Liberal solutions may be hot air, but until the majority of conservative leaders and voters accept, as you did, the reality of climate change and the role mankind has in that change, it is all we have. I hope you can help effect a change of heart and mind amongst conservatives. I am not optimistic. Just as with COVID-19, the climate crisis is politicized. There is power to be obtained in denying humans are contributing to climate change and in resisting any measures to mitigate.
The (continuing) denial of climate change being a real issue has prevented discussion of real solutions to the problems. Some undoubtedly was due to the economic consequences of proposed solutions (not least from the companies most likely to be affected), and it was easier/more profitable in the short term to deny rather then engage and offer alternative/combined solutions. This approach ignored Ben Franklin's adage "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure": this failure is also plaguing our handling of COVID.
Some was also undoubtedly a knee-jerk reaction to Democrats: "If they want X, then I'm against it".
I'm glad you've finally accepted the reality of climate change as an issue needing serious attention. You're correct that *some* ideas from a more conservative perspective will be better than from a more liberal perspective, and that the only things we can directly control are what we the USA does.
"We do need to find a way to deal with this problem before it causes some very negative effects, like changing the salinity and chemistry of the oceans, sinking coastal cities, altering global weather patterns, creating deserts in places once filled with lush vegetation, causing massive droughts, floods, fires, famine, and livestock die-offs, and a whole bunch of plagues we haven’t thought of. The question is not “if,” given the evidence, it’s “when.” But “when” is, and remains, a very open question."
The problem here is that this statement is aimed at prevention, and at this point ocean salinity is already increasing, and the chemistry is already acidifying. Coastal cities are already more at risk of flooding due to increasing sea levels, caused by a feedback loop of melting ice creating more water that absorbs more solar energy that melts more ice.... Global weather patterns are changing to longer fire seasons here in the West and hurricane seasons in the East. Desertification is increasing, permafrost is thawing (leading to increasing releases of additional greenhouse gases and ancient viruses).
It's (likely) too late to prevent these issues from continuing, and we may now be stuck with mitigation.
Mankind has an ongoing problem with prevention in that necessity is the mother of invention. For example, early Homo Sapiens could have prevented saber tooth cats from killing them by taking certain preemptive measures. But the fossil record shows that it took many dead humans before we hunted them all down and killed them. Our situation today is just a more complex version of that. People aren’t wired to respond to future threats.
Which is where a regulations (such as stating "reduce your CO2 to X level") induces necessity. If the current tech doesn't/can't meet those needs, then improved or new tech gets created that does.
If it were only that simple. Companies find ways to cheat when they can’t comply. (See: Volkswagen.) True innovation takes time and capital. Investors generally aren’t motivated by compliance diktats, so we end up with less choice and worse products. True innovation follows when we have an actual crisis. We are nearly there but not quite.
Plenty of innovation has occurred without a crisis: or do you think advancements in computing/lighting/etc... not driven by a (potentially) existential crisis are invalid?
No. That is a central point in my article. But innovation in response to government regulation…other than to cheat or subvert it…is…let’s call it “rare.”
That is true Steve. Companies tend to do the bare minimum when compelled by the government. But when consumer demand dictates such, they are incentivized by wanting a greater share of the pie. One example of that are the CAFE fuel economy standards imposed by the federal government. At the time of its inception in 1974, cars were averaging around 14 mpg, and the mandate was for average MPG to be nearly doubled to 27.5 mpg by 1985. And carmakers detuned their existing engines to where they became underpowered....leading to them meeting the fuel mileage standards on paper, but not meeting them in the real world. Fuel economy did improve, but there was a major gap between sticker MPG and what customers were getting in the real world. That is why the fuel economy standards had to be revised in both 1985 and 2008, to better match real world MPG. But with the higher fuel prices, consumers demanded fuel efficient options, and that more than anything else, drove up the fuel efficiency of automobiles. Today's consumer is more concerned about carbon emissions on average, than decades back. And while federal regulation certainly has an effect, consumer demand is the driving force for the trend for electrification in the auto industry.
And just to point this out: humans being incapable of dealing with sabertooth cats was a tech problem, and not one where the humans denied it was an issue at all.
