HiloJulie - it pisses people off, and fuels the anti climate change science deniers even more.
Oh no, the SUV owners will be angry and will get back at those do-gooder hippies by driving a large polluting vehicle in a city with some of the most extensive public transport in the world. Oh wait, they were already doing that. Setting the acceptable limits of protest to only what doesn't piss people off has clearly worked so well in the past, right? Sorry folks, I'd like for you to have equal rights, but that'd make some racists angry, and we can't have that, so best get off the bus and leave the lunch counters and go on home wait for those bad actors to find enlightenment...
HiloJulie - I can’t even speak to the insanity of suggesting that blowing up fossil fuel pipelines as a means of protest.
It may be unpopular, but it usually helps to read a book before opining on it, or at least maybe peruse an extensive review? Notably, while some pipelines have already been blown-up in "Iraq, South Africa, Israel/Palestine and Nigeria ... as part of political campaigns of resistance to governments and corporations" the review's suggested alternative title "Manifesto for Political Violence in the Service of Humanity’s Survival on Earth" better captures the focus of the book. The New Yorker's interview with the author offers a quick distillation as well, but yes, violence against property is increasingly likely as time goes on.
HiloJulie - Is that what’s next to curb aviation? Blow a few jets out of the air?
You said it, not me. ;) For some interesting fiction exploring some near-future scenarios, both The Ministry for the Future, and The Deluge, are compelling IMHO and explore the issue of climate-related conflict, including those pesky highly-polluting airplanes, and possible reactions / solutions.
HiloJulie - what if – Boeing after they rolled out the 777 had taken a few hundred highly skilled engineers and gave them say 10 billion to redesign the jet engine to be 50% - 75% - 95% more efficient?
Again with the magical thinking. You may want to really spend some time understanding Jevon's paradox, as history has shown over and over again that gains in efficiency using a resource leads to more of it being used overall, not less. That's true of cars (better gas mileage allows for more driving), planes (50% more efficient allow for 400% more of them), electricity (more fossil fuels are being burned today than ever before, even as most new projects are renewable energy), etc... It's a fundamental aspect of the situation that undermines the notion that we can "efficiency" our way out.
The only way systemic way to curtail fossil fuel use is to ban it or make it prohibitively expensive, usually done through a carbon tax or rationing. Or you could get 100% efficiency today in reducing your CO2 emissions from air travel by not doing it - requires no magical engineering at all.
HiloJulie - converting HECO’s oil fired boilers to LNG as your other post discusses. Now that’s a change – for the better – until another even better change can be developed and/or implemented
The better solution is already here in the form of renewables that are cheaper to deploy at utility scale than all fossil fuels, including LNG. Twenty years ago a bridge fuel may have made sense, but that too is living in the past.
HiloJulie - What if Range Rover invested a few hundred million into developing and making their monstrous beasts hydrogen powered, thus eliminating any greenhouse gas emission
Hydrogen isn't an energy source, only a carrier fuel. That is, unlike oil/wind/sunlight, you can't extract hydrogen from the environment, but have to make it using actual energy sources. This process is less efficient than just using the the energy directly instead of cracking water into H2 and O2. When fossil fuels are used to create that electricity, as is the case in almost all electrical grids, hydrogen is just an inefficient way to generate even more carbon emissions.
HiloJulie - As far as golf courses are concerned, imagine if someone suggested turning Pebble Beach into a massive “off grid” solar/wind powered mecca of affordable housing for low income people? Yeh – good luck trying that, we could probably see TMT built first! ... Right down that dead center middle of the denying far right wing and the blow up pipelines far left wing.
Ah the Middle Ground Fallacy - constant refrain of "enlightened" centrists. When business as usual is causing the 6th mass extinction, saying that we should do less to prevent it because changes may hurt some people's feelings and impede their extravagant entertainments, is a pretty timid and insufficient response. You may not be around for some of the worse outcomes in the near future, but many of us will be, and destroying wildlife habitat and pumping out aquifers so the idle rich can chase a ball around is nothing short of ecological insanity.
Perhaps try doing more to reduce your contributions to the situation, instead of being an apologist for the worse actors and pushing off on future generations to clean up the mess? It does make an actual difference and may improve how you're viewed by current and future generations.
