A word of caution Frank. Be careful what you wish for. — Agree to Disagree

What do you mean?

Please stop talking common sense. Somebody might believe you — Agree to Disagree

:grin:

Now you are saying this is incorrect, but you have not offered an explanation. If this is wrong, then you need to provide the correct answer. If biogenic methane in the atmosphere stays the same (at 600 ppb) how much warmer will global temps be due to this? — EricH

Okay, I have thought carefully about what you are saying and I think that I can see what you mean.

I have been talking about the theoretical situation where the Earth is at its equilibrium temperature. In that case having a constant emission of methane does not cause global warming.

But the Earth is not at its equilibrium temperature at the moment. The equilibrium temperature is higher than at present (because of the current levels of CO2 and methane). So the current levels of CO2 and methane are causing global warming even if the emissions of biogenic methane were constant.

Am I describing what you are saying correctly?

How odd that it’s this one issue — cows — that you want to dwell on, and yet repeatedly get wrong. — Mikie

Okay. I promise not to talk about cows until the next time that I mention them. :grin:

Not all of the something-industrial complex are purely evil. ;)

Are electric vehicles definitely better for the climate than gas-powered cars?
^{— Andrew Moseman, Sergey Paltsev · MIT Climate Portal · Oct 13, 2022}

Yes: although electric cars' batteries make them more carbon-intensive to manufacture than gas cars, they more than make up for it by driving much cleaner under nearly any conditions.

BMW To Construct $108 Million Battery Logistics Facility
^{— Andrew Lambrecht · InsideEVs · Aug 27, 2023}

BMW says that by 2026, a third of its vehicles sold will be fully electric.

Am I describing what you are saying correctly? — Agree to Disagree

I thought about it too and I think he's right. If we dumped a dose of methane into the atmosphere now, wouldn't the energy it captures accumulate year after year? I think it would. After a decade, the accumulated heat would be higher than it was after the first year.

I think the conclusion is that if we dose the atmosphere with methane every year, it would contribute to global warming until equilibrium is reached, but I don't know how long that takes with a constant amount of methane.

Not all of the something-industrial complex are purely evil. ;) — jorndoe

What I am about to say will upset a lot of people. Don't worry Mikie, it is not about cows. :grin:

Big Oil is not purely evil. What do you want oil companies to do? Starve people of fossil fuels?

Starving people of fossil fuels will harm a lot of people. Especially poor people and developing countries. That is why we need to move away from fossil fuels slowly enough to avoid creating big problems.

Well off people may think that global-warming/climate-change is the biggest problem in the world. But some people are struggling just to afford food, shelter, warmth, energy, etc. For these people global warming is not their primary concern. Oil companies are supplying these people with what they want and need.

People do things they don’t want to do all the time. It’s up to us to make it easier or harder. Bad habits, addictions, etc— I doubt many people want to continue with these things, but often times it’s simply “easier” than the alternative. It should be made harder. The reverse is true of good behavior — it should be made easier, regardless of what one thinks about it. — Mikie

Sure, but we're having a tough time electing people (Democrats) who want people to make rather trivial sacrifices. The fossil fuel lobby (Republicans) controls the House! There are other factors at play, but if people really wanted to limit fossil fuels and transition to a greener economy, Democrats would be in much better shape.

"National Youth Turnout: 23% - That's lower than in the historic 2018 cycle (28%) which broke records for turnout, but much higher than in 2014, when only 13% of youth voted."
https://circle.tufts.edu/2022-election-center

Only 1 in 4 young people are voting. That's really sad. That shows they don't really care about climate change.

Yes, that does help. Thank you for the clear explanation. — Agree to Disagree

:up:

The problem is that we use energy not for free and we make waste. You want people not to be burdened with this, at least be a situational antinatalist.

I wasn't even thinking about the equilibrium temp - but yes - I'm glad you finally got it. It takes an exceptionally honest person to admit they were wrong, so kudos to you both. :cheer:

Hey Agree: I hope that you will now review Mitloehner's article from U Cal that you referenced and reconsider your opposition to reducing biogenic methane emissions. Again - it's your source - and Mitloehner makes a pretty convincing case that (apart from anything else) reducing methane emissions from livestock farming is a relatively simple & cost effective way to slow down the rate of global warming.

Of course eliminating all livestock farming would be much better - but that's a separate discussion.

Only 1 in 4 young people are voting. That's really sad. That shows they don't really care about climate change. — RogueAI

I don’t think that’s what it means at all.

You want people not to be burdened with this, at least be a situational antinatalist. — schopenhauer1

Buddy, does everything have to come back to this one issue? Makes you sound a bit like a one-trick pony. I say this in a friendly way.

Buddy, does everything have to come back to this one issue? Makes you sound a bit like a one-trick pony. I say this in a friendly way. — Mikie

In a way…YES!!!

Only 1 in 4 young people are voting. That's really sad. That shows they don't really care about climate change.
— RogueAI

I don’t think that’s what it means at all. — Mikie

So they care about climate change but won't take a couple hours every two years to vote about it?

So they care about climate change but won't take a couple hours every two years to vote about it? — RogueAI

I don’t think they realize the importance of voting. Some rather take stronger actions, for some it’s too difficult, etc. For some it’s apathy, yes, but not 3/4.

