Smoking, Marriage and Climate: What Can I Do? (2)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 5:03 PM GMT on April 03, 2013

Share this Blog
19
+

Smoking, Marriage and Climate: What Can I Do? (2)

This week I have a guest blogger, Doug Glancy, who was one of the student advocates responsible for starting my class on climate change problem solving. Doug’s piece continues the series in response to the question, “What can I do about climate change?” It is a call for social organization.

What Smoking and Marriage Equality Can Teach Activists About Efforts to Catalyze Climate Action

In February, Duke University released a poll that found that more than 84% of Americans believe climate change is occurring. Climate activists were elated, and many began to say that we’ve turned the corner on efforts to catalyze action. However, beneath the encouraging headline was a far more important number: only one third of Americans support federal efforts to address the issue. I am not discounting the fact that the vast majority of Americans now believe climate change is occurring. However, overselling this statistic is fraught with peril, as it is the second number that defines our direction when the rubber hits the road.

For affirmation of this belief, one need only look at the decades-long struggle to reduce smoking. As early as the 1950’s, the majority of doctors believed smoking posed significant health risks. By the 1970’s, the majority of Americans believed that smoking had deleterious effects. Nevertheless, it wasn’t until the late 80’s that overall smoking rates began to plummet. The transition did not occur because a doctor or scientist said smoking was bad for one’s health, it occurred because smoking became socially unacceptable.

Unfortunately, in the battle to address climate change we do not have the luxury of time for opinion to sway. Fortunately, the strategic marriage of behavioral economics and technology provides the tools to speed up the pendulum. What is needed now is messaging which leverages cutting edge research into why we make the choices we do including core drivers such as moral conviction, a desire for equality and good old-fashioned peer pressure. (For a quick introduction read Contagious by Jonah Berger).

One need only look to the events of last week to see how opinions can change in a timeframe exponentially quicker than in the past. As recently as the late 90’s, the vast majority of American opposed extending marriage rights to the LBGT community. Just over a decade later, over half the nation supports marriage rights.

There is little doubt that some of the explanation for this remarkable achievement lies with Americans expanding their view of morality and furthering equality. However, it would be shortsighted to discount the tremendous impact of peer pressure. Last week, despite little coordinated effort, nearly 3 million Americans changed their Facebook profile to support marriage equality. These 3 million individual decisions provided a social cue to tens of millions more.

What does this all mean for the efforts to address climate change? It means that we must move beyond statistics about the beliefs of 99% scientists. It means we must move beyond over-reliance on frames, such as the plight of the polar bear, which only speak to certain segments of society. It means we must make addressing climate the moral imperative of the day and use technology-assisted peer pressure to spread the message. We have the knowledge and technology to be good ancestors, its time to leverage it.

Doug Glancy
Principal Resileris

Doug has over a decade working on climate, energy and sustainability issues across the public, private and nonprofit sectors. He holds a BS in Political Science from Trinity College and MBA/MS from the University of Michigan, where he focused on climate change and corporate sustainability. In addition to speaking engagements, Doug has contributed to a groundbreaking report on Corporate Climate Change Strategies for the Pew Center on Climate Change, and led two delegations to the United Nations Climate Change Conference. He is an Executive Board member of the Michigan League of Conservation Voters.

The piece also fits well with my earlier pieces

The Optimist’s Time,

The Role of Short Timers

A Bridge of Time.


Links to the Series

Setting Up the Discussion Deciding to do something, definition of mitigation and adaptation, and a cost-benefit anchored framework for thinking about mitigation

Smoking, Marriage and Climate Behavioral changes and peer pressure

Organizing and Growing Individual Efforts A little detail on efficiency and thinking about how individuals can have more impact than just that of a single person

The Complete List Eight categories of things we can do to reduce greenhouse gases

We Are What We Eat Food and agriculture and greenhouse gas emissions

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: 456 - 406

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11Blog Index

Quoting Skyepony:
ENSO is a well studied phenomenon of the ocean heat sinking & then later releasing it to both the atmosphere & space. T-depth anomalies. surface is the top right is equatorial epac, left is west.



Exactly. Because unlike what some with a bit too much hubris might suggest, physics is working exactly as physics works. It's really just that a particular person has confused convection and conduction, not to mention the simple concept that ocean currents exist, and oceans cannot only move in an upward direction.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3192
Quoting indianrivguy:
Crabs, supersized by carbon pollution, may upset Chesapeake’s balance


By Darryl Fears, Published: April 7

It is the dawn of the super crab.

Crabs are bulking up on carbon pollution that pours out of power plants, factories and vehicles and settles in the oceans, turning the tough crustaceans into even more fearsome predators.
That presents a major problem for the Chesapeake Bay, where crabs eat oysters. In a life-isn’t-fair twist, the same carbon that crabs absorb to grow bigger stymies the development of oysters.

“Higher levels of carbon in the ocean are causing oysters to grow slower, and their predators — such as blue crabs — to grow faster,” Justin Baker Ries, a marine geologist at the University of North Carolina’s Aquarium Research Center, said in an recent interview.

[snip]

Crabs put away carbon like nobody’s business. The more they eat, the faster they molt, a growth spurt during which their shells go soft. Carbon helps speed the process so that they emerge bigger and perhaps stronger, less vulnerable to predators and more formidable predators themselves.

