Yesterday was April 22nd, also known as Earth Day. But I like to think of it as Transform the Earth Day. To celebrate the Earth is like celebrating the sun, our skin color, or magnetism. These are the given, things we have no choice about, and are nothing we have accomplished. They are just there. They have nothing to do with choice, action, reason, accomplishments. Being able to create thriving environments like Dubai, Las Vegas, Israel, in the middle of deserts is and incredible feat worthy of celebration because they are human achievements, and not the given like a caves is.
The point is that taking a dangerous climate and making it safe for people is an incredible feat which was made easier when we took the black goop in the ground, refined it, and made possible machinery that enables us to have the power of superman, is an act of Transforming the Earth, and something worth celebrating because we have cleaner air, cleaner water, and we are safer from weather than ever before.
With that, I share these short but wonderful videos with Alex Epstein which frame the argument for Human Flourishing.
Extra: Full Interview and Exposition of the Logic on The Rubin Report
OK, so after skimming through this, it seems like the argument of this dude, at it's best interpretation, is basically that we need energy to do all the awesome things we do today. To do that we need fossil fuels. And it's not feasible to switch to renewable. And it does heat up the planet a bit, but shouldn't be a big deal.
So it's one of the more sensible angles at a first glance. It sounds reasonable, and it doesn't seem like one of the all-out conspiracy theorists. I do think it's an important discussion how much temperature increase is ok. It's a straw man though. no one is saying that we should switch off energy generation and go back to middle ages. People want to spend more resources to move to renewable and to reduce consumption where possible.
There is a fair bit of misleading information, which is to be expected.
For example compare his temperature over time graph: + Show Spoiler +
The data do match I think (note the x and y axis have different range), if you take the by-year dots from nasa. But he conveniently picked out the flattest possible part of the curve, and cutting out the last 3 years or so where it jumps up again (iirc, this was matched by the global ocean temperatures warming during the flatter years, matched by computer models). And there is no reason to bring up a model from 1986. Climate models have improved incredibly since, due to improved understanding, more computing power and more data.
Hmm, very different numbers. Looking over time, we see that fossil fuel is increasing steadily over time. Renewables are still low but it seems like it's increasing: + Show Spoiler +
To zoom in a bit on the renewables change over time, I followed to the source (www.bp.com), and behold: + Show Spoiler +
Seems to have increased a factor 10 in 20 years. Assuming that the exponential increase will continue is a strong assumption, but it's not like we are going to run out of wind or sun anytime soon, and tech keeps improving, while fossil fuels are not that far away from their theoretical maximum.
So with the actual data, it feels perfectly plausible to replace the majority of fossil fuel within a few decades if we put in some effort.
Is it worth it? Is it better to stay on fossil fuel and heat up the planet and see what happens? I'll leave that to you for now.
On April 24 2017 00:02 Cascade wrote: OK, so after skimming through this, it seems like the argument of this dude, at it's best interpretation, is basically that we need energy to do all the awesome things we do today. To do that we need fossil fuels. And it's not feasible to switch to renewable. And it does heat up the planet a bit, but shouldn't be a big deal.
So it's one of the more sensible angles at a first glance. It sounds reasonable, and it doesn't seem like one of the all-out conspiracy theorists. I do think it's an important discussion how much temperature increase is ok. It's a straw man though. no one is saying that we should switch off energy generation and go back to middle ages. People want to spend more resources to move to renewable and to reduce consumption where possible.
There is a fair bit of misleading information, which is to be expected.
For example compare his temperature over time graph: + Show Spoiler +
The data do match I think (note the x and y axis have different range), if you take the by-year dots from nasa. But he conveniently picked out the flattest possible part of the curve, and cutting out the last 3 years or so where it jumps up again (iirc, this was matched by the global ocean temperatures warming during the flatter years, matched by computer models). And there is no reason to bring up a model from 1986. Climate models have improved incredibly since, due to improved understanding, more computing power and more data.
