# 2018 emissions surged



## begreen (Jan 9, 2019)

Not what one would like to see at this juncture
https://rhg.com/research/preliminary-us-emissions-estimates-for-2018


----------



## Shamuscull (Jan 9, 2019)

If the economy and domestic manufacturing are increasing we would naturally see an increase in emissions.  Would be more interested if the stats reflected that also instead of just a total increase in emissions number.


----------



## begreen (Jan 9, 2019)

That's exactly right, but economy analysis is not the purpose or intent of this report. Following your point, it does show that we need to come up with alternatives if we want to grow and sustain a US economy. It demonstrates the need to shift from a linear, resource hungry economy to a circular economy that reduces manufacturing emissions as well as the extraction and transportation of raw materials. And it shows we need to work on carbon removal by sequestration or turning them into new materials for building and manufacturing.


----------



## Shamuscull (Jan 9, 2019)

Tough balance when competing with other countries that refuse to play by the same rules


----------



## begreen (Jan 9, 2019)

It is, but we've been in tough situations before. It will be tougher when the costs of flooding cities, increased desertification, and loss of cropland is factored in. The big industrialized powers like Germany are already deeply investing in more circular economic solutions and it's working. The alternative is to grow to a certain end in the not too distant future.


----------



## BethelStrong (Jan 11, 2019)

I’m not paying for the mistakes of the past by easing the burden for the future generations by paying carbon taxes now. Especially under the guise of my collective carbon footprint amounting to a hill of beans... We will all pay, but not this way.


----------



## begreen (Jan 11, 2019)

BethelStrong said:


> I’m not paying for the mistakes of the past by easing the burden for the future generations by paying carbon taxes now. Especially under the guise of my collective carbon footprint amounting to a hill of beans... We will all pay, but not this way.


What solution would be better for paying for the costs of transition?


----------



## coutufr (Jan 12, 2019)

The cost of leaving what is remaining of the fossil fuel energy in the ground is to live without. Reuse, recycle but most importantly reduce. Reduce the size of our houses, the speed of our travels ect


----------



## BethelStrong (Jan 12, 2019)

Emissions are a smokescreen in my mind. I heat s small place by wood mostly, but more importantly I can in the future survive the Super Grand Solar Minimum. If you can’t grow and heat for yourself, nothing else will matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Easy Livin’ 3000 (Jan 12, 2019)

begreen said:


> That's exactly right, but economy analysis is not the purpose or intent of this report. Following your point, it does show that we need to come up with alternatives if we want to grow and sustain a US economy. It demonstrates the need to shift from a linear, resource hungry economy to a circular economy that reduces manufacturing emissions as well as the extraction and transportation of raw materials. And it shows we need to work on carbon removal by sequestration or turning them into new materials for building and manufacturing.


I'm totally with you on this. 

Problem is, there are enough people that are so ignorant and uninformed, coupled with the powerful fossil fuel lobby, that we are moving backwards at this point.   Read the recent stories about wads blocking the Tesla charging stations with their big trucks, for sport.  It's an American car company!

On the other hand, there is an increasing movement on this front in the investment business, because the large institutional investors that hold much of the money are demanding it.  Gives me a little hope.

Fitch, the large bond rating agency, just announced that they will incorporating factors such as this, into credit rating going forward.


----------



## begreen (Jan 12, 2019)

BethelStrong said:


> Emissions are a smokescreen in my mind. I heat s small place by wood mostly, but more importantly I can in the future survive the Super Grand Solar Minimum. If you can’t grow and heat for yourself, nothing else will matter.


The emissions stats are fact. They represent the collective whole of human activities.This is important as we approach the tipping point of irreversible systems. What an individual does for survival after the fact is a completely different topic. There is a moral question of wanting to test that hypothesis.


----------



## BethelStrong (Jan 12, 2019)

begreen said:


> The emissions stats are fact. They represent the collective whole of human activities.This is important as we approach the tipping point of irreversible systems. What an individual does for survival after the fact is a completely different topic. There is a moral question of wanting to test that hypothesis.



If you mean that the Sun controls our climate 100% and we have zero impact on it, at all, whatsoever, then yes, the Science is settled.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## begreen (Jan 12, 2019)

That's funny.

So the earth is about 4.6 billion years old. For easy figuring, let's scale that down to 46 years. In that context humans have been on the planet for about 4 hrs. And in the same scale the Industrial Revolution started a minute ago. In the last minute we have destroyed over 50% of the world's forests. With that have come major climate changes. And remember, 10,000 yrs ago the Sahara was forested. So was bone dry Greece.
https://phys.org/news/2017-03-humans-sahara.html

And then there was the inadvertent climate experiment when all air traffic ceased for a few days. 
https://globalnews.ca/news/2934513/...ge-for-an-unlikely-climate-change-experiment/


----------



## Easy Livin’ 3000 (Jan 12, 2019)

BethelStrong said:


> If you mean that the Sun controls our climate 100% and we have zero impact on it, at all, whatsoever, then yes, the Science is settled.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Ever been in a car in the middle of winter on a sunny day and noticed how hot it is?  So, your 100% right that it's the sun.  But you are willfully ignoring the fact that there's a difference between windows up in the car or down.  

If you are right, what's the harm in totally nullifying the wealth in the middle East?

If you are wrong, we are all cooked.


----------



## BethelStrong (Jan 12, 2019)

I like prof. Zarkova. I’ve long since forgotten all the UN Big Science buyoff. Like Zarkova says, she’s 97% accurate, based on real science, and we can see in the next few years. The traitor Gore had his day. 2014. The ice is still here. #junkscience


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BethelStrong (Jan 12, 2019)

Middle East? Sure, we could cut them off I guess. I just don’t see China or India or Russia or anywhere slowing down. I’d rather not pay for it. Some say we are the biggest exporter of oil now. Maybe that’s part of the “emissions” calculation...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## questarthews (Jan 12, 2019)

The thing that gets me about this whole topic is that the majority of the actual actions we'd take to limit "climate change", would also benefit us greatly by cleaning up our environment, resulting in a healthier population.  So, while it may cost more up front to make the move, it'll also save us quite a bit of money in the end simply by doing the right thing.

For myself, I've never worried much about climate change for that very reason.  All it takes is for us to begin taking responsibility for the damages we are causing to the world (or, for those who don't care about the world since other countries influence the climate, our local environment) around us and deciding that we don't have the right to destroy our resources and damage the health of our population, and start doing the right thing by living more sustainably.

"But it'll bankrupt us..."  I say BS.  Making the switch to a more sustainable lifestyle and moving to a clean energy and transportation economy will create a ton of jobs, and last I knew, that's actually really good for the economy.


----------



## DBoon (Jan 13, 2019)

The science is settled - there will never be 100% agreement on any hypothesis - 99% agreement amongst scientists is enough to settle the facts. The remaining 1% who disagree don't weigh equally with the preponderance of those who do.

If you want to wait for 100% agreement, then we let the experiment play out with no Plan B and we can see what happens. Sounds like a pretty bad Plan A.


----------



## questarthews (Jan 13, 2019)

DBoon said:


> The science is settled - there will never be 100% agreement on any hypothesis - 99% agreement amongst scientists is enough to settle the facts. The remaining 1% who disagree don't weigh equally with the preponderance of those who do.
> 
> If you want to wait for 100% agreement, then we let the experiment play out with no Plan B and we can see what happens. Sounds like a pretty bad Plan A.


While I don't disagree with the idea that wait and see is a bad idea, the problem with "the science is settled" being the argument is that, as is clearly shown, there isn't enough backing by citizens or politicians to actually do anything meaningful.  The proof is in how far back we are moving from a simple change of political leadership, no matter how temporary that may be.

I truly believe that if you want something to get done about it in any sort of effective timeline, the discussion needs to change to the many other reasons for doing what is necessary.


----------



## Easy Livin’ 3000 (Jan 13, 2019)

questarthews said:


> While I don't disagree with the idea that wait and see is a bad idea, the problem with "the science is settled" being the argument is that, as is clearly shown, there isn't enough backing by citizens or politicians to actually do anything.
> 
> I truly believe that if you want something to get done about it in any sort of effective timeline, the discussion needs to change to the many other reasons for doing what is necessary.


Good idea, like taking a leadership position in the world, nullifying the middle east who hates us and puts thier fossil fuel wealth towards killing us and thier own dissenters, being good stewards of our little fish bowl for our offspring, planning for the day when the reserves run out... .  And, economics.  When it gets cheaper to behave wisely,  most people will.

When there are people who park thier trucks in front of the charging stations of an AMERICAN car and energy company, you have to realize that there are people out there who have miserable lives and are acting purely out of hate and personal despair.  There is absolutely nothing that can be done that will change them.  We just need to hope there are enough of the reasonable people to overwhelm them in the polls.

I believe it's only a matter of time, but it may be too late by then.


----------



## questarthews (Jan 13, 2019)

ED 3000 said:


> Good idea, like taking a leadership position in the world, nullifying the middle east who hates us and puts thier fossil fuel wealth towards killing us and thier own dissenters, being good stewards of our little fish bowl for our offspring, planning for the day when the reserves run out... .  And, economics.  When it gets cheaper to behave wisely,  most people will.
> 
> When there are people who park thier trucks in front of the charging stations of an AMERICAN car and energy company, you have to realize that there are people out there who have miserable lives and are acting purely out of hate and personal despair.  There is absolutely nothing that can be done that will change them.  We just need to hope there are enough of the reasonable people to overwhelm them in the polls.
> 
> I believe it's only a matter of time, but it may be too late by then.



