# Malthusianism and the Green Revolution



## Strange Magic

The Fooling With Mother Nature thread was derailed into an unrelated discussion on race and IQ. So here's a restart, focusing on the Malthusian dilemma and the Green Revolution. There is no question that Norman Borlaug intervened in the nick of time with his remarkable improvements in crop genetics and yields, and in agricultural procedures. Below is the link to Wikipedia's balanced discussion of the Green Revolution.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution

The Wikipedia article credits Borlaug's contributions to the new agriculture with saving a billion people from starvation. This tells us how close we had come to Malthusian catastrophe, as then-current agriculture had begun to fall behind the massively growing world population. Only the intervention of Borlaug and his co-workers' new and intensive crop modifications and the concomitant mass application of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides saved that and subsequent billions from starvation. How sustainable those innovative practices will be in the face of AGW and continued population growth remains to be seen. The advent of 2, 3, 5 or whatever additional billions to global populations, and their growing lust for meat, may prove to be quite a challenge.

Borlaug himself understood the key role that curbing population growth plays in keeping ahead of the Malthusian catastrophe. Wikipedia notes Borlaug's warning given in his speech upon receiving his well-earned 1970 Nobel Prize:

"However, Borlaug was well aware of the implications of population growth. In his Nobel lecture he repeatedly presented improvements in food production within a sober understanding of the context of population. '_The green revolution has won a temporary success in man's war against hunger and deprivation; it has given man a breathing space. If fully implemented, the revolution can provide sufficient food for sustenance during the next three decades. But the frightening power of human reproduction must also be curbed; otherwise the success of the green revolution will be ephemeral only. Most people still fail to comprehend the magnitude and menace of the "Population Monster"...Since man is potentially a rational being, however, I am confident that within the next two decades he will recognize the self-destructive course he steers along the road of irresponsible population growth._.'."

Borlaug somewhat vitiated the power of his Nobel speech and argument by, in a lapse of judgement, dismissing those with other perspectives and with other priorities beyond just feeding billions as "elitists":

"_some of the environmental lobbyists of the Western nations are the salt of the earth, but many of them are elitists. They've never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels...If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for fifty years, they'd be crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things"._

This is the same sort of argument that is unleashed against those who fly in jet aircraft to conferences to discuss environmental problems in the 21st Century, as if this is a serious criticism that could also be leveled at cancer specialists meeting in conference somewhere. Borlaug's achievements and his dedication to his cause are worthy of great respect, but it saddened me to read such petulance. Who, exactly, was trying to deprive people of tractors, fertilizer, and irrigation? There are certainly legitimate arguments against overuse or misuse of fertilizer, pesticide, herbicide, and irrigation technologies, which are alluded to both in the Wikipedia article and elsewhere, especially the pumping dry of vital aquifers.

So, despite the reprieve of the Green Revolution, the Malthusian dynamic remains inexorably at work. The era of the giddy optimism of the cornucopian fantasist economists is over.


----------



## Guest

Really? We were heading to disaster until Borlaug? Pray tell, what saved us from Malthus' original prediction? Yet another coincidental, nick-of-time discovery? Or is it just that these predictions of Malthusian catastrophes on a planetary level are absurd?

And why was Ehrlich wrong in all of his predictions in his bet with Simon? Did Borlaug screw him up as well? Or do these guys just really not understand scarcity and technology? If your model doesn't factor in new technology, and new technology repeatedly proves your predictions false, don't you think it is time to start factoring new technology into the equation?


----------



## Strange Magic

Ahh, the Doctor's usual torrent of rhetorical questions, as opposed to citing facts and figures. I'll bet serious money that The Good Doctor has not and will not read the Wikipedia entry nor any other on the subject at hand. I tap the knee with my little hammer and the leg reflexively swings out.

Here's a lighter, more user-friendly BBC piece on Borlaug and Malthusianism. The author has the cheerful tone of the usually scientifically lightweight economist but does note that some challenge the long-term viability of "human ingenuity" in the face of continued population growth (at a 1.09% growth rate, world populations will double in about 65 years) and the environmental ravages of AGW.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47643456


----------



## KenOC

Strange Magic said:


> ...How sustainable those innovative practices will be in the face of AGW and continued population growth remains to be seen. The advent of 2, 3, 5 or whatever additional billions to global populations, and their growing lust for meat, may prove to be quite a challenge.


The OP of that other thread included this rather startling statement: "Land use is the major driver of the biodiversity collapse, with 70% of agriculture related to meat production."

So how does biodiversity fare when there are an even greater number of humans, and their appetite for meat is increasing at the same time?


----------



## Strange Magic

KenOC said:


> The OP of that other thread included this rather startling statement: "Land use is the major driver of the biodiversity collapse, with 70% of agriculture related to meat production."
> 
> So how does biodiversity fare when there are an even greater number of humans, and their appetite for meat is increasing at the same time?


Ken, your relevant biomass figures in the other thread made that point with crystalline clarity. The biodiversity of Earth will continue to diminish well into the future. We can only hope to save, in zoos, reserves, and egg-and-sperm banks or other sorts of refuges some fraction of the rich biological legacy which was our responsibility to maintain (smallpox, etc. excluded). A smaller, wiser future population may then attempt to restore as much of a lost world as possible.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Malthus was correct in his observations - from his standpoint, writing at the dawn of the industrial revolution, all human history could be described as a Malthusian trap. However, technology broke this trap by allowing greater agricultural productivity. This productivity continues to increase - but is of course not limitless. Given trends in fertility, the global population will likely cap at around 10 billion sometime mid century. Modern agriculture can feed this many people barring some end of the world climate change scenario in which we would be just as f#%*d if the global population was half its current size. 

It’s a pointless thing to worry about or create policies around as the factors which drive declining fertility - economic growth, reproductive rights, empowerment of women, etc are justified on their own merits regardless of their impact on population growth


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> Ahh, the Doctor's usual torrent of rhetorical questions, as opposed to citing facts and figures. I'll bet serious money that The Good Doctor has not and will not read the Wikipedia entry nor any other on the subject at hand. I tap the knee with my little hammer and the leg reflexively swings out.
> 
> Here's a lighter, more user-friendly BBC piece on Borlaug and Malthusianism. The author has the cheerful tone of the usually scientifically lightweight economist but does note that some challenge the long-term viability of "human ingenuity" in the face of continued population growth (at a 1.09% growth rate, world populations will double in about 65 years) and the environmental ravages of AGW.
> 
> https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47643456


I'm sorry, but given how shoddy the predictive capacity of neo-Malthusian philosophy is, I would also describe it as "scientifically lightweight." 
Citing facts and figures? In 1968, the year Ehrlich published "The Population Bomb," where he predicted the death from famine of hundreds of millions in the 1970s - for which he said there was no solution at that point - it was inevitable - was 3.551 billion. At the end of the 1970s, the global population was 4.381 billion. A net increase, not decrease. Thus far, no Malthusian catastrophe. Then he claimed he was off a little, and this Population Bomb would go off in the 70s or 80s. Okay - adding a decade to his prediction, what was the result? In 1989, the global population was 5.241 billion. Again, a net increase. Maybe he was off again by another decade? 1999 - 6.067 billion. 2009? 6.874 billion. 2019? 7.715 billion. Since Ehrlich's dire prediction - which he claimed was inevitable, no way of stopping it, the global population has more than doubled, and yet we are feeding more people than we did in 1968, such that global poverty is declining.

Is this limitless? Probably not. But nobody really believe the population will continue indefinitely at this pace. All of the data suggests that the more advanced the civilization, the more developed, the lower the birth rates. As more and more of the planet is developed, we are likely to see birth rates decline globally - which we are. That is actually born out by the evidence, as opposed to these neo-Malthusian delusions.

Regardless of the area - food supplies, scarcity of critical elements, the Malthusians get it wrong.


----------



## Taggart

Don't forget the Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894 - see https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Great-Horse-Manure-Crisis-of-1894/ or https://fee.org/articles/the-great-horse-manure-crisis-of-1894/

Extrapolation is dangerous.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Here is a Malthusian trap - check out the magnitude of past population declines in China


----------



## Strange Magic

Bwv 1080 said:


> It's a pointless thing to worry about or create policies around as the factors which drive declining fertility - economic growth, reproductive rights, empowerment of women, etc are justified on their own merits regardless of their impact on population growth


Indeed they are justified on their own merits, to those such as you and me. Much of the Islamic world, and many high-growth third-world cultures have strongly differing views, especially on female empowerment. In fact, the new drive in many countries is to increase birth rates.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike has provided us with excellent decade-by-decade figures showing the relentless growth of global population to numbers totally unprecedented in either human history or in the history of any other vertebrate species of similar physical size. I thank him for the figures, and repeat them here for emphasis, as they might get lost in the body of DrMike's post:

1968: 3.551 billions
1979: 4.381 billions
1989: 5.241 billions
1999: 6.067 billions
2009: 6.874 billions
2019: 7.715 billions


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> DrMike has provided us with excellent decade-by-decade figures showing the relentless growth of global population to numbers totally unprecedented in either human history or in the history of any other vertebrate species of similar physical size. I thank him for the figures, and repeat them here for emphasis, as they might get lost in the body of DrMike's post:
> 
> 1968: 3.551 billions
> 1979: 4.381 billions
> 1989: 5.241 billions
> 1999: 6.067 billions
> 2009: 6.874 billions
> 2019: 7.715 billions


Great! And then pair it with this:


----------



## Strange Magic

Taggart said:


> Don't forget the Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894 - see https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Great-Horse-Manure-Crisis-of-1894/ or https://fee.org/articles/the-great-horse-manure-crisis-of-1894/
> 
> Extrapolation is dangerous.


Extrapolation, though, is our only window into possible futures. I know you are not counseling the abandoning of extrapolation--it not only nourishes and arms realists like myself but extrapolation is the very lifeblood of those forecasting a future of unlimited abundance and prosperity for Earth's teeming billions--a planetary Disneyland! I can hardly wait.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> Great! And then pair it with this:
> View attachment 120285


Let's hope your graph works out. Meanwhile, let's prudently plan for a worse-case scenario; my rose-colored glasses are a bit clouded.

Also, are we to take the chart as exhibiting a cause-and-effect relationship between sheer numbers/growth of populations and material well-being? I guess Switzerland must be a hell-hole: small population, probably shrinking.


----------



## Guest

Go ahead and push for greater female equality - I'm all behind it, so long as you aren't including abortion in that. What were you other great ideas for dropping the population by 90%? And what timeframe do we need to accomplish that in? What is your worst-case scenario?


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> Extrapolation, though, is our only window into possible futures. I know you are not counseling the abandoning of extrapolation--it not only nourishes and arms realists like myself but extrapolation is the very lifeblood of those forecasting a future of unlimited abundance and prosperity for Earth's teeming billions--a planetary Disneyland! I can hardly wait.


Ah - the irony that the self-described realist is not dealing in reality, but speculation!


----------



## KenOC

A table versus a graph! Both, it seems, are correct. By extrapolation and with a small helping of cause and effect, we can be sure that both trends will continue and that our descendants, although a bit crowded, will live like kings! But let's hope that at least the cattle and chickens survive this wonderful future so that they can have their Big Macs and McNuggets.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> Let's hope your graph works out. Meanwhile, let's prudently plan for a worse-case scenario; my rose-colored glasses are a bit clouded.
> 
> Also, are we to take the chart as exhibiting a cause-and-effect relationship between sheer numbers/growth of populations and material well-being? I guess Switzerland must be a hell-hole: small population, probably shrinking.


By the way - most of that graph has already occurred - the left portion has already happened. Extreme poverty in South Asia, East Asia and the Pacific has dropped precipitously. And no - no cause and effect is implied. Nice straw man. Nothing about it implies that the larger your population, the better off you will be. It is showing that extreme poverty is dropping pretty much everywhere globally, with sub-saharan Africa being the main exception. And that has happened in a period when the global population grew by roughly 2 billion. In contrast to the idea that there would be a Malthusian catastrophe, we actually improved the quality of life for a lot of people while the population was adding more than half the total population on the planet when Ehrlich made his prediction.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> A table versus a graph! Both, it seems, are correct. By extrapolation and with a small helping of cause and effect, we can be sure that both trends will continue and that our descendants, although a bit crowded, will live like kings! But let's hope that at least the cattle and chickens survive this wonderful future so that they can have their Big Macs and McNuggets.


Given our ability to clone livestock, I think we'll at the very least be able to keep up a supply of animals to eat. Besides, we'll have Soylent Green by then.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> Go ahead and push for greater female equality - I'm all behind it, so long as you aren't including abortion in that. What were you other great ideas for dropping the population by 90%? And what timeframe do we need to accomplish that in? What is your worst-case scenario?


Again the questions (never the answers). I had no other "great ideas" for dropping the population by 90% as you know--that's why your "questions" are so often junk questions, thrown in to kill time/fill space. And since it's been 250 years since we had a population 10% that of today's, let's say it'll take 250 years to return to that. But you already knew that, so another junk question. And I have no worst-case scenario worked out. I am content with the analyses of the vast number of scientists and scientific associations that we are heading for very disruptive and dangerous times ahead due to AGW, environmental and biosphere degradation, coupled to an increase of billions in human population.

Why don't you provide us with your variation on the charlatan Julian Simon's wet dream of a limitless (literally) future paradise?


----------



## Strange Magic

I'm happy DrMike is not ascribing population growth as a spur to worldwide poverty reduction. Even the cautious UN report on the future of agriculture affirms that we currently are in a period of spreading food abundance as new agricultural practices continue to take hold, while simultaneously warning of the growing drags and curbs on agriculture occasioned by AGW and resource (often water) exhaustion, increasing toxicity of applied materials to the soil, the growing reliance upon monoculture crops, and social unrest as farmers attempt to cope with growing industrialization and commercializations of agriculture. This is called "extrapolation", and The Wise heed it and look to the future. The Silly whistle, and tell each other that everything will be just fine.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Hello from the farm . I have witnessed the green revolution from it's beginning . It has peaked . What's next ? Me and Eve , we be getting Back to The Garden .


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> Again the questions (never the answers). I had no other "great ideas" for dropping the population by 90% as you know--that's why your "questions" are so often junk questions, thrown in to kill time/fill space. *And since it's been 250 years since we had a population 10% that of today's, let's say it'll take 250 years to return to that. But you already knew that, so another junk question.*


No, I don't know that. When, in all of history, have you seen that kind of a reversal in population growth, where the rate of population decline exactly equals the rate of population growth? There is nothing that indicates such a rate of decline. Again - if you Malthusians had actual data to back up your claims, it might lend some credibility. But you deal purely in hypotheticals. Your methodology seems to me to require a much longer period of time to achieve 90% reduction, if, in fact, it could ever actually achieve it. At any rate, it seems at odds with your climate alarmism. Does the planet have 250 years?



> And I have no worst-case scenario worked out. I am content with the analyses of the vast number of scientists and scientific associations that we are heading for very disruptive and dangerous times ahead due to AGW, environmental and biosphere degradation, coupled to an increase of billions in human population.
> 
> Why don't you provide us with your variation on the charlatan Julian Simon's wet dream of a limitless (literally) future paradise?


Please explain how Simon was a charlatan. Ehrlich seems more the charlatan. Why is Simon a charlatan, but Ehrlich isn't, in your mind? 
By the way - airlines shifting away from bumping random people off of overbooked flights to offering incentives for people to give up their seats - you can think Simon for that.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> I'm happy DrMike is not ascribing population growth as a spur to worldwide poverty reduction. Even the cautious UN report on the future of agriculture affirms that we currently are in a period of spreading food abundance as new agricultural practices continue to take hold, while simultaneously warning of the growing drags and curbs on agriculture occasioned by AGW and resource (often water) exhaustion, increasing toxicity of applied materials to the soil, the growing reliance upon monoculture crops, and social unrest as farmers attempt to cope with growing industrialization and commercializations of agriculture. This is called "extrapolation", and The Wise heed it and look to the future. The Silly whistle, and tell each other that everything will be just fine.


One of the biggest "monoculture crops" that we are seeing worldwide is the growth of corn for the production of ethanol to supposedly combat AGW. Thanks, environmentalists! An excellent example of the law of unintended consequences. And, as we know, you actually release more carbon into the atmosphere through all of this corn growth (the growing and harvesting and processing of the corn, coupled with the land cleared in new areas to grow corn, thanks to huge government subsidies in the name of fighting AGW) than is saved by adding ethanol to fuel.


----------



## KenOC

The dangers of extrapolation were mentioned a while ago. Mark Twain had something to say about that.

“In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”


----------



## Guest

If we are going to extrapolate population growth, as SM would have us do, then can we not also find a way to quantify the rate of technological advancement and extrapolate that equally? For that matter, let's quantify the rate at which global food production has increased and extrapolate that as well. Why should only one of these categories be extrapolated?


----------



## KenOC

It is true that over the last decades we have not only increased our numbers greatly, but have also increased our ability to feed and otherwise provide for those numbers. However, there is always a price to pay, and in this case the cost has been borne by the biosphere in general. The damage is already severe and, even without further growth in either numbers or consumption, will continue. Further growth in numbers, per capita consumption, or both will only accelerate the speed at which the damage is occurring.

Not a pretty picture.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

KenOC said:


> It is true that over the last decades we have not only increased our numbers greatly, but have also increased our ability to feed and otherwise provide for those numbers. However, there is always a price to pay, and in this case the cost has been borne by the biosphere in general. The damage is already severe and, even without further growth in either numbers or consumption, will continue. Further growth in numbers, per capita consumption, or both will only accelerate the speed at which the damage is occurring.
> 
> Not a pretty picture.


The damage is not severe , and balance may quickly be recovered . Eat locally . Hey , China! , oo'tuh wahn . Bees in the clover .

Fooling With Mother Nature shall not be diverted .


----------



## mmsbls

DrMike said:


> One of the biggest "monoculture crops" that we are seeing worldwide is the growth of corn for the production of ethanol to supposedly combat AGW. Thanks, environmentalists! An excellent example of the law of unintended consequences. And, as we know, you actually release more carbon into the atmosphere through all of this corn growth (the growing and harvesting and processing of the corn, coupled with the land cleared in new areas to grow corn, thanks to huge government subsidies in the name of fighting AGW) than is saved by adding ethanol to fuel.


Where do you find that the carbon intensity of corn ethanol is greater than gasoline? The LCFS tables at the California Air Resources Board shows anywhere from 77-88 gCO2/MJ for corn ethanol compared to 96 gCO2/MJ for gasoline. That includes land use estimates. Two studies from ICF and Life Cycle Associates show present values near 40% reduction in CI from corn ethanol going up to roughly 60% or higher by 2022. It's true that it is possible to get increased CI for corn ethanol if it's made from coal power.

Also I know no environmentalists who advocate corn ethanol production. The original impetus came from lobbyists at ADM through congress. Later ethanol was used to reduce criteria pollutants in gasoline (which it did). Any environmentalist proposed use of ethanol for AGW now would likely come from cellulosic feedstocks but not corn.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> One of the biggest "monoculture crops" that we are seeing worldwide is the growth of corn for the production of ethanol to supposedly combat AGW. Thanks, environmentalists! An excellent example of the law of unintended consequences. And, as we know, you actually release more carbon into the atmosphere through all of this corn growth (the growing and harvesting and processing of the corn, coupled with the land cleared in new areas to grow corn, thanks to huge government subsidies in the name of fighting AGW) than is saved by adding ethanol to fuel.


For once (make a note of this!) DrMike offers a thought we agree on--the idiocy of growing stuff for biofuels. The only source for biofuels should be waste oils, like cooking oils, that can no longer be purified and re-used and would otherwise be dumped. In the discussions of the Green Revolution, it has been observed that Revolution technology has been perverted into growing crops for biofuel.

I'll abstain from fruitless discussion of why I picked 250 years as a timeframe to return to a 1750s population figure. I posted many eons ago that it took 250 years to climb to today's level, so why not 250 years to get back? Is this important? This obsession with minutiae, when the key takeaway is to start now on full female equality and women's control over their own fertility.

I'll also abstain from further discussion of the fact that Julian Simon was a charlatan and content myself with again urging others to look into Simon's threadbare credentials on the Internet, comparing and contrasting his with Paul Ehrlich's. Beating very dead and putrefying horses smells bad and makes my arm sore.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> If we are going to extrapolate population growth, as SM would have us do, then can we not also find a way to quantify the rate of technological advancement and extrapolate that equally? For that matter, let's quantify the rate at which global food production has increased and extrapolate that as well. Why should only one of these categories be extrapolated?


Please do that! You will likely match Julian Simon's amazing extrapolation that Earth can easily sustain an endlessly growing population for, as he wrote, "the next 7 billion years". Again, you gotta love this stuff!


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

I think ya'all disrespect farmers . I am one . And perhaps a composer , too .
Brains a'blazing ?


----------



## KenOC

mmsbls said:


> Where do you find that the carbon intensity of corn ethanol is greater than gasoline? The LCFS tables at the California Air Resources Board shows anywhere from 77-88 gCO2/MJ for corn ethanol compared to 96 gCO2/MJ for gasoline. That includes land use estimates.


I had previously read that corn ethanol production, and its use as a gasoline additive, had a net positive carbon emissions impact when taking the impacts on auto mileages into account. Also that Al Gore, an early promoter, had admitted this. Is this, then, incorrect?


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> Where do you find that the carbon intensity of corn ethanol is greater than gasoline? The LCFS tables at the California Air Resources Board shows anywhere from 77-88 gCO2/MJ for corn ethanol compared to 96 gCO2/MJ for gasoline. That includes land use estimates. Two studies from ICF and Life Cycle Associates show present values near 40% reduction in CI from corn ethanol going up to roughly 60% or higher by 2022. It's true that it is possible to get increased CI for corn ethanol if it's made from coal power.
> 
> Also I know no environmentalists who advocate corn ethanol production. The original impetus came from lobbyists at ADM through congress. Later ethanol was used to reduce criteria pollutants in gasoline (which it did). Any environmentalist proposed use of ethanol for AGW now would likely come from cellulosic feedstocks but not corn.


I'm referring to concerns such as those outlined in this Scientific American article. Higher prices for corn leads to more areas growing it. This leads to deforestation and the removal of carbon sinks to allow for more corn production.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ethanol-not-cut-emissions/


----------



## Strange Magic

Three stories on the draining of the world's aquifers, another _Tragedy of the Commons_ scenario. Everybody drills their wells and pumps like crazy; nobody worries about draining the resource dry. Note: little or nothing said in the reports about the part that growing populations directly play in exacerbating the situation. The capacity of these aquifers is an integral part of what keeps the Green Revolution going. AGW aggravates the growing desertification seen in many areas, and adding billions more people atop those aquifers or otherwise dependent upon their waters will make the problem worse.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com...er-california-drought-aquifers-hidden-crisis/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.43ed41489ed0

https://longreads.com/2017/10/04/nestle-is-sucking-the-worlds-aquifers-dry/


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> Three stories on the draining of the world's aquifers, another _Tragedy of the Commons_ scenario. Everybody drills their wells and pumps like crazy; nobody worries about draining the resource dry. Note: little or nothing said in the reports about the part that growing populations directly play in exacerbating the situation. The capacity of these aquifers is an integral part of what keeps the Green Revolution going. AGW aggravates the growing desertification seen in many areas, and adding billions more people atop those aquifers or otherwise dependent upon their waters will make the problem worse.
> 
> https://news.nationalgeographic.com...er-california-drought-aquifers-hidden-crisis/
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.43ed41489ed0
> 
> https://longreads.com/2017/10/04/nestle-is-sucking-the-worlds-aquifers-dry/


Are you saying we are reaching "peak water?"


----------



## Strange Magic

I have DrMike to thank for this reference--I saw a note about this book by marine biologist/ecologist Drew Harvell on the same page as the interesting Scientific American story on the corn/ethanol question (I actually read others' linked references; others just post away without reference to links because they feel compelled to post something/anything right away).

The thrust of the research Dr. Harvell and her coworkers are doing is that AGW-caused ocean warming coupled with massive sewage runoff and the enormous influx of plastics into the marine ecosystem is resulting in epidemics of diseases afflicting marine organisms throughout the food chain, and examines closely the situation regarding starfish, salmon, abalone, and corals. Her book is _Ocean Outbreak: Confronting the Rising Tide of Marine Disease_. Epidemiologists among us should find something of interest here. This is an example, among many, of what fantasist economists--usually hopelessly ignorant of science--almost never factor into their own peculiar sort of extrapolations into the future.

http://www.sej.org/publications/bookshelf/ocean-outbreak-confronting-rising-tide-marine-disease


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> Are you saying we are reaching "peak water?"


Rhetorical question Number 872. Meanwhile, what are you saying? I can't find it. Non-rhetorical question.


----------



## mmsbls

Strange Magic said:


> For once (make a note of this!) DrMike offers a thought we agree on--the idiocy of growing stuff for biofuels. The only source for biofuels should be waste oils, like cooking oils, that can no longer be purified and re-used and would otherwise be dumped. In the discussions of the Green Revolution, it has been observed that Revolution technology has been perverted into growing crops for biofuel.


As I mentioned above (actually it's below), I'm not a fan of biofuels (except in specific situations). Biofuels from waste feedstocks (landfills, waste oils, municipal solid waste, dairy manure, agricultural residues, etc.) can reduce carbon emissions significantly with much less uncertainty. The problem with these biofuels is that the feedstocks are limited so the amount of fuel produced will not be a major factor in reducing emissions. There are some wonderful applications like using a city's municipal solid waste facility to produce diesel biofuels and use them in refuse trucks.

The reason some researchers push biofuels produced from cellulosic feedstocks (energy crops) is that reducing carbon emissions in some sectors (shipping, air, long-haul trucks) is extremely difficult and requires significant fuel. So far, there do not seem to be good solutions for those sectors.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> I have DrMike to thank for this reference--I saw a note about this book by marine biologist/ecologist Drew Harvell on the same page as the interesting Scientific American story on the corn/ethanol question (I actually read others' linked references; others just post away without reference to links because they feel compelled to post something/anything right away).
> 
> The thrust of the research Dr. Harvell and her coworkers are doing is that AGW-caused ocean warming coupled with massive sewage runoff and the enormous influx of plastics into the marine ecosystem is resulting in epidemics of diseases afflicting marine organisms throughout the food chain, and examines closely the situation regarding starfish, salmon, abalone, and corals. Her book is _Ocean Outbreak: Confronting the Rising Tide of Marine Disease_. Epidemiologists among us should find something of interest here. This is an example, among many, of what fantasist economists--usually hopelessly ignorant of science--almost never factor into their own peculiar sort of extrapolations into the future.
> 
> http://www.sej.org/publications/bookshelf/ocean-outbreak-confronting-rising-tide-marine-disease


I do my own reading. I don't do homework issued by you.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> I have DrMike to thank for this reference--I saw a note about this book by marine biologist/ecologist Drew Harvell on the same page as the interesting Scientific American story on the corn/ethanol question (I actually read others' linked references; others just post away without reference to links because they feel compelled to post something/anything right away).
> 
> The thrust of the research Dr. Harvell and her coworkers are doing is that AGW-caused ocean warming coupled with massive sewage runoff and the enormous influx of plastics into the marine ecosystem is resulting in epidemics of diseases afflicting marine organisms throughout the food chain, and examines closely the situation regarding starfish, salmon, abalone, and corals. Her book is _Ocean Outbreak: Confronting the Rising Tide of Marine Disease_. Epidemiologists among us should find something of interest here. This is an example, among many, of what fantasist economists--usually hopelessly ignorant of science--almost never factor into their own peculiar sort of extrapolations into the future.
> 
> http://www.sej.org/publications/bookshelf/ocean-outbreak-confronting-rising-tide-marine-disease


I do my own reading. I don't do homework issued by you.

About peak water, I was just wondering if it would be like peak oil. Again, predicting scarcity is not something your side is particularly adept at.


----------



## mmsbls

KenOC said:


> I had previously read that corn ethanol production, and its use as a gasoline additive, had a net positive carbon emissions impact when taking the impacts on auto mileages into account. Also that Al Gore, an early promoter, had admitted this. Is this, then, incorrect?


Unfortunately biofuels analyses are rather complicated.

Ethanol has lower energy density than gasoline so comparing carbon emissions based on gallons of fuel is misleading unless one also includes the vehicle fuel economy with each fuel. The numbers I showed are based on energy content or megajoules (MJ) so those numbers include the effect of vehicle fuel economy.

Researchers use lifecycle analysis to calculate carbon intensity (carbon emissions per unit of fuel energy). They look at everything from extraction/production through distribution to use in a vehicle. If one uses coal power to run the production facilities, ethanol generally has a higher carbon intensity than gasoline. If one uses natural gas, the carbon intensity is likely lower than gasoline. The numbers I showed from the LCFS (Low Carbon Fuel Standard) tables were for pathways using California's energy mix which is primarily natural gas with some hydro.

The *HUGE* issue with biofuels is land use. As DrMike posted, carbon emissions can vary depending on exactly how land is used to grow feedstocks used to produce fuels. The issue is so complicated that researchers disagree significantly on whether carbon emissions calculations properly include this effect. Because the uncertainty is large, I prefer solutions that include relatively modest biofuels and use electricity and/or hydrogen instead.


----------



## Strange Magic

mmsbls said:


> As I mentioned above (actually it's below), I'm not a fan of biofuels (except in specific situations). Biofuels from waste feedstocks (landfills, waste oils, municipal solid waste, dairy manure, agricultural residues, etc.) can reduce carbon emissions significantly with much less uncertainty. The problem with these biofuels is that the feedstocks are limited so the amount of fuel produced will not be a major factor in reducing emissions. There are some wonderful applications like using a city's municipal solid waste facility to produce diesel biofuels and use them in refuse trucks.
> 
> The reason some researchers push biofuels produced from cellulosic feedstocks (energy crops) is that reducing carbon emissions in some sectors (shipping, air, long-haul trucks) is extremely difficult and requires significant fuel. So far, there do not seem to be good solutions for those sectors.


I agree with your views on biofuels. Regarding marine shipping, some companies are experimenting with using (what a concept!) wind power in the form of enormous parafoil kites as adjuncts to motor propulsion. Much more could be done to harness wind power in this area. Long-haul trucking ought to be replaced as much as possible by rail transport. Air travel will remain wholly dependent upon fuels, though, were hydrogen widely sourced from non-carbon sources via electrolysis, hydrogen/oxygen propulsion engines for air travel could be substituted for current engines.

Cellulosic biomass: _Phragmites_ is or can be a worldwide invasive that covers huge tracts without benefit of fertilization or cultivation, and often suppresses biodiversity in areas where it has dominated local marshlands. A perhaps temporary but effective industry harvesting Phragmites and converting this cellulose-rich reed into biofuel could serve as a bridging source of fuel while simultaneously improving the diversity of marshland ecosystems.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phragmites


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> I do my own reading. I don't do homework issued by you.
> 
> About peak water, I was just wondering if it would be like peak oil. Again, predicting scarcity is not something your side is particularly adept at.


Your contributions are always welcome and intellectually nourishing. I read your links; you don't read mine. We understand this.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> Your contributions are always welcome and intellectually nourishing. I read your links; you don't read mine. We understand this.


People might buy your play at being the martyr if they didn't have such a lengthy history of our interactions to peruse. I don't care if anybody reads my links. That's the nature of these forums. You are free to engage as much or as little as you like. I click on your links briefly and decide whether they are worth my time. You usually stick multiple links in. There is such thing as the law of diminishing returns. I scan them like I do science articles. As I'm reading a paper, I'll check some of the references, read some of the abstracts, but I don't read all articles cited.


----------



## Guest

What I'm hearing here is that resource management is complicated. That it is hard to provide necessities to populations. Got it. Necessity is the mother of invention. Not just a trite phrase.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> People might buy your play at being the martyr if they didn't have such a lengthy history of our interactions to peruse. I don't care if anybody reads my links. That's the nature of these forums. You are free to engage as much or as little as you like. I click on your links briefly and decide whether they are worth my time. You usually stick multiple links in. There is such thing as the law of diminishing returns. I scan them like I do science articles. As I'm reading a paper, I'll check some of the references, read some of the abstracts, but I don't read all articles cited.


Martyrdom is not my style; you are Prima Donna there. The law of diminishing returns applies full force to your contributions to these discussions in that they are remarkably free of actual content. Stick with the one-liners and rhetorical questions and avoid the offered links entirely as is usually your custom.


----------



## Guest

I wonder how you pull yourself out of bed every day, with the weight of the world upon your shoulders, trying to sound the alarm of so many world-ending problems which you brilliantly have come up with the solutions for, if only people would listen. Truly a prophet is not beloved in his own country. Let's all take a moment to share our appreciation for our Talkclassical Jeremiah - Strange Magic. May I buy your next sandwich board when your current one wears out?







There might be some similarities:


----------



## Strange Magic

^^^^Substance?? Or Shtik?? Your "contributions" are becoming parodies of themselves. Keep it up!:lol:


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> ^^^^Substance?? Or Shtik?? Your "contributions" are becoming parodies of themselves. Keep it up!:lol:


Why thank you. Your postings make me laugh. I thought I'd return the favor.


----------



## Guest

I apologize for derailing this highly important thread in a classical music forum, in which we are in the process of formulating precise strategies that will save our planet as we know it. If only we could create our own Captain Planet, we could all be his Planeteers!


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

DrMike said:


> How wonderful that you can make such meaningful contributions to the conversation. I can't wait to read what new wisdom you can impart to us.


Live simply so others can simply live .


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> I apologize for derailing this highly important thread in a classical music forum, in which we are in the process of formulating precise strategies that will save our planet as we know it. If only we could create our own Captain Planet, we could all be his Planeteers!


"Don't Worry! Be Happy!"


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> "Don't Worry! Be Happy!"


There are much, much worse creeds to live by. Might as well enjoy life while I can - according to you all, it is already inevitable that this will all end shortly, whether due to widespread famine, the seas boiling, no more water, squashed to death due to overcrowding, being crushed by an avalanche of plastic straws, or the NRA sending out their death squads. Even a murderer on death row gets his one final meal . . .


----------



## Strange Magic

One must infer from the tenor of your last several posts that you have ceased to even pretend to offer anything of substance on these issues. We understand.

And, in reference to my photo, note the smile!


----------



## Strange Magic

Regarding my reference to _Phragmites_ as a potential source of feedstock for cellulose-derived methanol, I looked further into the literature trying to get a feel for North American or total worldwide acreage dominated by Reed. Could not find such, but I have seen "vast" acreages of Reed both by car and by kayak. The literature is almost unanimous in its description of the monoculture aspect of Reed and in its very poor habitat for both other competing plants or most vertebrates due to the extreme density of its growth pattern. Due to AGW, Phragmites is spreading rapidly and the literature deals mostly with ways to eliminate it via herbicide application or, sometimes, burning tracts of it. So its possibilies as a source to be harvested by suitable machinery for methanol production would seem to deal with several issues simultaneously. If an efficient method for converting cellulose to methanol is engineered, then Phragmites would be an ideal temporary candidate as raw material, while also restoring the harvested marshlands to their native and original biota.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> One must infer from the tenor of your last several posts that you have ceased to even pretend to offer anything of substance on these issues. We understand.
> 
> And, in reference to my photo, note the smile!


And yet you still bark on command.


----------



## mmsbls

Strange Magic said:


> Regarding marine shipping, some companies are experimenting with using (what a concept!) wind power in the form of enormous parafoil kites as adjuncts to motor propulsion. Much more could be done to harness wind power in this area. Long-haul trucking ought to be replaced as much as possible by rail transport. Air travel will remain wholly dependent upon fuels, though, were hydrogen widely sourced from non-carbon sources via electrolysis, hydrogen/oxygen propulsion engines for air travel could be substituted for current engines.


I'd be happy to see any technology that can vastly reduce carbon emissions become widely commercialized. Having worked in the field for decades, I've seen how truly difficult it is to implement or commercialize ideas and technologies. Basically, reality gets in the way.

General Motors demonstrated an electric vehicle back in 1990. The California Air Resources Board created the first ZEV mandate requiring electric vehicles to be sold in 1998 at 2% of vehicle sales and by 2003 at 10% of sales. It was clearly doable, but 16 years later we still are not at 10% of sales in California. There are a variety of reasons, but the main one is battery cost. The technology was simply not ready in the early 2000s. The only reason we see commercial vehicles today is due to the massive government investment in battery technology finally creating a real market.

It would be wonderful if goods could be transported by rail such that long-haul trucks would become a small market. The trend is the other way for several reasons. The truck population (as well as vehicle miles traveled - VMT) is expected to increase by at least 30% by 2050. The government has a much of a chance of reducing trucking VMT as it does of getting people to significantly reduce car usage.

We had a grad student look into hydrogen airplanes. He looked at the infrastructure requirements to fuel airplanes at major airports such as San Francisco. He assumed natural gas pipelines would feed airports, and hydrogen would be produced and stored at the airport for usage on planes. The starting thing he found was that the footprint for equipment to produce hydrogen from steam reformation and to store the hydrogen would require airports to expand by a factor of 3-4 in size. We all agreed that would not happen anytime soon. The land required would be larger for electrolysis.

When one works closely with those actually producing, using, or regulating technologies, one better understands the details that make commercialization extremely difficult. Sometimes new technology opens up opportunities. Sometimes, large government investment can remove barriers such as cost, infrastructure, and low efficiencies, and technologies can enter the market. Even I am not aware of many barriers until I speak directly to people operating equipment at ports, OEMs manufacturing trucks, or fleets using trucks.

