I still believe in Global Warming. Do You?

[Mîtiu Ioan]

Doing that would employ more people than everyone currently employed by the fossil fuel industries combined. {...}

Easiest way to "employ people" is probably some sort of martial law and/or forced labor - but I'm sure that almost nobody will be too happy about this.

Is not really a problem of employment ( or not in first phase ) - is more a problem of consumption, which need to be reduced ... at least in term of fossil fuel. And from this point the real troubles start to appears - because basically nobody really accept a serious reduction in consumtion ( either because is caused by a "free-market austerity" or a "ecological austerity" - in the end is the same BS ).

 

[Murky]

Easiest way to "employ people" is probably some sort of martial law and/or forced labor - but I'm sure that almost nobody will be too happy about this.

I don't think widespread forced labor will happen again in the USA. Emancipation is too deeply rooted in our culture (Thank Lincoln for that). It could happen illegally in some places or through prisons. Generally forced labor isn't as productive as people who are getting good pay so they can support their family. Green jobs tend to be better at providing a living wage that your average job anyway. All those out of work fossil fuel workers are going to have to go someplace. Why not have them working on efficiency and clean energy projects?

Is not really a problem of employment ( or not in first phase ) - is more a problem of consumption, which need to be reduced ... at least in term of fossil fuel.

Just changing light bulbs or getting better MPG isn't going to be enough. There's already been too much Co2 emitted for that sort of strategy to work.

 

[El_Machinae]

Improved efficiency nearly always leads to increased consumption and production.

What's needed are increased profits from our use of fossil fuels, because profits can be used to fund mitigation efforts. We cannot adapt to AGW concerns (or slow AGW) if we cannot afford to do so.

I guess the lesson is to think of the net benefit of each burnt liter of oil.

 

[Murky]

Improved efficiency nearly always leads to increased consumption and production.

What's needed are increased profits from our use of fossil fuels, because profits can be used to fund mitigation efforts. We cannot adapt to AGW concerns (or slow AGW) if we cannot afford to do so.

I guess the lesson is to think of the net benefit of each burnt liter of oil.

No. When you give profits to the fossil fuel industry they most likely will use that to invest more into fossil fuels and pay for lobbying against alternative energy. It's counter productive if the goal is to slow AGW.

 

[Cutlass]

Improved efficiency nearly always leads to increased consumption and production.

What's needed are increased profits from our use of fossil fuels, because profits can be used to fund mitigation efforts. We cannot adapt to AGW concerns (or slow AGW) if we cannot afford to do so.

I guess the lesson is to think of the net benefit of each burnt liter of oil.

That only works if the ff producers are then compelled to pay the costs of mitigation.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yes, that's true. Eventually, there will need to be some type of compulsion; either from ol' Mother Nature or from someone more gentle

No. When you give profits to the fossil fuel industry they most likely will use that to invest more into fossil fuels and pay for lobbying against alternative energy. It's counter productive if the goal is to slow AGW.

The profits derived to fossil fuel executives is not a direct function of the net benefits you create from your consumption of fossil fuels. I was talking about the benefits you create, which then help create the necessary wealth to fund mitigation.

 

[Borachio]

They're not daft, though, those fossil fuel executives. They do realize resources of their favourite things are finite and they do look ahead - further than national governments at any rate. At least such is my impression from reading various of their reports on the subject.

 

[Murky]

Yes, that's true. Eventually, there will need to be some type of compulsion; either from ol' Mother Nature or from someone more gentle

There's nothing gentle about Mother Nature whe she is provoked by ignoranance and stupidity.

The profits derived to fossil fuel executives is not a direct function of the net benefits you create from your consumption of fossil fuels. I was talking about the benefits you create, which then help create the necessary wealth to fund mitigation.

The economy in general creates wealth. The main reason why ff companies make so much money is that they get to pollute for free leaving the mess for the public to clean up.

I posted this to the Youtube videos thread

Link to video.

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

I don't think widespread forced labor will happen again in the USA.

You know ... never say never. But this is another discussion.

Green jobs tend to be better at providing a living wage that your average job anyway.

What exactely will qualify as a "green job" ? Producing solar pannel with very toxic substance incorporated ( and which are unsure it will be recycled properly at the end of life-cycle ) ?

All those out of work fossil fuel workers are going to have to go someplace.

Pure "fossil fuel workes" are probably in very limited number anyway - as long as carmakers will probably have no real problem to switch to electrical automobile production and so on.
I don't believe that this is the real impact to be mitigated - and not even "fossil fuel" corporate interest, as long as they have anyway the money and infrastructure needed for mass investments in "new energy" so it's likely to be the first to make steps & profits in that direction if the alternative is really a viable one ...

Improved efficiency nearly always leads to increased consumption and production

Exactely.
That's the problem actually - apart from situation when "improved efficiency" is just concerning "nominal revenue".

 

[peter grimes]

What exactely will qualify as a "green job" ? Producing solar pannel with very toxic substance incorporated ( and which are unsure it will be recycled properly at the end of life-cycle ) ?

A green job is employment in an energy sector that is not extractive. There is no such thing as an industry that doesn't use 'toxic' substances (toxicity is dependent on dosage, for that matter - even Oxygen is toxic above certain levels ). It's not like they produce benzene or anything - "cancer-in-a-can" - which is a byproduct of crude oil processing , does that mean we're going to do a lifecycle analysis of the hydrocarbon industry?

Trying to hold the photovoltaic materials to a lifecycle analysis without simultaneously holding other sources to the same standard is the sort of tactic used by shills for the fossil fuel corporateers.

I'm completely OK with doing a lifecycle analysis, as long as we're doing that for all sources. Is that the conversation you're looking for?

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

A green job is employment in an energy sector that is not extractive.

