Solving Climate Change.

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

Democrats unveil $150 bn power plan that would penalise dirty energy
Josh Marcus 5 hrs ago

Congressional Democrats have unveiled a $150 billion programme to shift America’s energy grid to renewable fuels, which scientists say will be essential if the country and the world at large is to avoid the worst effects of the climate crisis.

On Thursday, Democratic members of the House of Representatives released new details about the so-called Clean Electricity Performance Programme, a $150 billion effort that would pay utilities to switch to clean energy and penalise those that don’t. The policy is slated for potential inclusion in the $1.5 trillion reconciliation budget the party hopes to pass this year.

Legislators said switching to clean power is a vital step to lowering US emissions and stopping the climate crisis from getting worse, noting the rash of major national disasters that have occurred in recent years which are strengthened by global warming.

“Last year alone, our country experienced 22 major natural disasters costing Americans a record-shattering $95 billion in damages — figures that represent more than double the historical average, but which still don’t reflect the cost of lost jobs or the trauma of families losing their homes,” Frank Pallone, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, told The New York Times. “The climate crisis is here, and the cost of inaction is already staggering.”

Under the plan, the Department of Energy would pay utilities which are able to increase clean energy supplies by 4 per cent each year, doling out $150 for each additional megawatt hour added after that benchmark. Those that fail to update their systems, meanwhile, will owe money.

The policy would go along with other green incentives in the spending package, such as $12.5 billion to improve electrical vehicle charging infrastructure, and another $9 billion to help states modernise their electrical grids.

The Democrats are hoping to pass these policies through reconciliation, a budgeting process that only requires a simple majority in the Senate, rather than the usual, filibuster-proof 60 votes needed for full legislation. Republicans are likely to oppose the legislation.

Even with control of the Senate, however, its passage isn’t assured. Moderate Democrats like Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona have said the $3.5 trillion budget is too pricey.

Mr Manchin, hailing from the coal producing state of West Virginia, has significant financial interests in coal, a form of energy which wouldn’t be deemed clean enough for payments under the proposed plan. He owns shares of a coal brokerage worth up to $5 million dollars, which paid him $491,949 in dividends last year, according to financial disclosure forms.

In May, the International Energy Agency said huge changes to major emitters’ power grids would be necessary to avert the worst consequences of the climate crisis, but most countries haven’t committed to making them.

“The sheer magnitude of changes needed to get to net zero emissions by 2050 is still not fully understood by many governments and investors,” Fatih Birol, the agency’s executive director, said at the time.

“We’re seeing more governments around the world make net-zero pledges, which is very good news,” he added. “But there’s still a huge gap between the rhetoric and the reality.”

In the next decade, the installation rate of solar panels and wind turbines needs to grow by four times to reach the goal of net zero carbon by 2050.

On a recent tour through New Jersey and New York, Mr Biden highlighted the need for climate policy as he inspected damage from Hurricane Ida.

"We’re living through it now. We don’t have any more time," he said. "Every part of the country is getting hit by extreme weather. We can’t turn it back very much, but we can prevent it from getting worse."

"The threat is here. It’s not going to get any better. The question is can it get worse? We can stop it from getting worse," Biden said. "This is everybody’s crisis."

"We’re living through it now. We don’t have any more time," Mr Biden said of the effects of climate change. "Every part of the country is getting hit by extreme weather. We can’t turn it back very much, but we can prevent it from getting worse."

The $1 trillion, bipartisan infrastructure package, separate from the larger Democratic budget proposal, passed the Senate earlier this year and contains a number of green policies. However, environmentalists said the deal had cut billions in vital climate spending from its original iteration.

“Biden and Congress can’t get distracted by this pathetic version of an infrastructure package that only waters down much needed climate priorities, like transit, even further,” the Sunrise Movement’s advocacy director, Lauren Maunus, said in a statement at the time.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/de ... d=msedgntp
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

Over two-thirds of offshore oil output remains shut in U.S. Gulf -,regulator
By Sabrina Valle and Marianna Parraga 16 hrs ago


HOUSTON (Reuters) -U.S. offshore oil companies restored almost 200,000 barrels of production on Friday, while most of the Gulf Coast crude output remained offline following Hurricane Ida, government data showed.

