'Global Warming's Terrifying New Math'

[ignatius]

there's so much good news about pollution and the climate.  no. not really at all. nitrogen in water possibly relates to cancer and birth defects. this news just in: there's shit loads of nitrogen in our drinking water and rivers and streams. 

 

[prdctvsm]

 

[ignatius]

so this is a long one but worth watching. echoes some other things i've seen about CO2 emissions to produce a gas powered car vs an EV.. also, the difficulty of finding all the minerals required to make EVs (300% more copper for example).  it takes a certain amount of fossil fuels to mine the minerals and globally, other than a few discoveries here or there that are "exciting", the mineral grades are getting worse meaning if at one time it was required to dig up 1 ton of rocks to get a certain amount of a mineral it now takes 2 tons of rock to get the same amount... in some case.. but it's only going to get more difficult as more and more minerals are mined. 

also, currently VW issued a graph of how much CO2 is emitted just to make a car.. and VW diesel car puts about 5 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere just to make it.. and an equivalent EV emits about 12 tons of CO2.. but for a larger EV like a tesla model S or the cyber truck etc it's like 24 tons of CO2 being emitted.. 

the benefits of reduced emissions on smaller EVs don't kick in until it's been driven about 60,000 miles.. that's when they even up.. the gains happen around 80k or 100k miles. so, only then do the benefits show over an equivalent diesel/gas powered vehicle. i wonder how long the evs are going to last? can they even be driven that many miles w/o needing a new battery?

so, we're kinda fucked and EVs aren't going to pay off until they get much more efficient and making them huge and heavy is defeating the purpose.. but also mineral costs will only go up. 

 

[may be rude]

manufacturing can be thought of as a separate category of emissions, distinct from transportation. of course anything that is made likely has some emissions associated with manufacturing. green technology often is more costly, monetarily, and it can be in terms of emissions of manufacturing, also. that doesn't change the fact that we'll really break the planet if we don't get emissions under control, and this is the direction we need to move in. we need to improve manufacturing, and we need to improve transportation, and we need to improve how we power the grid, and we need to improve how we transmit energy through the grid. it's a really really really hard problem to solve. what you wrote @ignatius i think serves to illustrate the challenge of the problem, not to argue against EVs. we need the industry of EVs to iterate and improve efficiency of EVs, including their manufacturing. 

to my eyes, this narrative that has been going around distortedly focuses on whatever negative association is conceivably possible with EVs, taking it out of proportion. passenger vehicle transportation is like 7% of co2 emissions, that's actually a decent sized chunk, and it's one of the few chunks that we are actually able to tackle. we can continue to improve it, like we do. 

Edited December 14, 2023 by trying to be less rude

[ignatius]

52 minutes ago, trying to be less rude said:

manufacturing can be thought of as a distinct category of emissions, distinct from transportation. of course anything that is made likely has some emissions associated with manufacturing. green technology often is more costly, monetarily, and it can be in terms of emissions of manufacturing, also. that doesn't change the fact that we'll really break the planet if we don't get emissions under control, and this is the direction we need to move in. we need to improve manufacturing, and we need to improve transportation, and we need to improve how we power the grid, and we need to improve how we transmit energy through the grid. it's a really really really hard problem to solve. what you wrote @ignatius i think serves to illustrate the challenge of the problem, not to argue against EVs. we need the industry of EVs to iterate and improve efficiency of EVs, including their manufacturing. 

and i'll just mention that, to my eyes, this narrative that has been going around seems rather well-crafted and distortedly focuses on whatever negative association is conceivably possible with EVs, even reaching to include an argument about mineral costs in the future 

i'm not arguing against transition to green energy but i don't think it's gonna go how most people think. it doesn't matter where the emissions come from.. manufacturing or driving.. they still come.. they're in the atmosphere.  

if america wasn't so poorly designed we'd have density, public transportation, and cars would used for special trips or people living in the sticks.  the battery isn't going to get any cheaper any time soon. 

we need all the solar and wind but also need gas turbines and new modern nuclear technology and then keep our fingers crossed until some newer tech break throughs happen. also we need lot's of efficiencies... smaller cars etc.. 

what's interesting is all the wind and solar and renewables that have happened haven't reduced consumption of fossil fuels at all.. they are just being added to the total that is being consumed.. as more power comes to the grid it gets consumed. demand will only increase. 

the problems are huge and in every sector.  all the minerals needed to make all the things for a transition are currently just not there. there's no moon shot type thing that can happen that will suddenly generate more copper (unless they literally find it on the moon). 

as for negative EV narrative.. it's just the facts.. i mean VW released their own documents about emissions and production. granted they don't have the best track record for honestly presenting facts but they seem to have put the cards on the table so to speak. 

btw..the guy in that video calls himself an optimist. and there are others who are kind of in that camp who are just presenting the data about what's needed, what we have and what it will take to make changes. a lot of ideas get thrown into the mix.  

what it sounds like to me is that we basically need 8 billion people to become efficient enough to only use resources of 2 billion people. 

edit: also, watch that video.. it's not all about cars... but he does think the EVs will get better but the chemistry of the batteries is baked in and not going to get better until something new happens

also, i think building cities for cars instead of people is in top 3 all time american blunders. 

edit: also there's some things in there i disagree with but my overall take away is the same

edit: I think the other huge problem is basic consumerism and people buying shit all the time they don’t need. Including new cars. My car is 20 years old. When it dies I might just get a an e-cargo bike instead of a new car. Or I’ll buy a 10 year old Honda or something. My math for everything is different though. 

Edited December 14, 2023 by ignatius

[may be rude]

3 minutes ago, ignatius said:

i'm not arguing against transition to green energy but i don't think it's gonna go how most people think. it doesn't matter where the emissions come from.. manufacturing or driving.. they still come.. they're in the atmosphere.  

people have no idea how it's going to go. it's way harder to fix than people think and things will get way worse than people think.

my point about the categories is that manufacturing is a different type of problem with different types of solutions. transportation is it's own type of problem with its own types of solutions. so bringing up the emissions of manufacturing as though it's an argument against moving toward EVs does not seem to me to be a strong argument. maybe you weren't making that argument. 

we solve the manufacturing by solving the manufacturing. we solve the transportation by solving the transportation. sure people can point it out and we can improve it but it's not an argument against EVs. the industry will improve. maybe you didn't mean it as an argument against EVs but i see this narrative work to motivate people against EV adoption and i hate to see it.

16 minutes ago, ignatius said:

we need all the solar and wind but also need gas turbines and new modern nuclear technology and then keep our fingers crossed until some newer tech break throughs happen. also we need lot's of efficiencies... smaller cars etc.. 

solar and wind are ok but intermittent. nuclear is the best solution for the grid that we have. even if we got all grid energy from green sources, the grid is only 27% of total human-caused greenhouse emissions. transportation as a whole is 16%, almost half of which is passenger vehicles (about 7% of the whole problem). grid and passenger vehicles are the areas where we actually have feasible solutions. other areas are harder. making things is 31%, and a lot of that is just cement, steel and plastic. fertilizer and livestock also have a large impact. 

in the end, we will have to acknowledge that personal restraint is one of the largest factors. a norm of not being wasteful and conserving energy usage is appropriate.

23 minutes ago, ignatius said:

what's interesting is all the wind and solar and renewables that have happened haven't reduced consumption of fossil fuels at all.. they are just being added to the total that is being consumed.. as more power comes to the grid it gets consumed. demand will only increase. 

rising demand is definitely a significant factor. gates also measures and forecasts that in his book How to Avoid a Climate Disaster. as the world gets more developed and less poor, large areas will consume a lot more energy.

actually i think the US has been decreasing its carbon emissions for the last year or so.

31 minutes ago, ignatius said:

the problems are huge and in every sector.  all the minerals needed to make all the things for a transition are currently just not there. there's no moon shot type thing that can happen that will suddenly generate more copper (unless they literally find it on the moon). 

i feel like i am content to worry about the copper problem when the copper problem gets bad. right now the climate situation is just definite global catastrophe coming down the road.

37 minutes ago, ignatius said:

as for negative EV narrative.. it's just the facts.. i mean VW released their own documents about emissions and production. granted they don't have the best track record for honestly presenting facts but they seem to have put the cards on the table so to speak. 

i mean it's all the worst information you can find that you never pay attention to about anything else. who is ever talking about the resource and emission cost of things? that's not going around about phones or tvs, but lately people love to point out that EVs use minerals.

it's like... "ignore the fact that EVs solve a meaningful chunk of the global climate problem, let's quibble about early-days manufacturing efficiency and minerals." proportionality is how propagandists get people. 

it will take us 100 years to solve this problem, but EVs are an inescapable part of the solution, and it's one of the few things we can do now.

[ignatius]

i'm not arguing against EVs..  the transition needs to happen if only to force americans to be less stupid. but gasoline engines aren't going anywhere anytime soon.  i think the points some people are making, along with the mining issues/carbon footprint of a new car, is that the pollution will exist but will be outsourced to other places where the extraction happens. also, that there's a finite amount of minerals for all the things needed to make the transition and mining will have to increase and will become less efficient and more difficult and will have lower yields as the demand rises. 

they can do all this math and know what's needed vs what's on hand and where those deposits are. also, geo politics and wars fuck up the equations because access is limited when sanctions happen or countries become "closed" for business.  Germany built a large Liquid Natural Gas terminal in 8 months because of ukraine war. USA is shipping all the gas possible to EU/germany.

there's interesting thoughts about should USA subsidize EVs in america or would we get more carbon out of the atmosphere by subsidizing natural gas sent to india so they burn that instead of coal? 

i don't see all this as propaganda.. it's data.. there's lot's and lot's of data on all this stuff. it may be data people don't want to hear but scientists who are climate activists and all in on transition are talking about it. countries are having these discussions, smart people are looking at all the data.. everything isn't a conspiracy or propaganda. as this transition happens these are all things that need to be dealt with and considered.. and solutions need to be found. 

people seeing more EVs on the road and thinking "we'll be fine" are delusional. the scope of the problem is bigger than they want to confront and billionaires and technology aren't going to magic up some bullshit to get us out of this crisis. people need to be realistic and pragmatic.. but that's a hard sell. 

edit: and yes it's going to take a long fucking time and a lot of the data suggests we're already in a place where no matter what we do we're in for a rough ride.. but we can avoid the absolute worst of it if we try really fucking hard. also, a hard sell. 

edit: here's 2 people debating the "minerals shortfall" needed to make a transition happen. one guy pointing out holes in the report published by the other guy. they're essentially on the same side just have some different ideas and opinions about data etc.. 

 

Edited December 15, 2023 by ignatius

[ignatius]

a touch of good news? 

 

Quote

 

For the first time in more than 50 years the US granted permission for a new type of nuclear reactor, a sign regulators are becoming more open to different approaches to producing power from splitting the atom. 

California startup Kairos Power received a construction permit from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build its Hermes demonstration reactor in Tennessee. While commercial reactors in use today are cooled by water, the Kairos technology uses molten fluoride salt as a coolant. 

 

 

https://fortune.com/2023/12/13/nuclear-reactor-approval-molten-salt-cooling-tennessee/

[ignatius]

Well this is interesting. “Preparing for the bottlenecks coming this decade”. This guy is predicting 30% shrinking of GDP (global economy) this decade. 
lots interesting takes and some eyebrow raising ideas. 

 

[zlemflolia]

its called trains and hyper-centralized communist production and distribution based on like-kind economic planning.  prove me wrong: you cant because this is the only way to plan for minimization of carbon emissions alongside simultaneous maximization of human needs being met

money erases information, on purpose, so that it can be transported into the hands of the rich.  literally true.

Edited December 15, 2023 by zlemflolia

[ignatius]

12 hours ago, zlemflolia said:

its called trains and hyper-centralized communist production and distribution based on like-kind economic planning.  prove me wrong: you cant because this is the only way to plan for minimization of carbon emissions alongside simultaneous maximization of human needs being met

money erases information, on purpose, so that it can be transported into the hands of the rich.  literally true.

i won't try to predict what might/will happen and/or what people will call it. i don't have any interest in proving anything to you or anyone else. that guy's ideas are interesting. the conversation is only an hour long. i'm guessing whatever happens will be something new and it won't be the same everywhere even within the USA.  i hope there will be different localized solutions to problems and that lot's of mutual aid is involved. 

Edited December 15, 2023 by ignatius

[zlemflolia]

13 hours ago, ignatius said:

Well this is interesting. “Preparing for the bottlenecks coming this decade”. This guy is predicting 30% shrinking of GDP (global economy) this decade. 
lots interesting takes and some eyebrow raising ideas. 

 

"the need for humankind to upgrade its value system" already starting with idealism, its clearly not about that, its about the mode of production and who controls it.  our value system is fine.  its the value system of the owning class that is the problem and they therefore must be eradicated as the owning class and proletarianized. though anyway il listen and give a more proper response

Edited December 15, 2023 by zlemflolia

[ignatius]

16 minutes ago, zlemflolia said:

"the need for humankind to upgrade its value system" already starting with idealism, its clearly not about that, its about the mode of production and who controls it.  our value system is fine.  its the value system of the owning class that is the problem and they therefore must be eradicated as the owning class and proletarianized. though anyway il listen and give a more proper response

that's pretty much what he's saying.. the motivations need to change.. obviously means the people who are putting shareholders above everything else. the larger system at play needs to change and that's obviously the ruling class.. not the average person.. though the average person (in the west) needs to get used to the idea of not having a new smart phone every 12 months and 8 new pairs of shoes every year or whatever it is people are spending money on all the time. there is a lot of wasteful consumerism and general waste built into the system. that needs to change. it's normalized for people to waste food, waste fuel and waste water etc and not treat resources like the precious things they are. this is different in different countries/cities/towns/cultures etc.. of course. 

you know.. i've known people at different times in life who didn't buy dishes and would just buy paper plates and plastic cups so they wouldn't have to wash dishes and could just throw everything in the trash.  this is easily approximated today with people who eat out for every meal or do take out all the time and throw single use plastics into the trash. 

there's lot's of things that need to change. the system changing will force a lot of that change to happen and a lot of ideas will seem obvious and common sense to lot's of people who will perhaps wonder why we hadn't been doing things more efficiently with less waste all along.

i'm not trying to argue w/you. i think arguing about ideology is kinda useless as whatever is going to happen will happen and that's what it will be. i'm not interested in giving that thing a name. i don't need to label a stick "COMMUNISM" and then got whack everyone with that stick. 

[zlemflolia]

its just that when i see people talk about this and try to talk materially then refuse to even mention the word "capitalism" and propose an alternative i cant take them seriously, especially since this dude keeps saying "i feel bad for politicians" and "(bourgeois) economists arent bad they just used the wrong playbook" like ok whats your solution exactly?  "change our values" lol its about the monopoly on violence literally forcing us into wage labor daily, he cant even pick up on that.  fast food is bad, but getting food while in transit quickly and easily? not inherently bad, its called a canteen and they can use glass plates, something socialists used most prevalently

Edited December 15, 2023 by zlemflolia

[ignatius]

24 minutes ago, zlemflolia said:

its just that when i see people talk about this and try to talk materially then refuse to even mention the word "capitalism" and propose an alternative i cant take them seriously, especially since this dude keeps saying "i feel bad for politicians" and "(bourgeois) economists arent bad they just used the wrong playbook" like ok whats your solution exactly?  "change our values" lol its about the monopoly on violence literally forcing us into wage labor daily, he cant even pick up on that.  fast food is bad, but getting food while in transit quickly and easily? not inherently bad, its called a canteen and they can use glass plates, something socialists used most prevalently

dude.. everyone knows capitalism and the idea of infinite growth is the problem. this is taken for granted as far as i'm concerned but all these people say that more or less in different ways.. if you want to split hairs over everything every step of the way then go for it.. someone saying "yeah.. i feel bad for politicians" in an offhand comment shouldn't be a red flag.  it's easy to see that he's saying "good luck w/that guys" but maybe your take away is different. 

we don't need to explain all that shit every time there's a discussion. 

but really these recent talks/conversations i posted are all about what power we currently use and how it's made, what it would take to replace it, do we even have all the things we need to do that... the answer is no.. so what needs to happen is degrowth and changing society and the systems we live in.. 

having that discussion in a pragmatic way w/o getting hung up on every ideological red flag is what they're trying to do. talking about the details without giving a new system a name.. because they know we're going o have to figure it all out and it will look different in different places. 

Edited December 15, 2023 by ignatius

[zlemflolia]

he never once bothers to mention those who own the means of production and those who are actually driving this fossil fuel usage, he talks about politicians, consumers, feelings, culture.  i listened to the whole thing i dont think i even once heard him mention "owning class" or any synonym or even the word "billionaires".  a lot of what he said materially made sense but he refused to go further, not surprised since hes an ex wall street oil trader

[ignatius]

28 minutes ago, zlemflolia said:

he never once bothers to mention those who own the means of production and those who are actually driving this fossil fuel usage, he talks about politicians, consumers, feelings, culture.  i listened to the whole thing i dont think i even once heard him mention "owning class" or any synonym or even the word "billionaires".  a lot of what he said materially made sense but he refused to go further, not surprised since hes an ex wall street oil trader

you're like the news people who demand someone condemn hamas before talking about palestine.. you want them to champion communism and blame capitalism before they even get their science talk going. 

it's absurd.  they might use different language than you to describe things but fundamentally they're all (mostly, except for that mills dude) saying the system is bad and needs to change because ____________ (insert reasons).  they might not say "owning class" or "means of production" but that's essentially what they're talking about. 

you need to write your own manifesto then go on a podcast or something so then you can just link to it. 

 

Edited December 15, 2023 by ignatius

[zlemflolia]

problem is what hes saying has no teeth, no usefulness, literally useless, even if he got all his demands climate change would not be solved, because its incoherent, its not a real plan of action, theres nothing to act on from anything he said, because its not substantial and its idealist, at best liberal reformism

[ignatius]

3 minutes ago, zlemflolia said:

problem is what hes saying has no teeth, no usefulness, literally useless, even if he got all his demands climate change would not be solved, because its incoherent, its not a real plan of action, theres nothing to act on from anything he said, because its not substantial and its idealist, at best liberal reformism

i think you're missing the entire point of it. pointing out that idea of a green energy transition in the way people are thinking about it is just not possible... and that fundamentally everything has to change.  they're trying to change the narrative to deal w/the actual facts of reality around resources, consumption and what's possible and what isn't possible... and arguing that these facts are all pretty well known but not being talked about.. and if they were talked about perhaps more action would be taken in the right direction. 

i'm less concerned with what people call this possible new future thing.. and more concerned with something actually happening.

 

Edited December 15, 2023 by ignatius

[ignatius]

this is the reality based climate/resources/energy doom that creates that spiral. good luck!

 <---- -i guess i got read this doom book sometime.

The Pitchforks Are Coming… For Us Plutocrats

By NICK HANAUER 

July/August 2014

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014/

^^^ piece he mentions at the end of the talk

Edited December 21, 2023 by ignatius

[auxien]

https://xkcd.com/1732/ click through for the whole thing which is well worth it

not sure if this has been posted in here before but it's pretty stark and clear looking at it like this way

[ignatius]

18 minutes ago, auxien said:

https://xkcd.com/1732/ click through for the whole thing which is well worth it

not sure if this has been posted in here before but it's pretty stark and clear looking at it like this way

that's interesting. i like how they noted all the geological events like volcanoes and floods etc. 

[iococoi]

 

[iococoi]

aliens be like

[Nebraska]

Quote

“We strongly believe artificial light at night – in combination with habitat loss, chemical pollution, invasive species, and climate change – is driving insect declines. We posit here that artificial light at night is another important – but often overlooked – bringer of the insect apocalypse.”

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/light-pollution-contributes-insect-apocalypse-180973642/