Global Waming's Solution(ish)

[KHEOPS]

This is your point of view, we also bury our waste, and our radioactive waste, and you think it's safe? Are concrete forms eternal? Where does it crack over time? We will be confronted with this problem for millennia, your children and grandchildren will have to make with it, reconsolidated the concrete that protects our radioactive waste from the earth, but the groundwater is already affected by pollution, antibiotic waste, human intelligence? Is that putting chlorine in the water?

Carbon filter? In short, nature works for free, no borders, no politics, man has the financial aspect that makes it difficult for him to achieve easily what he wants, if we abolish money and borders, yes, I would be optimistic in research, but that is not the case, everything that man produces, pollutes,costs money, and energy, without this economic reality you can be optimistic, but this is not the case, e. g. cancer without the problem of finding money, we would progress much faster in research and solution, but this is not the case this economic reality makes man lose his time and energy,where it could progress much faster in the right direction, everything that man makes to try to do without natural resources is much more expensive, and is not economically viable, the electrical energy produced 100% by man is more expensive than extracting natural products,your synthetic essence costs 5 dollars a liter, without counting the energy price to do it, in short happy to have been able to exchange with you, it made me happy, it is always good to exchange our points of view, you with your optimism, and I the realism, go soon the friend

Spoiler: Synthetic gasoline

According to current technical knowledge, the production of synfuel is as CO2-emitting as refining, or even much more so when it is produced from coal. And the state of technology makes it a highly energy-intensive, and therefore expensive, mode of energy production.

However, the environmental performance of synthetic hydrocarbon production units can be significantly improved, and gain an advantage over conventional production from crude oil, through the implementation of carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS). The cost of CCS is high in the more general case of coal-fired power plants, mainly because of the complexity of separating carbon dioxide from nitrogen in the air. In a synthetic fuel production unit, this cost is reduced by about 85%, because carbon dioxide is separated from nitrogen by the process itself.

The development of the BTL ("Biomass-To-Liquids") sector, a variant of biomass gasification, offers an alternative. The 2nd generation biofuels produced in this way use all plants, straws, stalks, waste, wood and not just seeds or fruits like current biofuels. But the BTL sector is still in its infancy. While many research projects are underway, no industrial unit is yet active. However, BTL pilot units are also expected to go into production in Germany in the near future. The BTL sector faces a major problem because the quantities of biomass required are enormous: it is therefore necessary to find a sufficient "deposit" and also to solve the logistical difficulties to transport all this biomass to the BTL plant.

The "CBTL", a combination of Coal-To-Liquids and BTL, offers particularly interesting environmental prospects. For example, the overall "well to car wheel" emission of diesel fuel in a unit fuelled by 85% coal and 15% biomass and equipped with a CCS would be 30% lower than that of diesel fuel conventionally produced from crude oil. Source: Department Of Energy (USA).

https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence_synthétique

 

[KingVamp]

in short happy to have been able to exchange with you, it made me happy, it is always good to exchange our points of view, go soon the friend

Same here.

 

[KHEOPS]

 

[notimp]

Lets go to town on this topic for a while.

"Fighting against climate change" has been picked up by actually quite a large political constituency as a possible topic to rally people around - basically as a surrogate for there not being any political ideologies to follow anymore.

I might be severely wrong on this - but here is how I see it:

First it plays into the slowing down economic growth narrative, benefiting globalists, or "everyone on the earth equally" (people in archipelagos close to water more so, I guess) - depending on how you want to see it.

Second, there might be a need for that - because the "if the developing economies also all want their two cars, and exotic holidays, and cow fueled burgers - we'll be fighting over resources more so than ever" argument has something to it. So has the "it will be harder to grow food" argument.

Third there might be a REAL need for that in europe, because we still have no model how to develop the continent to our south, which combined with global warming might cause some big concerns in the future.

Yet, the entire narrative was discarded in the 60s once already, witch is always a feel good memory. Looking your parents in the face, while knowing that they also heard "if you dont do it, it will be too late" - and then went with Margret Thatcher instead.

The global financial system still all but laughs about green initiatives. Many attempts to create green funds, aside. The money pledged to be invested into "green" as a future economy is not insignificant, but...

Enter the new political initiatives. Cute girl caring about nature and the world talking on a stage about their initiative, and how much its growing. Come and join in everyone... Where have I seen that before. Cynical me.

What I actually want to know is the following.

Every climate conference I've looked at in the recent past, was decided by backroom staffers doing the best they could for slow pace progress.

And NGOs doing rain dances in front of conference halls.

No country despite the developed world is particularly enthused about the stuff (that and we really ought to give them some space to "catch up").

The entire manufacturing of that "new economy" will be done in China, if transport is viable (if not - the green economy will not be the least bit cost effective).

Now - here it comes:

What do you need those "popular social movements" with the cute girls caring for the environment for? To make sure that the private sector pivots earlier? To shave that 0.01°C of global warming off of the scale? For people to have a positive vision entering their near 0% growth future? To shame everyone into using hemp bags and glass bottles while the fastest growing car market segment is SUVs? For everyone to become a vegan, while still taking instagram snaps from their bahamas vacation, Caring about the world?

I really dont quite get it.. The popular movement stuff.

How is that not "taking stuff away from me - that my parents had", while making me feel, that I've volunteered to do so? Is that really supposed to work?

 

[matthi321]

hold in our farts

 

[notimp]

As an update on what happened at the last climate conference -

People agreed on implementing a system where everyone reports their CO2 reduction numbers by equal standards.

Thereby fixing a TINSY issue they've had in the past, where corporations were acting against market principals by implementing carbon reduction measures, because they could just as well have bought CO2 certificates from a neighboring country - that "didn't just quite get the reporting right already".

Therby implementing "all that is needed to actually fix climate change". As in the economic measures ("tools") are now there. Once implemented you can "price" CO2 emmissions, and start the action. That is, once the US is back on board again - here is hoping..

They still didn't decide on policy - like, at all - but its coming. Nothing new on the pledges ("first movers") front either. Much.

Brazil (ha. haha. hahaha. (political humor... ) )) decided to play progress blocker this time around, to get more economic concessions.

They dealt with that, then everyone signed the preprepared treaties (Thats normal for international conferences. You want that.).

Exciting stuff.

I'm about to parttake in a social movement to tell people to buy milk in bottles again, I tell you.

edit: One more thing, about a fourth (could be less) of what its needed to reach the intended goal is R&D stuff as is "doesnt exist yet" if I remember part of the general layout correctly. This is noted down as the most cost intensive part of the climate agreements. Thats also where new economies are supposed to fall out. Forecasting ftw..

 

[Taleweaver]

Lets go to town on this topic for a while.

"Fighting against climate change" has been picked up by actually quite a large political constituency as a possible topic to rally people around - basically as a surrogate for there not being any political ideologies to follow anymore.

I might be severely wrong on this - but here is how I see it:

First it plays into the slowing down economic growth narrative, benefiting globalists, or "everyone on the earth equally" (people in archipelagos close to water more so, I guess) - depending on how you want to see it.

Second, there might be a need for that - because the "if the developing economies also all want their two cars, and exotic holidays, and cow fueled burgers - we'll be fighting over resources more so than ever" argument has something to it. So has the "it will be harder to grow food" argument.

Third there might be a REAL need for that in europe, because we still have no model how to develop the continent to our south, which combined with global warming might cause some big concerns in the future.

Yet, the entire narrative was discarded in the 60s once already, witch is always a feel good memory. Looking your parents in the face, while knowing that they also heard "if you dont do it, it will be too late" - and then went with Margret Thatcher instead.

The global financial system still all but laughs about green initiatives. Many attempts to create green funds, aside. The money pledged to be invested into "green" as a future economy is not insignificant, but...

Enter the new political initiatives. Cute girl caring about nature and the world talking on a stage about their initiative, and how much its growing. Come and join in everyone... Where have I seen that before. Cynical me.

What I actually want to know is the following.

Every climate conference I've looked at in the recent past, was decided by backroom staffers doing the best they could for slow pace progress.

And NGOs doing rain dances in front of conference halls.

No country despite the developed world is particularly enthused about the stuff (that and we really ought to give them some space to "catch up").

The entire manufacturing of that "new economy" will be done in China, if transport is viable (if not - the green economy will not be the least bit cost effective).

Now - here it comes:

What do you need those "popular social movements" with the cute girls caring for the environment for? To make sure that the private sector pivots earlier? To shave that 0.01°C of global warming off of the scale? For people to have a positive vision entering their near 0% growth future? To shame everyone into using hemp bags and glass bottles while the fastest growing car market segment is SUVs? For everyone to become a vegan, while still taking instagram snaps from their bahamas vacation, Caring about the world?

I really dont quite get it.. The popular movement stuff.

How is that not "taking stuff away from me - that my parents had", while making me feel, that I've volunteered to do so? Is that really supposed to work?

Interesting reply. I have to admit I disagree with pretty much anything you say, but that's okay. You bring your points well and have decent arguments for them. It's just that I personally don't believe it.

Let's see...it's certainly true that this isn't a new struggle. Yes, our parents heard that before, and no, that hasn't helped...much (I guess that depends on things. The situation might've been a lot worse if the previous generation hadn't fought against greenhouse gasses, tried to preserve wildlife and things like that ). It shouldn't be a reason to just lay back, which...is what I sort of get from your post.

"Fighting against climate change" has been picked up by actually quite a large political constituency as a possible topic to rally people around - basically as a surrogate for there not being any political ideologies to follow anymore.

Erm...preserving the environment IS a political ideology. Always has, and always will be. It's just that until recent years, it wasn't taken serious enough, so they lacked political power to push the agenda.

This 'cute girl'...are you talking about Greta Thunberg? The one being on school strike because the climate crisis isn't being taken serious enough? I've seen her speech to the UN climate summit. If you are talking about her...sorry, but I find her tone all but cute. Give her enough followers (and I mean A LOT of followers) and she'll change the world. "Come and join in"? Erm...no. More like "get into action, or else...".


