How Do We Move Away From Oil?

[Revoltingest]

Population growth is leveling off.

I have no issue with taxes as you propose. Personally I prefer market-based solutions rather than regulation.

A problem now is when you ask a typical person on the right what market-based solution they prefer to the problem, you typically get ranting about "there is no problem and if there is we'd see socialism/communism being imposed as the only answer".

Already have too many people.
Go back to 3 billion?
2 billion?

 

[exchemist]

From today's BBC: Musk: Cheaper Tesla ready 'in about three years'

A$25,000 Tesla in three years?
--- I'm not holding my breath.

No indeed. Musk is a real visionary, no question, but his enthusiasm (or hype?) sometimes gets ahead of reality. But the guy is far from all-mouth-and-no-trousers, as both Tesla and Space X have proved beyond doubt. So maybe not 3 years but perhaps 6? The important thing is he is taking on the challenge of the battery technology.

Battery technology is probably the most crucial component of the energy transformation we need, due to the difficulty of storing energy in acceptable quantities at acceptable size, weight and cost. Hydrocarbons do that so well that it makes it very hard to displace them, from transport applications especially. Hydrogen from electrolysis can overcome that to some degree, though storing high pressure hydrogen has its problems (!) and it requires another whole new industry and distribution network. (I see Airbus has a concept for a hydrogen-powered aircraft, which is far from a silly idea. You can fuel planes with it without needing an extensive distribution network. But I'd like to know how they store it on board.)

So go for it Elon and, even if you don't make any money, the world will a better place for your effort.

 

[exchemist]

Already have too many people.
Go back to 3 billion?
2 billion?

Now there is an example of a wholly impractical idea to solve the problem. Suggesting that is a good way to introduce a distraction and stop anything being done at all.

 

[Valjean]

Now there is an example of a wholly impractical idea to solve the problem. Suggesting that is a good way to introduce a distraction and stop anything being done at all.

Didn't China manage a one child policy for quite a while?

 

[exchemist]

Didn't China manage a one child policy for quite a while?

Yes. It was brutal. And it has given them a hideous demographic problems for the future. No democracy - assuming we still have some of those left in ten years' time - could impose that on the population.

 

[Revoltingest]

Now there is an example of a wholly impractical idea to solve the problem. Suggesting that is a good way to introduce a distraction and stop anything being done at all.

To you it's a distraction. But I see it as a fundamental problem.
The natural environment is being burned, farmed, paved, &
denuded of diverse flora & fauna. The oceans are being
vacuumed free of sharks, cod, etc.
China did address this problem once. It's difficult but doable.

 

[exchemist]

To you it's a distraction. But I see it as a fundamental problem.
The natural environment is being burned, farmed, paved, &
denuded of diverse flora & fauna. The oceans are being
vacuumed free of sharks, cod, etc.
China did address this problem once. It's difficult but doable.

I don't disagree it is a fundamental problem, but you cannot just reduce the population to a less than half what it is today, on any kind of reasonable timeframe.

So arguing for that as a solution to climate change, which is what this thread is essentially about, is an argument for doing nothing until it is far too late.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't disagree it is a fundamental problem, but you cannot just reduce the population to a less than half what it is today, on any kind of reasonable timeframe.

I knew that my proposal was just an off the wall pipe dream.

So arguing for that as a solution to climate change, which is what this thread is essentially about, is an argument for doing nothing until it is far too late.

Oh, I never said that it was a "solution".
It seems that you've attributed more
ambition to my posts than I intended.
I'm quite lazy, as was was that post.
The purpose was & is to keep our eyes
on the problems over-population causes.

 

[exchemist]

I knew that my proposal was just an off the wall pipe dream.

Oh, I never said that it was a "solution".
It seems that you've attributed more
ambition to my posts than I intended.
I'm quite lazy, as was was that post.
The purpose was & is to keep our eyes
on the problems over-population causes.

Fair enough then.

Meanwhile, though, it's all hands to the pumps on climate change (literally, if you are in Bangladesh, the Netherlands or the Pacific Islands).

 

[Revoltingest]

Fair enough then.

Meanwhile, though, it's all hands to the pumps on climate change (literally, if you are in Bangladesh, the Netherlands or the Pacific Islands).

Aye, they'll be up a creek without a creek...it'll be ocean.

