Not what one would like to see at this juncture
https://rhg.com/research/preliminary-us-emissions-estimates-for-2018
https://rhg.com/research/preliminary-us-emissions-estimates-for-2018
2018 emissions surged
- Thread starter begreen
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Easy Livin’ 3000
Minister of Fire
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.
Last edited:
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
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/
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
Minister of Fire
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.
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
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
questarthews
New Member
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.
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
Minister of Fire
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.
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
New Member
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
Minister of Fire
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
New Member
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).
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.
Easy Livin’ 3000
Minister of Fire
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
Minister of Fire
Yes, it would be a shame to stop wasting so much, have clean air and water!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
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.
Similar threads
