Freedom Gas!

[Crunch]

It's all about trying to run your life, Crunch. That's why we don't let people burn their garbage in the back yard, dump motor oil into storm drains, or dump motor home waste in the Walmart parking lot. It's all about you.

It certainly can't have anything to do with risks to health and property, as well as taking proactive steps to preserve and improve the environment that everyone has to live in.

Non sequiter.

[Crunch]

Or climate change has nothing to do with human activity so quit trying to run every aspect of my life.

Does a ant or worm impact its environment and the nature of soil? Does humanity and its actions stand apart from nature?

Deep.

Is the argument that because climate change has nothing to do with human activity we can do nothing about it we should continue on as were doing even if we can do better.

No

If we know eating healthy is better for us (better quality time) even though in the end we die should we eat heather?

Are you going to force people to eat healthier? Are you going to dictate what can be eaten and in what quantities?

Extinction events happen, at a personal level we will all experience one. The question for me isn't how I might change that but how I might like the last years to look, mine and the earths left behind.
I choose clean air, clean water and green grass... I will vote and spend my money with that in mind. Will that impact the end result? No, however I prefer the journey to the destination.

And that is your choice. Please pursue it with all the passion you can, seriously. Live life how you wish. I’d like to have same freedom.

[rightleft22]

Are you going to force people to eat healthier? Are you going to dictate what can be eaten and in what quantities?

No I wouldn't
However if the same people are making it more difficult to eat healthier I might push back.

I remember when the smoking laws were being debated. OMG it was going to be the end of bars and restaurants. How dare someone who didn't smoke impinge on the rights of those that did smoke. Change happens, extinction events happen, technology changes and kills of the old, the driving force to economies changes, jobs are lost and jobs are gained.


I don't under stand why we must prove that human actions is accelerating climate change to develop ways to uses our resources more defiantly with less impact on our air and water.
A realistic transition plan makes sense, personal and economical. Lets go to the moon did not mean we had to get their in a year, it only meant we had a target to aim for.

What are you so afraid of.

[rightleft22]

Today people can still smoke, their are still bars and restaurants, and we all can enjoy a nice meal without coming home stinking of smoke.  Nothing, including climate happens in a vacuum. Freedom exist within boundaries, and Democracy is about finding the middle ground.  No one gets to have it 100% their way.

I don't exercise and attempt to eat better to live longer, I do it so that years I do have will be good ones. I view my impact on the environment that I live in the same way. We aren't going to stop what's coming, but we don't need to use that as a excuse not to do the best we can with what we have.

Change happens, extinction events happen, technology changes and kills of the old, the driving force to economies changes, jobs are lost, and jobs are created. 

A realistic transition plan makes sense, personal and economical. Let’s go to the moon did not mean we had to get they’re in a year, it only meant we had a target to aim for. 
Let’s aim for something bigger then ourselves.

[Crunch]

Are you going to force people to eat healthier? Are you going to dictate what can be eaten and in what quantities?

No I wouldn't
However if the same people are making it more difficult to eat healthier I might push back.

I remember when the smoking laws were being debated. OMG it was going to be the end of bars and restaurants. How dare someone who didn't smoke impinge on the rights of those that did smoke. Change happens, extinction events happen, technology changes and kills of the old, the driving force to economies changes, jobs are lost and jobs are gained.


I don't under stand why we must prove that human actions is accelerating climate change to develop ways to uses our resources more defiantly with less impact on our air and water.
A realistic transition plan makes sense, personal and economical. Lets go to the moon did not mean we had to get their in a year, it only meant we had a target to aim for.

What are you so afraid of.

You don’t know why you have to prove anything when the requirement would be to completely change the US economic and industrial base? Come on. You want to make decisions based on feelz rather than logic. That’s just not smart nor is it reasonable to force others to go along with what makes you happy.

Look, you’re not being honest here about a realistic transition. For example, a realistic transition would include nuclear power. But environmentalists don’t want that.

[D.W.]

I'm not anti-nuke...  I think that's easily the most sensible approach to addressing the problem in the next few decades.  So push that.  A lot more convincing argument than, "clean coal". 

Then again, it works domestically, as we're already a nuclear power.  Do we just tell others who aren't that they're out of luck?  No nukes AND pressure them away from high carbon solutions?  Sure sounds like we would need to be trailblazing sustainable technologies if we wanted to make that case, no?

And seriously, what's left to prove?  We're quibbling over data points, not the big picture.

Polluter profits vs rate of doing what we know we should.  Not being honest about a realistic transition?  That's kinda a stunning statement. 

[rightleft22]

You don’t know why you have to prove anything when the requirement would be to completely change the US economic and industrial base

IMO the change is inevitable, just a matter of timing and who dominates. My position is that that change be a transition that we plan for and that the west dominates.
This would be a long term plan of transition grounded in economics.  If it helps the environment great but is not dependent on proving that humanity influences climate

And yes I agree that a realistic transition would include nuclear power especially if the transition to happen in a shorter time frame.
I know the environmentalists wants the change now and their job is to push for that just as its the other extreme to push back. The the way forward lies in the middle and cooler heads, Id prefer if we planed it

If I were young again and thinking of a career to study I would be looking forward and not trying to bring back the horse and carriage. There a lot of economic and social opportunities in move technology in the direction of clean efficiency 

[Crunch]

You don’t know why you have to prove anything when the requirement would be to completely change the US economic and industrial base

IMO the change is inevitable, just a matter of timing and who dominates. My position is that that change be a transition that we plan for and that the west dominates.
This would be a long term plan of transition grounded in economics.  If it helps the environment great but is not dependent on proving that humanity influences climate

Long term. You know we have less than 12 years, right? There is no long term.

