Deaths from climate change

[cyrano]

the climate change industry routinely projects outcomes multiple decades into the future.

There's no such thing as a "climate change industry". Whenever there is money to be had, parasites will appear. It doesn't matter if that money appears to try to make energy production greener, or to buy weapons.

There's also a boutade that if the US would spend all the money they spend for weapons on climate change, the problem would have been be solved already.

One third of the youth in the USA is pre-diabetes. At least half are overweight. Lead poisoning through drinking water is still around in the 21st century. Those are severe problems for the future, but they get largely ignored.

Diabetes is a very expensive disease because those who suffer from it, don't die fast and often develop related ailments. It doesn't matter if the cost goes to the social system, or if it goes to the individual. In the latter case, only the poor die for lack of treatment. Something the right doesn't seem to care about at all.

a classic math conundrum... if there are more people alive than dead, you can't prove (mathematically) that we will all die.
===

My point is that researchers are rewarded for projecting bad outcomes, but few if any are inspecting the harmful effects of excessive remedies to save mother earth.

On the contrary. Pharma research, for instance, is largely driven by positive outcomes. Nobody gets a grant to prove a drug doesn't work. Yet most new drugs get proven ineffective by research.

The main problem here is capitalism. Research should be neutral, but a positive result yields funding.

Recently, an AI systems used to find new drugs was reprogrammed to find poison. It yielded 30.000 deadly poisons in 24 hours. Finding one drug that works, could take the same system months.

Poverty kills, High energy prices cause poverty... QED (quod erat demonstratum)

Indeed. Fortunately, poverty has been slowly declining for over a century. The main driving factor is education. It seems education is failing in the US, so it's not a miracle the US is the only country in the world where maternity death has been slowly increasing for over a century. Is that something to be proud of?

JR

PS: The administration has announced another program to release oil from the strategic reserve for next 6 months leading up to mid term elections. I do not understand the wisdom of releasing reserves built up for emergency use, I guess the mid term election is looking like an emergency. Why not release the domestic energy industry to do what they do?.

Why are you always absolutely negative?

Trying to stabilise energy prices is of bigger interest to the poor AND the middle class. I suppose you must be among the very rich who don't need to care about high energy prices? IIRC, you own stock in the oil industry?

Don't you think war is an emergency? Even if that war is in Ukraine?

I suppose to the right, war is just omnipresent and can't be avoided?

 

[living sounds]

You have to close your eyes and ears and work hard to ignore the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Just look at Australia, where ecosystems that existed for ages are being destroyed by draughts, fire and flooding within a few years.

If you don't care for any of that understand that capitalism will be destroyed by climate change as well.

 

[JohnRoberts]

There's no such thing as a "climate change industry". Whenever there is money to be had, parasites will appear. It doesn't matter if that money appears to try to make energy production greener, or to buy weapons.

they do not call themselves an industry but behave like one.

There's also a boutade that if the US would spend all the money they spend for weapons on climate change, the problem would have been be solved already.

I like expanding vocabulary, but "boutade" does not return a sensible definition. Maybe I am being provincial again and not searching in enough languages.

Please define what the climate problem is? All I hear is hypotheticals about temperature rise multiple decades into the future.

One third of the youth in the USA is pre-diabetes. At least half are overweight.

self inflicted... I have been writing about this for years. Kids are getting "adult onset" type II diabetes from overeating and lack of exercise.

Lead poisoning through drinking water is still around in the 21st century. Those are severe problems for the future, but they get largely ignored.

I don't know if this is increasing as a problem

Diabetes is a very expensive disease because those who suffer from it, don't die fast and often develop related ailments. It doesn't matter if the cost goes to the social system, or if it goes to the individual. In the latter case, only the poor die for lack of treatment. Something the right doesn't seem to care about at all.

being overweight streesses multiple bodily functions. Insulin sensitivity is just one, heart disease is another.

