human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
POSTED BY: 1kiki
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 19:38
VIEWED: 60750
PAGE 20 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:https://eand.co/the-age-of-stupid-or-why-it-feels-like-the-world-is-en
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'm 42 years old. I'm not some dumb shit . . .
ding-a-little-more-every-day-b3809ba521fd
https://miro.medium.com/max/840/1*DWfW-NrN2Tp2RWMObuYdtA.jpeg
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
The poorly programmed SecondBot will deny crime all around us brought on by Democrat politicians and Democrat policy, but will complain that his summer is too hot.
Must be really nice living inside the basement of your parents house in that white gated community that only lets minorities in when they need the underpaid Mexican crews to do their yard work, or the underpaid black maids to raise their unwanted children and unwanted elderly parents. Do you make sure to berate your parents about using so much A/C to cool that 4,000 sq ft. home, or do you just pretend that it bothers you while enjoying the cool and dry basement?
Get fucked.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Carbon-reduction plans rely on technology that doesn’t exist
Instead of scaling up renewable energy, researchers promote unproved ideas on carbon capture and sequestration
Naomi Oreskes on August 1, 2022 writes at
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-reduction-plans-rely
-on-tech-that-doesnt-exist/
At last year’s Glasgow COP26 meetings on the climate crisis, U.S. envoy and former U.S. secretary of state John Kerry stated that solutions to the climate crisis will involve “technologies that we don’t yet have” but are supposedly on the way. Kerry’s optimism comes directly from scientists. You can read about these beliefs in the influential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Integrated Assessment Models, created by researchers. These models present pathways to carbon reductions that may permit us to keep climate change below two degrees Celsius. They rely heavily on technologies that don’t yet exist, such as ways to store carbon in the ground safely, permanently and affordably.
Stop and think about this for a moment. Science—that is to say, Euro-American science—has long been held as our model for rationality. Scientists frequently accuse those who reject their findings of being irrational. Yet depending on technologies that do not yet exist is irrational, a kind of magical thinking. That is a developmental stage kids are expected to outgrow. Imagine if I said I planned to build a home with materials that had not yet been invented or build a civilization on Mars without first figuring out how to get even one human being there. You’d likely consider me irrational, perhaps delusional. Yet this kind of thinking pervades plans for future decarbonization.
The IPCC models, for instance, depend heavily on carbon capture and storage, also called carbon capture and sequestration (either way, CCS). Some advocates, including companies such as ExxonMobil, say CCS is a proven, mature technology because for years industry has pumped carbon dioxide or other substances into oil fields to flush more fossil fuel out of the ground. But carbon dioxide doesn’t necessarily stay in the rocks and soil. It may migrate along cracks, faults and fissures before finding its way back to the atmosphere. Keeping pumped carbon in the ground—in other words, achieving net negative emissions—is much harder. Globally there are only handful of places where this is done. None of them is commercially viable.
One site is the Orca plant in Iceland, touted as the world's biggest carbon-removal plant. Air-captured carbon dioxide is mixed with water and pumped into the ground, where it reacts with the basaltic rock to form stable carbonate minerals. That's great. But the cost is astronomical—$600 to $1,000 per ton—and the scale is tiny: about 4,000 tons a year. By comparison, just one company, tech giant Microsoft (which has pledged to offset all its emissions), produced nearly 14 million tons of carbon in 2021. Or look at carbon capture at the Archer Daniels Midland ethanol plant in Illinois, which, since 2017, has been containing carbon at a cost to the American taxpayer of $281 million (more than half the total project cost); at the same time, overall emissions from the plant have increased. And the total number of people employed in the project? Eleven. Meanwhile numerous CCS plants have failed. In 2016 the Massachusetts Institute of Technology closed its Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technologies program because the 43 projects it was involved with had all been canceled, put on hold or converted to other things.
It's obvious why ExxonMobil and Archer Daniels Midland are pushing CCS. It makes them look good, and they can get the taxpayer to foot the bill. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, passed last year, contained more than $10 billion for efforts to develop carbon-capture technologies. In contrast, the act contained merely $420 million for renewable energy—water, wind, geothermal and solar.
Scaling up solar and wind is going to cost money and will need to be s
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Which is why carbon sequestration in the soil in the form of cover crops or biochar is a better option. If we could combine biochar with better forest management to reduce catastrophic wildfires (pyrolyzing smaller trees and shrubs along the way and laying down mile-wide firebreaks through dense forests) that would be even better. Reforestation with biochar also works. Paying farmers to increase the carbon content of their soils (carbon can be easily measured in dirt, there are some nifty ways to do it). Planting trees in cities to reduce temperatures and, oh btw, reduce AC costs. Better land-use planning to reduce miles driven. I think we could still try "land-ferries" - reduce the number of miles driven by loading cars on trains for lober-distance travel, which eliminates the problem of the "last mile".
Improving electricty transmission efficiencies.
I recall reading a paper of some researcher trying to understand how photosynthesis worked so he could reproduce it, and all I culd think of is ... "why?"
We don't need new technology, just the will to apply old, proven technology.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:It’s hot outside. It’s been hot outside pretty much everywhere this summer. On five continents. In China, which is less than halfway through a predicted 40 days of extreme heat. In the United Kingdom, which recently set its new all-time heat record. In Seville, which for the first time named a heat wave. (Hi, Zoe.) And in the United States.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Nobody cares.
Daily temperature records are being broken year-round. It’s another heat wave, another extreme heat wave, but it’s kind of boring. If these things become so common, they’re just not that interesting.
The heat has become so regular that it no longer interests us and yet the fact of its regularity is exactly why it should.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
UK temperatures have been crazy - highest ever recorded and there are bushfires in Europe.
UK has just declared itself in drought
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/12/drought-declared-e
ngland-hosepipe-ban-water-restrictions
Waiting for people to complain about taking away their freedoms - seems to be a thing now.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
After 25 Years of Futility, Democrats Finally Jettison Carbon Pricing in Favor of Incentives to Counter Climate Change
The $370 billion Inflation Reduction Act is the nation’s first comprehensive climate plan to curtail greenhouse gas emissions and boost renewable energy and green technology. It relies on tax credits and other “carrots,” not sticks.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/12082022/after-25-years-of-futility
-democrats-finally-jettison-carbon-pricing-in-favor-of-incentives-to-counter-climate-change/
The nation’s first comprehensive climate law, expected to be sealed with a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday, will not look anything like the program imagined by either climate economists or those in Washington and the environmental movement who had faith in bipartisan action.
From the time that the world first agreed to act on climate change 30 years ago at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, environmentalists talked about putting a “price” on carbon as a core element of any strategy for reducing the fossil fuel pollution that was heating the planet.
Whether imposed by tax, fee or cap-and-trade system—such a price would discourage carbon-based fuel pollution and encourage investment in and deployment of clean alternatives, said advocates of the idea. And because such a scheme would rely on the market, rather than government mandates, to decide the best approach to decarbonize, proponents argued it was an idea both Democrats and Republicans could get behind.
Instead, Democrats are advancing their climate bill with no Republican support, and their program is one of carrots, not sticks. The idea is that an unprecedented $370 billion federal investment in clean energy — largely in the form of tax credits to encourage its development, as opposed to taxes on carbon to discourage use of fossil fuels — will be the push that transforms not only the economy but the politics of climate change.
“I’ve always thought that this gives us a chance to get the greatest possible emission reductions and the largest savings possible and still get the votes,” said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee who shepherded through the tax credits at the heart of the Democrats’ climate plan.
The decision that the United States would spend rather than tax its way to a more sustainable future was in large part driven by political reality — Democrats had to win over the vote of a staunch fossil fuel industry supporter in their own party, Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who opposed carbon taxes. But the plan also was influenced by a new generation of climate policy thinkers who argued that lawmakers had spent too much time listening to the economists, and as a result, had played into the hands of the powerful foes of climate action.
Previous climate proposals in Washington focused first on costs, not benefits. That made it easy for the fossil fuel industry and its allies to defeat the Clinton administration’s BTU tax proposal and the cap-and-trade plan that died in Congress under President Barack Obama, whereby carbon emissions would have been capped and polluting industries could have purchased credits from non-polluters.
In contrast, President Joe Biden is about to put his signature on a climate plan that is entirely focused on benefits—not just cleaner energy, but prevailing wage jobs, relief for disadvantaged neighborhoods overburdened with pollution, and revival of communities left behind by coal.
“You don’t go to these communities with some sort of vague promises that you’re interested in them,” said Wyden. “You show them with concrete actions relating to wages and opportunities, that here’s some of the tools that can help them get through the transition.”
Matto Mildenberger, political scientist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, whose anti-carbon tax writings have been influential among many of those working on the legislation, called the Inflation Reduction Act “serious, transformative industrial policy.”
“It’s about genera
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
After 25 Years of Futility, Democrats Finally Jettison Carbon Pricing in Favor of Incentives to Counter Climate Change
The $370 billion Inflation Reduction Act is the nation’s first comprehensive climate plan to curtail greenhouse gas emissions and boost renewable energy and green technology. It relies on tax credits and other “carrots,” not sticks.
"Carrots" for the rich, subsidized by the poor and lower middle-class.
Now all the Blacks and Mexicans that used to vote Democrat will feel the same taxation pain that single people when paying through the teeth for other people's kids.
Only it's rich white people who they're subsidizing to drive around coal burning cars and put solar panels on their roofs.
Get fucked.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:6ix, I checked to see if you are correct. You are not. See Table 3. Conventional Distributional Effects of Major Revenue-Raising Tax Provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act, 2023
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by second:
After 25 Years of Futility, Democrats Finally Jettison Carbon Pricing in Favor of Incentives to Counter Climate Change
The $370 billion Inflation Reduction Act is the nation’s first comprehensive climate plan to curtail greenhouse gas emissions and boost renewable energy and green technology. It relies on tax credits and other “carrots,” not sticks.
"Carrots" for the rich, subsidized by the poor and lower middle-class.
Now all the Blacks and Mexicans that used to vote Democrat will feel the same taxation pain that single people when paying through the teeth for other people's kids.
Only it's rich white people who they're subsidizing to drive around coal burning cars and put solar panels on their roofs.
Get fucked.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
It will cost people in the bottom quintile $5.00 more taxes per year. Well, actually the 12.2% of that group who are cheaters will be paying more taxes. The people who don't cheat won't be paying more.
August 12, 2022, Senate-Passed Inflation Reduction Act: Estimates of Budgetary and Macroeconomic Effects
https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2022/8/12/senate-passed-i
nflation-reduction-act
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Inflation Reduction Act Adds First-time Charge for Methane Emissions for the Oil and Gas Sector
It imposes a fee of $900 per metric ton of methane emissions starting in 2024, rising to $1,500 by 2026.
https://www.omm.com/resources/alerts-and-publications/alerts/inflation
-reduction-act-adds-first-time-charge-for-methane-emissions-for-the-oil-and-gas-sector/
Firms will also receive tax credits worth $85 per tonne for carbon capture and storage.
https://www.verdantix.com/insights/blogs/the-inflation-reduction-act-p
aves-new-ground-for-us-climate-change-action
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Inflation Reduction Act Adds First-time Charge for Methane Emissions for the Oil and Gas Sector
It imposes a fee of $900 per metric ton of methane emissions starting in 2024, rising to $1,500 by 2026.
https://www.omm.com/resources/alerts-and-publications/alerts/inflation
-reduction-act-adds-first-time-charge-for-methane-emissions-for-the-oil-and-gas-sector/
Firms will also receive tax credits worth $85 per tonne for carbon capture and storage.
https://www.verdantix.com/insights/blogs/the-inflation-reduction-act-p
aves-new-ground-for-us-climate-change-action
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
The IRS Booster Act does not give a tax credit for a single coal burning car that is made in the world right now because of the requirement that 50% of the materials for the battery need to be from North America, and none of them are.
Ford also raised it's price of the F-150 coal burning truck $7,500 just in time to get your subsidy, paid for by the poor and lower middle class.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Is Coal-Powered Energy Charging These Electric Cars? No. It is a falsehood from Trumptards: “Coal powered electric cars…. helping liberals pretend they are solving a make-believe crisis.”
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
single coal burning car . . . F-150 coal burning truck . . .
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/coal-powered-electric-cars/
https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.9ZD7BV
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME