Quark Blast wrote: By products of the oil-for-transportation business are just that, by products. Make them the primary product and all the attendant infrastructure costs will fall on the by products, as well as the loss in economies of scale, thus making them cost a ####-ton more than they do now. Even if that were true... it still doesn't explain why you objected to my statement that, "A day is coming when the balance of 'powerful interests' is going to flip... and all the benefits currently keeping fossil fuels afloat will instead be deployed to drown them."
Were you just making a random point unrelated to the text you quoted, or do you somehow think that these supposed higher costs will allow the 'petroleum byproducts industry' to wield the same kind of economic and political power that the oil industry does currently?
Quark Blast wrote: This near future you imagine might give us virtually free transportation of our goods to market via EVs but increases in the costs of pesticides, fertilizers and road tar will still give you a $7.50 apple. A single apple will cost $7.50? How can you possibly believe that?
They literally grow on trees!
Quark Blast wrote: I would gloat now but what's the point? Indeed, what would be the point in gloating about 'being right' on basic and obvious facts that were never in dispute?
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: By products of the oil-for-transportation business are just that, by products. Make them the primary product and all the attendant infrastructure costs will fall on the by products, as well as the loss in economies of scale, thus making them cost a ####-ton more than they do now. Even if that were true... it still doesn't explain why you objected to my statement that, "A day is coming when the balance of 'powerful interests' is going to flip... and all the benefits currently keeping fossil fuels afloat will instead be deployed to drown them."
Were you just making a random point unrelated to the text you quoted, or do you somehow think that these supposed higher costs will allow the 'petroleum byproducts industry' to wield the same kind of economic and political power that the oil industry does currently? And where do they get that influence money?
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: This near future you imagine might give us virtually free transportation of our goods to market via EVs but increases in the costs of pesticides, fertilizers and road tar will still give you a $7.50 apple. A single apple will cost $7.50? How can you possibly believe that?
They literally grow on trees! For one thing, they already regularly cost around $1.00 in the USA and up to twice that, without being purchased in hoity-toity boutique markets, in many wealthy countries.
You don't grow apples for 7-to-9 billion people without pesticides/fungicides or fertilizer and all those are petroleum industry by products.
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: I would gloat now but what's the point? Indeed, what would be the point in gloating about 'being right' on basic and obvious facts that were never in dispute? At this point (see my immediately prior post) I've got over 11k reputable scientists taking my side in this fight. The world gets to go vegetarian/vegan whether it wants to or not. Long distance vacations are going to be out of reach for even "middle class" careers. Etc. At least until we get over the hump adjusting to AGW and assuming there are no significant tipping elements/points crossed between now and then.
If the "alarmist" scientists are right, and the data is pointing that direction, then, given the usual human tribal reactions to negative change, we who live past 2050 are apt to witness quite the #### show.
Quark Blast wrote: And where do they get that influence money? Ok. Get a dictionary and look up these words: "cost" and "profit". Turns out... they aren't the same thing.
Quark Blast wrote: For one thing, they already regularly cost around $1.00 in the USA and up to twice that, without being purchased in hoity-toity boutique markets, in many wealthy countries. One dollar for a POUND of apples would be kinda cheap. One dollar for a single apple is ridiculously overpriced. An apple for $7.50 is nearly 20 times the going rate.
Quark Blast wrote: You don't grow apples for 7-to-9 billion people without pesticides/fungicides or fertilizer and all those are petroleum industry by products. Plant an apple tree in your back yard (assuming an area where they can grow) and do absolutely nothing to maintain it... you'll still likely get in the neighborhood of 100 apples a year. That's more than most people eat. The only reason a lot of people don't do this any more is that apples are so cheap that they don't bother. If apples ever became anywhere near as expensive as you imagine, backyard apple trees would make a big comeback... and the price would NOT reach $7.50 per apple. That's just absurd.
Quark Blast wrote: At this point (see my immediately prior post) I've got over 11k reputable scientists taking my side in this fight. The world gets to go vegetarian/vegan whether it wants to or not. Long distance vacations are going to be out of reach for even "middle class" careers. Nothing in the text you quoted supports those claims... or indeed, even mentions vegetarian/vegan diet or vacation travel.
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: For one thing, they already regularly cost around $1.00 in the USA and up to twice that, without being purchased in hoity-toity boutique markets, in many wealthy countries. One dollar for a POUND of apples would be kinda cheap. One dollar for a single apple is ridiculously overpriced. An apple for $7.50 is nearly 20 times the going rate. "A pound of apples". I guess two apples warrants the use of plural, because it's nothing to find apples weighing 2/3 of a pound or more.
It's also nothing for apples to cost $3/pound. And since a typical smaller apple is 1/3 of pound, that'll set you back $1. At least.
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: You don't grow apples for 7-to-9 billion people without pesticides/fungicides or fertilizer and all those are petroleum industry by products. Plant an apple tree in your back yard (assuming an area where they can grow) and do absolutely nothing to maintain it... you'll still likely get in the neighborhood of 100 apples a year. That's more than most people eat. The only reason a lot of people don't do this any more is that apples are so cheap that they don't bother. If apples ever became anywhere near as expensive as you imagine, backyard apple trees would make a big comeback... and the price would NOT reach $7.50 per apple. That's just absurd. Most people don't have a yard.
Most people who have yards don't have them in climates that can grow apples.
Laws and regulations require 'backyard apple growers' to use pesticides/fungicides - the very chemicals set to dramatically increase in price with the demise of oil-for-transportation.
Good grief your arguments have gotten lame.
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: At this point (see my immediately prior post) I've got over 11k reputable scientists taking my side in this fight. The world gets to go vegetarian/vegan whether it wants to or not. Long distance vacations are going to be out of reach for even "middle class" careers. Nothing in the text you quoted supports those claims... or indeed, even mentions vegetarian/vegan diet or vacation travel. Since you can't read a three page document I helpfully linked previously...
11k Scientists wrote: To secure a sustainable future, we must change how we live, in ways that improve the vital signs summarized by our graphs.... We suggest six critical and interrelated steps (in no particular order) that governments, businesses, and the rest of humanity can take to lessen the worst effects of climate change. These are important steps but are not the only actions needed or possible (Pachauri et al. 2014, IPCC 2018, 2019)....
