A major aspect to whether people will "pay for it" or not is how those payments are structured. The new taxes in France and the transit price increases in Chile both put a larger share of the burden on working and lower class people.
Corporations and wealthy individuals have benefited the most from causing climate change, and so it is not unreasonable for people to be angry when taxes are imposed on the working class in order to mitigate climate change.
I would agree that if we have to spend time arguing over who's fault it is, then we are unfortunately losing time to actually deal with the problem. I don't have the trust in the markets that others have. I think the markets are making wind more viable as an alternative, but I don't think that this shift is going to happen fast enough to actually solve the problem.
While Thomas Friedman isn't wrong about everything, if he's staked out a position I'm inclined to be extremely skeptical of it actually being a good idea (he thinks the Green New Deal is too radical).
The US government has spent maybe $153 billion to mitigate climate change since 1993. In 2018, it is estimated that the wind energy industry generated $1 billion in profit. Exxon reported $279 billion in revenue, and that's just one company, not the entire fossil fuel industry. We aren't even close to the tipping point of renewable energy edging out fossil fuels. Short of nationalizing companies like Exxon, I would agree with QB and be highly skeptical that the free market solves this by 2030.
I disagree with him on the possibility of massive mobilization on the issue though. Human history to me indicates that massive change is possible in a short amount of time. The faster it has to be though, the more violent it will be.
|
Human history to me indicates that massive change is possible in a short amount of time. The faster it has to be though, the more violent it will be.
I honestly wouldn't be all that surprised if sometime in the next decade or two we see some combination of
1) French Revolution level of anti-elite violence in at least some places2) Nazi/Stalinist Russia level of government suppression of dissent in at least some places
3) civil war breaking out in at least some places.
If we (collective world "we") don't get our act together somewhat I think the odds of at least 1 of the above happening is huge. And, while sometimes humans DO manage to get their act together they also often manage to NOT do so until things get really, really bad. If then.
We've got a long history of civilizations collapsing through sheer stupidity. And a long history of civilizations managing to get smart.
Unfortunately, right now the two biggest economies (China and the US) seem hell bent on being complete and total idiots.
|
We aren't even close to the tipping point of renewable energy edging out fossil fuels.
I suppose it depends how you define it. To my way of thinking we passed the tipping point back in 2012 when global new electricity production became greater than 50% renewable.
You cited total profits, but that is determined by which industries have the largest EXISTING footprint, rather than which are 'winning' now.
Even with all the profits and subsidies and political favors and entrenched infrastructure supporting them... fossil fuels have lost out to renewables in terms of new market share every year since 2012... and the gap is growing. That's a tipping point.
Short of nationalizing companies like Exxon, I would agree with QB and be highly skeptical that the free market solves this by 2030.
Again, it depends on definitions. Last year two-thirds of new electricity installed was renewable (the remainder was natural gas)... as was one-third of the global total. Thus, unless something changes radically, it seems inevitable to me that we will be around 50% renewable and all fossil fuels in decline world wide by 2030. That isn't 100% renewable, so global warming wouldn't be 'solved' yet... but that's essentially impossible by 2030. On the other hand, I'd argue that we have already 'solved' the problem of switching from fossil fuels to renewables... it just takes time to complete the transition.
I honestly wouldn't be all that surprised if sometime in the next decade or two we see some combination of
1) French Revolution level of anti-elite violence in at least some places
2) Nazi/Stalinist Russia level of government suppression of dissent in at least some places
3) civil war breaking out in at least some places.
Two and three have already happened.
Unfortunately, right now the two biggest economies (China and the US) seem hell bent on being complete and total idiots.
Both are rapidly transitioning away from fossil fuels... China due to the official energy policy of the current regime, and the US despite the official energy policy of the current regime.
|
|
The preliminary report just released for CO2 emitted last year for energy production is unchanged from 2018,
Zero CO2 emissions growth with 2.9% global GDP growth is generally considered a good thing. Yes, decreasing CO2 emissions would be a better thing, but you need to stop before you can change direction and you need to slow down before you can stop.
CO2 emissions grew less than 1% per year from 2010 to 2019... compared to more than 3% per year the prior decade.
with continued decline in the "west", even in the USA (though due mostly to coal converting to natural gas). Sadly places like India are accelerating and will likely wipe out any gains in the west for the near term.
India and China have been accounting for nearly all the growth in CO2 emissions in recent years... but the growth rate of both countries has been declining, not "accelerating".
The report said nothing about CO2 for transportation but that cannot be doing anything but going up still.
While transportation CO2 emissions did increase a small percentage last year, the fact that you assume this to be inevitable shows your confirmation bias. Electric vehicles sales growth is causing ICE vehicle sales decline. Within a few years (i.e. after new ICE sales drop below the annual ICE retirement rate) that will inevitably result in decreasing CO2 emissions from transportation.
As for me and my humble opinion, the "tipping point" will be when no new energy investment is going to fossil fuels based production/use. That'll be a few more years yet.
That sounds more like 'complete surrender' than a 'tipping point'. It'll be more than a few years before petrol states give up investing in their primary source of income.
We aren't even close to the tipping point of renewable energy edging out fossil fuels.I suppose it depends how you define it. To my way of thinking we passed the tipping point back in 2012 when global new electricity production became greater than 50% renewable.
You cited total profits, but that is determined by which industries have the largest EXISTING footprint, rather than which are 'winning' now.
Even with all the profits and subsidies and political favors and entrenched infrastructure supporting them... fossil fuels have lost out to renewables in terms of new market share every year since 2012... and the gap is growing. That's a tipping point.
Tell me which of these you think is the fundamental problem (ie, we cannot go beyond this problem to a deeper level of the problem).
1. The problem is the rate of change in market share of energy types.
2. The problem is CO2 in the atmosphere causing global temperatures to rise.
If you think the core problem is #1, then sure, your viewpoint is a pretty good reference frame to analyze factors.
I'm pretty sure though that #2 is the problem.
At some point, there is a level of CO2 in the atmosphere that will cause humanity to go extinct. There are also lower levels of CO2 that will just cause varying levels of damage and destruction, with the levels of damage going up as the CO2 levels go up. The fact that renewables are out pacing fossil fuels does not inherently solve the problem. The rate of change must be sufficient enough to solve problem #2, and I am not convinced that this is true.
Even if we stop adding CO2 right now, the current level of CO2 will lead to an increase in global temperature over the next 80 years. And of course we are currently still adding a lot of CO2.
If you told me that the free market would transition us to a zero-CO2 emission by 2100 I wouldn't believe you, and so I definitely don't believe claims that it could happen by 2050.
It is going to take massive, organized society-wide efforts to get this done, and that means national governments working both independently and in concert. The free market will not save us.
In the 1970's, when Ohio had the problem of its rivers catching fire, it was unable to solve the problem until the federal government stepped in to regulate it. I've seen nothing about free markets or capitalism that have changed since then to imply that either of those systems is different. Even if certain economic incentives are reduced for the usage of fossil fuel, they will still be used in other areas because fossil fuel is easy to use and effective. In a capitalist system, there will always be some amount of oil that is economically viable to extract, refine, and burn. As long as that amount is greater than the Earth's ability to pull that carbon out of the atmosphere we are in danger.
Looks at the most recent post by Ironthruth.
Looks at today's date and thinks, No, not April 1st. Huh?
Looks at the sky to see if it's falling... Nope. Huh?
If you spend less time trying to gaslight the thread, we can have more conversations like this.
I don't agree with you on everything (obviously), but I don't agree with CBD either. I wouldn't describe myself as being somewhere in between necessarily either, but I do agree with each of you on various aspects.
Human history to me indicates that massive change is possible in a short amount of time. The faster it has to be though, the more violent it will be.I honestly wouldn't be all that surprised if sometime in the next decade or two we see some combination of
1) French Revolution level of anti-elite violence in at least some places
2) Nazi/Stalinist Russia level of government suppression of dissent in at least some places
3) civil war breaking out in at least some places.If we (collective world "we") don't get our act together somewhat I think the odds of at least 1 of the above happening is huge. And, while sometimes humans DO manage to get their act together they also often manage to NOT do so until things get really, really bad. If then.
We've got a long history of civilizations collapsing through sheer stupidity. And a long history of civilizations managing to get smart.
Unfortunately, right now the two biggest economies (China and the US) seem hell bent on being complete and total idiots.
I wouldn't actually separate those three events.
I am not claiming that history is cyclical (those are b$&~*%~+ narratives IMO). But often times change happens in fits and starts. Take a step forward, take two back, take one to the right, take two forward, hop forward onto someone else's back....
