Arctic Summer Melt Shows Ice Is Disappearing Faster Than Normal
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
Advocate that governments cut down on soot emissions.
This accounts for a significant portion of the current temperature rise in the Arctic -- but, most importantly -- an unknown amount of the loss of snow and ice cover.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-track-...
Unfortunately, this form of carbon (soot) is not as useful for funds transfer...
Between cutting down soot (all Chinese power plants could be outfitted with soot collectors in one year), and planting trees (which is the least expensive, most accessible option for sequestering carbon dioxide at planetary scale), we could actually start to impact arctic snow cover and permafrost within a couple of years, within a budgetary envelope that every developed country could easily manage.
But, once again -- unfortunately, neither of these options appear to be politically attractive, because the primary goal seems to be wealth transfer, not actual harm mitigation...
i.e. vote. There are extremely important elections coming up in several states in November that will indirectly decide who controls Congress for the next ten years. Voting in this off-year election, especially if you live in Virginia can make a material difference in how the United States responds to this crisis.
There isn't necessarily anything nefarious about this, just that it may be incapable of dealing with the enormity of climate climate and also, as OP intimates, there may be a class of solutions that are better/cheaper/more efficient from a policy perspective, but that don't have anyone positioned to gain financially from them and so are harder to garner support for.
In the parent example, the implication is that rather than investing money in reducing pollution, that money can instead by returned to the investors as dividends, and the global public must bear the impact of the unmitigated soot emissions.
The "wealth transfer" in this case is represented by the costs absorbed by the public (in terms of increased healthcare costs, endangered coastal real estate, disaster relief costs, etc which may result from pollution and/or anthropogenic climate change) being transferred to the investors/owners/operators of the polluting companies in the form of reduced spending on mitigation technology.
That was my interpretation of the parent's meaning, at least. At the time I posted this comment, there were three different interpretations of the same comment, which is very interesting.
I’d be interested to know if this can be scaled up if societies started investing in it.
Twelve years later.. and .. recurrent headlines on YNews ? US EPA being dismantled, with the legal authority to regulate air pollution at the center of it.. Mixed signals from the other world economies, while posturing for trade routes through the Northern passage, and billions bet on small changes in oil prices each day .. Whats to worry about.
Is it that goof founder of 360-dot-org that said something like "Do something, just do something" ? Panic and gossip are clearly not enough.
Normal people can't do anything worthwhile.
Unless you're in a position to personally bankroll the research and buildout of fusion power (hi, Jeff) the only thing you can do at this late date is get in the face of your government representatives: Jam up their phone lines, sit in at their offices, back primary challengers who will address the problem.
It makes me so mad.
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/hawaiian-electric-finalizes... (Hawaiian Electric finalizes largest-ever renewables procurement)
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/new-york-awards-record-1700... (New York awards record 1,700 MW offshore wind contracts)
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/regulators-unanimously-appr... (Regulators unanimously approve Georgia Power plan, increasing renewables 72% by 2024)
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/aep-plans-2b-15-gw-wind-pur... (AEP plans $2B, 1.5 GW wind purchase in Oklahoma)
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/12/5/1812692... (Xcel Energy, one of the biggest utilities in the US, committed to going completely carbon-free by 2050 (and 80 percent carbon-free by 2030).)
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/09/eon-uk-to-s... (E.ON UK to supply 3.3m customers with 100% renewable electricity)
According to the IPCC, we have to cut global CO2 emissions by 50% before 2030. So your vast fleet of nuclear power plants might just barely be coming online by then. Maybe. If you started getting regulatory approval yesterday and nothing goes wrong at all.
I'm not convinced this is true. Obviously there is Chernobyl, but the failures and shortcomings seem to not only be understood but popularized by Western media and we can say "oh that was just the Soviet Union." Then Fukushima happened, in a country which seems to be far better than the US at building efficient, safe infrastructure. We could say that was a fluke and we will learn from it (and I'm sure we will), but how many more times will we need to learn to avoid the literal fallout of another nuclear disaster? Shit goes wrong sometimes and you can't predict it.
You can argue that it's still safer (obviously there are lots of nuclear power plants in the US that have had no huge disasters), but why not look at alternatives that are even safer?
Yes, Chernobyl was especially bad, and yes there were issues at Fukushima. I think we would avoid Chernobyl-level disasters, but I'm not convinced we would avoid Fukushima-level disasters.
We have very few nuclear plants in areas that are even seismically active anymore, much less have any meaningful tsunami risk.
It seems obvious that it's possible to build safe nuclear power plants - we've done it. But I think it's like building airplanes. Despite flying being the safest way to travel, all the planes were built decades ago and our attempts to change that in the US, ie the 737-MAX, have shown obvious examples of corruption and incompetence that have led to unnecessary deaths.
I think where we disagree is whether or not the US government is competent enough to build a nuclear power plant today, not whether or not the project itself is viable. I realize my original comment doesn't reflect that, so I apologize for the poor communication on my part.
The evidence does not bear out this part, unfortunately. It's not NIMBYism that has killed the reactors in South Carolina, or is on the way to killing Vogtle's expansion in George, that's just mere construction incompetence.
