Comments not related to oil or natural gas production in this thread please. Thanks.
123 thoughts to “Open Thread Non-Petroleum,October 23, 2021”
Comments are closed.
Comments not related to oil or natural gas production in this thread please. Thanks.
Comments are closed.
There was some talk of future fossil fuels output in previous open thread.
The chart below uses a simplistic model that assumes trends in wind and solar growth rates in consumption and that of other nonfossil fuel energy (excluding wind and solar) conumption also follow the 2011 to 2019 growth rate trend. I assume that eventually the rate of growth falls to 7% per year (long term growth rate for oil and natural gas from 1930 to 1975) and then to under 2% as most fossil fuel use is replaced with other energy sources. This scenario I call the fast transition. The alternative is only enough non-fossil fuel enrgy growth so that fossil fuel declines as shown in the “slow transition” scenario. A third scenario is shown that is the simple average of the slow and fast scenarios. My guess is that a realistic scenario is somewhere between slow and fast (the average is simply presented as one of an infinite number of possible scenarios between the slow and fast transition.) Higher oil fossil fuel prices may get society to take the necessary transition seriously and might move us closer to the fast transition scenario, lower fossil fuel prices may result in something closer to the slow transition scenario. I expect fossil fuel prices are likely to be high from now to 2037 or so, but nobody knows.
So, Dennis, assuming your future fossil fuels output scenario reflects reality we can forget meeting the 1.5C climate target? At least your expectations have good company.
FOSSIL FUEL PRODUCERS’ PLANS FAR EXCEED 1.5C CLIMATE TARGET
“The world needs to cut by more than half its production of coal, oil and gas in the coming decade to maintain a chance of keeping global warming from reaching dangerous levels. The report published by the UN Environment Programme on Wednesday found that while governments have made ambitious pledges to curb greenhouse gas emissions, they are still planning to extract double the amount of fossil fuels in 2030 than what would be consistent with the 2015 Paris climate accord’s goal of keeping the global temperature rise below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). Further, government fossil fuel production plans this decade are “dangerously out of sync” with the emissions cuts needed, warning that countries plan to produce, in total, some 110 percent more fossil fuels in 2030 than would be consistent with limiting the degree of warming to 1.5C, and 45 percent more than is consistent with 2C.”
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/10/20/unep-planned-fossil-fuel-output-shatters-1-5c-climate-target
How unrealistic these producers are being. Oddly, the article doesn’t notice the difference between production and consumption. If consumers decide to burn less fossil fuel, these producers will have a lot of stranded assets.
That would be good. Of course, that’s why we’re getting such violent resistance from right wing politicians who are being financed by the oil and gas industry. Sadly, this industry is willing to wreck democracy to save the many trillions of dollars of proved and potential reserves that they’d like to produce.
Joe Manchin is a good example. He’s a coal millionaire, heavily financed by the FF industries, who’s key to killing aggressive climate programs as well as voting rights, etc.
Doug,
It depends which scenario is realistic. Note that many here have claimed repeatedly that my “medium” fossil fuel scenarios are wildly optimistic, the “slow transition” scenario in that chart reflects my best guess scenario for fossil fuel supply with the slowest transition to non-fossil fuels that is possible, essentially just enough to rplace the falling fossil fuel energy supply. The “average scenario” doues indeed cut fossil fuel output by more than half of the 2019 level of output by 2050. It is unclear what level of warming might result from such a scenario total carbon emissions (including land use change is likely around 1100 to 1200 Gt C from 1750 to 2250 for this “average scenario”, though I have not calculated it precisely.
Doug, you are a real master at polluting this blog with straw man arguments. Bravo.
Rotary, you are a real master at degrading this blog with mixed metaphors. Begone.
Thanks for the work Dennis.
All three model runs you present show fossil fuel energy consumption in this next ten years to be greater than any preceding 10 year timeframe,
and this outcome is as close to a certainty as we get in predicting future events, as I see it.
I agree with the recently published National Intelligence Estimate report on climate that this will result in 1.5 degreeC of warming by 2030, compared to pre-industrial times. This is about 36% more warming than we have yet experienced as the heat begins to accumulate in the warming oceans.
Beyond 2030, I think there is enough uncertainty about so many aspects of the energy puzzle that all projections of outcome on energy supply and global warming are in the realm of highly speculative range.
But I do appreciate your efforts very much- excellent food for thought.
HICKORY —
“Beyond 2030, I think there is enough uncertainty about so many aspects of the energy puzzle that all projections of outcome on energy supply and global warming are in the realm of highly speculative range.”
Totally agree. Besides, there is always the small matter of potential amplifying climate feedbacks kicking in — if they haven’t already. Wildfire CO2 emissions being one! But the biggie is water vapor feedback which is strongly positive, with most evidence supporting a magnitude of 1.5 to 2.0 W/m2/K, sufficient to roughly double the warming that would otherwise occur. Or maybe we’ll all be relaxing in nature parks with our EVs parked on grass fields.
Hickory,
I base my thinking on the latest science as agreed in the IPCC, many of the higher end projections are based on carbon emissions of 1500 Gt C or more.
About 3665 Gt cumulative CO2 – forcing equivalent emissions (1850-2200) keeps us close to 1.5C, non CO2 emissions that affect warming rake up about 175 Gt of a remaining budget (after 2018) of about 700 Gt of CO2 fe (forcing equivalent), leaving about 525 Gt of CO2 emissions after 2018.
See (from Oct 2021)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-021-00203-9
Even my “fast transition scenario” has 1000 Gt CO2 emissions, so Doug is absolutely correct that this would not come close to keeping us below 1.5 C based on the paper cited.
I don’t how severe this all gets, but I am certain that this decade is going to filled with severe angst about both energy supply insecurity and global warming due to fossil fuel.
I hope everyone is ready for some lively discourse among tribes and nations.
Maybe some of it will even be fact- based.
In a comment above I say:
“Even my “fast transition scenario” has 1000 Gt CO2 emissions, so Doug is absolutely correct that this would not come close to keeping us below 1.5 C based on the paper cited.”
This comment was based on a scenario that was incorrect.
The corrected scenario has the “fast transition scenario” at about 650 Gt CO2 emissions, not the 1000 Gt quoted above.
Note that this is still too slow, so Doug’s obsevation remains correct, based on the paper I cited.
Chart in first comment under open thread (10/23/21 at 10:18 am) is incorrect, sorry.
Made an incorrect calculation in a spreadsheet. Corrected chart below.
CO2 emissions are 625 Gt CO2, 1305 Gt CO2, and 1985 Gt CO2 for fast, avg, and slow scenarios from 2019 to 2100.
So the fast scenario is not fast enough to keep us under 1.5 C unless we have some “negative emissions” from tree planting or other land use change, carbon capture or lower non-CO2 emissions. It will definitely be a challenge.
Plant based diets (or less animals in the human diet) would also help, in addition it is healthier.
https://nutritionfacts.org/
this video especially is interesting
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/evidence-based-weight-loss-live-presentation/
also
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/flashback-friday-how-not-to-die-the-role-of-diet-in-preventing-arresting-reversing-our-top-15-killers/
The recently released US Fed government National intelligence Council-
‘Climate Change and International Responses Increasing Challenges to US National Security Through 2040’
confirms the many prior estimates of increase in global average temperate over pre-industrial times from 1.1 C currently to 1.5 C by 2030, which is a 36% further rise in temps.
What are predicted affects of this further warming?