In some ways, the French Revolution didn't stop 1870, meaning it lasted 80 years. The government in France kept revolving. There's one theory that the country's process toward democracy was so chaotic because the country did not have established institutions to wield power democratically.
In contrast, England had the Glorious Revolution in 1688 when the parliament invited a new king to take over, under certain conditions. Parliament had a lot of power and was capable of negotiating for reform. England was therefore less violent (there was still violence) in it's transition to democracy.
If powerful countries with democratic institutions can lead the world in a democratic process, the odds of the world solving climate change peacefully go up a lot. If countries without democratic institutions end up in charge of the process, the odds are that there will be a lot more blood shed to sort all of this out.
If you think the thread is better served trying to defend your sloppy mistakes, we can go back to that. It's up to you.
|
|
If powerful countries with democratic institutions can lead the world in a democratic process, the odds of the world solving climate change peacefully go up a lot. If countries without democratic institutions end up in charge of the process, the odds are that there will be a lot more blood shed to sort all of this out.
At the risk of getting this post deleted for veering too much into politics, I'd say that one huge problem right now is that quite a few countries in the world (including the most powerful with what is still the largest economy in the world) are fundamentally attacking their internal democratic institutions AND the international institutions and cooperation that we will also need to globally combat climate change.
From that point of view, things looked a LOT better a few years ago than they do now.
Well, I think as long as we're allowed to discuss real world topics, we're always discussing politics (which means I think their ban on "politics" is both arbitrary and silly).
Looking at the US with a more distant view, the democratic institutions (not the party, the system of government) have some strength, but some glaring weaknesses. Those weaknesses make the whole system vulnerable to exploitation and attack, but it is the fact that those systems exist also allow it to persevere.
Going back to 17th century England (to avoid discussing today's politics), parliament only 1-2% of the population. By 1800, that had expanded to maybe 5% of the population, but the fact that parliament was representative and the body that it represented was capable of growing provided a level of stability that made England look almost tranquil compared to France.
It sounds like I'm hedging, but I also honestly don't know which way things will go (and I think anyone who says they do know is either b&*@&!$*ting, or doesn't realize they're b&#%*$+%ting). In the current struggle in the US, either the country will become more democratic, or our democratic institutions will be partially dismantled. I do not think we will return to the status quo of 10-15 years ago. I think the 2020 election has the potential to be almost as impactful as the presidential election of 1860. The stakes are lower in the immediate future, but the consequences could be nearly as high in the long term.
|
|
It would be good... if this was 2000 instead of 2020.
Again, the situation getting better (e.g. emissions growth stopping) is a good thing at any point.
When I say India, etc. are accelerating I'm talking CO2 into the atmosphere. That's the number that counts. Like Cap-and-Trade, just looking at rate or growth is not especially helpful.
CO2 emissions from the developed world are decreasing.
CO2 emissions from India, China, and the rest of the developing world are slowing.Both of those are good things. Neither of them can accurately be described as "accelerating".
There's one atmosphere and any CO2 increase is bad, but especially so when the developing nations are more than making up for the cutbacks in the developed nations.
Which... they aren't.
"Net Zero" is a global goal. Not local. Not regional. Not relative.
...and last year we had "Net Zero" global emissions growth. Not local. Not regional. Not relative.
Tell me which of these you think is the fundamental problem (ie, we cannot go beyond this problem to a deeper level of the problem).
1. The problem is the rate of change in market share of energy types.
2. The problem is CO2 in the atmosphere causing global temperatures to rise.
If you think the core problem is #1, then sure, your viewpoint is a pretty good reference frame to analyze factors.
I'm pretty sure though that #2 is the problem.
The 2nd item is the problem. The 1st item is the solution.
At some point, there is a level of CO2 in the atmosphere that will cause humanity to go extinct.
Theoretically, yes. Practically, no.
First, even the worst case IPCC emissions scenarios wouldn't get us to human extinction.
Second, we are currently far below those worst case scenarios and all trend lines show the situation improving.
Third, even if we somehow abandoned all clean power sources and achieved emissions beyond the IPCC worst case scenarios... we'd kill off a significant portion of the human race, and thus vastly reduce our power requirements and emissions, centuries before the north and south poles would become too hot for human habitation.
Logically, the only way global warming leads to human extinction is if it triggers something else, like nuclear or biological warfare.
The fact that renewables are out pacing fossil fuels does not inherently solve the problem. The rate of change must be sufficient enough to solve problem #2, and I am not convinced that this is true.
We will never eliminate all CO2 from the atmosphere, and would not want to. At the other extreme, we are in no danger of atmospheric CO2 causing human extinction.
Thus, 'solving the problem', falls somewhere between those extremes. In which case the 'problem is solved' when atmospheric CO2 levels stop increasing... and yes, if current trends continue that WILL happen. Almost certainly not soon enough to prevent 1.5 C warming by 2100, but also almost certainly soon enough to prevent 3 C warming by 2100.
Even if we stop adding CO2 right now, the current level of CO2 will lead to an increase in global temperature over the next 80 years.
Actually, current atmospheric CO2 levels will continue to cause the global temperature to increase for thousands of years. The 'by 2100' figure you generally hear is for 'rapid' temperature increase... the direct impact and 'fast feedbacks' (mainly water vapor). However, there are also slow feedbacks (e.g. Antarctic ice melting to expose more dark ground, which absorbs more incoming sunlight) which will take a long time to play out.
The '2C danger limit' you generally hear about is really '2C by 2100'. That same level of atmospheric CO2 would eventually lead to total warming of around 4C... it's just that the initial 2C over the course of 'just' ~200 years will be FAR more disruptive than the additional 2C over the next few thousand.
If you told me that the free market would transition us to a zero-CO2 emission by 2100 I wouldn't believe you, and so I definitely don't believe claims that it could happen by 2050.
Setting aside the fact that we don't necessarily need to get to zero emissions to stop global warming, I'd agree that it is unlikely we get to zero emissions by 2050. Possible, but unlikely. It would essentially require that all new fossil fuel plants (and cars) built between now and then be retired before their normal end of life.
It is going to take massive, organized society-wide efforts to get this done, and that means national governments working both independently and in concert. The free market will not save us.
Government action is only required when people wouldn't otherwise do something on their own. Given that wind and solar now cost less than fossil fuels, and solar will soon cost much less, there is no reason that governments would have to get involved.
Note that the US is rapidly decarbonizing despite the current government doing everything in their power to prevent that. We've reached the point where government policy can barely even slow down the transition... the exact opposite of your claim that the transition can ONLY happen due to government action.
In the 1970's, when Ohio had the problem of its rivers catching fire, it was unable to solve the problem until the federal government stepped in to regulate it. I've seen nothing about free markets or capitalism that have changed since then to imply that either of those systems is different.
The situation is completely different.
There was no financial incentive to clean up the rivers. The monetary 'benefits' of a free dump for pollution vastly outweighed any lost fishing or other revenue.
Assuming that market forces can never resolve a problem is just as illogical as assuming that they will always do so.
Even if certain economic incentives are reduced for the usage of fossil fuel, they will still be used in other areas because fossil fuel is easy to use and effective.
Solar and wind power are easy to use and effective... and they cost less.
In a capitalist system, there will always be some amount of oil that is economically viable to extract, refine, and burn. As long as that amount is greater than the Earth's ability to pull that carbon out of the atmosphere we are in danger.
That's not how economics (capitalist or otherwise) works.
The cost of oil keeps going up because we are running out of cheap / easy places to get it from. Meanwhile, the cost of solar power keeps going down because we are developing better materials and methods for generating it. Solar costs less NOW. Within 10 years it will cost less than half as much. Given the two options, people will choose to pay less... which means that there will be less and less money available to extract more and more expensive oil.
The cost of oil keeps going up because we are running out of cheap / easy places to get it from.
That isn't how economics works.
Also, your rebuttal COMPLETLY disregarded what I actually said.
|
|
I think the 2020 election has the potential to be almost as impactful as the presidential election of 1860. The stakes are lower in the immediate future, but the consequences could be nearly as high in the long term.
I largely agree with you but with one caveat.
I think that regardless of what happens in 2020, Trump has massively and probably permanently damaged Americas foreign relations. America is just now seen as a nation that cannot be relied upon.
Obviously, its not a binary thing (going from trusted to untrusted). America has ALWAYS acted largely in its own interests (as do all other nations, I'll hasten to add) , its always been seem to be somewhat unreliable, etc.
