HiloJulie - Maybe you being “slow on the uptake” does not allow you to see that.
While I may have missed you discussing your contributions outside of driving an EV & adding solar, much of what I've seen is you post is about flying to Honolulu to hang out with friends and excitement over the Boeing 787. As you aren't a climate change denier, I honesty have to ask how you can both acknowledge the damages from climate change and yet celebrate more and even larger fossil-fuel powered transportation? It would seem the cognitive dissonance would be overwhelming, so I am curious how you manage to reconcile those ideas and actions.
Punatang - I do hope that a solution the Gov is checking into and that my old friend who is the climate Tzar for the state has advocated for decades is going to help but you, who I don't know from Adam, have given me some doubt.
Well the next time you talk to your friend the "climate tzar" you can blow their mind by asking about the problem of methane slip and whether the current assessment underway takes into account the impact of total emissions of LNG/methane from extraction to combustion. Ignoring these contributions to climate change is just trying to make methane look good compared to bunker fuels, while ignoring how bad methane is compared to renewables.
Punatang - That's the problem with all of this settled science flying around, no one really knows. There are simply too many variables yet undiscovered. You kind of demonstrate that yourself by qualifying your statements with "it can be" and "when compared to renewables".
Not sure where this assertion of "no one really knows" comes from. "Is methane better than bunker fuels?" depends on how it's being used, how much is leaking, and to question why it's only being compared to bunker fuels and not other energy sources. Is a poke to the eye better than a kick in the crotch? Well, is there a sharp stick or steel-toed boots involved? How swiftly are each moving? So many unknown variables, but maybe there are other approaches, like recognizing both suck regardless and picking neither?
Qualifying statements are made to pin down precisely what is being said. While this may sound like uncertainty to the lay person, it's just the linguistical precision commonly used in scientific discourse to avoid overstating a claim that the evidence does not support. As HiloJulie's old quote used to note an educated populace is critical to a functioning democracy so hopefully some of the links provided help bring people up to speed on the science and avoid the merchants still using the old playbook to peddle doubt: “Doubt is our product since it is the best way of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” British American Tobacco memo from 1969.
Punatang - Still yet, once us lead addled polluters are gone, the kids are still going to have to commit to the things I mentioned that originally set you off, or their kids will want to off them too.
That's the whole point of decarbonization is so that people can have the same conveniences like driving and flying, without causing the damages by burning fossil fuels in the process. It's not that walking or biking is inherently morally superior - if people walked everywhere burning torches filled with bunker fuel that would still be damaging. Removing fossil fuels from the activity allows for it to be far less harmful, but if the activity can't be done without fossil fuels, then perhaps curtailing or forgoing it entirely is the best choice.
Punatang - the kids failure to carry out inter-generational justice immediately if not sooner is itself a crime against the remainder of humanity, both born and unborn, and Mother Earth.
Well, like I said, they seem to be pretty tuned into issues including the difficulties of the problems, such as the systemic constraints that limit an individual's choices. That said, if I was to blithely go about creating pollution that was harming their health and ecosystems, and I didn't stop after years, decades even, of warnings and pleadings, and yet there was no legal recourse, and nowhere to run to, wouldn't they be justified in defending themselves and going all "Children of the Lilikoi"?
While I may have missed you discussing your contributions outside of driving an EV & adding solar, much of what I've seen is you post is about flying to Honolulu to hang out with friends and excitement over the Boeing 787. As you aren't a climate change denier, I honesty have to ask how you can both acknowledge the damages from climate change and yet celebrate more and even larger fossil-fuel powered transportation? It would seem the cognitive dissonance would be overwhelming, so I am curious how you manage to reconcile those ideas and actions.
Punatang - I do hope that a solution the Gov is checking into and that my old friend who is the climate Tzar for the state has advocated for decades is going to help but you, who I don't know from Adam, have given me some doubt.
Well the next time you talk to your friend the "climate tzar" you can blow their mind by asking about the problem of methane slip and whether the current assessment underway takes into account the impact of total emissions of LNG/methane from extraction to combustion. Ignoring these contributions to climate change is just trying to make methane look good compared to bunker fuels, while ignoring how bad methane is compared to renewables.
Punatang - That's the problem with all of this settled science flying around, no one really knows. There are simply too many variables yet undiscovered. You kind of demonstrate that yourself by qualifying your statements with "it can be" and "when compared to renewables".
Not sure where this assertion of "no one really knows" comes from. "Is methane better than bunker fuels?" depends on how it's being used, how much is leaking, and to question why it's only being compared to bunker fuels and not other energy sources. Is a poke to the eye better than a kick in the crotch? Well, is there a sharp stick or steel-toed boots involved? How swiftly are each moving? So many unknown variables, but maybe there are other approaches, like recognizing both suck regardless and picking neither?
Qualifying statements are made to pin down precisely what is being said. While this may sound like uncertainty to the lay person, it's just the linguistical precision commonly used in scientific discourse to avoid overstating a claim that the evidence does not support. As HiloJulie's old quote used to note an educated populace is critical to a functioning democracy so hopefully some of the links provided help bring people up to speed on the science and avoid the merchants still using the old playbook to peddle doubt: “Doubt is our product since it is the best way of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” British American Tobacco memo from 1969.
Punatang - Still yet, once us lead addled polluters are gone, the kids are still going to have to commit to the things I mentioned that originally set you off, or their kids will want to off them too.
That's the whole point of decarbonization is so that people can have the same conveniences like driving and flying, without causing the damages by burning fossil fuels in the process. It's not that walking or biking is inherently morally superior - if people walked everywhere burning torches filled with bunker fuel that would still be damaging. Removing fossil fuels from the activity allows for it to be far less harmful, but if the activity can't be done without fossil fuels, then perhaps curtailing or forgoing it entirely is the best choice.
Punatang - the kids failure to carry out inter-generational justice immediately if not sooner is itself a crime against the remainder of humanity, both born and unborn, and Mother Earth.
Well, like I said, they seem to be pretty tuned into issues including the difficulties of the problems, such as the systemic constraints that limit an individual's choices. That said, if I was to blithely go about creating pollution that was harming their health and ecosystems, and I didn't stop after years, decades even, of warnings and pleadings, and yet there was no legal recourse, and nowhere to run to, wouldn't they be justified in defending themselves and going all "Children of the Lilikoi"?