Solving Climate Change.

[FlashDangerpants]

"I'm really just pointing out that you gain something that economists call... (because I know everything that economists know and more) ...relative advantage!"

Do you mean Comparative Advantage?

Whoops, yes I did, I am a clumsy fool.

[FlashDangerpants]

I'm just noting that you place a lot of emphasis on telling us that you personally are convinced of something and that should be good enough for anybody.

I think I'm being perfectly clear. I'm certainly trying to be. I'll say it again - for the fourth or fifth time, I'm a philosopher. I'm not a geophysical engineer. I'm not going to provide blueprints, but consider it entirely reasonable to note the existence of a potential source of limitless clean energy when precisely what the world needs is limitless clean energy. Of what do you remain unconvinced? Is there not a limitless amount of clean energy in the molten interior of the earth? Do we not need that energy to sequester carbon and desalinate and irrigate to survive climate change? Is it somehow - impossible to get to? You said it was impossible - but still haven't said why you think so. Please don't forget again.

I thought I was being fairly clear myself, but sure I'll make the point again. You are just blithely expecting us to place our faith in a 'philosopher' to just intuitively know what is geologically feasible.

[uwot]

...I'm a philosopher. I'm not a geophysical engineer.

Out of curiosity, what have you done that makes you a philosopher, but not a geophysical engineer?

[Vitruvius]

Whoops, yes I did, I am a clumsy fool.

Kudos for acknowledging your error...once it was pointed out to you! A gracious acceptance usually involves thanking the person who pointed out your error, but kudos for not making an idiot of yourself by denying an undeniable fact!

I thought I was being fairly clear myself, but sure I'll make the point again. You are just blithely expecting us to place our faith in a 'philosopher' to just intuitively know what is geologically feasible.

I'm not appealing to faith, but to reason. I assure you that I've looked at drilling technologies, and at the geophysics of various volcanic features - and consider it feasible to harness magma energy. What is it that you don't believe? Is that not a reasonable opinion? Or are you saying humankind lacks the ingenuity to harness magma energy? If that's the leap of faith you speak of, I'd place my faith in human ingenuity.

[attofishpi]

...I'm a philosopher. I'm not a geophysical engineer.

Out of curiosity, what have you done that makes you a philosopher, but not a geophysical engineer?

..i don't think i can go to bed let alone sleep until I read this response *: )

[Vitruvius]

...I'm a philosopher. I'm not a geophysical engineer.

Out of curiosity, what have you done that makes you a philosopher, but not a geophysical engineer?

What's necessary!

[Vitruvius]

So there you have it. The trajectory of current policies implies a temperature rise of 3'C by 2100 - and the most climate optimistic, economically catastrophic pathway, still half that. Surely it's time to think outside the box. Assuming it's possible to harness, magma is so vast a source of energy that it could meet global demand from clean energy, and provide power to sequester carbon going forward. In terms of infrastructure, I believe capacity could be developed relatively quickly, were it decided that's what we, humans - absolutely need to do - technologically speaking, I estimate we could have net zero by 2045, and be carbon negative thereafter, without crushing impositions upon society.

[FlashDangerpants]

I thought I was being fairly clear myself, but sure I'll make the point again. You are just blithely expecting us to place our faith in a 'philosopher' to just intuitively know what is geologically feasible.

I'm not appealing to faith, but to reason. I assure you that I've looked at drilling technologies, and at the geophysics of various volcanic features - and consider it feasible to harness magma energy. What is it that you don't believe? Is that not a reasonable opinion? Or are you saying humankind lacks the ingenuity to harness magma energy? If that's the leap of faith you speak of, I'd place my faith in human ingenuity.

You keep using a sales patter about limitless energy in place of argument or explanation. When doubted you respond variously with accusations of malicious motives and little motivational speeches about some shining vision of a beautiful future that you can deliver via your blue sky thinking regimen, but never a description of a practical thing that fixes the issue you were asked about.

Also I only just noticed that you replied twice to the same post and the second one looks a lot like you spent 2 hours stewing over some slight before deciding to shoot back with a bunch of silly stuff about me being stupid. You take things way too personally, but I don't care enough to get goaded into doing the same.

