I use about 6 kWh per day including heating and charging the car.
But energy usage itself isn't the main issue. My electricity is 82% renewable, so its impact on the climate is minimal. The same energy produced in fossil fueled power plants is much worse, and in gas cars even worse again. If most of the energy we used was renewable we wouldn't have this problem.
I make 'sacrifices' all the time, because I don't like spending money or throwing away things that are still serviceable.
My car is 11 years old - it paid for the excess carbon cost over a gas car many years ago. My house is 40 years old, and has barely had any maintenance done on it in that time. I have several second-hand computers - the two I use the most are 10 and 30 years old. I recently had to replace my fridge (a small bench-height model) because the thermostat gave out. It was 45 years old. My TV is 18 years old, and my digital camera is 23 years old (still have my film cameras too). My 'new' cell phone (required for Covid tracking) is only 2 years old, but I hope it will last 10 years like the last one.
I also buy second-hand furniture, clothes and other stuff when I need it. I repair old electronic devices for friends, and they give me 'junk' which gets used for spare parts or fixed up and passed onto others. Recycling in this manner isn't a sacrifice, it's fun! I hate to see good stuff being thrown away when somebody could get enjoyment out of it.
So that leaves food. Well we all have to eat, but some foods are are a lot worse for the environment than others (and maybe worse for you too). Where I live the biggest contributor to global warming is dairy farming. I don't drink milk, and have cut way back on other dairy products - and beef too. Obesity is a serious problem in western countries. Most people overeat bad foods. Changing your diet and eating less is not a 'sacrifice', it's good for you!
All of these choices count as choosing less consumption, of course. Apparently you've been duped by big business and government, you have the delusional belief that you're saving the world, and you're hypocritically virtue-signaling at the same time! [/s]
One of my few regrets about choosing a small house with beautiful surroundings, instead of the other way around, is that I don't have the space to store as much "junk" for repairing other stuff. Just means I have to work harder to find parts and pay more for them when I need them.
I don't believe anyone has made that claim here! If a tractor company comes up with a workable electrified system, and farmers are enticed to used it because its economical, GREAT! Thats wonderful. I (and I think dann)are claiming that forcing all farmers to make a sudden shift to all electric would be catastrophic. Its also not, IMO, the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions. It also does nothing to solve most of the greenhouse gasses emitted by the agriculture industry. A tiny percentage actually.
And you are (and were) the one who came up with the idea of forcing farmers to make a sudden shift. Not coincidentally, I guess, since it is part of the strawman to make the shift to renewables seem almost impossible. 'Just can't be done, unrealistic'.
Fortunately, the judge in Montana made it clear, based on expert witnesses, that, no, it's not at all unrealistic.
As for the other emissions from agriculture, I posted a couple of iinks about what's being done. Want me to post them again?
Less consumption (demand) lowers prices. If that didn't stand out in Scenario 2, it's also literally on the first page of Chapter 1 of most economics textbooks.
Most economics textbooks are obviously wrong, then. Or maybe you didn't read further than chapter one. Supply and demand, the old attempts by bourgeois economics to explain value and price. Unfortunately, you leave out the supply side in your economy lesson.
Below a certain level of demand, mass production of a commodity is no longer profitable and stops, raising the price of the (now) niche product.
Tell me more about Scenario 3. Does "the grid" turn sentient and then conjure up wind turbines and photovoltaic arrays out of the ground, or do those things have to be manufactured by producers using energy and raw materials that must also be financed by available capital? If the latter, would that energy and those materials and that capital appear spontaneously out of nowhere, or would they all have to come from existing sources those things? Might the necessary massive use of those materials and energy and capital for that purpose raise their prices (horrors) or necessarily result in curtailed production of other goods and services aka sacrifices? And what about all the production that isn't powered by "the grid"(such as, for instance, fabricating and erecting wind turbines)?
Yes, that must obviously have been what I meant: That the grid has merged with AI, and materials appear out of nowhere.
But no, you have invented yet another piece of fiction to defend your idea of the omnipotent consumer:
"Might the necessary massive use of those materials and energy and capital for that purpose raise their prices (horrors) or necessarily result in curtailed production of other goods and services aka sacrifices?"
In general, no, massive use does not raise their prices. You once again stare yourself blind on the demand side, which is consistent with your idea of that supply being limited, as if rising and falling demand alone determines the price.
A rising demand of raw materials may at first raise prices but it may also lead to new extraction techniques or the discovery of new sources (like Bolivia's lithium), which may lower prices in the long run. Unless there's some kind of monopoly (like OPEC's in the 1970s). Capitalism is complicated, and it doesn't work the way you seem to (or want to) think. But in your case, it mainly depends on the point you are trying to make. When it suits you, you like to make it seem awfully complicated.