Food
Eating mostly plant-based foods while reducing the global consumption of animal products (figure 1c–d), especially ruminant livestock (Ripple et al. 2014), can improve human health and significantly lower GHG emissions (including methane in the “Short-lived pollutants” step). Moreover, this will free up croplands for growing much-needed human plant food instead of livestock feed, while releasing some grazing land to support natural climate solutions (see “Nature” section).
Sounds like we're going veg to me.
:D
Quark Blast wrote:
Laws and regulations require 'backyard apple growers' to use pesticides/fungicides - the very chemicals set to dramatically increase in price with the demise of oil-for-transportation.
Wait. I've got an apple tree in my backyard. Now you tell me I'm required to use pesticides/fungicides on it? I'm breaking the law by mostly ignoring my tree, except to occasionally pick apples from it?
Quark Blast wrote: Most people who have yards don't have them in climates that can grow apples. Nonsense.
Quark Blast wrote: Laws and regulations require 'backyard apple growers' to use pesticides/fungicides For most of the planet this is completely untrue.
In a few areas that have large apple industries, or just obnoxiously intrusive lawmakers, regulations on backyard trees do exist. They are generally imposed on all apple/fruit growers to prevent diseases and pests from spreading. However, I doubt you'd be able to find any that don't include non-pesticide options.
In any case, you continue to have a shockingly bad grasp of economics. If something becomes ludicrously expensive that does not mean that everything which uses that item then also becomes more expensive. Rather... people seek out and switch over to alternatives. Like... when Norway imposed charges to make ICE vehicles just a little more expensive everyone switched to buying EVs instead.
Petroleum based pesticides inexplicably cost vastly more when the available supply of petroleum increases? Ok, that makes no sense, but if it happened... people would use OTHER pesticides. Or non pesticide options. The only reason these pesticides are so prevalent currently is that they are cheap.
Quark Blast wrote: Sounds like we're going veg to me. So your reading comprehension is even worse than I thought... 'cuz the text you quoted says "reducing ... consumption of animal products". Reducing is not eliminating.
thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Laws and regulations require 'backyard apple growers' to use pesticides/fungicides - the very chemicals set to dramatically increase in price with the demise of oil-for-transportation. Wait. I've got an apple tree in my backyard. Now you tell me I'm required to use pesticides/fungicides on it? I'm breaking the law by mostly ignoring my tree, except to occasionally pick apples from it? If you live in the EU, the USA, or Canada, then yes. Call your local land grant university extension service in the USA to get the particulars.
CBDunkerson wrote: So your reading comprehension is even worse than I thought... 'cuz the text you quoted says "reducing ... consumption of animal products". Reducing is not eliminating. The average American eats meat (excluding fish) at the rate of about three portions a day or about 21 times per week. Reading the literature on what global humanity needs to be eating to meet the +1.5 target and it's about 1 portion per week. Yes, 1 portion - a steak the size of a deck of cards - per week.
Now maybe you're fine with being all pedantic and "right" but I think it's closer to the truth to tell people they're going to have to go veg if they're serious about doing their part to mitigate AGW.
.
And as far as people using "other pesticides", well, that would be the organic option and the globe could support about 1 billion humans with organic production methods (barring open conflict and other types of warfare).
And the $7.50 apple is just an example (and $7.50 is not an outrageous price increase over the current value btw), with many like things being part of each humans' "sacrifice for the greater good".
Another example:
You like that two-day or next-day delivery for your online purchases?
Well, that involves air transport (much like tourism) and if you want to do your part you need to be checking the "4-to-6 weeks delivery" option.
Naturally that check box isn't really an option, nor will it ever be without a ####### ####-load of blow-back. Yep, things are gonna suck!
Quark Blast wrote: You like that two-day or next-day delivery for your online purchases?
Well, that involves air transport (much like tourism) and if you want to do your part you need to be checking the "4-to-6 weeks delivery" option.
Air travel accounts for less than 3% of total emissions. It is a minor factor which climate deniers have blown completely out of proportion to distract from what we really need to do to solve the issue.
In any case, electric (and self driving) trucks are poised to take on an ever increasing portion of goods delivery. Amazon is working towards same day delivery, which can only be accomplished by having stocked warehouses in trucking range of each destination point. Thus, the tiny portion of CO2 emissions currently coming from air transport of goods is likely to shrink even further.
You keep going back to the idea of 'each human needing to sacrifice'... but that is completely wrong. If we all gave up air travel and became vegetarians the impact on global warming would be insignificant. Individual actions are not the problem. The fossil fuel basis of electricity and ground transportation is the problem. The only way we stop the vast majority of global warming is by stopping the use of fossil fuels for those two things... which, fortunately we can do just by switching over to renewable energy and electric vehicles. Which cost less. So no sacrifice required.
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: You like that two-day or next-day delivery for your online purchases?
Well, that involves air transport (much like tourism) and if you want to do your part you need to be checking the "4-to-6 weeks delivery" option.
Air travel accounts for less than 3% of total emissions. It is a minor factor which climate deniers have blown completely out of proportion to distract from what we really need to do to solve the issue.
In any case, electric (and self driving) trucks are poised to take on an ever increasing portion of goods delivery. Amazon is working towards same day delivery, which can only be accomplished by having stocked warehouses in trucking range of each destination point. Thus, the tiny portion of CO2 emissions currently coming from air transport of goods is likely to shrink even further. How do you think they'll keep those JIT warehouses stocked? EV drones?
CBDunkerson wrote: You keep going back to the idea of 'each human needing to sacrifice'... but that is completely wrong. If we all gave up air travel and became vegetarians the impact on global warming would be insignificant. Individual actions are not the problem. The fossil fuel basis of electricity and ground transportation is the problem. The only way we stop the vast majority of global warming is by stopping the use of fossil fuels for those two things... which, fortunately we can do just by switching over to renewable energy and electric vehicles. Which cost less. So no sacrifice required. Yes, I keep going back to that because 11,258 subject matter experts bring up the issues constantly, each in their own sub-specialty.
If we'd started down the Solar Highway 20 years ago we'd be having an easy time of it now. As it is, not only are we late getting started but we have to ramp up so fast that it is and will be both intermittent and inefficient along all fronts. The pattern is already set and won't change appreciably for another few decades.
