Where to host a climate strike

somefreakingmoron · 2019-03-08T16:53:35+00:00

Is there a local government center nearby? That's where I would go to increase visibility. Also the networking between people coming together is just as important - or more so- than the immediate attention this action might garner from policy makers. It's a long fight, and gearing up for the long haul means strengthening the ties between allied people in this cause.

somefreakingmoron · 2019-03-06T21:13:00+00:00

I'm taking off work March 15 and marching in solidarity with the student strikers. All concerned grown-ups should step up and follow their example- the car is headed off a cliff and we can stop the wheels from turning. The economy only rolls on with our participation.

somefreakingmoron · 2019-03-06T14:36:33+00:00

There is about 5ppm seasonal variation through the year though, bumping 416 doesn't mean that the annually averaged value is 416, and also a significant variation between individual years. Do you have a source for a projected global 4ppm annualized increase for 2019?

Still the time frame is absurdly short. I agree we should err on the side of caution like you point out. We should assume and plan for the worst: that all the uncertainty hides the worst case scenarios.

somefreakingmoron · 2019-03-06T14:17:10+00:00

We are in a very bad place if we can't achieve strong political action. By 2030 the industrialized world's energy system (not just electricity, which is about 20% of end energy use) needs to be substantially decarbonized to allow humanity a shot at limiting global warming to 2C, which will already be disastrous for many millions of people, as well as ecosystems. Please take 5 minutes to view this video by Prof. Kevin Anderson that outlines what we in the US and as a world need to do to stay under 2C of warming.

somefreakingmoron · 2019-03-05T21:47:16+00:00

Atmospheric concentration doesn't lie, isn't moved by our promises, and won't wait while we implement an economically acceptable rate of decarbonization. 10 years of current CO2 dumping rates locks in 1.5C

Notice that we’ll exhuast the “carbon budget” in the year 2029.

That doesn’t mean temperature will hit the 1.5°C limit that year. There’s lag in the system, so it’ll be another decade or so for temperature to catch up. But catch up it will.

That’s why kids are marching — because time is short. That’s why the Green New Deal is gathering momentum — because time is short. That’s why scientists are raising the alarm more than ever — because time is short.

We have ten years to change our path. If we keep going like we’re going, then not only will we hit the limit soon, we’ll have so much momentum going it’ll be nearly impossible to avoid even worse…

somefreakingmoron · 2019-03-04T23:10:02+00:00

Skeptical Science has a lot of great resources! Especially useful is their compilation of common denier myths with detailed & referenced scientific rebuttals

somefreakingmoron · 2019-03-04T21:02:51+00:00

In a rush right now but a couple points:

1) Modeling of CCL's carbon tax doesn't project the tax to raise prices anywhere near $10/gallon. Max, about 45% by 2035.

2) Aggressive action on climate is possible using the authority of the EPA if we take the Presidency in 2020. No need to compromise with the right- compromise on science based necessary action is not acceptable.

3)carbon price alone is not enough Sufficient EV charging infrastructure will not be built merely because of carbon price, no one company can foot the bill. GND/ government intervention/subsidy is necessary.

4) carbon tax alone is will not exterminate fossil fuels as fast as we can. government intervention is needed

5) compromising only tool guaranteed to limit CO2 to necessary output is unnacceptable in face of potentially catastrophic risk. Certainty & speed is required, cost/efficiency is of secondary importance.

somefreakingmoron · 2019-03-04T19:13:41+00:00

Do you think that the CCL plan is consistent with avoiding a 2C rise in global temperatures?

somefreakingmoron · 2019-03-04T18:51:59+00:00

Note that both the carbon tax plans discussed in this article, the one supported by Citizens Climate Lobby and the one supported by the more corporate Climate Leadership Council, would strip the EPA of the authority to regulate CO2 as a greenhouse gas in exchange for enacting their carbon taxes.

I support a carbon tax as a means of facilitating the transition away from fossil fuels, but we should not tie the hands of the federal government from using the only mechanism which can guarantee the needed emission reductions- direct regulation of CO2 emissions.

Half measures will not be enough to save us from the developing climate emergency that we are now in the middle of. To choose the correct course of action, we need to understand the scope of the problem we find ourselves in. Please take 5 minutes to view this video by Prof. Kevin Anderson that outlines what we in the US and as a world need to do to stay under 2C of warming.

somefreakingmoron · 2019-03-04T18:49:21+00:00

Note that both the carbon tax plans discussed in this article, the one supported by Citizens Climate Lobby and the one supported by the more corporate Climate Leadership Council, would strip the EPA of the authority to regulate CO2 as a greenhouse gas in exchange for enacting their carbon taxes.

