Should We Just Adapt to Climate Change?

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 3:44 PM GMT on February 17, 2013

Share this Blog
26
+

Should We Just Adapt to Climate Change?

I have been invited to contribute a piece to Zocalo Public Square for an event next week in Culver City, California. It is called Should We Just Adapt to Climate Change? If you are local, then it looks like an interesting event to attend with good people. To get more idea of the event from a previous event see Lost in Space. My piece is focused on California, but you will get the picture.

Should We Just Adapt to Climate Change?

The Earth is warming, sea levels are rising, and the weather is changing. We know that the Earth has warmed and will continue to warm due to the carbon dioxide we are releasing into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels—and the warming is and will be disruptive. Five years ago the talk was “if” we limited the increase in the average surface temperature of the Earth to 2 degrees Celsius, then we would avoid “dangerous” climate change. It is now quite obvious that we see large, consequential, and disruptive changes with even less warming—for example in the melting of the Arctic Sea ice. The commitments the world has made have us on a path toward 3.5 degrees of warming or more. If we burn all our fossil fuels, the warming will be much greater.

We have no choice but to adapt to this warming world. We have adapted to changes in the climate for the past 10,000 years—it is something we do. Now, scientific investigation has given us a vision of the future that is credible and actionable. This is unprecedented in history, and it gives us the opportunity to take responsibility and plan to adapt. We know that the Earth will warm; we know it will warm fast. We also know that the weather will change, and when the weather changes the way rain and snow are distributed will be different.

To take advantage of this knowledge, we need to think through scenarios of what will happen to real places. We need to look at the impact of rising sea level on the Sacramento River Delta. We need to focus on how much water is stored in the snowpack of the Sierra Nevada and drought impacts on the forests, grasslands, and rangelands. We must move away from sweeping statements about more droughts and greater floods and instead play out the scenario and the cost of this warmer world to Culver City, California, to the people of California, and to the people of the United States. Then we can decide whether to build sea walls or move inland, rather than patching different strategies together as fragmented responses of emergency management.

Should we just adapt—and not worry about our continued emissions of our energy waste into the atmosphere, ocean, and land? What would be adapt to? We started talking about the “new normal” when we calculated, in 2011, the 30-year average of temperatures from 1981 to 2010, and a new, warmer average “replaced” the 30-year average of some earlier period. In 10 more years we will have the next warmer “climate,” then the next, and the next—the “next normals.” There is no new normal. And the warming will be speeding up. There is no “just adapting” to this; there is no stable climate to adapt to. We must manage and limit our carbon dioxide waste or we will still be chasing the “new normal” in a thousand years.

It won’t just be getting warmer. Ecosystems will have to adapt far faster than they did in the past 10,000 years. The trees of California will die from hot, dry weather. Intrusion of the sea into the Sacramento Delta will make Katrina in New Orleans seem like a quaint artifact of the “old normal.” The accelerated release of methane and carbon dioxide as the Arctic melts will accelerate the warming. The oceans will become acidic, and there will be vast changes to phytoplankton and zooplankton. The oceans will become warm and will release the carbon dioxide we take comfort in their storing. There is no “just adapting.” We will be required to adapt, and the rate of change will make adaptation ever more challenging. We need both aggressive reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate the future changes, and we need aggressive adaptation to cope with the changes already occurring and those that are in store.

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 132 - 82

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog Index

Quoting jgehb:
Regarding "climate change", "global warming", etc - go to youtube and search on "Weather Channel founder discusses global warming and Al Gore". You should get a "hit" on youtube for that very thing. Click on that link and you will watch John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel, do an excellent job exposing "global warming" and "climate change" for the FRAUD it is. Mr Coleman points out that he and the 30,000 plus scientists (9,000 with PHDs) who signed up to debunk "global warming" and "climate change" cannot get Al and the scientists who are pushing "global warming" and "climate change" to have a debate. Mr. Gore and the scientists backing him over at the UNIPCC are scared to death to have that debate, claiming the debate has been settled when the debate never took place.

Interesting. A google search led me to Snopes -- Link -- who said this:

Origins: John Coleman is a meteorologist who currently works as a weathercaster at station KUSI-TV in San Diego, California, and was the founder of the Weather Channel (with which he is no longer affiliated). Coleman has been an outspoken critic on the subject of global warming, labeling it "the greatest scam in history" and "a fictional, manufactured crisis." The text reproduced above is a transcript of speech he gave in that vein before the San Diego Chamber of Commerce in 2008.
Although the words are Coleman's, the statement that they "refute" global warming (i.e., prove it to be false) is an exaggeration. Critics of Coleman have produced detailed rebuttals of his arguments against global warming.

Here's the link to the one of the detailed rebuttals: Link

I'm reasonably certain you won't followup on any of this, but there may be some readers who will learn something. Cheers.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2369
Quoting jgehb:


Ah yes, one of the many scared to have that debate out in the open where they will be exposed for pushing a fraudulent agenda! If you are so convinced you are right, then answer the call by having that debate Mr. Coleman and the 30,000 plus scientists, 9,000 with PHDs, want to have! lol
Oh, dear me; the Oregon Petition raises its ugly head again.

News flash: it's been debunked. Numerous times.

Read up...

Read some more...

Then read some more...

Then, read just a little bit more...