This doesn't track well to climate change, which was denied as being an issue at all due to politics/economics and not on the merits.
Don't get me started on solar flares and asteroids, though those are much better examples of failing to analyze the risk.
I simply don’t give “climate deniers” a whole lot of bandwidth. I also don’t give climate end-of-the-worlders who would have us live in caves much ether.
Is the only real solution to force everyone who is not an agricultural worker or a miner into cities so that they can enjoy a Chicago or New York lifestyle? That way, no one has an absolute need to travel except locally on public conveyances. The opportunities for controlling waste and capturing excess heat are almost limitless. Of course some people have to live in Green Bay while others get to live in Sarasota. Will Amtrak be improved to the extent it allows tourism even if it's only to government approved compact Fun Spots for the Masses?
Just to start a comment thread on it: how about some ideas for reducing energy/water/etc... usage that are generally sane. I'll start:
We currently let a lot of fresh drinking water go down the drain while we wait for the hot water to reach a particular sink. There's energy loss involved in maintaining a tank of hot water and in transporting that hot water from a central water heater to a faucet. Why not require every newly built house utilize on-demand hot water heaters at each sink to reduce both fresh water and energy usage? This can also reduce plumbing needs/costs, or free those funds that would have gone towards hot water lines towards utilizing gray water for flushing toilet (further reducing fresh water usage). No innovation or new technologies needed: just building code changes.
Really good ideas. Saves time as well. I can't count how many minutes I've waited for the shower to start pumping out warm/hot water. In addition to lost water/energy, it adds to the shower time, resulting in lost time and productivity, which has economic costs as well! Also I would give a one time tax credit to those who modify their homes to incorporate these changes for water heating. I'm actually thinking about making these kinds of renovation to my home and would love to have on demand, per sink water heaters that can heat up the water prior to dispensing. And that rerouting of wasted gray cold water for toilet flushing is a wonderful idea. I think depending on the person and size of household, tens of gallons of fresh water daily can be easily saved that way.
My parents have had an on-demand hot water dispenser for filtered water for a long time: this is the same tech just applied to general usage. I first saw one in general usage at a Kaiser medical office, and it makes so much sense to spend ~$150/sink upfront to save a lot more down the road.
I've seen in some public restroom facilities, such as rest areas, urinals that use zero flush, zero water urinals. I've thought about having the idea of homes having such urinals that can be made for both men and women to use. Maybe I won't be able to install them within all my existing bathrooms, but be able to set aside space for a small room or two with a sink and waterless urinals. Since humans do far more toilet flushing for number 1s and than number 2s, maybe having these would go a long way in reducing water usage. That probably is less practical in some respects than making mods to water heating. But I do know if I end up building a new home to move to, that I'd definitely want those zero flush urinals in at least some of the bathrooms.
Excepting areas that get extremely cold (-15F for example), air source heat pump HVAC
systems can provide extremely efficient heating and cooling. Mini-split ductless systems are the easiest to install, but it'd be fairly simple to add the necessary reversal valve to a standard central AC unit. We're talking 200-400% efficiency, compared to ~90-95% efficiency for gas heat systems.
Heat pumps are starting to be used in vehicles, as well: Kia has put a heat pump HVAC in the Kona and Niro EV, and the EV6 Steve is looking at for his next vehicle.
I do like that piece of Kevin Williamson from the National Review, as he nails it quite well. Politics are by nature, reactive from a rhetorical sense. How rational and well one presents the arguments for climate change or any other issues, largely determines the reaction from the other side, and vice versa. Those who advocate for action on climate change with demagogic, hysterical, and overly alarmist rhetoric, do not provide incentives for the audiences to consider and possibly accept their conclusions regarding anthropogenic climate change. If I were undecided on that issue and listed to shrill voices on the left spout what they do, I would've tuned them out immediately. I don't take very kindly to people who act like that, and immediately write them off as nothing people as an instinctive reaction. One of the reasons many on the right make fun of climate activists or tune them out in the knee-jerk manner, is because how the how the latter advocates for their point of view. They use the "either you are with us, or you are...(insert a bad faith motive)" way too often. It is just like the issue of race, where the tendency on many on the right to sweep under the rug any assertion of racism(whether real or imagined), comes as a knee jerk reaction to some progressive leftists playing the race card incessantly for mere policy differences. There is plenty of blame to go around, and I'm not absolving the right's behavior on this. But I've noticed that when I rationally present my points of view without using demagogic tactics about why we cannot ignore climate change and need to take some corrective action, people do listen. They may not be converted right away, but you have credibility with them so they will at least consider what you have to say. But over time, some have changed their minds, which is a good thing.
