Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
August 12, 2021

There Is No Will To Fight Climate Change

The recently published report, Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis, by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is grim:

B.1.3. Global warming of 1.5°C relative to 1850-1900 would be exceeded during the 21st century under the intermediate, high and very high scenarios considered in this report. Under the five illustrative scenarios, in the near term (2021-2040), the 1.5°C global warming level is very likely to be exceeded under the very high GHG emissions scenario, likely to be exceeded under the intermediate and high GHG emissions scenarios, more likely than not to be exceeded under the low GHG emissions scenario and more likely than not to be reached under the very low GHG emissions scenario.

The global reductions of Green House Gases (GHG) which are required to fit even the intermediate scenario are unlikely to be reached with the current policies:

The time has come to voice our fears and be honest with wider society. Current net zero policies will not keep warming to within 1.5°C because they were never intended to. They were and still are driven by a need to protect business as usual, not the climate. If we want to keep people safe then large and sustained cuts to carbon emissions need to happen now. That is the very simple acid test that must be applied to all climate policies. The time for wishful thinking is over.

The reasons are of course political. There is a lot of lobbying for policies which continue the output of GHG while there is little immediate interest in reducing them. A decade ago Peter Lee had already done the math. Looking back at what happened since he lays out a list of failures:

The United States under Joe Biden has doubled down on the absurd narrative that the United States has the national capacity and moral stature to lead the world’s response to climate change.

Let me dismiss this claim in a few words.

First, the doom of the climate change regime was sealed when the United States refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol in 1998.

It was double doomed when the United States under Barack Obama imposed a successor regime that eliminated legally binding caps for anyone.

It was triple doomed when Donald Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement.

It was quadruple doomed when the United States under Joe Biden decided that its highest priority and organizing principle of policy was to treat the People’s Republic of China as America’s prime geopolitical adversary.

Doom doom de doom doom doom. You get the picture.

It is not only the U.S. which is guilty here. All political system seem to prefer short term rewards over avoiding future pain., especially when others can be plausibly blamed for the outcome. The U.S. is just the most hypocritical actor here.

That Joe Biden is still playing nice with the fossil fuel industry demonstrates the mechanism:

The Biden administration is now on track to approve more oil and gas drilling on public lands—activity that accounts for a quarter of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions—than any administration since George W. Bush. Climate envoy John Kerry has balked at the idea of committing the U.S. to a coal phaseout. Politicians who call themselves climate hawks are still going out of their way to make clear that there’s a vibrant future ahead for the companies that funded climate denial, whose business model remains built around burning up and extracting as many fossil fuels as possible. Administration officials, meanwhile, have talked repeatedly about the need to cap warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius.

This is climate denial.

Just look at the recent infrastructure bill:

Many of the bill’s provisions are on the oil industry’s wish list. The proposed legislation has more than $10 billion for carbon capture, transport and storage — a suite of technologies fossil fuel companies hope will allow them to extend their license to operate for years, if not decades. There’s also $8 billion for hydrogen — with no stipulation that the energy used to produce it comes from clean sources. A new liquid natural gas plant in Alaska won billions in loan guarantees, while other waivers in the bill will weaken environmental reviews of new construction projects, experts say.

“This infrastructure proposal is not a down payment on real climate action,” said Mitch Jones, director of Food & Water Watch Policy, a Washington accountability organization. “It is doubling down on support for climate polluters.”

Just yesterday Biden confirmed his pro fossil fuel position by asking for cheaper pollution:

President Joe Biden on Wednesday afternoon added to the pressure on the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, after one of his top advisers said earlier in the day that OPEC and its allies “must do more” to support the economic recovery.
...
Oil futures recently traded higher, but they had retreated earlier Wednesday after U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan pressed OPEC and its allies to further boost output and described a recent agreement to increase production as “simply not enough.”

Which lets me agree with Peter Lee's scary conclusion:

Lacking a time machine that can take us back to 1998 when we still had a chance to turn things around--or a nice big catastrophic war that wipes out enough humanity and industrial capacity to accomplish the same thing--it might be up to the planet to deal with the problem herself: churning up enough sea level rise, weather calamity, drought, famine, and disease to reduce the human load on the planet by the ugliest means imaginable.

That’s all the climate change optimism I can muster, and that’s it!

This not a pessimistic view but a realistic one. It does not mean that we should give up. All of us, personally and politically, should try to reduce our environmental footprint as much as we can.

Unfortunately that is neither easy nor convenient to do.

Posted by b on August 12, 2021 at 14:05 UTC | Permalink

Comments
« previous page | next page »

This is my prediction for the future of "carbon credits". Bill Gates will own large amounts of forest land and huge algae pond fields. Along with his mini nuclear power plants. He will fly around in his private jets, drive cars, have several huge houses all temp controlled, along with private helicopters, and massive yachts. He will have massive carbon credits though and be thought of as the greatest green global citizen on Earth. The private citizen in his apartment will not own forest land or be able to provide green energy so they will owe Bill Gates interest when he has to loan them carbon credits to keep breathing. If they can't pay it back they will have their car repoed. Their electricity shut off . Their heating turned off. If they still can't pay their breathing tax they'll have to plant trees in Bill Gates's forest, work his massive farms, or in a meat laboratory harvesting his frakenmeat. This will be the only way they get to eat a meal. If they are unable to do that they will go to a firing squad or be sent to a gas chamber as we can't afford to keep useless eaters around anymore... you know... global warming and all.

Posted by: goldhoarder | Aug 12 2021 19:47 utc | 101

CO2 heat absorption properties are known and can be replicated as per Rogers post. the percentage of CO2 be tested can be tested, total tonnage calculated and by that average future temperature rises calculated.
On one side are those that disbelieve it entirely and on the other end of the spectrum are those that put the sacred environment above all else like a religion.

Eliminating temperature rise due to CO2 is now unavoidable. US by its politics has made even limiting the rise difficult. Western nations offshore their polluting industries to China and then say China should limit its emissions... Like a lot of other problems in the world, no unified approach to limiting emissions will occur until the collapse of the US.
As for global warming itself? changed weather patterns, more severe weather events until it settles on a new temperature (if it ever does) The biggest losers will be some island nations which will go under water.

Sustainability is the key. Not the mad greens nor the coal and oil are healthy (PM Abbott) crowd.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Aug 12 2021 19:48 utc | 102

Peter, just the guy I was looking for!

I have a favor to ask. Remember the chart you posted a few weeks back of the Falcon 9 first stage velocities profile for landing it back?

Any chance you might dig that up? I seem to have misplaced that and am unable to find anything. Thanks.

Posted by: Gordog | Aug 12 2021 19:54 utc | 103

I think instead of "will" to fight climate change, we should call a spade a spade and say that the Western governments have used climate change as another justification to create financialize solutions to pump up their Ponzi financial sector. Specifically, "Carbon Credits" and how they can be traded (i.e. bought and sold) in financial markets and thus can be used as collateral, as derivatives, amortized out over an adjustment future timeframe. For example, if I plan a tree I get a carbon credit, well in Canada, paper and pulp mills have been required to replant trees for decades when they harvest a forest which they have done pretty consistently. HOWEVER, when they replant trees these are not "native forests", they are replanting trees in nice orderly rows and only those tree species that are desirable for the pulp and paper uses. further, these trees were going to be replanted anyways so why should the company get a "carbon credit" that they can trade out to another company, it was just another sneaky way of 1) providing a government hand-out to an already profitable industry 2) another way of suppressing local production and wage labour by creating barriers of entry to new companies. if goods were locally produced they would be far less polluting as you wont be shipping them from China or india, since you would burn all that fuel in transporting them

Posted by: Kadath | Aug 12 2021 19:54 utc | 104

As for any world wide unified response to emissions, it could only come in the form of a per capita limit. That would mean the countries that complain most about emmissions actually having to drop their emissions and less developed countries being able to increase their emissions.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Aug 12 2021 19:55 utc | 105

Roger: comment 91:
So you don't dispute my statements that temperatures have been zigzagging slowly upwards – on average - for centuries; that wildfires in California were five times worse a hundred years ago; and that the number of deaths from weather-related disasters has diminished 95% in a century. So why do suggest that I should go away and read a book on climate science, since we're in agreement? The point is not that man-made global warming isn't happening, or that it might not be a problem in some places and in some circumstances, but that the doom (and mendacity) surrounding this report, and the subject in general, has all the signs of the mass hysteria linked to a doomsday cult.

Our host rightly points out that politicians are failing to live up to their professed green beliefs. That's because applying the policies necessary to achieve net zero emissions would be electoral suicide, and we still have elections. There are two ways out for the political class: to drop the policies, or abolish democracy. Dropping policies will be hard, because all parties in the West have swallowed the Green Kool-Aid. So they're facing pressure to the the alternative path. And there's nothing politicians like better than giving in to pressure.

Posted by: geoff chambers | Aug 12 2021 20:01 utc | 106

@102 Peter AU1

Very important point. Huge reductions are actually possible in wealthy developed countries with simple measures like using public transport, living more humbly etc. The best funded efforts, however, are directed to avoid doing these things.

Posted by: ptb | Aug 12 2021 20:01 utc | 107

c1ue @80 says: "Irrelevant when China's overall emissions continues to rise enormously."
Look at the title of this article: "There Is No Will To Fight Climate Change" - China is showing it HAS the will fighting climate change. Those efforts are highly relevant, increasing effective and is making a difference, even though slowly, but surely. Secondly, China's overall emission is not rising "enormously" like what you claim. In fact, its emission went DOWN in 2020, even thought it has positive GDP growth.

c1ue @80 says: "Its like a billionaire donating $1M to charity. That's nice but they generally make more than that in hours, BFD."
Wrong comparison. It is like there are a bunch of billionaires donating $1 each, then came a new millionaire donating $1M (yes, China per capita is much lower than most developed countries)

c1ue @80 says: "What matters is emissions overall and emissions per person - both are increasing dramatically as would be expected of any nation making real economic progress."
Did you miss the part where I say that China is committing to overall peak emission by 2030. China is showing it is serious, and will achieve that target in less than 10 years. That is a BIG deal for a country of China size. China is also showing it is possible to have rising incomes without drastically increase overall emission, and eventually, even lower emission. Again, setting examples for everyone.

If you watch some of the videos, for examples, you see there are families where several generations are devoting their lives in extremely tough place in anti-desertification projects. There are many inspiring stories and heart-warming sacrifices.

Not sure why are all this info irrelevant?

Posted by: d dan | Aug 12 2021 20:07 utc | 108

Gordog

I had to find it on the net again but I think this is it.
https://i.stack.imgur.com/xFYIh.png

It was at this site. Another profile chart or image there as well.
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/24888/what-is-the-velocity-profile-of-a-falcon-9-first-stage-landing

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Aug 12 2021 20:08 utc | 109

Funny
Billionaires keep buying islands and ocean front property.
Ocean acidification is more of a problem than climate change nonsense.

Posted by: sbin | Aug 12 2021 20:09 utc | 110

Peter AU1: comment 99
That's a nice, reasonable “plague on both your houses” midway postion. But it's not necessary, since practically no-one who's opposing this doom mongering “disbelieves it entirely,” or thinks that “coal and oil are healthy.”

But you're wrong in stating that “the biggest losers will be some island nations which will go under water.” A recent study of Pacific islands found that the majority are increasing in land area. Coral reefs grow, and ocean currents silt them up at least as fast as sea level rise threatens them. Likewise, Bangladesh is increasing in surface area, because of human intervention, aided by Dutch engineers, who are used to this sort of thing.

Which is the main message to take away from the whole subject; we've been messing up the planet for centuries, and clearing up the mess. And we're richer, happier, longer-lived, healthier and better off in every way than we've ever been. That people on the left want to reverse this process by making cheap fossil fuel-based energy available to the world's poor is the most depressing, dangerous aspect of modern politics.

Posted by: geoff chambers | Aug 12 2021 20:18 utc | 111

Thanks, b, for finally covering the most important topic of all. There was so much BSting from the usual denier suspects here in the past that I almost lost the interest in scanning through the many mind-boggling Covid and Climate posts.

I'm glad to find out that I'm still at the right place.

And I'm glad you're back. Hope you are doing better now.

Posted by: Cemi | Aug 12 2021 20:22 utc | 112

Peter, that's the one! Thanks, bud! 👍

Posted by: Gordog | Aug 12 2021 20:28 utc | 113

Trees and CO2 ??? Photosynthesis separates carbon from oxygen so any green leafy plant takes CO2 out of the air, but unless that carbon is permanently stored it goes back into the atmosphere when the plant dies, with very little going back in to the ground. Carbon credits for a few trees... what a scam.
Better off turning the forests into biochar to plow into paddocks then growing a new forest. Throw plenty of paper in landfill?
On all the stuff on CO2, I never see anything done or researches on using plants to lock carbon back into the ground, be it crops grown for the purpose of plowing carbon into the ground or any other way.
Carbon credits going to farmers to put carbon back in the ground by plowing in special crops or something similar would be a win win all round.


Posted by: Peter AU1 | Aug 12 2021 20:38 utc | 114

Can anyone tell me what they are spraying in the skies? Or are chemtrails not any longer a concern?

Posted by: gabby | Aug 12 2021 20:53 utc | 115

As long as there is still vast wealth to be made from Petroleum there will be no will to deal with climate change unless there is some way to make profits from it.

Posted by: Phlipn Pagee | Aug 12 2021 20:58 utc | 116

@Passer By (10). “ Have you seen cumulative emissions for the last 100 years? The US and Europe have contributed the most for them. China has a long time until it catches up.”

This point of view is completely counterproductive, if you mean that it is acceptable for China to continue producing greenhouse gases until its cumulative output equals that of Europe and the U.S. Rather, all industrialized nations must reduce emissions drastically and in a big hurry, if our planet is to have any chance of avoiding catastrophe.

Posted by: Rob | Aug 12 2021 21:09 utc | 117

Global whatever, the Oligachs are ahead of us, to make a profit while the sun shines.

Bill Gates (as well as his arable land, trials for covid and the great reset) never misses a way to make money.
This is the project in Greenland and Finland.
The link is to a rather dry statemant by Bloomberg.

https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2021-08-09/joint-venture-with-bill-gates-and-jeff-bezos-backed-company?sref=ZMFHsM5Z

Bluejay (BLLYF), an exploration and development company with projects in Greenland and Finland, has signed a joint venture agreement with KoBold Metals, at the Company's Disko-Nuussuaq nickel, copper, cobalt, platinum magmatic massive sulphide project in Central West Greenland.

KoBold's purpose is to discover and develop new ethical sources of the critical materials for electric vehicles. KoBold's objective is to make more discoveries of outstanding orebodies by drawing on world-class expertise in exploration geoscience and by developing full-stack exploration technology to use machine learning and other scientific computing techniques to enable highly effective exploration decision-making.

Principal investors in KoBold include Breakthrough Energy Ventures, a climate & technology fund, overseen by Bill Gates, and whose investors include Michael Bloomberg, Jeff Bezos, and Ray Dalio. Other investors in KoBold include Andreessen Horowitz, the premier Silicon Valley venture capital fund and Equinor, the Norwegian state-owned multinational energy company.

******

"new ethical sources of the critical materials for electric vehicles".
Call in Greta......
*******

Side note; Gas prices have risen in Europe because of the failure (Fire in) a Gas pumping station in Russia feeding the Yamal line: Alternative sources of (reasonably clean) energy will become increasingly delicate as the supply diminishes, because of accidents and war.

******
Trump may have had advanced warning, wanting to buy Greenland? Or is that too much to expect. The resetters could well have game-planned about seizing all the worlds assets

Posted by: Stonebird | Aug 12 2021 21:10 utc | 118

There are a couple of win-wins solutions out there.

First, molten salt reactors using thorium. Readers can google it, or here is a good intro: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWUeBSoEnRk
Many advantages, and the tech is basically available now. Attacks CO2 & would be cheaper than coal....hard to find a technology that can please two such disparate communities.

Second, with the advance generally of tech, and especially AI,there will be stupendous increase of redundant persons. Finding a way to gradually reduce the world's population (ummm....no easy task) would take some pressure off climate issues. Capitalists hate this, it would reduce econ demand. Yadda & etc.

Frankly, though, with "democracy" where pols can be bought and campaigns are run with sloganeering, nothing will happen. Read Hans Hoppe for details.

Posted by: JP Straley | Aug 12 2021 21:12 utc | 119

@Peter AU1 #102
Per cap for present emissions? What about past emissions?
Are the countries who are too poor to build roads and dams, doomed forever to be without them because they weren't the first to do it?
If you really want to be fair, you not only have to account for the above, but also something like "emissions per $ of GDP".
But of course, this would mean enormous decreases of prosperity for the US and EU. I don't see that happening.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 12 2021 21:22 utc | 120

@d dan #105
It is irrelevant because for every GW of solar or wind capacity that China builds, it builds 10x in coal fired.
China planning to build 6x more coal than Germany's entire existing capacity

In 2020, China brought 38.4 gigawatts of new coal-fired power into operation, more than three times what was brought on line everywhere else.

A total of 247 gigawatts of coal power is now in planning or development, nearly six times Germany’s entire coal-fired capacity. China has also proposed additional new coal plants that, if built, would generate 73.5 gigawatts of power, more than five times the 13.9 gigawatts proposed in the rest of the world combined. Last year, Chinese provinces granted construction approval to 47 gigawatts of coal power projects, more than three times the capacity permitted in 2019.

Thus to say China is seeking to limit the emissions is 100% wrong.
What they are actually doing is "all hands on deck" for energy generation because the electricity, gasoline, etc demands for its rapidly enriching population are a huge challenge to meet.
China doesn't care if its nuclear, coal, natural gas, solar, wind, whatever so long as it can meet its rapidly increasing societal and infrastructure demand for energy.
To say that the CCP is "green" is utterly ludicrous.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 12 2021 21:26 utc | 121

I don't know how intelligent people can keep letting themselves get dragged through one calamity after another, most all engineered by the same ruling weasels. The cabal of oligarchs are destroying the world and altering humanity.

Why would anyone support these banksters and world-class criminals in ANY of their criminal endeavors. The WHO and WEF are made up of eugenicists who are actively working to thin the herd. How about we focus on removing the human cancer in the world first, then talk about climate change. Officialdom lies every time they say anything. I wouldn't trust Klaus Schwab or Bill Gates to look after my cats much less tell us what needs to be done in the world.