Can be that the narrative was discarded earlier, but things are certainly different now. The climate changes aren't a potential future theory anymore but are already happening (not sure about your part of the world, but in Belgium we're breaking record temperatures pretty much every year). Not sure how many scientists had investigated pollution then, but right now everyone but industry lobbyists is convinced about the seriousness of the potential issue. Nonetheless: we're at best slowing down our increasing pace toward disaster, let alone that we're turning things around.

You also make a lot of generalisations. I can't really blame much on you, as the industry knows that in order to keep making money, they have to disrupt the narrative. Saving the environment WON'T be a popular decision. Far from it. Taxes on cars and (especially) ships and aircrafts need to go up A LOT. Result: buying stuff on the internet on a whim will become a thing of the past. The research and development for alternatives need to go up, but in the mean time people (yes: also you and me) need to be discouraged to do many things we take for granted. Eating meat every day? Taking the car to work "just because"? It can not, and will not be a popular thing. And that's the thing: I'm sure we're all willing to do our part to make sure our children (and any next generation) have a world that's still inhabitable. It won't work if we allow ourselves to be distracted by others, which is, in general, our weak spot ("oooh, THAT person is eating meat? Then screw ideology: I'll have some too!!!").

Finally: there is some good news as well. There are no indications that the economy would somehow diminish, let alone collapse, when going green. Rather the contrary: there is a lot of real work to be done (recycling, R&D, less polluting alternatives, ...). All that is really needed is to make sure that becomes economically feasable, and that can be approached in a relatively simple way: make sure the TRUE cost of everything is measured and applied (meaning: the environmental costs have to be in the picture).

Of course: it may be technologically simple, but it's political suicide, and the current industry leaders will use all their power to stop it as well. So...that "relatively simple" may mean nothing less than a revolution.

 

[notimp]

Not finished reading your reply yet, no - not Greta. Greta is an eloquent little kid. I was refering to a cute girl from some french initiative prior to the climate summit that fit the elitist activist mold..

I'll do my best to find out her name (uh, creepy.. ) which I didnt remember, but I might not manage. (edit if I do)

You stepped into the same dichotomy I somewhat struggle with, and that is - that yes it was an important movement in the 60s (green parties got constituted), but no one basically gave them much credance. And now that that generation is out of the door, which heard exactly the same - that we hear today (limits to growth stuff) I see the beginnings of "astorturfed" grass roots movements again.

If this is serious political stuff, deal with it on a political level - you have got the influence spheres there.

If you need the help of a "naturally growing" support innitiative to influence political action - even more so, something is wrong cathegorically.

"To save the world we need everyone to participate - using activism" to me sounds more like a participation measure, event politics, feelgood something or rather.

No one looking at the climate change issue can come up with "I know what this needs, more activism!" as a best practice measure. If you need it for amplification - maybe.

Lets look at germany. The green party there got a huge bump in the last election, because socialists lost all political capital they had - people dont care about sustainable economies more - its just, that this is the only "feel good" some what left leaning (is it really? is this now a political narrative?) proposal thats left.

We've had those dissections (grandparents might be into it, for their grandchildren, they are willing to invest their lives savings for them) in the sixties already... :/ There was the same feeling of urgency (Their models werent as accurate yet.. ). Just without a financial crisis beforehand.

And now we are into self imposed restrictions (this is not law yet, this is social movement stuff), on top of that - while every economic indicator points into the different (usual) direction?

The "this is a movement that has grown naturally since the sixties" argument isnt quite correct either. They were already out of the door as well - when they suddenly got hip again. The social movements, not climate change.

Climate change is a real issue, and there, and having to be dealt with - its just the social movement part, that I dont particularly "get". I'm a bit weary of activist movements that list their goals as something no one can even model sufficiently (We want 1.5 degrees tops, no 2, no 3, ...). How would you define "success" for those movements for example.

Currently it looks like, that to them "success" is changing peoples behavior on insignificant stuff - so that they feel, that they have done something. More or less...

And to me thats theater and not so much of the political kind.

Shorthand is, that I have a hard time getting over the "now we all voluntary - but with the necessary social pressure - start to apply ideological abstinence" gap. And I'm not even somone that might have a hard time even complying to your most "restrictive measures" (so that shame narrative doesnt quite hit me ), I just for the love of me cant have this narrative sold to me.

You need a religious revival, if you want to have those measures implemented at scale. And by that I mean "George Clooney selling his Lake Como residency and becoming a hermit refusing to set foot on a plane anymore" style narrative framings. Because the new god is now saving the planet. And not personal self fulfillment anymore.

Amazon, btw? Currently a big part of this generations self fulfillment.

 

[notimp]

Guys, guys! We are saved! We have carbon bond trading blockchain saving the day!

And nurses and hairdresser telling you about the detriments of global warming!

Oh, I so hope we can do another raindance again, in front of a conference hall - like soon.

src: h**ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aqNpYar3J0

This is what I mean by "what the heck are those social initiatives (Co-Ops) for".

Example image (girl not as cute this time ):

This lady for example is working on getting "health" into the national climate frameworks. You know - rider style (adding a bill onto a bill - because thats always a great way to make policy). And the next initiative will add blockchain to it, and then we are all saved. What is this.