At UNC, marine geologists are analyzing video of the slaughter that took place when they put mud crabs and oysters in tanks they intentionally polluted with carbon over three months for a 2011 study.

It was like watching lions tear apart lambs. The crabs scurried from their side of the tanks, banged on the shells of the traumatized oysters, pried them open with a claw in a way similar to what humans do with a knife at restaurants and gobbled them down.

[read it all]


Unfortunately, like most science articles, it's full of anecdotes instead of actual information. Concentrations of "high," "low," and "clean" don't say much without a precise unitary definition of what they called "high" and "low".

If the crabs and oysters survived the Triassic, then surely they'll survive now.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
California Town aims Aims to Be a Solar Capital

NYTimes.com
There are at least two things to know about this high desert city. One, the sun just keeps on shining. Two, the city’s mayor, a class-action lawyer named R. Rex Parris, just keeps on competing.

Two years ago, the mayor, a Republican, decided to leverage the incessant Antelope Valley sun so that Lancaster could become the solar capital “of the world,” he said. Then he reconsidered. “Of the universe,” he said, the brio in his tone indicating that it would be parsimonious to confine his ambition to any one planet.

“We want to be the first city that produces more electricity from solar energy than we consume on a daily basis,” he said. This means Lancaster’s rooftops, alfalfa fields and parking lots must be covered with solar panels to generate a total of 126 megawatts of solar power above the 39 megawatts already being generated and the 50 megawatts under construction.

Global warming, the mayor said, will eventually persuade others to realize that locally generated renewable energy may provide a safety net as the cost of cooling desert homes goes up.

Is global warming indeed a threat? Absolutely, he said. “I may be a Republican. I’m not an idiot.”
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Quoting Cyclonebuster: **if fossil fuel GHG's cause more Menstrual Cramping and Erectile Dysfunction... Would you like to be part of both study groups?**

I feel this is a joke (I even laughed) but I hope you have an explanation how this would work...
Member Since: December 17, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1228
Crabs, supersized by carbon pollution, may upset Chesapeake’s balance


By Darryl Fears, Published: April 7

It is the dawn of the super crab.

Crabs are bulking up on carbon pollution that pours out of power plants, factories and vehicles and settles in the oceans, turning the tough crustaceans into even more fearsome predators.
That presents a major problem for the Chesapeake Bay, where crabs eat oysters. In a life-isn’t-fair twist, the same carbon that crabs absorb to grow bigger stymies the development of oysters.

“Higher levels of carbon in the ocean are causing oysters to grow slower, and their predators — such as blue crabs — to grow faster,” Justin Baker Ries, a marine geologist at the University of North Carolina’s Aquarium Research Center, said in an recent interview.

[snip]

Crabs put away carbon like nobody’s business. The more they eat, the faster they molt, a growth spurt during which their shells go soft. Carbon helps speed the process so that they emerge bigger and perhaps stronger, less vulnerable to predators and more formidable predators themselves.

At UNC, marine geologists are analyzing video of the slaughter that took place when they put mud crabs and oysters in tanks they intentionally polluted with carbon over three months for a 2011 study.

It was like watching lions tear apart lambs. The crabs scurried from their side of the tanks, banged on the shells of the traumatized oysters, pried them open with a claw in a way similar to what humans do with a knife at restaurants and gobbled them down.

[read it all]
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1911maker:
394. greentortuloni 3:26 PM GMT on April 08, 2013
In other words, the 50 range is false. If everyone used an electric bike, society would work just fine, just differently.

Here it is in a nut shell. The problem can not be addressed with out a complete restructuring of society. The Status quo has to be completely "up ended". The current "type" of personnel transportation in this country is a main driver in how the country functions.

RTS and his clowns (I like that term by the way) are a perfect example. How much carbon foot print is there from just high school sports activities? Then pitch in College level athletics. Not just athletics, but all aspects of how this society "works". The lists will be long, and the howling will be loud at every effort to say "your little bit of what ever you do for fun etc, its bad, you make bad CO2", you need to stop that. The committee has made a resolution.

Transportation only address fuel, it does not address all the other junk our society gets from fossil hydrocarbon substances.

I think the US should stop exporting food. It would cut down on the amount of fuel, fertilizer, pesticides etc used. Just think how much bunker fuel for shipping alone would get saved. Every one knows that the US is the main evil in CO2 production in the world, so that would be a good first step for the US to make a reduction in CO2 foot print.

The next step would be to prohibit importing "stuff". (think china here).

Neither of these things take any kind of "new tech" to make a reduction in CO2 foot print. Both are easy to do. There is no down side to either of them. Right?

The only way you get "fast" change in the status quo in a given Geo Political area generality is from revolution (the bloody kind).



I agree with you. I am really trying to get 3D printing, makerspaces, bike coops and so on going here for the same reason. I like the idea that a region is as self sufficient as possible. I think in our area, given the hydro-electric resources, technological base and desire to tell everyone else to eff off, that it could succeed.

Robotics, 3D printing,e tc are one of hte huge ways that the world is changing. Robotics in particular have brought back to europe a lot of jobs that were formerly going to Asia. They didn't bring back many jobs, mind you, but they did bring back a tax base at least.

There is even an architect who is trying to print a 3D house. The whole printer is not that big (possibly it would even fit on an electric scooter.) :)


Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting RTSplayer:


Tools get stolen, silly.