Then come back here and tell us what you found. But don't be surprised if no one wants to "debate" about it; you won't find anyone here who wants to "debate" you about the existence of Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, either.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13526
130. jgehb
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Here is a thought. Instead of you lounging around all day and watching YouTube videos that stroke your ideology based thoughts, why not try learning a little science for yourself and then get back to us afterwards?
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Here is a thought. Instead of you lounging around all day and watching YouTube videos that stroke your ideology based thoughts, why not try learning a little science for yourself and then get back to us afterwards?


Ah yes, one of the many scared to have that debate out in the open where they will be exposed for pushing a fraudulent agenda! If you are so convinced you are right, then answer the call by having that debate Mr. Coleman and the 30,000 plus scientists, 9,000 with PHDs, want to have! lol
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:

You should be more worried about what they eat and drink and where it's going to come from.

Very good point.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2369
Quoting jgehb:
Regarding "climate change", "global warming", etc - go to youtube and search on "Weather Channel founder discusses global warming and Al Gore". You should get a "hit" on youtube for that very thing. Click on that link and you will watch John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel, do an excellent job exposing "global warming" and "climate change" for the FRAUD it is. Mr Coleman points out that he and the 30,000 plus scientists (9,000 with PHDs) who signed up to debunk "global warming" and "climate change" cannot get Al and the scientists who are pushing "global warming" and "climate change" to have a debate. Mr. Gore and the scientists backing him over at the UNIPCC are scared to death to have that debate, claiming the debate has been settled when the debate never took place.


Here is a thought. Instead of you lounging around all day and watching YouTube videos that stroke your ideology based thoughts, why not try learning a little science for yourself and then get back to us afterwards?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
127. jgehb
Regarding "climate change", "global warming", etc - go to youtube and search on "Weather Channel founder discusses global warming and Al Gore". You should get a "hit" on youtube for that very thing. Click on that link and you will watch John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel, do an excellent job exposing "global warming" and "climate change" for the FRAUD it is. Mr Coleman points out that he and the 30,000 plus scientists (9,000 with PHDs) who signed up to debunk "global warming" and "climate change" cannot get Al and the scientists who are pushing "global warming" and "climate change" to have a debate. Mr. Gore and the scientists backing him over at the UNIPCC are scared to death to have that debate, claiming the debate has been settled when the debate never took place.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting FLwolverine:
After reading Dr Rood's blogs for awhile, and then after watching the video posted on Dr. Master's blog (by Keeperofthegate, I think) about the melting Greenland ice sheet, I thought: Jeez, I wonder where I should buy land for my grandkids to go to in 20 years. Now, that may have been sort of facetious (and maybe a trifle shallow?), but I did start to wonder what kinds of projections have been made about the effect of climate change on various parts of the earth. Is there any place humanity could start to migrate to as weather patterns and growing seasons change and sea levels rise? It's apparently not a simple matter of moving north (as people moved south in "Day After Tomorrow"). What about moving up - as into the Rocky Mountains or the Himalayas or the Andes?

And I do realize there will be a problem - a very big problem - of competition for any such space that might be available.

I am really very pessimistic about the future of this planet. Maybe I'm just looking for a sliver of hope for the short term.

You should be more worried about what they eat and drink and where it's going to come from.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
After reading Dr Rood's blogs for awhile, and then after watching the video posted on Dr. Master's blog (by Keeperofthegate, I think) about the melting Greenland ice sheet, I thought: Jeez, I wonder where I should buy land for my grandkids to go to in 20 years. Now, that may have been sort of facetious (and maybe a trifle shallow?), but I did start to wonder what kinds of projections have been made about the effect of climate change on various parts of the earth. Is there any place humanity could start to migrate to as weather patterns and growing seasons change and sea levels rise? It's apparently not a simple matter of moving north (as people moved south in "Day After Tomorrow"). What about moving up - as into the Rocky Mountains or the Himalayas or the Andes?

And I do realize there will be a problem - a very big problem - of competition for any such space that might be available.

I am really very pessimistic about the future of this planet. Maybe I'm just looking for a sliver of hope for the short term.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2369
Quoting nymore:
I am not nit picking, we know the problems from fossil fuels, we know the problems with nukes, we know the problems with hydro, we know the problems with geo thermal, is it not fair we should know the problems with solar. So far wind seems to have the fewest problems with it as far as I know other than killing birds and the annoying sounds for those that live near it.


See, a typical response: which kills more birds, oil or wind? Helpful hint, it starts with an 'O'. Annoying sounds? Jesus, do you have any idea how much noise an ICE makes?

But more to the point, if those are the only problems with wind, then effing ell, you should be in love with wind. But somehow, you can't just say we should switch, you always bring up a problem or something.

Here are two good financial reasons to dump every last cent we have right now into switching over as soon as possible:

C02 will destroy the world. If you think upgrading the infrastructure costs now, imagine paying for it on an emergency basis.

We either develop the technology and sell it or someone else will sell it to us.

On that last point, I am guessing it will be the Chinese, based on a extremely casual glance at the names on publications at most conferences lately, not to mention the number of new Universities and Journals being created every year in China. They aren't even bothering to publish in English anymore.

So sit here and make weak sloppy vague points like a typical new conservative gOP asking for handouts from our parent's generation. In fact that is a good analogy for the current crop of gOP: they are like the spoiled brat children of a parent who made a fortune. They learned the ideology in school that justifies why they should be rich but they have no effing clue how to actually do anything themselves (the analogy is about building a nation not a personal business, in case you missed the analogy). So sit here an continue your mushy attempt to damn with faint praise wind or solar while just wishing it was just a bit more reasonable (maybe next year, eh?) ... and effectively contribute to blocking things from being done in the US.

