Climate Change, 2022 Edition

[Brian Swartz]

The Ukraine thread has a discussion about this which everyone involved seems to agree should not be there, but it continues there anyway just due to the natural inertia of such discussions. What say we talk about it here instead?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

What say we talk about it here instead?

I would like to know what qualifications a person must have in order to give a enlightened response to this question, and what past employers will disqualify someone's opinion.

And how many legitimate votes must we have to make it a consensus that the conversation be moved here?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I would like to know what qualifications a person must have in order to give a enlightened response to this question, and what past employers will disqualify someone's opinion.

And how many legitimate votes must we have to make it a consensus that the conversation be moved here?

Spoiler

Unbeknownst to you, I am highly paid message board consultant who really wants no serious conversation about the topic and just some dithering that results in no action so I can continue to profit from the other thread.

I would like to offer my expertise in Messageboard-ology, Astro-SEO, and wine entrepreneurship to state that we should let all voices be heard before we make any sort of sweeping changes.

I know this may seem controversial to the radical thread changers out there, but if the science is on your side, as you claim, why do you care if people put forward their proposals to change threads? They should get their fair time and equal weight. We live in America and you believe in free speech, don't you?

It may take a little more time, but you want to get this one right, of course. So why not let people post in the old thread for the next month while we determine the best course of action and come to a reasonable consensus? Sure, this post may get buried and people may not want to hear about it in the other thread, but we have to get this one right!

I'm sure after all this time, the group will come to the correction decision and the truth will win out over nihilistic contrarians, disingenuous charlatans, resource-wasting sea lions, and self-interested outright liars. Also, I agree that we just need better user education, better media literacy. Maybe that is to blame if your suggestion fails.

Oh, and have you considered that maybe you need to work on your delivery. I mean, I don't want to say it's your fault but it's a more complicated and unpleasant truth, so maybe you need to package it better. Those bad actors have a little bit easier of a sales job, what with not being encumbered by things like science or facts or logic, but they're good at appealing to emotion. Have you considered punching your delivery up a bit? Perhaps if you could spend more time educating people to better see your point of view, they'll be more likely to come around.

Then again, what is an objective fact? You can get stats that say anything you want or pick experts in a very narrow field that know no better about this topic than Joe Public. What's to say that a new thread is the right or correct action? If you look at this through the lens of moral relativism, it's not nearly as bad as, say, getting a thread locked. So staying in the old thread is a compromise.

Also, what is with you new threaders nowadays anyway? You used to be so easy to work with. We used to just make a poll and it would be decided. Sure, the stay-in-the-thread crowd has maybe gotten a bit more emboldened of late, what with trying to take over the message board and restricting polls in their threads to members who joined the board in 2001. But you'd have a lot more people on your side if you'd just let it happen.

All I'm saying is let's be thoughtful and deliberate while coming to this decision, even if it might take a little longer and even if people still continue to post in the old thread. That won't be a problem, right?

SI

[BYU 14]

So it looks like Russia is massing for a major offensive in the Donbass region....







Yeah, I couldn't resist

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

So it looks like Russia is massing for a major offensive in the Donbass region....







Yeah, I couldn't resist

I was literally coming here to do the same thing.

Well played

[molson]

Please stop causing problems.

[BYU 14]

[NobodyHere]

[Austin90]

Haha, god that honestly sums up things pretty well...

[PilotMan]

https://wapo.st/3b4MMAq


paywall removed

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I was literally coming here to do the same thing.

Well played

dammit you guys are too quick

fellow smartasses unite!

[Edward64]

Air conditioner HVAC unit is on the blink. Called in a couple folks to look it over and give an assessment/estimate.

Both said the same thing. Low on freon but can't do freon anymore. The only alternative is to spend $5-$6k on a new unit. There is no other choice.

I get freon is bad for the environment but wish they had phased it out more gradually and grandfathered still working units (at least for regular folks). My AC will eventually die a natural death, let me continue putting in freon until then.

Also, freon was eliminated for good around 2020. These companies should have advertised and said "last call to top off your freon before gone for good".

IMO this is frakking bullsh*t.

[NobodyHere]

I don't want to hear that.

My AC is also has issues. The fan blows but it doesn't cool.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I don't want to hear that.

My AC is also has issues. The fan blows but it doesn't cool.

I now have two AC units that just blow hot air.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I get freon is bad for the environment but wish they had phased it out more gradually and grandfathered still working units (at least for regular folks). My AC will eventually die a natural death, let me continue putting in freon until then.

