Solving Climate Change.

[Vitruvius]

If COP 26 (in the UK in October/November) follows the same pattern as the previous 25 such meetings, the biggest achievement will be the group photo! 25 years they've been meeting to discuss climate change - and we are still doomed. Why?

This is not a rhetorical question. It needn't be so. Technologically speaking, we could solve climate change - and if we'd started 25 years ago with that aim in mind, we'd be on top of it by now. However, IMO - because the right have stuck their head in the sand on climate change, the narrative has been dominated by left wing thought, based in Malthusian pessimism and limits to resources, feeding into anti-capitalist politics, and as a consequence - it seems, the idea of solving climate change has never even been considered. Every measure assumes we must back down, tax this, stop that, have less and pay more. This is absolutely the wrong approach.

The Malthusian prophecy of mass starvation, resulting from the disparity between geometric population growth and arithmetic agricultural development, was overcome through the development of new technologies - tractors and fertilizers. Food production has outpaced population growth through the application of technology. Technology multiplies resources - so how can there be a limit to resources? Apply the right technologies, and there is no inherent limit.

The earth is a big ball of molten rock - containing a virtually limitless amount of energy. If we harnessed that energy, we could extract carbon from the atmosphere and sequester it, produce limitless amounts of clean electricity, hydrogen fuel, desalinate water to irrigate land, recycle - it's not that complicated. Technologically, we could solve climate change. Why haven't we?

Come on, you know the answer to this!

Perhaps, but I don't think that pointing to the worst traits some human beings exhibit some of the time, explains anything.

Humans first and foremost fear death, thus they are selfish in their want to survive. They are largely lazy, believing that ease of physical activity, like not hunting and gathering, will extend their lives. Humans have been so far removed from their reality in nature, due to the promise of money, the so called ease of living, that they can't see the forest for the trees, lazy, they don't want to.

And thereafter you really build up some hateful momentum, before concluding with this:

If science doesn't lead the way, we're all lost in ignorance!

In science I found a place where I don't hate the world so much. In evolutionary terms our species is doing pretty well - considering we started naked in the wild with nothing but sticks and stones, and have built all this - despite how imperfect, it's a miracle. Long may it continue; and to that end, science is key. Looking at things in those terms first, there's an obvious series of technologies we need to develop and deploy on a global scale starting with magma energy, used to power carbon sequestration, desalination, irrigation, recycling etc - and we could live sustainably, prosperously, long term. That wold be ideal. We are far from the ideal. Why? Is it because we are bad people? No! It's a non-ideal relationship to science - leading to a misapplication of technology, leading to climate change. Understanding this, and in face of the universal threat climate change poses, we could adopt a scientific rationale in common to justify that which is necessary to sustainability - starting by developing magma energy as a global good, and attacking the climate and ecological crisis from the supply side.

[SpheresOfBalance]

If COP 26 (in the UK in October/November) follows the same pattern as the previous 25 such meetings, the biggest achievement will be the group photo! 25 years they've been meeting to discuss climate change - and we are still doomed. Why?

This is not a rhetorical question. It needn't be so. Technologically speaking, we could solve climate change - and if we'd started 25 years ago with that aim in mind, we'd be on top of it by now. However, IMO - because the right have stuck their head in the sand on climate change, the narrative has been dominated by left wing thought, based in Malthusian pessimism and limits to resources, feeding into anti-capitalist politics, and as a consequence - it seems, the idea of solving climate change has never even been considered. Every measure assumes we must back down, tax this, stop that, have less and pay more. This is absolutely the wrong approach.

The Malthusian prophecy of mass starvation, resulting from the disparity between geometric population growth and arithmetic agricultural development, was overcome through the development of new technologies - tractors and fertilizers. Food production has outpaced population growth through the application of technology. Technology multiplies resources - so how can there be a limit to resources? Apply the right technologies, and there is no inherent limit.

The earth is a big ball of molten rock - containing a virtually limitless amount of energy. If we harnessed that energy, we could extract carbon from the atmosphere and sequester it, produce limitless amounts of clean electricity, hydrogen fuel, desalinate water to irrigate land, recycle - it's not that complicated. Technologically, we could solve climate change. Why haven't we?

Come on, you know the answer to this!