I know some who were convinced it was all a hoax come around to that belief that we need to be mindful about our changing climate. I don't use alarmist or hysterical rhetoric, but try to be constructive and positive in these discussions. Given the politics surrounding climate change have been polarized like Covid-19 pandemic, many have hardened their hearts one way or another, and some might not respond well to a good faith discussion. But it has to start somewhere, and I believe that people like you Steve, and David are doing a good job with your good faith arguments.
On a positive note, I believe the belief in climate change tends to be generational. From what I observed, younger generations of conservatives tend to be believe in climate change reality and the need to do something, while the older generation of those on the right tend not to. Of course, you will have those who reject climate change reality from all generations, but I've noticed that trend.
Steve, have you heard of Benji Backer? He's one of the major voices from the conservative movement calling for dealing with climate change issues. I've watched and read some of his commentary. It is far more commonsensical than some of the irresponsible rhetoric from political partisans of late. I think he is doing really good work in changing hearts and minds, and breaking across the political stalemate on this issue.
Liberal solutions may be hot air, but until the majority of conservative leaders and voters accept, as you did, the reality of climate change and the role mankind has in that change, it is all we have. I hope you can help effect a change of heart and mind amongst conservatives. I am not optimistic. Just as with COVID-19, the climate crisis is politicized. There is power to be obtained in denying humans are contributing to climate change and in resisting any measures to mitigate.
The (continuing) denial of climate change being a real issue has prevented discussion of real solutions to the problems. Some undoubtedly was due to the economic consequences of proposed solutions (not least from the companies most likely to be affected), and it was easier/more profitable in the short term to deny rather then engage and offer alternative/combined solutions. This approach ignored Ben Franklin's adage "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure": this failure is also plaguing our handling of COVID.
Some was also undoubtedly a knee-jerk reaction to Democrats: "If they want X, then I'm against it".
I'm glad you've finally accepted the reality of climate change as an issue needing serious attention. You're correct that *some* ideas from a more conservative perspective will be better than from a more liberal perspective, and that the only things we can directly control are what we the USA does.
"We do need to find a way to deal with this problem before it causes some very negative effects, like changing the salinity and chemistry of the oceans, sinking coastal cities, altering global weather patterns, creating deserts in places once filled with lush vegetation, causing massive droughts, floods, fires, famine, and livestock die-offs, and a whole bunch of plagues we haven’t thought of. The question is not “if,” given the evidence, it’s “when.” But “when” is, and remains, a very open question."
The problem here is that this statement is aimed at prevention, and at this point ocean salinity is already increasing, and the chemistry is already acidifying. Coastal cities are already more at risk of flooding due to increasing sea levels, caused by a feedback loop of melting ice creating more water that absorbs more solar energy that melts more ice.... Global weather patterns are changing to longer fire seasons here in the West and hurricane seasons in the East. Desertification is increasing, permafrost is thawing (leading to increasing releases of additional greenhouse gases and ancient viruses).
It's (likely) too late to prevent these issues from continuing, and we may now be stuck with mitigation.
Mankind has an ongoing problem with prevention in that necessity is the mother of invention. For example, early Homo Sapiens could have prevented saber tooth cats from killing them by taking certain preemptive measures. But the fossil record shows that it took many dead humans before we hunted them all down and killed them. Our situation today is just a more complex version of that. People aren’t wired to respond to future threats.
Which is where a regulations (such as stating "reduce your CO2 to X level") induces necessity. If the current tech doesn't/can't meet those needs, then improved or new tech gets created that does.
