Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
On 4/28/2024 at 1:42 PM, Neonmoon said:

Reducing meat consumption is a good goal. I agree with you. Your plan to reduce meat consumption is dumb. Here’s an olive branch. Don’t you think requiring dog food to be plant based is a better solution than charge high fees for new pets?

My dog would just eat me if I dared feed her some vegan nonsense.

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

From the NYT

image.png.4bd083101fb62cca9ddbc74c7807fe4b.png

image.png.2b20b57400667f20d22337afd1c4796c.png

[Paragraph 9:]

image.png.289412ee9dd8f69d2fc12ec65b5b27b8.png

image.png.625cd18b077d40d635d017671e373ea5.png

image.png.b8f58f87496b62c0b07f7736bcc35eb4.pngimage.png.b6e6a80fa9aa6433051c8bfbbbd3aadb.pngimage.png.5725f4ea50959b8413b3784003021b26.png

An aside from the article that I hadn't seen largely due to increased detachment, file under Home of the Brave, Land of the Free:

image.png.3e316fb8cde77c5bb134f953954e6ad3.png

Don't shatter your kneecap bending the knee. Wait, on second thought...

  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)

From where I stand here is what I see is the biggest problem right now:

Short of a federal government mandate like you have in Europe (and we were going down that path but it seems completely dead now), in America we have to either a) incentivize businesses in a methodology that enables shareholder value creation or b) rely on states to enact reporting and penalty mandates (a la California).

Up to this point it's been largely a "you should do this because it's a good thing to do and even though it's a value destruction in the short and mid-term", IMO.

Edited by Vegas64
Posted
20 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

From where I stand here is what I see is the biggest problem right now:

Short of a federal government mandate like you have in Europe (and we were going down that path but it seems completely dead now), in America we have to either a) incentivize businesses in a methodology that enables shareholder value creation or b) rely on states to enact reporting and penalty mandates (a la California).

Up to this point it's been largely a "you should do this because it's a good thing to do and even though it's a value destruction in the short and mid-term", IMO.

Agree and this will also be our downfall

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Agree and this will also be our downfall

Or.............we can have states step up like California has done (and NY could be next), etc.

President 47 ain't gonna do federal climate change regulation any favors.

Edited by Vegas64
Posted

Saw this graphic and it hit home:

We have two factors to work with (of the 4 that are generally understand to contribute to our CO2).

1) the amount of energy used to create a unit of economic development (dollars)

2) the amount of CO2 generated per unit of energy produced

AD_4nXcNQf0HPYCFd-F-HIqri5WXfF0e2LR1QbkgXuNarKoQY_S3dBYzq-bmYOK-YMn3updxJIcZYTvuUt4A3HQJV9RRVaApRsSvu1A7O2aslC2_ZhOSjz_9pr4GwqAsLI29h9gZojJ5uQ?key=hGn9hIUB99VATOYKFsVsMINI

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Vegas64 said:

Or.............we can have states step up like California has done (and NY could be next), etc.

President 47 ain't gonna do federal climate change regulation any favors.

CA will fight like hell for their own climate regulation autonomy - if CA can win and hold it's own, their economy alone will dictate some positive policies that extend beyond CA.  we can hope, but Trump Admin is coming for that autonomy.

In the end, we are going to have to see most of the world convert to (i) nuclear, wind, and solar (with batteries), (ii) EVs, and (iii) we are going to have to bring costs down and turbo charge carbon atmospheric vacuums. There's a lot more but if we don't start sucking this shit out of the air with a massive filtration system we are just doomed.

how on Earth the richest countries in the world aren't dumping money into this is beyond me.

Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, troph said:

how on Earth the richest countries in the world aren't dumping money into this is beyond me.

It's because today, doing anything beyond the most rudimentary and lip-service of net zero is wealth and value destruction and we live in a world where value creation in the short-and-medium-term is all that necessarily matters (e.g. shareholder capitalism). Thus, regulation is necessary.

Edit to add, I know you get it, but for the granola types who don't have a business background, the theory undergirding all this is in our system:

A company merely exists to create value for shareholders by investing in projects that generate cash flow growth and/or return on invested capital (ROIC).

If the ROIC is less than the cost of capital, the growth destroys the value.

Climate Change implementation to processes (did you know that it is widely understood that 7 industries make up 85% of the direct greenhouse gas emissions) is costly and hard and distracts from or actively destroys value creation.