The two biggest types of theft I can think of related to construction is the theft of copper wiring and copper pipes, and the theft of tools.

That's why you don't leave a tool trailer at a job site, and that's why you have a tool chest in your truck.


And you don't get the fact that different crews can't afford to sit around at a job site for days while they aren't needed at that location. As a contractor, you get paid by the foot in most cases, so maximizing your number of contracts is the only way to increase income.

Sleeping in a hotel would be a hell of a lot more expensive than driving back home. People in these lines of works would literally never see their families.

Maybe htat's what you want thought, turn some people een more into the freaking Eloi, while others are more and more Morlocks. Promote the caste system even more.

I don't even know why I'm responding to that comment anyway, it's ridiculous.


Wow.

You expect 4 to 6 guys in a crew to carpool on an electric scooter which can magically haul a few tons of gear around, and when they get there, unlike normal human beings, they are expected to sleep at work, because sleeping at a hotel would cost too much, and when they get the next contract repeat the process.

Lol. Are they supposed to sleep in tents maybe?

Are they supposed to eat fast food and convenience store food even more than they already do, because they're never home to see their families and such?

Really.


What will happen, is one of two things:

1, These people will get screwed somehow by everyone else, as they often already are.

or

2, They will make up for it by charging much more for their services, and clueless people like those on this thread will pay much more for your home or apartment or small business needs.


The thing is, I've got a lot of expereince int eh construction industry. Maybe not as much as you but enough that i am not intimidated by your common sense (not that i think you are trying to intimidate me, just that I've been there as well).

Most of the answers I hear you giving, to me, are just argumentative. For example, working in New York city, almost everyone either went to work and took the work truck to the cite or else took public transportation. Same thing in Long Island. Alaska was a mix but Alaska is Alaska. etc. etc. The point is that each situation was different but most people didn't feel like having to deal with the hassle of commuting. That is why crew cabs were invented. What you almost never see happen on a construction site is that X people take X cars to a job (X > 2).

So if gas goes up to $10 per gallon, the contractor is facing having to cut back on travel, employees have to find a way to commute to work, etc. But it is not even close to the scenario you are painting of 4 guys carrying tools on the back of an electric scooter.

Besides, you haven't addressed the strawman of the 50 mile radius, i.e. that systems have worked in the past without having a 50 mile radius and that by your arguments, having a 100 mile radius would be even better. (By my arguments, having a limited population coverage zone would work best actually, i.e. 3 miles in densely populated zones, 500 miles in somewhere like Alaska - not just for the transportation but also for community and other things that are lacking in a giga-opolis.)

Finally,if you don't like change just because it is change, join the club. But try thinking about this from the point of view that if we don't solve this, there will be no work for anyone. It isn't just about liking electric scooters. This isn't a snarky question but suppose you had to solve this problem, what would you do? I really am really curious to know your opinion as to what steps to take, it isn't an argumentative question.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
448. Skyepony (Mod)
Arkansas town in lockdown after oil spill nightmare
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RTSplayer:


That's really not his fault.

The state and federal government regarding the Florida situation hasn't allowed people to give as much serious thought to the issue. Recall that until just recently, they weren't even doing much drilling for oil or gas around Florida for tourism reasons, because tourism is one of their biggest money makers.

I have pointed out the Gulf Stream several times myself, and it is incredibly energy dense, and much of it is in U.S. coastal waters.

Europe might complain, but oh well, THEY are among the ones complaining about U.S. CO2 as well, so we may as well harness that Gulf Stream, since we can't please them either way anyway...

B.S. Really?
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3372
446. Skyepony (Mod)
ENSO is a well studied phenomenon of the ocean heat sinking & then later releasing it to both the atmosphere & space. T-depth anomalies. surface is the top right is equatorial epac, left is west.


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
just for humor in no way do i insist stupid people exsists

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
444. beell
Quoting Neapolitan:
Why do hardcore anti-science types insist on spamming this forum with garbage from radical right-wing websites like NetRightDaily?


To continue to help provide the small crowd of science types and the small crowd of non-science types here with hours of entertainment?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
You obviously don't need entertaining. You are quite content preaching to the last fifty people who actually accept AGW.
Actually I keep hoping you will prove that all 51 of us are wrong, but you never give us any SCIENCE.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2362
NeapolitanFan then why did you lie about Kevin Trenberth? You said Trenberth said warm water sinks to the bottom of the ocean. Now you admit that you lied. How can we trust what you post from now on?
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8590
Quoting FLwolverine:
#436 - Really, NeaFan, you can do better than that! Don't you have a post from WUWT or somebody to entertain us?
You obviously don't need entertaining. You are quite content preaching to the last fifty people who actually accept AGW.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting BaltimoreBrian:
436--no it simply means that water of different temperatures can and does mix. A very basic concept.

Keven Trenberth never said warm water sinks to the bottom of the ocean and you know it.


No, but he arrives at a very questionable outcome, which he denigrated just two years ago, to explain his missing heat.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
#436 - Really, NeaFan, you can do better than that! Don't you have a post from WUWT or somebody to entertain us?
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2362
436--no it simply means that water of different temperatures can and does mix. A very basic concept.

Keven Trenberth never said warm water sinks to the bottom of the ocean. NeapolitanFan knows this and said it anyway.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8590
Quoting allahgore:


I have been thru some strong turbulence; it caused me a tummy ache; so I guess we can now blame some tummy aches with AGW?


