by Roger Caiazza
However noble the concept of eliminating any risks from any source of pollution, if it is construed to mean that anything that might be contributing to bad health must be prohibited, then there will be massive consequences.
My entire career as an air pollution meteorologist has been devoted to upholding the Clean Air Act (CAA). Several New York initiatives are combining to undermine the very foundation of that law. Furthermore, these initiatives are contrary to the premise of my Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York blog that practical tradeoffs of environmental risks and societal benefits are necessary for workable solutions. This post describes the initiatives and what I believe will be the inevitable consequence.
I have extensive experience with air pollution control theory, implementation, and evaluation over my entire career. I write about New York energy and environmental issues at the Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York blog. The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other company I have been associated with; these comments are mine alone.
Background
It has been over 50 years since Congress established the basic structure of the Clean Air Act in 1970. The EPA summary describes control of common pollutants:
“To protect public health and welfare nationwide, the Clean Air Act requires EPA to establish national ambient air quality standards for certain common and widespread pollutants based on the latest science. EPA has set air quality standards for six common “criteria pollutants“: particulate matter (also known as particle pollution), ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and lead.”
“States are required to adopt enforceable plans to achieve and maintain air quality meeting the air quality standards. State plans also must control emissions that drift across state lines and harm air quality in downwind states.”
“Other key provisions are designed to minimize pollution increases from growing numbers of motor vehicles, and from new or expanded industrial plants. The law calls for new stationary sources (e.g., power plants and factories) to use the best available technology, and allows less stringent standards for existing sources.”
My first professional job in 1976 was with a consulting company that did contract work for the Environmental Protection Agency developing emission factors that could be used to analyze and project impacts to public health and welfare. Later I worked for other consultants that evaluated the air quality dispersion models to make sure they provided adequate estimates of predicted air quality impacts from polluting sources. Eventually I went to work for an electric utility where I was responsible for maintaining air quality compliance at their facilities. All my work was a tiny part of the national effort to develop a robust methodology to protect public health and welfare nationwide. On behalf of all my colleagues, I want to say that it is a pretty darn good system.
The goal of the regulatory process is to maintain air quality impacts below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The Clean Air Act established two types of national air quality standards. The primary standards protect public health with an adequate margin for safety. The secondary standards are “designed to protect the public welfare from adverse effects, including those related to effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man-made (anthropogenic) materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility, and climate; damage to property; transportation hazards; economic values, and personal comfort and wellbeing”. The entire point of this background section is that United States air quality regulation is built around the concept that there is a threshold for adequate safety and if the measured or projected air quality is below those standards then public health is protected.
New Paradigm
In the past several years the Precautionary Principle, a strategy to cope with possible risks where scientific understanding is incomplete, has led many to rely on the idea that to be safe we have to eliminate all risks as a precaution. At its core that means that there is no such thing as a threshold for adequate public health safety.
David Zaruk has explained the resulting problem: policy-makers and politicians have confused this uncertainty management tool with risk management. He authors the Risk Monger blog “meant to challenge simplistic solutions to hard problems on environmental-health risks”. He is a professor at Odisee University College where he lectures on Communications, Marketing, EU Lobbying and Public Relations.
I recently compared Zaruk’s analysis of this approach to risk management in the European Union relative to New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act) implementation. He explained that “patronizing activists with special interests solely dedicated to seeing industry and capitalism fail is destroying trust in all industries (excluding them from the policy process and equating the word “industry” with some immoral interpretation of lobbying)”. The activists are using the same tactics that worked with the decline of the tobacco industry: “Using the emerging communications tools to create an atmosphere of fear and hate, these activists have successfully generated a narrative that the only solution to our problems is no risks and no thresholds.” Policymakers, perceiving these loud voices as representative, have adopted the path of virtue politics rather than Realpolitik (that is to say policy by aspiration and ideology rather than practical solutions relying on the best available evidence).
Three Zero-Risk Initiatives
There are three examples of initiatives in New York that rely on the zero-risk approach. The Climate Act has a net-zero by 2050 goal that presumes that all GHG emissions have risks and must be eliminated. The New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has an Environmental Justice initiative. It includes Commissioner Policy 29 (CP-29) that provides guidance for incorporating environmental justice concerns into DEC environmental permit review process and the DEC application of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR). Finally, in November 2021, New York State passed an Environmental Rights Amendment to the New York constitution. It added a new section to the state constitution that reads: “Each person shall have a right to clean air and water, and to a healthful environment. This Amendment will be the focus of this article.
I was prompted to write this article after reading Celebrating the 1-Year Anniversary of the New York Environmental Rights Amendment, written by a litigation assistant at Earth Justice. This article includes a link to a webinar: “The environmental rights amendment: by and for New Yorkers” that lays bare the planned use of the Equal Rights Amendment to further the agenda of New York activists who apparently want to see industry fail. I don’t claim that they necessarily want industry to fail but their expectation that aspirational environmental demands based on ideology are compatible with overall societal needs is naïve, such that the end result of their vision will be the shutdown of all industry including power generation.
The four webinar speakers were Anthony Rogers-Wright, New York Lawyers for the Public Interest; Rebecca Bratspies, City University of New York School of Law; Maya van Rossum, Green Amendment for the Generations & Delaware Riverkeeper Network; and Michael Youhana, Earthjustice. I am comfortable saying that these folks epitomize the special interest activists described by Zaruk.
I suggest that anyone interested in this issue take the time to listen to the entire webinar. I am not going to dissect every speaker’s presentation, but I do want to highlight the comments of Professor Bratspies starting at 15:46 of the recording. She was asked how the Environmental Rights Amendment could be used to influence decision making.
Bratspies explained that environmental justice is about “fair treatment and meaningful involvement” of people in decision making that affects them. She believes that the New York regulatory program is about process and not substance. People get to participate but they “have no substantive hook” to affect the outcome. She referred to a Supreme Court decision that “prohibits uninformed rather than unwise decision making.” She said that the Environmental Rights Amendment changes that because it puts fair treatment of how environmental burdens and benefits are distributed on the table: “Now it is not just about process, it is about substance.” She then stated that now there is a substantive right to a clean environment, not just a right to participate in the process.
She went to explain that the Amendment creates new possibilities for challenging “unequal” decisions. As an example, she thinks this can be used when permitting decisions are made. The following is a lightly edited version of her end game explanation starting at 17:55 of the webinar recording:
“All the polluting infrastructure in New York City requires permits from the government in order to operate. Those permits specify levels of pollution that facility is allowed to emit. Those levels of pollution are set based on a pretty complicated formulas about national standards. But now the people who live nearby who have been so long viewed as in energy sacrifice zones can go in and say that I have the right to breathe clean air. You can’t let this facility emit so much pollution that it impacts my ability to breath clean air. My kids have the right to not have asthma. Pollution and asthma are intimately intwined.“
This interpretation of the Environmental Rights Amendment presumes that it is supposed to provide assurance of good health (e.g., no asthma) for all. Individuals in EJ communities near existing sources of air pollution believe that poor health outcomes are attributable to those sources based on environmental activist studies. They do not understand the proven NAAQS protections for the population. Activists have stoked their fears by funding projections that claim there is no threshold for health impacts and that there is a relationship between health impacts and ambient concentrations below the NAAQS standards.
At its core, this argument relies on a zero-risk approach. Bratspies espouses the view that the NAAQS are not protective of human health because pollutants are still emitted and present in the air. She believes that asthma observed in EJ neighborhoods must be caused by local facilities. The fact that there are decades of experience that support the ambient air quality standards and the methodologies used to ensure that no one is subjected to air quality over those standards are immaterial. New York City EJ activists, like all the speakers on the webinar, believe the PEAK coalition conclusion that “Fossil peaker plants in New York City are perhaps the most egregious energy-related example of what environmental injustice means today.” Unfortunately, the analysis that forms the basis of that conclusion is flawed. The health impacts claimed are for ozone and inhalable particulates that are secondary pollutants that form far downwind of the adjoining neighborhoods. Bratspies believes that air pollution and asthma are “intimately intwined” but does not acknowledge that ambient air pollution levels have gone down over the same period that asthma rates have gone up.
This approach threatens the viability of any facility that emits pollution From the get go, if clean air is defined as zero then no emissions from power plants are allowed. But where does it end? No emissions from natural gas for heating or cooking? No emissions from the cooking process itself? If you can smell something cooking, that is a volatile organic compound pollutant that is a precursor to ozone which is regulated by the Clean Air Act. The intentions of the Environmental Rights Act are good but they are also based on an incomplete understanding of the situation and science.
The other two initiatives have similar issues. New York’s Climate Act has an aggressive schedule that mandates a zero-emissions or zero-risk electric generating sector by 2040. Buried in the law is a requirement that State agencies are supposed to consider the Climate Act requirements in their actions. Late last year the DEC issued a policy document that outlines the requirements for Climate Act analyses as part of the air pollution control permit applications. As part of the zero-risk mindset even the risks of a permitted source somehow affecting Climate Act implementation must be addressed and discussed even though there are no specific promulgating regulations.
Finally, the DEC Environmental Justice initiative includes Commissioner Policy 29 (CP-29) that provides guidance for incorporating environmental justice concerns into DEC environmental permit review process. The guidance explicitly addresses the need for meaningful public participation by minority or low-income communities in the permit process; the availability or accessibility of certain information to the public early in the permit process; and the need for the permit process to address disproportionate adverse environmental impacts on minority and low-income communities. Based on the webinar this is still insufficient for the activists because it does not guarantee the right to clean air and a healthful environment.
Conclusion
However noble the concept of eliminating any risks from any source of pollution, if it is construed to mean that anything that might be contributing to bad health must be prohibited, then there will be massive consequences.
A zero-risk standard sets a high hurdle for permitting a new facility or keeping an existing source in operation. All applicants follow the existing permitting requirements demonstrating that their facility does not exceed the applicable air quality standards. New York’s new permitting guidance then requires public hearings and consultation with stakeholders whose goal is no risk. At the very least the permitting process is slowed down to go through more public stakeholder steps, which adds time and expenses for the source owners. When the activists say “It is not just about process, it is about substance” what they mean is we must get the answer we want and if we don’t, it is clear from the webinar that their planned response is to litigate on the grounds of the right to clean air.
Going to court always adds time and expense but could also shut down the state. The court is going to have to decide what clean air means. It is easy to see an argument that a standard must be developed but once that approach is initiated, it is hard to imagine a new standard that is more defensible than the existing NAAQS. We already have a process to evaluate permits relative to those standards so what is the point? Rationally I would hope that the court would decide in favor of the Clean Air Act but who knows. If the definition of clean air and water is zero pollution, then the State might as well shut down now because nothing meets that standard.