Posted by: Rob | Aug 12 2021 21:26 utc | 122

Peter AU1 @ 111, perhaps we shouldn't be focussing entirely on CO2. This from Pen State Extension site:

"...Forests filter and regulate the flow of water, in large part due to their leafy canopy that intercepts rainfall, slowing its fall to the ground and the forest floor, which acts like an enormous sponge, typically absorbing up to 18 inches of precipitation (depending on soil composition) before gradually releasing it to natural channels and recharging ground water. In a North Carolina Watershed study (Kays, 1980) the mean soil infiltration rate went from 12.4 in/hr to 4.4 in/hr when a site was converted from forest (duff layer on soils) to suburban turf. Other studies (Bharati et al. 2002) have found similar results when comparing hourly infiltration rates and soil bulk density of forested areas with crops and grazed pasture.

Average interception of rainfall by a forest canopy ranges from 10-40% depending on species, time of year, and precipitation rates per storm event. In urban and suburban settings a single deciduous tree can intercept from 500 to 760 gallons per year; and a mature evergreen can intercept more than 4,000 gallons per year. Even young, small trees help. In a recent Forest Service study a single small tree (callery pear) that was only 9 years old, was able to intercept 58 gallons of storm water from a ½ inch rain event (67% of the rain that fell within the canopy).

A study in the 1980's of Dayton, Ohio's existing tree canopy found that storm water runoff was reduced by 7% and could be increased to 12% through planting more trees. In a more recent UFORE Hydro study conducted by the USDA Forest Service of the Toby Creek Watershed (a suburban area of Wilkes-Barre), 54% tree canopy cover was able to reduce storm water runoff by 11%. One Forest Service Researcher has stated that planting large canopy trees over impervious surfaces, such as a parking lot or street has much greater impact on reducing storm water (up to 8 times greater) because it works to reduce peak flows in urban settings.

Trees Consume Stormwater
Trees and forests absorb and use tremendous amounts of water for growth, thereby consuming storm water. A single mature oak tree can consume (transpire) over 40,000 gallons of water in a year. In Pennsylvania forests, an average of 24 inches of the annual 40 inches of rainfall is taken up by trees through evapotranspiration (movement of water from the ground through the tree and leaves, evaporating back into the environment). That evapotranspiration also serves to cool and modify surrounding summer temperatures. If the forest is removed or harvested, evaporation drops to 14 inches and stream flow increases to receive 26 inches of the annual 40 inches of precipitation. So, just the removal of forests can have an impact on streams in the watershed...

Parking lots, one of the fastest growing land uses, have become a major cause of water quality and stream degradation. Non-Point Source pollutants such as petroleum hydrocarbons, nitrates, and heavy metals (cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc) from brakes and rusting automobiles all wash into our water ways. Even a small rain storm (less than. 5 inches) will cause 'first flush' - washing these pollutants into streams...

The runoff from one acre of paved parking generates the same amount of annual runoff as: 36 acres of forest; 20 acres of grassland; a 14 acre subdivision (2 acre lots); or a 10 acre subdivision (0.5 acre lots). One inch of rainfall on an acre of parking produces 27,000 gallons of stormwater. Large increases in stormwater volume reaching streams has caused major streambank erosion problems, down stream flooding, increased nutrient/sediment loads, and degraded aquatic habitat. The planting of trees in parking lots, especially in bioretention areas where stormwater flows, can have a positive impact on water quality and work to reduce flooding and stream impairment.

Streamside or Riparian Forest Buffers

Planting and maintaining woody vegetation along streams provide a wealth of benefits and research at the Stroud Water Center and elsewhere have shown that stream health is dependent on the presence of woody vegetation along its banks. Riparian forest buffers filter sediment from streams during storm events; remove nitrogen and phosphorous leaching from adjacent land uses such as agriculture; provide stability to the bank (wood root systems); shade and modify stream temperatures, critical for habitat and pollution reduction; provide aquatic and wildlife habitat for many species; reduce stream velocity; and reduce down stream flooding. Buffer widths vary from 50 feet, providing some bank stability to 250 feet, providing flood mitigation and wildlife habitat...

Increased impervious surfaces and un-managed storm water continue to erode stream banks and fill streams with sediment. Streambank stabilization projects are costing taxpayers almost $1million per mile and state and federal agencies can't afford or keep up with the increased number of streams needing restoration...

...The role of trees and forests in managing stormwater and protecting water quality is just beginning to be understood by some engineers, planners and community leaders. One of the most powerful statements that help support this came from the Chesapeake Bay Executive Council in 2006 and reads:

'Forests are the most beneficial land use for protecting water quality, due to their ability to capture, filter, and retain water, as well as air pollution from the air. Forests are also essential to the provision of clean drinking water to over 10 million residents of the watershed and provide valuable ecological services and economic benefits including carbon sequestration, flood control, wildlife habitat, and forest products'.

Posted by: juliania | Aug 12 2021 21:28 utc | 123

@JP Straley #116
Thorium reactors? Good luck with that.
The "green" people mostly hate nuclear even though it is the least CO2 emitting of all energy sources, and also can/does provide base power.
Thorium is nuclear. Ain't gonna happen.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 12 2021 21:29 utc | 124

Forgetting the coined phrase “climate change”, does anyone really think that we are having a positive effect on the Earth?

“Climate” is just one angle, there are many that say the same thing. The one that scares me most is the state of global insect biomass.

Posted by: Rae | Aug 12 2021 21:30 utc | 125

Good news for Germany!
Thanks to NS2, Deutschland will be soon a very clean country.
No more GHG or Nuclearplant at home[thanks Angela].

NS2 is fit for H2, and Gazprom will be world’s leading ‘blue’ hydrogen exporter by 2030.

https://www.rt.com/russia/531117-russian-economy-green-energy-transition/

https://www.rt.com/business/531068-russia-gazprom-hydrogen-europe/

US/EU Kids playing in the Climate sandbox.
Adults at work in Eurasia

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2021/07/russia-and-germany-win-war-over-nord-stream-2.html?cid=6a00d8341c640e53ef0278803a3d37200d#comment-6a00d8341c640e53ef0278803a3d37200d

///
@ VK CO2 capture is as simple as photosynthesis for example, works really good with seaweed.
But the question is: what is the question [as Covid-19 et al.]

Posted by: Rêver | Aug 12 2021 21:31 utc | 126

Apologies that my previous post was so long. I did trim it down as much as I could, but felt the statistics being given in the various sections were too important.

What also can be found on other searches is that because forests and individual trees do this major job of sequestering water whenever it does rain - they mitigate climate change as the very best form of remediation any of us can participate in -- so please, plant a tree!

Posted by: juliania | Aug 12 2021 21:31 utc | 127

c1ue 117

Expecting poor countries not to want or try to attain increased prosperity is unrealistic. If we don't want them to increase emissions while achieving that, then we have to pay them. Increased prosperity requires increased energy use the cheapest of which creates emissions.
Per capita is the only way a world wide agreement on limiting emissions is possible. If one country wants to exceed that limit then it would have to pay another country for use of some of its limit.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Aug 12 2021 21:33 utc | 128

I can't speak for Norway, c1ue, Thorbjorn Willoch, or anyone else here, but it's nice to see that there are people on the left capable of being as sceptical of the official view on climate as we all are of the official view of Russia, China, Israel, or the moral superiority of capitalism.

It's a mystery to me why practically all the people I admire for their radical questioning of the status quo (Noam Chomsky, Caitlin Johnstone, Craig Murray, John Pilger, our host here) accept apparently without question the official view of climate change as laid down by the IPCC, Wikipaedia and the governments of the West.

I may be the only person in the Western world who has tried to read the official Chinese point of view on the Hockeystick controversy, and so has at least an inkling of what the Chinese think of official Western climate policy. (Remember Climategate? When leaked emails revealed that top climate scientists in the UK and the US involved in constructing the Hockeystick graph were conspiring to suppress data, destroy data, prevent articles from being published, and get unfriendly editors sacked?)

Meanwhile, in the name of protecting the planet, Bank of America Merrill Lynch and Eléctricité de France are offering investors up to 18% return on a scheme to stick a wind turbine on the roof of every mud hut in Africa, so that the inhabitants can recharge their phones, and so use their on-line bank to pay the rent on the phone and the turbine. And they get a free torch with a rechargeable battery thrown in so that their kid can do his homework in the dark.
https://cliscep.com/2015/11/22/can-of-worms-2-tellus-mater/
Meanwhile, the World Bank will refuse to finance a coal-fired power station, that would provide enough electricity for a fridge, and - who knows? - maybe a clinic and a factory in the village.

We climate sceptics at https://cliscep.com and dozens of similar sites have been rabbiting on about these matters for a decade or two. Roger (comment 91 above) thinks we're conspiracy theorists. So what if we are?

Posted by: geoff chambers | Aug 12 2021 21:42 utc | 129

equality, equity or justice?

This point of view is completely counterproductive, if you mean that it is acceptable for China to continue producing greenhouse gases until its cumulative output equals that of Europe and the U.S. Rather, all industrialized nations must reduce emissions drastically and in a big hurry, if our planet is to have any chance of avoiding catastrophe.

Posted by: Rob | Aug 12 2021 21:09 utc | 114

If the Climate Change Urgency Believer are honest and fair... Supposedly CC is from CUMULATIVE CO2.

China is right. The burden is on the EU/US shoulder. Not to drastically reduce but to clean [capture] billions tons of atmospheric CO2. No more car, planes or sexyrockets to Mars, no more military, no more McD, etc....

But as for Covid, do what I say not what I done, do and will continue to do.

Max, C1ue, Norwegian, Gordog... et al.,thanks you all to maintain credibility in MoA threads

Posted by: Rêver | Aug 12 2021 21:50 utc | 130

One hopes you're much better, b, take great care, your blog's amongst the top, well done, thanks.

The AGW is the Mother of all scams, the creed of Marxism fugged up the lives of hundreds of millions in the East, the creed of AGW is going to fugg up the lives of even more people of the West (unless it's stopped).

Human activity that discharges CO2 accounts for only 4% of the aggregate annual release of the gas, nature does the rest.

The density of CO2 in the atmosphere increased from 0.02% to 0.04% in roughly three hundred years. Those that believe this infinitesimal change is what drives climate should consult the doctor.

Earth's climate is the function of the Universe, weather the function of the planet, what drives the former has FA to do with anything happening on earth.

Until about the end of the last century the primary tool used by the politicians to control the unwashed was the promise of a nirvana to come, it had not worked, people stopped believing it mostly because the wealth distribution favoured the few against the many.

It was necessary to change the tack, fear became the new means of control

Some 15 years ago, the philosopher Larken Rose wrote in his ''manual'' on ''How to be a Successful Tyrant'':

"Almost all oppression via propaganda is based upon scaring people, and then presenting a false choice, where the people can choose either to do what you want them to do, or face some unknown, often purely fictional horror. This is not the method of the common thug, which can be summarised as ''do this or I will hurt you''. A successful modern tyrant never presents himself as the thing to be afraid of, as doing so would obviously create resentment and hatred in the peasantry, and that leads to resistance. Every ''thing to be feared'', with which you terrorize your peasants, must be presented as some separate, outside evil, that only you can save them from.

You must present the simple choice between obedience to you, and the threat of some unpleasant happening, which does not appear to be of your doing, and which you pretend to lament the existence of. In short, you must deceive and scare the citizens into voluntarily giving up their freedom.

Posted by: Baron | Aug 12 2021 21:52 utc | 131

Posted by: Prof | Aug 12 2021 15:52 utc | 26

I worship the ground that awaits you.

Posted by: Ru-Paul Simon LeGree | Aug 12 2021 22:00 utc | 132

On the plus side, Florida doesn't have long before it is ocean. Unfortunately all it's crazy inhabitants will move elsewhere.

Posted by: ArthurDent | Aug 12 2021 22:15 utc | 133

juliania 120

I recognize the need to preserve forests and your post was interesting reading. What I also see here is fire mitigation stopped, trees planted on any bare ground that would slow down or stop a bad fire. Huge areas of forest being destroyed at regular intervals from fires, killing many of the trees and all the animals that do not live below ground, those that do have sooted lungs and no food.
I spend a good part of my life in western Queensland a lot of the country there had been open savanna grasslands, trees along the watercourses, prior to European settlement.
Its Mulga country - Mulga tree is very susceptible to fire and grass fires kept the country open. With cattle grazing especially and no fires a lot of the grasslands were taken over by Mulga which choked out the grass. That eliminates the animals and whatever that live on grasslands, also without grass cover there is increased erosion.
It was while I was in that area that tree clearing laws were brought in so now, the parts of the savanna country that are cheked with scrub will stay that way.

When it comes to a sustainable environment, there seems little common sense used at times. What bugs me about politically correct conservation is that individuals are expected to pay instead of the country as a whole.
So many even here think the developing countries should be shouldering the burden of our lifestyle.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Aug 12 2021 22:22 utc | 134

Much said, little learned.

Simple physics kids. Change the proportion of chemicals in any system and you change the thermal gradient. This is always irreversible. How that distribution is affected is dependent on the variables, it may go up, it may go down, it may go up and down.

A new equilibrium will establish itself only to be undone. Humans evolved because catastrophes of unbelievable magnitude happened. We will be unceremoniously swept into the irrelevance of forever by something. Individually and collectively.

The only relevant question is how bad will it get, and no experiment is better than the one unfolding around us now. We KNOW that our betters do not and never will care about "humanity," so don't look there for help.

So, since we can't and won't do a fracking thing about it, let's just keep on trashing the place until one of the tech ubermensch perfects and prepares our replacement planet for us. Golly, science can do that surely! I believe in you science!

Fortunately, I am not a droog, nor am I bamboozled by the BS here in the wacky, arbitrary nonsense we call "reality."

It was possible humans could have actually involved intelligence, but we're too brutal and damn near every last living human alive today is suffering from debilitating PTSD. How else do you explain fear being such an easy lever to gain control?

Posted by: NewGuy | Aug 12 2021 22:26 utc | 135

@ Posted by: c1ue | Aug 12 2021 21:26 utc | 118

Being carbon neutral doesn't mean you don't emit carbon. It merely means you capture the same amount of carbon as you produce.

So, China could build 1 million GW coal plants if it wanted, it would still be carbon neutral if it manages to recapture all the carbon it emits.

--//--

@ Posted by: Rêver | Aug 12 2021 21:31 utc | 123

The original poster of this question highly implied to be referring to the carbon capture machine that was developed some years ago and was propagandized as a huge panacea at the time.

But I think that, if we would to rely on such machine, we would need hundreds of them spread along the oceans and in huge sizes. It would be by far the largest engineering project ever built by humanity in sheer scale. I don't think there are even enough metals and other raw materials to build them on the quantity and scale they would have to be built in order for the whole thing to work.

So no. The sheer scale of such infrastructure already discards it.

And I'm not even going to talk about colonizing Mars (which another commenter here posted), which is outright bad-faith propaganda spread by Youtubers and Messianic-complex billionaires such as Elon Musk. The chance of humanity ever colonizing Mars is zero. The amount of natural resources, time and sheer luck required automatically throws the whole thing into the realm of science fiction. Humanity will put some dozens or maybe hundreds of highly specialized, highly trained scientists for some months in a base in the Moon and that's everything it will ever do in terms of space colonization.

Posted by: vk | Aug 12 2021 22:40 utc | 136

The tenor of this discussion isn't at all surprising given the stakes committed to the Global Ponzi Scheme that's been ongoing since WW2's end. The biggest transgressor is the Outlaw US Empire through its policy to hoard as many resources for itself and inhibit all other nations's development excepting a few in Western Europe that were key to inflating the first bubble of the Ponzi Scheme. Its domestic policy has also contributed greatly to today's condition--the Oil Depletion Allowance being just one of many. The planned destruction of interurban trains is another and their replacement by interstates and other roads. Books and more books, journal papers, and PhD dissertations exist on this topic, so I won't elaborate further.

I observe our changing climate daily. The great increase in tropical storm formation off Mexico's West coast has changed summertime low pressure circulation patterns and the T-Storms they create which have contributed to the number of lightening strikes that start our huge upsurge in wildfires. That wasn't the case when I moved to Oregon 20 years ago. And that's merely one aspect of several, but it was also predicted, as were numerous other affects.

I applaud the Chinese, and I applaud Putin for gaining the knowledge to combat his skepticism so that he now understands the huge security implications the Climate Crisis poses for Russia. And yes, he talks about it often and at the major business confabs at St. Petersburg and Vladivostok. Thanks to Russia and China's efforts, many developing nations will NOT have to rely on burning coal to produce the electricity required for their economic and social development. But as someone mentioned upthread, the Climate Crisis is only the most visible facet of a much larger ecological crisis, and that's Ecological Overshoot--a situation where a species has gone well beyond its natural Carrying Capacity.

An op/ed I linked to recently talked about the huge amounts of misinformation fed to citizens of Western Neoliberal nations that's resulted in an incredible level of dysfunction and inability to make critical choices. Michael Mann called the part related to his science The Climate Wars, and indeed they are as this thread proves well beyond reasonable doubt.

Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 12 2021 22:40 utc | 137

Thorium power.
Its cheap, abundant, safe, and completely free of CO2 emissions.
The only reason it is not being implemented, is because the powers that be would rather use the climate crisis as a way to tax us endlessly.
No matter how many green taxes they impose, not a copper of that is spent on actually reducing emissions.
Why would it be?
They would lose the perfect excuse they have to drain our wallets for their own benefit.

Once we start seeing thorium powerplants being mass produced globally, I will start to believe there is an actual crisis going on.
To my knowledge there is no Planet B, so in the end, the powers that be, no matter how greedy they are, will have to produce the actual solutions to anything that is an actual global problem.

Posted by: Invalid Username | Aug 12 2021 22:48 utc | 138

@132
Unfortunately you are correct, the time to address climate change was 40 years ago given how long it takes green house gasses to leave the atmosphere. Did anyone really think there is any political will power in the west to destroy the Petro dollar? The very foundation of Anglo domination over others?

Yes, Obama, Biden or whomever will head fake, act like they want to see greenhouse gases reduced, but it is just that, a head fake. Spinning wheels going nowhere, more harmful then denialism itself because it leads to the impression something is actually being done, when in reality it is business as usual.

