The basic theoretical question and framing of the “waste management problem” sound about right. The two biggest problems are: (1) validity of data; and (2) validity of data. Given what I see when I walk around my neighborhood, I am certain that the data sets are corrupt. When I look at water temperatures as reported, and until recently splashed around in the ocean water to check, I would find a consistent +5 degree lean in reported versus colder actual temperatures. The Information Scientist in me has his head explode listening to lectures where “settled science” is based on data that makes no sense to my visual and tactile observations. There’s more; there always is. The question and framing are useful. My friends and I would like to help at some point get the data right.
What you’re saying doesn’t reflet a planetary scale. It is not ‘corruption’ it is a question of scale and scope. The temperature data are based on trends in global annual averages. So of course no one location at any one time will conform with that. It is the North that is warming at double the global average, where it is very visible. This decrease in global bifurcation often brings more cold air south, even if on a global average it is still getting warmer. There is also more warming in the oceans, but with limited depth, so the amount of deep sea mixing matters. And it you look at a global heat map of sea surface temperature, there is a pronounced cold spot in the North Atlantic - where fresh water from glacial melt is weakening the thermo-haline circulation.
@@Rnankn Thanks for your terrific input. But, you missed the main point - because the science of political correctness allows you to state your case, while putting me into a funny farm for stating mine precisely. For example, you do not ask what it is that I see when I walk outside. Or when I stay inside my home. With a giant gag on my face, everyone but me wins every argument. Including the one hinted at by my on-line call sign. Follow the giant pots of money in order to find “objectivity” in grant-seeking “science”. My biological father, an MIT math professor, was railing about that particular corruption of science in the 1950s, before I was born. Cheers.
The question to pose, is, how will humans be convinced to stop? Or, conversely, how will the otherwise scenario play out, not depending on humans? Physics has not helped so far ... and therefore cannot be seen as the solution. The problem is a human nature problem.
My understanding is that such regulation would apply to fossil fuel extracted in a country or imported into a country. Should the embedded emissions of imported products also fall under the regulation?
I recently became interested in Carbon Capture and Sequestration again when I started thinking about liquifying air as a way of monetizing and exporting renewable energy. Liquid nitrogen can be used to replace large air conditioners without straining electricity grids. Liquid oxygen will be necessary for power plants to capture their own CO2 emissions. This lecture makes me more confident that 20-year takeoff agreements for liquid air will be easier to sign than for renewable power projects.
If he's concerned about government getting hold of the tax money, what's his view on James Hansen's suggestion of "tax and dividend" where all the tax money received is re-disbursed to citizens directly into their bank accounts?
I really like the way Myles handles presentation, but in this case, in the end, I'm not at all clear on what he's advocating. Mainly, what sort of carbon capture? If capture of emissions from fossil fuel use is part of the solution, that will not work for much except coal power plants, which are a relatively small part of the energy mix, declining fast, and especially in the UK. Everything else involves huge numbers of small point sources where CCS is clearly impractical-with the possible exception of making concrete and steel, but that's a somewhat tangential matter. And to the extent that any large plants, of any kind, are outfitted with CCS, that creates other problems, mainly in that a lot of money will be sunk into a lot of physical plant that doesn't have much of a future. OTOH if it's to be DAC, that can cover everything, and can be done anywhere there is an energy source. Since it's clear that electricity is going to be a growing portion of energy use, eventually being most of it, DAC is really where the action is. Regulations could be used to induce fossil fuel companies to do DAC and bury the CO2 in their wells. Well, maybe. Must admit I haven't given that idea much thought. But I'd really like if Myles could be clear about whether that is what he has in mind.
Carbon sequestration helps many existing technologies improve their economics. Corn/sugar ethanol, biodigesters, and biochar all gain long term feasibility from carbon sequestration. Bioenergy combined with carbon sequestration has a lot of potential to start large scale sequestration before direct air capture technology matures.
Human population growth drives energy usages globally, compare population 150 years ago to now and see how it jumps as far as energy consumption. Tough pill to swallow...as well as our need to have certain living standards compared to 150 yrs ago drives it upwards collectively