Edited by Vegas64
Posted
41 minutes ago, troph said:

(iii) we are going to have to bring costs down and turbo charge carbon atmospheric vacuums. There's a lot more but if we don't start sucking this shit out of the air with a massive filtration system we are just doomed.

how on Earth the richest countries in the world aren't dumping money into this is beyond me.

You have mentioned this several times and I’ve been keeping well abreast of climate solutions and sustainable practices since I was a kid, but have never seen anything about any sort of carbon atmospheric vacuums. All I envision is Mega Maid. Can you expand on this?

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

You have mentioned this several times and I’ve been keeping well abreast of climate solutions and sustainable practices since I was a kid, but have never seen anything about any sort of carbon atmospheric vacuums. All I envision is Mega Maid. Can you expand on this?

They are talking about DAC or Direct Air Capture (I believe). Oxy is (or was, haven't followed lately) huge into this down in Houston. 

ETA link: https://www.npr.org/2023/12/27/1210928126/oil-climate-change-carbon-capture-removal-direct-air-capture-occidental

 

image.thumb.png.b04cabaa3195973333eba59974851496.png

Edited by Vegas64
Posted
3 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

They are talking about DAC or Direct Air Capture (I believe). Oxy is (or was, haven't followed lately) huge into this down in Houston. 

ETA link: https://www.npr.org/2023/12/27/1210928126/oil-climate-change-carbon-capture-removal-direct-air-capture-occidental

Interesting but

Quote

Once it's up and running, the billion-dollar facility will be 100 times bigger than any direct air capture plant ever built — and yet, even if it works perfectly, it will take a year to remove less than 10 minutes' worth of global emissions.

That doesn’t seem promising 

Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Interesting but

That doesn’t seem promising 

there are others out there, the technology is going to have to be turbo charged, like I said. but understand there are hardly any DAC facilities out there. so 100 times bigger doesn't mean big.  we went from horse drawn carriages to rocket ships taking us to the moon. we can do this. we just don't want to do this.

here's another article on it.

https://www.spglobal.com/commodity-insights/en/news-research/latest-news/energy-transition/050824-worlds-largest-direct-air-capture-plant-enters-operation-in-iceland

2023 we released 37 billion MT of CO2 from fossil fuels. yay us!

again though if we convert to nuclear as the primary energy source, augment with solar/wind and batteries, continue the shift to EVs then a serious dent in emissions could be achieved. add rapid development and deployment of DAC and a few other initiatives and we could hold the line I think. but nah, increased profit now is better than sustainable profit later!

Edited by troph
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

watch Europe get close to net zero or at least sustainable levels by 2050 while the rest of us fuck around with tik tok and joe rogan pod casts while we wonder why the fuck it's so hot and where all the rain went.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Vegas64 said:

Saw this graphic and it hit home:

We have two factors to work with (of the 4 that are generally understand to contribute to our CO2).

1) the amount of energy used to create a unit of economic development (dollars)

2) the amount of CO2 generated per unit of energy produced

AD_4nXcNQf0HPYCFd-F-HIqri5WXfF0e2LR1QbkgXuNarKoQY_S3dBYzq-bmYOK-YMn3updxJIcZYTvuUt4A3HQJV9RRVaApRsSvu1A7O2aslC2_ZhOSjz_9pr4GwqAsLI29h9gZojJ5uQ?key=hGn9hIUB99VATOYKFsVsMINI

 

IMG_7044.gif

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

We should definitely be throwing all of our time, money and energy into making life suitable on Mars for a lucky few rather than just not fucking the planet we evolved to live on. We need more billionaires building rockets!!!

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
8 hours ago, Vegas64 said:

Short of a federal government mandate like you have in Europe (and we were going down that path but it seems completely dead now), in America we have to either a) incentivize businesses in a methodology that enables shareholder value creation or b) rely on states to enact reporting and penalty mandates (a la California).

How?

Posted
They are talking about DAC or Direct Air Capture (I believe). Oxy is (or was, haven't followed lately) huge into this down in Houston. 


For the U.S. based companies involved in DAC, I wonder how the Trump presidency will affect funding for those projects.

Will Oxy and similar oil companies continue to put new money into it, or will they wrap up existing projects and then leave it at that? I understand their biggest DAC plant is a major project and not something they are likely to shut down due to a 4-year presidential term, but I am curious to see if those companies make additional DAC investments during Trump’s term.

To the extent that these things could be labeled greenwashing, it seems like that is less necessary for the immediate future.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

How?

