Climate change - politics and activism

Applying the Dharma for the preservation of planet Earth and its inhabitants
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Posts: 1368
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:07 am
Location: Tropical Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate change - politics and activism

Post by Kim O'Hara » Fri Sep 27, 2019 10:56 pm

:goodpost:

:namaste:
Kim

Bundokji
Posts: 365
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:03 pm

Re: Climate change - politics and activism

Post by Bundokji » Sat Sep 28, 2019 12:47 pm

mikenz66 wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 10:25 pm
Well, I agree, but I think you may be confusing expert statements by scientists with political arguments. [Of course, the person making the political argument might be a scientist, just as they might be a businessperson or a lawyer, but in that context their primary role is "politician" or "political activist".]
Hello Mike,

There is utility in separating science from politics and activism in that it helps keep science as a disciplined approach to gain knowledge. However, in the world as i see it, this has given science a "religion-like-status". When data or the results of a certain experiment are revealed, the interpretations (or values) based on it becomes dogmatic due to the disciplined approach of collecting the data or constructing the experiment.

While the scientific approach itself appears to be objective, the intention behind constructing the experiment is not value free. If you agree that the question: "why the experiment was conducted in the first place" is a legitimate question, then one can see that science is not as value free as it appears to be.

Science is based on the idea that there are fixed laws or reality out there, and that if we align our perceptions with these laws, then we are in a state of harmony with the way things are. After few centuries of the scientific revolution, are we in harmony with the way things are?
I agree with the second half of the above paragraph, but not the second sentence. The extra rainfall is only part of the essential technical data. In some places 100mm is, literally, a drop in the bucket. In other places, with very low rainfalls, an extra 100mm would overload the tiny rivers and drainage systems. However, perhaps you meant that the "drainage experts" should be the ones to make the second determination, not the "rainfall experts", which I would agree with, of course!
If you agree that the issue should be referred to experts from different fields, then why climate change becomes a public issue where even kids become involved? This goes back to the point raised by Paul in a previous post which is the utility of such issue to the individual. If one says that the public are affected by the decisions made by experts hence their activism and involvement, then this goes to every other issue, so why the hype about climate change?

Few weeks ago, i listened to a podcast by Sam Harris hosting an expert in the field of "super bugs" and the discussion was based on how bacteria is developing resistance against our lines of defenses (antibiotics) and how pharmaceutical companies have no financial incentives to conduct research and developing new antibiotics, which led to a campaign between scientists and politicians to introduce laws and policies to solve this issue. According to the expert, this issue is not less of a threat than climate change, and yet, people and experts working on it without making a big fuss.

With a stretch of imagination, how many similar issues and threats people are working on in silence without scaremongering? which bring us back to the question: why the obsession and hype about climate change? whatever the answer might be, it would be based on some subjective values and agendas that is getting imposed on the public who mostly follow without much questioning mostly due to some psychological reasons.
I think a more nuanced criticism would be that scientists (or any other experts) should be careful to make clear what their expertise is, and what the limitations of the science are.

Unfortunately, doing this honestly tends to leave their statements open to misunderstanding and facile criticism:
"The experts say they are not certain, and their predictions have changed over the past few decades, therefore we should ignore what they say."

This is the issue that concerns me the most. The idea that non-experts are in a position to make judgements about the science. As you say, it is non-experts (politicians and public) who need to take the predictions and decide which course of action to take. Are the probabilities such that the consequences of not acting (on climate change or some other public health and safety issue) are worse than the costs of acting? That's the useful thing for the non-experts to be arguing about, since it involves much more than the basic science predictions - economics, social issues, defence issues, and so on...

