Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978

thecompost.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 340 posts

Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978

#281

Post by igor47 »

modzu wrote: post #89
adrianN wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what's your gripe with "climate change" being in the name of the IPCC?

sorry it wasnt clear from my comment, but mainly that a governmental panel == politicized, and also that the IPCC reports to the UNFCCC, whose mission is to "stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human-induced) interference with the climate system". in other words, it assumes the hypothesis that the science should be testing

it's politicized in the other direction. the ipcc reports have to be approved by all the member countries, many of whom (like the good 'le USofA) really don't want to take action on climate change. this results in IPCC reports that are watered down. for example:

> Political influence on the IPCC has been documented by the release of a memo by ExxonMobil to the Bush administration, and its effects on the IPCC's leadership. The memo led to strong Bush administration lobbying, evidently at the behest of ExxonMobil, to oust Robert Watson, a climate scientist, from the IPCC chairmanship, and to have him replaced by Pachauri, who was seen at the time as more mild-mannered and industry-friendly.[142][143]

Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978

#282

Post by amanaplanacanal »

gedy wrote: post #68
EForEndeavour wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both US population and absolute US greenhouse gas emissions have been growing over time. Population has simply grown proportionally faster than emissions. So yes, US emissions per capita have decreased over time, but total US emissions have been rising, and that's what affects climate.

I agree "per capita" can be misleading, but China and India are growing faster than the US, and China is outputting more CO2 than the US.

China has a lot more people than the US, and they do a lot of the US's manufacturing too.

Many people think that the US should not try to cut carbon emissions because China swamps us in this. I strongly disagree with that.

Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978

#283

Post by amanaplanacanal »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #56
cbHXBY1D wrote: post #33

Almost everyone on HN recognizes that climate change is an existential threat to (most) life on earth. There is less agreement on how to mitigate it's effects. One solution which I favor is nationalization of US oil companies. While hardly discussed in the US, it's a solution that is currently being discussed in the UK and has been done by many different countries, though usually because of the legacy of imperialism…

> One solution which I favor is nationalization of US oil companies. Can you explain your reasoning behind this? It makes no sense to me. This is fundamentally an economic issue. People will stop burning carbon when it's less expensive to do something else. If you nationalize the industry only to shut it down, that causes the cost of burning oil to increase (the intended effect), but then the higher prices spur forei…

Would that require a carbon tax to be applied world wide, or would you suggest that a country could apply the tax at the border for imported goods?

Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978

#284

Post by cschwarm »

FrojoS wrote: post #193

Slightly tangential, but I’ve come to the conclusion that this is the political way forward for big countries: 1. Have a single CO2 budget for the whole country, with an aggressive, Hard to change roadmap of yearly reduction of said budget down to zero in the not too long future. 2. Estimate the CO2 footprint of every single product, incl. imports by one or several neutral organizations. This doesn’t have to be perfe…

I prefer taxes because there's a reliable "shadow of the future". Market prices may go up and down depending on how many certificates are issued, how professional traders behave, and how technology progresses.

So, I'd suggest the following for any nation or country:

1. Create an independent institution (like the European Central Bank) with the goal to get to carbon neutrality until, say, 2040 or 2045.

2. Give it the right to tax carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases. This should include tariffs for imported goods, and reimbursements for exported goods, and other means to make some special industries pay (airplanes and ships, mostly).

3. Give it the right to perform auctions for negative carbon emissions.

If the world wants a chance to fix the problem, it'll need negative emissions, as far as I know. This is missing in your suggestion. It may also be faster to create new industries than change existing ones.

My suggestion would also follow a well-known, although maybe no uncontroversial principle of "polluter pays". In the end, the price is determined by the goal, not by political considerations.

If I'm not mistaken, such a carbon tax would rise until (positive) carbon emissions equal negative carbon emissions. At this point, carbon neutrality should be reached. Whatever else needs to be done is then up to future generations.

Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978

#285

Post by Frondo »

giardini wrote: post #252
Gupie wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conversely if you are not a climate scientist what is the rational for not going with the consensus of 97% of climate scientists?