On the contrary. Pharma research, for instance, is largely driven by positive outcomes. Nobody gets a grant to prove a drug doesn't work. Yet most new drugs get proven ineffective by research.

or the lawyers... Big Pharma pursued testosterone enhancement for the apparent improvements to vitality, except for the unintended consequence of promoting cancer tumor growth. Big Pharma dropped it like a hot potato but the less responsible supplement industry are still selling testosterone enhancement supplements.

The main problem here is capitalism. Research should be neutral, but a positive result yields funding.

Capitalism continues to raise people out of poverty. Of course unfettered capitalism can lead to abuses.

Recently, an AI systems used to find new drugs was reprogrammed to find poison. It yielded 30.000 deadly poisons in 24 hours. Finding one drug that works, could take the same system months.

Not sure I understand your point.

Indeed. Fortunately, poverty has been slowly declining for over a century. The main driving factor is education.

Of course education is important but the driving force for reducing poverty is trade, rule of law, and capitalism.

It seems education is failing in the US, so it's not a miracle the US is the only country in the world where maternity death has been slowly increasing for over a century. Is that something to be proud of?

Education is not the only thing getting worse. David Mamet has a new book "Recessional" (By screaming down freedom of thought and expression, Mamet explains, we kill invention and democracy - the foundations of security and growth.)

Why are you always absolutely negative?

Funny I consider myself an optimist.

Trying to stabilise energy prices is of bigger interest to the poor AND the middle class. I suppose you must be among the very rich who don't need to care about high energy prices? IIRC, you own stock in the oil industry?

What in the world are you talking about? I have long argued that high energy costs harm the poor.

Don't you think war is an emergency? Even if that war is in Ukraine?

again what are you talking about? The war in Ukraine does not justify emergency release of the strategic petroleum reserve. If anything that war justifies it's existence and preservation in case of a real worldwide oil shortage. High domestic oil prices are self inflicted harm caused by the Biden administration.

I suppose to the right, war is just omnipresent and can't be avoided?

again more insulting imaginary ideology...

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

You have to close your eyes and ears and work hard to ignore the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Just look at Australia, where ecosystems that existed for ages are being destroyed by draughts, fire and flooding within a few years.

If you believe that is man made, how do you justify closing all six nuclear power plants in Germany that generate zero CO2?

If you don't care for any of that understand that capitalism will be destroyed by climate change as well.

I have friends in Oz but don't believe we are seeing the end of the world just yet.

I am more worried about the Mamet warning about the death of free speech.

JR

 

[living sounds]

If you believe that is man made, how do you justify closing all six nuclear power plants in Germany that generate zero CO2?

Whataboutism? Or do you consider me responsible for decisions made by the Merkel government?

I am on the record in this thread of endorsing building more nuclear power plants.

BTW, nuclear energy production does not generate "zero CO2":

https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-nuclear-energy-good-for-the-climate/a-59853315

 

[AnalogPackrat]

BTW, nuclear energy production does not generate "zero CO2":

Neither do wind and solar when you consider the materials origin, manufacturing, construction, and recycling/disposal.

 

[hodad]

Neither do wind and solar when you consider the materials origin, manufacturing, construction, and recycling/disposal.

You obviously didn't follow the link. There's a nice little chart there that takes all that into consideration.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

You obviously didn't follow the link. There's a nice little chart there that takes all that into consideration.

Did you read the fine print on those graphics? No bias at all. Right.

Solar PV is mostly made in China where there are no real environmental protections in place. Their industrial facilities are largely powered by coal. The completed panels are then transported thousands of miles by sea. I'm not aware of any EV freight vessels or sailing container ships. In non-desert areas, solar farms are being built on former farm and timber land (there are quite a few in my state). Trees were cut and will not be grown there again. The panels shade out most growth under them leading to less CO2 uptake by grasses and erosion/runoff into streams and rivers. Of course we also lose food production on the former farmland.

Large scale solar makes sense in deserts. Smaller scale makes sense in urban/suburban areas with many sunny days per year. Other places it has big negative offsets. I would also point out how ugly a 100+ acre solar farm is in a rural setting.

Wind generation requires a lot of new copper which must be mined, refined, drawn into wire, transported, etc. Wind turbine blades have limited lifetimes and are made from composites which require nasty chemicals and fossil resources. They are huge and not recyclable. Wind farms are massive, ugly and can be seen for 20-30 miles.