While you are sitting on your shill buttox, gleefully congratulation yourself on sounding so reasonable in disparaging wind and solar, here are the first few hits from google for people who actually care about America (and the world) (20 seconds of research, mind you, something you could have done easily):

"CHINA ALREADY DOMINATES IN SOLAR panel production and manufacturing. Now it is honing the efficiency of these processes and taking aim at basic research, too.

A prime example of this move is the Applied Materials Solar Technology Center in Xi'an.

The center, which opened last year, conducts reliability testing and solar research and development. %u201COur goal is to expand the depth of R&D and breadth of products that we will develop,%u201D said Ruiping Wang, general manager of the center.

The choice of location for the center was strategic. Xi'an is in the Shaanxi province in northwest China. The province includes more than 40 colleges and universities and Xi'an is recognized as one of the leading high-technology research areas in the country."





Chinese companies have played an important role in solar panels manufacturing in recent years. China produced solar cells/modules with an output of 13 GW in 2010 which represents about half of the global production and makes China the largest producer in the world.[60] Some Chinese companies such as Suntech Power, Yingli, LDK Solar Co, JA Solar and ReneSola have already announced projects in cooperation with regional governments with hundreds of megawatts each after the "Golden Sun" incentive program was announced by the government.[61]





China's Solar Master Plan Sets Production, Efficiency and Price Goals

China has made it clear that it wants to add solar energy generation at a fast pace, so it's not surprising that the government also has big plans to boost solar manufacturing. In fact, China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology posted a plan Friday that calls for certain polysilicon producers to reach 50,000 tons of annual production capacity by 2015; it also wants solar cell and panel makers to reach 5 gigawatts of annual capacity by the same time frame.





Chinese billionaire's vision: Solar power 24/7
Dr. Shi of Suntech aims to create worldwide green energy grid that would supply the world with round the clock solar power
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Tunnels yet Dr. Masters and Dr. Rood?


Link






......
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
OUCH....



Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting OldLeatherneck:

[...] Keeping in mind that extensive droughts will threaten ground water sources and excessive heat will warm bodies of surface water.

Extensive drought is a factor many forget when they advocating nuclear power as a solution.

From The Huffington Post/Green:

Nuclear Energy: Toxic, Expensive and Not Carbon Neutral

by John DeCock

[...]

Water, water you need and use, is degraded and poisoned by the fuel cycle for a nuclear power plant. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists water is used to absorb wasted energy which is generated as heat. For every three units of energy produced by the reactor core of a U.S. nuclear power plant, two units are discharged to the environment as waste heat. The impacts on the bodies of water next which most plants are located is considerable. From UCS's excellent report "Got Water? Nuclear Power Plant Cooling Water Needs":

"Nuclear power plants, whether using once-through or closed-cycle cooling, withdraw large amounts of water from nearby lakes, rivers, and oceans. In doing so, aquatic life is adversely affected. A 2005 study, for example, of impacts from 11 coastal power plants in Southern California estimated that the San Onofre nuclear plant impinged nearly 3.5 million fish in 2003 alone - about 32 times more fish than the other 10 plants combined. Untold numbers of fish larvae and other life entrained in the water do not survive journeys through nuclear power plants. The more water the plants use, the more aquatic life we lose."

And by "large amounts" we mean 500,000 to more than 1,000,000 gallons of water per minute when the plant is in operation. That's a lot of water any way you look at it. But look at it in the context of drought, increasing demands for agriculture, development and drinking water and you start to see the scale of the problem.

Uranium mining makes extensive use of water to leach the uranium out of the ore through a chemical process. The water used in that process is discharged back into the environment. For those who do the work of mining, milling, converting and enriching the uranium, there is a greatly increased risk of lung cancer and other disease due to exposure in every step of the process."

[...]

Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
This will be one of my only posts regarding nuclear power. The last few pages of comments have clearly demonstrated the risks associated with nuclear power as well as the perceived benefits. While not an advocate for aggressive proliferation of nuclear power, I'm willing to accept some limited expansion of nuclear power as I believe it may be part of the mix, along with renewables, to meet any goal to reduce CO2 emissions. However, I would stipulate the following limitations on the location of future nuclear power plants:

1. Locate them far enough away from known major fault lines, so as to withstand a 9.0 earthquake.

2. Locate them far enough from endangered coastlines so that 40-50 ft. storm surges and/or tsunamis are not a threat.

3. Locate them close enough to an abundant, non-threatened source of cooling water. Keeping in mind that extensive droughts will threaten ground water sources and excessive heat will warm bodies of surface water.

Full Disclosure: We are very close friends of the owners of one of the largest privately held uranium producing companies in the State of Texas. However, we have NO financial stake in their operation.
Member Since: May 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 180
eh, you're ultimately replying to someone who coughs up fake pictures in order to denigrate people who believe in climate change. what's the point of arguing with a known liar?

Quoting Neapolitan:
Here, I've crudely brought the graph approximately up-to-date (crudely, as it's not worth more than the 45 seconds it took me to do it):

co2
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:
I personally don't care where the power comes from to light, heat or cool my home, I also do not care how my truck is powered as long as it can do what it does now. I am all for using whatever resource you have, I have never said ban anything so I am not sure why you would bring that up.

The infrastructure problem can be overcome with enough cash, there is no question about that. The energy storage problem is one we have found no solution for even after trying for decades. As I have pointed out the group who solves this problem will be very very rich. This is the type of problem companies as well as venture capitalists would love to be the first to solve. If you for one second think people are not dumping a lot of resources into the problem you would be mistaken.