 

[wandering peacefully]

We could do it practically overnight, if we had the will to do so. If the billions in subsidies that have been given to the oil industry over the past 40 years had been spent on the development of solar energy we could have phased out oil by now. If we as a nation had simply made it our number one goal... like we did when we decided to send a man to the moon... effective reasonable priced solar panels could have been designed within a decade, at most. The only thing stopping us from eliminating oil usage are the oil companies who don't want to lose what has been by far the most profitable industry in history.

I'm on the planning board in our town. We have accepted 3 100 acre solar farms in the past 3 months. First in the state to accept that amount. My only concern was deforested lands but at some point we have to start trading evils for less evils. The trees will grow back after the projects end and hopefully by that time we may have come up with a reasonable solution for recycling panels. The power is directly fed into the existing lines. We definitely need to come up with a more efficient way to transfer power.

 

[exchemist]

Aye, they'll be up a creek without a creek...it'll be ocean.

The Dutch may survive: they are spending billions on sea defence. But Bangladesh? There will a mass migration of millions of people: muslims, moving to Hindu or Buddhist countries. That's going to go well, obviously.

 

[columbus]

I don't disagree it is a fundamental problem, but you cannot just reduce the population to a less than half what it is today, on any kind of reasonable timeframe.

Population reduction is the only feasible long term solution though. And the leveling off at 11 billion is based on some "optimistic" assumptions.

Also, the number of humans is only part of the problem. Rising expectations amongst the world's poorest billions will keep up the level of environmental destruction, even if we stopped population growth now.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

The Dutch may survive: they are spending billions on sea defence. But Bangladesh? There will a mass migration of millions of people: muslims, moving to Hindu or Buddhist countries. That's going to go well, obviously.

The Dutch face a problem....rising sea levels vs dyke size
has an exponential ratio (height vs cross sectional area),
ie, it'll get harder & harder to cope. And the consequences
of failure become far greater.

 

[exchemist]

The Dutch face a problem....rising sea levels vs dyke size
has an exponential ratio (height vs cross sectional area),
ie, it'll get harder & harder to cope. And the consequences
of failure become far greater.

True. But if I had to put money on any low-lying country being able to cope, it would be on the the Netherlands. Their experience and engineering in this area are unrivalled.

 

[Revoltingest]

True. But if I had to put money on any low-lying country being able to cope, it would be on the the Netherlands. Their experience and engineering in this area are unrivalled.

The greater the engineering challenge, the greater the failure.
Past successes encourage hubris.

 

[exchemist]

Population reduction is the only feasible long term solution though. And the leveling off at 11 billion is based on some "optimistic" assumptions.

Also, the number of humans is only part of the problem. Rising expectations amongst the world's poorest billions will keep up the level of environmental destruction, even if we stopped population growth now.
Tom

I don't necessarily disagree. The only point I am trying to make is that we can't wait for a reduction in the world's population to deal with climate change, because for that we need immediate action.

 

[exchemist]

The greater the engineering challenge, the greater the failure.
Past successes encourage hubris.

Hubris is not really something for which the Dutch are known. They are scarred by past failures at controlling the sea, which has killed many thousands of them over the centuries. The Dutch are modest people who do not oversell themselves but are practical, stubborn and persistent. Sort of Yorkshiremen on steroids.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hubris is not really something for which the Dutch are known. They are scarred by past failures at controlling the sea, which has killed many thousands of them over the centuries. The Dutch are modest people who do not oversell themselves but are practical, stubborn and persistent. Sort of Yorkshiremen on steroids.

The Dutch....you're trusting the wrong people.
The land with no face masks: Holland's top scientists say there's no solid evidence coverings work | Daily Mail Online

 

[exchemist]

The Dutch....you're trusting the wrong people.
The land with no face masks: Holland's top scientists say there's no solid evidence coverings work | Daily Mail Online

If you read the article, what they are saying makes sense:
QUOTE
The one exception outside of the medical frontline has been on public transport, where masks are mandatory on the basis it is difficult to stay apart on crowded buses, ferries and trains. 'We have seen this approach works,' said Christian Hoebe, a professor of infectious diseases in Maastricht and member of the advisory team. 'Face masks should not be seen as a magic bullet that halts the spread.

'The evidence for them is contradictory. In general, we think you must be careful with face masks because they can give a false sense of security. People think they're immune from disease or stop social distancing. That is very negative.'

UNQUOTE

So, if you can trust people to observe 1.5m distancing, you don't need masks. I expect in NL you can trust them - after all they don't have their government saying contradictory things every 5 minutes. In situations where this is not possible, you need to wear masks. The Dutch do use public transport a lot. I can just imagine how a Dutch tram driver would speak to you if tried to board without wearing one!