And yes I agree that a realistic transition would include nuclear power especially if the transition to happen in a shorter time frame.
I know the environmentalists wants the change now and their job is to push for that just as its the other extreme to push back. The the way forward lies in the middle and cooler heads, Id prefer if we planed it

You can say yes to nuclear power, environmentalists trying to sound reasonable often do. However, you know that the movement won’t accept it.

If I were young again and thinking of a career to study I would be looking forward and not trying to bring back the horse and carriage. There a lot of economic and social opportunities in move technology in the direction of clean efficiency

If there’s plenty of opportunity, then we don’t need to force anyone to comply with environmentalists’ agenda. People would be flocking to it.

[Crunch]

I'm not anti-nuke...  I think that's easily the most sensible approach to addressing the problem in the next few decades.  So push that.

Next few decades? We have less than 12 years to avert the apocalypse. That’s what you guys have said for over 30 years.

And seriously, what's left to prove?  We're quibbling over data points, not the big picture.

The big picture is forcing people to comply with unproven theory. If you want to use the force of government to enforce compliance with your ideas, it ought to be proven correct. Why do you object to that?

Polluter profits vs rate of doing what we know we should.  Not being honest about a realistic transition?  That's kinda a stunning statement.

False dichotomy.

[Crunch]

By the way, check out current temperature trends for the last 2 years. Going down. The slight cooling trend of the last 15 years may be accelerating.

[Crunch]

Using data from NASA.

From February 2016 to February 2018, "global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius."

We are very nearly back to 1980’s temperatures. This alone falsifies global warming theory.

[Fenring]

I'm not anti-nuke...  I think that's easily the most sensible approach to addressing the problem in the next few decades.  So push that.

Next few decades? We have less than 12 years to avert the apocalypse. That’s what you guys have said for over 30 years.

Why is D.W. a part of "you guys"?

[D.W.]

Well to be fair, I'm a *censored*ty environmentalist.  He can generalize if I can I suppose.

For the record, I've always scoffed at the apocalypse scenarios.  I mean up in Michigan I'm more concerned about polar vortexes than rising sea levels or running the AC a tiny bit more for a couple months. 

But I'm an odd-ball.  I think we'll need to have mastered this tech for extra-earth projects before we need them to fend off the apocalypse.

From a geo-political stand point however we'll need it faster than that.  The longer we drag our feet on "green tech" the greener the grass looks in the more developed nations; and the more those outside if it are going to abandon their homes for a shot at what we got.  Make no mistake, everyone wants what we got, in comforts if not always the culture.  If they all try to go about it the way we did it ain't gonna be pretty.  (or cheap)  Oh, and we probably wouldn't let them, so add bloody to that list too.

So wait... maybe a 30 year line in the sand for some real nastiness IS on the table?  Just not how the tree-huggers think.   

[D.W.]

You can say yes to nuclear power, environmentalists trying to sound reasonable often do. However, you know that the movement won’t accept it.

Which movement?  Big Oil?  Big Coal?  Maybe the Nuke lobiest are waiting for public sentiment to shift and those other energy juggernauts will all just slap those chums on the back and withdraw from the field with a, "well played ol' boy!", seems plausible...

But no, it's "the movement" that won't accept it.  Yep!  All those ridiculous science denying tree hugging, cloth grocery bag using obstructionists!   

[TheDeamon]

You can say yes to nuclear power, environmentalists trying to sound reasonable often do. However, you know that the movement won’t accept it.

Which movement?  Big Oil?  Big Coal?  Maybe the Nuke lobiest are waiting for public sentiment to shift and those other energy juggernauts will all just slap those chums on the back and withdraw from the field with a, "well played ol' boy!", seems plausible...

But no, it's "the movement" that won't accept it.  Yep!  All those ridiculous science denying tree hugging, cloth grocery bag using obstructionists!   

Mostly big oil, they've historically been the biggest sponsors of anti-nuclear activism pretty much since before there were anti-nuclear activists. They still are, solar and wind power are only viable at current tech if you also build large natural gas power generation facilities to come online when wind/solar isn't enough, as they're the only thing which can be turned on and back off in any kind of "on demand" response window. Nuclear? Once it is online, its online for hours, if not days.

Edit to add: And even transitioning to Electric Vehicles isn't a loser for big oil, so long as Nuclear isn't on the table for grid power, because once again, you're going to need Natural Gas to make sure the lights stay on, and that you can charge your car.

[Crunch]

I'm not anti-nuke...  I think that's easily the most sensible approach to addressing the problem in the next few decades.  So push that.

Next few decades? We have less than 12 years to avert the apocalypse. That’s what you guys have said for over 30 years.

Why is D.W. a part of "you guys"?

Just a figure of speech.

[Crunch]

You can say yes to nuclear power, environmentalists trying to sound reasonable often do. However, you know that the movement won’t accept it.

Which movement?  Big Oil?  Big Coal?  Maybe the Nuke lobiest are waiting for public sentiment to shift and those other energy juggernauts will all just slap those chums on the back and withdraw from the field with a, "well played ol' boy!", seems plausible...

But no, it's "the movement" that won't accept it.  Yep!  All those ridiculous science denying tree hugging, cloth grocery bag using obstructionists!   