I mean...that is the million dollar question.

From what I can gather, the idea is to use lower carbon footprinting and going to market with a premium offering (e.g. pay $.01 more per gallon for the fuel that is less carbon intensive) so that the producer can capture that value, but the basis has to be the customer/market asking for it. To give an energy example.

Edited by Vegas64
Posted
19 hours ago, Vegas64 said:

They are talking about DAC or Direct Air Capture (I believe). Oxy is (or was, haven't followed lately) huge into this down in Houston. 

ETA link: https://www.npr.org/2023/12/27/1210928126/oil-climate-change-carbon-capture-removal-direct-air-capture-occidental

 

image.thumb.png.b04cabaa3195973333eba59974851496.png

How many Mt of CO2 did it take to build that plant?  How much does it take to operate it?  How much is created driving to work there?  How much is created by the trucks that deliver replacement parts?  Or the trucks that are transporting the CO2 to be injected into some rock formation?  How much energy is required to execute the injection process?  I don't know these answers, but I doubt it is net-negative on CO2.

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Elvis said:

How many Mt of CO2 did it take to build that plant?  How much does it take to operate it?  How much is created driving to work there?  How much is created by the trucks that deliver replacement parts?  Or the trucks that are transporting the CO2 to be injected into some rock formation?  How much energy is required to execute the injection process?  I don't know these answers, but I doubt it is net-negative on CO2.

I agree, but I bet there is at least a forecasted or modeled hypothesis that shows a net negative CO2 at some point. All projects have a build/implementation phase that put you into a negative initially (e.g. power plants, solar farms, etc. etc. etc.). It's basic EIOERI stuff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment

Edited by Vegas64
Posted
22 minutes ago, Elvis said:

How many Mt of CO2 did it take to build that plant?  How much does it take to operate it?  How much is created driving to work there?  How much is created by the trucks that deliver replacement parts?  Or the trucks that are transporting the CO2 to be injected into some rock formation?  How much energy is required to execute the injection process?  I don't know these answers, but I doubt it is net-negative on CO2.

On top of that, buy futures in companies producing caustic. 
 

And those that can dispose of sodium carbonate. 
 

I assume they are going to find a way to clean up the waste water because this will use a metric ultra shit ton of water 

Posted
32 minutes ago, Elvis said:

How many Mt of CO2 did it take to build that plant?  How much does it take to operate it?  How much is created driving to work there?  How much is created by the trucks that deliver replacement parts?  Or the trucks that are transporting the CO2 to be injected into some rock formation?  How much energy is required to execute the injection process?  I don't know these answers, but I doubt it is net-negative on CO2.

this is why we need a carbon tax.

 

(i remember when a carbon tax was the cato institute's "libertarian solution" to global warming. probably knowing it would never get passed so it was like elmo's hyperloop, just a cover to make it look like they're thinking about some golden future to prevent investments today which would compete with or otherwise negatively impact the product they currently make)

Posted
40 minutes ago, Elvis said:

How many Mt of CO2 did it take to build that plant?  How much does it take to operate it?  How much is created driving to work there?  How much is created by the trucks that deliver replacement parts?  Or the trucks that are transporting the CO2 to be injected into some rock formation?  How much energy is required to execute the injection process?  I don't know these answers, but I doubt it is net-negative on CO2.

 

If it wasn't net negative on CO2 then they wouldn't build it, since the only point to building it is being net negative on CO2. 

 

Posted

It's a fascinating topic (Climate) to revisit and keep top of mind, considering a new regime who is likely going to be unfriendly to the ESG space compared to the rest of the Western developed civilization. I think I saw today we've already dropped out of the Paris Agreement (again), or are about to?

Posted
1 minute ago, Vegas64 said:

It's a fascinating topic (Climate) to revisit and keep top of mind, considering a new regime who is likely going to be unfriendly to the ESG space compared to the rest of the Western developed civilization. I think I saw today we've already dropped out of the Paris Agreement (again), or are about to?

Yup. And not only are they stopping everything, they are reversing course. The US could be leading in climate science, sustainability, and the new energy frontier. Instead, we will be the laggards of the first world.  Bang up job you morons. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Yup. And not only are they stopping everything, they are reversing course. The US could be leading in climate science, sustainability, and the new energy frontier. Instead, we will be the laggards of the first world.  Bang up job you morons. 