The simplified model is for when you want to give credence to your favorite fantasy that consumers are in control of everything if only they are willing to sacrifice their consumption in the name of austerity.
Some numbers would be nice. How many wind turbines, how many acres of solar, on what time schedule? Does the existing production capacity allow for that schedule, or are increases in production capacity (energy-intensive investment in additional mines, factories, and mobile equipment) also required? Does that schedule exceed the pace of ongoing increases in total energy demand, or should we keep building new coal plants too (to make sure no sacrifices are required)?
I recently saw an estimate for Denmark. I think it said that no more than 4% of arable land would be necessary for wind turbines and solar panels to not only cover the country's needs but also the export of electricity. I don't remember where I saw it, but I'll try to find it. The less fertile a field is used, the more likely it is to be used for this purpose. (And as mentioned earlier, some of the fields used for solar panels have grazing sheep to eat the plants that might otherwise need to be cut down for panels to catch those rays.)
Production capacity does not appear to be a problem. You again seem to ignore that production capacity is not a limited commodity. It is not as if new factories can't be built, and it is not as if other products then can't be produced any more: 'Sorry, surfers, but don't expect any more surfboards to be manufactured from now on. All the surfboard manufacturing facilities have been seized and will only produce wings for wind turbines from now on.'
Or as you put it: "curtailed production of other goods and services aka sacrifices?"
With increased demand of more wind turbines, more wind turbine wing factories will be built. And there is plenty of room for those factories, too, even in a fairly densely populated country like Denmark.
Your attempts to now suddenly present it as an extraordinarily complex process only serves to remind me that you still haven't presented us with numbers to prove your idea that consumer consumption of electricity smart phones is a major real problem, and if only we would all sacrifice our (in most cases probably fairly modest) creature comforts, the problem would be solved. And entirely without infringing on Bill Maher's private jet trips.
How many weeks have consumer sacrifices and austerity delayed global warming so far?!
I wonder why the judge in Montana didn't mention bad consumer habits at all after having listened to all the global warming expert. Weird, isn't it?!
Renewable power is “technically feasible and economically beneficial.”
"Montana could replace 80% of existing fossil fuel energy by 2030."
"The state [of Montana] knew about the dangers of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels for at least 30 years."
Good news! I've looked up some numbers, and it turns out the U.S. has been adding about 8GW of new wind turbines (about 3,000 turbines) annually since 2007 and about 12GW of new solar installations (home-scale and utility-scale combined) annually since 2018, accounting for a combined 77% of new electricity generating capacity in the nation. (There was some niggling little caption about the installation rates slowing down after 2020 due to supply issues, but that can't be true because opening more mines and building more factories is ever so quick and easy.) So really, we hardly even have any carbon emissions any more. Better yet, a judge in Montana (home to a whopping 0.34% of the U.S. population) has decreed that we'll replace another 80% of the existing fossil fuel energy within 6.6 years. Or something like that; never mind the details! So all that nonsense about "conserving energy" the hippies have been yammering about for 50 years can go right out the window, and forget about everything I've posted in this thread earlier. (Sorry!) We're already so close to post-scarcity that we might as well start celebrating now. Join me in putting up 77% more Christmas lights this year, knowing the increase will be fully powered by clean renewable energy.
In spite of "all that nonsense about "conserving energy" the hippies have been yammering about for 50 years," it doesn't seem to have contributed much (or anything) to lowering CO2 emissions. Throughout this thread, I have suggested that Myriad find the numbers, but even though he has "looked up some numbers," the numbers for the energy that the hippies have conserved don't seem to have been among them.
Probably due to his focus on energy conserved by hippies, Myriad also misreads what the judge said in Montana earlier this month: It was not at all about energy consumers in Montana and all about the state's production of fossil fuels and fossil-fuel energy and the CO2 emissions caused by that.
This obviously makes the percentage of the U.S. population that Montana is home to, "a whopping 0.34%," entirely irrelevant. It would have been more interesting to hear about the percentage of the U.S. population that the energy-conserving hippies constitute and the amount of energy they conserve, but alas, as late as 2021, USA was still up there with Canada and Australia:
So it seems like the 8GW from the about 3,000 wind turbines and the 12GW from solar installations, which account "for a combined 77% of new electricity generating capacity in the nation" of the USA aren't nearly enough to accomplish the necessary reduction of CO2 emissions. To do so, wind and solar would have to replace fossil fuel power. So the hippies really have their work cut out for them. They will have to conserve much more energy than they are already doing. Maybe they can out showering entirely (that cold water needs to be pumped, and pumping requires power) and stop cooking their oatmeal: The raw food diet: Should I try it? (MedicalNewToday)
In other bad news:
Doubt wanted to include Australia in the discussion (post 485) but never returned after I criticized what appeared to be an attempt to find excuses for Australia's contribution to global warming (post 494).
