Climate Change News & Discussions

[weatheriscool]

'It's not tolerable anymore': Southwest residents endure more severe heat waves thanks to CC
Source: Yahoo News

Ben Adler·Senior Editor
Thu, June 16, 2022, 7:15 PM

The Southwest suffered through another intense heat wave over the weekend, with Denver, Las Vegas and Phoenix all posting record high temperatures over 100 degrees Fahrenheit on Saturday. Death Valley, in California, reached a record high for June 11 of 122 degrees. In Las Vegas, the mercury rose to a record-setting 109 degrees two days in a row. Then the heat dome moved eastward, with a high temperature of 96 degrees in the Twin Cities of Minnesota.

“Now the heat dome is languishing over the Tennessee Valley and bringing highs of 95 to 100 degrees from the Corn Belt to the Carolinas, with exceptional humidity in the Midwest exacerbating just how sultry it feels,” the Washington Post reported on Wednesday afternoon. “High humidity levels are contributing to heat index values pushing 115 degrees in spots.”

This dramatic heat wave before summer has even officially begun isn’t a freak occurrence; it’s an increasingly common, and dangerous, condition due to climate change. A 2019 study found that severe heat events per year in Las Vegas increased from an average of 3.3 events per year from 2007-2009 to 4.7 per year from 2010-2016. Since 2017, 570 people have died of heat-related causes in Clark County, which includes Las Vegas, up from 241 heat-related deaths in the previous five years, according to the Southern Nevada Health District.

Residents of some of the hottest cities say extreme heat is having a devastating impact, especially on the most disadvantaged residents.

Read more: https://www.yahoo.com/news/its-not-tole ... 00830.html

[wjfox]

[caltrek]

United Nations Chief: Fossil Fuel Companies “Have Humanity by the Throat”
by Fiona Harvey
June 18, 2022

Introduction:

(Mother Jones) Fossil fuel companies and the banks that finance them “have humanity by the throat,” the UN secretary general has said, in a “blistering” attack on the industry and its backers, who are pulling in record profits amid energy prices sent soaring by the Ukraine war.

António Guterres compared fossil fuel companies to the tobacco companies that continued to push their addictive products while concealing or attacking health advice that showed clear links between smoking and cancer, the first time he has drawn such a parallel.

He said: “We seem trapped in a world where fossil fuel producers and financiers have humanity by the throat. For decades, the fossil fuel industry has invested heavily in pseudoscience and public relations—with a false narrative to minimize their responsibility for climate change and undermine ambitious climate policies.”

“They exploited precisely the same scandalous tactics as big tobacco decades before. Like tobacco interests, fossil fuel interests and their financial accomplices must not escape responsibility.”

Speaking to the Major Economies Forum, a climate conference organized by the White House, Guterres also castigated governments that are failing to rein in fossil fuels, and in many cases seeking increased production of gas, oil, and even coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel. He said: “Nothing could be more clear or present than the danger of fossil fuel expansion. Even in the short-term, fossil fuels don’t make political or economic sense.”

Read more here: https://www.motherjones.com/environmen ... e-throat/

caltrek: The "news" here is that this analysis is coming from the U.N. Secretary General as the facts he has outlined have been known by many of us for decades now.

[weatheriscool]

Most major US cities are underprepared for rising temperatures

by Michelle Einstein, University of California, Los Angeles
https://phys.org/news/2022-06-major-cit ... tures.html

This month, Denver, Las Vegas and Phoenix all posted record high temperatures. And across the nation, Americans are ramping up for a scorching summer. Yet despite more frequent and intense heat waves on the horizon, cities are underprepared to deal with the challenge, according to a UCLA-led research team.

Their new study, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, analyzed municipal planning documents from 50 large cities across the country. The researchers found that 78% of these cities' climate plans mentioned heat as a problem, but few offered a comprehensive strategy to address it. Even fewer addressed the disproportionate impact heat has on low-income residents and communities of color.

"Just a couple of years ago, very few cities were talking about preparing for rising temperatures, so it's an important step that heat is becoming a larger part of the conversation," said V. Kelly Turner, lead author of the study and co-director of the UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation. "But without concrete steps to protect residents, cities are lagging behind the problem."

[weatheriscool]

United Nations Chief: Fossil Fuel Companies “Have Humanity by the Throat”
by Fiona Harvey
June 18, 2022

Introduction:

(Mother Jones) Fossil fuel companies and the banks that finance them “have humanity by the throat,” the UN secretary general has said, in a “blistering” attack on the industry and its backers, who are pulling in record profits amid energy prices sent soaring by the Ukraine war.