I hear you on the frustration and inconvenience, but I think it's just way way too late for that kind of an approach. We need to be moving faster, not slower.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Air conditioner HVAC unit is on the blink. Called in a couple folks to look it over and give an assessment/estimate.

Both said the same thing. Low on freon but can't do freon anymore. The only alternative is to spend $5-$6k on a new unit. There is no other choice.

I get freon is bad for the environment but wish they had phased it out more gradually and grandfathered still working units (at least for regular folks). My AC will eventually die a natural death, let me continue putting in freon until then.

Also, freon was eliminated for good around 2020. These companies should have advertised and said "last call to top off your freon before gone for good".

IMO this is frakking bullsh*t.

I love how the cost of an AC unit is priced to the market. Had to replace ours in 2021 and I would have been overjoyed with 5-6K. Cost us over 9K in Phoenix metro area and we didn't even get the most expensive option.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

I love how the cost of an AC unit is priced to the market. Had to replace ours in 2021 and I would have been overjoyed with 5-6K. Cost us over 9K in Phoenix metro area and we didn't even get the most expensive option.

I got 2 quotes. One was just under $5k and the other just under $6k so about $1k difference.

The difference might be ... one of the guys suggested we replace the AC unit outside the house and also the Furnace also (e.g. the same age). We said nope, we'll address it when the furnace dies.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I got 2 quotes. One was just under $5k and the other just under $6k so about $1k difference.

The difference might be ... one of the guys suggested we replace the AC unit outside the house and also the Furnace also (e.g. the same age). We said nope, we'll address it when the furnace dies.

That it explains it. I paid $5k last year and I would put money on my house being smaller than yours. But, mine was a heat-pump and that required changing out both. I had quotes from 9-15k depending on the company. Luckily, a customer who was a Lenox authorized installer. He got me one installed for about 2 grand cheaper than anyone else was offering that level of unit.

[Edward64]

All fixed up in about 3 hours. It was like 78-79 at night and 81 during the day. Now a comfy 74-75 degrees.

Thank God (literally).

[Ksyrup]

Sometimes the price will include a wrap-around warranty that they embed with the price of the unit without specifically telling you. This has always been a bear for me to fight against in terms of regulatory requirements. Most HVAC units come with 5 years parts and like a 90 day warranty of work on the install, so if your unit fails, the manufacturer is responsible for parts for 5 years, but you pay the labor. Companies I've worked for who underwrite these products offer a 10 year wrap-around that covers all 10 years of labor and the remaining 5 years of parts. Problem is, they don't like to tell customers about the extra cost.

[sterlingice]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62532840
Headline: Climate activists fill golf holes with cement after water ban exemption

If there was a Protest Olympics, France would always be a strong contender for the medal lead

SI

[Edward64]

I like this move. I assume CA is pretty high up there as far as EV infrastructure. I'm sure there'll be growing pains but good to draw a line in the sand that people & companies can plan for.

Assume this will be a net positive for Newsom in his possible 2024 campaign.

California will ban new gasoline car sales

California is expected to become the first state in the U.S. to ban the sale of new gasoline cars by 2035, requiring all new cars sold in the state after that year to be 100 percent free of fossil fuel emissions.

The rule is being issued by the California Air Resources Board, known as CARB, and will prohibit any driver from buying a new vehicle that utilizes an internal combustion engine for its powertrain. The New York Times first reported the story.

Additionally, interim targets for the California ban on ICE vehicles have also been set. 35 percent of new passenger vehicle sales in California must be of zero-emissions vehicles by 2026. The Golden State wants this number to reach 68 percent by 2030.

“The climate crisis is solvable if we focus on the big, bold steps necessary to stem the tide of carbon pollution,” Governor Gavin Newsom said in a statement.

[miami_fan]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fishing...limate-change/

In a major blow to America's seafood industry, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game has, for the first time in state history, canceled the winter snow crab season in the Bering Sea due to their falling numbers. While restaurant menus will suffer, scientists worry what the sudden population plunge means for the health of the Arctic ecosystem.

[Edward64]

My SIL buys and ships snow crabs from Alaska for Thanksgiving or Christmas. They are fantastic, big legs. I'll have to tell her to place the order early.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I like this move. I assume CA is pretty high up there as far as EV infrastructure. I'm sure there'll be growing pains but good to draw a line in the sand that people & companies can plan for.

Assume this will be a net positive for Newsom in his possible 2024 campaign.

California will ban new gasoline car sales

This just in. Our power grid will likely not support all of that additional load, but have no fear we aren't investing in addressing that at all.

[sterlingice]

If our power grid won't support the additional load of EVs, it's stressed from anything, not just EVs and needs to be invested in. But the only time it seems to be pointed out right now is as a talking point against EVs and definitely not at budget time.

SI

[Glengoyne]

My understanding is if EVs start popping up in multiple garages in a neighborhood,the ratio of homes to transformers will need to change. Transformers are in short supply and we've got a lot of neighborhoods.

I'm not against EVs, but I'm not a fan of the mandate. This amounts to a huge tax on living here. EVs and hybrids are more expensive , more expensive to maintain and, unless things have changed in the past eight or so years, all of that comes with a shorter useful life.

Some of my disdain is spillover from the same government building a high speed rail line that amounts to a train to nowhere. Not to mention a train from nowhere.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

This just in. Our power grid will likely not support all of that additional load, but have no fear we aren't investing in addressing that at all.

Not CA specifically but US by 2040. An interesting paragraph, last sentence is eye opening. It seems like a lot of nuclear power plants. If true, better start thinking about other ways to generate the required electricity.

https://www.nei.org/news/2019/electr...tional%20power.

It is good that U.S. utilities are getting started now, because the transition to EVs will also push up global electricity demand, especially for power from carbon-free sources. This could translate into demand for new nuclear generation. BNEF expects that EVs and E-buses will consume 2,000 terawatt-hours of electricity in 2040, about 6 percent of global demand. It would take about 250 average reactors (about 1 gigawatt each) to provide this additional power.

[bhlloy]

You know what’s going to be a bigger tax living in California? When every community needs a desalinization plant (current price tag $140mm for 35k people), the Central Valley completely dries up and can’t support most of the agriculture and wildfires continue to get worse and worse every year to the point where getting insurance is an act of god.

I mean it doesn’t really matter anyway when this will almost certainly get struck down by a court somewhere or by a presidential order in 2 years, and the rest of the country won’t follow suit, and we started all this shit 20 years too late anyway, but points for trying?

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I don't want to hear that.

My AC is also has issues. The fan blows but it doesn't cool.

I wish I had a fan that blows. All of mine just clap and pay compliments.

[cuervo72]

If they could build more communities where driving wasn't essential...

(I know California is particularly ill-suited for this...)

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

I wish I had a fan that blows. All of mine just clap and pay compliments.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

If they could build more communities where driving wasn't essential...

(I know California is particularly ill-suited for this...)

I don't know if this real, will work, all the pros/cons etc. but it's a fascinating idea.

Meet The Line, Saudi Arabia's Future 106-mile, One-building City | HowStuffWorks

The government of Saudi Arabia unveiled plans in 2021 for the city of Neom, including a megastructure called The Line, a massive scheme still years from completion. The Line is designed to be an entire city composed of two parallel, 656-foot-wide (200-meter-wide) skyscrapers, each 106 miles (170 kilometers) long and 1,640 feet (500 meters) high (higher than most of the world’s tallest skyscrapers), stretching across the northwest part of Saudi Arabia near the Red Sea.

With its proposed width of only 656 feet, The Line will rely primarily on its height to encompass its residents and a host of modern trappings, such as a high-speed rail to connect sections of the 106-mile city. Saudi Arabian officials claim The Line will be otherwise devoid of roads, cars or emissions and will be powered strictly by clean energy (although details have not been released). Here are a few of most notable proposed features of The Line:

• vertically layered homes, offices, public parks and public schools.
• year-round climate control of all indoor and outdoor spaces.
• high-speed rail that will transport residents from end-to-end in 20 minutes.
• a five-minute walk to all amenities.
• accessibility to parks and natural elements within a two-minute walk.

[sterlingice]

I'll believe Neom when it's more than something that shows up in dystopian science fiction stories or the inevitable half built cities like a number of the oddball overbuilt cities in China

SI

[Edward64]

A little more info below. $1T and 50 years to complete.

From a geopolitical point of view (e.g. I don't like SA that much but understand our need as frenemies ... in the short term), I hope it's a colossal failure and money pit. As a sci-fi fan, I'm kinda rooting for it.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/...craper-in-neom

[JPhillips]

That's such a dumb idea. I wonder who is making bank convincing people this would work. Seems very Elon, tbh.

[Edward64]

The article doesn't get into specifics like $ impact and I wouldn't think the EU (esp. France) would be that impacted by the US push to support & subsidize local green auto industry.

(My guess is he's still butt hurt with the Australians backing out of buying French subs).