Gupie says> "what is the rational for not going with the consensus of 97% of climate scientists?" Simply that there is no such consensus - "'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong": https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-cl... From the article: "Bottom line: What the 97% of climate scientists allegedly agree on is very mild and in no way justifies restricting the energy that billions need..…

Your source for that article is a man named Alex Epstein, who is paid by coal industry figures to advocate for a "new industrial revolution".

> In a September 11, 2018 piece at the CIP website, Epstein disclosed “proudly” that one of his industry clients was Tyler White, president of the Kentucky Coal Association. [22]

Also interesting:

> Alexander Epstein planned to release his “Energy Liberation Plan” for consideration by 2016 political candidates. According to an article by Epstein in Forbes, the Energy Liberation Plan seeks to combat “backwards energy and environmental policies that are anti-development, not anti-pollution.” He contends that we are “squandering the opportunity of a generation, through blind opposition to our three most potent sources of power: hydrocarbon energy (coal, oil, and gas), nuclear energy, and hydroelectric energy.” [15]

I am reading, and I am neither weeping nor laughing, because this is exactly what I expected to see.

If this is someone you expect to accurately represent climate science, I think you are mistaken in holding them in that regard.

As a counterpoint, here's another take on the "97%" figure, a review of the several meta-studies that have been done on climate science:

http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consen...

Their conclusion is that between 90 and 100% of climate science papers agree that 1) climate change is occurring and 2) it is caused by human industrial sources.

Of course, the man paid by the Kentucky Coal Association would disagree, but in this case I would defer to Upton Sinclair, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

Sources:

* https://www.desmogblog.com/center-industrial-progress

* https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Alex_Epstein

Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978

#286

Post by tempestn »

ThomPete wrote: post #175
adrianN wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you literally don't believe the raw numbers coming from sensors all over the world there is no room for doubting that the climate is changing. There can, and has been, plenty of discussion as to the reasons, but for at least thirty years now the consensus has been that human activity is responsible for the vast majority of the effects we've seen.

The consensus is not science. There is no accurate number not even a range which can be scientifically demonstrated. The data is not showing what you think it is and it's not the data you are getting served. You are getting served interpretation of that data which is very very very different. The reality is this: Temperature increased 0.5 degree celcius from late 1800's to 1950 before there were any significant CO2 e…

You might have a point if we were just taking temperature readings and guessing about the cause. However, the greenhouse gas effect is known, and can be easily demonstrated. Likewise, we can measure the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and see it rapidly rising[1]. We also know all the many human activities that release CO2 into the atmosphere. So there's a pretty clear causal chain here.

[1] https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-re...

Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978

#287

Post by ThomPete »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #278
ThomPete wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Me too. Wind and solar constitute less than 1% of world energy consumption and doesn't have all the other properties and uses that makes oil such a fundamental and necessary ingredient for modern living. Hopefully overtime we will find something that's better, for now it's hard to find as amazing and flexible a resource as oil. Nuclear would probably win out, then oil and coal

> Nuclear would probably win out, then oil and coal Possibly, but it doesn't seem likely. In most parts of the US, it's cheaper to build new solar or wind than any of the fossil fuels. In some areas, I've read that it's cheaper to build new solar or wind than to run existing fossil plants. I don't know what the rest of the world looks like though.

No, it's not cheaper as you have to factor in the backup energy you have to build to support when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining.

I would urge you, if you are really interested in the truth and a rational position on this, to go and do the research. |

I did which is why I am very very aware of the difference between speculation and demonstration and how much of the claims of wind and solars ability to power most of the worlds energy needs are a completete utopia.

Again less than 1% of the world's energy is the consumption of solar and wind, and that's with all the political tailwind it has gotten.

A lot of the cost of building nuclear is extreme bureaucracy and the kind of security metrics are being asked, yet it's still much better than solar and wind in the long run, much safer, more stable, cleaner, scalable and cheaper.