António Guterres compared fossil fuel companies to the tobacco companies that continued to push their addictive products while concealing or attacking health advice that showed clear links between smoking and cancer, the first time he has drawn such a parallel.

He said: “We seem trapped in a world where fossil fuel producers and financiers have humanity by the throat. For decades, the fossil fuel industry has invested heavily in pseudoscience and public relations—with a false narrative to minimize their responsibility for climate change and undermine ambitious climate policies.”

“They exploited precisely the same scandalous tactics as big tobacco decades before. Like tobacco interests, fossil fuel interests and their financial accomplices must not escape responsibility.”

Speaking to the Major Economies Forum, a climate conference organized by the White House, Guterres also castigated governments that are failing to rein in fossil fuels, and in many cases seeking increased production of gas, oil, and even coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel. He said: “Nothing could be more clear or present than the danger of fossil fuel expansion. Even in the short-term, fossil fuels don’t make political or economic sense.”

Read more here: https://www.motherjones.com/environmen ... e-throat/

caltrek: The "news" here is that this analysis is coming from the U.N. Secretary General as the facts he has outlined have been known by many of us for decades now.

The problem is fossil fuels are the humane source of energy at this point of history. The vast majority of humanity that isn't rich needs cheap food and depends on prices being low or standards of living take a dive. Destroying fossil fuels as the UN and the green movement wants to do could end up killing a lot of people and causing a great deal of pain and suffering. Think about humanity my friend. Think about solutions to help move us away from fossil fuels without causing unimaginable pain on us little people.

The democrats need to come up with a plan that doesn't just focus on green energy and moving away form fossil fuels as the be all and end all. They need to consider humanity and the price of goods with the effects it has on the population. Their is a price to be paid at election day for not doing this and I assure you that forgetting this will be painful on the democrats.

I think we should do this over 50 years instead of 10. The idea of ending fossil fuels by 2030-2035 is insane. If you're going to do it you should lead with government subsidies that lower the prices of electric cars below that of fossil fuels. You should accept that we need nuclear, hydro and great investments into fusion. I support wind and solar but they're not going to transform our society into what you and your movement wants. We need to be realistic.

I support government and would like to see policies that favor the poor in the plan to transform our society.

[caltrek]

United Nations Chief: Fossil Fuel Companies “Have Humanity by the Throat”
by Fiona Harvey
June 18, 2022

Introduction:

...

Read more here: https://www.motherjones.com/environmen ... e-throat/

caltrek: The "news" here is that this analysis is coming from the U.N. Secretary General as the facts he has outlined have been known by many of us for decades now.

The problem is fossil fuels are the humane source of energy at this point of history. The vast majority of humanity that isn't rich needs cheap food and depends on prices being low or standards of living take a dive. Destroying fossil fuels as the UN and the green movement wants to do could end up killing a lot of people and causing a great deal of pain and suffering. Think about humanity my friend. Think about solutions to help move us away from fossil fuels without causing unimaginable pain on us little people.

The democrats need to come up with a plan that doesn't just focus on green energy and moving away form fossil fuels as the be all and end all. They need to consider humanity and the price of goods with the effects it has on the population. Their is a price to be paid at election day for not doing this and I assure you that forgetting this will be painful on the democrats.

I think we should do this over 50 years instead of 10. The idea of ending fossil fuels by 2030-2035 is insane. If you're going to do it you should lead with government subsidies that lower the prices of electric cars below that of fossil fuels. You should accept that we need nuclear, hydro and great investments into fusion. I support wind and solar but they're not going to transform our society into what you and your movement wants. We need to be realistic.

I support government and would like to see policies that favor the poor in the plan to transform our society.

What is "humane" about an energy source that cause problems related to global climate change?

Doesn't the Green movement have as a central tenant replacing fossil fuels with fuels that are both renewable and cheaper than fossil fuels?

We don't have fifty years. "Go slow we need to ease into things" type of arguments are what have led us to the current crisis. We need to address the problems of global climate change now. Already, some of which you have helped document, we see extreme weather, food supplies threatened by extreme weather, coastal flooding, draughts in some places and flooding in others, heightened frequency and/or severity of hurricanes and/or tornados, greater frequency of forest fires due to heat and dehydration, etc. Not ending fossil fuels ASAP is insane in the face of that crisis. Again, a crisis brought on by inadequate responses of the past. At the very least, continued use of carbon based fuels needs to be coupled with implementation of technologies to remove carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere.

Yes, subsidies to encourage a switch to non-carbon based renewables would be a step in the right direction, as would removal of subsidies for carbon fuel consumption. Wind and solar have a very great potential. Especially when combined with hydroelectric, tidal generated power, hydrogen, and in conjunction with increases in battery efficiency and small scale alternative battery related energy generation.

Yes, I also support "policies that favor the poor in the plan to transform our society." Policies that by their very nature should take into account the negative affects of global climate change upon the poor and those least resilient to cope with those affects. One of those policy planks should include retraining of those in the fossil fuel industry so that they have opportunities to increase their standard of living rather than face unemployment and under employment.

We need to act, and we need to act now.

[weatheriscool]

Research reveals northernmost glaciers on the globe are melting at record speed
https://phys.org/news/2022-06-reveals-n ... globe.html
by University of Bristol

Greenland's many small glaciers are melting at great speed, and the melting is increasing, especially in the Arctic regions, where the temperature rise is worst.

Now, researchers have studied precisely how much mass these glaciers—not connected to the ice sheet—have lost in recent decades.

In the Arctic, temperatures are rising more than in the rest of the world, and this is causing the northernmost glaciers in Greenland to melt at record speed. This is shown in a new study by researchers led by DTU Space in collaboration with Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS), NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Utrecht University, University of Bristol, Technical University Munich, and the University of Copenhagen.

The study focuses on smaller glaciers with no connection to the Greenland Ice Sheet. These peripheral glaciers make up only about four percent of Greenland's ice-covered areas, corresponding to approximately the same area as Ireland (72,000 km2), but they contribute as much as 11 percent of the total loss of ice from Greenland's ice-covered areas. Thus, they are a major contributor to global sea level rise.

"The loss of ice from these small glaciers occurs because they are more sensitive to ongoing temperature changes and therefore melt faster than we see in many other places in the Arctic," said Professor Shfaqat Abbas Khan from DTU Space, lead author of the paper published in Geophysical Research Letters.

[caltrek]

Can We Trust Capitalism to Solve Climate Change
by Amanda Silberling
June 20, 2022

Introduction:

(TechCrunch) TC Sessions: Climate 2022 last week, we tackled an age-old question: Are corporations really that bad?

Your answer may change depending on what side of the bed you wake up on any given morning, and whether you believe Amazon is currently trying to quash a grassroots workers movement. Some have a more positive perspective, at least when it comes to climate-related matters.
On TechCrunch’s Found podcast, the co-founder and CEO of carbon accounting firm Persefoni, Kentaro Kawamori, said that climate change was caused by capitalism — and that capitalism will solve it.

“Capitalism created the climate crisis because we wanted cheap, reliable access,” Kawamori elaborated on our stage. “So the way that capitalism solves this is to take the market demand that’s coming for greener products.”

We know that large corporations have an outsized impact on climate change, so by Kawamori’s logic, corporations must be held responsible for reversing their destruction. One report from 2017 found that just 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions.

Read more here: https://techcrunch.com/2022/06/20/capi ... sibility/

caltrek’s comment: One sleight of hand that I find curious here. That is the ignoring of why we all must rely on capitalism to save us: because ruling elites have continually stood in the way of anything that smacks of a socialistic solution. In that frame, democratic socialism can be credited with (at least trying) to save the planet, if only because of the competition it offered as a system to capitalist modes of production.

[caltrek]

Here’s How to Meet Biden’s 2030 Climate Goals and Dramatically Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions – With Today’s Technology
by John Reilly
June 21, 2022

Introduction:

(The Conversation) Unprecedented forest fires in the drought-stricken western United States. Tropical storms and rising seas threatening the Gulf and Atlantic coasts. Sizzling heat across large swaths of the country. As climate change unfolds before our eyes, what can the U.S. do to sharply and rapidly reduce its share of the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing it?

The Biden administration has committed to reduce those emissions 50% by 2030 below 2005 levels. That’s a critical first step of a global energy transition that must achieve net-zero emissions by midcentury to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 F) and thereby avert the worst impacts of climate change.

Twenty years ago, I would have regarded the U.S. 2030 pledge as crazy talk. But a new study in the journal Science that I co-authored, which compares results from six independent analyses conducted by academic, industry and nongovernmental organization researchers, lays out a road map to the 50% target that’s both doable and affordable.

Further extract:

...the smog produced by fossil fuel combustion exacerbates asthma and related respiratory diseases, leading to premature deaths. Some of the six analyses we reviewed found that the reduction in premature deaths – which equate to lost productivity and additional health costs – from reduced fine particulates in the air was by itself enough to offset the cost of implementing the U.S. energy transition road map described in the study.