The storm hit the U.S. Gulf of Mexico almost two weeks ago, damaging infrastructure and removing more than 21 million barrels of production from the market.

Over two-thirds of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico's oil production, or 1.2 million barrels per day, were still shut as repair efforts dragged on, helping to support global oil prices.

Over 1.68 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas were also offline on Friday, while a total of 65 platforms and three rigs continue evacuated, said the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE).


The Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP), the largest U.S. privately owned deepwater crude terminal, has fully reopened its marine operations for imports and exports.

Pipeline operator Enbridge on Friday said its offshore assets were ready to operate once producers bring production back online.

Exxon Mobil Corp on Thursday sought another 1.5 million barrels of crude from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to feed its 520,000 barrels per day Baton Rouge refinery. The oil "will help us completely restore normal operations," said Julie King, a company spokesperson.

Chevron on Thursday said it has restored partial production at its Jack St. Malo and Blind Faith platforms.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/o ... d=msedgntp
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

TUC: Jobs at risk if UK fails to hit carbon emissions target
By Mary-Ann Russon & Katie Prescott
Business reporters, BBC News

Up to 660,000 jobs could be at risk if the UK fails to reach its net-zero target as quickly as other nations, the Trade Union Congress (TUC) has warned. The government has pledged to cut carbon emissions by 78% by 2035. But the TUC fears many jobs could be moved offshore to countries offering superior green infrastructure and support for decarbonisation. The union body is calling for an £85bn green recovery package to create 1.2 million green jobs.

TUC research from June shows the UK is currently ranked second last among G7 economies for its investment in green infrastructure and jobs. However, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) says the TUC's claims are untrue and that it does not recognise their methodology. The government is currently considering the recommendations of an independent report into the future of green jobs, a BEIS spokeswoman stressed.

"In recent months we've secured record investment in wind power, published a world-leading Hydrogen Strategy, pledged £1bn in funding to support the development of carbon capture and launched a landmark North Sea Transition Deal - the first G7 nation to do so - that will protect our environment, generate huge investment and create and support thousands of jobs," she added.

The TUC says steel industry jobs are at great risk are jobs because their manufacturing process is dependent on burning coal at high temperatures. Other nations such as Sweden are already bringing to market new technologies that enable steel production without using coal. In August, Hybrit, a joint venture between Swedish firms SSAB, LKAB and Vattenfall, made its first delivery of green steel using hydrogen from the electrolysis of water with renewable electricity, while another firm H2 Green Steel is planning to open a hydrogen plant in 2024. SSAB has a partnership with Mercedes-Benz to introduce fossil-free steel into vehicle production as soon as possible. The German carmaker wants its entire car fleet to be carbon-neutral across the supply chain by 2039.

The TUC's analysis suggests the jobs at risk include:

26,900 jobs in iron and steel
41,000 jobs in glass and ceramics
63,200 jobs in chemicals
18,000 jobs in textiles
79,000 jobs in rubber and plastics
15,500 jobs in paper, pulp and printing
7,800 jobs in refineries
7,400 jobs in wood products
900 jobs in cement and lime

The UK's green recovery investment is currently a quarter of France, a fifth of Canada, and 6% of the US, it says.

According to TUC general secretary Frances O'Grady, the clock is ticking for the UK: "Thatcher devastated Britain's industrial heartlands with the loss of industry and jobs. Boris Johnson is on the brink of doing more of the same." She said that unless the government urgently scales up investment in green tech and industry, the UK could risk losing hundreds of thousands of jobs to competing nations.

Industry body the CBI agrees, although it thinks the UK has already "made excellent strides" in cutting emissions from the power sector.

"Now is the time to back up this progress with concrete policies and programmes," said the CBI's decarbonisation director Tom Thackray. "CBI analysis suggests that spending in areas like electric vehicles and energy efficiency could create 250,000 net new jobs by 2030, but the window of opportunity to realise this is shrinking by the day."