But under Trump things got very different. And its had an effect. All of Americas allies have started to make moves to lessen their reliance upon America. In a very real way, America is no longer the leader of the free world. In a very real way, America has lost LOTS of the soft power that it used to have.
And that position of leadership, that soft power, would have been very useful in combating Climate Change if, of course, America ever decides that Climate Change is actually a major problem that needs addressing.
|
|
It would be good... if this was 2000 instead of 2020.Again, the situation getting better (e.g. emissions growth stopping) is a good thing at any point.
This isn't necessarily true. If things aren't getting better fast enough it may not matter.
Let me give an analogy. If a truck is barreling towards you at 150 mph and is going to hit your car in 3 seconds, is it really a good thing if you manage to slow it to 145 mph so it won't hit for 3.1 seconds? In the purely abstract mathematical sense then yes, it is. In the practical sense, doesn't really matter much.
I think the 2020 election has the potential to be almost as impactful as the presidential election of 1860. The stakes are lower in the immediate future, but the consequences could be nearly as high in the long term.I largely agree with you but with one caveat.
I think that regardless of what happens in 2020, Trump has massively and probably permanently damaged Americas foreign relations. America is just now seen as a nation that cannot be relied upon.
Obviously, its not a binary thing (going from trusted to untrusted). America has ALWAYS acted largely in its own interests (as do all other nations, I'll hasten to add) , its always been seem to be somewhat unreliable, etc.
But under Trump things got very different. And its had an effect. All of Americas allies have started to make moves to lessen their reliance upon America. In a very real way, America is no longer the leader of the free world. In a very real way, America has lost LOTS of the soft power that it used to have.
And that position of leadership, that soft power, would have been very useful in combating Climate Change if, of course, America ever decides that Climate Change is actually a major problem that needs addressing.
Let me flip this around for you.
If a different, future president were to re-establish the US in global diplomacy, the reduced power and reliance on the US will require us to more closely adhere to international norms. For example, it might get harder for the US to thumb it's nose at the ICJ. The presidency (and congress) will probably continue to do so, but it will mean concessions in other places.
A reduction in US power, but a still strong US, could be good for global democracy in that we will have to participate in it more, and not just stand above it. As our power wanes, it becomes more important for us to establish democratic international norms and get more and more countries behind them. It will serve to unite the world against a new hegemonic power, or at least make it that much more difficult for one to establish itself.
If you think the thread is better served trying to defend your sloppy mistakes, we can go back to that. It's up to you.No. Not at all. Based on past invariant history in this thread, it'll be up to you and CB. But thanks for asking.
;)Or, you know, you could pick up on the actual point from that post of mine and helpfully comment on how the Coronavirus will affect global CO2 this year.
It's up to you. It really is.
:p...and last year we had "Net Zero" global emissions growth. Not local. Not regional. Not relative.Tell that to Mauna Loa Observatory for me. See if she listens.
:D
Another impact from the Coronavirus:
Cheap solar panels are largely made in China. Solar panels just became a commodity that is on a getting scarce trend. What do you think that will do for solar pricing?
Which coronavirus are you talking about?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...and last year we had "Net Zero" global emissions growth. Not local. Not regional. Not relative.Tell that to Mauna Loa Observatory for me. See if she listens.
You really are a special kind of hopeless.
You know what another way of saying 'net zero growth' of emissions is? Try, "unchanged" emissions.
Meanwhile, nothing in the Mauna Loa data you linked contradicts what you and I have both said to be the case (i.e. global emissions were unchanged / had net zero growth)... because it doesn't show emissions at all!
It's like you just wander through these conversations taking random positions with no understanding of what you, the people you cite, or anyone else, is actually talking about.
|
|
Note especially the words "for energy production". Cause you know humanity emitted a ####ton of CO2 for other things like deforestation, transportation, construction, etc.
So, you're saying that when you wrote "energy" you meant 'electricity' rather than 'power'. Ok, it's ambiguous. Plausible so far.
So, CO2 for those things increased last year. Yeah... they did.
Source?
Global GDP growth dropped from about 3.61% in 2018 to an estimated 3.01% in 2019. That would tend to suggest less construction, less travel, less manufacturing, et cetera... and as a result, historically less CO2 emissions.