Of course, I'm not saying that non-experts shouldn't ask difficult questions of scientists. That is highly appropriate! I'm talking about shrill and simplistic dismissals and distrust of whole fields of science by those who appear to have no clue about how science actually works.
Revealing how many times climate scientists had it wrong can be an over-simplification by non-experts, but it can also be providing more precise context in relation to the needed action by acknowledging uncertainty. Portraying politicians as "evil" or "careless" on the other hand can also be an oversimplification considering the competing demands of various stakeholders under their constituencies, and the costs associated with climate change policies. More generally, creating an atmosphere of distrust between people and decision makers and bringing kids to lecture politicians, while appeals to emotions, should not the way forward in my opinion.
I think this varies a lot. In modern times, in my country, and in other countries where I have had some first-hand experience of serious issues (such as in the USA and Australia) one will be given options and probabilities about such treatments, and support to make an informed decision (I've seen this firsthand). Also, remember that most doctors you encounter are not scientists. They don't do scientific research. They would be more accurately described as highly-skilled technicians.
The example i provided about doctors was more about the arrogance caused through feedback from others. In the hierarchy of worldly values, health is highly valued. Value being a source of fear, very few are willing to question the prognosis and treatment which feeds into creating more arrogance. From that perspective, activism does not have to be a structural human activity. An individual who takes responsibility over his own life might unwittingly cause more good than a mob who follow each other blindly over what they perceive as a "noble cause".
I'm not sure who the "they" is here. The practising climate scientists I know generally behave as you suggest they should. Of course, being human, they can get excited or confrontational at times, and can always be the victims of "sound bites" in the media. And, as I said above, they may be switching to a "political activist/politician" hat.
The sense of excitement in my opinion goes beyond politics and activism to a deluded sense of ownership over the world. I don't know if its only me, but i do have the feeling that the whole debate centers on attachments to that feeling, and that includes counting the number of species going extinct everyday. Not sure how many new species will emerge due to climate change and if anyone is counting them.
'Too much knowledge leads to scepticism. Early devotees are the likeliest apostates, as early sinners are senile saints.' – Will Durant.

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:20 pm
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Climate change - politics and activism

Post by mikenz66 » Sat Sep 28, 2019 9:21 pm

Hi Bundokji,
Bundokji wrote:
Sat Sep 28, 2019 12:47 pm
mikenz66 wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 10:25 pm
Well, I agree, but I think you may be confusing expert statements by scientists with political arguments. [Of course, the person making the political argument might be a scientist, just as they might be a businessperson or a lawyer, but in that context their primary role is "politician" or "political activist".]
Hello Mike,

There is utility in separating science from politics and activism in that it helps keep science as a disciplined approach to gain knowledge. However, in the world as i see it, this has given science a "religion-like-status". When data or the results of a certain experiment are revealed, the interpretations (or values) based on it becomes dogmatic due to the disciplined approach of collecting the data or constructing the experiment.
...
Thanks for the detailed discussion.

I don't think I have much to add, I feel that most of the points you raise have been covered. by my last post. I could elaborate on some, but I think it is best to just let your and my points stand on their own merits.

I will that much of what you, and others, are concerned about is not actually about science. They seem to arise from how predictions are interpreted by the public/politicians. Many (including many on this board) seem to misunderstand what science does, which is to take current data and models, make predictions, then test those predictions against more data. This means that the models and data are constantly changing (this progression is slightly oddly interpreted by some here as "failures").

It's not the people working in science who think that the models are infallible. And, as I said, decisions as to what to do with them involve all of us, since they have social, economic, defence, etc implications that are not addressed by the science. The problem I see is people outside science who see it as either an infallible edifice, or as some sort of elite conspiracy. What I feel they all need to do is to accept that there are some things that science can model very well, which allows us to engineer quite reliable technology (airplanes, computer chips, lasers, and so on), and some things where the predictions are much less certain (climate change, whether "dark energy" is needed to explain the observations of the expansion of the universe, and so on...).

Since the predictions we are working with (in climate change, disease control, and so on) are uncertain, all the people involved need to accept that, rather than either claiming certainly, or grasping lack of certainty as a reason to ignore the possible consequences.

The (scientific) world is uncertain. We have to get used to that and use the (inaccurate) models to make decisions. Don't waste time and effort proliferating about the inaccuracies ("failures") or guessing about motivations. Argue about the important things: What are the possible consequences? What are possible actions? What are the possible costs of the actions? What are the possible costs of inaction? Make a decision. Live with it. That's how the real world works.

:heart:
Mike

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Posts: 1368
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:07 am
Location: Tropical Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate change - politics and activism

Post by Kim O'Hara » Sat Sep 28, 2019 10:01 pm

:goodpost:

:namaste:
Kim

Cittasanto
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:44 pm

Re: Climate change - politics and activism

Post by Cittasanto » Tue Oct 01, 2019 7:11 am

SethRich wrote:
Wed Sep 25, 2019 5:58 am
Greetings,
....
Yet here we are.

Kind regards.

