Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
Manx Bean

Lunatic eco-warrior

Recommended Posts

eco elite nutters in action......

D5BHgl8XoAEOSGA.thumb.jpg.99d5b44bfb19b050aa9f018822d10ee2.jpg

big dirty red bus with one person onboard......

yet she doesn't want you to drive your car......

stopping all buses will be another massive saving in co2.......

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what does airborne fraction mean, Woody?

If you think it means the ‘CO2 levels in the atmosphere’ you are misunderstanding. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

As an ex professional engineer with a healthy respect for the usual science based enquiries I should really be more into the MMGW debate, but I am not. To be honest, I am fed up to the back teeth with people telling that I should feel guilty about my life rather than offering any clear solutions.

The proponents of MMGW are almost certainly correct, but they are in danger of becoming inseparable from loutish 'eco-worriers' with nothing better to do.

There comes a time in any subject when the endless tales of doom and gloom, technical discussion and graphs has to give way for a 'Vision' of what the proposed solution would actually look like to the man in the street.

Man in the street can then consider which path to take.

What is your 'vision' of the solution China?

Edited by Manximus Aururaneus
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not an echo warrior in any way.  I'm also an engineer, working in the hydrogen economy and see slow but important progress being made. Electrification of cars and homes, electricity from renewable energy, touch wood fusion will slowly decarbonising the economy. 

Will it be fast enough to stop significant warming? I doubt it. I suspect we'll see multiple failed targets as temperatures rise but with the peaks and troughs the natural cycles produce giving enough doubt for those who have enriched themselves with fossil fuels - basically the western world, the Saudis, the Russians and now the Chinese - to keep burning the stuff as basically the bottom billion suffer the majority of the consequence. So it ever was.

It is going to be interesting how China and India react geopolitically.  You've pointed out how the cumulative CO2 emission chart is testament to the industrial revolution (read the Great Divergence by Kenneth Pomeranz for a great explanation of how England's access to coal was its key driver for this beyond China's advantages in scale and market sophistication). 

The wealth of the West has been built on carbon emissions. China and India are going to work hard to ensure their populations don't have to pay disproportionately to decarbonise. That aligns them with the poor while a Trumpian ideal is to burn the lot. 

How that manifests into technology transfer and geopolitical energy policy is going to be fascinating. I'm a technological optimist but suspect we will need carbon capture in a big way later in the century as current decarbonisation efforts are insufficient. That will cost and how the global commons picks up the bill is going to be fascinating. But overall the world will get warmer and the poor will suffer more than us as technology solves the problem. 

Fear of the great unwashed will increase as will global finger pointing as temperatures continue to rise. 

One issue I find fascinating is the consequences for the right of adopting basically an anti science position on this. I doubt the error bars are wide enough for them to be able to keep pooh poohing the evidence. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

I'm not an echo warrior in any way.  I'm also an engineer, working in the hydrogen economy and see slow but important progress being made. Electrification of cars and homes, electricity from renewable energy, touch wood fusion will slowly decarbonising the economy. 

Will it be fast enough to stop significant warming? I doubt it. I suspect we'll see multiple failed targets as temperatures rise but with the peaks and troughs the natural cycles produce giving enough doubt for those who have enriched themselves with fossil fuels - basically the western world, the Saudis, the Russians and now the Chinese - to keep burning the stuff as basically the bottom billion suffer the majority of the consequence. So it ever was.

It is going to be interesting how China and India react geopolitically.  You've pointed out how the cumulative CO2 emission chart is testament to the industrial revolution (read the Great Divergence by Kenneth Pomeranz for a great explanation of how England's access to coal was its key driver for this beyond China's advantages in scale and market sophistication). 

The wealth of the West has been built on carbon emissions. China and India are going to work hard to ensure their populations don't have to pay disproportionately to decarbonise. That aligns them with the poor while a Trumpian ideal is to burn the lot. 

How that manifests into technology transfer and geopolitical energy policy is going to be fascinating. I'm a technological optimist but suspect we will need carbon capture in a big way later in the century as current decarbonisation efforts are insufficient. That will cost and how the global commons picks up the bill is going to be fascinating. But overall the world will get warmer and the poor will suffer more than us as technology solves the problem. 

Fear of the great unwashed will increase as will global finger pointing as temperatures continue to rise. 

One issue I find fascinating is the consequences for the right of adopting basically an anti science position on this. I doubt the error bars are wide enough for them to be able to keep pooh poohing the evidence. 

 

I wasn't equating you with an eco warrior in any way China - I already knew you were an engineer.

I was saying that the serious technical and political arguments are in danger of becoming inseparable from the loutish eco warrior ones - simply because people are fed up with what is now 20 years of Joe Public being bombarded with conflicting arguments and graphs most of which they do not understand anyway.

Just as in other politics, perhaps we are in need of less professional politics, bandwagons, and opportunistic tax raisers and more in need of visionaries and leadership.

Whilst carbon taxes (just like sugar taxes and the rest) can have their place and effect - they also increase the opportunity for resistance from vested interests. 

