LDS environmentalists want their institution to address the Great Salt Lake’s collapse

[Bernard Gui]

On 4/20/2023 at 11:21 PM, Tacenda said:

Covid really showed what can happen if we get gas fueled vehicles off the roads and other things that happened when we were not commuting to work much, it was amazing in many countries how clear the air was. Also, the power companies are offering incentives to buy electric lawn mowers and other electric tools for the yard instead of gas powered. I had no idea how much pollution these cause.

What powers the electric tools?

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

What powers the electric tools?

Electric tools, electric cars, same thing.

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths#:~:text=comparable gasoline vehicles.-,Myth %231%3A Electric vehicles are worse for the climate than,EVs) have no tailpipe emissions.

https://www.tesla.com/support/sustainability-recycling#:~:text=on the road.-,What happens to Tesla battery packs once they reach their,battery are recoverable and recyclable.

https://keck.usc.edu/study-links-adoption-of-electric-vehicles-with-less-air-pollution-and-improved-health/

https://www.nrdc.org/bio/luke-tonachel/study-electric-vehicles-can-dramatically-reduce-carbon-pollution-transportation

Edited April 22, 2023 by Tacenda

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Electric tools, electric cars, same thing.

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths#:~:text=comparable gasoline vehicles.-,Myth %231%3A Electric vehicles are worse for the climate than,EVs) have no tailpipe emissions.

https://www.tesla.com/support/sustainability-recycling#:~:text=on the road.-,What happens to Tesla battery packs once they reach their,battery are recoverable and recyclable.

https://keck.usc.edu/study-links-adoption-of-electric-vehicles-with-less-air-pollution-and-improved-health/

https://www.nrdc.org/bio/luke-tonachel/study-electric-vehicles-can-dramatically-reduce-carbon-pollution-transportation

It takes energy to generate energy. Electric vehicles don’t grow on trees. Electricity doesn’t come from nothing.

Edited April 22, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

16 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him,
Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.

Good ol' fashion Bible bashing - nice!

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

 it is foolish to begin a massive project without knowing the end from the beginning.

Not always - especially when faced with the inevitable consequences of doing nothing. 

Quote

Often though, we feel if we just had a powerful flashlight to peer into the darkness, it would be easier. But that is not how this existence works. Even though we might not be totally clear where the path leads or what lies ahead, we are supposed to make choices, get on with it, step into the darkness and learn as we go.

https://speeches.byuh.edu/devotional/stepping-into-the-darkness

 

Quote

6 And I was led by the Spirit, not knowing beforehand the things which I should do.
(1 Nephi 4:6)
 
It’s important to plan and to prepare.  For many projects, planning is indispensable, and a lack of planning would be irresponsible.  But there are times when we enter uncharted waters, when we can’t make a plan because we don’t have enough information.  There are also times when we start to execute a plan, and then circumstances change, rendering the plan obsolete.  In those situations, we need to follow the example of Nephi and move forward in faith, following the guidance of the Spirit.  We need to make decisions and take action without knowing what will happen next.  If Nephi had waited outside of the city until he had a comprehensive plan of action, he would never have learned that the Lord had delivered Laban into his hands.  It was only by acting decisively and fearlessly, believing that the Lord would direct his steps, that he was able to learn what the Lord wanted him to do next.
As I look at the tapestry of my life, I see patterns which I never could have designed: my planning horizon was too short and critical decision criteria were beyond my comprehension.  Looking back, I now recognize the rationale for such decisions as moving to a new city, attending a specific school, or accepting a job.  I see how relationships forged and skills learned in one place prepared me for opportunities I never could have anticipated.  At the time, I was simply making decisions based on the best information available to me, but in the aggregate, I see a grand plan in progress which is well beyond my ability to control or direct.
Today, I will look for the decisions I must make with incomplete information.  In those cases, I will follow the direction of the Spirit, trusting the Lord to reveal what I need to know along the way.  My prayer will be, “Keep thou my feet; I do not ask to see the distant scene–one step enough for me.”  (Hymn 97)

https://bookofmormonstudynotes.blog/2015/01/09/1-nephi-46-not-knowing-beforehand/

I think the first step is to help others see the consequences of doing nothing.  One doesn't need to see the end from the beginning or have all the answers that will solve all the problems before taking that first step.  That is my small role I can do right now.  I can do my part and use my voice and vote where I can to make a difference.  It is not my job to come up with all the answers - that will be a group effort that will require political buy in and scientific exploration/planning from people much smarter than me.  I can prepare a way for the public to accept those plans as they become available by using my influence.   If there is enough resistance by naysayers who are addicted to fossil fuels etc, the best plan in the world won't get off the ground. 

If all I can do is spread hope and desire for change, then that is what I will do.  But to suggest it is foolish for me to try and do anything if I don't have all the answers, is the foolish position in my opinion.  I don't think anyone here is proposing any drastic measures until we have more answers - all we know is that something needs to be done and we have hope that answers and actions can be found when we work together.

Please tell me how the alternative of doing nothing and mocking those who work towards building a tower that will save humanity is less foolish?

 

 

Edited April 22, 2023 by pogi

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

It takes energy to generate energy. Electric vehicles don’t grow on trees. Electricity doesn’t come from nothing.

Did you see the world when covid locked us down? No gas fumes? It was absolutely amazing. All electric cars could do that for us, and the beauty of recycling batteries. I will never forget the sight of it when there were far fewer vehicles.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Did you see the world when covid locked us down? No gas fumes? It was absolutely amazing. All electric cars could do that for us, and the beauty of recycling batteries. I will never forget the sight of it when there were far fewer vehicles.