Pumped-storage hydroelectricity

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:
I personally don't care where the power comes from to light, heat or cool my home, I also do not care how my truck is powered as long as it can do what it does now. I am all for using whatever resource you have, I have never said ban anything so I am not sure why you would bring that up.

The infrastructure problem can be overcome with enough cash, there is no question about that. The energy storage problem is one we have found no solution for even after trying for decades. As I have pointed out the group who solves this problem will be very very rich. This is the type of problem companies as well as venture capitalists would love to be the first to solve. If you for one second think people are not dumping a lot of resources into the problem you would be mistaken.


I was only making a facetious comment about a cat ban, but I digress.

You want answers? Here's one: Take half of the money invested in searching for new fossil fuel reserves away, and invest that into R&D for battery storage capacities. Presto! Storage capacity within a decade or so. Money greases every wheel, surely you can get behind that.

But we can't forget- the political and social will just isn't in support of my idea, just as displayed in your own statement "I personally don't care where the power comes from to light, heat or cool my home, I also do not care how my truck is powered as long as it can do what it does now." If you don't care, you will not work for change. You will cling to the easy status quo.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
As the saying goes, an oil spill is disastrous, and a nuclear leak can be catastrophic. On the other hand, a wind "spill" is called a breeze, and a solar "spill" is a bright and sunny day.

Those are things that need to be included in any comparative analysis of energy-generation methods, but so seldom are.



And the gulftream Kinetic Energy can restore Northern summertime Arctic Ice..
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting Astrometeor:


Something very tragic would have to happen for there to be a leak. Engineers think this through.
Absolutely - engineers never make mistakes! Or do they?

LINK
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1446
Quoting nymore:
I have said lets get off fossil fuels. I have even proposed places to start and even mentioned how solar and wind have their place. Now you love to spout how much you know about everything. Let us hear how you think we are going to do it. What will the price be, how much time will it take, how will we store the energy from solar and wind when they are not working which is most of the time. I know you are against nukes and fossil fuels so I would love to hear your solutions and the good and bad side of your proposals. I have been here awhile and so far you have not taken part in any conversation discussing solutions, just conversations in fear mongering.
Calm down, please. We're just having a discussion.

Now, I am not "against" nuclear, nor am I "against" fossil fuels. Conservatives live in a black and white world, a binary world that sees things as all good or all bad. I don't live in that world; I live in a world of nuance and subtlety, where things can be mostly good and partly bad, or mostly bad and partly good, and everywhere in between. Now, because of the extreme damage they're doing, I see fossil fuels as mostly bad and partly good. On the other hand, I see wind and solar as mostly good and partly bad.

Can you understand that?

Anyway, to answer your questions:

"What will the price be?"

Vastly less than the costs of cleaning up the catastrophic damage caused by fossil fuel-induce climate change.

"How much time will it take?"

An eternity so long as dark money providers like the treasonous Kochs keep paying professional liars like Anthony Watts to spread untruths, and so long as gullible people believe those liars. Decades if those liars are silenced and normal processes and procedures are followed. Years if the issue is given the Moon landing, Manhattan Project-type attention it deserves.

"How will we store the energy from solar and wind when they are not working which is most of the time?"

Why, better battery (and other storage) technology. Technology that we might very well have if, say, some of the tens of millions of dollars spent every year by those dark money groups went to R&D; technology we might be close to having if the US government would stop giving billions in tax breaks to corporations in the most profitable industry the world has ever known.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13526
Quoting goosegirl1:


I have done mist netting for some of the bird kill studies for a wind farm near Parsons, WV. We were determining what species were present, and what would be most at risk. As you might guess, migrating waterfowl are at great risk, due to relatively slower and lower flight patterns, but the risks to birds and bats are actually minimal. Cats kill more birds than windmills do, and I haven't heard of a ban on those yet.

Here's more info: Link

I think that the problem is not in the infrastructure or storage of power- those can be overcome with the right engineers and the right funding. The problem is in political and social will.
I personally don't care where the power comes from to light, heat or cool my home, I also do not care how my truck is powered as long as it can do what it does now. I am all for using whatever resource you have, I have never said ban anything so I am not sure why you would bring that up.

The infrastructure problem can be overcome with enough cash, there is no question about that. The energy storage problem is one we have found no solution for even after trying for decades. As I have pointed out the group who solves this problem will be very very rich. This is the type of problem companies as well as venture capitalists would love to be the first to solve. If you for one second think people are not dumping a lot of resources into the problem you would be mistaken.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting nymore:
I am not nit picking, we know the problems from fossil fuels, we know the problems with nukes, we know the problems with hydro, we know the problems with geo thermal, is it not fair we should know the problems with solar. So far wind seems to have the fewest problems with it as far as I know other than killing birds and the annoying sounds for those that live near it.


I have done mist netting for some of the bird kill studies for a wind farm near Parsons, WV. We were determining what species were present, and what would be most at risk. As you might guess, migrating waterfowl are at great risk, due to relatively slower and lower flight patterns, but the risks to birds and bats are actually minimal. Cats kill more birds than windmills do, and I haven't heard of a ban on those yet.

