Thread for discussing climate change

[Chap]

Actually Atlanticmike, you've effectively asked me that question before, and I think you will find that I answered it in a way that makes me pretty green compared to the majority of Americans, and probably even to you.

So - what do you think of this AEM Electrolyser project as a contribution to the problems that we* need to solve pretty damn quick unless we are prepared to see the earth getting hotter quicker?

Since we are at the start of a new page, here is a link to my post with full details of the project, which has just won a USD 1 million Earthshot Prize:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=154045&start=200#top

*For Atlanticmike: I use this pronoun to mean (surprise!!) us inhabitants of planet Earth who will all be worse off if global heating is not slowed down drastically in the fairly short term.

[Cultellus]

"The climate disaster is here — This is what the future looks like"

When I opened the door to go outside, I gasped from the cold air hitting me in the face, that hasn't happened for months. I turned around and went back in to put pants on, definitely not wearing shorts today. I blame it on climate change.

I have noticed a huge change in the climate since August, temperatures are also way down. I think it is mostly because, in San Francisco there is shortage of horse dewormer and they banned Arabs from selling individual menthol cigarettes to black people, and in Oklahoma, the horses died - less pollution. Makes total sense.

[Chap]

And - on a much smaller scale than the AEM Electrolyser project described in my post above, here's how poor people in Puerto Rico are using the free energy of the sun to get a low cost renewable and carbon-free electricity supply that is not dependent on the public grid - never good at the best of times, but seriously damaged by recent hurricanes.


Build back solar: the Puerto Ricans who see sun as key to resist climate shocks

The article begins:

Ahead of the Cop 26 climate summit, Nina Lakhani reports from Puerto Rico on the row over how to rebuild the island’s energy system in the aftermath of two devastating hurricanes

Rosalina Marrero spends the best part of each day ironing and watching telenovelas at her modest bungalow in Puerto Rico’s coastal Guayama province. When it gets too hot or her asthma plays up due to the toxic coal ash from the nearby power plant, the 78-year-old widow rests on an adjustable hospital bed, clicks on the fan and thanks God for the solar panels on her roof.

Earlier this year, Marrero was among two dozen residents in a low-income, predominantly Black neighbourhood blighted by coal pollution, fitted with a rooftop solar and storage system. Campaigners say systems like hers should be rolled out more widely to tackle the island’s energy crisis and the global climate emergency – both of which are exacerbating racialized health inequalities.

The situation with the electricity is dire.

Rooftop solar could supply all of Puerto Rico’s energy needs

Puerto Ricans pay more than twice as much for electricity as Americans on the mainland yet earlier this month power cuts to hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses caused widespread anger and misery. Traffic lights failed, hospitals used expensive diesel generators to keep dialysis machines and ventilators running, and fires broke out due to fluctuations in voltage.

Despite the abysmal service, electricity rates have increased four times so far this year.

In hot and humid Guayama, the lights went out for several hours almost every day for those unable to afford a backup generator. But thanks to the rooftop solar system, Marrero could stay cool and watch TV without worrying about the food going off in the fridge.

“It’s the best thing that’s happened to me. I thank God because my poor neighbours are suffering but I’ve always got electricity. I feel more secure, if we get another big hurricane like Maria, I won’t suffer so much,” said Marrero.

Marrero is lucky because while Puerto Rico gets enough sunlight to meet its residential electricity needs at least four times over, less than 3% of the island’s energy comes from renewable sources. The rest is generated from imported fossil fuels: 49% from petroleum and 29% from natural gas, while coal accounts for 19%.

Hurricane Maria was a wake-up call: it not only exposed Puerto Rico’s vulnerability to extreme weather events linked to global heating, but also focused attention on the economic and environmental ramifications of the island’s dependence on fossil fuels for local communities and greenhouse gas emissions.

This gave rise to a social movement that came up with a plan called Queremos Sol, or we want sun – an evidence-based roadmap to make Puerto Rico’s energy system self-sufficient by swapping fossil fuels for onsite small solar grids distributed throughout the island.

The concept is simple: a localized system that doesn’t require moving electricity from centralized power plants along overhead wires to local substations would be better equipped to withstand and recover from super storms and other natural disasters. Onsite batteries would better cover critical needs during disruptions.

Experts say that such radical change is necessary to comply with Puerto Rico’s ambitious energy policy, which mandates that 40% of electricity must come from renewable resources by 2025 and 100% by 2050.

It would also help the US comply with the Paris agreement, which Biden rejoined on the first day of his presidency, as well as the administration’s commitment to achieve net zero emissions by investing in green infrastructure and jobs to address climate change and environmental justice.

On the other hand, local authorities and the energy sector insist that more electricity must be generated to avoid shortages and power cuts – claims which campaigners dismiss as a ruse to justify further investment in gas and transmission infrastructure, as official documents suggest there’s enough capacity to cover demand.