According to the report summaries this will include increase in percent of population exposed to dangerous heat waves from 5% once every 20 years up to 14% every 5 years.
Dangerous heat waves being the kind that can kill humans who don’t have access to escape mechanisms, and can affect the geographic distribution of other living things. And can result in heavy crop failures.
From the recently released US Fed government National intelligence Council-
‘Climate Change and International Responses Increasing Challenges to US National Security Through 2040’-
“industry analysts estimate a carbon price as high as $100 per ton would be needed to accelerate a shift to clean energy.”
However- ‘The average global carbon price is around $3 per ton of CO2; Only 4% of global emissions are priced above $40 per ton. At those prices, companies and governments are not incentivized to pay for emission reductions. ”
https://qz.com/2028724/to-address-climate-change-fix-the-global-carbon-price/
Hickory, as of last week, EU-ETS prices for CO2 were 58 EUR or $68 per tonne.
This would be 61 cents per (US) gallon of gas (16 cents per litre).
At the article’s $100 per tonne this would be 90 cents per gallon (24 cents per litre).
An extra 90 cents per gallon would undoubtedly reduce consumption and would hit the poor the hardest. Unless there is a cap-and-trade system, with dividends returned to we the people, a bit like Alaska’s oil royalty program ($992 per resident in 2020).
Yes, and there has been a lot discussion about how to handle the revenues, and admittedly i have not studied this much.
Others have-
“The gravity of the climate crisis is finally sinking in. And according to more than 3,500 economists, including 27 Nobel Laureates, the most cost-effective way to reduce fossil fuel emissions sharply enough to forestall that crisis is through carbon pricing…The idea is, if fossil fuels get expensive, utilities and manufacturers will turn to cheaper, low-carbon alternatives for power. Thus, the carbon footprint of the entire economy will go down, and our reliance on fossil fuel, along with the corresponding carbon tax revenues, will fade. But until then, the pot of cash assessed from energy companies could be enormous. What to do with all that money?- the money can be distributed back to the citizens in the form of lump-sum rebates, or dividends…”
https://epic.uchicago.edu/news/the-carbon-tax-that-keeps-on-giving/
Go ahead, shoot the messenger. It changes nothing.
GLOBAL EMISSIONS ARE STILL RISING
According to the International Energy Agency, global electricity demand will increase by 5% in 2021 and 4% in 2022, and half of this increase will be from fossil fuels, particularly new coal in the developing world. CO2 emissions from the power sector will rise to record levels in 2022, exceeding 34 billion tons.
Renewables and fully electric vehicles aside, all fossil fuels are increasing worldwide primarily because of economic growth in the developing world. Even coal is increasing worldwide, producing more power than hydro, nuclear and renewables combined.
While the developed world is switching from coal to natural gas, the developing world sees coal as their savior. This not because coal is cheapest – it’s not. Of all energy sources, coal is merely the easiest to set up in a poor or developing country that has little existing infrastructure. It is the easiest to transport – by ship, rail or truck. It is straightforward to build a coal-fired power plant. And to operate it.
While there plenty of Roadmaps to Net Zero by 2050, there are no actual projections that this will happen. No serious projections even have global emissions much lower than 30 billion tons/year by 2050. That’s because the use of oil and natural gas keep increasing and only flatten by about 2040 They don’t ever decrease until the second half of this century. And coal decreases by only 15% or so.
So, if you think we’ve been doing a reasonable job of curbing fossil fuel use, even after spending some trillions of dollars, you are sadly mistaken. It’s nice to have a plan, but if it’s not based in reality, it’s not going to happen.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2021/07/23/whats-happening-global-em
Of all energy sources, coal is merely the easiest to set up in a poor or developing country that has little existing infrastructure.
Ah, Forbes, the defender of the status quo (nuclear and coal) which impoverishes developing countries by requiring expensive fuel imports (especially for coal), and increases centralization (and elite corruption).
Coal…is the easiest to transport – by ship, rail or truck.
Solar and wind “fuel” needs no transport at all.
It is straightforward to build a coal-fired power plant. And to operate it.
Wind and solar are much easier to build and operate. Solar can be installed in many places, in many sizes and configurations. They do require a bit more work and attention for load balancing, but all grids require that as load following is never something you can put on autopilot.
NICK G —
The point of my comment: GLOBAL EMISSIONS ARE STILL RISING — after thirty years of talk, not what could or should have happened. How exactly do you greenwash that? BTW altogether, coal capacity has more than doubled in Southeast Asia since 2010.
https://climateanalytics.org/blog/2021/southeast-asias-plans-to-expand-coal-power-are-undermining-the-global-energy-shift/
I don’t understand your point. We all know that emissions are rising, and that the transition away from FF isn’t going nearly as fast as would be good. It seems to me that the question now is what to do going forward, and people who post information about renewables are trying to do that.
So…what is this information adding to the discussion? What is your point in highlighting the lack of progress?
Really Nick, are you serious? Should we only post good news and ignore all bad news? The world doesn’t work that way, all news should be reported, not just good news. Can you imagine living in a world where only good news was reported?
Sure. So, umm…when has Doug posted good news? How often has he said snarky things about people who posted good news?
To my mind, posting bad news would be ideally paired with something about what can or should be done about this bad news. But Doug says snarky things about EVs, wind and solar (and the people who discuss them), like in his comment above about EVs (10/23/2021 at 2:26 pm). He resists agreeing with something simple like: “We should aggressively transition away from fossil fuels.”.
If he would simply add a statement like that at the end of his “bad news” comments, I’d understand. That would make sense. But endless posting of bad news, and ridicule aimed at solutions? Doesn’t make sense to me.
Absolutely correct, Ron. If the discussion starts and ends with nothing but news about tipping points and feedback loops, all that does is make people feel hopelessness and conclude avoidance and inaction is the only recourse.
Okay, Derrick, you agree with Nick, report only good news, no bad news allowed. Well, I don’t agree. Sorry about that but I want to see all news, good and bad.
DS – By what process have you arrogated to yourself the right to decide what people are allowed to choose to read? And what are your qualifications that allow you to decide how people are going to react to new information? Do you friends and relations know that you think them so pathetic that they need to let you guide them in how they form their opinions and lead their lives?
In a blog like this I think there should be censorship for some things, such as the repetitive garbage from deniers that almost everyone here will have read before and just blocks up and derails the threads – we don’t do enough of it. Doug doesn’t do that; he gives links to articles about new peer reviewed science. The fact that it is bad news is mainly because that’s all there is coming out at the moment. The happy-clappy stuff you want is greenwashed ted talks, op-ed pieces, personal blogs with preset opinions that are never going to change, MSM trying to sell content through hope etc.; generally not peer reviewed science.
George Kaplan,
Well said, thanks.
you agree with Nick, report only good news
C’mon, Ron. That’s not what I said. I explained it a 2nd time above, so you have no excuse to say unrealistic things. Let me quote my comment above:
“To my mind, posting bad news would be ideally paired with something about what can or should be done about this bad news. But Doug says snarky things about EVs, wind and solar (and the people who discuss them), like in his comment above about EVs (10/23/2021 at 2:26 pm). He resists agreeing with something simple like: “We should aggressively transition away from fossil fuels.”.
If he would simply add a statement like that at the end of his “bad news” comments, I’d understand. That would make sense. But endless posting of bad news, and ridicule aimed at solutions? Doesn’t make sense to me.”
