Skepticism about Climate Change

[Alan Klein]

It makes no sense to do this by country, you have to scale for the number of people living there. The US is still by far a larger per capita producer then China and doing nothing about it. China is also shutting down many less efficient coal plants to compensate for their higher energy demands, that costs money too. Also it's not only about emissions now but how much inefficient excess you produced in the past. So from both perspectives the US is taking the cheap/easy way out no matter how you look at it.

Mother earth isn't effected by the per capita CO2 pollution but rather total pollution.  And China's gone up and will continue to go up substantially.

Arguing "past sins" is nonsense.  So Mao Tse Tung and the other Chinese Communists kept their people in the dark ages for decades. No economic freedom.  The people were sent into the country-side not for fresh air but to indoctrinate them.  20,000,000 died from starvation and murder.  America, Europe and other free peoples around the world gained from their economic and political freedom during the interim.  We lived better and longer, ate better, stayed warmer and protected better, as well as were free politically and personally.  So now because China, who is still a Communist one-party dictatorship, is allowing some economic freedom, we should become masochists and punish ourselves for living free and reward them. Meanwhile they're increasing the world's total (forget per capita) CO2 pollution by leaps and bounds and you want to let them build 800 more coal fired plants to pollute the earth even more. 

Don't you know when you're getting rolled by China?  Trump does because he, well, knows how to roll people himself. 

[pegelli]

Mother earth isn't effected by the per capita CO2 pollution but rather total pollution.  And China's gone up and will continue to go up substantially.

Arguing "past sins" is nonsense.  So Mao Tse Tung and the other Chinese Communists kept their people in the dark ages for decades. No economic freedom.  The people were sent into the country-side not for fresh air but to indoctrinate them.  20,000,000 died from starvation and murder.  America, Europe and other free peoples around the world gained from their economic and political freedom during the interim.  We lived better and longer, ate better, stayed warmer and protected better, as well as were free politically and personally.  So now because China, who is still a Communist one-party dictatorship, is allowing some economic freedom, we should become masochists and punish ourselves for living free and reward them. Meanwhile they're increasing the world's total (forget per capita) CO2 pollution by leaps and bounds and you want to let them build 800 more coal fired plants to pollute the earth even more. 

Don't you know when you're getting rolled by China?  Trump does because he, well, knows how to roll people himself. 

Alan, with that logic The Netherlands and Belgium would have to do nothing about GHG emissions because as a country the US is still way bigger emissions (btw, both on a total as well as a per capita basis).
Also past sins count because emissions from the past contribute to the elevated CO2 concentration in the air today and a significant part of that is due to the US.
It's a pity you're buying the Trump BS on this, he's doing your country a big disservice, even the US oil and coal industry wanted him to stay in, doesn't that tell you enough?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Alan, with that logic The Netherlands and Belgium would have to do nothing about GHG emissions because as a country the US is still way bigger emissions (btw, both on a total as well as a per capita basis).
Also past sins count because emissions from the past contribute to the elevated CO2 concentration in the air today and a significant part of that is due to the US.

Exactly. The amount of CO2 that is added in excess of what the natural thermostat can compensate for, takes some 100 years to dissolve in the ocean and by weathering of rock/soil. So our planet is still trying to get rid of prior excess before it can start coping with current additions. Of course, current excess additions do not help, so that's why a lot of additional effort needs to be focused on that (like China is, and should be, doing), not less like the USA proposes.

It's a pity you're buying the Trump BS on this, he's doing your country a big disservice, even the US oil and coal industry wanted him to stay in, doesn't that tell you enough?

Yes, although the industry's motive is probably more in the spirit of what Lyndon B. Johnson said; “It's probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in.”

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

Alan, with that logic The Netherlands and Belgium would have to do nothing about GHG emissions because as a country the US is still way bigger emissions (btw, both on a total as well as a per capita basis).
Also past sins count because emissions from the past contribute to the elevated CO2 concentration in the air today and a significant part of that is due to the US.
It's a pity you're buying the Trump BS on this, he's doing your country a big disservice, even the US oil and coal industry wanted him to stay in, doesn't that tell you enough?