I'm actually rather impressed that you know as much about potential technology as you do. There's a lot of ongoing research, and hopefully some of it will make a big splash soon enough to make a real dent in GHG emissions. I wouldn't be too surprised if technology I knew little or nothing about played a major role in my lifetime.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> And yet you still bark on command.


And you clutch and shake your rattle. Time to change the diapers.


----------



## mmsbls

Honestly, can you two just talk about the science of AGW, population, agriculture, etc. rather than constantly insulting or making fun of the other? Isn't talking about science MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more interesting?


----------



## Strange Magic

mmsbls said:


> Honestly, can you two just talk about the science of AGW, population, agriculture, etc. rather than constantly insulting or making fun of the other? Isn't talking about science MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more interesting?


I could not agree more. I am trying to hold up my end, but the quality of response I get is low. Plus I will never be intimidated by the likes of those with track records of flashing out libelous labels that would call for a punch in the nose on the street. Check the thread on eugenics for a classic example.

Edit: Feel free to delete all of the crap posts in this thread, with my blessing! It would be an excellent move.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> Honestly, can you two just talk about the science of AGW, population, agriculture, etc. rather than constantly insulting or making fun of the other? Isn't talking about science MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more interesting?


Gladly. I started out that way, but as you can see already by SM's first direct response to me clear back on page 1, apparently the only proper response to me is to claim I am throwing out rhetorical questions and then to rattle on about how Julian Simon was a charlatan (how this was relevant to what I said, I don't know, as I did not cite Simon at any point other than to ask for a reckoning about how Ehrlich was so drastically wrong in both his Population Bomb book and his bet with Simon - a pertinent question given that this thread is at least in part about Malthusianism).

My initial point was to question the basic assumption that Malthusianism is in fact real. I have repeatedly described the many instances where Malthusian predictions were flat out wrong. Contrary to SMs assertion, I have given examples (the data on the population growth, by decade, coupled with the chart showing the very drastic decline in global population in extreme poverty). But the common retort is to say that all I do is to throw out rhetorical questions, and oh why won't you do the hours worth of reading I provide in any given thread.

I'm not taken seriously, and then I get the Tuba guy calling me a "stupid person" so I respond in kind. I'll likely continue as long as I'm allowed on here. As you are aware, in my responses to you, when I feel like the comments to me are made in good faith, I respond in kind. I give everybody on here the exact same amount of respect they give me. In contrast to SM, I would not recommend removing posts. Knowing the participants is as informative as knowing the matter discussed.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> *Ahh, the Doctor's usual torrent of rhetorical questions, as opposed to citing facts and figures. I'll bet serious money that The Good Doctor has not and will not read the Wikipedia entry nor any other on the subject at hand. I tap the knee with my little hammer and the leg reflexively swings out.*
> 
> Here's a lighter, more user-friendly BBC piece on Borlaug and Malthusianism. The author has the cheerful tone of the usually scientifically lightweight economist but does note that some challenge the long-term viability of "human ingenuity" in the face of continued population growth (at a 1.09% growth rate, world populations will double in about 65 years) and the environmental ravages of AGW.
> 
> https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47643456


Above you will find the third post in this thread - a direct reply to me (made obvious by the direct use of my name in it) that was the first to lob ad hominem (mild, but still, he attacked me personally rather than address my post) in this thread.

For me, it set the tone with which he wanted to engage with me in this thread.

SM wants to have his cake and eat it too. In the recent past, rather than engage him when he throws out a post like that above - which I take as purposely trying to goad me - I have tried the requested method of the mods and simply clicked the report button and let you deal with it. And then he bellyaches about me going that route. So now, rather than reporting the post, I let it stand and punch back. And he doesn't like this either. I suppose he would prefer if I just did nothing at all. I don't see that as a viable option so long as there is not the word "banned" under my name.


----------



## KenOC

DrMike said:


> Are you saying we are reaching "peak water?"


In some places, "peak water" has come and gone -- permanently. These are mostly intensively farmed agricultural areas that depend on underground water aquifers for irrigation. The usual s story is that the aquifers have been over-pumped for years and the aquifers greatly diminished and more and more expensive to access, if that is possible at all.

One example is California's San Joaquin Valley, which produces the majority of California's crops (by dollar volume) and has been called the "food basket of the world." Wells that used to be a few hundred feet deep now must be drilled 3,000 feet or more. The ground has subsided, in some places thirty feet or more, threatening major canals and other infrastructure. The situation is, to some degree, permanent since the water-bearing clay strata collapse (thus the ground sinking) and will no longer recharge, no matter how long the wait.

Another is the Indus Basin aquifer in India and Pakistan, which NASA calls the second-most overstressed aquifer in the world. Over 300 million people live in the basin, and the aquifer is the only available source of water for many. In large parts of the Indian portion of the basin, wells are simply failing and deeper drilling is of no use. The situation is dire for many though not yet for all, and there has been a well-publicized wave of farmers committing suicide as their farms fail.

These are example of overstressed aquifers, where water is being removed far faster than the natural recharge rate. NASA, using data from its GRACE satellites, says that about half of the world's 37 largest aquifers are being steadily drawn down, and there seems to be no way to stop this. So "peak water" is a very real thing for many in the world, affecting not only the viability of farms but the cost and availability of food in the areas served by those farms. These are of course direct impacts of population and consumption, which are already beyond the carrying capacity of the land in the affected areas. The impacts will continue to grow and spread even without further population increases.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> In some places, "peak water" has come and gone -- permanently. These are mostly intensively farmed agricultural areas that depend on underground water aquifers for irrigation. The usual s story is that the aquifers have been over-pumped for years and the aquifers greatly diminished and more and more expensive to access, if that is possible at all.
> 
> One example is California's San Joaquin Valley, which produces the majority of California's crops (by dollar volume) and has been called the "food basket of the world." Wells that used to be a few hundred feet deep now must be drilled 3,000 feet or more. The ground has subsided, in some places thirty feet or more, threatening major canals and other infrastructure. The situation is, to some degree, permanent since the water-bearing clay strata collapse (thus the ground sinking) and will no longer recharge, no matter how long the wait.
> 
> Another is the Indus Basin aquifer in India and Pakistan, which NASA calls the second-most overstressed aquifer in the world. Over 300 million people live in the basin, and the aquifer is the only available source of water for many. In large parts of the Indian portion of the basin, wells are simply failing and deeper drilling is of no use. The situation is dire for many though not yet for all, and there has been a well-publicized wave of farmers committing suicide as their farms fail.
> 
> These are example of overstressed aquifers, where water is being removed far faster than the natural recharge rate. NASA, using data from its GRACE satellites, says that about half of the world's 37 largest aquifers are being steadily drawn down, and there seems to be no way to stop this. So "peak water" is a very real thing for many in the world, affecting not only the viability of farms but the cost and availability of food in the areas served by those farms. These are of course direct impacts of population and consumption, which are already beyond the carrying capacity of the land in the affected areas. The impacts will continue to grow and spread even without further population increases.


This isn't my area of expertise, but what I have heard suggests that there are a lot of problems with water management in California that go far beyond the drilling into aquifers on private land. As I understand it, water runoff from the mountains could be more significantly used except that concerns are raised regarding the effect on small marine animals. Reservoir construction has been practically nonexistent for the last 30 years, in spite of the fact that the population has grown by leaps and bounds. How much water gets rerouted down South via the Aqueduct? Yes - much of the problems with water in California are due to mismanagement of resources, but it seems like the farmers have to turn to the aquifers because other resources are denied to them.

Am I wrong?


----------



## Jacck

wait till the water wars start
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/10/where-the-water-wars-of-the-future-will-be-fought/
Europe seems relatively OK, but we can expect massive migrations from Africa


----------



## KenOC

DrMike said:


> Am I wrong?


Yes and no. The biggest single water user in CA is -- the environment! Federal regs require, with great exactness, the maintenance of stream flows for salmon spawning and other environmental purposes. Further, most river water is released by dams built as federal reclamation projects, so access to that water for agricultural use is further restricted. Bear in mind that the areas we're talking about are dry, receiving maybe 6-12 inches of precip a year. There's not a lot of water to go around in the first place. For much of the land, it's groundwater or nothing.

Finally, very little water in California, much of which comes from seasonal Sierra snowmelt, flows unhindered by reservoirs to the sea. Flying north from SoCal, you can see reservoir after reservoir in almost every significant valley on the Sierra flanks. In fact, public environmental interests are clamoring for some existing dams to be demolished. A huge new reservoir, Diamond Valley Lake, was built in SoCal a few years ago, but that was for in-state storage of out-of-state Colorado River water.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Yes and no. The biggest single water user in CA is -- the environment! Federal regs require, with great exactness, the maintenance of stream flows for salmon spawning and other environmental purposes. Further, most river water is released by dams built as federal reclamation projects, so access to that water for agricultural use is further restricted. Bear in mind that the areas we're talking about are dry, receiving maybe 6-12 inches of precip a year. There's not a lot of water to go around in the first place. For much of the land, it's groundwater or nothing.
> 
> Finally, very little water in California, much of which comes from seasonal Sierra snowmelt, flows unhindered by reservoirs to the sea. Flying north from SoCal, you can see reservoir after reservoir in almost every significant valley on the Sierra flanks. In fact, public environmental interests are clamoring for some existing dams to be demolished. A huge new reservoir, Diamond Valley Lake, was built in SoCal a few years ago, but that was for in-state storage of out-of-state Colorado River water.


Yes, but as I understand it, the Northern Coast watershed area, which receives the highest amount of rainfall, is not very well developed at all in terms of water infrastructure. It represents a significant portion of the state's total surface water, and yet is really only utilized locally.


----------



## Strange Magic

Ken, thanks for your contribution. Here's another giant aquifer in trouble: The Ogallala aquifer of the US Great Plains supports one-sixth of the world's grain crop. It has been used for decades beyond its capacity for recharge and is a growing cause of concern about its declining ability to maintain or increase the US's grain production. All this can be gleaned from the link below, and related links:

http://duwaterlawreview.com/crisis-...oss-of-americas-largest-aquifer-the-ogallala/


----------



## KenOC

DrMike said:


> Yes, but as I understand it, the Northern Coast watershed area, which receives the highest amount of rainfall, is not very well developed at all in terms of water infrastructure. It represents a significant portion of the state's total surface water, and yet is really only utilized locally.


I had not heard that, but be aware that much of the north state snowmelt is captured in Lakes Shasta and, further south, Oroville, both huge reservoirs serving all of California. They're positioned to move water south along the flat floor of the central valley with a minimum expenditure if energy.

The north coast may get a lot of rain, but its population is thin. Further, it is poor in rivers and to my knowledge has not been considered as a site for a major reservoir. It may be that pumping costs from that area to where the water is needed could be crippling. Finally, in the Klamath Basin in the north of the state, the governor has declared a drought in10 of the last 16 years. I have also read of environmental concerns and water disputes with Native American tribes.

Basically, I have never read or heard of anything like you are suggesting -- north coast water for distant use. Do you have any reference on this?

You can read more about the north coast and north state water problems in this news story.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> Honestly, can you two just talk about the science of AGW, population, agriculture, etc. rather than constantly insulting or making fun of the other? Isn't talking about science MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more interesting?


Tell you what - you tell me. Should I just tap the report button whenever something like post #3 comes up?


----------



## mmsbls

DrMike said:


> Tell you what - you tell me. Should I just tap the report button whenever something like post #3 comes up?


Sure. Maybe if I delete any instances of such comments from either of you, things will quiet down. Then there could be some interesting discussions given that you both are quite knowledgeable about a wide range of scientific issues.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> I had not heard that, but be aware that much of the north state snowmelt is captured in Lakes Shasta and, further south, Oroville, both huge reservoirs serving all of California. They're positioned to move water south along the flat floor of the central valley with a minimum expenditure if energy.
> 
> The north coast may get a lot of rain, but its population is thin. Further, it is poor in rivers and to my knowledge has not been considered as a site for a major reservoir. It may be that pumping costs from that area to where the water is needed could be crippling. Finally, in the Klamath Basin in the north of the state, the governor has declared a drought in10 of the last 16 years. I have also read of environmental concerns and water disputes with Native American tribes.
> 
> Basically, I have never read or heard of anything like you are suggesting -- north coast water for distant use. Do you have any reference on this?
> 
> You can read more about the north coast and north state water problems in this news story.


Shasta and Oroville are part of the Sacramento River watershed - yes, I'm talking about the Klamath, Smith, and Eel Rivers further to the West. As I understand it, this region produces a third of the runoff in the entire state - it is a major watershed. As I understand it, it is not developed like the Sacramento and San Joaquin river watersheds. I have no doubt that there are many concerns involved with it, but I'm not just talking about recent history, or the last 16 years. But one of the main ways to prevent aquifer depletion is to rely more on surface water. As I understand it, most of this water is only being utilized locally - a lot of water for a relatively small area - whereas the Sacramento and San Joaquin are not only being tapped locally, but also directed South.


----------



## Strange Magic

Jacck said:


> wait till the water wars start
> https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/10/where-the-water-wars-of-the-future-will-be-fought/
> Europe seems relatively OK, but we can expect massive migrations from Africa


One of the traits of AGW is its pernicious capability to exaggerate whatever weather/climate trends are current in many different areas. One climatologist summarized this by remarking that whatever weather you are used to, expect a lot more of it! This is turning up as stronger hurricanes, typhoons, etc., increasing aridity and desiccation in the Sahel, the Gobi, Australian outback, and more torrential rains and flooding in areas prone to such weather such as the central and southern US. The article you cited shows clearly the potential for continuing attempts at mass migration of populations driven by food or other climate-linked desperation into areas thought rightly or wrongly to be more favorable.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> Sure. Maybe if I delete any instances of such comments from either of you, things will quiet down. Then there could be some interesting discussions given that you both are quite knowledgeable about a wide range of scientific issues.


Deal. I'll just use that, and invite SM to do the same with me.


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> wait till the water wars start
> https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/10/where-the-water-wars-of-the-future-will-be-fought/
> Europe seems relatively OK, but we can expect massive migrations from Africa


Water rights - and resources in general - have certainly been the cause of conflict over time. However, I question how seriously I am to take that article. In it, they link to a person on Gizmodo compiling a list of water-based conflict throughout history - over 500 incidents. I perused the list. I can't really take it seriously. First of all, the impression given were that these were conflicts over rights to use water. They were not - not all. First of all, they begin with "the Flood." Then, most of them seem to involve countries and militaries utilizing water as a strategic weapon against an adversary - redirecting a river to prevent invasion of your country, or to destroy someone else's land, such things. Those have nothing to do with conflict over rights to a limited resource, any more than firing a bullet is an example of concern over lead poisoning.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> I had not heard that, but be aware that much of the north state snowmelt is captured in Lakes Shasta and, further south, Oroville, both huge reservoirs serving all of California. They're positioned to move water south along the flat floor of the central valley with a minimum expenditure if energy.
> 
> The north coast may get a lot of rain, but its population is thin. Further, it is poor in rivers and to my knowledge has not been considered as a site for a major reservoir. It may be that pumping costs from that area to where the water is needed could be crippling. Finally, in the Klamath Basin in the north of the state, the governor has declared a drought in10 of the last 16 years. I have also read of environmental concerns and water disputes with Native American tribes.
> 
> Basically, I have never read or heard of anything like you are suggesting -- north coast water for distant use. Do you have any reference on this?
> 
> You can read more about the north coast and north state water problems in this news story.


Incidentally, as a Northern California native (I grew up at the convergence of the Yuba and Feather rivers), a sore spot for many Northern Californians, and one which frequently is cited by those trying to split the state, is the diverting of so much Northern California water down South. We have the water up in the Central Valley, but you have the political power down in the South.


----------



## KenOC

DrMike said:


> Incidentally, as a Northern California native (I grew up at the convergence of the Yuba and Feather rivers), a sore spot for many Northern Californians, and one which frequently is cited by those trying to split the state, is the diverting of so much Northern California water down South. We have the water up in the Central Valley, but you have the political power down in the South.


Quite true. The population served by Met Water down here is about 19 million. It has been estimated that without imported water, the area could support about 350 thousand. So many thanks to our neighbors in Arizona and up north! :tiphat:

BTW I'm not sure we're depriving NorCal of anything. Some cities, including Sacramento, still don't even meter their water!


----------



## Strange Magic

When one looks closely at Jacck's link, one sees that the key data source is not the Gizmodo list but the Farinosi paper. Here is that link:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095937801830253X?via=ihub


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> Deal. I'll just use that, and invite SM to do the same with me.


I think I'll pass. I have never used the Report button, and instead will rely upon my own self-regulatory ability. Meanwhile, I'll let others' posts stand on their merits for good or ill, leave the reporting to those more attuned to it than myself, and trust to mmsbls' moderating skills for ultimate refereeing.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> When one looks closely at Jacck's link, one sees that the key data source is not the Gizmodo list but the Farinosi paper. Here is that link:
> 
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095937801830253X?via=ihub


And the problem with this, along with other Malthusian catastrophe predictions, in my opinion, lies in this statement, taken from the introduction of the paper:


> Water conflicts in history are, in fact, peripheral events and none of them reached a formal declaration of war (Böhmelt et al., 2014; Kalbhenn and Bernauer, 2012; Katz, 2011; Wolf, 1998, 2007, Yoffe et al., 2004, 2003). The fact that water war episodes were not recorded in the past does not imply that this could not happen in the future (Kallis and Zografos, 2014).


True - that such things have never happened in the past does not preclude them from ever happening. But you can say that about just about anything that has not happened until now. I have never won the lottery. The fact that I have never won the lottery does not mean that I can never win the lottery. But the fact that it has not as yet happened suggests that the likelihood of it happening in the future is very low. Resource scarcity is not a new thing - Malthus wrote on this over 200 years ago. Why do we not see these things happening? Just because a thing is possible, there is nothing that indicates that it is very probable. In fact, the continued record of these things NOT happening indicates that their probability of happening is small - much smaller than our ability to predict or project.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> I think I'll pass. I have never used the Report button, and instead will rely upon my own self-regulatory ability. Meanwhile, I'll let others' posts stand on their merits for good or ill, leave the reporting to those more attuned to it than myself, and trust to mmsbls' moderating skills for ultimate refereeing.


Well you don't like my other method of dealing with unpleasant posts. And anyways, the Report button IS to assist mmsbls' moderating skills. I'll defer to him in the matter.


----------



## Strange Magic

What distinguishes The Wise is the ability to see, before the catastrophe is actually upon us, that such is looming on the horizon, though it be seen as a distant cloud smaller than a man's hand. There are now overwhelming numbers of such clouds on the horizon, some extrapolations, others suggestive of past, smaller catastrophes. We've discussed many of these problems, both current and impending. To belabor a point made now many times, there is an enormous yet always growing consensus of relevant scientists and their several associations that profoundly disruptive and novel threats to the biosphere are in the offing, many caused by AGW, many caused separately by the additions--recent and projected--of billions of additional humans to Earth's already unprecedented numbers and percentage of the total biomass, and many more threats exaggerated by the interaction between AGW, current population numbers, and projected growth. One can only wonder, over time, at the resistance to the notion of prudent action in the face of such portents: taking the threats outlined by the scientists seriously and working energetically to mitigate or avoid the worst. The alternative seems to be to let Inertia, the Free Market, "Human Ingenuity" or God either deal with these issues or to ignore them entirely. The net effect is to seem to be whistling past the graveyard. Links, sources, references, arguments are provided documenting the dangers but it's like pissing into the wind of a powerful countervailing ideology or religious compulsion. And that's what I suspect is the situation.


----------



## Strange Magic

> mmsbls: "We had a grad student look into hydrogen airplanes. He looked at the infrastructure requirements to fuel airplanes at major airports such as San Francisco. He assumed natural gas pipelines would feed airports, and hydrogen would be produced and stored at the airport for usage on planes. The starting thing he found was that the footprint for equipment to produce hydrogen from steam reformation and to store the hydrogen would require airports to expand by a factor of 3-4 in size. We all agreed that would not happen anytime soon. The land required would be larger for electrolysis."


Interesting report. Could not more ambitious scenarios be explored using A) hydrogen, and, alternately, B) hydrogen peroxide delivered to airports via pipeline, then used as fuels for aircraft engines designed specifically for such use? Both have long histories as fuels for purpose-built engines, with the fuel cell/electric motor combo being quite efficient, and a robust past for hydrogen peroxide-burning torpedoes and other machinery. Having either delivered by pipeline would seem to eliminate the need for vast expansion of airport acreages. There are technical challenges to be explored, but, if successful, carbon-free air travel would be another link in transitioning to a hydrogen-based fuel regime.


----------



## Strange Magic

> mmsbls: "It would be wonderful if goods could be transported by rail such that long-haul trucks would become a small market. The trend is the other way for several reasons. The truck population (as well as vehicle miles traveled - VMT) is expected to increase by at least 30% by 2050. The government has a much of a chance of reducing trucking VMT as it does of getting people to significantly reduce car usage."


We seem, with both trucks and cars, to have a chicken-and-egg situation where sales and usage are somewhat dependent upon having an infrastructure developed to make either or both electricity or hydrogen available at "gas" stations so that commercial or recreational travelers could feel confident they can quickly fill up as needed. The robust sales of enormous, expensive, and profitable pickup trucks and huge SUVs indicates that customers are willing and able to pay large amounts for their vehicles. Instead of focusing upon conversion to all-electric (battery) or fuel cell vehicles, vehicle manufacturers are pouring time and money into the cul-de-sac of self-driving cars, believing that these are what the public wants. In my opinion, here is another area where government can justifiably intervene via subsidies, tax breaks, and outright mandate, and institute a drive to require gas stations to offer electric recharge and/or fuel cell refill nationwide. The opposition from the fossil fuel industry will be fierce. But sometimes government initiates and does good things--that's been our strength as a mixed, cooperative capitalist economy.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> What distinguishes The Wise is the ability to see, before the catastrophe is actually upon us, that such is looming on the horizon, though it be seen as a distant cloud smaller than a man's hand. There are now overwhelming numbers of such clouds on the horizon, some extrapolations, others suggestive of past, smaller catastrophes. We've discussed many of these problems, both current and impending. To belabor a point made now many times, there is an enormous yet always growing consensus of relevant scientists and their several associations that profoundly disruptive and novel threats to the biosphere are in the offing, many caused by AGW, many caused separately by the additions--recent and projected--of billions of additional humans to Earth's already unprecedented numbers and percentage of the total biomass, and many more threats exaggerated by the interaction between AGW, current population numbers, and projected growth. One can only wonder, over time, at the resistance to the notion of prudent action in the face of such portents: taking the threats outlined by the scientists seriously and working energetically to mitigate or avoid the worst. The alternative seems to be to let Inertia, the Free Market, "Human Ingenuity" or God either deal with these issues or to ignore them entirely. The net effect is to seem to be whistling past the graveyard. Links, sources, references, arguments are provided documenting the dangers but it's like pissing into the wind of a powerful countervailing ideology or religious compulsion. And that's what I suspect is the situation.


It's sad to say, but it's unwise to naively expect so much from humans. We've pieced together our long ascent (descent) over 180 million years. We've learned why we're the way we are.


----------



## Guest

While there are some very good electric cars out there, and they certainly have come a long way, there is that continuing problem with them - length of time to "refuel." As an around town conveyance, the problem is rather small. They work well for short distances, when you don't have to frequently refill. Longer travel, though, becomes prohibitive. And while it is common to compare us with Europe, where rail and public transportation is more plentiful, the United States is a vastly different beast. There is no great plain in the middle of any particular European country. No one of those countries compares in size. By way of example, I live in Alabama. My mother lives in California. My brother lives in Utah. I can't realistically take a road trip to see them in a strictly electric vehicle - its just not practical. Hybrids provide a better model in that sense, but then you are still burning gas.


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> It's sad to say, but it's unwise to naively expect so much from humans. We've pieced together our long ascent (descent) over 180 million years. We've learned why we're the way we are.


On the contrary, I think the history of humanity shows that we are capable of some pretty incredible things. Point to all the negatives all you want. But we have also cured disease and helped to limit suffering. Untold numbers have sacrificed their lives to help the helpless. If you look at us purely as the latest in a long chain of evolutionary steps, we have magnified our species in ways that no other has. Even the most advanced of any other species on this planet has at best gained a rudimentary usage of tools and incredibly basic communication. We communicate with ourselves in numerous ways, and create constant new "languages." We show an incredible ability to adapt to our changing surroundings. All other species are at the mercy of their surroundings. We are not. I don't understand the pessimism.


----------



## Luchesi

DrMike said:


> While there are some very good electric cars out there, and they certainly have come a long way, there is that continuing problem with them - length of time to "refuel." As an around town conveyance, the problem is rather small. They work well for short distances, when you don't have to frequently refill. Longer travel, though, becomes prohibitive. And while it is common to compare us with Europe, where rail and public transportation is more plentiful, the United States is a vastly different beast. There is no great plain in the middle of any particular European country. No one of those countries compares in size. By way of example, I live in Alabama. My mother lives in California. My brother lives in Utah. I can't realistically take a road trip to see them in a strictly electric vehicle - its just not practical. Hybrids provide a better model in that sense, but then you are still burning gas.


You plug it in at work and you plug it in when you get home, but you need a second car for longer trips. I have two cars, both hybrids, but some day soon I'll go electric with one when the AI equipped cars come down in price. AI can save your life and other drivers and pedestrians. Young children are being taught in schools that they have the right of way, I can't always see them, and it empowers them to do a little dance with their friends in crosswalks. It's funny for about a minute. By contrast, we were taught to fear cars. I think old people will need AI.


----------



## Luchesi

DrMike said:


> On the contrary, I think the history of humanity shows that we are capable of some pretty incredible things. Point to all the negatives all you want. But we have also cured disease and helped to limit suffering. Untold numbers have sacrificed their lives to help the helpless. If you look at us purely as the latest in a long chain of evolutionary steps, we have magnified our species in ways that no other has. Even the most advanced of any other species on this planet has at best gained a rudimentary usage of tools and incredibly basic communication. We communicate with ourselves in numerous ways, and create constant new "languages." We show an incredible ability to adapt to our changing surroundings. All other species are at the mercy of their surroundings. We are not. I don't understand the pessimism.


That's consoling. It's people like you who are making a better future, but there are too few of you..


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> You plug it in at work and you plug it in when you get home, but you need a second car for longer trips. I have two cars, both hybrids, but some day soon I'll go electric with one when the AI equipped cars come down in price. AI can save your life and other drivers and pedestrians. Young children are being taught in schools that they have the right of way, I can't always see them, and it empowers them to do a little dance with their friends in crosswalks. It's funny for about a minute. By contrast, we were taught to fear cars. I think old people will need AI.


I don't have the personal income to afford a town car and a traveling car - especially given that electric cars are currently quite a bit more expensive. So I buy just one car that suits all my needs. I suspect this is the case for the vast majority of Americans. It is also why the subsidies for purchasing electric cars were stupid - free cash for the already wealthy.

Also, how many people work someplace where they can plug in their car? I will admit that my parking deck at work does have 3 electric car charging stations - they are always occupied. There are several other electric cars to be seen in the deck. So the early birds get to plug in, and everybody else hopes they have enough charge. And in the past, before I got my spot in the deck, I parked in a large parking lot some distance from my building, with nary an electric outlet in sight.


----------



## mmsbls

Strange Magic said:


> Interesting report. Could not more ambitious scenarios be explored using A) hydrogen, and, alternately, B) hydrogen peroxide delivered to airports via pipeline, then used as fuels for aircraft engines designed specifically for such use? Both have long histories as fuels for purpose-built engines, with the fuel cell/electric motor combo being quite efficient, and a robust past for hydrogen peroxide-burning torpedoes and other machinery. Having either delivered by pipeline would seem to eliminate the need for vast expansion of airport acreages. There are technical challenges to be explored, but, if successful, carbon-free air travel would be another link in transitioning to a hydrogen-based fuel regime.


There are possible solutions for almost all barriers. The report did assume the aircraft would use hydrogen directly either in internal combustion engines or in fuel cells. I don't think the challenges are technical but mostly cost and land.


----------



## mmsbls

Strange Magic said:


> We seem, with both trucks and cars, to have a chicken-and-egg situation where sales and usage are somewhat dependent upon having an infrastructure developed to make either or both electricity or hydrogen available at "gas" stations so that commercial or recreational travelers could feel confident they can quickly fill up as needed. The robust sales of enormous, expensive, and profitable pickup trucks and huge SUVs indicates that customers are willing and able to pay large amounts for their vehicles. Instead of focusing upon conversion to all-electric (battery) or fuel cell vehicles, vehicle manufacturers are pouring time and money into the cul-de-sac of self-driving cars, believing that these are what the public wants. In my opinion, here is another area where government can justifiably intervene via subsidies, tax breaks, and outright mandate, and institute a drive to require gas stations to offer electric recharge and/or fuel cell refill nationwide. The opposition from the fossil fuel industry will be fierce. But sometimes government initiates and does good things--that's been our strength as a mixed, cooperative capitalist economy.


Infrastructure is a significant problem for hydrogen and a lesser problem for electricity. Government in many areas has been using subsidies, tax breaks, and mandates for awhile now to move light-duty vehicles to zero emissions (battery electric or fuel cell). It's interesting that even with all of these policies, the market penetration of zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) has been much slower than anticipated. The barriers include cost, ignorance (of availability of vehicles, infrastructure, and subsidies), and market inertia (people like what they know).

California will likely begin the world's first ZEV truck mandate in 2024. The problem I referred to earlier is specifically with long-haul trucks. Solutions include battery electric (cost, excessive weight, reduced payload), fuel cell (cost), biofuels (availability of low carbon drop-in diesel biofuels), catenary (initial cost), and inductive charging (high cost). All solutions have significant issues that could be serious problems.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> On the contrary, I think the history of humanity shows that we are capable of some pretty incredible things. Point to all the negatives all you want. But we have also cured disease and helped to limit suffering. Untold numbers have sacrificed their lives to help the helpless. If you look at us purely as the latest in a long chain of evolutionary steps, *we have magnified our species in ways that no other has.* Even the most advanced of any other species on this planet has at best gained a rudimentary usage of tools and incredibly basic communication. We communicate with ourselves in numerous ways, and create constant new "languages." We show an incredible ability to adapt to our changing surroundings. *All other species are at the mercy of their surroundings.* We are not. I don't understand the pessimism.


I think what is missing here are the ramifications of the two boldfaced items. As KenOC and a vast array of scientists--especially biologists, ecologists, and those concerned with both biodiversity collapse and biomass apportionment--have been pointing out for decades, one clever, allegedly "sapient" species has so distorted the land use and the flow of energy and materials on this planet that almost all other life forms now exist either through the mercy or the inattention (so far) of that one overweening species. The natural fabric of a self-regulating global ecosystem has been torn asunder. Is this what was intended by a benevolent Providence?


----------



## Strange Magic

mmsbls said:


> Infrastructure is a significant problem for hydrogen and a lesser problem for electricity. Government in many areas has been using subsidies, tax breaks, and mandates for awhile now to move light-duty vehicles to zero emissions (battery electric or fuel cell). It's interesting that even with all of these policies, the market penetration of zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) has been much slower than anticipated. The barriers include cost, ignorance (of availability of vehicles, infrastructure, and subsidies), and market inertia (people like what they know).


The solutions will come down to politics and the coming to governance by the popular will of a legislature and an administration committed to serious effort against AGW. The big projects that must be done or should be done, have been done, given proper leadership and an effort to fully inform the public, despite often fanatical opposition.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> I think what is missing here are the ramifications of the two boldfaced items. As KenOC and a vast array of scientists--especially biologists, ecologists, and those concerned with both biodiversity collapse and biomass apportionment--have been pointing out for decades, one clever, allegedly "sapient" species has so distorted the land use and the flow of energy and materials on this planet that almost all other life forms now exist either through the mercy or the inattention (so far) of that one overweening species. The natural fabric of a self-regulating global ecosystem has been torn asunder. Is this what was intended by a benevolent Providence?


Yes, Providence and progress. The wiki piece on William Shockley (transistors) is very interesting. He was also a rock climber in the area I grew up, the Hudson Valley.

"He pioneered a route across an overhang, known as "Shockley's Ceiling", which remains one of the classic climbing routes in the area."

"Shockley also proposed that individuals with IQs below 100 be paid to undergo voluntary sterilization."


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> I think what is missing here are the ramifications of the two boldfaced items. As KenOC and a vast array of scientists--especially biologists, ecologists, and those concerned with both biodiversity collapse and biomass apportionment--have been pointing out for decades, one clever, allegedly "sapient" species has so distorted the land use and the flow of energy and materials on this planet that almost all other life forms now exist either through the mercy or the inattention (so far) of that one overweening species. The natural fabric of a self-regulating global ecosystem has been torn asunder. *Is this what was intended by a benevolent Providence?*





Strange Magic said:


> The solutions will come down to politics and the coming to governance by the popular will of a legislature and an administration committed to serious effort against AGW. The big projects that must be done or should be done, have been done, given proper leadership and an effort to fully inform the public, *despite often fanatical opposition.*


Tell me - do you draw more flies with honey or vinegar?
Does the AGW movement accept any of the blame in not drawing more people to their side due to the overheated rhetoric and disparaging comments they direct towards those who don't accept their drastic actions?
Do they ever seek to expel from their ranks those whose hyperbole and exaggeration - if not flat out lying - drives more people away?
The current hot topic for Democrats in the USA is the Green New Deal - I'm not aware of any of the serious Democrats running for president being opposed to it, if not outright endorsing it. So what is more important - curbing the effects of global warming, or winning partisan points. Because do you think you will get more or less support for AGW amelioration efforts if you also tie it to socialist economic policies?
If you could decouple the AGW debate from politics, and use it less as a means to enact long-desired progressive/socialist policies that are tangential at best, and then not speak demeaningly of deeply held beliefs of others, you just might attract more support.
Believe it or not, there are aspects of environmental policies that could appeal to conservative religious individuals. You could appeal to the commandment of God to be wise stewards over his creations. You could talk about the benefits of weaning us from fossil fuels as an excellent way to uncouple us from the whims of bad-faith international actors - how much weaker on the world stage would Iran, Russia, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia be were the US to end, or substantially diminish their need for oil? We are a major consumer - that drop in demand would make prices plummet and cripple those countries.

I never hear environmentalists or progressives try to meet on common ground on this issue. Instead, it is merely the cries that anybody who is not completely aboard with their grandiose plans must be a "denier" or "anti-science." On the contrary - polls show that belief in AGW is quite broad - it just isn't very deep. People believe it, they just don't want to pay that much to fix it.

Decouple it from politics - quit using it as a cudgel to beat over the head of your political opponents. You might see more support. And dump those on the AGW side who oppose nuclear energy - they are a pretty large portion, and they are at least as "anti-science" as those you criticize on the other side of the debate.


----------



## mmsbls

DrMike said:


> The current hot topic for Democrats in the USA is the Green New Deal - I'm not aware of any of the serious Democrats running for president being opposed to it, if not outright endorsing it. So what is more important - curbing the effects of global warming, or winning partisan points. Because do you think you will get more or less support for AGW amelioration efforts if you also tie it to socialist economic policies?


I'm not aware that the Green New Deal has any specific policies. I thought there were general goals with the idea that congress would determine how best to meet them. Also I'm not aware of socialist policies proposed by Democrats. Do you actually mean socialist or policies that increase taxes?



DrMike said:


> If you could decouple the AGW debate from politics, and use it less as a means to enact long-desired progressive/socialist policies that are tangential at best, and then not speak demeaningly of deeply held beliefs of others, you just might attract more support.


I agree, but I also think that the best way to reach those who disagree that AGW is an issue is to have someone "from their side" talk about it. A religious figure or conservative who happens to believe AGW is problematic.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> I'm not aware that the Green New Deal has any specific policies. I thought there were general goals with the idea that congress would determine how best to meet them. Also I'm not aware of socialist policies proposed by Democrats. Do you actually mean socialist or policies that increase taxes?
> 
> I agree, but I also think that the best way to reach those who disagree that AGW is an issue is to have someone "from their side" talk about it. A religious figure or conservative who happens to believe AGW is problematic.


Universal single-payer healthcare, free college, jobs for all, limiting automobile usage, retrofitting all structures in the U.S.

The problem with drawing a conservative to the other side on this issue is the "George H. W. Bush effect." I'm sure you are familiar with it. He was the last Republican president that struck a big compromise deal with the Democrats. He put his political reputation on the line and made a compromise with them to raise taxes in exchange for spending cuts. He bucked his party. He became toxic to Republicans. And like Lucy with the football, the Democrats took the tax cuts, and then didn't reciprocate and cut spending. So they left Bush looking like a chump. And furthermore, they turned his changing his mind and working with them as a cudgel with which to beat him - how many times did they throw his "Read My Lips" pledge back at him?

As long as this is a political issue, nobody believes that the other side will compromise in good faith. And lets face it - right now with Trump, no Democrat wants to be seen working with him. But then that was mostly true with W. Bush as well - what Democrat wants to be the one who works with the president who "stole" the election?

Democrats have to give it up as a political wedge issue if you want it to get bipartisan support.


