|
And as for jobs,
We've discovered in QLD that mining companies do nothing for the long term employment prospects of a the area. In fact, the only thing they do is provide fluctuating cycles of "boom" vs laying off hundreds of workers with no real skill base.
In furtherance, they exacerbate the economic situation by artificially inflating wages at times, which in turn causes increase in house prices at localised areas and increases cost of items like heavy family vehicles ( dual cab Utes and 4 WD).
Despite these ever more apparent destabilising situations, our local councillors and state government continue to issue mining licenses and encourage mining practices to hire non local work forces (fly in fly out workers).
It got so bad, that Ardani mining corp ( an Indian company) had managed to push through a law allowing them to fly in workers from India to run mining operations, instead of employing local Australian residents for the job. Natural, these overseas workers were getting paid significantly less money than the locals were expecting.
Luckily, that proposal and law got overturned pretty damned quickly in response to a concerted effort by local memebers in the areas most affected .
The pervasiveness of money influence if government policy through mining companies funding political parties is so bad here, there's now an inquiry occurring in every State!
The federal elect member for my direct region, which isn't even a mining town, has just been indicted for recieving funding from developers and mining companies through a slush fund he never acknowledged in his money statements.
Almost the entire Labour Party in NSW was shown to be corrupt and influenced by mining and big business in the last two years as a consequence of a roysl commission.
These are the companies who are directly negatively impacted by de valuation of coal energy systems. Needless to say, it's no surprise that our legislation has continued to push in such a way that alternative energies are barely given lip service, and when they are implemented, have to be done in such a way as to ensure that current energy practices are not affected negatively.
So, for people here to suggest that there is no influence on what's being reported or how decisions are being made, truly shows a lack of understanding of Capatalism at is best in the political arena.
Jobs are needed. Not mining jobs. Governments would do well to keep up with the times and understand that creating jobs might mean changing tac and using new technologies.
It also means that the guys whinging most about not having jobs, might need to get of their butts and reskill (or in some cases even get skilled) in order to keep up. Just like everyone else outside the mining industry has to do.
might need to get of their butts and reskill (or in some cases even get skilled)
Which takes money. Which you don't have because you just lost your job.
The workers comp retraining site says "see your local office". the local office says there's information on the website.|
|
might need to get of their butts and reskill (or in some cases even get skilled)Which takes money. Which you don't have because you just lost your job.
The workers comp retraining site says "see your local office". the local office says there's information on the website.
Which is true, but is also no different to the rest of the workforce
I have a brother and a number of friends in the mining industry. I've even done some stuff with them, but nothing deeply invested.
My brother approached things pretty well, but that's because he got in there when he was mid 30s and had some world experience in terms of job flexibility and change.
So he went in as a base line hole digger for a shot firing company. Still, at that entry level job he was getting between 80 and 90 grand a year (that's a high paying job in Australia). He took that money and invested part of it in his own training in skills he knew he could transfer across industry if needed. Machinery use, WHS, management courses, cert 4 in training, etc etc.
So, when the mines fire everyone here, including my brother, he just shrugged and went to another job that required his skills. The pay was less, but it was consistent and stable.
I guess the issue ones down to a workforce that wants the cash (mines pay well over here) but don't want to invest that cash in their own self growth.
I see a great deal of that unfortunately. I am a teacher, and many of the kids I teach have mining in their family somewhere. In Australia at least, we have a growing workforce of young entrants that expect the money and also expect the company to cover all the training for their upskilling.
That of course doesn't happen. So when the mines say "gotta lay off 1000 workers for the next five years until demand increases profit again" we end up with a group of workers who haven't bothered to spend their rather large pay cheques on upskilling for emergency.
Now there's a hue and cry about getting them jobs and woe is me I can't get my 90 grand a year any more.
Meanwhile, on my teacher salary (which in Australia is also pretty good, but not mining industry good), I've spent cash and time (my own time, not department time) also skilling and getting certified in areas that mean when I lose my job or leave my job (which I'm in the process off doing) I actually have a shot of gettin employed elsewhere.
So, in Australia at least, we are seeing a workforce of "entitled and underskilled" voters who get hit hard every 5 years or so when the mines decide to downsize.
It got worse when the mines started flying in workers from over seas on visas meant to be used in IT and other industry.
The Australian government is only now making any progress in changing that, by sinking money into training programs for Australian citizens to skill them up in areas of predicted growth.
Even this still requires individuals to actually invest in their own training though.
Which is true, but is also no different to the rest of the workforce
The rest of the workforce has 20 years of more relevant employment or a recent degree more applicable than miner and fewer back problems.
Have you ever tried sending out resumes when your CV looks nothing like the job you have to apply to? Prison time would be better for your employment prospects. (Seriously, my previous jobs were wolf belly rubber, bat catcher, chainsaw operator and human speed bump. Office jobs don't even look at my resume)
We are hitting a post worker economy. Watsons going to kick it into overdrive. We need to get a social safety net up and running before you have megacorps with terminator armies and no need of any other humans.
|
|
Which is true, but is also no different to the rest of the workforce
The rest of the workforce has 20 years of more relevant employment or a recent degree more applicable than miner and fewer back problems.
Have you ever tried sending out resumes when your CV looks nothing like the job you have to apply to? Prison time would be better for your employment prospects. (Seriously, my previous jobs were wolf belly rubber, bat catcher, chainsaw operator and human speed bump. Office jobs don't even look at my resume)
We are hitting a post worker economy. Watsons going to kick it into overdrive. We need to get a social safety net up and running before you have megacorps with terminator armies and no need of any other humans.
Sorry, updated my post above before this.
I do feel for the workers in mining and industry who get shafted. It's just in Australia at least, a large amount of them aren't doing anything for themsleves to change it.
In reference to solar jobs as a possible new source of jobs, while I agree that would be great, there are rather significant segments of the local population who are vehemently opposed to all solar developments due to their enmity to anything that seems to compete with coal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In reference to solar jobs as a possible new source of jobs, while I agree that would be great, there are rather significant segments of the local population who are vehemently opposed to all solar developments due to their enmity to anything that seems to compete with coal.
because the coal companies keep fueling (budumpbump) the faux outrage on faux news. It's not an accident that people feel that way, its a deliberate smear and misinformation campaign.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
might need to get of their butts and reskill (or in some cases even get skilled)
Which takes money. Which you don't have because you just lost your job.
The workers comp retraining site says "see your local office". the local office says there's information on the website.Which is [...] no different to the rest of the workforce
Well, if anyone needed an example of what BlackOuroboros described as "talking down to them," there's a pretty good example provided. Like most complicated problems, there are lots of simple and obvious solutions that just won't work -- and this is one of them.
The first observation, is, no, "just get of their butts and reskill" isn't going to work, because we're dealing with industries that in many cases are the economic mainstay of the regions. There simply aren't enough job vacancies for people to take (too many squirrels chasing too few nuts) no matter what levels of skill they have. And while it's easy and facile to say "just move," there are policies in place to actively prevent labor mobility. (Not to mention the fact that, with the loss of jobs, the demand for housing drops, meaning that many of these people can't get enough money to move even by selling the family home.)
You're a teacher, which is, as I hope you realize, one of the most portable professions in the world. One can teach anywhere there are children (although there are some regulatory hurdles in the way), and it's even easy to transfer within a single school system (the drama department is being cut back, so everyone get a math certificate; the secondary schools are being merged, so get a primary certificate). That's not the case for most mining-related jobs; it's very hard to make "operating a weighfeeder" into a skill useful at your local hospital, university, or supermarket. So when you talk about "reskilling," you're really talking about retooling not just for a job change, but an entirely new career, a process that often takes years of full-time study. Who has that time while working full-time as a miner? Who has that money when not working? (And if they did have that time, they were probably spending it becoming a better miner....)
But let's assume that every miner in NSW (or WV) had been granted superhuman foresight and somehow managed to get a certificate in a growth field like home health care. Great. Now every miner has a more-or-less useless job credential until/unless the mine shuts down, a credential that will require time and effort to keep current, and that still (as BNW points out) will probably not let them get a job. Ageism is a very real thing, and so is credentialism. It's difficult to improve on BNW's phrasing, so I will just repeat it here: "The rest of the workforce has 20 years of more relevant employment or a recent degree more applicable than miner and fewer back problems."
So there are a lot of structural problems with the economy that make battalions of unemployed miners different from the kind of issues you get when the local Wal*Mart closes (and everyone can just apply at Target).
|
|
Except mining, and construction, and similar jobs, have been the same forever.
They rise, then they bust. There is a shelf life for that type of work.
That hasn't changed since I was a kid.