Perhaps, but I don't think that pointing to the worst traits some human beings exhibit some of the time, explains anything.
Sure it does, Trump set America, thus largely the world back at least 4 years. And if the idiot repubs have their way he'll set it back another 4, at least. Stop sucking up to the crazy dictators that serve their own selfish agendas. What's the problem, do you waffle because you fear those fuckers? They deserve to be called worse.

Humans first and foremost fear death, thus they are selfish in their want to survive. They are largely lazy, believing that ease of physical activity, like not hunting and gathering, will extend their lives. Humans have been so far removed from their reality in nature, due to the promise of money, the so called ease of living, that they can't see the forest for the trees, lazy, they don't want to.

And thereafter you really build up some hateful momentum, before concluding with this:
Sure I'm pissed, that trump priçk has rocks in his head. All he knows is autoeroticism and megalomania.

If science doesn't lead the way, we're all lost in ignorance!

In science I found a place where I don't hate the world so much. In evolutionary terms our species is doing pretty well - considering we started naked in the wild with nothing but sticks and stones, and have built all this - despite how imperfect, it's a miracle. Long may it continue; and to that end, science is key. Looking at things in those terms first, there's an obvious series of technologies we need to develop and deploy on a global scale starting with magma energy, used to power carbon sequestration, desalination, irrigation, recycling etc - and we could live sustainably, prosperously, long term. That wold be ideal. We are far from the ideal. Why? Is it because we are bad people? No! It's a mistaken relationship to science leading to a misapplication of technology, leading to climate change. The world is imperfect; but understanding this error, we can adopt a scientific rationale in common, to justify that which is necessary to sustainability - starting by developing magma energy as a global good and attacking the climate and ecological crisis from the supply side. Why? Because otherwise people will suffer!

Get out of here. Your premises are invalid, you're confusing "that we can" with "what we should" be doing. Your conclusion "it's a miracle" is based upon the invalid premises: "naked in the wild with nothing but sticks and stones" relative to "pretty well" and "have built all this." But "pretty well" isn't good enough and "have built all this" includes pollution everywhere, cancers, global warming, deforestation, extinct species, disruption of required ecosystems, just to name the tip of the iceberg that sunk the unsinkable ship.

Thus It's your type of shit bag that ignores all the evils that men do, seeing it as acceptable collateral damage. Have you been drinking the Flint Michigan leaded water? Or how about the PFAS from DuPont's manufacture of Teflon. I actually owned a fry pan made with that shit, watching it magically disappear. "Where did it go," you might ask? But that's a fucking stupid question. Here dumb shit you appear to be thirsty and hungry, I have some water and fried food for you. Yeah that's what I thought!!! Not hungry, right?

You're marginalizing the shit that corporations and men do for the glittering prize like the crazed monkeys they are. The ends never justify the means when any lives are lost or damaged beyond repair to their original state. I have low blood oxygen due to 7 nasty chemicals I absorbed, doing my job, what I was ordered to do, too young to know it was an unlawful order, to know the implications/ramifications of said activity without proper protective gear. You can take your "unbridled progress" and stick it where the sun doesn't shine. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for tech, but we move far too fast, just for a buck. Proper studies cut far too short, thus innocents pay the price for your buck!

I don't know who the fuck you think you are, but I've been watching humankind for 63 years, soon to be 64 so I've been around the block quite a few times, actually around the world, visiting all kinds of cultures. You can't buffalo me, I'm far too wise for that crap, seen far to much of humankind fears and selfish unjust dealings.

Check out the Unethical human experimentation in the United States And I'm sure your country is guilty as well.

You're wrong to say that the bad is worth the good. Here, I have a spent nuclear reactor rod you can suck on! let me know when you're on your death bed, I'll bring flowers and gloat a bit, you can marginalize your death, it'll make you feel good. Of course I don't know how well your sense of smell, taste, hearing and sight will be with all that cancer that shall fill your head, or the state of your brain, for that matter. It's a bit different when you're the one whose life is being used up prematurely by a greedy venture capitalist, isn't it.

Sorry but you asked for it when you decided to marginalize the fucked part of humankind's reality. You should be ashamed of yourself for doing so.

It would seem you're not a scientist, but rather a fool!

There's no excuse for collateral damage, unless of course you want to volunteer?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Yeah, I Know, I'm an SoB!!! So be it!