Climate change: 'Bleak' outlook as carbon emissions gap grows
BBC wrote: Countries will have to increase their carbon-cutting ambitions five fold if the world is to avoid warming by more than 1.5C, the UN says.
The annual emissions gap report shows that even if all current promises are met, the world will warm by more than double that amount by 2100.
That seems pretty clear to me and a definite ramping up of the "DOOM!" rhetoric over the "C'mon guys, we can do better" pablum of the previous decade.
.
Then they say this:
BBC wrote: The UN assessment is fairly blunt. "The summary findings are bleak," it says. "Countries collectively failed to stop the growth in global greenhouse gas emissions, meaning that deeper and faster cuts are now required."
The report says that emissions have gone up by 1.5% per year in the last decade. In 2018, the total reached 55 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent. This is putting the Earth on course to experience a temperature rise of 3.2C by the end of this century.
Just last year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned that allowing temperatures to rise more than 1.5 degrees this century would have hugely damaging effects for human, plant and animal life across the planet.
.
And here's the good news:
BBC wrote: Three countries - India, Russia and Turkey - are all on track to over-achieve their plans by 15% but the authors of the report say this is because the targets they set themselves were too low in the first place .
For three others - Argentina, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia - the researchers are uncertain as to whether they are meeting their targets or not.
Yeah, being totally uncertain about critical metrics and setting grossly insufficient targets for 34% of humanity is a hopeful sign. </sarcasm>
Did I say a +2.5°C year 2100? I hold the right to adjust that number in a year or two.
.
BBC wrote: To get a sense of the massive scale of change that is needed, the study says the world will have to spend up to $3.8 trillion per year, every year between 2020 and 2050 to achieve the 1.5C target. That's 5% of global GDP, a totally doable number if everything works out like it's planned. Of course the last 20 years have worked out almost nothing like planned, hence the ramp up in DOOM! rhetoric to get us on the plan ( notice I didn't say, "get us back on plan" as we were never on a plan ).
Given that projects of even 1/10th this size end up being at least double the initial budget, we're looking at something like spending 10% to 20% of global GDP for a decade straight.
So I'm hoping for a global economic depression. Not because I want one but because it seems more likely than spending on this scale going as planned.
I'm only optimistic about pragmatic solutions.
:D
.
In other news:
I paid $1.68 for a single apple today. Not a small one but not a particularly large one and it was at a discounted price.
Climate taxes on agriculture could lead to more food insecurity than climate change itself
”Phys.Org” wrote: New IIASA-led research has found that a single climate mitigation scheme applied to all sectors, such as a global carbon tax, could have a serious impact on agriculture and result in far more widespread hunger and food insecurity than the direct impacts of climate change…
By 2050, the models suggest that climate change could be responsible for putting an extra 24 million people at risk of hunger on average, with some models suggesting up to 50 million extra could be at risk. However, if agriculture is included in very stringent climate mitigation schemes, such as a global carbon tax or a comprehensive emission trading system applying the same rules to all sectors of the economy, the increase in food prices would be such that 78 million more people would be at risk of hunger, with some models finding that up to 170 million more would be at risk.
This is obviously an argument for intelligent carbon taxing. What are the odds something global will be implemented intelligently?
:D
.
Climate impacts 'to cost world $7.9 trillion' by 2050
”Phys.Org” wrote: The Economist Intelligence Unit's (EIU) Climate Change Resilience Index measured the preparedness of the world's 82 largest economies and found that based on current trends the fallout of warming temperatures would shave off three percent of global GDP by 2050.
Its analysis, which assesses each country's direct exposure to loss as climate change brings more frequent extreme weather events, found Africa was most at-risk, with 4.7 percent of its GDP in the balance.
How much real GDP loss for the wealthy parts of the world? Around 1.5%
So it might be cheaper for wealthy nations to mitigate instead of cut carbon, at least through 2050.
Developed nations ought to give up about 1.5% of their GDP these next 30 years to help the remainder of humanity. That’s about $1,000/year for each of us, including children and retired folks and wards of the state. Totally doable. Extremely unlikely.
.
Mercedes-Benz owner Daimler to cut 10,000 jobs worldwide
”BBC” wrote: The move comes days after rival Audi said it would cut 9,500 of its 61,000 jobs in Germany for similar reasons.
Daimler said the car industry was going through "the biggest transformation in its history".
"The development towards CO2-neutral mobility requires large investments, which is why Daimler announced in the middle of November that it would launch a programme to increase competitiveness, innovation and investment strength," the firm said.
"Part of this programme is to reduce staff costs by around €1.4bn by the end of 2022 and, among other things, to reduce the number of management positions worldwide by 10%." …
{and elsewhere on the Net} Ford said in June that it would cut 12,000 jobs in Europe and Nissan said in July that it would cut 12,500 jobs worldwide citing similar cost concerns.
And these jobs won’t be coming back either. EVs have far fewer parts and the factories are more automated. So this is costly now and will continue to be so for another three decades at least.
This reminds me of all the data centers and distribution centers the tech companies have. They get into small town light industrial districts sans taxes for all the jobs they promise to create and then, because of automation and “ to increase competitiveness, innovation and investment strength”, never create those jobs and still reap tax breaks. But hey, they’re tech companies, they’re woke, they “do no evil”, right? Right?
:D
This little genius here understands the science: Greta Thunberg and the Neologism "Creative PR"
People accuse her of reading text prepared by others but if you listen to the press conference in Madrid and interviews with her, it should be plain to an open mind that she speaks for herself, and speaks well.
There was a recent article in Nature on the melting rate of Greenland and the picture is hard to see otherwise than that our actual climate change is proceeding at a rate towards the faster/hotter end of the modeled spectrum range.
^ Said error is just what one would expect from averaging incomplete climate models when we otherwise have good evidence for a floor temperature at least as high as the current modeled average rise.
Hey folks, I'm not going to remove any posts, but we need to keep it civil. I know tensions run high around this issue, but the tone being used recently isn't conducive to a healthy discussion. Just be aware of that.
How about some good news.
Analysis based on the latest IEA World Energy Outlook estimates that current emissions and reduction policies (i.e. COP21) put the world on track for ~3°C warming by 2100.
I call that good news, despite 3°C being a bad result, because the IEA has consistently under-estimated the growth of renewable power and yet their projections show conditions having gotten so much better that, even if we do nothing further to improve the situation, the global temperature increase will be well below +4.5°C warming suggested by older estimates. In short, we've gone from on track for a most likely result of +4.5°C to +3.0°C... while barely even trying.
Meanwhile, India, which has been the go to country for claims that 'economic growth in developing countries will lead to massive emissions growth' ever since China went heavy in to renewables is now set to vastly overdeliver on its emissions reduction targets. Solar power in India has dropped to 20 to 30% below grid rates, as low as $0.03 per kWh. Renewables are routinely beating fossil fuels in reverse auctions for new power agreements and thus investment in power development has tipped decisively away from coal and natural gas. India is electrifying more rapidly than ever, but doing so with renewable power solutions... and saving money in the process.
So we'd likely wind up around +3°C if current emissions policies continued... but we also know that India, and thus presumably other developing countries, is going to be able to rapidly shift away from fossil fuels. That means we'll unquestionably do BETTER than current policies suggest. How MUCH better is hard to say. 1.5°C seems all but impossible (e.g. we'd have to cut global emissions 5% per year for the next 20 years... 0% by 2040), but 2°C seems possible and 2.5°C should be well within reach.
FWIW - I've noticed some unhelpful comments but the tone still falls in the "healthy discussion" range for me. smiles sheepishly
As for CBs most recent contribution:
I agree that a +2.5°C year 2100 is "well within reach". It won't be an easy reach given that the IPCC plan requires CC&S and not merely net-zero global emissions by 2050.
The question is:
Will a +2.5°C year 2100 keep us from knocking over a significant number of Tipping Elements/Points?
That's a good question and the preliminary answer is we've already gone too far for coral reefs. They will get worse globally for the rest of this century and when that much bio-filtration stops working there's bound to be side-effects that we've not yet learned to fear.
We may have already gone too far (too warm) for the tundra permafrost and if it goes into a self reinforcing loop of melting then there's potential for enough carbon to be released equal to the current total that humanity has released this past century. And then there's the concomitant methane release. To me this is the worst element and it will likely take considerable CC&S to hold this one back. We'll know by 2030, maybe sooner.
So, while a +2.5°C year 2100 is admittedly "well within reach", I'm not seeing how that constitutes good news. ???
Besides a global depression lasting about 30 years, I think some miracle tech is our best positive hope.
Bill Gates has invested in solar power that can achieve industrial temperatures and that would be excellent news since it's hard to figure how we will decarbonize concrete and steel production otherwise. Now to see if it can be scaled in time to make a difference this century.
There's a company in BC Canada (linked way up thread) working on low energy input CC&S. Initial large scale testing was reportedly a very hopeful but I've not heard anything since and, again, it needs to be scaled in time to make a difference this century.
Then there's the old Star Trek workhorse - nuclear fusion. Super computers are finally at a performance level where they may be able to control the lasers and magnetic containment in real time to scale this process into actual production (fingers crossed).
There are one or two others but I'm out of time right now.
I rather enjoyed this video --> Tom Crowther: How Ecology Drives Climate Change
This discussion is science based and (compared to what I usually post) a rather positive take on useful action, both individual and global-collective.
Skip to 2:55 to miss the rather elementary intro animation.
The proposed solutions are not unlike improving energy use efficiency. Had we switched to LED 25 years ago, had we set ever so slightly more stringent fuel economy standards 25 years ago, had we required better insulation on all new construction 25 years ago, had we began promoting a genuinely healthy diet 25 years ago,... we would be in very reasonable shape today even given that about 4 billion people are striving mightily to become what we in the "West" would call middle class.
Indstead we've painted ourselves into a corner that is about a decade in size and now we find it imperative to cooperate, like humanity has never cooperated before since the rise of nations, in order to have a quality future for our older selves and especially for the generations to follow.
National Geographic had good write-up on this but it's behind a paywall for some reason. Some choice quotes from them however are:
NG wrote: Within a few decades, if we don't curb fossil fuel use, permafrost could be as big a source of greenhouse gasses as China, the world's biggest emitter, is today.
We aren't accounting for that. The UN's IPCC has only recently started incorporating permafrost into it's projections.
We've warmed 1 degree globally but the Arctic has warmed 4 or 5 so far. Additionally the permafrost isn't refreezing reliably every winter because AGW has shifted the climate in the Arctic to provide more snow in the fall. The snow insulates the ground and keeps the summer insolation from escaping, thus the permafrost (now "permamelt") continues to produce greenhouse gasses all winter long.
NG wrote: As a rule, the tipping points at which such feedback loops kick in are tricky to predict. "We know there are thresholds we don't want to cross," said Chris Field, director of Stanford University's Woods Institute for the Environment. "But we don't know precisely what they are." Indeed! Another major player in climate modeling agrees with my understanding that we really don't have good models yet; other than we can be fairly certain that the floor temp for the year 2100 is at least +2.5 Celsius.
NG wrote: To achieve the 1.5-degree goal, according to the IPCC, the world would have to cut greenhouse gas emissions 45 percent by 2030, eliminate them completely by 2050, and develop technologies to suck huge quantities back out of the atmosphere.
The challenge may be even starker. The 1.5-degree report was the first time the IPCC had taken permafrost into account - but it didn't include emissions from abrupt thaw.... To halt temperature rise at 1.5 degrees, they estimate, we'd have to zero out our own fossil fuel emissions at least 20 percent sooner - no later than 2044, six years ahead of the IPCC timetable. That would give us a quarter of a century to completely transform the global energy system.
"We're facing this unknown future with an incomplete set of tools... {and} the uncertainty isn't all on our side.
Quarter of a century huh? Doable but unlikely to be achieved. The scale and speed of transformation needed has no parallel in human history except perhaps the preparation for WWII. If only we could see AGW as a thing to go to war over.
In other news: 2021 GMC Yukon debuts with more size, luxury and tech
And of course Chevy is in on the game full tilt with the new Tahoe, the Suburban...; Ford with the Expedition; Toyota with the Sequoia; Cadillac with the Escalade; Dodge with the Durango; etc.
Yep, we are totally nailing the prep for this global warming thing. You could even describe it as a "war footing"... if you like to lie.
:D
Jesus, you can read anything and see what you want.
