Thanks for reporting both sides but more for your detailed analysis. Here in NorCal I've been evacuated twice and come close 2 other times. Every year I worry about losing my home to fire and my lungs to worsening COPD from smoke. My case speaks for many here suffering from current, local results of global warming. So for us, the sky is frequently falling...
Climate change: Is it worth the hysteria? No, absolutely not. Let's assume, for a moment, that the sky really is falling, as Isaac claims. So, OK, we need to reduce methane emissions. It can't be a bad idea.
Start by realizing that half the methane comes from natural activity, mainly decomposition in wetlands. Half the rest comes from raising livestock. Half what's left comes from the energy sector; however, that part would be tiny if you did not include coal.
So, where does the the emitted methane that we have any chance of actually reducing come from? Mostly China, where electricity is made by burning coal. Then mostly from the undeveloped world, where most people in India cook over charcoal while in Brazil they slash and burn the rain forest for farmland. The US is far from the largest emitter of "anthropomorphic" methane, while in Europe methane emissions have been declining for years.
If you want to reduce methane, it makes sense to reduce it at the places where it mostly comes from. Good luck with that. If you instead want to redistribute wealth, do it at the places where wealth is and attribute it to fighting climate change.
"So, where does the the emitted methane that we have any chance of actually reducing come from? Mostly China, where electricity is made by burning coal. '
Not a lie. Yes, the US does emit twice as much methane as China on a "per capita" basis, although only half as much in total. It is, of course, only the total that matters.
To see this, click repeatedly on the word "Total" that appears (three times) in the table heading, to sort the data by each of the three summation columns. You will see that the worst emitters of total methane, in descending order, are China, Russia, India, and the US. The US emits only half as much total methane as China.
You might wonder why tiny Indonesia takes fifth place. It is because Indonesia mines "coal bed methane" as a natural gas for fuel. Note, also, that Brazil does not appear anywhere in this table. If it did, it would rank up alongside India and push the US down to fifth worst emitter.
So, yes, the US does have some room to act; however, it has less room to act than India or Brazil and only half as much room to act as China.
Please explain, why an average US citizen deserves a more careless lifestyle (represented by much higher carbon dioxide and methane emissions per capita) than a Chinese simply because China's population is much bigger?
As the US emission per capita is twice as much as the Chinese and the US is a richer, developed country, I would say that the US have more room to act, simply by reducing their per capita emission to the levels of China and Europe.
If the goal is to redistribute wealth, then you are correct. We should lower our per capita emissions--and thus our standard of living--so other nations can raise theirs. If the goal is to reduce emissions, we should instead target places where the most methane comes from by building nuclear power plants in China, fighting abject poverty in India, supporting sustainable agriculture in Brazil, and paying Indonesia not to mine coal.
I see that you don't believe that climate change is worth the hype but if you'll indulge me for a minute, let's assume that the climate change models become much more accurate (by some arbitrary new method) and narrow the outcomes to the "very severe" cases of the current models. How would you go about combatting climate change, given that we have no "luck" to influence any of the other major methane/CO2 contributors?
Also, can you explain the mechanics of the how the wealth would be redistributed using climate change as a catalyst?
OK, Beau, let's say climate change IS worth the hype. To fight it, we must reduce the carbon in the atmosphere. It can happen two ways: put less carbon in, or take carbon out. You put less carbon in by, for example, burning less carbon-rich fuel, such as wood and coal. You take carbon out by, for example, planting trees that change the CO2 into O2. My point is that wood and coal are mostly burned in China and the third world, while trees are mostly being cut down (and then burned!) throughout the rain forest. Your average American burns very little wood or coal and rarely cuts down a tree.
Or else, you could take a different approach. People who emit carbon tend to have either a very high standard of living (eg, America's middle class) or a very low one (eg, rural India.) Leveling this out would reduce carbon emissions. You can lower a high standard of living by, for example, taxing the wealthy. You can raise a low standard of living through, for example, massive immigration from the third world. Oh, but wait. Raising taxes on the wealthy? Unrestricted immigration? Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
"My point is that wood and coal are mostly burned in China and the third world, while trees are mostly being cut down (and then burned!) throughout the rain forest. Your average American burns very little wood or coal and rarely cuts down a tree."
Please correct me if I am wrong, but what I am hearing is because the U.S. is not the top overall contributor to carbon emissions, there would be no point in us attempting to reduce our carbon emissions since it would not make a big enough impact to curb climate change? In your opinion, would there be anything the U.S. could do to make a significant impact?