:candle:
Hi Paul,
I think I've lived through 4 climate disasters of biblical proportion. I'm certainly not an alarmist.
The trends we see through the research are being blown up out of proportion by people with an agenda.
I would narrow the utility of forecasting down to scientists and policymakers.
Certain trends we see need sorting for a couple of reasons. But options shouldn't be excluded because of current efficiency....
Kind regards

Cittasanto

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Posts: 1368
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:07 am
Location: Tropical Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate change - politics and activism

Post by Kim O'Hara » Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:54 am

Meanwhile, back in the world of politics and activism ...
New legislation aimed at tackling climate change means Scotland now has the most ambitious targets anywhere in the world, environment secretary Roseanna Cunningham has insisted.

Holyrood approved a cut in emissions of 75 per cent by 2030 - a new target tougher than the 70 per cent reduction originally proposed by Scottish ministers.

Campaigners welcomed the passing of the new legislation, which was approved by 113 votes to zero with six abstentions. ...

Tom Ballantine of Stop Climate Chaos Scotland said: "This bill sets a strong long-term target to reduce emissions to net-zero by 2045 and drive action in the crucial next decade. We were particularly pleased to see all parties coming together today to increase the 2030 target."

He said the increased target of 75 per cent was included at the last minute "thanks to extensive public pressure, particularly the incredible youth-led climate marches last week".

And while he stated campaigners should "feel rightly proud" of this, the legislation was not the end of the process.

"It's what comes next that will show whether Scotland is really serious about tackling this crisis," Mr Ballantine said.

"Urgent action must follow ...
:reading: https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/ ... -1-5010955

:twothumbs:
Kim

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Posts: 1368
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:07 am
Location: Tropical Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate change - politics and activism

Post by Kim O'Hara » Thu Oct 03, 2019 7:33 am

Not Just the Koch Brothers: New Drexel Study Reveals Funders Behind the Climate Change Denial Effort

A new study conducted by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert J. Brulle, PhD, exposes the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the powerful climate change countermovement. This study marks the first peer-reviewed, comprehensive analysis ever conducted of the sources of funding that maintain the denial effort.

Through an analysis of the financial structure of the organizations that constitute the core of the countermovement and their sources of monetary support, Brulle found that, while the largest and most consistent funders behind the countermovement are a number of well-known conservative foundations, the majority of donations are “dark money,” or concealed funding.

The data also indicates that Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, two of the largest supporters of climate science denial, have recently pulled back from publicly funding countermovement organizations. Coinciding with the decline in traceable funding, the amount of funding given to countermovement organizations through third party pass-through foundations like Donors Trust and Donors Capital, whose funders cannot be traced, has risen dramatically. ...
:reading: https://drexel.edu/now/archive/2013/Dec ... te-Change/

:jedi:
Kim

User avatar
Charbel
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 1:14 am

Re: Climate change - politics and activism

Post by Charbel » Thu Oct 03, 2019 8:46 am

By Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times - Sunday, September 29, 2019

'There is no climate emergency,' hundreds of scientists, engineers tell U.N.
Climate Intelligence Foundation calls for UN meeting with experts from both sides of debate

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... no-emerge/

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Posts: 1368
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:07 am
Location: Tropical Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate change - politics and activism

Post by Kim O'Hara » Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:56 am

Charbel wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 8:46 am
By Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times - Sunday, September 29, 2019

'There is no climate emergency,' hundreds of scientists, engineers tell U.N.
Climate Intelligence Foundation calls for UN meeting with experts from both sides of debate

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... no-emerge/
:rolleye:
Sigh.
Climate Intelligence Foundation[edit]
Berkhout founded the Netherlands-based organization Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL). Mid 2019 plans of CLINTEL and Berkhout were leaked showing that they were organizing a campaign against political commitments to net zero carbon emissions being made to law. The campaign features a number of academics and industry figures with ties to climate change denial groups, as well as members from oil and gas companies.[8] In late September 2019 the group produced an open-letter which stated that there was no climate emergency.[9]
:reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guus_Berkhout

Also, comments on https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f ... 13#p505346

:toilet:

:jedi:
Kim

User avatar
SethRich
Posts: 598
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:57 pm

Re: Climate change - politics and activism

Post by SethRich » Fri Oct 04, 2019 1:26 am

Greetings,



:?

:candle:
"He goes to hell, the one who asserts what didn’t take place" (Ud 4.8)
"Let us neither be perpetrators nor victims!" (DN26)

"Transition to greatness" (Donald J. Trump)

:candle: "...his name was Seth Rich..."