Hmm, very different numbers. Looking over time, we see that fossil fuel is increasing steadily over time. Renewables are still low but it seems like it's increasing: + Show Spoiler +
To zoom in a bit on the renewables change over time, I followed to the source (www.bp.com), and behold: + Show Spoiler +
Seems to have increased a factor 10 in 20 years. Assuming that the exponential increase will continue is a strong assumption, but it's not like we are going to run out of wind or sun anytime soon, and tech keeps improving, while fossil fuels are not that far away from their theoretical maximum.
So with the actual data, it feels perfectly plausible to replace the majority of fossil fuel within a few decades if we put in some effort.
Is it worth it? Is it better to stay on fossil fuel and heat up the planet and see what happens? I'll leave that to you for now.
Even this "reasonable" position becomes increasingly unreasonable if you step back from it far enough.
How many generations of human beings are going to exist after we're gone? Lots and lots of them. Which is why the topic-creator and everyone like him can frankly go to hell. Nevermind the health of the planet, as the topic creator so wisely tells us (ugh). It's all "granted", as he says. Nothing bad can happen from taking things for granted. But -- what about the next generation's right to fossil-fuels? They don't even mention it!
If fossil-fuels are so god-damned awesome that we can't possibly think of not using them, then why aren't we at all concerned about saving fossil-fuels for future generations. So that they can burn some?
No matter how you slice this crap, it always ends up the same. You can deny the science until you're blue in the face -- but you're still advocating a position of unsustainable greed over conservation. There's just no nice way of saying we should consume a limited-resource to its fullest. It's a creep's position, regardless of whatever approach or angle they're taking. Even if you don't believe the science, because... pfft, whatever reasons, the conservation of fossil-fuels and pursuit of alternate-energy sources is still and always the reasonable position to take.
Because even the science-deniers won't argue that fossil-fuels, made from fossils, are a very limited resource. They just... don't even mention it. Just doesn't even matter. Limited-resource? Better use it all up ASAP! Right!
The crux of Epstein's argument is that we ought to be weighing the pros and cons at any given time and make an educated decision as to which energy form to use. Add to that, the choice should be made uncoerced, on the market — let people vote with their dollars. For the record, Epstein is a big proponent of Nuclear as the cheapest, cleanest, and safest form of energy that we've invented to date.
I'm always skeptical of politicized data (NASA). Epstein posts his sources here. Epstein address the NASA data in Figure 4.2.
So with the actual data, it feels perfectly plausible to replace the majority of fossil fuel within a few decades if we put in some effort.
Epstein addresses "experts" in his book: that they should be treated as advisers to guide one's individual thought, not as authorities that we should blindly follow. If we look at all the predictions that experts have made over the last 30-40 years, how much of it has come true? "Once again, the leading experts we were told to rely on were 100 percent wrong. It's not that they predicted disaster and got half a disaster, it's that they predicted disaster and got dramatic improvement. Clearly, something was wrong with their thinking and we need to understand what it is because they are once again telling us to stop using the most important energy source in our civilization. And we are listening." — Alex Epstein, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels
Seems to have increased a factor 10 in 20 years. Assuming that the exponential increase will continue is a strong assumption, but it's not like we are going to run out of wind or sun anytime soon, and tech keeps improving, while fossil fuels are not that far away from their theoretical maximum
I wonder how much this would have grown without being encouraged by all the subsidies. I would expect that Solar/Wind usage would go down if we stopped all forms of subsidy to it. I also expect that Nuclear would grow if we removed all the restrictions on it. Germany has been a leader in the adoption of wind/solar, but this has changed.
Is it worth it? Is it better to stay on fossil fuel and heat up the planet and see what happens? I'll leave that to you for now.
It's easier to survive and thrive in heat than in cold. At the same time, since climate is ever changing, the fewer of our resources we have to put to heating, the more we can invest in research and development of new technologies.
If fossil-fuels are so god-damned awesome that we can't possibly think of not using them, then why aren't we at all concerned about saving fossil-fuels for future generations. So that they can burn some?
