. The Obama vs. China spat went back and forth and the net result was the treaty that all the world's leaders had gather to sign wasn't actually signed. Subsequently Obama kowtowed to China and decided that the entire idea of mandatory CO2 reductions had to go, and the entire UN climate change treaty process was derailed, resulting in the phony Paris Accords in 2015, which actually called for INCREASES in CO2 emissions based on the VOLUNTARY pledges of the signatories and excludes China and India from having to do any CO2 reductions until the year 2030....and even then all the Chinese agreed to do was consider the issue.

We've already seen how well that worked.....global CO2 emissions have continued to go up every year since 2015, mainly due to rapid Co2 emissions increases occurring in both China and India---just like Obama agreed to.

The best thing to do now would be to get rid of Obama (we already did that) and get rid of Trump (chances are he'll lose in 2020) and get rid of the Paris Climate Accords. The world needs to go back to the Copenhagen treaty that Obama derailed, and get back to the idea of mandatory CO2 reductions as mandated by UN treaty. Its the only way.


Greta is right----the only way to reduce global CO2 emissions is to have the UN mandate global reductions in CO2 emissions.

Cheers!

And most important of all: get rid of hypocritical joy-riding frequent-fliers.

Dogs are waffling and caravan moves away.
BAU will carry on until natural collapse of capitalism (which is on horizon).
Politicians won't change much, greenwashing won't change much either.

EnergyUnlimited wrote:Dogs are waffling and caravan moves away.
BAU will carry on until natural collapse of capitalism (which is on horizon).
Politicians won't change much, greenwashing won't change much either.

There are two things that can make the politicians change and actually do something about climate change.

(1) Political pressure can grow to the point that it forces the politicians to do something. Thats what Greta is trying to do with her friday climate strike movement, which has quickly grown into a worldwide movement. Just yesterday here in central Alaska I saw a small group of students out marching to protest climate change on friday, and the temperature was -28!!!. These people are dedicated to their cause!!!

(2) Some kind of climate disaster can happen that is so severe that the politicians are forced into action. Right now I"m watching Australia pretty closely.....the unprecedented fires are still burning, and the fire service just announced the fire is so big and so hot that they can't stop it. The fire is moving towards Sydney right now and the fire service says it can't stop it??? What are they trying to tell us?

Cheers!

We are in St Martin. Yesterday there were some riots not far from us. We were not aware of them as there is an intervening causeway and airport.

It seems from the attached link that the thrust of the riot is the French government putting controls and limitations on the rebuilding process in an area known as Sandy Ground. It is a long narrow strip that fronts Marigot Bay and got really hammered by the hurricane.

I almost want to say that this is inspired by the Yellow Jacket protests in France but I’m reaching on that interpretation.

https://www.thedailyherald.sx/islands/9 ... -escalates

EnergyUnlimited wrote:Dogs are waffling and caravan moves away.
BAU will carry on until natural collapse of capitalism (which is on horizon).
Politicians won't change much, greenwashing won't change much either.

I think that is true.

My daughter had global warming education in school. I asked her if she's going to change
her lifestyle in response to what she learned, consume less, heat less, drive less, etc etc.

She said, "no, nobody does that, we only talk and write about the subject"

Any solution requiring a reduction in consumption/standard of living is out of the question with people.
That's why tesla is so attractive. Let's you whitewash your consumer conscience with
consumption.

^1+

mousepad wrote:My daughter had global warming education in school. I asked her if she's going to change
her lifestyle in response to what she learned, consume less, heat less, drive less, etc etc.

She said, "no, nobody does that, we only talk and write about the subject"

Although, since behavior change is (still) possible, the key question is "what are the conditions under which someone would change."

aspera wrote:the key question is "what are the conditions under which someone would change."

Easy. We'll stop burning fossil carbon when there is none left to burn.

mousepad wrote:That's why tesla is so attractive. Let's you whitewash your consumer conscience with
consumption.

And drive really, really fast to the repair shop, and wait weeks to months for parts in many cases.

Nothing irrational at all about that.

diemos wrote:Easy. We'll stop burning fossil carbon when there is none left to burn.

Certainly then (as a boundary condition). But people do sometimes change beforehand. Maybe reword the question as "what are the conditions under which someone would change, before circumstances force that change."

aspera wrote:

diemos wrote:Easy. We'll stop burning fossil carbon when there is none left to burn.

Certainly then (as a boundary condition). But people do sometimes change beforehand. Maybe reword the question as "what are the conditions under which someone would change, before circumstances force that change."

My mother was a smoker from her early teens. She used to pine away when I was growing up about how she couldn't break the habit, but if the government would juts make it illegal to use tobacco she would be forced into quitting.

Over time I have come to the belief that a large percentage of the population don't want the responsibilities of their own actions and look for someone to become the "leader" who makes all those decisions for them. I never understood this attitude, but I have seen it far to often to dismiss it.