'UK isn't even putting our toe in the water'

Alan Coombs, 56, is a community union representative at the Port Talbot steelworks, the UK's largest steel production plant with around 4,000 workers. He has worked at the plant for 40 years.

"Companies overseas are already setting target dates for green steel, but the UK isn't even putting our toe in the water," he told the BBC. "We've got to have a strategy of what it looks like - how we actually make the steel going forward."

He says he can't see how any firm will be able to deliver new technologies without government support, because it will be expensive. But most of all he thinks speed is needed: "We need to determine what it looks like for us and get on with it - because, environmentally, I think most every industry realises it's got to change. "We are not part of the debates, so you can imagine - people are [like], 'Where am I going to be working? What's going to happen to the plant that I work on... and what is the future going to look like?"

'We have to make that adjustment'

Critiquing the TUC's analysis, Prof Jagjit Chadha, director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR), points out that the UK has "made significant progress since 1990" on cutting carbon emissions. Prof Chadha says the government needs to formulate a long-term green economic strategy, together with the private sector. "In the UK, we're almost halfway towards our target, as of last year, in part helped perversely by the Covid crisis," he said.

He is not certain it is possible to tell whether the UK has lost its competitiveness in international trade, particularly since other countries generate more pollution than us. He also says that only "a very small fraction of people" - 2-3% of the labour force - is directly affected by the UK falling behind other nations in net-zero targets. But he sees it as inevitable that all industries will eventually have to go green and he wants government plans "that promote the rotation of the economy away from one that's emitting carbon emissions to one which isn't."

When the UK was part of the EU, it was given about £7bn from the European Investment Bank per annum, which then led to £20bn in investment a year - the government will need to find investment to replace that. "If we think about that happening over the next 10 years, we're then talking about public and private investment public together, probably in the region of £200bn," he said.

Analysis box by Katie Prescott, Business correspondent

Unions and bosses aren't always on the same page, but when it comes to carving out a green future, they are broadly at one. Revolutions are rarely bloodless. The transition to a net-zero economy will inevitably have some impact on traditional jobs, especially in polluting industries. That's spelt out in the government's Green Jobs Taskforce report from July.

So it's a delicate time. The extent of the impact will depend on the policy decisions we make now and whether sectors like the steel industry can be persuaded that there is a tasty enough "carrot" to go green, in the form of incentivising demand for a greener product perhaps or extra funding.

And whether the "stick" - in the form of any policy to push firms to net-zero - won't be used too aggressively. It's a difficult path for the government to tread. The UK has a legally binding commitment to reduce pollution by 2050. However this will come at a massive financial cost, at a time when the pandemic has left the UK with high levels of public debt. With all that in mind, the government will set out more information on how the move to net-zero will happen and how it will be paid for, in its Net Zero Strategy, launched ahead of the COP26 summit at the end of October.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58519996
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

Image
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

Oil-rich Norway goes to polls with climate on the agenda
By MARK LEWIS, Associated Press 5 hrs ago

STAVANGER, Norway (AP) — North Sea oil and gas has helped make Norway one of the wealthiest countries in the world. But as Norwegians head to the polls on Monday, fears about climate change have put the future of the industry at the top of the campaign agenda.

But the larger parties rarely rule alone in Norway; smaller players are usually required to build a majority coalition, and they can have an outsize influence on the government agenda. Some are demanding a more radical severing with the country’s dominant industry and income stream.

“Our demand is to stop looking for oil and gas, and stop handing out new permits to companies,” says Lars Haltbrekken, climate and energy spokesman for the Socialist Left party — a likely coalition partner for Labor. He claims that after eight years in charge the government is protecting a status quo at a time when the country is thirsty for a post-oil future.

A report in August from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicting global floods and fires created a wave in Norway that has crested throughout this election campaign.

It is also forcing Norwegians to wrestle with a paradox at the heart of their society.

With their hydro-powered energy grid and electric cars, they are among the world’s most enthusiastic consumers of green power, but decades of exporting oil and gas means this nation of 5.3 million enjoys a generous welfare buffer, and sits on the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund.

Tina Bru, the Oil and Energy Minister, says it's unthinkable that the country should force an end to the country’s biggest industry, which is responsible for over 40% of exports and directly employs more than 5% of the workforce.