There is no question that past inequities in environmental burdens were wrong and should be avoided in the future. Nor is there any question that everyone deserved the right to clean air and water. The problem is that if this good intentioned solution insists on zero risk, then the reality is that it requires no emissions. If no tradeoffs are allowed then the only solution is to shut down or not build.
Thanks to Russell Schussler for comments and the title.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
…and relatively free of potholes.
highway to hell and stairway to heaven – based on projected traffic patterns
The Road To Hell is operated by the New York State Tollway Authority. Funny thing, the destination is the same at every exit, only the fees differ.
Americans are trying to eliminate all risks in any situation. It may have something to do with the fact that they have more lawyers than any other country.
Humans have been trying to reduce & eliminate risks since the existence of the first human.
Zero risk is undefinable. No risk at a given level of detection, using specified instruments, perhaps, but one can always get more sensitive instruments.
The problem is that achieving zero emissions does not lead to zero risk but increases risk to health from increasing costs and reducing availability of many of the requirements for safe, healthy living. It’s a complicated equation that lawyers, advocates and the law cannot solve.
Jim, you nailed it. Products of industry provide health and good living. Ideology can blind one to complexities outside of their particular job. Lawyers understand management in their profession but likely are ignorant of the ones in yours.
It would be ironic if the Precautionary Principle were applied to new regulations/policies such as this. They wouldn’t pass the bar.
I had a long career in the field of ionizing radiation protection at nuclear plants and other facilities using radioactive materials. I served as a technical expert and testified in several legal cases. I can tell you that activists have no interest in acceptable risk standards, i.e., levels below which it is impossible to prove their is any measurable risk, let alone zero risk (you cannot prove a negative).
No pollutant can be measured in lower amounts or concentrations than ionizing radiation. It is theoretically possible to detect a single ionization event from a single atom. However, in the case of ionizing radiation we are not starting from zero when we make measurements. We live in a sea of natural environmental ionizing radiation. Virtually everything contains some amount of naturally-occurring radioactive material, including the air, water, soil, plants, animals, food, building materials — anything you can think of. In addition, the earth and everything on it is bombarded continuously by high energy cosmic radiation. We can easily measure naturally-occurring background radiation. The problem comes in distinguishing natural radiation from anthropogenic radiation. They are not always distinguishable by type or energy, so it is impossible to say whether a particular radiation photon or particle is natural or anthropogenic. Moreover, natural radiation levels vary widely depending on geographic area, elevation and the composition of the Earth’s crust at any location and time. When anthropogenic radiation levels are very low it becomes impossible to say whether they are zero or not.
Unfortunately activists and their lawyers have neither the inclination nor technical background to understand the metrology, statistics or probabilities. Neither is the legal system equipped to adjudicate whose paid technical expert is more competent or correct in their interpretation and assessment of data.
Radiation is physical phenomenon that can be detected and measured, however risk is not. Biological response to radiation and the associated risks are not necessarily linearly correlated with exposure or dose. On top of that the variability in exposure conditions means the total dose and associated risk to any individual or population group are virturally impossible to measure precisely, so uncertainties are huge.
All of these issues are the same or greater as related to any chemical compound considered to be pollutant. None can be measured at as low a concentration or as accurately as radiation.
I wonder what it would take to get the zealots to consider tradeoffs. As their career or deeply held beliefs depends on no compromise I suspect they will never consider a tradeoff.
One class of chemicals I wonder about is the PFAS. They have been detected in drinking water at part per TRILLION levels. Shaky science says they MIGHT be harmful, but I’m very skeptical of that claim.
I know that PFAS has NYS all wound up and the detection limit is going to inflame things more.
Sometimes it’s very hard to make direct measurements of the effects of the 250,000 molecules and chemicals we produce. There are second order derivatives like the health of the biosphere that can provide evidence both good and bad. Industrial agriculture has allowed the human population to grow along with higher standards of living are great. We need to do better for the rest of the species.
More Dramatic Insect Decline Confirms Inadequate Action on Pending Biodiversity Collapse
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2023/02/more-dramatic-insect-decline-confirms-inadequate-action-on-pending-biodiversity-collapse/
“The United Nations states that 80 percent of the 115 top global food crops depend on insect pollination, with one-third of all U.S. crops depending on pollinators, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). However, research finds that many insect populations are in decline, including managed and wild pollinators.”
As a retired Canadian lawyer who practised and taught environmental law for almost 5 decades I would ask you to reconsider your thought that “Nor is there any question that everyone deserved the right to clean air and water.” There is such a question with the concept of a right and the meaning of clean.
Where there is a legal right there is a legal remedy, to be determined and administered by a court. Legal rights are rights the meaning of which are determined and enforced by litigation. This leads to the question: what is the clean air and clean water to which one now has a legal right?
Although some statutes or regulations may set thresholds, these are only the floor, below which “clean” cannot legally go. They are not a ceiling, and cannot limit the cleanliness to be adjudicated above that. It can be argued, for example, that despite some potable water standards these do not limit the legal meaning of “clean water” that the right creates. Only distilled water is completely clean, and the clean water right should come close to that meaning of “clean”, otherwise the right is infringed. Similar arguments for zero tolerance of the unlimited number of “pollutants” in the air can also be made.
It is far less emotionally stirring, although more realistic, to say that everyone should have the right to air and water that are in substantial compliance with existing statutory standards. Then, if public authorities fail to enforce their laws they can be privately enforced by private court actions, without litigating undefined, open-ended and highly expandable standards of “clean”.
Very good point. I will keep this in mind when the arguments start.
I believe it time to change the tactics. Charitable Trusts in Canada do not have to reveal name of the board, nor annual audit; their are some rich cats pursuing careers in charitable trusts.
Perhaps it’s time to question motives; I, personally, believe it is all about money and hiding it the foremost objective. Incidentally, our PM’s family handle their own charity; do I question his motives? Yes. Along with every other Charitable Trust in Canada; “on”-shore banking as it were. With government paying them off as well.
The Clean Air Act only applies to the United States. What do these people in New York who are planning such net zero pollution strategies plan to do about the pollutants coming from China (a country laden with pollutants from the thousands of coal-fired power plants in use) on the jet stream? These people act as if the air over New York is stagnant. I would think that it varies from day to day. Perhaps a large amount of pollution is currently on its way from the disaster in Palestine, Ohio!
There is no question that is a real issue. Ozone in New York City is mostly the result of upstream emissions for example.
Roger – ground level ozone –
Thoughts on the Bell McDermott study – 96 US cities and premature mortality due to increase in ground level ozone.
would like to hear your thoughts before I comment
Joe
Joe,
I don’t deny that ozone has health impacts like this study shows. It has been a priority for decades because there are many areas of the country that are not in attainment for it. Over the years EPA has focused its pollution abatement efforts on the electric power industry but now the emissions are so low that if you want attainment you have to go after motor vehicles. We know the conditions that cause ozone problems and limiting vehicle use on those days would be the best bet for getting into attainment. Politically that would be a challenge however.
This may show up a second time.
Joe – I don’t dispute that ozone is a real problem like this study shows. Many areas of the country still are not in attainment for the ozone NAAQS. Getting there has proven difficult because motor vehicles are a major source of the remaining precursor emissions. If they want to get to attainment quickly they could limit vehicle use when the conditions are right for ozone non-attainment. I do not see that happening politically.
Roger – thanks for the comment.
I pick this particular study since many consider it to be the gold standard for this type study on premature mortality.
I have a slightly different take on the conclusion of that study in that it seems to attribute a much greater increase in premature mortality due to increases in ground level ozone than is warranted by the “correlation” . The correlation of increase in ground level ozone and premature death seems to be in the 50%- 60% range while the increase in heat and premature mortality is almost 100%.
Its one of the reasons I am leery of the consensus that co2 is the driver of the current warming. Granted rising temps and increases in co2 have a very strong correlation over the last 150-200, though very poor correlation prior to the 1800’s. Just seems that “scientific ” conclusions are reached too often when there are other data points with higher correlations than the “predetermined bad boy”. this is across lots of scientific studies, not just global warming.
Joe – I agree that the link between heat and humidity and health issues is strong. Given that heat is usually associated with ozone episodes teasing out the effect of ozone is always going to be an issue. Part of the problem with ozone nonattainment is that they keep lowering the standard which makes the confounding factors even more of a problem.
At some point the pollutant – health impact correlations are going to be called out. Inhalable particulates have dropped substantially across the NE but the usual suspects still claim that particulate air pollution is the cause of increasing asthma rates.
Joe – an accountant, wrote:
Its one of the reasons I am leery of the consensus that co2 is the driver of the current warming.
Hilarious.
An accountant — a fu*king accountant — things he knows more than the global climate science community.
Denial is strong in these people. Very strong. Based on nothing. They don’t know the science.
Help us.
Roger -thanks for the comment
I am a amateur competitive cyclist (cat 4). I seen several studies on athletic performance and increases in ground level ozone specifically with the vo2 max tests. Most of those test only adjust for changes in ozone levels concluding that ozone levels affect athletic performance to a high degree. Yet based on first hand knowledge, ozone levels are a distant 5th or 6th factor in performance.
Your other point on inhalent particles dropping is also valid. Almost as if the law of diminishing returns is reversed (opposite effect) on the advocate’s studies. ie each incremental reduction brings a larger additional benefit.
Joe – an accountant (LOL) wrote:
I am a amateur competitive cyclist (cat 4). I seen several studies on athletic performance and increases in ground level ozone specifically with the vo2 max tests. Most of those test only adjust for changes in ozone levels concluding that ozone levels affect athletic performance to a high degree. Yet based on first hand knowledge, ozone levels are a distant 5th or 6th factor in performance.
So?
So therefore it can be ignored?
What about for others, athletes and non-athletes?
Or is it only you who matters?
David Appell | February 17, 2023 at 10:43 pm |
Joe – an accountant (LOL) wrote:
I am a amateur competitive cyclist (cat 4). I seen several studies on athletic performance and increases in ground level ozone specifically with the vo2 max tests. Most of those test only adjust for changes in ozone levels concluding that ozone levels affect athletic performance to a high degree. Yet based on first hand knowledge, ozone levels are a distant 5th or 6th factor in performance.
“So?
So therefore it can be ignored?
What about for others, athletes and non-athletes?
Or is it only you who matters?”