[Vitruvius]

Get out of here. Your premises are invalid, you're confusing "that we can" with "what we should" be doing. Your conclusion "it's a miracle" is based upon the invalid premises: "naked in the wild with nothing but sticks and stones" relative to "pretty well" and "have built all this." But "pretty well" isn't good enough and "have built all this" includes pollution everywhere, cancers, global warming, deforestation, extinct species, disruption of required ecosystems, just to name the tip of the iceberg that sunk the unsinkable ship.

That would be a fairly elementary mistake to make, wouldn't it. Might it not be that I've dwelt upon the relationship between the ought and the is, and found justification in both terms?

Thus It's your type of shit bag that ignores all the evils that men do, seeing it as acceptable collateral damage.

There's a political element to my proposal - in that, I've tried to pitch it so as to tick a lot of boxes for the powers that be. I think it's the least disruptive, least expensive, most effective approach - only the possibility exists in the world beyond the reality defined by ideological entities and interests; as does climate change. It's the global commons. Developing magma energy as a global good would thus avoid a lot of conflicts of interest in sustainability. Approached inter-nationally, presuming politically difficult sacrifice is required, so seeking to attribute blame, there's a log jam, and I seek to move past all that. It's my hope that science can serve as a common rationale for the development of magma energy - which, I believe has the potential to secure a prosperous sustainable future. Future generations would at least have a chance. I think we owe them that chance, even if the world has been terribly unfair to us - it remains, scientifically, technologically and morally - the right thing to do.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Get out of here. Your premises are invalid, you're confusing "that we can" with "what we should" be doing. Your conclusion "it's a miracle" is based upon the invalid premises: "naked in the wild with nothing but sticks and stones" relative to "pretty well" and "have built all this." But "pretty well" isn't good enough and "have built all this" includes pollution everywhere, cancers, global warming, deforestation, extinct species, disruption of required ecosystems, just to name the tip of the iceberg that sunk the unsinkable ship.

That would be a fairly elementary mistake to make, wouldn't it. Might it not be that I've dwelt upon the relationship between the ought and the is, and found justification in both terms?
In this case, to accept the "is" is a cop-out, is lazy, is cowardly and a failure to be truly affecting positive change. To wrestle with the "ought" is ground breaking, staying fit, brave, and revolutionary deserving of a noble prize.

Thus It's your type of shit bag that ignores all the evils that men do, seeing it as acceptable collateral damage.

There's a political element to my proposal - in that, I've tried to pitch it so as to tick a lot of boxes for the powers that be. I think it's the least disruptive, least expensive, most effective approach - only the possibility exists in the world beyond the reality defined by ideological entities and interests; as does climate change. It's the global commons. Developing magma energy as a global good would thus avoid a lot of conflicts of interest in sustainability. Approached inter-nationally, presuming politically difficult sacrifice is required, so seeking to attribute blame, there's a log jam, and I seek to move past all that. It's my hope that science can serve as a common rationale for the development of magma energy - which, I believe has the potential to secure a prosperous sustainable future. Future generations would at least have a chance. I think we owe them that chance, even if the world has been terribly unfair to us - it remains, scientifically, technologically and morally - the right thing to do.
But what you seem to be missing is that the earths resources are finite, and our population is an explosion with no apparent end in sight. We're not even bridling it. On it's course humanity is not sustainable. It's far more intelligent to place all our tech into returning to older ways, where recycling and sustainability are the number one and two money making industries. Solar is the smartest choice for power generation as there's no chance of disturbing anything on earth which may be key to life. We've been raping it for far too long. And if we screw it up much more, it may extinguish all life as we know it. Our problem is that we never really take the time to know the reasons we shouldn't, as we fear our own personal timeline might not allow for our so called success, our ultimate payoff, our names in history books. Or in other words, a bunch of blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. As it all makes no difference to us when we're dead. We can't take it when we go. It's far better to take the slow road ensuring we have all our ducks in a row, so there's no room for error. Absolute certainty is the smartest choice.

[Vitruvius]

In this case, to accept the "is" is a cop-out, is lazy, is cowardly and a failure to be truly affecting positive change. To wrestle with the "ought" is ground breaking, staying fit, brave, and revolutionary deserving of a noble prize.

I disagree. Seeking to attribute blame offers no path to a sustainable future. We cannot change the past, but we can change the future.