My personal opinion is that even with a hostile administration, the U.S. will continue to invest in some measure of sustainability and new / renewable energy. It just won't be as widely adopted and move as fast without the helpful nudge of federal regulation...

Posted
1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

lol GDP? We are a few degrees of ocean temp rise from not having a food chain

 

Oh. Well. That’s going to come as a big surprise to a lot of people. The web of life?  Ecosystems?  Sounds like big fancy words. 

Posted

A couple of interesting things:

Yes, we pulled out of the Paris Agreement federally, but great to see 24 (and counting?) States step up and say they are not pulling out. Mirrors the SEC/States Scope 3 legislation as well. I think the future is less a federal one, but state-drive (a la marijuana) and one that eventually gets to a plurality.

I'm just now seeing that there was a "Trump Energy Emergency" EO. This is only to power AI and data centers of course and it reduces environmental restrictions to get some power generated. This is because Trump has dergulated AI.

The idea is that we are goign to double down on nuclear and renewables as well to power AI. The ideal state is that project Stargate helps to solve Nuclear Fusion (collecting fusion energy from 93 million miles away or something).

  • Like 1
Posted
8 hours ago, Vegas64 said:

The ideal state is that project Stargate helps to solve Nuclear Fusion

Jesus fucking Christ you must be completely high.

The idea that any of this will be used for a) the common good instead of b) further massive enrichment and tightening the absolute grip on power of the oligarch class is fucking INSANE, and contrary to every single thing the regime and the Techbros who run it have ever done.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
30 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Jesus fucking Christ you must be completely high.

The idea that any of this will be used for a) the common good instead of b) further massive enrichment and tightening the absolute grip on power of the oligarch class is fucking INSANE, and contrary to every single thing the regime and the Techbros who run it have ever done.

I mean I think we are saying the same thing. The Vanderbilt/Chase/Carnegie reincarnate who harnesses nuclear fusion is going to own the power generation monopoly as even the most chinese, temu-priced solar panels would be a more expensive way to generate power.

Posted
8 minutes ago, hookem2010 said:

So the rich aren't coming to save us? I thought for sure this would be the time...

Teddy Roosevelt ain’t walking through that door. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

For all the talk about how bad the Boomers are, every generation of adults today shares blame for the future of this planet. I don’t think history will look kindly on us. Maybe there won’t be any people to have a history so it won’t matter.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
20 minutes ago, wild_turkey said:

For all the talk about how bad the Boomers are, every generation of adults today shares blame for the future of this planet. I don’t think history will look kindly on us. Maybe there won’t be any people to have a history so it won’t matter.

One of my 'hobbies' if you will is picking up trash as I finish my outdoor exercise. If I could catapult some of the drive through coffee shops into the sun I would do it. For what its worth, I don't think it is the boomers who are grabbing an iced coffee, drinking it, and then tossing the ice-filled cup out the window. The weight of the ice tends to force the lid off so instead of one piece of trash it's often cup plus the lid and straw. Even better is when the landscape services don't bother to stop and thus shred the plastic into pieces that are a PITA. I can fill a kitchen sized garbage bag every week (I usually pick up weekly or bi-weekly) simply walking several blocks. The little foil granola bar wrappers are another PITA. At least the shitty beer drinkers have turned to the equally shitty spiked teas and seltzers so I can spot the neon bright cans easily. The one item I don't see so much anymore? Cigarette butts. The vape cartridges have yet to match the numbers, maybe people are better about throwing those away.

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 3
Posted
1 hour ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

One of my 'hobbies' if you will is picking up trash as I finish my outdoor exercise. If I could catapult some of the drive through coffee shops into the sun I would do it. For what its worth, I don't think it is the boomers who are grabbing an iced coffee, drinking it, and then tossing the ice-filled cup out the window. The weight of the ice tends to force the lid off so instead of one piece of trash it's often cup plus the lid and straw. Even better is when the landscape services don't bother to stop and thus shred the plastic into pieces that are a PITA. I can fill a kitchen sized garbage bag every week (I usually pick up weekly or bi-weekly) simply walking several blocks. The little foil granola bar wrappers are another PITA. At least the shitty beer drinkers have turned to the equally shitty spiked teas and seltzers so I can spot the neon bright cans easily. The one item I don't see so much anymore? Cigarette butts. The vape cartridges have yet to match the numbers, maybe people are better about throwing those away.

Where do you live where there is that much litter?

Posted
4 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

One of my 'hobbies' if you will is picking up trash as I finish my outdoor exercise. If I could catapult some of the drive through coffee shops into the sun I would do it. For what its worth, I don't think it is the boomers who are grabbing an iced coffee, drinking it, and then tossing the ice-filled cup out the window. The weight of the ice tends to force the lid off so instead of one piece of trash it's often cup plus the lid and straw. Even better is when the landscape services don't bother to stop and thus shred the plastic into pieces that are a PITA. I can fill a kitchen sized garbage bag every week (I usually pick up weekly or bi-weekly) simply walking several blocks. The little foil granola bar wrappers are another PITA. At least the shitty beer drinkers have turned to the equally shitty spiked teas and seltzers so I can spot the neon bright cans easily. The one item I don't see so much anymore? Cigarette butts. The vape cartridges have yet to match the numbers, maybe people are better about throwing those away.

This infuriates me.  I walk my dogs about 3 miles a day through various neighborhoods and walking trails.  We also have a middle school and elementary school in the hood.  The amount of littering is mindblowing.  And you can definitely tell the season (especially Halloween b/c we're a destination trick or treat neighborhood) or changes in tastes just by looking at the trash.  I recall during the height of the pandemic I's see masks fucking everywhere. 

We also have new neighborhood additions going up and, holy shit, the amount of trash construction crews throw on the ground boggles the mind. 

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
6 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Where do you live where there is that much litter?

Texas.

Apparently (see above post by Diggler) don't mess with Texas means just leave everything everywhere.

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

Global Temperatures Shattered Records in January
Earth’s prolonged streak of abnormal heat continued into 2025 despite the arrival of La Niña ocean conditions, which typically bring cooler temperatures.

Even as much of the United States shivered under frigid conditions last month, the planet as a whole had its warmest January on record, scientists said on Thursday.

The warmth came as something of a surprise to climate researchers. It occurred during La Niña conditions in the Pacific Ocean, which tend to lower the globe’s average temperature, at least temporarily.

Earth’s surface has now been so warm for so much of the past two years that scientists are examining whether something else in the planet’s chemistry might have changed, something that is boosting temperatures beyond what carbon emissions alone can explain.

Those emissions, the byproduct of burning coal, gas and oil, remain the main driver of global warming, which reached record levels in both 2023 and 2024.

It’s because of La Niña that scientists expected this year to be slightly cooler than the past two years, both of which experienced the opposite pattern, El Niño. The waters of the eastern tropical Pacific oscillate between El Niño and La Niña conditions, influencing weather worldwide by changing the balance between heat in the ocean and heat in the air.

But a host of other factors figure into global temperatures as well. At the moment, chances aren’t high that 2025 will end up being the hottest year on the books, Russell Vose, a climate scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told reporters recently. But this time last year, researchers were saying much the same thing about 2024, Dr. Vose said. They were wrong.

“So it’s a tough game, forecasting global temperature,” Dr. Vose said.

According to Copernicus, the European Union climate monitoring agency, last month was much balmier than usual in northern Canada, Alaska and Siberia, as well as parts of Australia and Antarctica. Abnormally high temperatures above the Hudson Bay and the Labrador Sea helped shrink Arctic sea ice to a record low for January, Copernicus said.

As scientists try to explain the unending streak of worldwide warmth, one thing they’ve focused on is reductions in air pollution.

In a report this week, James Hansen, the famed former NASA scientist, argued that cutting pollution had already played a big role in causing global warming to accelerate. The reason is a little counterintuitive: For decades, humans have not only been emitting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases when they burn fossil fuels. They’ve also been spewing tiny sulfate particles into the air.

These particles spur the formation of more and brighter clouds, which help shield Earth from the sun. But as regulators have curbed sulfate pollution to protect people’s lungs, this cooling effect has diminished, exposing the planet to more of the full force of greenhouse warming.

Three decades ago, Dr. Hansen was among the first scientists to draw broad attention to climate change. Speaking to reporters this week, he argued that the United Nations was ill-prepared to address accelerated warming.

The U.N.’s approach to meeting its climate goals still counts on societies to slash their carbon emissions in the coming decades, he said. Those goals now look “impossible” to achieve, Dr. Hansen said, “unless some miracle occurs that we don’t understand.”

 

  • Rage+1 3
Posted
1 hour ago, bolverk said:

Global Temperatures Shattered Records in January
Earth’s prolonged streak of abnormal heat continued into 2025 despite the arrival of La Niña ocean conditions, which typically bring cooler temperatures.

Even as much of the United States shivered under frigid conditions last month, the planet as a whole had its warmest January on record, scientists said on Thursday.

The warmth came as something of a surprise to climate researchers. It occurred during La Niña conditions in the Pacific Ocean, which tend to lower the globe’s average temperature, at least temporarily.

Earth’s surface has now been so warm for so much of the past two years that scientists are examining whether something else in the planet’s chemistry might have changed, something that is boosting temperatures beyond what carbon emissions alone can explain.

Those emissions, the byproduct of burning coal, gas and oil, remain the main driver of global warming, which reached record levels in both 2023 and 2024.

It’s because of La Niña that scientists expected this year to be slightly cooler than the past two years, both of which experienced the opposite pattern, El Niño. The waters of the eastern tropical Pacific oscillate between El Niño and La Niña conditions, influencing weather worldwide by changing the balance between heat in the ocean and heat in the air.

But a host of other factors figure into global temperatures as well. At the moment, chances aren’t high that 2025 will end up being the hottest year on the books, Russell Vose, a climate scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told reporters recently. But this time last year, researchers were saying much the same thing about 2024, Dr. Vose said. They were wrong.

“So it’s a tough game, forecasting global temperature,” Dr. Vose said.

According to Copernicus, the European Union climate monitoring agency, last month was much balmier than usual in northern Canada, Alaska and Siberia, as well as parts of Australia and Antarctica. Abnormally high temperatures above the Hudson Bay and the Labrador Sea helped shrink Arctic sea ice to a record low for January, Copernicus said.

As scientists try to explain the unending streak of worldwide warmth, one thing they’ve focused on is reductions in air pollution.

In a report this week, James Hansen, the famed former NASA scientist, argued that cutting pollution had already played a big role in causing global warming to accelerate. The reason is a little counterintuitive: For decades, humans have not only been emitting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases when they burn fossil fuels. They’ve also been spewing tiny sulfate particles into the air.

These particles spur the formation of more and brighter clouds, which help shield Earth from the sun. But as regulators have curbed sulfate pollution to protect people’s lungs, this cooling effect has diminished, exposing the planet to more of the full force of greenhouse warming.

Three decades ago, Dr. Hansen was among the first scientists to draw broad attention to climate change. Speaking to reporters this week, he argued that the United Nations was ill-prepared to address accelerated warming.

The U.N.’s approach to meeting its climate goals still counts on societies to slash their carbon emissions in the coming decades, he said. Those goals now look “impossible” to achieve, Dr. Hansen said, “unless some miracle occurs that we don’t understand.”

 

Lovely. Im just going to sit back and watch it all burn. Good job everyone. Well done. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

We just hit the fast forward button. Should be a pretty spectacular flameout. Hundreds of millions of years of spectacular life on this planet and we're the lucky ones who get to watch most of it get extinguished.

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted
On 1/20/2025 at 1:33 PM, Vegas64 said:

From where I stand here is what I see is the biggest problem right now:

Short of a federal government mandate like you have in Europe (and we were going down that path but it seems completely dead now), in America we have to either a) incentivize businesses in a methodology that enables shareholder value creation or b) rely on states to enact reporting and penalty mandates (a la California).

Up to this point it's been largely a "you should do this because it's a good thing to do and even though it's a value destruction in the short and mid-term", IMO.

On 1/20/2025 at 3:41 PM, troph said:

CA will fight like hell for their own climate regulation autonomy - if CA can win and hold it's own, their economy alone will dictate some positive policies that extend beyond CA.  we can hope, but Trump Admin is coming for that autonomy.

In the end, we are going to have to see most of the world convert to (i) nuclear, wind, and solar (with batteries), (ii) EVs, and (iii) we are going to have to bring costs down and turbo charge carbon atmospheric vacuums. There's a lot more but if we don't start sucking this shit out of the air with a massive filtration system we are just doomed.

how on Earth the richest countries in the world aren't dumping money into this is beyond me.

On 1/24/2025 at 7:19 PM, hookem2010 said:

So the rich aren't coming to save us? I thought for sure this would be the time...

California's "leadership" is leaning towards a Thelma & Louise moment. 

The desires of the populace and the policies of the state are running head on into the realities of their decisions, that existing refineries in California are closing and the State of California is considering getting into the refinery business, including building new refineries, or importing gasoline from Asia.

More than a dozen countries make gasoline at state-owned refineries; Azerbaijan, China, Egypt, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, United Arab Emirates and Venezuela.

Pretty select group of countries for California to be aligned with.

"An oil industry trade group questions whether the state would have the expertise to effectively run a refinery, citing a lack of “understanding of the industry and how it works.”

Ignorance ... born without knowledge and failing to acquire it.

From the article:

"California policymakers are considering state ownership of one or more oil refineries to ensure a reliable supply of gasoline as the number of refineries in the state decline.

An oil industry trade group questions whether the state would have the expertise to effectively run a refinery, citing a lack of “understanding of the industry and how it works.”

Chevron, a California company since 1879, last year announced that it was moving its headquarters to Texas. The company has considered ceasing production at one or both of its California refineries, the Wall Street Journal recently reported, which Chevron confirmed in a statement to The Times.

“Recent California policies, like banning the sale of new internal combustion engine vehicles by 2035, the potential tax/penalty on refinery profits and the potential new minimum storage requirement are all headwinds to our business and erode our confidence going forward,” Andy Walz, Chevron’s president of downstream, midstream and chemicals, said in the statement.

Jones said while he’s not sure the state-owned refinery option is a serious proposal, it’s on the options list, and the looming supply issue is real. “I’m not sure all Californians have grasped the impending urgency of the situation,” he said.

“I think what we probably need is to build another refinery here in the state,” Jones said. Otherwise, when refineries close, gasoline demand would have to be met by gasoline imports, mostly by ship, from Asia.

“People freak out about the environmental impacts of crude oil shipments,” Jones said. “But no one’s freaking out about the environmental impacts of gasoline imports.”

Is California government considering oil refinery takeovers? Yes, it is

By Russ Mitchell
Staff Writer 
Feb. 16, 2025 3 AM PT

California policymakers are considering state ownership of one or more oil refineries to ensure a reliable supply of gasoline as the number of refineries in the state decline.

An oil industry trade group questions whether the state would have the expertise to effectively run a refinery, citing a lack of “understanding of the industry and how it works.”

Russia. China. Venezuela. Iran. More than a dozen countries make gasoline at state-owned refineries.

More than a dozen countries make gasoline at state-owned refineries; Azerbaijan, China, Egypt, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, United Arab Emirates and Venezuela.

Could California be next on the list? [Pretty select group of countries that California is going to join?]

California policymakers are considering state ownership of one or more oil refineries, one item on a list of options presented by the California Energy Commission to ensure steady gas supplies as oil companies pull back from the refinery business in the state.

“The state recognizes that they’re on a pathway to more refinery closures,” said Skip York, chief energy strategist at energy consultant Turner Mason & Co. The risk to consumers and the state’s economy, he said, is gasoline supply disappearing faster than consumer demand, resulting in fuel shortages, higher prices and severe logistical challenges.

Options proposed by the California Energy Commission

STEADY SUPPLY
State ownership of oil refineries
State purchase or lease of ships for gasoline imports
State contracts with refineries in other states and overseas
Gasoline shipments from other states by train
More flexibility to California-grade fuel rules
Adoption of California-grade gasoline standards by other Western states


Gasoline demand is falling in California, albeit slowly, for two reasons: more efficient gasoline engines, and the increasing number of electric vehicles on the road. Gasoline consumption in California peaked in 2005 and fell 15% through 2023, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Electric vehicles, including plug-in hybrids, now represent about 25% of annual new car sales. By state mandate, new sales of gasoline cars and light trucks will be banned starting in model year 2035.

The drop in demand is causing fundamental strategic shifts among the state’s major oil refiners: Chevron, Marathon, Phillips 66, PBF Energy and Valero.

Already, two California refineries have ceased producing gasoline to make biodiesel fuel for use in heavy-duty trucks, a cleaner-fuel alternative that enjoys rich state subsidies. More worrisome, the Phillips 66 refinery complex in Wilmington, just outside Los Angeles, plans to close down permanently by year’s end.

That leaves eight major refineries in California capable of producing gasoline. The closure of any one would create serious gasoline supply issues, industry analysts say. But both Chevron and Valero are contemplating permanent refinery closures.

The implications? “Demand will decline gradually,” York said, “but supply will fall out in chunks.” What’s unknown is how many refineries will close, and how soon, and how that will affect supply and demand.

That puts the state in a tough position, according to York. “Even if you had perfect foresight, it would be hard to get the timing right.”

A state refinery takeover seems like a radical idea, but the fact that it’s being considered demonstrates the seriousness of the supply issue.

It’s one of several option laid out by the California Energy Commission, which is fulfilling a legislative order to find ways to ensure “a reliable supply of affordable and safe transportation fuels in California.”

The options list is disparate: Ship in more gasoline from Asia; regulate refineries on the order of electric utilities; cap profit margins; and many more.

The list was due to be transformed into a formal transition plan by Dec. 31, 2024, but six weeks later no plan has been issued. Therefore, it’s not yet clear what the state response will be if another refinery announces a shutdown this year or next.

Twelve countries have state-owned oil refineries:

Map highlights Azerbaijan, China, Egypt, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, United Arab Emirates and Venezuela

California is known as a “gasoline island” lacking the kind of multistate logistics network through most of the continental U.S. that can help alleviate supply shocks. No pipelines exist to feed gasoline in from other states. Ocean shipments from the refinery-rich Gulf States are restricted by an antiquated federal law known as the Jones Act. Gasoline imports add up to only 8% of California supply. The other 92% is nearly all produced at California refineries.

Further complicating matters: the special blends of gasoline required in California. Those required formulations have gone a long way toward reducing air pollution. But they also drive up gasoline prices and raise the risk of shortages, because little such gasoline is produced outside California.

The Western States Petroleum Assn. lobby group warns that state involvement in refinery ownership or management would be difficult.

“This is a very complex and hard business to run,” the group said in a statement. “There are commercial barriers and technical barriers that take a comprehensive and holistic understanding of the industry, and how it works.”

Asked about the potential for state-owned refineries, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office referred questions to the state energy commission but issued a statement saying California is “is engaged in meaningful and thoughtful policy work to successfully manage our transition away from fossil fuels over the next 20 years, not overnight.”

In a statement, the energy commission acknowledged that “there are many challenges to overcome” with a state-owned refinery, “including the high cost to purchase and operate, the skilled labor and expertise necessary to manage refinery operations, and how the refinery would fit into the state’s transition away from petroleum fuels.”

James Gallagher, the Assembly Republican leader from Yuba City, says California isn’t moving quickly enough to address potential gasoline shortages.

“We’re starting to lose refineries because we’ve made it so expensive and impossible to operate in California,” he said. “Now, after we’ve chased them off, we’re talking about taking them over to ensure there’s some supply. We’re moving toward price controls and government takeover of industries. That’s never worked very well in the history of the world.”

State Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones (R-Santee) agreed: “The state has no business being in the oil refinery business,” he said.

Their Democratic counterparts, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) and Senate Majority Leader President pro Tempore Mike McGuire (D-Sonoma), declined to be interviewed.

Talk of further refinery closures over the next couple of years is heating up. In a conference call with investors last year, shortly after the Phillips 66 announcement, Valero Chief Executive Lane Riggs responded to concerns about the company closing either of its two California refineries.

“All options are on the table,” he said. “Clearly, the California regulatory environment is putting pressure on operators out there and how they might think about going forward with their operations.”

Chevron, a California company since 1879, last year announced that it was moving its headquarters to Texas. The company has considered ceasing production at one or both of its California refineries, the Wall Street Journal recently reported, which Chevron confirmed in a statement to The Times.

“Recent California policies, like banning the sale of new internal combustion engine vehicles by 2035, the potential tax/penalty on refinery profits and the potential new minimum storage requirement are all headwinds to our business and erode our confidence going forward,” Andy Walz, Chevron’s president of downstream, midstream and chemicals, said in the statement.

Jones said while he’s not sure the state-owned refinery option is a serious proposal, it’s on the options list, and the looming supply issue is real. “I’m not sure all Californians have grasped the impending urgency of the situation,” he said.

“I think what we probably need is to build another refinery here in the state,” Jones said. Otherwise, when refineries close, gasoline demand would have to be met by gasoline imports, mostly by ship, from Asia.

“People freak out about the environmental impacts of crude oil shipments,” Jones said. “But no one’s freaking out about the environmental impacts of gasoline imports.”

Posted
On 3/8/2024 at 11:18 PM, Biff Tannen said:

The fact that Texas is dominating in renewable energy, yet our government has one of the most antithetical stances towards it is maybe the best example of what has become of the Republican Party today.

Everything you believe in isn’t real. 

What it demonstrates is that private industry knows how to take from the government.  And Texas' government knows how to give to private industry.

The rest of it doesn't matter.

  • Rage+1 1


×
×
  • Create New...