If it were only that simple. Companies find ways to cheat when they can’t comply. (See: Volkswagen.) True innovation takes time and capital. Investors generally aren’t motivated by compliance diktats, so we end up with less choice and worse products. True innovation follows when we have an actual crisis. We are nearly there but not quite.
And that's why you make it hurt when they fail/cheat:
https://fortune.com/2020/10/06/volkswagen-vw-emissions-scandal-damages/
Plenty of innovation has occurred without a crisis: or do you think advancements in computing/lighting/etc... not driven by a (potentially) existential crisis are invalid?
No. That is a central point in my article. But innovation in response to government regulation…other than to cheat or subvert it…is…let’s call it “rare.”
That is true Steve. Companies tend to do the bare minimum when compelled by the government. But when consumer demand dictates such, they are incentivized by wanting a greater share of the pie. One example of that are the CAFE fuel economy standards imposed by the federal government. At the time of its inception in 1974, cars were averaging around 14 mpg, and the mandate was for average MPG to be nearly doubled to 27.5 mpg by 1985. And carmakers detuned their existing engines to where they became underpowered....leading to them meeting the fuel mileage standards on paper, but not meeting them in the real world. Fuel economy did improve, but there was a major gap between sticker MPG and what customers were getting in the real world. That is why the fuel economy standards had to be revised in both 1985 and 2008, to better match real world MPG. But with the higher fuel prices, consumers demanded fuel efficient options, and that more than anything else, drove up the fuel efficiency of automobiles. Today's consumer is more concerned about carbon emissions on average, than decades back. And while federal regulation certainly has an effect, consumer demand is the driving force for the trend for electrification in the auto industry.
And just to point this out: humans being incapable of dealing with sabertooth cats was a tech problem, and not one where the humans denied it was an issue at all.
This doesn't track well to climate change, which was denied as being an issue at all due to politics/economics and not on the merits.
Don't get me started on solar flares and asteroids, though those are much better examples of failing to analyze the risk.
I simply don’t give “climate deniers” a whole lot of bandwidth. I also don’t give climate end-of-the-worlders who would have us live in caves much ether.
Yes, because living in a cave is the only option being given to you /s
There's a good thread by Jonathan Adler on this matter:
https://mobile.twitter.com/jadler1969/status/1425457785819566080
Is the only real solution to force everyone who is not an agricultural worker or a miner into cities so that they can enjoy a Chicago or New York lifestyle? That way, no one has an absolute need to travel except locally on public conveyances. The opportunities for controlling waste and capturing excess heat are almost limitless. Of course some people have to live in Green Bay while others get to live in Sarasota. Will Amtrak be improved to the extent it allows tourism even if it's only to government approved compact Fun Spots for the Masses?
Who's going to deal with the 60% of the world's population in Africa and Asia who do not give a hoot?
I like the more trees idea. Use less lumber in building. Toilet paper and packaging are the two uses for paper I couldn't do without.
Just to start a comment thread on it: how about some ideas for reducing energy/water/etc... usage that are generally sane. I'll start:
We currently let a lot of fresh drinking water go down the drain while we wait for the hot water to reach a particular sink. There's energy loss involved in maintaining a tank of hot water and in transporting that hot water from a central water heater to a faucet. Why not require every newly built house utilize on-demand hot water heaters at each sink to reduce both fresh water and energy usage? This can also reduce plumbing needs/costs, or free those funds that would have gone towards hot water lines towards utilizing gray water for flushing toilet (further reducing fresh water usage). No innovation or new technologies needed: just building code changes.
Really good ideas. Saves time as well. I can't count how many minutes I've waited for the shower to start pumping out warm/hot water. In addition to lost water/energy, it adds to the shower time, resulting in lost time and productivity, which has economic costs as well! Also I would give a one time tax credit to those who modify their homes to incorporate these changes for water heating. I'm actually thinking about making these kinds of renovation to my home and would love to have on demand, per sink water heaters that can heat up the water prior to dispensing. And that rerouting of wasted gray cold water for toilet flushing is a wonderful idea. I think depending on the person and size of household, tens of gallons of fresh water daily can be easily saved that way.