George,
No one is suggesting censorship. That’s a misleading characterization. The question that started this was: why post only “bad news” without any discussion of solutions, strategies etc.? The discussion then expanded when Ron misunderstood that question, and thought that someone wanted only good news. I added that Doug has also consistently ridiculed discussions about solutions, and the solutions themselves.
I regret that Doug has been offended. I wondered if I should point out what I consider “snark”, or ridicule. But…that stuff is real, it’s there, and the people it’s aimed at also have feelings.
Sigh.
It’s hard to have good discussions about disagreement. Complex nuance gets lost, people take things personally, more people jump in and take the discussion is different directions. It’s hard.
But…it’s worth trying. I think people here do actually care about this stuff. If so, it’s worth trying to get it right, and make the comments and discussions productive.
Nick,
It would seem Doug is offering a counterpoint to the “all is good” theme implied by posts on progress being made.
I think perhaps the point is that much more needs to be done.
Talking about technical changes — which are real — somehow inspires him to hurl personal insults.
For example, there is a real chance that renewables will replace large percentage of the fossil fuel industry. In fact it has already happened, and continues at an accelerated pace.
Insulting anyone who points that out sounds like fossil fueled propaganda to me.
Also almost everything he writes is based on cherry picked data. For example, he’s been claiming that coal consumption is going through the roof for years, but it peaked in 2013. So his claims aren’t trustworthy.
In addition, I see no sign that he gives a crap about the future of humanity. He is focused on insulting anyone who suggests mitigating climate change by reducing fossil fuel consumption, or even pointing out that replacement technologies have already been developed and are being rolled out.
Alimbiquated,
I believe Doug likes to poke fun at the notion that the “solutions” are likely to be easily implemented, I think that he is likely to be correct.
You seem to think Doug implies that nothing should be done, I read his comments as saying the opposite, not nearly enough has been done and claims that the solution is just around the corner are getting a little long in the tooth (starting as they did around 1975).
I think Doug offers a nice balance to hopeful expectations by pointing out the reality that we are nowhere near the reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions that will be necessary to keep warming at less than 1.5 C.
This is just the fact of the matter in 2021.
It would seem Doug is offering a counterpoint to the “all is good” theme implied by posts on progress being made.
That’s a reasonable suggestion. But, I don’t think it really makes sense. First, I don’t get that idea from posts about progress: I don’t see any hint of that at all. 2nd, it’s been addressed explicitly: a while ago I and several other commenters made a point of disavowing any idea that “all is good”, or that strategies like electrification of transportation would solve all of our problems. Over and over, that idea was explicitly aired and rejected.
I think perhaps the point is that much more needs to be done.
That would make sense. That’s what I said above, and I’ll say it again. But Doug doesn’t actually say it, despite many questions and attempts to elicit more information.
This whole discussion in the last day or two started with my trying to get Doug to explain his point. If that’s his point, fine….why won’t he say it?
Nick G,
No one is obliged to answer your questions. Perhaps Doug thinks it is obvious that something should be done and that it need not be stated, he may not think their is any logical way forward and that statements such as “something should be done!” are pointless.
I imagine that many would agree that more aggressive policy to address climate change should be implemented, though many may also agree that is is likely to be too little too late.
I would agree with both of the statements above though they are likely much too simplistic to address all of the nuance.
As a seldom poster but daily lurker I think Doug applies a dose of reality to the discussions.
Cheers.
No one is obliged to answer your questions
I suppose one can take the attitude that no one is obliged to do anything at all. But why be here at all, if one doesn’t want to put energy into thinking about things and discussing them with others?? On the other hand, I think if you think this stuff is important, and you care about the future, as Doug says he does, why wouldn’t you work with others thoughtfully and creatively?
In the end, I just asked questions, hoping to stimulate a more productive discussion. Sadly, Doug seems to be saying that astrophysics is a higher priority, and he doesn’t want to put energy into really thinking about this stuff.
Nick,
Sometimes people find your approach offputting I think.
Everyone does not have to share your views or to discuss their views with you.
Perhaps some like to imply their views by posting links they find interesting and leave it at that.
By forcing people into a conversation you can make them run away, consider this in the future when deciding to engage with a person. Kind of a basic social skill really,
Dennis,
Actually, by asking questions I was trying to take the high road. I was trying not get into this kind of thing. Unfortunately the discussion didn’t stay between me and Doug – other people are getting involved who don’t know the history of the discussion.
Doug has posted a lot of stuff. Some of it has been useful, but much of it, in my humble opinion, has been impolite and unrealistic.
Doug often posted things in response to others’ comments. A common example was Islandboy posting about renewables in Australia. His replies had an aggressive tone, and were not directly related, and were IMO unrealistic: the first post was about electricity, and his reply was about coal exports, which are a different thing and not nearly as important as coal consumption. Other times someone might comment on EVs, and he would do the same kind of thing. Or he might post climate-denier stuff about “wind-mills” and bird kills.
I have no objection to information about the dangers of fossil fuels. I often argue that they pose a clear and present danger. But exaggeration is a bad idea, especially exaggeration of the obstacles to getting away from FF and fixing environmental problems.
Doug’s quote & link on this Open Thread from Forbes is a classic example: it’s really a right-wing diatribe against renewables and for nuclear. It’s very counter-productive and it’s unrealistic.
Here’s another example from this Open Thread: You presented a chart showing how effectively renewables could eliminate Fossil fuels. And…Doug framed that as a failure (to achieve a particular temperature goal)!
As far as I could tell, Doug has been saying that nothing could be done about climate change and environmental damage, and that nothing should be done about them. Classic FF industry stuff, except hidden behind seeming concern for climate. Which…is not something I wanted to say, but it’s the subtext for much of this stuff: Doug posting stuff about the impossibility of transitioning away from FF, the worthlessness of the obvious “low hanging fruit” strategies, and ridicule of those who argue for those things. Again: I don’t want to say this stuff, but we seem to be at an impasse, and people are joining the discussion who don’t understand the background. So…here it is.
So…I repeatedly, in polite and measured terms, asked what his point was. Why was he posting this stuff repeatedly, with no explanation except derisive comments about renewables and the people who talk about them? He refused to agree that we need to transition away from FF (though he acknowledged the question). Ron, for example is very pessimistic but he cheerfully agrees that we need to transition away from FF and that renewables are a good idea. He’ll remark that he doesn’t see much hope even so, but that’s different. That’s still a clear message in support of a transition.
So. I disagree that Doug has “just” been posting useful and realistic information (though there’s clearly some that is). I disagree that it was a bad idea to challenge him on this stuff, or that it was impolite in some way.
Nick G,
I guess different people see things differently, I see most of Doug’s posts as pointing out various environmental problems and pointing out that the solutions are likely to be too little too late.
I generally agree with the assessment that there are serious environmental problems and the “solutions” to those problems that are currently feasible are likely to be too little and too late.
If you disagree, we simply have different levels of optimism about what will transpire in the future. Looking back at the last 45 to 50 years of history does not inspire confidence in human beings ability to think long term.
Dennis, we are all going to die. Yet, we still have a pharmaceutical and medical industry. What’s the point of an education or counting every barrel that’s going to come out of the ground if we are going to run out of oil in the next couple of decades? What a waste of the little time each of us have on planet earth.
I grew up in the LA basin in the 60’s. When visibility was less than 1000 feet 50% of every day of the year. Today you can count those kind of days on your hands every year with twice as many people living in the same area. I’m thankful Californians aren’t quitters.
