# Is there any realistic way to fight global warming? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [December 28, 2013, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345 "2013-12-28T07:38:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2014, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345/101 "2014-01-01T17:30:17Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > My “prose” is asking for your insights, and your numbers. It’s not clear to me you have any. Not going to follow the rest of your useless prose, the reality is that I posted already the Reuters article and others with the numbers of what is going on in Germany and in the south west of the USA, they refer to the actual levels of acceptance and \*\*willingness \*\*to pay for the change. In the why this is needed to do, besides the current economical justification, the ecological reason is not gone. In post #70 I linked to site of Michael Tobis that explains why it is not logical to continue to ignore the real costs of using fossil fuels. Mr. Tobis holds a doctorate from the University of Wisconsin - Madison in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2014, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345/102 "2014-01-01T23:50:12Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Not going to follow the rest of your useless prose, the reality is that I posted already the Reuters article and others with the numbers of what is going on in Germany and in the south west of the USA, they refer to the actual levels of acceptance and \*\*willingness \*\*to pay for the change. In the why this is needed to do, besides the current economical justification, the ecological reason is not gone. In post #70 I linked to site of Michael Tobis that explains why it is not logical to continue to ignore the real costs of using fossil fuels. Mr. Tobis holds a doctorate from the University of Wisconsin - Madison in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences. Perhaps you might draw some reassurance from [this article in Rolling Stone](http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719). Or not. From the article: _“So far, as I said at the start, environmental efforts to tackle global warming have failed. The planet’s emissions of carbon dioxide continue to soar, especially as developing countries emulate (and supplant) the industries of the West. Even in rich countries, small reductions in emissions offer no sign of the real break with the status quo we’d need to upend the iron logic of these three numbers. Germany is one of the only big countries that has actually tried hard to change its energy mix; on one sunny Saturday in late May, that northern-latitude nation generated nearly half its power from solar panels within its borders. That’s a small miracle – and it demonstrates that we have the technology to solve our problems. But we lack the will. So far, Germany’s the exception; the rule is ever more carbon.”_ ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2014, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345/103 "2014-01-02T00:14:15Z")
And it shows exactly what I have said so far, the only wonderment is why you think that was not the case. This is one of the few times that old saying of “if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem” is a valid one. It has to be noticed also that the latest developments on the solar panels and plants dropping in price is an item that article is missing but that is not surprising, most of what I have posted comes from 2013. The main point stands, not adding the real costs of us treating the atmosphere like a sewer is the real economical nonsense: > [@](#): > > Meanwhile **the tide of numbers continues**. The week after the Rio conference limped to its conclusion, Arctic sea ice hit the lowest level ever recorded for that date. Last month, on a single weekend, Tropical Storm Debby dumped more than 20 inches of rain on Florida – the earliest the season’s fourth-named cyclone has ever arrived. At the same time, the largest fire in New Mexico history burned on, and the most destructive fire in Colorado’s annals claimed 346 homes in Colorado Springs – breaking a record set the week before in Fort Collins. This month, scientists issued a new study concluding that global warming has dramatically increased the likelihood of severe heat and drought – days after a heat wave across the Plains and Midwest broke records that had stood since the Dust Bowl, threatening this year’s harvest. You want a big number? In the course of this month, a quadrillion kernels of corn need to pollinate across the grain belt, something they can’t do if temperatures remain off the charts. Just like us, our crops are adapted to the Holocene, the 11,000-year period of climatic stability we’re now leaving… in the dust. It is clear that now solar and even wind on its own is showing that a big part of the change can be done even with savings; BUT, those savings and deployment would be even more pronounced if we do the right thing and set up ways to add the real costs that our emissions are causing and will cause to our economy. > **[NRDC: Clean Energy The Most Affordable Way To Power The US](https://cleantechnica.com/2013/09/19/nrdc-clean-energy-affordable-way-power-us/)** > > According to the NRDC, clean energy is the most affordable. > [@](#): > > It’s less costly to get electricity