Science news of the day thread.

[macdoc]

Good article on the grid

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/ ... id=1551709

[Brian Peacock]

Such a font of positive outlook

I'm wondering why you so often respond to my comments in this thread with the affection of derision? I can only assume that it's because you haven't really paid attention to where I stand on this issue - which I believe is the most important issue of our time, and perhaps the most significant challenge our species has faced sinse our numbers were reduced to the low tens of thousands c.80,000 years ago.

I think that prioritising the scientific evidence for anthropogenic Global Heating and highlighting how things need to rapidly change, in order to avoid exceeding planetary boundaries and to stabilise the ecologies upon which we rely for our survival, is a very positive thing, because every day that we collectively fail to meet the challenges the climate crisis presents us with means that more suffering will follow than will follow if we take the action needed today to meet those challenges with equanimity, diligence, perseverance and creativity. To highlight that more suffering rather than less inevitably follows climate inaction is a challenge, but one focused on the positive outcome of less suffering.

So you misunderstood me if you think I'm being negative. I'm pragmatically hopeful - but I'm am extremely wary of false hope and comforting just-so stories.

The successful cross regional generation and export of renewable energy is technically doable now. With the tech we have now Africa could make a massive contribution to the energy needs of its continental neighbours, as well as meeting a significant portion of its own through renewables. The technical bar is relatively low. That's a massive positive. But what are the implications and ramifications of accepting that - i.e. if it's technically achievable why isn't it happening? This is a challenging question, and perhaps you could challenge your elected representative with it, or with similar hard questions. That would also be a very positive thing. The more people who challenge 'business as usual' and demand rapid and meaningful action today makes it far more likely we'll get something approaching it tomorrow. This is also a positive outlook.

[pErvinalia]

If you don't like the planet, Brian, why don't you leave?

[macdoc]

But even if we had access to carbon free energy, without social, political and economic reforms it would only mean we'd be able to extract the last kilo of ore, sluice the last litre of toxic waste, and clear the last hectare of forest more energy efficiently.

Would you perhaps like to point where in this there is even a smidgeon of positive outlook instead of the rather clear expectation of a dystopian ending regardless of all progress towards a carbon neutral industrial civilization.

I've been engaged in the climate wars for decades with 10s of thousands of posts on climate on a variety of forums from scientific to social, and have rarely if ever seen a more negative viewpoint expressed.

summed up as why bother we're all fucked

That's not Science News....that's your personal dark, despairing view of human nature which others do not share...expect to be dissed over it.

[Brian Peacock]

But even if we had access to carbon free energy, without social, political and economic reforms it would only mean we'd be able to extract the last kilo of ore, sluice the last litre of toxic waste, and clear the last hectare of forest more energy efficiently.

Would you perhaps like to point where in this there is even a smidgeon of positive outlook instead of the rather clear expectation of a dystopian ending regardless of all progress towards a carbon neutral industrial civilization.

I've been engaged in the climate wars for decades with 10s of thousands of posts on climate on a variety of forums from scientific to social, and have rarely if ever seen a more negative viewpoint expressed.

summed up as why bother we're all fucked

That's not Science News....that's your personal dark, despairing view of human nature which others do not share...expect to be dissed over it.

Hmm. Bit gatekeepery and gaslighty there macdoc. Anyway...

The positivity is in acknowledging where we are today. Being honest about how our social, economic and political structures and systems have brought us to this point is the first step to recovery; to addressing our local, regional and global problems effectively as individuals, communities, regions and as global citizens; to transforming our thinking and approaches to resource use and our ways of living; to creating societies that can sustain themselves as they develop, fully equipped to meet the challenges of our contemporary existence.

That's not a dystopian vision of the future: the dystopian future is thinking that low emission economies are simply and alternative means to essentially the same kinds of ends as we have now - just 'greener'.

The positivity is in understanding that the topography of our societies, economies and politics is something we have created, and that they are fluid, and can be recreated in a more sustainable and just way for more sustainable and just ends.

Do you think we can create a sustainable world and still maintain the same economic and political paradigms of perpetual GDP and asset wealth growth, and with it the same systems of exploitation that have nudged us to the very edge of the precipice?

Perhaps the negativity and 'despair' you read into my posts is your own disquiet and uncertainties about what creating sustainable societies might really mean for people like you, and me - the direct beneficiaries of the current ways of doing things?

Join me comrade. The only thing you have to lose is your chains!

[macdoc]

Headed off the charts’: world’s ocean surface temperature hits record high
Scientists warn of more marine heatwaves, leading to increased risk of extreme weather
Graham Readfearn
@readfearn
Sat 8 Apr 2023 10.00 AEST
The temperature of the world’s ocean surface has hit an all-time high since satellite records began, leading to marine heatwaves around the globe, according to US government data.

Climate scientists said preliminary data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) showed the average temperature at the ocean’s surface has been at 21.1C since the start of April – beating the previous high of 21C set in 2016.

