Things are Starting to Heat Up - Part VIII 9

[dik]

thread1618-496010
thread1618-496614
thread1618-497017
thread1618-497239
thread1618-497988
thread1618-498967
thread1618-501135

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[hokie66]

Not us. We know a scam when we see it, but millions don't.

 

[dik]

Depends... we'll have to see how things turn out... like a marriage, for better or for worse.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

Yes, the "we'll see" approach is the safest. Any attempt to prevent or reverse climate change will be catastrophic to both the environment and the human race.

 

[dik]

and it may be catastrohpic if nothing is done... The longer we do nothing, the worse it may get, until there is no way to reverse it. We'll have to wait and see what happens.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

Please, wait and see. The only path to catastrophe is trying to do something.

 

[dik]

I don't agree... by doing nothing, it may make matters a lot worse.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[SwinnyGG]

Please, wait and see. The only path to catastrophe is trying to do something.

The logic behind this is absolutely wild. This is like seeing a train coming from 30 miles away and deciding you'll just park on the tracks anyway.

Consequences being far in the future is not a reason to do nothing.

I don't share Dik's sensationalist views about potential short term consequences of the current climate change trend - but it's an incontrovertible fact that fossils fuels have a finite life. Saying we should just sit on our hands is obtuse thinking of the highest degree.

 

[dik]

When you think of the potential consequences, they are not sensational.


...and the train is still coming, and the consequences, if they happen, may be delayed by a few decades/centuries. Just a 'blip' in geologic time.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[SwinnyGG]

they are not sensational

I respectfully disagree.

Your posts in this thread and others appear to indicate that you believe the worst possible scenario to be not just a possibility, but an abject certainty.

Tug's posts indicate the opposite extreme - that everything is fine, scientific claims that human activity has any impact on long term climate are categorically wrong, and we should just stick our heads in the sand.

My personal opinion that neither of you are taking anything resembling a rational approach to evaluating the information we have available to us. You're both sensationalizing the issue, from opposite ends of the political spectrum. The truth, as is almost always the case in issues like this that are heavily politicized, lives in a much more nuanced position somewhere in the middle.

 

[dik]

I'm generally pretty positive, but with climate change things could be real ugly. I'll be long gone when it happens...

When we were in grade school, we learned that dinosaurs went extinct because they only had a small brain. They managed to survive for hundreds of million years. The human race may not be that fortunate, albeit having a 'larger' brain. I don't know what is going to happen, but we may be on our way to it. Humans are as pernicious as cockroaches, so all may not be lost. Part of the problem may include civil unrest and geopolitical changes, I don't know... but, I've seen how a little Covid has affected society; imagine if things get worse.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[CWB1]

it's an incontrovertible fact that fossils fuels have a finite life. Saying we should just sit on our hands is obtuse thinking of the highest degree.

Not really. We have more oil reserves than at any point in history. More importantly, so what if we didnt? Without the eco-concerns there's no justification for govt to be interfering in many of the markets which they currently do. Scarcity and demand drive market changes, no need for govt to do so. And given the fact that any govt action costs major dollars and allows potential corruption, there is good reason to demand govt sit on their hands.

 

[SwinnyGG]

We have more oil reserves than at any point in history.

And higher consumption than any point in history, too - and that consumption is on a rapid upward trajectory, as it has been since the industrial revolution.

I'm definitely not a 'peak oil' whistleblower... but assuming that fossil fuel reserves are infinite is ignoring reality.

If we stopped discovering new oil reserves (and stopped exploring technology to extract oil from sources that aren't currently economically viable today) right now, in 50 years we would have zero. 50 years is not out of range for the lifetime of many, maybe the majority, on this forum - including me.

So yes, we'll keep finding more oil and as costs go up due to scarcity, currently known unviable sources will become viable. But the timelines we are talking about aren't a millenia away. On the time scale for which government should be making decisions, they're on the radar.

I have no great love for our government or any other national government - but you can't rely on private companies to move the technology forward. They don't care; oil costs going up are good for them. The governments of world economic powers - the US, the EU, China, Russia, etc - are the only entities with the financial resources and the long term duty to attempt to underwrite alternatives. It's the least of the several evils available to us.

 

[TugboatEng]

The logic behind this is absolutely wild. This is like seeing a train coming from 30 miles away and deciding you'll just park on the tracks anyway.

It's the logical response to the decarbonize at all costs even if it means increasing CO2 output side.

Tearing down and rebuilding 200 years worth of fossil fuels based infrastructure in 50 years using the 200 year old fossil fuel based infrastructure to do it seems so very illogical.

Until someone starts putting out real data on the carbon cost of decarbonization, it's probably safest to continue doing what we are doing

 

[SwinnyGG]

It's the logical response to the decarbonize at all costs even if it means increasing CO2 output side.

It might be, but no one is saying that... you're saying that they're saying it so you can justify your own argument in favor of doing nothing.

 

[BridgeSmith]

you can't rely on private companies to move the technology forward. They don't care; oil costs going up are good for them.

Why not? As the prices go up, the oil companies will have to adapt, with more efficient/economical extraction techniques, or by branching out into other, cheaper, sources of energy. If not, they will go out of business, as other energy sources become relatively cheaper. IOW, the consumer will drive the technology forward; the market will shift when scarity prices oil and other fossil fuels out of contention. It will happen naturally; no premature, heavy-handed government interference necessary.

 

[SwinnyGG]

It will happen naturally

Any speed bumps in this plan are absorbed by society at large. If the major oil companies were smart, they would be working to bring these technologies to maturity sooner, rather than attempting to stifle them- which is what they do now.

Why you think all of these capitalistic entities are going to suddenly become altruistic in the 11th hour a few decades from now is beyond me.

I'm heavily in favor of the free market generally - but there are times where the free market works against the public best interest, and it's in those times that the government has a duty to step in. This is one of those times.

 

[TugboatEng]

I don't think we should do nothing. I think our current approach with hard deadlines for decarbonization is worse than doing nothing.

For example, we could be phasing out conventional powerplants in favor of combined cycle. I can stand behind that. But building massive battery banks with no energy source to charge them seems like a step in the wrong direction.

 

[dik]

It's not working with hard deadlines, either. Nobody is following them. Nearly everyone has failed with the Paris accord, and haven't come close. If you don't have 'real' hard deadlines, no one will do anything if left up to themselves.

...and like Covid, what's a million or two fatalities, anyway?

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[Tomfh]

But building massive battery banks with no energy source to charge them seems like a step in the wrong direction.

Here in Australia we’re busy shutting down our coal generators, which are being “replaced” with “clean” batteries.

“Replacing” 2500MW continuous power sources with 700MW batteries that last for about 90 minutes…. No one has explained how any of this is supposed to work.

 

[hokie66]

I think we will only find out when the lights go out.