At some point, you do have to realise that you need to expand your skill set because you just can't keep doing that job. either it will disappear, or your body will give out. It's really really important that folks moving into that industry when they're young are made to realise that fact. But from everything I've witnessed here, they just don't.
Ageism is also a thng in other areas. You tell me teaching is transportable. Yes it is, assuming you want to remain a teacher. Which the majority of teachers don't. For many reasons.
Sadly, the skills we do have do not transfer readily across, despite the fact they should. The market just doesn't recognise those qualifications without the relevant certs or industry experience. So here I am in my 40s, getting out of teaching for many reasons, and finding that most of what I've done for twenty years is irrelevant outside of teaching.
Luckily I realised that was going to happen so I did spend my time and my money acquiring certs and getting training in skills outside my profession so I coutdoor be flexible in the work,force.
So when I say "just like everyone else" I literally mean that. Ageing and changing careers is no different for anyone.
I also specifically pointed out the example of my brother and how he approached the situation so he wasn't caught out when the boom went bust. I'm not saying suck it up to the miners and other labour industry sectors. I'm saying they need to play it smarter when the going is good.
The point of this is to show that the argument of jobs popping up in alternate energy source fields doesn't fix the problem is an invalid argument.
Coal and gas are a dying industry. The world is waking up to that fact very fast. More and more alternate energy sources are coming and being implemented. Those fields represent real job growth and opportunity. The work force needs to adjust to fit that.
As for those caught out, that situation really does suck. But it's no different to the guy who spent 20 years teaching science who now wants to do anything but teach and finds none of those 20 years mean squat to external agencies.
The difference in our situation really does come down to the fact in Australia we have a safety net. So even getting laid off from the mines, at some point the government will provide assistance so you have some funds to help retrain.
As for have credentials that are wasting time while you work mining, that's called a hedged bet. The same as house insurance o life insurance or medical cover. It's useless until you need it, but you're damn happy you've got it when the need arises.
And I'm not talking something as left field as a degree in a completely different field. Why not spend the time training in industry transferable skills. Heavy machinery use, WHS (which in Aus grows faster than the job sites they oversee!), cert 4 in training (or its equivalent in the US), electronics repair and maintenance, even clerical skills in Microsoft suite. Everyone of those is likely useful on the mine site but also transferable across to different industry, including up and coming industry like alternate power.
And a final note on ageism. In Australia at least, the employing agencies have actually grown tired of the young folk walking in and out of jobs and expecting instant gratification. I'm actually in the preferred age for new employment at the moment, because of a demonstrable willingness to remain with a company long enough for their training me to return dividend. Unlike most of the Gen Y kids. That information was presented to a few hundred leading teachers here in Brisbane two years ago when a symposium was run to inform the education system of what the job market was looking for. Stability and loyalty.
America may differ.
|
|
A last point on the time factor. Miners here get rosters of one on one off (very rare) or two on one off (most common). So there's an entire seven day cycle every three weeks for pursuing alternate skills.
That's not perfect, but it's a site more time than most jobs get when full time employed. And is more than enough time to prepare something when you're in an industry known for mass layoffs and 5 - 7 year cycles of boom vs bust.
At the very least, use that time to upskill in computer program use for office applications. Excel, word, publisher. Those three alone can land you jobs and requires no more effort than a few hours a week working through online tutorials. If you want to expand on that, modern businesses are seeking folk savvy in web page design, blogging, and leveraging other forms of mass media for promotional reasons. Again, these are all things that a person who has one week off in three can easily skill up in.
That gives them the backup plan for when the industry dumps them like a hot cake. (Which it inevatibly will)
Except mining, and construction, and similar jobs, have been the same forever.
Except,... no, they haven't. Any more than farming has.
In 1820, farmers were roughly three-quarters of the US population. In 1850, two-thirds of the population farmed. By 1920, less than a third of the population worked on farms, and today only 2% of the people farm..
That's not an industry cycling. That's an industry fundamentally changing. Not, mind you, dying -- US farms produce more food today than they ever have in the past -- but the loss of farming jobs at this point is more or less irreparable.
Construction,... yes, construction is cyclic. People will always need houses to live in, and until we have construction robots, we will still need someone to build those houses. Similarly, trucking is cyclic, until self-driving heavy goods trucks are commonplace. Both of those will happen, probably relatively soon, but they're not dying yet.
