Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 32   Go Down

Author Topic: Climate Change: Science and Issues  (Read 121709 times)

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #300 on: November 15, 2017, 03:11:27 pm »

Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #301 on: November 15, 2017, 06:31:44 pm »

Interesting article how a few Greenland glaciers will raise sea levels different amounts depending where you live.  Levels go down around Greenland but go up in Brazil more than let's say NYC.  What I'm curious about is why is it CO2 that's at fault.  After all, glaciers have been melting for 12000 years.  Where I lived in Queens NYC, there were glaciers than covered all of NYC creating the Hudson River Valley and Palisades when they retreated.  The Great Lakes are a leftover of the melting as are the 5 Finger Lakes in NYS. 

So here's the question.  How do we know the Greenland Glaciers are just retreating as part of the end of the last Ice Age?  Or if CO2 is having an effect, how much of each cause is there by percent?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/11/15/these-are-the-melting-glaciers-that-might-someday-drown-your-city-according-to-nasa/?utm_term=.10c1fbf608a1
« Last Edit: November 15, 2017, 06:39:08 pm by Alan Klein »
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #302 on: November 15, 2017, 06:45:12 pm »

Long article on CO2 in The New Yorker:  https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/20/can-carbon-dioxide-removal-save-the-world
Removing CO2 and reversing their levels seems daunting, if not impossible.  Current figures are CO2 going up with no signs of them decreasing in the foreseeable future.  Spending on amelioration may be the only path in dealing with glaciers melting. 

Maybe it's just that the Earth with have no icecaps on either end nor glaciers at some near point in the future.  Just part of "normal" Earth history.  Then a new ice age will occur and the whole process will start over again. 

Does anyone know what the status of the glaciers were during the last period when the earth was the warmest at the middle between two ice ages? 

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
    • advantica blog
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #303 on: November 16, 2017, 01:15:12 am »

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29239194
"China's per capita carbon emissions overtake EU's"
They totally bamboozled Paris ;)

There is an article in the latest (paid) issue of German Spiegel, titled: "How China already today controls the world:"
with a subtitle: China stepped over the threshold to a superpower. And the West still hasn't grasped what it means.

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/warum-china-die-weltmacht-nr-1-ist-a-1177858.html
« Last Edit: November 16, 2017, 01:24:44 am by LesPalenik »
Logged

mbaginy

  • Guest
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #304 on: November 16, 2017, 03:46:13 am »

Removing CO2 and reversing their levels seems daunting, if not impossible.
Here's a TED talk about reducing and removing CO2 levels.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #305 on: November 16, 2017, 10:00:22 pm »

Despite CO2 increases, the world still seems to be breathing.  The patient is still alive.  See video.
https://www.space.com/38806-nasa-satellites-watch-earth-breathe-video.html

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #306 on: November 17, 2017, 09:19:25 pm »

In Portugal, we have been recording data since the 1800's. Neither myself, nor the author of the article, were "attempting to create unscientific alarm". FYI, in 2016 we already had the warmest Summer, again repeated in 2017. In 2017, the summer temperatures extended into autumn, abnormally high.

Some data here:

Historical records: http://sdwebx.worldbank.org/climateportal/index.cfm?page=country_historical_climate&ThisRegion=Africa&ThisCcode=PRT

Projections: http://sdwebx.worldbank.org/climateportal/index.cfm?page=country_future_climate&ThisRegion=Africa&ThisCcode=PRT

Thanks for the link to the data. However, I see no reference to how the data was collected, nor any reference to an analysis of the data. All data, whatever the issue, has to be interpreted and placed within a context before it becomes meaningful.

Quote
According to the projections, the Median temp will rise about 2.5C in January. to about 5C in July. Regardless of the cause (nature, human, or combination of both), this is not good, and we need to mitigate and prepare for the changes it will cause.

That certainly sounds like 'unscientific alarm' to me. A 5 degrees C rise in summer temperatures, regardless of the cause!! We should always try to be certain of the cause before we attempt to tackle a problem, otherwise we could just be wasting money.