from wind turbines and solar panels than coal-fired power plants when climate change costs and other health impacts are factored in, according to a new study published in the Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences. > > In fact—using the official U.S. government estimates of health and environmental costs from burning fossil fuels—the study shows it’s cheaper to replace a typical existing coal-fired power plant with a wind turbine than to keep the old plant running. And new electricity generation from wind could be more economically efficient than natural gas. > > The findings show the nation can cut carbon pollution from power plants in a cost-effective way, by replacing coal-fired generation with cleaner options like wind, solar, and natural gas. > > “Burning coal is a very costly way to make electricity. There are more efficient and sustainable ways to get power,” said Dr. Laurie Johnson, chief economist in the Climate and Clean Air Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “We can reduce health and climate change costs while reducing the dangerous carbon pollution driving global warming.” ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2014, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345/104 "2014-01-02T00:38:47Z")
Out of wonder, why do we assume that we need to set aside huge tracts of land for solar? It’s not like wind where you need huge turbines or coal where you’re spewing smog. It seems to me that instead of a dedicated solar farm you could spread out the collection over the cities themselves. Even if it doesn’t eliminate the need for a solar farm, it should drastically reduce its size. Just start off with incentives like the city selling land for cheaper if the buyer agrees to put up a solar array on the roof, or dedicate a portion of the land to it (say the top of the covered parking). Move up to incentivizing business owners to convert parts of their property to solar gathering. Eventually you could even give tax breaks to homeowners that do so – and subsidize the panels and maintenance. You can also do it with things like public transportation. City approve a new streetcar track or covered monorail? Require the stops and overhangs to have solar panels. Now at the beginning, solar may not completely meet every business’ needs, but as the amount of places using it increases, the ones who generate excess would ultimately help feed the ones not producing enough. Direct the excess off the top of that to storage. It may not work out to a pure solar utopia, and we may need supplementary wind and nuclear, but gradually converting the cities themselves into solar farms seems like a better idea and an easier sell than saying “we’re going to just convert half the desert into an array of solar panels.” Of course, this isn’t super easy, obviously you need a department to go around inspecting panels to make sure they’re clean, safe, and working, trained workers to repair them, and so on. I imagine wiring up the city correctly would also be hard, and would likely make energy grid optimization a lot more difficult. I’m not an electrical engineer or an energy scientist. I could easily be wrong and what I’m suggesting is technically impossible, or close enough to technically impossible. (And I don’t mean from a political perspective, just a technological one). I just think that it would be a lot easier to deal with if we just converted the roofs and parking lots with space into solar generators instead of trying to sell “set apart a 100x100 mile space in Arizona” and whatnot. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2014, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345/105 "2014-01-02T03:15:00Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > It is clear that now solar and even wind on its own is showing that a big part of the change can be done even with savings; BUT, those savings and deployment would be even more pronounced if we do the right thing and set up ways to add the real costs that our emissions are causing and will cause to our economy. How much have current solar and wind reduced fossil fuel? From what I have seen, they have only added to the total amount of energy available; not reduced anything. We “need” all the energy we can conceivably make, from all sources, as fast as possible, just to get everyone richer. Maybe not as comfortable as Mr Gore and me, but a lot more comfortable than they are now. I keep asking you to show me some numbers that suggest this is not the case. Do you have any? If you look at [the graph I showed you earlier](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_energy_consumption.svg) what you notice is that total energy consumption for all sources just keeps skyrocketing, as we all try to be more comfortable. So where do you get this idea that solar and wind are going to replace fossils instead of simply being one more source to help the 99% live richer (while us rich guys buy up new renewables as our source so we feel better about our lavish energy consumption)? (I might add the drama queen who wrote the Rolling Stones article should have waited for the 2013 hurricane season before he jumped on Debby as one of his index examples). For the record, I fully agree that in principle we could win a war against AGW gasses. In practice we won’t, because we won’t sacrifice for the common good and we will not pay a personal penalty of any kind that’s painful now in support of avoiding a future pain that’s undefined. There is no proximate threat great enough, and there is a great deal of suspicion about current putative AGW consequences. One often sees “climate change” articles citing both drought and floods. Or you might see a cite suggesting AGW will drive a particularly severe hurricane season, and when that craps out, another cite suggesting overheating in africa canceled out the hurricanes. On and on, as if the alarmists have realized they better blame everything on AGW hoping to find a proximate enough threat so that we all Do Something. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2014, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345/106 "2014-01-02T03:26:31Z")