Read more here: https://theconversation.com/heres-how- ... gy-185263

[weatheriscool]

I've come to the conclusion that fusion, nuclear, hydro for energy and carbon capture are probably the best ways to deal with climate change. You could also argue for some other method to break down the co2 in the atmosphere! We're very close to making fusion a reality with china able to make it work for over 5 minutes earlier this year and better methods of containing and keeping it going. There's no question in my mind that a few hundred billion in investment into fusion will allow us to rapidly move towards a carbon neutral source of energy. Our goal is to measure what is best for the population of our planet with what is best to tackle global warming.

I like these ideas because I believe humanity should learn how to control our climatic system, learn how to change the atmosphere and in doing so become a more powerful species that could one day make mars and other planets livable. Practice opens doors.

[weatheriscool]

I've come to the conclusion that fusion, nuclear, hydro for energy and carbon capture are probably the best ways to deal with climate change. You could also argue for some other method to break down the co2 in the atmosphere! We're very close to making fusion a reality with china able to make it work for over 5 minutes earlier this year and better methods of containing and keeping it going. There's no question in my mind that a few hundred billion in investment into fusion will allow us to rapidly move towards a carbon neutral source of energy. Our goal is to measure what is best for the population of our planet with what is best to tackle global warming.

I like these ideas because I believe humanity should learn how to control our climatic system, learn how to change the atmosphere and in doing so become a more powerful species that could one day make mars and other planets livable. Practice opens doors.

Also consider this, fusion would allow for a full transition to electric cars and away from fossil fuels. It would literally make fossil fuels idiotic literally over night.

[BaobabScion]

I've come to the conclusion that fusion, nuclear, hydro for energy and carbon capture are probably the best ways to deal with climate change. You could also argue for some other method to break down the co2 in the atmosphere! We're very close to making fusion a reality with china able to make it work for over 5 minutes earlier this year and better methods of containing and keeping it going. There's no question in my mind that a few hundred billion in investment into fusion will allow us to rapidly move towards a carbon neutral source of energy. Our goal is to measure what is best for the population of our planet with what is best to tackle global warming.

I like these ideas because I believe humanity should learn how to control our climatic system, learn how to change the atmosphere and in doing so become a more powerful species that could one day make mars and other planets livable. Practice opens doors.

A few-hundred billion, and probably more than that, has already been invested in fusion over the course of half a century and 17 minutes of not-even-breaking-even is all that has been achieved. You say that you care for the downtrodden (which is doubtful considering some of the other things you've said on this forum). Well, neglecting renewables in favor of a technology that's perpetually 30 years away and continuing to shill for fossil fuels - in effect what you're suggesting with this post - is guaranteed to condemn billions to a horrible fate.

You don't have 50 years. You have at most about 5-10 years before your little house in Oregon gets burned to a crisp.

[wjfox]

I've come to the conclusion that fusion, nuclear, hydro for energy and carbon capture are probably the best ways to deal with climate change. You could also argue for some other method to break down the co2 in the atmosphere! We're very close to making fusion a reality with china able to make it work for over 5 minutes earlier this year and better methods of containing and keeping it going. There's no question in my mind that a few hundred billion in investment into fusion will allow us to rapidly move towards a carbon neutral source of energy. Our goal is to measure what is best for the population of our planet with what is best to tackle global warming.

I like these ideas because I believe humanity should learn how to control our climatic system, learn how to change the atmosphere and in doing so become a more powerful species that could one day make mars and other planets livable. Practice opens doors.

Solar PV and wind turbines are proven, cheap, easily scalable, and by far the best way to reduce emissions right now. Alongside batteries to cover intermittency issues.

Yet, you'd rather focus on a speculative technology that may (or may not) arrive at some unspecified point in the future, alongside fission that's increasingly expensive and time-consuming to build, and hydro that isn't practical for many places and will only ever account for a small percentage of the energy mix, and carbon capture that also isn't proven at scale yet.

I'm increasingly bewildered by your posts.

[wjfox]

I've come to the conclusion that fusion, nuclear, hydro for energy and carbon capture are probably the best ways to deal with climate change. You could also argue for some other method to break down the co2 in the atmosphere! We're very close to making fusion a reality with china able to make it work for over 5 minutes earlier this year and better methods of containing and keeping it going. There's no question in my mind that a few hundred billion in investment into fusion will allow us to rapidly move towards a carbon neutral source of energy. Our goal is to measure what is best for the population of our planet with what is best to tackle global warming.

I like these ideas because I believe humanity should learn how to control our climatic system, learn how to change the atmosphere and in doing so become a more powerful species that could one day make mars and other planets livable. Practice opens doors.

This is from 2 years ago:

https://www.futuretimeline.net/blog/202 ... meline.htm

The costs will be even lower by now.

If you're concerned about electricity costs for the average person, you should be supporting solar.

[Tadasuke]

This is such a wise article (as usual on this website), arguing that presenting climate change as a impending catastrophe which needs taking care of by reducing common people's finances, won't work well and the majority won't go along with it. It's not about being climate change deniers, but thinking realistically.

https://www.humanprogress.org/dont-pit- ... ach-other/

[wjfox]

This is such a wise article (as usual on this website), arguing that presenting climate change as a impending catastrophe which needs taking care of by reducing common people's finances, won't work well and the majority won't go along with it. It's not about being climate change deniers, but thinking realistically.

https://www.humanprogress.org/dont-pit- ... ach-other/

As I told you before – humanprogress.org is a fossil fuel propaganda site, Koch-founded and supported.

But whatever...

I seriously give up with some of you guys.

[Tadasuke]

As I told you before – humanprogress.org is a fossil fuel propaganda site, Koch-founded and supported.

But whatever...

I seriously give up with some of you guys.

I don't agree with you. I trust them.

[wjfox]

I don't agree with you. I trust them.

Then you're really gullible and enjoy being lied to.

HumanProgress.org was established by the Cato Institute, co-founded by Charles Koch (arguably the most notorious spreader of fossil fuel propaganda in the world).

Why would you trust the multi-billionaire owner of fossil fuel companies, as opposed to literally 99.9% of climate studies? Answer me that.

[caltrek]

With Bernie Sanders bowing out, the progressive wing of the Democratic Party needs to start thinking seriously of putting up a primary opponent to Biden. Such an opponent should make clear that in the general election, Biden is still likely to be better than anybody the Republicans nominate. Why do I lead in with this political comment in a thread concerning climate change?

The People vs. Petrocracy
by Stan Cox
June 22, 2022

Introduction:

(Counterpunch) The United States is moving fast on climate change—in the wrong direction. The Energy Information Agency forecasts that by 2023, the nation will set a new annual record for oil extraction: 4.6 billion barrels. Plans to build more than 200 new natural gas power plants are in the works. More than 130 new oil and gas pipelines now under development will carry enough fuel to increase national emissions by 10 percent—560 million metric tons per year.

Now, freaked out by high fuel prices, the Democratic majority in Congress is pushing to accelerate this fossil fuel rush while President Biden rushes, hat in hand, to Saudi Arabia, forgetting that the kingdom is supposed to be a pariah. Furthermore, as Robinson Meyer recently wrote in The Atlantic, the party’s leadership seems blissfully unbothered by the fact that Congress has failed to pass even the weakest of laws to curb climate catastrophe. And if the Democrats—having been unable to defend either voters’ rights or life on Earth over the past year and a half—lose their congressional majority to the oily authoritarians in November, our already dim hopes for the federal government to reverse course and start phasing out fossil fuels could fade away altogether.

If that nightmare scenario unfolds, local and regional activism will not only become more essential than ever; it could be the nation’s only route to climate mitigation and adaptation. As the republic teeters on a knife edge in coming months, “In Real Time” will be recognizing grassroots movements across the country that stand as exemplars for collective climate action. Climate is not always the chief focus of such struggles, but the movements’ strategies and methods are deeply relevant.

Read more here: https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/06/ ... trocracy/

[weatheriscool]

I've come to the conclusion that fusion, nuclear, hydro for energy and carbon capture are probably the best ways to deal with climate change. You could also argue for some other method to break down the co2 in the atmosphere! We're very close to making fusion a reality with china able to make it work for over 5 minutes earlier this year and better methods of containing and keeping it going. There's no question in my mind that a few hundred billion in investment into fusion will allow us to rapidly move towards a carbon neutral source of energy. Our goal is to measure what is best for the population of our planet with what is best to tackle global warming.

I like these ideas because I believe humanity should learn how to control our climatic system, learn how to change the atmosphere and in doing so become a more powerful species that could one day make mars and other planets livable. Practice opens doors.

This is from 2 years ago:

https://www.futuretimeline.net/blog/202 ... meline.htm

The costs will be even lower by now.

If you're concerned about electricity costs for the average person, you should be supporting solar.

I am supporting solar. It just seems to me that it would be simpler once online to use fusion for most of the heavy lifting. Society isn't supportive of the scale of solar that would be needed. I say this as someone watches politics of literally the world. I believe that the right will also support the investment to get fusion online once it is up and running. Trying to scale solar to anywhere near this level will have huge opposition and we've seen just that.