I presume you've heard of the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period.

http://www.co2science.org/subject/r/summaries/rwpeurope.php

"Climate alarmists contend that the degree of global warmth over latter part of the 20th century was greater than it has been at any other time over the past one to two millennia.  Why?  Because this contention helps them sell their claim that the "unprecedented" temperatures of the past few decades were CO2-induced.  Hence, they cannot stomach the thought that the Medieval Warm Period of a thousand years ago could have been just as warm as, or even warmer than, it has been recently, especially since there was so much less CO2 in the air a thousand years ago than there is now. "

There seems to be a  a difference of opinion among scientists as to whether the RWP, the MWP and the LIA (the cold period that preceded the current warm period), were global in extent, but I don't think there's any disagreement that such warm periods existed in the Mediterraneum region and the northwest of the northern hemisphere.

Those scientists who believe that human emissions of CO2 are a serious threat, such as Michael Mann, downplay the significance of the MWP to such a large extent that they even produce graphs showing that the MWP didn't exist (the Hockey Stick for example).

As a result of that Hockey Stick graph, Michael Mann was accused of scientific fraud. In order to protect his reputation, he felt it was necessary to take his accuser (Tim Ball) to court in a defamation case. It'll be interesting to see how the court case turns out. The last development I read was that the court had requested that Michael Mann produce his data and evidence that justifies the Hockey Stick graph.

However, it seems that Michael Mann has refused to do this on the grounds that such data is his own intellectual property. It seems amazing and totally incredible to me that any person who is genuinely concerned about the future well-fare of humanity would refuse to make public the evidence that supports such concerns, especially when such data and evidence was gathered at the expense of the US taxpayer. The most plausible explanation is that Michael Mann possesses no data and evidence that could support the Hockey Stick graph. In other words, the graph was a scientific fraud.

Your concerns in Portugal about excessive temperatures in summer, and/or during heat waves, is certainly due in part to the Urban Heat Island effect. In 2011 it was calculated that 61% of Portuguese lived in cities. It is estimated that will rise to 71.4 percent in 2030. Many countries already have higher percentages of the population living in cities.

What this means is that whenever we have a heat wave or unusually high temperatures, those higher temperatures are significantly exaggerated by the Urban Heat Island effect, and the majority of the population, world-wide, experiences those exaggerated temperatures because they live in cities.

It thus becomes much easier for 'climate change alarmists' to promote the CO2 scare, because the hotter temperatures in the cities cannot be denied. They are felt by most people, and thermometers located within the cities record the high temperatures, which are often described as the highest on record.

I think it is quite plausible that the highest recorded temperatures in Lisbon during the 20th and 21st centuries were warmer than the highest temperatures in Lisbon during the MWP and RWP, not because of rising CO2 levels, but because of rising urbanization.

Here are a few links to research on the subject. The last one deals specifically with Lisbon.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4555247/
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep11160
http://www.scielo.mec.pt/pdf/fin/n98/n98a06.pdf

Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #307 on: November 20, 2017, 12:46:48 am »

Long article on CO2 in The New Yorker:  https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/20/can-carbon-dioxide-removal-save-the-world

Yes, it is long. But what surprises me is the complete lack of any mention of the indisputable fact that CO2 is essential for all life and that increased levels in the atmosphere, due to the burning of fossil fuels, has a fertilization effect on plant growth in general, and is helping to 'green' our planet. (Refer NASA article below)
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

The New Yorker article discusses some very clever methods of removing CO2 from the atmosphere to bring the CO2 levels back to what they were in pre-industrial times. There are claims that such processes could turn into trillion dollar industries and create lots of jobs.

However, I have two major objections here, based upon common sense and rationality. Creating jobs which don't produce any consumable products or services is extremely inefficient. It's a bit like employing people to pick up pebbles from the beach and then place them back again, as the ancient Romans sometimes did to keep their soldiers occupied, when not in conflict.

The other objection is the total disregard of the value of the diminished volume of food crops world-wide, if we were to succeed in bringing CO2 levels back to pre-industrial levels.

Here's a study which addresses this issue specifically. Since it's also very long, I'll quote just a few relevant paragraphs, but it's an interesting read for those who are curious and unbiased, but I imagine not so interesting for those who are entrenched in 'CO2 alarmism'.  ;)
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/monetary_co2.pdf

"Several analyses have been conducted to estimate potential monetary damages of the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration. Few, however, have attempted to investigate its monetary benefits. Chief among such positive externalities is the economic value added to global crop production by several growth-enhancing properties of atmospheric CO2 enrichment. As literally thousands of laboratory and field studies have demonstrated, elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 have been conclusively shown to stimulate plant productivity and growth, as well as to foster certain water-conserving and stress-alleviating benefits. For a 300-ppm increase in the air’s CO2 content, for example, herbaceous plant biomass is typically enhanced by 25 to 55%, representing an important positive  externality that is absent from today’s state-of-the-art social cost of carbon (SCC) calculations.

The present study addresses this deficiency by providing a quantitative estimate of the direct monetary benefits conferred by atmospheric CO2 enrichment on both historic and future global crop production. The results indicate that the annual total monetary value of this benefit grew from $18.5 billion in 1961 to over $140 billion by 2011, amounting to a total sum of $3.2 trillion over the 50-year period 1961-2011. Projecting the monetary value of this positive externality forward in time reveals it will likely bestow an additional $9.8 trillion on crop production between now and 2050.

In the case of soil infertility, many experiments have demonstrated that even when important nutrients are present in the soil in less than optimal amounts, enriching the air with CO2 still boosts crop yields. With respect to the soil of an African farm where their “genetic and agroecological technologies” have been applied, for example, Conway and Toenniessen speak of “a severe lack of phosphorus and shortages of nitrogen.” Yet even in such adverse situations, atmospheric CO2 enrichment has been reported to enhance plant growth (Barrett et al., 1998; Niklaus et al., 1998; Kim et al., 2003; Rogers et al., 2006). And if supplemental fertilization is provided as described by Conway and Toenniessen, even larger CO2-induced benefits above and beyond those provided by the extra nitrogen and phosphorus applied to the soil would likely be realized."


What I find very revealing is the number of negative reports that one comes across during an internet search on this subject, which attempt to counteract these positive effects of rising CO2 levels by claiming that atmospheric CO2 enrichment actually reduces food nutrition. This is another example of how bad news is more 'attention grabbing' than good news, as well as another example of 'climate-change alarmism' at work.  ;)

Those who have some understanding of organic food practices and soil nutrition, as I have, can see the absurdity in such claims. The nutritional value of specific types of food, grown in the same CO2 levels, can vary enormously according to location, soil fertility and farming practices.

As I mentioned before, in the deleted thread, the quantity of Selenium in Brazil nuts can vary enormously. If one is marketing Brazil nuts for their nutritional value of Selenium, and one is honest and concerned about human welfare, then one should ensure that the soil contains at least a moderate amount of Selenium. If it doesn't, one should add it to the soil, which is an additional expense of course.

This is the problem with modern agriculture. The motivation is to produce the maximum crop yield at the lowest cost. The cosmetic appearance of the food can easily be determined by eyesight. However, the nutritional content can only be determined through laboratory examination.

A method of increasing food nutrition by spending trillions of dollars in removing a free fertilizer (CO2) in order to also significantly reduce total food production, with the side effect that the reduced quantity of food will be slightly more nutritious, sounds totally crazy to me.

There are many far less expensive methods of increasing food nutrition without reducing food quantity.

Logged

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #308 on: November 20, 2017, 02:20:50 pm »


What I find very revealing is the number of negative reports that one comes across during an internet search on this subject, which attempt to counteract these positive effects of rising CO2 levels by claiming that atmospheric CO2 enrichment actually reduces food nutrition. This is another example of how bad news is more 'attention grabbing' than good news, as well as another example of 'climate-change alarmism' at work.  ;)


A method of increasing food nutrition by spending trillions of dollars in removing a free fertilizer (CO2) in order to also significantly reduce total food production, with the side effect that the reduced quantity of food will be slightly more nutritious, sounds totally crazy to me.

There are many far less expensive methods of increasing food nutrition without reducing food quantity.
Ray, the key problem with the analysis you cite is that it does not deal very well with the issue of extreme weather conditions.  If drought spreads as a result of global warming, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is irrelevant as H2O is an absolute requirement for plant growth.  I also object to calling CO2, free fertilizer.  It's not really fertilizer as that term really applies to exogenous nitrogen and phosphorus that are responsible for amino acid, nucleic acid and high energy phosphate production in plants.  Again, CO2 concentration is irrelevant as long as it is not zero if the plant has access to usable nitrogen and phosphorous. 
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #309 on: November 20, 2017, 11:23:04 pm »

Ray, the key problem with the analysis you cite is that it does not deal very well with the issue of extreme weather conditions.  If drought spreads as a result of global warming, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is irrelevant as H2O is an absolute requirement for plant growth.  I also object to calling CO2, free fertilizer.  It's not really fertilizer as that term really applies to exogenous nitrogen and phosphorus that are responsible for amino acid, nucleic acid and high energy phosphate production in plants.  Again, CO2 concentration is irrelevant as long as it is not zero if the plant has access to usable nitrogen and phosphorous. 
Another false argument from the climate change alarmists trying to get everyone to agree with them by scaring them.  Droughts are not spreading.   Rising temperatures evaporate more water over the oceans creating more precipitation over dry areas.   Why do you think the tropics like in the Amazon are so wet, lush and productive for plant, insect and animal species even though the temps are so hot year around?  Green is spreading.

It was cooler temperatures that dried out the Sahara.  Now that it's warming up, it's getting greener again.  Warmer air holds more water leading to more precipitation.  Cooler air holds less water vapor leading to less rain.


https://hotair.com/archives/2015/06/02/another-global-warming-catastrophe-the-sahara-desert-is-getting-greener/
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html

The earth is getting greener mainly due to CO2 and more water.
http://www.iflscience.com/environment/despite-decades-deforestation-earth-getting-greener/

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #310 on: November 20, 2017, 11:32:57 pm »

Ray, the key problem with the analysis you cite is that it does not deal very well with the issue of extreme weather conditions.  If drought spreads as a result of global warming, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is irrelevant as H2O is an absolute requirement for plant growth.  I also object to calling CO2, free fertilizer.  It's not really fertilizer as that term really applies to exogenous nitrogen and phosphorus that are responsible for amino acid, nucleic acid and high energy phosphate production in plants.  Again, CO2 concentration is irrelevant as long as it is not zero if the plant has access to usable nitrogen and phosphorous.

Alan,
We've been through this before. The technical summary of the latest IPCC report stated specifically that there was low confidence that hurricanes, droughts and floods have been increasing since the 1950's.

Of course, one can always create computer models to show that there is a risk of that happening in the future, but what's interesting is that the same report states there is high confidence that precipitation levels (rainfall) have been increasing during the same period, and high confidence that heat-wave temperatures have been increasing.

Both of those 'high confidence' descriptions make sense to me in a world that is currently in a slight warming period. I say 'slight' because an average global increase of around 1 degrees C during the past 150 years or so, doesn't sound alarming to me, especially when that increase is referenced to the sometimes uncomfortably cool temperatures that existed around the end of the Little Ice Age which extended to the beginnings of industrialization in the early 19th century.

In a slightly warming climate one would expect evaporation to increase and therefore rainfall, which is not a bad thing. One might expect that increased rainfall would result in increased flooding. The fact that there is no strong evidence that flooding, on a global scale, has been increasing, despite increasing rainfall (according to that great authority on climate issues, the IPCC), would suggest that mankind's increasing use of water, through the construction of dams, is the reason for this lack of a corresponding increase in flooding, globally.

As regards the claimed increase in heat-waves, it's not clear from the evidence presented, to what extent such increases are influenced by the Urban Heat Island effect. Where were the thermometers located that measured such increases during heat waves?

The proposition that increased CO2 levels are causing the current warming is not scientifically verified. That the UHI effect is real can definitely be verified.

Quote
I also object to calling CO2, free fertilizer. It's not really fertilizer as that term really applies to exogenous nitrogen and phosphorus that are responsible for amino acid, nucleic acid and high energy phosphate production in plants.


I'm using the term fertilizer according to its broad meaning of 'something that enhances growth'. It's true that the term 'fertilizer' is usually associated with industrially produced chemicals such as Nitrogen and Phosphorus, that cost money and labor to produce and apply to the soil. The term can also be associated with any type of manure that is applied to the soil, which also involves labor.

The beauty of CO2 is that it's a fertilizer (oops! 'growth-enhancing chemical') that doesn't require any manufacturing or distribution costs. The plants grab it from the atmosphere and take it into the soil through root growth. Ain't nature wonderful!  ;D

[/quote]Again, CO2 concentration is irrelevant as long as it is not zero if the plant has access to usable nitrogen and phosphorous. [/quote]

And of course access to water, which you know is an absolute requirement for plant growth.  ;)

If it's true that an increase in CO2 levels is the main cause of the current warm period, and if it's true that increased precipitation has resulted from such warming, as the IPCC has stated with 'high confidence', then the consequences of spending trillions of dollars to reduce CO2 levels will not only be a general reduction in plant growth due to lower CO2 levels, but also less available water to irrigate such plants, which will reduce crop production even further.

In order to compensate for such reduced crop growth, we would not only have to spend additional funds to make available more chemical fertilizers but also additional funds on desalination plants on the coast and long irrigation pipelines. That approach doesn't seem at all sensible to me. It sounds more like 'shooting oneself in the foot', especially when alternative energy supplies tend to increase the over all cost of energy.  ;)

There is also the issue of the 'greening of the planet'. Are you suggesting that we should also apply fertilizers and water to all the natural forests to compensate for the lack of CO2 in the atmosphere?

One of the negative consequences of human development and rising populations is the significant deforestation that has taken place for agricultural purposes, and which continues to take place in many countries. The remaining forests really appreciate that extra CO2 we are giving them as a by-product of our energy production.  ;D

I'd also be interested in any research that supports your contention that plants can thrive in close to zero concentrations of CO2, provided they have adequate fertilizers and water. Perhaps you are referring to the C4 type of plants that can utilize CO2 more efficiently than the C3 types of plant.

C3 plants are far more common than C4 plants. The C3 type plants includes most small-seeded cereal crops such as rice, wheat, barley, rye, millet, oats; and also soybean, peanuts, cotton, sugar beets, spinach and potato.

Outside the agricultural system most plants, trees and grasses are of the C3 type. About 85% of all plants are of the C3 type.
There seems to be a general lack of research on the effects of significantly reduced CO2 levels and how such reduced growth might be reversed through other interventions such as increased use of fertilizers, water and genetic modifications.
However, I came across one very detailed article which specifically addresses such issues and reveals the complexities and uncertainties.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03441.x/pdf

The following comments near the Conclusion in the pdf, I found particularly interesting.

"A plethora of past work strongly suggests that the increase in [CO2] that occurred between 15 000 and 10 000 yr ago may have been large enough to have had a profound impact on crop productivity, and hence on human subsistence patterns (Sage, 1995; Fig. 9). In general, glacial conditions would have been a hostile environment for C3 crops because of low [CO2], as well as drier soils and higher seasonal variation (Richerson et al., 2001). As the interglacial period commenced, the onset of rising [CO2] and other climatic changes would have removed an environmental limitation to the development of agriculture (Sage, 1995).
Increasing [CO2] during the interglacial period may have directly enhanced plant productivity and may have reduced the effects of interactive stressors, such that crop production could be sustained year after year within human societies (Sage, 1995).

Anthropologists are beginning to incorporate the importance of CO2 into their ideas on agricultural development.
For example, Bettinger et al. (2009) attributed the development of agriculture to the combined effects of climatic and cultural changes, including increasing [CO2]."


Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #311 on: November 23, 2017, 09:54:51 am »

Who needs Paris? American company delivers to Australia on promise.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/23/16693848/elon-musk-worlds-biggest-battery-100-days

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #312 on: November 23, 2017, 10:40:48 am »

Who needs Paris?
Everybody ;)

American company delivers to Australia on promise.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/23/16693848/elon-musk-worlds-biggest-battery-100-days
Great technological development, but can it be economical outside niche applications and at a larger scale? In case it does it's great but do we know?
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
    • advantica blog
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #313 on: November 23, 2017, 10:57:05 am »

Speaking about large batteries,
Earlier this year, German utility EWE unveiled its plans to build an energy storage system in an old salt mine that could ultimately become the biggest battery on Earth.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/germany-biggest-battery-salt-cave/
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #314 on: November 23, 2017, 10:56:31 pm »

Everybody ;)
 Great technological development, but can it be economical outside niche applications and at a larger scale? In case it does it's great but do we know?
My point is that with or without Paris, companies and countries will respond to green energy market forces.

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #315 on: November 24, 2017, 08:46:00 am »

One of the reasons I'm in favour of the development of alternative energy supplies, particularly the solar-voltaic systems, is not only because of the reduction in the real pollution of noxious chemical emissions which are harmful to health, but because our fossil fuel reserves are limited, and sooner or later we'll have to look for alternative energy sources. Better sooner than later, I think.

What might have been holding back the development of the electric vehicle is a general lack of affordable and reliable electricity which is completely free of all emissions of that clean and green gas called CO2.  ;)

Here's the paradox. If the main motivation for the paradigm shift to electric vehicles is the reduction of CO2 emissions, then the electric vehicle only makes sense if it can be reliably recharged with electricity sources that do not emit CO2.

However, from my very rational and unbiased perspective, an affordable and efficient electric vehicle is greatly preferred, not only because it doesn't emit noxious chemicals that are harmful to health, but also because it doesn't emit nearly as much noise, which can also be considered as a pollution. The constant noise of traffic in the cities is one of the reasons I prefer the countryside.

Eventually, with appropriate research and development, the electric vehicle could become much cheaper and more efficient, as well as cleaner, than the petrol or diesel vehicle. That's a worthwhile goal, even though I personally think that the net negative effects of purely CO2 emissions are greatly exaggerated, and might not even exist in reality.

Another issue, which seems to be largely hidden, is the environmental pollution that results from the mining of Lithium and other rare earth elements which are widely used in batteries for so many products. Also, as the production of electric vehicles increases and the use of Lithium batteries for storage in homes with solar panels, and for windmill and solar farms increases, the demand for Lithium might put stress on reserves. Instead of the concept of 'peak oil', we could have a reality of 'peak Lithium', at some time in the near future.  ;)
Logged

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #316 on: November 24, 2017, 04:40:51 pm »

My point is that with or without Paris, companies and countries will respond to green energy market forces.
You're stating the obvious and bottom line your point has nothing to do with what was agreed in Paris.
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #317 on: November 24, 2017, 05:33:42 pm »

You're stating the obvious and bottom line your point has nothing to do with what was agreed in Paris.
I was addressing the argument that many made that America will lose out on development and products because they aren't in Paris accord.  I disagree with that because companies are not restricted.  Like Tesla, they will chase the money regardless of what the government does. 

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #318 on: November 25, 2017, 02:42:38 am »

I was addressing the argument that many made that America will lose out on development and products because they aren't in Paris accord.  I disagree with that because companies are not restricted.  Like Tesla, they will chase the money regardless of what the government does.
Loss of an internal market will restrict growth, provide less drive for innovation and lower the opportunities, nobody said it would be zero, but I think it's obvious that there will be losses.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2017, 03:16:35 am by pegelli »
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #319 on: November 25, 2017, 09:50:12 am »

Loss of an internal market will restrict growth, provide less drive for innovation and lower the opportunities, nobody said it would be zero, but I think it's obvious that there will be losses.
You're assuming that government selected winners and losers help an economy.  Remember that resources not spent on government directed products will be spent elsewhere that will probably be more profitable and useful to society because "real" demand from buyers will exist, not phony directed pushes from the government.  An example is defense spending.  Sure, defense contractors and employees do well.  But who needs a tank?  Think of all the benefits to society of people spent their money on other things they really want instead of tanks demanded by the government.  Of course, we need tanks to defend ourselves.  But do we really need solar panels?
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 32   Go Up