“My question is always: What happens after you stop? What else are you going to do to make sure the world reaches its climate goals? It might affect our own climate budget, but it’s not going to make a difference globally," she says.

She agrees with a report highlighted by the Norwegian Oil and Gas Association, an industry group, that says an end to Norwegian production would have a net negative effect on global emissions. Demand would stay the same, and cleaner Norwegian production would be replaced by other countries with higher emissions, she says. She prefers a longer-term approach that focuses on demand.

“It is kind of disappointing in this campaign where we see the only way to discuss policy and have credibility on your will to cut emissions is to stop producing oil and gas. It is such a more nuanced issue involving other things like agriculture and transport.”

Some 70% of all new cars sold in Norway are electric, with consumers continuing to benefit from government subsidies, and the government has signaled that environment taxes will rise. Earlier this month, it also proposed a tweak to the existing tax regime, where some explorers will have to shoulder more of the risk of searching for oil.

Labor supports the approach and admits that it charts a similar future for the industry. But it has promised a more interventionist industrial policy that will funnel support to new green industries, like wind power, “blue hydrogen” that uses natural gas to produce an alternative fuel, and carbon capture and storage, which seeks to bury carbon dioxide under the ocean.

However, any post-election horse trading is likely to be fraught for Labor. The Socialist Left says it won’t offer support lightly, and the other probable partner, the Center Party, is also demanding a more aggressive approach to the energy shift.

“Right now our plan is to run together with our two old friends from these parties,” says Espen Barth Eide, Labor’s Energy spokesman. “We still think this works. But if their opening position is to end exploration, that is not going to happen. … We will try to have a mature dialogue about the next phase of the oil industry.”

Most of the country’s oil and gas still comes from mature areas in the North Sea, but most of the untapped reserves are in the Barents Sea, above the Arctic Circle — a red line for environmentalists. Eide says a possible compromise might be found by focusing on where oil exploration can be carried out in the future.

However, Haltbrekken, a former chairman of Norway’s Friends of the Earth, a climate charity, says the new government needs to be more urgent. “The IPCC report made a huge impression on the population. But there is one thing I fear more than what was in the report, and that is that apathy and hopelessness will take over. People could think this is such a huge problem that we cannot do anything. But we can. We can do a lot to solve it. It just has to start now.”

Election forecasts will be released when voting closes at 9 p.m. (1900 GMT) on Monday. The final official tally for the 169-member parliament, usually comes at some point overnight, but experts believe the results could come quicker this year with a record number of people having already made their choice in advance voting. More than 78% of eligible people in this nation of 5.3 million voted in the last national election.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/o ... d=msedgntp
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

Rain fell on Greenland’s ice sheet for the first time ever known. Alarms should ring
Kim Heacox.

Many people believed he couldn’t do it. Ski across the Greenland ice sheet, a vast, unmapped, high-elevation plateau of ice and snow? Madness. But Fridtjof Nansen, a young Norwegian, proved them wrong. In 1888, he and his small party went light and fast, unlike two large expeditions a few years before. And unlike the others, Nansen traveled from east to west, giving himself no option of retreat to a safe base. It would be forward or die trying. He did it in seven weeks, man-hauling his supplies and ascending to 8,900ft (2,700 meters) elevation, where summertime temperatures dropped to -49F (-45C).

Last month, for the first time in recorded history, rain fell on the highest point of the Greenland ice sheet. It hardly made the news. But rain in a place historically defined by bitter cold portends a future that will alter coastlines around the world, and drown entire cities.

The Greenland ice sheet contains four times more ice than all of Earth’s other glaciers and ice fields combined, outside Antarctica. The largest island in the world, Greenland is more than 36,000 times the size of Manhattan, and ice covers most of it, in many places thousands of feet thick. As carbon dioxide and methane accumulate in our atmosphere, causing our planet to heat (the six warmest years on record have been the last six), the ice sheet disintegrates. Greenland lost more ice in the past decade than it did in the previous century.