So the only good news this month is still the judge's ruling in Montana, which Myriad misunderstood, as mentioned above. The judge never "decreed (!) that we'll replace another 80% of the existing fossil fuel energy within 6.6 years. Or something like that; never mind the details!"
What she actually said was that it was “technically feasible and economically beneficial” to do so, and that "Montana could (!) replace 80% of existing fossil fuel energy by 2030."
There is really no excuse for not already having replaced those 80% of fossil fuel energy with renewables since the state [of Montana] knew about the dangers of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels for at least 30 years."
Think about all the cold showers that the hippies could have indulged in with CO2-free energy from wind turbines and solar panels.
Or something like that. Never mind the details.
As mentioned in the other global-warming thread (post 881), Washington Post has a link to the full text of the "landmark decision" in Montana.
There is no need to miss out on the details.
In spite of "all that nonsense about "conserving energy" the hippies have been yammering about for 50 years," it doesn't seem to have contributed much (or anything) to lowering CO2 emissions.
No argument there. Let's look at the overall score card so far:
Sustained reductions in total energy use resulting from energy conservation initiatives: zilch
Sustained reductions in gasoline and diesel fuel usage resulting from "economy," hybrid, electric vehicles, and bicycles: zilch
Sustained reductions in metal ore mining, glass manufacture, and plastics manufacture resulting from recycling: zilch
Sustained reductions in solid municipal waste production resulting from "greener" packaging, reusable shopping bags, and reusable water bottles: zilch
Sustained reductions in fossil fuel emissions resulting from hydro, nuclear, solar, and wind power: zilch
Of course no environmental effort can be credited with any of those reductions, because none of those reductions have ever happened in the modern era. The reasons are related to population, increased material standards of living, and Jevons Paradox. We can speculate that without those various programs and changes, the increases in production would have been higher still, but that's not the standard we're applying, is it? Decreasing the rate of increase of carbon emissions isn't good enough. We want to decrease the carbon emissions, by a lot. And it's not happening, and it's probably not going to happen for decades.
What we're seeing actually happen, ironically enough in this context, is peak oil. The real peak oil, not the Internet fantasy from the early twenty oughts. Hubbert's hypothesis derived from historical production curves wasn't, after all, about running out of oil and then society collapsing. It was about production peaking and then decreasing as remaining reserves became more expensive to extract, while usage was gradually replaced by a superior new technology. One of his historical models was the general replacement of wood fuel with coal. Hubbert expected the superior new technology replacing oil to be nuclear power, and based his predictions on that. When it became clear around the turn of the century that oil production isn't unlimited (as Hubbert obviously already knew) and that for various reasons nuclear wasn't going to cut it, more than a few people (though mostly on the fringes) understandably panicked. But it's now clear that the superior new technology that will replace oil is solar, wind, and whatever forms of storage, flow batteries perhaps, eventually become predominant. And that there's nothing in particular standing in the way of that.
But how, in Hubbert's actual models, does the usage curve of the old outdated energy technologies decline? Slowly! More or less, replicating the curve of their increase, in reverse. If the peak of oil production was 2015, then by about 2050 we'll be back to 1980's level of usage, according to Hubbert. But if we take oil and coal together, since coal usage may or may not have peaked yet, any peak and subsequent decline in total world carbon emissions from fossil fuels may be delayed longer.
In the end I don't see much evidence for the claim that government and industry policies greatly matter here. Command economies, free-market economies; green corporations, dirty corporations: they're all evidently subject to the same social and economic forces that make cries of "more solar and wind, faster!" as much a fart in the wind as all the cries of "conserve energy!" from half a century ago. And I also don't see a lot of difference between "my country wisely and voluntarily chose to reduce fossil fuel use, which proves every country can," and "my family wisely and voluntarily chose to reduce fossil fuel use, which proves everyone can." Given that neither has moved the world's needle so far, if the latter is as derisory as some people claim, then so is the former. Of course, in reality, both are important and necessary, but given that immediate decreases in carbon emission have not resulted nor will result any time soon from either of them, some contemplation of the real nature of that importance might be useful.
No argument there. Let's look at the overall score card so far:
Sustained reductions in total energy use resulting from energy conservation initiatives: zilch
Sustained reductions in gasoline and diesel fuel usage resulting from "economy," hybrid, electric vehicles, and bicycles: zilch
Sustained reductions in metal ore mining, glass manufacture, and plastics manufacture resulting from recycling: zilch
Sustained reductions in solid municipal waste production resulting from "greener" packaging, reusable shopping bags, and reusable water bottles: zilch Sustained reductions in fossil fuel emissions resulting from hydro, nuclear, solar, and wind power: zilch
You may claim that other CO2 emitters more than made up for the reductions made by these two and many other countries, but you have been provided with actual numbers of considerable actual reductions (albeit not nearly enough, as I point out again and again).