----------



## Strange Magic

> mmsbls: "I agree, but I also think that the best way to reach those who disagree that AGW is an issue is to have someone "from their side" talk about it. A religious figure or conservative who happens to believe AGW is problematic".


A moment's Google examination of "Evangelicals Climate Change", for instance, will turn up a number of organizations of young (usually young) evangelicals who are urging their coreligionists to join in the effort to fight AGW as a religious duty, given humankind's being granted dominion over Earth and its creatures and ecosystems. Here is just one example:

https://www.yecaction.org/

We read that the Pope has addressed world energy company CEOs and other such officials on the need to transition out of fossil fuels.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48641799


----------



## Strange Magic

> DrMike: "I never hear environmentalists or progressives try to meet on common ground on this issue. Instead, it is merely the cries that anybody who is not completely aboard with their grandiose plans must be a "denier" or "anti-science." On the contrary - *polls show that belief in AGW is quite broad - it just isn't very deep. People believe it, they just don't want to pay that much to fix it.*"


This is exactly the place where things called Leadership, Vision, Education are brought into play by those capable of them. The proposed alternative is to sit idly by and let The Crowd "decide" on a default public policy of inertia on an issue of enormous and growing importance. But it may be that, as the cynics opine, saving the planet may be "just too expensive".


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> This is exactly the place where things called Leadership, Vision, Education are brought into play by those capable of them. The proposed alternative is to sit idly by and let The Crowd "decide" on a default public policy of inertia on an issue of enormous and growing importance. But it may be that, as the cynics opine, saving the planet may be "just too expensive".


The crowd here being the American people? Sorry - they get their say in the matter.


----------



## Jacck

DrMike said:


> On the contrary, I think the history of humanity shows that we are capable of some pretty incredible things. Point to all the negatives all you want. *But we have also cured disease and helped to limit suffering*. Untold numbers have sacrificed their lives to help the helpless. If you look at us purely as the latest in a long chain of evolutionary steps, we have magnified our species in ways that no other has. Even the most advanced of any other species on this planet has at best gained a rudimentary usage of tools and incredibly basic communication. We communicate with ourselves in numerous ways, and create constant new "languages." We show an incredible ability to adapt to our changing surroundings. All other species are at the mercy of their surroundings. We are not. I don't understand the pessimism.


except that we caused huge suffering on the animals, killed them, robbed them of their land, and drove many of them to extinction. But of course the Bible says that God created men to rule over women and animals. So arguments with you are pointless.


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> except that we caused huge suffering on the animals, killed them, robbed them of their land, and drove many of them to extinction. But of course the Bible says that God created men to rule over women and animals. So arguments with you are pointless.


Yes - I am a religious person. I don't deny it. But I meet you all on your turf here - I have not introduced religious arguments into my points on here. So if you don't want to engage with me, that is fine - but be honest about it, and quit rationalizing it with some claim that I have not made. When I talked about limiting suffering and curing disease, I was talking about medical and scientific advances. I even advanced the point I was making with scientific discussion. Don't use me as your scapegoat for not wanting to debate the points - I know I draw the ire of all of you on here because I dare not agree with the hive mentality and offer alternative ideas.


----------



## KenOC

I think that a major factor contributing to skepticism about AGW is the truly horrible”scare” reporting about it. Every time some coastal land subsides from overpumping, it’s “global warming.” Every time a storm hits the coast, ditto.

Just last night on public TV a program on the subject said, “Already, global warming has caused a public health crisis in our country.” Huh? I checked and the total number of hospital beds in the US has declined by over a third in the last 20 years. And aside from the usual summer deaths from heat stroke and so forth, which have always been with us, I have actually never heard of a connection between US public health and AGW, at least so far.

This is similar to the constant bombardment of “rising ocean” stories. Best estimates are that the average global rise is about an eighth of an inch a year, or slightly over an inch per decade. Maybe a foot per century (unless it speeds up). For most, that will be little more than an inconvenience, since coastal facilities are typically renewed and rebuilt within that time frame. For some of course, mostly those living in flat coastal plains already subject to flooding during monsoon season, the situation will be more dire.

Anyway, people aren’t stupid and can see through this stuff. Naturally a lot of them draw the conclusion that the whole thing is just another hoax.


----------



## Strange Magic

^^^^Ken, I agree that poor journalism contributes to public confusion on AGW and other environmental issues. This is matched in intensity and doubled in perniciousness by not just the constant rebuttal/refusal to acknowledge even the most well-documented concerns of science, but the aggressive rolling-back of existing measures to safeguard the environment--the recent reversal of implementing clean-air coal-burner requirements initiated by the Obama administration is the latest example, as is the muzzling of the EPA and other federal agencies. The goal would be to have the measured concerns of respected national (NOAA, NASA, The National Academy of Sciences) and international (The Royal Society, the FAO, etc.) organizations be heard and read, explained and understood, by the media, opinion makers, and politicians.

The breakthrough will not, in my opinion, result from an accommodation with or a change of heart of today's Right, but rather from victory at the polls on Election Day and the inauguration of a new administration, House, and Senate, followed by inspired leadership, vision, and education. It could happen. Sometimes compromise just cannot be attained; then only victory (at the polls) must serve.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> ^^^^Ken, I agree that poor journalism contributes to public confusion on AGW and other environmental issues. *This is matched in intensity and doubled in perniciousness by not just the constant rebuttal/refusal to acknowledge even the most well-documented concerns of science, but the aggressive rolling-back of existing measures to safeguard the environment--the recent reversal of implementing clean-air coal-burner requirements initiated by the Obama administration is the latest example, as is the muzzling of the EPA and other federal agencies.* The goal would be to have the measured concerns of respected national (NOAA, NASA, The National Academy of Sciences) and international (The Royal Society, the FAO, etc.) organizations be heard and read, explained and understood, by the media, opinion makers, and politicians.


That is a political, not a scientific argument. Can you point to any evidence that the environment has actually gotten worse since those changes? Or is winning a political argument more important than helping the environment?



> The breakthrough will not, in my opinion, result from an accommodation with or a change of heart of today's Right, but rather from victory at the polls on Election Day and the inauguration of a new administration, House, and Senate, followed by inspired leadership, vision, and education. It could happen. Sometimes compromise just cannot be attained; then only victory (at the polls) must serve.


That won't happen. Meaningful legislation that won't simply be overturned when power swaps hands needs compromise. The Civil Rights Act passed because both Republicans and Democrats supported it. Obamacare is being taken apart because it was completely one-sided.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> That is a political, not a scientific argument. Can you point to any evidence that the environment has actually gotten worse since those changes? Or is winning a political argument more important than helping the environment?
> 
> That won't happen. Meaningful legislation that won't simply be overturned when power swaps hands needs compromise. The Civil Rights Act passed because both Republicans and Democrats supported it. Obamacare is being taken apart because it was completely one-sided.


Yes, my argument above was not a scientific argument. The scientific argument has been made both here and everywhere to the full satisfaction of all prepared to understand it. My argument indeed turned to the political aspect. It is clear that there is no stomach or capacity for almost any conceivable effective action against AGW within this administration or the Trump-controlled Senate. We recall that AGW is deemed a Chinese hoax by the current POTUS, and he has put into key positions at EPA, Interior, and other agencies those whose views exactly mirror his own; he rolls back previous rules and, as I posted, muzzles dissident, independent voices within the rank and file administration such that there is a steady traffic to the exits among long-standing civil servants. The cure for this is an FDR-strength purge of the Right from public office on Election Day. Here's a quick look:

https://thinkprogress.org/epa-employees-leaving-under-pruitt-11b36a220062/

An Internet search will quickly reveal many, many similar stories.


----------



## Guest

In what measurable ways is the environment worse under the Trump administration? Are there significantly more pollutants emitted by the US as compared to the Obama administration?


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> In what measurable ways is the environment worse under the Trump administration? Are there significantly more pollutants emitted by the US as compared to the Obama administration?


I am terribly sorry to disappoint you but I will not research at this time the measurable ways in which the environment is worse now under Trump than under Obama. I could do it; you could do it. Your gift is to ask these questions rather than to supply answers. I supply answers and post links, but in this case I will demur for the moment. If I can conveniently satisfy your insatiable thirst for the research of others soon, I will strive to do so. I am here to help.


----------



## mmsbls

DrMike said:


> In what measurable ways is the environment worse under the Trump administration? Are there significantly more pollutants emitted by the US as compared to the Obama administration?


Several studies have evaluated the impact of the environmental policies rolled back by the Trump administration.

The EPA looked at regulations for electric utility generating units and estimated in 2030 there would be:

1,680 additional premature deaths from increases in PM2.5 and ozone
334,000 additional days of restricted-activity or worse due to asthma

Neal Fann found that changes in oil and gas regulations would cause:

1500 - 3300 additional premature deaths/year from increases in PM2.5 and ozone
1.1 million additional asthma attacks/yeaar


----------



## KenOC

mmsbls said:


> Several studies have evaluated the impact of the environmental policies rolled back by the Trump administration.
> 
> The EPA looked at regulations for electric utility generating units and estimated in 2030 there would be:
> 
> 1,680 additional premature deaths from increases in PM2.5 and ozone
> 334,000 additional days of restricted-activity or worse due to asthma
> 
> Neal Fann found that changes in oil and gas regulations would cause:
> 
> 1500 - 3300 additional premature deaths/year from increases in PM2.5 and ozone
> 1.1 million additional asthma attacks/yeaar


I suspect that the impacts of Trump's regulatory rollbacks are going to be the least of our problems.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> Several studies have evaluated the impact of the environmental policies rolled back by the Trump administration.
> 
> The EPA looked at regulations for electric utility generating units and estimated in 2030 there would be:
> 
> 1,680 additional premature deaths from increases in PM2.5 and ozone
> 334,000 additional days of restricted-activity or worse due to asthma
> 
> Neal Fann found that changes in oil and gas regulations would cause:
> 
> 1500 - 3300 additional premature deaths/year from increases in PM2.5 and ozone
> 1.1 million additional asthma attacks/yeaar


So in 11 years from now? In 2016 there were 2.7 million deaths in the United States. 1680 represents am increase of 0.06%. That is less than a rounding error. Currently there are 14.2 million lost work days and 13.2 million lost school days. 334,000 amounts to an increase of 1.2%. I couldn't find a statistic on how many asthma attacks there were per year - I don't know how you could measure that. Nevertheless, there are 11 million visits to doctors offices and 1.7 million hospital outpatient visits due to asthma. And I'm sure even more attacks that are minor enough to not want anything more than using an inhaler, and don't get reported. You could have said "no effect" with much fewer words.


----------



## KenOC

Excuse me. I'm really enjoying my cruise here on the Titanic, but could I please have my assigned deck chair moved a bit farther forward?


----------



## mmsbls

DrMike said:


> ...You could have said "no effect" with much fewer words.


Well, it's not true that there will be no effect. I discussed studies of 2 changes in regulation. My understanding is that the Trump administration has rolled back 49 rules and is the the process of rolling back 39 more. I suspect that most of the others may have a smaller effect on mortality, but the estimated > 4000 premature deaths per year from those 2 rules alone are significant in my view. I think significant preventable 3rd party causes of death by companies making money should be regulated.


----------



## Strange Magic

https://www.dw.com/en/trumps-lasting-damage-to-the-environment/a-44315788

https://psmag.com/environment/key-environmental-issues-to-watch-in-trumps-third-year

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_policy_of_the_Donald_Trump_administration

Above are three quickly-found links, the Wikipedia being as usual the most detailed, discussing the Trump record on the environment.


----------



## Guest

So anyways . . .


----------



## Strange Magic

It feels good to speak truths that others can't!. That's what this thread is all about. I hope to read rigorous counter-arguments that the described actions and trends linked in Post 116 A) never happened, or B) have all enhanced our environmental stewardship. And I'm certain There Will Be Questions....

Meanwhile, BBC reports new Trump UN ambassador's remarks on reality of climate change. It will be interesting to see how this wife of a coal company executive continues to "evolve" in her views and how long the evolution will last:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48699663


----------



## Strange Magic

*Ocean Acidification*

A planet-wide geochemistry experiment in progress: the absorption of much of the vast increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide by the world's oceans. The linked Wikipedia article details research to date on current and possible future effects of the increasing acidification/loss of alkalinity of ocean water, especially on the carbonate/bicarbonate balance and the process of shell formation. It has been noted often also that the oceans have absorbed much of the increased warmth of AGW, and this speeds chemical reactions. The previous link to Dr. Harvell's work and book (Post 37) will be relevant.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

It would seem prudent to take such findings, current and extrapolated, quite seriously, as have many of the planet's most prestigious scientific organizations.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> In what measurable ways is the environment worse under the Trump administration? Are there significantly more pollutants emitted by the US as compared to the Obama administration?


Are you looking for the documented deaths or illnesses occurring between the end of the Obama administration and the current date, roughly very early 2017 to June 2019, that have been directly linked to Trump environmental policies? Post 113 would suggest that.

Here are other findings that have bearing on the issue, but one must read the entire document  in order to have a clear picture of what is being presented....

https://blog.ucsusa.org/josh-goldma...trump-3-striking-findings-from-new-epa-report

This will add additional clarity. The 2017 reduction in GHG is the result of Obama-era rules encouraging the switch from coal to natural gas. Trump has since weakened those rules in order to burn more coal. If allowed to stand, the new Trump rules will soon show up in increased GHG emissions....

https://www.apnews.com/d48562a8d7ee4df1bceec0990205e5b3


----------



## Strange Magic

*Australia OKs World's Largest Coal Mine*

In a triumph of business acumen and boldly looking into the future, India and Australia have now been linked in one of the great utilizations of a natural resource--coal--leading to a golden future of energy abundance. Routine and constant shipping traffic of the precious resource through the Great Barrier Reef is expected to do no additional harm to the fragile and dying reef directly. This project represents the best of capitalism and of economists' penetrating insight into global priorities.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...oal-commitment-as-controversial-mine-approved


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Strange Magic said:


> In a triumph of business acumen and boldly looking into the future, India and Australia have now been linked in one of the great utilizations of a natural resource--coal--leading to a golden future of energy abundance. Routine and constant shipping traffic of the precious resource through the Great Barrier Reef is expected to do no additional harm to the fragile and dying reef directly. This project represents the best of capitalism and of economists' penetrating insight into global priorities.
> 
> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...oal-commitment-as-controversial-mine-approved


So what would you suggest to replace that and still provide the people of Australia with jobs?


----------



## Guest

Let me address an issue on here as a brief digression: what I do on here and why. First off, I'm not a trained monkey. I don't perform on command. If I don't reply to your statement, or reply on your preferred manner, tough. Everybody thinks they have constructed the perfect argument for their side and insist that the way they have it mapped out in their head as going down is how it must be. I'm not here to validate whatever meaning you derive from this discussion.
Regarding links: I treat them like citing a reference in an academic paper. You put them in to provide a reference to bolster your argument, or allow people to see where you got the information you are providing - they are not a substitute for you doing the hard work of making your own case. If you can't be bothered to tell me the important points from a link, don't get pissed at me for not being bothered to follow the link. I have access to Wikipedia and Google as well. If that is all I wanted to do, I sure wouldn't spend my time on here. If you find something interesting elsewhere, take the time to write it here, and then provide the link so I can verify what you said if I so choose. I'm not going to do your work for you.
Some on here give me very little incentive to invest as much energy in as others, because long experience tells me that whether I engage with them extensively or only marginally, the result is the same. They don't like my ideas and thoughts, and I don't like theirs. No claim to giving the other a fair hearing has ever been proven true - our personalities simply clash too much that I'm not sure either of us would even **** on the other were we to find the other on fire. We really aren't able to maintain civil discourse for very long - much to the long-suffering chagrin of mmsbls, who has been given the unenviable position (must have drawn the short straw) of policing us. As such, I will likely engage less with that person and to leave disputes and unpleasant situations more to the mods to resolve. So yes - I will try to use the report button more frequently than responding in a way that also violates the forum rules 

I'm not an expert in this field, nor do I claim to be. I suspect 99% of the rest of you aren't either. But I do my own reading, make up my own mind, and have formed my own opinions. I am under no illusion anybody will pay me as an expert in this field. Don't like my ideas? I never said you had to. Nevertheless, I'm free to have them. If you don't feel like debating my points, fine. There are no points being kept here. No winners and losers. This isn't debate club.

End of digression.


----------



## Strange Magic

Johnnie Burgess said:


> So what would you suggest to replace that and still provide the people of Australia with jobs?


Is that a rhetorical question? Are you suggesting that this coal mine is the only thing that stands between prosperity and starvation in Australia? Are Australians too stupid to do anything else but mine coal? Can you think of anything they could do other than mine coal; your suggestions would be interesting. I myself might suggest that they utilize Australia's vast Outback to generate electricity via solar panels and then use electrolysis to convert that electricity to hydrogen, building a hydrogen industry from a position of leadership.

Glad to see you getting involved!


----------



## Strange Magic

We are always looking for something of substance in this thread. I offer it. Others offer declarations of personal philosophy, habit, or intent. Content? Not so much.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Strange Magic said:


> Is that a rhetorical question? Are you suggesting that this coal mine is the only thing that stands between prosperity and starvation in Australia? Are Australians too stupid to do anything else but mine coal? Can you think of anything they could do other than mine coal; your suggestions would be interesting. I myself might suggest that they utilize Australia's vast Outback to generate electricity via solar panels and then use electrolysis to convert that electricity to hydrogen, building a hydrogen industry from a position of leadership.
> 
> Glad to see you getting involved!


What about the birds that could be killed by the solar panels? There are 1200 threatened species in the outback.


----------



## mmsbls

Johnnie Burgess said:


> What about the birds that could be killed by the solar panels? There are 1200 threatened species in the outback.


Are you referring to solar thermal power plants which concentrate solar energy? They can be problematic for birds, but solar panels are fairly benign as far as I know.

Also, I think it's critically important to always compare the benefits and problems with all potential solutions rather than just focusing on the problems with one proposed solution. Do the overall benefits and problems with coal make it superior to solar as a power generating technology?


----------



## Guest

Scientists tell us that the earth has warmed at a faster rate in recent history than before, and that is due to mankind and their more rapid release of greenhouse gases into the environment. Okay. Scientists tell us that to counteract this, we need to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases - particularly carbon containing - in order to stymie this warming, if not reverse. Okay.

So we come down to how we do that. And this is where the scientists step out of the driver's seat. Policy is not their specialty. Climate scientists, for example, have little grasp of the intricacies of instituting a global carbon tax.