Here's more info: Link

I think that the problem is not in the infrastructure or storage of power- those can be overcome with the right engineers and the right funding. The problem is in political and social will.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


The best way to start getting us off of fossil fuels and move us towards renewable energy sources is to quit nit picking every aspect of renewable energy sources that are not perfect. We are not looking for perfection, at the moment. We are looking at being able to sustain our economies long after fossil fuels have become too cost prohibitive to fuel our economies. Everything has an associated cost attached to it. Even IF moving to renewable energy sources has economic costs that slows our economies for a period of time, we can rebuild our economies after the renewable energy sources are in place that will sustain economic growth. If you want assured economic collapse then all you have to do is to fight to keep us on fossil fuels for longer than fossil fuels can support economic growth. Judging by what we are paying for fossil fuels now, we have nearly reached that point of no return, and on every level that you could imagine.
I am not nit picking, we know the problems from fossil fuels, we know the problems with nukes, we know the problems with hydro, we know the problems with geo thermal, is it not fair we should know the problems with solar. So far wind seems to have the fewest problems with it as far as I know other than killing birds and the annoying sounds for those that live near it.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting Neapolitan:
Or maybe you're right: perhaps we should just throw up our hands and declare solar and wind as too hard, and continue burning fossil fuels, keeping our fingers crossed that all those pesky scientists are wrong and that nothing bad will ever ever ever ever happen to us.

If you think raising the cost of fossil fuels is going to lead to economic collapse, wait until you see what climate change is going to do not too many years from now. You'll wish higher prices were the worst problem we faced...
I have said lets get off fossil fuels. I have even proposed places to start and even mentioned how solar and wind have their place. Now you love to spout how much you know about everything. Let us hear how you think we are going to do it. What will the price be, how much time will it take, how will we store the energy from solar and wind when they are not working which is most of the time. I know you are against nukes and fossil fuels so I would love to hear your solutions and the good and bad side of your proposals. I have been here awhile and so far you have not taken part in any conversation discussing solutions, just conversations in fear mongering.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting nymore:
Maybe your right and we should bring no new supplies on line and hasten our economic collapse.
Or maybe you're right: perhaps we should just throw up our hands and declare solar and wind as too hard, and continue burning fossil fuels, keeping our fingers crossed that all those pesky scientists are wrong and that nothing bad will ever ever ever ever happen to us.

If you think raising the cost of fossil fuels is going to lead to economic collapse, wait until you see what climate change is going to do not too many years from now. You'll wish higher prices were the worst problem we faced...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13526
Quoting nymore:
Once again, I have said over and over and over. I am all for getting off of fossil fuels. Now we have to ask how this can be accomplished with what we have now and not also break the bank. Maybe your right and we should bring no new supplies on line and hasten our economic collapse.


The best way to start getting us off of fossil fuels and move us towards renewable energy sources is to quit nit picking every aspect of renewable energy sources that are not perfect. We are not looking for perfection, at the moment. We are looking at being able to sustain our economies long after fossil fuels have become too cost prohibitive to fuel our economies. Everything has an associated cost attached to it. Even IF moving to renewable energy sources has economic costs that slows our economies for a period of time, we can rebuild our economies after the renewable energy sources are in place that will sustain economic growth. If you want assured economic collapse then all you have to do is to fight to keep us on fossil fuels for longer than fossil fuels can support economic growth. Judging by what we are paying for fossil fuels now, we have nearly reached that point of no return, and on every level that you could imagine.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Yes, everything does have its issues and its price to pay. There is an issue with fossil fuels that goes far beyond any of the other issues, if you want a reliable energy source that does not bankrupt nearly every nation on this planet. Fossil fuels are a finite resource and if we do not heavily shift towards renewable energies before fossil fuels run out then we really are in very serious troubles beyond just the AGW issues. We will need fossil fuels to help us build the renewable energies infrastructure. Take a look at the current price at the pump. How long will fossil fuels remain cost effective to use to build the needed infrastructures. Current pump prices will start killing global economies again just as they did in 2008. The price of the barrel is 2/3 of what the price of the barrel was the last time pump prices were this high. What will the price at the pump be when, not if, the price of the barrel recaptures the other 1/3 of the price it achieved before? How long do we have before fossil fuels become too cost prohibitive to use to sustain the economy of any country? How long will we allow a single industry to dictate to us how much we grow our economies? We must move away from fossil fuels now just to prevent the price of fossil fuels from grinding to a halt every economy in the world. .... How will those that earn minimum wage afford to go to work? How will those that make double the minimum wage be able to pay their bills when an ever increasingly larger portion of their wages goes towards the cost of just getting to and from work? How many jobs will there be when fuel costs rise and then everything that is transported, which is everything, comes at a higher and higher price? Who can afford to pay wages when an even more significant portion of their earnings goes towards energy costs, fuel costs, transportation costs, food costs and the costs of anything else you can think of goes towards the benefit of one industry?
Once again, I have said over and over and over. I am all for getting off of fossil fuels. Now we have to ask how this can be accomplished with what we have now and not also break the bank. Maybe your right and we should bring no new supplies on line and hasten our economic collapse.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting nymore:
I totally agree with the grid, but as a new report shows solar has many problems with toxic waste in production.

