The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Corporations are considered "persons" under US law.
.
Since all goods start with a little bit of raw materials harvested with a great amount of energy. And then refined, manufactured, transported with a great deal more energy. Money is also mainly a claim on future energy. Our debt based economy is now writing checks that eventually will not be paid.

Yes,the US Supreme Court ruled that,under the Due Process clause,of the 14th Amendment,corporations are recognized as legal persons.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Reading the fine article:

"In February 2018, Denmark's Ministry of Environment and Food published its Life Cycle Assessment of grocery carrier bags, which looked at the overall embodied energy, materials and labor in different grocery bags, and also evaluated the environmental impacts of different kinds of plastic bags.

Their conclusion was that single-use, flimsy disposable plastic bags are the best option in terms of environmental and climate costs (however, the Ministry's analysis did not factor in marine life impacts of these bags, which are severe).

By far the worst performer was organic cotton, which has about 3x the environmental impact of conventional cotton (organic growing requires more land, water, and pesticides than are used when growing GMOs with synthetic pesticides). "

I recycle plastic bags that don't get reused.


So is Bitcoin speech? Asking for a friend.

If the $72-billion /year subsidiy was removed from the fossil-fuel (plastics) industry,the 'price' of plastic bags might have a different appearance,and take on a different value in the assessment.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Yes. There will be a great deal of "red" when we do nothing in advance to change the human amoeba from sloughing along to the shortest payback on frivolous luxuries until we finally enter the collapse phase (already started in places) of energy and resource depletion. Resulting in an endless world resource war III.

I finished the 24-part lecture series by The Great Courses,and on the last lecture,Professor Wysession spoke of ,'maybe..(in the future)...we'll be less wowed by the glitter of material objects...........'
It's asking a lot.And in opposition of what people do.A proper discussion would most likely fall outside the bounds of accepted dialogue.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

But that is only concerning electricity. Which is only 20% of the energy we use.
.
We have to build out another 50X wind and solar. And storage. And also electrify all of the 100's of $trillions of built out infrastructure, machines, heat and processes. And grow at 3%/ year to pay back the $275 trillion the world has already borrowed from the future. And not run out of resources or money while doing all of this.
.
It takes a WWII type austere focused effort to do all of this world wide in 20 years.

here are a few observations from Dr. Wysessions lecture series,looking at a snapshot of 2014,And for the time-being we'll ignore industrial process energy:
*Electrical generation constitutes 12% of overall energy consumption,424-GW.
*The fossil-fuel-fired portion of electrical production wastes 27% of total US energy in the production of electricity.
*If we get fossil-fuels out of electrical production (which he says we must do eventually),our total energy requirement is 2.437-TW.
*He's not against carbon capture and sequestration,but that cost added to the hidden costs of fossil-fuels put's them out of competitive reach of renewables.
*Presently,coal-fired electricity is the most expensive there is,if it's 'hidden' costs are factored into it's price (8.5-cents/kWh).
*Natural gas-derived electrical power would have to at least double in price,in order to cover it's 'hidden' costs.
*Which makes wind power the most economical form of power available.Wind has the same capacity factor as hydroelectric,and as of 2014 was already selling at below 2-cents/kWh in some locations.
*There's enough wind and solar to run the USA.
*Globally,grid storage capacity is 125-GW and growing.
*Twenty years of steady,aggressive growth in renewables moves us in the right direction.
*Use every technology available.
*Wysession accepts natural gas as a 'bridge' to a full renewable future.
*Wysession feels that nuclear fusion is worth throwing money at,even though we have zero% capacity after 50-years of R&D.
*Wysession advocates getting petroleum out of transportation as fast as we can,and save this one-time,precious treasure for something more important than fuel.It would end US military involvement in the Middle East.And a savings of $hundreds of billions a year for more build out.
*Although he doesn't say it directly,it's implied that modified national building codes could guarantee 50% energy savings on all new residential construction.States would have to comply.No contractor could cut corners.Any additional up-front cost would be recovered on the back-end,netting a fortune in savings over the 200-year life of the structure.
*He advocates streamlining automobiles.
*He advocates at least regenerative braking on all cars and light trucks,which implies hybrids at least,BEVs at most.
*Since BEVs are the fastest-growing automobile segment,he presumes that this trend will just extrapolate out into the future, until all ICE vehicles are gone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
*No specifics were given with respect to potential efficiency increases for industrial processes,other than they can all be improved.
*Population is a big issue.
*Lifestyles are a big issue.
*He's big on education,but again,that's a topic sure to rankle folks.

[freebeard]

We are facing down the biggest change that humans have ever had to navigate. The end of growth. And there is no planet B.

One might say....Utopia or Oblivion

A proper discussion would most likely fall outside the bounds of excepted dialogue.

Is that acceptable? [/jk]

Have you notice the Far Left is trying to enforce limits on the Overton window? The most entertaining for me was Lil Lunchbox.

[NeilBlanchard]

Climate disruption has health effects, too.

https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/20...-conversations

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by slowmover

Fossil fuels for me, but not for thee. Inside each country.

Besides, renewables CANNOT do the job of replacement.

So far,I've not seen a compelling argument which leads me to that conclusion.
Would you want to flesh out that theme?

[sendler]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Have you notice the Far Left is trying to enforce limits on the Overton window? The most entertaining for me was Lil Lunchbox.

That's funny. I would have said that free forward thinkers such as myself have tended to smash through the Overton window.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

1 energy poverty and all around poverty, note: food will likely be included in "materials".
2 the United States already has a stabile population, unchecked illegal immigration and anchor babies is the primary thing growing the population right now.
3 redistribution of wealth.
4 redistribution of wealth.
5 millions of people killed.
6 secure government jobs.
7 centrally planned economy.

Seems to me,that the market is out there working it's magic.Coal is vanishing,natural gas is growing,renewables are coming on strong,as is storage.BEVs.Breakthroughs in PVs,batteries.Materials technology.Funny if wood replaced steel,aluminum,and titanium.No mining.No smelting.No electric furnaces.
If we stop destroying other people's countries,maybe they'll stay home and quit trying to come here.
And things we can't mention here.

[redpoint5]

I think we can discuss ideas as long as they are articulated thoughts rather than tribal diatribes (like my recent communist bullshine comment). I'm willing to discuss "destroying other people's countries" in a thoughtful manner, but we'd need to talk about specific incidents rather than a broad notion of destruction of other countries.