“The current trajectory looks like it’s headed off the charts, smashing previous records,” said Prof Matthew England, a climate scientist at the University of New South Wales.

more
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ecord-high

[JimC]

In some ways, I find myself between the positions of mac and Brian. I have a degree of cautious optimism about technological developments which offer a variety of solutions to the pressing problems of increasing renewable energy use, particularly to replace as fast as possible the use of coal-fired electricity generation, but also to decrease our dependence on other fossil fuels. The reality is that we will need to depend on much of the existing industrial structure of the developed world, including global corporations, to achieve this, and there are at least some indications that the corporate/capitalist world has seen the writing on the wall, and that they perceive good financial reasons to shift their emphasis away from fossil fuels.

However, both governments and corporations are still beset with "short-terminsm" - until the next election, or the next shareholder's meeting, rather that a rational consideration of a global future in the longer term. In addition, if decisions about global futures are mainly made by people in power and with wealth rather than a broader coalition of humanity, we will not have the momentum that could be achieved by a more broad based approach...

[macdoc]

My position is the technology is there to go to carbon neutral civilization tho the damage to the biome is immense already and not only due to AGW.
One of the venture capital heads said it will take a million small Manhattan Projects to get to a stable solution ...Exxon head said it is an "engineering problem" which is true if not helpful.
Humans live and even thrive in a wide variety of climes and the ocean is very much untapped in terms of population tho stressed by food exploitation.
Here is an approach to net zero by 2050
https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050

Whether the political situation will allow the pace needed to mitigate the worst case damage is pretty much unpredictable which is why the IPCC has several scenarios.

The planet will go on, humans will go on...the coast lines gonna look very different.

Wringing hands and wearing sackcloth does nothing but annoy those that ARE getting on .

[Brian Peacock]

In some ways, I find myself between the positions of mac and Brian. I have a degree of cautious optimism about technological developments which offer a variety of solutions to the pressing problems of increasing renewable energy use, particularly to replace as fast as possible the use of coal-fired electricity generation, but also to decrease our dependence on other fossil fuels. The reality is that we will need to depend on much of the existing industrial structure of the developed world, including global corporations, to achieve this, and there are at least some indications that the corporate/capitalist world has seen the writing on the wall, and that they perceive good financial reasons to shift their emphasis away from fossil fuels.

However, both governments and corporations are still beset with "short-terminsm" - until the next election, or the next shareholder's meeting, rather that a rational consideration of a global future in the longer term. In addition, if decisions about global futures are mainly made by people in power and with wealth rather than a broader coalition of humanity, we will not have the momentum that could be achieved by a more broad based approach...

Don't get me wrong, the fossil energy sector has to be replaced, and to some extent, as macdoc and Exxon point out, that's an engineering problem - or as I prefer to call it, an infrastructure issue. Indeed, it is being replaced - slowly, here-and-there - but only where it is considered commercially viable. Commercial viability is an interesting concept to scrutinise, particularly in light of the role govts can and do play in defining subsidies and tax regimes to support industry.

In the UK for example, the big four Northsea oil and gas extractors paid negative tax 2018-2020 (received more in govt incentives than the paid back in tax), and in 2019 a law was changed by ministerial instrument to absolve oil, gas, and shale gas extractors from certain costly obligations to contain environmental contamination. As the same time other laws have enforced systems of regulation and monitoring that oblige renewable energy to be sold into the commercial network at the same unit cost as those generated by gas-fired plants. These examples show us it's entirely doable for govts to structure markets this way and that according to whatever priorities they consider important or necessary, and that it's (broadly speaking) politically reasonable for govts to subsidise the shareholder value of certain industries with public money, either with direct fiscal incentives or by allowing them to shift elements of their costs onto the treasury.

With that in mind, questions turn to what sectors are the beneficiaries of these kinds of govt-level industrial strategies, and why, and how much? The 2020 IPCC report was very clear: we need to cut global CO2 emission in half by 2030, in half again by 2040, and achieve net-zero by 2050 in order to have a 66% chance of avoiding an average global temperature rise of +1.5°C by 2100. So I guess my question to you Jim is, when you say that the "reality is that we will need to depend on much of the existing industrial structure of the developed world, including global corporations" to reduce our dependence on the fossil fuel sector, what do you mean by that, what do you think that looks like? If you think that the concept of 'the market' is somehow sensitive and adverse to Global Heating then why are the CO2 PPM numbers going up? If you believe that govts have a legitimate role to play in defining and regulating market structures to address Global Heating then why are the CO2 PPM numbers going up? Well, you put your finger on a major factor in that last paragraph Jim, so what does that tell us about the 'reality' of the 'existing industrial structures of the developed world, including global corporations'? To begin with that one I would broaden it still further, and ask what does that tell us about the reality of the exist value structures of the developed world, of which global corporations are merely an emergent expression?

This is why I think we need to challenge our personal values and the social values we express through economics and politics. My original point to macdoc was made to highlight that as good and as desperately needed as the transition to de-carbonised energy economies is, it will do little to address the root causes of this particular crisis: the pathological avoidance by those with wealth and power to engage in rational consideration of a global future shaped in the interests of humanity and the ecologies upon which we rely for our survival - and upon which we will always rely.

