10 Nov 15
11 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeThe only think I see that would be effective against climate change is governments, apart from trying to go renewable, is to take far more direct action by forcing manufactures, utility companies etc. to do what they can to reduce carbon footprint.
Changing tax rates, and cap and trade, are utterly ineffective and inadequate for
dealing with climate change.
.
For example, and this has been one of my ideas for a long time, government could make a law saying that all new cars manufactured for now on must be able to do a minimum of x number of miles to the gallon of fuel (or, if that is too simplistic, which I think it probably is, some sort of more complex carbon-footprint-based equivalent ) else they simply are not allowed to be manufactured. Then that x can be gradually (to give them time and thus a chance to adapt ) incrementally increased to force all car manufactures to make their cars ever more energy efficient. Any manufacturer that can't or refuses will simply go out of business so to leave his competitors to fill that niche. Obviously the speed of the increase of that x must be continually adjusted according to constant feedback so it is neither too fast so as to stop most manufactures from keeping up nor too slow so to fail to make them adapt as fast as they feasibly can. One effect this could have in the medium run is to gradually force manufactures to make all their cars have some kind of super-energy-efficient diesel-electric engine.
Similar laws can be applied to just about anything that is manufactured that has a carbon-footprint.
10 Nov 15
Originally posted by humyThe problem with the car example is that it would not make a significant impact at all. Let say you managed to get fuel efficiency up 30% over the next 10 years. Given that there will be 30% more cars on the road by then, you will have made no headway whatsoever.
Similar laws can be applied to just about anything that is manufactured that has a carbon-footprint.
Now if you were talking all electric cars then you might have something.
Cars are only a portion of total fossil fuel use. Other forms of transport are very significant an largely overlooked when it comes to both efficiency and going electric. (although electric trains and buses are making headway, and ships and aeroplanes are getting more efficient for purely economic reasons).
Electricity consumption could be driven down by improved efficiency, but again there are limits to what gains can be got and conversion to renewables or nuclear has a much bigger chance of making headway than efficiency gains - and again, electricity use is going up globally (and should go up in the developing world).
A major part of the whole issue that is totally overlooked by most politicians and frankly most scientists too is the fact that agriculture is a major player both in terms of being a contributor to the problem as well as being able to contribute to solving the problem. Reduction in burning and improved soil management could make more of an impact than any changes to fuel efficiency in cars.
10 Nov 15
13 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadthat would mean you would have prevented a 30% increase in carbon emissions from cars, which is surely better than nothing.
The problem with the car example is that it would not make a significant impact at all. Let say you managed to get fuel efficiency up 30% over the next 10 years. Given that there will be 30% more cars on the road by then, you will have made no headway whatsoever..
Now if you were talking all electric cars then you might have something.
that would be the longer term aim and not in conflict with my scheme. Do you think that, say, the UK can feasibly go all-electric cars within the next 10 years? Or would it take longer? I don't know the answer to that but, either way, shouldn't we do what we feasibly can to limit CO2 emissions from cars in the mean time so to minimize our final total fossil fuel footprint when we finally go all-renewable? -this is my line of reasoning here; a kind of damage limitation exercise because we have already done damage and are still doing damage so all we can do is try and minimize it until we finally stop doing any more damage.
Cars are only a portion of total fossil fuel use.
That can be said of every other fossil fuel use. I would propose doing something about reducing each and every fossil fuel use, including with other modes of transport. I didn't in any way imply this should only be done with cars. Cars are merely just one example I gave.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Nov 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis is a general problem with 'efficiency savings'.
The problem with the car example is that it would not make a significant impact at all. Let say you managed to get fuel efficiency up 30% over the next 10 years. Given that there will be 30% more cars on the road by then, you will have made no headway whatsoever.
Now if you were talking all electric cars then you might have something.
Cars are only a ...[text shortened]... proved soil management could make more of an impact than any changes to fuel efficiency in cars.
Increasing efficiency reduces costs, reduced costs stimulate demand, overall usage hardly changes.
It's why I [while generally supportive of increased efficiency] never include efficiency savings in efforts
to reduce CO2 emissions.