How toxic are your solar panels? The Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC), a group that has done more than any other to clean up the electronics industry, attempted to answer that question today with the release of its Solar Scorecard. It didn't get very far. Of the 25 solar manufacturers that SVTC contacted, only 14, which together represent just 24 percent of the solar market, even responded. And their answers weren't always heartening. Among SVTC's findings:

Six companies report that their products contain lead, a potent neurotoxin.
Three companies report that their products contain cadmium, a known carcinogen.
One company uses nitrogen triflouride, a potent greenhouse gas
Only seven companies provide recycling free of charge
Only eight companies said their would support "extended producer responsibility" laws that would require them to take back or recycle their products

That many solar panels contain lead and cadmium, which are being phased out by computer manufacturers, is no small matter. In the coming years, SVTC estimates that 1.5 billion pounds of solar panel waste containing 2 million pounds of lead and 600,000 pounds of cadmium will be disposed of in California alone. Some older solar panels are already being ditched well ahead of their 20-year lifespans as cheaper, more efficient versions hit the market. Nevertheless, even the stringent recyling laws of California and Europe exempt solar panels (though Europe's may soon include them). SVTC wants to see solar panel recycling become standard practice along with efforts by solar manufacturers to phase out toxins. "In order for a product to be really green," says SVTC executive director Sheila Davis, "it needs to be green throughout its entire lifecycle."


Maybe they are not the Green Tech we have all been sold, my point here is everything has it own set of issues.


Yes, everything does have its issues and its price to pay. There is an issue with fossil fuels that goes far beyond any of the other issues, if you want a reliable energy source that does not bankrupt nearly every nation on this planet. Fossil fuels are a finite resource and if we do not heavily shift towards renewable energies before fossil fuels run out then we really are in very serious troubles beyond just the AGW issues. We will need fossil fuels to help us build the renewable energies infrastructure. Take a look at the current price at the pump. How long will fossil fuels remain cost effective to use to build the needed infrastructures. Current pump prices will start killing global economies again just as they did in 2008. The price of the barrel is 2/3 of what the price of the barrel was the last time pump prices were this high. What will the price at the pump be when, not if, the price of the barrel recaptures the other 1/3 of the price it achieved before? How long do we have before fossil fuels become too cost prohibitive to use to sustain the economy of any country? How long will we allow a single industry to dictate to us how much we grow our economies? We must move away from fossil fuels now just to prevent the price of fossil fuels from grinding to a halt every economy in the world. .... How will those that earn minimum wage afford to go to work? How will those that make double the minimum wage be able to pay their bills when an ever increasingly larger portion of their wages goes towards the cost of just getting to and from work? How many jobs will there be when fuel costs rise and then everything that is transported, which is everything, comes at a higher and higher price? Who can afford to pay wages when an even more significant portion of their earnings goes towards energy costs, fuel costs, transportation costs, food costs and the costs of anything else you can think of goes towards the benefit of one industry?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting nymore:
I also like the debate. Also none of the things you mention is good but neither is 1.5 Billion pounds of waste and a lot of this waste is very highly toxic. What happens when it enters the food chain or water supply. One way or another we will be rolling the dice on the health of living things on the planet.


You don't like debate. You are making up stuff, exaggerating all of the 'problems' of solar and wind and diminishing all the problems of oil to some end.

If there was political will, we could convert extremely rapidly and safely to a 50% green infrastructure in 3 years. What is destroying the planet is people like you who push to halt progress with pseudo reasonable objections.

Monkey wrenchers? Me. for a start, if I ever go near the miserable world destroying pipeline.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting Neapolitan:
As the saying goes, an oil spill is disastrous, and a nuclear leak can be catastrophic. On the other hand, a wind "spill" is called a breeze, and a solar "spill" is a bright and sunny day.

Those are things that need to be included in any comparative analysis of energy-generation methods, but so seldom are.


That's a great point. Another good point to make:

Link

Think of that- "one hour of insolation is the equivalent to more than the world’s energy consumption for an entire year." Yes, really. The potential is enormous, and virtually untapped. Why is so much money and research invested in energy sources that will poison the ecosphere, and so little into solar and wind?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Naga5000:


I agree 100%, everything does have its own unique set of issues. No power source is completely safe. What we need to do is make logical choices. What's more safe, solar panels in the unpopulated desert or pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. The possibility of a spill that may affect an aquifer that supplies water to a large portion of our farmlands or the possibility of a meltdown and toxic waste? Honestly, these are questions I am not qualified to make decisions on, however, I will still push for the solutions that don't add more CO2 into the atmosphere which science tells us has a greater chance to affect the world population at hand through climate change. Thanks for the good discussion by the way. The state of the debate hasn't exactly led us (the country/world) to a point of conversation due to its divisiveness, but I do appreciate a sincerely honest discussion on the issue.
I also like the debate. Also none of the things you mention is good but neither is 1.5 Billion pounds of waste and a lot of this waste is very highly toxic. What happens when it enters the food chain or water supply. One way or another we will be rolling the dice on the health of living things on the planet.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting Naga5000:
What's more safe, solar panels in the unpopulated desert or pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. The possibility of a spill that may affect an aquifer that supplies water to a large portion of our farmlands or the possibility of a meltdown and toxic waste?
As the saying goes, an oil spill is disastrous, and a nuclear leak can be catastrophic. On the other hand, a wind "spill" is called a breeze, and a solar "spill" is a bright and sunny day.

Those are things that need to be included in any comparative analysis of energy-generation methods, but so seldom are.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13526
Quoting nymore:
I totally agree with the grid, but as a new report shows solar has many problems with toxic waste in production.