I think we can add that doing those things upgrades our aging grid, making it more secure against natural disaster, saving us the billions lost as commerce grinds to a halt in those areas due to large scale power outages, etc., as well as against foreign attacks to our grid, which we keep reading about in the news.  

And if we are smart about it, we harden it against things like EMP or solar flare events (the latter of which we can pretty much guarantee will happen eventually).  When and if those things happen, it could cripple us as a nation, and I don't know about you, but I'm not prepared to live in a country/world without power.

One of the things I personally would like to see is for our country to work towards a more self-sufficient (as far as power is concerned) population.  Where, as much as possible, we each provide and store our own power where it is being used.  We could do this by making it possible for every homeowner (when and where feasible) to upgrade their own homes by guaranteeing loans to make it affordable.

This would allow us to pay for it ourselves, making the need for using taxes less necessary.  We could simply trade our normal power bills for the loan payment and have a pretty major positive impact on our environment, as well as help to secure our grid.

I'm just not convinced that this sort of thing is as hard to accomplish as so many would like us to believe, nor do I think it needs to be such a partisan issue.  But it takes people like you and I to constantly have these sorts of discussions.

Just think if someone with the media attention that the new congresswoman Cortez has used that platform to push for something like this, but in a less politically divisive fashion (meaning less focus on extreme taxes, and more focus on using the market and arguments like we have discussed).


----------



## begreen (Jan 13, 2019)

ED 3000 said:


> Good idea, like taking a leadership position in the world, nullifying the middle east who hates us and puts thier fossil fuel wealth towards killing us and thier own dissenters, being good stewards of our little fish bowl for our offspring, planning for the day when the reserves run out... .  And, economics.  When it gets cheaper to behave wisely,  most people will.
> 
> When there are people who park thier trucks in front of the charging stations of an AMERICAN car and energy company, you have to realize that there are people out there who have miserable lives and are acting purely out of hate and personal despair.  There is absolutely nothing that can be done that will change them.  We just need to hope there are enough of the reasonable people to overwhelm them in the polls.
> 
> I believe it's only a matter of time, but it may be too late by then.


But what if we cleaned up our act and the planet and it turned out there is no serious climate change?! 
These are the important questions our politicians are debating right now.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Jan 13, 2019)

If we got rid of synthetic fibers and switched to hemp clothing....


----------



## Easy Livin’ 3000 (Jan 13, 2019)

questarthews said:


> I think we can add that doing those things upgrades our aging grid, making it more secure against natural disaster, saving us the billions lost as commerce grinds to a halt in those areas due to large scale power outages, etc., as well as against foreign attacks to our grid, which we keep reading about in the news.
> 
> And if we are smart about it, we harden it against things like EMP or solar flare events (the latter of which we can pretty much guarantee will happen eventually).  When and if those things happen, it could cripple us as a nation, and I don't know about you, but I'm not prepared to live in a country/world without power.
> 
> ...


I like everything you said, but tell me more about how we are all going to produce our own power.  

I can provide my own heat, but I have access to a real expensive woodlot and have neighbors who are generous with their "waste" wood. Plus, I am able physically, and just motivated enough to do the work required.

Can't do solar, wind, hydro, or geothermal here, and many can't either.  Only perhaps cogeneration from the natural gas, and that's just another grid.


----------



## Easy Livin’ 3000 (Jan 13, 2019)

begreen said:


> But what if we cleaned up our act and the planet and it turned out there is no serious climate change?!
> These are the important questions our politicians are debating right now.
> 
> View attachment 238170


Yes, it would be a shame to stop wasting so much, have clean air and water!

It's also a shame that this is a political issue at all.  

I just don't understand why anyone other than a fossil fuel company executive would defend the status quo.  Anyone else is just being manipulated by the dissinformation campaign, just as the tobacco companies did for years.  And, it's well documented.

Watch the money, other than the energy companies and utilities.  It's following the truth, and it's already begun in earnest.


----------



## questarthews (Jan 13, 2019)

ED 3000 said:


> I like everything you said, but tell me more about how we are all going to produce our own power.
> 
> I can provide my own heat, but I have access to a real expensive woodlot and have neighbors who are generous with their "waste" wood. Plus, I am able physically, and just motivated enough to do the work required.
> 
> Can't do solar, wind, hydro, or geothermal here, and many can't either.  Only perhaps cogeneration from the natural gas, and that's just another grid.



You are right, we can't all do it ourselves, but I do believe that we should be encouraging it as national policy as much as possible.  It's my belief that if we were to take that attitude as a nation, it would greatly increase the incentives for more R&D in each of these areas, as well as storage, and who knows what new concepts will arise as a result?

They have already made some pretty impressive advances, and that's with mostly only encouraging those who can already afford it (a pretty small portion of our population) to switch with tax credits, etc.  But if we were to remove that upfront hurdle for those who live in appropriate locations and want to make the switch, I believe the market would show that far more people are interested in doing so than is currently expected.

I don't think we're likely to do away with the grid itself with each of us providing our own power any time soon, but breaking it up into smaller chunks so that vast areas aren't down at once is still a pretty major benefit in my mind.


----------



## Easy Livin’ 3000 (Jan 13, 2019)

questarthews said:


> You are right, we can't all do it ourselves, but I do believe that we should be encouraging it as national policy as much as possible.  It's my belief that if we were to take that attitude as a nation, it would greatly increase the incentives for more R&D in each of these areas, as well as storage, and who knows what new concepts will arise as a result?
> 
> They have already made some pretty impressive advances, and that's with mostly only encouraging those who can already afford it (a pretty small portion of our population) to switch with tax credits, etc.  But if we were to remove that upfront hurdle for those who live in appropriate locations and want to make the switch, I believe the market would show that far more people are interested in doing so than is currently expected.
> 
> I don't think we're likely to do away with the grid itself with each of us providing our own power any time soon, but breaking it up into smaller chunks so that vast areas aren't down at once is still a pretty major benefit in my mind.


Right on. 

You are not alone, I think I read that CA is requiring solar panels to be installed on all new construction. 

I think the last hurdle on this idea is storage.  Still too expensive.   That $5b being thrown around for the wall of hate and fear would go a long way towards getting us started.  I believe we are on an unstoppable trajectory towards this. 

Utilty executives are not happy these days, and expect lots of battles from people protecting their own self interests in that industry.


----------



## questarthews (Jan 13, 2019)

EatenByLimestone said:


> If we got rid of synthetic fibers and switched to hemp clothing....


And if things take a turn for the worse anyway, we could burn our clothes to help us forget just how bad things are really getting


----------



## questarthews (Jan 13, 2019)

ED 3000 said:


> Right on.
> 
> You are not alone, I think I read that CA is requiring solar panels to be installed on all new construction.
> 
> ...



One thing that always bugs me is that, for the most part, both mainstream parties push for solutions that either protect the status quo, or push the investment dollars directly to some corporation.  The Solyndra money that a lot of people like to bring up as an example of "failed" green energy investments is one example.

Imagine where we'd be if that had been used to fund homeowners moving to clean energy instead.  At least we'd have something to show for it, lol.  And if it kept being re-invested as the money was paid back, we could have already switched a lot of people over.

And as more people start switching, it would lead to more efficient electronics we all use as those companies begin competing for our business, since we'd be actively looking for more efficient products in order to keep our costs down.

I look at this as being part of the circular economy mentioned in another topic here, and even more importantly, as a way to move to a more affordable future where jobs become scarce as a result of AI and automation while providing jobs helping to make that transition in the meantime.


----------



## Easy Livin’ 3000 (Jan 13, 2019)

questarthews said:


> One thing that always bugs me is that, for the most part, both mainstream parties push for solutions that either protect the status quo, or push the investment dollars directly to some corporation.  The Solyndra money that a lot of people like to bring up as an example of "failed" green energy investments is one example.
> 
> Imagine where we'd be if that had been used to fund homeowners moving to clean energy instead.  At least we'd have something to show for it, lol.  And if it kept being re-invested as the money was paid back, we could have already switched a lot of people over.
> 
> ...


Yep, like that $300 tax credit on the new stove a few years back!


----------



## DBoon (Jan 19, 2019)

questarthews said:


> While I don't disagree with the idea that wait and see is a bad idea, the problem with "the science is settled" being the argument is that, as is clearly shown, there isn't enough backing by citizens or politicians to actually do anything meaningful.


I would agree that while the science is settled, the public doesn't have the same level of agreement, but the amount of public agreement is also rapidly changing. It might be that this political administration was what was really needed to move things faster at the state and local levels, where most of the action happens anyways.

And meaningful things are happening. 10 years ago, solar was just a blip of generation and nobody could make a claim that it was cheaper. Now it is 2% (or more) of generation (more if you count behind the meter). Wind is approaching 10% of generation pretty quickly (~7% now, 10% in two more years or so). Both these technologies are cheaper than conventional fossil fuel generation, and are starting to be bundled with storage and priced the same as fossil fuel electricity. The arguments that "it is too expensive" or "it can't scale" are going away quickly. 

No amount of false or misleading statements from politicians will work when everywhere people look there are solar panels, wind turbines, and electric vehicles. At some point, even the naysayers will have to agree that there can't be that many rich idiots throwing away that much money on so many things that just don't work at all. Especially when those same naysayers are in states where utilities are screwing them (in the future) with 15 to 20 cent/kWh electricity from big new fossil fuel plants or nukes that ran over budget. Wisconsin's residential kWh rates are nearly 15 cents/kWh - that seems pretty crazy for a state that relies on "cheap coal" for a huge amount of production. In South Carolina, the rate is 12.5 cents/kWh. Both of these are more than the 11 cents/kWh I pay in Central NY.  I don't hear people in Iowa complaining about getting 35% of their electricity from wind turbines, and the electricity must be pretty reliable or I'm sure I'd be hearing about it from some news sources. Why do the people of Wisconsin tolerate such high prices for such polluting, antiquated technologies? They may now, but they won't in the future, I am sure. 

The growth rate of wind and solar is 15% or more (has hit 30% in some years). If wind and solar are a combined 10% now, and they grow at 15% a year for 5 years, then in 5 years they will double to 20% of generation. It may sound crazy now, but don't be shocked in 2024 to have wind and solar be 20% of net electricity generation, and we don't need a storage miracle to get to 20% either. 

When I installed a 5kW solar PV array for a renovated home in a rural area, I had a lot of people ask me "does that really work?" They were surprised when I told them what it cost, what it produced, and how I used it to power a mini split to heat the house during renovation. Their news sources had led them to believe otherwise. Exposure leads to understanding leads to more adoption.

My new Bolt EV costs more to purchase but has 1/3 the fuel costs and will be powered mostly by overnight nukes and wind when the L2 charger is installed. The running costs are probably 1/3 that of a gas engine car as well. And the range is pretty great for doing just about everything I need to do (and I am a road tripper). I've already explained to about 20 people at work what this thing can do and most of them are surprised by it's range and capabilities, even though it has been around for 3 or 4 years now. Information takes time to spread. 

I don't plan on any politician showing any leadership on this, so I am personally leading by adopting and publicizing. 

Other advantages? The last two summers I have seen 4 or 5 of the most clear sky 50+ mile visibility days in Central NY, and I've never seen this before. Can that be due to burning half the coal we used to burn and not have the pollution and particulates from that end up in the air in NY state? Yeah, maybe it does. I'll take that benefit as well.


----------



## Easy Livin’ 3000 (Jan 19, 2019)

DBoon said:


> I would agree that while the science is settled, the public doesn't have the same level of agreement, but the amount of public agreement is also rapidly changing. It might be that this political administration was what was really needed to move things faster at the state and local levels, where most of the action happens anyways.
> 
> And meaningful things are happening. 10 years ago, solar was just a blip of generation and nobody could make a claim that it was cheaper. Now it is 2% (or more) of generation (more if you count behind the meter). Wind is approaching 10% of generation pretty quickly (~7% now, 10% in two more years or so). Both these technologies are cheaper than conventional fossil fuel generation, and are starting to be bundled with storage and priced the same as fossil fuel electricity. The arguments that "it is too expensive" or "it can't scale" are going away quickly.
> 
> ...


Terrific post, DBoon.  Really enjoyed it.


----------



## questarthews (Jan 19, 2019)

DBoon said:


> I would agree that while the science is settled, the public doesn't have the same level of agreement, but the amount of public agreement is also rapidly changing. It might be that this political administration was what was really needed to move things faster at the state and local levels, where most of the action happens anyways.
> 
> And meaningful things are happening.


I pretty much agree with everything you said.  My comment regarding anything meaningful happening is mostly meant for people who not only believe that the science is settled, but that we have to take massive action now because it was already too late last year (or similar).

If someone is that concerned about actual climate change, then continuing with the simple argument that the science is settled, isn't going to be anywhere nearly sufficient to get things done in a timely manner so they'd better start focusing on areas more of us agree so we can get started.


----------



## CaptSpiff (Jan 19, 2019)

DBoon said:


> .... Both of these are more than the 11 cents/kWh I pay in Central NY.



Hi DBoon, can you break out the Energy portion, and the T&D portion. and also the monthly meter charge?

I payed combined almost 25 cents/kwh on LI, NY.

The Nov&Dec period I used 417kwh and paid $106.45.
Broken out, that is for 59 days:
1. Basic Connection (meter) charge= $ 21.40_______fixed by days
2. transmission & Distribution charge= $ 29.86____7.16 cents/kwh
3. Cost of the Energy charge= $ 42.35_____________10.15 cents/kwh
4. Taxes & other charges= $ 12.84_________________ 3.07 cents/kwh

My Utility likes to say I pay only 17.3 cents/kwh on the T&D + Energy, so it's hard to do an Apple to Apple.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Jan 19, 2019)

last I calculated it, it was something like $.25 each for me too.  My usage has crept up, so the $17+ generic priviledge to be associated with National Grid fee that I get is spread out a bit further.  It really penalizes energy conservation.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 20, 2019)

I guess I'll be the outlier in this thread.

Let's start with a question....what would an actual solution or solutions to climate change look like?

New technology doesn't just spring up overnight.  You wake up one day, and the POTUS is announcing some govt Manhattan mega project or some white-haired inventor announces that he can make energy from seawater....NOPE.

Others will tell you that solutions are IMPOSSIBLE, because they can never be FAST enough.  Our energy grid took many decades to build, same for housing and building stock, car technology is mature and can't be improved.  That we need to change NOW and there are no solutions that can be that fast.  This thinking is also wrong.

Solutions to climate change will require that they provide the services that people need/demand, and that they be CHEAPER and BETTER than current, fossil-fueled tech.  And even when that tech exists, it will have some maximum growth rate and learning curve, which according to myriad tech examples in history corresponds to an exponential growth rate that doubles at the fastest, every 18 months or so, and the slowest, about 4-5 years just to double.  Things like the iPhone, Color TV and LED light bulbs....fast.  Washing Machines and telephones....slow.

So I claim that in fact all (or nearly all) the solutions we need to significantly reduce emissions (>60%) already EXIST, are ready for prime time, are in fact already in the field and growing exponentially (at a fast rate), and are doing so (with a few inevitable exceptions) around the world.

That is, multiple major industries around the world are being disrupted...electricity production and automobiles being the biggest and most important.

The original report linked by BG points out that total emissions from the US power sector have been falling for years, while the economy has been growing, and (light) manufacturing has been rebounding.  This is bc new technology has reduced electricity demand in the US relative to the services it provide.  A lot of that is LED lighting in residential and commercial spaces.  So demand has been flat during a growth phase in the US economy.  And the rise of (cheap) natgas, wind and solar has displaced coal generation.  Net result....US electricity sector emissions have fallen for several years...and real prices have been flat.

Note that this happened almost invisibly.  YOU did not have to put solar panel on your roof, batteries in your basement or mortgage your house to build a giant wind turbine in your backyard.  Instead, your utility (or the one a town over) built some solar or wind farms, when their bean counters told them it made sense to do that financially (instead of building a new coal plant) or, some entrepreneur built that stuff and your utility agreed to buy power from them at a market rate.  Invisible to you.

Your part so far...you saw LED bulbs in Home Despot for like $2, spent 30 seconds thinking about it (and deciding that was free money right there), you bought a bunch, and spend 20 minutes putting them all over your house.  And then you forgot about it.  Done.

And you do a lot of internet on your smartphone now, instead of a 2000-vintage desktop with a CRT.
And you watch an LED backlit HD flatpanel, that uses much less juice than your old Sony Trinitron behemoth.
(And partial thanks to, ahem, Al Gore's Energy Star program)

Add it all up, and US electricity sector emissions have (probably) peaked, like several years ago already.  Because even if electricity demand grows this year, or over the next ten years, renewables and natgas are taking over fast now.

The OP report says that total US emissions climbed largely bc of transportation.  We are just driving more miles with cheap gas and economic activity.  Our new cars are larger, but they are also more efficient than the ones they are replacing...so the fleet average mileage is not climbing.

And of course, the solution here is EVs.  You have heard that they are going to take over, and maybe you don't believe it.

Believe it.  Two words: cheaper and better.

Last November, the US passed 1 million plug-in cars on the road, two years after Obama's stated goal.  EV sales are up and down, but look to me like they are doubling every 2 to 2.5 years, and jumped massively 6 months ago with the Tesla Model 3, whose sales are crushing every FF car (mostly from Germany and Japan) in its price class.  Like those makers are seeing big double digit declines in sales in 2018 relative to 2017.  I'm not a big Elon fan...but that is a classic 'Made in America' story that you don't seem to hear much about. Instead we get him smoking legal weed on a radio program.

So, something like 3-4% of new sedans sold in the US are plugins.  360,000 sold last year (and half of those are Tesla-badged, believe it or not).  Another 1.5 million sold worldwide.  Yup, bad old China, with all those coal-burning poor peasants....they are buying 1 million EVs per year, on a much smaller installed auto base.  Right now, each of those Chinese people have a per capita CO2 emission less than half of the average American.  It looks like with EVs, as they become wealthier, they will never catch up with us in emissions.

There is no point in arguing...EVs are where digital cameras were in 2002.  They were cheap and crappy, or not crappy and too expensive.  Just.  Its like your photography-buff uncle saying back then that digital would never take over, because $200 digital handhelds were worse than film cameras, and fancy digital SLRs (that were equivalent to film quality) cost like $2000.

We all know how that shook out a few years later.  Better AND Cheaper crushed film.

EVs will be better and cheaper than FF cars soon.  And a couple years after that, better and cheaper EV SUVs and pickups.  And at that point they will be in the third world also...bc cheaper.

As for Climate Change science....I think it is easy to be discouraged about the state of the public dialog.  But on the bright side, there are only a handful of countries whose govts don't believe in Climate Change.  The major ones now are the US and Yemen. Russia is on the fence. That's it.  Everyone else gets it.  Signed onto Paris.  Are fostering the disruption.

And the US IS bringing up the rear, with the stubbornly high per capita emissions (by far the highest for any large nation over 100M people).  But even we are making progress, and the disruption is well underway here too.  Despite fossil funded media shills telling us otherwise.

So, are the above 'solutions' enough?  Not really.  They will get there, and with predictable accelerating factors (from future tech) we will avert the WORST possible CC outcomes.  But there will be plenty of damage, climate refugees and animal and oceanic extinctions.

Bad, BAD chit.  Take a minute and weep for the children unborn, and the broken and diminished natural world we will bequeath them.

But these are nonetheless the solutions that we HAVE TODAY.  Let's go support them...

--pay an extra penny or two for local 100% green power.
--buy offsets for $20 when you buy an airline ticket.
--if you can, put solar on your roof.
--buy a suitable EV, and enjoy its better-ness!

This all sends price/demand signals to the govts, utilities and entrepreneurs/investors that the disruption is coming, and they best get on it, or left behind.

And its cool to tell the kids and grandkids.


----------



## DBoon (Jan 20, 2019)

CaptSpiff said:


> can you break out the Energy portion, and the T&D portion. and also the monthly meter charge?



NYSEG
Basic Service Charge $17.22
Delivery Charge 6.6 cents/kWh
Electricity Supply (via Energy Cooperative of America Renewables option) 5.9 cents/kWh 
              blend of 30% off peak, 70% peak, peak rate is 6.5 cents/kWh
Total for electricity = 12.5 cents/kWh (not counting service charge). 

Note that the 12.5 cents/kWh rate is not the cheapest I could get - the supplier for that rate is not NYSEG's or NY's normal power mix, but a mix of Biogas, Wind and Hydro. It's probably a penny cheaper per kWh with the default NYSEG supplier.

In the past year I've changed to a 100% wind and solar provider at my home in Central NY, and the rate from that provider is 7.6 cents/kWh. At the time I made this change (September 2018), there was a 3 cent/kWh difference, so that is why I was thinking about 11 cents/kWh (that is what it was in September). 

It varies from month to month - but I don't think that changes the equation too much.  What I'm trying to draw attention to is that when you separate out the NYC metro area from the rest of NY state, there is a big difference in the cost of electricity. People in Central NY (at least served by NYSEG) don't pay 25 cents/kWh, like some might want us to believe. They pay less than places that get described as having cheap electricity (usually due to lots of coal generation and/or being in a low-cost southern state). Non-metro NYC area NY state is probably a lot like Wisconsin in city/rural makeup - why is there such a big difference if coal is the low-cost way to go?

In the past year I've changed to a 100% wind and solar provider at my home in Central NY, and the rate from that provider is 7.6 cents/kWh. At the time I made this change (September 2018), there was a 3 cent/kWh difference, so that is why I was thinking about 11 cents/kWh (that is what it was in September). What's interesting here is that the 7.6 cents/kWh is for wind+solar - nearly as cheap as what 

I have NYSEG service at two different locations. ConEd and LIPA are different rate structures. ConEd and LIPA are higher. ConEd is higher because of the delivery and generation complexities of NY City (80% of electricity for NY City must be generated inside the city boundaries, and distribution is high cost service in a dense city) and LIPA is high due to past mismanagement (I believe that LIPA customers are still paying off the Shoreham Nuke plant boondoggle) and also generation requirements (99% of LIPA electricity must be generated on LI). These generation requirements are set by state authorities to ensure electricity reliability for constrained geographic locations.


----------



## DBoon (Jan 20, 2019)

Yeah, what WoodGeek said - you can adopt what is better (when you can) or complain about change and wonder why you pay more and get less. 

Obviously, those that profit by giving you less and charging you more are going to try to convince you that the future is dumb, costs more and won't happen. More and more people seem to be deciding that this is not the case. We are at a pretty real tipping point and short of outlawing solar panels, wind generation or electric vehicles, the future will contain huge amounts of these technologies.


----------



## begreen (Jan 20, 2019)

Transportation of goods globally is not good for emissions. Marine traffic has a major effect on the environment and is often overlooked. Aviation has a horrendous impact and unfortunately is not going to be replaced with electric anytime soon. And then there is agriculture. It's responsible for about one quarter of direct emissions. Most current agriculture practices are neither healthy for the environment nor climate. This is another place where some serious changes will need to happen in order to address climate change and progress is slow here.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 20, 2019)

Aviation is in the single digit percentages for CO2 emissions right now, IIRC.  But it may count double since 50% doesn't get washed out immediately by rain, as may happen at lower altitudes.  And its growing.  But I think that real progress on the other 90% is possible and productive.

We agree: agriculture sucks.  Especially carnivorism.  Then esp dairy and beef.  A climatarian diet (veg with a little chicken and fish, eggs are OK, dairy is not) can really reduce impacts.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Jan 20, 2019)

I always liked the idea of rigid airships.  They cam lift insane amounts and move without too much energy spent.


----------



## begreen (Jan 20, 2019)

Agreed that aviation is smaller than some sectors but it is growing rapidly. In aviation we are talking about many billions of gallons of fuel burned on the ground and in the air every year. If high altitude intercontinental flights are included the overall effect is considered to be about 4%. The problem with aviation is multiple emissions, not just CO2. Also particulates precipitate on places near airports, harming local environments and health. Some emissions like ozone and NOx remain in the atmosphere. The IPCC estimated that aviation's total climate impact is some two to four times that of its direct CO2 emissions alone. That does not account for the effect of contrails.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 21, 2019)

The fuel eff of new aircraft has steadily improved, but of course given fleet age it takes a while to ripple through, and no great breakthroughs are expected.

One interesting stat I heard (from the late David MacKay, IIRC) is that in terms of fuel energy used, civil aviation on a 2000 era jet moves people at an equivalent of ~100 mpg gasoline.  But that family of three driving the 20 mpg SUV 1000 miles...more fuel used.  Two people hypermiling 1000 miles in a Prius...same fuel use as flying.

So, its about demand for long distance travel.  Switching people to driving....not a clear benefit.  When EVs or electric high-speed rail become options...another story there.

Of course, I think very short haul electric aviation (and driverless flying ubers) are going to be a big thing in a decade or so.  This has the potential to **reduce** or disrupt the existing, infrastructure heavy, ICE-powered light vehicle transport with comparable primary energy usage.  But this is of course more speculative, and could have negative effects, like people just travelling/commuting even more.


----------



## begreen (Feb 1, 2019)

California is finding out that it's car-centric, sprawling urban designs are not helping with emissions reduction. 
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...nia-cant-fix-tailpipe-pollution-idUSKCN1PQ4MJ

This same issue showed up at our local high school. The old, statuesque brick high school was torn down in the early 70s and replaced with a Calif. styled spread out campus of modules. The theory then was that the kids would get more exercise, fresh air, etc. Fast forward to 2000 and the reality sunk in that this was an awful design. Multiple buildings were much more costly to maintain, heat, etc. and construction was plagued with issues like mold. Everything had to be torn down and replaced with a large central building again. Urban problems are the same. So many of our cities lack good, non-ICE transportation solutions. In Seattle right now we continue to make auto-centric decisions in spite of rapid growth. High density housing is on a boom, but efficient methods of transporting people to jobs is lagging badly.


----------



## vinny11950 (Feb 5, 2019)

woodgeek said:


> So, are the above 'solutions' enough? Not really. They will get there, and with predictable accelerating factors (from future tech) we will avert the WORST possible CC outcomes. But there will be plenty of damage, climate refugees and animal and oceanic extinctions.
> 
> Bad, BAD chit. Take a minute and weep for the children unborn, and the broken and diminished natural world we will bequeath them.



Very true.  And it can get so much worse.

What we can't tell/imagine is how much human behavior will have to change to adapt to the new environment around us.  We take it for granted that countries and societies are organized in certain ways and expect them to be so in the future, but humans will have to adapt to the environmental changes that are now happening.  That may mean different country boundaries, different government types, less democracy, less individual freedoms or outright lawlessness.  It will all be up for grabs when people get desperate.


----------



## spirilis (Feb 5, 2019)

I have been a broken record on this subject as of late (spent a lot of time last year studying it) but I just want to interject the possibilities that may be coming down the line by 2030 for Nuclear Fission-based techs-

1. Small Modular Reactors lighting up remote sites, reducing the need to truck or plane or barge diesel fuel to places such as Alaska

2. Hydrogen production based on high-temperature nuclear reactors, e.g. https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/2...n-hydrogen-with-generation-iv-nuclear-energy/

3. Possible synergy of direct-CO2-capture tech with hydrogen for synthetic hydrocarbons, potentially replacing the carbon source used for aviation fuel and existing vehicles and long-distance diesel locomotives- http://carbonengineering.com/ - Note this does not strictly require nuclear, just mentioning it since it could be an application.

4. Small modular reactors could also be used for electrifying long-distance railroads without having to plan for extensive grid distribution from afar of the railroad across private property/etc., or purchasing large swaths of land adjacent to the railroads to deploy solar & wind

5. Obviously nuclear fission-based marine propulsion is a well known technology among certain groups, and my hope is focus on newer, safer, low-enriched uranium/weapons-proliferation-resistant designs will bring nuclear into the limelight for large commercial ships.

6. Small modular reactors can combine with battery storage and renewables to produce remote EV charging islands, e.g. in deserts, especially as some SMR designs don't require much water for cooling and can provide desalination with excess heat in some cases.  The utility of this should not be underestimated.  This ability to create an oasis out of hostile land with abundant dense energy may be an important key to saving and adapting some communities to the destruction from climate change.

My suspicion is what we have going on right now is great and should be promoted as @woodgeek mentioned.  Battery technology in particular needs a lot of focus.  But when a diversity of SMR designs start becoming ready for prime time, I think we will see some dramatic breakthroughs come seemingly out of left field that will shift the way we relate to energy and energy topics in the future.

Outer space isn't immune to this either, see https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/s...ear_Thermal_Propulsion_Deep_Space_Exploration

What happens when we have zero-CO2 Hydrogen production, paired with zero-CO2 thermal or electric energy production, combined into spacecraft?  The early days of a Star Trek society.

What we need to do right now, is make sure we're not getting in the WAY of this technology's development.  Demand it be done with safety and effective strategy behind e.g. waste management.  Keep up with what we have now but don't abort the emerging baby midway through gestation.


----------



## billb3 (Mar 12, 2019)

The "science" is hardly settled. Science is never "settled". Science evolves. It's the nature of science and discovery.
Unless you are a fear-mongering lunatic, then you get to believe the earth is going to explode in 12 years.


----------



## DBoon (Mar 16, 2019)

billb3 said:


> The "science" is hardly settled. Science is never "settled". Science evolves. It's the nature of science and discovery.
> Unless you are a fear-mongering lunatic, then you get to believe the earth is going to explode in 12 years.



What you are saying really makes no sense at all - the context of your comment has nothing to do with the original comment about whether the causes of climate change are known. 

The causes of climate change are known - you may personally disagree with them and that is your right. But the information available today is good enough to convince the vast majority of people _with the knowledge to render an informed opinion_ on what a buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere will do to the climate. The fact that there are a few outlier scientists who challenge these conclusions does not mean those outlier scientists get equal weight in the debate compared to the vast majority of scientists who agree. 

You have a right to opinion and you may agree or disagree with the above. That is where the political process has to meet the scientific consensus and determine what happens next. The political process may not be ready for the scientific consensus, _but that doesn't make the scientific consensus "unsettled"._ 

Nobody is debating what the nature of science is and whether it evolves or not. That is outside of the scope of the comment related to making connections between CO2, human activity and climate change. And really, the whole comment is just a bunch of pseudo-babble that says nothing except to express your opinion that you disagree with the conclusions or opinions expressed thus far. 

I'll ignore your last comment as just a classic case of "state that anyone who disagrees is some sort of fringe lunatic" - nobody has expressed an opinion even close to that thus far, and by stating what you did, you really don't lend any credibility to whatever argument it was you were trying to make.


----------



## Easy Livin’ 3000 (Mar 16, 2019)

DBoon said:


> What you are saying really makes no sense at all - the context of your comment has nothing to do with the original comment about whether the causes of climate change are known.
> 
> The causes of climate change are known - you may personally disagree with them and that is your right. But the information available today is good enough to convince the vast majority of people _with the knowledge to render an informed opinion_ on what a buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere will do to the climate. The fact that there are a few outlier scientists who challenge these conclusions does not mean those outlier scientists get equal weight in the debate compared to the vast majority of scientists who agree.
> 
> ...


Nice post. 

 I really don't understand why people, other than fossil fuel company executives, are so passionate about denying this.  Really, what is it for them?  They are pawns for the industry.  Sad that they don't see this.

I always try to weigh the consequences of actions by the potential benefits, vs. the potential consequences.

  If climate change deniers are right, we'll just burn away until all the fossil fuels are gone, then have to figure out what to do next.  Or, if they are wrong, the earth turns into a horrible, inhospitable place.

Why not just hedge our bets, and do something first?


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Mar 16, 2019)

You have a right to opinion and you may agree or disagree with the above. That is where the political process has to meet the scientific consensus and determine what happens next. The political process may not be ready for the scientific consensus, _but that doesn't make the scientific consensus "unsettled"._  Dboon you are certainly right on target here.

as a believer in climate change I disagree with the co2 angle.  It doesn't cause all the connections that many science folks claim. Everything from forest fires to wars! Let's look at last fall, Florence. The claims of it's connection to AGW were everywhere. Here is an example with a simple search.

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search...RGK3PQmjPgAWQaQUkY/JG0xBR7E1sJbMhbg==&iscqry=

On the other hand , you can find info such as this.https://www.cato.org/blog/hurricane-last-time. It offers a consensus , "Here is the prevailing consensus opinion of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (NOAA GFDL): “In the Atlantic, it is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on hurricane activity.”.

All to often people with this "attitude" are ignored or scoffed at. It does in this persons mind cause questions. I'll go, as usual, back to Eisenhower,

"Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

...

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocation, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet in holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.[1]"

safe for me to think, that's happening on this subject.


----------



## begreen (Mar 16, 2019)

For certain with the advent of 24 hr cable news we now live in an age of media distortion and hyperbole. Every major storm is not the result of climate change. We need larger longer term datasets to make that judgement. However, it is universally understood that warmer seas are going to contribute more moisture to the atmosphere. The Cato article was written after Harvey's 26 trillion gallon dump but before Florence. As it turned out, Florence delivered an extraordinarily high volume of water over land. Another 18 trillion gallons (the volume of 3.5 Great Salt Lakes). Although it's still a bit premature with two storms, each delivering a record volume of water, the predictions of climate change causing storms carrying higher volumes of water do appear to be playing out. We shall see.

The Cato institute is not where I would look for climate science. The authors' argument has some false equivalencies. And he cherry picks data to make a case instead of presenting the full picture. Here is a retrospect on 2018 storms from C2ES.
https://www.c2es.org/2018/09/hurricane-florence-more-than-just-the-weather-climate-change-too/
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...ainfall-storm-surge-risk-attribution-forecast

Unfortunately, right along with media hype, we have an 8 trillion dollar energy industry that will stop at nothing to protect their turf. And I mean nothing, including ruling and/or destroying nations. They are spending large sums on disinformation and have the deep pockets to do it. That is the formidable challenge of engaging meaningful global climate policy.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Mar 16, 2019)

begreen said:


> For certain with the advent of 24 hr cable news we now live in an age of media distortion and hyperbole. Every major storm is not the result of climate change. We need larger longer term datasets to make that judgement. However, it is universally understood that warmer seas are going to contribute more moisture to the atmosphere. The Cato article was written after Harvey's 26 trillion gallon dump but before Florence. As it turned out, Florence delivered an extraordinarily high volume of water over land. Another 18 trillion gallons (the volume of 3.5 Great Salt Lakes). Although it's still a bit premature with two storms, each delivering a record volume of water, the predictions of climate change causing storms carrying higher volumes of water do appear to be playing out. We shall see.
> 
> The Cato institute is not where I would look for climate science. The authors' argument has some false equivalencies. Here is a retrospect on 2018 storms from C2ES.
> https://www.c2es.org/2018/09/hurricane-florence-more-than-just-the-weather-climate-change-too/
> ...



One of the authors, Dr Maue, above my pay grade to criticize. Evidence shows Florence formed in cooler than normal waters, survived, increased in waters near 30 yr. norm. It made landfall as a weakening cat.1 in very warm water. Opposite of what was predicted. Another site you do not care for but offers some insight. https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/18/florence-abnormally-cool-waters/. It also offers some insight on on an AGW hero. Hint he has some false info as well.


----------



## begreen (Mar 16, 2019)

One's pay grade has nothing to do with having an agenda, regardless of what side of the debate one chooses. The article is ambiguous and contains some false equivalences. To say that these storms happened in the past is not new information and not really debatable as the intensity or water volume of a storm in the 1600s is just guesswork. As for his cool waters theory, that doesn't seem to be what was observed at the time. Nor was this the case for Harvey.




And this hijack is getting very far off topic. That is emissions are increasing at a dangerous rate when they need to be decreasing.


----------



## begreen (Mar 16, 2019)

Unfortunately, the more efficient we get, the more some people use this as an excuse for more consumption. This is the trend we are seeing in America. It's like eating a dozen Oreo cookies because they are the "diet-light" variety. Or someone leaving more lights on because they are LED bulbs.This happens all the time and must be addressed if we are to slow down anthropogenic effects on the planet.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/american-consumption-habits/
https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s...tyle-really-compares-to-the-rest-of-the-world


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Mar 16, 2019)

And this hijack is getting very far off topic. That is emissions are increasing at a dangerous rate when they need to be decreasing.

And increasingly severe weather predicted with those increased emissions.  My last food for thought on this.


----------



## woodgeek (Mar 17, 2019)

Doug MacIVER said:


> ...
> 
> The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocation, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
> 
> ...



With respect, if you think the US govt has been captured by the scientific elite re climate change.....I would have to say that as an elite scientist, it certainly doesn't look like we are doing it right!

The fedl govt is, and has been controlled, by FF industry shills and climate change deniers.  I think BHO was not, but he did ZERO during his 2 years with a sympathetic congress on the AGW subject.  And since 2010...nothing doing.

I appreciate you making your precise feelings known.  I will give you a precise response.

You have set too high a bar for proof and for action.

----------------------

My analogy: a new for-profit school opens up in town.  People sign up, attend classes, pay tuition and get certificates.  A lot of money is being made, the teachers and students are spending money in town, the town is booming.  A required course of study at this place...ARSON.  How to burn down houses without leaving any evidence!  The class is very popular, with a waiting list for more people to take it.

Of course, many people in town worry about this trend....should we try to stop that class from being taught?  First, the school talks about academic freedom, and how ARSON is an essential (and popular) part of the curriculum. It is NOT possible to remove that course.  And they say: what a bunch of worry-warts...its just a class after all.  Purely theoretical.  With a lab course.

And of course, houses in town were burning down before the school opened, and continue to burn down afterwards.  In one mysterious case, of a big house burning down, everyone gets upset and claims that it must have been ARSON, no doubt attributable to one of the students at the arson school.  And the people at the school point out that there is NO EVIDENCE of arson at all.  And other people point out that OF COURSE there is no evidence, bc the course is about how to burn down houses without leaving evidence!

What should the town people do?

One bunch of very sensible/skeptical townspeople argue that perhaps we should WAIT, until we can see a **clear trend** in the number of houses burning down per year, before we shut down the school.  Seems reasonable.  But of course, that 'experiment' requires that a bunch of houses will burn down first, maybe people will get killed in those fires (if the hypothesis is correct).  And of course, the school opened up 10 years ago, and there were in fact more fires in a few of those years than at any time in the town's history.  And of course, some other years where their weren't.  So one side argues about the fire years, the other about the quiet years.  And a statistician does the math, and says that the number of fires DOES have a (statistically) significant uptrend.  But most people don't care about stats or listen to her.  And one of the school people points out that the fire years were during a time of drought, caused by a natural fluctuation, the weather, that the statistician did not take into account (when actually she did).

--------------------------

So, Doug, arguing that there is no evidence for more hurricanes from AGW is like the above.  Hurricanes (and weather) are inarguably RANDOM phenomena and cannot EVER be causally associated with AGW, except on a statistical basis, probably requiring decades of data to pull out a significant signal.

And frankly, I don't care about hurricanes.  I live 30 miles from salt water, at 500' above sea level.

And having read the primary literature, I am not convinced that AGW will cause more hurricanes.  That is bc the primary literature does not yet agree on that subject.  Some papers say more, some say not.

Its a red herring. You have picked a single issue that is untestable and about which there is no scientific consensus, even if ill informed meteorologists and journalists and celebrities will assert otherwise.

Regarding CO2 we know everything we need to know.  

If you cherry pick, I can too: A grade schooler can blow bubbles with a straw, put the water on litmus paper, and do a science fair project that CO2 acidifies water.  We can raise marine animals in acidified tanks, and see how they develop.  And we can compute at current rates of CO2 emission when different outcomes occur.  And it is not good.

The greenhouse effect heats the earth by more than 50°F, which was figured out more than a century ago, and is now a calculation that many HS kids do as part of their homework. I did in HS in the 1980s.  CO2 is not the most important greenhouse gas, and the effect of adding more is sub-linear: doubling CO2 doesn't heat the earth by another 50°F.  How much doubling CO2 will increase the earth temp is more like 2-4°F.  

Is this really so implausible?

And 2-4°F is not good.

And doubling CO2 is already baked in.  We are actually arguing about how to avoid tripling it or more.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Mar 17, 2019)

here is where i began,"Everything from forest fires to wars! Let's look at last fall, Florence. The claims of it's connection to AGW were everywhere.

 Here is an example with a simple search." cherry picked because I'm lazy, Florence was everywhere. the claims on co2 are like the volume dial on our radio.here is a comment from Mike Mann on last week's storm?"The monster low-pressure system was fueled by warm, moist air from the Gulf of Mexico colliding with cold air from the north. Michael Mann, climate scientist at Penn State University, told HuffPost there is evidence that climate change is increasing the conditions that support development of more intense bomb cyclones."  at the risk of a false equivalence how did the blizzards of 1888 or 1978 happen.
Last years forest fires in Ca. were predicted by some due to the increase in fuel from the now past drought. first up on a ca. fire search.https://thenewhealthcycle.com/2018/11/11/california-fires-caused-by-climate-change/. here is the last paragraph. "
Climate change may or may not be to blame but we do need to understand that natural forces are in motion that has occurred in the past to help us prepare for the future but these natural forces are not completely understood in the mass community." is it agw or "natural forces?

to get to a neutral co2 we alone cannot get it done and we all know where the major problem lies. if we include china and india , our answer is in the developing world.


----------



## woodgeek (Mar 17, 2019)

And in the last 10 years we have done LESS than those two countries to reduce our carbon emissions.  Both of those two countries have far smaller per capita emissions (from your graph, and the fact they have 4X the population, each), far less wealth to pay for solutions, and both countries HAVE signed onto Paris, which is just a good first step.

We, with our 5-10X higher per capita emissions, and only 4% of the global population (and 40% of the 2018 emissions), have agreed politically at the federal level to DO NOTHING, and have pulled out of Paris.

And we are NOT part of the problem, because you judge the slope on these lines are different?  We don't have to do anything different?


----------



## SpaceBus (Mar 17, 2019)

woodgeek said:


> With respect, if you think the US govt has been captured by the scientific elite re climate change.....I would have to say that as an elite scientist, it certainly doesn't look like we are doing it right!
> 
> The fedl govt is, and has been controlled, by FF industry shills and climate change deniers.  I think BHO was not, but he did ZERO during his 2 years with a sympathetic congress on the AGW subject.  And since 2010...nothing doing.
> 
> ...




While I certainly appreciated the read, I doubt your target audience will act any differently. You would need to use his target sources of information and disseminate from those sources to cause any meaningful change. I'm sure you don't have the time for that, but unfortunately, like you said, the FF industry does.

Our previous president did squat for AGW, but few, none since I've been born, really have. We also have two liberal parties with varying levels of extremism. If we truly had a conservative party don't you think they would have done something about conserving resources? I could spend a lot of time discussing the inherent deception of naming the parties the way they have been, but that's not what this is about.


----------



## woodgeek (Mar 17, 2019)

As an insufferable know-it-all, my target audience is ME. I am trying to spur myself to action.  Doug can take care of himself, and has his own agency.


----------



## SpaceBus (Mar 17, 2019)

woodgeek said:


> As an insufferable know-it-all, my target audience is ME. I am trying to spur myself to action.  Doug can take care of himself, and has his own agency.



I'm guilty of not doing enough as well. Part of the reason we moved up to Maine was to live a more environmentally responsible life. It's happening, just very slowly.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Mar 17, 2019)

woodgeek said:


> And in the last 10 years we have done LESS than those two countries to reduce our carbon emissions.  Both of those two countries have far smaller per capita emissions (from your graph, and the fact they have 4X the population, each), far less wealth to pay for solutions, and both countries HAVE signed onto Paris, which is just a good first step.
> 
> We, with our 5-10X higher per capita emissions, and only 4% of the global population (and 40% of the 2018 emissions), have agreed politically at the federal level to DO NOTHING, and have pulled out of Paris.
> 
> And we are NOT part of the problem, because you judge the slope on these lines are different?  We don't have to do anything different?





woodgeek said:


> And we are NOT part of the problem


 I said we alone cannot get it done. That doesn't mean that the USA is watching this from the moon. Luckily we are not a nation of  2.75 billion!


----------



## woodgeek (Mar 17, 2019)

I agree we alone cannot get it done.  But it is unclear what you meant by 'we all know where the major problem lies'.  I think we are a major part of the problem.  Do we all know that?


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Mar 17, 2019)

woodgeek said:


> I agree we alone cannot get it done.  But it is unclear what you meant by 'we all know where the major problem lies'.  I think we are a major part of the problem.  Do we all know that?


let's begin with coal as an example. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07...new-coal-power-plants-built-around-the-world/ article is from NYT. sorry 2 yrs old.

 Indonesia 2014-2019 domestic coal use. They have somewhere near 80 yr reserve. They're gonna use it.
*Domestic*
(in million tons)   76   86   91   97  114¹  240.

guess this was agreed to in Paris.


----------



## woodgeek (Mar 17, 2019)

Before Paris most countries did not report their FF usage, or did so inconsistently, and did not project their future CO2 emissions.  And Climate meetings were pointless argument-fests every 10 years that achieved little of substance.

Paris is not what 'Wattsup' tells you it is.  It is a process in which signatories report what they are doing, and what **their** plans for energy and emission reduction are, and share what has worked with others, and learn from others.  Annually.

Forget Indonesia....GERMANY has a higher coal fraction of the electricity that the US.  Those greenie germans.

We are not going to get Indonesia to not burn coal if they think that is the only affordable solution they have.  We will not have an intl agreement that BANS them from doing that. They will learn what their other energy options are (and that they are becoming cheaper) from Paris, and eventually make a better choice.  Sooner bc of Paris than if it didn't exist.

Conversely, we in the US could do a lot more to reduce emissions now, affordable (to us) upfront, and cheaper in the not so long run, and we are not doing that today bc politics.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Mar 17, 2019)

the article I presented is word for word NYT, would not have posted if it were a wuwt. Indonesia only to point to the growth.
soon enough the political atmosphere(that fits ,uh) will cycle left and 12yrs from now they'll be more of the same.
as always, enjoy a good discussion, have a day


----------



## begreen (Mar 17, 2019)

Doug MacIVER said:


> I said we alone cannot get it done. That doesn't mean that the USA is watching this from the moon. Luckily we are not a nation of  2.75 billion!


The US just refused to support a global reduction of plastics getting into the environment at the UN Summit in Nairobi. 
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47592111
We are not environmental leaders or even followers any more. Fossil fuel is dictating our national policies and engagements. And the effects of fossil fuel based energy, agriculture, packaging are clearly evident.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-multiple-disasters-at-once-study-warns/

At our current pace, the net effect of increased emissions makes it pretty clear where we are heading.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/natu...world-biodiversity_n_5c49e78ce4b06ba6d3bb2d44


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Apr 3, 2019)

This from a Jan. Forbes article> 
"The only way to lower emissions sufficiently by mid-century is with a mix of technologies including nuclear and renewables. And replacing internal combustion engines with mostly electric vehicles charged with non-fossil fuel-generated electricity like nuclear and renewables."

Focus on the premature closing of nuclear plants. Reminds me of the rush to close coal plants before adequate cost effective replacements were available here in New England.React to the pressure of the day and fix it later. Link, https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesc...e-as-nuclear-power-plants-close/#7cb27a1a7034


----------



## begreen (Apr 5, 2019)

“I used to think that top environmental problems were biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and climate change. I thought that thirty years of good science could address these problems. I was wrong. The top environmental problems are selfishness, greed and apathy, and to deal with these we need a cultural and spiritual transformation. And we scientists don’t know how to do that.”
_- Gus Speth_
http://winewaterwatch.org/2016/05/we-scientists-dont-know-how-to-do-that-what-a-commentary/


----------



## Doug MacIVER (May 5, 2019)

Let's see if Environmental Progress is ok to post and not be belittled for doing so.. Found this one of those reads that has an even balance to the approach of solving emission problems and cuts through a lot of BS. https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-the-planet/


----------



## begreen (May 5, 2019)

Certainly, renewables alone are not going to solve the climate crisis. And yes, I think we are going to have to fast track some advanced, modern nuclear solutions as a buffer. Agriculture has a surprisingly large role as a contributor to greenhouse gases. Unfortunately, it's full speed ahead with some of the major sources of emissions. This is like someone switching to diet soda so that they can drink it all day.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/farm-climate-change-animals-drone-footage-video-a8804661.html
Meanwhile, up north the results playout:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/permafrost-melting-1.5119767
I agree with the concern that scientists may have been much too conservative in estimating the amount of methane that will be released by thawing permafrost.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (May 5, 2019)

Add farming to your list, i'm sticking with reduction of FF and balanced thought out solutions over a reasonable time.. To that, Sunday dinner, commercially farmed potatoes, broccoli, and non fart collected beef. Until the Impossible Foods product reproduces the unique tastes of the different cuts, it's good old fart producing beef for us. 
 On the methane side, I find the continental shelf hydrate pretty scary. You don't see it coming.


----------



## begreen (May 5, 2019)

Farming definitely is included with agriculture. Microbes in soil do the lion's share of carbon sequestration. Our agri-biz practices not only disrupt this natural cycle they exacerbate the problem greatly. Regenerative soil farming practices are necessary to reverse this trend. No beef here, I haven't eaten any in almost 50 yrs.. We'll be having a nice Cinquo de Mayo dinner without it.


----------



## semipro (May 5, 2019)

I had an Impossible Burger last week and thought it was pretty darned good. 

Its been interesting to watch the measles outbreaks occur.  I see a lot of parallels with climate change: 

Overwhelming consensus in the scientific community
Available solutions for prevention
Massive misinformation by a very vocal minority given equal credence (by some)
Extreme selfishness by those unwilling to act
Increased risk to the innocent, others, and the future resulting from that selfishness
Governments unwilling to stand up and act responsibly
We're doomed unless we can work together and start trusting science (the whole) rather than hanging our hopes on the optimism of a few scientists (the individuals).

Of course a major asteroid headed our way might changes things.  I wonder how long we would debate the "science" of an impeding impact before deciding to act. I'm sure there's some jackass out there that will reassure the non-believers with fallacy. 

In other news, my heating bills are down and I've been able to plant my vegetable garden earlier every year - 40 days earlier this year.  Why should I worry about the 800 million suffering elsewhere?  https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/28723


----------



## Doug MacIVER (May 5, 2019)

shame on me. another sin, forgive me father! you have made your choices> so have I ? Mine(in general) are for greed in your mind, you've said so in your posts.Your position is that folks such us,(my familly and like thinkers) ,care less !

your turn and a no to all makes you pure, no comm. fish, shellfish, chicken, goat, lamb, mutton, deer, elk,whale?

 I now understand your attitude, my way, thinking , knowledge the only way, some out there do call agw, the new religion?
thanks for being honest, and gabgl (look up met. Dick Albert for defin)


----------



## SpaceBus (May 5, 2019)

begreen said:


> Farming definitely is included with agriculture. Microbes in soil do the lion's share of carbon sequestration. Our agri-biz practices not only disrupt this natural cycle they exacerbate the problem greatly. Regenerative soil farming practices are necessary to reverse this trend. No beef here, I haven't eaten any in almost 50 yrs.. We'll be having a nice Cinquo de Mayo dinner without it.




We've been cutting our meat intake dramatically over the last three years. Before I knew how bad cattle farming was for the environment I basically ate beef three times a day. Now we have beef once every two weeks or so. Eventually we'd like to grown all of our own vegetables and perhaps raise some poultry for eating. Perhaps after that happens we will eliminate red meat entirely. For now the small amount of meat we do eat is primarily turkey, chicken and fish.


----------



## SpaceBus (May 5, 2019)

Doug MacIVER said:


> shame on me. another sin, forgive me father! you have made your choices> so have I ? Mine(in general) are for greed in your mind, you've said so in your posts.Your position is that folks such us,(my familly and like thinkers) ,care less !
> 
> your turn and a no to all makes you pure, no comm. fish, shellfish, chicken, goat, lamb, mutton, deer, elk,whale?
> 
> ...



Who is belittling you? Everyone keeps telling you to believe in whatever you want. They post their opinions, and you post yours. I haven't seen anyone single you out maliciously.


----------



## begreen (May 5, 2019)

Properly done, meat production can be beneficial to soil regeneration. It's how we currently do it that more often is at fault. But overall agribiz practices are not helping at all. This is just one health related example :
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-05-03/big-agriculture-is-breeding-a-worldwide-health-crisis
Overview:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_and_agriculture
https://www.eea.europa.eu/signals/signals-2015/articles/agriculture-and-climate-change


----------



## WinterinWI (May 9, 2019)

After reading through this thread, I can only come to the conclusion that the only thing wrong with this planet is that humans inhabit it. If all humans were eliminated, climate change would be almost nonexistent, the ocean level would reach near permanent equilibrium, and all types of emissions that are harmful to our atmosphere would cease.

The path forward seems obvious. We can't take the chance that we might be wrong.


----------



## semipro (May 10, 2019)

WinterinWI said:


> After reading through this thread, I can only come to the conclusion that the only thing wrong with this planet is that humans inhabit it. If all humans were eliminated, climate change would be almost nonexistent, the ocean level would reach near permanent equilibrium, and all types of emissions that are harmful to our atmosphere would cease.
> 
> The path forward seems obvious. We can't take the chance that we might be wrong.



An alternative would be to come to our collective senses, figure out what it takes to live on earth sustainably, and change our ways.


----------



## Ashful (May 10, 2019)

begreen said:


> In the last minute we have destroyed over 50% of the world's forests.


... and your mother-in-law told your wife you’d never amount to anything...


----------



## begreen (May 10, 2019)

begreen said:


> In the last minute we have destroyed over 50% of the world's forests.





Ashful said:


> ... and your mother-in-law told your wife you’d never amount to anything...


, pretty funny quoted out of context. Not even my words, but who's checking?