Tanada wrote:My mother was a smoker from her early teens. She used to pine away when I was growing up about how she couldn't break the habit, but if the government would juts make it illegal to use tobacco she would be forced into quitting.

I had similar parents; long-time smokers who claimed they couldn't stop. They did try stopping many times (reminds me of Mark Twain's joke), only to take it up again.

But then they "retired" on what amounted to a poverty-level fixed income, and found they couldn't afford the habit. They complained to no end. But they stopped.

So, the list of conditions under which people might stop a behavior includes, at least, these three conditions:
1. [diemos] When the resource/opportunity runs out.
2. [Tanada] When the behavior is outlawed.
3. [aspera] When the cost is prohibitive (e.g., an extremely high carbon tax?).

Other "coercive" approaches might leverage various aspects of one's self-interest (e.g., status, identity, legacy, social position, reputation). Then there are the non-coercive approaches.

The anti-smoking laws banning advertising and use in media and warnings and public service announcements had a significant impact. There was a bit of a shaming approach to this my making smokers move outdoors.

Newfie wrote:The anti-smoking laws banning advertising and use in media and warnings and public service announcements had a significant impact. There was a bit of a shaming approach to this ... making smokers move outdoors.

Unfortunately vaping was allowed to get started in the US due to the claim that vaping would help people stop smoking cigarettes. Sure...right.....except vaping has attracted a whole new audience of millions of young millennials who are hooked on vaping.

Now we've got 9 million new people, mostly young millennials, vaping regularly in the US.

new-cdc-data-more-9-million-adults-vape-regularly-united-states

And vaping has turned out to be far worse then cigarettes for people's health, with numerous people in their 20s drying and being seriously injured because they are vaping flavored nicotine and THC.


Vaping is a health disaster for the USA

Plantagenet wrote:

Newfie wrote:The anti-smoking laws banning advertising and use in media and warnings and public service announcements had a significant impact. There was a bit of a shaming approach to this ... making smokers move outdoors.

Unfortunately vaping was allowed to get started in the US due to the claim that vaping would help people stop smoking cigarettes. Sure...right.....except vaping has attracted a whole new audience of millions of young millennials who are hooked on vaping.

Now we've got 9 million new people, mostly young millennials, vaping regularly in the US.

new-cdc-data-more-9-million-adults-vape-regularly-united-states

And vaping has turned out to be far worse then cigarettes for people's health, with numerous people in their 20s drying and being seriously injured because they are vaping flavored nicotine and THC.


Vaping is a health disaster for the USA

YHC is already a controlled substance so blaming people ODing on it in the fact they used a new technology to consume it is just FUD in my opinion. Compared to Tobacco combustion products people who vape the legal flavored nicotine are avoiding a massive list of carcinogens. Add in that "Second hand vape" is far less of a concern than second hand smoke fro tobacco OR cannabis and I am a heck of a lot less grumpy about a billion vapers than a hundred thousand four pack a day chain smokers.

Sounds like Blackrock is anticipating some significant adjustments due to climate change.

KEY POINTS
In an annual letter to CEOs published Tuesday, BlackRock chief executive Larry Fink said: "Climate change has become a defining factor in companies' long-term prospects.
"But awareness is rapidly changing, and I believe we are on the edge of a fundamental reshaping of finance," he added.
BlackRock's assets under management totaled almost $7 trillion in the third quarter of 2019.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/14/blackro ... rkets.html

How Well Do We Know Climate Change?

While we seem to concentrate on carbon dioxide emissions, we tend to forget inter-related aspects like land use for example which has not received the attention that it deserves as it is believed to contribute about 20% of total carbon emissions.


Link

aspera wrote:

diemos wrote:Easy. We'll stop burning fossil carbon when there is none left to burn.

Certainly then (as a boundary condition). But people do sometimes change beforehand. Maybe reword the question as "what are the conditions under which someone would change, before circumstances force that change."

Various reasonable looking polls I've seen over the years seem to show that lots of people claim they want to stop climate change IF the cost is low and there's little inconvenience. Raise the cost or inconvenience to even a SLIGHTLY significant level, and the support drains away FAST. (That's the overall trend, not universal of course).

So I think that translates into we won't do much unless it becomes economical to do something "meaningful" anyway.

So for example, society will likely make a strong move towards EV's over the next two to three decades. Of course, that's too slow, and only attacks about a FIFTH of the problem, re transport. And for things like, say, farm equipment, it only deals with a TINY part of the issue re agriculture overall.

The fundamental issue and "easy" fix would be agreeing to have only about a tenth of our population, but GOOD LUCK getting much cooperation in reducing reproduction, even though we have the tech and it doesn't cost much. Societies could reward that behavior through government policy, but for the politicians, winning elections trumps good policy.