The issue comes down to how we accomplish the goal - not what the goal is. The progressive mindset is what I take issue with - I don't believe that we can solve this problem by letting the experts tell us what to do, with the force of government behind them. First, like I said - scientists aren't particularly good at this. I go back to my repeated references to Hardin and Ehrlich. SM has repeatedly told us they were experts in the field of Malthusianism. Now, he then says that we should not judge them by their proposals to how to solve their problem - but the very nature of the progressive mindset is to rely on the experts, who just know better than the ignorant masses. Hardin wanted forced sterilization, particularly of undesirables. Ehrlich thought putting sterilizing agents into the food and water supply might be a viable option, or giving ultrasounds to assist sex-selective abortions. These are horrible, horrible policy ideas from supposed experts in their field. Whatever their particular expertise in the field of population biology, their policy ideas are abysmal - but these would presumably be in the group of experts advising policies to go forward.

I prefer the conservative position. Mankind is not perfectible by mankind. Mankind is flawed, self-interested, and selfish. You can't have a group of experts at the top simply punishing bad behavior. You have to use that self-interest to move things forward. You make it worth their while to fix these problems. Use selfishness for positive outcomes. That is how we got the fracking revolution. Private industry innovated and created something that nobody was predicting 20 years ago. Is fracking a panacea? No. But natural gas, while not carbon neutral, is a much cleaner fuel source than coal, and so the fracking revolution has resulted in much more of our energy produced by a cleaner source. As a result, we have seen improvements in this country in our carbon emissions. 

Similar strategies need to be employed in other sectors. Rather than simply regulating down carbon emissions - difficult in the best of circumstances - you give private industry tightly focused goals but less regulation. Major projects - long-term, with long-term, rather than short-term, benefits are tough for any private industry to undertake, but the government isn't particularly good at it either. But what does work is the government funding it, and then letting them have latitude. Want better solar and wind energy production? Fund private companies and cut regulations. Want better nuclear energy production? Do the same. Don't just try to tax things out of existence - it doesn't work. Cap and trade doesn't work - too much room for abuse. A carbon tax? To implement it, you need global cooperation. That means getting India, Brazil, China, Russia, the U.S., and Europe to all get on the same page.

Market forces, when given their wings, work better than top-down mandates and punishment of bad behavior. Central planning does not work. Tell me - what do you think is more likely to cure cancer: Joe Biden telling scientists to cure cancer, or funding of scientists with their own ideas for treatment strategies? Who do you think would more readily build a high-speed rail line in California: Elon Musk or the State of California?

Cue the ridiculing of free market capitalism.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Strange Magic said:


> . I myself might suggest that they utilize Australia's vast Outback to generate electricity via solar panels and then use electrolysis to convert that electricity to hydrogen, building a hydrogen industry from a position of leadership.
> 
> Glad to see you getting involved!


Why bother with the losses and storage problems involved with creating H? just use batteries - they have won and H is dead

https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/showdown-hydrogen-vs-battery/


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> Are you referring to solar thermal power plants which concentrate solar energy? They can be problematic for birds, but solar panels are fairly benign as far as I know.
> 
> Also, I think it's critically important to always compare the benefits and problems with all potential solutions rather than just focusing on the problems with one proposed solution. Do the overall benefits and problems with coal make it superior to solar as a power generating technology?


Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are numerous problems with solar panels - the rare metals used in their production are environmental concerns when they have to be replaced (I think I read you have to replace them, on average, every decade), and the methods for extracting those metals - usually from third-world nations are problematic as well. Furthermore, a great deal of water is necessary to keep the panels clean and functioning at peak capacity - something that is problematic give that regions that prove optimal for solar farms are not particularly water-rich. So you would need to siphon water from elsewhere - diverting surface water or tapping aquifers.

I believe the problem with disturbing bird populations is more a problem with wind farms. Wind turbines, I am led to believe as well, must also be replaced every decade. I believe I read that in a paper discussing nuclear energy, where the average nuclear power plant, at one point, was good for about 40 years (as compared to 10) but that new technology was stretching the life of the average nuclear reactor even further.


----------



## Strange Magic

Bwv 1080 said:


> Why bother with the losses and storage problems involved with creating H? just use batteries - they have won and H is dead
> 
> https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/showdown-hydrogen-vs-battery/


I read your link. Conclusion: hydrogen is not dead. Battery technology is currently in the lead in auto, but hydrogen may be better suited to truck, railway, airplane, and marine shipping usage. What I got from the article was that we have two technologies that both should be vigorously pursued, while also investigating and mitigating problems resulting from use and disposal of exotic, toxic materials in any big technology. Government regulation based on solid science should be rigorous here--we cannot allow private enterprise to determine on its own what are proper levels of toxic materials and how to dispose of them.

Regarding cleaning of solar panels: one of the virtues of a large solar array is that one has electricity to spare. Things become possible., like using seawater as a feedstock for electrolysis, supplying as byproducts abundant quantities of metals and other materials present in seawater for use in industry (New Jersey had a facility that extracted magnesium from seawater) and also fresh water for cleaning panels and other uses. Plus, one has power to pump seawater into remote locations via pipelines.

Magnesium and other materials from seawater:

https://www.miningweekly.com/article/extracting-minerals-and-metals-from-the-sea-2016-04-01

Regarding replacing solar panels: in a large array, the problem is severely localized and concentrated, making recycling and/or detoxification/disposal capable of effective, efficient on-site solution. But certainly research is needed here. Some interesting new possibilies are being explored using relatively inert materials for panels.


----------



## Strange Magic

> DrMike: "Cue the ridiculing of free market capitalism."


What is free market capitalism telling us about nuclear reactors and coal? Depends where you are and who's in charge.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> What is free market capitalism telling us about nuclear reactors and coal? Depends where you are and who's in charge.


Tell me where free markets actually hold sway in those energy sectors and I can better answer your question. The short answer is nowhere. Both are subject to massive government regulation - my suggestion is that our best hope at making any of these areas of energy production better - more efficient, cleaner - is to provide the funding and the overarching goal (safer more efficient nuclear, cleaner coal, better wind, better solar, etc.) and then, other than basic safety measures, leave them to let them go where the technology and the profit motive takes them.


----------



## Strange Magic

Rather than guessing and wondering about wind turbine lifetimes, I looked it up. It's the gearboxes that go after about ten years, requiring replacement. The article states that new engineering is required and being developed to improve these figures. The lifespans of nuclear reactors show 40 years of costly constant replacement of critical parts--pumps, piping, controls, safety alarm (leak and radiation) upgrades, etc. That all must be factored into any comparison between wind turbine and reactor lifetime costs and dangers.

https://www.windpowerengineering.co...wind-turbine-gearboxes-fail-hit-20-year-mark/


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> Tell me where free markets actually hold sway in those energy sectors and I can better answer your question. The short answer is nowhere. Both are subject to massive government regulation - my suggestion is that our best hope at making any of these areas of energy production better - more efficient, cleaner - is to provide the funding and the overarching goal (safer more efficient nuclear, cleaner coal, better wind, better solar, etc.) and then, other than basic safety measures, leave them to let them go where the technology and the profit motive takes them.


If the free market held sway, what would be the future of nuclear reactors and coal? What would be the role of government in determining safety and waste disposal and pollutant emissions requirements in the free market?


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> If the free market held sway, what would be the future of nuclear reactors and coal? What would be the role of government in determining safety and waste disposal and pollutant emissions requirements in the free market?


Tough to tell - but generally, we see better innovation, more cost-effective measures implemented, and prices dropping when free markets, rather than top-down control or crony capitalistic measures are implemented. Government regulation could be in the form of regulating how waste is disposed, and given the nature of the fuel, controlling who gets access to the reactive elements. Lowering the regulatory costs for the construction of new nuclear reactors would go a long way. We are seeing the benefits of government getting out of the way in the fracking industry.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> Rather than guessing and wondering about wind turbine lifetimes, I looked it up. It's the gearboxes that go after about ten years, requiring replacement. The article states that new engineering is required and being developed to improve these figures. The lifespans of nuclear reactors show 40 years of costly constant replacement of critical parts--pumps, piping, controls, safety alarm (leak and radiation) upgrades, etc. That all must be factored into any comparison between wind turbine and reactor lifetime costs and dangers.
> 
> https://www.windpowerengineering.co...wind-turbine-gearboxes-fail-hit-20-year-mark/


As to dangers, we have decades of information regarding the dangers of nuclear power production. And the track record is VERY good. With the exception of Chernobyl (and even there, there were numerous factors that contributed to the damage that weren't inherent necessarily to nuclear energy), while the potential for danger is high, we have proven to be quite effective at containing those risks.


----------



## KenOC

Good news, bad news in two MarketWatch stories today, both relevant to discussions here.

Our children could live to witness the end of global population growth

U.S. air quality is getting worse after decades of improvement


----------



## KenOC

DrMike said:


> As to dangers, we have decades of information regarding the dangers of nuclear power production. And the track record is VERY good. With the exception of Chernobyl (and even there, there were numerous factors that contributed to the damage that weren't inherent necessarily to nuclear energy), while the potential for danger is high, we have proven to be quite effective at containing those risks.


You may be forgetting one:

"The Fukushima disaster was the most significant nuclear incident since the 26 April 1986 Chernobyl disaster and the only other disaster since to be given the Level 7 event classification of the International Nuclear Event Scale."


----------



## mmsbls

Bwv 1080 said:


> Why bother with the losses and storage problems involved with creating H? just use batteries - they have won and H is dead
> 
> https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/showdown-hydrogen-vs-battery/


In general I would agree with almost everything in that article. Five years ago I would have predicted that fuel cells would be the preferred technology mid-term, but now it's clear that battery electric vehicles will dominate the mid-term market even for trucks (excepting maybe long-haul). I was slightly surprised that they quote a survey saying 78% of experts believe hydrogen is the future. I suppose it depends on what timeframe the future is. I'm guessing that in 2030 very few would pick hydrogen, in 2040 that number would rise but probably stay less than 50%. By 2050, who knows?

Presently range is a major factor, but by 2030 some are predicting that solid state lithium batteries will increase energy densities by a factor of 2.5 or so making battery electric vehicle ranges similar to conventional vehicles. The big issue seems to be recharge times. The article says that "[E]ven with a fast charger, it can take 30-40 minutes to fully recharge your" battery. The true time is really greater than an hour, and it doesn't depend on the power of the charger. There are more expensive battery technologies that can be recharged in the same time it takes to refuel a gasoline care, but those batteries are expensive and have much lower energy density.

I think ultimately the issue will not be technology but rather cost. For example, range and recharge times will not be an issue if one uses autonomous vehicles that will always be properly charged when needed.


----------



## mmsbls

DrMike said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are numerous problems with solar panels - the rare metals used in their production are environmental concerns when they have to be replaced (I think I read you have to replace them, on average, every decade), and the methods for extracting those metals - usually from third-world nations are problematic as well. Furthermore, a great deal of water is necessary to keep the panels clean and functioning at peak capacity - something that is problematic give that regions that prove optimal for solar farms are not particularly water-rich. So you would need to siphon water from elsewhere - diverting surface water or tapping aquifers.


I'm not sure how significant those problems are, but I have read about some of them. Every technology has problems. I always tell people that I can give them all the wonderful benefits of each fuel, but I can also tell them all of the problems associated with that fuel. It's somewhat easy to portray just about any technology as the savior or the devil. Researchers, regulators, industry, and the public will collectively determine the future of all of these technologies.

The goal of researchers like myself is to find pathways that maximize the benefits to society while minimizing the problems. It's a rather difficult task.


----------



## KenOC

Re recharge times: Why recharge in the vehicle? Over time EVs will standardize on a few battery sizes, and these will be mounted similarly, likely on rails. Pull in at any service station and your depleted battery will be automatically pulled out and a freshly charged one inserted, all in a matter of a minute or two. This will all be mechanized.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> You may be forgetting one:
> 
> "The Fukushima disaster was the most significant nuclear incident since the 26 April 1986 Chernobyl disaster and the only other disaster since to be given the Level 7 event classification of the International Nuclear Event Scale."


Not forgetting it at all. The government attributed 1 death to it. 16 injuries due to the hydrogen explosion, and then 2 non-fatal cancer cases due to radiation. As you said, the only other Level 7 disaster since 1986.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> As to dangers, we have decades of information regarding the dangers of nuclear power production. And the track record is VERY good. With the exception of Chernobyl (and even there, there were numerous factors that contributed to the damage that weren't inherent necessarily to nuclear energy), while the potential for danger is high, we have proven to be quite effective at containing those risks.


Regarding lifetimes and costs over that lifetime, including decommissioning costs including removal and storage of wastes and then restoring the site to pre-plant conditions, I would place money on wind turbines. We are in the process now in New Jersey with the decommissioning of Oyster Creek and the several hundred million dollar yearly subsidy costs of keeping the Salem Nukes running, so we will be a test case to get this sorted out. Wind farms planned for the Atlantic off the Jersey Shore.

Wikipedia on the costs of Fukushima: They are recently doubled to $187 billion.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup


----------



## Strange Magic

KenOC said:


> Good news, bad news in two MarketWatch stories today, both relevant to discussions here.
> 
> Our children could live to witness the end of global population growth
> 
> U.S. air quality is getting worse after decades of improvement


Excellent Marketwatch article! A key paragraph:

"To provide space, food, and resources for a large world population in a way that is sustainable into the distant future is without question one of the large, serious challenges for our generation," Roser wrote, pointing out that when it finally slows, population will have risen 10-fold over the span of 250 years."


----------



## Strange Magic

> DrMike: "Similar strategies need to be employed in other sectors. Rather than simply regulating down carbon emissions - difficult in the best of circumstances - you give private industry tightly focused goals but less regulation. Major projects - long-term, with long-term, rather than short-term, benefits are tough for any private industry to undertake, but the government isn't particularly good at it either. *But what does work is the government funding it,* and then letting them have latitude. Want better solar and wind energy production? *Fund private companies* and cut regulations. Want better nuclear energy production? Do the same. Don't just try to tax things out of existence - it doesn't work. Cap and trade doesn't work - too much room for abuse. A carbon tax? To implement it, you need global cooperation. That means getting India, Brazil, China, Russia, the U.S., and Europe to all get on the same page."


This is a new and different kind of free market capitalism than we are used to hearing from DrMike. It hearkens back to the government/industry collaboration that won us WWII and created the Manhattan Project, as described in Richard Rhodes' _The Making of the Atomic Bomb_. The assumption one must draw is that a postulated crisis is equivalent to supplying arms for the Allies in WWII and developing a nuclear industry and bomb from scratch. Is fighting AGW and other environmental degradation a threat/challenge on that scale? I think it is, as does the scientific community, and, increasingly, one of our two political parties.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> This is a new and different kind of free market capitalism than we are used to hearing from DrMike. It hearkens back to the government/industry collaboration that won us WWII and created the Manhattan Project, as described in Richard Rhodes' _The Making of the Atomic Bomb_. The assumption one must draw is that a postulated crisis is equivalent to supplying arms for the Allies in WWII and developing a nuclear industry and bomb from scratch. Is fighting AGW and other environmental degradation a threat/challenge on that scale? I think it is, as does the scientific community, and, increasingly, one of our two political parties.


No - we need to be done with this perpetual "wartime" footing. Everything can't always be so dire or it ceases to have any meaning. War on this. War on that. What did the war on poverty do to the rate of poverty? What did the war on drugs accomplish? Massive new government programs, massive new bureaucracies, massive new spending, minimal results.

The infusion of government funding is to bridge the necessary concerns that private companies have with taking on a project that is not going to yield profit returns in the near turn, which is necessary to keep them running. A company can't sink lots of money into a project meant to produce returns 50-100 years from now - that would bankrupt them in the near term. The NIH frequently puts out funding bulletins - areas that they are interested in funding. Researchers can then submit proposals to get that funding. This would be done by private companies, nothing in a new government agency.

Free market principles, not top-down command progressive government control.


----------



## mmsbls

KenOC said:


> Re recharge times: Why recharge in the vehicle? Over time EVs will standardize on a few battery sizes, and these will be mounted similarly, likely on rails. Pull in at any service station and your depleted battery will be automatically pulled out and a freshly charged one inserted, all in a matter of a minute or two. This will all be mechanized.


There are bus depots in China that swap battery packs. There was a company, Better Place, started in 2007 that tried to commercialize this idea. They went out of business in 2013. I think the major problem today is the space needed at charging stations not only for all the packs but also for the chargers. Standardization of packs is probably hard than it might seem given the differences in specific ground up designs of EVs.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> There are bus depots in China that swap battery packs. There was a company, Better Place, started in 2007 that tried to commercialize this idea. They went out of business in 2013. I think the major problem today is the space needed at charging stations not only for all the packs but also for the chargers. Standardization of packs is probably hard than it might seem given the differences in specific ground up designs of EVs.


How much safer has battery technology gotten? I know that in the early days of electric and hybrid vehicles, issues came up, for example, with rescue efforts when they were involved in accidents - has that improved? What level of skill would it require to swap out batteries.

but I can see your point about the space needed, and the ease of transferring the batteries. Gasoline, being a liquid, can easily be pumped from underground tanks. Even a charging station only requires plugging in. But swapping out batteries is another issue.

For reference - how big is the typical battery these days used in electric cars? I'm assuming as technology improves, these will get smaller, but I'm also assuming there is a lower limit as to how small they can be and still be effective.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> No - we need to be done with this perpetual "wartime" footing. Everything can't always be so dire or it ceases to have any meaning. War on this. War on that. What did the war on poverty do to the rate of poverty? What did the war on drugs accomplish? Massive new government programs, massive new bureaucracies, massive new spending, minimal results.
> 
> The infusion of government funding is to bridge the necessary concerns that private companies have with taking on a project that is not going to yield profit returns in the near turn, which is necessary to keep them running. A company can't sink lots of money into a project meant to produce returns 50-100 years from now - that would bankrupt them in the near term. The NIH frequently puts out funding bulletins - areas that they are interested in funding. Researchers can then submit proposals to get that funding. This would be done by private companies, nothing in a new government agency.
> 
> Free market principles, not top-down command progressive government control.


Just to be clear, you are endorsing the government (as it does) intruding into the free market to fund projects it decides need an extra boost. This is fully in accord with The Free Market as you understand it. If so, much can be done! I also infer (_must_ infer) that you believe the fight against AGW and related and unrelated environmental threats is not an issue on the level of winning WWII.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> Just to be clear, you are endorsing the government (as it does) intruding into the free market to fund projects it decides need an extra boost. This is fully in accord with The Free Market as you understand it. If so, much can be done! I also infer (_must_ infer) that you believe the fight against AGW and related and unrelated environmental threats is not an issue on the level of winning WWII.


It is not a completely laissez faire free market strategy, but it allows more market forces in than currently are in play, and I find it a much better option than cap-and-trade and carbon taxes that only seek to punish behavior. Punitive measures drive self-interested attempts to dodge - and we all know governments love crafting loopholes to benefit their favorites. In contrast, dangle the prospect of massive revenue to the company who creates the breakthrough technology by fronting the upfront costs, and now human nature is working for us, not against.