China's CO2 pollution had gone up from 27% to 31% in just a few years.  It will keep getting higher as they build and drive more cars, etc. So you now want to reward them by allowing them to build 800 coal fired plants that will more than makeup savings everyone else is doing with CO2?  Do you realize how many billions China is going to earn with those plants?  Meanwhile, you'll be spending more of your money that could be going to cancer research for your own people.  Trump may be an ego maniac but he's not stupid.

[pegelli]

China's CO2 pollution had gone up from 27% to 31% in just a few years. 

But it's still far less then the US (per capita, the only measure that counts). All the rest is BS talk wiggling your way out of a commitment you should have honoured. Clear and simple.

[Alan Klein]

But it's still far less then the US (per capita, the only measure that counts). All the rest is BS talk wiggling your way out of a commitment you should have honoured. Clear and simple.

Why per capita is the only measure that counts?  The earth is concerned with total CO2 so what each country puts out totally should be what counts.  In any case, it's all meaningless.  It was a terrible plan except for China.  If Obama wanted to get into a hundred year agreement, he Constitutionally needed a treaty agreed to by the US Senate.  By acting like a autocrat, his unilateral signature is meaningless and could be reversed.  He should have gotten the Senate to sign off on it.  Then Trump couldn't have stopped it.

In any case Trump is interested in using American coal, gas, oil and other energy to export and dominate world production.  He wants us to become a net exporter rather than importer of fuel which will be good for our economy.  It would help Europe become less reliant on Russia which would be a good thing politically for you as well.

[pegelli]

Why per capita is the only measure that counts? 

Read my previous posts, no need to keep repeating myself. If you don't understand no problem, that's your loss, not mine.
Same for the fact you don't (want to) understand the Paris agreement and use this ill understanding to make silly claims on China (because you're conveniently forgetting the other positive measures they are taking) as well as a justification why the US is right to pull out, while in actual fact the people of the US were in the past, are now and will in the foreseeable future be the biggest contributor of warming gases.   

[Rob C]

However, some in the country are still actively trying to cut down on such production. Every effort helps.

Watched a documentary recently on the ending of the dinosaur era, and how rapidly it happened, apparently due to the huge asteroid collision with us that caused so much debris that it stopped sunlight getting through, hence no food. Two possible lessons, at least: a similar event today would render human attempts to clean up the environment useless; knowledge of the rapidity with which life died due to a foul atmosphere should be taken aboard, whilst we can at least do our bit to avoid disaster.

I suspect things will change quite soon.

Rob C

[pegelli]

However, some in the country are still actively trying to cut down on such production. Every effort helps.

Fully agree Rob, and we all should do an effort irrespective where we live. Here in Belgium solar panels are now economical without any subsidies and you make back your money in less then 10 years while the average life expectancy of these installations is between 20 and 25 years. That's a lot better return then the very low interest rates you get from the bank over here. Also in the US several individual states are still considering joining the Paris agreement, so apparently there are some people there who think differently then Trump.

"The stone age didn't end because of a shortage of stones but due to the development of better technologies, the same will happen with the age of the fossil fuels"

[Alan Klein]

Fully agree Rob, and we all should do an effort irrespective where we live. Here in Belgium solar panels are now economical without any subsidies and you make back your money in less then 10 years while the average life expectancy of these installations is between 20 and 25 years. That's a lot better return then the very low interest rates you get from the bank over here. Also in the US several individual states are still considering joining the Paris agreement, so apparently there are some people there who think differently then Trump.