So yeah lets remove the subsidies. Wind and solar will fall apart.

Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978

#288

Post by wang_li »

bumby wrote: post #271
wang_li wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would be much better to give every citizen their share of the CO2 budget and then require them to spend them as they buy goods and services. This way you don't end up with bureaucrats giving favored, e.g. the company that promised said bureaucrat a huge annual salary post government service, businesses special treatment. If a person can style their life in a such a way as to have CO2 budget left over at the end of th…

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but that type of rationing in the U.S. only seems to work if there is a collective agreement on an existential crisis (e.g. WWII). Unfortunately, there's still too much disagreement on climate change at the population level for that level of shared sacrifice.

If the proposal is mandatory restrictions on CO2 emissions then giving every citizen an equal share of the allowed emissions vastly beats giving those to industry or taxing people. Doing this also creates awareness about CO2 usage among the populace.

Opinions on climate change are irrelevant to my proposal to give the credits equally to everyone or some other scheme. If the population isn't in favor of a carbon regulatory regime, then it doesn't matter how it is implemented, we'll just replace the politicians who act outside of our preferences. The point of giving everyone their share is that it is literally fair and not just a scheme to enrich carbon alarmists or activists.

Of course the lack of opportunity for graft and criminality is exactly why my proposal won't happen. But we should tar and feather any pol or bureaucrat who implements any other scheme.

Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978

#289

Post by ThomPete »

tempestn wrote: post #286
ThomPete wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The consensus is not science. There is no accurate number not even a range which can be scientifically demonstrated. The data is not showing what you think it is and it's not the data you are getting served. You are getting served interpretation of that data which is very very very different. The reality is this: Temperature increased 0.5 degree celcius from late 1800's to 1950 before there were any significant CO2 e…

You might have a point if we were just taking temperature readings and guessing about the cause. However, the greenhouse gas effect is known, and can be easily demonstrated. Likewise, we can measure the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and see it rapidly rising[1]. We also know all the many human activities that release CO2 into the atmosphere. So there's a pretty clear causal chain here. [1] https://climate.nasa.…

It can be demonstrated but that does not mean the entire system can be.

There is as an example negative feedback effects too in the system.

The temperature hasn't increased significantly from 1960's til today relative to CO2 more than it did from late 1800 to mid 1900.

So the question still becomes if the temperature increased 0.5 degrees while we weren't emitting that much co2 and it's done more or less the same in more or less the same timeframe with us putting much more co2 out there. How big a part is really humans and how much is natural variation.

If you want to convince me you provide me with actual scientific demonstration that aligns with the claim.

If we know how much humans are actually affecting due to CO2 then we can figure out what we can do about it. But as long as we don't know how much humans affect it I don't see any scientific foundation to go into the kind of panic we have seen the last 20 years really getting into the extremes these days.

It's not science it's politics.

Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978

#290

Post by bumby »

wang_li wrote: post #288
bumby wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but that type of rationing in the U.S. only seems to work if there is a collective agreement on an existential crisis (e.g. WWII). Unfortunately, there's still too much disagreement on climate change at the population level for that level of shared sacrifice.

If the proposal is mandatory restrictions on CO2 emissions then giving every citizen an equal share of the allowed emissions vastly beats giving those to industry or taxing people. Doing this also creates awareness about CO2 usage among the populace. Opinions on climate change are irrelevant to my proposal to give the credits equally to everyone or some other scheme. If the population isn't in favor of a carbon regul…

> Opinions on climate change are irrelevant to my proposal

How would such a proposal be enacted to begin with?

My comment was that for a proposal like that to be passed initially, it would almost certainly need the support of a politician's respective constituents. Anything else would be political suicide and have slim-to-no chance of even getting debated. Blame it on lobbying, or career politicians, or whatever else but that's the reality in the U.S.

There's lots of ways that carbon reduction system could work. If it's largely a man-made problem there's probably many man-made solutions. But, outside of dictatorial solutions, you have to start with the democratic political will to see it changed.

Post reply on HN