And no - I don't see this on the level of WWII. Had we done nothing in WWII, the certainty of even more death and destruction was nearly absolute. That is not the case here. But it is a significant enough concern that it does warrant proactive measures - but there is a cost-benefit analysis. The projected increases in global temperatures by the end of the century with no action are 2-4 degrees, I believe. Analyses, last I read, from the IPCC AR3 report believe that the economic costs of a 4 degree increase will be 1-5% of global GDP.

We spend a significant amount of money each year - $4 million - on technology to detect asteroid strikes that could cause cataclysmic damage - I believe the threat is estimated at a 1:10,000 chance in the next 100 years. For spending an order of magnitude higher - $1 billion - it is estimated we could fund detection and interdiction strategies that could reduce our risk by 90%. Why don't we? Because we weigh the cost-benefit balance.

By the way, most of these ideas are available, more compellingly and better explained, in this article, if you are interested:
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/conservatives-and-climate-change


----------



## mmsbls

DrMike said:


> So we come down to how we do that. And this is where the scientists step out of the driver's seat. Policy is not their specialty. Climate scientists, for example, have little grasp of the intricacies of instituting a global carbon tax.


In general the group of people that propose policies are not research scientists. They are policy analysts. They usually have science backgrounds along with policy related degrees. I work with several of these people. They work closely with researchers, regulators, and industry to develop environmental policies. There may be some scientists that propose policies, but I'm unaware of them.



DrMike said:


> The issue comes down to how we accomplish the goal - not what the goal is. The progressive mindset is what I take issue with - I don't believe that we can solve this problem by letting the experts tell us what to do, with the force of government behind them.


In all honesty, I can't imagine solving these problems in any other manner than having experts define the problem, other groups of interacting experts construct solutions, and ultimately having the government provide the basis for the regulation.



DrMike said:


> A carbon tax? To implement it, you need global cooperation. That means getting India, Brazil, China, Russia, the U.S., and Europe to all get on the same page.
> 
> Market forces, when given their wings, work better than top-down mandates and punishment of bad behavior.


A carbon tax is precisely a market based solution to externalities (negative effects on 3rd parties that are not paid for by those making a profit). You do not require the entire world in order to implement a carbon tax or other market based solutions.


----------



## mmsbls

Assuming we can talk about nature problems aside from population and food in this thread, I have a question for DrMike. One of my large concerns for humanity is the evolution of resistant viruses with high mortality and transmission rates. I'm sure you and your colleagues discuss such possibilities. How great a concern do you believe this is and how much funding do you think the US government should allocate to the problem?


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> A carbon tax is precisely a market based solution to externalities (negative effects on 3rd parties that are not paid for by those making a profit). You do not require the entire world in order to implement a carbon tax or other market based solutions.


You need other countries beyond just the U.S. working towards the same goal, don't you? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the U.S. alone can fix this. You need to control global carbon emissions. Emerging economies like India and China? Shouldn't they be on board?

At any rate, that isn't market based. That is top-down command. It artificially adjusts prices. It is a form of price control. Just because a system works through the markets is not the same as it being a market force. At any rate, what will end up happening is that the wrong people will bear the cost. If you make it more expensive for companies to provide essentials to people, they will just raise the price - the consumer ends up paying the tax. Now, maybe wealthier nations won't feel the pinch as much, but how much of those products are sold to poor countries that already are struggling? In contrast, the other strategy I am proposing would result in developing newer technologies that will likely result in lower prices over time, which will benefit all.

Most income taxes end up being pretty progressive, but most consumption taxes - particularly sin taxes - end up being very regressive. Price of gas rises? Wealthy people will buy more electric cars. You think the guy working at McDonald's can afford a Prius, let alone a Tesla?


----------



## KenOC

Strange Magic said:


> Just to be clear, you are endorsing the government (as it does) intruding into the free market to fund projects it decides need an extra boost. This is fully in accord with The Free Market as you understand it. If so, much can be done! I also infer (_must_ infer) that you believe the fight against AGW and related and unrelated environmental threats is not an issue on the level of winning WWII.


As somebody wrote earlier, saving the world is of vital importance, just so long as it doesn't cost too much.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> Assuming we can talk about nature problems aside from population and food in this thread, I have a question for DrMike. One of my large concerns for humanity is the evolution of resistant viruses with high mortality and transmission rates. I'm sure you and your colleagues discuss such possibilities. How great a concern do you believe this is and how much funding do you think the US government should allocate to the problem?


It's an interesting question. As for the amount of funding, that is outside my wheelhouse. There already is, from multiple sources, including the Defense Department if they worry it is something soldiers may face internationally. Scientists will tell you there is never enough funding.

The issue you raise - high mortality AND high transmission rates - causes significant scares, but the problem with the high mortality issue is that it is self-defeating for the virus. From an evolutionary standpoint, the virus doesn't want to kill the host. The quicker the host dies, the less time it has to spread to a new one. Additionally, typically those scary viruses that have high mortality rates typically also are very visible, and much easier to spot and quarantine. We are reasonably good, for example, at tracking down exposures to something like Ebola. But a virus that lies dormant, and you don't even show symptoms for years? Now that is hard as hell to track.

Resistance is always a concern, particularly in RNA viruses which mutate much more rapidly than do DNA viruses. We lucked out with smallpox because it is a DNA virus that does not mutate very rapidly, and so we never experienced any significant problems of mutations making the vaccine useless.

The types you are likely thinking of are those which are typically handled in BSL-4 facilities - high mortality, high transmission, and especially if there are no current treatments or vaccines. Like I said, though - outbreaks of these kinds are usually pretty self-limiting. Generally these are fairly new to humans as hosts, and we are usually dead-end hosts for them - we don't pass them on to other animals that can serve as reservoirs. Incubation times are typically short, so symptoms are apparent much earlier. If you contract the disease abroad, unless it happens very near the end of your trip, chances are symptoms will manifest before you return, and so quarantine can be effective.

HIV is such a different and more interesting beast. Our best estimates is that it only very recently made the jump into humans, and yet seems to have already adjusted quite well. It isn't the initial infection that will do you in, but rather the long-term effects and secondary infections. I suspect this is most likely due to the fact that it made the jump from a very close relative - the current thinking is that HIV is a mutated form of a chimpanzee-specific strain of S(imian)IV, possibly making the species jump through blood-to-blood contact during the handling of bush meat in Africa. It already had a great scheme for hiding out, and allowing the host to live for a long time after infection, expanding its ability to further spread itself.

Probably a longer discussion than you'd want. Those involved in vaccine strategies for viruses are constantly interested in the issue of mutation and resistance. But in general, the types of viruses you describe, while being great for freaking people out and being subject matter for thriller movies, are not as big of concerns as other more rampant diseases that spread more broadly and result in significant long-term and chronic problems. Diarrheal diseases are still some of the major killers on the planet. Not the ones that make you bleed from every orifice.


----------



## mmsbls

DrMike said:


> How much safer has battery technology gotten? I know that in the early days of electric and hybrid vehicles, issues came up, for example, with rescue efforts when they were involved in accidents - has that improved? What level of skill would it require to swap out batteries.


The safety of the internal electrochemistry has not changed too much. There have been several changes to overall pack safety in vehicles. Some of that comes from education of first responders and standardized labeling of cables. Some comes from automatic disconnects that open under certain circumstances. A pack is dangerous because of high voltage and significant current. Packs are constructed by electrically connecting modules of much lower voltage. The connections can be broken such that only modest voltage exists in the car.



DrMike said:


> For reference - how big is the typical battery these days used in electric cars? I'm assuming as technology improves, these will get smaller, but I'm also assuming there is a lower limit as to how small they can be and still be effective.


This site has pictures of packs removed from a Tesla and a GM Bolt. Both packs are fairly large 60-80 kWh for ranges over 200 miles. The actual energy density of such packs are roughly 130-150 Wh/lite.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> The safety of the internal electrochemistry has not changed too much. There have been several changes to overall pack safety in vehicles. Some of that comes from education of first responders and standardized labeling of cables. Some comes from automatic disconnects that open under certain circumstances. A pack is dangerous because of high voltage and significant current. Packs are constructed by electrically connecting modules of much lower voltage. The connections can be broken such that only modest voltage exists in the car.
> 
> This site has pictures of packs removed from a Tesla and a GM Bolt. Both packs are fairly large 60-80 kWh for ranges over 200 miles. The actual energy density of such packs are roughly 130-150 Wh/lite.


Am I reading that correctly - around 1000 lbs per battery? So swap out facilities wouldn't be as simple as doing a new lithium battery into my Ryobi cordless drill. While possibly quicker than plugging in, it is still going to take a significant amount of time to swap out 1000 lb batteries. You can't walk in and do it yourself.


----------



## mmsbls

DrMike said:


> You need other countries beyond just the U.S. working towards the same goal, don't you? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the U.S. alone can fix this. You need to control global carbon emissions. Emerging economies like India and China? Shouldn't they be on board?


Yes.



DrMike said:


> At any rate, that isn't market based. That is top-down command. It artificially adjusts prices. It is a form of price control. Just because a system works through the markets is not the same as it being a market force.


I disagree and think all economists I know would as well.



DrMike said:


> At any rate, what will end up happening is that the wrong people will bear the cost. If you make it more expensive for companies to provide essentials to people, they will just raise the price - the consumer ends up paying the tax. Now, maybe wealthier nations won't feel the pinch as much, but how much of those products are sold to poor countries that already are struggling? In contrast, the other strategy I am proposing would result in developing newer technologies that will likely result in lower prices over time, which will benefit all.


Analysis of policies such as carbon taxes are actually rather complicated and I don't pretend to understand all of it. I will simply mention a few things about a carbon tax. Placing a tax on a product will make the product more expensive giving other technologies a better chance of entering the market. Through further research and increased volume sales, new technologies become less expensive. The tax can be a mechanism to allow alternative technologies without the problematic externalities to enter the market and eventually become economically competitive.

A similar type of tax is a feebate (fee on product with significant externalities coupled with a rebate on product with lower externalities). Customers that purchase cars with low fuel economy pay a fee based on the fuel economy while customers who purchase a car with a high fuel economy receive a rebate. The effect (well studies in economic circles) is a movement toward higher fuel economy is cars that are sold (and eventually produced).

There is a bill in Congress that is similar to the feebate known as carbon fee and dividend. The fee is an increasing tax ($/ton) on carbon based energy sources. The revenue is then evenly divided among families in the US such that the overall effect is revenue neutral. Estimates are that the dividend will outweigh any increases in product cost for over 55% of all US families.

Some policy analysts believe the dividend should go primarily to companies that develop low carbon emitting products to help with technology development.


----------



## KenOC

The current Prius hybrid battery weighs just under 100 pounds. The bigger battery for the Prius plug-in hybrid weighs 180 pounds.

Battery packs for fully-electric cars are likely more massive.


----------



## mmsbls

DrMike said:


> Am I reading that correctly - around 1000 lbs per battery? So swap out facilities wouldn't be as simple as doing a new lithium battery into my Ryobi cordless drill. While possibly quicker than plugging in, it is still going to take a significant amount of time to swap out 1000 lb batteries. You can't walk in and do it yourself.


Yes, vehicle batteries for EVs (as opposed to conventional hybrids) can be very heavy. For fun we estimate that a long-haul truck battery capable of a range of 500 miles (roughly a minimum required by such trucks) would weigh about 6000 kgs (13000 lbs). Now that's an extreme, but propulsion batteries are heavy - presently 200-250 Wh/kg (for the cells). Cars require 250 - 300 Wh/mi so ranges of 200 miles or so require about 50-60 kWh of active battery capacity - likely at least 75 kWh or more for the pack. The pack itself weighs more than the cells (packaging and electronics) so overall weights can be 1.25 or more than the cells alone. 1000 lbs is quite reasonable for a pack giving a car 200 miles range.


----------



## KenOC

mmsbls said:


> 1000 lbs is quite reasonable for a pack giving a car 200 miles range.


Believe I read that the 26.4 kWh NiMH battery pack for GM's EV1 weighed 1,150 lbs. Don't know the car's range.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> In general the group of people that propose policies are not research scientists. They are policy analysts. They usually have science backgrounds along with policy related degrees. I work with several of these people. They work closely with researchers, regulators, and industry to develop environmental policies. There may be some scientists that propose policies, but I'm unaware of them.


Then how come if I don't agree with those policy proposals, I am told I'm opposing the scientific consensus? They use that cudgel for a whole lot.


----------



## Bwv 1080

But the lighter and smaller (and vastly more efficient) electric motor compensates for the weight of the battery. A tesla engine only weighs about 70 pounds compared to 500+ for a gas engine.


----------



## Guest

How does 1000 lbs of engine and 70 lbs of engine compensate for a 500 lb engine? Unless the fuel system adds another 500 lbs, I think the conventional engine vehicle still weighs less.


----------



## mmsbls

DrMike said:


> Then how come if I don't agree with those policy proposals, I am told I'm opposing the scientific consensus? They use that cudgel for a whole lot.


I don't know. I suppose people just assume any opposition to anything related to climate change is opposition to the science of AGW.


----------



## Strange Magic

mmsbls said:


> I don't know. I suppose people just assume any opposition to anything related to climate change is opposition to the science of AGW.


Usually at the heart and core of opposition to policies related to climate change (excluding clearly idiotic policies like geoengineering, banning cars ''tomorrow", etc.), there is a reluctance to accept its reality, as AGW poses threats to deeply-held ideological positions, including philosophical, economic, or religious beliefs. The possibility of the withdrawal of a future Golden Age promised if certain economic/social policies were adopted or of a world following a divine preordained path can be profoundly disturbing. Therefore acceptance is grudging, or feigned, or, more honestly, the entire idea is rejected with a shudder. Such are my observations over years of discussion with large numbers of people on this subject. Perhaps an uncharitable view, but a realistic one.


----------



## KenOC

Bwv 1080 said:


> But the lighter and smaller (and vastly more efficient) electric motor compensates for the weight of the battery. A tesla engine only weighs about 70 pounds compared to 500+ for a gas engine.


However, most Teslas have two motors. Regardless, the Tesla with battery is quite a heavy car.


----------



## Strange Magic

Breakthrough electric airplanes!

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48630656


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> Usually at the heart and core of opposition to policies related to climate change (excluding clearly idiotic policies like geoengineering, banning cars ''tomorrow", etc.), there is a reluctance to accept its reality, as AGW poses threats to deeply-held ideological positions, including philosophical, economic, or religious beliefs. The possibility of the withdrawal of a future Golden Age promised if certain economic/social policies were adopted or of a world following a divine preordained path can be profoundly disturbing. Therefore acceptance is grudging, or feigned, or, more honestly, the entire idea is rejected with a shudder. Such are my observations over years of discussion with large numbers of people on this subject. Perhaps an uncharitable view, but a realistic one.


I think the people you describe are a vanishingly small minority. I think most of the opposition that you hear comes from people who fear what the drastic proposals will mean to them. Shutting down coal mines in regions of the country where that is a major way of life. Significantly increasing gas prices for people already living paycheck to paycheck and who can't afford a brand new hybrid or electric vehicle. And then they see celebrities - Leo Dicaprio, or Al Gore, with his mansion - who the environmentalist movement likes to put in front of the camera because it draws attention and money, lecturing them on how they need to sacrifice for the good of the planet, while they live lavishly, pumping more carbon into the atmosphere in a year than the average person will in a lifetime. But they purchase their environmental indulgences - they plant trees here and there to justify their excess.

I realize we aren't talking there about the scientists. But that is the face of the environmental movement - hypocritical, judgmental, and condescending. The average person doesn't read IPCC reports. The average person doesn't understand the finer points of carbon sinks, ocean acidification, etc. The average person sees hypocrites living large, virtue signaling, and wonders why they need to give a damn if those spokespeople - official or otherwise - talk the talk but don't walk the walk. In spite of that, most people do believe that something is wrong. But if the loudest people on the environmentalist side aren't willing to make hard choices and sacrifices, then why should they? Why do the rich get to ride out the end of the world in luxury, paying lip service to the science, while the rest get to pay for their excess?


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> Yes, vehicle batteries for EVs (as opposed to conventional hybrids) can be very heavy. For fun we estimate that a long-haul truck battery capable of a range of 500 miles (roughly a minimum required by such trucks) would weigh about 6000 kgs (13000 lbs). Now that's an extreme, but propulsion batteries are heavy - presently 200-250 Wh/kg (for the cells). Cars require 250 - 300 Wh/mi so ranges of 200 miles or so require about 50-60 kWh of active battery capacity - likely at least 75 kWh or more for the pack. The pack itself weighs more than the cells (packaging and electronics) so overall weights can be 1.25 or more than the cells alone. 1000 lbs is quite reasonable for a pack giving a car 200 miles range.


Is a 200 mile range the current standard for electric cars? If so, I still don't see it being practical. For a time, I lived in Ohio and would travel every other month to Tennessee to visit the in-laws. The one-way distance - according to Google Maps - is 482 miles. How firm is 200 miles? Because if it really is just 200, then that trip would require 2 stops to recharge - I'm guessing at least an hour each, if you can find a place that you can do a rapid recharge. Recently my family did a fun trip - within state - down to Mobile, a distance of 254. I don't know if we would have had to stop a mere 50 miles from our destination and wait an hour - again, if we could find a rapid-charging station. But regardless, I'm guessing a round-trip of 500 miles would take two stops, because I'm not going to risk being stranded in some small town that may not have a rapid-charging station when I have my wife and kids in the car. In contrast, we filled up my wife's minivan before leaving - took 5 minutes - and made the entire trip in a single tank of gas.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> Breakthrough electric airplanes!
> 
> https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48630656


Hey look at that - private enterprise coming through! Technology and innovation.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> Hey look at that - private enterprise coming through! Technology and innovation.


That's why I posted it.


----------



## mmsbls

DrMike said:


> Is a 200 mile range the current standard for electric cars? If so, I still don't see it being practical. For a time, I lived in Ohio and would travel every other month to Tennessee to visit the in-laws. The one-way distance - according to Google Maps - is 482 miles. How firm is 200 miles? Because if it really is just 200, then that trip would require 2 stops to recharge - I'm guessing at least an hour each, if you can find a place that you can do a rapid recharge. Recently my family did a fun trip - within state - down to Mobile, a distance of 254. I don't know if we would have had to stop a mere 50 miles from our destination and wait an hour - again, if we could find a rapid-charging station. But regardless, I'm guessing a round-trip of 500 miles would take two stops, because I'm not going to risk being stranded in some small town that may not have a rapid-charging station when I have my wife and kids in the car. In contrast, we filled up my wife's minivan before leaving - took 5 minutes - and made the entire trip in a single tank of gas.


There isn't a standard range. Tesla has cars that have reported ranges of over 300 miles. of course, one pays for the extra mileage. One issue with range is that it's not well defined. A car that gets a 300 mile range on a test track in nice weather could get closer to 200 when heating is required and on roads with significant grades.

Battery researchers talk about a 2.5 increase in battery density in the 2030-2040 timeframe so cars with a current range of 150 miles could get closer to 350 with the advanced batteries. There would still be the issue of accessory loads (heating, cooling) and road grades decreasing the range.

Probably the 2 best ways to get around the range issue is with plug-in hybids and hybrid families. Plug-in hybrids presently can have all-electric ranges of over 50 miles. After the all-electric range is used up, the car operates as a conventional hybrid using both the engine and battery. The vast majority of trips are less than the all-electric range so for those trips the engine never starts. On longer trip the first 50 or more miles would be all-electric with the remainder being in hybrid mode. Ranges for plug-in hybrids are much longer than for conventional vehicles because the fuel tank is basically as large and the fuel economy is much higher.

A hybrid family is one that has both an EV and a conventional vehicle. The EV is used by one family member for almost all their trips. When that member needs more mileage, the family members switch vehicles. Based on travel diaries from various studies, almost all families can make this situation work.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> I think the people you describe are a vanishingly small minority. I think most of the opposition that you hear comes from people who fear what the drastic proposals will mean to them. Shutting down coal mines in regions of the country where that is a major way of life. Significantly increasing gas prices for people already living paycheck to paycheck and who can't afford a brand new hybrid or electric vehicle. And then they see celebrities - Leo Dicaprio, or Al Gore, with his mansion - who the environmentalist movement likes to put in front of the camera because it draws attention and money, lecturing them on how they need to sacrifice for the good of the planet, while they live lavishly, pumping more carbon into the atmosphere in a year than the average person will in a lifetime. But they purchase their environmental indulgences - they plant trees here and there to justify their excess.
> 
> I realize we aren't talking there about the scientists. But that is the face of the environmental movement - hypocritical, judgmental, and condescending. The average person doesn't read IPCC reports. The average person doesn't understand the finer points of carbon sinks, ocean acidification, etc. The average person sees hypocrites living large, virtue signaling, and wonders why they need to give a damn if those spokespeople - official or otherwise - talk the talk but don't walk the walk. In spite of that, most people do believe that something is wrong. But if the loudest people on the environmentalist side aren't willing to make hard choices and sacrifices, then why should they? Why do the rich get to ride out the end of the world in luxury, paying lip service to the science, while the rest get to pay for their excess?


Interesting perspective. I infer that you have no problem with the text of the message; it's the way the massage is framed and--even more important--the nature of the messengers. I sense your strong identification with those average people--their lack of knowledge of the issues, the resentment (justified or unjustified) of environmental spokespeople not making the hard choices, the rich riding to the end in luxury. But what would walking the walk and not talking the talk look like? How should the message--you agree with the message--be framed, and by whom?

I think the public here falls into four camps: A) the scientists and others directly involved in ameliorative policy; B) the informed, educated, mostly middle-class public, mostly coastal and urban; C) the rural, southern, or rust belt middle class who feel that "environmentalism" is a scheme to take something away from them, and is anathema to their current leader. Your second paragraph, especially, defines this group perfectly, as they formed the heart of the Tea Party movement. Many are surprisingly well-off. I call the mindset of this group "Defiant Ignorance"; and D) the truly poor, the working poor, who have neither the education, time, or energy to care much about AGW; it's struggle enough to get through the week.

Let us therefore consider a scenario wherein Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, Mike Pence, and a group of GOP legislators and governors all come out strongly for rolling back GHG and fighting AGW and non-AGW threats to the environment. Would this be met, in your opinion, with massive repudiation from the "average people"? Or would most quickly join the parade, leaving opposition to political/economic ideologues and religious enthusiasts fearful of a new reality? The answer is that the fault is not the message, but it can partly be in some of the messengers, but also in the biases of part of the audience. If Donald Trump were to emulate FDR and his fireside chats, and project leadership and vision and sought to educate the general public on the need to act on climate change, the results would be amazing. It's a shame we will never see this but rather its opposite.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> There isn't a standard range. Tesla has cars that have reported ranges of over 300 miles. of course, one pays for the extra mileage. One issue with range is that it's not well defined. A car that gets a 300 mile range on a test track in nice weather could get closer to 200 when heating is required and on roads with significant grades.
> 
> Battery researchers talk about a 2.5 increase in battery density in the 2030-2040 timeframe so cars with a current range of 150 miles could get closer to 350 with the advanced batteries. There would still be the issue of accessory loads (heating, cooling) and road grades decreasing the range.
> 
> Probably the 2 best ways to get around the range issue is with plug-in hybids and hybrid families. Plug-in hybrids presently can have all-electric ranges of over 50 miles. After the all-electric range is used up, the car operates as a conventional hybrid using both the engine and battery. The vast majority of trips are less than the all-electric range so for those trips the engine never starts. On longer trip the first 50 or more miles would be all-electric with the remainder being in hybrid mode. Ranges for plug-in hybrids are much longer than for conventional vehicles because the fuel tank is basically as large and the fuel economy is much higher.
> 
> A hybrid family is one that has both an EV and a conventional vehicle. The EV is used by one family member for almost all their trips. When that member needs more mileage, the family members switch vehicles. Based on travel diaries from various studies, almost all families can make this situation work.


The EV are still on the pricey side. I am seeing more Teslas around the University here - but on my drive home, through neighborhoods not populated by University professors and MDs, it is virtually all ICE.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> Interesting perspective. I infer that you have no problem with the text of the message; it's the way the massage is framed and--even more important--the nature of the messengers. I sense your strong identification with those average people--their lack of knowledge of the issues, the resentment (justified or unjustified) of environmental spokespeople not making the hard choices, the rich riding to the end in luxury. But what would walking the walk and not talking the talk look like? How should the message--you agree with the message--be framed, and by whom?
> 
> I think the public here falls into four camps: A) the scientists and others directly involved in ameliorative policy; B) the informed, educated, mostly middle-class public, mostly coastal and urban; C) the rural, southern, or rust belt middle class who feel that "environmentalism" is a scheme to take something away from them, and is anathema to their current leader. Your second paragraph, especially, defines this group perfectly, as they formed the heart of the Tea Party movement. Many are surprisingly well-off. I call the mindset of this group "Defiant Ignorance"; and D) the truly poor, the working poor, who have neither the education, time, or energy to care much about AGW; it's struggle enough to get through the week.
> 
> Let us therefore consider a scenario wherein Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, Mike Pence, and a group of GOP legislators and governors all come out strongly for rolling back GHG and fighting AGW and non-AGW threats to the environment. Would this be met, in your opinion, with massive repudiation from the "average people"? Or would most quickly join the parade, leaving opposition to political/economic ideologues and religious enthusiasts fearful of a new reality? The answer is that the fault is not the message, but it can partly be in some of the messengers, but also in the biases of part of the audience. If Donald Trump were to emulate FDR and his fireside chats, and project leadership and vision and sought to educate the general public on the need to act on climate change, the results would be amazing. It's a shame we will never see this but rather its opposite.


I follow the conservative position. A lot of conservatives are accepting the climate science. That is, what actually has scientific consensus. But the general opinion is that while the science behind AGW is sound, the proposed solutions being pushed sound eerily similar to progressive agendas we have heard for a long time. Don't let a crisis go to waste. That seems to be the mentality behind the Green New Deal. A large proportion of conservative and libertarian thinkers want to try more free market strategies to tackle the issue. We don't trust top-down government regulations and punishments as being effective. But the other side treats it as an all or nothing. They act like you have to both accept the science and their ideas for solving the problem.

I told you the methods I like, because they seem to offer alternatives that are more attractive to lure people to better practices, as opposed to just punishing away bad activity. I think making clean options more affordable will be more effective than making dirty options more expensive.


----------



## mmsbls

DrMike said:


> The EV are still on the pricey side. I am seeing more Teslas around the University here - but on my drive home, through neighborhoods not populated by University professors and MDs, it is virtually all ICE.


Yes, EVs are still expensive. It's somewhat interesting that total cost of ownership (capital and operating costs over the life of the vehicle) generally show that EVs are cost competitive with the incentives available. In other words people would generally save money purchasing an EV with incentives. Unfortunately, relatively few people know about the incentives. The incentives will, of course, go away, but the battery cost reductions are expected to continue significantly through 2030 at least. Some project that automakers will make very few conventional cars by the 2030-2040 timeline because electric cars will be less expensive to own and operate.

Where I live there are a lot of EVs including Teslas. Foreign students tend to have much more money than US students so many foreign students have expensive cars (Teslas, Porches, etc.).


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> I think the public here falls into four camps: A) the scientists and others directly involved in ameliorative policy; B) the informed, educated, mostly middle-class public, mostly coastal and urban; C) the rural, southern, or rust belt middle class who feel that "environmentalism" is a scheme to take something away from them, and is anathema to their current leader. Your second paragraph, especially, defines this group perfectly, as they formed the heart of the Tea Party movement. Many are surprisingly well-off. I call the mindset of this group "Defiant Ignorance"; and D) the truly poor, the working poor, who have neither the education, time, or energy to care much about AGW; it's struggle enough to get through the week.


In general, this may be right. But when you ask different questions, you might find much more blurred lines. On the issue of whether they believe in AGW, these divisions may broadly be true. On the issue of what are you, personally, willing to do to limit AGW, I think you might find that groups B and C aren't quite so distinct. Like I said, the polling says that on the issue of climate change, support is broad but shallow. Most people believe AGW to some extent. But when it comes down to what it may cost them, everybody starts staring at their feet.

Hence, Al Gore, one of the most visible environmentalists, still insists on all the luxuries in his life. And so those people who are on the fence - maybe it is as serious as the experts say, maybe it isn't. How much am I willing to pay to fix it? Well, some of the most vocal supporters don't seem to want to sacrifice that much, and they believe in it a whole lot more than me. Why should I put more skin in the game than them?

And then it also gets to what you point out - your group B is urban and coastal. Their livelihood isn't directly derived from some of these things they talk about limiting. Silicone Valley isn't directly impacted by shutting down coal mines in the way that West Virginia is. And West Virginia's concerns don't seem to be taken seriously by Silicone Valley. So it seems, to them (West Virginia) like they are being asked to make a much bigger sacrifice. And it does not seem fair. LA isn't as directly impacted by restrictions on water usage - Central Valley farmers are. When they want to suck up acres and acres of land to put up solar farms, that has zero impact on someone in Boston, or Manhattan. Now, interestingly, those same coastal, urban types who sincerely believe in AGW and that we all need to do our fair share - when it is proposed that their beautiful views from their oceanfront homes will be disturbed by wind turbines, then suddenly it is "not in my backyard."

Urban and coastal types find it easier to believe in AGW because the supposed costs don't impact them as much as others.


----------



## Strange Magic

Please articulate concretely what changes should Al Gore make or should have made in his lifestyle in order to make his message more palatable to you in particular? There is a sense of deep personal offense that permeates your relationship to Gore and his commitment to fighting AGW. Should he appear in sackcloth? Should he announce that he has given his personal net worth to a cause of which you approve? What is it that so unnerves Gore's enemies? It rationally cannot be his relatively modest wealth; it's something deeper; more visceral.

The free market is killing coal, wouldn't you agree? Or should coal be subsidized? And here in New Jersey, people are looking forward to seeing offshore wind turbines and not oil conglomerate drilling rigs and oil slicks instead. But this is local "noise" to be expected when larger issues are being proposed. The fact remains that the major bloc opposed to a comprehensive program to fight climate change takes its cue from its new leader, a man noted both for his wealth and lifestyle of conspicuous consumption, and for his lack of any record of charitable works and for a pattern of shafting those small contractors foolish enough to have done work for him. No Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, he!


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> Please articulate concretely what changes should Al Gore make or should have made in his lifestyle in order to make his message more palatable to you in particular? There is a sense of deep personal offense that permeates your relationship to Gore and his commitment to fighting AGW. Should he appear in sackcloth? Should he announce that he has given his personal net worth to a cause of which you approve? What is it that so unnerves Gore's enemies? It rationally cannot be his relatively modest wealth; it's something deeper; more visceral.
> 
> The free market is killing coal, wouldn't you agree? Or should coal be subsidized? And here in New Jersey, people are looking forward to seeing offshore wind turbines and not oil conglomerate drilling rigs and oil slicks instead. But this is local "noise" to be expected when larger issues are being proposed. The fact remains that the major bloc opposed to a comprehensive program to fight climate change takes its cue from its new leader, a man noted both for his wealth and lifestyle of conspicuous consumption, and for his lack of any record of charitable works and for a pattern of shafting those small contractors foolish enough to have done work for him. No Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, he!


Well I thought we were getting to a serious discussion, and not just "but Trump." Look - like it or not, Gore was for a long time THE face of the environmentalist movement. He won a Nobel prize. And then he made "modest wealth" off of "An Inconvenient Truth." And so much of the claims were crap. And he profited off of companies that sold environmental "indulgences." And his mansion - "Modest wealth?" - is certainly not the sign of someone trying to limit his footprint.

Where do you get the "modest wealth" claim? How much did he make off of "An Inconvenient Truth?" And his sale of Current TV? Last I heard, he was worth over $100 million. That certainly puts him in the top 0.1% - pray tell, what is the threshold for "capitalist pig rich?"

The death of coal from the free markets is a good thing. The death of coal because the government taxes it to death is not.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> Well I thought we were getting to a serious discussion, and not just "but Trump." Look - like it or not, Gore was for a long time THE face of the environmentalist movement. He won a Nobel prize. And then he made "modest wealth" off of "An Inconvenient Truth." And so much of the claims were crap. And he profited off of companies that sold environmental "indulgences." And his mansion - "Modest wealth?" - is certainly not the sign of someone trying to limit his footprint.
> 
> Where do you get the "modest wealth" claim? How much did he make off of "An Inconvenient Truth?" And his sale of Current TV? Last I heard, he was worth over $100 million. That certainly puts him in the top 0.1% - pray tell, what is the threshold for "capitalist pig rich?"


Please keep posting about Al Gore!


----------



## mmsbls

DrMike said:


> Well I thought we were getting to a serious discussion, and not just "but Trump." Look - like it or not, Gore was for a long time THE face of the environmentalist movement. He won a Nobel prize. And then he made "modest wealth" off of "An Inconvenient Truth." And so much of the claims were crap. And he profited off of companies that sold environmental "indulgences." And his mansion - "Modest wealth?" - is certainly not the sign of someone trying to limit his footprint.
> 
> Where do you get the "modest wealth" claim? How much did he make off of "An Inconvenient Truth?" And his sale of Current TV? Last I heard, he was worth over $100 million. That certainly puts him in the top 0.1% - pray tell, what is the threshold for "capitalist pig rich?"
> 
> The death of coal from the free markets is a good thing. The death of coal because the government taxes it to death is not.


My understanding is that the technical claims in "An Inconvenient Truth" are essentially correct. I did not see the movie, but I did read an analysis of the technical claims by a climate scientist. I think some claims might depend on exactly what someone thinks the movie meant by certain statements. Timeframes were one issue, I think.

Anyway, I can't imagine Al Gore is anything but very rich by any reasonable standards.


----------



## Strange Magic

mmsbls said:


> Anyway, I can't imagine Al Gore is anything but very rich by any reasonable standards.


FDR was very rich, but was considered "a traitor to his class". Assuming Donald J. Trump has, say, $5 billion, he is fifty times richer than Al Gore. We should start a thread on who's rich, who's richer, and then correlate that with their record on environmental concerns. It could be somehow relevant.

Edit: I looked it up. Trump's net worth is estimated to be between 2.8 and 3.1 billion dollars


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Strange Magic said:


> Please articulate concretely what changes should Al Gore make or should have made in his lifestyle in order to make his message more palatable to you in particular? There is a sense of deep personal offense that permeates your relationship to Gore and his commitment to fighting AGW. Should he appear in sackcloth? Should he announce that he has given his personal net worth to a cause of which you approve? What is it that so unnerves Gore's enemies? It rationally cannot be his relatively modest wealth; it's something deeper; more visceral.
> 
> The free market is killing coal, wouldn't you agree? Or should coal be subsidized? And here in New Jersey, people are looking forward to seeing offshore wind turbines and not oil conglomerate drilling rigs and oil slicks instead. But this is local "noise" to be expected when larger issues are being proposed. The fact remains that the major bloc opposed to a comprehensive program to fight climate change takes its cue from its new leader, a man noted both for his wealth and lifestyle of conspicuous consumption, and for his lack of any record of charitable works and for a pattern of shafting those small contractors foolish enough to have done work for him. No Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, he!


He could cut his carbon footprint the size he tells others to have.


----------



## Strange Magic

Johnnie Burgess said:


> He could cut his carbon footprint the size he tells others to have.


Question for you Johnnie: DrMike affirms that AGW is real, and should be ameliorated. How about you? Is it a Chinese hoax? A simple Yes or No will do just fine. If you say AGW is real, I will pass on your carbon footprint to Al Gore and tell him that to match your credibility, he should match your footprint. If you say it isn't, you will disappoint DrMike. It is very important that the rich not become involved in worrying about the environment--Donald isn't, and is setting a fine example.


----------



## Guest

To be clear, I believe they have a handle on what has happened. I don't have as much confidence in some of the projections for what will happen. This is primarily because I think predictions they go out that far are not very reliable. And I think they give no thought to human ingenuity (electric airplanes). So I think that the cost/benefit analysis justifies the proposals I have talked about. Even if the climate predictions are wrong, they will still be good things for this country. Weaning ourselves off of oil will not only lead to cleaner energy, but also cripple our global adversaries who are largely dependent on oil revenues, as our demand drops and prices plummet.


----------



## Jacck

Welcome to the Final Battle for the Climate
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/10/17/great-power-competition-climate-china-europe-japan/


----------



## KenOC

Jacck said:


> Welcome to the Final Battle for the Climate
> https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/10/17/great-power-competition-climate-china-europe-japan/


The "Final Battle for the Climate" is long past and in fact was never fought. Our future is fixed and already paid for.


----------



## Jacck

KenOC said:


> The "Final Battle for the Climate" is long past and in fact was never fought. Our future is fixed and already paid for.


that is pretty fatalistic. I wonder if most young people would agree with you that the future is fixed and nothing can be done.


----------



## amfortas

Jacck said:


> that is pretty fatalistic. I wonder if most young people would agree with you that the future is fixed and nothing can be done.


I suspect something can be done--but only to ameliorate the already serious damage. To that extent, our future *is* fixed.


----------



## Jacck

amfortas said:


> I suspect something can be done--but only to ameliorate the already serious damage. To that extent, our future *is* fixed.


I think it can matter a lot, wether we do nothing and get a warming of 3°C, or we do something and get a warming of 1°C.


----------