What’s agreed is that Puerto Rico is at a pivotal point and for once there’s real money on the table: last September, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema) approved an unprecedented $9.6bn to reconstruct the island’s energy system and is currently deciding how the money should be spent.

“Rooftop solar could supply all of Puerto Rico’s energy needs. It’s viable, sustainable and more reliable than the current centralized system that the energy industry and authorities want to rebuild,” said Ruth Santiago, lawyer and environmental policy expert who contributed to Queremos Sol. “We need the Biden administration to act. This is a critical time, a lot is at stake.”

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Thanks for posting that, Chap. I was watching a Lex Fridman interview Sam Harris a couple nights ago, and they mentioned Elon Musk said something to the effect that the only way out of this dilemma is to create products that people will prefer over their current ones due to humans’ selfish nature. Granted, if the Right had embraced green tech instead of fighting against it for the last forty years we might’ve had a shot at curbing global temperature increase. So it’s good to see innovators nudging the market that way through whatever motivations that cause them to do so.

- Doc

[Gunnar]

You sure do use "us" and"we" a lot when discussing climate change. What do "you" do to fight climate change? Here! Let's start with last night. Did you run your HVAC system? Why? While sleeping, you could've regulated your body temperature by decreasing or increasing the number of blankets you use while sleeping. Winter is coming. You could use your HVAC system in the winter to make sure your pipes don't freeze buy setting your HVAC system to 50 degrees. Then just wear a lot of clothes to stay warm. Why do you CHOOSE to turn your system up to a higher temperature knowing it's not good for the climate? Do you drive an automobile? Why? 100s of factories have to burn fossil fuels to make the 1000s of parts found on a typical automobile. Why don't you ride a bike and set an example for everyone else? Are you a Vegan? If not, why? Animals belching and farting are adding to the overall climate problem. You could be getting your protein from plants. Have you ever used Amazon or another online vendor then had something you bought delivered to your house? Why?? Are you telling me you think having a big gas guzzling cargo van delivering items 16 hours a day is helping the climate problem? Do you only buy locally so the items you buy don't have to travel 100s to 1000s of miles in a tractor trailer, or boat from China? How bout food? Do you grow your own food? Do you collect your own water or do you rely on your local municipality to pump water to you by using electric water pumps? Do you compost everything you can? Do you bag leaves and send them to the dump? Did you have more than one child, why? Why not have no children and save mother earth?

Normally I have you on ignore, but I just had to see how you answered Chap's argument. I knew it would be good for a hearty laugh. I was not disappointed! What you are arguing, essentially, is equivalent to arguing that unless we all individually and collectively as a society are willing and able to immediately achieve a carbon neutral economy and a 100% efficient, renewables based energy system, we should make no attempt to do anything at all. It is hard to imagine a stupider argument than that! It is like arguing that if we can't find a car that absolutely uses no gasoline at all and has zero emissions, we might just as well settle for the worst gas guzzler and worst polluting car we can possibly find, or that if we can't cure or prevent 100% of all life threatening illnesses with absolute certainly, we should never make any attempt to practice medicine or even vaccinate anyone at all.

[Atlanticmike]

You sure do use "us" and"we" a lot when discussing climate change. What do "you" do to fight climate change? Here! Let's start with last night. Did you run your HVAC system? Why? While sleeping, you could've regulated your body temperature by decreasing or increasing the number of blankets you use while sleeping. Winter is coming. You could use your HVAC system in the winter to make sure your pipes don't freeze buy setting your HVAC system to 50 degrees. Then just wear a lot of clothes to stay warm. Why do you CHOOSE to turn your system up to a higher temperature knowing it's not good for the climate? Do you drive an automobile? Why? 100s of factories have to burn fossil fuels to make the 1000s of parts found on a typical automobile. Why don't you ride a bike and set an example for everyone else? Are you a Vegan? If not, why? Animals belching and farting are adding to the overall climate problem. You could be getting your protein from plants. Have you ever used Amazon or another online vendor then had something you bought delivered to your house? Why?? Are you telling me you think having a big gas guzzling cargo van delivering items 16 hours a day is helping the climate problem? Do you only buy locally so the items you buy don't have to travel 100s to 1000s of miles in a tractor trailer, or boat from China? How bout food? Do you grow your own food? Do you collect your own water or do you rely on your local municipality to pump water to you by using electric water pumps? Do you compost everything you can? Do you bag leaves and send them to the dump? Did you have more than one child, why? Why not have no children and save mother earth?

Normally I have you on ignore, but I just had to see how you answered Chap's argument. I knew it would be good for a hearty laugh. I was not disappointed! What you are arguing, essentially, is equivalent to arguing that unless we all individually and collectively as a society is willing and able to immediately do achieve achieve a carbon neutral economy and 100% efficient energy system, we should make no attempt to do anything at all. It is hard to imagine a stupider argument than that! It is like arguing that if we can't find a car that absolutely uses no gasoline at all and has zero emissions, we might just as well settle for the worst gas guzzler and worst polluting car we can possibly find, or that if we can't cure or prevent 100% of all life threatening illnesses with absolute certainly, we should never make any attempt to practice medicine or even vaccinate anyone at all.

No ding dong! What I'm saying is everyone reading this has the ability to start change today if they feel climate change is a huge problem. What could you of done differently in the past few days to limit your carbon footprint? This morning, did you turn on a light switch? Are you using a refrigerator to store food? Did you run water that was heated up by a water heater either using electricity or gas? Did you use a microwave? Did you drive to work? And so on and so on! You see, you didn't have to do any of those things. You could've walked around in the dark. You could've made a conscious decision to only eat foods that don't require refrigeration. You could've taken a cold shower. You don't need a microwave. You could've cycled or walked to work. I'm honestly asking! Why not reject modern conveniences because they're all contributing to climate change?

By the way. You know you love reading my post, stop lying!

[Gunnar]

Why not reject modern conveniences because they're all contributing to climate change?

Yet another stupid question. Because it is not necessary to reject all modern conveniences to achieve a green energy economy, or significantly reduce our carbon footprint. Going back to the stone age would drastically reduce our quality of life and our health and longevity.

[Chap]

Why not reject modern conveniences because they're all contributing to climate change?

It's not just a question of a few 'modern conveniences', but of the entire technological and economic support system on which the vast majority of people in advanced countries rely to stay alive.

The problem is, therefore - how can we find a way of maintaining the functions of that support system that keep us alive, fed, clothed and housed without doing things that will ultimately led to a general environmental, economic and social collapse? And that is what this thread is here to discuss. Above I gave you examples of two contributions towards achieving that goal.

[Cultellus]

Normally I have you on ignore, but I just had to see how you answered Chap's argument. I knew it would be good for a hearty laugh. I was not disappointed! What you are arguing, essentially, is equivalent to arguing that unless we all individually and collectively as a society is willing and able to immediately do achieve achieve a carbon neutral economy and 100% efficient energy system, we should make no attempt to do anything at all. It is hard to imagine a stupider argument than that! It is like arguing that if we can't find a car that absolutely uses no gasoline at all and has zero emissions, we might just as well settle for the worst gas guzzler and worst polluting car we can possibly find, or that if we can't cure or prevent 100% of all life threatening illnesses with absolute certainly, we should never make any attempt to practice medicine or even vaccinate anyone at all.

No ding dong! What I'm saying is everyone reading this has the ability to start change today if they feel climate change is a huge problem. What could you of done differently in the past few days to limit your carbon footprint? This morning, did you turn on a light switch? Are you using a refrigerator to store food? Did you run water that was heated up by a water heater either using electricity or gas? Did you use a microwave? Did you drive to work? And so on and so on! You see, you didn't have to do any of those things. You could've walked around in the dark. You could've made a conscious decision to only eat foods that don't require refrigeration. You could've taken a cold shower. You don't need a microwave. You could've cycled or walked to work. I'm honestly asking! Why not reject modern conveniences because they're all contributing to climate change?

By the way. You know you love reading my post, stop lying!

Horses are an introduced species. They are bad for the environment. I have owned thoroughbreds, warmbloods and a draft horse. My family owned quarter horses. I know what it takes to keep these animals, and it is A LOT! My cousins still operate some of the biggest dairies in the Morridor. My family also imported the first red angus cattle into Utah back in the day. We have ranched a lot of cattle. My mother is an auctioneer and my grandfather was stock trader. I have seen firsthand what it takes to feed livestock. The amount of fuel, water and petrochemical soil supplements is huge.

I eat beef, lamb, pork, turkey and chicken. I also eat fish. for what it's worth.

So yeah. When someone starts going off about the environment and also wanting to save horses, I get to laugh a bit. Because, that is damn funny. I get similar giggles when people who drink wine have an opinion about what everyone else should do for the environment. I get similar giggles when people who use batteries in a new car believe that this is better for the environment than repairing their 2002 vehicle, because the new cars have a better GPS and sync to their phones. I have similar giggles when golf courses remain open and legal, but farmers can't repair their old tractors because of emissions restrictions.

It would be good for the environment if we stopped deworming horses as a form of population control of an introduced species that is not essential for infrastructure.

[Chap]

Why not reject modern conveniences because they're all contributing to climate change?

Yet another stupid question. Because it is not necessary to reject all modern conveniences to achieve a green energy economy, or significantly reduce our carbon footprint. Going back to the stone age would drastically reduce our quality of life and our health and longevity.

Giving up all technology introduced since the stone age would not simply 'reduce' the quality of life, health and longevity of pretty well all the global population: most of us would simply die of starvation.