You snooze, you loose
Huntington Beach,
I do not deny there has been some limited progress and I am not suggesting that we should quit, nor have I ever suggested that, so I would appreciate that you not imply that I have ever said or even implied as much.
Are you implying that you expect that climate change will be as easy to address as LA Basin smog? If so, I would strongly disagree. Perhaps humans will become enlightened in the near term, history suggests the probability is quite low that this will be true.
I hope I am incorrect, but that is not much of a plan.
Dennis,
I think we’re in pretty close agreement. We agree that we have serious climate and other environmental problems, and that as a society we’re going to have difficulty solving them. And yet, we should still try hard to solve them.
My problem with Doug is that IMO he is arguing that we should do nothing about transitioning away from fossil fuels, which is the real goal of climate deniers. That’s my opinion, of course, but I think he’s made it very clear over time. If you like I can expand on that, IF you think it’s productive…
Dennis
“I guess different people see things differently”
“easy to address as LA Basin smog”
Really Dennis, easy ? I can’t think of a better comparison to the climate change problem than the 60 years of technical progress made reducing LA smog. Most people back than didn’t believe anything could be done. Industry and legislators around the country fought change to make a difference. Individual would remove smog control devices. It cost more to not dump our waste into the atmosphere. The job is still not done. It’s a work in progress. Easy, your disconnected on this subject. That’s a direct statement.
““solutions” to those problems that are currently feasible are likely to be too little and too late”
“I am not suggesting that we should quit”
So Dennis, what are you suggesting ? Throwing good money after bad at an unfixable problem when we should be partying like it’s 1999 ? When is to late ? What is too little ? What are you implying ? We will evolve. Change is a given. The future is ours to make history.
I’m starting to understand why you don’t find Doug’s comments as a mixed message. Don’t talk yourself in to under performance.
Huntington beach,
It sounds as though you believe tackling climate change will be of the same level of difficulty as addressing LA Basin smog. Easy was a comparative, for example a marathon is easy in comparison to a 100 mile ultramarathon that ascends 10,000 feet of altiltude. Likewise a 5k race is easier to accomplish (say in under 25 minutes) than a marathon in under 3.75 hours.
Do you think addressing climate change successfully (which many define as keeping global warming below 1.5 C of warming above 1850-1900 average Global temps) will be a difficult task to accomplish?
Admitting to this reality says nothing about whether I believe it will be accomplished or that a serious attempt should be made. I have run several marathons, preparation was different than for a 5k race. LA Basin smog was a small problem relative to global climate change, if you don’t see that fact, we have nothing to discuss.
A few questions for the Marathon Man:
Was your first race a 5K or marathon ?
For both races, did you continually put one foot in front of the other as you ran ?
The first day you put on a pair of running shoes, could you have completed a marathon?
Do you have more knowledge about running now, than your first day ?
I’m sorry for you that all you seem to get out of my comparison is a difficulty factor. There is so much more.
On December 11, 1941 FDR didn’t know what the outcome was going to be when he entered the US into WWII. Neither did he say we have to land on the beaches of Normandy by June 6,1944. Or, what the political landscape would look like at the end of the war. But most of all he didn’t talk about failure in a mixed message of his war plans to Americans. The point is don’t get totally focused only on 1.5C or 3.75 hour marathon. Just do the right thing and point the ship in the right direction.
LA air quality continues to get better every year. It’s a process and LA life is better because of it. “We will evolve. Change is a given. The future is ours to make history.”
Huntington beach,
All great questions, none are very relevant. I had never run a 5 K race before running my first marathon.
I will note that I asked a question and it remains unanswered.
Dennis,
I think the difficulties involved in slowing global warming are almost entirely political. The net economic benefits will far outstrip the costs, even when you don’t count the climate benefits.
Put another way, I think clinging to fossil fuels is a drag on the world economy. This is becoming more and more obvious, so the politics will also change. We see this happening already in the vehicle and electricity generation industries, where the vast majority of investment is moving away from finding new ways to burn stuff.
So the main consumers of fossil fuels have already seen the writing on the wall. The fossil fuel producers haven’t yet. They are exerting huge political pressure to maintain the status quo, but the banks are increasingly skeptical. Money is being drained out of the industry, and they are losing political power as a result. Most of the energy they produced is wasted, so even in the short term it would make economic sense to cut consumption.
Then there is agriculture, where governments spend vast sums encouraging farmers to destroy the environment. Claims that there is no better way are ludicrous. It’s a very hard knot to untangle. but again, technical change in the food processing industry seems likely to lead the way here. For profit.
“How exactly do you greenwash that? ”
It starts with propaganda and it can end with fascism
Doug,
A projection of fossil fuel CO2 emissions assuming the rate of increase in wind and solar consumption from 2011 to 2019 continues into the future and that the progress in plug in vehicle sales from 2014 to 2020 also continues.
Peak fossil fuel CO2 emissions in 2019 at 36.6 Gt and by 2035 in the scenario below emissions are at 8.67 Gt, by 2050 emissions are at 4.9 Gt. The scenario may indeed be wildly optimistic from a climate change perspective, but even this scenario would not keep warming below 1.5 C, so pessimism is warranted.
Note that the progress allows after 2035 due to the time it takes for the older cars to be removed from the fleet, but the model does not account for the fact that most fleet miles occur in newer cars. Also I assume air and water transport consumption of fossil fuels is replaced relatively slowly, this might be a conservative assumption as synthetic fuel might be a viable replacement after 2045, though it is not clear how quickly that could be ramped up if it is feasible. It might be cheaper to plant trees, use “green cement” that takes up CO2 rather than emitting it or to use carbon capture for biofuel or incinerated waste or even for synthetic fuel backup of electric power. Also changes in agricultural practices can also help reduce net carbon emissions.
Much about the future is unknown, particularly future technological developments.
From IPCC 6 Figure SPM.4 we have following for Scenarios (chart below). My scenario is somewhat similare to SSP1-1.9 through about 2035 and slightly lower through 2050. Getting to negative emissions will be a challenge even by 2080, though predicting technological advance is also a challenge. In any case SSP1-2.6 is the minimum that needs to be achieved and SSP1-1.9 would reduce environmental risk.
Summary for policy makers for IPCC 6 at link below (see page SPM-16)
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf
Forgot to add that my scenario has fossil fuel only, the chart below includes land use change which adds about 5.5 Gt CO2 for each year, my chart would have a peak around 40 Gt CO2 from 2015 to 2022 if land use change CO2 emissions were included, eventually these may decrease with better policy (less biofuels production, less meat production as humans become aware of the health risks of the Western diet, read the China Study for more information, link below.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study
Note that SSP2-4.5 is consistent with my medium fossil fuel scenario with a very slow transition to alternatives. SSP3-7.0 has higher emissions than my “high fossil fuel scenarios”, and SSP5-8.5 assumes we mine coal at depths which are not likely to ever be profitable, wildly optimistic doesn’t really cover it. It should not be taken seriously, there is not enough fossil fuel that can be profitably produced to ever attain even 80 Gt CO2 emissons.
My high fossil fuel scenario has cumulative CO2 emissions of 5900 t CO2 from 1800 to 2200 CE, the low scenario 4400 Gt CO2, medium 4800 Gt CO2, and SSP5-8.5 about 14000 Gt CO2, SSP2-4.5 has about 5100 Gt CO2 emissions.
Note that even my “medium” fossil fuel scenarios are typically considered “wildly optimistic” by the majority of people that comment here. If they are indeed “realistic” as I believe, then scenarios above SSP2-4.5 for carbon dioxide emissions are not likely. In my opinion the SSP1-2.6 scenario is likely the most realistic of the IPCC6 scenarios, though with considerable effort we might attain the SSP1-1.9 scenario.