Appleman – If you were a scientist or if you tried to use basic analytical skills, then you would understand the comment.
my comment points to a common problem throughout scientific studies – reaching erroneous conclusions due to elevating the importance a single factors well beyond those single factors actual affect.
In this case, those studies conclude that ground level ozone is a dominant factor in level of performance when in reality, it is a distant 5th or 6th factor. Same issue with the Bell McDermott study of premature mortality in 96 US cities blaming increases in ground level ozone as the dominant cause when in reality it is a distant second factor. Its a study that you should read and understand. Its a prime example of a “gold standard ” study reaching an erroneous conclusion for the reason I just mentioned.
Lastly – many of the exalted climate studies suffer the same problem.
The ability to recognize erroneous conclusions due to overrating the dominance of a single factor is a skill set you should develop.
As I’ve mentioned before, there is a long and wide denial of the role petroleum plays in the lives of 8 billion people. With that industry cast as the root of all evil, no one can defend it and be heard. My speech for years has been, “Stand where you are. Slowly turn 360 degrees. Write down all the things that are not made possible by petroleum. Your paper should be empty.”
Fuels get all the attention. Anyone who understands crude oil assays and refining chemistry knows that the conversion to basic fuel products is a delicate balance. Disrupt demand for any one of them very far, and the ability of the refinery to run (physically, not economically) ends quickly. The conversion of cars to EV’s, and utilities to renewables is plenty to take refining onto the slippery slope, and early. True believers disregard this with a wave of the hand, compressing time and technology to fit. Ain’t gonna happen that way.
But in their wildest dreams (“No more combusting of petroleum products!”), they ignore petrochemicals. In the 360 one might do, if there is no vehicle, power plant, airplane, or ship in sight, your paper will still be empty. The ability to replace virtually every product on the planet with molecules other than hydrocarbons is beyond ludicrous. One legislator responded, “Well, if we get rid of all the fuels, but still need petrochemicals, we will have gotten ourselves 90% there.” Not even close. Those petrochemicals come from the basic refining of billions of barrels of plain old crude oil. The so-called “light ends” are what go into petrochemical refineries, and then to converters and manufacturers. So, if you want the products those light ends make possible, you have to do something with the kerosene, diesel, fuel oil, and other crap that comes out the bottom of the crude tower. You want a million barrels of vinyl chloride? You’re going to get 80-90 million barrels of stuff for which you already cancelled demand. Where are you going to put it?
What Brian says above is very correct, however it is one perspective, and in my view a narrow one. It is about life as we know it in around the year 2000.
The quality of life as we know it today we owe mainly to petro-fuels. It all starts from the food-chain. We have used the wooden plough for more than 5000 years but never got beyond a mediaeval form of existence. The food chain demanded most of the workforce, and even that was limiting.
(Note 1: a forager need as much land to survive as 6000 when working the land together. 6k men working together have the time to develop into a comfortable civilisation and develop knowledge-wise).
(Note2: still the ancients had an understanding of the earth around them – and the heavens above- something that has been lost due to a comfortable complacency because of the increased food security)
Petroleum and the internal combustion engine have changed agriculture completely. We are more food secure, but now totally reliant on fossil fuels. Yet that can be problematic. It is like a candle; you want the light and you want it to last for as long as you can. You don’t then burn it at both ends. There is no ready alternative, and none so far in sight.
Brain’s post is narrow only in the sense that he did not mention that we have possibly hundreds of years before fossil fuels are depleted. Through which we have time to develop new sources and technologies … with the wealth we have accrued (pun intended).
Misused, the Precautionary Principal is nothing more than a set of shackles. Worse, it can lead to ‘lemming-like’ behavior.
The “we have possibly hundreds of years” is a blind hope that a glass that is half full will somehow be replenished, when the probability is that it empties. Following the trend over several past decades, I found one needs to read way in ‘between the lines’ to figure out the probable situation overall.
Then again the ‘lemming like’ behaviour has already set in, and for the wrong reasons. And as in Brian’s cautioning, it can get painful.
The ‘precautionary principle’ if followed properly can lead to benefits and improvements besides preserving today’s quality of life and making it last.
Accounts of ‘peak oil’ have been proven wrong about as many times as catastrophic sea level rise. Then there’s the myth that all the easy oil has been pumped. Really? Have we scoured the globe and pumped all the ‘easy’ oil? Exxon’s Guyana discovery, within the last decade, is actually larger than originally thought. Chevron is negotiating to go into Algeria for NG. In the USA there are states that prohibit fracking, New York being a prime example. Aside from Nigeria, Africa is still largely undeveloped for fossils fuels. Today, Yahoo Finance contributor, Rick Newman, noted for his progressive politics, has an article about ‘How Biden is wrong about the future of oil.’ He quotes sources that say by 2050 oil demand will be about where it is today. They mention possible shortages, but not through availability of the resource, but regulation and the lack of investment. Their answer is to push EVs and renewable energy.
You quoted me at ‘hundreds of years’. 1-200 doesn’t seem like a stretch, progressives have already pushed ‘peak oil’ out 30 more years. Actually, it’s hard to find them using the term peak oil anymore. It’s now maximum demand. And, if the lemmings keep pushing EVs, which aren’t likely to replace the ICE, that will act as a brake on demand.
By the way, in the USA it is estimated that we will produce a new record amount of oil. Next year, as well.
Bill Fabrizio wrote:
Accounts of ‘peak oil’ have been proven wrong about as many times as catastrophic sea level rise.
Define “catastrophic.”
When was sea level rise proven wrong.
Show your data.
Bill Fabrizio wrote:
Brain’s post is narrow only in the sense that he did not mention that we have possibly hundreds of years before fossil fuels are depleted. Through which we have time to develop new sources and technologies
How much time?
Give your answer to the nearest decade.
Explain why.
Bill Fabrizio: Some comments on your above post.
‘Peak oil’ if I recall, featured in about 2005 (or it’s when I took more notice). Then oil price went through the roof, I think twice it is today. I ask why? When one is involved in planning power plant to service for the next 30 years these things matter a lot.
Added link to confirm memory: https://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart
In the above circumstances one needs to be informed on future fuel availability. One gets conflicting info, eg plenty of oil yet soaring price. There is conflicting info, from depleted sources to decades long of full production of those same sources. So what is right; and where is the deception? I found some, (but too late in my years).
Then ICE versus EV’s. Hydrocarbons and ICE are presently indispensable, but/and for the more essential duties. There is need to insure that they last long (won’t be replaced by nuke). Yet EV’s can be a boon for cities. Eg. city traffic works at less than 20% efficiency of fuel. That fuel burned in a dedicated plant at near 55% effcy can supply double the power required by the EV to replace the ICE in the city. The added bonus there is cleaner city air. ICE pollutes badly especially at light load; the power plant is much cleaner (but choose your vendor carefully).
Extremes of positions are bad either way.
David … sea level rise is at about 3mm a year. That’s about 1/8″. Compare that to the warnings from the last 40 years. Data? Do you see any catastrophes? If you have seen any, I’d love to know about them.
As for peak oil … the nearest decade? LOL!!! Wish I had that crystal ball, as my investments would be doing a lot better. My statement, as with peak oil, is that the predictions have been wrong and I have not seen any indication/proof we are near peak oil. So …. again, if you think we are, then I’d love to see the facts.
mm ….
Great chart! I’m not a petroleum engineer, but I have followed the industry as an investor for decades. When I look at that chart what jumps out to me is speculation. Yes, other factors affect the market, not the least of which is OPEC, now OPEC+. However, as I’m sure you’re aware, there are many players in the oil commodity market not just the drillers. Lots of factors. Did you read the other day that American oil companies are considering hedging oil contracts, which is what European companies have done for a while now? Should be interesting to see how that affects the market.
When you speak of deception I’m not sure how to answer that. I don’t think there is deception so much as there’s a lack of information. If an oil company says a well is half depleted, that’s probably based on their original assumptions. If the well produces past expectations, or drys up, the info is passed along. Point is … the future will tell us the actual production. If there is some truth to the statement that peak oil has been reached, it would be most assuredly the result of regulatory limitations on exploration and extraction of it.
EV vs ICE. I agree that we will need ICEs far into the future, if only for agriculture, mining, construction, trains (long distance), air travel, military … amongst others. Would love it if I could have a Batmobile. But not in my lifetime. And I am not against EVs. I rather like them. I just would caution you that the power requirements for a single Level 3 charging lot (station) in a city will be quite large. EVs at the moment are great for single family dwellers, who can charge overnight/few hours with a Level 1 or 2 charger. Better, if that dwelling is in a climate that can support solar panels on the roof to defray costs and the burden on the grid. In a large city, where apartment dwelling
is the norm it presents greater challenges. Mass transit is a better option. Also, in a power outage the EVs are at a disadvantage.
As with renewable energy, I think a certain penetration of EVs is fine. I see Net Zero on fossil fuels/technology as an extreme that will hurt us far worse that fossil fuels.
melitamegalithic wrote:
The quality of life as we know it today we owe mainly to petro-fuels
No, it’s due to our ability to generate and access energy.
Its source does not matter.
It need not come from petro-fuels.
Petro-fuels have enormous negative externalities, as we’re not seeing.
Their time has come and gone.
We can do better now.
We have to.
David Appell | February 18, 2023 at 10:03 pm |
melitamegalithic wrote:
The quality of life as we know it today we owe mainly to petro-fuels
No, it’s due to our ability to generate and access energy.
Appelman – The quality of life as we know it to today has come better use of energy which has come primarily from fossil fuels.
You might want to take a remedial course in the history of energy or even a basic history course.
David Appell | February 17, 2023 at 10:40 pm |
Bill Fabrizio wrote:
Accounts of ‘peak oil’ have been proven wrong about as many times as catastrophic sea level rise.
Define “catastrophic.”
Appell – fyi – webster dictionary was first published in circa 1806. Perhaps you have a copy.
Bill Fabrizio wrote:
Accounts of ‘peak oil’ have been proven wrong about as many times as catastrophic sea level rise.
Who proved catastrophic sea level rise wrong?
What did they mean by “catastrophic” in the context of SLR?
Bill Fabrizio wrote:
Brain’s post is narrow only in the sense that he did not mention that we have possibly hundreds of years before fossil fuels are depleted. Through which we have time to develop new sources and technologies … with the wealth we have accrued (pun intended).
Why no hurry to develop new sources and technologies now?
How much more global warming do you want?
Warming is about 1.5 deg C for every trillion tons of carbon we emit. Plus or minus about 1/3rd.
