Hawaii Decarbonization Settlement 2045

[TomK]

Not that I am for the use of fossil fuel. At this point I think we should quit the stuff immediately. Literally go without, cold turkey.. walk. Otherwise we can all drive the planet into hell.

And just think.. buy a Tesla and you're financing the reawakening of the Third Reich. 

Ain't life grand!

Well, perhaps we should consider reality, which means we won't quit fossil fuels immediately. I suspect a reasonable person would agree that's unlikely. On the other hand, we have a few nations capable of doing the same thing without our agreement. Three or four large nuclear explosions in low earth orbit should do it ( I haven't done the math, but it's a minute percentage of the world's nuclear arsenal, so even a couple more makes no difference).

On the other hand, is doing this an appropriate step in stopping the reawakening of the Third Reich?

One wonders. I haven't noticed any nazis here, but maybe they are just offshore in their U-boats?

[HiloJulie]

Fossil fuels will not and should not disappear in the next 50+ years. They should be our primary source until we can transition to more practical options like Nuclear and Hydrogen. I have an off-grid property running on solar, as that is the best option at the moment, but solar on current battery chemistries are not the best for our society and the environment.  You will see Tesla make a shift at some point in the near future.  We cannot support current mining practices and future disposal of current solar panels and batteries, no matter what they pitch on future recycling of these materials, its BS!  There are better technologies that will replace the current options and the need to recycle the megatons of our current solar waste will make no sense.  Until that time fossil fuels make far greater sense until we can transition to a lower natural resource input and lower waste output source.

I agree. I don't think it's even feasible to think otherwise.

However, that being said, the technologies on batteries, lithium mining etc. are changing every day. Just like nuclear waste. What is/was shipped via rail to be put into tombs in the dessert in Nevada today is a thimble full compared to a train car full in 1970. 

Imagine the engineer who invented the 8-track tape player suddenly being beamed into 2024 and handed an iPhone with 20 billion songs on it that can be played at a click. I'd say he would be left catatonic at the least.

Or what if we could beam Orville Wright into the cockpit of a 787? His jaw would drop so far it would break.

Recyling solar and batteries are again in their infancy stage. Where they will be in 25 - 30 years from now - who knows, nor can predict?

But to just deny deny deny what's happening with the climate - which now is predictable - is far far worse.

[TomK]

Fossil fuels will not and should not disappear in the next 50+ years. They should be our primary source until we can transition to more practical options like Nuclear and Hydrogen. I have an off-grid property running on solar, as that is the best option at the moment, but solar on current battery chemistries are not the best for our society and the environment.  You will see Tesla make a shift at some point in the near future.  We cannot support current mining practices and future disposal of current solar panels and batteries, no matter what they pitch on future recycling of these materials, its BS!  There are better technologies that will replace the current options and the need to recycle the megatons of our current solar waste will make no sense.  Until that time fossil fuels make far greater sense until we can transition to a lower natural resource input and lower waste output source.

Well, that's your opinion, and you are welcome to it. What concerns me about your argument is the continuing contribution of greenhouse gases for the next 50+ years. We're already seeing the effects of climate change, and we know that even if we could stop emitting CO2 or CH4 right now, it would take decades for the Earth to recover. Now you want to make things even worse by continuing to use fossil fuels for several decades. Perhaps in 50 years, we'll have fusion and all sorts of things we don't have now, but it'll be a very different world to the one you or I grew up in.

[Punatang]

Putting the Green back in greenwashing.

https://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/202...te-change/

[terracore]

The climate has never stopped changing.  That has never been disputed.  The question is, to what role do humans play in this, and what is a reasonable strategy to mitigate it?  There's 50 years of documented climate hoaxes and they show no sign of stopping with those.

The biggest problem is that this can only be addressed on a global scale.  Western politicians have so far only proposed more taxes, counter-productive regulation, and wealth redistribution as their "solution".  My favorite EPA rule was when they banned gas cans that actually performed the function they were invented to do, and forced us to use ones that spill gas everywhere instead.  Now there are "after market" can modification kits people are buying to make the gas cans work again, and the shit nozzles the govt forced on us are going into landfills.  The government needs to stay away from my gas hole.

Example- US air pollution from 1970 to 2022:

Overall Emissions Reduction: Between 1970 and 2022, emissions of the six key pollutants—particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO), and lead (Pb)—dropped by 78% (EPA GISpub) (US EPA). This occurred alongside economic growth, with the U.S. GDP increasing by 304% during the same period (US EPA).

Specific Pollutant Trends:

Carbon Monoxide (CO): CO emissions fell by 88% from 1980 to 2022. This reduction is attributed to cleaner vehicle technologies and regulations (US EPA) (US EPA).

Lead (Pb): Lead emissions have decreased by 99% from 1980 levels due to the phase-out of leaded gasoline and stricter emissions controls on industrial sources (US EPA) (US EPA).

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2): Annual NO2 concentrations dropped by 60% from 1990 to 2022, reflecting reductions in emissions from vehicles and industrial sources (US EPA).

Ozone (O3): Ozone levels decreased by 22% from 1990 to 2022. Despite this progress, ozone remains a challenge due to its formation from other pollutants under sunlight (US EPA).

Particulate Matter (PM2.5 and PM10): PM2.5 concentrations saw a 42% reduction from 2000 to 2022. PM10 levels dropped by 34% over the same period (US EPA).

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2): SO2 levels decreased by 94% from 1980 to 2022, primarily due to regulations on power plants and industrial emissions (US EPA) (US EPA).


The USA is already on a trend of cleaning up our act.  A lot of this comes from more fossil fuel exploration, not less.  A lot of the pollution reduction has been from switching to natural gas.  We have the ability to share with the rest of the world this clean energy, but "fossil fuels bad" so they are firing up more coal plants in the rest of the world.   

So how do we move forward, obviously, we need to stop using plastic straws and eating beef!  China of course laughed at that, said "Hold my tea" and constructed several hundred new coal plants in the last few years, adding to the 1,000 they already had.

Remember all that plastic recycling "we" did, and it turned out we were just shipping it to China and most of it got dumped into their rivers which eventually put it all into the ocean?  This is perfect example of a good idea getting ahead of our technology to fulfill it.  Most of the "western" ideas about climate change are virtue signaling and push the pollution and strip mines to countries that are just far enough away we can pretend it doesn't exist.  Any ideas the politicians push forth are rooted in corruption.

[HiloJulie]

I think a good comparison of shifting energy from fossil fuel to other renewable sources that don’t produce greenhouse gases or significantly reduce greenhouse gases would be the seatbelt evolution. 

Cars made up to the mid 1950’s had no seatbelts. Then some car manufacturers started to offer seatbelts as an option. Then, in 1968, congress mandated various safety standards in automobiles, with the main feature being seatbelts for all occupants front and back. 

I remember as a little kid, my “child seat” and “seatbelt” was my dads arm flung in front of me whenever he had to stop suddenly. 

Then, in the mid 1980’s starting in some cities, then some states and then finally by the federal government MANDATORY seatbelt laws were passed. 

Sure enough, some felt it was the end of Americans freedom. Nice little news clip from 1984. Pay attention to Richard Paukner, from the Coalition Againt Seatbelt Laws. I’m wondering how his job is working out for him today?



Despite the statistical proof that seatbelts save lives, this was the mantra of the day.

Todays new cars have computer controlled seatbelts that automatically tighten when sudden braking force is detected. Plus most new cars have up 20 airbags that inflate during collision. 

Where we are today with alternative energy on the timeline of history is the equivalent of car manufacturers offering seatbelts as an option in 1955. That was 70 years ago. 

Where will we be in 70 years with ANY type of energy?  