Are there any chemists in the house?

What do you think of this (methanisation of CO2): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212982023000938?via%3Dihub

And what about industrial photosynthesis: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acssuschemeng.1c06390

They look very energy intensive but I think in some areas and at certain times (over production of solar or wind) this could be interesting. Instead of carbon capturing it, we recycle CO2.

I agree with you these might have a small place in the green energy network and hopefully the efficiency might be improved a little.

If I was king of the world, though, my pet project would be solar powered desalination plants in N Africa, Chile, etc, wherever there is a seaside desert, providing lubrication for natural photosynthesis. Greening the desert looks to be a good way of directly cooling and absorbing CO2, and could eventually become self sustaining by attracting more precipitation. It could even include growing some human food for any starving humans round and about.

Have you heard of "just dig it"? https://justdiggit.org/

:100:

https://news.mit.edu/2022/solar-desalination-system-inexpensive-0214

If you think it through, Global warming is a crisis of too much free energy, rather than not enough, so the problem is the usual one of tidying up and organising - global housework - rather than a shortage of power.

If you think it through, Global warming is a crisis of too much free energy, rather than not enough, so the problem is the usual one of tidying up and organising - global housework - rather than a shortage of power. — unenlightened

Perhaps it is the case that there is something flawed in the hubbub of human production in general.

You say that there is more than wanting. The whole problem stems from "wants". The whole of human production and consumption is predicated on this base instinct. It isn't solely for some detached edification. Engineering doesn't come out of a vacuum. It comes out of demand. Sure, you can have your tinkerer that just likes to tinker. But the big projects are only had by way of large investments. That takes want. Want. Want. Want.

Perhaps climate change is just a manifestation of the notion that production itself is not necessarily a positive thing. It keeps us alive, but it's instrumental in nature. We are always dissatisfied and our need for production and consumption, and work and justification of work are manifestations of this.

Quietude, negation, non-production is reviled. But perhaps it is the inverse and it is production that is evil. It is lauded as that which sustains. But perhaps that is exactly the problem. Sustaining is perhaps no good.

Why do I picture some people here as if they are Bertrand Russells with pipes sitting in their cushy armchairs cluching pearls on a philosophy forum?

Ironically, for this grandfatherly image of him, he was more radical than most today I would gather, and on this forum. I'd love to discuss quietude and non-production with the idler. He wouldn't clutch at pearls.

Different ideas people. Different ideas than the unassailable ones.

Perhaps climate change is just a manifestation of the notion that production itself is not necessarily a positive thing. It keeps us alive, but it's instrumental in nature. We are always dissatisfied and our need for production and consumption, and work and justification of work are manifestations of this. — schopenhauer1

I mostly agree with this. I’d add an obvious point: production can be done smarter. It doesn’t have to be in the hands of a small group of people motivated almost exclusively by profit.

I mostly agree with this. I’d add an obvious point: production can be done smarter. It doesn’t have to be in the hands of a small group of people motivated almost exclusively by profit. — Mikie

That's part of it. However, it's a much deeper kind of pessimism about production I am talking about. Look at this, as I type on a keyboard with a bright screen, made in engineering labs and then off to (mostly) Asian production facilities to be shipped over to the distributors along with the tens of thousands of other parts I use daily. I don't focus on it until it's broke (I won't invoke Heidegger's "broken tool" here.. that bastard). But it's used to push information around. The information is instrumental too. So is survival. So is entertainment.

It's not the economy, it's Schopenhauer's Will.

Small is Beautiful.

Cool stuff, but anytime I see "Buddhist economics" I laugh a little. As I said above, the problem isn't economic at its root.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/834233

And that is really Buddhist economics.

↪schopenhauer1 Small is Beautiful. — unenlightened

What about economies of scale?

Economies of scale also apply to the cow industry (sorry Mikie :grin: - you can substitute any other industry if you don't like cows). Raising a few cows in a barn is probably much less efficient (in terms of fossil fuel per kilogram of cow) than bigger scale cow raising techniques.

It's not the economy, it's Schopenhauer's Will. — schopenhauer1

Yeah but a lot of Schopenhauer is just bullshit.

In any case, we’re talking about making production better by not having it controlled by a handful of elites. The person to read in this respect is Karl, not Arthur.

In any case, we’re talking about making production better by not having it controlled by a handful of elites. — Mikie

In 2022 there were just over 40,000 McDonald's restaurants in the world. Which do you think is more efficient in terms of fossil fuel use? McDonald's, or 40,000 small independent hamburger restaurants?

Adults are talking. Your random, fatuous questions are irrelevant.

Adults are talking. — Mikie

It is appalling that you are using ad hominem on The Philosophy Forum.

You are implying that I am not an adult. That is ironic, since compared to me you are a baby.

Why don't you address the issues that I have raised rather than try to insult me?

Your random, fatuous questions are irrelevant. — Mikie

I thought that efficiency of fossil fuel use was relevant to a discussion about global-warming/climate-change.

Because your questions are inane and condescending. You ask insulting questions like that, expect responses of like kind.

Also, what’s truly “appalling” is your long line of thoroughly debunked, misleading, minimizing comments.

Feel free to chit chat with fellow climate deniers. Leave me out of it.