Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Woody1, Jun 14, 2017.
Of course it isn't the energy consumption itself. Ants probably consume more energy.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
That's a lie.
It's tricky. For instance, in recent years, some Americans have taken to using those front loading washer/dryer combos which the English and Europeans embraced a couple of decades back. They use far less water and far less energy, of course BUT they take a long while to run a cycle and clothing do not come out completely dry--you have to shake every article of clothing for a moment, and allow a few moments for all residual micro-droplets of water to dissipate. Americans, at least as evidenced by sales of the devices, do not find this acceptable.
I truly don't get it. I mean, that's a pretty damn small sacrifice for a device that curbs energy and water consumption to no small degree, so why the reluctance?
Well, I'm still waiting on a response for my critique.
Or, is it stuffed old men trying to make them appear smart by launching long winded paragraphs?
You kinda lost me here--could you elaborate? Are you saying that viable, and desirable, alternatives do not exist?
Yes. If you mean that there are alternatives that can run our current economic system. And without our current economic system, scaling such alternatives isn't possible.
Sorry, am I neglectful? Which post? I thought you were waiting for Woody to respond about the Amish.
And I am still bemused by your red herring one........
There will be plenty of choices. For example, there may come a point where no one can deny that climate change is occurring. When that happens, the US will need a scapegoat - and China is a great one. In such a case, our "choice" could well be a war with China to stop those evil villains from releasing CO2 into the air. And it would even work.
A lot may come down to energy cost, I suppose. But in the EU we do also have EU efficiency standards that eventually force inefficient designs out. So a bit of coercion, but with the tacit consent of the people, on the basis they understand why we need to do such things. It's a lot of small things, such as mandatory charging for plastic bags at the supermarket, phasing out of filament light bulbs etc etc. But the big wins are undoubtedly in cutting carbon emission rather than controlling energy consumption.
OK. Yeah, I'm very much in agreement with you there. Also, I'm very much opposed to our current economic system, if that's not obvious.
You'd be surprised at how much ire there is over having to pay for plastic bags in the U.S., even when the remedy--cheap reusable bags--is such a no-brainer and involves virtually zero effort and maybe a couple of bucks, which will be recouped in like a week or two in savings. Keep in mind, a lot of Americans flip out out over people speaking Spanish in public! We are a very myopic bunch.
Also, I notice you still say "we" in the EU--is there even a remote chance that Brexit will just completely fall apart at this stage? I certainly hope so, but I strongly suspect not.
I don't predict that exactly, I'm more talking about peak oil, which could lead to economic stagnation, which could lead to wars. Climate change can also lead to wars and climate refugees, it probably already has.
Peak oil in the sense that it was originally meant (i.e. the end of cheap crude oil) has already happened. We switched to tight oil. We won't see a "peak tight oil" for about another 20-30 years, and by that time, another technology (like in situ coal liquifecation) will likely provide the next feedstock.
Right; that's a separate issue. When we start becoming overwhelmed by climate refugees (both ours and others) then we may want to start a war to "punish those responsible" and force them to "pay for what they have done."
Before that we could see peak capital. Fracking doesn't make much financial sense even now.
"Industry invariably drills its best prospects first, hence the cheapest gas is being exploited now. Infinite faith in technology cannot make up for the realities of geology. These realities are showing up now in the most productive counties."
‘Beyond Petroleum’ – Fracking’s Collapse Heralds the Arrival of Peak Oil
Well, it makes enough financial sense that investors are spending tens of billions on developing and exploiting the wells. As time goes on and technology improves, tight oil will invariably become cheaper.
That is all true - and that's why light sweet crude wells are still producing, because it's just plain cheaper. They can no longer supply the demand themselves, which is why tight oil is now being sold (and making money for oil companies.)
When fracking first started, it was impossible to make money below about $80 a barrel. But then oil hit $100, $120, $140 a barrel. And people started pumping that $80 a barrel tight oil, because they were making $60 a barrel (a pretty good profit.) Then production of tight oil started to ramp up - and the recession hit. A lot of oil companies lost a lot of money as demand plummeted and oil prices fell through the floor.
Then the economy recovered and oil rose again, this time to $80 to $100 a barrel. Fracking was barely profitable, so companies started to slowly get back into it. And as they did they found new ways to save money - to pump more tight oil for the same money. The breakeven costs started to drop, from $80 to $70 to $60 a barrel average. This was, as always, good and bad - as the price dropped people wanted to sell more of it (big profits) but that increased supply so the price dropped. Only the most cost effective wells could continue to pump, so selection pressures drove the more expensive wells (and companies) out of business.
Today fracking is profitable down around $60 a barrel average. However that's a bell curve; there are wells that are profitable at $30 a barrel, and those are pumping now. There are a lot that are profitable at $40 a barrel, and they are pumping as well. (There are a lot more of them, but a lot less profit to be had.) So as long as oil prices stay between $35 and $140, there will be tight oil being pumped - and the costs will continue to decline with time.
The people denying the primary role of anthro CO2 boosting now will be able to continue denying that forever, regardless. Proof: they are denying it now.
If the people who normally start wars have any say in the matter, there will be no climate refugees. There will be terrorists, war refugees, famine and disaster refugees, Islamic and Communist militants, people fleeing bad rulers or bad job markets to freeload on the prosperity of others, etc.
Easy to do when the worst thing that happens is you have to turn up your A/C.
A lot harder to do when you look out your window and see the sea in your backyard - or Florida refugees in your streets. All the right wing rhetoric in the world will not shrink the seas.
That's not the plan. That plan would require a huge increase in development of renewables, over current policies.
It's a pyramid scheme.
You seem to think reality is involved in perceiving cause and assigning blame for disasters.
For those listening to right wing rhetoric, that is not the case.
Separate names with a comma.