That’s what todays kids and then their kids will have to figure out. 

How many of you today drive your car and don’t wear your seatbelt?

[MyManao]

The climate..

I find your post disingenuous. You seem to be selective in the 'trends' you site, and don't provide a link to your source, and overall seem to be suggesting you don't believe in science unless it suits your narrative. CO2 is the main driver of the changes happening now in the climate and you don't even list it..

From.. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/un...on-dioxide



Based on the annual report from NOAA’s Global Monitoring Lab, global average atmospheric carbon dioxide was 419.3 parts per million (“ppm” for short) in 2023, setting a new record high. The increase between 2022 and 2023 was 2.8 ppm—the 12th year in a row where the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased by more than 2 ppm. At Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, where the modern carbon dioxide record began in 1958, the annual average carbon dioxide in 2023 was 421.08.

The rest of the article is at the link above.

[SSGSurf]

Fossil fuels will not and should not disappear in the next 50+ years. They should be our primary source until we can transition to more practical options like Nuclear and Hydrogen. I have an off-grid property running on solar, as that is the best option at the moment, but solar on current battery chemistries are not the best for our society and the environment.  You will see Tesla make a shift at some point in the near future.  We cannot support current mining practices and future disposal of current solar panels and batteries, no matter what they pitch on future recycling of these materials, its BS!  There are better technologies that will replace the current options and the need to recycle the megatons of our current solar waste will make no sense.  Until that time fossil fuels make far greater sense until we can transition to a lower natural resource input and lower waste output source.

I agree. I don't think it's even feasible to think otherwise.

However, that being said, the technologies on batteries, lithium mining etc. are changing every day. Just like nuclear waste. What is/was shipped via rail to be put into tombs in the dessert in Nevada today is a thimble full compared to a train car full in 1970. 

Imagine the engineer who invented the 8-track tape player suddenly being beamed into 2024 and handed an iPhone with 20 billion songs on it that can be played at a click. I'd say he would be left catatonic at the least.

Or what if we could beam Orville Wright into the cockpit of a 787? His jaw would drop so far it would break.

Recyling solar and batteries are again in their infancy stage. Where they will be in 25 - 30 years from now - who knows, nor can predict?

But to just deny deny deny what's happening with the climate - which now is predictable - is far far worse.

Agreed that recycling is still very, very new, and methods and automation will need to grow exponentially, and it will.  The problem that I project is that the need for those raw materials will not be as valuable when alternative energy and storage sources are so readily available, and the megatons of waste we create are less profitable or feasible to recycle, and they become mountains in the desert.  Let's face it: Nuclear can easily replace all domestic power needs today if we choose to do it.  For vehicles, hydrogen is about less than 10 years out of the mainstream.  If we are being honest with ourselves, the only reason it isn't further along is due to the massive worldwide oil cabal.  

Fossil fuels will not and should not disappear in the next 50+ years. They should be our primary source until we can transition to more practical options like Nuclear and Hydrogen. I have an off-grid property running on solar, as that is the best option at the moment, but solar on current battery chemistries are not the best for our society and the environment.  You will see Tesla make a shift at some point in the near future.  We cannot support current mining practices and future disposal of current solar panels and batteries, no matter what they pitch on future recycling of these materials, its BS!  There are better technologies that will replace the current options and the need to recycle the megatons of our current solar waste will make no sense.  Until that time fossil fuels make far greater sense until we can transition to a lower natural resource input and lower waste output source.

Well, that's your opinion, and you are welcome to it. What concerns me about your argument is the continuing contribution of greenhouse gases for the next 50+ years. We're already seeing the effects of climate change, and we know that even if we could stop emitting CO2 or CH4 right now, it would take decades for the Earth to recover. Now you want to make things even worse by continuing to use fossil fuels for several decades. Perhaps in 50 years, we'll have fusion and all sorts of things we don't have now, but it'll be a very different world to the one you or I grew up in.

Tom, a comprehensive plan of 50 years would show a marked decrease in fossil emissions in short order if done correctly, but there are instances where I still see fossil fuels in the picture even in 50 years. 

Quite frankly, we could be doing it today or within 10 years or less, but as I mentioned in my reply to Julie, there are people and mega-corporate entities whose best interest aligns with oil that have a stranglehold on markets, politicians, and countries. The next cash cow is solar and alternative energy, and that cow will be milked to the last drop, as I believe EVs are destined to fail.  Nuclear and Hydrogen can fix a lot of things right now.  Why aren't they?  Because a lot of powerful people stand to lose a lot of money.

That said, our current fossil fuel technology is improving at scrubbing and emissions. Is it ideal, no, but it should be part of a holistic transitional plan. We also need to consider that China alone doubles the US emissions. Then look at the next 10 offenders. You sure as hell aren't going to easily get them to change their ways unless we can provide clear cost-saving solutions, and it isn't likely to get them to change in the next 25 years.

Finally, I will acknowledge that humans and cows and other ruminants (even the two-leggers) contribute to greenhouse emissions, but I take the stance that the change in the climate is not as adversely affected by the two, and four-legged inhabitants of Earth, as opposed to a natural cycle.  People who share in and benefit from hundreds of billion-dollar industries around climate change and green energy when you combine all of the vested interests and NGOs.  It is a huge pie that needs to be devoured, and in order to do so, the propaganda budgets are immense to keep everyone believing that the sky is falling right up until the next big thing comes along, and they can pivot in order to make more money off of everyone.  The earth/mother nature is going to shake humans off her back like she has done before, and there will be massive oceans and forests, replaced by arid deserts, and the cycle will continue until the sun burns out and this rock becomes a big ball of ice.

I know the rebuttal to my statement above, and I humbly disagree in advance. 

[terracore]

"I find your post disingenuous. You seem to be selective in the 'trends' you site"

So then you post a mere 800,000 years worth of data? The co2 500 million years ago was 9000 ppm.

And if you look at the warming data over millions of years, it can be argued that rising temperatures cause co2 to increase, not the other way around. In the 1970's the "science was settled", and they told us we'd be in an ice age right now. I didn't panic then, and I'm not going to panic now. I'm certainly not sending any plastic to China.

https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-b...ry-of-co2/

[ironyak]

HiloJulie - Where will we be in 70 years with ANY type of energy?
SSGSurf - Fossil fuels will not and should not disappear in the next 50+ years. They should be our primary source until we can transition to more practical options like Nuclear and Hydrogen.

Unfortunately, these ideas fall into the trap of techno-hopium, the belief that somehow there will be a technological solution in the future that (somewhat conveniently) allows us to continue to live our high energy consumption lifestyles in the meantime. Much like climate change denial (thanks as always to terracore for taking on that highly-untenable position as usual), techno-hopium serves to avoid facing the reality that, as MyManoa already said, what is needed is the rapid decarbonization of all human activities in order to limit the costs and risks related to a rapidly changing climate. If this relationship is unclear, review the insurance threads as this trend has only begun - actuaries know the score and are bracing for widespread impacts.

https://climateactiontracker.org/global/temperatures/
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/

While I know many of you are preparing to pull a "so long and thanks for all the fish" on those of us sticking around, perhaps you all might finally acknowledge what you've been told for 50+ years? That it's not just Hawaii that is unsustainable (I'd guess that where you're at now kalakoa isn't doing any better and likely fracking its way to freedom, but feel free to correct me), but this entire fossil-fueled extravaganza of numerous airflights, F150s trucks, smash burgers, and repeated Jevon's paradox-plagued beliefs that more efficiency will reduce overall consumption? It's long overdue, but the party is ending, could you all do whatever you can to stop advocating and practicing these choices that keep adding to the mess and maybe try picking up a bit on your way out? The kids would appreciate it!