How toxic are your solar panels? The Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC), a group that has done more than any other to clean up the electronics industry, attempted to answer that question today with the release of its Solar Scorecard. It didn't get very far. Of the 25 solar manufacturers that SVTC contacted, only 14, which together represent just 24 percent of the solar market, even responded. And their answers weren't always heartening. Among SVTC's findings:

Six companies report that their products contain lead, a potent neurotoxin.
Three companies report that their products contain cadmium, a known carcinogen.
One company uses nitrogen triflouride, a potent greenhouse gas
Only seven companies provide recycling free of charge
Only eight companies said their would support "extended producer responsibility" laws that would require them to take back or recycle their products

That many solar panels contain lead and cadmium, which are being phased out by computer manufacturers, is no small matter. In the coming years, SVTC estimates that 1.5 billion pounds of solar panel waste containing 2 million pounds of lead and 600,000 pounds of cadmium will be disposed of in California alone. Some older solar panels are already being ditched well ahead of their 20-year lifespans as cheaper, more efficient versions hit the market. Nevertheless, even the stringent recyling laws of California and Europe exempt solar panels (though Europe's may soon include them). SVTC wants to see solar panel recycling become standard practice along with efforts by solar manufacturers to phase out toxins. "In order for a product to be really green," says SVTC executive director Sheila Davis, "it needs to be green throughout its entire lifecycle."


Maybe they are not the Green Tech we have all been sold, my point here is everything has it own set of issues.


I agree 100%, everything does have its own unique set of issues. No power source is completely safe. What we need to do is make logical choices. What's more safe, solar panels in the unpopulated desert or pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. The possibility of a spill that may affect an aquifer that supplies water to a large portion of our farmlands or the possibility of a meltdown and toxic waste? Honestly, these are questions I am not qualified to make decisions on, however, I will still push for the solutions that don't add more CO2 into the atmosphere which science tells us has a greater chance to affect the world population at hand through climate change. Thanks for the good discussion by the way. The state of the debate hasn't exactly led us (the country/world) to a point of conversation due to its divisiveness, but I do appreciate a sincerely honest discussion on the issue.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3377
Quoting Naga5000:


I'm conflicted on nuke plants, but I am not against them. They present their own set of challenges.



What I meant by that, is no one is saying there aren't limits to that technology as well, but realistically, 10%, 20%, even 30% would increase energy independence, put people to work, and set us up for future moves towards wind and solar as the technology becomes more advanced. Either way, the grid is old and outdated, it may not even be able to keep up with simple growth in population. Why not start the work? Hell, some even argue it is a national security issue.
I totally agree with the grid, but as a new report shows solar has many problems with toxic waste in production.

How toxic are your solar panels? The Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC), a group that has done more than any other to clean up the electronics industry, attempted to answer that question today with the release of its Solar Scorecard. It didn't get very far. Of the 25 solar manufacturers that SVTC contacted, only 14, which together represent just 24 percent of the solar market, even responded. And their answers weren't always heartening. Among SVTC's findings:

Six companies report that their products contain lead, a potent neurotoxin.
Three companies report that their products contain cadmium, a known carcinogen.
One company uses nitrogen triflouride, a potent greenhouse gas
Only seven companies provide recycling free of charge
Only eight companies said their would support "extended producer responsibility" laws that would require them to take back or recycle their products

That many solar panels contain lead and cadmium, which are being phased out by computer manufacturers, is no small matter. In the coming years, SVTC estimates that 1.5 billion pounds of solar panel waste containing 2 million pounds of lead and 600,000 pounds of cadmium will be disposed of in California alone. Some older solar panels are already being ditched well ahead of their 20-year lifespans as cheaper, more efficient versions hit the market. Nevertheless, even the stringent recyling laws of California and Europe exempt solar panels (though Europe's may soon include them). SVTC wants to see solar panel recycling become standard practice along with efforts by solar manufacturers to phase out toxins. "In order for a product to be really green," says SVTC executive director Sheila Davis, "it needs to be green throughout its entire lifecycle."


Maybe they are not the Green Tech we have all been sold, my point here is everything has it own set of issues.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting nymore:
We better start building nukes as fast as we can until something better comes along. I realize they are not without issues, but it is the best tech we have right now that does not produce CO2. Simply switching cars to nat gas will make a difference, better insulation and other things you can do at your house will make a difference. We can start easily with these.


I'm conflicted on nuke plants, but I am not against them. They present their own set of challenges.

Quoting nymore:
I did not pull the 30% number out, it is the number used in the study.


What I meant by that, is no one is saying there aren't limits to that technology as well, but realistically, 10%, 20%, even 30% would increase energy independence, put people to work, and set us up for future moves towards wind and solar as the technology becomes more advanced. Either way, the grid is old and outdated, it may not even be able to keep up with simple growth in population. Why not start the work? Hell, some even argue it is a national security issue.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3377
Quoting pcola57:


Sorry Some1Has2BtheRookie,I hadn't realized you had posted that info already..


No problems, pcola57. I seriously doubt that the graphic can be posted too many times.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting Naga5000:


Also its unfair to pull out the 30% number. I nor anyone else is talking about a complete crossover to green technology. What I have said before to you, and what I believe is a good start, is to begin the weening process. If we can even get to 10% (totally feasible), we increase our energy independence. That's a win win.
I did not pull the 30% number out, it is the number used in the study.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting Naga5000:


Delusional at best? Where do we start then? So we just take no steps towards clean energy until we burn through the fossil fuel supply? Do we ignore that we have to start somewhere? We have an unprecedented opportunity to begin. I think it's delusional to continue to push forward with shirt term fixes when we can begin looking at long term solutions.
We better start building nukes as fast as we can until something better comes along. I realize they are not without issues, but it is the best tech we have right now that does not produce CO2. Simply switching cars to nat gas will make a difference, better insulation and other things you can do at your house will make a difference. We can start easily with these.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting nymore:
I agree the grid should be upgraded, but wind and solar as they stand now can not come even close to replacing what we have now. Just look at the post where I used Jacobson's own numbers for what would be needed just to supply 30% of the power we use. Unrealistic in the near term is about the best thing you can say about it. If you or someone whats to use it go for it, every little bit helps but to think it is the answer is delusional at best.