[Vitruvius]

You keep using a sales patter about limitless energy in place of argument or explanation. When doubted you respond variously with accusations of malicious motives and little motivational speeches about some shining vision of a beautiful future that you can deliver via your blue sky thinking regimen, but never a description of a practical thing that fixes the issue you were asked about.

I thought I was describing an approach to climate change that seems possible - and if technologically viable, is arguably the most effective, least disruptive and least expensive adequate solution. Your questions about the engineering are spoiler questions, deliberately impossible to answer - so get off your high horse. It's a straw horse for a straw man!

Also I only just noticed that you replied twice to the same post and the second one looks a lot like you spent 2 hours stewing over some slight before deciding to shoot back with a bunch of silly stuff about me being stupid. You take things way too personally, but I don't care enough to get goaded into doing the same.

I was trying to respond without getting drawn into your endless, pointless discussion about the discussion! I forgot to delete the earlier version.

[FlashDangerpants]

You keep using a sales patter about limitless energy in place of argument or explanation. When doubted you respond variously with accusations of malicious motives and little motivational speeches about some shining vision of a beautiful future that you can deliver via your blue sky thinking regimen, but never a description of a practical thing that fixes the issue you were asked about.

I thought I was describing an approach to climate change that seems possible - and if technologically viable, is arguably the most effective, least disruptive and least expensive adequate solution.

That's the sales patter answer again.

Your questions about the engineering are spoiler questions, deliberately impossible to answer - so get off your high horse. It's a straw horse for a straw man!

It's getting difficult to keep track of what excuses you are going to make up for not having much idea of how this thing can actually be done.
My questions are "spoiler questions, deliberately impossible to answer" now. But previously much the same set of questions has been "way off", "things I've considered", and mere "nuts and bolts", that's just from the limited checking back any of this conversation merits. Maybe you need to make your mind up.

So what is the reason why your many affirmations that you agree with yourself that this is all workable should translate into us just taking your word for that? As far as I can see you are largely trying to argue that where there's a will there must be a way, and then you've chosen to contribute the will on the assumption that somebody else will sort out the way.

[Vitruvius]

It's getting difficult to keep track of what excuses you are going to make up for not having much idea of how this thing can actually be done.

There's a lot can be forgiven but boring ain't one of them. If you're going to keep harping on the same point, we're done. Goodbye.

[Vitruvius]

Finance firms plan to close coal plants in Asia

"Some of the world's biggest financial institutions are working on a plan to speed the closure of coal-fired power plants in Asia, the BBC has been told. The initiative was developed by UK insurer Prudential, is being driven by the Asian Development Bank (ADB), and includes major banks HSBC and Citi. The ADB hopes the plan will be ready for the COP26 climate conference, which is being held in Scotland in November. The plan aims to tackle the biggest human-made source of carbon emissions."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58066660

[Vitruvius]

India seeks foreign, private investments in oil and gas production

At an investor meet called to promote India's latest offering of discovered fields for bidding, Puri said India, besides offering the world's fastest-growing energy markets, also offers a rule-based regime.

PTI July 31, 2021, 07:56 IST

In DSF-III, 11 onshore blocks, 20 offshore and one deepwater area are being offered for bidding. These blocks, spread over about 13,000 square kilometers, hold 75 oil and gas discoveries with a combined resource base of 230 million tonnes of oil and oil equivalent gas.

In the previous two rounds between 2016 and 2018, 54 blocks, taken away from ONGC and OIL, were awarded. According to DGH, 29 field development plans entailing USD 1.76 billion investment have been submitted.

Oil production from the areas awarded in two rounds of DSF is envisaged to reach 1.3 million tonnes by 2024 and gas output to touch 2.9 billion cubic meters.

https://energy.economictimes.indiatimes ... n/84912691

[SpheresOfBalance]

If COP 26 (in the UK in October/November) follows the same pattern as the previous 25 such meetings, the biggest achievement will be the group photo! 25 years they've been meeting to discuss climate change - and we are still doomed. Why?