This should be no surprise, as the masters of chaos indeed thrive on chaos, and nothing will cause more chaos then the societal upheaval being generated by rapidly changing climate patterns.

Humanity is as brutal as it is stupid. Give a monkey a big brain and he will think he is the center of the universe.

Posted by: Jason | Aug 12 2021 22:50 utc | 139

The powers that be can just wait for the climate created great reset by buying up land in regions that will survive or even thrive with a warmer planet.

The solution to climate change will be the collapse of society and the billions of deaths that will go with it. The powers that be will just hole up in their well guarded, well stocked fortresses and wait it out.

Of course if the societal upheaval triggers all out nuclear war, all bets are off, but even in that case, parts of the Southern Hemisphere may remain habitable. Are any billionaires buying property there?

The beauty of climate change is that it makes nuclear winter more survivable.

Posted by: Jason | Aug 12 2021 22:58 utc | 140

What a shit show this is. When I read this post this morning, before there were any comments posted, I thought to myself, this is going to be interesting, but not in a good way. Unless you like frothing at the mouth nonsense posts.

I did enjoy Julianas post though.

Have fun you fucking lunatics!

Posted by: David F | Aug 12 2021 23:09 utc | 141

ld; Excellent poems, thank you!!!!

Posted by: vetinLA | Aug 12 2021 23:26 utc | 142

Took until Peter AU1's post @ 100 to get to the real crux...

And "sustainability" means NO GROWTH. "Growth" is not stasis, which by default cancels it out as having any prospects of "sustainability."

I've watched this debate for many decades now. Not until about 5 years ago, or so, has the notion of "growth" being other than good (by default) been brought up in discussions. Now, fortunately, it's beginning to get scrutinized. Sadly, if this discussion picks up too much it'll be banned: those controlling the "growth machine" won't allow it.

And the solution? Not going to get me pitching one (we don't have the mindset to engage in meaningful dialog at this point- those in power have helped make it this way, keep the masses ignorant).

Posted by: Seer | Aug 12 2021 23:27 utc | 143

@ NewGuy | Aug 12 2021 22:26 utc | 132 who wrote

"
Fortunately, I am not a droog, nor am I bamboozled by the BS here in the wacky, arbitrary nonsense we call "reality."

It was possible humans could have actually involved intelligence, but we're too brutal and damn near every last living human alive today is suffering from debilitating PTSD. How else do you explain fear being such an easy lever to gain control?
"
and more that I was going to write....thanks

Yeah, I come here and continually point out that the structural problem underlying the lie/cheat/steal paradigm supported by Might-Makes-Right God of Mammon global financial elite is much more important than the IFs of Climate Change but lets piss away more textual white noise against the wrong problem is writ large in the comments by many who should know better given their education....sigh

Climate Change is a given but like Covid handling by society, prudence is encouraged. The lie/cheat/steal mentality has used nukes in the past, looks like their using bio-warfare currently and have not show themselves to be prudent.......Fukushima, anyone?

The will humanity needs to have is to look at the social contract/social organization we have and eliminate the cancer of global private finance from the public body. The removal of private finance will change the motivational narratives world wide for the better. We might even ask what it means to be human again.


Posted by: psychohistorian | Aug 12 2021 23:42 utc | 144

my take is people are actually interested in discussing this topic and related topics, and not everyone is intent on clobbering others over the head with their apparent superior knowledge...

@ juliania and peter au on forests, trees and etc. etc.. .... bruised northerner @ 7 left a link that i thought was quite relevant to the topic of forests here in b.c. i will share it again..
'It blows my mind': How B.C. destroys a key natural wildfire defence every year

peter au.. i agree with your closing comments @ 131... it surprises me too... it is another example of the hate towards china expressed differently... well that is how i see it...

@ 134 karlof1... thanks... apparently this latest california fire is the worst in the history of california.. it is not the worst in the past 20 year period, but the worst in the history of california... i am surprised people are slow to pick up on what is happening on the planet and seem to suggest all of this is some grand conspiracy theory... of course those in power will try to take advantage of it all, but i can't see how they can...

Posted by: james | Aug 12 2021 23:51 utc | 145

@ gabby #112

I don't know why the sky-spraying is neglected. Seems to have fallen out of fashion to discuss the obvious.

Posted by: G-Man Joy | Aug 12 2021 23:57 utc | 146

If there was a real will to fight climate change, it would include REDUCING levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and average temperatures they have caused, not just slowing new emissions of them, not just slowing the warming.

But that real effort is unthinkable. It is not even mentioned.

Posted by: Mark Thomason | Aug 13 2021 0:08 utc | 147

Maybe the real revolt will start with climate change protests. Is much bigger threat to humanity than covid imho. Second would be nuclear holocaust. The US seems to be embracing both.
https://consortiumnews.com/2021/08/12/environmental-demonstrators-vs-militarized-police/

Posted by: Joe | Aug 13 2021 0:26 utc | 148

I’m surprised that no one is talking about the United States dollar tied to oil. You know, the “petrodollar “ if the dollar decouples from oil, what happens to the dollar? This is a serious question that nobody seems to talk about.

Posted by: Kate | Aug 13 2021 0:37 utc | 149

In the long and complex story of climate change science, no-one has played a greater part in revealing scientific fraud than Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit. For a number of years he has abandoned analysis of climate so-called science, in favour of analysis of false claims of use of poisoned gas by the Syrian government, and of false claims of Russian interference in the US 2016 presidential election.

He's just returned to an analysis of a major claim of the IPCC report referred to in this article.
https://climateaudit.org/2021/08/11/the-ipcc-ar6-hockeystick/
I invite readers of this thread to read it. It's not easy reading, unless you've been following this story for the past twenty years. But the same is true of Syria or any other serious subject.

You are being conned. On any other subject than climate you would agree. At least consider the possibility that the same is true in the case of climate science.

Posted by: geoff chambers | Aug 13 2021 0:40 utc | 150

You cannot fight climate change. You plan for climate change. The Holocene Epoc would not have started without climate change. Humans then became more numerous and civilization started.

During that time humans chopped massive amounts of trees to refine metals for war, to sail boats across the ocean, to fire furnaces to make their pottery and idols among other things.

Blaming the fossil fuel industry is ludicrous. Ignoring historical climate change and its effect on past civilizations is even more ludicrous. Not planning for the fact that climate change is going to turn the world's civilizations upside down is suicidal.

What would one expect of the Global goofball Neo-liberals. Sanity?

Posted by: circumspect | Aug 13 2021 0:44 utc | 151

The whole idea of climate change is a ruse, to raise giant piles of money for politicians and bureaucrats to enrich themselves with (skimming if not outright chunks of massive money), while forwarding sick U.N. ideas of "equity," which basically means destroying White Christian countries.

Yes, we should all be trying to waste less, use less. But ultimately, isn't it hubris for humans to think we're going to change weather patterns, especially when Borneo still burns mountains of tires, Indonesia has massive yearly toxic burnings, and many Africans, who are not capable of building viable societies, still all have at least 8 children each? Why are U.N. organizations demanding whites have fewer children, when whites are already a severe minority on this planet and whites also make the most desirable societies to live in?

Until I see leaders specifically working with research and development organizations that are making improved air and water filtration systems for factories to use, the whole thing is a racket. To date, no such research and development has been sited by the globalists in charge of climate change. It's all a racket, similar to the covid shamdemic, and the identity politics rackets, where they wrest more money from people, clamp down on our freedoms, and things get worse, not better. Show us the improved filtration systems for factories and airplanes, and then I'll listen.

Posted by: She Bear | Aug 13 2021 0:54 utc | 152

@c1ue

No, Nordhaus is terrible because what he's claiming is objectively false. But easier for you to post a snarky comment rather than delve into Keen's critiques, I guess.

Posted by: Ben | Aug 13 2021 1:07 utc | 153


Posted by: juliania | Aug 12 2021 21:31 utc | 124

No need for an apology, juliania. Your post is most welcome here where we have been working against the norm in the US American Midwest for over 40 years, planting trees and developing riparian habitat despite the local proclivity for mowing and spraying everything which is not a cash crop. You can guess where wildlife prefers to live.

Biocomplexity extends beyond the factors which the article you cite mentions — lots of fungi, amphibians, fish, birds and mammals. While a fight against climate calamity may be futile as people here insist on driving $85,000 behemoth trucks as their usual ride, all of course indebted, maybe it will make a difference in the end and their children may come to appreciate it as well.

The tomato harvest is on. Am drying the cherry tomatoes as they are such delicious bursts of sunshine when summer fades.

My apology to grieved for being such an ass. That I am sometimes when particularly aggravated. Not to apologize for the content, of course, ass than i am.

Posted by: suzan | Aug 13 2021 1:17 utc | 154

@ Posted by: She Bear | Aug 13 2021 0:54 utc | 149

The problem is not the climate changing, but changing too fast. What should take hundreds of thousands of years are taking just some decades. If temperatures rise too fast (and decades is too fast by climatic standards), then humanity will not be able to adapt.

I'm fascinated with the nonchalant manner with which global warming deniers claim climate change is normal and there's nothing we can do about it. Changes of temperature are one of the main causes of extinction of species: what extinguished the non-avian dinosaurs was not the meteor impact by itself, but the long winter that ensued it; you don't see many species from the last Ice Age roaming nowadays. So, best case scenario, global warming deniers are an apocalyptic cult waiting for the end of the world.

Posted by: vk | Aug 13 2021 1:22 utc | 155

All of the IPCC commentary is garbage and a perverse ideology not based on science. The Earth is going to get colder. This is already happening but ignored by the MSM

Posted by: Nexus321 | Aug 13 2021 1:30 utc | 156

This is willed and exat what is the meaning of the "Great Reset": Drop the world's population by 1-2 billon ppl., and then rebuild all by the remaining (western) industrial top companies.
If you look and read the website of the World Economic Forum and look who is member, you will understand what is coming.
https://www.weforum.org/great-reset/
This is not a conspiracy theory, it is open to see for anyone, but none does believe it, because it is so terrible. Sae like 9/11 - the reality is not believed because it is too terrible.

Posted by: wp007 | Aug 13 2021 1:34 utc | 157

@ suzan | Aug 13 2021 1:17 utc | 151 who wrote

"
The tomato harvest is on. Am drying the cherry tomatoes as they are such delicious bursts of sunshine when summer fades.
"

I am just starting my cherry tomato harvest/drying also....YEAH!!!!

Posted by: psychohistorian | Aug 13 2021 1:37 utc | 158

There was a time when Moon of Alabama provided an occasional forum for people to discuss climate issues, particularly those which critiqued neoliberalism's weak, entirely spin focused green-washing efforts but unfortunately along with the arrival of covidiots we now must also suffer luddite climate science deniers making certain any effort at a rational discussion of humanity's existential issue distracted & diverted right from the get go.
The only way forwards I can see is that when the dingbats, wannabe wall st parasites, ignorant contrarians & the rest spew their straight off the back of a cereal box nonsense, just don't bother acknowledging em, much less engaging with them.

In threads such as this I reckon that those who do understand this issue should only bother to engage with others who comprehend it, even if a luddite post is made by someone who on another topic you would debate with, because unless we ignore the climate science ignorati totally they will continue to push rational discussion aside while they drag out the old saws such as "If the planet is warming, how come it is cold in winter?" etc.

Posted by: Debsisdead | Aug 13 2021 1:49 utc | 159

Posted by: vk | Aug 13 2021 1:22 utc | 152

How disappointing that the knee-jerk reaction is to slam me as a "global warming denier." Talk about tired tropes.

First of all, we have just entered a Grand Solar Minimum. Look it up.

Have you seen the electric-powered cars graveyards yet? Do you know they have no idea how to treat the battery waste and have no environmentally responsible answer that would uphold further push for electric cars? It's even worse waste than combustible engine cars. Also, it takes a lot of coal to keep electric generators humming. Anything on that?

How is it that the slow, unsanitary drizzle from my California showerhead is helping the environment? Yes, I'm paying more for water and suffering under less water pressure, but is that really helping anything? NO. I take much longer in the shower trying to get clean than I would with higher water pressure. It's all a racket. They do this crap because they can charge you more and tell you that you're helping the environment if you suffer, but no where do they focus on capturing rainfall water, capture ambient water from the air (which they have machines for), or anything to further advance true science and development in capturing water and using it better. Just more money.

Same thing with airplanes, which make a huge amount of our air pollution. It's utterly ridiculous to think the answer is to stop all of us from air travel. The answer clearly is for us humans to use our God-given brains to find better, cleaner burning engines. But no one is focusing on that. Only on grabbing more of our money and further restricting and controlling us all. When will their totalitarian exploits reach the point where you see the way that they want things to be: this whole covid misadventure should clue you in.

Wake up.

Posted by: She Bear | Aug 13 2021 1:55 utc | 160

@ Posted by: Debsisdead | Aug 13 2021 1:49 utc | 156

Very good advice that I will follow from mow on.

Posted by: Roger | Aug 13 2021 2:04 utc | 161

Posted by: psychohistorian | Aug 13 2021 1:37 utc | 155

Homegrown cherry tomatoes are the best, tastiest little things ever! Yay!

Posted by: She Bear | Aug 13 2021 2:05 utc | 162

c1ue 117 "If you really want to be fair, you not only have to account for the above, but also something like "emissions per $ of GDP"."
But of course, this would mean enormous decreases of prosperity for the US and EU. I don't see that happening."

Nothing will happen until the US goes down. No different to the many other unsolvable problems the US causes.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Aug 13 2021 2:16 utc | 163

Posted by: Roger | Aug 13 2021 2:04 utc | 158

"Very good advice that I will follow from mow on."

You mean, from Mao on?

Posted by: She Bear | Aug 13 2021 2:19 utc | 164

I've deliberately tried to stay out of the climate and covid discussions.

I can offer no expert opinion in either, but do appreciate hearing both sides. Some very good commentary here.

I would only add that I want to keep hearing BOTH sides. I'm sure many lurkers feel the same way. 😺

Posted by: Gordog | Aug 13 2021 2:27 utc | 165

vk, Debisdead and Roger: Do you see John Kerry and his fellow crooks as the answer to "global warming" or climate change? It's not that I do not believe the climate is changing but I think the answer is to do better to pollute less and mitigate the effects of pollution, rather than restricting people's freedoms and extorting more money from them. What is it you think is going to accomplish less pollution? Specifically, what is it John Kerry et al. is doing to actually make real change in polluting less? If it's white people need to breed less and pollute less, well that's a loser. Look to Africa and and less developed worlds where all the people and pollution are. What is Kerry et al. suggesting that improve these countries' pollution? Other than us white people forking over big piles of money?

Posted by: She Bear | Aug 13 2021 2:30 utc | 166

One more thing. Airplanes only make one tenth the emissions of cars. That's not including all the other emissions sources.

Besides climate, there are also huge ecological problems, like habitat loss for some of our most majestic species, industrial agriculture, heavy metals and much more.

Why isn't anyone talking about those?

Posted by: Gordog | Aug 13 2021 2:34 utc | 167

I must say this is a remarkably restrained thread for the topic. It's been a few years since I was deep in climate, but I never could have stomached reading 150+ comments previously. Of course there is great disagreement and the usual binary YES/NO chasm, but it still seems a pretty civilized discussion compared to years past.

I'm not an archivist so I only have my own experience of how things have evolved, but I recall pretty clearly that the western corporate world on climate was following the playbook of the tobacco industry in sowing uncertainty, led principally by the oil companies. And then Goldman invented the carbon credit instrument (and a derivative I think) and made clear the means to trade these instruments. And then the corporate world and its political agents all changed their tune completely, admitting a carbon problem, in lockstep with the Goldman solution. That's how I noticed the narrative change, but it's only my personal observation.

That's where the "will" to address ecological overshoot went. It couldn't move against its profits, until it was shown a way to pretend to move, while making even more profits.

~~

Personally, I don't expect the west to achieve anything positive in this matter, or in any other matter. China will lead the way and show much. Barbarians in the west will follow China's demonstration in many things, in the fullness of time, if there is a fullness left.

The very rich have seemed to be pursuing a deliberate scorched earth policy for some time now. As others have pointed out, they wish to grab entire classes or clusters of assets and create their own fortresses of privilege and safety, and the worse they make the world in so doing, the more intently must they keep pursuing these ends.

The ordinary population of the human race, of course, in the view of the rich, must simply end. And if ever a lesson shines darkly from 2020, it is that there could be very cheap and effective ways to cull the herds.

Why would the rich act any differently from this? They don't need to be told any of this, or to plan any of this, it's enough to know that establishment forces are naturally aligned with these values, and will "take care" of problems that inconvenience the rich.

And as the population dies off, the ecological overshoot will recede, and obviously this process will continue until the overshoot is negative, and margins of profit are revealed. So reason the rich, instinctively, practically without thinking, certainly without saying it out loud.

Most anyone would do exactly the same, if corrupted by the ownership of billions in wealth - it's very, very hard to own billions without that wealth itself corrupting one.

The problem thus is political, fully part of the only war there has ever been among humans - the class war - and actually existential for both the rich and the not-rich, who are on opposing sides of that existential equation.

~~

This is not to say that nothing can be done. Just that the awful nature of the dilemma is still becoming apparent to the world population. These dynamics will form an inseparable part of the historical process of the dying of capital-theft systems, and the rise of socialism around the world.

If that's what happens. The rich of course will act against it. I personally believe they cannot prevail. But the damage they can continue to do as they struggle may exceed any sense of victory for the survivors after it's all over.

Humans may well survive, and in large populations. Much depends, I think, on socialism - or call it what we will, that system of society in which people have a value.

Posted by: Grieved | Aug 13 2021 2:43 utc | 168

You mean, from Mao on?

We have a cat named Chairman Meow. His nickname is The Great Phlegmsman [on account of furballs].

True story. 😸

Posted by: Gordog | Aug 13 2021 2:44 utc | 169

Other than us white people forking over big piles of money?

Posted by: She Bear | Aug 13 2021 2:30 utc | 163

Not often that a barfly so egregiously discredits him/herself.

Posted by: corvo | Aug 13 2021 2:47 utc | 170

A container ship running 23-28 knots uses ~63,000 gallons of diesel per day. Those ships aren't running on solar, wind or anything else so...but yeah, reduce your carbon footprint like that even matters..