The time to start building nuclear was in 2000-2010; we started, perhaps too small to make a big difference, but in the end it was good that more weren't attempted because it was a gigantic failure and drew far too much money away from better projects.
The problem with nuclear power aren't accidents during operation, or NIMBYism, the problem is that we no longer know how to build it. (And once you start looking into the history of construction in the US, it was also often the case that we didn't know how to build them 40 years ago.)
The idea that the rest of the world is going to follow suit automatically based only on morals is far from obvious.
It doesn't seem that anyone in the mainstream has really found a way to come to grips with this, that at its core any solution is a global coordination problem. (Even putting aside that half the US has found it more politically useful to deny the problem entirely.)
Make the carbon tax revenue neutral, and pitch it as leveling the playing field and a boon to the local economy.
Sure, there are tons of details to work out, but I think this should be doable.
How, roughly, could this work politically at a global level, in a way that also works within the politics of each individual country?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-climatechange-insig...
oh, and there's all the other shit china does of course https://nationalpost.com/news/world/scientists-discover-chin...
but somehow people dodge the issue every time with 'but the usa per capita' as if these measurement are really comparable.
e: wow, struck a nerve there? sourced with articles, even. now let's wait for dang to come and say this is 'unsubstantive'
William Nordhaus has done the math, you can read his papers for more details and appropriate levels. Of course the fact that we didn't implement in 2015 when he did his calculations means that the appropriate levels are higher than they were then.
I would love to. But unfortunately the climate problem isn't even a small part of the political dialogue here.
In New Zealand, people with high carbon lifestyles say "well regardless of what we do, nothing matters if Americans don't change"
Now I live in America, where people with high carbon lifestyles say "well regardless of what we do, nothing matters if the Chinese don't change"
And I'm sure in China they say the same thing back to the US.
It's fun shifting the blame.
I don't think blame is a useful concept at all. The question is, within the complex world of economics and politics, starting from the point we are at today, what would a pragmatic solution look like, that is actually possible?
It is far from obvious that the best solution is to make local sacrifices, then hoping the world will follow. It might be that we all (in the world) need to agree to make sacrifices together first, put some rules and treaties in place, and then start improving together in coordination.
It sounds so Machiavellian but, if we are already making the economic sacrifices (that other countries aren't, but would like us to), I wonder if we aren't even losing potential bargaining power in coordinating globally?
case in point: Europe. taxes over taxes over taxes has pushed energy cost to the point production is non competitive https://businesstech.co.za/news/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/G...
net result: local decade long slump plus most heavy industry moved to countries that have less energy cost and less regulation, so it's not clear if the world is actually better off, since you also get pollution from naval transport
William Nordhaus' climate club:
The idea that eventually every industrial nation can mature and "grow out of" carbon production makes the ludicrous claim that somehow industrial production magically requires less CO2 over all in the long run. Sure this would be possible if processes could all become more efficient and overall output experience 0 growth, but continued growth is essential for current economic models.
We all know we are living in a global economy, but then talk about resources and waste as if they are local problems. The truth is modern global Capitalism requires perpetual growth and increase production and consumption. We all like getting paid and living in a prosperous society but that money cannot come in a sustainable world. Where do you derive profit from a truly sustainable system?
[1] https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-largest-co2-import...
And global carbon emissions are at their highest ever.
It's good we've built renewables rather than fossil. But the scale of the problem is WAY bigger than 1 trillion over 20 years.
I have the impression that most people opposing clinate change are afraid that the will loose something by the necessary changes, their cars, their perceived life style,... That's where politics come into play. Politicians have to communicate the necessary changes and come up with ways to manage the change without screwing the average Joe over. They found ways to divert billions to corporations with the best lobbyists, so there should be enough funds to combaz climate change. And once the western world started we are already half way there. The Paris accords used to be a global treaty, so there can be a global approach.
There is so much upside and opportunity in attacking climate change and pollution, I cannot understand why so many are willing to bury their heads in the sand. Decarbonization and undoing the damage we done is the chance for a second industrial revolution, with a much higher quality of life.
We already have plenty of rules that restrict economic freedom like not being allowed to steal or to kill people or thousands of others. If we have rules that limit the freedom to pollute there is plenty of economic freedom left. People and businesses would adapt quickly.
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/06/climate-chan...
That is only going to change through local action, which means going to city council and planning meetings and being willing to be yelled at and lied about by those who oppose all new housing.
So it's not enough just to go alone, you need to find local friends, get them to go too, and to make sure that this viewpoint is represented in these highly undemocratic forums in which local decisions are made.
But we also need to change the local as much as possible. Every single ton of CO2 we can avoid now is one less that we'll have to pull out later.
It seems that efficiency isn't enough because people will just use up more energy. Growth and how we think about the economy is incompatible with what needs to be done.
- walk as much as possible
- buy as less as possible (if the sales plummet, less sending products overseas I suppose) or local
- plant trees
IMHO, the problem isn't as much individuals not choosing to do that, but a system that prevents these choices from ever being made.
Also, not all spending is equal; buying propane or gasoline or airline tickets are clearly worse than buying a share of community solar; or buying new insulation for your home, or building new high-density apartment buildings next to a train station.
I don't think that we will ever win over climate change by championing austerity; rather we need to champion change in the system, and that takes lots of spending.
Furthermore, we are now at a point that it's going to be absolutely necessary to start pulling CO2 out of the ocean or atmosphere and sequestering it. Without a whole bunch more prosperity and cheap energy, we will never be able to do that, so building a future with super cheap and abundant solar and wind energy is pretty much the only way I can imagine us avoiding > 2C climate change.
Our electrical grid is slightly behind pace for decarbonization, but nowhere near as far behind as all the rest of society.
The bad part of society that has my greatest attention lately is single family zoning; this necessitates massive energy use, massive car use, and disallows anybody from creating a low-energy alternative that has all the amenities that people need in order to live. Single family zoning should be illegal. Nobody should be prevented from building an apartment building next to a small grocery store. Big-box stores should be highly restricted, instead of highly restricting apartment buildings.
(apologies for the long rant!)
unlike zeros
I know very well that people consumption aren't the main polluting factor but we.. are the people, we can divert part of the cycle
people aren't willing to talk about the heavy stuff... yet. we'll get there, but until people start talking about painful solutions - technology running daylight hours only, order of magnitude reduction in oceanic shipping, etc. - it's just feel good type stuff.
Like what?
Without a democratic consense and legislation we won't manage to fight climate change because people won't support it and the industrialized world that is not authoritarian ruled won't buy into a climate dictatorship.
That being said, nothing good comes from dictatorship and authoritarian systems, never. If we atart to unilaterally dicide what is good and bad there is no way to tell when and where to stop. Or when we ourselves end up on the "wrong" side.
but, to be honest, i think that's shirking your responsibility. it's just giving up in a slightly different way - "can't do anything about this any more, need authoritarianism; my hands are clean!"
we know a small % of people can enact revolutionary change. many people are afraid, comfortable, or unable to do something like sitting in front of $national_capital, risking their jobs, etc. until that change comes.
it's unfortunate but this idea that "the people" can't enact change is silly; there's just not (yet) enough willingness to really sacrifice to get it done.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCr546o7ImhGM57qoY0hHvkA
He does 15 minute videos reviewing the latest papers and news.
Headline: everything is happening faster than predicted.
[I'm not affiliated with Paul in any way, I just like his videos.]
The more aggressive models and the scientists that supported those models lost funding and were shouted down. Some of the models that got buried fully expected the changes to be happening at the pace we are witnessing. Some of those models said that once the permafrost started to thaw that it would release so much carbon, methane and nitrious oxide withing 10-15 years that the earth it's self would surpass human generated output. If those models are correct then it means we've passed a climate tipping point and nothing humans can do will reverse what's been set in motion. Event if human greenhouse gas output is reduced to zero overnight, the earth itself is now driving the changes to the climate.
1. Refuse to support politicians that do not see this as the grave issue it is. Most other political issues won't matter if we cannot change the course of global warming.
2. Spread awareness. Update yourself on the facts, and share them with your friends and family.
3. Plant trees like crazy.
This is actually normal for averages - some years are higher, some are lower. Otherwise it wouldn't be an average.
Maybe the state of affairs is still alarming, but then they should describe it better.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/record-shattering-27...
That seems like an un-dire consequence of the ice being gone
What am I missing? I should put a downpayment on beach front property in Nevada?
(via the excellent arctic sea ice blog's regional data aggregation page: https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/regional)
This first graph is arctic sea ice area, including the sum of all of the sub-regions that are what you normally think about as the Arctic Ocean. Several other bodies of water also get seasonal ice coverage adjacent to the arctic basin.
https://14adebb0-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/ar...
There are three clusters of lines shown here. Each one corresponds to the reports provided by a different sea-ice monitoring office. Differences in technique have been used by commentators to kibbutz about the finer points of what constitutes a record minimuim in the past, so its common for independent observers to show multiple institutes all together now. While the details differ, the broad picture is the same for all three offices.
The three clusters have been offset in the vertical axis to visually separate the three institutes. Roughly 2/3 of the arctic basin melts out each year.
Each institute reports both sea ice area, and sea ice extent. Ice area is the total area actually covered by ice. Ice extent is somewhat trickier to understand. Much of the summer ice pack isn't a big chunk of ice, its composed of many different chunks, and they will break up and merge over time. So many of the map grid cells are only partially covered by ice. When the fraction of coverage is greater than a certain threshold, then the entire grid cell is counted towards "ice extent" - the amount of ocean that has some ice floes in it. With that definition in mind, here's the current graph of sea ice extent, along with some recent historical context:
https://14adebb0-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/ar...
One thing of note: The current record year for melting is 2012. You'll note that the shape of that year's curve is quite a bit different from every other year's curve. 2012's weather patterns drove a melt that was so substantial that every year since has followed a different trajectory than the years prior to 2012, because so much multi-year ice melted out. At this point in the Summer, several years have had less area and/or extent than the previous record.