Which means, if CO2 for energy production heald steady, net CO2 increased last year. Which is just what the Mauna Loa Observatory was screaming at you but you failed to listen. Again. <eyeroll>
Go click on that Mauna Loa link again. Look at the graph. Especially the values on the far right. If you can't figure out the graph then look at the table of numbers to the lower left. Here, I'll copy the relevant values for you;
2018 2.86
2019 2.46
Now, 2.46 ppm (parts per million) is less than 2.86 ppm. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increased LESS in 2019 than it did in 2018.
Are you seeing why this doesn't support your argument that CO2 emissions went up in 2019? Setting aside that emissions into the atmosphere and amount accumulated in the atmosphere are different things... the numbers show the reverse of what you are claiming.
Note especially the words "for energy production". Cause you know humanity emitted a ####ton of CO2 for other things like deforestation, transportation, construction, etc.So, you're saying that when you wrote "energy" you meant 'electricity' rather than 'power'. Ok, it's ambiguous. Plausible so far.
So, CO2 for those things increased last year. Yeah... they did.Source?
Global GDP growth dropped from about 3.61% in 2018 to an estimated 3.01% in 2019. That would tend to suggest less construction, less travel, less manufacturing, et cetera... and as a result, historically less CO2 emissions.
Which means, if CO2 for energy production heald steady, net CO2 increased last year. Which is just what the Mauna Loa Observatory was screaming at you but you failed to listen. Again. <eyeroll>Go click on that Mauna Loa link again. Look at the graph. Especially the values on the far right. If you can't figure out the graph then look at the table of numbers to the lower left. Here, I'll copy the relevant values for you;
2018 2.86
2019 2.46Now, 2.46 ppm (parts per million) is less than 2.86 ppm. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increased LESS in 2019 than it did in 2018.
Are you seeing why this doesn't support your argument that CO2 emissions went up in 2019? Setting aside that emissions into the atmosphere and amount accumulated in the atmosphere are different things... the numbers show the reverse of what you are claiming.
Thanks for providing the data in your post directly.
You will notice that both of those numbers are positive. Which means the amount of CO2 went up in 2019.
Srsly, what part of "net CO2 increased last year" don't you understand?
In case you need further explicit tutelage:
More...
If I put $1 in savings yesterday, and I put in $0.80 in savings today. Yesterday my total savings was $1. Today my total savings is $1.80.
The rate of savings decreased, even though my accumulated savings increased.
This is why being precise in these discussions matters.
Muana reported both an increase in overall CO2 and a reduced rate of increase of CO2.
Quark Blast,
You're saying that in order to have a constructive discussion, no one is allowed to point out when people say something incorrect?
Cool. I think global warming isn't an issue. Based on the Mauna Loa numbers, the amount of total CO2 is decreasing, and therefore nothing needs to be done to correct the problem of warming. In fact, our real problem is global cooling.
If you want to have a "constructive" conversation with me, you are not allowed to correct any statements in that paragraph. Please discuss my ideas "constructively". Give me an example of what kind of conversation you would like to have.
|
|
I don't care about rate under the present situation.
...and yet, you were the one who brought it up.
The net increase and neither the rate nor trend of that increase.
So, you insist on ignoring trends in the data? This explains why your estimates / predictions of future results never make sense.
So then, you can move on or continue to berate me some more on the 1-year "trend" in CO2 emissions. A point I neither brought up nor was contending; other than to say I'm not contending that point.
Actually, you DID bring it up and dispute the point. Maybe you weren't aware that was what the words you were writing meant?
I don't care about rate under the present situation. I care only about the fact that CO2 is still be added to the atmosphere in amounts where natural processes can't remove it. The net increase and neither the rate nor trend of that increase.
This an absurd hypothetical, but this is to make a point.
If global emissions for one year was precisely 1 pound (not a gigaton, 1 pound) over what the environment could naturally sequester, your point above would be that this is irrelevant to the overall effort to prevent climate change in the future. For your statement above to be true, you would consider a 99.999999999999999999% reduction in global emissions to be a failure since we're still emitting a positive 0.000000000000000001% net global emission.
When you say things this ridiculous, we have to point out that they are ridiculous. If you DEMAND that we take them seriously, and act like we're all stupid for not taking points like this seriously... it's why we can't talk about the thing you want to talk about.
I don't care about rate under the present situation. I care only about the fact that CO2 is still be added to the atmosphere in amounts where natural processes can't remove it. The net increase and neither the rate nor trend of that increase.
You stated quite clearly that you didn't care about the trend or it's rate. If that isn't what you wanted to say, then you should have said something else.
We can only respond to the things you write. If you want us to respond to something else, write something else.
Maybe stop talking in absolutes and hyperbole. Maybe try having a reasonable conversation with us. Try saying something constructive.
|
|
Why would you want to argue that a 1-year change in rate constitutes a trend?
didn't.
That was your claim. I just pointed out that the supposed 'trend' was in the opposite direction of what you were saying... and involved a different measurement (i.e. atmospheric CO2 concentration rather than CO2 emissions).
Solar panels just became a commodity that is on a getting scarce trend.
Solar panel manufacturing and installation have been growing steadily for many years. There is no 'getting scarce trend' in sight.
Why would you want to argue that a 1-year change in rate constitutes a trend?didn't.
That was your claim. I just pointed out that the supposed 'trend' was in the opposite direction of what you were saying... and involved a different measurement (i.e. atmospheric CO2 concentration rather than CO2 emissions).
My point, my sole point, is that in 2019 global humanity added net CO2 to the atmosphere.
Was that your only point when linking the Muana data? Lets go back in the record and check.
...and last year we had "Net Zero" global emissions growth. Not local. Not regional. Not relative.Tell that to Mauna Loa Observatory for me. See if she listens.
CB claims that there was no growth in global emissions, and you seem to be claiming that he is wrong.
Maybe you were confused and didn't notice the word "growth" in that sentence. If you didn't notice it, that would account for the discrepancy in your remark.
Either you made a mistake in not seeing the word "growth", or you were just flat out wrong in your attempt to prove him wrong. If you made a mistake of seeing "growth" that would back up the idea that your "sole claim" being that humanity still added CO2 to the atmosphere.
So, are you admitting to having made a mistake? If you do admit it, that makes your comments make some amount of sense, but if you don't admit it, you just look like you've made multiple mistakes. If you insist that you didn't make a mistake, well, that would obviously be a lie, since the proof is right there in black and white that you have made at least one mistake.
The choice is yours. Either we can have a constructive conversation where people admit their mistakes and then we all move on.... or you can continue to defend your mistakes as being legitimate and we have to continue debating stupid s#*+ like this.
|
|
My point, my sole point, is that in 2019 global humanity added net CO2 to the atmosphere.
So... something that was never in dispute and clearly not what you wrote previously. Got it.
In case you haven't noticed, manufacturing in China just fell off a cliff. And China produces 60%+ of the world's solar panels and a sizable chunk of the associated infrastructure. So unlike oil the price may be going up with this newly limited commodity.
So you, with your (recent) 'intense objections' to short trend lines, were referring to a trend so short that it doesn't even exist yet when you said that solar panels were already "on a getting scarce trend".
Problems with your prediction include; many solar companies have a few years worth of panels stockpiled, there is no indication that any disruption in Chinese solar manufacturing will be long term, and if Chinese manufacturing did falter there are plenty of other panel producers that would love the opportunity to grow their distribution.
As for the metalhead... what can I say. I've seen him caught dead wrong on one occasion and he claimed he replied to a post in another thread. But then neither specified the thread nor posted a cogent reply in the active thread. The guy is clearly ### ### ####### #### and therefore I won't interact with him on his level. Life is too short to go through it being a ####### #######. [/i][/smaller]
You keep referencing a post in which I made an apology to someone on these forums and using that as proof that I'm unreasonable.
When I make a mistake and do something wrong... I would consider making an apology to be a very adult thing to do.
|
|
As for the metalhead... what can I say. I've seen him caught dead wrong on one occasion and he claimed he replied to a post in another thread. But then neither specified the thread nor posted a cogent reply in the active thread. The guy is clearly ### ### ####### #### and therefore I won't interact with him on his level. Life is too short to go through it being a ####### #######. [/i][/smaller]You keep referencing a post in which I made an apology to someone on these forums and using that as proof that I'm unreasonable.
When I make a mistake and do something wrong... I would consider making an apology to be a very adult thing to do.
I think I was the poster you were replying to.
For the record (assuming I am right about that post) I absolutely accepted both your apology and your explanation. I have no memory whatsoever if I publicly stated that at the time but, since this has come up, I thought I should state that now.
Irontruth and I have had our disagreements. But that is no reason to not admit to mistakes and apologize for them (and then move on).