This is what it generally comes down to, a little sarcasm and ad hominem. The facts are that global warming essentially stopped in 2000  - often called "the pause". In the last 2 years, it's actually begun cooling (see post above). Since CO2 levels rose for the last 2 decades, this directly contradicts global warming theory and is precisely why it was renamed to "global climate change" so that everything that happens now confirms global warming.  Cooling, warming, rain, drought, sunny, cloudy, snow, no snow, it all confirms global warming.

In the end, we have these "scientists" that depend on global warming for their influence and funding altering data to fit the theory; this is well documented. They change historical temperature records so that the past is colder and current conditions are warmer, erasing events like the Medieval Warming Period from the record. This is not science, it's modern day Lysenkoism.

[rightleft22]

Interesting article on the possible future of nuclear energy
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/nuclear-power-small-modular-reactor-1.5188048

[rightleft22]

The facts are that global warming essentially stopped in 2000  - often called "the pause"

Its all on how you pick your sources

New analysis through 2014 shows that temperature is once again rising at about the same pace as it did over the second half of the 20th century. PRESS RELEASE.

Using the data that were available at the time (through 2012), the last climate report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that there had been no statistically significant increase in global surface temperature from 1998-2012.

According to a new NOAA analysis, the warming trend during that period was somewhat smaller than the longer-term (1951-2012) trend, but it wasn’t zero. And with the latest data calibrations and the most recent two years of global temperatures added to the series—including record-warm 2014—the warming experienced since 1998 is on par with the rate observed in the second half of the 20th century.

Basically, the new analysis confirms what climate scientists have said all along: natural variability (such as the patterns described in this article) may cause the rate of warming to change from one decade to the next, but global warming is still underway.

The most likely explanation for the lack of significant warming at the Earth’s surface in the past decade or so is that natural climate cycles—a series of La Niña events and a negative phase of the lesser-known Pacific Decadal Oscillation—caused shifts in ocean circulation patterns that moved some excess heat into the deep ocean. Even so, recent years have been some of the warmest on record, and scientists expect temperatures will swing back up soon.

Yearly surface temperatures since 1880 compared to the twentieth-century (1901-2000) average (dashed line at zero). Since 2000, temperatures have been warmer than average, but they did not increase significantly. Data courtesy of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth%E2%80%99s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade

[ScottF]

My confidence that this same "natural variability", ie volcanic eruptions, and relatively low solar activity, has been factored into the models all along is...low.

[TheDrake]

My confidence that this same "natural variability", ie volcanic eruptions, and relatively low solar activity, has been factored into the models all along is...low.

I guess that would depend on "all along". I found some papers describing this phenomenon dating back to the 90s. That doesn't guarantee that every model had the concept applied correctly and accurately. Note that we can't really predict how volcanic every given year is or the other phenomena. It simply adds noise to the system that has to be averaged out.

In general, models are tested against historical data. If a given phenomenon didn't have a dominating impact within the data set, it could easily get overlooked. There may well be unknown factors contributing to increases or decreases that we have yet to identify. That doesn't make decades of observations "wrong".

[ScottF]

My confidence that this same "natural variability", ie volcanic eruptions, and relatively low solar activity, has been factored into the models all along is...low.

I guess that would depend on "all along". I found some papers describing this phenomenon dating back to the 90s. That doesn't guarantee that every model had the concept applied correctly and accurately. Note that we can't really predict how volcanic every given year is or the other phenomena. It simply adds noise to the system that has to be averaged out.

In general, models are tested against historical data. If a given phenomenon didn't have a dominating impact within the data set, it could easily get overlooked. There may well be unknown factors contributing to increases or decreases that we have yet to identify. That doesn't make decades of observations "wrong".

I agree with you on the point of natural variability being virtually impossible to model and/or account for. We can't predict it, nor necessarily be aware (empirically) of the degree to which it's been happening over decades, centuries, etc.

I've already stated my Pascal's Wager approach to environmental care, do you entertain even the possibility that these models may be much less valuable or predictive than many believe, given the stated variables?

[TheDrake]

That's tricky to parse. Much less valuable than many believe? Given the amount of people who think they have no value. Less valuable than politicians think they are? Or less valuable than the union of concerned scientists say? Models don't have to achieve perfection to be valuable. There are a lot of people who focus on the worst possible outcome. Those that act as though that worst case is a total lock are generally using the model data wrong. The reality is almost certainly not going to be that, and it could just as likely be at the bottom of the range.

[Seriati]

I don't under stand why we must prove that human actions is accelerating climate change to develop ways to uses our resources more defiantly with less impact on our air and water.

That's an important point.  So what must you prove, where you are proposing that western economies, which produce merchandise at the lowest/best environmental burden per unit of production, lower their production to meet artificial carbon goals that cause non-western economies to ramp up production at a far worse carbon burden?

I'm very pro-environment, I propose the US increase its carbon production by 20% and set a new efficiency goal of per unit production that causes that to equate to at least a 30% increase in overall production.  Then we can put the third world factories out of business for good.

I propose we add 500% tariffs on all goods produced in factories that don't meet current US environmental standards and efficiency standards.

I propose we add 500% tariffs on top of those tariffs on goods produced in countries that have not committed to immediate carbon reductions (China for example has promised to slow down it's rate of increase sometime more than the "12" years we have from now).

I propose immediately and mandatory deplatfoming of anyone that advocates for false statements about the dangers of nuclear power or that proposes any restrictions on the building of nuclear plants.

A realistic transition plan makes sense, personal and economical. Lets go to the moon did not mean we had to get their in a year, it only meant we had a target to aim for.

What are you so afraid of.