"The stone age didn't end because of a shortage of stones but due to the development of better technologies, the same will happen with the age of the fossil fuels"

  I'm not against clean energy just the Paris deal.  Not being in the Paris agreement does not stop Tesla or any other American or other firm in the world to develop, manufacturer, and sell clean energy products.   I don't know what an individual state gets by joining the Paris agreement.  That seems like a feel good act with little economic advantage.  There's nothing stopping any state or America from cleaning up the environment.  We've been doing it for decades without Paris.  That will continue. Americans don't want to drink foul water or breathe bad air anymore than anyone else in the world.  And we've had very effective state and national environmental policies.

A few of my neighbors have solar panels but they got tax subsidies.  So a lot of the cost was born by others. I checked into Solar panel Return on Investment (ROI).  I wanted to see if it made sense for my house.  It seems a lot longer here in the US than Belgium.  I didn't proceed with the installation.  The 20-25 years seems too long for life expectancy also.  You're being overly confident.   My experience in designing, selling and installing energy management systems in my own business is that people overestimate the ROI.  There are factors people never think about.  For example, what about roof replacement during that time and the additional cost if you have panels installed on top of the roof?  Someone has to remove the solar panels and re-install when the roof is replaced.  Who's going to guarantee the panels work after replacement?  What does that do to the roof guarantee?  If the solar panel installation company guarantees the roof, will they be there when there is a failure?  Most of these firms haven't been in business long and have little likelihood they be around for thirty years.  So the guarantee is worthless. 

[pegelli]

Americans don't want to drink foul water or breathe bad air anymore than anyone else in the world.  And we've had very effective state and national environmental policies.

I would hope so, but the direction the EPA is being governed and moving I'm not overly confident you'll stay on the right track.

The 20-25 years seems too long for life expectancy also.  You're being overly confident.   My experience in designing, selling and installing energy management systems in my own business is that people overestimate the ROI.  There are factors people never think about.  For example, what about roof replacement during that time and the additional cost if you have panels installed on top of the roof?  Someone has to remove the solar panels and re-install when the roof is replaced.  Who's going to guarantee the panels work after replacement?  What does that do to the roof guarantee?  If the solar panel installation company guarantees the roof, will they be there when there is a failure?  Most of these firms haven't been in business long and have little likelihood they be around for thirty years.  So the guarantee is worthless.

My experience from living in the US vs. Europe is that houses here are built to last, in the US they're wearing faster and need to be depreciated over time. Houses over here actually appreciate in value and for instance a roof will easily last a lifetime. So the consideration you mention are valid in the US but not applicable over here. Other difference is probably that electricity is more expensive over here, which also increases the return.

[Ray]

The 20-25 years seems too long for life expectancy also.  You're being overly confident.   My experience in designing, selling and installing energy management systems in my own business is that people overestimate the ROI.  There are factors people never think about.  For example, what about roof replacement during that time and the additional cost if you have panels installed on top of the roof?  Someone has to remove the solar panels and re-install when the roof is replaced.  Who's going to guarantee the panels work after replacement?  What does that do to the roof guarantee?  If the solar panel installation company guarantees the roof, will they be there when there is a failure?  Most of these firms haven't been in business long and have little likelihood they be around for thirty years.  So the guarantee is worthless.

My solar panels are about 7 years old. If they last for 20 years without maintenance costs, I'll be very pleased. However, it's the inverters that tend to be the problem. My inverter had only a 5 year warranty. After 4 years it malfunctioned. I wasn't aware it had malfunctioned until I received the next electricity bill and noticed there were no credits for the feed-into-the-grid of surplus electricity. (I now check my meter box regularly).

The inverter was replaced under warranty, but the new inverter gave up the ghost about 2 years later. There was a lot of confusion about the warranty period because the initial 5-year warranty had expired. However, I was pleased that the Australian manufacturer of the replacement inverter (the first one was Chinese) honoured their 5 year warranty and repaired it at no charge.

The best inverters, probably made in Germany, tend to have a 10 year warranty.

However, the main problem with renewable energy is its reliability. Imagine whole cities with their many suburbs relying upon solar power. The roof of each house is decked with solar panels. The surplus electricity generated from thousands of roofs recharges electric vehicles and supplies various industrial needs.