Irontruth wrote: Jesus, you can read anything and see what you want. Uh, as a moderately neutral party in your ongoing fight with Quark I'd have to say
"That does NOT count as refuting his points in any way whatsoever. Care to try again?"
pauljathome wrote: Irontruth wrote: Jesus, you can read anything and see what you want. Uh, as a moderately neutral party in your ongoing fight with Quark I'd have to say
"That does NOT count as refuting his points in any way whatsoever. Care to try again?" Thanks pauljathome!
I post mostly negative assessments of the whole AGW situation because I also believe that view is far more accurate than the shiney-happy blurbs.
I really do hope for some miracle tech - there are a number of endeavors with great promise but advertising them will give your competitors a leg up on your research methods and attainments. Hence most of the real science is hush-hush.
So, anecdotal things mentioned up thread - like my cousin not recycling because of all the #######s at his apartment complex making the recycling center a total disgusting cluster#### - are not mentioned because I believe (e.g.) his story proves poor recycling efforts generally (though they are generally poor across the globe), but because they colorfully illustrate the core nature of humanity. And it is our universal nature that is looking to hang us on the AGW petard.
Plus I like it when world renowned researchers, like Dr. Chris Field at Stanford, emphatically agree with my assessment of the global climate models. Is fun!
:D
pauljathome wrote: Irontruth wrote: Jesus, you can read anything and see what you want. Uh, as a moderately neutral party in your ongoing fight with Quark I'd have to say
"That does NOT count as refuting his points in any way whatsoever. Care to try again?" Considering he has never once actually addressed a point I've made, why should I go into detail?
Convince me that it's worth my time THIS TIME.
Also, if you want me to go into detail, I want to know what the consequences will be if I convince you that my point is real and legitimate. I don't mean "well, I'll be convinced and appreciate your post". I want real, measurable consequences if I convince you.
Like... I'm down for a $20 wager. We can even make it to a charity of your choice to avoid any sort of gambling issues.
Uh, you're quite welcome to just ignore Quark and decide he's not worth arguing with. I'm not going to try and convince you that arguing with him is worth your time.
I AM saying that just dismissing his argument because it was him (ie, relying totally on an Ad Hominem), really seems to me to BE a total waste of time and electrons.
Either discuss intelligently or don't (your choice). But don't confuse an Ad Hominem with an actual argument
I told you the conditions for me defending my statement. If my argument is convincing, you pay $20 to the charity of my choice. If I am not convincing, I will pay $20 to the charity of your choice.
I'm willing to stand by the words that I wrote. Are you?
Not even asking you to debate me or defend your own words. Just listen, follow along, and tell me if you are convinced or not at the end.
pauljathome wrote: Irontruth wrote: Jesus, you can read anything and see what you want. Uh, as a moderately neutral party in your ongoing fight with Quark I'd have to say
"That does NOT count as refuting his points in any way whatsoever. Care to try again?" While Irontruth does not explain the basis for his comment here, I'd argue that the claim he makes has been adequately proven multiple times. That is, QB has repeatedly cited texts which state things completely different from (not uncommonly the opposite of) the position he is taking. Do you disagree?
CBDunkerson wrote: pauljathome wrote: Irontruth wrote: Jesus, you can read anything and see what you want. Uh, as a moderately neutral party in your ongoing fight with Quark I'd have to say
"That does NOT count as refuting his points in any way whatsoever. Care to try again?" While Irontruth does not explain the basis for his comment here, I'd argue that the claim he makes has been adequately proven multiple times. That is, QB has repeatedly cited texts which state things completely different from (not uncommonly the opposite of) the position he is taking. Do you disagree? And given that these texts are not linked and apparently behind a paywall, they're essentially no evidence at all.
CBDunkerson wrote: [
While Irontruth does not explain the basis for his comment here, I'd argue that the claim he makes has been adequately proven multiple times. That is, QB has repeatedly cited texts which state things completely different from (not uncommonly the opposite of) the position he is taking. Do you disagree?
1) Actually, yes I DO disagree.
2) Then don't engage with him. Engaging with him to just say "You've been wrong before so you're obviously just wrong now" is just silly.
Irontruth wrote: I told you the conditions for me defending my statement. If my argument is convincing, you pay $20 to the charity of my choice. If I am not convincing, I will pay $20 to the charity of your choice.
I'm willing to stand by the words that I wrote. Are you?
Not even asking you to debate me or defend your own words. Just listen, follow along, and tell me if you are convinced or not at the end.
Uh, I've said no words to defend. Well, I guess I've stated that you're now resorting to Ad Hominem attacks and I guess I do stand by that :-).
No, I'm not making any kind of bet. Its not worth $20 to me one way or the other.
thejeff wrote: CBDunkerson wrote: pauljathome wrote: Irontruth wrote: Jesus, you can read anything and see what you want. Uh, as a moderately neutral party in your ongoing fight with Quark I'd have to say
"That does NOT count as refuting his points in any way whatsoever. Care to try again?" While Irontruth does not explain the basis for his comment here, I'd argue that the claim he makes has been adequately proven multiple times. That is, QB has repeatedly cited texts which state things completely different from (not uncommonly the opposite of) the position he is taking. Do you disagree? And given that these texts are not linked and apparently behind a paywall, they're essentially no evidence at all. Thanks CB/thejeff because I know how hard it is to go to the local library and read the relevant copy of National Geographic. Also I know how hard it is to Google "Chris Field Stanford" or do a similar search on YouTube - both hugely impractical in today's Internet connected world. /sarcasm
Additionally I'll note the ease of finding out if National Geographic misquoted Dr. Field and/or misrepresented his statement; or that it's not at all too difficult to see if QB selected a single choice (read: outlier) quote out of the thousands printed and spoken by Dr. Fields. Sheesh!
.
So here's another undocumented anecdote about the nature of humanity and the AGW problem.
It seems a few years back (2014 iirc) one of my climate professors had a graduate student take a spring-to-summer project as part of her degree. This project was to work for the local state and come up with a comprehensive plan for reducing the carbon footprint of said state as they go about providing goods and services to the public.
One of the more extensive sections involved transitioning the vehicle fleet over to "greener" modes. I saw a copy of the plan and asked the professor what has been implemented so far. So far, as far as she knows:
-- Two buildings have been constructed with solar that is estimated to supply 20% of the power needs, though that was down from 50% supply in the planning stages.
-- As for the vehicle fleet; at the time of the study something close to 40% of the fleet was hybrid, biofuel and EVs and there were a lot of Toyota Prius'. Today there are apparently no Prius', about the same number of biofuel and no EVs that she is aware of. It seems EVs and Prius' were not especially popular - being inconvenient and uncomfortable respectively, so staff didn't use them.
Nothing else mentioned in the study was even attempted (local sourcing, enhanced carpooling/alternate transportation programs, etc.) and arguably the solar would have happened anyway and we all know biofuel actually increases the carbon footprint when measured holistically.
Up-thread I made the ever so slight exaggeration that by 2050 we'll all need to be vegetarian to make the +1.5 degree goal and I got excoriated for that from certain parties (though admittedly such treatment is in no way unusual for me on this thread). When I clarified that, true, strictly speaking, we won't have to go vegetarian but we will have to limit our consumption of non-fish meat to one serving/week and that one serving is a piece of meat the size of a deck of cards, I got ignored.
Anytime I have something hard to say, that people don't want to do, they impugn my person or ignore me as they are want. Argue the facts? Yeah, not so much. People!
Barring near-miracle tech you can see why I say we'll be lucky if the year 2100 is only +2.5 degrees Celsius over preindustrial. People want what they want and they'll twist and turn to avoid facing the reasonable choice.
pauljathome wrote: Irontruth wrote: I told you the conditions for me defending my statement. If my argument is convincing, you pay $20 to the charity of my choice. If I am not convincing, I will pay $20 to the charity of your choice.
I'm willing to stand by the words that I wrote. Are you?
Not even asking you to debate me or defend your own words. Just listen, follow along, and tell me if you are convinced or not at the end.
Uh, I've said no words to defend. Well, I guess I've stated that you're now resorting to Ad Hominem attacks and I guess I do stand by that :-).
No, I'm not making any kind of bet. Its not worth $20 to me one way or the other. :D
Yeah, someone taking a serious moral stance would provide the argument/data and donate to a charity anyway. There really is no way to win against that one. I once saw an exchange where he got pwned hard and wiggled out of it by claiming to have 'fat-fingered' a reply to the wrong post. Except that his reply made sense even if it was demonstrably/objectively wrong in its conclusion. Some people are never wrong, some people never apologize (except in a pro-forma way in the passive voice), and so some people are not worth arguing with.
When I argue facts, you don't actually address them. You taught me that you aren't interested in arguing facts. Let me know if you want to prove me wrong.
pauljathome wrote: CBDunkerson wrote:
While Irontruth does not explain the basis for his comment here, I'd argue that the claim he makes has been adequately proven multiple times. That is, QB has repeatedly cited texts which state things completely different from (not uncommonly the opposite of) the position he is taking. Do you disagree?
1) Actually, yes I DO disagree. Then you either haven't been paying attention or are not "moderately neutral".
In this post QB cited Richard Somerville as support for his position that, "improving efficiency is our only* constructive way forward" (also stated as, "To make a difference, a real difference, the operative word is EFFICIENCY.")
Sadly, Somerville summarized his entire point as, "There is no single silver bullet, but there's a lot of silver buckshot." In short, the exact opposite of the position QB ascribed to him... neither efficiency improvements nor any other single factor can stop global warming, but there are various things we can do which together would resolve the problem.
CBDunkerson wrote: pauljathome wrote: CBDunkerson wrote:
While Irontruth does not explain the basis for his comment here, I'd argue that the claim he makes has been adequately proven multiple times. That is, QB has repeatedly cited texts which state things completely different from (not uncommonly the opposite of) the position he is taking. Do you disagree?
1) Actually, yes I DO disagree. Then you either haven't been paying attention or are not "moderately neutral".
In this post QB cited Richard Somerville as support for his position that, "improving efficiency is our only* constructive way forward" (also stated as, "To make a difference, a real difference, the operative word is EFFICIENCY.")
Sadly, Somerville summarized his entire point as, "There is no single silver bullet, but there's a lot of silver buckshot." In short, the exact opposite of the position QB ascribed to him... neither efficiency improvements nor any other single factor can stop global warming, but there are various things we can do which together would resolve the problem. If anyone cares they should go look at my post you linked to and they'll see I posted exactly what I meant to and your recent characterization of my post is precisely the type of ####### ####### mischaracterizing you so like to decry. Words are easy. Walking the talk? Apparently not so much.
Speaking of easy words:
CB wrote: ...there are various things we can do which together would resolve the problem .
"Various things" eh? That's very helpful.
So far the "various things" I've seen are ####### ###### moves like prematurely mothballing the nuclear plants in Germany, opening new regions of Australia for coal extraction, and my favorite*, get 35k+- people together every year and pledge some more actions that may or may not get follow-through; mostly not if the last 30 years are any guide.
* And by "favorite" I mean just the opposite of that. People are such ####### ###### in large numbers.
Distract, deflect, demonize all you want.
Anyone can click that link and see that you cited Somerville to support your claim that energy efficiency improvements were the one and only thing which could solve global warming (which is ridiculous on its face) when, in fact, he explicitly said the opposite.
Quark Blast wrote: CBDunkerson wrote: pauljathome wrote: CBDunkerson wrote:
While Irontruth does not explain the basis for his comment here, I'd argue that the claim he makes has been adequately proven multiple times. That is, QB has repeatedly cited texts which state things completely different from (not uncommonly the opposite of) the position he is taking. Do you disagree?
1) Actually, yes I DO disagree. Then you either haven't been paying attention or are not "moderately neutral".
In this post QB cited Richard Somerville as support for his position that, "improving efficiency is our only* constructive way forward" (also stated as, "To make a difference, a real difference, the operative word is EFFICIENCY.")
Sadly, Somerville summarized his entire point as, "There is no single silver bullet, but there's a lot of silver buckshot." In short, the exact opposite of the position QB ascribed to him... neither efficiency improvements nor any other single factor can stop global warming, but there are various things we can do which together would resolve the problem. If anyone cares they should go look at my post you linked to and they'll see I posted exactly what I meant to and your recent characterization of my post is precisely the type of ####### ####### mischaracterizing you so like to decry. Words are easy. Walking the talk? Apparently not so much.
Speaking of easy words:
CB wrote: ...there are various things we can do which together would resolve the problem .
"Various things" eh? That's very helpful.
So far the "various things" I've seen are ####### ###### moves like prematurely mothballing the nuclear plants in Germany, opening new regions of Australia for coal extraction, and my favorite*, get 35k+- people together every year and pledge some more actions that may or may not get follow-through; mostly not if the last 30... I read the post. You referenced Somerville's buckshot strategy, but you immediately discounted all his points other than efficiency.
Quark Blast wrote:
*Yes, he also gives "Renewable Energy" and "Capturing and Storing CO2" as viable options but those two items, even with a generous reading of his chart, will only get us back to 1995 levels of CO2 emissions. So it's a start but a start that will be swallowed whole by China, India, and Russia over the next 5 years alone. To make a difference, a real difference, the operative word is EFFICIENCY.
He cites two other viable concurrent options, which you immediately discredit as having no value. So... he doesn't agree with you, since he does see these other avenues as valuable and useful areas of progress, where as you do not.
I am not debating you on the validity of those options. I am pointing out that you and he disagree on these issues. Yet you cited him as agreeing with you, when he clearly doesn't.
@Paul
I am expressing the exact same ideas here as the post you claimed was an ad hominem. I'm curious as to what part in this post you consider to be an ad hominem, since if my last one was, and I'm using the exact same ideas here, then this one must also be.
CBDunkerson wrote: Distract, deflect, demonize all you want.
Anyone can click that link and see that you cited Somerville to support your claim that energy efficiency improvements were the one and only thing which could solve global warming (which is ridiculous on its face) when, in fact, he explicitly said the opposite.
Wow! You really don't read for comprehension do you?
To recapture the initial quote of mine by you in your prior post:
"improving efficiency is our only* constructive way forward"
Indeed I said exactly that. Note the word constructive, and note it well.
The other options, the things you call "various things we can do which together would resolve the problem" (those things you helpfully list not), has a word worth noting. The word/phrase in the case of your statement is would resolve.
"Would resolve" indeed if we lived in happy land where the faeries rule and all things bad could be solved with magic. /sarcasm
Back to the word constructive and the concept of efficiency:
The thing about efficiency is it works better now. LED is better now than incandescent or fluorescent for the vast majority of applications. Natural gas is better now than coal for large scale electricity generation. Things that are marked improvements on efficiency have little to no ROI time. These are the things I was referring to. Something you might have understood were you not bent on "proving me wrong" at every turn. Also something you might have picked up if you'd actually watched/listened to the YouTube lecture by Dr. Richard Somerville.
Improvements in efficiency are things that are better now for the individual and the collective. Efficiency is always a win. Thus these are things that are constructive.
Other wild### ideas about combating AGW (your unexpressed "various things" I can only presume), are not constructive because they engender friction among the various participants. Friction begets blow-back and blow-back slows the progress down to a crawl when it doesn't reverse the situation.
That the top four items, listed in Dr. Somerville's "silver buckshot" graph, are all different angles on improving efficiency doesn't surprise me in the least.
The good Dr get's it.
How about you? Do you get it now?
Irontruth wrote: @Paul
I am expressing the exact same ideas here as the post you claimed was an ad hominem. I'm curious as to what part in this post you consider to be an ad hominem, since if my last one was, and I'm using the exact same ideas here, then this one must also be.
No, there is a huge difference between the posts. I find it hard to believe that you don't see the difference.
The post that I stated was an Ad Hominem consisted of the following. Nothing more.
Quote: Jesus, you can read anything and see what you want. Whereas this more recent post makes an argument and supplies evidence to support that argument. Its not a great argument but its a long way from an Ad Hominem.
I don't think you know what an ad hominem is.
You're right in that I did not provide clarity, but clarity of information is not the defining characteristic of what is an is not an ad hominem.
pauljathome wrote: The post that I stated was an Ad Hominem consisted of the following. Nothing more.
Quote: Jesus, you can read anything and see what you want. For the record, that is NOT an example of argumentum ad hominem.
'Fred smells bad, therefore his argument must be wrong', is an ad hominem argument.
pauljathome wrote: Whereas this more recent post makes an argument and supplies evidence to support that argument. Irontruth's post makes an argument... that QB sees things which aren't there. Everyone agrees that the post did not supply evidence of that argument, but that doesn't mean such evidence doesn't exist. I already provided one example. Irontruth has offered to do so also. There are MANY to choose from.
I provide plenty of evidence for my arguments. Some of the particular arguments have extended across dozens of forum pages (we're on page 72 here at the moment) and scores of posts; each post adding to the next as new information comes to light.
But instead of reading for comprehension my detractors read for disputation, even to the extent of dissecting coherent posts into incoherent fragments in order to facilitate the ruse of poor argumentation on my part and give a facade of fair interaction with my ideas.
The most recent example being this:
QB wrote: That the top four items, listed in Dr. Somerville's "silver buckshot" graph, are all different angles on improving efficiency doesn't surprise me in the least.
The good Dr get's it.
Had a reasonable person taken the time to watch/listen to Somerville's video they would acknowledge his lecture supports my point directly. I even posted the most germane time segment in case watching an hour of video is too burdensome. Efficiency is the name of the game, because it brings people together - it benefits everyone now and is a friction reducer.
Instead we got the usual unreasonable attacks on both my integrity and a froth of random jabs at things I in fact did not argue for. One person in particular has nothing but difficulty interacting with people on these forums - the abject failures are there for all to see across various topic threads for years. I've commended thejeff several times as he actually interacts with my ideas as posted. One would think the other detractors could learn by his stellar example... but one would be dead wrong.
Quark Blast wrote:
Instead we got the usual unreasonable attacks on both my integrity and a froth of random jabs at things I in fact did not argue for. One person in particular has nothing but difficulty interacting with people on these forums - the abject failures are there for all to see across various topic threads for years. I've commended thejeff several times as he actually interacts with my ideas as posted. One would think the other detractors could learn by his stellar example... but one would be dead wrong.
And yet despite that, I overwhelming agree with your other critics and mostly just don't bother responding anymore because trying to discuss any of this with you is just too frustrating.
Every once in a while I can follow a piece of your argument that others seem to have missed, which now has you using me as a defense. Most of the time, what you post is incomprehensible at least in its connection to the what you cite as evidence for it and sometimes it's incoherent and contradictory completely on its own. Mostly I think you're just trolling here, because I don't see any other rationale making any sense.