In the case of cars... Ban new cars after a certain [soon] date from [net] emitting anything.
Replace petrol/diesel with CO2 neutral bio-ethanol/methanol or diesel equivalent, thus improving
air quality and reducing CO2 emissions.
Create incentives to match.
A major part of the whole issue that is totally overlooked by most politicians and frankly most scientists too is the fact that agriculture is a major player both in terms of being a contributor to the problem as well as being able to contribute to solving the problem. Reduction in burning and improved soil management could make more of an impact than any changes to fuel efficiency in cars.
I am not sure that's true, but you can see some of the huge variety of factors taken into account in this
article/calculator here.
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/31/9649518/energy-policy-simulator
I don't like these things because they never allow me to take the radical policies I actually want to implement.
Like [for example] just going on a mass nuclear reactor building spree like France did and switch to 80% nuclear
20% renewables in 10 years [perfectly possible to do, never an option allowed by these calculators] which would
beat any of their proposed available options hands down.
But it does show the huge range of things that are being considered.
Also, transportation is a really big deal in terms of CO2 emissions. [looking at USA]
http://28oa9i1t08037ue3m1l0i861.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/US-Emissions-2013-compressor.jpg
The vast majority of CO2 emissions comes from Electricity Generation and Transportation, Followed by Industrial.
Worldwide energy usage of energy indicates that Electricity and Heat, followed by transportation and Industry are the
biggest energy users/CO2 emitters.
Agri barely gets a look-in. [obviously some of that transportation etc is Agri, but it doesn't get it's own category.]
http://28oa9i1t08037ue3m1l0i861.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/World-2007-copy-compressor.jpg
from this web article: http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/how-tesla-will-change-your-life.html
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Nov 15
Originally posted by humyIf we wanted to we could eliminate all fossil fuel use in cars by switching to biofuels in 5 years.
that would mean you would have prevented a 30% increase in carbon emissions from cars, which is surely better than nothing.Now if you were talking all electric cars then you might have something.
that would be the longer term aim and not in conflict with my scheme. Do you think that, say, the UK can feasibly go all-electric cars within ...[text shortened]... 't in any way imply this should only be done with cars. Cars are merely just one example I gave.
There would at most need to be software changes to the cars.
There is no change needed to the fuel distribution network.
All you need do is build ethanol/methanol manufacturing plants that ferment agi and biowaste to
produce ethanol/methanol.
This would take up no food crop growing capacity, and can be implemented in the time it takes
to build industrial brewing facilities.
It's a stop gap till we go all electric [or whatever] but it massively reduces air pollution and net CO2
emissions.
10 Nov 15
8 edits
Originally posted by googlefudge
If we wanted to we could eliminate all fossil fuel use in cars by switching to biofuels in 5 years.
There wou.
All you need do is build ethanol/methanol manufacturing plants that ferment agi and biowaste to
produce ethanol/methanol.
can that be currently done with current know-how so to realistically expand biofuel production in just 5 years to such a vast magnitude that it could meet our current stupendous demand for fuel?
Or does there have to be a considerable more research (many years ) before we can do that on that vast scale?
I don't pretend to know the answer to that but, somehow, I imagine this will be extremely difficult to implement within just the next 5 years. Perhaps ~40 years after some breakthroughs in the research in it to improve it?
11 Nov 15
Originally posted by humyAnything is better than nothing, but we should not satisfy ourselves with better than nothing, nor will better than nothing save us from global catastrophe.
that would mean you would have prevented a 30% increase in carbon emissions from cars, which is surely better than nothing.
that would be the longer term aim and not in conflict with my scheme.
It does conflict with your scheme is your scheme is seen as achieving something meaningful - as people will get complacent.
Do you think that, say, the UK can feasibly go all-electric cars within the next 10 years?
It could go all electric on all new cars in 15 - 20 years. But even if I am wrong and it takes longer, putting all the focus on switching to electric would definitely have more effect than better fuel economy. Converting say 10% of all new cars to electric would be better than the strictest possible fuel economy standards.
a kind of damage limitation exercise
Except I don't think it would make any significant impact on the damage.
That can be said of every other fossil fuel use. I would propose doing something about reducing each and every fossil fuel use, including with other modes of transport. I didn't in any way imply this should only be done with cars. Cars are merely just one example I gave.
You could also have suggested not leaving your tap running while brushing your teeth. Every little bit helps. My point is that to really have a significant impact we should look at the largest contributors to carbon emission. Closing down coal power stations would probably have far more impact than stricter fuel economy - so lets talk about that instead.
12 Nov 15
Originally posted by humy"that means any correct prediction they make is based on ignorance and stupidity and is correct by coincidence"
From your link:
“..The Maine-based Farmers' Almanac's still-secret methodology includes variables such as planetary positions, sunspots, lunar cycles and tidal action.
...”
that means any correct prediction they make is based on ignorance and stupidity and is correct by coincidence, not by valid inference.
While any correct prediction made by science (s ...[text shortened]... trate that science cannot make a correct climate prediction based on valid inference. Try again.
Exactly! That is my point.
One correct prediction means nothing when the incorrect predictions of climate models are over 90%. That means your single (more or less) correct prediction is nothing more than luck which the article from the link you posted pretty much admitted. The biased assertion in that link is nothing more than luck just like the almanac predictions.
What is most relevant is what you are not saying. You are not defending the record of climate model failures that is pathetic. You can't without pointing to more false assertions by those attempting to mislead others just like you have done on here. The facts are not on your side. Admit you are wrong or prove your claim or it will be obvious you are dishonest to all on here.
12 Nov 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainOne thing for sure, time is not on your side.
"that means any correct prediction they make is based on ignorance and stupidity and is correct by coincidence"
Exactly! That is my point.
One correct prediction means nothing when the incorrect predictions of climate models are over 90%. That means your single (more or less) correct prediction is nothing more than luck which the article from the li ...[text shortened]... Admit you are wrong or prove your claim or it will be obvious you are dishonest to all on here.
12 Nov 15
2 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainWhere did you get that 90% figure from?
One correct prediction means nothing when the incorrect predictions of climate models are over 90%..
You keep demanding our sources (even when we showed them ) so what is your source of information that climate models are wrong for over 90% of the time?
How, you, who clearly doesn't understand science, would know this, even if it was true?
And, give the fact that climate models are both probabilistic and give estimates only, in what way "wrong"? In what sense i.e. using what criteria? If a climate model predicts the most probability temperature rise will be about 0.5C and the actual rise was 0.51C, was it "wrong"? What exactly is your criteria?
12 Nov 15
Originally posted by humyI think it is called 'clutching at straws'.
Where did you get that 90% figure from?
You keep demanding our sources (even when we showed them ) so what is your source of information that climate models are wrong for over 90% of the time?
How, you, who clearly doesn't understand science, would know this, even if it was true?
And, give the fact that climate models are both probabilistic and give estimat ...[text shortened]... will be about 0.5C and the actual rise was 0.51C, was it "wrong"? What exactly is your criteria?
14 Nov 15
3 edits
What Metal Brain fails to comprehend is that to simplistically say x% of climate models predictions are “wrong” couldn't be much more idiotic and unscientific;
If a climate model predicts a 0.5C rise in temperate and the actual rise was then 0.50001C, I would personally call that prediction subjectively “right”.
But if then the actual rise was then 12C, I would personally call that prediction subjectively “wrong”.
But what if the actual rise was then 0.6C? Here, for me, is a grey area for I don't imagine how I can rationally label that as simplistically either being “right” or “wrong” without making that totally arbitrary.
Without first clearly defining some criteria for categorizing climate predictions as either “right” or “wrong” that isn't totally arbitrary but rather which is entirely and consistently based on some underlining principle (either mathematical or conceptual ) thus not open to unscientific bias, it will be impossible to go through all the climate predictions from climate models and determine what proportion are giving “wrong” predictions.
Thus to say “over 90% of climate models are wrong” is a totally idiotic unscientific nonsense assertion; precisely what we would expect from Metal Brain who, as usual, demonstrates here that he doesn't understand the science he shouts against in hate just because it contradicts his beliefs.