Peak CO2 emissions for my “high” fossil fuel scenario are about 43 Gt CO2.
“Go ahead, shoot the messenger. It changes nothing.”
https://www.salon.com/2021/09/22/hillary-clinton-tried-to-warn-us–and-paid-the-price-lets-at-least-call-what-they-are/
“Arendt’s description is a perfect fit for today’s Republican Party and neofascist movement. It is past time for America’s political class and the Fourth Estate, which claims to be a defender of American democracy, to use more accurate language and call this moment and movement what it is. To avoid doing that, out of some misguided impulse toward civility, is to do the work of aiding and abetting the fascist attack on American democracy and society.
Today’s Republican Party is using fascism to create a new 21st century American apartheid. With all due respect to Hillary Clinton, who tried to warn us, we must not mince words. Let us call such an abomination what it truly is.
Today’s Republican Party has more in common with neofascist political parties in Hungary, Poland, Turkey or Brazil than it does with mainstream democratic parties in advanced Western democracies.”
From your link:
Clinton’s characterization of Trump’s “basket of deplorables” was described as insensitive and unfair to the “white working class” Americans that elites and out-of-touch Democrats had too often ignored.
That reaction to Clinton’s truth-telling helped to legitimate Trumpism and American neofascism (operating under the mask of “populism”) as something that was reasonable and understandable, rather than as a manifestation of racial resentment, a racist temper tantrum and a declaration of white supremacy.
Problem is, they don’t even realize they are a “basket of deplorables”. They think they are patriots, trying to reseat Trump on his rightful throne as King of America.
The Germans didn’t realize it either in the 20’s and 30’s.
“Basket of deplorables” is so … gentle. Almost politically correct , euphemistic.
They’re really a “bunch of assholes.”
Wow, and I thought the issue was progress, or lack of, toward curbing fossil fuel use. That, at least, was the premise of my comment.
Sorry Doug, I was responding to HB’s Salon link. Your Forbes link does not work for me.
Doug, it was not meant as a dig. Except a little to Rotary above with humor. But, there are some other similarities. Those in denial or ignorant are going to attack the poster. There is a major part of the public that just can’t believe it can happen. Also, if democracy falls in the States, it’s most likely going to fall around the world. Maybe Mexico will be 1939 Poland and Canada will be 1940 France. If that happens, energy and climate change are not going to be addressed. There will be the controlling powerful have’s and the weak poor have not’s (a lot worse than today). Without democracy, climate change will just continually throw the weak under the bus. There linked.
I notice this same impulse in newspaper comment sections where posters plead for less coverage of Trump, as if this would make him go away.
There is a solid chance that trump and his republican party will regain control of executive and legislative branches (they already have solid control over the Supreme Court) as of 2024.
If so, do expect a renewed effort at demonetization of all things energy that could attributed to democratic initiative just for the partisan spite of it,
similar to the information war against mask wearing, vaccination, science in public life and university education.
The energy initiatives that have been targets of the republican party in the past, now and in the future includes conservation and energy efficiency programs, solar and wind energy production, grid modernization, internal combustion engine mileage standards, electrification of nations car fleet, for example. Also in the same category of outright obstructionism has been all efforts to curb coal particulate and carbon emission and fossil fuel pollution control of water supplies , and climate change initiatives. And protection of wildlife habitat is a priority of close to zero for them, unless hunting is the goal.
The outcome here will have a certain effect on the carbon trajectory , and in the relative success or failure of attempts to adapt to pending fossil fuel depletion.
I don’t think this has been mentioned here before but there’s some good talks here: ISC 2021 Summer School – Cognitive Challenges of Climate Change.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTJcZPOXChRQtPNgBMYMS9h-R-nRfzKi5
For the anti bad news whiners.
ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTERS WE’VE PRETTY MUCH FIXED
ACID RAIN — In the ’80s, essentially the message was that this was the largest environmental problem of all time. For years there had been obfuscation, denial and diplomatic stand-offs, but once the science was settled beyond doubt, calls for action quickly gathered momentum. It led to international agreements curbing the pollutants from burning fossil fuels that acidify rain.
THE OZONE HOLE — Ozone over the Antarctic had been diminishing since the 1970s, but news the hole now covered the entire Antarctic continent triggered worldwide alarm. In 1987, world leaders signed the landmark Montreal Protocol, hailed as one of the most successful environmental treaties of all time. Ozone-depleting chemicals were phased out, with industry switching to “CFC-free” aerosol cans that appealed to green consumers. It was a global problem, but industry, the scientists, the policymakers came together.
LEADED PETROL — After a long battle between scientists, regulatory authorities and industry, a consensus around the health risks emerged, and rich nations banned leaded petrol from the 1980s onwards.
Satisfied? Didn’t think so.
From this morning’s NY Times:
YES, THERE HAS BEEN PROGRESS ON CLIMATE. NO, IT’S NOT NEARLY ENOUGH.
“Today, thanks to rapid growth in clean energy, humanity has started to bend the emissions curve. Current policies put us on pace for roughly 3 degrees Celsius of warming by 2100 — a better result, but still devastating. Many countries have vowed to slash emissions even faster. So far those promises exist mostly on paper, but if nations follow through, the world could potentially limit total warming to around 2 to 2.4 degrees Celsius by 2100. Yet scientists and world leaders increasingly say even that much warming is too risky. To hold global temperature rise to a safer limit of 1.5 degrees Celsius, far more drastic action is needed. As world leaders gather in Glasgow for a United Nations climate summit next week, the focus will be on one crucial number: How many degrees hotter will the Earth get? And how do we keep that number as small as possible?
So, the International Energy Agency now projects that global carbon dioxide emissions could potentially peak by the mid-2020s, then start gradually declining. That would put the world on pace to warm a bit less than 3 degrees by 2100, although there are still uncertainties around whether current policies will work as intended and how sensitive Earth’s climate actually is to our greenhouse gas emissions. Still, scientists warn, that number isn’t something to celebrate. Yes, 3 degrees is far less nightmarish than 4 degrees. But it is immensely dangerous.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/10/25/climate/world-climate-pledges-cop26.html
Since so many here seem to find my comments offensive, I will henceforth stop commenting on (or reading) this Blog. This is certainly no hardship for me as my primary interests lie in the field of astrophysics where exciting new developments occur on an almost daily basis. Adieu.
This is a goddamn pity. I always look forward to your honesty.
Doug, please stay. Your comments are greatly appreciated. Your comments raise the intellectual level of discussion greatly. If some people just cannot stand to hear bad news, then they have a serious problem. But that is their problem, not yours.
Doug,
I enjoy your comments. You will be missed by most readers.
Doug–
Stay, I enjoy your reality based view.
Your views are hardly controversial.
Doug, not sure how many readers of this blog there are; however, I disagree with you that there are “many” who find your comments offensive. Disturbing, frightening, worrisome, concerning, yes; offensive, no.
We all want to believe that we humans can do the right things to stop degrading our Mother Earth. And as some here report, there’s much we can and should do. Likewise, as you and others bring to our notice, not nearly enough is being done. And the clock is ticking. Loudly. I’m with Ron, I wanna hear it all.
Doug,
Your postings have been very welcome by most i suspect, certainly me.
I am here to try and get a grip on the reality of this whole situation.
Thank you for your help with that.