But what you seem to be missing is that the earths resources are finite, and our population is an explosion with no apparent end in sight. We're not even bridling it. On it's course humanity is not sustainable. It's far more intelligent to place all our tech into returning to older ways, where recycling and sustainability are the number one and two money making industries. Solar is the smartest choice for power generation as there's no chance of disturbing anything on earth which may be key to life. We've been raping it for far too long. And if we screw it up much more, it may extinguish all life as we know it. Our problem is that we never really take the time to know the reasons we shouldn't, as we fear our own personal timeline might not allow for our so called success, our ultimate payoff, our names in history books. Or in other words, a bunch of blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. As it all makes no difference to us when we're dead. We can't take it when we go. It's far better to take the slow road ensuring we have all our ducks in a row, so there's no room for error. Absolute certainty is the smartest choice.

You quoted the OP - did you not read it? There is no over population, and no inherent limit to resources if we apply the right technology. Solar is not the right technology, as it can never meet our energy needs, less yet exceed current energy demand - and so provide excess energy to sequester carbon, desalinate, irrigate, recycle. Solar can only ever prevent some small part of GHG emissions - and to do so requires a lot of infrastructure, not just square mile after mile of solar panels, but also energy storage infrastructure. Because solar is inconstant, you need to store that energy, and even then, still require fossil fuel back up generating capacity. Solar panels use toxic metals in their manufacture, last 25 years, and then are impossible to recycle and expensive to replace.

Magma energy, I believe - does have the potential to meet and exceed current energy demand from clean energy, and used to sequester carbon, desalinate, irrigate and recycle, multiplies resources - in much the same way the invention of tractors and fertilizers allowed food production to outpace population growth, and so prove the Malthusian prophecy wrong. Limits to growth is the same false prophecy. It's not necessarily so. As a matter of physical fact, resources are a function of the energy available to create them, and there's a virtually limitless source of energy in the molten interior of the earth. It seems technologically feasible to tap into that energy on a very large scale. Thus I submit, that's what we 'ought' to do; put aside the blame game, and apply the right technologies.

Otherwise, seeking to attribute blame, the fact that America consumes a lot of energy per person, for example, while China has a very large population, immediately stalls any progress. They can't even agree on the basis on which 'responsibility' should be attributed, but if you want to keep working on a Gordian knot that hasn't been untangled in 25 previous COPS, keep at it. Meanwhile - I think we can do an end run around all those huge, diametrically opposed, stalemated forces, by developing magma energy as a global good, specifically to address the climate and ecological crisis - and thus, make environmental gains without attributing blame, and without undermining economic prosperity. Attacking the climate and ecological crisis from the supply side does not imply a long series of costly, politically painful impositions upon society. Solar does, and that's why for you, it's about blame!

[Vitruvius]

"The world will soon face “catastrophe” from climate breakdown if urgent action is not taken, the British president of vital UN climate talks has warned.

"I don't think there's any other word for it," he said. "You're seeing on a daily basis what is happening across the world. Last year was the hottest on record, the last decade the hottest decade on record. We're seeing the impacts across the world - in the UK or the terrible flooding we've seen across Europe and China, or forest fires, the record temperatures that we've seen in North America. Every day you will see a new high being recorded in one way or another across the world.

... But Sharma also insisted the UK could carry on with fossil-fuel projects, in the face of mounting criticism of plans to license new oil and gas fields."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... mate-chief

[Vitruvius]

"Coming just before COP26, this report is a massive wake-up call to all those governments that have not yet put forward realistic plans to cut emissions over the next decade. It will show that choices made now have a big effect on our future - leading to a runaway world of wild weather impacts and incalculable risks at one end, and at the other a future where climate change is constrained within manageable bounds."

[Walker]

The theory and fear don't stand up to cost/benefit analysis.

The scientific consensus is that all the efforts of man won't have a significant long-term effect on the climate.

Mitigation of climate rather than ineffectual attempts to change climate has been and is the customary course of human action since humans have been around.

No need to panic. Just get a fan if it's too hot, and wear a coat if it's too cold. Move away from tornado alley and don't build on barrier islands.

Mitigation.

We could even speculate and say, what's delaying the next Ice Age?

[Dontaskme]

Everything is changing. Including weather.

Life for sentient feeling entities is a train wreck.

That or it's a train wreck waiting to happen.

No one gets out of here alive.

Acceptance is the key.