Massive summertime meltwater rivers now flow over the ice sheet where, in Nansen’s time, no signs of surface water could be found. If the people of Miami, Shanghai, Tokyo, Mumbai, Lagos, Bangkok and New York are not concerned, they should be. The great Greenland ice melt is a climate crisis sword of Damocles for all coastal, low-lying, densely populated areas. No other single factor will probably contribute more to sea level rise over the next few decades.

A consortium of climate scientists writing two years ago in Nature, a prestigious scientific journal, concluded that if Greenland continues to melt, in one bad-case scenario after another, tens of millions of people could be in danger of yearly flooding and displacement by 2030 – less than nine years from now. And by the end of this century, when Antarctica, which contains vastly more ice than Greenland, also enters a phase of catastrophic melting, the number of annual flood-prone people could reach nearly half a billion. It’s more than farewell, Miami. It’s goodbye, Florida.

After Nansen’s Greenland expedition, he oversaw the construction of a small wooden ship named Fram (“Forward”), designed to enter the Arctic pack ice in an attempt to reach the north pole. Later, he mentored the explorers Roald Amundsen, Robert Falcon Scott and Ernest Shackleton. His final act, however, was his most inspiring. As high commissioner for refugees for the League of Nations, he devised a passport to repatriate thousands left homeless after the Great War, and was awarded the 1922 Nobel peace prize.

Nansen did what humankind must now do. He transcended himself. He respected science, and cared deeply for others. In the face of great challenges today, we can – and must – do the same.

A good example is Jason Box, who Jeff Goodell, in his 2017 book The Water Will Come, describes as “a maverick scientist and Greenland ice junkie who got a lot of attention in 2012 when he publicly predicted just weeks before the summer melt season that Greenland would experience a record-breaking year for ice melt”.

Raised and educated in Colorado, Box suspected that soot from wildfires in the American west and Canada, and from coal-fired power plants in the industrial north, would enter the atmosphere and travel far. When it settled in Greenland, the soot would darken the ice sheet and make it absorb, not reflect, solar energy. The result: the ice sheet would melt like gangbusters. Which is exactly what has happened.

In 2014, Box was stunned to find the ice sheet so dark. He has since said that humanity’s burning of fossil fuels has probably set in motion nearly 70ft of sea level rise. A bold prediction, and not out of character for Box, who has spent more than a year on the ice.

“I like ice because it’s nature’s thermometer,” he told Goodell. “It’s not political. As the world heats up, ice melts, it’s simple. It’s the kind of science that everyone can understand.”

While science, endeavoring to avoid alarmism, can be overly cautious, science isn’t the problem. Disinformation and a lack of political will are the problems.

To save the Greenland ice sheet – and Florida – will require a Nansen-esque transformation on steroids, something inspired by, but much larger than, President Franklin D Roosevelt’s New Deal. To begin, we need to elect representatives who respect science, and accept the magnitude of what we’re up against. If they do not, they must be defeated. It’s time to put our planet first.

A little more than a thousand years ago, back when the world seemed large and wondrous and unknown, the Vikings settled Greenland. For every one person alive on earth back then, there are 25 today, most of us trapped in a fossil fuel economy that has given us great prosperity but now must be replaced. By what? By trains powered by wind, trucks powered by the sun, highways made of solar panels. Fantasy? No, they already exist. And are just the beginning. We are all on Greenland’s ice sheet with Nansen now. It’s forward or fail. No turning back.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/ra ... d=msedgntp
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

Image
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Belinda »

Vitruvius wrote:
Nansen did what humankind must now do. He transcended himself. He respected science, and cared deeply for others. In the face of great challenges today, we can – and must – do the same.
I heartily agree!

We must respect something else besides science. We have to respect the inanimate world which has its own voiceless presence, exactly the same as we respect other humans and other animals.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

Belinda wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 12:42 pm Vitruvius wrote:
Nansen did what humankind must now do. He transcended himself. He respected science, and cared deeply for others. In the face of great challenges today, we can – and must – do the same.
I heartily agree!

We must respect something else besides science. We have to respect the inanimate world which has its own voiceless presence, exactly the same as we respect other humans and other animals.
The magma energy solution to climate change is scientific, political and economic - and almost entirely anthropocentric. So I don't know what you mean by 'respect the inanimate world' exactly! The least disruptive, least expensive, most effective measure - is drilling for magma energy on a monolithic scale; aiming to meet and exceed current global energy demand from clean energy within the next two decades. It is designed to be a policy laser beam compared to the scattershot of a left wing approach to sustainability; so I don't know what to do with sentiments like those you express. Indeed, I'm rather inclined to the view that sentiment obscures reason, and it is by dint of reason we need not walk blindly into our evolutionary fate. We can transcend limits to resources - but need massive amounts of clean energy. The energy is there; and so respecting the science begs the question "Why should people be denied limitless clean energy, while governments impose taxes and price rises to supress demand for goods produced using fossil fuels?"
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Belinda »

Vitruvius wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 4:04 pm
Belinda wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 12:42 pm Vitruvius wrote:
Nansen did what humankind must now do. He transcended himself. He respected science, and cared deeply for others. In the face of great challenges today, we can – and must – do the same.
I heartily agree!

We must respect something else besides science. We have to respect the inanimate world which has its own voiceless presence, exactly the same as we respect other humans and other animals.
The magma energy solution to climate change is scientific, political and economic - and almost entirely anthropocentric. So I don't know what you mean by 'respect the inanimate world' exactly! The least disruptive, least expensive, most effective measure - is drilling for magma energy on a monolithic scale; aiming to meet and exceed current global energy demand from clean energy within the next two decades. It is designed to be a policy laser beam compared to the scattershot of a left wing approach to sustainability; so I don't know what to do with sentiments like those you express. Indeed, I'm rather inclined to the view that sentiment obscures reason, and it is by dint of reason we need not walk blindly into our evolutionary fate. We can transcend limits to resources - but need massive amounts of clean energy. The energy is there; and so respecting the science begs the question "Why should people be denied limitless clean energy, while governments impose taxes and price rises to supress demand for goods produced using fossil fuels?"
What I mean by "respect the inanimate world" is people don't change cultural beliefs and practises and pay for or work towards something novel unless they extend their affections towards whatever. "Political and economic" are indeed anthropocentric. The people who want to further the cause of magma energy, if they want the general public to pay for its commercial development, will need to present the theory as ethical and worthy of respect and even affection.

People have to feel a need before they will invest in any scary change. The need had been present for decades, and what is lacking with the need to address climate change is more than reasoning and science, it is also a change of attitude towards the inanimate world, that the inanimate world enjoys freedoms and suffers from losses.

Maybe it's easier to feel affection and respect for a river, or a grand mountain, than for magma, but it can be done.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

Belinda wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 12:42 pm Vitruvius wrote:

I heartily agree!

We must respect something else besides science. We have to respect the inanimate world which has its own voiceless presence, exactly the same as we respect other humans and other animals.
Vitruvius wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 4:04 pmThe magma energy solution to climate change is scientific, political and economic - and almost entirely anthropocentric. So I don't know what you mean by 'respect the inanimate world' exactly! The least disruptive, least expensive, most effective measure - is drilling for magma energy on a monolithic scale; aiming to meet and exceed current global energy demand from clean energy within the next two decades. It is designed to be a policy laser beam compared to the scattershot of a left wing approach to sustainability; so I don't know what to do with sentiments like those you express. Indeed, I'm rather inclined to the view that sentiment obscures reason, and it is by dint of reason we need not walk blindly into our evolutionary fate. We can transcend limits to resources - but need massive amounts of clean energy. The energy is there; and so respecting the science begs the question "Why should people be denied limitless clean energy, while governments impose taxes and price rises to supress demand for goods produced using fossil fuels?"
Belinda wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 5:16 pmWhat I mean by "respect the inanimate world" is people don't change cultural beliefs and practises and pay for or work towards something novel unless they extend their affections towards whatever. "Political and economic" are indeed anthropocentric. The people who want to further the cause of magma energy, if they want the general public to pay for its commercial development, will need to present the theory as ethical and worthy of respect and even affection.