Same pap, I already said that you need to look at the graphs from Germany, as the article from the Rolling Stones reported, we should follow the example of Germany, repeating again the already acknowledged problems that remain with many other nations not following yet is just demanding that we should stall forever. And you are only showing willful ignorance here, the surveys made in the south west (and already posted before) shows that people are willing and already paying the “penalty”\* by going for solar. But if you want to continue repeating points that should had been modified ages ago and showing all that you are not paying attention, be my guest. \*And as pointed before, **people are finding that is saving them money**. When you are not reacting to the changes that are going on and you continue to repeat the same old, it does not make you sound better the longer this goes. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2014, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345/107 "2014-01-02T13:08:56Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > If it is uneconomical then solar installations should have stopped from the last year you report to the new reports that show solar continuing to grow and increasing the energy output. The purpose of the subsidy reductions is to reduce the number of solar installations being created. It says so right in the first sentence of the article - > [@](#): > > Germany’s parliament approved record cuts in aid for solar power, aiming to reduce the annual pace of installations by half in the world’s biggest market for the industry. And your own cite says that solar costs more. > [@](#): > > Most news stories focus on the cost of electricity in Germany, which has some of the highest rates per kilowatt-hour in the world. Solar power is not cost-competitive. You and I have both posted cites that show this > [@](#): > > .And as pointed before, people are finding that is saving them money. If it costs more - and it currently does - using more of it does not save money. This is like the proverbial “buy at five cents, sell at three cents, make up the difference in volume”. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2014, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345/108 "2014-01-02T13:39:00Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Same pap, I already said that you need to look at the graphs from Germany, as the article from the Rolling Stones reported, we should follow the example of Germany, repeating again the already acknowledged problems that remain with many other nations not following yet is just demanding that we should stall forever. > > And you are only showing willful ignorance here, the surveys made in the south west (and already posted before) shows that people are willing and already paying the “penalty”\* by going for solar. But if you want to continue repeating points that should had been modified ages ago and showing all that you are not paying attention, be my guest. > > \*And as pointed before, **people are finding that is saving them money**. When you are not reacting to the changes that are going on and you continue to repeat the same old, it does not make you sound better the longer this goes. I’m all for solar. And I’m all for any free-market solution. I think I am not making my core question very clear: What is the evidence that any new renewables decrease the total amount of energy wanted in the world? If solar doesn’t reduce current carbon output from fossils, it isn’t going to ameliorate AGW. What I have observed is that new sources of energy simply help create more energy. And our appetite for energy is insatiable. It will remain insatiabe until we all get as comfortable as me and Mr Gore, which is pretty damn comfortable. We have a long, long way to go to get the world up to western levels of comfort. We’ve shifted a lot of energy-intensive manufacturing to China and the developing world. But the west still consumes that stuff, so I’m a little underwhelmed if we meet our local needs with solar and start condemning China et al for being dirty. My little toy rain used to be made in Germany. Now it’s made in China. But it’s me living large that is consuming a new toy train. China is going to meet my demand because it makes the Chinese richer. Germany is going to lower its energy needs by shifting manufacturing to China. The fossil fuel consumption is going to continue to rise because we all want more stuff, and we need all the new renewables we can bring online PLUS all the fossil fuels PLUS whatever other sources we can figure out. Any realistic approach to solving for AGW gasses must figure out how to reduce carbon output. In theory, that can be done with new renewables. But while we bring new renewables online, we have to reduce consumption. That is not going to happen. Repeat w/ me: Consumption is not going to be reduced while we wait to swap out the grid. There are too many of us wanting to consume more, and the economic consequences of reduced consumption are too painful (as are the economic consequences of a carbon tax). There’s a reason we’ve diddled and diddled with AGW with no real successful reduction in carbon emissions: We love the rhetoric surrounding a Great Cause, but we are not gonna reduce consumption. Al Gore, Don Quixote, and all that. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2014, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345/109 "2014-01-02T15:05:53Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I think I am not making my core question very clear: > What is the evidence that any new renewables decrease the total amount of energy wanted in the world? If solar doesn’t reduce current carbon output from fossils, it isn’t going to ameliorate AGW. What I have observed is that new sources of energy simply help create more energy. And our appetite for energy is insatiable. It will remain insatiabe until we all get as comfortable as me and Mr Gore, which is pretty damn comfortable. We have a long, long way to go to get the world up to western levels of comfort. This is a good point. > [@](#): > > There’s a reason we’ve diddled and diddled with AGW with no real successful reduction in carbon emissions: We love the rhetoric surrounding a Great Cause, but we are not gonna reduce consumption. Another good point. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2014, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345/110 "2014-01-02T17:06:50Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The purpose of the subsidy reductions is to reduce the number of solar installations being created. It says so right in the first sentence of the article - > And your own cite says that solar costs more. > > Solar power is not cost-competitive. You and I have both posted cites that show thisIf it costs more - and it currently does - using more of it does not save money. This is like the proverbial “buy at five cents, sell at three cents, make up the difference in volume”. > > Regards, > Shodan Curious universe that is reported from the USA then, the savings are very clear for many home owners and business now. Again, what I said was that you are ignoring that it is becoming more competitive that before, and again you are ignoring that they are very much \*\*more \*\*competitive once the real costs of emitting fossil fuels into the atmosphere are accounted for. The item of alternatives like solar becoming cheaper has been a recent development, that was expected by many experts, but as usual many sources on the right choose to mislead their followers or not report what is going on. > **[Analysis: 50% Reduction In Cost Of Renewable Energy Since 2008](https://cleantechnica.com/2013/09/11/analysis-50-reduction-in-cost-of-renewable-energy-since-2008/)** > > The levelized cost of energy from US wind and solar sources fell by more than 50% since 2008, according to global financial advisors Lazard Freres & Co. > [@](#): > > Renewable energy becoming more cost-competitive with fossil fuels isn’t news – as technology improves and more clean power generation comes online, electricity without emissions gets cheaper. But one new analysis reveals just how shockingly cheap it’s gotten. > > The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) from wind and solar sources in America has fallen by more than 50% over the past four years, according to Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis 7.0, recently released by global financial advisor and asset manager firm Lazard Freres & Co. > > … > > Utility-Scale Solar, Wind Lead LCOE Charge > > The LCOE analysis shows that even during one of the most turbulent times in recent memory for renewables, the environmental and economic benefits of clean energy continue to spur technological innovations and utility-scale deployments across the globe. > > According to the analysis, utility-scale solar photovoltaics (PV) and leading types of wind energy are leading the surge – the LCOE of both power sources has fallen by more than 50% since 2008. Lazard estimates that utility-scale solar PV is now a competitive source of peak energy compared to fossil fuel power in many parts of the world without subsidies. > > In fact, Lazard finds certain forms of renewable energy generation are now cost-competitive with many fossil fuel generation sources at an unsubsidized LCOE, even before factoring in externalities like pollution or transmission costs. > > Specifically, solar PV and wind energy both fall within the range of $68-$104 per MWh, making them extremely competitive with baseload power from coal ($65-$145 per MWh), nuclear ($86-$122 per MWh), and integrated gasification combined cycle ($95-$154 per MWh). again you can not deny that solar is growing even if you are correct. And the Chief continues to even deny that there is a reduction in the fossil fuel emissions that comes with the deployment of solar and wind. [http://aweablog.org/blog/post/correcting-fossil-fuel-industry-misinformation-about-germanys-success-with-renewable-energy](http://aweablog.org/blog/post/correcting-fossil-fuel-industry-misinformation-about-germanys-success-with-renewable-energy) > [@](#): > > Wind energy has driven major decreases in Europe’s carbon emissions and fossil fuel use > > Finally, the fossil fuel industry has attempted to misleadingly and selectively use statistics to hide the remarkable reductions in fossil fuel use and pollution Germany and other European countries have achieved due to their increased use of wind energy. Much of this deception has focused on a short-term increase in coal use over the last year or two as Germany has rapidly phased out its use of nuclear power. However, it is important not to miss the forest for the trees, and to understand that this short-term increase is entirely caused by the shutdown of Germany’s nuclear plants and is only a temporary blip in the long-term, steady decline in emissions achieved by Germany’s transition to renewable energy. > > The reality is that, over the last decade, wind energy has allowed Germany to greatly reduce fossil fuel use and pollution, reductions that would have been even larger had the country not also greatly scaled down its use of nuclear power over that same time period. > > As documented by International Energy Agency data, as Germany ramped up its use of wind energy, coal use by Germany’s electric sector fell by more than 12% between 2004 and 2010, a reduction of 20 million tons per year. Wind energy was able to drive that reduction in coal use despite nuclear power output declining by 16% over that time period (falling from nearly 34% of the country’s electricity mix in 2004 to less than 25% in 2010). ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2014, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345/111 "2014-01-02T17:30:00Z")
Where do the Germans get their electric power at night? I suspect they buy it-from French nuclear plants…or Polish coal fired plants. QED ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2014, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345/112 "2014-01-02T17:41:41Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Where do the Germans get their electric power at night? > I suspect they buy it-from French nuclear plants…or Polish coal fired plants. > QED They also have wind, and new battery technology that is being applied. And I already reported that nuclear power should not be dismissed. The only QED for all is that you do not pay attention to what the posts report also, and the source you use are omitting a lot of what is going on on places that decide to make progress on this issue. > **[Germany Finances Major Push Into Home Battery Storage for Solar](https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/germany-finances-major-push-into-home-battery-storage-for-solar)** > > Can Germany prime a price drop in battery storage systems, as it did for solar modules? > [@](#): > > The German government has responded to the next big challenge in its energy transition – storing the output from the solar boom it has created – by doing exactly what it has successfully done to date: greasing the wheels of finance to bring down the cost of new technology. > > Over the past five years, Germany has been largely responsible for priming an 80 percent fall in the price of solar modules. Now it is looking at bringing down the cost of the next piece in the puzzle of its energy transition: battery storage. > > At its disposal is the giant state-owned but independently run development bank KfW. In the clean energy space, it performs a similar function to Australia’s recently created (and likely doomed) Clean Energy Finance Corporation, but at a scale that is not contemplated in most countries, with the possible exception of China. > > It has assets of more than €500 billion, and lent €73 billion last year, with one-third of that targeted at renewables and climate investments. Over the past three years, it provided €24 billion in loans for energy efficiency investment in homes, leveraging a total investment of €58 billion, helping insulate and seal more than 2 million homes, employing 200,000 people a year, and saving more than 150 million tons of carbon. > > Six months ago, it began a new program to finance the introduction of battery storage into homes and small business, which it says is absolutely essential if the “Energiewende,” the German expression for its energy transition, is to successfully move to the next phase and beyond 40 percent renewable penetration. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2014, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345/113 "2014-01-03T01:30:25Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And the Chief continues to even deny that there is a reduction in the fossil fuel emissions that comes with the deployment of solar and wind. I’m not denying anything, including the idea that solar and wind are nice. I’m wondering if you have any data showing the total world use of fossils is reduced as more solar and wind come online. The problem is the massive increase we need in total energy in order to get the masses comfortable. We’ll use all the solar, wind, nuclear and fossils that we make. All of it. And we’ll still be asking for more. I have already said it’s theoretically possible to solve AGW gasses with new renewables. But we are not going to wait at a world level any more than Germany has waited for replacing its nuclear with renewables instead of coal. We want our comfort levels, now. There is no chance the approach of a wealthy and fiscally responsible nation like Germany can be extended to the world, especially the developing world. That sort of luxury approach is available only to the already-rich, for whom it can be an AGW-fighting hobby, and for whom the dirty manufacturing can be passed off to the developing world. The developing world, in turn, (along with countries whose economies cannot afford it) will stick to whatever sources they get can get online as cheaply as possible. There’s no realistic way to get fossil fuel off the grid fast enough. I’m hoping we find good ways to capture carbon output, and I’d be a first investor if that technology comes along. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2014, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345/114 "2014-01-03T01:50:01Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > There is no chance the approach of a wealthy and fiscally responsible nation like Germany can be extended to the world, especially the developing world. Need to calibrate your declarations again, the south west and other places in the USA are following as it was posted already. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > That sort of luxury approach is available only to the already-rich, for whom it can be an AGW-fighting hobby, and for whom the dirty manufacturing can be passed off to the developing world. The developing world, in turn, (along with countries whose economies cannot afford it) will stick to whatever sources they get can get online as cheaply as possible. > > There’s no realistic way to get fossil fuel off the grid fast enough. This exudes ignorance, scientists and economists settled and accepted that no immediate change is coming or recommended. The recommended targets about how much PPM could be accepted as relatively safe levels were considered and adopted by the experts for years to accept the march of civilization, but those limits exist with the understanding that we should soon start with the control of our emissions. Please note what start means, it does not mean like your imagination is telling you about limiting emissions “fast enough” [https://www.ipcc.ch/publications\_and\_data/ar4/syr/en/mains5-4.html](https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains5-4.html) > [@](#): > > In order to stabilise the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere, emissions would need to peak and decline thereafter.[28] The lower the stabilisation level, the more quickly this peak and decline would need to occur (Figure 5.1).[29] {WGIII 3.3, 3.5, SPM} > > Advances in modelling since the TAR permit the assessment of multi-gas mitigation strategies for exploring the attainability and costs for achieving stabilisation of GHG concentrations. These scenarios explore a wider range of future scenarios, including lower levels of stabilisation, than reported in the TAR. {WGIII 3.3, 3.5, SPM} > > Mitigation efforts over the next two to three decades will have a large impact on opportunities to achieve lower stabilisation levels (Table 5.1 and Figure 5.1). {WGIII 3.5, SPM} > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I’m hoping we find good ways to capture carbon output, and I’d be a first investor if that technology comes along. Let the record show how adept you are at moving the goalposts. In the meantime, as your original demand from awhile did actually go, it was not related to capture carbon but where to invest, so invest in solar, wind, and new battery designs. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2014, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345/115 "2014-01-03T01:53:26Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Same pap, I already said that you need to look at the graphs from Germany, as the article from the Rolling Stones reported, we should follow the example of Germany, repeating again the already acknowledged problems that remain with many other nations not following yet is just demanding that we should stall forever. I’d also like to point out that [not everyone’s perspective is that the German solar experiment is an unqualified success.](http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/10/04/should-other-nations-follow-germanys-lead-on-promoting-solar-power/) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2014, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345/116 "2014-01-03T02:08:11Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I’d also like to point out that [not everyone’s perspective is that the German solar experiment is an unqualified success.](http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/10/04/should-other-nations-follow-germanys-lead-on-promoting-solar-power/) I gave up as soon as the silly points ignored that the costs are not there just for the solar deployment. He is ignoring the investing and progress going on, now batteries are coming and the money available is going to improve the electrical grid to deal with the \*\*overproduction \*\*of energy that is affecting the grid now. That takes care of many of his complaints in the following pages. He also misleadingly not tell his readers that the increase in fossil fuels was recent and related to the nuclear power plants taken off line. As others reported that increase is bound to be reduced in the near future. So, it is the same old and from a source that supports denialists. [http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/28/meet-the-climate-denial-machine/191545](http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/28/meet-the-climate-denial-machine/191545) > [@](#): > > Despite their industry ties and lack of scientific expertise, Heartland Institute fellows are often given a media platform to promote their marginal views on climate change. Most visible is James Taylor, a lawyer with no climate science background who heads Heartland’s environmental initiative. Taylor dismisses “alarmist propaganda that global warming is a human-caused problem that needs to be addressed,” and suggests that taking action to reduce emissions could cause a return to the “the Little Ice Age and the Black Death.” But that hasn’t stopped Forbes from publishing his weekly column, which he uses to spout climate misinformation and accuse scientists of “doctoring” temperature data to fabricate a warming trend. It also hasn’t stopped Fox News from promoting his misinformation. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2014, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345/117 "2014-01-03T02:26:28Z")
One very silly point from the Forbes article was that since Germany has less sun than the USA it is not a good example to use but then what about the places that then should be employing the technology? He lamely declares that: > [@](#): > > But most people seem to look at it and say, “if Germany is investing so much in solar power, then it’s obvious the US should build solar panels too.” I insist we examine the contrapositive: if solar power is only taking off slowly in the US, even with significant subsidies/incentives and one of the world’s best solar resources, then the Germans should be building even less solar capacity. Well, I have to say that this guy is really misinformed, [http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/got-science/2013/got-science-august-2013.html](http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/got-science/2013/got-science-august-2013.html) > [@](#): > > With partisan politics trumping science-based solutions all too often these days, it’s especially heartening when people overcome political differences to let solid data point the way toward practical solutions. That’s what happened in Georgia last month when state regulators voted to require Georgia Power — the state’s sole investor-owned electricity provider — to expand the use of solar power in its energy mix. > > Regulators on the all-Republican commission voted 3-2 in favor of a plan that requires Atlanta-based Georgia Power Co. to increase its solar power capacity by 525 megawatts by the end of 2016. The decision comes on the heels of the announcement that Georgia Power, a subsidiary of Southern Co., is planning to retire more than 2,000 megawatts worth of coal-fired generating capacity. > > The vote in Georgia is notable not just for the commonsense outcome of adding more cost-effective renewable energy in a state ranked fifth in the nation for solar potential but just 21st for installed solar capacity. The real surprise here, after more than a year of often acrimonious debate, is the nearly unprecedented coalition that made the decision possible — a mixture of not just environmentalists and solar advocates but also conservative lawmakers and Tea Party members. > Koch-Sponsored Misinformation > > The latter groups in particular had to face down a barrage of misinformation from Americans for Prosperity (AFP), an organization founded and underwritten by the billionaire Koch brothers, whose predecessor organization, Citizens for a Sound Economy, virtually founded the Tea Party itself. AFP’s Georgia chapter mounted a scare campaign against solar power in Georgia that, as usual, supported the Koch’s bottom line as fossil fuel magnates even as it played fast and loose with the facts. > > Virginia Galloway, director of AFP’s Georgia chapter, for instance, warned the group’s 50,000 members that the solar proposal would “reduce the reliability of every appliance and electronics gadget in your home” and could increase Georgia electricity rates by up to 40 percent. As the Associated Press pointed out, neither of these claims bore much resemblance to the truth. In fact, at the hearing before the vote, Kevin Greene, Georgia Power’s attorney, said that the utility didn’t believe the solar requirement would cause any increase in electricity prices for ratepayers. > > All of which underscores the really surprising part: even the Tea Party faithful didn’t seem to be buying the AFP line this time around. Despite the mass emails, handouts, and phone calls put out by AFP’s Georgia chapter, when the group held a protest during the Public Service Commission deliberations, hardly anyone showed up. > [@](#): > > Solar Power is Growing for Good Reason > > Michael Jacobs, a senior energy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, says the facts in the energy sector speak for themselves. As Georgia regulators wisely recognized, he says, the price of coal has risen, while prices for solar panels have dropped some 60 percent since 2011. > > The fact is, solar has been one of the nation’s fastest