[Vitruvius]

The theory and fear don't stand up to cost/benefit analysis. The scientific consensus is that all the efforts of man won't have a significant long-term effect on the climate. Mitigation of climate rather than ineffectual attempts to change climate has been and is the customary course of human action since humans have been around. No need to panic. Just get a fan if it's too hot, and wear a coat if it's too cold. Move away from tornado alley and don't build on barrier islands. Mitigation. We could even speculate and say, what's delaying the next Ice Age?

Thank you for your post. Your wrongness about everything provides me enormous opportunity to be right. I bet this is what it was like in the early days of philosophy, when making some blindingly obvious statement like "society flourishes best when old men plant tress in the shade of which they'll never sit" was considered great wisdom!

The approach to climate change I favour withstands a cost benefit analysis - and not just because the cost of ignoring climate change is...well, everything! Harnessing magma energy as a global good and attacking climate change from the supply side, does not imply disrupting economic activity to achieve environmental benefits. I estimate magma energy can meet and exceed global energy demand from clean energy, such that, we could have net zero worldwide by 2045, and be carbon negative thereafter - without crushing impositions upon society!

Thereafter, the prosperity limitless clean energy could provide for is potentially infinite. Imagine the wastelands that could be developed for agriculture and habitation, giving value to that land via the productive activity taking place there. Beyond the earth - one space rock, currently heading towards earth, contains enough precious metals to make everyone on earth a billionaire. And you'd throw all that away to keep pumping oil - and while California is ablaze end to end, you'd tell people: "get a fan if it's too hot!"

Thanks for being that wrong - it creates a very flattering contrast!

[Vitruvius]

Everything is changing. Including weather.

Including the kind of energy we use?

Life for sentient feeling entities is a train wreck.

That or it's a train wreck waiting to happen.

No one gets out of here alive.

Acceptance is the key.

Mortal beings die, but the human species need not, and that's the point. This isn't about me, or you - it's about belonging to a species with a future, if only because, otherwise, everything is pointless and masturbatory.

[Vitruvius]

The BMW Hydrogen 7 is a limited production hydrogen internal combustion engine vehicle built from 2005-2007 by German automobile manufacturer BMW. The car is based on BMW’s traditional gasoline-powered BMW 7 Series (E65) line of vehicles, and more specifically the 760Li. Unlike many other current hydrogen powered vehicles like those being produced by Hyundai, Honda, General Motors, and Daimler AG – which use fuel cell technology and hydrogen to produce electricity to power the vehicle – the BMW Hydrogen 7 burns the hydrogen in an internal combustion engine. 0-100 km/h 9.5 seconds - top speed 143 mph (230 km/h) (limited electronically.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_Hydrogen_7

[Sculptor]

The BMW Hydrogen 7 is a limited production hydrogen internal combustion engine vehicle built from 2005-2007 by German automobile manufacturer BMW. The car is based on BMW’s traditional gasoline-powered BMW 7 Series (E65) line of vehicles, and more specifically the 760Li. Unlike many other current hydrogen powered vehicles like those being produced by Hyundai, Honda, General Motors, and Daimler AG – which use fuel cell technology and hydrogen to produce electricity to power the vehicle – the BMW Hydrogen 7 burns the hydrogen in an internal combustion engine. 0-100 km/h 9.5 seconds - top speed 143 mph (230 km/h) (limited electronically.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_Hydrogen_7

Welcome the the next chapter is global warming.
Yet another dinosaur from the BMW factory that will destroy the planet.
It demonstrates that lessons have not been learned and that this is little more than a publicity stunt.
Why would you want a car to do 143 mph in a country limited to 55mph?

[Sculptor]

"Coming just before COP26, this report is a massive wake-up call to all those governments that have not yet put forward realistic plans to cut emissions over the next decade. It will show that choices made now have a big effect on our future - leading to a runaway world of wild weather impacts and incalculable risks at one end, and at the other a future where climate change is constrained within manageable bounds."

That graph is fake for three reasons.
1) it is not possible to determine a global temperature. The earth does not possess an arsehole where you can shove a thermometer.
2) Even if it were possible to determine a global temperature one thing is for sure the people in the 19thC when the graph goes back to, did not measure that temperature in the same way.
3) The different coloured lines implies that different sources are used to determine the levels, but in effect they are all feeding off each other.

Without information about what the graph means; how it was sourced; and what it ignores; it is next to useless