I agree, the United States has been involved in a UNILATERAL transition plan implementation for 4 decades.  Why are you afraid of demanding the rest of the world catch up rather than undermining the economy of one of the cleanest producers of things by volume.

Heck if you're really serious, put the onus where it really sits, not on American industry, but on Americans themselves.  No more "green grass," grass is not environmentally friendly, it uses ridiculous amounts of water and chemical treatments to keep it "green" and eliminates massive amounts of habitat and biodiversity.  Make it against the law to have more than 10% of yard dedicated to grass.

[rightleft22]

Wasn't sure to like the above or not... maybe if it was 600% tariffs 

Interesting that you responded with extreme sarcasm to what I see as a reasonable approach to transition and change. I wasn't advocating it be all or nothing approach only that it be a plan.
I want to see the west develop the technology that is going to power the future and our fear of a change should not be a road block.

This attitude that everything must be either or is tiresome.

[Fenring]

That's tricky to parse. Much less valuable than many believe? Given the amount of people who think they have no value. Less valuable than politicians think they are? Or less valuable than the union of concerned scientists say? Models don't have to achieve perfection to be valuable. There are a lot of people who focus on the worst possible outcome. Those that act as though that worst case is a total lock are generally using the model data wrong. The reality is almost certainly not going to be that, and it could just as likely be at the bottom of the range.

Not to butt in but this doesn't actually answer the question. ScottF's question was:

do you entertain even the possibility that these models may be much less valuable or predictive than many believe, given the stated variables?

In this case I think it's pretty clear that "many" means the people who believe strongly in what the climate models show, that AGW is destructively altering the Earth's climate. It has nothing to do with the models demonstrating "perfection". The question seems to pose to you whether you'd be willing to admit that the variance on the reliability of the models is wide enough that it's entirely possible that the results "many" claim come from them are simply wrong, full stop. Note that this also includes the possibility that they're mostly correct, full stop. But would you submit that in arguing for listening to these models you're knowingly taking a gamble on their accuracy, or do you rather believe that it's no gamble at all and that we should be satisfied to hang our hats on the models such as they are? Pascal's wager applies because you have to make a choice on this in the here and now: "do something immediately" is incompatible with "wait and see".

[TheDrake]

I have high confidence in what the climate models show. There is a warming trend and it can be attributed to AGW, and that this has worse outcomes than if it were not happening. That level of predictive ability can be proven. Some expected local minima due to various inputs does not alter the veracity of the models. Does that help make it clear enough, so that I don't have to define the "many" or the "much less"? That's all I was objecting to in the phrasing.

If the models overshoot by 30% on the mean line, does that make them "much less" valuable or just "less" valuable? It might mean that more money gets spent up front than in the long run, but this doesn't seem like a serious problem. We're better off spending now than later. This isn't the first time that short term views delayed fixing something that needed to be fixed. We can look to the Y2K problem, which was 100% understood and undeniable, yet most organizations waited till the last minute to fix them which made it more expensive and added risk.

Mend the fence now, even if it might hold up for another season.

[Seriati]

Interesting that you responded with extreme sarcasm to what I see as a reasonable approach to transition and change. I wasn't advocating it be all or nothing approach only that it be a plan.

I think it's interesting that a plan that would actually help the environment is labeled as "extreme sarcasm" when the plans that were being discussed would harm the environment on net are seen as fulfilling a vague need to "do something."

I'm all for a serious environmental solution, but with 3rd world polluters absolutely refusing even slow down the rate at which they are increasing pollution (you understand that China may have increased carbon by 8% last year, and 9% more next year, and 15% more of that number afterwards), you are talking about 50 years before China hits a "baseline" from which they will talk about cuts, any "serious" solution that does not talk about putting their factories out of business is nothing more than a "makes me feel good" suicide pact (if these environmental theories are actually correct).

There is absolutely no way to reconcile "doing something" that involves cuts at the cleanest factories in favor of the dirtiest with being serious about the problem.

[TheDrake]

US carbon per capita is amongst the highest with 15.53 tons. This is far higher than China at 6.59. Way more than India at 1.58. Mexico: 3.66.

So they are the problem because we got a head start? They could roll unfettered for dozens of years on coal fired plants and do nowhere near the damage we do. Not having as many cars is their contribution. Not having water treatment plants is their contribution.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html

It would make a lot more sense to add broad sales and energy taxes to curb our outrageous consumption.

Anything else is an attempt to enshrine and make permanent our advantage in standard of life that requires more energy.

You could entirely wipe out manufacturing in the third world, and it doesn't make much difference.

[Seriati]

Carbon per capita?  You are kidding.  If you want to directly restrict personal carbon use please put forward a proposal that constrains the daily waste of American life.  No driving a personal car.  10% limits on grass.  Real proposals.

If you're talking industry per capita is just a propaganda lie, its appropriately measured by reference to production, which favors clean factories over dirty ones.

Again, I can't take you seriously when your measures are designed to prop up third world dirty factories for decades.  It wouldn't make a difference?  China is already the largest carbon producer (by far) and is also still increasing its rate every year.

[Fenring]

Carbon per capita?  You are kidding.  If you want to directly restrict personal carbon use please put forward a proposal that constrains the daily waste of American life.  No driving a personal car.  10% limits on grass.  Real proposals.

If you're talking industry per capita is just a propaganda lie, its appropriately measured by reference to production, which favors clean factories over dirty ones.