It’s just the slope of this function, which is very close to linear:
https://t.ly/UEkX
Bill Fabrizio wrote:
sea level rise is at about 3mm a year.
Actually a quadratic fit to the (Aviso) data, which is better than a linear fit, gives a present SLR of 4.7 mm/yr.
But worse, the acceleration is 0.073 mm/yr2.
The quadratic fit gives another 0.6 m of SLR by 2100, relative to today.
In 2100, this fit gives an annual SLR of over 10 mm/yr (4 in/decade).
My understanding is that this rise is already committed — we can’t stop it even if we never emitted another ton of CO2. Actually, I think the committed rise is about 2 m for the most likely scenario.
Bill, what will 2 m of sea level rise do to the world’s coastal cities?
Compare that to the warnings from the last 40 years.
OK, go ahead and compare them, I’m interested in that too.
Data?
Aviso: https://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/en/index.php?id=1599
Colorado University: http://sealevel.colorado.edu
Do you see any catastrophes?
Please define “catastrophic” in the context of sea level rise.
Sea level rise is already costing homes in the US, and money:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2018/09/sea-level-rise-is-already-starting-to.html
From 2018:
$14.1 billion in lost home values: Axios: “According to a new report by the nonprofit First Street Foundation, housing values in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut dropped $6.7 billion from 2005 to 2017 due to flooding related to sea level rise. Combined with their prior analysis of 5 southeastern coastal states with $7.4 billion in lost home value, the total loss in 8 states since 2005 has been $14.1 billion.”
Joey the (lol) accountant wrote:
Appell – fyi – webster dictionary was first published in circa 1806. Perhaps you have a copy.
Clearly you won’t, and can’t, specify what “catastrophic climate change” would look like.
Why not?
melitamegalithic wrote:
‘Peak oil’ if I recall, featured in about 2005 (or it’s when I took more notice). Then oil price went through the roof, I think twice it is today.
Not true at all:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/POILBREUSDM
Brian, we can get more bottom distillates simply be curtailing the use of the cracking tower. Industry can adapt to much less petroleum products. Some states are banning plastic shopping bags and nobody is missing them. I will survive without a straw. Plastic toys made in China – diddo. We need to conserve carbon and use it wisely, not burn it. I am for investment in nuclear technologies, especially fusion.
If you do not want to use plastic bags or straws, knock yourself out. However, why do you want to impose your views on everybody else? Strikes me as just plain arrogance.
Many years ago, we as kids, used to collect copper and brass because it payed for our sweets/sugars. Not that it did our teeth any good, but copper was recycled.
The other day I saw one of the mountains of plastics collecting in municipal dumps, none of it recyclable. And that was the part that was collected. More of it finds its ways practically everywhere.
Mike above says/asks “why do you want to impose your views on everybody else?” Our bad habits of dumping plastics everywhere is an imposition on all. It is also a waste of a petroleum product that will never return in the materials cycle, not even in millions of years. Worse than incinerating it.
The “mountains of plastic” at the landfill that you saw is a primarily a result of the fact that mixed-waste plastic cannot be recycled. It takes more energy, water and chemicals (to clean and wash, then remove labels even the plastics that CAN be recycled) than to make new plastic materials. No method has yet been found — not even the so-called “chemical recycling” that is cost effective. The best use for these plastic waste materials that are comingled is burning for energy. A ton of waste plastic has more BTUs than a ton of coal. No worries about fumes or pollution from these burn facilities — technology makes burning a viable means of disposing of comingled plastics. I spent 30 years as a journalist for plastics industry trade publications as the industry studied many ways to “reduce, reuse and recycle.” It’s still struggling with that.
clgolds: in general in agreement.
I add two points. On incineration, from a little contact with the process, it can have problems resulting from the required high temperatures, and the possibility of serious pollution (dioxin).
The second point is that plastic that ends in the landfill that comes from packaging is a material humanity as done without for millennia. Its use in the long run did not make the products any cheaper. On the contrary now we are being penalised and forced to return ‘some’. When bottles were glass the system collected and reused them. There has set a culture of use and dispose.
Plastic as an alternative to paper, glass and metal packaging has proven to be much cheaper and more environmentally friendly than the older materials. If you’ve ever been to a paper manufacturing plant, which are built along rivers, you’ll see that the paper-making process requires a LOT of water as well as either recycled paper or new wood pulp. Paper is quite heavy when it comes to shipping which means costs are increased compared to plastics.
As for glass, there is currently a shortage of silica sand needed to make glass and the loss of products due to breakage is quite high. Additionally, the weight of product packaged in glass is much heavier which means that shipping is more expensive and more fossil fuel is needed.
Actually, nothing is all good or all bad. There is a place for plastics when it comes to saving energy and resources. There is a place for glass and paper as well. However, paper and glass could never replace all the plastics currently being used in packaging without tremendous costs.
The ‘bad habit’ of dumping plastics is partly due to the environmental movement, which has us with mountains of plastic that are not recycled and the resistance, regulatory and narrative, to incinerating it for power generation. The same for other types of trash. Lemmings … rushing over the cliff.
Bill Fabrizio wrote:
The ‘bad habit’ of dumping plastics is partly due to the environmental movement, which has us with mountains of plastic that are not recycled and the resistance, regulatory and narrative, to incinerating it for power generation. The same for other types of trash. Lemmings … rushing over the cliff.
LOL.
Environmentalists also caused WW I, right?
melitamegalithic wrote:
Many years ago, we as kids, used to collect copper and brass because it payed for our sweets/sugars. Not that it did our teeth any good, but copper was recycled. The other day I saw one of the mountains of plastics collecting in municipal dumps, none of it recyclable.
How much of that plastic did you put there?
clgolds: From your last paragraph “Actually, nothing is all good or all bad.” I tend to agree. There is always a cost in introducing a novel method. And the old methods always have some negative element. Maybe with plastics it was not so evident then.
Bill Fabrizio:
Many years ago during my engineering studies, plastics were another material. I still have the book “Plastics in the service of Man”. There is no mention of municipal dumps of it. What was used and is still useful is recyclable – if it were not for bad habits.
David Appell:
The question to ask is how much was I forced to put there? I still like sweets. False teeth are now immune to that (OK, one good use of plastics). Many years ago we bought the stuff; it came with minimal wrapping. Today we have to buy the wrapping with minimal of the stuff. You have to remove the film plastic wrapping to get to the plastic box, inside of which is the plastic divider to get to a small to minuscule piece of chocolate wrapped in its own wrapper. The common retort is ‘are we being conned?’
One can argue on plastic for preservation packaging. There it’s in the realm of quality control, and that is another pitfall.
mm …
> Many years ago during my engineering studies, plastics were another material. I still have the book “Plastics in the service of Man”.
That made me remember Mrs. Robinson’s husband’s advice to Benjamin Braddock … He had one word for advice to the recent graduate, “Plastics.” LOL!
Bill Fabrizio
Some tangent you take off to. But.
In proper use plastics have their beneficial side. See section 3.3 here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S259000641930064X
(unlike gold teeth, you’re safe from being hunted. :) )
mm …
One must always have a sense of humor. :-)
Pingback: New York’s Good Environmental Intentions Unsullied by Reality | Watts Up With That?
No problemo. NYS can just import all electricity from Canada and New Jersey.
Ed Reid: “NYS can just import all electricity from Canada and New Jersey.”
The NYS climate act states that the impacts of regulatory permitting decisions on upstream GHG emissions must be accounted for in granting approvals for new or upgraded energy facilities.
The impacts of permitting decisions on GHG emissions produced outside of the state’s borders are included in the climate law’s scope of application.
The power transmission upgrades needed to access Canadian hydro might pass regulatory muster if it can be shown the new transmission capacity won’t increase Canada’s GHG emissions.
But expanding transmission capacity for better access to New Jersey’s gas-fired power plants is likely to be viewed by regulators as a violation of the NYS climate act, because those upgrades have the potential for incentivizing New Jersey to burn more natural gas in serving the NYS power market.
Pingback: New York’s Good Environmental Intentions Unsullied by Reality - Lead Right News
Pingback: New York’s Good Environmental Intentions Unsullied by Reality - USA weather forecast
Pingback: New York’s Good Environmental Intentions Unsullied by Reality - News7g
New York politicians are simply complying with the science of climate that the “distinguished” climatologists and meteorologists have developed.
Nabil: Anthropogenic climate change is established science.
Define “established science”.
Rob Starkey wrote:
Define “established science”.
As good as special & general relativity.
If you don’t know this, you are a denier who does not deserved to be listened to.
You would have to believe that CO2, CH4, N2O etc do not absorb infrared radiation. Doing so would be absolutely stupid.
“Nabil: Anthropogenic climate change is established science.”
There is no doubt about the antropgenic causes of climate change. However, the radiative forcing is misleading and does not provide sufficient climate understanding to recommend among other things artificial sequestration of carbon dioxide. We are by trying in the ground a source of food and energy. You have to explain how this can be right
Nabil Swedan wrote:
However, the radiative forcing is misleading and does not provide sufficient climate understanding to recommend among other things artificial sequestration of carbon dioxide.
Why not?
Only ignorants burry a needed source of food and energy, and that is what the climate science has provided-ignorance
‘Science” and ‘established’ do NOT go together like a horse and carriage.
Scientific investigation is heretical, involving Galileo ‘n Karl Popper evolution of theories (and Royal Society “Nullius in verba.) If science becomes consen-suss – established, – a thousand – thousand people- agree, why, one person with the requisite data is all that it takes to overthrow a past millennium of belief.
The question isn’t if carbon dioxide contributes heat to the atmosphere. The question is will it cause a catastrophe. Any proposed evidence thus far is specious.
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not cause heat because the heat has already been released by combustion of carbon.
Carbon Dioxide stores heat (kinetic energy) via absorption of photons via vibrational modes of the molecule. Therefore, the content of heat is increased vs an atmosphere with no CO2. This is simple physics.
Jim2, what vibration kinetic energy are you talking abou? In thermodynamics there is sensible heat, or enthalpy, potential energy, or both.
You can’t dodge the point by changing the subject, Nabil. Nice try, though.
Energetics
For studying the energetics of molecular vibration we take the simplest example, a diatomic heteronuclear molecule AB. Homonuclear molecules are not IR active so they are not a good example to select. Let the respective masses of atoms A and B be mA
and mB. So the reduced mass μAB is given by:
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Spectroscopy/Vibrational_Spectroscopy/Vibrational_Modes/Introduction_to_Vibrations
Nabil Swedan commented:
Only ignorants burry a needed source of food and energy, and that is what the climate science has provided-ignorance
Nabil: you are so clearly wrong.
Anyone who knows anything knows this.
I’ve learned it is not worth my time to correspond with people like you.
You can have the last word.
PS: Learn how to spell. You won’t look so ignorant.
jim2 wrote:
The question isn’t if carbon dioxide contributes heat to the atmosphere. The question is will it cause a catastrophe.
Define “catastrophe.”
Look it up, David.
We have a climate ignorance, and the truth can be so ugly. I made sure that the spelling is correct now.
It’s also trivial.
Nabil Swedan wrote:
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not cause heat because the heat has already been released by combustion of carbon.
Yes. Everyone knows this.
beththeserf wrote:
If science becomes consen-suss – established, – a thousand – thousand people- agree, why, one person with the requisite data is all that it takes to overthrow a past millennium of belief.
Yes, everyone knows this.
However, NASA used consensus science to go to the moon. You rely on consensus science every time you fly in a plane or drive your car or use your computer.
“However, NASA used consensus science to go to the moon.”
Indeed they did. However, claiming consensus where none exists doesn’t automatically mean very much. Claiming consensus on the basis of less than 100 responses to a sloppy poll doesn’t mean very much either.
Especially when those claiming consensus steadfastly ignore later, more scientifically constructed polls of the opinions of published climate scientists. The ‘97%’ consensus gets whittled down to about 65%.
Not on the existence of greenhouse gases, not on the effects of doubling the concentration of those gases in the atmosphere, but on the supposed catastrophic effects and the extent of our understanding of such things like atmospheric sensitivity and the role clouds play in their calculations.
Keep banging the drum, Mr. Appel. Or you could start singing instead–‘Fly Me to the Moon’ might be appropriate.
thomaswfuller2 wrote:
Especially when those claiming consensus steadfastly ignore later, more scientifically constructed polls of the opinions of published climate scientists. The ‘97%’ consensus gets whittled down to about 65%.
Actually the consensus is 99.94% of scientists, this study found:
“The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Matters,” James Lawrence Powell, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, May 24, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467617707079
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467617707079?journalCode=bsta
US scientific organizations that have expressed their position that climate change is happening and caused by human activities:
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action:
http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html
ianl commented:
In response to David Appell:
Nabil: Anthropogenic climate change is established science.
It’s also trivial.
Yes, it’s very basic physics.
But 1.5 C of warming isn’t trivial in any way, let alone 3 C by 2100 if we continue on the path we’re on.
Remember, the global temperature difference was only about 6 C from when Chicago has 3 km of ice over it to the pre-industrial era.
Seemingly “small” temperature differences on Earth are not trivial at all.
Pingback: Are climate change believers part of a cult? – Newsfeed Hasslefree Allsort
The Kommie Diktats to phase out fossil fuels has been an abject and very expensive failure. I love how the Kommie “progressives” rant endlessly about “helping the poor” all the while pushing policies that affect every part of our lives that make everything more expensive, thereby creating more poor people. “Progressive” is another term for irrational as far as I can tell.
Fossil fuel consumption subsidies worldwide soared in 2022, rising above USD 1 trillion for the first time, according to new IEA estimates, as turmoil in energy markets sent fuel prices in international markets well above what was actually paid by many consumers.
https://www.iea.org/commentaries/the-global-energy-crisis-pushed-fossil-fuel-consumption-subsidies-to-an-all-time-high-in-2022
Jim2: what data show everything is getting more expensive, in real terms? Be sure to include external costs.
PS: A little inflation is a good thing. It makes people buy now instead of later, which is what gives other people jobs.
Appellman
External costs do in fact exist – though the activists elevate those costs to levels vastly exceeding reality
Inflation – Interesting comment – care to give us some of your insight into micro and macro economics, especially the effect of inflation on the labor market – you might compare and contrast with the hyper inflation during the carter years and the effect on the labor market, or compare with the labor market during the inflationary period during the biden adminstration ( using real job numbers and the labor participation rates) .
Looking forward to some enlightenment
Appell
You might want to stay in your lane, what ever that is. Or don’t you know what the Fed is trying to do or maybe you didn’t live through the persistent inflation of the 1960s-1980s. I did and it’s not fun.
That’s right David, continue to ignore reality.
I think that David is joking. Inflation incentivizes borrowing which increases demand which drives up labor and material costs which increases inflation – until really high borrowing costs kill the goose and increases unemployment and mortgage foreclosures. That’s no joke!
I’d like to see David convince anyone that “green” energy isn’t making just about everything more expensive. Of course he won’t because he can’t.
I listened to the entire webinar — The environmental rights amendment: by and for New Yorkers — referenced by Roger in his post: The full webinar is here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BnZRzq67KEUhyAOqPD_Mv7AUa1kaLb2A/view
For those of us who are deep into energy policy issues, listening to that webinar is a sobering experience. The participants are giddy at the wealth of possibilities the Environmental Rights Amendment offers for meddling in the regulatory decision making processes of state and local agencies in New York State. And also for meddling in the affairs of private businesses and even private individuals whose business activity or even personal activity involves an environmental consequence of one kind or another.
Much of the discussion in the webinar concerns how the courts will interpret the amendment. In the past, the courts have traditionally been reluctant to decide questions of science. For example, to decide what the health effects of a regulated pollutant actually are, both quantitatively and qualitatively.
In the past, that job has been left to the regulatory agencies and their technical and scientific staffs. As long as those agencies followed their own internal procedures and processes, and as long as an opportunity for public input was properly granted, then the courts generally left the permitting decisions in the hands of the regulatory agencies.
It is noted by several webinar participants that under the amendment, the ‘qualitative’ facets of an alleged environmental pollution problem are intended to be just as important as are the ‘quantitative’ facets of that alleged problem. This opens the door to legal arguments which ignore scientific data and analysis and which depend instead upon the perceptions of the alleged victims that their right to a clean environment has been, or will be, violated.
The webinar participants also acknowledge that the amendment can be used as a justification for making ‘bad decisions.’ One prominent example of such a ‘bad decision’ would be for a regulatory agency to deny a permit for a wind farm or a solar farm; or for a court to reverse a permitting decision for a wind farm or a solar farm as a consequence of a lawsuit filed by locally-affected residents concerned about the environmental impacts of wind and solar energy facilities. New York’s environmental activists will take the position that invoking the NYS environmental rights amendment for opposing wind and solar projects would constitute an abuse of the rights that it grants.
What happens next in New York State?
I think that the increased threat of lawsuits against state and local permitting agencies will cause those agencies to avoid the certainty of lengthy and expensive court action simply by caving in to the demands of the environmental activists not to issue permits for proposed industrial facilities, and not to renew permits for existing industrial or energy-producing facilities if these facilities produce any kind of emissions whatsoever, regardless of how quantitatively small those emissions might be.
“This opens the door to legal arguments which ignore scientific data and analysis and which depend instead upon the perceptions of the alleged victims that their right to a clean environment has been, or will be, violated.” Here in Australia, which is rapidly going mad, a court blocked a massive multi-billion dollar offshore project (gas or oil, i forget) because the company had not consulted an islander living 140 kms away. In Queensland, a huge coal project has been blocked because of possible impact on the Great Barrier Reef far offshore, even though the Reef (contrary to propaganda) is thriving, and any pollutants (very few under existing regulation) would be confined to coastal waters.
It’s a whale of a problem …
Since early December, close to two dozen large whales have washed up on or near beaches on the US Atlantic coast, and about a third of the so-called strandings have occurred on the shores of New Jersey. It’s unclear what exactly is fueling the deaths, but an unlikely coalition of wind opponents, local environmental groups and conservative talk show hosts have zeroed in on offshore wind as the culprit. They argue that projects in development are disrupting marine life and contributing to the unusually high number of deceased whales.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-18/why-are-whales-dying-in-new-jersey-some-blame-wind-farms
Those new laws were used to kill an upgrade project on a combustion turbine peaker plant in Astoria. Were going to replace an aging fleet of turbines with a new GE 7HA.03 combined cycle turbine. Up to 65% efficient with very low emissions, especially as compared to the older turbines.
Now they are planning to eventually use the location for power connections from an offshore wind farm that might be built someday. In the meantime, they will be running those lower efficiency and more polluting turbines to supply peak power demands.
In the official permit denial, it is obvious that you can forget ever building any new natural gas fired anything in the state of New York. Seems to me to be an insane policy. Going to have some serious consequences down the road.
The consequences couldn’t happen to a more deserving state. The citizens of that state will suffer, but they also are the ones who elect Climate Doomers and allow them to weild power unimpeded.
Jim2, this is not a nice comment, because you are judging a large segment of people. They will have to go through this social/economical process and find out that when the economy of nature is defied, failure is the outcome.
I pity the man who goes through life nonjudgmental. We have to make judgements every day, some are life and death ones. It’s perfectly OK and even necessary at times to make judgements about a large segment of people. IMO, it’s a perfectly nice comment. Let’s face it, the truth can be ugly. In fact, due to a large segment of “progressives,” some people, perhaps even you, say Truth is the new Hate Speech.
But Jim, they are going to put themselves through suffering to make up for your sins. To vilify all New Yorkers as deserving of consequences invites them to feel hostility toward you and your group for your ungratefulness of their sacrifice.
—————-
Ron Graf: “But Jim, they are going to put themselves through suffering to make up for your sins. To vilify all New Yorkers as deserving of consequences invites them to feel hostility toward you and your group for your ungratefulness of their sacrifice.”
—————-
I live in the US Northwest, but I have relatives who live in upstate New York, on Long Island, and in Manhattan.
They all dismiss my warnings that the NYS Climate Act, and the state’s energy policies in general, will have very serious and damaging economic, environmental, and personal lifestyle impacts on New York State and on the people who make their homes there.
My relatives cannot believe that those responsible for maintaining the reliability of the power grid in New York State would make decisions which put the supply of electricity seriously at risk.
My response to my relatives is that those responsible for the power grid in New York State can and will make decisions which put the state’s supply of electricity seriously at risk.
These officials are appointed and funded by politicians who are pushing hard for Net Zero. They cannot be seen to be standing in the way of progress on climate change. Those responsible for the reliability of the power grid in the US Northwest find themselves in a similar situation.
As for spawning feelings of hostility from New Yorkers, Governor Hochul said herself in one of her fall campaign rallies that anyone who didn’t like how the state was being run should move to Florida.
I have relatives from upstate NY. The upstaters tend to be more conservative, fulfilling the usual pattern of rural being more conservative than urban. That doesn’t mean they understand the harsh reality. It’s difficult to come by honest information these daze.
Looming EV Trash Crisis – more certain than Catastrophic Global Warming!
Now let’s apply this observation to electric vehicles. The price tag to replace batteries on most real-world experience is five digits. This is typically far more than the value of the vehicle at 100,000 miles, so it is usually no longer economically feasible to replace. This site works hard to claim it’s no big deal, that batteries will cost less in future years, and that aftermarket competition will drive price down, but it also admits they’re only good for eight years or 100,000 miles.
Carfax as well as other sites claim the average vehicle depreciation rate is about 20% in the first year, and 15% per year after that, so let’s do the math; A Chevy Bolt costs that costs around $28,000 new will be worth about $7,200 in 8 years, $5,200 in 10 years. The cost to replace the battery? $16,000. People should be lining up for that deal, right? Therefore, the useful life of an EV? Pushing it… maybe 10 years. Then it’s scrap.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/02/is_there_a_looming_trash_crisis.html
Very interesting comment on EVs. My work involves mapping out complex networks, on the ground, worldwide for a long time. Career started by documenting the real-world costs of US/EU fuel economy and emissions regulations on autos and other mobile sources. Tracked the global spread of internet by carrying communications devices around the world, and watching how global internet changed industries, societies, etc.
So what?
We learned long ago that one cannot accurately project the results of any technology or policy, unless one documents the effects on their total life cycle which is this: Mine, Melt, Manufacture, Sell, Scale, Operate, Repair, Tear down, Discard,or Recycle.
Team of us traveled the global life cycle of EV’s, solar/wind, hydro, and other energy consumers and generators, on all continents – across all these dimensions.
Some results:
-The modern gas automobile is one of the most highly recycled products in human existence. After initial creation, each vehicle has an average life cycle of about 20 years. At that point it is dis-assembled and its parts are sold USED in a global used parts chain, which is the most profitable part of the whole life cycle. This means almost all auto components world wide DO NOT REQUIRE NEW MINING/MANUFACTURING, ETC – which means they have one of the lowest long term life-cycle environmental impacts of most things global consumers use.
In comparison, a Tesla has a plastic body, and a battery assembled from thousands of 18650-type cells, so it is extremely hard to recycle. The body can’t be recycled, According to recent Tesla documents the batteries are “valorized” by grinding them up and putting their waste in construction cement. In contrast, Toyota/Honda hybrid batteries are easily re-used and recycled.
And my biggest point – current solar panels, wind vanes, massive utility batteries, and other “green” energy infrastructure is almost impossible to recycle in any manner close to Toyota/Honda life cycle components – and the current “green” energy generation technology consumes huge amounts of water in desert regions (see LATAM “salars”) – and generates millions of tons of global e-waste (see e-waste ports in Asia and LATAM)
Milk comes from cows, not bottles.
Current e-waste comes from “green” industries – which have almost no meaningful, scaleable forms of recycling (except ones that require large amounts of energy to melt and re-process tons of glass, plastic, and complex metals)
So the minuscule post-sale actions of places like NYC, are almost irrelevant compared to the total life cycle global environmental insults of current EV, solar, wind, and other “green branded” technologies.
Doesn’t NY have a bigger problem than most just getting trash off the streets?
Depends if it’s contract time.
I wish RIE was here. Anyone heard from him? He might be able to enlighten us on biological nutrient reduction in sewage treatment plants. NYC outlaws garbage disposals, ostensibly to increase/maintain BNR. So … all organic garbage winds up in the trash. Walking up the street, when you come to a long row of trash cans, if you kick the first can you may see rats leaping from can to can, much as dolphins, although not as attractive. NYC garbagemen have my respect. Garbage in the trash is another reason you’ll see flocks of seagulls at the dump or barges.
One of my good friends has worked on NYC sewage treatment plants as an environmental engineer. We go back and forth on BNR in reference to ‘clean water’ effluent. She’s right on the chemistry, but … as we always discuss on this blog … a desired effect in one process has an effect somewhere else.
Falling sea level threatens Venice’s canals.
Severe low tides in recent days are threatening the levels of Venice’s 150 canals, stranding water taxis and gondolas and complicating the city’s emergency services, which rely on ambulance boats.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-20/these-venice-canals-are-nearly-dried-up-from-low-tide
At many locations, changes in land height dwarf changes in sea level. Sea level has been rising for hundreds of years at an unalarming rate.
My impression is subsidence is usually the culprit when Climate Doomers rave about sea level rise causing problems in some locations.
Reading about the extensive subsidence around the globe was when I started to understand the Big Con. Each time I read an article about horrific sea level rise in a community, I did research about the cause and invariably it was subsidence. This is a a recent paper looking at 290 cases of subsidence around the world. Just like Rob says, sometimes the subsidence rate is a multiple of GMSLR.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969721012602
CKid wrote:
Reading about the extensive subsidence around the globe was when I started to understand the Big Con. Each time I read an article about horrific sea level rise in a community, I did research about the cause and invariably it was subsidence.
Is land subsidence accelerating? Because sea level rise is.
Does warming water expand?
02
The satellite data have too many issues, uncertainties and challenges to warrant confidence in any acceleration numbers.
“up to 0.12 mm/yr2 in acceleration uncertainty”
Wet troposphere correction. Drift, bias, geophysical correction errors.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-00786-7
“Uncertainties remain larger than Global Climate Observing System requirements.”
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/10/281/2018/
“…orbital and wet troposphere corrections…”
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-016-9389-8
“current dynamics creating uncertainties”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/2016JC012413?src=getftr
“wave steepness complexities..”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/2016JC012413?src=getftr
Carmago et al 2021. Uncertainties of 1.29mm/yr in SLR
Ma, et al 2022, Altimeter Baseline errors
Loew et al 2017 issues with validation “impossible to precisely upscale just one reference measurement…”
Vignudelli 2019 “…. However, it is still a challenge to obtain accurate coastal sea levels in the 0–10 km band.”
As you can see there are many issues and problems with conclusions about GMSLR acceleration using satellite data.
In addition to the above there are complications and complexities involving
Biases surrounding the areas of Greenland and Antarctica in Lickley, et al 2018.
Ocean bottom deformation calculations Frederiske et al 2017
Accounting for gravitational attraction Ponte et al 2018
With all of the above uncertainties it’s difficult to see how anyone can have confidence in any acceleration projections or even current observations.
CKid wrote:
Each time I read an article about horrific sea level rise in a community, I did research about the cause and invariably it was subsidence.
Actually in many cases sea-level rise is a *driver* of land subsidence. And land-subsidence is often anthropogenic in origin.
“Human-induced LS [Land subsidence] cases are 76.92% of all the LS cases around the world and groundwater extraction contributes 59.75% of these cases.”
“Based on the considered studies, the natural and human-induced factors are responsible for 23.08% and 76.92% of the LS occurrence, respectively.”
“Sea level rise is an indirect driver for LS [Land subsidence], but is a crucial influencing factor enhancing the damage of LS in the coastal zones.”
via: “Land subsidence: A global challenge,” Mehdi Bagheri-Gavkosh et al, Science of the Total Environment 778 (2021) 146193.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969721012602
Ocean bottom deformation calculations Frederiske et al 2017
Small.
“We use realistic estimates of mass redistribution from ice mass loss and land water storage to quantify the resulting ocean bottom deformation and its effect on global and regional ocean volume change estimates. Over 1993–2014, the resulting globally averaged geocentric sea level change is 8% smaller than the
barystatic contribution. Over the altimetry domain, the difference is about 5%, and due to this effect, barystatic sea level rise will be underestimated by more than 0.1 mm/yr over 1993–2014. Regional differences are often larger: up to 1 mm/yr over the Arctic Ocean and 0.4 mm/yr in the South Pacific.”
Frederikse, T. et al, “Ocean bottom deformation due to present-day mass redistribu tion and its impact on sea level observations,” Geophysical Research Letters, 44, 12,306–12,314.
https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL075419
“Uncertainties remain larger than Global Climate Observing System requirements.”
Small difference:
“It is worth noting that in spite of the improved altimeter standards used in the product, the GCOS user requirements (GCOS, 2011) are still not reached over some specific spatial and temporal scales (e.g. 0.5 mm yr−1 uncertainty during the 1993–2015 period in a 90 % confidence for the GMSL trend compared with the 0.3 mm yr^-1 requirement).”
“An improved and homogeneous altimeter sea level record from the ESA Climate Change Initiative,” Jean-François Legeais et al, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 281–301, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-281-2018
The satellite data have too many issues, uncertainties and challenges to warrant confidence in any acceleration numbers.
Define “too many.”
It’s not the number of uncertainties per se that matters, it’s what they add up to.
“To identify the regions where the measured sea level trends are significant above the instrumental and post processing noise estimated in this study, we compare the estimate of the trend uncertainty (at the 90% confidence level) with the observed sea level trends. We find that 98% of the ocean surface experiences a significant sea level rise (see Fig. 5). The few regions where sea level trends are not significant, are located in the Southern Ocean, Bafrin Bay and in the north Atlantic Ocean, south of Iceland. In all areas where sea level is falling (see Fig. 5) the rate of sea level fall is not significant at the 90% confidence level, except in the Caspian Sea.”
Prandi, P., Meyssignac, B., Ablain, M. et al. Local sea level trends, accelerations and uncertainties over 1993–2019. Sci Data 8, 1 (2021).
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-00786-7
“We estimate a local satellite altimetry error budget and use it to derive local error variance-covariance matrices, and estimate confidence intervals on trends and accelerations at the 90% confidence level. Over 1993–2019, we find that the average local sea level trend uncertainty is 0.83 mm.yr^−1 with values ranging from 0.78 to 1.22 mm.yr^−1. For accelerations, uncertainties range from 0.057 to 0.12 mm.yr^−2, with a mean value of 0.062. We also perform a sensitivity study to investigate a range of plausible error budgets.”
Prandi, P., Meyssignac, B., Ablain, M. et al. Local sea level trends, accelerations and uncertainties over 1993–2019. Sci Data 8, 1 (2021).
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-00786-7
02
Bottom line, there are too many uncertainties in the satellite readings to know precisely how much SLR acceleration there is. The only reliable data are from the tidal gauges which shows little to no acceleration in the rate. It is what it is.
Appleman cites the following- “We estimate a local satellite altimetry error budget and use it to derive local error variance-covariance matrices, and estimate confidence intervals on trends and accelerations at the 90% confidence level. Over 1993–2019, we find that the average local sea level trend uncertainty is 0.83 mm.yr^−1 with values ranging from 0.78 to 1.22 mm.yr^−1. For accelerations, uncertainties range from 0.057 to 0.12 mm.yr^−2, with a mean value of 0.062. We also perform a sensitivity study to investigate a range of plausible error budgets.”
Prandi, P., Meyssignac, B., Ablain, M. et al. Local sea level trends, accelerations and uncertainties over 1993–2019. Sci Data 8, 1 (2021).
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-00786-7
Appleman – Have you ever done any basic level of due diligence – especially with this SLR thingy.
As CKID notes and which is obvious with basic level of due diligence –
KurtL. Feigl, in International Geophysics, 2002
1.4 SLR
Satellite laser ranging (SLR) measures the round-trip distance between an instrument on the ground and a reflective, massive, spherical satellite in low (500–1200 km altitude) orbit. The measurement uncertainty is typically 7 cm in distance, which implies subcentimeter uncertainties in all three vector components of relative position between two benchmarks (Tapley et al., 1993).
Appell
Don’t you feel a little sheepish to know that you have fallen for the Big Con?
“It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they’ve been fooled.”
Mark Twain
CKid wrote:
Don’t you feel a little sheepish to know that you have fallen for the Big Con?
I presented science that says most land subsidence is caused by sea level rise.
And this is your only reply???
Clearly you aren’t interested in what the science says — you’re a science denier just like most people here.
Denialism is really a weak & pathetic argument.
CKid commented:
The satellite data have too many issues, uncertainties and challenges to warrant confidence in any acceleration numbers.
What do these uncertainties add up to?
I don’t think you have the slightest clue.
Appell
You didn’t provide evidence that sea level rise causes most subsidence. That is an absurd concept and demonstrates how little you understand the geomorphological and geological dynamics involved. Where do you get these wacky ideas?
Go back to work on your 8th grade equations.
Appell
It’s clear you don’t even bother to read the scientific literature. None of the literature says most subsidence is caused by sea level rise. You have everything bass ackwards. Subsidence causes relative sea level rise greater than GMSLR.
Where do you get these bizarre ideas?
“ We measured subsidence rates in 99 coastal cities around the world between 2015 and 2020 …. In most cities, part of the land is subsiding faster than sea level is rising. If subsidence continues at present rates, these cities will be challenged by flooding much sooner than projected by sea level rise models. The most rapid subsidence is occurring in South, Southeast, and East Asia. However, rapid subsidence is also happening in North America, Europe, Africa, and Australia. Human activity—primarily groundwater extraction—is likely the main cause of this subsidence.
The link you provided on GW extraction is one I have provided many times previously. The other cause of human subsidence besides GW extraction is mining and oil and gas drilling. At least do some basic research before writing your comments..
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022GL098477
David Appell | March 10, 2023 at 1:18 am |
CKid commented:
The satellite data have too many issues, uncertainties and challenges to warrant confidence in any acceleration numbers.
Appleman’s response to Ckid- “What do these uncertainties add up to? “I don’t think you have the slightest clue.”
Appleman – the price of a mirror has dropped – you might want to invest in one.
“No massive cooling towers, miles of concrete, expansive evacuation zones,” writes the Washington Post, describing modular nuclear reactors instead as “space-age plants that can be small enough to fit in a large backyard,” using “downsized” reactors like the ones on nuclear-powered submarines.
And America’s coal country “is a ripe target for this experiment, with infrastructure that can be repurposed, capable workforces and communities eager to reclaim prominence in the energy economy.”
More than 300 retired and operating coal plants in the United States are good candidates for a nuclear conversion, according to a recent Department of Energy report that has touched off a frenzy of activity. Communities that previously rejected nuclear power as unsafe or a threat to the coal industry are now clamoring to be a part of what might be branded nuclear 2.0. “See that hilltop over there?” said Michael Hatfield, a former coal company engineer who is now the administrator for Wise County [in Virginia]. “If you put a nuclear plant someplace like that, it is not going to be near anybody’s backyard. This would keep us in the forefront of the energy business. We see it as our future….”
It was only a year ago that nuclear power was banned in West Virginia, under a state law intended to protect the coal industry. The state is among several to either lift such a ban or pass a law encouraging development of small nuclear reactors over the last few years. Political leaders see opportunities to boost regional economies and to get a piece of the billions of dollars in subsidies for generating “advanced nuclear” power available through the recently enacted Inflation Reduction Act…. Virginia is among at least eight states pursuing a small reactor. At least another eight have launched feasibility studies, according to federal energy officials.
https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/23/02/20/0655259/could-safer-cheaper-modular-nuclear-plants-reshape-coal-country
@ jim2 | February 19, 2023 at 10:20 am | Reply in suspense since yesterday.
hallo
Pingback: New York’s Good Environmental Intentions Unsullied by Reality - Climate- Science.press
The Snowy 2.0 Pumped hydro scheme will cost families big money, spread pests, endanger fish, and kill trees but it will allow some renewables investors to make a profit, and that’s all that matters right?
Overseas readers are invited to submit more stupid schemes, with points for delays, cost, incompetence, environmental damage and sheer lack of any public benefit.
Ted Woodley does the best synopsis of the Snowy 2.0 debacle I’ve seen, pointing out how it sets all the worst kinds of records, being delayed 300% with costs up 1000%. It was supposed to be built in four years and cost $2 billion, but will end up taking 12 years (at least) and probably cost $20 billion by the time the cost of the extra transmission lines is added in. As readers here know, the boring machines are the slowest on Earth, one having made it only 200m and being paused for months under a pile of sand.
It was supposed to pay for itself, and make electricity cheaper, but is already chewing through a $1.4 billion taxpayer “injection”, with more to come and even the Snowy Hydro team admit public electricity prices will rise because of Snowy 2.0. And above all, it was supposed to be renewable and save the environment, but it’s just a big inefficient battery that will infect the top lake with feral perch and other pests, and sacrifice some forest for high voltage transmission lines. It will breach all the usual environmental regulations but that’s OK say The Greens who’ll destroy the environment any day if it keeps their big business and banker pals happy.
https://joannenova.com.au/2023/02/snowy-2-0-could-win-prize-for-most-globally-stupid-green-engineering-project/
Russian companies did the most drilling at their oil fields in more than a decade last year, with little sign that international sanctions or the departure of some major Western firms directly harmed so-called upstream operations. This helps to explain how the country’s oil production rebounded in the second half of 2022 even as further restrictions were imposed on its exports.
“The industry largely continues working just like before,” said Vitaly Mikhalchuk, head of the research center at Business Solutions and Technologies, formerly the Russian unit of consultant Deloitte & Touche LLP. “Russia has been able to retain most oil-service competencies, assets and technologies.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-14/russia-did-most-oil-drilling-in-a-decade-even-as-sanctions-hit
The green revolutionaries want to tell us that their solutions are good for the environment, and, of course, they include those trendy electric vehicles. To hear the Biden administration tell it, buying an electric vehicle works like magic to solve all the world’s problems.
But there’s a dark side to the green revolution that’s supposed to save the planet. Nowhere is the danger of the relentless push for EVs more evident than in an industrial village in Indonesia. The people who work at the Indonesia Morowali Industrial Park (IMIP) call it a “tainted city” because of the danger and pollution involved in mining nickel at such a rapid pace to meet the demand for EVs.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/chris-queen/2023/02/21/the-dark-side-of-green-indonesias-tainted-city-is-killing-workers-n1672471
When trying to understand zero tolerance or no risk activism, it is worth recalling the words of Maurice Strong. Mr Strong was a Canadian billionaire and the prime organizer of the 1992 Rio Earth summit. He remained until his death in 2015 one of the most influential (although behind the scenes) figures in the global environmental and climate change movements.
He speculated to a reporter once about a book he would like to write:
“What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group’s conclusion is ‘no’. The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Mr Strong spent a lot of time and significant amounts of money sowing the seeds of having his book idea come true. The Precautionary Principle and zero risk legislation are in part a legacy of his work and are contributing as much as anything to make his dream come true.
And that’s unfortunate.
In thinking about the mega-rich being so environmentally concerned except for their own footprint always impresses me how the average person on the street is so gullible to joining movements led by people that don’t believe in the core assumption of the movement.
It all reminds me of the movie The Survivors, If you saw it and remember the ending just imagine the same movie but with an environmentalist cult leader. If such a movie were possible today I think it would be hilarious and a box office smash.
When comparing the various different planets’ and moons’ (without-atmosphere, or with a very thin atmosphere, Earth included), when comparing the planetary surface temperatures, a very persistent question needs to be answered:
How can the planet average surface temperature (Tmean) increase without the radiation increasing?
–
And here it is when a major basic physics concept BREAKS THRU!
The importance of the proper use, and the importance of the proper understanding of the STEFAN-BOLTZMANN BLACKBODY EMISSION LAW!
Jemit = σT⁴ W/m²
The Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody emission law actually is THE RADIATIVE ENERGY EMISSION LAW!
The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law is NOT the RADIATIVE ENERGY absorption law!
Thus, the Planet Effective Temperature Equation:
Te = [ (1-a) S / 4 σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K) Hansen et. al., (1981) [https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf]
“Greenhouse Effect
The effective radiating temperature of
the earth, Te, is determined by the need
for infrared emission from the planet to
balance absorbed solar radiation:
πR²(1 – A)So = 4πR²σTe⁴, (1)
or
Te = [So(1 -A)/4σ]¹∕ ⁴ (2)
where R is the radius of the earth, A the
albedo of the earth, So the flux of solar
radiation, and σ the Stefan-Boltzmann
constant. For A ~ 0.3 and So = 1367
watts per square meter, this yields
Te ~255 K.
The mean surface temperature is
Ts ~288 K. The excess, Ts – Te, is the
greenhouse effect of gases and clouds,”
which is based on the mistaken assumption, that the Stefan-Boltzmann Blackbody Radiative Energy Emission Law FORMULA
Jemit = σT⁴ W/m²
could also be applied to the real planet Infrared Emission BEHAVIOR.
The Planet Effective Temperature is only a MATHEMATICAL ABSTRACTION, and, therefore, it is an IMPERFECT, and it is an INCOMPLETE equation for the Planet the Mean Surface Temperature THE PRECISE ESTIMATION!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Also, a planet surface radiative energy emission behavior should not be confused with the blackbody emission behavior.