My parents have had an on-demand hot water dispenser for filtered water for a long time: this is the same tech just applied to general usage. I first saw one in general usage at a Kaiser medical office, and it makes so much sense to spend ~$150/sink upfront to save a lot more down the road.
Since you mentioned that, I'll take a serious look at doing that. This is something that sounds practical to implement in my own home.
I've seen in some public restroom facilities, such as rest areas, urinals that use zero flush, zero water urinals. I've thought about having the idea of homes having such urinals that can be made for both men and women to use. Maybe I won't be able to install them within all my existing bathrooms, but be able to set aside space for a small room or two with a sink and waterless urinals. Since humans do far more toilet flushing for number 1s and than number 2s, maybe having these would go a long way in reducing water usage. That probably is less practical in some respects than making mods to water heating. But I do know if I end up building a new home to move to, that I'd definitely want those zero flush urinals in at least some of the bathrooms.
Zero flush is interesting, though it looks like there are replacement cartridges/chemicals required to maintain those systems every 3 months or so.
Even using something like the Zurn Pint to reduce water usage in existing urinals would be worthwhile: 1 pint instead of 1 gallon.
Excepting areas that get extremely cold (-15F for example), air source heat pump HVAC
systems can provide extremely efficient heating and cooling. Mini-split ductless systems are the easiest to install, but it'd be fairly simple to add the necessary reversal valve to a standard central AC unit. We're talking 200-400% efficiency, compared to ~90-95% efficiency for gas heat systems.
Heat pumps are starting to be used in vehicles, as well: Kia has put a heat pump HVAC in the Kona and Niro EV, and the EV6 Steve is looking at for his next vehicle.
I do like that piece of Kevin Williamson from the National Review, as he nails it quite well. Politics are by nature, reactive from a rhetorical sense. How rational and well one presents the arguments for climate change or any other issues, largely determines the reaction from the other side, and vice versa. Those who advocate for action on climate change with demagogic, hysterical, and overly alarmist rhetoric, do not provide incentives for the audiences to consider and possibly accept their conclusions regarding anthropogenic climate change. If I were undecided on that issue and listed to shrill voices on the left spout what they do, I would've tuned them out immediately. I don't take very kindly to people who act like that, and immediately write them off as nothing people as an instinctive reaction. One of the reasons many on the right make fun of climate activists or tune them out in the knee-jerk manner, is because how the how the latter advocates for their point of view. They use the "either you are with us, or you are...(insert a bad faith motive)" way too often. It is just like the issue of race, where the tendency on many on the right to sweep under the rug any assertion of racism(whether real or imagined), comes as a knee jerk reaction to some progressive leftists playing the race card incessantly for mere policy differences. There is plenty of blame to go around, and I'm not absolving the right's behavior on this. But I've noticed that when I rationally present my points of view without using demagogic tactics about why we cannot ignore climate change and need to take some corrective action, people do listen. They may not be converted right away, but you have credibility with them so they will at least consider what you have to say. But over time, some have changed their minds, which is a good thing.
I know some who were convinced it was all a hoax come around to that belief that we need to be mindful about our changing climate. I don't use alarmist or hysterical rhetoric, but try to be constructive and positive in these discussions. Given the politics surrounding climate change have been polarized like Covid-19 pandemic, many have hardened their hearts one way or another, and some might not respond well to a good faith discussion. But it has to start somewhere, and I believe that people like you Steve, and David are doing a good job with your good faith arguments.
On a positive note, I believe the belief in climate change tends to be generational. From what I observed, younger generations of conservatives tend to be believe in climate change reality and the need to do something, while the older generation of those on the right tend not to. Of course, you will have those who reject climate change reality from all generations, but I've noticed that trend.
Steve, have you heard of Benji Backer? He's one of the major voices from the conservative movement calling for dealing with climate change issues. I've watched and read some of his commentary. It is far more commonsensical than some of the irresponsible rhetoric from political partisans of late. I think he is doing really good work in changing hearts and minds, and breaking across the political stalemate on this issue.