Wind and solar cannot form the base generation capacity without battery/storage technology which is an order of magnitude or more better than what is currently available. If you saw what happened in CA in summer of 2020 this would be apparent.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Whataboutism? Or do you consider me responsible for decisions made by the Merkel government?

Since I have spent the last few years defending criticism of President Tump, it seems turnabout should be fair play. I have more criticisms of Merkel policies but she has left office already so academic to discuss at this point. More like pointing out that you live in a glass house while throwing stones.

I am on the record in this thread of endorsing building more nuclear power plants.

+1 Common sense that seems sadly uncommon.

BTW, nuclear energy production does not generate "zero CO2":

https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-nuclear-energy-good-for-the-climate/a-59853315

Thanks for the link but pass... I am not aware of any nuclear generation cycles that release CO2... Manufacturing anything requires energy which these days means fossil fuel use.

JR

 

[living sounds]

Since I have spent the last few years defending criticism of President Tump, it seems turnabout should be fair play. I have more criticisms of Merkel policies but she has left office already so academic to discuss at this point. More like pointing out that you live in a glass house while throwing stones.

Ah, but you defended (the IMO indefensible) Mr. Trump. I won't start now and defend bad decisions / behaviour by other policians.

Thanks for the link but pass... I am not aware of any nuclear generation cycles that release CO2... Manufacturing anything requires energy which these days means fossil fuel use.

A nuclear power plant is a massive undertaking that requires CO2 before and after as well as constantly during its life cycle. Uranium doesn't just appear in the morning like the sun or most days like wind.

There are cheap and ingenious solutions to the energy storage problem of renewables (like halls filled with giant cement blocks wound up on ropes to store and use the gravitational energy.

But I think renewables lack resilliance, one giant volcanic eruption could put an end to much of the sunlight reaching the earth and would also stop most of the wind from blowing for months or even years. I hope one of the smaller scale fusion projects making use of the latest generation of magnets finally works soon, this would put humanity in a far better position.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Ah, but you defended (the IMO indefensible) Mr. Trump. I won't start now and defend bad decisions / behaviour by other policians.

Upon reflection ex-president Trumps policies look pretty darn good compared to President Biden. President Trump is a blowhard that routinely steps on his own messaging.

About the only thing President Biden said I can agree with is that Putin needs to be removed, but it was wildly inappropriate for him to say that publicly as POTUS.

A nuclear power plant is a massive undertaking that requires CO2 before and after as well as constantly during its life cycle. Uranium doesn't just appear in the morning like the sun or most days like wind.

While Russia is negotiating to buy enriched uranium from Iran.

There are cheap and ingenious solutions to the energy storage problem of renewables (like halls filled with giant cement blocks wound up on ropes to store and use the gravitational energy.

I expect there to be a number of clever energy solutions between now and the predicted end of life as we know it.

I am repeating myself but we waste massive amounts of energy from poorly insulated homes. I routinely get notices from my utility that I am using less energy (electricity) than even my most efficient neighbors.

But I think renewables lack resilliance, one giant volcanic eruption could put an end to much of the sunlight reaching the earth and would also stop most of the wind from blowing for months or even years. I hope one of the smaller scale fusion projects making use of the latest generation of magnets finally works soon, this would put humanity in a far better position.

Modern fission reactors are here now but still unpopular... maybe instead of demonizing fossil fuel we should promote wider use of nuclear. We should use all of the above to create enough wealth to make the adaptions we need to, and invest in developing new technology (not windmills).

JR

 

[living sounds]

Upon reflection ex-president Trumps policies look pretty darn good compared to President Biden. President Trump is a blowhard that routinely steps on his own messaging.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Today I converted a dead squirrel in my yard to CO2. It was my favorite kind of squirrel (dead).

I don't think it was killed by climate change, probably hit by a car, then crawled up across my yard into my bushes.

JR

 

[cyrano]

Not sure I understand your point.

It's easy to be negative. Even for AI. It's much, much harder to be positive and find solutions in stead of problems.