This is not a rhetorical question. It needn't be so. Technologically speaking, we could solve climate change - and if we'd started 25 years ago with that aim in mind, we'd be on top of it by now. However, IMO - because the right have stuck their head in the sand on climate change, the narrative has been dominated by left wing thought, based in Malthusian pessimism and limits to resources, feeding into anti-capitalist politics, and as a consequence - it seems, the idea of solving climate change has never even been considered. Every measure assumes we must back down, tax this, stop that, have less and pay more. This is absolutely the wrong approach.

The Malthusian prophecy of mass starvation, resulting from the disparity between geometric population growth and arithmetic agricultural development, was overcome through the development of new technologies - tractors and fertilizers. Food production has outpaced population growth through the application of technology. Technology multiplies resources - so how can there be a limit to resources? Apply the right technologies, and there is no inherent limit.

The earth is a big ball of molten rock - containing a virtually limitless amount of energy. If we harnessed that energy, we could extract carbon from the atmosphere and sequester it, produce limitless amounts of clean electricity, hydrogen fuel, desalinate water to irrigate land, recycle - it's not that complicated. Technologically, we could solve climate change. Why haven't we?

Come on, you know the answer to this!

Humans first and foremost fear death, thus they are selfish in their want to survive. They are largely lazy, believing that ease of physical activity, like not hunting and gathering, will extend their lives. Humans have been so far removed from their reality in nature, due to the promise of money, the so called ease of living, that they can't see the forest for the trees, lazy, they don't want to.

They have forgotten how to tighten their belts, only ever to loosen them. Fat, dumb and lazy, humans are in fact the stupidest animals on the planet. They are continually cutting off their nose to spite their face. And they never learn, look how long they've been fighting one another, for fears, (you name them), since the stone age to the nuclear age, always bigger weapons to assure their life over another's death, that thing they fear.

Becoming that thing they fear most, a totally self defeating measure, quite insane, yet a lesson in disguise, though they're too blind by selfishness to see. And they keep popping babies out like rabbits, to teach them the same old tired self defeatist bullshit, Selfishness, Greed, Money!

If we only came completely together, none of this bullshit would be the case, working together like a team, humans would be unstoppable, and brilliant, not that it'd be easy. Rules and laws would have to be obeyed as they are certainly based upon facts, the truth of things. No one can have freedom of life if they're dead. Only obeying the earths laws, physics, ecosystems, stewardship, BALANCE can we rise and shine becoming that ultimate example of true animal wisdom as it pertains to this planets finiteness.

The Spheres (of influence) must Balance. And that takes all earths inhabitants to work together as a team. This nationalism bullshit is a step backwards towards the earliest of tribalism. With our current nuclear arsenal it can only lead to nuclear annihilation. A wiser more all inclusive understanding of life on planet earth absolutely must be observed, if we are to dig ourselves out of this selfish devise created by the greed of the glittering prize.

Largely, the Humans in charge are fucking stupid backwards fucks that have their heads up their asses. For them, the glittering prize is always more important than the lives of "others", no not them, as they are the wise ones, NOT! These fuckers should be put in cages where they belong, as the lowest life forms that they present.

ALL LIVES MATTER EQUALLY! Humans should only ever speak ALL INCLUSIVELY, else they DIVIDE. FOOLS THEM ALL! Apparently Unknowingly the Harbingers of their own twisted Device. If only they would automatically fall from all their twisted ideas, so poetic justice would prevail. Unfortunately it's not that easy.

But in the light of a democracy, where truth(facts) prevail, we can insure those type lunatics never rise or maintain power. In cages they belong. All humans on planet Earth are in fact one! History dictates knowledge, illuminating past errors!

The brightest light must always shine on truth(facts).

Philosophy - The FATHER of all Science!!!

If science doesn't lead the way, we're all lost in ignorance!

[Vitruvius]

So there you have it. The trajectory of current policies implies a temperature rise of 3'C by 2100 - and the most climate optimistic, economically catastrophic pathway, still half that. Surely it's time to think outside the box. Assuming it's possible to harness, magma is so vast a source of energy that it could meet global demand from clean energy, and provide power to sequester carbon going forward. In terms of infrastructure, I believe capacity could be developed relatively quickly, were it decided that's what we, humans - absolutely need to do - technologically speaking, I estimate we could have net zero by 2045, and be carbon negative thereafter, without crushing impositions upon society.