People have to feel a need before they will invest in any scary change. The need had been present for decades, and what is lacking with the need to address climate change is more than reasoning and science, it is also a change of attitude towards the inanimate world, that the inanimate world enjoys freedoms and suffers from losses.

Maybe it's easier to feel affection and respect for a river, or a grand mountain, than for magma, but it can be done.

Insofar as environmental concern is an example of post material values, making people worse off can't be the solution. But to my mind, harnessing magma energy is the right thing to do because of the physics. This video explains entropy. Civilisation is a designed structure - like a sandcastle, and we need more energy to spend to maintain that structure, else it will fall apart.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQSoaiubuA0&t=26s

A low energy, wind and solar powered future means more disorder, less human welfare; and a spiral of entropic decline unto extinction. The ongoing damage to civilisation by climate change, would be compounded by a "pay more have less" policy approach - for both reduce our ability to address the problem.

If a change of attitude is needed, it is toward the idea of limits to resources. A left wing dominated environmental narrative assumes it's a fixed quantity; but resources are a function of the energy available to develop them, and there's an unimaginably large source of high grade clean energy in the molten interior of the earth. When people's basic needs are met, sustainably, from clean energy, then they can care about the environment. Make people worse off and they cannot afford to respect the environment.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Belinda »

Vitruvius wrote:
When people's basic needs are met, sustainably, from clean energy, then they can care about the environment. Make people worse off and they cannot afford to respect the environment.
I agree, and despite that I am not scientifically literate I think I understand. But why not engage the sympathies of those who can sympathise with the cause of clean energy, whilst at the same time going ahead with improving living standards ? That just leaves political will. This of course shows the disadvantage of democracy. Democracy tends to attract nasty populist politicians.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

Belinda wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 7:26 pm Vitruvius wrote:
When people's basic needs are met, sustainably, from clean energy, then they can care about the environment. Make people worse off and they cannot afford to respect the environment.
Belinda wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 7:26 pmI agree, and despite that I am not scientifically literate I think I understand. But why not engage the sympathies of those who can sympathise with the cause of clean energy, whilst at the same time going ahead with improving living standards ? That just leaves political will. This of course shows the disadvantage of democracy. Democracy tends to attract nasty populist politicians.
I can't get through to anyone. The right see "climate change" and they don't want to know, and the left see "solution" - and they're not interested either. I have no problem understanding why oil barons deny climate change. I'm at a loss to explain why those who are seemingly hugely concerned about the climate would assume limits to resources is absolute, and couch policy demands in terms of regressive taxes, price rises and restrictions that will be passed on, and fall most heavily on those least well off. I find that very difficult to sympathise with - when in fact, magma energy can solve climate change, and provide for a prosperous sustainable future. What I'm trying to do is convince the oil barons its in their interests to develop magma energy to combat climate change; and the ubiquity of the left wing assumption that sustainability requires anti-capitalist sacrifice, sub optimal technologies and equality of hardship - is a huge obstacle, that renders what should be an obvious practical solution - somehow fantastic and utopian, precisely because it is adequate to the problem.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

Young people fear humanity doomed by climate change

The depth of anxiety many young people feel about climate change is illustrated by a global survey.

Its lead author, Caroline Hickman, from Bath University, told BBC World News half of young people feared humanity was doomed.

"What was news to us was the scale of that fear - two-thirds feeling sad, afraid and anxious and a half feeling angry, powerless, helpless and guilty and ashamed. So what was really impressive for us was the scale of this data," she said.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-e ... t-58562486
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Belinda »

Vitruvius, an old friend now deceased, told me sometime during the 1980s that cars can be made so they run on water. He was intelligently interested in both physics and motors whereas that was unintelligible to me then, and I still don't understand. However I think I have heard in recent years that cars can run on hydrogen , which is a large component of water. In that connection I also heard that Big Oil does not want to do that source of power as a switch to hydrogen would be big financial loss to them.

I presume that you yourself are encouraged by the success of electric cars? This could not have happened without political will. True, electric cars run off power from power stations but this technology is much more energy saving than fossil fuel directly from petrol pumps.

BTW, is magma energy safer than nuclear?
Post Reply