Oh no, the SUV owners will be angry and will get back at those do-gooder hippies by driving a large polluting vehicle in a city with some of the most extensive public transport in the world. Oh wait, they were already doing that. Setting the acceptable limits of protest to only what doesn't piss people off has clearly worked so well in the past, right? Sorry folks, I'd like for you to have equal rights, but that'd make some racists angry, and we can't have that, so best get off the bus and leave the lunch counters and go on home wait for those bad actors to find enlightenment...
HiloJulie - I can’t even speak to the insanity of suggesting that blowing up fossil fuel pipelines as a means of protest.
It may be unpopular, but it usually helps to read a book before opining on it, or at least maybe peruse an extensive review? Notably, while some pipelines have already been blown-up in "Iraq, South Africa, Israel/Palestine and Nigeria ... as part of political campaigns of resistance to governments and corporations" the review's suggested alternative title "Manifesto for Political Violence in the Service of Humanity’s Survival on Earth" better captures the focus of the book. The New Yorker's interview with the author offers a quick distillation as well, but yes, violence against property is increasingly likely as time goes on.
HiloJulie - Is that what’s next to curb aviation? Blow a few jets out of the air?
You said it, not me. ;) For some interesting fiction exploring some near-future scenarios, both The Ministry for the Future, and The Deluge, are compelling IMHO and explore the issue of climate-related conflict, including those pesky highly-polluting airplanes, and possible reactions / solutions.
HiloJulie - what if – Boeing after they rolled out the 777 had taken a few hundred highly skilled engineers and gave them say 10 billion to redesign the jet engine to be 50% - 75% - 95% more efficient?
Again with the magical thinking. You may want to really spend some time understanding Jevon's paradox, as history has shown over and over again that gains in efficiency using a resource leads to more of it being used overall, not less. That's true of cars (better gas mileage allows for more driving), planes (50% more efficient allow for 400% more of them), electricity (more fossil fuels are being burned today than ever before, even as most new projects are renewable energy), etc... It's a fundamental aspect of the situation that undermines the notion that we can "efficiency" our way out.
The only way systemic way to curtail fossil fuel use is to ban it or make it prohibitively expensive, usually done through a carbon tax or rationing. Or you could get 100% efficiency today in reducing your CO2 emissions from air travel by not doing it - requires no magical engineering at all.
HiloJulie - converting HECO’s oil fired boilers to LNG as your other post discusses. Now that’s a change – for the better – until another even better change can be developed and/or implemented
The better solution is already here in the form of renewables that are cheaper to deploy at utility scale than all fossil fuels, including LNG. Twenty years ago a bridge fuel may have made sense, but that too is living in the past.
HiloJulie - What if Range Rover invested a few hundred million into developing and making their monstrous beasts hydrogen powered, thus eliminating any greenhouse gas emission
Hydrogen isn't an energy source, only a carrier fuel. That is, unlike oil/wind/sunlight, you can't extract hydrogen from the environment, but have to make it using actual energy sources. This process is less efficient than just using the the energy directly instead of cracking water into H2 and O2. When fossil fuels are used to create that electricity, as is the case in almost all electrical grids, hydrogen is just an inefficient way to generate even more carbon emissions.
HiloJulie - As far as golf courses are concerned, imagine if someone suggested turning Pebble Beach into a massive “off grid” solar/wind powered mecca of affordable housing for low income people? Yeh – good luck trying that, we could probably see TMT built first! ... Right down that dead center middle of the denying far right wing and the blow up pipelines far left wing.
Ah the Middle Ground Fallacy - constant refrain of "enlightened" centrists. When business as usual is causing the 6th mass extinction, saying that we should do less to prevent it because changes may hurt some people's feelings and impede their extravagant entertainments, is a pretty timid and insufficient response. You may not be around for some of the worse outcomes in the near future, but many of us will be, and destroying wildlife habitat and pumping out aquifers so the idle rich can chase a ball around is nothing short of ecological insanity.
Perhaps try doing more to reduce your contributions to the situation, instead of being an apologist for the worse actors and pushing off on future generations to clean up the mess? It does make an actual difference and may improve how you're viewed by current and future generations.