I can't believe that someone posted the premise that so-called AGW will increase turbulence in the atmosphere. As I wrote earlier, guns will be blamed for global warming (or maybe global cooling next year).
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Once again, climate "science" defies physics. Kevin Trenberth insists that warm water, allegedly heated by the atmosphere, sinks to the bottom of the ocean. This anti-science is something along the lines that asphalt parking lots where weather stations are located don't affect the temperature readings. This effect only occurs in "peer-reviewed" papers authored by government-funded climate "scientists". Perhaps the more logical conclusion is, if warm water actually exists deep in the ocean, it is more likely warmed due to closer proximity to deep-earth heat. Of course, that couldn't happen in climate "science."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
Why do hardcore anti-science types insist on spamming this forum with garbage from radical right-wing websites like NetRightDaily? Well, don't anyone bother answering; we already know it's because there's not a single word of peer-reviewed research that can possibly back up their frequently lunatic denialist claims, leaving them with only inane nutter babbling.

Though it took awhile, the pretend "climategate" scandal went away after people realized it was entirely bogus, and "climategete II" disappeared even faster, as by then people knew better than to be fooled by such cherry-picked idiocy. Good luck to those trying yet again to gain relevancy in the moronosphere by releasing even more stolen and cherry-picked emails, but I'm afraid they've gone to that dry well one too many times; this time they're likely to gain all the traction of an elephant climbing an ice cliff...
Oh, come on, Nea - you know why AG posted that. You didn't respond to his pickings and pokings, and he was hungry for attention. Either that or he wasn't meeting his quota of troll attacks.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2362
#432 - CB - thank you for your work at Anniston and for your sincere concern for the future of the planet. I don't know how you will ever make something happen with your tunnels, but I hope something good comes out of it for you.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2362
Quoting allahgore:
Climategate leaker: Civilization is being destroyed by lying %u2018science%u2019 elitists

By Ron Arnold %u2014 %u201CWhat if climate change appears to be just mainly a multi-decadal natural fluctuation? They%u2019ll kill us probably.%u201D

[snip]
Why do hardcore anti-science types insist on spamming this forum with garbage from radical right-wing websites like NetRightDaily? Well, don't anyone bother answering; we already know it's because there's not a single word of peer-reviewed research that can possibly back up their frequently lunatic denialist claims, leaving them with only inane nutter babbling.

Though it took awhile, the pretend "climategate" scandal went away after people realized it was entirely bogus, and "climategete II" disappeared even faster, as by then people knew better than to be fooled by such cherry-picked idiocy. Good luck to those trying yet again to gain relevancy in the moronosphere by releasing even more stolen and cherry-picked emails, but I'm afraid they've gone to that dry well one too many times; this time they're likely to gain all the traction of an elephant climbing an ice cliff...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13510
Dr. Rood my job at URS Corporation at Anniston Army Depot is coming to end on 4/10/13. My work there as a Control Room Operator is complete making our Earths biosphere a much safer place for all humanity to live and breath. The weapons of mass destruction that were once stored there such as VX/GB nerve agents and HD Mustard Gas have all been incinerated thus removing that risk to society. We destroyed hundreds of thousands of chemical munitions during the 12 years I worked there and NOT one single release to our environment ever occurred. Nothing would be more satisfying than to have your fine university computer model my idea so I can continue my legacy of making our planet a much cleaner safer place to live for our children and for future generations... I would also like to be there working on the project with you guys... I can start 4/11/13... If you want a solution then this is it, our planet will not wait.. Do you need my resume?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Fake Academic Journals Are a Very Real Problem

http://motherboard.vice.com

It's easy to forget that science is not always as scientific as we might like to think it is. Like any other discipline, scientific research is a complex web of connections between scientists, universities, other research institutions, the government and the arbiters of all things worthy: the journals. Back in the ink-and-tree days, journals were few and many were prestigious with names like Science and Nature. If you read about something in one of these journals, it was damn legit. The journals also hosted academic conferences, where peer-reviewed research was presented and sometimes scientific history made. But that was then.

The big problem with these fake journals is that there's a market for pay-as-you-go science. That's a term I just made up to describe the practice of writing checks in order to get published. As the well worn out cliché goes, acadmics must publish or perish, and when a well-padded resume could mean the difference between getting a teaching job and tutoring middle schoolers, plenty of newly minted Ph.D.s are willing to participate in the shady business. Some of these journals charge thousands of dollars to be included in the publication, and then thousands more to attend the conferences. Yeasayer academics probably think of it as an investment in their future.

The other big problem is simply that these fake journals are really good at seeming like legit journals. The Times offers the example of the Entomology-2013 conference this year. The conference organizers hand-picked all kinds of prestigious-sounding speakers who would sit on panels and present new research. They put their photos and impressive job titles on the website and invited others to attend or present at the conference—for a fee. Some of these fake webites are so convincing that they trick the media into thinking they're real.

It all sounds very legit, except it's not. The whole thing is a sham. The name, for instance, is a ripoff of Entomology 2013 (no hypen) which actually is a very prestigious conference about bugs insects. And some of those impressive professors that they flaunted while recruiting attendees weren't even aware that their likeness was being used for the conference. It appears the organizers just ripped the photos off a university website and republished them. Attendees who were recruited by email could still pay thousands to go to the conference and present their papers. They just have to hope that the department heads reading their resume in a few months don't notice that tricky hyphen.

Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Quoting allahgore:
Is there over hype with AGW; like the flight rules over Arkansas with the current oil spill?


Not enough hype on either....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting OldLeatherneck:


Next week you will claim that the "Tunnels" cure Erectile Dysfunction and Menstrual Cramping!! Of course, even those claims would not constitute Spamming!!


Well since they can prevent more cancer,more asthma,more stroke and more heart attacks then perhaps a study can be done on them to see if fossil fuel GHG's cause more Menstrual Cramping and Erectile Dysfunction... Would you like to be part of both study groups?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting cyclonebuster:


..........it is a good idea to regulate our climate back to what it was prior to the industrial revolution and so the idea will say goodbye to lower Summertime Arctic Ice extent/mass,higher sea levels,higher sea surface temps,higher land temperatures, higher atmospheric temperatures,lower albedo,more red tides,less coral reef area,more cancer,more asthma,more stroke,more heart attacks,lower PH levels in our oceans,more drought,more desertification,dirty energy or deal with the onslaught of larger and more destructive hurricanes as well as more severe weather...I can go on and on but I think you know what I mean here so I'll keep it short......


Quoting cyclonebuster:


So how is the solution spam? Would someone please tell me?


Next week you will claim that the "Tunnels" cure Erectile Dysfunction and Menstrual Cramping!! Of course, even those claims would not constitute Spamming!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1911maker:
This Adds a bit of perspective to RTS (and mine) comment about the US turning off the food and CO2 via farming and shipping. The movement of food around the planet appears to be a "large carbon foot print".

Fossil hydrocarbon substances equal food in the current modern sense. If we are serious about getting off CO2, we better have a plan for the other stuff from fossil hydrocarbon substances.

I suppose people get tired of me spamming the blog on this topic, but when I start to feel bad about it, I just look to CB and realize in terms of spam, I do not begin to compare.

IF you follow the link, you will find a PDF (no idea how to show that here) that has bar charts and labels and such for the map. This sight has other interesting maps. I just found it so I have not had time to explore it much.

Were the map comes from.
http://sasi.group.shef.ac.uk/worldmapper/display. php?selected=54
Link



62% of all territories have net grocery imports, which means that the remaining 38% meet their demands. The map shows that net imports are, broadly speaking, to more northern latitudes. Therefore net exports tend to come from more southern latitudes: Asia Pacific and South America. There are however anomalies such as the United States, Canada and France. Further, Southern Africa has neither large net imports, nor large net exports.

The highest value of net grocery imports is to Japan. Imports to Japan are one and a half times the value of those to the second largest importer, China. Further, the population of China is ten times larger than Japan. So, per person living there, Japan imports (net) sixteen times more groceries than China.
Territory size shows the proportion of worldwide net imports of groceries (in US$) that are received there. Net imports are imports minus exports. When exports are larger than imports the territory is not shown.





In Spring 2000 world population estimates reached 6 billion; that is 6 thousand million. The distribution of the earth's population is shown in this map.

India, China and Japan appear large on the map because they have large populations. Panama, Namibia and Guinea-Bissau have small populations so are barely visible on the map.

Population is very weakly related to land area. However, Sudan which is geographically the largest country in Africa, has a smaller population than Nigeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Democratic Republic of Congo, South Africa and Tanzania.

Note: Many of the maps' subjects relate to people, so this map serves as a good reference map for comparison with many other maps.

"Out of every 100 persons added to the population in the coming decade, 97 will live in developing countries." Hania Zlotnik, 2005


The size of each territory shows the relative proportion of the world's population living there.


So how is the solution spam? Would someone please tell me?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
418. OldLeatherneck
That wonderful New Yorker cartoon made me think that I certainly hope that any humanoids on other planets were given better instructions!!

If they are lucky, they evolved knowledge/wisdom before they discovered tribalism, religion and greed.............
Member Since: February 25, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 474
This Adds a bit of perspective to RTS (and mine) comment about the US turning off the food and CO2 via farming and shipping. The movement of food around the planet appears to be a "large carbon foot print".

Fossil hydrocarbon substances equal food in the current modern sense. If we are serious about getting off CO2, we better have a plan for the other stuff from fossil hydrocarbon substances.

I suppose people get tired of me spamming the blog on this topic, but when I start to feel bad about it, I just look to CB and realize in terms of spam, I do not begin to compare.

IF you follow the link, you will find a PDF (no idea how to show that here) that has bar charts and labels and such for the map. This sight has other interesting maps. I just found it so I have not had time to explore it much.

Were the map comes from.
http://sasi.group.shef.ac.uk/worldmapper/display. php?selected=54
Link



62% of all territories have net grocery imports, which means that the remaining 38% meet their demands. The map shows that net imports are, broadly speaking, to more northern latitudes. Therefore net exports tend to come from more southern latitudes: Asia Pacific and South America. There are however anomalies such as the United States, Canada and France. Further, Southern Africa has neither large net imports, nor large net exports.

The highest value of net grocery imports is to Japan. Imports to Japan are one and a half times the value of those to the second largest importer, China. Further, the population of China is ten times larger than Japan. So, per person living there, Japan imports (net) sixteen times more groceries than China.
Territory size shows the proportion of worldwide net imports of groceries (in US$) that are received there. Net imports are imports minus exports. When exports are larger than imports the territory is not shown.





In Spring 2000 world population estimates reached 6 billion; that is 6 thousand million. The distribution of the earth's population is shown in this map.

India, China and Japan appear large on the map because they have large populations. Panama, Namibia and Guinea-Bissau have small populations so are barely visible on the map.

Population is very weakly related to land area. However, Sudan which is geographically the largest country in Africa, has a smaller population than Nigeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Democratic Republic of Congo, South Africa and Tanzania.

Note: Many of the maps' subjects relate to people, so this map serves as a good reference map for comparison with many other maps.

"Out of every 100 persons added to the population in the coming decade, 97 will live in developing countries." Hania Zlotnik, 2005


The size of each territory shows the relative proportion of the world's population living there.
Member Since: February 25, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 474
Quoting RTSplayer:


That's really not his fault.

The state and federal government regarding the Florida situation hasn't allowed people to give as much serious thought to the issue. Recall that until just recently, they weren't even doing much drilling for oil or gas around Florida for tourism reasons, because tourism is one of their biggest money makers.

I have pointed out the Gulf Stream several times myself, and it is incredibly energy dense, and much of it is in U.S. coastal waters.

Europe might complain, but oh well, THEY are among the ones complaining about U.S. CO2 as well, so we may as well harness that Gulf Stream, since we can't please them either way anyway...


That's correct and while we are out there it is a good idea to regulate our climate back to what it was prior to the industrial revolution and so the idea will say goodbye to lower Summertime Arctic Ice extent/mass,higher sea levels,higher sea surface temps,higher land temperatures, higher atmospheric temperatures,lower albedo,more red tides,less coral reef area,more cancer,more asthma,more stroke,more heart attacks,lower PH levels in our oceans,more drought,more desertification,dirty energy or deal with the onslaught of larger and more destructive hurricanes as well as more severe weather...I can go on and on but I think you know what I mean here so I'll keep it short......
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting Naga5000:


Nope, they have you beat. They have a plan, on paper, with cost estimates.



That's really not his fault.

The state and federal government regarding the Florida situation hasn't allowed people to give as much serious thought to the issue. Recall that until just recently, they weren't even doing much drilling for oil or gas around Florida for tourism reasons, because tourism is one of their biggest money makers.

I have pointed out the Gulf Stream several times myself, and it is incredibly energy dense, and much of it is in U.S. coastal waters.

Europe might complain, but oh well, THEY are among the ones complaining about U.S. CO2 as well, so we may as well harness that Gulf Stream, since we can't please them either way anyway...


So tell me how does ZERO wind velocity beat a gulfstream flowing 24/7/365? I am listening...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting 1911maker:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2013/04/08/1765 65 424/the-big-squeeze-can-cities-save-the-earthLink



That wonderful New Yorker cartoon made me think that I certainly hope that any humanoids on other planets were given better instructions!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting spathy:
Cyclone. Call them up ant see if you could be part of the whole renewable picture.



That's a good thought but I would think New York would be to far from the load source..... But hey,any bit would help I would think.... Perhaps,a row of generators off of Cape Hatteras placed in the Gulfstream would work too?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting Naga5000:


Nope, they have you beat. They have a plan, on paper, with cost estimates.


That's really not his fault.

The state and federal government regarding the Florida situation hasn't allowed people to give as much serious thought to the issue. Recall that until just recently, they weren't even doing much drilling for oil or gas around Florida for tourism reasons, because tourism is one of their biggest money makers.

I have pointed out the Gulf Stream several times myself, and it is incredibly energy dense, and much of it is in U.S. coastal waters.

Europe might complain, but oh well, THEY are among the ones complaining about U.S. CO2 as well, so we may as well harness that Gulf Stream, since we can't please them either way anyway...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting misanthrope:

Lets just say that all of that carbon tax gets rolled into the price of the final product and I, clueless guy that I am, end up paying a bunch more when I build my new house. Then I get that extra money that I've paid back when I get my carbon tax refund from Uncle Sam. Seems like a wash to me.

By the way, another way to avoid the expense of all of those guys hauling their tool trailers around with their F-350's is prefabricated building. Makes for more consistent quality as well




we all know special tax revenues end up in the general fund anyway, there's always some excuse within a few years, and it will get spent on things it's not supposed to be: space telescopes, raise for the law makers, earmarks, and more.

As I mentioned before, much of it will be wasted on inspectors to make sure manufacturers and producers are reporting their CO2 rates properly, and we all know corruption means the companies will be alerted a week before inspectors show up, so they can fudge their numbers and crap, more IRS auditors to make sure people aren't cheating no their tax returns, etc.


Then you have to figure all the fuel or energy which will be wasted by all the new federal auditors and inspectors driving around (breaking the 4th amendment) to inspect all the factories and power plants to ensure they are complying with the new laws.


I did a rough calculation, using two different methods, and found that the first order taxes on oil alone would provide between 90 billion and 110 billion dollars per year in tax revenues, but much of this will be wasted on inspectors and auditors. But if it's supposedly going to be "revenue neutral" then probably 10 to 15% of that will get wasted on government agencies, and no, you won't be getting a refund on the cost of your home. The "revenue neutral" will be going to grants for alternative energy companies, and maybe if you're lucky some "XX% off" vouchers for your own PV panels or your own EV.

Most of the money will go to subsidies for helping GE develop a better diesel-electric train, or helping some solar or wind company get a corporate monopoly on the required energy source, which you will be forced to pay since roof top panels can't provide all the power you need, and you'll see, people who live in...certain locations...will get hit very hard eventually. worst case is currently lives on a coal power grid in a northern location, but in the country side. This person can't get enough power from PV due to winter, and gets stuck with all of bad scenarios I previously combined.


Ultimately, it's not going to cut the demand for carbon fuels, the only thing it will do is inflate the dollar, concentrate wealth in the hands of a few established R&D oriented firms, and hurt middle and low income families for odds and ends reasons that "economic averages" don't care about.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Sadly they are not 24/7/365 like the Gulfstream is... I got you beat..


Nope, they have you beat. They have a plan, on paper, with cost estimates.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3372
Quoting barbamz:
New York Renewable Power Plan Would Cost $382 Billion by 2030
By Louise Downing - Apr 8, 2013 2:57 PM GMT+0200
New York would need about $382 billion and wind turbines covering an area equivalent to 13 percent of the state’s land mass if it followed a Cornell University plan to derive all of its power from renewables.

Robert Howarth, a Cornell ecology professor, suggested last month the state could get half its power from wind and enough from solar, tidal and other forms of clean energy to replace fossil fuels by 2030. The plan for 254 gigawatts of generation capacity would cost about $1.5 million a megawatt, or $382 billion, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

The findings cast doubt on the ability of the state to eliminate oil, natural gas and coal from its energy supply. The Cornell proposal would require onshore wind turbines covering an area 3.3 times the size of New York City’s five boroughs.

“It’s too ambitious by 2030 to replace all the state’s power with renewables, although big progress could be made,” Angus McCrone, a senior analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance in London, said today. The projections, he said, look “unrealistic” for individual technologies.

The Cornell study published in the journal “Energy Policy” in March was done along with Stanford University. It called for 4,020 onshore turbines and 12,700 machines offshore harnessing the wind’s power. It also suggested 387 concentrated solar plants and 828 utility-scale photovoltaic generators. Wave, tidal and hydroelectric would supply much of the rest of the electricity.

Study’s Vision

The report envisions all vehicles running on battery power or hydrogen fuel cells and electricity-powered heat pumps replacing heating oil in homes. New York already gets about 11 percent of its energy from renewable sources, according to the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation.

Savings from reducing air pollution would top $33 billion, and a further $3.2 billion could be saved by reducing coastal erosion and extreme weather due to climate change, the researchers concluded.

The offshore wind turbines would cover an area of about 4,903 square miles, and onshore machines would cover a further 1,000 square miles, according to calculations based on Bloomberg New Energy Finance data for how much space each turbine would occupy. By comparison, New York City covers 305 square miles, and the state about 47,200 square miles.

“A different combination, such as with more residential and small-scale photovoltaic, and greater use of energy efficiency, might be more realistic by 2030,” McCrone said.

To meet the target, the report’s authors suggest measures including the establishment of a Green Bank, introducing feed-in tariffs, or premium payments for small-scale energy generation, and implementing a goal for at least 5,000 megawatts of offshore wind by 2020.


Source Bloomberg

Nevertheless, a start could be made?


Sadly they are not 24/7/365 like the Gulfstream is... I got you beat..
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting 1911maker:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2013/04/08/1765 65 424/the-big-squeeze-can-cities-save-the-earthLink

This is fun. Long, so make it to the bottom if you can. Growing up and living in the wide open spaces of the Hinterlands; the first pictures in the article are pretty much a night mare of the worst kind for me.

................People in the Enormous City still need food, furniture, clothing, water, electricity, building materials, still need a place to store their waste. They still need water systems, farms, ranches, electricity grids, dumps, lakes, even if they never leave their city.

One Pair Of Shoes And A Bike ...

How much extra space? Well, again, said Tim, that depends. If you are happy to live with a modest diet, one pair of shoes and a bike, you won't be drawing on as much of Earth as, say an American would. If all 7 billion of us want to live like Americans, with refrigerators and air conditioners and cars and running water and TVs and strawberries in winter — then we will have a space problem............

..............But as soon as we get richer — even as rich as the average Chinese — the world can't carry all 7 billion of us. We need more planet. If we all want to live American-style, we'd need four more planets ...)............

..........Or ... let's not get all doomsday about this. We could solve this problem by making fewer babies, building more efficient buildings, machines, using new, lighter materials, creating technologies that make everything less costly or wasteful, learn to live on Mars, or, in a pinch, we can be saved by a Miracle.



If it wasn't for the "evil" U.S. exporting food, the world food prices would be much higher, and you'd have your wish: Everyone else dying of starvation.

Maybe if we take "Misanthrope" at his word, that everything should be priced according to it's long term cost, then maybe it's true, maybe the U.S. should stop selling (or giving) food to other countries, and just let them starve. Then YOU wouldn't have to whine about how they can't live at the American standard, which is what already makes their lives possible in the first place.

North America and South America should form a coalition to jack up the price of food for those mass-reproducing Africans and Middle Easterners, which we already feed.

Then you clueless people can see where a lot of the energy goes. It goes into growing food, and clothing materials, as well as mining and processing building materials.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Now global warming/climate change/climate disruption will be blamed for more turbulence on airline flights. Next, guns will be blamed for AGW:

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Last post for today. BTW: my sister and her husband took part in successfully defeating the project of expanding a coal plant near Frankurt (a highly populated region). They live in the vicinity of this plant.

Study spells out fatal danger of coal pollution

Particulates from coal combustion are a serious health hazard. A study commissioned by Greenpeace warns of this fatal danger from coal-fired power plants.

It's a study that made headlines: Some 33,000 years of life are lost every year in Germany and neighboring countries due to particulate matter emitted by coal-fired power plants in Germany. That's according to a study released recently by the Institute for Energy Economics and the Rational Use of Energy, of Stuttgart University. This translates into about 3,100 premature deaths every year.


Whole article

Good night!
Member Since: October 25, 2008 Posts: 53 Comments: 5923
New York Renewable Power Plan Would Cost $382 Billion by 2030
By Louise Downing - Apr 8, 2013 2:57 PM GMT+0200
New York would need about $382 billion and wind turbines covering an area equivalent to 13 percent of the state’s land mass if it followed a Cornell University plan to derive all of its power from renewables.

Robert Howarth, a Cornell ecology professor, suggested last month the state could get half its power from wind and enough from solar, tidal and other forms of clean energy to replace fossil fuels by 2030. The plan for 254 gigawatts of generation capacity would cost about $1.5 million a megawatt, or $382 billion, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

The findings cast doubt on the ability of the state to eliminate oil, natural gas and coal from its energy supply. The Cornell proposal would require onshore wind turbines covering an area 3.3 times the size of New York City’s five boroughs.

“It’s too ambitious by 2030 to replace all the state’s power with renewables, although big progress could be made,” Angus McCrone, a senior analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance in London, said today. The projections, he said, look “unrealistic” for individual technologies.

The Cornell study published in the journal “Energy Policy” in March was done along with Stanford University. It called for 4,020 onshore turbines and 12,700 machines offshore harnessing the wind’s power. It also suggested 387 concentrated solar plants and 828 utility-scale photovoltaic generators. Wave, tidal and hydroelectric would supply much of the rest of the electricity.

Study’s Vision

The report envisions all vehicles running on battery power or hydrogen fuel cells and electricity-powered heat pumps replacing heating oil in homes. New York already gets about 11 percent of its energy from renewable sources, according to the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation.

Savings from reducing air pollution would top $33 billion, and a further $3.2 billion could be saved by reducing coastal erosion and extreme weather due to climate change, the researchers concluded.

The offshore wind turbines would cover an area of about 4,903 square miles, and onshore machines would cover a further 1,000 square miles, according to calculations based on Bloomberg New Energy Finance data for how much space each turbine would occupy. By comparison, New York City covers 305 square miles, and the state about 47,200 square miles.

“A different combination, such as with more residential and small-scale photovoltaic, and greater use of energy efficiency, might be more realistic by 2030,” McCrone said.

To meet the target, the report’s authors suggest measures including the establishment of a Green Bank, introducing feed-in tariffs, or premium payments for small-scale energy generation, and implementing a goal for at least 5,000 megawatts of offshore wind by 2020.


Source Bloomberg

Nevertheless, a start could be made?
Member Since: October 25, 2008 Posts: 53 Comments: 5923
Quoting RTSplayer:
...

What will happen, is one of two things:

1, These people will get screwed somehow by everyone else, as they often already are.

or

2, They will make up for it by charging much more for their services, and clueless people like those on this thread will pay much more for your home or apartment or small business needs.

Lets just say that all of that carbon tax gets rolled into the price of the final product and I, clueless guy that I am, end up paying a bunch more when I build my new house. Then I get that extra money that I've paid back when I get my carbon tax refund from Uncle Sam. Seems like a wash to me.

By the way, another way to avoid the expense of all of those guys hauling their tool trailers around with their F-350's is prefabricated building. Makes for more consistent quality as well

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2013/04/08/176565 424/the-big-squeeze-can-cities-save-the-earthLink

This is fun. Long, so make it to the bottom if you can. Growing up and living in the wide open spaces of the Hinterlands; the first pictures in the article are pretty much a night mare of the worst kind for me.

................People in the Enormous City still need food, furniture, clothing, water, electricity, building materials, still need a place to store their waste. They still need water systems, farms, ranches, electricity grids, dumps, lakes, even if they never leave their city.

One Pair Of Shoes And A Bike ...

How much extra space? Well, again, said Tim, that depends. If you are happy to live with a modest diet, one pair of shoes and a bike, you won't be drawing on as much of Earth as, say an American would. If all 7 billion of us want to live like Americans, with refrigerators and air conditioners and cars and running water and TVs and strawberries in winter — then we will have a space problem............

..............But as soon as we get richer — even as rich as the average Chinese — the world can't carry all 7 billion of us. We need more planet. If we all want to live American-style, we'd need four more planets ...)............

..........Or ... let's not get all doomsday about this. We could solve this problem by making fewer babies, building more efficient buildings, machines, using new, lighter materials, creating technologies that make everything less costly or wasteful, learn to live on Mars, or, in a pinch, we can be saved by a Miracle.

Member Since: February 25, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 474

Viewing: 456 - 406

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11Blog 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.

Local Weather

Light Rain
61 °F
Light Rain