growing industries for the past several years, now supporting more than 100,000 jobs at 5,600 companies operating in every state in the nation. With the rate of utility solar installations more than doubling since 2012, the United States is now on track to add another 4,400 megawatts of photovoltaic power in 2013. > > All of which has been noted with considerable alarm by some electric utilities. A recent report distributed by the Edison Electric Institute, the industry’s main trade group, for instance, calls the growth of small-scale solar systems the “largest near-term threat” to the industry and warns of a disruption to the industry similar to the one wrought by cell phones on the landline telephone industry. My advice? Remove the subsidies fossil fuel companies still have in the USA and use the money to help the electric companies to offset the lost revenue the electrical companies are seeing, after all they also need to modernize the aging electrical grid of the USA ASAP. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2014, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345/118 "2014-01-03T05:07:41Z")
The Forbes article was written by Ryan Carlyle, an author adamantly opposed to coal, calling it \*“arguably one of the greatest environmental evils of the industrialized world.” \* He is in favor of solar. He is in favor of nuclear. What he is not in favor of is the mindless stupidity which has driven Germany’s solar policy, creating insanely expensive solar energy, the subsidy of which–all by itself–costs more than buying zero-carbon electricity from neighbors. His “kicker” example of stupidity at the end of the article is that 38% (!) of Germany’s “renewable energy” is from firewood. Because new trees will replace the forests they are chopping down, it makes economic sense to destroy forests, further pollute the environment today, and call it an energy policy. There are too many points for me to recite here. For anyone interested in the topic, I advise reading the article, making your own decision about GIGObuster’s dismissal of it, and of the author’s neutrality. It’s very very sobering. And it concludes thusly: _“Every time a renewables advocate holds up Germany as a shining beacon, they set back the credibility of the environmental movement. It’s unsupported by reality and…gives ammunition to the enemy.”_ But hey; I know GIGObuster is so far down the Great Cause road that everything which sobers up an opinion that we just have to get our experts to show us the way is suspect. So read it for yourself and make your own decision. German solar is what happens when we shoot first and ask questions later. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2014, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345/119 "2014-01-03T05:10:44Z")
This is my problem with wind/solar: it takes our eyes off nuclear power. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2014, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345/120 "2014-01-03T06:26:21Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > The Forbes article was written by Ryan Carlyle, an author adamantly opposed to coal, calling it \*“arguably one of the greatest environmental evils of the industrialized world.” \* > > He is in favor of solar. He is in favor of nuclear. He works for the oil industry. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > What he is not in favor of is the mindless stupidity which has driven Germany’s solar policy, creating insanely expensive solar energy, the subsidy of which–all by itself–costs more than buying zero-carbon electricity from neighbors. > > His “kicker” example of stupidity at the end of the article is that 38% (!) of Germany’s “renewable energy” is from firewood. Because new trees will replace the forests they are chopping down, it makes economic sense to destroy forests, further pollute the environment today, and call it an energy policy. > > There are too many points for me to recite here. For anyone interested in the topic, I advise reading the article, making your own decision about GIGObuster’s dismissal of it, and of the author’s neutrality. > > It’s very very sobering. And it concludes thusly: > > _“Every time a renewables advocate holds up Germany as a shining beacon, they set back the credibility of the environmental movement. It’s unsupported by reality and…gives ammunition to the enemy.”_ No one that makes articles for Forbes about how nice the oil industry is and not reporting on the cost of emissions (just in passing only) is a reliable narrator. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > But hey; I know GIGObuster is so far down the Great Cause road that everything which sobers up an opinion that we just have to get our experts to show us the way is suspect. So read it for yourself and make your own decision. German solar is what happens when we shoot first and ask questions later. Most readers already learned about how reliable Forbes was and is, your cause is to defend the oil industry. As I pointed many times before, when people like a Subsea Hydraulics Engineer talks about what Germany and the south west is doing with solar power and he is caught missing a lot, one has to remember: he is only giving his opinion in an opinion page on a biased magazine. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-realistic-way-to-fight-global-warming/677345.md?page=7)