We can address CC and collapse industrialized civilization and let millions die from starvation or we just kick the can until we can't any longer, but there is nothing in the pipeline that can replace the energy density of FF..thinking there is is just a pipe dream for children...

Posted by: Deimetri | Aug 13 2021 2:47 utc | 171

Posted by: Gordog | Aug 13 2021 2:34 utc | 164

And what about better practices for mining (smaller scale, repair as you go, etc.), and better filtration systems for factories and airplane/car engines that emit pollutants to the air and waters?

Kerry et al never discuss the basic realities, just generalities, lots of punishment for white people of developed worlds with big money extorted from us for... exactly what? Where is the big news from Kerry on how our billions of dollars after all this time have achieved excellent new filtration systems? Nowhere. Just more punishment, more money will be needed, more and more money... but never any new filtration systems or science to show for the money we're taxed and lowered standards we live with. How is this not a racket?

I grew up on the left and was disillusioned some 10 years ago, particularly under Obummer's bloodthirsty illegal warmongering. Now, I wonder how it is that people don't see through the lies and grift on offer. Nothing changes except for the worse, but they need more and more money. It's a racket. This is how they all leave public office as multi-millionaires.

Posted by: She Bear | Aug 13 2021 2:48 utc | 172

Grieved, thank you! ✊

Posted by: Gordog | Aug 13 2021 2:51 utc | 173

Posted by: Gordog | Aug 13 2021 2:44 utc | 166

We have a cat named Chairman Meow. His nickname is The Great Phlegmsman [on account of furballs].

True story. 😸

*********************************

I adore you and Chairman Meow from afar! Thanks for giving me a laugh and a smile! I salute you all. :)

Posted by: She Bear | Aug 13 2021 2:52 utc | 174

Besides climate, there are also huge ecological problems, like habitat loss for some of our most majestic species, industrial agriculture, heavy metals and much more.

Why isn't anyone talking about those?

Posted by: Gordog | Aug 13 2021 2:34 utc | 164


Myself, I wonder why we don't talk about the fact that greenhouse gas emissions aren't terribly healthy. Except that I don't wonder. We're Americans; we externalize anything unpleasant until it comes back to bite us, and preferably someone else.

Posted by: corvo | Aug 13 2021 3:02 utc | 175

Posted by: Grieved | Aug 13 2021 2:43 utc | 165

Amen. Thank you for such thoughtful insight. Agree.

Many policies these days are geared toward that old elite favorite: depopulation. Lots of people die from bioweapon jab that perpetuates virus strains? Pension/social security issues solved! And good for the environment! No wonder the borders are open for the meek replacement minions, who will be grateful for plumbing and rock-bottom wages. It's a fait accompli. A deception too grand to accept, acknowledge or demand justice for.

Posted by: She Bear | Aug 13 2021 3:13 utc | 176

@ Posted by: She Bear | Aug 13 2021 3:13 utc | 173

Depopulation is bad for capitalism. Excess people mean cheap labor power.

Posted by: vk | Aug 13 2021 3:17 utc | 177

Posted by: Deimetri | Aug 13 2021 2:47 utc | 168

Not to mention all the humongous amounts of commodities placed in great shipping containers and kept out at sea indefinitely to effect desired market prices.

As you noted, shipping is definitely not "climate change"-friendly but is utilized to the max. Just not for little people, who must suffer to offset those grandiose expenditures and receive nothing in exchange.

Posted by: She Bear | Aug 13 2021 3:18 utc | 178

james 142

That was quite interesting on the aspen stopping fires. The photo of the test block.. pretty amazing. Here all or most of the canopy is I think eucalyptus. Once a tree top fire starts, it keeps going until it runs out of trees. Most of the trees in natural Forrest country here are fairly fire hardy in that they will come back to life if a fire has not been too hot and cooked the cambrian layer under the bark. Some of the fires now though are getting that hot they are killing the trees.
There used to be controlled burning to reduce fuel load but that was stopped and now the treetop fires run through every decade or so.

Back in the early eighties I was in an are that had controlled burns in the state forests each spring. One block had been made into national park and any fire natural or otherwise was put out until there was enough fuel a fire couldn't be controlled. The fire that went through killed everything. The national park was a stark contrast to the state forest all around as it had not continued burning where national park met state forest So much for it being a wildlife sanctuary.

What is left of natural forests in developed countries does need to be preserved for bio diversity and so forth, not so much for CO2 as they are only short term storage at best and a mature forest is virtualy carbon neutral unless its growing on a peat bog.

A lot of green madness happening at time, natural savanna grasslands being turned into forests and natural forests being turned into death traps for wild life.


Posted by: Peter AU1 | Aug 13 2021 3:23 utc | 179

Depopulation is bad for capitalism. Excess people mean cheap labor power.

Posted by: vk | Aug 13 2021 3:17 utc | 174

Man, you are way behind. There are more than 7 billion people on the planet, an excess of over 6 billion needed to provide everything that everyone needs.

The elite aim to kill off most of us, ideally 90%, but more of us don't want the jab than they anticipated. (I'm proud of us people for that!!!) But they'll kill off as many of us they can and keep the rest as cheap labor, as close to slavery as they can get, and use all their weapons on us, including weather (seeding clouds, etc), financial manipulation, sexual liberation/degeneracy (which is really a tool of control, a trap), medical tyranny (vaccines that cause lucrative diseases and wonderful depopulating death), and any other tricks and spells they cast on us, particularly through our schools and all media.

Let's enjoy relatively free internet while we still have it, for our overlords are cruel and will eventually find a reason to shut it off from us.

Posted by: She Bear | Aug 13 2021 3:30 utc | 180

Grieved "Humans may well survive, and in large populations. Much depends, I think, on socialism - or call it what we will, that system of society in which people have a value."

With our ability to survive in virtually all corners of the planet, I sometimes think we are like cockroaches in our ability to survive, but it is much nicer to live as humans.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Aug 13 2021 3:38 utc | 181

@ 176 peter au... they used to do slash and burn here in b.c. as well... i think they still do it, but i haven't followed this closely.. i know they used to.. it stimulates growth... i would like to trust the forestry people, but i know the logging corps have too much influence over gov't most of the time... we are supposed to make it sustainable.. b.c. is a huge area of forest that hasn't been pillaged, but they are worked hard to pillage most of it.. we got an ndp gov't that is a far cry better then the liberal-conservative folks under campbell and christie... not sure where it is at since ndp got in a few years ago.. where i live here on vancouver island has some of the biggest trees in b.c.

not everywhere here at moa is american.... we don't all follow john kerry and what he is or isn't doing as one example... it seems to me some of the folks with the craziest ideas live in the usa... maybe this is a good thing and a bad thing... one has to be careful what they hear and believe.. although i do like hearing about gordogs cat - chairman meow!!!

i already pulled up the yukon gold potatoes a few days ago and the spanish onions today... we have a lot of beans i need to do something with... cherry tomatoes... i have never tried drying them... happy gardening while its happening..

Posted by: james | Aug 13 2021 4:06 utc | 182

Posted by: james | Aug 13 2021 4:06 utc | 179

James, I've been reading MOA for years and remember when you were new.

Posted by: She Bear | Aug 13 2021 4:19 utc | 183

she bear... that's cool...

Posted by: james | Aug 13 2021 4:21 utc | 184

James and anyone else with a bountiful garden...seek out a local soup kitchen, they will gladly take however much surplus you can haul in! Shame for beautiful, pure garden veggies to rot.

Posted by: Gordog | Aug 13 2021 4:37 utc | 185

c1ue @118 says: "It is irrelevant because for every GW of solar or wind capacity that China builds, it builds 10x in coal fired... "
This is TOTALLY FALSE. It is really irresponsible to make such exaggeration. Read the next point.

c1ue @118 says: "In 2020, China brought 38.4 gigawatts of new coal-fired power into operation,..."
Firstly, some of these new coal stations are for replacing old stations. They are actually making the generation more efficient and less polluting with new technology. The net increase for coal-fired power is only 29 gigawatts, not 38. In fact, China coal consumption for power generation actually dropped 0.9% in 2020. Secondly, in 2020, China brought online 49 gigawatts of solar power, 71 gigawatts of wind power and 13 gigawatts of hydro-power capacity. Your claim that China "builds 10x in coal fired" is SO WRONG and out of proportion. Thirdly, a lot of this is to meet increasing electric demands in high speed rail and electric cars. Electric car powered by coal-station is actually more energy efficient than oil power car. Finally, you need to consider the huge afforestation by China that are capturing the emissions.

https://chinaenergyportal.org/en/2020-electricity-other-energy-statistics-preliminary/
Link in Chinese: https://www.hbzhan.com/news/detail/142353.html

c1ue @118 says: "Thus to say China is seeking to limit the emissions is 100% wrong."
Earlier, you made general claim that China emissions is dramatically increasing. I told you that is false because the increase has been slowing down in recent years. In fact, China's 2020 emission is lower than 2019. Now you are making another false claim that China is NOT seeking to limit emissions, based on a very partial info (coal) about China's energy sector.