I hope you reconsider your position…
if not- thank you, and may be the air you be breathe be clear and fresh.
Goodbye Doug.
Why are my other comments gone?
I quite like your construction of the problem definition. I wouldn’t call you offensive, I’d call you spicy; but hey, I’m a dick lol
I like a bit of spice on this high end blogs comments section. The Mike S vs Dennis debate is one I’d buy a ticket to see live!
This all brings texture to the fabric that is this blog. As you can probably guess- I’m a fan.
I like OFM too. That guy can add six yards to the column without taking a breath.
Maybe take a break and lurk for a bit; throw a jab here and there.
Maybe you could reconsider your decision Doug seeing all the love there is for you here but if not I wish you all the best in your interest in astrophysics. Here is an e card I made for you.
Doug,
If you are reading this:
Your comments are the ones I look forward to, plus a few others. Hang in there.
Report: we just dodged a storm bullet. I believe the associated offshore low had sunk to 943Mb, rivaling a cat 3 hurricane. By the time it passed over my house, 🙂 which it did on the way to Doug’s 🙂 it had moderated quite a bit during that time it had stalled offshore. We had maybe…..45kts at the house, but it did blow for close to 40 hours with quite a bit of rain. Just under 3 years ago we suffered a storm in December…the 22nd?. As a long time west coast float pilot I have worked in/with wind most of my working life. That aft and evening I estimated gusts of 100 kts, although Environment Canada reported station gusts of just 1/2 that. The air assumed a strange violet hue, and felt spooky. I was returning to home from a town run to find the roads blocked, so had the great idea of sneaking around via the logging road mainline. There, trees had actually come down on top of loaded logging trucks leaving just enough room for me to sneak alongside. I made it to within a mile of my home, stuck, with trees toppling all around me. Freaky. I remember helping the local RCMP constable buck and pulling trees off the road and he kept muttering, “This is crazy, this is crazy”. I made it home to find a 150 tree fell, missing the house and landing between two sheds and destroying a 3rd. I live 5 km from the beach and I estimate 1,000 trees came down in that distance.
BC Hydro had the power back in less than a day, Telus had phone lines on the ground and held up by rope for over a year. That was what we expected yesterday, or worse. All good. We didn’t even lose power and we always lose power. My LED system was already, batts charged up, water saved to flush the toilets…and none of it needed. I worked in the shop all day. 🙂
Alas, not much of astrophysics can be confirmed via controlled experiments. Lots of stuff gets piled higher and deeper as many conflicting models have no way of being discriminated.
I’d suggest to stick around since geophysics has the same issue but there are more options for directly sensing.
I really enjoy your posts and sincerely hope you continue to post here. I’d imagine ~99% of others readers probable feel the same way too.
Actually, the three stories of successful environmental action is a great example of useful and encouraging information.
Nick,
Many had hoped the Montreal Protocol would serve as a model for how climate change might be addressed, but alas climate change has not been addressed as the merchants of doubt pulled out their tobacco playbook and somehow people did not see the climate deniers for the liars that they are.
Yes, the tobacco playbook worked well for decades. Now they have Fox News, several other TV and radio networks and social media, all using sophisticated techniques to misinform and manipulate people.
This is the area that worries me. The technical and economic challenges are substantial to be sure, but they are relatively easy to solve for a society that is unified and determined to solve them. NIMBY, for instance, can only prevent change where the need for change is obscured by endless propaganda. WWII mobilization is the obvious example here: one day Detroit made cars, the next it made tanks. There was no discussion about easing in the change over decades or years because there was a strong political consensus about the need for immediate action.
The political power of FF industries will slow things down, and environmental activism will speed things up: the balance that results will depend on all of our actions.
Nick G, You seem to be doing the exact thing that you accuse Doug of doing — showing excessive negativity. I think your problem may be that you want to be in control of where the discussion arc trends to.
Paul,
When people claim that climate change isn’t a problem, you and others object, as you should. Is that excessivley negative, or trying to “be in control of where the discussion arc trends to”?
I don’t think so, and I don’t think you do. And this is the same: Doug is arguing that we should do nothing about transitioning away from fossil fuels, which is the real goal of climate deniers.
Where? He tends to post interesting links on topics with some link to physics. I only see you complaining about some phantom attitude he is displaying.
Paul,
That’s because you haven’t been following Doug’s posts (or my replies to him) carefully. I’m not suggesting that there’s any reason that you should, but…it means that it makes it hard for you to comment in an informed way.
I’ve gone into detail on this in comments to Dennis, which you can read if you want. And, again, I can discuss this in more detail IF you think it’s productive…
“hard for you to comment in an informed way.”
Huh?
It’s easy to detect trolls on these forums. Doug is not one of them.
Wow, so you’d like to discuss this further. I’m not sure it’s productive, but ok.
It’s easy to detect trolls on these forums.
I’d disagree.
Doug does not like wind, solar or EVs. He has made a practice of replying to comments about wind, solar or EVs with personal ridicule, and links about problems with those things, many of the links of low quality. He posts many things about climate change and environmental problems, but he does not support doing anything to deal with climate change (though he tries not to say it out loud).
Have you looked at the quoted and linked Forbes article? It is primarily a set of low quality arguments against renewables.
Not a matter of liking something or not. Doug is a physicist and can provide insight. For example, much is still not understood in characterizing wind.
Working on this one on the QBO wind which reverses direction at erratic intervals
Paul,
That’s the kind of analysis I would have hoped for. Obviously Doug could do something interesting. I think that’s one reason I put time into talking to him, and tried to draw him out into productive territory.
Unfortunately he never did. Instead he referred to “wind-mills” and his most specific criticism of wind was that it killed too many birds!
Nick said:
This comments page from 2017 as a counter-example with classic Doug Leighton, engaging in a pertinent discussion of physics.
https://peakoilbarrel.com/open-thread-non-petroleum-jan-26-2017/
(he also debunked the since-booted tr@ll J@viar in this thread)
classic Doug Leighton, engaging in a pertinent discussion of physics.
Well, that’s nice to see. Thanks.
Nick, I agree with all you say but Doug probably doesn’t agree and probably won’t change. I blocked him years ago but I didn’t block you. So keep bringing the good news in the hope that you may persuade some middle-of-the-road people. Don’t waste time on the cynics, especially in a personal way. Counter-productive. IMHO.
Oh, in general I agree completely. I guess this particular very persistent cynic seemed like an unusual case. And now others who haven’t been part of the discussion between me and Doug are guessing about the content of that discussion, and making mistakes.
So, I’m responding to them. Perhaps I shouldn’t, but when people ask me direct or implied questions about what I’ve said, I feel I should answer in a clear and complete way…
Im pretty sure the CFC thing is a rejected theory. CFC is insignificant compared to nitrogen and other reactants already there.
Sam- show us a credible link about the CFC’s and ozone issue that shows it to be a rejected theory.
Until then we’ll consider it a case here of willful ignorance on your behalf.
This isn’t a trump rally Sam.
Most here are into real stuff.
Hickory, it’s pretty obvious, it’s the rate law. Nitrogen is like .2 molarity and CFC is millions of time less. The charges are similar magnitude. So any effect of CFC is negligible.
You won’t see any studies because it’s trivial. No studies have been published on the CFC theory for decades.
Sam.
If the nature of things were all about simple concentration or number of molecules,
then arsenic and plutonium should be no problem to ingest.
I stand by my characterization of your thinking.
The effort to ban CFC’s was one of the few and most successful scientific based collaborative international efforts to address an environmental problem via the regulation of industry.
Which of these aspects makes you seek the position of willful ignorance?-
-scientific based
-international collaboration
-environmental problem
-success
-regulation on industry
It’s also a issue of “long-livedness”. CFCs have the problem that they are non-condensing, like CO2. Methane has a short half-life, but then it converts to CO2, which is not so good. Fortunately Methane is at the PPB level while CO2 is PPM.
I heard a new term which captures the phenomenon well I think.
It was a pediatrician discussing parents who were anti-vaccination believers.
She called the mindset-
“Willful Ignorance”
A similar mindset applies to other anti-science tribal beliefs- like global warming deniers, evolution deniers, flat earthers, for example.
I would add that many of these people also display
“Willful and Belligerent Ignorance”
And then there are those who prey on this tribe, and display “Manipulative Ignorance”
Trump is a good example- “the noise from windmills causes cancer”
And then some are just unwillingly ignorant.
Thank you for all the undeserved support. I will visit The Blog occasionally if only to read the oil & gas analyses plus the thought-provoking comments that inevitably follow. Meanwhile, I’ve been offered a low-profile “job” (unpaid volunteer) as Assistant Editor of a journal focused on astrophysical research. Nothing glamorous, mostly helping authors whose first language is something other than English getting their conjectures and equations into publishable form. Maybe, subconsciously, this was a trigger causing me to jump ship here. In the meantime, keep bashing down the climate change deniers; they who seem to pop up like mushrooms. We MUST keep fighting for (increasingly) fragile Mother Earth (and thus for our kids and grandchildren).
I think this post helps explain were Nick is coming from. What is the point of “bashing down the climate change deniers”, if at times taking “jabs” at attempts of remedies of climate change? As an “Assistant Editor” one should see and understand the mixed message. I never understood it.
Huntington Beach,
The point I believe was that the optimistic point of view is not very realistic in Doug ‘s opinion.
The more we learn about climate change the clearer this becomes.
Again, what is Doug’s point when he sabotages his own message? That I think is were Nick was coming from. I never understood it.
HB,
I don’t think he is sabotaging his own message. He might feel that’s the most he can contribute to the reduction of climate change within the framework of this blog.
Nick might think this blog has a huge reach and such discussions will contribute to societal changes.
It seems its just a spectrum of if i may say ‘worthless’ opinions. Optimism——–pessimism. Most people on this blog will fall somewhere within this spectrum. Arguments will boil over these differences.
The world will go on as with life. Whether we can get our act together as a species or not remains to be seen.
The only certainty is people will continue to debate it on this blog, within the confines of the spectrum of opinion they hold. The circle of peakoilbarrel.com
In your honor:
The Unep analysis suggests the world is on course to warm around 2.7C with hugely destructive impacts.
Mike B
Good piece thanks.
Thanks Doug for your contributions and best of luck.
Oh no! Who am I gonna troll now? 😉 Yes, I admit. Sometimes I post optimistic stuff with trolling people like Doug as part of my motivation.
It doesn’t always work like in the previous open non petroleum thread when i responded to the post from Survivalist on what he called a ” piece on Roger Pielke‘s bit”. His quote started off “So the math here is simple:” and I proceeded to point out that it is not. As is the case with most such arguments, they are thinking in a linear fashion, adding x amount every year. When looked at through the lens of exponential growth, it turns out that the targets are not that unreasonable at all. Nobody responded. 🙁
Oh, my. So you and Doug have been trolling each other?
That’s funny.
Island boy,
Sometimes that happens near the end of a thread, because people don’t go back to look at comments one new threads are up.
I missed your comment.
As of today, the worlds richest man Elon Musk is worth more than the value of ExxonMobil
Which has less to do with Musk personally and more to do with the magnitude of the transition away from FF. The stock market is saying that ICEs are the past, and EVs are the future.
Nick G,
Note that the environmental movement is fighting the opening of another Gigafactory in Berlin every step of the way, hopefully they walk or bike to their protests.
“The environmental movement” is certainly not fighting the opening of the gigafactory in Berlin.
For example the head of the Greens in parliament made the following statement (transltaed):
The establishment of a technological pacemaker is a good impetus for the modernization of the automotive industry in Germany. It is obvious: the signs point to e-mobility. Now the federal government has to set the course for electromobility, for example with a purchase premium paid by buyers of oversized fuel guzzlers and an offensive for private charging points. It is also important to stipulate by law that from 2030 only emission-free cars will come onto the market. That would be a clear signal for e-mobility. The settlement is also an important signal for East Germany. I expect that an environmentally friendly infrastructure as well as good working conditions, decent wages and participation will be provided.
This is the position of the Brandenburg Greeeens:
We at Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen want to renew Brandenburg. Brandenburg is to become a location for modern mobility and innovative technology. We want to offer employees an attractive professional environment. With the settlement of the electric car manufacturer Tesla, we see good opportunities to make this a reality.
Brandenburg also stands for biodiversity and a rich, regionally typical nature. The same, strict environmental regulations of the country apply to every settlement of companies, to every building project of this size. Compliance with these is crucial for us; implementation can only succeed with good planning. We therefore rely on the dialogue between Tesla, residents, ministries and authorities as well as the environmental associations. According to the status of the current planning, we assume that a modern factory can be established here and a region can be sustainably developed.
There are a few nimbies and at least one tiny “Green” organization otherwise only know for opposing wind turbines in Bavaria that have protested, but basically the Greens are strongly in favor of Tesla’s plans and pushing hard to make them happen.
Alimbiquated,
Well somebody is objecting causing further delays, it seems a bit ridiculous from across the pond.
My thinking was based on the piece below, they perhaps have the story wrong, I did not research further.
https://electrek.co/2021/10/21/teslas-start-of-production-gigafactory-berlin-is-delayed-over-technicality/
An excerpt:
“The regional environmental ministry announced that they are going to repeat the online consultation for local citizens to express objections.
It’s something that was already done last year, but environmental groups successfully argued that the process was done improperly and should be repeated (via Reuters):
Authorities decided to repeat the process after environmental groups disputed in a separate case also moved online that citizens were not warned far enough in advance that the consultation would be digital, prompting concern that the same applied to the Tesla consultation.
Now the online consultation for local citizens to express objections will run again from November 2-22.
The objections would again need to be reviewed following the period, which makes it likely to push the official approval of the project to at least December.”
Well Tesla does have to obey German law. Germa y isn’t Texas, as they say in Germany. They haven’t been very good at that as a matter of fact.
The “environmental groups” mention here is the Grüne Liga, which has like 5 members, and is from Bavaria, not local at all, and also got the courts there to look at the dumb claims about wind turbines. Bavaria and Brandenburg are two different worlds, it’s bizarre to see them there at all.
Then there is a local supposedly grass roots nimby organization which seems to have very few members involved as well.
But in general, it is a wild misrepresentation to claim the German “green movement” is opposed to the Tesla plant in Brandenburg. The opposite is true. I don’t care if Reuters claims it or not. I recommend you read the German language press.
Alimbiquated,
Good to hear, I do not know German so tend to read in English. As I said I did not research adequately, glad to get a different perspective.
Anyone who is not seriously conflicted about the various issues of population overshoot, economics and human welfare, pollution, global warming, habitat destruction, energy supply, and the general severe human degradation of the earth
is either just severely uninformed or is turning a blind eye to big aspects of what is going on.
For some its just too much to take in.
For others the truth is just too extremely inconvenient to acknowledge, either going against their fragile belief system or too horrific for their mind to digest.
I think we all have some of these things going on to some extent, or at times.
There are a lot of interrelated facets to this whole moment in history.
For the sake of this blog remaining an informative place it would good for everyone (myself included certainly) to remind themselves to hear other people out, do your best to be factual, and tolerant. And pick your moments carefully to interject your opinions.
We are on the verge.
Good comment, Hickory. I think for many of us, and for me certainly, the too horrific category fits. As individuals there isn’t too effing much we can do. Yes, we can make some buying and driving choices that might be better than old habits, but there is a certain amount of playing out that needs to happen. Eventually, events will do the preaching and convincing.
Here is one small example. I just replaced a cabinet bandsaw. It isn’t bottom end, nor is it expensive high end….just of adequate industrial/commercial quality I need for my furniture shop. I gave away my old piece of junk to a neighbour who is delighted. Here’s the rub. It was built in Taiwan. This is better than buying something from mainland China, or from Viet Nam, but beyond that I have no other choices. Auction or surplus? That is what I am already replacing…worn out junk. So the steel probably came from here…Canada. Then the smelting and manufacturing occurs…there. “Taiwan produces electricity from fossil fuels, wind, nuclear and hydro power. Taiwan’s energy consumption the equivalent of 10.5 million kiloliters of oil, or about 2.2 million barrels a day. Consumption of petroleum products account for about half of Taiwan’s energy supply equivalent of 4.5 million kiloliters of oil.” The saw was made for a Canadian manufacturing company, shipped back to Vancouver, trucked to Vancouver Island via ferry, picked up by me with truck requiring another 2 hours of driving, and there we are, cardboard galore, foam packing, plastic bags, and braided plastic strapping. Apparently 30% of this packing is able to be recycled. The cardboard was ridden with staples so even that was a no go.
And on and on and on. The proponents of EVs are dazzled with the tech, envisioning unlimited driving with benign charging impacts, yet every component will be sourced like my saw. What percentage of users will be using a FF powered grid (NG)? Maybe even coal? The real solution is just to buy less, drive less, do less, in short live like we have for the last 20 Covid months WITHOUT the Amazon online and home renos.
What is clear is that there will be some real adaption going forward and it will be forced upon us by disaster.
The proponents of EVs are dazzled with the tech, envisioning unlimited driving with benign charging impacts
Most people who like EVs because of their environmental virtues know that we also need to decarbonize the grid. OTOH, EVs will help that: they can be charged when wind, hydro, solar and nuclear have their largest share. That will raise power prices for low-carbon power and reduce the impact of intermittency.
The real solution is just to buy less, drive less, do less,
That’s a good idea, We could cut driving and consumer consumption by 50% and we would postpone climate change a few decades. That time would be valuable, but the real solution is to stop burning fossil fuels, whether they’re oil, gas or coal.
“The proponents of EVs are dazzled with the tech, envisioning unlimited driving with benign charging impacts, yet every component will be sourced like my saw. What percentage of users will be using a FF powered grid (NG)? Maybe even coal? The real solution is just to buy less, drive less, do less, in short live like we have for the last 20 Covid months WITHOUT the Amazon online and home renos.”
Paulo- excellent use of the ‘saw’ as an explanation.
Yes.
Multiple by 7.9 Billion people.
“Paulo- excellent use of the ‘saw’ as an explanation.”
Except there is a big difference with EVs. That saw runs on electricity as do the the vast majority of power tools. Paulo did not have the option of buying a band saw powered by an internal combustion engine.
From my perspective, I live on a tropical island where used cars from the Japanese domestic market (JDM) represent a huge share of “new” vehicle sales. These cars are extremely popular with consumers for a few reasons. While used vehicles from the US can cost less, the steering wheel is on the wrong (left) side and if you have ever tried passing a vehicle where you cant see through the vehicle ahead and your steering wheel is in the wrong side, it is a big deal. Another reason is that the mileage is usually quite low and they are typically very well maintained. At three years old they are often hard to distinguish from new.
There are hundreds if not thousands of “uesd car dealers” dotted across the island selling these used JDM vehicles with the largest having inventories numbering over a hundred. As an “EV ethusiast” I have kept my eyes open for any JDM EVs that show up at dealers. Over the past four years or so I have counted six (6) EVs, five cars and one van (Nissan NVV200, identical to the Chevy City Express). According to data from The Statistical Institute of Jamaica for 2001 to 2004 roughly 17,000 to 19,500 vehicles, excluding trucks and motorcycles were imported to the island annually over the period. If we assume 15,000 per year for the past three years, that would make it 6 out of 60,000 or one out of every ten thousand.
My point is that vehicles are going to be manufactured and sold regardless of whether or not we here think it’s a good idea. Would you rather they be powered by electricity of petroleum based fuels? EVs can get anywhere from 0 to 100 percent of their electricity from non-FF sources while vehicles with internal combustion engines invariably produce CO2 when they are used.
>The proponents of EVs are dazzled with the tech,
The best argument you seem to be able to come up with is insulting people. Not a great calling card.
On this- “The proponents of EVs are dazzled with the tech, envisioning unlimited driving with benign charging impacts,”
I am among those ‘dazzled’ by the vast improvement in the electric vehicle system over the internal combustion system. Its a very strong improvement over the petrol/internal combustion engine system in many ways that have been widely discussed and documented.
But Paulo’s point is nonetheless valid and very important.
There are people who think all will just be ok if 8 billion people can do all they’d like with electric vehicles, as if without ecological consequence or a sustainability issue.
People think they will fly on electric planes, or be able to carry on business in a usual pre-peak mode.
And I disagree strongly with that notion.
The quicker we switch out to electric transport the better, but it is no panacea. It is one component of what will be a managed retreat from overshoot condition we are now deep into. And a managed retreat is the best case scenario. Poorly managed or outright disarray is much more likely considering the past record of human society and the current status of affairs.
A smart country would well into planning for a contraction
-in the supply of affordable fertilizer,
-in affordable energy for cargo transport,
-in affordable energy for large scale infrastructure projects,
-in non-essential and energy intensive sectors
-in available imports from other countries
[starter list]
a managed retreat is the best case scenario
Interesting. You’re really talking about the effects of the loss of fossil fuel.
Well, I would strongly disagree. Let’s take a very brief look at each bullet point, assuming a reasonably well managed transition:
-in the supply of affordable fertilizer: renewable electricity will be very cheap. It will be overbuilt and that will create a very large surplus which will be used to create affordable ammonia/fertilizer.
Places with surplus power will, hopefully, kick out the bitcoin miners and export cheap H2 and other synthetic fuels. Wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, geothermal, tidal, wave etc are far more evenly distributed around the world, so import/exports will far less important in a post-FF world.
-affordable energy for cargo transport: Most transport can be electrified. Heavy fleets will be able to use various forms of synthetic fuel: H2, NH3, methanol, synthetic diesel, etc.
-affordable energy for large scale infrastructure projects: ditto.
-non-essential and energy intensive sectors: ditto
-in available imports from other countries: oil will be phased out, happily. Kids 100 years from now will find it very puzzling that we ever used something so polluting, expensive, risky and geographically scarce.
“We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!”
– Greta Thunberg
A new open thread Non-Petroleum has been posted.
https://peakoilbarrel.com/open-thread-non-petroleum-10/
A new thread on August US oil production has been posted.
https://peakoilbarrel.com/august-us-oil-production-drops-due-to-hurricane-ida/