Climate Change Discussion on FB
For those of you not connected to every where maybememe.com content appears, I want to highlight a discussion on FB, between a commentator and myself regarding my post - “Why Global Warming Doesn’t Matter Anymore”
The first comment to follow was a result of the headline being picked up in my FB status via MaybeMeme.com linking to twitter, and then my FB status.
FB Commentator:
Is that a joke or just delusion?
The following ensued late last night/early morning…
Bryan Berndt comments:
I could have it wrong… and since you seem to think I do, could you please inform me as to how, so that I may upgrade ideas & improve?
Or maybe you haven’t read any of it yet and made the ad hominem attack unconsciously? Habitual responses occur far to often and people fail to adapt to changing circumstances (ie falling demand for energy, peak credit, export demand drops, etc being left out of climate change models completly!
We usually call people like that “conservative” - as they do not want “established” beliefs to be challenged.
Robert Anton Wilson noted long ago that… “it takes only as little as 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea”
Balls in your court sport.
Commentator on Facebook:
Well then…
Let’s begin with the term “global warming.” The issue at hand is climate change—and I don’t make that point merely to split hairs. The effects of pumping CO2, among other toxins, into our atmosphere and environment won’t merely result in the mere warming that your term would suggest. As such, if I were you, and trying dismiss a given scientific phenomenon I would seek to tackle the issue at hand, and not merely attempt to refute a political buzzword.
What your cursory examination has done is cherry pick a handful of news articles on recent developments and claimed that, from this moment, from this particular vantage point, you have the ability to dismiss essentially two decades, if not more, worth of scientific and social data. You have literally taken individual monthly figures, all more or less a result of the recent credit crunch, and claimed that this statistical anomaly essentially is indicative of a trend. Preposterous to say the least.
Furthermore, you make a series of entirely unsupported claims—the supposed “collapsing energy consumption.” I’ve yet to hear a single major of any sort conclude that our future will one of less energy consumption. But, hey, by all means, I may have missed something.
You then use the Great Depression and the Oil Crisis as evidence of the fact that crises result in a reduction of consumption—somehow failing to mention that the global capitalist economy recovered from both and began to pump more CO2 and create more waste than ever before! That’s hardly the rock solid point you make it out to be, my friend. In fact, it’s ridiculously one sided. Now, unless you have some really convincing evidence that the current credit crisis is the end of capitalism as we know it, and that in a few years time consumption and waste production won’t return to previous levels, if not worse, I’m really not sure why anyone would even take this point remotely seriously.
Lastly, your entire thesis seems to operate under the assumption that the financial crisis, resulting in massive layoffs, will likewise spell the end of rampant consumption. What you fail to address is, as I mentioned above, the likely rebound of the economy and, moreover, the general belief in the population that their previous’ lifestyles were something to be desired. That is to say, even if the crisis results in a drop in carbon production, the political climate will be such that people will want to return to the previous scenario—because, hey, who cares about tomorrow, I need a job today!
Your citing of the opinion poll is quite indicative of this problem, actually. It is, unfortunately, also indicative of the fact that you seem to believe that opinion polls = objective reality. Need I really cite the polls relating to Americans’ perceptions of 9/11 and Iraq to make my case here?
If you’re going to call “BS” on essentially the entirety of the scientific establishment, you’re going to need to do a bit better than a round up of yesterday’s GoogleNews hits…sport.
Bryan Berndt Comments:
I agree, climate change = a more apt description. As a general term, it could describe hot or cold and anything in-between and still make the news. The term “climate change” indicates more accurately the limits of humanities understanding of such complex systems.
For instance - Over 300m yrs ago, when carbon levels were supposed to be their highest, the super-continent known as Pangea shows evidence of glaciers along it’s equatorial line, not exactly what the original model indicated.
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/07/28/pangea-climate-geology.html
I am glad you brought up the warming label, as I said, it no longer has relevance.
Further, I am not attempting to throw the baby out with the bathwater, merely to evolve ideas.
Yes, the economy will probably “recover”, though we haven’t hit bottom yet. When things do begin to recover, the average price of solar power will be cost competitive/cheaper than coal. The lowest price of solar is already beating coal in cost.
See: http://www.maybememe.com/post/43591629/solar-now-cheaper-than-coal
Your post @ 12:59am where you state that the effects of peak credit on energy consumption not being a trend = flat out wrong. You don’t mean to say that the economy will “recover” anytime soon do you?
I didn’t add the opinion poll, SpiralMan added it as a quick anecdote, or point of interest. Of course, most people believing something doesn’t automatically make it true. For instance, just because most scientists agree on something, doesn’t mean their models have no flaws or gaps. For instance the flaw of leaving out the trend in the economy, and solar power.
Finally, I use google reader, and aggregate over 100 different feeds from many diverse sources and scientific publications, not to be confused with google news :)
Others can read the post and discover the info on solar you neglected to tack onto your — the “recovery” will be to old norms argument.
FB Commentator Rejoins:
Yes, they are complex systems but I’m not exactly sure what that fact has to do with our discussion. I take it we both agree that man-made climate change is real, and it poses a significant risk to our continued existence on this Earth? New data is going to emerge, some old predictions may in time come to be revised—that is taking place as we speak. However, your original post wasn’t really about that—you claim not to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but I’m pretty sure proclaiming that “global warming doesn’t matter anymore” is precisely that. Go back to bed folks, problem solved!
As for the claim that solar energy will come to replace coal power—perhaps, one can certainly hope. But according to the figures I’ve seen, solar power accounts for about 1% of the current energy supply of the US. And renewable energy, as a whole, contributes less than 10% by most counts. But even if renewable energy comes, at a later date, to replace our current energy sources we still have the problem of 1) the damage that will have been done until then, which may very well be permanent and 2) the toxins being released into the atmosphere through the production process. That is to say, even if solar power is providing the energy for our factories, that isn’t much of a victory if we’re still pumping mercury into the soil and the water, and God knows what else into the air. The idea that CO2 is the only issue at hand is simply a fallacy.
As for the question of “recovery”—yes, I do think it’s far more likely that we will return to previous production outputs, as we have seen happen every previous times, than it is likely that this current crisis will be both the death knell of capitalism and of climate change and environmental damage as we know it.
Likewise, the word you are struggling with in regards to the Oil Crisis and the Great Depression is not “trend”, which would imply long-term, consistent correlation. What we are dealing with is two periods, moments really, both which were followed by massive rise in both industrial output and waste production.
What I understand you suggestion to be is that if we sit back, capitalism, presumably by virtue of its own internal contradictions, will through its own collapse solve the problem of climate change and environmental destruction that it has largely sown. Unfortunately, for you, me, and a slew of other would be radicals throughout history—many a good soul has died waiting for the impending and “natural” death of capitalism.
The reality is change is made through social action and mobilization—I see none of that in anything you are prescribing. In fact, all I’m seeing is that through a combination of orthodox Marxist doom-saying about the future of capitalism and liberal-capitalist entrepreneurial grit, we’re going see all our problems solved. You, in the same breath, essentially imply the end of capitalism, and then point to data that suggests that even if, say, coal may, at some later date, be phased out, new forms of energy will replaced said coal. You don’t think maybe that the boom you’re envisioning in solar energy may in some way tie into the recovery of the global capitalist economy?
The commentator also posted these two charts to look at.
http://www.energymasters.com/wp-content/blog_images/energy_pie_chart.gif
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_qyVxlnMXAT8/R_bd1pReMRI/AAAAAAAAAmc/HwW1dQ6iSlQ/s1600-h/pecss_diagram.jpg
Bryan Berndt Comments:
Where did I state the end of “capitalism”?
Yes, the boom in solar/renewable, oled lighting, vertical growing etc will tie into the recovery of state-capitalist economies, and from there provide everyone with the same/more electricity than you currently use to research your graphs and charts. If others too can begin to advance their knowledge and aquire the technology and resources that you and I have, then yes maybe they might be able to stay up until 2am debating and enhance their ability to express themselves individually and collectively.
Those graphs by the way frame things linearally. Solar/ renewables = exponential in growth.
http://maybememe.newsvine.com/_news/2008/09/29/1929165-eat-the-light-the-fourth-age-of-solar-commences-
I’m not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, because climate change appears to be happening, and have happened in the past, however we can not be guaranteed the source.
I guess the title could have more aptly read:
“We need not worry about investing in time & effort in trying to reduce “green house gasses” because pangea has glacial evidence on the equatorial line and carbon levels were at there highest since today - Maybe c02 caused by humans isn’t a contributing factor to climate change and if it is who cares because c02 levels trend for major reduction. Solar power will be here when it’s over so we really only need worry about the possibility of something else silently creeping upon our climate from behind the scenes and spotlight.”
I was lazy, I admit - I spent only 1 min on a headline when I could have spent 5 or 10, or maybe just titled it “climate model plot holes” or “deflating cO2”.
You want global warming to be real, because it confirms your absolute bias against capitalism. I can see the benefits and detriments of many different economic models when I view them in the context from which they arose: parecon(anarcho-communism), state-capitalism, libertarian style anarcho-capitalism, Marxism etc.
Because I acknowledge the good and the bad in each value set/economy, I am more free of bias against acknowledging flaws in the climate model and doom saying about pollution from solar panels(the alternative being global energy wars and conflicts, malnourishment/starvation, essentially all of the things climate change enthusiasts are afraid of, will happen anyway if it were not for solar power, recent advancements in energy storage, super efficient oled lights, etc.
The credible and proven strategies to the major global problems are being shadowed by climate change fear and hysteria. Fear can slow down action, and cripple the mind from solutions to our problems.
Electrifying the Global South with solar, wind, wave, geothermal, and shit gas is the single most important thing that environmentalists should be focusing on…
Adding a wind power plant in North America or EU to retire even their relatively clean coal plant contributes a lot less to global social or environmental improvement compared to ending the burning of Southern forests and cow dung.
And even if the choice is between retiring a dirty coal plant in NorAm or EU vs adding electricity to China or India via any means, the best choice is to add gigawatts to the South, and conserve power in the North.
If you are truly concerned about the people of the Global South being impacted from global warming far in the future, then you might care even more about the current misery from the lack of electricity right now.
And let’s be very clear:
Electricity = clean water
Electricity = refrigerated medicine
Electricity = food security through refrigerated warehouses and food processing
Electricity = Irrigation = better crop yields = higher incomes and less malnutrition
Electricity = sanitation = dignity & less infectious disease
Electricity = industrial jobs = income = dignity
Electricity = ending deforestation = stopping soil erosion and flooding
Electricity = lighting = night time studying = Education
Electricity = internet access and telephones = communication = community = knowledge = safety and security
There is nothing more important socially or environmentally than adding electrical capacity to the Global South.
And Renewable Power is Independent Power.
independent of geopolitical/military calculation, independent of the necessity to earn USDs, Pounds, Euros, or Yen, through growing luxury cash crops for the rich instead of food for the poor.
Capitalism will not do this alone, we will need social action to make it happen. We need a global minimum wage to increase global demand, globalization of the banking systems, and end to nationalist protection measures such as farm subsidies for rich countries against poor countries, etc etc.
I can’t spell everything out in one post, nor do I have all of the answers, though I am accumulating more of them all the time!
Technology has had 14b yrs+ of non yielding exponential efficiency gains, and we are just starting to pick up speed. If coal appears dominant, your missing the hidden variable - accelerating returns.
http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1
http://www.maybememe.com/post/85802744/liquid-battery-breakthrough-for-large-scale-storage-of
Conclusion & Data Addendumn by SpiralMan
It is hard for people to shift philosophical/world view gears on a 6 month basis.
And since so many people took the Peak Credit dynamics as Truth for almost 30 years, they are having a very difficult time processing the implications of its sharp reversal. They are in effect having trouble accepting that it was Peak Credit that was aberrant, and that the Depression will be a Reversion to the Mean Dynamic that overshoots/overcompensates for the prior period of asset inflation, and that the major lasting impact of Peak Credit and Peak Oil Demand was that it provided a final goose to renewable energy investment which put its price points over the top, beating out CONG, so that the next wave of economic expansion will be base on solar and wind.
I know I have shocked many people with this forecast; of course, I started making the CONG demand collapse forecast back in 2004 as a corollary of my overall financial collapse forecast, so I’ve had time to think about it longer, and I was ridiculed sharply for a long time.
Now that the data finally is backing up my forecast, I am intellectually vindicated and somewhat impatient that others aren’t connecting the dots, but I shouldn’t complain, since that’s my job.
I should also have provided data demonstrating that when the recovery from 70’s/80’s spike/crash came, it came with a dramatically reduce rate of energy consumption growth, both in absolute annual % demand growth and in % relative to GDP. Ie Energy units per GDP, or said differently, both the growth rate of energy consumption and ‘Energy Intensity of the world economy,’ were dramatically reduced.
It’s a nice time series to ponder on energy intensity on international scales, energy types & industrial sectors.
Interesting to see that developing countries are more energy intensive than rich countries and that households and transport have been improving, if at all, less rapidly than industry and agriculture.
Figure: Index of final energy intensity and energy intensity by sector, EU-25
Note: Final energy intensities between sectors, and also the total final energy intensity, are not comparable, because the normalising variables are not the same. The indicator serves to highlight the evolution in energy intensity within each sector. The denominators for the total, household, transport, industry (excl. construction) and services (incl. agriculture) sector energy intensities are, respectively; GDP, population, GDP, Gross Value added in industry (excl. construction), and Gross Value Added in Services (incl. agriculture).
RSS
Archive
Mobile
