The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[oil pan 4]

We need generation capacity to charge electric vehicles, not storage capacity.
If me and my wife both drove electric vehicles our electrical consumption would just about double.
If everyone starts driving electric cars a stupid grid storage battery isn't going to do anything.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Germany produces most of their energy a large portion with coal, but they have just abut the most expensive power of any country.
So that's all BS.

And everyone of them gets free college,6-weeks paid holiday/year, free health and dental care?
Sucks to be a German national.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

If we consider the difference to the $300-billion climate-related losses for 2018,made by anthropogenic warming,the base rate might look a bit better.
We're looking at $600-trillion in climate-related losses by 2100.
Reducing CO2 any way,and as fast as we can seems prudent.

Go Nuclear.
Grid batteries are stupid.
There is only several hundred years worth of uranium sitting around left over from the cold war.
The world can barely make enough batteries for a few million new electric cars each year.
Grid batteries don't generate power they waste it.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I watch about half the videos linked by freebeard only because there's a limit to what I can consume while juggling other obligations and interests in a day.

As a thought experiment, let's envision humans going back to only what they "need". We're all living in caves, scrounging for food. Then we think, it might be nice to have a door on this cave so it isn't so drafty. Then we think it might be nice if there were some natural light, so we build our cave out of other materials. Then we think it would be nice if it were warmer in this man-made cave, so we convert stored energy into heat to warm it up. Then we figure it would be nice if the cave were cooler in the summer, so we expend energy to do so. It could be bigger, it could have running water...

There is no limit to what would be nice to have, and there is hardly a distinction between need and want once you move past very rudimentary shelter, air, water, and some minimum amount of food. One man's worthless object might be another's "need".

Back to what I'm always saying: if burning too much fossil fuels is a net detriment, we need to precisely define at what level burning fossil fuels is most beneficial, and target those levels... and it would need to be universally accepted otherwise those that participate in limiting their consumption are at a disadvantage in every sense of the word.

According to the experts,the most beneficial level is not only zero,but negative combustion.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

And everyone of them gets free college,6-weeks paid holiday/year, free health and dental care?
Sucks to be a German national.

If that's how you roll, cool.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

New Heinberg essay..."The bind we’re in is this: it is the economy—made up of all those billions of fires—that is causing climate change. Reconfiguring the economy so that it doesn’t cause climate change is currently almost completely a matter of theory, and, even if it is practically possible, represents a job of unprecedented scope and scale that would require nearly unheard-of political solidarity and almost incalculably massive investment and sacrifice (those “affordable energy transition” studies notwithstanding).

Meanwhile, most people are directly dependent on the economy for their survival. Thus, economic contraction or collapse (resulting either from climate change, or from efforts to avert climate change by radically reducing energy use, or from depletion of resources like oil, or even from some entirely foreseeable socioeconomic calamity like a massive debt default or terminal political dysfunction caused by increasing levels of inequality) would itself be traumatic. And for many people (certainly not all!), economic trauma might come sooner and be more direct and devastating than trauma from rising seas, droughts, floods, wildfires, and the other anticipated consequences of global warming."
.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2...se-is-on-fire/
.

Someone needs to do him a favor and install a window where he's become a mushroom.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Someone needs to do him a favor and install a window where he's become a mushroom.

It's really too bad that it seems you will never allow yourself to even try to understand any of this.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

So you want to nitpick between the words "most" and "all" to feel better? It has been very interesting for me to watch how confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance play out in these discussions. My own reactions included.
.
Battery electrification of industrial farm equipment and truck transport is quite unlikely to allow the same scale of production that is feeding the world now.
.
.

.
.
570 Liters of diesel per day = 5,700 kWh per day. Even if you cut that by2.5 for the extra efficiency of electric motors with round trip losses you get 2,300 kWh per day for a large size farm machine. 12 Tesla grid scale 200kWh powerpacks per day to hot swap in and out. for just one tractor. We are going to need to start making a lot of wire to get all of this power around.

It might be a good idea to get away from what we're doing now.It's 17.8% of total,global greenhouse gas emissions.(more than all global transportation)
Nature's getting more RBIs than Agrochem.
Monocultures are a great setup for complete pandemic crop failures.
Global food trade is sucking the aquifiers into oblivion.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Stopping the use of "artificial chemicals" would surely cause society to collapse.

People have this misconception that the Earth is a magical Garden of Eden where everything is provided in just the right quantities for humans to flourish. Every aspect of nature threatens to destroy us. Ingenuity is what allows us to flourish.

Consuming more than we need to survive the next day is exactly what has brought our knowledge of science and technology. If we were cave dwellers, we wouldn't be having conversations about what to do about climate change, or be able to track celestial objects that could cause extinction.

That isn't to say we should consume without giving any thought to the consequences, but to say we should not use artificial chemicals is absurd. There's a reason we use them in farm production; because it's incredibly efficient. Boosting yields conserves land, reducing energy intensive farming, and delivers more desirable products at a cheaper price.

What you say is true if countless other factors are ignored in this calculus.
We've allowed a lot of people to now exist whom will probably die an early and unpleasant death.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

But this is the only way we have been able feed the world population. Which doubled since 1970 because of factory farming. People do not understand this. We have already kicked the can of starvation down the road due to factory farming back in the 70's. It is very naive to say that we must stop. That we can stop. Without starvation. Many people mean well by saying that we must return to sustainable practices, but do not understand the scale of population that has been artificially propped up by fossil fuels. Or what scale will remain without it.

We can't continue.We've just created billions of more people to starve.