Also its unfair to pull out the 30% number. I nor anyone else is talking about a complete crossover to green technology. What I have said before to you, and what I believe is a good start, is to begin the weening process. If we can even get to 10% (totally feasible), we increase our energy independence. That's a win win.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3377
Quoting nymore:
I agree the grid should be upgraded, but wind and solar as they stand now can not come even close to replacing what we have now. Just look at the post where I used Jacobson's own numbers for what would be needed just to supply 30% of the power we use. Unrealistic in the near term is about the best thing you can say about it. If you or someone whats to use it go for it, every little bit helps but to think it is the answer is delusional at best.


Delusional at best? Where do we start then? So we just take no steps towards clean energy until we burn through the fossil fuel supply? Do we ignore that we have to start somewhere? We have an unprecedented opportunity to begin. I think it's delusional to continue to push forward with shirt term fixes when we can begin looking at long term solutions.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3377
Quoting Neapolitan:
I chose to ignore your comments about Apple as a) they have no bearing whatsoever on the millions of people who will die from fossil fuel pollution, and b) I really have no idea what you're talking about.
Trans Canada's pipeline is going to kill millions? Do you have a study showing this? As for Apple, maybe you should check on their suppliers track record. I am sure those toxic chemicals will have no effect.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting nymore:
While I wait for Neapolitan's report on Apple, which I'm sure will be posted with all do speed. I would like to know who the monkey wrenchers are.
I chose to ignore your comments about Apple as a) they have no bearing whatsoever on the millions of people who will die from fossil fuel pollution, and b) I really have no idea what you're talking about.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13526
Quoting Naga5000:


All these things could also be accomplished through upgrading the grid and adding wind and solar. There is plenty of work to be done, we have previously discussed the limitations of the grid with adding new power sources. Instead of pushing more fossil fuels, wouldn't it be a better idea to use that man power to push clean energy sources? It's all very Keynesian in nature.
I agree the grid should be upgraded, but wind and solar as they stand now can not come even close to replacing what we have now. Just look at the post where I used Jacobson's own numbers for what would be needed just to supply 30% of the power we use. Unrealistic in the near term is about the best thing you can say about it. If you or someone whats to use it go for it, every little bit helps but to think it is the answer is delusional at best.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Great article Ricky. It seems incredible that even with such strong evidence for climate change, there is still a large contingent of skeptics. In the last year the USA has seen the most devastating drought in 50 years whilst the UK has had one of the wettest summers on record. The release of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and the accelerated warming of the Atlantic Ocean seem to be the catalysts for more extreme weather patterns, as explained in this article about jet streams
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
That's a very Fox News-ian tactic: re-use a 28-month-old image in hopes of smearing good people working on behalf of a great and worthy cause. As always, it belies a massive amount of desperation, desperation that would be humorous if it weren't so sad...


Kinda like Fox did this? Link

It's off subject, but shows how they come up with the darndest things to prove a point...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:
Yea this certainly will not fatten up local businesses near the route, it will not fatten up the wallets of those looking for jobs, it will not fatten up state and federal coffers through taxes, it will not fatten up 401k plans and retirement funds for those who have investments in the companies, it will not fatten up the suppliers of materials and equipment for the line. Those damn big oil types.


All these things could also be accomplished through upgrading the grid and adding wind and solar. There is plenty of work to be done, we have previously discussed the limitations of the grid with adding new power sources. Instead of pushing more fossil fuels, wouldn't it be a better idea to use that man power to push clean energy sources? It's all very Keynesian in nature.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3377
Quoting greentortuloni:


Yeah but that infographic doesn't take into account the spillage that happens once the monkey wrenchers start sabotaging the pipeline. Think hundreds of barrels per spill.
While I wait for Neapolitan's report on Apple, which I'm sure will be posted with all do speed. I would like to know who the monkey wrenchers are.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I see your graphic and raise you two questions.

1. When was the last time that CO2 levels were at 280 ppm?



2. When was the last time that CH4 was at 580 ppb?
Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations


Sorry Some1Has2BtheRookie,I hadn't realized you had posted that info already..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:


Your dishonesty is beyond the pale, breathtaking in its audacity almost.

Looking at your cartoon, I can't help but notice that it ends with CO2 levels at around 280 ppm. Of course, the current reality is that that level is now very close to 400 ppm.

Did you not notice that due to the cartoon having the right kind of squiggles to advance your mistaken belief? You didn't actually think that that nonsense would get by the people that post on *this* board, did you?

Take that rubbish back to political boards from which it no doubt was concocted.




A CO2 Reality check..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:
Besides 3 spills which you can measure in barrels. What is the size of the other 9 spills? I see there was that world ending 2 gallon spill and all others were under 20 gallons in fact most were under 10 gallons.

You really should for example check into Apple and come back and tell us what you find when it comes to pollution and working conditions from their suppliers. I guess they like many industries don't care about safety and cleanliness. I guessing you use Crapple so it is the example I used. BTW I wonder if those who have committed suicide worked on your product.


Yeah but that infographic doesn't take into account the spillage that happens once the monkey wrenchers start sabotaging the pipeline. Think hundreds of barrels per spill.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220

Viewing: 132 - 82

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.