Directly extractive - meaning coal, oil wells and so on ?
AFAIK just a small ammount of people are working in this sector anymore in most of developed countries ( even than the process was a painful one - Romania has a particularly bad history in the '90 decade ) - so this couldn't be have anymore the big impact claimed on unemployment.

There is no such thing as an industry that doesn't use 'toxic' substances {...}

Absolutely. For that reason the only possible way to fulfill the hardcore-ecologists goal is sort of primitive society with minimal industries ( even that deforestation could be a big problem in this scenario too ).
But I'm not talking here about this kind of extremism - even this will be an interesting aspect, about the "totalitarian potential" of such an idea/ideology - just want to point out that, as you agree, there is no real "clean industry/energy". And once the consumption/demand in a particular industry/area increase also increase the associated polution/enviromental risk.

Is that the conversation you're looking for?

This would be interesting - why not ?

 

[MrCynical]

A green job is employment in an energy sector that is not extractive. There is no such thing as an industry that doesn't use 'toxic' substances (toxicity is dependent on dosage, for that matter - even Oxygen is toxic above certain levels ).

Congratulations on learning that the dose makes the poison, but bear in mind that some toxins are much worse than others. Converting a serious percentage of electrical generation to solar cells would require huge amounts of materials which are either rare (ruthenium, palladium) and/or will be their own environmental problem 20 years down the line (gallium arsenide and various noxious tellurium and selenium compounds).

It's not like they produce benzene or anything - "cancer-in-a-can" - which is a byproduct of crude oil processing , does that mean we're going to do a lifecycle analysis of the hydrocarbon industry?

Benzene production isn't in itself a problem, so long as it is handled properly which is easier if done at an industrial processing point. I've done enough chemistry to smile at your description of it as "cancer in a can". Not the nicest of substances, and it was certainly a good idea when we stopped the mid 20th century practice of using it to wash your hands in chem labs, but as an industrial compound it's not difficult to handle. Toxins in photocells are a particular problem if you go down the dubious microgeneration route of sticking solar panels on every roof, because it's inevitable that some will be mistreated and improperly disposed of. Benzene is an issue in gasoline, though I should point out it's there as a deliberate additive not as a byproduct, since with incomplete combustion it is possible to release it.

Trying to hold the photovoltaic materials to a lifecycle analysis without simultaneously holding other sources to the same standard is the sort of tactic used by shills for the fossil fuel corporateers.

Given how much of the mineral extraction and solar cell manufacture is done in China I think you'll have difficulty finding any figures to get even a rough estimate of how "clean" they are over their life cycle. While it is of course important to compare like with like, you do realise that without this information arguing that solar cells are superior is using similar tactics? You don't know what their life cycle cost actually is and so you're assuming that just because they look good if you work on the basis that solar cells appear out of thin air and last forevere that they are good overall. Nuclear has probably the most thoroughly analysed lifecycle if you want to compare how it should be done.

 

[El_Machinae]

Toxins only really matter based on their disposal or lack of containment. Lots of toxins can be rendered inert or recycled. Obviously, that's part of the cost of the production of the product (or else is an ignored externality)

 

[MrCynical]

Toxins only really matter based on their disposal or lack of containment. Lots of toxins can be rendered inert or recycled. Obviously, that's part of the cost of the production of the product (or else is an ignored externality)

True, which is why I regard a situation where toxins are produced and contained at a few points of production to be far preferable to one where you're entrusting every individual consumer with their containment and proper disposal. It's one of my main gripes with the concept of microgeneration (and CFLs).

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

True, which is why I regard a situation where toxins are produced and contained at a few points of production to be far preferable to one where you're entrusting every individual consumer with their containment and proper disposal. It's one of my main gripes with the concept of microgeneration (and CFLs).

Good point !

Given how much of the mineral extraction and solar cell manufacture is done in China I think you'll have difficulty finding any figures to get even a rough estimate of how "clean" they are over their life cycle.

This is one main reasons which made me have the first "hmmm ..." about the large enthusiasm regarding solar panel production - not China, but ... my country. More precisely : in Romania ( or at least in West part ) is sort of bust in "green jobs" ( according to provided definition ), far bigger than the expected internal demand for them. And I had some witness account & discussions about the ... very aproximative way to deal with enviromental ( or employees' health ) in such plants, despite EU regulation ...
So - if the production of such devices is so important and crucial why it seems to be done mostly in ... marginal countries ?

And BTW :

Green jobs tend to be better at providing a living wage that your average job anyway.

I wouldn't qualify a ~250 euro/month ( netto wage ) in this category - not in Romania but ... if you say so ...

 

[Old Hippy]

True, which is why I regard a situation where toxins are produced and contained at a few points of production to be far preferable to one where you're entrusting every individual consumer with their containment and proper disposal. It's one of my main gripes with the concept of microgeneration (and CFLs).

cfls can be replaced over time with LED lighting, once the mindset is in place to use low energy lighting...

Any toxins associated with micropower generation can be easily handled the same way we currently recycle, dispose and eliminate CFC's... again its just a mindset question, but once CFC's were seen as bad their elimination and control followed quite quickly... few individual consumers will actually build and install their own power systems ... so it becomes just a matter of proper industry regulation and certification...

 

[peter grimes]

@ MrCynical and Mitiu -
I wasn't specifically claiming that solar is a green energy panacea with no downsides. I'm simply pointing out that energy technologies need to be compared apples to apples. So if you want to talk about the perceived risk of selenium contamination from improper solar panel disposal then we also need to include things like mercury emissions from coal and neodymium mining waste for wind generators.

Personally, I'd don't think anything involved in solar cell manufacture is an insurmountable problem - not even close to the carbon problem we currently have from fossil fuels.