[macdoc]

Good read about the US program

America’s chance to become a clean-energy superpower
Getting the most ambitious energy and climate laws in American history through Congress was not easy. Now comes the hard part

https://www.economist.com/united-states ... superpower

[Brian Peacock]

My position is the technology is there to go to carbon neutral civilization tho the damage to the biome is immense already and not only due to AGW.
One of the venture capital heads said it will take a million small Manhattan Projects to get to a stable solution ...Exxon head said it is an "engineering problem" which is true if not helpful.
Humans live and even thrive in a wide variety of climes and the ocean is very much untapped in terms of population tho stressed by food exploitation.
Here is an approach to net zero by 2050
https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050

Interesting your should reference the Institute of Economic Affairs*, a corporate-backed, Ayn Rand inspired, right-wing think tank.

The biggest innovation opportunities concern advanced batteries, hydrogen electrolysers, and direct air capture and storage. Together, these three technology areas make vital contributions the reductions in CO2 emissions between 2030 and 2050 in our pathway. Innovation over the next ten years – not only through research and development (R&D) and demonstration but also through deployment – needs to be accompanied by the large-scale construction of the infrastructure the technologies will need. This includes new pipelines to transport captured CO2 emissions and systems to move hydrogen around and between ports and industrial zones.

It sounds good doesn't it? Do you see any problems with this, or any glaring omissions in the report?

Whether the political situation will allow the pace needed to mitigate the worst case damage is pretty much unpredictable which is why the IPCC has several scenarios.

Indeed, but let's not forget the economic situation either. Nonetheless, the IPCC is clear that there remains only one viable pathway to limiting global warming to >1.5°C by the end of the century, and it's not by basically continuing as we are while waiting until govts have subsidised corporate R&D into battery, hydrogen, and carbon capture capacity, built the infrastructure needed for them to operate 'efficiently', and created a viable, profitable market for corporate investors by 2050.

Mobilising the capital for large-scale infrastructure calls for closer co operation between developers, investors, public financial institutions and governments. Reducing risks for investors will be essential to ensure successful and affordable clean energy transitions. Many emerging market and developing economies, which rely mainly on public funding for new energy projects and industrial facilities, will need to reform their policy and regulatory frameworks to attract more private finance. International flows of long-term capital to these economies will be needed to support the development of both existing and emerging clean energy markets.

Do you think privatising publicly held energy assets is the best way forward, or is nationalising privately held energy assets the way to go? I know which side the Institute of Economic Affairs* in on - but what about you?

The planet will go on, humans will go on...the coast lines gonna look very different.

The Planet surely will continue, but that's not really the question is it? Do we want a Mad Max future for humanity, or a Star Trek future? At least in both of those futures we didn't exceed planetary boundaries and become Venus Nova - so maybe either is a net gain eh?

Wringing hands and wearing sackcloth does nothing but annoy those that ARE getting on .

Interesting that you should latch onto traditional metaphors for repentance there. Is there something the political and economic paradigms that have brought us to this point should repent for? Is there something for which you would like to repent brother macdoc?
___________

* edit: Correction: IEA is the International Energy Agency NOT the Institute of Economic Affairs. The International Energy Agency was set up after the OPEC crisis to represents the interests of the oil and gas industries of non-OPEC countries. It has since expanded to represent the interests of all major fossil fuel producing countries under a framework overseen by the OECD. I've left my comments unchanged because my points remain regardless.

[macdoc]

I think the traditional response to the blather above is fuck off.
....
Bring some science to the table instead of your vague meanderings and attributions with no basis in fact.

••••
Jim - the planet will hit 1.5c over industrial age this decade with El NINO looming.

Frontiers
https://www.frontiersin.org › fmars.2023.1130769 › full
14 Mar 2023 — The projections of three climate models consistently suggest that global warming will reach 1.5°C in the 2020s and 2.0°C during 2040-2050 (Table 2). CMCC-ESM2 ...

We are at 1.1 already and the oceans at their hottest yet and it's only mid 2023.

[rainbow]

If you don't like the planet, Brian, why don't you leave?

Yeah, bugger off to where you came from!

Y ou Aliens come here and rape our bears and shoot our women

[rainbow]

Wringing hands and wearing sackcloth does nothing but annoy those that ARE getting on .

Yes but cleaner energy and circular economies that are being created by technology only go so far.

The rich countries need to reduce their consumption, and pay a higher price for it from the poorer, but resource-rich countries.
I mean Africa and South America. They produce most of the commodity metals required for the green economy, but get less than the Western-based traders that control the markets.

[JimC]

Brian, I simply doubt whether the massive political, economic and social changes you were describing have much chance of happening, and that our current structures (modified, and leaning towards the progressive side of politics as far as realistically possible) will simply have to do. It is increasingly true that renewable energy is becoming more economic than fossil fuels, and that a steadily increasing proportion of the population wants politicians to push for action. If that is not enough to ensure effective change in time, then so be it...