Just one more example. China is reducing the production of cement and steel - two of the largest pollutor industries. In fact, China just announced it is reducing the tax rebate for steel export, i.e. China is fed up to subsidize the West's infrastructure building and auto industry with China's own emissions and still being criticized with false claims. You are going to see a lot, a lot more restructuring of China economy in the coming years and decades (if you still care). People just don't understand how much China's emissions are for the rest of the world.

c1ue @118 says: "China doesn't care if its nuclear, coal, natural gas, solar, wind, whatever..."
This is a another false claim. China's renewable energy is at 24.3% of total energy consumption in 2020, and the proportion is expected to increase. So it is not true to state that China "doesn't care" which types of energy it is consuming. China is also helping the world in research to lower the costs and increase the efficiency of solar panels, wind turbine, electric cars, etc. China already dominates the patents in renewable energy.

c1ue @118 says: "To say that the CCP is "green" is utterly ludicrous."
Why suddenly switch to use the party name "CCP" instead of "China". Is this some type of signaling? Most importantly, you are making too many assertions that are false and not based on facts. I already produces many links to prove the enormous and sweeping China's green efforts - unmatched in human history and the rest of the world combined - you just decided that they are "irrelevant". I just can't understand why a serious person will make so many false or un-informed assertions.

Posted by: d dan | Aug 13 2021 4:37 utc | 186

There Is No Will To Fight Climate Change

My suspicions are confirmed.

@Norwegian 19

The fact that this stuff comes up on a political blog shows that there is a political motive, it doesn't have any more to do with 'science' than 'covid', but it serves the same political purpose.

Perfectly put, right on target.

Posted by: candide | Aug 13 2021 4:43 utc | 187

james 179

I have liked growing a veggie garden the last couple of decades. Nothing like picking fresh salad and veg, but I can't eat much now and have lost a bit of interest.
the urban lifestyle? Every where I look people have got l;awns and ornamental and as they get old they have to pay somebody to mow the lawns they never walk on and prune the trees that grow nothing.
Everything I have planted is edible though my wife snuck in the odd flower.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Aug 13 2021 4:52 utc | 188

@Jackrabbit | Aug 12 2021 19:24 utc | 96

Does anyone really believe that policy should be swayed by the uncertainties of an ignorant, and hyper-propagandized public?


As in the covid propaganda you mean?

But the bottom line is that you either believe in democracy or you don't, Democracy requires a meaningful and open and free exchange of facts and views among people in general, scientists who are paid to produce the results their customers want and so on. But what we have now is a repressive system where you get banned for asking questions about the legitimacy of fantastical claims that is presented without verifiable evidence.

Climate 'science' is used as a tool by powerful people and is misrepresented as a scientific body. In Norway, the name used for IPCC is 'FNs klimapanel' ("The UN's climate panel") which is a blatant lie since the IPCC actually stands for InterGOVERNMENTal Panel for Climate Change. It is a cabal of governments who have put their heads together. With regular intervals they issue "Summary for policymakers" which sounds like as if it is a summary of scientific research, but in reality the policymakers write the summary and conclusions FIRST, then task the 'scientists' to produce the 'research' leading up to the already stated conclusions. The system could not be more corrupt.

Posted by: Norwegian | Aug 13 2021 4:55 utc | 189

DS @1:

"By comparison, U.S. per capita oil consumption in 2018 was 2.51 metric tons and China’s per capita oil consumption was 543 kilograms."

Posted by: Jörgen Hassler | Aug 13 2021 5:09 utc | 190

@TimmyB 78

The author is correct. There is no political will for averting catastrophic climate change and the horrors it will bring. We can point fingers at whoever we want, but nothing will be done in time for it to matter. The only thing we know is that it will be worse and sooner than most people have predicted...HORROR UPON HORROR!

LOL. Hi Greta!

Posted by: jimmy | Aug 13 2021 5:20 utc | 191

She Bear @ 163:

... If it's white people need to breed less and pollute less, well that's a loser. Look to Africa and and less developed worlds where all the people and pollution are. What is Kerry et al. suggesting that improve these countries' pollution? Other than us white people forking over big piles of money?

Erm, maybe if we rich countries didn't dump our pollution onto African and other poor countries in the first place, maybe there would be far less pollution ... but more people there than there already are since some of the pollution we export to the poor countries does kill people.

Exporting Pollution: Dumping Dirty Fuels and Vehicles in Africa

In the 1980s, Italy paid a Nigerian town $100 a month to store toxic waste—and it’s happening again

Philippines sends trash back to Canada after Duterte escalates row

Posted by: Jen | Aug 13 2021 5:32 utc | 192

# 173 She Bear

No wonder the borders are open for the meek replacement minions, who will be grateful for plumbing and rock-bottom wages.

Honestly, this seems a very implausible analysis of what would happen if the West's financial oligarchs were really stupid enough to kill off most of the people in the West who have been trained and conditioned over generations to believe the myths and propaganda that support and legitimize Western society. Do you actually believe that if most of the population of the West died, their replacements, from the Third World would long remain "meek replacement minions"? Those "minions" would quickly realize that they had the numbers to actually take power, and they would do so. Those Billionaires who you think would do this would quickly find themselves in a position not entirely unlike that the Roman elite were in as the barbarian Germanic tribes like the Goths, Franks and Vandals moved in and took power.

Posted by: Fnord13 | Aug 13 2021 5:34 utc | 193

@Rob | Aug 12 2021 21:26 utc | 119

Why would anyone support these banksters and world-class criminals in ANY of their criminal endeavors. The WHO and WEF are made up of eugenicists who are actively working to thin the herd. How about we focus on removing the human cancer in the world first, then talk about climate change. Officialdom lies every time they say anything. I wouldn't trust Klaus Schwab or Bill Gates to look after my cats much less tell us what needs to be done in the world.

Very well stated, many thanks. I don't know if you refer to cancer literally or as a metaphor, but if we take it to literally mean the cancer decease, you are entirely correct. There are several people in my family who have succumbed to cancer, and my closest remaining relative is fighting the fight as I write this. What has happened the last year is a deadly attack on me and my family, and the 'climate war' they have waged against us for 30 years with ever increasing hypocrisy is despicable.

Posted by: Norwegian | Aug 13 2021 6:04 utc | 194

@ Posted by: Deimetri | Aug 13 2021 2:47 utc | 168

That's why the solution is more, not less, technology.

--//--

@ Posted by: Norwegian | Aug 13 2021 4:55 utc | 186

Just because politicians manipulate science doesn't mean the science itself is invalid.

Posted by: vk | Aug 13 2021 6:08 utc | 195

@Rêver | Aug 12 2021 21:50 utc | 127

Much appreciated. Thank you to you as well!

Posted by: Norwegian | Aug 13 2021 6:09 utc | 196

Thorium is the answer to being carbon neutral.

https://www.livescience.com/china-creates-new-thorium-reactor.html

Posted by: jiri | Aug 13 2021 6:16 utc | 197

@c1ue #95

"The tired attempts to explain CO2 is the driver of climate are ridiculous."

Go and educate youself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6eywXdssMw

CO2 is one of the main driver of mean temperature increase and decrease. Or explain how with a sun getting warmer over the millions of years, the earth's mean temperature decreased during the Cenozoic.

Ignorance is not an argument.

Posted by: LibEgaFra | Aug 13 2021 6:30 utc | 198

@vk | Aug 12 2021 22:40 utc | 133

The original poster of this question highly implied to be referring to the carbon capture machine that was developed some years ago and was propagandized as a huge panacea at the time.

Below you will find a link to today's chief NATO puppet Jens Stoltenbergs New Year speech 2007 in his then capacity as Prime Minister (incidentally, the clip begins with zooming in on the building that was bombed 22. July 2011, the government's office)

Jens Stoltenbergs nyttårstale 2007

The nauseating speech is in Norwegian language and full of untruths, including claiming that the ozone layer was endangered, but saved by government intervention. The speech is relevant now because there he also announces what he called "Norway's Moon Landing", i.e. his government's plan for "carbon capture". He goes on to pump up the climate scare by referring to a warm autumn 2006 and that this is because of CO2. "We feel it every day now, the skis are not used and children are not making snowmen". This is the level of his utterances. "The scientists are warning that the polar bears are threatened" (the polar bear counts are increasing in the arctic). "Our vision is that we shall establish within 7 years the technology to enable cleansing of climate gasses". "When we succeed I believe the world will follow". "This is a big project for our country, this is our Moon Landing".

2012: Månelandingen har kostet 9,6 milliarder kroner ("The moon landing has cost 9.6 billon NOK")

14 years later climate alarmism is alive and well, so obviously this moon landing was a complete failure, except it succeeded wrt the real objective: enriching some oligarchs and companies using public money. And Stoltenberg himself was rewarded of course.

Posted by: Norwegian | Aug 13 2021 6:37 utc | 199

@Seer | Aug 12 2021 23:27 utc | 140

I've watched this debate for many decades now. Not until about 5 years ago, or so, has the notion of "growth" being other than good (by default) been brought up in discussions.

Unfortunately, that is utter BS. In 1972, the Club of Rome and fellow Malthusians issued a book called Limits to Growth, claiming the world was going to run out of crucial resources by the year 2000.

This stuff has been the bible for alarmists world wide for the last 50 years, not 5 years.

Posted by: Norwegian | Aug 13 2021 6:50 utc | 200

« previous page | next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.