It seems to me that (assuming the figures Drake provided are accurate) it's not so much that carbon per capita is misleading, as there needs to be a figure that reads as something like "carbon per industrialized capita". And in fact there needs to be another figure to help measure the first one, let's call it "per capita industrial participation", which then fits into the "industrialized capita" term as a fraction. So for instance a person living in a fully industrualized city would be a reference of "1" in the "industrial participation" figure, whereas someone living in a rural area but in an industrialized region might be a "0.75" or something and someone living in a non-industrialized township (like a rice farming town) might be a "0.25" or something. Maybe there's a coherent way to measure such a thing. Basically 'industry per capita' doesn't quite work because a powerful industry that involves and favors only a portion of a nation's population doesn't really bear mentioning all the people uninvolved with it. If there are 1 billion people in China but only 200 million of them live in a big city, work in an industrial area, or even purchase things related to those, they barely participate in the nation's industry in the first place and counting them among the "per capita" is very misleading. So a modifier is needed there. Whereas by contrast in the U.S. most of the population would probably be somewhere between 0.75 and 1 in terms of how much they 'partake' of their nation's industry (not just as owners, but as consumers as well).

Again, I can't take you seriously when your measures are designed to prop up third world dirty factories for decades.  It wouldn't make a difference?  China is already the largest carbon producer (by far) and is also still increasing its rate every year.

I do take Drake's point that referencing "third world" factories when we're really just talking about China is a bit misleading.

[rightleft22]

I'm all for a serious environmental solution, but...

I agree it would take extreme action and if we were really serious we would take it. However that is not a argument for doing nothing.
 
My interest in a transition to 'green' technology is economic and by transition I mean one that is balanced.

[Seriati]

Fenring, per capita is garbage because it doesn't reward efficiency.  If we are to believe that environmental destruction is at our door and we need serious proposals, production can only be measured by its environmental efficiency.  Having China produce more wastefully because they already have reproduced more wastefully is absolutely counterproductive to the goal of a better environment.

Why on Earth should we subsidize China producing 10 million cars at 40 million "pollution" by cutting production of 10 million cars in a US factory at 20 million "pollution" just because China has more people?

[Fenring]

Fenring, per capita is garbage because it doesn't reward efficiency.  If we are to believe that environmental destruction is at our door and we need serious proposals, production can only be measured by its environmental efficiency.

My comment was intended with a baseline level of technology that's standard. If the environmental efficiency is taken into account then it would additionally require its own modifier in the 'equation'. My point was simply that it's not that per capita is garbage, it's that it's garbage without qualification. Citing environmental efficiency is just one qualification; I happened to cite another.

Why on Earth should we subsidize China producing 10 million cars at 40 million "pollution" by cutting production of 10 million cars in a US factory at 20 million "pollution" just because China has more people?

Er, didn't I address this point (obliquely) in my last post?

But actually there's another factor in play as well. If China is producing 40 million "pollution", of which 30 million is consumed by Americans, while America produces 20 million "pollution", of which 15 million is consumed by Americans, it seems to me that the fact that reverse-colonialism is the form of production shouldn't weigh into 'whose' production it is. But that being said the environmental efficiency would be relevant regardless of who 'consumes' the production. In fact by all rights the consumer mostly has control (if he chooses to exercise it) over the workplace conditions. For example of American law states what you suggested above, it would require alterations in Chinese production methods. We actually do see this now, where for example Walmart has certain workplace conditions that a factory must pass in order to be a supplier even of a supplier of Walmart. They must pass an inspection (which no doubt the Chinese are expert at 'passing', but nevertheless...) in order to be an approved supplier, and they get repeated inspections. This probably only guarantees a certain level of compliance in certain regards, but it does eliminate out of hand certain egregious practices that it wouldn't be practical to hide during these inspections. But likewise any giant retailer, or the government on behalf of all retailers, could enforce any workplace rule they liked if they wanted the "American production located in China" to follow an American-type efficiency rating. The fact is that everyone winks and secretly prefers the lower prices, including the people who say they want to save the world.

[DonaldD]

Per capita is just a measure - it's an inconvenient measure for those who want to avoid taking action, to be sure.

Industry accounts for only 22% of US CO2 emissions, so of course, if one is being disingenuous, one would focus exclusively on that metric.

Whereas a more honest analysis would take into account the other 78% of US CO2 output, including transportation, electricity generation, residential and agriculture.

Of course, there is a wide overlap in all sectors (industry manufactures goods purchased for residential use, electricity generated is used by both industry and residential, etc.  Which all goes back to per capita: the CO2 costs of products, infrastructure, food, and transportation are created throughout the US economic cycle, and consumed for the most part by US consumers (i.e., per capita comes into play)

And the same goes for the Chinese - it's just that as China exports more finished products to the US than the other way around, and the US consumers actually have a larger CO2 footprint as a result of purchasing Chinese exports.

[Seriati]

Why on Earth should we subsidize China producing 10 million cars at 40 million "pollution" by cutting production of 10 million cars in a US factory at 20 million "pollution" just because China has more people?

Er, didn't I address this point (obliquely) in my last post?

But actually there's another factor in play as well. If China is producing 40 million "pollution", of which 30 million is consumed by Americans, while America produces 20 million "pollution", of which 15 million is consumed by Americans, it seems to me that the fact that reverse-colonialism is the form of production shouldn't weigh into 'whose' production it is.

That was more a general rant than directed at you, but this is why I had the 500% tariffs (really 1000%) in there as well.  Chinese over production on polluting terms is being encouraged because it's generating cheap goods for excessive consumerism.  Requiring all production to be clean has the natural consequence of making excessive consumerism expensive.

Most of what we think of as solutions for the environment is not really targeted at what's causing the pollution.

