@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
I'm not interested in your posturing and avoidance of facts, that's for sure. Show some intellectual courage and honesty, and then I'll read you and discuss with you, mon général.
To what "facts" do you refer? So far I have seen very little in the way of concrete factual discussion from you - only various condemnations of supposed disbelief.
There are a number of salient facts that threaten an effective world-wide response to the challenge, and you have avoided discussion of all of them. For example;
1. Fast developing nations in Asia, prominently including China and India, and many other south Asia nations in between, are (understandably) placing a higher value on rapid economic development than in reducing equally fast rising CO2 emissions, in part for the political purposes of their governments. For this reason Western advocates of coordinated worldwide action tend to give them a pass on needed ( see Paris Accords) actions. However, arresting the warming trend will require such action on their part, and the Western nations can do it alone only by effectively shutting down their own economies - a fact not yet faced in current IPCC policy.
2. The social, economic and political concerns driving China, India and the others are hardly unique to them. No government I'm aware of yet has the political power to impose the prescriptions of AGW zealots on their populations, without being overthrown, and none so far have been willing to try.
A decade ago Chancellor Merkel, in order to undercut the then powerful Green Party in Germany, directed the quick shutdown of about 40% of Germany's Nuclear power plants and prohibited the construction of replacements. The replacement for this rich source of electrical energy was largely coal-fired plants, and despite extensive continuing efforts in the development of wind power, the rise in coal consumption ( and emissions) continues today.
President Macron of France has similarly issued a policy statement calling out for the phase out of the French nuclear power establishment (which today produces over 70% of France's electrical power). Accompanying that he imposed new taxes on the consumption of petroleum fuels (perhaps as a step towards compensation). The result was a continuing public uprising against the new taxes and, for now at least, the withdrawal of Macron's new taxes themselves. The possibility of replacing the ~70% of France's electrical power with wind and solar in the next century is about zero. Meanwhile Macron proceeds in a leadership role for the Paris accords which, if France follows the policy Macron has outlined, France will surely fail to come even close to the emission reductions they have so piously promised.
These contradictions are not unique to Germany and France - all nations face them. The United States has created a regulatory regime that effectively prohibits the construction of new nuclear power stations, putting us on, but a little behind, the same road as Germany and France. So far the gains from widespread fracking for both natural gas and high quality petroleum have yielded enough gains in both costs and emissions to create the illusion that we can continue on this path while continuing the reduction in our emissions. However that won't in yield the desired long-term outcome - the benefits of replacing coal with natural gas sources having a bit less than half the emissions are real, but don't continue long if we are, at the same time, shutting down a zero emissions source of the same magnitude. Meanwhile continued investments in new wind and solar plants, have more than doubled their total power output , raising it from a miniscule to a still very small total of total consumption - hardly a solution.
Canada has abundant natural sources of both coal and petroleum. It is (like the United States) vigorously pursuing export markets for b0th. About 60% of that is bitumen extracted from tar sands, a process which itself requires energy about equal to that released in the final product, making this a source of energy about equivalent to that of coal in terms of associated emissions. Meanwhile per capita emissions remain very high.
3. Ongoing rapid economic development in Africa and South America will yield situations analogous to those described above , and with populations likely no more inclined to accept the required constraints on their standard of living than their European, American or Chinese counterparts.
In view of all this it is extremely difficult to describe the various actions being prescribed by AGW zealots as a "solution" to the problem they foresee. Either more action, well beyond that which even the governments of developed countries are able to achieve with tolerable social and political outcomes, will be required, or we will have to learn to live and cope with the effects of continued warming - or both. So far I see very little in the way of a candid acknowledgment of these facts in the public discourse.
It appears that some AGW zealots are trying to scare us into harsh government actions that will likely yield only revolution and disorder. However, the fact is that the rate of warming has been consistently less than they have forecast. More rational, executable, and effective solutions than those they have prescribed are indeed available, if we focus on both mitigating the effects of warming, and reducing the emissions that are contributing to it. Using the best currently available reduced emissions fuels and technologies to extend the time available for developing advanced new low/zero emissions technologies will like be essential for this to occur. That means, among other things, more fracking for low emissions natural gas and the continued use of nuclear power.
None of these contradictions are openly acknowledged by most AGW zealots. If we are to find a solution that must change.