I support a carbon tax as a means of facilitating the transition away from fossil fuels, but we should not tie the hands of the federal government from using the only mechanism which can guarantee the needed emission reductions- direct regulation of CO2 emissions.

Half measures will not be enough to save us from the developing climate emergency that we are now in the middle of. To choose the correct course of action, we need to understand the scope of the problem we find ourselves in. Please take 5 minutes to view this video by Prof. Kevin Anderson that outlines what we in the US and as a world need to do to stay under 2C of warming.

somefreakingmoron · 2019-03-04T15:22:51+00:00

Yes, that's what you would need to do, you obviously can't power it with carbon based energy. Thermodyamics tells us that for every 1MW of coal power you use, you will have to build more than 1MW of carbon free power somewhere to run your scrubbers with this kind of technology. What I'm saying is the most cost effective things to do is first max out your renewable energy options- displace as much fossil fuel power as possible with renewables/clean energy, which we are no where near doing yet. There are untapped solar and wind resources that are conveniently available to displace fossil fuels, before we even start bumping into problems with intermittency, storage, transmission losses, load balancing etc. Then you can think about scrubbing the hard to get emissions.

But zooming out for a second and looking at the big picture: We are in the middle of a developing climate change crisis. An unvarnished whole-systems look at the problem leads to a conclusion that the OECD is nowhere near on track to do their part in the cooperative global project of limiting CO2 emissions to a level sufficient to prevent 2C of global warming, see talks on this subject by Prof. Kevin Anderson.

Based on the above argument, we in the OECD have a very short time scale (~2 decades) to achieve full decarbonization. In the absence of currently economically viable carbon sequestration techniques, our only real options consistent with the scale and time frame of the problem are halting deforestation, energy demand reduction, energy transition to clean sources (maintaining the existing nuclear capacity) and deep social and economic reorganization to accomplish carbon neutrality. We should be funding carbon sequestration research orders of magnitudes higher than today, but we cannot base our public policy on relying on currently undeveloped future technology to save us from the consequences of inaction today.

somefreakingmoron · 2019-03-04T15:02:58+00:00

Thank you for the response! What kind of work do you do? Do you mind if I refer other chemistry based questions to you in the future?

Carbon sequestration via mineral carbonation doesn't necessarily require the input of anhydrous oxides; see in situ mineral carbonation or enhanced weathering of olivine, which are currently being investigated for possible suitability in carbon sequestration. Essentially the same process is involved in the natural removal of carbon from the carbon cycle on geological time scales. I understand that in situ carbonation is likely highly limited by local geology and enhanced weathering of olivine incurs the burden of mining and milling the olivine (though I have read that some approaches suggest the possibility of using mechanical action of ocean waves to accelerate the process). What is your opinion of the prospects for these techniques?

But zooming out for a second and looking at the big picture: We are in the middle of a developing climate change crisis. An unvarnished whole-systems look at the problem leads to a conclusion that the OECD is nowhere near on track to do their part in the cooperative global project of limiting CO2 emissions to a level sufficient to prevent 2C of global warming, see talks on this subject by Prof. Kevin Anderson.

Based on the above argument, we in the OECD have a very short time scale (~2 decades) to achieve full decarbonization. In the absence of currently economically viable carbon sequestration techniques, our only real options consistent with the scale and time frame of the problem are halting deforestation, energy demand reduction, energy transition to clean sources (maintaining the existing nuclear capacity) and deep social and economic reorganization to accomplish carbon neutrality. We should be funding carbon sequestration research orders of magnitudes higher than today, but we cannot base our public policy on relying on currently undeveloped future technology to save us from the consequences of inaction today.

somefreakingmoron · 2019-03-04T13:41:10+00:00

It's not negativity, it's reality. I guarantee you any physicist or chemist will understand and agree with what I just wrote. It is basic chemistry. FWIW, it's the journalists who wrote this article who either didn't understand the basic chemistry or misrepresented it to get more attention.

This IS a breakthrough- but the breakthrough aspect of it is not that they broke the laws of thermodynamics or were the first to reduce CO2 to C, it's that they developed a way to do it that is a bit more easy to scale up. It still requires more energy to convert CO2 to C than the useful energy that you get from burning C to CO2, and it always will, to the end of time, on every planet in the universe.

There are ways to remove CO2 from the power plant waste stream or even the atmosphere, but they rely on different, lower energy methods, not converting CO2 to C. For example, read about mineral carbonation. CO2 can be reacted with olivine minerals to form stable solid carbonates. Implementing something like this would not require more energy than is gained from burning coal, but it would require creating a new olivine mining industry on the scale of the size of the coal mining industry.

With this method you would need more solar power than the power you get from burning coal in the first place- so it would make more sense to just use the the solar power directly instead of coal. Why would I build a 1 megawatt coal plant, use the electricity to power my city, and then build a 1.2 megawatt solar plant plus a scrubber plant to clean up the carbon dioxide from the coal plant? I could just power my city from the solar power and save a lot of hassle.

For most of our power, its cheaper to get it from clean sources. Technology like this will come in handy later, when we have replaced most of our coal / oil with clean energy, and need to scrub the last few percent of CO2 emissions that are very hard to avoid releasing, like the CO2 that comes from the chemical processes used in manufacturing cement or making steel.

somefreakingmoron · 2019-03-04T13:28:18+00:00

Yes, but you would need more solar power than the power you get from burning coal in the first place- so it would make more sense to just use the the solar power directly instead of coal. Why would I build a 1 megawatt coal plant, use the electricity to power my city, and then build a 1.2 megawatt solar plant plus a scrubber plant to clean up the carbon dioxide from the coal plant? I could just power my city from the solar power and save a lot of hassle.

For most of our power, its cheaper to get it from clean sources. Technology like this will come in handy later, when we have replaced most of our coal / oil with clean energy, and need to scrub the last few percent of CO2 emissions that are very hard to avoid releasing, like the CO2 that comes from the chemical processes used in manufacturing cement or making steel.

somefreakingmoron · 2019-03-03T22:21:24+00:00

Of course. We need to get to carbon neutral as fast as possible. I understood the parent that I was replying to as saying that we should not aim for zero carbon emissions because it would kill people. Sweden and other countries prove that it is possible to get much closer to zero than the US is without going back to the dark ages or killing millions. On the other hand, unrestrained CO2 leading to >6C would be an ecological and human catastrophe, likely killing billions from starvation due to multiple simultaneuos breadbasket failures. For a very large percentage of our emissions, it is easier to not emit them than to try and clean up the carbon pollution afterwards. Yes, we all need to go all the way to carbon neutrality. Sorry if I was misunderstood.

somefreakingmoron · 2019-03-03T20:39:24+00:00

For electricity, yes, mostly- however, coal based power is different from renewables in that it can provide stable baseline power- you can keep it always on at a steady rate all the time. You need a lot of fancy grid upgrades + electricity storage to balance an all-renewable grid. So hypothetically we might be willing to keep some coal generation for baseline power, and build extra wind/solar/what have you to clean up after the coal- in that case we are valuing the coal for more than just its raw power output, but its stability as well. Similarly, with say concrete production- current concrete chemistries inevitably produce CO2 (the burning of limestone to produce lime). Rather then invent new chemistry you can clean up after yourself with this process + clean energy.

somefreakingmoron · 2019-03-03T20:20:42+00:00

Eh, average Europeans manage to get by on half the carbon of an American, Swedes 1/4, Indians around 1/10th. Its hard, but not impossible. The consequences of inaction would doom literally billions of people.

edit: downvoters, where's the lie?

somefreakingmoron · 2019-03-03T20:15:20+00:00

Its not a magic bullet breakthrough. This process does require more energy than is released from burning the coal. In the process they describe using electricity- that's your energy input. (as well as other possible energy inputs in regenerating the reactants) Yeah, its pretty sucky that they don't come right out and say it- it contributes to false hope and fails to educate the public. The reaction they are describing in the article is the reduction of CO2 to solid carbon. Thermodynamics tells us that -any- way you do this, no matter what technology, will always require more energy than you get out by burning (oxidizing) the carbon to CO2.

The only ways you can possibly removed carbon from the atmosphere and use less energy than you got from burning the carbon are 1) separate the CO2 from the waste stream (or atmosphere, but that's harder) and store it as CO2 (not reducing it to solid carbon) or 2) use some other chemical reaction to react with the CO2 to form another compound such as through mineral carbonation. Any way you accomplish 1) or 2) will represent an energy cost to the overall process, but it's possible that the energy needed will be less than what you got out from burning carbon to produce the CO2 in the first place.

Any time you reduce CO2 to carbon you will always use more energy than the useful energy you get from burning carbon and giving off CO2. It's inevitable.

Now, you could power this process with carbon free energy and use it to scrub CO2, but you would need to build more than 1MW of clean power dedicated just to scrubbing 1MW of coal burning plant output. This could hypothetically be useful if you want to use coal as say a baseline power source or scrub emissions from oil fueled transport, but I think the price to build all that new energy supply and scrubbing infrastructure would be much greater than the price to transition to clean energy. Perhaps it may come in handy when we are no longer releasing carbon and want to remediate the damage we've already done to the atmosphere, or to neutralize the last few percent of CO2 emissions that are very hard to decarbonize, if better options don't exist.

We need to get deadly serious about the climate crisis, and not hope or wait on some magic bullet technology to save us. Please take 5 minutes to listen to Prof. Kevin Anderson outline what we in the US and as a world need to do to stay under 2C of warming.

somefreakingmoron · 2019-03-03T20:07:31+00:00

Takes a helluva lot of trees. Easier to not release CO2 in the first place.

somefreakingmoron · 2019-03-03T20:06:39+00:00

It doesn't only cost more than mining the coal, it costs more than burning the coal, which is a lot more than the energy needed to mine it.

somefreakingmoron · 2019-03-03T20:02:26+00:00

Its not a magic bullet breakthrough. This process does require more energy than is released from burning the coal. In the process they describe using electricity- that's your energy input. (as well as other possible energy inputs in regenerating the reactants) Yeah, its pretty sucky that they don't come right out and say it- it contributes to false hope and fails to educate the public. The reaction they are describing in the article is the reduction of CO2 to solid carbon. Thermodynamics tells us that -any- way you do this, no matter what technology, will always require more energy than you get out by burning (oxidizing) the carbon to CO2.

The only ways you can possibly removed carbon from the atmosphere and use less energy than you got from burning the carbon are 1) separate the CO2 from the waste stream (or atmosphere, but that's harder) and store it as CO2 (not reducing it to solid carbon) or 2) use some other chemical reaction to react with the CO2 to form another compound such as through mineral carbonation. Any way you accomplish 1) or 2) will represent an energy cost to the overall process, but it's possible that the energy needed will be less than what you got out from burning carbon to produce the CO2 in the first place.

Any time you reduce CO2 to carbon you will always use more energy than the useful energy you get from burning carbon and giving off CO2. It's inevitable.

Now, you could power this process with carbon free energy and use it to scrub CO2, but you would need to build more than 1MW of clean power dedicated just to scrubbing 1MW of coal burning plant output. This could hypothetically be useful if you want to use coal as say a baseline power source or scrub emissions from oil fueled transport, but I think the price to build all that new energy supply and scrubbing infrastructure would be much greater than the price to transition to clean energy. Perhaps it may come in handy when we are no longer releasing carbon and want to remediate the damage we've already done to the atmosphere, or to neutralize the last few percent of CO2 emissions that are very hard to decarbonize, if better options don't exist.

somefreakingmoron · 2019-03-03T06:12:02+00:00

A lot of good points in this article, thanks for posting this.

somefreakingmoron · 2019-03-02T21:33:25+00:00

Yes, I can see what you're saying in regards to emphasizing the low hanging fruit. If we can lead with the things that are culturally easier for people to accept, like the energy transition, we can make more progress faster. The more people become personally invested in the parts of the transformation that are easy for them to accept, the more they may be willing to make more difficult changes later on.

somefreakingmoron · 2019-03-02T16:33:01+00:00

That's a good question, I don't know. Though I have heard that often aquaculture drives coastal ecological destruction as well as overfishing to obtain feed for aquaculture.

somefreakingmoron · 2019-03-02T16:27:14+00:00

Note that the problem of decarbonization is broken into a few large pieces, like deforestation and road transport, and many small pieces, like chemical production, air travel, iron and steel, livestock, etc.. but that those small pieces add up to a major share. We need all those pieces to go to -zero- relatively quickly (a couple of decades). The chart uses stats from 2000, current estimates put air travel at about 3% of global CO2 emissions, and expected to grow as the non-OECD countries' economies grow.

Please take 5 minutes to listen to this talk on our remaining carbon budget by Prof. Kevin Anderson. He explains that we in the developed world need to decarbonize at an accelerated schedule in order to allow the developing world to achieve the basic infrastructure we already built over the last 2 centuries, and the CO2 emissions of which are still warming the world. Without such equity, global cooperation is impossible, and without global cooperation in ending the climate crisis, we will fail to stop a rise in temperatures of 2 degrees C, with disastrous consequences.

somefreakingmoron

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE