Open Thread And Climate Cartoon Of The Week

Posted on

"Open Thread And Climate Cartoon Of The Week"

A cyber-penny for you thoughts.

It’s a Little Late for That…

072312.jpg

By Mike Luckovich, From the Cartoonist Group.

Tags:

« »

31 Responses to Open Thread And Climate Cartoon Of The Week

  1. Robert Callaghan says:

    If green energy creates lots of jobs, then what good is it when those employed go out to buy homes, computers, cars etc.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-zeller-jr/ozzie-zehner-green-illusions_b_1710382.html

    • Tim says:

      A commenter at HuffPo gave some pretty telling remarks regarding the book you linked to:

      As someone who teaches a graduate physics class in renewable energy I am very puzzled as to why Zehner has so badly misunderstood the National Academy study on which he bases his claims.

      For instance, the study does not claim that electric vehicles are more environmentally damaging than conventional gasoline cars. You can only reach that conclusion if:
      1) You ignore the effects of climate change. In other words, you assume CO2 emissions are free and cause no climate damage.
      2) You also assume the electricity to power the electric vehicle comes mostly from coal plants. This is because coal plants are incredibly polluting and much of the damage assigned to the electric vehicle is actually pollution from the coal plant. If you choose wind, solar, hydro or even natural gas then its a very different story. The report assumes most electricity will be produced from coal because if we stick to business as usual that is what will happen in the US. Of course, if you happen to be in state where you can choose to buy electricity from a renewable source then your electric vehicle can be very clean.

      Of course, it takes a bit of looking through tables and appendices to pull out the numbers from the National Academy report, but when you add the climate change costs and assume the electric vehicle is power by a renewable source then it turns out that the electric vehicle has 40% less environmental damage than the gasoline vehicle.

    • Tim says:

      I would add that if HuffPo has accurately described Zehner’s book, Zehner has recycled “boomerang effect” arguments that have been debunked several times on this blog.

      • Robert Callaghan says:

        I repeat, if green energy is such a big employer, and the employees go buy homes, cars, computers etc. – what exactly do we gain?

        • quentinp says:

          You can’t really be asking that question? (Is this what talk radio is coming up with?) What do – how you earn money and what you spend it on – have to do with each other? You would have to be advocating so many illogical things for this to make sense that I can’t even list them.

          Some more ideas:
          - If growing your own vegetables means that you buy less produce at the store isn’t this bad for the everyone’s health?
          - If speeding gets you there faster then don’t you have less time to have an accident?
          - If a heart attack can cause a car crash then car crashes can’t cause heart attacks.

        • Leif says:

          Homes can/will be built greener. As will transportation, computers, even food. Up front transition costs will be more for a while and profit margins less, but for a moment please consider the astronomical costs to humanity our environmental gluttony has cost each and every one and who has benefited from the ability of the few to profit from free pollution of the commons and almost free exploitation there of. The gain is awareness that things can and must change and that good things can happen without exploiting the backs of the masses or earth’s life support systems.

        • Ken Barrows says:

          Robert,

          This is a great site. But do you realize that the majority of posters don’t think we have to change our lifestyle much? Just agree to disagree on that point.

          • Sailesh Rao says:

            People here don’t want to be fried to death. We prefer humane slaughter.

          • Brooks Bridges says:

            I think I’m hearing “don’t you realize we’ve got to freeze/burn up in the dark”.

            Disagree – at least to a degree.

            Most regular readers of this blog are aware that a huge percentage of our buildings, homes, transportation infrastructure, manufacturing processes, etc., are using 2 to 10 times more energy than necessary. Buy “Reinventing Fire” for many examples. The shear stupidity of the waste makes you want to put your head in a vice.

            (My home now is using 1/3 of the power it used previously and is MORE comfortable than it was – and I’ve started using the attic space so more cooling/heating area than previously. Only life style change: using a clothes line in all but winter.)

            Further, readers here are aware that a large percentage of our power could eventually come from renewables.

            So, enormous reductions in CO2 production are possible with little change in life style by first world.

            OTOH, long term, if one envisions a much more equitable world (no more “third world”) then I’d be very surprised if life styles were not significantly different from today. Note: “different”, not necessarily “worse”.

            Of course there’s one small implicit assumption: we suddenly get a lot wiser in time to avoid various catastrophes from AGW.

          • Leif says:

            The parable or even possible ecocide of Earth’s life support systems will surely cause a change in your life style Ken. When weighing any action you must factor the downside…

        • Alex J says:

          This is where a wholesale change of attitude would be helpful. Money doesn’t ‘need’ to be spent on environmentally unfriendly ‘stuff’. But if people are more financially secure, I suspect they’re also more likely to buy the sustainably raised food and the cutting-edge technology that’s likely to be more efficient. When the typical consumer wields more power (and doesn’t need to buy the cheapest item at the big box store), that could be good for the environmental movement, as well as domestic manufacturers that may need to charge a bit extra over an Asian source.

          • Ken Barrows says:

            IMO, there should be fewer cars, fewer airplanes, fewer people, and less meat eating, no matter how efficient we get. If the adoption of the electric car means the world has more cars than today, that’s a fail.

  2. Geoff Beacon says:

    Will climate change cause more earthquakes? I’ve been aware of reservoir induced seismology for a few years so it might be plausible.

    There’s a reasonable summary of ‘Waking the Giant’ by Professor Bill McGuire at http://derbyshiregreenparty.org.uk/2012/05/28/waking-the-giant/

    Is it plausible?

    • prokaryotes says:

      Here is a compilation of what McGuire has to say and geomorphological assessments

      http://climateprogress.net/item/will-climate-change-cause-earthquakes.html

    • prokaryotes says:

      There are tremendous forces put in motion from climate change induced ice melt. Kilometer thick ice sheets, and when these melt the pressure on the underlying earth/rock is released and the bottom layer rebounds. Then all what once has been ice is now water and this flows away from the poles for several reasons.

      There is a certain effect which makes the sea level at the poles higher (sometimes hundreds of meters) at the ice sheets (mass attraction) and this bulk will also move away from the pole. And with all this gravitational adjustment taken place, will drive geomorphological phenomena.

      This means we will get more volcanoes, more earthquakes, more landslides, underwater slides and tsunamis.
      McGuire also found in studying past climate changes that for instance earthquake activities were up to 300% higher.

    • Spike says:

      Prof Iain Stewart alluded to this in his BBC series on earthquakes, visiting the Parvie fault in Lapland, an example of a post glacial fault well distant from any tectonic boundary. I found the paper below during subsequent research:

      http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1919/2501.full

  3. Raul M. says:

    If people were started here on Earth by
    extraterresterals, isn’t it an assumption that Earth is the only place that got started with people. Seems that if the
    parent society was long lasting enough to start new colonies then they would be smart enough to know the dangers that would come with civilizing. They probably started many knowing some of the new ones wouldn’t figure things out soon enough or wouldn’t change to agree with the natural laws of the Earth, solar system, universe, etc,
    Maybe there are societies out there somewhere in the universes that did figure things out to agree with the laws of nature rather that trying to change the laws to agree with their own desires.
    There is still hope that mankind can go to another existence by using a failing system to create a way to escape the mess. I don’t know where in that example that the knowledge of the transcendent means are evident or that there is knowledge of a need
    for new and “sustainable” means of achievement.
    Using ways that failed whole planet to create excape vehicle does seem fraught with dangers to those who would use it to escape and to any smart enough to see it comming.
    Enjoy

  4. Tom Lewis says:

    I thought you folks ought to be aware, if you’re not already, of the story that surfaced the other day about Harvard scientists discovering appalling damage being done to the ozone layer by juiced-up thunderstorms.

    http://www.dailyimpact.net/2012/07/27/thunderstorms-on-steroids-punching-holes-in-ozone/

    • Jack Burton says:

      Interesting link, in such a complex system as earth’s atmosphere, messing around with it’s chemistry can lead to seriously unforeseen consequences.
      The more juiced the heat component in the atmosphere, the more wild extremes we are going to see. Super thunderstorms are appearing and I know that for a fact. I lived through the 24 hour non-stop thunderstorm that hit NE Minnesota some weeks back. Imagine a full blown thunderstorm hanging over you for 24 hours, it never stopped raining and the lightning and thunder continued non-stop for the entire 24 hours. Crazy!

  5. Lionel A says:

    Enbridge strike again this time in Wisconsin .

    Have they really stopped the leak and cleaned up? What collateral damage – ecosystems etc?