Off-topic: Another properly-controlled study (double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled) shows that ivermectin has no effect on the recovery of patients with COVID-19.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2801827
Some take home lessons: 1) Doctors in third world countries may be under pressure to show they governments positive results to get continued funding. When one group has reported good results with ivermectin, other researchers may be under pressure to show good results too. 2) If you don’t do random-assignment clinical trials, it is really easy to [accidentally] bias your patient population in the direction of success. HCQ can be dangerous for some people with heart disease, so let’s not give HCQ to them. Since heart disease increases the risk of dying from COVID, removing those with heart disease from your treatment group guarantees the treatment group will out perform. 3) Real drugs are usually active in cell culture assays at 0.05 uM or lower, not 5 uM.
Some patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 may be at increased risk for progression to severe COVID-19. For these patients, therapeutics, such as antivirals, have been shown to significantly decrease the risk of hospitalization and death, and outcomes are improved if therapeutics are started within the first days of illness.(
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-care/clinical-considerations-course.html
So if you look at page 16 of the supplemental, only about 45 percent of the ivermectin arm received the drug within the first 4 days. Not saying it totally negates the study, but it’s not a good thing. Also, they admitted people who may have been taking other covid treatments. Hopefully, they supplied details of which were taking what.
https://cdn.jamanetwork.com/ama/content_public/journal/jama/0/joi230017supp3_prod_1676655303.20803.pdf?Expires=1680221936&Signature=EScfC~D1DM3K~dy6ouSddN-lhkghE7BBCrpmJn5ddfLGsr2mAYsI29tcfE~IJVasMEzPb2wjyPOUX-0ufcsE6ae6tQQlrYmPRy0ri3z6sy7dRR0TelizFFNQ9xfR00DBzh8UBndVl4ouSsKBZnhqqtspo1d~ExYf~lkaoq4ETR~dQXsPBDQtvK8a8O5pCsvRcmRhj-smWrkSQow9fr-KjE8HakvbChRbqXct3uzK7Ir3-z64JTVQU-WDpaLW7Cyr7MLBFl4oqWQAsgQuV62K73F42b4mK1O-rXPnjuSIZXs5Qez0bHuC5ctnN-ZgpAlasr8n78wPTgDJW24Z5cT8uA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIE5G5CRDK6RD3PGA
Another properly controlled (double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled) clinical trial shows absolutely no benefit from ivermectin.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2801827
That’s the same study Frank. Really?
India and China continue to grow fossil fuel consumption even as Climate Doomers try to take away our gas stoves here in the US.
India expects fuel demand to grow 4.7% in the next fiscal year
Fuel consumption in 2023-24, a proxy for oil demand, could rise to 233.8 million tonnes from the revised estimate of 222.9 million tonnes for the current fiscal year, according to government forecasts India expects fuel demand to grow 4.7% in the next fiscal year
Fuel consumption in 2023-24, a proxy for oil demand, could rise to 233.8 million tonnes from the revised estimate of 222.9 million tonnes for the current fiscal year, according to government forecasts
https://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/india-expects-fuel-demand-to-grow-47-in-the-next-fiscal-year/article66544150.ece
Not only India and China, but even Germany is expanding one of its larger coal mines in an attempt to provide more resources to cover its energy needs. Remember the photos of poor little Greta protesting at the site of the coal mine and getting arrested?
Rob Starkey wrote:
No you have missed the big picture yet again. The CO2 growth is inevitable and needs to be adapted to by humanity. Some places will get better weather others worse. Humans adapt.
That’s not what you said earlier, which seemed to me to imply that China and India are to blame for present CO2 growth.
Let’s remember that the US has ALREADY been responsible for much CO2 growth. From 1850 through 2017, the last year for which I have data, the US has cumulatively emitted 1.9 times as much CO2 as has China, and 7.7 times as much as India. The US is responsible for 25% of global CO2 emissions, through 2017.
We’re the energy hogs, not them. Per capita we’re even worse. They have the right to power their society in the same way the US has.
David
The US has emitted CO2 in the past to the great benefit of its population. US efforts today to reduce CO2 emissions will do virtually nothing to change the basic shape of the CO2 growth curve which is dominated by new humans getting electricity and building cities.
Stop your pointless US shaming.
Rob Starkey wrote:
The US has emitted CO2 in the past to the great benefit of its population. US efforts today to reduce CO2 emissions will do virtually nothing to change the basic shape of the CO2 growth curve which is dominated by new humans getting electricity and building cities.
Why don’t China and India deserve the same rights to emit CO2 “to the great benefit of their population”?
Only the US gets to emit that amount of CO2?
If the US becomes net-zero, that will free up about 5 Gt CO2/yr for China and India to emit to improve their living standards and bring them closer to the US.
Actually, we could allow China to emit a total of 189 Gt CO2 and India a total of 346 Gt CO2 to come to par with the US’s emissions from 1850-2017 of 398 Gt CO2.
Meanwhile the US can go to net-zero and then start sucking its own CO2 out of the atmosphere.
Why isn’t this fair?
The US still leads, by far, in per capita emissions. We’re the energy hogs, not them.
And the US leads China by a factor of about 2 in cumulative emissions.
The worldwide CO2 growth curve is dependent upon China and India electrifying their population. Ultimately Africa and South America will have to do the same. CO2 growth is inevitable if humans are going to have access to electricity.
Read some of the recent news about the collapse of South Africa’s grid — 9 hours a day there’s no electricity, 3 hours per session. Wreaks havoc with businesses and industry. The unintended consequences of trying to do without reliable energy sources.
Rob Starkey wrote:
The worldwide CO2 growth curve is dependent upon China and India electrifying their population. Ultimately Africa and South America will have to do the same. CO2 growth is inevitable if humans are going to have access to electricity.
So it’s OK if you and I have electricity, but not the Chinese or Indians or Africans?
Appell writes– “So it’s OK if you and I have electricity, but not the Chinese or Indians or Africans?”
No you have missed the big picture yet again. The CO2 growth is inevitable and needs to be adapted to by humanity. Some places will get better weather others worse. Humans adapt.
David – do you believe we should help China in any way when they are obviously a nation aggressive towards the US? Why should we do something that would help them build up military strength?
jim2 wrote:
David – do you believe we should help China in any way when they are obviously a nation aggressive towards the US?
Did I say anything about helping China?
Is China aggressive to the US or is the US aggressive to China?
Rob Starkey wrote:
No you have missed the big picture yet again. The CO2 growth is inevitable and needs to be adapted to by humanity. Some places will get better weather others worse. Humans adapt
Which places will get “better weather?”
What does “better” mean in the context of local weather?
What is the ratio of the global area that gets “better weather” to the area of the globe that gets “worse weather?”
Is this ratio acceptable?
Nice article and comments. My work involves mapping out complex networks on the ground, worldwide. Started doing this long ago when helping create the US fuel economy and emissions laws. Mapped out total life cycles of autos and energy technology worldwide, on the ground, from raw material to ultimate end of lifecycle waste and scrap.
So what?
My preferred way of working and educating people about complex networks like energy, food, transportation, etc – is to ask “stupid” questions that force people to get away from theories and models, to map out the messy human, industrial, and technological networks required to meet plans, targets, laws, etc.
I especially enjoy doing this with groups of regulators and “government experts” who think their policies will change the world.
Almost all the political discussion and “environmental science” on Electric Vehicles is about the car, and its lack of exhaust emissions. Very few of the expert commissions or research projects look at the long term life-cycle realities of their pet regulations.
For example, I helped create the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations of the US – so know that almost none of the “expert science” behind that law from the 1970’s came true.
With respect to EV’s in cities, I have asked a variation of the following question to audiences around the world.
Let me ask one form of this question with respect to the NYC climate issue raised above. I’ve asked this many times with various NYC groups, and the results are always “entertaining”.
“QUESTION: If 30% of the total vehicles in use, in the NYC larger metropolitan commuting area were converted to Electric Vehicles, exactly how much LAND would be required to charge them, and exactly WHERE would this land be?”
Note that there are perhaps 600,000 vehicles that are involved in this multi-neighborhood commute – extending 40 miles or more outside and around Manhattan.
After people struggle with this for an hour or so, I then “help” them by adding the following data:
Assume a both gasoline and electric vehicles take up 130 to 180 square feet of space. Assume it takes 4-10 minutes to refuel a typical gas car for 250-400 miles of range. Assume an Electric Vehicle takes up the same square footage of space, and takes 30 – 180 minutes to “re-fuel” for 70-200 miles of range.
Question: Again…How much LAND will be required in the larger NYC Metro area will be required if 30% of the vehicles in use in that region are converted from gas to electric? Where exactly will that land be?
I have asked this hundreds of times in audiences ranging from MIT to “the street”. The emotional reactions of “experts” has been especially interesting.
Try this yourself. Then think about the many distant, office-dwelling government officials, academics, and “experts” who assert the benefits of converting millions of vehicles from gas to electric.
FWIW.
Didn’t you hear? Musk says robotaxis will solve all this (yes, that’s a joke).
I have not taken the time to weigh all the options but technology keeps innovating.
https://www.idtechex.com/en/research-report/wireless-charging-market-for-electric-vehicles-2023-2033-technology-players-and-forecasts/896
A plug is much more efficient but it might take less space to deploy wireless.
The industry will move eventually to bi-directional charging and Virtual Power Provider (VPP) schemes. ERCOT has several active programs: https://www.ercot.com/mktrules/pilots/ader
My next EV will be V2G for sure.
My next EV with be an ICEV.
I’m getting the 3 motor Tesla cybertruck without autopilot.
If you get a special feeder run to your house to supply a 400v, 32A, 3-phase charger delivering 22 kW; it will take a mere 12 hours and some change to charge it. Better hope “green” energy doesn’t run up your electron price!
Won’t go to that expense. With 500 mile range it will rarely be empty. I like the 2.9 second 0-60 acceleration.
Imagine when the snow plows use that technology
Rob Starkey wrote:
I’m getting the 3 motor Tesla cybertruck without autopilot.
Thanks for going carbon-free.
You just gave me the outline for the comments i will submit on the latest regulation to go to EVs in NY. Thanks.
Part of the problem is human perception of risk. We are willing to accept great risk for activities we favor such as driving or, in the old days, smoking. For activities we oppose, even zero (perceived) risk may be an absolute outrage.
hdtbill wrote:
Part of the problem is human perception of risk. We are willing to accept great risk for activities we favor such as driving or, in the old days, smoking. For activities we oppose, even zero (perceived) risk may be an absolute outrage.
Do you oppose or approve of the inundation of a meaningful fraction of Florida by 2100?
Pingback: Clean Car Rule for New York A Messy Case of California Envy