Fossil fuels only became a resource when we discovered how to transform it for our needs. The fallacy in your statement is that you ignore human ingenuity, and the ingenuity of future generations. We don't know what the future will look like; they may invent a new form of energy none of us have thought of. At the same time, we are continually improving how we use fossil fuels, and their potential is limited only by our own ingenuity.
I think you are in good hands with Cascade when it comes to checking the actual data But let me pose a much simpler question:
In your post, you adore the creation of newly habitable areas in deserts. Now I don't have enough data to make the actual maths, but global warming leads to destruction of habitable areas - a lot of the best and most fertile soil for example is very close to the sea level and potentially threatened by sea rise. If it turned out that the production of greenhouse gasses due to the creation and sustaining the new habitats leads to destruction of former habitats that supported more people, would you be willing to give up the whole premise as ineffective?
On April 24 2017 00:56 Epocalypse wrote: I'm always skeptical of politicized data (NASA).
And this is where I stop taking you seriously, and group you up with conspiracy theorists. I didn't even read anything after this. I would like to have a nice discussion here, but I can't take this, sorry.
I'm a scientist myself, and I have talked to many people generating this data. They fucking work their asses of for silly hours to generate near-perfect unbiased data as most do in science. Especially so in climate science, because they know that the there are people like you that try to find flaws to confirm their own ideas. And a modest salary compared to what they could get in private sector. "Oh, but how I can trust that?". You can trust it because they make everything fucking public! You can go and repeat the analysis if you want to! Anyone can. Go ahead, if they make up all this data, in all countries across the globe, go ahead and re-analyse it and show how it's wrong.
It's extremely insulting to just wave all that work of fucking geniuses away as politicized data.
You don't even need to take my word for it. It's all public. Many countries have it public. But you're not going to put in the effort to look at the actual data, you're going to trust a random dude on internet over all that. And for that matter, even his graph is in agreement with nasa's data if you compare the two.
So yeah, I'd be happy to continue this discussion (although I'm going to bed now, so would be tomorrow), but you have to trust the data we have, otherwise this won't lead anywhere.
I wonder how much this would have grown without being encouraged by all the subsidies. I would expect that Solar/Wind usage would go down if we stopped all forms of subsidy to it. I also expect that Nuclear would grow if we removed all the restrictions on it. Germany has been a leader in the adoption of wind/solar, but this has changed.
Do you even know how much the fossil fuel industry gets subsidised?????? It's not even comparable. Globally roughly $5.3 TRILLION in 2015 for fossil fuels vs $88 billion for renewables in 2011.
Imagine if we had redirected that into renewables instead.
Obviously if fossil fuels really were just free chemical energy spurting out of the ground in a dense, easy to use format then that would be fucking awesome. Nobody anywhere is disputing that. Nobody anywhere is disputing that our energy needs being completely solved as a civilization by just having energy pouring out of the ground without any side effects would basically be the best thing ever. An argument that explains how great oil is is missing the point of anyone opposing oil, the people opposing oil aren't opposing it because they don't think energy is good or that oil is a good form of energy. The problem is that unfortunately this fantastic thing has side effects which we need to start taking into account. It fucking sucks that apparently overusing fossil fuels is going to fuck up the planet in a way that outweighs the benefits. That's absolutely shit because now we have to find something to replace oil and oil was great. But all the smartest experts agree that after looking at the data fossil fuels have a negative side effect that makes them unsustainable. That doesn't mean that oil wouldn't be great if it didn't, it means that it does.
What you've presented here is a defence against a straw man. You seem to think that somewhere there are straw environmentalists who are against the idea of easily harvested energy powering our civilization and wish that we didn't have a civilization. It's nonsense. Explaining the benefits of oil is pointless, nobody doesn't get that what oil does is amazing. It sucks that we have to stop using it. But we still have to.
The main problem with treating fossil fuels sanctimoniously is that any benefit that they give society can be replicated by renewable energy. Renewable energy does not produce the chemical waste of combustion that fossil fuels produce. These waste products alter the relative concentrations of gasses in our atmosphere permanently. The only reason we don't use renewable energy instead is because it is currently slightly more expensive. It is vastly more expensive than gasoline for locomotion.
Sadly, I think you've been indoctrinated by the propaganda of the fossil fuel industry, who would like to claim the benefits of energy for themselves. In reality, the benefits of energy are real, and energy is created in dozens of different ways, but only fossil fuel energy produces harmful pollution and gaseous waste that permanently alters the atmosphere.
On April 24 2017 06:36 Meta wrote: The main problem with treating fossil fuels sanctimoniously is that any benefit that they give society can be replicated by renewable energy. Renewable energy does not produce the chemical waste of combustion that fossil fuels produce. These waste products alter the relative concentrations of gasses in our atmosphere permanently. The only reason we don't use renewable energy instead is because it is currently slightly more expensive. It is vastly more expensive than gasoline for locomotion.
Sadly, I think you've been indoctrinated by the propaganda of the fossil fuel industry, who would like to claim the benefits of energy for themselves. In reality, the benefits of energy are real, and energy is created in dozens of different ways, but only fossil fuel energy produces harmful pollution and gaseous waste that permanently alters the atmosphere.
Electricity produced from renewable sources is already significantly cheaper than gas per km though...
Even if you produced the electricity from coal, it would pollute less and cost less to run an EV than a typical ICE vehicle on gasoline.
The only problem right now is the cost of the batteries in EVs, which are expected to become cost competitive with equivalent ICE vehicles without any rebates within about 5 years.
On April 24 2017 05:14 KwarK wrote: Obviously if fossil fuels really were just free chemical energy spurting out of the ground in a dense, easy to use format then that would be fucking awesome. Nobody anywhere is disputing that. Nobody anywhere is disputing that our energy needs being completely solved as a civilization by just having energy pouring out of the ground without any side effects would basically be the best thing ever. An argument that explains how great oil is is missing the point of anyone opposing oil, the people opposing oil aren't opposing it because they don't think energy is good or that oil is a good form of energy. The problem is that unfortunately this fantastic thing has side effects which we need to start taking into account. It fucking sucks that apparently overusing fossil fuels is going to fuck up the planet in a way that outweighs the benefits. That's absolutely shit because now we have to find something to replace oil and oil was great. But all the smartest experts agree that after looking at the data fossil fuels have a negative side effect that makes them unsustainable. That doesn't mean that oil wouldn't be great if it didn't, it means that it does.
What you've presented here is a defence against a straw man. You seem to think that somewhere there are straw environmentalists who are against the idea of easily harvested energy powering our civilization and wish that we didn't have a civilization. It's nonsense. Explaining the benefits of oil is pointless, nobody doesn't get that what oil does is amazing. It sucks that we have to stop using it. But we still have to.
The only problem with that argument is that there are a significant number of primitivists and new-age folks who oppose the best foil to fossil fuel use - Nuclear. Nuclear is the best remedy to greenhouse gas emissions from energy sector. It's not perfect as Chernobyl and Fukushima demonstrate, but if that group of people is to believe that the continued use of fossil fuels means disaster on a global scale, then also opposing the best contemporary competitor is fucking stupid as shit.
Actually, let me take that back. It's not just primitivists and new-age people, it's actually the mainstream opposition to current fossil fuel use that is against increased Nuclear energy production. Wind energy is a joke (as a replacement to current use) and is also an environmental disaster for native species. It's also extremely inefficient by kW/hr per acre of land use. Solar is promising far into the future on a larger scale when efficiency can mimic chlorophyll conversion efficiency. As it is solar and wind is only economical for adjunct personal use and only in areas where the climate is right. (Solar is better in Hawaii than Seattle, Wind is better in higher elevations than at sea level, etc.)
So, I can't really take the current crop of arguments seriously until they start to admit the scientific reality (hey, if we're going to throw that around) that Nuclear is the only contemporary option to actually replace fossil fuel use at current consumption rates. Science is only "cool" apparently, when it conforms to leftist ideals and political arguments. Notice how no one marches for economics.
On April 24 2017 05:14 KwarK wrote: Obviously if fossil fuels really were just free chemical energy spurting out of the ground in a dense, easy to use format then that would be fucking awesome. Nobody anywhere is disputing that. Nobody anywhere is disputing that our energy needs being completely solved as a civilization by just having energy pouring out of the ground without any side effects would basically be the best thing ever. An argument that explains how great oil is is missing the point of anyone opposing oil, the people opposing oil aren't opposing it because they don't think energy is good or that oil is a good form of energy. The problem is that unfortunately this fantastic thing has side effects which we need to start taking into account. It fucking sucks that apparently overusing fossil fuels is going to fuck up the planet in a way that outweighs the benefits. That's absolutely shit because now we have to find something to replace oil and oil was great. But all the smartest experts agree that after looking at the data fossil fuels have a negative side effect that makes them unsustainable. That doesn't mean that oil wouldn't be great if it didn't, it means that it does.
What you've presented here is a defence against a straw man. You seem to think that somewhere there are straw environmentalists who are against the idea of easily harvested energy powering our civilization and wish that we didn't have a civilization. It's nonsense. Explaining the benefits of oil is pointless, nobody doesn't get that what oil does is amazing. It sucks that we have to stop using it. But we still have to.
The only problem with that argument is that there are a significant number of primitivists and new-age folks who oppose the best foil to fossil fuel use - Nuclear. Nuclear is the best remedy to greenhouse gas emissions from energy sector. It's not perfect as Chernobyl and Fukushima demonstrate, but if that group of people is to believe that the continued use of fossil fuels means disaster on a global scale, then also opposing the best contemporary competitor is fucking stupid as shit.
Actually, let me take that back. It's not just primitivists and new-age people, it's actually the mainstream opposition to current fossil fuel use that is against increased Nuclear energy production. Wind energy is a joke (as a replacement to current use) and is also an environmental disaster for native species. It's also extremely inefficient by kW/hr per acre of land use. Solar is promising far into the future on a larger scale when efficiency can mimic chlorophyll conversion efficiency. As it is solar and wind is only economical for adjunct personal use and only in areas where the climate is right. (Solar is better in Hawaii than Seattle, Wind is better in higher elevations than at sea level, etc.)
So, I can't really take the current crop of arguments seriously until they start to admit the scientific reality (hey, if we're going to throw that around) that Nuclear is the only contemporary option to actually replace fossil fuel use at current consumption rates. Science is only "cool" apparently, when it conforms to leftist ideals and political arguments. Notice how no one marches for economics.
I'm pro nuclear. Take that nonsense elsewhere. And as for using kW/hr per acre as a criticism of wind, what the fuck are you talking about? When and why would that ever be a meaningful comparison for different energy sources? How would it even work? Would nuclear always win because it's the most energy dense? Would solar always lose because the sun is bigger than the earth? Would we measure the acreage of the underground reservoirs of oil? Are we suddenly running out of acres on earth and needing to ration them?
You can't make an argument about how other people are being intellectually dishonest and not respecting science and follow it by making up your own metrics. You'd not take me seriously if I attempted to prove that coal was better than oil using an argument based on pipelines per kWh.
On April 24 2017 05:14 KwarK wrote: Obviously if fossil fuels really were just free chemical energy spurting out of the ground in a dense, easy to use format then that would be fucking awesome. Nobody anywhere is disputing that. Nobody anywhere is disputing that our energy needs being completely solved as a civilization by just having energy pouring out of the ground without any side effects would basically be the best thing ever. An argument that explains how great oil is is missing the point of anyone opposing oil, the people opposing oil aren't opposing it because they don't think energy is good or that oil is a good form of energy. The problem is that unfortunately this fantastic thing has side effects which we need to start taking into account. It fucking sucks that apparently overusing fossil fuels is going to fuck up the planet in a way that outweighs the benefits. That's absolutely shit because now we have to find something to replace oil and oil was great. But all the smartest experts agree that after looking at the data fossil fuels have a negative side effect that makes them unsustainable. That doesn't mean that oil wouldn't be great if it didn't, it means that it does.
What you've presented here is a defence against a straw man. You seem to think that somewhere there are straw environmentalists who are against the idea of easily harvested energy powering our civilization and wish that we didn't have a civilization. It's nonsense. Explaining the benefits of oil is pointless, nobody doesn't get that what oil does is amazing. It sucks that we have to stop using it. But we still have to.
The only problem with that argument is that there are a significant number of primitivists and new-age folks who oppose the best foil to fossil fuel use - Nuclear. Nuclear is the best remedy to greenhouse gas emissions from energy sector. It's not perfect as Chernobyl and Fukushima demonstrate, but if that group of people is to believe that the continued use of fossil fuels means disaster on a global scale, then also opposing the best contemporary competitor is fucking stupid as shit.
Actually, let me take that back. It's not just primitivists and new-age people, it's actually the mainstream opposition to current fossil fuel use that is against increased Nuclear energy production. Wind energy is a joke (as a replacement to current use) and is also an environmental disaster for native species. It's also extremely inefficient by kW/hr per acre of land use. Solar is promising far into the future on a larger scale when efficiency can mimic chlorophyll conversion efficiency. As it is solar and wind is only economical for adjunct personal use and only in areas where the climate is right. (Solar is better in Hawaii than Seattle, Wind is better in higher elevations than at sea level, etc.)
So, I can't really take the current crop of arguments seriously until they start to admit the scientific reality (hey, if we're going to throw that around) that Nuclear is the only contemporary option to actually replace fossil fuel use at current consumption rates. Science is only "cool" apparently, when it conforms to leftist ideals and political arguments. Notice how no one marches for economics.
I'm pro nuclear. Take that nonsense elsewhere. And as for using kW/hr per acre as a criticism of wind, what the fuck are you talking about? When and why would that ever be a meaningful comparison for different energy sources? How would it even work? Would nuclear always win because it's the most energy dense? Would solar always lose because the sun is bigger than the earth? Would we measure the acreage of the underground reservoirs of oil? Are we suddenly running out of acres on earth and needing to ration them?
You can't make an argument about how other people are being intellectually dishonest and not respecting science and follow it by making up your own metrics. You'd not take me seriously if I attempted to prove that coal was better than oil using an argument based on pipelines per kWh.
That's nice that you're fine with increased Nuclear production, but that's not my argument. I don't do silly personal anecdotes. I was talking about the mainstream opposition being generally against increased nuclear production. You can't sit there and say with a straight face that environmental groups and the DNC are going to put forth nuclear as an option to curb greenhouse gasses and fossil fuel use, right? I'd love to see you do it, because I'm just sitting here on a mountain of contrary evidence, so I'd be interested in your take.
As for the point of kH/hr per acre, you missed my point entirely. If we're going to replace fossil fuel use with renewables (aka Wind/Solar) at CURRENT CONSUMPTION rates, Wind can be laughed off the stage right now. Not only would the extreme amount of land use destroy bird populations at unprecedented levels, it would also necessitate cloistered use which means certain areas of the country would have a high % of useable land mucked up with turbines (wind is not a serious means of generating reliable energy in areas that average <7mph winds over the year). That's a real cost that needs to apart of the equation just as much as how unreliable wind energy is. As long as gravity and water tables exist, hydro power plants will continue to produce electricity (the point being that having your main energy producer up to an unpredictable variable is not the smartest idea).
So now that we've gotten that out of the way, perhaps you might want to address my post in context, instead of cherry-picking two little irrelevant points in regards to the gist. I'm not going to hold my breath.