Frank, do you have a personal preference for which system you would like to live in? Monarchy, Oligarchy, or Democracy? — Agree-to-Disagree

I think each one has a golden period in its youth, then they all turn to crap eventually. I think I'm living during the decline of modern democracy, maybe. So I'm seeing all the advantages to monarchy.

I think each one has a golden period in its youth, then they all turn to crap eventually. I think I'm living during the decline of modern democracy, maybe. So I'm seeing all the advantages to monarchy. — frank

I assume that you live in America. I live in a commonwealth country and until recently had Queen Elizabeth as our reigning monarch. This worked very well because she had no direct political power in our country but she acted as our sovereign and head of state. This gave us the advantage of being a hybrid democracy-monarchy. It worked very well, but some people want us to become a republic.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that anthropogenic climate change, pollution and all that is a red herring, but we still do something about it. What's the worst that could happen? Longer oil supply? Less plastic in the oceans? — jorndoe

One of the problems with this statement is the use of the vague term "we". Who exactly is "we"?

I assume that you mean everybody. But not everybody wants to do something. And how will the costs be distributed?

Anyway, I think only a minority of radicals demand immediate drastic political/societal change of the sort that destroys civilization, e.g. Ama Lorenz doesn't. — jorndoe

Maybe they only think they don't demand radical political change of that kind out of ignorance, because they don't understand what it would take to keep global warming below say 1.5 C.

When for instance Ama Lorenz says what is quoted below, it doesn't seem to me like she really gets what would be needed to replace the energy provided by fossil fuels.

When will fossil fuels run out? If the world quickly comes to terms the planet's changing energy requirements and implements advanced tech solutions and necessary adjustment to consumption habits, fossil fuels will, hopefully, never run out.

Just FYI, one of the numbers I was looking for was the net amount of available fossil fuels (over time). This would give an indication of net anthropogenic chemical/physical change of our shared environment, and then an assessment of net effects over time. ("Think we can burn all this accumulated stuff [...]".) — jorndoe

The nummers she gives seem to be in the ballpark of what most experts agree on. We won't be running out of coal or natural gas anytime soon. Oil is a different matter, some think we may allready be over the peak, and the fracking revolution has only temporary delayed that downward trajectory. It's hard to give a definitive answer to this because, 1) we don't know what deposits are out there before we look for them and find them, 2) we don't know how technology will impact yields in the future before the technology exists and 3) countries probably obfuscate how much reserves they have in their deposits because of geo-political reasons.

The important thing is not necessary total reserves as such, but "usefull" reserves. What matters is Energy return on Energy invested (EROI). Reserves will technically never run out, because at some point it will take more energy to get out less energy. They will stop way before that point even, because we need a certain net energy surplus.

Most modern societies run on a high net energy surplus. They can do that because the EROI from fossil fuels was very high, and has remained relatively high because of new technologies (like fracking). The EROI of alternative energy sources is typically a lot lower. Can we keep modern societies with much lower net energy surplus, or can we find ways to increase net energy surplus without fossil fuels? Maybe, but it's by no means a certainty, not in theory and certainly not in practice.

So you know, it's easy to say we must phase out fossil fuels, it's another thing to know how we can do it in the timeframe necessary to avert climate change.

, there are two suppositions/scenarios listed, where we could be a majority or enough to make a difference, like actors deciding on a path forward. What matters is in/actions decided upon. Sort of implicit in the suppositions.
(For completion, you're free to add the remaining couple or so scenarios/permutations — climate change or not × do something or not — they just didn't seem as interesting.)

, damned if you do, damned if you don't?
Hmm Didn't that come up earlier?

damned if you do, damned if you don't?
Hmm Didn't that come up earlier? — jorndoe

Did it? Usually people either deny climate change or the consequences... or they "deny" the consequences of phasing out fossil fuels.

So, yes, damned if you do, and damned if you don't... what is left is figuring out what is least damned. There's still a lot of gradations to damnation.

I assume that you live in America. I live in a commonwealth country and until recently had Queen Elizabeth as our reigning monarch. This worked very well because she had no direct political power in our country but she acted as our sovereign and head of state. This gave us the advantage of being a hybrid democracy-monarchy. It worked very well, but some people want us to become a republic. — Agree-to-Disagree

I don't think she had political power anywhere, did she?

So, yes, damned if you do, and damned if you don't... — ChatteringMonkey

Such certainty...?
Well, unless sufficiently justified, the suppositions/scenarios above still apply to those "doomsayers", right?
^{(I mean ... "Suppose [...] What's the worst that could happen?")}
Incidentally, I know someone, not a climatologist, that, with a big sigh, says we're too late, but still have to try.
The Holocene extinction is another factor here; something that ought to be addressed.

So, yes, damned if you do, and damned if you don't...
— ChatteringMonkey

Such certainty...?
Well, unless sufficiently justified, the suppositions/scenarios above still apply to those "doomsayers", right?
(I mean ... "Suppose [...] What's the worst that could happen?")
Incidentally, I know someone, not a climatologist, that, with a big sigh, says we're too late, but still have to try.
The Holocene extinction is another factor here; something that ought to be addressed. — jorndoe

I don't think I'm saying anything out of the ordinary. We know climate is changing because of carbon emissions, and we know our economy and entire civilisation relies on the energy we get from fossil fuels. We also know that in 30 years we haven't managed to lower carbon emissions eventhough we have know it would become a problem.

None of this controversial or speculative. What is speculative, and in fact contrary to the evidence we seem to have, is that we can replace fossil fuels and all the infrastructure and economy that comes with that, and has been build up over 200 years, with a whole new alternative energy system without enormous changes to our societies.

I'm not just a doomsayer that says we can't and therefor shouldn't do something about it. I'm saying we should take serious the idea that it will be very difficult and will probably entail major economic and societal changes. I take issue with the idea that this is just a matter of political will, and that it's all the doing a the rich or the immoral ceo's of oil companies, instead of a deep systemic problem that includes all of us.

I don't think I'm saying anything out of the ordinary. We know climate is changing because of carbon emissions, and we know our economy and entire civilisation relies on the energy we get from fossil fuels. We also know that in 30 years we haven't managed to lower carbon emissions eventhough we have know it would become a problem.

None of this controversial or speculative. What is speculative, and in fact contrary to the evidence we seem to have, is that we can replace fossil fuels and all the infrastructure and economy that comes with that, and has been build up over 200 years, with a whole new alternative energy system without enormous changes to our societies.

I'm not just a doomsayer that says we can't and therefor shouldn't do something about it. I'm saying we should take serious the idea that it will be very difficult and will probably entail major economic and societal changes. I take issue with the idea that this is just a matter of political will, and that it's all the doing a the rich or the immoral ceo's of oil companies, instead of a deep systemic problem that includes all of us. — ChatteringMonkey

Well said. It's becoming the mainstream approach to think in terms of adaptation. It's just common sense at this point.

I take issue with the idea that this is just a matter of political will — ChatteringMonkey

It’s absolutely a matter of political will. There are a number of factors which influence political still and government action. But the biggest influence is money, which comes from the corporate sector.

It’s fine to say it’s a complicated issue with many moving parts, and will require major changes. But that’s a truism — that’s the case in any issue.

The fact is that we need sweeping government action on par with WWII and Covid. The reason we’re not getting it is because of fossil fuel companies. If you fail to see this you’re just missing it. I’d recommend Naomi Oreskes new book.

I don't think she had political power anywhere, did she? — frank

Queen Elizabeth became Queen due to the death of her father. The position of King/Queen had become more of a figurehead role by then. She had no direct political power but she had a lot of influence. She provided checks and balances to the politicians in commonwealth countries. The arrangement meant that both the Queen and the politicians didn't have absolute power (power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely).

if I didn't know any better, I'd be inclined to think China rejects the science of climate change
— Merkwurdichliebe

Either that or they just don't give a flying fuck — frank

Or else they understand that they have no choice but to do that, or else collapse or at least retrogress economically, which would be seen to be an economic, political and social disaster by them.

Or else they understand that they have no choice but to do that, or else collapse or at least retrogress economically, which would be seen to be an economic, political and social disaster by them. — Janus

I don't know. The article said last summer's heat revealed the weakness of the grid. I guess you do need air-conditioning to manufacture the computer chips that the US won't export anymore. Assholes.

The point was: two coal burning power plants per week. Holy crap.

, nothing can be done is a fairly substantial claim, not something we'd want to get wrong, right?

Or else they understand that they have no choice but to do that, or else collapse or at least retrogress economically, which would be seen to be an economic, political and social disaster by them. — Janus

Interesting. Why would China be worried about green policies undercutting their economy? The west doesn’t appear to be worried about it. Could it be the case that western economies possess some attribute that can mitigate the potential economic fallout of green policies?

Interesting. Why would China be worried about green policies undercutting their economy? The west doesn’t appear to be worried about it. Could it be the case that western economies possess some attribute that can mitigate the potential economic fallout of green policies? — Merkwurdichliebe

The west is stupid if they are not worried about green policies undercutting their economy. The west will probably shift a lot of their manufacturing and production to places like China. China will be very happy about this. China doesn't want green policies to get in the way of this bonanza.

The west is stupid if they are not worried about green policies undercutting their economy. The west will probably shift a lot of their manufacturing and production to places like China. China will be very happy about this. China doesn't want green policies to get in the way of this bonanza. — Agree-to-Disagree

This makes me wonder who in the west would benifit from the arrangement you have predicted. Is it crazy to look at those who push for the most radical green policies?

I didn't claim that. Only thing I did was question the black and white "no-brainer" distinction you set up between doing something about climate change and doing nothing about is. Solving this problem will be at least a balancing act between various issues, with a lot of trade-offs in all directions... that is all.

Please don't twist my words.

It’s absolutely a matter of political will. There are a number of factors which influence political still and government action. But the biggest influence is money, which comes from the corporate sector. — Mikie

Yeah maybe this is it. I don't see the world like this. I think all of political action happens against the backdrop of public opinion/common culture. That is the undercurrent force that constraints how far you can take political action in any given direction. Money probably can shift policies some degrees in other directions, but I don't think it is ultimately the driver behind all of this.

It’s fine to say it’s a complicated issue with many moving parts, and will require major changes. But that’s a truism — that’s the case in any issue. — Mikie

Don't agree, it is the issue of our times ;-). Everything will pivot arround it.

The fact is that we need sweeping government action on par with WWII and Covid. The reason we’re not getting it is because of fossil fuel companies. If you fail to see this you’re just missing it. I’d recommend Naomi Oreskes new book. — Mikie

I haven't read the book... so I can't judge that. But as follows from what I said above, I think the quote unquote "real driver" behind all of this, is the people not really wanting the changes needed to solve this problem.

As has become blatantly obvious here in Europe, with the energy crisis that started before the Ukraine war, people will never ever choose solving a perceived far-off problem before their short term energy-security. It's not that some polticians didn't want to take measures to try and solve it, it's that they would loose the following elections if any of their measures would lead to even modest increases in energy-prices.

I don't doubt the Oil companies played a dirty role in all of this, but pushing their preferred policies wouldn't be possible if they didn't find some fertile ground in the public to plant their seed.

I think all of political action happens against the backdrop of public opinion/common culture. — ChatteringMonkey

It comes down to a different analysis of power. Yes, political action happens against the backdrop of public opinion— especially in a relatively free country like the US. But what influences public opinion?

Chomsky’s classic Manufacturing Consent is good on this.

I think the quote unquote "real driver" behind all of this, is the people not really wanting the changes needed to solve this problem. — ChatteringMonkey

I know you think that— you’re just wrong. People around the world, and in the US, want something done. The solutions are already available in most cases (apart from heavy industry). If other countries can put in place sensible policies, so can we. Won’t be overnight, but could happen — and should have started years ago.

Why didn’t it start years ago, by the way? Is it really that “the people” were so stupid and ignorant that they didn’t push for it? Partly true I guess. But the political class elected to make the significant decisions did nothing.

Wikipedia the “investment theory of party competition.” Or see Tom Ferguson’s book “the golden rule.” When huge majorities of the public want something, it doesn’t matter. What actually happens in terms of policy aligns with what the wealthiest people want.

people will never ever choose solving a perceived far-off problem before their short term energy-security. — ChatteringMonkey

False choice. It’s not Stone Age living versus clean energy, as it’s often portrayed. And Europe is doing much more than the US.

I don't doubt the Oil companies played a dirty role in all of this, but pushing their preferred policies wouldn't be possible if they didn't find some fertile ground in the public to plant their seed. — ChatteringMonkey

The education system and especially the media play a big role in this. Not to mention fossil fuel companies bribe and lobby both parties in the US but essentially own one outright (Republicans). It’s similar elsewhere, but only in areas where the economy relies on fossil fuels (Australia, Russia, Canada, etc.). You have the strongest propaganda there, so more climate denial.

It’s the same tactic used by tobacco companies. “Hey people just want to smoke — the people don’t want restrictions — the science isn’t clear.” Powerful industries can afford expensive propaganda. I don’t blame the average person for being taken in by it.

Chomsky’s classic Manufacturing Consent is good on this. — Mikie

It can be manufactured only to a certain extend I would say.

I know you think that— you’re just wrong. People around the world, and in the US, want something done. The solutions are already available in most cases (apart from heavy industry). If other countries can put in place sensible policies, so can we. Won’t be overnight, but could happen — and should have started years ago. — Mikie

Equal replacements in terms of EROI and all other conveniences are not available at scale, and not within the timeframe necessary to avert climate change. This is a technical issue that is hard argue either way, I do realise that... but it is the point where this argument hinges on.

People want to solve the problem in the abstract, sure, why not if they get told it won't cost them anything. I don't think they want to solve it in practice because they don't realise everything the solution entails. That is the point I've been making, yes.

You point to other countries that have sensible policies in place. I say these countries are some of the most wealthy in the world, and have exported most of their energy intensive industry to China as part of a globalised economy. That is largely the green-washing game Europe has been playing BTW, relocating its production capacity somewhere else, and importing the products where they are still made with a lot of carbon emissions. It looks good if you stop at the border, but climate change doesn't care where carbon gets emitted of course.

Why didn’t it start years ago, by the way? Is it really that “the people” were so stupid and ignorant that they didn’t push for it? Partly true I guess. But the political class elected to make the significant decisions did nothing. — Mikie

What about the obvious answer? That it's just very hard to do, and goes against the very fundaments our world is build on. The ozone layer issue got solved rather quickly, because swapping out some spray can gasses only marginally impacted some economic niches.

False choice. It’s not Stone Age living versus clean energy, as it’s often portrayed. And Europe is doing much more than the US. — Mikie

It not that black and white, but I do think there is something to it... And Europe will become largely economically irrelevant shortly. It is in a very precarius situation at the moment, thanks to, in no small part, the energywende. Let's hope we get bailed out by a mild winter again like last year!

The education system and especially the media play a big role in this. Not to mention fossil fuel companies bribe and lobby both parties in the US but essentially own one outright (Republicans). It’s similar elsewhere, but only in areas where the economy relies on fossil fuels (Australia, Russia, Canada, etc.). You have the strongest propaganda there, so more climate denial.

It’s the same tactic used by tobacco companies. “Hey people just want to smoke — the people don’t want restrictions — the science isn’t clear.” Powerful industries can afford expensive propaganda. I don’t blame the average person for being taken in by it. — Mikie

Sure, I don't want to absolve them of blame. They certainly don't help, but I don't think we would have solved climate change even without their propaganda. The problem isn't necessarily solved either in countries where these industries play little to no role .

Equal replacements in terms of EROI and all other conveniences are not available at scale, and not within the timeframe necessary to avert climate change. — ChatteringMonkey

EROI is already much better, and if you factor cost of externalities is no contest.

Whether or not there is enough time is the second issue I mentioned earlier. But that too is because of lack of political will. Nothing has been done for so long, despite warnings and pleas from the science community and the public (and the globe), that it may indeed be too little, too late.

But we don’t know for certain, and in any case it’s a ridiculous position to take if it’s thrown around to justify doing nothing, or rationalizes casually and idly chatting about it.

People want to solve the problem in the abstract, sure, why not if they get told it won't cost them anything. I don't think they want to solve it in practice because they don't realise everything the solution entails. That is the point I've been making, yes. — ChatteringMonkey

I suppose the same could have been said about smoking. Banning smoking and heavily taxing cigarettes was a political decision, and there were definite costs associated with it. But it was eventually done, after years of delay, because the evidence became undeniable.

Anyway— what “people” do you refer to? You seem to want to continually shift the majority of blame upon the average citizen.

You’re also exaggerating the costs and making a lot of assumptions about human beings which I don’t see much support for. I think average “people” care about their kids and grandkids’ futures, and would prefer that the world as we know it wasn’t burned or under water. This shows up in polling too — they want their governments to do more.

People aren’t against heat pumps or efficient public transportation or solar panels. They’re not against utilities generating electricity from renewables. The costs are way down, and should be subsidized further (as we’ve done with oil and gas for decades). There are indeed problems when it comes to NIMBYISM regarding transmission lines, losing jobs, etc — and that can be dealt with. Not insurmountable at all.

Why didn’t it start years ago, by the way? Is it really that “the people” were so stupid and ignorant that they didn’t push for it? Partly true I guess. But the political class elected to make the significant decisions did nothing.
— Mikie

What about the obvious answer? That it's just very hard to do, and goes against the very fundaments our world is build on. The ozone layer issue got solved rather quickly, because swapping out some spray can gasses only marginally impacted some economic niches. — ChatteringMonkey

It wasn’t that hard to do. It wasn’t done because the “economic niches” didn’t want it done and fought against it tooth and nail. This has been very well documented. Frontline did a great 3-part series on this last year:

part, the energywende. — ChatteringMonkey

Still largely a success— although phasing out nuclear was a mistake.

They certainly don't help, but I don't think we would have solved climate change even without their propaganda. — ChatteringMonkey

Well, then all I can repeat is that I don’t think you’ve looked into this aspect enough.

Jimmy Carter had solar panels on the White House roof in the late 70s. Torn down by the fossil fuel shill Reagan. Imagine if instead we started a large renewable push in the 80s, and gradually transitioned? How much better would we be today?

I’d also Google Lee Raymond.

Equal replacements in terms of EROI and all other conveniences are not available at scale, and not within the timeframe necessary to avert climate change. — ChatteringMonkey

EROI is already much better, and if you factor cost of externalities is no contest.

Whether or not there is enough time is the second issue I mentioned earlier. But that too is because of lack of political will. Nothing has been done for so long, despite warnings and pleas from the science community and the public (and the globe), that it may indeed be too little, too late.

But we don’t know for certain, and in any case it’s a ridiculous position to take if it’s thrown around to justify doing nothing, or rationalizes casually and idly chatting about it.

People want to solve the problem in the abstract, sure, why not if they get told it won't cost them anything. I don't think they want to solve it in practice because they don't realise everything the solution entails. That is the point I've been making, yes. — ChatteringMonkey

I suppose the same could have been said about smoking. Banning smoking and heavily taxing cigarettes was a political decision, and there were definite costs associated with it. But it was eventually done, after years of delay, because the C evidence became undeniable.

Anyway— what “people” do you refer to? You seem to want to continually shift the majority of blame upon the average citizen.

You’re also exaggerating the costs and making a lot of assumptions about human beings which I don’t see much support for. I think average “people” care about their kids and grandkids’ futures, and would prefer that the world as we know it wasn’t burned or under water. This shows up in polling too — they want their governments to do more.

People aren’t against heat pumps or efficient public transportation or solar panels. They’re not against utilities generating electricity from renewables. The costs are way down, and should be subsidized further (as we’ve done with oil and gas for decades). There are indeed problems when it comes to NIMBYISM regarding transmission lines, losing jobs, etc — and that can be dealt with. Not insurmountable at all.

Why didn’t it start years ago, by the way? Is it really that “the people” were so stupid and ignorant that they didn’t push for it? Partly true I guess. But the political class elected to make the significant decisions did nothing.
— Mikie

What about the obvious answer? That it's just very hard to do, and goes against the very fundaments our world is build on. The ozone layer issue got solved rather quickly, because swapping out some spray can gasses only marginally impacted some economic niches. — ChatteringMonkey

It wasn’t that hard to do. It wasn’t done because the “economic niches” didn’t want it done and fought against it tooth and nail. This has been very well documented. Frontline did a great 3-part series on this last year:

part, the energywende. — ChatteringMonkey

Still largely a success— although phasing out nuclear was a mistake.

They certainly don't help, but I don't think we would have solved climate change even without their propaganda. — ChatteringMonkey

Well, then all I can repeat is that I don’t think you’ve looked into this aspect enough.

Jimmy Carter had solar panels on the White House roof in the late 70s. Torn down by the fossil fuel shill Reagan. Imagine if instead we started a large renewable push in the 80s, and gradually transitioned? How much better would we be today?

I’d also Google Lee Raymond.

, well, if ...

yes, damned if you do, and damned if you don't — ChatteringMonkey

... becomes a rationale for not doing anything, then it better be right.


Elsewhere, unrelated, not directly anyway...

Microsoft funding new approach for carbon removal
^{— Nick Robertson · The Hill · Sep 7, 2023}

I suppose the same could have been said about smoking. Banning smoking and heavily taxing cigarettes was a political decision, and there were definite costs associated with it. But it was eventually done, after years of delay, because the evidence became undeniable. — Mikie

The effect of this political decision was that many people started vaping. Even people who had never smoked. Solving one problem caused another problem which some people think is as bad or worse.

Vaping didn’t become popular until much later, and is an entirely different thing. It too is now being regulated as an industry— rightfully.

But in any case, you’ve missed the point — as usual. If you can’t keep up with the conversation, just let the adults talk.

Vaping didn’t become popular until much later, and is an entirely different thing. It too is now being regulated as an industry— rightfully.

But in any case, you’ve missed the point — as usual. If you can’t keep up with the conversation, just let the adults talk. — Mikie

To answer the point that sometimes we make things worse when we're trying to make improvements, all you have to say is: "Yes, we should really be cognizant of that. Good point."

No personal attacks necessary. :grin: :up:

Vaping didn’t become popular until much later, and is an entirely different thing. It too is now being regulated as an industry— rightfully. — Mikie

Vaping is largely about nicotine addiction. The same as cigarettes and tobacco. You could call it the nicotine industry. Nice flavors are added to entice young people into getting hooked. It is now the "cool" thing to do, like cigarette smoking used to be. How is this totally different?