Some are taking this a bit more seriously
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48069663


----------



## Ashful (May 11, 2019)

begreen said:


> , pretty funny quoted out of context. Not even my words, but who's checking?
> 
> Some are taking this a bit more seriously
> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48069663



Oh, it’s serious.  Don’t take my chance for some humor as apathy for deforestation.  Like so many past problems, public awareness is the first step toward instigating change.


----------



## semipro (May 11, 2019)

begreen said:


> Some are taking this a bit more seriously
> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48069663


While I admire the creativity of these applications, these types of "solutions" rarely work as planned, often having a net negative effect. 
I'm a major proponent of technology but feel we shouldn't rely upon eventual development of a technical solution to save us - too risky.


----------



## begreen (May 11, 2019)

Some of our consumer habits are madness. Shopping for many is like smoking, a momentary reward to make one feel good. That is unsustainable. And then there are industries based on getting into the consumer's wallet in spite of an incredibly large failure rate. Junk mail is based on this foundation. Our local paper continues to insert a flyer for a grocery chain that is many miles away with slim to no chance of getting our business. Yet it shows up weekly. When I asked if they could stop they pleaded, no, they need the revenue. How serious is this issue? Look at the numbers in the US alone - 100 million trees destroyed for creating more than 100 billion pieces of junk mail -- a year! When viewed as a source of emissions that is equivalent to more than all the cars registered in our two largest cities combined.

Here is a site for suggested steps to end the junk mail stream.
https://www.ecocycle.org/junkmail


----------



## Doug MacIVER (May 11, 2019)

add advertising to list of bad things.https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/...ew&id=34&vid=93959bc883e37de2123d60a5b95c5796 sorry I posted and said I was done.


----------



## Ashful (May 11, 2019)

begreen said:


> Some of our consumer habits are madness. Shopping for many is like smoking, a momentary reward to make one feel good. That is unsustainable. And then there are industries based on getting into the consumer's wallet in spite of an incredibly large failure rate. Junk mail is based on this foundation. Our local paper continues to insert a flyer for a grocery chain that is many miles away with slim to no chance of getting our business. Yet it shows up weekly. When I asked if they could stop they pleaded, no, they need the revenue. How serious is this issue? Look at the numbers in the US alone - 100 million trees destroyed for creating more than 100 billion pieces of junk mail -- a year! When viewed as a source of emissions that is equivalent to more than all the cars registered in our two largest cities combined.
> 
> Here is a site for suggested steps to end the junk mail stream.
> https://www.ecocycle.org/junkmail
> ...



How on earth are you only getting 848 pieces of junk mail each year?   I’m easily clearing 2000 items of junk mail per year.   No kidding.


----------



## begreen (May 11, 2019)

Ashful said:


> How on earth are you only getting 848 pieces of junk mail each year?   I’m easily clearing 2000 items of junk mail per year.   No kidding.


That's an average. You and I are getting much more. It comes from a lifetime of steady income,  spending and donating. My sons luckily are getting much less than average.


----------



## Ashful (May 12, 2019)

Outlawing junk mail is one thing that would have guaranteed unilateral support from voters in both parties.  I’m surprised no major democratic candidate has had this on their platform, or at least that I’ve seen.  You know the Repub’s can’t touch this one, but it would be a great “centering” move, a’la Bill C.


----------



## semipro (May 12, 2019)

Its amazing how much less mail I get at work since most business publications went electronic via the web; especially catalogs for tech products. 
I've often wondered the actual impact though: energy used hauling mail versus running servers.


----------



## SpaceBus (May 12, 2019)

Doug MacIVER said:


> add advertising to list of bad things.https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=AwrCxnX1Nddce1oAyBQPxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTB0N2Noc21lBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNwaXZz?p=no+soup+for+you&type=863125468&hspart=omr&hsimp=yhs-001&param1=y6bdVFVIsvuYsgEClQfz8CFh9Zya+L5d1JmmGscWrG3Fc3Pdx8qp3tVtRyk5GEky/xFxfS4mgYMntASO+kv0VXIKSGyj68E03/evBn1Q1H1LsrWsvx95nc8knti2wSGj6dmBfdqkZ6MO/e7xzm47EIxQ0hrcF9qOIaGIX4Y7EdRsHMTlZrV3Fo00FxW0hffcOFZfvKkIH7D17gOwrUif1686FF8qv/F4DP2LTAX7K18moInA9mORGK3PQmjPgAWQaQUkY/JG0xBR7E1sJbMhbg==&ei=UTF-8&fr=yhs-omr-001#action=view&id=34&vid=93959bc883e37de2123d60a5b95c5796 sorry I posted and said I was done.


Advertising does suck. Why would you defend that?


----------



## Ashful (May 12, 2019)

semipro said:


> Its amazing how much less mail I get at work since most business publications went electronic via the web; especially catalogs for tech products.
> I've often wondered the actual impact though: energy used hauling mail versus running servers.



I have to admit I don’t have anything beyond a little life experience and gut feeling to support this, but I would be willing to bet that making those paper advertisements, and then having a mail carrier haul them to your house, uses substantially more energy than passing them thru an email server.


----------



## Ashful (May 12, 2019)

SpaceBus said:


> Advertising does suck. Why would you defend that?



Because begreen instigated it.  Some people just have to be contrary.

Begreen and I are about as far apart as any two people can be, in a lot of our political views.  But sometimes right is just right, and he is right a lot.


----------



## semipro (May 12, 2019)

Doug MacIVER said:


> My last food for thought on this.


Here's the caption for this graphic from this page: https://policlimate.com/tropical/
_"Global Hurricane Frequency (all & major) -- 12-month running sums. The top time series is the number of global tropical cyclones that reached at least hurricane-force (maximum lifetime wind speed exceeds 64-knots). The bottom time series is the number of global tropical cyclones that reached major hurricane strength (96-knots+). Adapted from Maue (2011) GRL."_

What I get from this this is that the total number of hurricanes is decreasing while the number of larger hurricanes is increasing.
So there are fewer events but the ones that do occur are larger. I see no reason to challenge that - maybe caused by AGW, maybe not.
I suspect that the relationship between event max wind speed and storm energy is not linear.  Therefore total yearly storm event energy may actually be increasing despite what some may be reading into the numbers presented.

In fact, if you look a little farther down the page at the same site you see the graph of historical storm energy (ACE) which clearly shows an upward trend.


Like a yard blower, air velocity is not necessarily indicative of power output.


----------



## semipro (May 12, 2019)

Ashful said:


> I have to admit I don’t have anything beyond a little life experience and gut feeling to support this, but I would be willing to bet that making those paper advertisements, and then having a mail carrier haul them to your house, uses substantially more energy than passing them thru an email server.


I hope you're right. 
Bitcoin mining on the other hand is consuming a whole lot of energy: to what end I haven't been able to appreciate yet.


----------



## begreen (May 12, 2019)

semipro said:


> Here's the caption for this graphic from this page: https://policlimate.com/tropical/
> _"Global Hurricane Frequency (all & major) -- 12-month running sums. The top time series is the number of global tropical cyclones that reached at least hurricane-force (maximum lifetime wind speed exceeds 64-knots). The bottom time series is the number of global tropical cyclones that reached major hurricane strength (96-knots+). Adapted from Maue (2011) GRL."_
> 
> What I get from this this is that the total number of hurricanes is decreasing while the number of larger hurricanes is increasing.
> ...


Yes, there are lots of ways to look at data or to exclude data in order to make one's point. Volume of water appears to be another notable difference with major cyclones, regardless of wind strength.


----------



## semipro (May 13, 2019)

CO2 in the atmosphere just exceeded 415 parts per million for the first time in human history
https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/12/c...-million-for-the-first-time-in-human-history/


----------



## begreen (May 13, 2019)

semipro said:


> CO2 in the atmosphere just exceeded 415 parts per million for the first time in human history
> https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/12/c...-million-for-the-first-time-in-human-history/


No worries, the administration just silently stopped NASAs CO2 monitoring program. The one that did silly stuff like modeling C02 over time.


----------



## Ashful (May 13, 2019)

begreen said:


> No worries, the administration just silently stopped NASAs CO2 monitoring program. The one that did silly stuff like modeling C02 over time.



ESA needs to step up.  NASA isn’t the only game in town.


----------



## WinterinWI (May 13, 2019)

Even the moon is starting to feel the effects.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/05/13/world/moon-shrinking-quakes-scn/index.html

"Some of the quakes also happened during a point in the moon's orbit when it was farthest from Earth, indicating that the tidal stress of Earth's gravity could have contributed to stress on the moon's crust."

Tidal stresses from Earth are so bad that the moon is being torn apart. They are also suggesting humans should go back to the moon. Bad idea, unless we can use emissions free vehicles, and not touch anything, since it sounds like the moon's life hangs in the balance.

We should go back to the moon.


----------



## semipro (May 22, 2019)

And this from the Chinese https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48353341 
*Ozone layer: Banned CFCs traced to China say scientists*


----------



## SpaceBus (May 22, 2019)

semipro said:


> And this from the Chinese https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48353341
> *Ozone layer: Banned CFCs traced to China say scientists*



Google just informed me of the news as well.


----------



## begreen (May 22, 2019)

Good sleuthing. Hopefully the use of CFC-11 will be curtailed now.


----------