  6. Brian R Smith says:

    STOP THE PRESS!

    wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/27/wuwt-publishing-suspended-major-announcement-coming/

    “WUWT publishing suspended – major announcement coming
    Posted on July 27, 2012 by Anthony Watts

    “Something’s happened. From now until Sunday July 29th, around Noon PST, WUWT will be suspending publishing. At that time, there will be a major announcement that I’m sure will attract a broad global interest due to its controversial and unprecedented nature.

    To give you an idea as to the magnitude of this event, I’m suspending my vacation plans. I weighed the issue, and decided (much to my dismay) this was more important. I can go on vacation trips another time, but this announcement is not something I can miss now and do later.”

    BUT WAIT, THE TANTALIZING UPDATE:

    “my announcement has nothing to do with FOIA issues or other sorts of political or social theories being bandied about on other blogs.

    It does however have something to do with one of my many projects, it is still a “major announcement” and it has important implications that I’m sure everyone will want to know about.”

    SUNDAY! SUNDAY!

    I can’t wait for the dramatic revelation. OR maybe he will take that much needed vacation after all.

  7. squidboy6 says:

    That must have been a Colorado wildfire. (Glib) It means stay away from the movies.

    Luckovich’s cartoons rule!

  8. prokaryotes says:

    BMW Is Sending 4,000 Vehicles To The Olympics To Chauffeur Athletes And VIPs Around London

    About 2,250 of the vehicles will be diesel-powered … the fleet will include 200 electric cars

    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/bmw-olympics-fleet-2012-7#ixzz21yP3TPsL

    200 electric cars only…

  9. Jim O' says:

    Joe: the Greenland melt-off is/was the most alarming thing I’ve seen in a while and was the perfect example of the media’s absolute illiteracy on Climate Change. They showed us maps on TV and the web and used language that led even me (a well-read person on the issue) to think they were saying the entire ice sheet had melted. Of course I knew that was impossible but I found it difficult to get decent information on the extent of melting on line. I have the NSIDC on my favorites but it didn’t help. Is there a Greenland site that I can look at for updates? Also, please follow up on this regularly so that those of us still trying to figure out where we should buy land and when can stay abreast. Thanks for all your good work.

  10. prokaryotes says:

    25 Years After First Solar Restaurant, Germany Breaks 25% Renewable Energy Barrier http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/25-years-after-first-solar-restaurant-germany-breaks-25-renewable-energy-barrier.html

    How much has the US again?

  11. Greatgrandma Kat says:

    Anyone else thinking maybe WUWT announcement will have anything to do with the BEST supposed bombshell That C.C. is really happening and man is causing it? What do you bet he tries to sell the notion that there was some underhanded skullduggery by Climate Science librials behind it all.

  12. MarkfromLexington says:

    27 Gigawatts of coal fired capacity to retire over next 5 years

    Plant owners and operators report to EIA that they expect to retire almost 27 gigawatts (GW) of capacity from 175 coal-fired generators between 2012 and 2016. In 2011, there were 1,387 coal-fired generators in the United States, totaling almost 318 GW. The 27 GW of retiring capacity amounts to 8.5% of total 2011 coal-fired capacity.

    http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=7290

  13. prokaryotes says:

    Siberian Wildfires Show No Mercy

    MOSCOW, July 29 (RIA Novosti)

    Forest fires continue to rage in Siberia on a total area of over 23,000 hectares, with the worst of the blazes concentrated in the Tomsk Region, the Russian Emergencies Ministry reported on Sunday.

    “In total, there are 143 wildfires in the Siberian Federal District on a total area of about 23,300 hectares, of which 33 fires have been localized on an area of 6,200 hectares. A total of 26 large wildfires continue to rage on an area of 17,000 hectares,” the ministry said.

    Most of the fires are raging in the Tomsk Region on an area of 9,900 hectares.

    “Over the past twenty-four hours, the effective measures by the Emergency Ministry’s firefighting teams, aviation and anti-fire technologies have helped prevent the spread of the wildfires raging at a distance of 5 km from populated areas and economic facilities in the Siberian Federal District,” the ministry said in a statement. http://en.rian.ru/russia/20120729/174841143.html

    What are Russia’s actions to combat climate change?

    • Solar Jim says:

      Have you “jumped the shark” Prokaryotes? Russia is one of the largest petro-states on the planet. For example, they are building floating atomic power reactors to use for Arctic petroleum extraction. Much of their national economy is based on ACCELERATING the climate crisis. (Same for USA, Australia, Canada, OPEC, etc.)