But still an angle to the pros/cons that I didn't think of, how it adversely impacts allies by pushing to go more green domestically.

France plays bad cop as transatlantic trade tensions ramp up – POLITICO

It had seemed like the bad blood between Brussels and Washington was easing on Biden's watch. Facing a common foe in China, the EU and the U.S. last year struck a truce on the tariffs that former President Donald Trump slapped on European steel and aluminium. Over this year, Russia's war against Ukraine has meant that America and Europe needed to present a united front, at least politically.

Cracks are now starting to re-emerge, however. The EU is furious that the U.S. is pouring subsidies into the homegrown electric car industry. Accusing Washington of protectionism, Europe is now threatening to draw up its own defenses.

Unsurprisingly, French President Emmanuel Macron is leading the charge. “The Americans are buying American and pursuing a very aggressive strategy of state aid. The Chinese are closing their market. We cannot be the only area, the most virtuous in terms of climate, which considers that there is no European preference,” Macron told French daily Les Echos.

Brussels to support consumers and companies that buy electric cars produced in the EU, instead of ones from outside the bloc.

I'm thinking this is just something we're going to need to disagree with our friends. The US should go full steam ahead in supporting domestic alternate fuel vehicles..

Macron’s comments are a reflection of EU consternation over Washington’s Inflation Reduction Act, which incentivizes U.S. consumers to “Buy American” when purchasing a greener car. The EU argues that requiring that car needs to be assembled in North America and contain a battery with a certain percentage of local content discriminate against the EU and other trade partners.

[GrantDawg]

I can see the anger. It was mostly a move to stop the dependency of Asian suppliers of electric car parts and batteries, but Europe also has a large car market here. BMW ,Mercedes and Volkswagon are certainly reving up there EV offerings for an American audience, and that law is tying their hands for assembly and parts sourcing.
It us still the right thing to do. Just like with the chips law, it is become a matter of National security.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Brian Swartz]

Can either of you explain to me how this is a good thing? It strikes me as contrary to a couple of essentials:

- The whole push for a better future vis a vis climate change depends on international cooperation. It seems contradictory to me to emphasize that and then also take this kind of action.

- The global economy also requires high level of cooperation, and it's completely impossible to be self-sufficient in all industries and resources. That means that we should breaking down barriers to trade and cooperation, not erecting new ones.

I fully agree that we should be supporting alternative fuel vehicles. I don't agree with the emphasis on domestically produced ones. Or to put it another way, I'm open to being convinced otherwhise but my initial response is that I'm on Team Macron here.

[GrantDawg]

Because:

-The essence of this bill is US building an increase infrastructure and market for EV in the US, and it makes zero sense for US tax money to be building that infrastructure outside the US.

- The chip shortage showed the danger of depending on foreign sources for parts that are critical to our economy. What if there is a general strike in Europe and we can no longer get a certain battery part critical for our cars to run? This bill incentivize the investment to make sure we have some critical manufacturing capabilities long term.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

What if there is a general strike in Europe and we can no longer get a certain battery part critical for our cars to run?

I'm not sure if I managed to be unclear, but this kind of problem is inevitable. Not everything our economy absolutely relies on can be produced here, and a shortage of anything will result in increased prices around the world, so trying to produce everything in the US is A) an impossibility and B) only a mitigating factor, not a strategy that solves the problem.

When peak oil hits, the increasing prices will hammer everyone, not just the countries that can't produce their own (though they'll get it the worst). And take resources like Alumnium. China produces over half of it. Australia could ramp up if they chose. South America doesn't have the ability to do so in a reasonable timeframe. The US doesn't have any known reserves of significance. That's just one resource out of many that we just flat-out don't have domestically; like it or don't, the global economy is massively interdependent. Protectionism can't solve the problem.

On the first point, I think our primary goal should be to be using EVs more. Not worrying about where they were built. We're still looking at a global problem from a narrow nation-state lens. I think that will inevitably fail.

[GrantDawg]

I disagree. It is not a matter of producing "everything" but there are core things we should not depend on countries that could for many reason cut off crucial resources to us.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Brian Swartz]

Just to clarify; By 'everything' I'm talking about core items that our economy as is can't function without. Aluminum/bauxite is definitely on the list; it's a very long list, longer than is commonly realized.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

On the first point, I think our primary goal should be to be using EVs more. Not worrying about where they were built. We're still looking at a global problem from a narrow nation-state lens. I think that will inevitably fail.

From my POV, there will always be a need to help "incubate" industries/technologies/raw materials etc. that we need. Arguably, the EV market is nearing maturity but user adoption is not there yet. To increase user adoption, costs need to be lowered, better battery range, more infrastructure/recharging station etc.

On one extreme, this isn't clothes, refrigerators or light bulbs (let's say level 1). On the other extreme, it's not AI, Defense stuff, intellectual property (level 10). But this industry is critical for the US so we are not as dependent on heavy crude oil and to help the US economy compete vs China (level 8).

I know you are a proponent of globalism. I am a proponent of selective/targeted globalism and this falls under that category. The globalism from the 00's and early 10's is dead (especially in light of the new Cold Wars, plural).

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Just to clarify; By 'everything' I'm talking about core items that our economy as is can't function without. Aluminum/bauxite is definitely on the list; it's a very long list, longer than is commonly realized.

Specific to your reference to aluminum/bauxite. If we can't get it from China, we'll get it from Australia or Guinea. This is an example and your point is obviously broader.

The US does need to (1) identify key gaps and (2) close those gaps with alternatives or alternate sources. This includes heavy crude oil which we are still dependent on other countries right now. We are trying to "close that gap" now by helping incubate EV production & adoption.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

there will always be a need to help "incubate" industries/technologies/raw materials etc. that we need. Arguably, the EV market is nearing maturity but user adoption is not there yet. To increase user adoption, costs need to be lowered, better battery range, more infrastructure/recharging station etc.

Agree with all of that. What I don't agree with is that doing any of that requires measures that I think are fairly labeled as anti-trade, such as what you initially referenced; requiring domestically produced components and so on.

Originally Posted by Edward64

The US does need to (1) identify key gaps and (2) close those gaps with alternatives or alternate sources.

Agree with this except that it requires as well the recognition that many gaps can't be closed, which also means that closing those gaps is only a partial and limited solution. You're right that I'm a proponent of globalism, but in the same sense as I'm a proponent of breathing air and eating food. It has the same level of being essential.

Originally Posted by Edward64

Your reference to aluminum/bauxite. If we can't get it from China, we'll get it from Australia or Guinea. This is an example and your point is obviously broader.

Your note about the broader complex is appreciated. Regarding aluminum specifically though, no we won't. China produces over half the world's supply. If they cut it off, or even reduced it by half, there would be worldwide shortages for years. Australia has more reserves but it's not a focus for them. #2 and #3 producers are India and Russia, not exactly friends of ours.

Edit: Another way of looking at this is that China has a *far* stronger grip on aluminum (56% of the world's production) than Saudi Arabia does on crude oil (less than 15% of the world's production).

The main point is we are vulnerable to whatever pressure they want to put on our economy - as they are vulnerable to us and others as well. That isn't just true today, it will be true 5 years from now, 10 years from now, and 20 years from now, and it will be true regardless of what actions we take to shore up those vulnerable sectors of the economy that we can improve/protect.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Edward64

A little more info below. $1T and 50 years to complete.

From a geopolitical point of view (e.g. I don't like SA that much but understand our need as frenemies ... in the short term), I hope it's a colossal failure and money pit. As a sci-fi fan, I'm kinda rooting for it.

Building has started!

Still haven't processed if good/pros outweighs the bad/cons, but as a sci-fi fan, I am excited to see how this works out.

The Line NEOM Video: Construction Begins For 170-Kilometre-Long Megacity Of Saudi Arabia

The construction of Saudi Arabia's mega-city project, "The Line," at Neom has begun in the north-western Tabuk province of the country.
:
But now that the construction video has been released and the drone footage has captured a part of the massive site. The footage shows several trucks and machines working in the middle of the desert.

According to a news report by The National, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman announced the designs of The Line. It will be the first city in the world to be powered by renewable energy, including wind, solar, and hydrogen power. Residents of The Line will live in interconnected societies run by artificial intelligence designed to coexist with nature. The futuristic development will prioritise walkability, clean energy and technology to create a new way of living.

[sterlingice]

I'm with you in that I'm curious to see if it works out. But my expectations is that it will never be anything remotely like what they have drawn up

SI

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Building has started!

Still haven't processed if good/pros outweighs the bad/cons, but as a sci-fi fan, I am excited to see how this works out.

The Line NEOM Video: Construction Begins For 170-Kilometre-Long Megacity Of Saudi Arabia

With only 3 people sentenced to death thus far!!!

Saudi Arabia Sentences 3 Men to Death For Refusing to Vacate NEOM Development Site

[Edward64]

I guess that's their version of imminent domain.