So where are your numbers for the reductions that can be attributed to your hippies and other individual consumers "conserving energy"?Zilch!
This is not an attempt to taunt you. I would really like to see those numbers. There's gotta be at least an estimated number somewhere.
Of course no environmental effort can be credited with any of those reductions, because none of those reductions have ever happened in the modern era. The reasons are related to population, increased material standards of living, and Jevons Paradox. We can speculate that without those various programs and changes, the increases in production would have been higher still, but that's not the standard we're applying, is it? Decreasing the rate of increase of carbon emissions isn't good enough. We want to decrease the carbon emissions, by a lot. And it's not happening, and it's probably not going to happen for decades.
At this point, you can't be excused for not knowing any better. Those reductions did happen in the modern era. And they are still happening and will continue to happen, but not fast enough and maybe not at all where you live.
I notice that one of the GOP candidates for the presidential nomination, Vivek Ramaswamy, talks about "abandoning the anti-carbon cult": "we need to abandon the cult of climate change in the United States altogether that is shackling the United States while leaving nations like China untouched" (2.33-->):
Yeah, right, as if one of the world's worst CO2 emitters needs to be freed from its alleged shackles! (And this guy may end up being the alternative to Frackin' Joe.)
As if the current per-capita CO2 emissions in the USA aren't still almost two times higher than China's! See also post 625.
I have removed a couple of the other countries to make the USA-China difference clearer:Per capita CO₂ emissions (Our World in Data). Looked at historically, China's CO2 emission has only been a very small fraction of the USA's. (I would like to see graphs of Cumulative confirmed CO2 emission by country!)
Well no, actually. I found it! Cumulative CO₂ emissions For the comparison USA-China, in particular, it would have been nice to have had the per-capita graphs, but even as it is, China isn't even close to have emitted as much CO2 as the USA. (And with a population of less than 6 million, it is too easy for Denmark to be close to zero.)
What we're seeing actually happen, ironically enough in this context, is peak oil. The real peak oil, not the Internet fantasy from the early twenty oughts. Hubbert's hypothesis derived from historical production curves wasn't, after all, about running out of oil and then society collapsing. It was about production peaking and then decreasing as remaining reserves became more expensive to extract, while usage was gradually replaced by a superior new technology. One of his historical models was the general replacement of wood fuel with coal. Hubbert expected the superior new technology replacing oil to be nuclear power, and based his predictions on that. When it became clear around the turn of the century that oil production isn't unlimited (as Hubbert obviously already knew) and that for various reasons nuclear wasn't going to cut it, more than a few people (though mostly on the fringes) understandably panicked. But it's now clear that the superior new technology that will replace oil is solar, wind, and whatever forms of storage, flow batteries perhaps, eventually become predominant. And that there's nothing in particular standing in the way of that.
I have already pointed out (see post 587) that your idea that the world (not individual countries) is already at peak oil appears to be a conspiracy theory based on nothing but Saudi Arabia's recent fiddling with the oil tap, which has been a regular occurrence since the mid-1970s. However, "Saudi Arabia has proven (!) reserves equivalent to 221.2 times its annual consumption. This means that, without Net Exports, there would be about 221 years of oil left."
You may claim that it's something "we're seeing actually happen," that it's the "real peak oil, not the Internet fantasy," but it doesn't seem to be the case.
But how, in Hubbert's actual models, does the usage curve of the old outdated energy technologies decline? Slowly! More or less, replicating the curve of their increase, in reverse. If the peak of oil production was 2015, then by about 2050 we'll be back to 1980's level of usage, according to Hubbert. But if we take oil and coal together, since coal usage may or may not have peaked yet, any peak and subsequent decline in total world carbon emissions from fossil fuels may be delayed longer.
In the end I don't see much evidence for the claim that government and industry policies greatly matter here. Command economies, free-market economies; green corporations, dirty corporations: they're all evidently subject to the same social and economic forces that make cries of "more solar and wind, faster!" as much a fart in the wind as all the cries of "conserve energy!" from half a century ago. And I also don't see a lot of difference between "my country wisely and voluntarily chose to reduce fossil fuel use, which proves every country can," and "my family wisely and voluntarily chose to reduce fossil fuel use, which proves everyone can." Given that neither has moved the world's (!) needle so far, if the latter is as derisory as some people claim, then so is the former. Of course, in reality, both are important and necessary, but given that immediate decreases in carbon emission have not resulted nor will result any time soon from either of them, some contemplation of the real nature of that importance might be useful.
You are deliberately making yourself blind to reality! No matter how often actual reductions of CO2 emissions are pointed out to you, you insist that your regiment of cold showers etc. is the way to go.
As for your allegedly wise family, you appear to be the only member, judging by post 610.
I have repeatedly provided you with the numbers proving that the reduction of CO2 emissions accomplished by some countries actually works (but needs to go even faster). Now you nonchalantly ignore that accomplishment without ever having shown that your austerity regime has had any effect on CO2 emissions at all.
You can pretend that "both (!) are important and necessary" as much as you please, but I have proved with numbers that one of them works. You haven't, and I don't think you will ever make a serious attempt to do so!
Tell me more about Scenario 3. Does "the grid" turn sentient and then conjure up wind turbines and photovoltaic arrays out of the ground, or do those things have to be manufactured by producers using energy and raw materials that must also be financed by available capital? If the latter, would that energy and those materials and that capital appear spontaneously out of nowhere, or would they all have to come from existing sources those things? Might the necessary massive use of those materials and energy and capital for that purpose raise their prices (horrors) or necessarily result in curtailed production of other goods and services aka sacrifices? And what about all the production that isn't powered by "the grid"(such as, for instance, fabricating and erecting wind turbines)?
Yes, that must obviously have been what I meant: That the grid has merged with AI, and materials appear out of nowhere.
But no, you have invented yet another piece of fiction to defend your idea of the omnipotent consumer:
"Might the necessary massive use of those materials and energy and capital for that purpose raise their prices (horrors) or necessarily result in curtailed production of other goods and services aka sacrifices?"
In general, no, massive use does not raise their prices. You once again stare yourself blind on the demand side, which is consistent with your idea of that supply being limited, as if rising and falling demand alone determines the price.
A rising demand of raw materials may at first raise prices but it may also lead to new extraction techniques or the discovery of new sources (like Bolivia's lithium), which may lower prices in the long run. Unless there's some kind of monopoly (like OPEC's in the 1970s). Capitalism is complicated, and it doesn't work the way you seem to (or want to) think. But in your case, it mainly depends on the point you are trying to make. When it suits you, you like to make it seem awfully complicated.
He added that this is an important moment because lithium carbonate, electromobility and energy transition are inherent themes of a nascent industry that will generate incomes, and direct and indirect jobs in the region of Llipi, Potosí.
He pointed out that the development strategy includes “other projects such as lithium carbonate plants with Direct Lithium Extraction (DLE) technology and brine recovery to increase production capacity,” Molina said. The lithium plant is a great reality, Bolivian minister states (Prensa Latina, Aug 19, 2023)
Your argument that Denmark's decreases in emissions is important despite not being enough to reverse the worldwide overall increases in emissions is the exact same argument you denigrate...
In spite of "all that nonsense about "conserving energy" the hippies have been yammering about for 50 years," it doesn't seem to have contributed much (or anything) to lowering CO2 emissions.
...when I say individuals' decreases in emissions are important despite not being enough to reverse the worldwide overall increases in emissions. You want it both ways.
You may claim that other CO2 emitters more than made up for the reductions made by these two and many other countries, but you have been provided with actual numbers of considerable actual reductions (albeit not nearly enough, as I point out again and again).
So where are your numbers for the reductions that can be attributed to your hippies and other individual consumers "conserving energy"?Zilch!
This is not an attempt to taunt you. I would really like to see those numbers. There's gotta be at least an estimated number somewhere.
Here's a considerable actual reduction: 400 cubic feet of natural gas a month, or about a dollar's worth in the U.S. per month, for the past 44 months, from me taking cold showers. That wasn't the purpose of doing so, but it still has that effect. (Just like, contributing to warming of the Earth's surface isn't the purpose of taking hot showers, but it still has that effect, even when the energy comes from wind and solar electricity.) Which you've continued to mock throughout our discussion.
It represents a 45% reduction in my household gas usage between the months of May and September, inclusive. Quite considerable.
Your repeated harping on (at this point purely hypothetical) reductions in Montana is the same tactic. Because Montana has a name and a border, any percent reductions therein are "considerable" without regard to the larger picture. For instance that there are more home solar rooftop installations in Massachusetts than there are homes in Montana, and more solar electricity in use in Massachusetts than all electricity in Montana. (So has Massachusetts reduced its total greenhouse emissions any? You can look that up if you want to. My point is that the larger picture matters more.) You even overlook that the judge's comments about possible reductions in Montana were specifically about electric power generation, disregarding all the cars, trucks, planes, school buses, oil heaters, propane heaters, and barbecue grills in the state.
At this point, you can't be excused for not knowing any better. Those reductions did happen in the modern era. And they are still happening and will continue to happen, but not fast enough and maybe not at all where you live.
I notice that one of the GOP candidates for the presidential nomination, Vivek Ramaswamy, talks about "abandoning the anti-carbon cult": "we need to abandon the cult of climate change in the United States altogether that is shackling the United States while leaving nations like China untouched" (2.33-->):
Yeah, right, as if one of the world's worst CO2 emitters needs to be freed from its alleged shackles! (And this guy may end up being the alternative to Frackin' Joe.)
Of course reductions happen, all the time; they've been happening, constantly. But drawing a circle around a particular reduction, whether it's my gas bill, the "hippies'" energy savings that you denigrate, Montana's (still completely hypothetical) conversion of its electric utilities to 80% wind and solar that you extol, or Denmark's emissions, is just a way to dodge or miss the point.
Here's another example: Total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions have been trending down for years! They peaked in 2005 and are down 14% from that peak, thanks in part to my cold showers. With the U.S. being such a large contributor to global greenhouse emissions to begin with, that's extremely considerable! Why didn't you already know about it? Why haven't I been citing it every post like it was Denmark or something? Because it still doesn't matter. Because the big picture matters more. Part of that big picture is that much of the U.S. reductions have been the result of offshoring of our heavy industry. We still use the products, we just buy them from other countries that emit the CO2 elsewhere. Other U.S. reductions have been the result of involuntary energy-saving choices; that is, a reduced standard of living, such as more people (especially young people) not being able to afford carbon-consuming amenities such as cars, their own apartments (let alone single-family homes), and travel vacations.
That's why I see future involuntary energy-saving choices as a big part of the near future of carbon reductions, and urge people to consider making voluntary reductions instead, not because it will alter the ecological trajectory but because it allows more personal choice. And I also urge people to stop judging and shaming others for their choices. Throughout human history across the world, the most likely residence for a newly married couple has been either a tiny house, or living in an extended household with one or the other's parents. We've now turned "tiny houses" into a goofy fringe hobby or a "virtue signaling" social faux pas, and "living in your mom's basement" into a mark of failure and shame. Who is so desperately socially engineering to keep unsustainably large historically aberrant dwellings the norm? Perhaps land owners, the real estate industry, energy utilities, governments eying their tax revenue... Or perhaps politicians and political activists of all stripes, who realize that they can't dangle a capitalist paradise or a worker's paradise in front of the proles, if there's no paradise in the offing at all.
have already pointed out (see post 587) that your idea that the world (not individual countries) is already at peak oil appears to be a conspiracy theory based on nothing but Saudi Arabia's recent fiddling with the oil tap, which has been a regular occurrence since the mid-1970s. However, "Saudi Arabia has proven (!) reserves equivalent to 221.2 times its annual consumption. This means that, without Net Exports, there would be about 221 years of oil left."
I don't have enough primary data available to know the truth about Saudi oil reserves. I do find it quite amazing that they've managed to discover new reserves exactly equal to the amount they've pumped out, year after year (except 2018 when they suddenly discovered another 11%).
If I were a Saudi and I had that much oil in reserve and the ability to pump any amount of it I pleased, I would strongly consider increasing the supply to drop the price by half (about $50/bbl) for a few years. Turn my rivals (including expensive deep-sea and tar sand operations, major solar and wind businesses, the whole nascent electric car industry) into Argentina. Then, I could raise my price again as I pleased. Good thing the actual Saudis aren't greedy and devious like me, and actually care a great deal about the climate. Otherwise the fact that their fiddling is the economic life blood of all their future competitors might have given them pause.
You may claim that it's something "we're seeing actually happen," that it's the "real peak oil, not the Internet fantasy," but it doesn't seem to be the case.
Yes it does seem to be the case. If we see oil production and use rise again, then I'll be proven wrong. If it continues a downward trend (which is what you want and expect, isn't it?) then by definition we've already seen actual peak oil in the real world. Do you expect oil production and use to start increasing again, or are you now just disagreeing with everything I say for the sake of disagreeing?
It is the same old same old: I present him with the numbers showing that since 1990 a shift to wind and solar have significantly reduced the CO2 emissions of whole countries like DK (42%) and the UK (39%; may also be due to nuclear), and Myriad presents me with numbers showing that his cold showers have significantly reduced his "household gas usage between the months of May and September" (45%).
And since neither Denmark's and the UK's reductions nor Myriad's household's reductions have resulted in a reduction of the whole world's use of fossil fuels, his argument appears to be that he wins on percentages.
The only new element is yet another economy lesson based on fiction along the lines of 'What I'd do if I were Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud':
If I were a Saudi and I had that much oil in reserve and the ability to pump any amount of it I pleased, I would strongly consider increasing the supply to drop the price by half (about $50/bbl) for a few years. Turn my rivals (including expensive deep-sea and tar sand operations, major solar and wind businesses, the whole nascent electric car industry) into Argentina. Then, I could raise my price again as I pleased. Good thing the actual Saudis aren't greedy and devious like me, and actually care a great deal about the climate. Otherwise the fact that their fiddling is the economic life blood of all their future competitors might have given them pause.
It is the naïve idea that a capitalist producer of anything can kill off all competition by reducing his price (and thus profit) and then "I could raise my price again as I pleased."
The naïvety of the idea is that the competition would only be gone for as long as the Saudi price remained too low for other producers to compete, which would set the limit for the idea of raising "my price again as I pleased."
There is, of course, also the problem that oil consuming countries wouldn't put up with that. They might invest in solar, wind and/or nuclear anyway to become energy independent, they might subsidize their own fossil fuel extraction for the same reason, or they might think of an excuse for deposing Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, if necessary by means of a military intervention. It is not as if it hasn't been done often enough before, which Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud is no doubt aware of.
But the real Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud is obviously smart enough to know that he doesn't have to lower his price at all if instead he can persuade the competition, i.e. the other oil-exporting countries, to join a cartel and make joint decisions on the price of oil and how much oil each country sells. As with all agreements between competitors, negotiations and agreements like that aren't always entirely frictionless, but the Saudis have obviously preferred the cartel solution to Myriad's alternative idea so far. See OPEC (Wikipedia).
Somehow, this was also supposed to have been an argument for why Saudi Arabia is allegedly running out of oil - contrary to what is claimed by Worldometers.
WILDFIRES IN HAWAII killing over 100 people. Antarctic sea ice hitting record lows. This past July breaking records as the hottest month in known history.
All these purported “events” and more have been drilled into the heads of every American. Except — none of it is actually happening. Nothing about global warming has ever happened. It is all a hoax concocted by China.
Many people, when forced to confront these facts, will respond “wrong” or “no” or “Do you consume enough iodized salt to prevent ‘brain collapse’?”
But the real Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud is obviously smart enough to know that he doesn't have to lower his price at all if instead he can persuade the competition, i.e. the other oil-exporting countries, to join a cartel and make joint decisions on the price of oil and how much oil each country sells. As with all agreements between competitors, negotiations and agreements like that aren't always entirely frictionless, but the Saudis have obviously preferred the cartel solution to Myriad's alternative idea so far. See OPEC (Wikipedia).
If they can do that it will be a good thing. Higher oil prices make renewables more attractive.
Somehow, this was also supposed to have been an argument for why Saudi Arabia is allegedly running out of oil - contrary to what is claimed by Worldometers.
Yes, Saudi Arabia is 'running out' of oil, by which I mean if they don't limit domestic consumption it will reduce the amount available for export and the country will 'run out' of income. Saudi Arabia's GDP is dominated by oil at 44%, with manufacturing at 14% and agriculture a mere 3%. Without oil exports it would be unsustainable.
We saw in Venezuela what happens when a country relies on oil exports to prop up their economy. Saudi Arabia has a similar economy, but far less ability to support itself on local resources. Inflation is running at 10-20%, but would be much higher if oil export income dropped. The Saudis are very aware of how critical this situation is. If the price of oil drops they will have to pump more to get the income they need, and there are limits to how much they can pump. They are currently pumping seawater into gas wells to replace oil and imported gas used in domestic consumption.
They not only can do that, they have been doing it since the 1973 oil crisis (Wikipedia). It was what made the oil companies start a frantic search for oil and gas all over the world, for instance in the North Sea (Wikipedia), and countries start considering nuclear, not wind and solar, unfortunately.
However, very indirectly it contributed to Tvind building its wind turbine, which mainly served as the practical argument that wind was the better alternative to nuclear power. The Tvind wind turbine was alluded to at all anti-nuclear demonstrations since the late-1970s:
Saudi Arabia doesn't have to "limit domestic consumption." The "amount available for export" is virtually unlimited. It's not how pricing in the oil market works! Your idea that "if the price of oil drops they will have to pump more to get the income they need" couldn't be further from the truth. If the price of oil drops more than Saudi Arabia considers to be acceptable, they will negotiate with their OPEC partners to pump less until the price rises again. It is how it has been done for the past 50 years!
Interesting article: Saudis threatened US with 'major' economic fallout in oil row: Report (AA, June 10, 2023)
They may feel threatened, very long-term, by the Europeans and other countries switching to renewables, which is probably the reason why they are beginning to produce more wind power and solar energy, the energy future of Saudi Arabia (Aug 1, 2023) - while telling Americans that they are doing it to free oil for exports.
With active lawsuits in five states, TikTok videos that mix humor and outrage, and marches in the streets, it's a movement that is seeking to shape policy, sway elections and shift a narrative that its proponents say too often emphasizes climate catastrophes instead of the need to make the planet healthier and cleaner. With TikTok and Lawsuits, Gen Z Takes on Climate Change (NYT, Aug 19, 2023)
Summary by Ground News
A growing number of young people are engaged in efforts to raise awareness about global warming. With active lawsuits in five states, it's a movement that is seeking to shape policy. The youth vote's frustration with the Biden administration's climate agenda is a wild card factor in next year's presidential race. With TikTok and lawsuits, Gen Z takes on climate change (GrooundNews, Aug 20, 2023)
Since IsThisTheLife is indisposed, I bring you MTG:
This Earth-warming and carbon is actually healthy for us. We have already warmed 1 degree Celsius, and do you know what's happened since then?
Here, let me tell you: We have had more food grown since then, which feeds people. We are able to producing fossil fuels, keeps people's houses warm in the winter. That saves people's lives. People die in the cold.
This Earth-warming and carbon is actually healthy for us. It helps us to feed people, it helps keep people alive, it helps ... there's, the Earth is more green than it was years and years ago, and that's because of the Earth-warming, that's because of carbon. Marjorie Taylor Greene Thinks Global Warming Is Good for Us (@nowthisearth on YouTube)
We've drilled into various details, but my basic point is a prediction that reducing annual greenhouse gas emissions, or even ending the ongoing annual increases in annual greenhouse gas emissions, are not going to happen soon and are going to happen slowly. Unless... see below.
The reason for this is that those enjoying conveniences, creature comforts, and lifestyles that make the god-kings and emperors of the ancient world look like homebound paupers don't want to give any of them up. That's the root of the denial (as per the thread title) as well as the root of unjustified optimism; both make the promise of "no sacrifices!" The greedy corporations and corrupt governments who perpetuate the status quo make ample use of both flavors of "no sacrifices!" to get the public to play along.
Can we radically lower carbon emissions without sacrifices? Maybe. But if so, it will take a long time. Hence, my prediction above. And maybe not, which is why I've also suggested that carbon emissions declining rapidly due to involuntary sacrifices (brought on in part by the environmental consequences of not reining in growth and reducing carbon emissions much sooner) is the next most likely possibility.
Voluntary or involuntary sacrifices - that is Myriad's question
I am grateful to Myriad for making his post short and to the point, i.e. his point, the austerity gospel, instead of to the point of global warming, which he has taken no interest in since the thread began.
Some people worry about the CO2 emissions because they cause global warming. Other people have other concerns: Their main concern is to turn people into followers of the austerity gospel and sacrifice their allegedly too luxurious lifestyles, those selfish bastards: "those enjoying conveniences, creature comforts, and lifestyles that make the god-kings and emperors of the ancient world look like homebound paupers don't want to give any of them up." And the "god-kings" of Myriad's gospel are not the CEOs or televangelists with private jets. It's Jane and Joe Average with their ordinary lives and everyday concerns.
In spite of having been asked again and again about numbers to prove that the austerity gospel actually works, Myriad makes the unfounded claim that it is effective, that sacrifices are the only way to make the necessary transition go fast enough: "Can we radically lower carbon emissions without sacrifices? Maybe. But if so, it will take a long time."
Confronted with numbers that prove that a shift to renewables can go and is actually going fast in some places where an effort is being made and despite having nothing to prove that his austerity gospel serves to limit CO2 emissions, Myriad celebrates the end of a habitable due to an allegedly selfish populace unwilling to obey his austerity regime: "reducing annual greenhouse gas emissions, or even ending the ongoing annual increases in annual greenhouse gas emissions, are not going to happen soon and are going to happen slowly."
Unless, of course, the austerity regime are forced upon people "due to involuntary sacrifices."
That hot showers can be had and are being had without CO2 emissions is both an idea and a reality that threatens Myriad's ideology of austerity, which is why he remains in denial of the actual (and only) fast solution to the problem of CO2 emissions and global warming. Imagine the unspeakable horror of putting an end to global warming without sacrifices!
The actual reduction of CO2 emissions in some countries is not enough to counter the increase in other countries, but the actual effect is there:
And this is from an organization that used to downplay the role of wind and solar:
A 2008 EWG report compares IEA projections about the growth of wind power capacity and finds that it has consistently underestimated the amount of energy the wind power industry can deliver. Internationa Energy Agency (IEA): Bias against renewable energy (Wikipedia)
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
