[dohboi]

http://www.vox.com/2015/12/14/10121638/ ... -dominance

Just in case there is still anyone out there who thinks it will be easy to move to a completely carbon free economy quickly.

Have we hit "the end of the fossil fuel era"? Not even close.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he Paris climate deal is, potentially, an important first step toward addressing climate change. But some of the headlines have been wildly overstated, saying the treaty marks the "end of the fossil fuel era."

That's awfully premature.

Oil, gas, and coal still make up about 86 percent of the world's energy supply — a fraction that has barely budged since 1997.

[GHung]

"As a wise poster once wrote, we have not so much an energy shortage as an expectation longage."

Pretty sure that was Nate Hagens. Here's his primer on post carbon reality:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdqnBKx ... e=youtu.be
.

[AgentR11]

There are only two choices in reality.

1.) stick fingers in ears, pretend people will use much less, and say we are moving to C free; as we continue to burn all the coal that can be dug out of the ground.

2.) build an obnoxious amount of nuclear power plants.

I think we are choosing to do #1. I think that is sad, but that is the verdict of the ruling representatives of the people of the world.

Sad thing is, if you did #2; you'd have long enough to realistically dampen demand and build out substantial amounts of renewables.

[GHung]

"2.) build an obnoxious amount of nuclear power plants."

There are over 1200 coal-fired plants and more on the way. We can't replace even a fraction of those with nukes any more than we'll replace that capacity with renewables.

3.) Admit we're totally screwed, hunker down, and hope at least a few humans make it through the horrible bottleneck we've designed for ourselves.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AgentR11', 'T')here are only two choices in reality.

1.) stick fingers in ears, pretend people will use much less, and say we are moving to C free; as we continue to burn all the coal that can be dug out of the ground.

2.) build an obnoxious amount of nuclear power plants.

I think we are choosing to do #1. I think that is sad, but that is the verdict of the ruling representatives of the people of the world.

Sad thing is, if you did #2; you'd have long enough to realistically dampen demand and build out substantial amounts of renewables.

[GHung]

Pretending there's a "we" when it comes to responding to this thing is childish and verging on delusional.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GHung', 'P')retending there's a "we" when it comes to responding to this thing is childish and verging on delusional.

[AgentR11]

We simply means the 'collection of all hominids'.

I can do a /s/we/collection.. and repost if it would help you read it better.

We doesn't imply some consensus policy or other intentional or coordinated action of a group.

[efarmer]

I wonder how various governments that actually implement carbon reduction will survive the austere results on their populace involved and stay in power to continue to implement the plan?
After a long period of AGW debate we have the first signs from Paris of political consensus, but
the action is going to lag until governments figure out how to survive implementation so they have a shot at getting something meaningful done.

[ROCKMAN]

farmer - "political consensus"". I think you hit the key hurdle. Political consensus" that something should be done doesn't become a consensus to actually take action until their is a majority of voter consensus to push the politicians in that direction. Even a voter consensus that something should be done won't change anything until there's a consensus to actually take action.

My same position: actions are meaningful. Words...not so much.

[GHung]

Tanada said; "Sticks and Stones and all that, but WE humans have made our preferences well known through our leaders."

No sticks and stones intended at all, and others have made opposite preferences well known, through their leaders (e g : James Inhofe, etc.) and through their political and propaganda contributions. So-called developing nations made their preferences known in forums such as Paris. India and China, especially, have no intention of shelving their plans for many more CO2 belching coal plants, and China has found its one-child policy to be demographically inconvenient.

I could go on, but "we" aren't making progress in any sense that matters. We can build hundreds of nuke plants to help bring another 2+ billion humans into near-first-world standards of living, but keeping global warming below anywhere close to 2 degrees is simply a pipe dream at this point, IMO, and "we" have a collection of other predicaments that are likely to require more immediate action and real capital expenditures which will include increasing our collective CO2 footprint.

I have no doubt that "we" will reduce our impacts on the planet at some point, and no doubt those reductions will be forced;, not as the result of some collective cooperative actions.

I've been involved locally in several group actions to further the cause of climate action. Virtually none of those folks have renegotiated their lifestyles in any way that matters much. That says everything I need to know.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]More than 2,400 coal-fired power stations are under construction or being planned around the world, a study has revealed two weeks after Britain pledged to stop burning coal.

The new plants will emit 6.5 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide a year and undermine the efforts at the Paris climate conference to limit global warming to 2C. China is building 368 plants and planning a further 803, according to the study by four climate change research bodies, including Ecofys and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. India is building 297 and planning 149. Rich countries are also planning new coal plants. The nuclear disaster at Fukushima has prompted Japan to turn back to coal, with 40 plants in the pipeline and five under construction. –Ben Webster, The Times, 2 December 2015

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')
More than 2,400 coal-fired power stations are under construction or being planned around the world, a study has revealed two weeks after Britain pledged to stop burning coal.

The new plants will emit 6.5 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide a year and undermine the efforts at the Paris climate conference to limit global warming to 2C. China is building 368 plants and planning a further 803, according to the study by four climate change research bodies, including Ecofys and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. India is building 297 and planning 149. Rich countries are also planning new coal plants. The nuclear disaster at Fukushima has prompted Japan to turn back to coal, with 40 plants in the pipeline and five under construction. –

[GHung]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '-')-those in the third world deserve (justifiably) to reach the same level of comfort we achieved decades ago (by using so very much energy.) Folks in the third world just need a little more to get to the same place of comfort it took us centuries.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '-')-those in the third world deserve (justifiably) to reach the same level of comfort we achieved decades ago (by using so very much energy.) Folks in the third world just need a little more to get to the same place of comfort it took us centuries.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GHung', '
')
There are over 1200 coal-fired plants and more on the way. We can't replace even a fraction of those with nukes any more than we'll replace that capacity with renewables.

[GHung]

Plant asks; "Why the support for building hundreds more Chinese coal-fired power plants?"

Support by whom? Certainly not me. I'm one of the few here who has spent the last twenty years trying to get off of coal. Made far more progress than most of you, I'm sure.

"Why not build 1200 carbon-free solar, wind and nuclear power plants instead of 1200 dirty coal-fired power plants?"

Jeez, Plant, take one of your trips to China and walk around Tiananmen Square with a big freaking sign; wave a magic renewable wand at the crowd. See what 1.3 billion Chinese think about that. They'll likely point out that they've installed more "renewables" than the US, and they'll also tell you they still plan to build those coal plants, no matter how much you beg them not to.

[dohboi]

"dohboi's gentle Vegan Dictatorship"

Very nice! Can I steal it and patent it?

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GHung', '
')Jeez, Plant, take one of your trips to China and walk around Tiananmen Square with a big freaking sign; wave a magic renewable wand at the crowd. See what 1.3 billion Chinese think about that. They'll likely point out that they've installed more "renewables" than the US, and they'll also tell you they still plan to build those coal plants, no matter how much you beg them not to.

[dohboi]

"You can beg China and India and other nations not to build coal-fired plants all you want, but begging isn't going to make the Chinese stop."

India, either, apparently:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')India still plans to double coal output by 2020 and rely on the resource for decades afterwards, a senior official said on Monday, days after rich and poor countries agreed in Paris to curb carbon emissions blamed for global warming....
...there were limitations to clean energy and coal would remain the most efficient energy source for decades, he said.