BTW, a quick search for "boutade" yielded at least ten pages on Google, with a lot of translation sites. The word is basically Dutch, created by Multatuli, but used in French, Spanish and a few other languages. Sadly, English has no exact translation. Translation is roughly "a quip, an outbreak, a caprice, a whim", or even "proof by contradiction". Note that "caprice" also is an imported word.

A boutade is often used to make the other party use their brain. Sorry that I failed miserably.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I don't do google, I may be provincial, but I don't like how google steers public sentiment with presentation of results.

Since I have nine US patents I might be a little "solution" oriented.

I use my brain all the time, but it has lost some flexibility after 7+ decades.

JR

PS; I like learning new words and I am something like 1/4 dutch. I obviously need a better dictionary reference... I still don't like google.

 

[analag]

I use my brain all the time, but it has lost some flexibility after 7+ decades.

Dying braincells you say, lol

 

[JohnRoberts]

I changed to a different search engine and it finds "boutade" so maybe I won't sound so provincial in the future.

JR

 

[sr1200]

"During the last four decades the "leaf area index" (fractional area covered by leaves) observed by satellite has increased markedly (greened) over 25-50% percent of the vegetated areas of the globe, while it has decreased (browned) over less than 4% of the globe. "

Does this take into account the loss of permafrost? (not trying to be snarky) Green and Brown discussions often leave White out of the discussion to make their point.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Does this take into account the loss of permafrost? (not trying to be snarky) Green and Brown discussions often leave White out of the discussion to make their point.

I'm pretty sure it didn't. I have heard conflicting reports about ice sheet increase/decrease at north/south poles (but that is not the issue today).
====
I saw Lomborg on TV the other day and he shared an interesting (perhaps?) parallel with speed limits. We most see value in speed limits, but what is the acceptable criteria for highway deaths. To reduce highway deaths to zero we would also require speed limits down near zero MPH. That would incur huge personal costs in time and money that we as a culture do not accept.

We need a thoughtful discussion about what cost is acceptable to realize what climate target that is appropriate. The vague target of 1.5 C temp rise by 2100 and "now or never" inflammatory verbiage is completely arbitrary and not related to some verifiable existential mechanism, more of an emotional appeal (based on fast thinking if temperature rise is bad, don't slow think about cost).

I believe we all agree that the world is worth preserving, but not on how to do that. The emotional manipulation I see used to sell green climate policy is not well grounded in science or practical economics (more like politics 101). Most proposed policy I see is killing wealth generation that is better used for human adaption and new energy research.

Of course opinions vary.

JR

PS: I value speed limits less than most but the analogy doesn't suck.

 

[sr1200]

I mean, you can kill someone going 1 mph if they're under the wheels of a 4 ton semi... lol (ok maybe thats not funny, but i just pictured the austin powers scene)

As usual, I kind of fall in the middle on the discussion.
Does something need to be done, I'd lean towards the yes side of things. Is it as detrimental as certain sides are putting out to be, is hard for me to gauge since there are valid arguments on both sides. I also listen to the third theory (which i haven't seen mentioned here) that the earth naturally goes through warming and cooling cycles. We had a mini ice-age not that long ago (geologically), is this the opposite swing now and it just so happens to correlate with the happenings of our time? Had we had the ability to record and parse data in the 1650's would be trying to see what actions we could take to "warm the planet up"? Who knows?
There's no doubt something is going on, facts are facts. Ice sheets are melting, permafrost is melting (and releasing who knows what back into the environment that's been trapped forever). The south pole is seeing days that are 70 degrees above normal (SEVENTY), but from -70 to 0, is there anything that's really going to change or is it a talking point to make things seem more detrimental?) There are things more tangible and visible such as the increase in "once in a lifetime" storms, the coral reef bleaching, jet streams changing etc.

We can argue about it but, also, we can do our part to lessen our carbon footprint, which, from any side you stand on, doesn't seem to be a bad idea. To my knowledge, none of us here are policy makers directly, I could be wrong, and often am. I guess, just don't put blinders on to either side of an argument, thats not where understanding and truth are found.