Per capita is just a measure - it's an inconvenient measure for those who want to avoid taking action, to be sure.

Is it?  It's been perfectly convenient in the Paris accords to allow the world's biggest polluter, China, to increase it's pollution because it's "underutilizing" its per capita.  So are several other Asian pacific overpopulated countries that also have no intention of slowing down.

It's been convenient to justify moving dirty production to high population third world countries to mask the excess use.  Ask yourself why the Chinese level "per capita" is even as close the American as it is, it sure as heck isn't because the Chinese people are getting to expend those resources on themselves.  That means when they do demand that same standard of living and waste the rate is going to increase again.

So it seems to me that you find it a very convenient measure for avoiding taking action, to be sure.

Industry accounts for only 22% of US CO2 emissions, so of course, if one is being disingenuous, one would focus exclusively on that metric.

True, I didn't though.  US industry should increase it's share because that's some of the cleanest industry in the world.

Whereas a more honest analysis would take into account the other 78% of US CO2 output, including transportation, electricity generation, residential and agriculture.

Like when I mentioned cutting back on cars?  Wasteful yards?   How about excessively giant houses?  Fast food?  List could go on and on, but none of that shows up in the environmental laws focused on by the left.  Just continuing to trim the most pollution efficient production on the planet.

[DonaldD]

China, to increase it's pollution because it's "underutilizing" its per capita

China is also reducing its CO2 emissions as a proportion of its overall energy budget.  So while it is increasing emissions, it is actually reducing its fossil fuel usage as a proportion of the overall economy.

This goes to what The Drake pointed out earlier, and to what is implicit in your position, that unless China actually limits its citizens' standard of living to something on the order of one quarter that of what US citizens enjoy, then the US should do nothing.

Like when I mentioned cutting back on cars?

Oh, you were being serious when you wrote "No driving a personal car"?  So you are all for laws that outlaw the use of private vehicles, are you?

[Crunch]

The facts are that global warming essentially stopped in 2000  - often called "the pause"

Its all on how you pick your sources

New analysis through 2014 shows that temperature is once again rising at about the same pace as it did over the second half of the 20th century. PRESS RELEASE.

Using the data that were available at the time (through 2012), the last climate report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that there had been no statistically significant increase in global surface temperature from 1998-2012.

According to a new NOAA analysis, the warming trend during that period was somewhat smaller than the longer-term (1951-2012) trend, but it wasn’t zero. And with the latest data calibrations and the most recent two years of global temperatures added to the series—including record-warm 2014—the warming experienced since 1998 is on par with the rate observed in the second half of the 20th century.

Basically, the new analysis confirms what climate scientists have said all along: natural variability (such as the patterns described in this article) may cause the rate of warming to change from one decade to the next, but global warming is still underway.

The most likely explanation for the lack of significant warming at the Earth’s surface in the past decade or so is that natural climate cycles—a series of La Niña events and a negative phase of the lesser-known Pacific Decadal Oscillation—caused shifts in ocean circulation patterns that moved some excess heat into the deep ocean. Even so, recent years have been some of the warmest on record, and scientists expect temperatures will swing back up soon.

Yearly surface temperatures since 1880 compared to the twentieth-century (1901-2000) average (dashed line at zero). Since 2000, temperatures have been warmer than average, but they did not increase significantly. Data courtesy of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth%E2%80%99s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade

Yes, sources matter. I went with the satellite record, directly from the data. You’re going with sources that adjust historical data to fit the theory. Really makes a difference.

Don’t you question how they all thought the pause was no big deal for a few years and that warming would restart and now, suddenly, the pause never actually existed? Problematic data always gets “adjusted” and, like magic, it fits the theory again. That’s not science.

[Seriati]

China, to increase it's pollution because it's "underutilizing" its per capita

China is also reducing its CO2 emissions as a proportion of its overall energy budget.  So while it is increasing emissions, it is actually reducing its fossil fuel usage as a proportion of the overall economy.

This goes to what The Drake pointed out earlier, and to what is implicit in your position, that unless China actually limits its citizens' standard of living to something on the order of one quarter that of what US citizens enjoy, then the US should do nothing.

Is it your opinion that China's pollution increases are primarily focused on improving the quality of life of its people?  Objectively false by the way.

If that were the case, my argument would be even more persuasive, as that represents a real increase in the amount of consumerism.  Putting that additional demand anywhere but the cleanest factories is clearly increasing pollution more than is necessary at a time when we are supposedly at crisis.

Again, you have no argument that you are helping the environment when you advocate any reduction at the cleanest factories that will be picked up at the dirtiest.  Zero.  None. Nada.

Pulling up a redistributionist argument does not fix a science flaw.

Like when I mentioned cutting back on cars?

Oh, you were being serious when you wrote "No driving a personal car"?  So you are all for laws that outlaw the use of private vehicles, are you?

I was serious when I pointed out that environmental advocates are big on imposing solutions on others while they continue their excessively wasteful personal ways.

I'm already a huge believer in mass transit.  I use it most every day, and I've used it for long distance trips (how many people have been on a train ride of over 8 hours).  But adopting one size rules won't work.  The American system works best when you give incentives to change behavior rather than penalties.  Outlawing cars will cause a massive disruption to every aspect of life here, but making travel between cities on trains, cheaper and more convenient, including figuring out local transportation needs on the other end?  That would be a game changer. 

In NYC there's a sub-way stop that has underground access to a Target store.  That's a huge convenience for people.  Why aren't malls designed around mass transit access?

[rightleft22]

Yes, sources matter. I went with the satellite record, directly from the data. You’re going with sources that adjust historical data to fit the theory. Really makes a difference.

But isn't Climate modals dependent on all data, across earths time frame?

The earth as a ecosystem that humans are a part of, we do not stand apart our environment. I get it we don't wan't to do anything that could weaken our economic status.  (even though what drives market change) We need our stuff. And why should we do better even if we could while Johnny dickhead won't do his part. I hate that argument, one my parents never let me get away with but I guess things change. If Johnny is a asshat I'm excused to be a asshat as well.

Gandhi suggested we "be the change you want to see" as a kind of choice we each get to make. The reality we all choose but most 'choose" unconsciously and then moan, complain and blame... when what is created hurts us and inst' what we wanted. We create what we fear.

One way or responding to the story is to say, Climate change was always beyond our control. Global warming is inescapable. We will have to live a high-tech life, and eventually an extra-terrestrial life, if we want any forms of life – our species – to live even another million years. In that event, we may as well get on with it: go light on the humanities and heavy on the engineering and forget those silly treaties aimed at reducing carbon emissions.
Another way to respond is to say, We don’t have forever. Much more than half the time of life on earth is spent. Why make it any worse or briefer than it hast to be? Let have more knowledge and less power. Let’s have more meaning and less control. Let’s have more truth, more birdsong, more reverential silence, and less jabber. You, your species, your entire evolutionary family and your planet will die tomorrow. How do you want to spend today?  - Learning to Die, Wisdom in the Age of Climate Crises – R Bringhurst & J Zwicky

[Seriati]

rightleft22, I think Crunch's problem is not trusting how the data is adjusted.  As a non-scientist if you had a weather station that reported the following directly measured average temperatures over 10 years:  72, 72, 73, 72, 72, 71, 74, 72, 72, 72.  It seems pretty clear its flat, but when that gets added to the model "after adjustment" as the following:  68, 69, 71, 70, 71, 72, 74, 72, 73, 75 and now shows a clear warming trend what do you end up believing? 

The scientific case for adjustments on data is often plausible, but the adjustment trend seems to be supporting more of the warming case than the raw data, and that's a circumstance that clearly muddles the believability short term (long term it shouldn't be possible to "adjust" enough to maintain a reported non-existent trend - which is partially why failing to hit projections repeatedly is so damaging).

I personally, think the measurement data is still in the "early caveman" period of determining an accurate global temperature.   Take a walk through the history of temperature measurements, and how much human error is built in (even today, let alone just 50 years ago), and then add in how much extrapolation is required for any historical temperature measures (all of which are measured indirectly, based on our best theories - which may turn out not be remotely accurate).

[TheDeamon]

Fenring, per capita is garbage because it doesn't reward efficiency.  If we are to believe that environmental destruction is at our door and we need serious proposals, production can only be measured by its environmental efficiency.  Having China produce more wastefully because they already have reproduced more wastefully is absolutely counterproductive to the goal of a better environment.

Why on Earth should we subsidize China producing 10 million cars at 40 million "pollution" by cutting production of 10 million cars in a US factory at 20 million "pollution" just because China has more people?

I'm going to have to agree with this.


CO2 per unit of GDP, or per unit of GDP as per PPP would be a far more reliable metric to benchmark against than "per capita CO2" can ever hope to be.

[TheDeamon]

Per capita is just a measure - it's an inconvenient measure for those who want to avoid taking action, to be sure.

Industry accounts for only 22% of US CO2 emissions, so of course, if one is being disingenuous, one would focus exclusively on that metric.

Whereas a more honest analysis would take into account the other 78% of US CO2 output, including transportation, electricity generation, residential and agriculture.

Wait, industry can function without transportation? On what planet? They're part and parcel of the same thing. They need transportation to access markets so they can obtain (input) goods, and they need transportation to get their products to market. They also need transportation to enable their workforce to actually work, and for that workforce to be fed, clothed, etc.

Also: Not counting Agriculture as industry in this case(CO2) is rather disingenuous. It is both one of the larger CO2 producers, and one of the biggest CO2 sinks.

[TheDeamon]

China, to increase it's pollution because it's "underutilizing" its per capita

China is also reducing its CO2 emissions as a proportion of its overall energy budget.  So while it is increasing emissions, it is actually reducing its fossil fuel usage as a proportion of the overall economy.

This has more to do with the type of coal natively available to China, the fact they have few to no developed native sources of petroleum, and much like the United States in the 1970's, they're tired of the brown sky outside. It's doubly troubling for them as they try to portray themselves as a global power, when all of the Western Nations have done away with their own "brown cloud" decades ago.

But you need to also keep in mind: Don't confuse their "war on the brown cloud" with their acknowledging climate change as any kind of meaningful concern for them. Being a centralized command and control economy, with limited private property rights, they're probably just drawing up engineering contingency plans for adaptation should things actually reach the point suggested in models. They're confident they'll be able to ride out the transition, it is highly unlikely to be worse than Mao Tse Tung's great leap forward in terms of cost in lives domestically after all.

[DonaldD]

Wait, industry can function without transportation? On what planet?

More than a little dishonest to excise the very next sentence where I addressed that, isn't it?

[rightleft22]

the difference between the US and China is that China actually has 5, 10 and 20 years plans to aim for. The World Intellectual Property Indicators shows China way ahead in patent applications in the development of green technologies.  If the US is not carefule it will be left in the dust

A transition to Green economy isn't just about climate change its also about future economic prosperity and national security.


https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/

China is implementing significant policies in multiple sectors to address climate change, and also aiming to restrict coal consumption. China’s 13th Five-Year Plan stipulates a maximum 58% share of coal in national energy consumption by 2020 (NDRC, 2016), among other energy related targets. China is implementing an emissions trading system, with first trades expected in 2020, and has also announced a mandatory renewable energy certificate scheme that sets targets for renewable energy for each province individually.

However, the Chinese government abruptly reduced subsidies for solar projects in 2018 and lifted a two-year ban on new coal-fired power plant construction.

China has not yet implemented sufficient policies addressing non-CO2 GHG emissions (CH4, N2O, HFCs etc.) Under current policy projections, 23 – 25% of China’s GHG emissions in 2030 will be non-CO2 emissions. As the NDC acknowledges that addressing these gases is important, further policy action may be expected to address non-CO2 emissions as well.

Over 1.1 million electric vehicles were sold in China in 2018—a 2018 market share of 4.2% - achieving an aim of the transport section of the formerly called “Made in China 2025” policy initiative two years early. (Chinese officials have backed away from the “Made in China 2025” name over the past months after international criticism, but the underlying initiative appears to still stand). China has both subsidies and tax exemptions that apply to new energy vehicles, which are expected to make up 10% of annual sales in 2019 and 12% in 20

[Seriati]

the difference between the US and China is that China actually has 5, 10 and 20 years plans to aim for.

This is why I find these debates troubling.  Believing that China's plans (all of which increase pollution) are somehow more real than an entire legal and regulatory framework in the US is almost nonsensical.  The Paris Accord was nonsense that did no good, promises to increase pollution being lauded as good things.  Meanwhile the US has had an Environmental Protection Agency for decades, and has thousands of laws and regulations that through which it has self imposed standards that directly protect the environment and force better environmental efficiency.  Those are real gains. 

[TheDrake]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-renewables/chinas-2018-renewable-power-capacity-up-12-percent-on-year-idUSKCN1PM0HM

China: 2018 renewable power up 12% in one year. Outspending the US in renewables 3:1
US: Put tariffs on Chinese solar exports making it less viable.

Yup, China is the problem. 

[TheDeamon]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-renewables/chinas-2018-renewable-power-capacity-up-12-percent-on-year-idUSKCN1PM0HM

China: 2018 renewable power up 12% in one year. Outspending the US in renewables 3:1
US: Put tariffs on Chinese solar exports making it less viable.

Yup, China is the problem. 

China is seeking energy independence, and is now trying to transition to a cleaner infrastructure which doesn't create a brown cloud. Renewables have reached a price point where it is cost-competitive with other options. So once again, do not confuse China's use of renewables with China actually being concerned about climate change.

Likewise, China is aware enough that the rest of the developed world is concerned enough about it that they're willing to spend Billions upon Billions of dollars on things that they think will mitigate it. Further, they're willing to hamper their own economies in the name of mitigating this perceived gigantic risk. While China is not going to consider doing so themselves.

Why wouldn't China try to get ahead of the curve on the R&D side of that in the interest of selling those things to other nations? It helps them gain prestige internationally, even if they don't actually give a ____ about it. It helps them generate more revenue to spur further economic growth domestically. It helps further hamper their competition as well. So again, why wouldn't China be trying to be at the head of the pack on much of this?

It also has benefits in helping them in their current war on their domestic brown cloud problem, without needing to rely on assistance from other nations.

China is doing what China is doing because China sees benefit to China, and harm to others, by doing so. China also is "buying in" on Nuclear in a big way, because they're being starkly rational about things. Unlike much of the western world, the state of the Nuclear Power industry in the West is pathetic at this point, China is either about to surpass, or already has surpassed on that front as well. Because NIMBY rules over here.

[Crunch]

rightleft22, I think Crunch's problem is not trusting how the data is adjusted.  As a non-scientist if you had a weather station that reported the following directly measured average temperatures over 10 years:  72, 72, 73, 72, 72, 71, 74, 72, 72, 72.  It seems pretty clear its flat, but when that gets added to the model "after adjustment" as the following:  68, 69, 71, 70, 71, 72, 74, 72, 73, 75 and now shows a clear warming trend what do you end up believing? 

The scientific case for adjustments on data is often plausible, but the adjustment trend seems to be supporting more of the warming case than the raw data, and that's a circumstance that clearly muddles the believability short term (long term it shouldn't be possible to "adjust" enough to maintain a reported non-existent trend - which is partially why failing to hit projections repeatedly is so damaging).

I personally, think the measurement data is still in the "early caveman" period of determining an accurate global temperature.   Take a walk through the history of temperature measurements, and how much human error is built in (even today, let alone just 50 years ago), and then add in how much extrapolation is required for any historical temperature measures (all of which are measured indirectly, based on our best theories - which may turn out not be remotely accurate).

It’s even worse than what you lay out. The entire medieval warming period is erased. It existed for decades in scientific records and was memory holed when it became inconvenient to global warming theory. It’s really amazing.

But the pause is a very recent thing. Temperatures went flat around 1998. We were told it was temporary, we were told it would definitely start to increasing again soon. Then we were told it had to be a pause for a certain length of time before it contradicted global warming theory (15-20 years IIRC). By 2017 it was still flat and the last 2 years trended sharply down. Now we are told that pause we all talked about the last decade or so never even existed. Like the medieval warm period, it just suddenly disappears.

This is not science. Erasing data that contradicts theory is not science. Going with popular vote is not science. Suppressing dissent is not science. There is nothing scientific about global warming theory at this point. It’s literally modern Lysenkoism.