Greenland's glaciers are melting 100 times faster than estimated

[Ken Fabian]

If your nation were being invaded I doubt you would demand people show they've been in combat with their own resources or else their calling for government led nation wide responses is illegitimate and hypocritical. And like global warming, the government would, through it's agencies, already know it is real and serious. No-one should have to go without stuff to get their elected representatives and governments to take the climate problem seriously. I'm disappointed you are, again and persistently, trying to make this about activism and not about the climate problem.

As it happens I think anyone who imagines people voluntarily choosing low emissions lifestyles will fix the problem are wrong; it isn't concerned people going without stuff that is needed, it is building a sufficient abundance of zero emissions energy to displace fossil fuel burning. When our primary energy is all zero emissions energy then everyone's emissions, even people who are extravagantly wasteful and don't care, will be low emissions. That will come from the investment choices of electricity generating companies and emissions intensive industries with the support of governments not frugal fanaticism.

I do some things and don't do some other things to reduce my personal emissions but the hell will I go all stone age to win the respect of people who would only mock me if I did - speaking of hypocrisy. I am a functioning member of the society and economy around me and it is a highly fossil fuel dependent one. A bit of sacrifice is okay with me, sure, but pointless gestures of personal emissions purity won't change the systemic problem of dependence on fossil fuels.

In practice it takes mobilising the fossil fueled industrial capabilities we have now to make sufficient low emissions energy capabilities to retire the fossil fuel burners in the future; there is no cold turkey or knock it down and start again. That isn't hypocrisy, it is basic practicality - and using fossil fuels to build replacements for fossil fuels applies to building nuclear as much as renewables. As does the appropriateness of electrification of heating and transport. Having a coal power station's output used to make solar panels that will produce many times the energy used to make them sounds like one of the best possible uses for it in the face of the climate problem.

Preserving enduring prosperity is the point of committing to strong climate action early; avoiding economic disruptions and collateral damage has been integral all along, and does it without indulging the false denial driven assumption that inaction is cheap.

Emerging climate policy, like renewable energy, is the work of a lot of capable people apart from environmental activists who take the problem seriously - and a lot more competent than you appear able to give them credit for.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Ken,

You seem to have just admitted that you do not personally have the means to drastically reduce your own CO2 emissions, at least not at reasonable financial and/or personal comfort expense that you are willing to incur.

So, you seem to agree that it is necessary to change a lot of infrastructure in order to get CO2 emissions reduced in a realistic strategy.

So, who do you think needs to do what to achieve that? In the time you think it is necessary to achieve it?

And, remember, China is intending to build a lot more coal plants to become the dominant producer of things for the world. Only some of those things are solar panels and wind turbines. Much more of it is export goods that are consumed by other countries, with the U.S. being a major consumer. To logically relate emissions to causes, shouldn't we be allocating the Chinese CO2 emissions caused by China's production of goods we consume to the U.S., rather than China? If China has a policy of using more CO2 emissions for production of goods that will be consumed in the U.S. than would be created if those goods were manufactured in the U.S., should the U.S. adopt an import policy that reflects that? Should the U.S. start requiring imported goods to be manufactured at the expense of CO2 emissions no greater than what would be required to manufacture them in the U.S.?

This is just one of the real govenment policy issues that need to be tackled if we are going to see what is mostly Western culture activism have any real effect on global CO2 emissions. Otherwise, it will just be a game of Whack-A-Mole as international commercial organizations move manufacturing from one place to another and national interests compete to acquire them.

 

[Ken Fabian]

Unclear Engineer - Admit what? For three decades informed people concerned about climate have been calling for decarbonising (in an orderly and non-destructive manner) of our energy supply as the principle response. Been shouting it. Even the green activist elements that want emissions reductions by raised community awareness and consumer choice never claimed it would be enough; the vast majority of people who take the problem seriously have never stopped calling for the economy wide change to energy production and use.

I see the "But China" arguments as more about people who don't want climate commitments urging and justifying their own nation doing less rather than urging stronger international agreements. I'm disappointed but not surprised that you want to make such arguments; anyone who wants to make the issue about my emissions rather than the expert advice on the climate problem is capable of facile arguments like that. What steps do you take to reduce yours? Don't bother though; I think it is unhelpful to frame it that way; you are as responsible for your emissions as I am for mine and holding to climate science denial - or renewable energy denial - doesn't absolve you of anything.

Yes, China argues their need to lift the standard of living for hundreds of millions should allow them more time on their decarbonisation efforts, because it IS difficult and their fossil fuel industries are as steeped in belief in their essentialness as those of other nations, but their nation's leaders have never argued the science was mistaken or fake or a conspiracy or even that the problem is exaggerated.

The other nations of the world including mine and yours agreed to grant that extra time, thus China's timeline for emissions reductions extends an extra decade; whether wise or fair may be a question but that was the agreement. Perhaps yours and mine agreed to that because it enshrines delay - which has been used in turn to argue that China isn't pulling it's weight so we should reduce our efforts. Neat political gamesmanship but it isn't anything to be proud of.

China contributes to many of the international climate science programs that provide the basis of the IPCC climate science advice - and thus have the scientific expertise to check it's veracity. It isn't China that has a one of it's major political parties steeped in doubt, deny, delay politicking, with a current majority in Congress and holding hopes it's Presidential candidates that are all opposed to taking the science based advice seriously will regain power.

No "Western culture activism" fake crisis could ever have won the participation of every nation in the world including China's.

Offshoring emissions along with manufacturing requires border tariff adjustment mechanisms - the sort of policy that is often proposed (not like no-one has thought it through) and usually opposed; the EU for example has begun implementing border tariffs on high emissions imports - but these are much easier to enact if your nation (or alliance of nations) is sincere about the problem and doesn't just prefer to have the cheap goods AND blame China for the emissions.

The wonder isn't that international climate agreements are a lot less effective than they could be and should be, the true wonder is that we have achieved any agreements at all. That has been because the fundamentals of the physical basis of global warming are sound and, despite it all, there have been people holding positions of high trust and responsibility that have recognised their duty of care all along.

I am very glad it is not up to you and that your kind of thinking is losing it's resonance and power to influence.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Ken,

It seems that you aren't doing anything more than the rest of us to actually make a difference. All you are doing is blaming everybody who tries to discuss the subject's difficult aspects in a realistic manner.

So, you are not convincing me that you have any ideas worth listening to.

You are just verbally "demonstrating" and in a way that is more destructive than constructive. Accusing everybody else of being some sort of bad actor is not going to get the consensus needed to make enough progress to attain the goals you say you are trying to urge us to attain.

Anyway, the physics of climate do not care why China is emitting CO2. The whole world is affected by every nation's emissions. If you think the other nations aren't doing enough, you should be even harder on China. Their standard of living in no where near bad enough to justify adding CO2 emissions for their benefit while insisting on reducing the quality of life for other nations' citizens to reduce emissions.

But, you seem to be very considerate of the Chinese postion, and very eager to criticize all others. Sounds to me like you many be one of those Chinese social network agents that try to destablilize the societies of competing countries. You are always in "attack mode", even when agreeing that we need to do the things that I suggested.

As for "I am very glad it is not up to you and that your kind of thinking is losing it's resonance and power to influence." First, you are clearly misrepresenting my "kind of thinking" as not being concerned or active with respect to climate issues. But, more to the point, you seem to grossly underestimating the political influence of the people who elect our leaders. But, are you really that naive, or are you actually trying to use and amplify the political push-back against CO2 emission policies to actually cause more trouble?

Your tactics are so counter-productive that I have to consider that your posts may be disingenuous .