Perhaps, but that would be decades from now if ever.

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Good ol' fashion Bible bashing - nice!

Not always - especially when faced with the inevitable consequences of doing nothing. 

 

I think the first step is to help others see the consequences of doing nothing.  One doesn't need to see the end from the beginning or have all the answers that will solve all the problems before taking that first step.  That is my small role I can do right now.  I can do my part and use my voice and vote where I can to make a difference.  It is not my job to come up with all the answers - that will be a group effort that will require political buy in and scientific exploration/planning from people much smarter than me.  I can prepare a way for the public to accept those plans as they become available by using my influence.   If there is enough resistance by naysayers who are addicted to fossil fuels etc, the best plan in the world won't get off the ground. 

If all I can do is spread hope and desire for change, then that is what I will do.  But to suggest it is foolish for me to try and do anything if I don't have all the answers, is the foolish position in my opinion.  I don't think anyone here is proposing any drastic measures until we have more answers - all we know is that something needs to be done and we have hope that answers and actions can be found when we work together.

Please tell me how the alternative of doing nothing and mocking those who work towards building a tower that will save humanity is less foolish?

 

 

Bible bashing…😀…. Simple common sense and answers to sincere questions is all I am asking for.

No one is calling you foolish or mocking you. That was a response to Calm and has nothing to do with you or with this issue, so put it aside, please. Also, it will not do to call me a climate denier, thank you. Let’s keep the discussion real.

Since you are now dedicating yourself to the cause, whatever shape it may take, I am interested in how you think this will shake out. Surely you’ve given it some thought. Will you stump for more nuclear power plants?

Over and over and over we have been told doomsday, our last chance to save the planet, is upon us. If we don't take immediate action, it will be too late.  All of those last-chance years that were predicted are passed and gone, so apparently our doom is sealed. Is it not too late?

The Prime Mover and Shaker has declared that whatever all the industrialized countries do…even if US emissions are cut to zero…it will not be enough.  Judging by his actions (and those of other very powerful people), there really doesn’t appear to be anything to be concerned about, so what is your hope based on? I really want to know. Our fate is truly in the hands of the poor countries of the world…the 65%. Who will tell them they cannot industrialize? How will they react to being condemned to perpetual poverty? More migration, violence?

I live in a region where I see how critical the trucking and railroad industries are to our existence. What are the plans to continue what they do to serve without causing catastrophic hardship?

Edited April 23, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Bible bashing…😀…. Simple common sense and answers to sincere questions is all I am asking for.

Simple common sense answers?  If such a thing existed, don't you think it would have been implemented already?  Expecting one of us to have all the answers to the challenges of getting all countries on board is kind of silly.

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

No one is calling you foolish or mocking you. That was a response to Calm and has nothing to do with you or with this issue, so put it aside, please. Also, it will not do to call me a climate denier, thank you. Let’s keep the discussion real.

No, it wasn't a response to Calm - it was a response to Rain who commented about your choice of scripture and context.  It had EVERYTHING to do with this issue.  Again, you defended your scripture choice in response to my comment by stating:

 "it is foolish to begin a massive project without knowing the end from the beginning."

That appears to be the message you were attempting to bash me with by quoting that scripture. 

I never called you a climate denier.  I said that doing something is better than doing nothing (which seems to be your position). 

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Since you are now dedicating yourself to the cause, whatever shape it may take, I am interested in how you think this will shake out. Surely you’ve given it some thought. Will you stump for more nuclear power plants?

Over and over and over we have been told doomsday, our last chance to save the planet, is upon us. If we don't take immediate action, it will be too late.  All of those last-chance years that were predicted are passed and gone, so apparently our doom is sealed. Is it not too late?

The Prime Mover and Shaker has declared that whatever all the industrialized countries do…even if US emissions are cut to zero…it will not be enough.  Judging by his actions (and those of other very powerful people), there really doesn’t appear to be anything to be concerned about, so what is your hope based on? I really want to know. Our fate is truly in the hands of the poor countries of the world…the 65%. Who will tell them they cannot industrialize? How will they react to being condemned to perpetual poverty? More migration, violence?

I live in a region where I see how critical the trucking and railroad industries are to our existence. What are the plans to continue what they do to serve without causing catastrophic hardship?

 

I have already stated that I don't have the answers so please stop fishing.   There are lots of different opinions out there about when, where, what, and how, but the general consensus is that the status quo won't work.   I don't know how it is all going to play out and I am not going to speculate, but I am also not going to sit on my tush and do nothing.  And I certainly am not going to try and discourage others by trying to convince them that their efforts are foolish by using the Bible against them. 

What is your position?  Though I never accused you of being a climate denier, you seem to be offended at the idea.  So, if you are not a climate denier, what are you? Where do you stand?  Do you think that doing nothing is the best way forward?  Or, do you think there is no danger in the status quo?  

 

 

 

Edited April 23, 2023 by pogi

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Simple common sense answers?  If such a thing existed, don't you think it would have been implemented already?  Expecting one of us to have all the answers to the challenges of getting all countries on board is kind of silly.

No, it wasn't a response to Calm - it was a response to Rain who commented about your choice of scripture and context.  It had EVERYTHING to do with this issue.  Again, you defended your scripture choice in response to my comment by stating:

 "it is foolish to begin a massive project without knowing the end from the beginning."

That appears to be the message you were attempting to bash me with by quoting that scripture. 

I never called you a climate denier.  I said that doing something is better than doing nothing (which seems to be your position). 

 

I have already stated that I don't have the answers so please stop fishing.   There are lots of different opinions out there about when, where, what, and how, but the general consensus is that the status quo won't work.   I don't know how it is all going to play out and I am not going to speculate, but I am also not going to sit on my tush and do nothing.  And I certainly am not going to try and discourage others by trying to convince them that their efforts are foolish by using the Bible against them. 

What is your position?  Though I never accused you of being a climate denier, you seem to be offended at the idea.  So, if you are not a climate denier, what are you? Where do you stand?  Do you think that doing nothing is the best way forward?  Or, do you think there is no danger in the status quo?  

Dear Brother Pogi, I said my questions are sincere. And they are.

It really was an answer to Calm’s question as to why I belong to the Church if I’m afraid of being mocked. A side conversation. Absolutely nothing to do with you or with this topic. I’m not that easily offended. I simply don’t see the need to talk about “climate deniers.” Waste of time.

Quote

So you do you choose to live by the rule of avoiding anything that would cause people to mock you?  If so, why are you a member of the Church?

As you say, you have no answers. So why are you engaging with me? I’m sincerely looking for answers. If you have none, fine. I’ll seek elsewhere. 

No one is counting the cost. Google “how much will it cost to save the planet?” Very interesting reading. I don’t believe anyone has a clue about the real costs. One thing is for sure though, you and I and everyone reading this will pay dearly, and that is not speculation.

Everyone uses this crisis for their own purposes. I have no idea what the truth of the  matter is, nor the reliability of the myriad proposed remedies and the ever-shifting doomsday timelines. There are so hypocrisies, so many lies, hidden agendas, mis- and dis-information, scare tactics, retractions and additions bandied about from all sides. The blind men and the elephant comes to mind. Whom to trust? I see no reason to trust anyone.

Common sense and the failure to count costs tell me the world is in for a very rough ride, whatever route we take. Sadly, none of us will be around to see if all the hardship was worth it. I really have little hope that China, India, and poorer nations can or will rise to the challenge. I think there will be much chaos and unfortunately bloodshed.

In the meantime, I don’t wring my hands much, I keep my carbon footprint extremely small, and I own a house on a hill. I hope you do the same. The Powers That Be say that is not good enough. OK. I’ll plant a tree and ride my bike to Church. Still no good. I still like meat, though. 

As J. Fred Muggs once said, “Vootie.”

[Tacenda]

21 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

What powers the electric tools?

Answering again, solar power!

[Tacenda]

19 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

It takes energy to generate energy. Electric vehicles don’t grow on trees. Electricity doesn’t come from nothing.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/22/how-sono-aptera-and-lightyear-are-making-solar-powered-evs-a-reality.html#:~:text=German company Sono Motors %2C Southern,miles on a clear day.

And yes, your next question might be, what to do with the old solar panels. Or the pollution from making solar panels? Right on it, I'll be back. 

ETA: It's not a perfect system, but they are working on it and it appears to be better than what we have now. Making solar panels doesn't cause gas emissions but there is the problem of carefully disposing them when they go bad. A work in progress though. 

https://eponline.com/articles/2022/12/09/solar-panels-and-their-effect.aspx#:~:text=One of the major environmental,compared to other energy sources.

And does it cause pollution to make them?

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/solar/solar-energy-and-the-environment.php#:~:text=Solar energy technologies and power,larger effects on the environment.

Again, work in progress, they keep making it better and better. I hope we all figure out a way to make less an imprint on mother earth, bad imprints. 

Edited April 23, 2023 by Tacenda

[pogi]

11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Dear Brother Pogi, I said my questions are sincere. And they are.

It really was an answer to Calm’s question as to why I belong to the Church if I’m afraid of being mocked. A side conversation. Absolutely nothing to do with you or with this topic. I’m not that easily offended. I simply don’t see the need to talk about “climate deniers.” Waste of time.

As you say, you have no answers. So why are you engaging with me? I’m sincerely looking for answers. If you have none, fine. I’ll seek elsewhere. 

No one is counting the cost. Google “how much will it cost to save the planet?” Very interesting reading. I don’t believe anyone has a clue about the real costs. One thing is for sure though, you and I and everyone reading this will pay dearly, and that is not speculation.

Everyone uses this crisis for their own purposes. I have no idea what the truth of the  matter is, nor the reliability of the myriad proposed remedies and the ever-shifting doomsday timelines. There are so hypocrisies, so many lies, hidden agendas, mis- and dis-information, scare tactics, retractions and additions bandied about from all sides. The blind men and the elephant comes to mind. Whom to trust? I see no reason to trust anyone.

Common sense and the failure to count costs tell me the world is in for a very rough ride, whatever route we take. Sadly, none of us will be around to see if all the hardship was worth it. I really have little hope that China, India, and poorer nations can or will rise to the challenge. I think there will be much chaos and unfortunately bloodshed.

In the meantime, I don’t wring my hands much, I keep my carbon footprint extremely small, and I own a house on a hill. I hope you do the same. The Powers That Be say that is not good enough. OK. I’ll plant a tree and ride my bike to Church. Still no good. I still like meat, though. 

As J. Fred Muggs once said, “Vootie.”

That scripture you used against me wasn’t a question, it was a statement and commentary of what you think of what I said. 

I’m unclear as to what your problem is with what I have suggested in doing my part and using what little influence I have.

I don’t doubt that your questions are sincere, but your attitude towards those who suggest that something is better than nothing really stinks.  I don’t share your pessimism and reject your attempt to drag me down into the abyss of hopelessness and inaction.

I agree that it is about who you trust.  I trust the overwhelming consensus of  science that says that if the status quo doesn’t change, we (or future generations) are in trouble.   Indirectly telling others via scripture that they are foolish for trying to influence the minds of others to accept the consensus of scientists seems like the more questionable position to me.