Personally, I would give more heed to straight-talking by respected individuals and bodies rather than political grandstanding.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Chinahand said:

And what does airborne fraction mean, Woody?

If you think it means the ‘CO2 levels in the atmosphere’ you are misunderstanding. 

New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850,

Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.

:whistling:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Chinahand said:

I'm not an echo warrior in any way.

 

 

it's been getting warmer since the last ice age.......

it's purely about tax........as the eco elite fly around the world........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, woody2 said:

it's been getting warmer since the last ice age.......

it's purely about tax........as the eco elite fly around the world........

Agreed. Who did the dinasours blame for the “ cold snap” ?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, woody2 said:

New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850,

Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.

:whistling:

Oh goodness Woody, yes, there is no disagreement that the airborne fraction is about 43% and this has increased by 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade since 1850.

What we are disagreeing about is your statement that ‘co2 levels in the atmosphere haven't changed.’

They have increased from 280 odd ppm in 1850 to over 400 ppm now.   The paper the press release you’ve linked to is totally in agreement with this - check out its figure 1  

What you are saying is basically this:

Woody: Liverpool are having a shit season.

Chinahand: Woody, that’s bullshit. 

Woody: Everton are mid table and lost to Fulham 4-nil recently. 

Chinahand: Liverpool and Everton are different football teams look at the Premier League table. 

Woody: 4-nil to Fulham ha ha.

Chinahand: Woody you’re misunderstanding. 

Woody: 4-nil to Fulham. 

Chinahand: Woody you do understand Liverpool and Everton are different football teams. 

Woody: 4-nil to Fulham. 

Chinahand: Woody you can go on about Everton all day but that doesn’t mean Liverpool are having a bad season. 

Woody: 4-nil to Fulham. 

Chinahand: Woody we are talking about Liverpool not Everton. You do understand that, don’t you. 

Woody: 4-nil to Fulham.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha, nice example. Arguing with Woody can be hard work when he's misunderstood something and is then stood with his fingers in his ears and his tongue out. However, he does have a point about the carbon tax thing, even if it is hard to work out what that point might be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

Oh goodness Woody, yes, there is no disagreement that the airborne fraction is about 43% and this has increased by 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade since 1850.

What we are disagreeing about is your statement that ‘co2 levels in the atmosphere haven't changed.’

They have increased from 280 odd ppm in 1850 to over 400 ppm now.   The paper the press release you’ve linked to is totally in agreement with this - check out its figure 1  

What you are saying is basically this:

Woody: Liverpool are having a shit season.

Chinahand: Woody, that’s bullshit. 

Woody: Everton are mid table and lost to Fulham 4-nil recently. 

Chinahand: Liverpool and Everton are different football teams look at the Premier League table. 

Woody: 4-nil to Fulham ha ha.

Chinahand: Woody you’re misunderstanding. 

Woody: 4-nil to Fulham. 

Chinahand: Woody you do understand Liverpool and Everton are different football teams. 

Woody: 4-nil to Fulham. 

Chinahand: Woody you can go on about Everton all day but that doesn’t mean Liverpool are having a bad season. 

Woody: 4-nil to Fulham. 

Chinahand: Woody we are talking about Liverpool not Everton. You do understand that, don’t you. 

Woody: 4-nil to Fulham.

A bit like getting a 1p per week pay rise then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, dilligaf said:

A bit like getting a 1p per week pay rise then?

The interest alone could be enough to buy this ship!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

39 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

Haha, nice example. Arguing with Woody can be hard work when he's misunderstood something and is then stood with his fingers in his ears and his tongue out. However, he does have a point about the carbon tax thing, even if it is hard to work out what that point might be.

I’m not convinced  Woody is saying anything sensible about Taxes either. A revenue neutral pigovian carbon tax which sets a price on Carbon can be reasonably easy to enact and will set the principle that the polluter pays and that the atmosphere isn’t a public sewer. The efforts to build sewer systems and to stop people throwing their crap into the street took multiple years but was a public good mainly funded by the state. The tragedy of the commons and the need for state intervention to fund “public goods” are well understood economic issues accepted by main stream right wing policy makers. Google Greg Mankiw pigou club for more details or read these: 

https://ase.tufts.edu/economics/documents/papers/2008/metcalfCarbonTax.pdf

http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/How-to-make-carbon-taxes-more-acceptable.pdf

Woody is as bad as the eco-nutters, the world isn’t going to end as the world enacts sensible policies to counter climate change whether that is Woody going on about the dangers of taxes or Extinction Revolution going on about the end of humanity. 

Edited by Chinahand
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, dilligaf said:
39 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

They have increased from 280 odd ppm in 1850 to over 400 ppm now.    

A bit like getting a 1p per week pay rise then?

More like your blood pressure going from 100 systolic to 143 systolic while still having a hugely unhealthy diet.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

More like your blood pressure going from 100 systolic to 143 systolic while still having a hugely unhealthy diet.  

I think your maths are out a tad there china%%%%%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...