"People who emit carbon tend to have either a very high standard of living (eg, America's middle class) or a very low one (eg, rural India.) Leveling this out would reduce carbon emissions."
I am still a bit confused here. What are the methods by which these two groups emit more carbon? That would help me understand how leveling their wealth would help reduce carbon emissions. Also, hwo would taxing the wealthy lower the living standards of the middle class?
I appreciate you humoring me. I have a habit of getting really far into the weeds and it tends to wear people out quickly haha.
Yes, absolutely everyone should do their part, especially us. We can, and should, reduce OUR emissions by driving less, not using AC, no real fires in the fireplace, building more pipelines to reduce use of coal, eating less beef, and so on. But we can be more effective by reducing emissions where they are greatest, like by persuading Brazil not to slash and burn the Amazon rain forest, paying Indonesia not to mine their particularly harmful kind of coal, and bringing electricity to rural India so they will stop cooking over charcoal.
When reading or listening to talk about climate change, it is important to watch for a hidden agenda and, especially, to follow the money. The two largest oil companies, Saudi Aramco and Shell, have combined annual revenue of one trillion dollars. The next three by size earn another trillion dollars a year. As use of fossil fuel declines, those dollars will find their way into markedly different pockets, with solar and wind generation of electricity reaping the largest benefit. Although very different from petro, it is not yet clear that solar and wind are notably greener. Each has its own environmental drawbacks, with most of the harm front- or back-loaded where it might not be obvious.
Either way, this much truly is clear: There are some who want you to stop using fossil fuel. Not to save the planet, but because they want you to spend those trillions of dollars on something else. If you think the move to electric vehicles, for example, is all about fighting climate change, you are badly mistaken. It is all about money.
"But we can be more effective by reducing emissions where they are greatest, like by persuading Brazil not to slash and burn the Amazon rain forest, paying Indonesia not to mine their particularly harmful kind of coal, and bringing electricity to rural India so they will stop cooking over charcoal"
This is a good point. I wish the government would focus on making gains in these areas. My fear is the rhetoric of your original post places the blame on other countries and many will use it as excuse to do nothing.
"Although very different from petro, it is not yet clear that solar and wind are notably greener. Each has its own environmental drawbacks, with most of the harm front- or back-loaded where it might not be obvious."
I have seen a few stories about turbines killing birds and I know that battery disposal for electric cars is an environmental concern but have not heard about much else, though I am sure they exist. Would you mind sharing any sources that highlight the drawbacks you mentioned?
Most things in technology involve a trade-off of some sort ( I like to use the analogy of a gearbox trading speed for torque). It would seem we have reached a point where an expensive and uncomfortable shift in our energy attitude would be worth it for the long term benefit of our existence on the planet.
"There are some who want you to stop using fossil fuel. Not to save the planet, but because they want you to spend those trillions of dollars on something else. If you think the move to electric vehicles, for example, is all about fighting climate change, you are badly mistaken. It is all about money."
Yes I agree, that is typically how capitalism works. I often hear this stated as if it is implicitly a bad thing. Just because a different group of companies would end up with the larger share of the energy market does not imply that the benefits of greener energy would be negated. from a personal stand point, I'm going to get charged for my share of energy usage either way, so it might as well go towards an energy generation method that harms us less in the long run, no? I have no illusions about the role money is playing in this.
Wow, Beau, that was a most insightful reply, and heartfelt besides, especially coming so late.
I fully agree that we should all walk softly upon Gaia, our mother earth. I always try to do my part.
What bothers me is when people use climate change as an excuse to advance a different agenda. (Have you noticed them using covid, also, for that?) I am an engineer. I understand what is happening. It does not scare me. But they do.
What frightens me is the fraught, ill advised, and self-serving solutions that have been proposed. This is why I say, "Follow the money."
Interesting historical summation, but says nothing about projected release due to temp increase.
"With methane demoted, scientists face a serious new challenge to determine the greenhouse cocktail that explains our planet’s climate and life story, including a billion years devoid of glaciers, Lyons said"
"...devoid of glaciers." That implies the other two sources I mentioned are also in play.
Thanks for reporting both sides but more for your detailed analysis. Here in NorCal I've been evacuated twice and come close 2 other times. Every year I worry about losing my home to fire and my lungs to worsening COPD from smoke. My case speaks for many here suffering from current, local results of global warming. So for us, the sky is frequently falling...
Climate change: Is it worth the hysteria? No, absolutely not. Let's assume, for a moment, that the sky really is falling, as Isaac claims. So, OK, we need to reduce methane emissions. It can't be a bad idea.
Start by realizing that half the methane comes from natural activity, mainly decomposition in wetlands. Half the rest comes from raising livestock. Half what's left comes from the energy sector; however, that part would be tiny if you did not include coal.
So, where does the the emitted methane that we have any chance of actually reducing come from? Mostly China, where electricity is made by burning coal. Then mostly from the undeveloped world, where most people in India cook over charcoal while in Brazil they slash and burn the rain forest for farmland. The US is far from the largest emitter of "anthropomorphic" methane, while in Europe methane emissions have been declining for years.
If you want to reduce methane, it makes sense to reduce it at the places where it mostly comes from. Good luck with that. If you instead want to redistribute wealth, do it at the places where wealth is and attribute it to fighting climate change.
"So, where does the the emitted methane that we have any chance of actually reducing come from? Mostly China, where electricity is made by burning coal. '
This is a lie.
The US actually emits more than twice as much methane per capita as China, or most countries in the developed world (for example Italy, Finland or Spain): https://www.worlddata.info/greenhouse-gas-by-country.php
This means that the US has plenty of room to reduce its emissions.
Not a lie. Yes, the US does emit twice as much methane as China on a "per capita" basis, although only half as much in total. It is, of course, only the total that matters.
To see this, click repeatedly on the word "Total" that appears (three times) in the table heading, to sort the data by each of the three summation columns. You will see that the worst emitters of total methane, in descending order, are China, Russia, India, and the US. The US emits only half as much total methane as China.
You might wonder why tiny Indonesia takes fifth place. It is because Indonesia mines "coal bed methane" as a natural gas for fuel. Note, also, that Brazil does not appear anywhere in this table. If it did, it would rank up alongside India and push the US down to fifth worst emitter.
So, yes, the US does have some room to act; however, it has less room to act than India or Brazil and only half as much room to act as China.
Please explain, why an average US citizen deserves a more careless lifestyle (represented by much higher carbon dioxide and methane emissions per capita) than a Chinese simply because China's population is much bigger?
As the US emission per capita is twice as much as the Chinese and the US is a richer, developed country, I would say that the US have more room to act, simply by reducing their per capita emission to the levels of China and Europe.
If the goal is to redistribute wealth, then you are correct. We should lower our per capita emissions--and thus our standard of living--so other nations can raise theirs. If the goal is to reduce emissions, we should instead target places where the most methane comes from by building nuclear power plants in China, fighting abject poverty in India, supporting sustainable agriculture in Brazil, and paying Indonesia not to mine coal.
Purely out of curiosity:
I see that you don't believe that climate change is worth the hype but if you'll indulge me for a minute, let's assume that the climate change models become much more accurate (by some arbitrary new method) and narrow the outcomes to the "very severe" cases of the current models. How would you go about combatting climate change, given that we have no "luck" to influence any of the other major methane/CO2 contributors?
Also, can you explain the mechanics of the how the wealth would be redistributed using climate change as a catalyst?
OK, Beau, let's say climate change IS worth the hype. To fight it, we must reduce the carbon in the atmosphere. It can happen two ways: put less carbon in, or take carbon out. You put less carbon in by, for example, burning less carbon-rich fuel, such as wood and coal. You take carbon out by, for example, planting trees that change the CO2 into O2. My point is that wood and coal are mostly burned in China and the third world, while trees are mostly being cut down (and then burned!) throughout the rain forest. Your average American burns very little wood or coal and rarely cuts down a tree.
Or else, you could take a different approach. People who emit carbon tend to have either a very high standard of living (eg, America's middle class) or a very low one (eg, rural India.) Leveling this out would reduce carbon emissions. You can lower a high standard of living by, for example, taxing the wealthy. You can raise a low standard of living through, for example, massive immigration from the third world. Oh, but wait. Raising taxes on the wealthy? Unrestricted immigration? Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
"My point is that wood and coal are mostly burned in China and the third world, while trees are mostly being cut down (and then burned!) throughout the rain forest. Your average American burns very little wood or coal and rarely cuts down a tree."
Please correct me if I am wrong, but what I am hearing is because the U.S. is not the top overall contributor to carbon emissions, there would be no point in us attempting to reduce our carbon emissions since it would not make a big enough impact to curb climate change? In your opinion, would there be anything the U.S. could do to make a significant impact?
"People who emit carbon tend to have either a very high standard of living (eg, America's middle class) or a very low one (eg, rural India.) Leveling this out would reduce carbon emissions."
I am still a bit confused here. What are the methods by which these two groups emit more carbon? That would help me understand how leveling their wealth would help reduce carbon emissions. Also, hwo would taxing the wealthy lower the living standards of the middle class?
I appreciate you humoring me. I have a habit of getting really far into the weeds and it tends to wear people out quickly haha.
Yes, absolutely everyone should do their part, especially us. We can, and should, reduce OUR emissions by driving less, not using AC, no real fires in the fireplace, building more pipelines to reduce use of coal, eating less beef, and so on. But we can be more effective by reducing emissions where they are greatest, like by persuading Brazil not to slash and burn the Amazon rain forest, paying Indonesia not to mine their particularly harmful kind of coal, and bringing electricity to rural India so they will stop cooking over charcoal.
When reading or listening to talk about climate change, it is important to watch for a hidden agenda and, especially, to follow the money. The two largest oil companies, Saudi Aramco and Shell, have combined annual revenue of one trillion dollars. The next three by size earn another trillion dollars a year. As use of fossil fuel declines, those dollars will find their way into markedly different pockets, with solar and wind generation of electricity reaping the largest benefit. Although very different from petro, it is not yet clear that solar and wind are notably greener. Each has its own environmental drawbacks, with most of the harm front- or back-loaded where it might not be obvious.
Either way, this much truly is clear: There are some who want you to stop using fossil fuel. Not to save the planet, but because they want you to spend those trillions of dollars on something else. If you think the move to electric vehicles, for example, is all about fighting climate change, you are badly mistaken. It is all about money.
"But we can be more effective by reducing emissions where they are greatest, like by persuading Brazil not to slash and burn the Amazon rain forest, paying Indonesia not to mine their particularly harmful kind of coal, and bringing electricity to rural India so they will stop cooking over charcoal"
This is a good point. I wish the government would focus on making gains in these areas. My fear is the rhetoric of your original post places the blame on other countries and many will use it as excuse to do nothing.
"Although very different from petro, it is not yet clear that solar and wind are notably greener. Each has its own environmental drawbacks, with most of the harm front- or back-loaded where it might not be obvious."
I have seen a few stories about turbines killing birds and I know that battery disposal for electric cars is an environmental concern but have not heard about much else, though I am sure they exist. Would you mind sharing any sources that highlight the drawbacks you mentioned?
Most things in technology involve a trade-off of some sort ( I like to use the analogy of a gearbox trading speed for torque). It would seem we have reached a point where an expensive and uncomfortable shift in our energy attitude would be worth it for the long term benefit of our existence on the planet.
"There are some who want you to stop using fossil fuel. Not to save the planet, but because they want you to spend those trillions of dollars on something else. If you think the move to electric vehicles, for example, is all about fighting climate change, you are badly mistaken. It is all about money."
Yes I agree, that is typically how capitalism works. I often hear this stated as if it is implicitly a bad thing. Just because a different group of companies would end up with the larger share of the energy market does not imply that the benefits of greener energy would be negated. from a personal stand point, I'm going to get charged for my share of energy usage either way, so it might as well go towards an energy generation method that harms us less in the long run, no? I have no illusions about the role money is playing in this.
Wow, Beau, that was a most insightful reply, and heartfelt besides, especially coming so late.
I fully agree that we should all walk softly upon Gaia, our mother earth. I always try to do my part.
What bothers me is when people use climate change as an excuse to advance a different agenda. (Have you noticed them using covid, also, for that?) I am an engineer. I understand what is happening. It does not scare me. But they do.
What frightens me is the fraught, ill advised, and self-serving solutions that have been proposed. This is why I say, "Follow the money."
You must have forgotten about the methane locked up as methane hydrate in the ocean floor, permafrost and so-called fire ice.
Obama seems not to be worried about the ocean rising as he's bought a 11.75 million dollah estate on Marthas Vineyard.
Read this, from NASA, about methane: https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/methane-muted-how-did-early-earth-stay-warm/
Interesting historical summation, but says nothing about projected release due to temp increase.
"With methane demoted, scientists face a serious new challenge to determine the greenhouse cocktail that explains our planet’s climate and life story, including a billion years devoid of glaciers, Lyons said"
"...devoid of glaciers." That implies the other two sources I mentioned are also in play.