Edited April 23, 2023 by pogi

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

That scripture you used against me wasn’t a question, it was a statement and commentary of what you think of what I said. 

I’m unclear as to what your problem is with what I have suggested in doing my part and using what little influence I have.

I don’t doubt that your questions are sincere, but your attitude towards those who suggest that something is better than nothing really stinks.  I don’t share your pessimism and reject your attempt to drag me down into the abyss of hopelessness and inaction.

I agree that it is about who you trust.  I trust the overwhelming consensus of  science that says that if the status quo doesn’t change, we (or future generations) are in trouble.   Indirectly telling others via scripture that they are foolish for trying to influence the minds of others to accept the consensus of scientists seems like the more questionable position to me.

No. There was no scripture used against you. It was a reply to a question asked by another participant and referred to those who mock the Church. That’s not you. It was and still is part of my observation that no one has counted the cost of worldwide upheaval. That is my only point despite how you may perceive it as a personal attack. No one told you directly or indirectly that you are foolish. No one called you foolish. I have no problem with your personal decisions. They are yours and I applaud your determination. No, I don’t want to drag anyone down into hopelessness. My intent is only to find answers to serious questions. I’m trying to see the big picture beyond the gas blower in my garage.

I follow John Kerry’s statements closely because he appears to have a great deal of power. I find them elitist, condescending, hypocritical, confusing, and often wrong. Especially his insistence that nothing Americans can do will change anything. Don’t you find that disconcerting and wildly inconsistent? I do. Remember the admonition to question authority? You have never commented on it after repeated requests.

I’m looking for answers to perplexing questions about actions that will have potentially crippling global impact. From what I have read, solar/wind/geothermal power cannot produce the quantity of energy that will be needed to replace fossil fuels in the near future. Maritime, air, and land transportation and shipping require huge amounts of fuel. We are not even close to fixing that problem.  Since the point of no return is fast approaching (although it keeps getting pushed back again and again) we have nuclear and hydro options, massive natural gas resources, and vastly improving clean fossil fuel technologies.

Perhaps going full speed ahead on those while working on the other is a better plan. It certainly would not be as overwhelmingly expensive and disruptive. I am very concerned about our reliance on other countries for the essential materials used in batteries. India and China are major players, but what are their intentions? China plays a very long game. How does their game in love us? How can impoverished countries shift from their energy fossil sources to electricity without significant disruption and chaos and impossible financing? For example, who will electrify the poor Central American, African, and Asian countries? They are the ones that will determine our success. Will draconian limitations be met with begrudging acceptance or be enforced with military power? Economic sanctions would be disastrously counterproductive. Who knows? We should count the cost like a wise king building a tower. 

I’m not asking you for answers. Perhaps others have some helpful comments.

Again, I’m looking for answers to these and other perplexing questions about  changes that will have a huge global impact, more than anything we have ever done in the past…perhaps even worse than what many are predicting “if we do nothing.” You have none, which is fine. I get that. Do something that you think is effective.

Edited April 23, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[MustardSeed]

We are all afraid for our planet, that is clear. Some demonstrate that fear with hopelessness(what’s the point in trying) some demonstrate with activism- most of us are somewhere in the middle, separating our recyclables in our garages and accepting the nasty paper straws (that ironically stab through plastic lids) - 

Its scary, the inevitable 😦 

Edited April 23, 2023 by MustardSeed

[Bernard Gui]

6 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

We are all afraid for our planet, that is clear. Some demonstrate that fear with hopelessness(what’s the point in trying) some demonstrate with activism- most of us are somewhere in the middle, separating our recyclables in our garages and accepting the nasty paper straws (that ironically stab through plastic lids) - 

Its scary, the inevitable 😦 

Not if God is in charge.

[The Nehor]

45 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Not if God is in charge.

Considering how God has expressed his displeasure with humanity’s wickedness in the past that isn’t that reassuring. The effects of climate change fit real neatly into some of the divine curse bits in scripture.

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Not if God is in charge.

IMO we can expect a post apocalyptic reality if God is or isn’t in charge, and it’s ok to be nervous enough to want to engage in useless argument but it’s best not to give in to that and instead acknowledge the helplessness and anxiety. 

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

IMO we can expect a post apocalyptic reality if God is or isn’t in charge, and it’s ok to be nervous enough to want to engage in useless argument but it’s best not to give in to that and instead acknowledge the helplessness and anxiety. 

Broken record here, but the covid causing clear skies everywhere gives me hope that I probably wouldn't have had had I not witnessed it. 

 

 

Then here's a before and after: 

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

IMO we can expect a post apocalyptic reality if God is or isn’t in charge, and it’s ok to be nervous enough to want to engage in useless argument but it’s best not to give in to that and instead acknowledge the helplessness and anxiety. 

No comprendo. Can you clarify?

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Considering how God has expressed his displeasure with humanity’s wickedness in the past that isn’t that reassuring. The effects of climate change fit real neatly into some of the divine curse bits in scripture.

Such as?

[Tacenda]

Here's a recent photo of Utah's state capital in this KSL article today, one of the worst in the nation. And the second photo is of the Utah State Capital during covid, with less gas emissions.

https://www.ksl.com/article/50625325/report-northern-utah-has-some-of-the-countrys-worst-ozone-particulate-pollution

 

[BlueDreams]

On 4/22/2023 at 10:02 AM, Bernard Gui said:

Of course we have a choice. The economic, social, and psychological ramifications (among others ) of this shift are astronomical and may result in even more severe damage and chaos. Before doing that, pause and count the cost and compare it with other solutions.

I have asked just a few sincere basic questions. How do you answer them?

 

 

I'd suggest reading my post again. By 'no choice' I meant the consequences that would follow in doing very little or maintaining the status quo. It's not an equal choice. We either work to shift our society to something more sustainable and find policies and methods to manage the damage that already can't be fixed or we ignore it and have reaources and environments erode or struggle under greater degrees of distress and human suffering. We'll like make mistakes or do so imperfectly as we move forward and shift. But doing nothing or too little is its own form of mistake. 

You've asked a lot of questions and I'm not sure which ones you're looking answers for so I just chose the 2 posts above this one that had some questions. I would note that though these may be basic they are by no means simple or singular in forms of solutions. If you're really concerned about these I'd strongly recommend reading up on them. I'be dabbled in exploring what's being done in these areas to some degree and it's quite fascinating. 

On 4/21/2023 at 8:03 PM, Bernard Gui said:

How do you propose to do that in Africa, India, China, and Latin America?

There's not a singular proposal on this. The basic gist is a mix of both monetary/tech supports for developing countries and more leeway in delays to these shifts, since the capacity to shift rapidly are more difficult there. How much is in a ton of debate. Many of these countries are moving ahead in doing projects to shift and reach their own goals. Many of these are beginning to really feel the effects of climate change and are projected to have some of the worst impacts from climate change with the least amount of infrastructure and resources to manage the destruction. Likely because of this, there's been more international movement to set net zero goals and shift energy markets in many of these countries. It's not perfect, it's not consistent from country to country, but it is slowly moving in that direction. 

On 4/21/2023 at 8:03 PM, Bernard Gui said:

John Kerry says that even if all industrialized countries reduced industrial emissions to zero, it would not be enough. Do you think he is wrong?

He's absolutely right. As I mentioned, that's only a part of the picture though. There's not a single market or country that if we fixed them and made it completely net zero that would be enough on its own. It doesn't mean that any of those are suddenly off the hook from needing to change asap. 

On 4/21/2023 at 8:03 PM, Bernard Gui said:

How will spent batteries be disposed of?

Tacenda gave a couple articles. Disposal and recycling are a developing system. So are things like carbon sequestration (which is necessary for most of the current plans). But there's good reason to hope and see a solution for many of these as there is preliminary tech out there that shows promise for it. 

On 4/21/2023 at 8:03 PM, Bernard Gui said:

What will be the cost to replace 13 million diesel trucks with hydrogen and electric powered trucks? How many charging stations will be required to service them? 

A lot of money and and a lot more stations.  No doubt. But again that's only half the picture. The other question is what is the cost of not doing so? And what is the current cost of diesel/fuel run vehicles. Again, tacenda mentioned the clean skies when cars were more off the road. This may seem pretty lightweight, but it signifies a really important effect that these vehicles cost us. The pollution in the air increases poor health and early deaths. Fissile fuels in general have heavy environmental and human health costs that we tend to ignore. And yes, these are worse than sustainable energy sources...usually far worse. 

On 4/21/2023 at 8:03 PM, Bernard Gui said:

What would be the monetary, societal, psychological, and cost for making it enough?

Serious questions for which I seek answers.

 

The monetary cost will be high, but current estimate still have it lower than a fossil fuel dominated future. The markets are already more pricey than solar and wind infrastructure. 

Societally, it'll likely come with the "cost" of having to realize we really do have limits. Cost is in quotation marks because I don't think this is a bad thing. We've been living this long-term illusion that we can just continue to "progress" and "develop" with little regard to the world we live on. Some still believe that they can ignore or escape it thanks to the buffers of wealth and privilege. This is a hubristic way to live. Like many changes prior, several markets will likely shift and a few will become smaller and niche. Certain things like fast fashion trends, disposable living, high meat consumption, and other purely unsustainable business practices will need to slow or reverse. Older home ec things like mending clothes, home gardens, and learning basic repair may come back into vogue. We may gain more of a sense of communal solidarity and reduce our tendency towards excess individualism. 

Psychologically, no idea. Currently there's increased trends towards environmental despair particularly among younger generations. The fact that we (any one under 40 and especially those under 20) will pay for a world of excess abundance that we will never see and most of us never fully got to experience isn't exactly lightweight. And it's no wonder there's plenty that get into a helplessness funk. But personally I find a lot of hope and beauty in seeing us trying to shift gears trying to eek out a future that we can pass on to generations. Wanting a future where my daughter will know that we need each other to live and survive and even thrive. If it goes well in the coming decades it could be a major psychological boon. If it flounders it could be a big psychological bust. I'm an optimist at heart, I hope we move ourselves towards that boon.

 

 

 

On 4/22/2023 at 9:54 AM, Bernard Gui said:

Not sure how context changes the plain and obvious meaning of the parable: it is foolish to begin a massive project without knowing the end from the beginning.

That's genuinely impossible. No one can know for certain what the long implications of huge projects will be. Sometimes we really fail to see even short term implications to projects and decisions. It's also unfair that future sustainable grown is held to a higher standard than current and past unsustainable projects had. Not only did the projects around fossil fuels grow without knowing the end from the beginning, once it became clear that the end was leading to seriously problematic consequences, it was buried and ignored for decades. Obviously I want future energy, food, and infrastructure to live by a higher standard that foreseeable profits. And in general I think it is. Though none of these are perfect, they're made and built in hopes of having energy sources that more environmentally conscientious.

On 4/22/2023 at 9:54 AM, Bernard Gui said:

If we are going to remake the energy systems of the entire world, we should at least have a basic idea of the myriad costs involved. For example, how do we replace the heating and cooling equipment of millions and millions of structures. Who wants a nuclear reactor next door?

Again, there's a need to compare and contrast. Have you heard of cancer alley? It's a region in the US that makes a sizeable chunk of petrochemicals/refineries and have significantly higher rates for cancer than the us average. I still can picture the ugly shock of driving through Houston and seeing a series of refineries overtake the landscape. And these are better than some places like Nigeria that have had water ways and environments throughly contaminated for the sake of oil. Nuclear is usually not most people's first bet for power, but it's one that likely will be used. Though there are (increasingly smaller) chances for serious problems with said plants, the everyday overall safety is far better than for that of fossil fuels. Heating and cooling equipment for many structures is also growing more readily replaceable. Heat pumps have made serious strides in recent years and subsidized programs make them a little more accessible. Much of this though would actually be more in changing existing infrastructure to be more energy efficient. This would take less tech innovations and more government subsidies and such to reduce price and expand availability in both training to do so and pace of shifts. 

On 4/22/2023 at 9:54 AM, Bernard Gui said:

 

Transportation is a major barrier. For example if we retool all the global auto and truck manufacturers to build electric vehicles, radically modify travel energy infrastructures and then realize batteries are more damaging to the environment than we thought, or that hydrogen is a better source of power, then we have only kicked the can down the road and irrevocably caused even more damage.

Honestly it's really hard to imagine a problem with batteries than the problem fossil fuels and petrochemicals have caused. Batteries are damaging, namely in things like sacrifice zones for mining if precious minerals, particularly in areas of the world with little regulatory capacity. But currently the degree of problems with continued fossil use wraps around the entire world with few areas having minimal impacy and includes the potential decimation of coastal cities and countries...some of which is already happening. 

 

On 4/22/2023 at 9:54 AM, Bernard Gui said:

Replace airplanes? How?

Replacing is generally not the goal, except maybe on the periphery (clipping at small plane/distance flights, for example). It's usually more tied to perfecting alternative fuels and expanding infrastructure for other forms of travel, such as train. Which is far more common place in eastern US cities, Europe, and certain areas in Asia. It may also include culture shifts on how we vacation, do business, or visit far-flung relatives. Some of which may be more possible with the rise of at-home working. 

 

On 4/22/2023 at 9:54 AM, Bernard Gui said:

I have asked a few sincere basic questions. How do you answer them?

These are my general answers. This was fairly long. This was fairly long, but if I had to give the gist I would say, search for what's really happening in these field. Remember that we're comparing all of this to a future that if it stays fossil fuel dependent will become more and more dire. And that all of these have answers or at least solid starts/potential to answers. I would also say, I'm not looking for a utopia. I know that because humans be human, many of these shifts will entail problems we don't like at first, struggle to integrate, or may find hidden costs. I just haven't found a potential downfall that equates to the very real and present corrosion we're already experience due to systems that are dependent on non-sustainable sources of energy and food. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Bernard Gui]

16 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I'd suggest reading my post again. By 'no choice' I meant the consequences that would follow in doing very little or maintaining the status quo. It's not an equal choice. We either work to shift our society to something more sustainable and find policies and methods to manage the damage that already can't be fixed or we ignore it and have reaources and environments erode or struggle under greater degrees of distress and human suffering. We'll like make mistakes or do so imperfectly as we move forward and shift. But doing nothing or too little is its own form of mistake. 

You've asked a lot of questions and I'm not sure which ones you're looking answers for so I just chose the 2 posts above this one that had some questions. I would note that though these may be basic they are by no means simple or singular in forms of solutions. If you're really concerned about these I'd strongly recommend reading up on them. I'be dabbled in exploring what's being done in these areas to some degree and it's quite fascinating. 

There's not a singular proposal on this. The basic gist is a mix of both monetary/tech supports for developing countries and more leeway in delays to these shifts, since the capacity to shift rapidly are more difficult there. How much is in a ton of debate. Many of these countries are moving ahead in doing projects to shift and reach their own goals. Many of these are beginning to really feel the effects of climate change and are projected to have some of the worst impacts from climate change with the least amount of infrastructure and resources to manage the destruction. Likely because of this, there's been more international movement to set net zero goals and shift energy markets in many of these countries. It's not perfect, it's not consistent from country to country, but it is slowly moving in that direction. 

He's absolutely right. As I mentioned, that's only a part of the picture though. There's not a single market or country that if we fixed them and made it completely net zero that would be enough on its own. It doesn't mean that any of those are suddenly off the hook from needing to change asap. 

Tacenda gave a couple articles. Disposal and recycling are a developing system. So are things like carbon sequestration (which is necessary for most of the current plans). But there's good reason to hope and see a solution for many of these as there is preliminary tech out there that shows promise for it. 

A lot of money and and a lot more stations.  No doubt. But again that's only half the picture. The other question is what is the cost of not doing so? And what is the current cost of diesel/fuel run vehicles. Again, tacenda mentioned the clean skies when cars were more off the road. This may seem pretty lightweight, but it signifies a really important effect that these vehicles cost us. The pollution in the air increases poor health and early deaths. Fissile fuels in general have heavy environmental and human health costs that we tend to ignore. And yes, these are worse than sustainable energy sources...usually far worse. 

The monetary cost will be high, but current estimate still have it lower than a fossil fuel dominated future. The markets are already more pricey than solar and wind infrastructure. 

Societally, it'll likely come with the "cost" of having to realize we really do have limits. Cost is in quotation marks because I don't think this is a bad thing. We've been living this long-term illusion that we can just continue to "progress" and "develop" with little regard to the world we live on. Some still believe that they can ignore or escape it thanks to the buffers of wealth and privilege. This is a hubristic way to live. Like many changes prior, several markets will likely shift and a few will become smaller and niche. Certain things like fast fashion trends, disposable living, high meat consumption, and other purely unsustainable business practices will need to slow or reverse. Older home ec things like mending clothes, home gardens, and learning basic repair may come back into vogue. We may gain more of a sense of communal solidarity and reduce our tendency towards excess individualism. 

Psychologically, no idea. Currently there's increased trends towards environmental despair particularly among younger generations. The fact that we (any one under 40 and especially those under 20) will pay for a world of excess abundance that we will never see and most of us never fully got to experience isn't exactly lightweight. And it's no wonder there's plenty that get into a helplessness funk. But personally I find a lot of hope and beauty in seeing us trying to shift gears trying to eek out a future that we can pass on to generations. Wanting a future where my daughter will know that we need each other to live and survive and even thrive. If it goes well in the coming decades it could be a major psychological boon. If it flounders it could be a big psychological bust. I'm an optimist at heart, I hope we move ourselves towards that boon.

 

 

 

That's genuinely impossible. No one can know for certain what the long implications of huge projects will be. Sometimes we really fail to see even short term implications to projects and decisions. It's also unfair that future sustainable grown is held to a higher standard than current and past unsustainable projects had. Not only did the projects around fossil fuels grow without knowing the end from the beginning, once it became clear that the end was leading to seriously problematic consequences, it was buried and ignored for decades. Obviously I want future energy, food, and infrastructure to live by a higher standard that foreseeable profits. And in general I think it is. Though none of these are perfect, they're made and built in hopes of having energy sources that more environmentally conscientious.

Again, there's a need to compare and contrast. Have you heard of cancer alley? It's a region in the US that makes a sizeable chunk of petrochemicals/refineries and have significantly higher rates for cancer than the us average. I still can picture the ugly shock of driving through Houston and seeing a series of refineries overtake the landscape. And these are better than some places like Nigeria that have had water ways and environments throughly contaminated for the sake of oil. Nuclear is usually not most people's first bet for power, but it's one that likely will be used. Though there are (increasingly smaller) chances for serious problems with said plants, the everyday overall safety is far better than for that of fossil fuels. Heating and cooling equipment for many structures is also growing more readily replaceable. Heat pumps have made serious strides in recent years and subsidized programs make them a little more accessible. Much of this though would actually be more in changing existing infrastructure to be more energy efficient. This would take less tech innovations and more government subsidies and such to reduce price and expand availability in both training to do so and pace of shifts. 

Honestly it's really hard to imagine a problem with batteries than the problem fossil fuels and petrochemicals have caused. Batteries are damaging, namely in things like sacrifice zones for mining if precious minerals, particularly in areas of the world with little regulatory capacity. But currently the degree of problems with continued fossil use wraps around the entire world with few areas having minimal impacy and includes the potential decimation of coastal cities and countries...some of which is already happening. 

 

Replacing is generally not the goal, except maybe on the periphery (clipping at small plane/distance flights, for example). It's usually more tied to perfecting alternative fuels and expanding infrastructure for other forms of travel, such as train. Which is far more common place in eastern US cities, Europe, and certain areas in Asia. It may also include culture shifts on how we vacation, do business, or visit far-flung relatives. Some of which may be more possible with the rise of at-home working. 

 

These are my general answers. This was fairly long. This was fairly long, but if I had to give the gist I would say, search for what's really happening in these field. Remember that we're comparing all of this to a future that if it stays fossil fuel dependent will become more and more dire. And that all of these have answers or at least solid starts/potential to answers. I would also say, I'm not looking for a utopia. I know that because humans be human, many of these shifts will entail problems we don't like at first, struggle to integrate, or may find hidden costs. I just haven't found a potential downfall that equates to the very real and present corrosion we're already experience due to systems that are dependent on non-sustainable sources of energy and food. 

 

With luv,

BD

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I do read up on them. That’s why I have questions.

Edited April 24, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

20 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Here's a recent photo of Utah's state capital in this KSL article today, one of the worst in the nation. And the second photo is of the Utah State Capital during covid, with less gas emissions.

https://www.ksl.com/article/50625325/report-northern-utah-has-some-of-the-countrys-worst-ozone-particulate-pollution

 

Temperature inversion?

[Tacenda]

14 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I'd suggest reading my post again. By 'no choice' I meant the consequences that would follow in doing very little or maintaining the status quo. It's not an equal choice. We either work to shift our society to something more sustainable and find policies and methods to manage the damage that already can't be fixed or we ignore it and have reaources and environments erode or struggle under greater degrees of distress and human suffering. We'll like make mistakes or do so imperfectly as we move forward and shift. But doing nothing or too little is its own form of mistake. 

You've asked a lot of questions and I'm not sure which ones you're looking answers for so I just chose the 2 posts above this one that had some questions. I would note that though these may be basic they are by no means simple or singular in forms of solutions. If you're really concerned about these I'd strongly recommend reading up on them. I'be dabbled in exploring what's being done in these areas to some degree and it's quite fascinating. 

There's not a singular proposal on this. The basic gist is a mix of both monetary/tech supports for developing countries and more leeway in delays to these shifts, since the capacity to shift rapidly are more difficult there. How much is in a ton of debate. Many of these countries are moving ahead in doing projects to shift and reach their own goals. Many of these are beginning to really feel the effects of climate change and are projected to have some of the worst impacts from climate change with the least amount of infrastructure and resources to manage the destruction. Likely because of this, there's been more international movement to set net zero goals and shift energy markets in many of these countries. It's not perfect, it's not consistent from country to country, but it is slowly moving in that direction. 

He's absolutely right. As I mentioned, that's only a part of the picture though. There's not a single market or country that if we fixed them and made it completely net zero that would be enough on its own. It doesn't mean that any of those are suddenly off the hook from needing to change asap. 

Tacenda gave a couple articles. Disposal and recycling are a developing system. So are things like carbon sequestration (which is necessary for most of the current plans). But there's good reason to hope and see a solution for many of these as there is preliminary tech out there that shows promise for it. 

A lot of money and and a lot more stations.  No doubt. But again that's only half the picture. The other question is what is the cost of not doing so? And what is the current cost of diesel/fuel run vehicles. Again, tacenda mentioned the clean skies when cars were more off the road. This may seem pretty lightweight, but it signifies a really important effect that these vehicles cost us. The pollution in the air increases poor health and early deaths. Fissile fuels in general have heavy environmental and human health costs that we tend to ignore. And yes, these are worse than sustainable energy sources...usually far worse. 

The monetary cost will be high, but current estimate still have it lower than a fossil fuel dominated future. The markets are already more pricey than solar and wind infrastructure. 

Societally, it'll likely come with the "cost" of having to realize we really do have limits. Cost is in quotation marks because I don't think this is a bad thing. We've been living this long-term illusion that we can just continue to "progress" and "develop" with little regard to the world we live on. Some still believe that they can ignore or escape it thanks to the buffers of wealth and privilege. This is a hubristic way to live. Like many changes prior, several markets will likely shift and a few will become smaller and niche. Certain things like fast fashion trends, disposable living, high meat consumption, and other purely unsustainable business practices will need to slow or reverse. Older home ec things like mending clothes, home gardens, and learning basic repair may come back into vogue. We may gain more of a sense of communal solidarity and reduce our tendency towards excess individualism. 

Psychologically, no idea. Currently there's increased trends towards environmental despair particularly among younger generations. The fact that we (any one under 40 and especially those under 20) will pay for a world of excess abundance that we will never see and most of us never fully got to experience isn't exactly lightweight. And it's no wonder there's plenty that get into a helplessness funk. But personally I find a lot of hope and beauty in seeing us trying to shift gears trying to eek out a future that we can pass on to generations. Wanting a future where my daughter will know that we need each other to live and survive and even thrive. If it goes well in the coming decades it could be a major psychological boon. If it flounders it could be a big psychological bust. I'm an optimist at heart, I hope we move ourselves towards that boon.

 

 

 

That's genuinely impossible. No one can know for certain what the long implications of huge projects will be. Sometimes we really fail to see even short term implications to projects and decisions. It's also unfair that future sustainable grown is held to a higher standard than current and past unsustainable projects had. Not only did the projects around fossil fuels grow without knowing the end from the beginning, once it became clear that the end was leading to seriously problematic consequences, it was buried and ignored for decades. Obviously I want future energy, food, and infrastructure to live by a higher standard that foreseeable profits. And in general I think it is. Though none of these are perfect, they're made and built in hopes of having energy sources that more environmentally conscientious.

Again, there's a need to compare and contrast. Have you heard of cancer alley? It's a region in the US that makes a sizeable chunk of petrochemicals/refineries and have significantly higher rates for cancer than the us average. I still can picture the ugly shock of driving through Houston and seeing a series of refineries overtake the landscape. And these are better than some places like Nigeria that have had water ways and environments throughly contaminated for the sake of oil. Nuclear is usually not most people's first bet for power, but it's one that likely will be used. Though there are (increasingly smaller) chances for serious problems with said plants, the everyday overall safety is far better than for that of fossil fuels. Heating and cooling equipment for many structures is also growing more readily replaceable. Heat pumps have made serious strides in recent years and subsidized programs make them a little more accessible. Much of this though would actually be more in changing existing infrastructure to be more energy efficient. This would take less tech innovations and more government subsidies and such to reduce price and expand availability in both training to do so and pace of shifts. 

Honestly it's really hard to imagine a problem with batteries than the problem fossil fuels and petrochemicals have caused. Batteries are damaging, namely in things like sacrifice zones for mining if precious minerals, particularly in areas of the world with little regulatory capacity. But currently the degree of problems with continued fossil use wraps around the entire world with few areas having minimal impacy and includes the potential decimation of coastal cities and countries...some of which is already happening. 

 

Replacing is generally not the goal, except maybe on the periphery (clipping at small plane/distance flights, for example). It's usually more tied to perfecting alternative fuels and expanding infrastructure for other forms of travel, such as train. Which is far more common place in eastern US cities, Europe, and certain areas in Asia. It may also include culture shifts on how we vacation, do business, or visit far-flung relatives. Some of which may be more possible with the rise of at-home working. 

 

These are my general answers. This was fairly long. This was fairly long, but if I had to give the gist I would say, search for what's really happening in these field. Remember that we're comparing all of this to a future that if it stays fossil fuel dependent will become more and more dire. And that all of these have answers or at least solid starts/potential to answers. I would also say, I'm not looking for a utopia. I know that because humans be human, many of these shifts will entail problems we don't like at first, struggle to integrate, or may find hidden costs. I just haven't found a potential downfall that equates to the very real and present corrosion we're already experience due to systems that are dependent on non-sustainable sources of energy and food. 

 

With luv,

BD

I appreciate the support by mentioning my name, about the fewer cars meaning clearer skies. And something I hadn't thought of, which was in front of my face here living in Davis county with our refineries, it plains stinks literally, and I'm sure the environment is paying a price for it, but had forgotten about the cancer causing pollutants you mentioned as well. So although we may be too late for the ozone layer we aren't too late on preventing cancer hopefully.