Isn't that wonderful! Thank God for those AGW alarmists. Oops! What happens when a devastating storm occurs? A hurricane rips off most of those solar panels, and huge areas are without power, (for how long?) Imagine the reconstruction costs and the huge delay before power is restored.

I recall a few years ago reading about the devastating effects of Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy in the US. I'm sure there would have been a lot of news reports blaming human emissions of CO2 for the severity of these storms.

However, some time later I recall reading an interesting article in Scientific American about a previous storm which occurred in December 1861, which appears to have been much worse than Katrina or Sandy.
We tend to judge the severity of a storm by the number of deaths that result, and the cost of the damage, but that's purely emotional and tends to create the false impression that storms are becoming more severe, as a result of rising CO2 levels. It's very doubtful that they are becoming more extreme, globally, but the damage to life and property is more extreme due to increased population and development.

What I also find interesting in the following article, is the narrative that the local Indians were able to recognise the signs of an impending storm and flood and quickly moved out of the area. The Western immigrants were stuck; too proud to take the advice of the Indians.

It is reasonable to presume that the Indians were able to recognise the signs of an impending storm because such storms had occurred in the past and descriptions of the circumstances were passed down from father to son. I can't see any connection with CO2 emissions here.

The great danger of CO2 alarmism is that people will become complacent about the dangers of extreme weather events when alternative energy supplies are in place. They will tend to think, "We've behaved responsibly and have accepted the advice of climate scientists and spent huge sums of money on solar panels and windmills, so now everything should be all right. No need to worry about extreme weather events." Dear me!

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/atmospheric-rivers-california-megaflood-lessons-from-forgotten-catastrophe/

[Alan Klein]

Ray, the warranty I was referring to was the roof warranty, not the solar panels.  I understand that the solar installers guarantee the roofs from damage they may have caused from the installation of the panels.  Also, if you don't replace the roof when you get new solar panels, and have to do it in the middle of the life of the panels, the panels have to be removed and re-installed.  The owner has to pay for it.  Also, if the panels have a problem afterwards, who guarantees them at that point?

I live in New Jersey that got hit with Hurricane Sandy.  In my community (before I moved here),  power was knocked out for about a week,.  Since then, a lot of people installed gasoline generators for emergency power.  They run around $5000-8000 depending on size.

[Alan Klein]

Can someone explain when global warming was effected by people?  I thought that was a recent situation.  But statistics show that glaciers were retreating before 1851 in this one.  https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/01/16/massive-retreat-in-the-jakobshavn-glacier/

Could that trend and the warming really just be a result of the warming that has taken place over the last 12000 years since the last Ice Age certainly times when man had little or no effect on the climate? 

[LesPalenik]

Ray, the warranty I was referring to was the roof warranty, not the solar panels.  I understand that the solar installers guarantee the roofs from damage they may have caused from the installation of the panels.  Also, if you don't replace the roof when you get new solar panels, and have to do it in the middle of the life of the panels, the panels have to be removed and re-installed.  The owner has to pay for it.  Also, if the panels have a problem afterwards, who guarantees them at that point?

Valid point. Most houses in USA and Canada have asphalt shingles that last only 15-20 years, whereas in Europe most houses use clay or concrete tiles, or aluminum sheets that last 50-100 years.

[Alan Klein]

I would hope so, but the direction the EPA is being governed and moving I'm not overly confident you'll stay on the right track.
 My experience from living in the US vs. Europe is that houses here are built to last, in the US they're wearing faster and need to be depreciated over time. Houses over here actually appreciate in value and for instance a roof will easily last a lifetime. So the consideration you mention are valid in the US but not applicable over here. Other difference is probably that electricity is more expensive over here, which also increases the return.

What kind of roofing materials there?  Here, slate roofs that would last 100 years, cost 4-5 times asphalt's 15-20 year life.  Most people can't afford slate.  They have to be pretty expensive in Europe too, aren't they?

Appreciation of homes had a major blip during the 2008/09 recession.  They dropped significantly in price because there was a bubble in prices.  There's another bubble now but not as severe.  A lot varies where in the USA you live.  Some places are worse and other places are OK.  Home prices tend to increase base on the inflation rate.  What happened to houses in your country before and during the recession?  The biggest problem we have now is kids are in debt from borrowing for college.  So they can't get a starter home.  The whole country is in too much debt.  We're going to have another major recession.  It's going to effect the whole world again as most countries are carrying too much debt like we are.   Home prices will drop considerably again.

[pegelli]

What kind of roofing materials there? 

Clay or concrete tiles, usually they last as long as the house. We're currently refurbishing an old house from the 1930's (not to live in but to create an exhibition space). The roof is still the original one from when it was built and it's not end of life yet.

Appreciation of homes had a major blip during the 2008/09 recession.  They dropped significantly in price because there was a bubble in prices.  There's another bubble now but not as severe.  A lot varies where in the USA you live.  Some places are worse and other places are OK.  Home prices tend to increase base on the inflation rate.  What happened to houses in your country before and during the recession?  The biggest problem we have now is kids are in debt from borrowing for college.  So they can't get a starter home.  The whole country is in too much debt.  We're going to have another major recession.  It's going to effect the whole world again as most countries are carrying too much debt like we are.   Home prices will drop considerably again.

I'm not talking about the short term swings, but longer term house prices are trending up stronger then inflation. I also think houses here last longer on average. Certainly longer then what I have for instance seen when I lived in Houston in the early 90's.

[JoeKitchen]

Clay or concrete tiles, usually they last as long as the house. We're currently refurbishing an old house from the 1930's (not to live in but to create an exhibition space). The roof is still the original one from when it was built and it's not end of life yet.
I'm not talking about the short term swings, but longer term house prices are trending up stronger then inflation. I also think houses here last longer on average. Certainly longer then what I have for instance seen when I lived in Houston in the early 90's.

Unfortunately, the suburban sprawl of the 1950s and 60s brought with it more efficient, albeit less long term stability, housing construction methods in the USA.  We went from mainly using masonry construction to stick built construction with masonry facades. 

Stick built is certainly cheaper and allowed for the McMansions to easily go up, but then the life of the house becomes much less so. 

I once brought this up with another older photographer mentioning that I would rather prefer a true masonry house as opposed to stick built due to the longevity.  His response was that a stick built house will last your entire life; why pay 2 to 3 times more for something you won't use. 

I'm not sure what I think now.

Anyway, we are currently looking for a house, more then likely will end up buying in South Philly where most houses are 1930s era, so solid masonry walls.  They are old and need some maintenance, but, aside from brick pointing and replacing a roof, all things I could do myself.  The only downside is most basements are only 6 to 6.5 feet tall, and I'm 6'1." 

The newer houses are stick built and the cheaper ones already have facade decay, plus they are 12 feet wide as opposed to 16 or 18 feet wide.  Not something we are really interested in.  They are selling like hot cakes though.  Most people I know are not handy and don't want to be bothered with maintenance projects, so perhaps that is why. 

[pegelli]

I once brought this up with another older photographer mentioning that I would rather prefer a true masonry house as opposed to stick built due to the longevity.  His response was that a stick built house will last your entire life; why pay 2 to 3 times more for something you won't use.

Probably the way I look at it is that the money saved is going in a bank account and in the end gets inherited by the kids. If you spend it on a better house it will retain a much higher value and the kids will get the money that way. Same if you want to spend the money, you can get mortgages here that will let you keep your debt and it gets paid after you die from selling the house then.

But the big advantage is you live in a better house, more sturdy, better insulated, less maintenance and more comfortable. But that's probably just me, everybody will have to decide that for themselves.

[EricV]

Why per capita is the only measure that counts?  The earth is concerned with total CO2 so what each country puts out totally should be what counts.

So if China divided itself into ten smaller independent countries, that would solve the problem?