Irontruth wrote: I don't think you know what an ad hominem is.
Oh, I rather think that I do.
To quote Wikipedia
"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."
I think that it is utterly and completely clear that "Jesus, you can read anything and see what you want" is avoiding genuine discussion of the topic by instead attacking the person making the argument.
thejeff wrote: And yet despite that, I overwhelming agree with your other critics and mostly just don't bother responding anymore because trying to discuss any of this with you is just too frustrating. That's both a fair and mature response.
.
thejeff wrote: Every once in a while I can follow a piece of your argument that others seem to have missed, which now has you using me as a defense. Most of the time, what you post is incomprehensible at least in its connection to the what you cite as evidence for it and sometimes it's incoherent and contradictory completely on its own. Mostly I think you're just trolling here, because I don't see any other rationale making any sense. You're welcome to your opinion but lets revisit the issue CB linked back to just up thread here:
This is the video I cited as evidence in support of my position back on September 17th, 2016. I even allowed that a 1-hour video might be too much for some people's attention span and so referenced specifically the 46:25 to 46:35 portion. At that point, to support his thesis for "The Scientific Case for Urgent Action to Limit Climate Change", Professor Emeritus Richard Somerville is showing a graph titled "How to Cut U.S. Global Warming Emissions in Half".
In that graph he has six main routes to achieving the reduction in emissions. His top four methods all involve increases in efficiency of things we already do and reasonably aren't about to stop doing.
Did Dr. Somerville make this talk to support my argument? No, but it does just the same and not just at that 10 second bit showing the graph. If you want to bring people together, and combating AGW is a cause for which we need to bring people together like never before in human history, then there needs to be an obvious and immediate reward for them doing so.
So, things like improved gas mileage for a truck that has the same torque, comfort, clearance, etc. is a win in this way. Bulbs with "incandescent spectrum" output but are really LED lights and they cost a fraction per hour what standard filament bulbs cost are another such win.
Tell people they have to be vegan, while effective if it could be enforced (because meat and dairy production throws a ####ton of CO2 in the air/calorie compared to tofu), is more likely to make people barbecue their steak on charcoal briquettes with extra lighter fluid.
pauljathome wrote: Irontruth wrote: I don't think you know what an ad hominem is.
Oh, I rather think that I do.
To quote Wikipedia
"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."
I think that it is utterly and completely clear that "Jesus, you can read anything and see what you want" is avoiding genuine discussion of the topic by instead attacking the person making the argument.
In this video, Sean Hannity agrees with me.
That video is specifically about you, and how you don't understand what an ad hominem is.
If you claim that I am misrepresenting that video, by the logic you just presented... you've committed an ad hominem against me.
I think your criteria of what is an is not an ad hominem needs some workshopping.
In the post you got all huffy about, all I did was point out that QB routinely cites/quotes people and claims that they make conclusions that are not present in the citation/quote. I am not impugning any attribute, motive, or character of QB. I am claiming that the methodology he used to support his argument is flawed. Just like using the above video to support my argument that you are misuing "ad hominem" would be a misrepresentation of the source.
Irontruth wrote: In this video, Sean Hannity agrees with me. Generally Sean Hannity agreeing with me is a sign I need to reconsider.
That's probably a fallacy too, but it usually works anyway. :)
Irontruth wrote:
In this video, Sean Hannity agrees with me.
That video is specifically about you, and how you don't understand what an ad hominem is.
I pretty much agree with thejeff here. I'm quite glad to find that Sean Hannity disagrees with me :-)
Edit: before you point it out, I absolutely admit that just dismissing Sean Hannity as a lying ignorant idiot (or, at least, that is his persona) without further evidence IS an Ad Homenim.
But I hasten to point out that
1) I'm not actually arguing with him, I'm just deciding he isn't worth arguing with
2) I have high blood pressure, watching 20 minutes of that moron would be bad for my health :-)
3) my original point was that one should either argue properly or not engage.
On that note, I'm bowing out of this discussion. Feel free to get the last word by replying to this post, doubtless calling me some combination of hypocrite, fool, liberal pinko, coward, whatever.
I'm going to take my own advice and not engage.
pauljathome wrote:
3) my original point was that one should either argue properly or not engage.
This is a thread that has been going on for 5 years now, there is more context than one post, and if you jump on any one post with self-righteous indignation, there is a good chance of getting burned.
No offense, you've jumped on me twice... and then backed off... over the past 2 years as it became obvious that there was a LOT of s%%! going on that wasn't clear just from that post.
Maybe the lesson is that judging a single post in a thread with nearly 3,600 posts is a bad idea.
I'm down for arguing properly, but it is a concept that requires everyone participating to agree to.
Also, you don't have to watch the video at all to know that our thread has not reached the level of drawing the attention of a cable news opinion show. If you think that Sean Hannity has bothered to address Pauljathome in a Paizo climate thread on his show... I have bad news for you.
pauljathome wrote:
I pretty much agree with thejeff here. I'm quite glad to find that Sean Hannity disagrees with me :-)
Edit: before you point it out, I absolutely admit that just dismissing Sean Hannity as a lying ignorant idiot (or, at least, that is his persona) without further evidence IS an Ad Homenim.
Of course, I was just through out a joke.
Irontruth's whole point is that Hannity doesn't agree with him in that video or even say anything relevant, but that nonetheless "If you claim that I am misrepresenting that video, by the logic you just presented... you've committed an ad hominem against me."
EIA projecting 75% of 2020 new US electrical generation will be renewable
...and that's coming from an organization which has consistently under-estimated renewable growth by huge margins.
I've been saying that natural gas will soon follow coal in to permanent decline for a few years now. This new projection seems to be confirming that. Indeed, EIA is expecting the ~9.31 gigawatts of new natural gas production coming online to be partially offset by ~3.74 gigawatts of old natural gas being shut down this year.
Basically, we're reaching the point where the natural gas plants which began the replacement of coal power are reaching end-of-life... but wind and solar are now both growing faster than natural gas. New natural gas will thus continue to shrink and in just a few years will be entirely offset by the surge of old gas plants shutting down.
The reason for these changes is that new wind and solar power now cost less than new natural gas, less than continuing to run existing coal plants, and less than half as much as nuclear power. In short, the primary factor pushing the conversion from fossil fuels to renewable energy is economics. People want to make money.
|