Mining, however, is dying. We don't need people to mine any more than we need people to farm. And this isn't something that will be addressed by just waiting out the business cycle.
And soon, construction workers and truckers will probably also be in a position of not being able to wait out the business cycle because their industries, like mining, will have fundamentally changed.
I was trying to remember the details of Lewis's deal with the coal bosses and automation back in the day (the National Bituminous Coal Agreement, it turns out) and google gave me a surprisingly in-depth article from the Harvard Crimson back in '63.
Don't remember the Crimson being anywhere near as good when I hung about Harvard peddling socialist newspapers in the nineties.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A last point on the time factor. Miners here get rosters of one on one off (very rare) or two on one off (most common). So there's an entire seven day cycle every three weeks for pursuing alternate skills.
No. There isn't. it is absolute malarky , victim blaming, and evidence that people trying to push for policy are completely out of touch with reality. Do you know what you do after two two hour weeks of hard work? You SLEEP. You see your wife, you see your kids. That's not weakness, its humanity.
At the very least, use that time to upskill in computer program use for office applications. Excel, word, publisher. Those three alone can land you jobs
Calling that #($*#)($$* would be an insult to perfectly good organic fertilizer. Those are minimum requirements for a job, not actual job skills. it's like having a drivers license, its pretty much what you expect any adult to have. It doesn't get you a job. Experience in a relevant field gets you a job.
Seriously. You're trying to tell coal miners that they're lazy? THATS the problem? How the hell are you going to try to tell them that they can't comprehend facts, reason, evidence, and sense and then hypocritically mire yourself so deeply in a counterfactual narrative that the coal miners you're insulting couldn't find you down there?
Why on earth should anyone believe that you can figure out global warming if you can't figure out that word processing isn't a career anymore and that mining coal for two weeks straight isn't exactly conducive to higher education.
The problems are the corporations that convince these people to vote against their own interest and people like you that make that so. incredibly. easy.
|
|
I'm not calling miners lazy. I'm calling many of them youthful and shortsighted.
I know a large number of miners and I wiuldnt call them any more or less hard working or lazy than any other group of workers I've dealt with.
But as the Jeff pointed out, they come in young, get paid the big money and expect it to last forever with no plan for when it goes bad.
I'm suggesting that mentality needs to be trained out of that workforce. We know it's transient and short term. So start planning for that stuff.
BNW - learn the basics in those programs and it will open doors to entry level jobs where you can then upskill. It will certainly give you s better shot than coming straight out of the mine with no clerical skills.
And Orfamy - coal, in Queensland and Western Australia, our two biggest mining areas, has followed the cycle forever.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BNW - learn the basics in those programs and it will open doors to entry level jobs where you can then upskill. It will certainly give you s better shot than coming straight out of the mine with no clerical skills.
Your unevidenced assertion is up against decades of evidence. Employers have little interest in hiring people with no experience in the field, triply so if they have gaps in the resume.
It is both damaging and insulting to people out of work to say that their problems would be fixed by a 6 week computer familiarity course. You are vastly underestimating the difficulty of the transition you want people to make. A 40 year old miner is looking for the same job as a 20 something just out of college who could be with the company longer, is more trainable, has a greater return on said training, and a more updated skillset.
The problem is systemic. Solving it is not the miners job, responsibility, or fault.
Netflix now has "Bill nye saves the earth" showing.
I think we have better puns..
Construction,... yes, construction is cyclic. People will always need houses to live in, and until we have construction robots, we will still need someone to build those houses.
We have seen robotic bricklayers at a couple US project sites recently.
(although if it helps, my impression is that they are not very good yet)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Quark Blast, don't you have anything better to do than constantly scream the same tired old "WE'RE ALL DOOMED" tripe? I'm not even sure what your goal is. Convince us we can't do anything, so might as well cut down the forests and pollute the water and air, because why bother? It's not worth fighting for? Or are you just so personally offended at any sort of optimism that it's your mission to try and make everyone as miserable as you?
You cherrypick, you always go with the worst-case scenario, and in doing so you become hypocritical. At one point you say that there's no point in trying to chart climate change because the models are too complicated, and next you claim that if we don't immediately stop producing CO2 NOW, we're all dead. If climate change is too complicated to map out, then how do you know its too late to do anything?
Or how you constantly accused CB of not reading your links just because he doesn't agree with you, and claim he's at fault, blasting him for his supposed ignorance. Once it was proven that you were at fault, you immediately try to brush it aside and claim it was a simple honest little mistake that anyone could make, and why do we care?
In short, what are you adding to the conversation? Why are you here? What do you get out of trying to convince us there's no hope?
I came to these conclusions about QB last July.
Your example of an N-Body orbital calculation is simple because current measurements get us many thousands of years into the future with an accuracy indistinguishable from current direct observation of orbital positions.@Orfamay Quest You talk about chaotic systems.No, you talk about chaotic systems. Here's a recent quote: "Look up Chaos Theory." So I did.
Not that I actually needed to, since, as it happens, I've not only taken classes in chaos theory, but I've taught them. But it was helpful to dig up some of the more accessible references on the Web.
The global climate is a COMPLEX dynamic system. Different animal entirely.Really? Then perhaps you would enlighten us as to your idiosyncratic notion as to what the difference is. i'm not going to claim that the two concepts are synonymous, but I really don't think that you understand the extremely subtle and not very relevant differences. I'll give you a hand: here's an appropriate Wikipedia article for a starting point.
There's no useful definition of complex system that you can produce that excludes the long-term solution of multiple differential equations like the N-body problem. Which, of course, makes historical sense, since complex systems theory in many regards arose out of 19th and 20th century attempts to deal with the complexity of celestial mechanics.
Nope. The accuracy of the (predicted) measurements in a century are substantially less than the accuracy of the measurements today, and the errors only increase with time. That's basically what a "chaotic" system means, so it's not surprising that it should apply in orbital mechanics as well. But what you are systematically missing is any actual estimate of the measurement errors or of how they are expected to grow as the calculations continue, despite that being one of the major research efforts, with a substantial body of results available to anyone who bothers to read the literature.
Climate is complex in its chaos because we are not even theoretically capable of measuring the current state closely enough to even begin the (equally impossible) calculation for the climate, say, 50 years from now.
Again, this is simply wrong, as a brief perusal of Google Scholar will show you.
Our current understanding of the greenhouse effect from (primarily) CO2 only tells us how much increase in energy we will see trapped in the global climatic system.
Again, this is simply wrong, at many levels. We are not only well aware of many aspects of the greenhouse effect (indeed, water vapor is substantially better at trapping heat than CO2 is, a fact that has been known since the Victorian era), but we are also very good at looking not only at how much heat is trapped where, since factors such as the thermal density of the ocean are key factors in predicting global temperature.
We have no specific idea how that energy will manifest itself.
This, again, is simply wrong.
Serious question: When you say you've taught classes on Chaos Theory, was this somewwhere in K-12?
If it had been, you would still have failed.
Before this thread I really knew nothing about AGW than what I was spoon-fed in K-12.
... and yet, somehow, you've managed to make yourself even worse-informed than before. You've bought, hook, line, and sinker, into a bunch of false memes that are wrong at the even the level that your K-12 teacher knew better.
Save some time for the next round and simply state I'm wrong.
All right,.... you're wrong. The fact that you don't understand enough to see the relevance of the actual math behind the theory you keep pretending to cite is demonstration enough. But your systematic misrepresentation that scientists can't do what they have demonstrably not only been able to do, but have been doing, for decades is another proof.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And thanks for the compliment, but I've really come to the same conclusions and mostly just stopped bothering to reply to you.
The US could meet all of our energy needs off of renewable resources. Maybe with a little Nuclear thrown in.
We don't because those sources are much harder to form one giant monopoly around that can bribe the living hell out of our political system which (appeals to the free market or not) decides 99% of how we're getting our energy.
.... a whole bunch of stuff that was wrong in its entirety.
There, I've done as you asked. "You're wrong."
|
Climate is complex in its chaos because we are not even theoretically capable of measuring the current state closely enough to even begin the (equally impossible) calculation for the climate, say, 50 years from now.
Our current understanding of the greenhouse effect from (primarily) CO2 only tells us how much increase in energy we will see trapped in the global climatic system. We have no specific idea how that energy will manifest itself.
Complete nonsense.
We know far more than just the amount of increase. Indeed, we wouldn't be able to calculate that amount if we didn't understand how greenhouse warming varies across the globe. Fully half of the total warming is due to feedback effects... which we wouldn't know to include in the warming if we didn't understand how they would be impacted.
Understanding of the mechanisms of greenhouse warming (e.g. that it slows the rate at which heat escapes) allows us to determine HOW the planet will warm. Svante Arrhenius correctly predicted that greenhouse warming would be most pronounced at night, during Winter, and in the Arctic more than a century ago.
From there we can use those facts about the distribution of warming to see how these changes will impact weather patterns... a faster warming Arctic means less of a difference between Arctic and lower latitude temperatures... weakening the polar vortex and allowing the Jet Stream to meander more than it did in the past. This in turn results in longer 'blocking patterns' and thus more persistent weather cycles... longer heat waves, more continuous periods of rain, et cetera.
Accelerated water cycle, sea level rise, plant and animal migration, et cetera... we know vast amounts about how global warming will "manifest itself".
To make a difference to the global climate change issue we (the world's wealthy - USA, Europe, Japan, a good chunk of China now, etc) need to cut back anywhere from 40% to 80% on our current average standard of living.
You keep saying this as if it weren't completely unfounded.
Tell me, if that is the case... why have none of the scientists who have been 'blowing the whistle' on global warming for decades ever said so? Revelle, Keeling, Hansen, et cetera... not exactly shy about saying 'we have a problem and this is what we have to do to solve it'. Yet not a word about the need for vast cuts in standard of living. Instead, we have dozens of studies showing that we can deal with global warming by decreasing CO2 emissions through switching to non fossil-fuel based power sources.
At that... WHY must we decrease standard of living? How would that even help? Our current standard of living is certainly much greater than that of the 1930s... but if the whole world went to 1930s style power generation, global warming would continue unabated.
The solution to global warming is to stop emitting vast amounts of CO2. That can be done without huge cuts in standard of living... and indeed, there is no reason to believe that cutting standard of living would do anything to reduce CO2 emissions.
Now multiply that by a billion+ Chinese, a billion+ Indians, and several billion more people scattered across the globe, all wanting a house, two cars (SUVs of course), jetting to vacation spots, meat with every meal, etc. ad nauseum.
If the US can sustain its vastly disproportional per capita energy consumption renewables, China shouldn't be that far behind.
China may have an easier time of it despite the higher population density. because they have a system that can look at whats better for the country, long term, rather than a decision making policy around who can make the most money to bribe politicians this 2 year election cycle and pure NIMBY. They can also kick out a town full of people to build a hydro electric dam with relative ease, and have a reasonable chance of setting up a unified electrical grid.
The numbers pencil out. I'll grant you that.You have to grant me that human nature trumps implementation of optimal plans.
it delays it and compromises it. When the solution needs to be found they'll get around to it eventually.
|
|
Special Snowflake Roof Tiles at 9:52
LOL, Elon! What a fun guy.
You realize he is shredding your 'we must cut standard of living' argument... right?
|
|
You realize he is shredding your 'we must cut standard of living' argument... right?You realize he's been talking solar roof tiles for like half a decade with no significant product penetrating the market yet?
A: Products generally don't achieve significant market penetration before they are launched. Yes, Musk has been talking about these 'look like regular roofing' solar shingles for five whole years... but they are only about to go on sale now.
B: Market penetration of this product is irrelevant to the 'must cut standard of living' argument. The product demonstrates that we can generate solar power from existing infrastructure at reasonable prices. By its very existence it disproves your claim that standard of living cuts are the only answer.
Most amalgamated green tech solutions to getting us off of coal and natural gas electrical generation are targeting a "we've arrived" date of 2050.
Again... these are 'arriving' now.
Getting off coal doesn't require anything but time, and much less of that than 2050 given the way the industry is already imploding. Getting off natural gas will probably take longer than 2050, because some plants already built will likely still be in operation past that date. Oil will be around longer than either of those.
However, CO2 emissions growth has already stalled. Renewables are now the primary source of new power generation. In short, fossil fuels already represent a shrinking percentage of our power generation... because green tech solutions are already replacing them.
See my previous post about what our global warming future is going to look like, at a minimum*.
Why? Again, that has nothing to do with needing to make standard of living cuts to stop global warming.
|
|
Last part first: When you ignore the link in my post about Jack Ma, you're apt to misunderstand my point. But you revel in ignoring my links, so, meh...
I am looking at the post I responded to and I can find no such link. Apparently I am so good at 'ignoring' them that I can't even SEE this one.
Of course you always say I'm wrong but you never quote from any of the linked papers/lectures to show how I'm wrong.
Simply asserting something is flatly unpersuasive to me.
Your inability to tell the difference between 'simply asserting something' and presenting a reasoned evidence based argument is unsettling. For example... above you 'simply asserted' that I never quote from linked papers/lectures when disputing you... I responded with a link to proof that this is false. See the difference?
I already know you don't like my informed opinions.
LOL!
We must have different definitions of the word "informed".
You ARE the guy who claimed that a large volcanic eruption could 'reset' global warming, right?
As for green tech being a "now" thing:
Nature: Reconciling controversies about the ‘global warming hiatus’
Allow me to 'simply assert' that the linked paper has NOTHING to do with 'green tech'. It is about how statistical noise was falsely leveraged to manufacture a supposed 'pause' in global warming (for political purposes) and the use of proper statistical analysis to disprove this nonsense.
OMG! I didn't quote from the source to prove my point!
Because anyone with eyes can follow the link and see that I am correct... and the only way to 'demonstrate' that it is not about green tech would be to quote the entire thing here. Ergo, if you want to make the case that it DOES have something to do with green tech... you need to show how. Not just link and say, 'see this makes my point'. It doesn't.
Green tech will keep us (seemingly) from a +3.5°C year 2100.
So... you agree that green tech is a "now thing" rather than having to wait until 2050 for it to have an impact. Excellent.
Because (to beat dead horse as they say) it is about 20 years too late. Green tech won't do jack for a +2.0°C world.
It might, just might, keep us at or only slightly above a +2.5°C world.
I think your estimates are pessimistic. Sure, at the current rate of renewable energy adoption we might hit +3.5°C by 2100... but I see absolutely no reason to assume that renewable energy uptake will stop accelerating. That is, the rate of renewable energy installation ten years ago would have put us at over +5°C by 2100... I'm confident that the rate ten years from now can get us to +2.5°C or slightly less. In short, I consider your 'best case scenario' estimate to be mildly pessimistic. "A +2.0°C world" is still possible, just unlikely given that the US is currently abrogating any responsibility for dealing with global warming... leaving freakin' China to play footsie with the idea of taking on the role of world leader for this issue.
The coal interests that Wrath informed us about up thread would see us to a +3.5°C world.
At least. However, as I may have mentioned once or twice, coal is dying. Coal companies are declaring bankruptcy more than Donald Trump. Coal use is stalled in China, India, and most of the rest of the developing world and in absolute free fall in the developed world.
Nothing but some weird unknown feedback loop will give us a +5.0°C world. It could happen but you can't really plan for that level of catastrophe. You just pick up the pieces after.
Truish, except that a feedback loop is not the ONLY such possible catastrophe. Some new breakthrough which drastically reduced the cost of one or more fossil fuels could also get us there. Again, improbable... but at this point more likely than some major unknown feedback effect.
And by "bring down global climate" I'm simply stating that humanity can make this globe exceptionally uncomfortable for all of us and kill a great many in the process. Collectively we will make the climate into something we don't want, because individually none of us want to give up our status, our stuff, our ego-driven consumption.
True or false: Wind and solar power are now cheaper than fossil fuel power for many parts of the world and will soon be so nearly everywhere.
If we accept that this is true then would not "ego-driven consumption" lead to ever greater adoption of wind and solar power... and thus stop global warming?
You keep going off about how humans are greedy and prone to short term thinking like this is in dispute. It isn't. Rather, the argument, which you have repeatedly declined to address, is that these forces will actually themselves lead to the end of global warming.
We (many of us) had this discussion way up thread now. Except for Wrath and one other person; not a single person posting to this thread has done squat about reducing their carbon footprint.
If we, we who are highly educated/informed on this topic, have done damn little-to-nothing, just what do you expect the rest of the world will do?
Wait, did I miss a quiz?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Umm, speak for yourself, I have taken actions to reduce my carbon footprint.
|
|
Given that US CO2 emissions per capita peaked in 1973, and most of the rest of the developed world is doing better than the US, the reality is that MOST people in developed countries have reduced their carbon footprint.
They may not have taken any individual action to do so, but all those (supposedly useless) government agreements and technological improvements have had a significant impact.
Developing countries (e.g. China and India) HAD been going the other direction... increasing per capita CO2 emissions as industrialization and improved standard of living spread. However, in the past few years, renewable power sources have been able to maintain that growth without increasing CO2 emissions.