User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 315
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:30 pm
Location: US occupied Northern Mexico

Re: Climate change - politics and activism

Post by lyndon taylor » Fri Oct 04, 2019 2:15 am

is that you're best argument against climate change, I thought so!!
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk.

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/

User avatar
SethRich
Posts: 598
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:57 pm

Re: Climate change - politics and activism

Post by SethRich » Fri Oct 04, 2019 3:25 am

Greetings Lyndon,
lyndon taylor wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 2:15 am
is that you're [sic] best argument against climate change, I thought so!!
Had you been able to comprehend what has been said in this topic to date, you would have discerned that I'm neither "for" nor "against" "climate change".

Secondly, this topic is about politics and activism that relate to climate change... all of which was addressed in that brief video.

Please try harder.

Kind regards.

:candle:
Last edited by SethRich on Fri Oct 04, 2019 3:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
"He goes to hell, the one who asserts what didn’t take place" (Ud 4.8)
"Let us neither be perpetrators nor victims!" (DN26)

"Transition to greatness" (Donald J. Trump)

:candle: "...his name was Seth Rich..."

User avatar
fwiw
Posts: 1172
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:06 pm

Re: Climate change - politics and activism

Post by fwiw » Fri Oct 04, 2019 3:30 am

That looks like a bad joke this lady tried to pull on AOC. I don't think it should be taken seriously. AOC's reaction was actually proportionate.

That being said, some say human population in the future will stabilize on its own. But some religious factions seem to count on the opposite to overtake the world. If human population growth doesn't curb, eventually either a lot of people are going to die in a catastrophic event or states will start regulating their population like China, Indonesia and some other island nations around the world who have seen the problem arising much sooner than the others.

Personally I think the greatest thing I can do to counteract the impact of humans on nature is to not have children.
... just my opinion, for what it's worth

User avatar
SethRich
Posts: 598
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:57 pm

Re: Climate change - politics and activism

Post by SethRich » Fri Oct 04, 2019 3:38 am

Greetings,
fwiw wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 3:30 am
AOC's reaction was actually proportionate.
I agree with this.

Either it was a plant, and she reacted in a dignified manner to the interruption, or it was a mentally ill woman, whom she made a special effort to comfort, and not deride.

However, from a more serious perspective, the fact that Poe's Law is in play here does highlight that those already prone to anxiety, derangement and mental illness will find much in the realm of climate activism to feed their existing neuroses.

Possibly she had read this...?

Swedish scientist advocates eating humans to combat climate change

Kind regards.

:candle:
"He goes to hell, the one who asserts what didn’t take place" (Ud 4.8)
"Let us neither be perpetrators nor victims!" (DN26)

"Transition to greatness" (Donald J. Trump)

:candle: "...his name was Seth Rich..."

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Posts: 1368
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:07 am
Location: Tropical Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate change - politics and activism

Post by Kim O'Hara » Fri Oct 04, 2019 10:20 am

Things are about to get more interesting on the US legal front -
Oil Companies Sued by Baltimore Face Discovery in State Court

A federal appellate judge ruled that Baltimore’s climate liability suit will proceed in state court, rejecting a motion by more than two dozen fossil fuel defendants to halt the suit while they try to convince the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that the case belongs in federal court.

In an order issued Tuesday, Judge James A. Wynn, Jr., refused to halt the case pending appeal of an earlier federal court decision sending the case back to state court. Chief Judge Roger L. Gregory and Judge Albert Diaz concurred with Wynn’s decision.

“That means discovery should be able to proceed in state court unless the U.S. Supreme Court steps into intervene, a highly unlikely outcome,” said Ann Carlson, co-director of the UCLA School of Law’s Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment in a blog post.

“The process of discovery will be long and drawn out and oil companies will put up every obstacle imaginable in an attempt to avoid answering questions along the way,” said Carlson, who has provided pro-bono consulting for Baltimore and other municipalities. “But the cases have reached a new stage that no other climate change nuisance case has. Things are about to get interesting.” ...
https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/10/02/o ... tate-court

:jedi:
Kim

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Posts: 1368
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:07 am
Location: Tropical Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate change - politics and activism

Post by Kim O'Hara » Sat Oct 05, 2019 6:24 am

Those loony lefties running the Reserve Bank are scaremongering again ...
Reserve Bank warns climate change posing increasing risk to financial stability

Australia’s central bank has delivered a clear warning that climate change is exposing financial institutions and the financial system more broadly to risks that will rise over time if action isn’t taken.

The RBA’s financial stability review, released Friday, concluded that while climate change is not yet a significant threat to financial stability in Australia, it is becoming increasingly important for investors and institutions to actively manage carbon risk.

The bank notes Australian insurers are the most directly exposed to the physical impacts of climate change, and points out that inflation-adjusted insurance claims for natural disasters this decade are more than twice what they were in the previous 10 years. It notes “this impact is likely to grow over time”. ...

t says Australian financial institutions that have exposure to carbon-intensive industries – such as power generation and mining, or to energy-intensive firms – “will also be exposed to transition risk”.

“Transition risk will be greatest for banks that lend to firms in carbon-intensive industries and to individuals or businesses that are reliant on these firms,” the bank said.

“Other financial institutions investing in carbon-intensive industries, such as superannuation and investment funds, are also exposed to the risk that climate change will diminish the value of their investments. ...
:reading: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... -stability

:thinking:
Kim

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Posts: 1368
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:07 am
Location: Tropical Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate change - politics and activism

Post by Kim O'Hara » Sat Oct 19, 2019 12:51 pm

Big Gas Running Same Ol’ Misinformation Playbook To Paint Gas as Climate Friendly

A few weeks ago we talked about the new advertisements the American Petroleum Institute is running that claim natural gas is a climate solution, and how the ads show fossil fuel companies are shifting away from outright denial. While you don’t need us to tell you that API is full of hot air, considering this keeps coming up, and Trump is speaking at a natural gas event next week, we thought we’d dive into the substance of the issue.

Or, well, we’d dive into a great fact-check of the ads by Justin Mikulka published this week at DeSmog. First, API claims that the US is reducing emissions thanks to natural gas. We know this isn’t true because the US isn’t reducing emissions at all--we saw a 3.4 percent rise in 2018. Mikulka points out that API is likely referencing power sector emission specifically, but even so, while emissions from that sector are down from their high in 2005, they rose nearly 2 percent in 2018.

Plus, it's not fair for natural gas to claim full responsibility for this decline in emissions, considering wind and solar have also been replacing coal. As we pointed out back in February of 2018, research showed that renewables and gas were responsible for equal amounts of emission reductions up through 2013. Since then, renewables have only continued to fall in price and rise in installations. It’s misleading, at best, for the gas industry to claim sole responsibility for the decrease in energy industry emissions.

Not that we should be surprised. While we would like to spend time celebrating that API has been forced to accept the reality of climate change, as Mikulka put it, API “looks to be employing the same misinformation playbook that it used to sow doubt about the well-supported science of climate change and the resulting action science demands.” ...
:reading: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/1 ... e-Friendly

:coffee:
Kim

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Posts: 1368
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:07 am
Location: Tropical Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate change - politics and activism

Post by Kim O'Hara » Tue Nov 05, 2019 3:49 am

Donald Trump is moving to formally exit the Paris climate agreement, making the United States the only country in the world that will not participate in the pact, as global temperatures are set to rise 3C and worsening extreme weather will drive millions into poverty.

The paperwork sent by the US government to withdraw begins a one-year process for exiting the deal agreed to at the UN climate change conference in Paris in 2015. The Trump administration will not be able to finalize its exit until a day after the presidential election in November 2020.
:reading: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... -agreement

This is loony and disastrous and logically indefensible.

:rolleye: :toilet: :jawdrop:

:guns:
Kim

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Posts: 1368
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:07 am
Location: Tropical Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate change - politics and activism

Post by Kim O'Hara » Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:38 pm

A good overview of important developments -
As New York Takes Exxon to Court, Big Oil’s Strategy Against Climate Lawsuits Is Slowly Unveiled

Last week, in a historic first, the former CEO of a major oil company took the witness stand in a New York City courtroom and spent four hours defending his company against charges that it misled investors about the potential impact of global warming on its viability as a business.

Rex Tillerson, who led ExxonMobil from 2006 until the end of 2016 when he became U.S. secretary of state, was grilled by an attorney for the New York State attorney general for allegedly participating in a “longstanding fraudulent scheme” by Exxon to fool investors. More specifically, the company is charged with exaggerating the stringency of its financial safeguards in pricing risks from regulations restricting greenhouse gas emissions, according to the complaint filed last year in New York state court.

But Tillerson's appearance was just one of several recent watershed moments for efforts to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for its dominant role in causing climate change.

These included a former Exxon scientist giving first-ever oil industry whistleblower testimony before Congress, a Senate hearing on how dark money blocks climate change action, the Supreme Court allowing three major climate liability suits to proceed, Maui and Honolulu announcing they will sue the fossil fuel industry, and, perhaps most significant, the Massachusetts attorney general filing suit against Exxon. ...

On the same day as the House Oversight subcommittee hearing, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey filed suit against Exxon, launching a much broader attack on its alleged climate-related wrongdoing than the New York action, which was brought under the state's potent Martin Act and focuses on fraud against investors.

During the congressional hearing, the subcommittee chairman Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin noted that the industry's tactics have changed over a period of decades. Many climate science deniers no longer claim global warming isn't happening, but question the human contribution, or point to the failure of giant emitters like China and India to curb their emissions, claiming that any progress in the U.S. is futile.

Although Massachusetts is taking aim at ExxonMobil for spending millions through at least 2009 to directly fund “fringe groups” challenging the scientific consensus on climate, Attorney General Healey's lawsuit is the first to dedicate a separate section to these new, more indirect tactics, noting that the fossil fuel industry now goes to great lengths to avoid the appearance of funding denial or obstructing progress. ...
:reading: https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/11/08/n ... e-lawsuits

I reckon that anyone with money in coal or oil ought to be getting it out asap, before they lose the lot.
Also as a way of sending a signal that coal and oil are dying fast, and as a way of helping kill off the fossils even faster by sending their share price down.

:jedi:
Kim

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Posts: 1368
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:07 am
Location: Tropical Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate change - politics and activism

Post by Kim O'Hara » Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:56 pm

Kim O'Hara wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:38 pm
I reckon that anyone with money in coal or oil ought to be getting it out asap, before they lose the lot.
Also as a way of sending a signal that coal and oil are dying fast, and as a way of helping kill off the fossils even faster by sending their share price down.

:jedi:
Kim
Here's the other big reason for getting your money out -
The cost of wind and solar continue to decline and are now at the point where they beat, or at least match, even the marginal costs of coal-fired generation and nuclear power, according to the 13th and latest edition of Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis, one of the most highly regarded assessments in the world.

The new Lazard report puts the unsubsidised levellised cost of energy (LCOE) of large scale wind and solar at a fraction of the cost of new coal or nuclear generators, even if the cost of decommissioning or the ongoing maintenance for nuclear is excluded.

Wind is priced at a global average of $US28-$US54/MWh ($A40-$A78/MWh), while solar is put at a range of $US32-$US42/MWh ($A46-$A60/MWh) depending on whether single axis tracking is used.

This compares to coal’s global range of $US66-$US152/MWh ($A96-$A220/MWh) and nuclear’s estimate of $US118-$US192/MWh ($A171-$A278/MWh).

Wind and solar have been beating coal and nuclear on costs for a few years now, but Lazard points out that both wind and solar are now matching both coal and nuclear on even the “marginal” cost of generation, which excludes, for instance, the huge capital cost of nuclear plants. For coal this “marginal” is put at $US33/MWh, and for nuclear $US29/MWh.

The cost of solar, Lazard notes, has fallen 89 per cent over the past decade, and is still falling at an average rate of 13 per cent a year. The more mature wind technology has fallen 70 per cent over the same period of time, and is still falling at around 7 per cent.

The two technologies also beat gas on various measures. Solar is far cheaper than peaking gas, and wind beats out the more conventional combined cycle gas. Australia, it notes, has amongst the world’s cheapest wind and solar costs of the markets it has analysed.

The Lazard findings are significant and timely because, like their previous editions and also the CSIRO-AEMO GenCost report of 2018, it shows that wind and solar are clearly cheaper than coal and nuclear by several factors....

Lazard has also released its latest and fifth version of its Levellised Cost of Storage report, which notes continuing declines in the of lithium-ion batteries,

It analyses a range of different scenarios and uses for battery storage, both in wholesale markets and behind the meter. For large-scale solar and lithium-ion batteries, it puts the cost of solar plus four-hour storage at $US102-$139/MWh ($A147-$A200/MWh).

The significance of this is that it beats the cost of peaking gas – $US150-$US199/MWh ($A217/MWh-$A288/MWh) and explains why so many utilities in the US, for instance, are using this combination rather than peaking gas plants. ...

Its report does not look into pumped hydro, which will be the likely storage of choice for longer durations, along with hydrogen further down the track. ...
https://reneweconomy.com.au/wind-and-so ... port-52635

:twothumbs:
Kim

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests