Extreme Weather, Climate, and Responsibility

[gdlewen]

Well, if everyone was where you are, maybe we would not need government intervention. Or maybe we still would. The problem you leave out is that a great deal of money is being made in the fossil fuel industries, and they carry a great deal of both public influence and political power. And that shapes a lot of what we would like to think of as individual choices, but all such choices are made within a social and economic environment. Could be the only way to make a difference in such a situation is some kind of government action.

Yeah well I probably should have left that part out. It's a distraction from the other points I really wanted to make. Alas! I can't seem to help myself trying to persuade...trying to appeal to "the better angels of our nature" rather than to political power.

 

[William Monfredo]

I consider myself an environmentalist, too. I never liked a school bus filled with cigarette smoke, a smokey sky from steel mills, and greasy soot on buildings, polluted waters, and more. But, interesting to think that Time Magazine's Hero of the Environment, Michael Schellenberger, now believes in nuclear, something he championed against when he was younger. His book, Apocalypse Never: Why Climate Alarmism Hurts us All, describes his personal journey toward moderation. Schellenberger delves deep into the issues and also talks about the psychology that goes into human behavior regarding AGW. We both believe that if you're for real about these issues, go nuclear. Nuclear's a lot of power in a small footprint; in fact, he now champions it out of a strip mall in California.
Another environmentalist, a co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, no longer likes Greenpeace. He says they sold themselves out for millions of dollars and no longer pitch truth as they once did. His book Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom has more honesty in it than I hear on taxpayer-funded NPR (no offense.). I know this seems weird, why would I read these? But, a non-curious media that has largely exhibited lazy, status-quo behavior led us down the road. So, I can read their books, too, as well as say, about the history of the holocene.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Well, if everyone was where you are, maybe we would not need government intervention. Or maybe we still would. The problem you leave out is that a great deal of money is being made in the fossil fuel industries, and they carry a great deal of both public influence and political power. And that shapes a lot of what we would like to think of as individual choices, but all such choices are made within a social and economic environment. Could be the only way to make a difference in such a situation is some kind of government action.

I seem to remember one of the Founders saying something similar, that if men were angels we wouldn’t need government, or something to that effect…

 

[JamesCaruso]

if you're for real about these issues, go nuclear. Nuclear's a lot of power in a small footprint

Glad you brought this up. This is one reason that people are skeptical of climate change alarmists - the argument is, “If you were really that worried about it, and weren’t just using it to justify policy priorities, you would support nuclear power.”

I recently read about Microsoft getting involved in a potential project to reopen Three Mile Island to help meet meet the surging energy demands to support AI applications.

 

[gdlewen]

Glad you brought this up. This is one reason that people are skeptical of climate change alarmists - the argument is, “If you were really that worried about it, and weren’t just using it to justify policy priorities, you would support nuclear power.”

I recently read about Microsoft getting involved in a potential project to reopen Three Mile Island to help meet meet the surging energy demands to support AI applications.

There's a lot to be said for this approach. It's not often you can see a clear alternative being deprecated in order to push an agenda, but when you do the agenda is exposed. Nuclear power as green energy "aka non-GHG emitting" is one such case.

Another--and this is not weather related so please spare me the ban hammer: the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It was pushed primarily as the solution to some 30 million Americans unable to obtain health insurance. Since about half that number were actually refuseniks who chose not to participate, the actual number turned to be about 18 million.

But if insuring the uninsured were actually the reason for the ACA, they could have bought Cadillac plans (like the kind Congress gives itself) for about $75B. In 2023 entitlement programs cost about $4T, so this would have been, not a trivial increase, but a minor one. Instead, the Federal Government engaged in a centralization of bureaucratic power over virtually every facet of health care--a $1T industry larger than the GDP of France.

It would haver been simpler for most of us had they just provided insurance to the uninsured, but the agenda is exposed by the deprecation of the obvious solution.

So when you see nuclear energy being deprecated in favor of wind and solar, you have to wonder if the goal is actually the reduction of GHG. Is the long term effect of climate change worse than the issues surrounding production of nuclear energy? Are we facing a climate emergency? If so, then why not "All hands on deck"?

 

[Mike Smith]

Don't get me wrong--as a Christian I believe we have a pastoral duty of care for the world in which we live.

And, Jesus was explicit that we have a personal duty to care for the poor.

You won't believe how bad it has become post-Helene in the southern Appalachians. Please read this:

Southern Appalachians: Day 48 and It Is Still Worse Than You Can Imagine

50 Days Ago: Hurricane Helene Develops in the Gulf of Mexico Helene's aftermath should be the lead story on each network's evening news for ...

www.mikesmithenterprisesblog.com

Many of the charities have moved out as winter sets in. What they need most is shelter. You can find a group gathering and delivering used RV's here: Shelter Desperately Needed in North Carolina

 

[Jamie H]

There's a lot to be said for this approach. It's not often you can see a clear alternative being deprecated in order to push an agenda, but when you do the agenda is exposed. Nuclear power as green energy "aka non-GHG emitting" is one such case.

So when you see nuclear energy being deprecated in favor of wind and solar, you have to wonder if the goal is actually the reduction of GHG. Is the long term effect of climate change worse than the issues surrounding production of nuclear energy? Are we facing a climate emergency? If so, then why not "All hands on deck"?

My understanding was that it isn't an agenda, but rather that nuclear power stations take a long time to build, there's no viable way to store the waste, and that the cost per megawatt is two to three times higher than wind and solar. It should be part of the long-term solution, in a manageable way, bu other forms of energy generation are quicker and cheaper.

 

[gdlewen]

My understanding was that it isn't an agenda, but rather that nuclear power stations take a long time to build, there's no viable way to store the waste, and that the cost per megawatt is two to three times higher than wind and solar. It should be part of the long-term solution, in a manageable way, bu other forms of energy generation are quicker and cheaper.

Unfortunately it’s not that simple. California is decommissioning all of its nuclear power plants:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/02/why-is-california-closing-diablo-canyon-nuclear-plant.html

France and Germany are following suit:

A safe and profitable nuclear plant is closing in France. Why?

A nuclear plant closes while a coal plant opens. That is hardly a welcome trade-off.

www.sustainability-times.com

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/15/europe/germany-nuclear-phase-out-climate-intl/index.html

Obviously it’s a complicated picture but the trend is not a good one for the earth.

 

[Jamie H]

And, Jesus was explicit that we have a personal duty to care for the poor.

You won't believe how bad it has become post-Helene in the southern Appalachians. Please read this:

Southern Appalachians: Day 48 and It Is Still Worse Than You Can Imagine

50 Days Ago: Hurricane Helene Develops in the Gulf of Mexico Helene's aftermath should be the lead story on each network's evening news for ...

www.mikesmithenterprisesblog.com

Many of the charities have moved out as winter sets in. What they need most is shelter. You can find a group gathering and delivering used RV's here: Shelter Desperately Needed in North Carolina

Mike, I don't see how posts like this help the calls for a NDRB.

At the start you mention Maui land grab and link to an article. That article clearly lays out that FEMA has nothing to do with this and that it does not have the power of eminent domain. The land grabs came from companies and individuals trying to prey on desparate people.

The link to the Twitter account offers nothing. The hydrants weren't turned off. Some hydrants failed as the fire melted water lines.

Then you've posted a screenshot again claiming FEMA is offering cheap money for land. This is not true.

The NC DHS bit has no relevance here.

I replied to an earlier post that again there was no evidence only Trump voters were skipped over, and that this was also covered homes with Biden voters, and homes with no political signs. It isn't helping cool and unify the political discourse when US Representatives are stirring up falsehoods.

Honestly, a lot of what seems to be making people angry online again is just not true. Most of it is covered here: FEMA has faced criticism and praise during Helene. Here's what it does — and doesn't do

There's a very good online machine for mixing up misinformation and getting people of certain political views angry. This is then amplified by voices and politicians on that side of the political 'debate'. This then gets more people angry. Then it leads to the people in need missing out on that help. FEMA pauses aid in North Carolina amid armed militia threat

How can it be helpful that stirring up lies online leads to relief workers having to withdraw from communities for fear of violence?

Mike, your calls for an NRDB are passionate and could be very helpful to the US. I don't see why you would need to write articles linking to social media posts and adding editorial comments that "this" is all on Biden, Harris, and Cooper. "This" isn't even an actual thing which is happening.

Please, please, stop amplifying these social media people who do nothing but stir up hate and division. This year, three children were killed in a horrible incident in the UK. The same sort of social media accounts quickly posted lies about the attacker being a Muslim immigrant. Because of this, the following day hundreds of people started to riot in the streets where these families lived and were grieving. See how quickly it spreads and how dangerous this is?

 

[Jamie H]

Unfortunately it’s not that simple. California is decommissioning all of its nuclear power plants:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/02/why-is-california-closing-diablo-canyon-nuclear-plant.html

France and Germany are following suit:

A safe and profitable nuclear plant is closing in France. Why?

A nuclear plant closes while a coal plant opens. That is hardly a welcome trade-off.

www.sustainability-times.com

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/15/europe/germany-nuclear-phase-out-climate-intl/index.html

Obviously it’s a complicated picture but the trend is not a good one for the earth.

Thanks for sharing those.

The CNBC article doesn't really answer the question. Residents are fearful of the plant because it is close to fault lines and they don't trust PG&E, which runs it. CCAs don't like it because it is more expensive and there's no way to safely store radioactive waste. PG&E obviously doesn't agree.

The Fessenheim story is interesting. It seems a shame a still working and useful plant was decomissioned. The article linked to doesn't mention some of the safety failures, nor an emergency shutdown. From what I could find out, it's complicated and not quite the simple political choices mentioned in the article.

Similar with the CNN article. It's the same story - nuclear power is expensive and stations last for 40-60 years. At the end of this, all of the waste has to go somewhere and no one seems to know where that can be.


- I appreciate I, in particular, am driving many of the non-weather related posts here right now, so I think I probably should curtail it. More than happy to have discussions with anyone who wants to however, just in private rather than on Stormtrack : )

 

[gdlewen]

Thanks for sharing those.

The CNBC article doesn't really answer the question. Residents are fearful of the plant because it is close to fault lines and they don't trust PG&E, which runs it. CCAs don't like it because it is more expensive and there's no way to safely store radioactive waste. PG&E obviously doesn't agree.

The Fessenheim story is interesting. It seems a shame a still working and useful plant was decomissioned. The article linked to doesn't mention some of the safety failures, nor an emergency shutdown. From what I could find out, it's complicated and not quite the simple political choices mentioned in the article.

Similar with the CNN article. It's the same story - nuclear power is expensive and stations last for 40-60 years. At the end of this, all of the waste has to go somewhere and no one seems to know where that can be.

I think you’ve identified the problem: we lack consensus on whether or not nuclear power should be used to replace or offset GHG emissions. If the climate emergency exists why are the policy choices so conflicting and muddled? It should not be that hard.

The decision not to build a nuclear plant because of the time it takes and the costs suggests green energy is not the priority. Everything takes time and money. It can take 5-7 years just to connect a solar or wind farm to the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) transmission grid. (SPP operates the grid in the central U.S.)

Therefore here’s a maxim: “We plan for our priorities.”

 

[John Farley]

Another--and this is not weather related so please spare me the ban hammer: the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It was pushed primarily as the solution to some 30 million Americans unable to obtain health insurance. Since about half that number were actually refuseniks who chose not to participate, the actual number turned to be about 18 million.

But if insuring the uninsured were actually the reason for the ACA, they could have bought Cadillac plans (like the kind Congress gives itself) for about $75B. In 2023 entitlement programs cost about $4T, so this would have been, not a trivial increase, but a minor one. Instead, the Federal Government engaged in a centralization of bureaucratic power over virtually every facet of health care--a $1T industry larger than the GDP of France.

This is so far off-topic that I hesitate to reply to it, but since it is out there, I will. In 2010, according to Statista..com, there were 48.6 million Americans without health insurance. By last year, that was down to 25 million. So the number who gained insurance because of the ACA was quite a bit more than 18 million, actually nearly 24 million. And what is referred to in this post as a "centralization of bureaucratic power" actually amounts to things like saying insurance companies can't deny you coverage or payments because of pre-existing conditions and that they have to provide some minimum level of coverage for the money they are getting, things Americans overwhelmingly approve. And if you want to talk about centralization of bureaucratic power, a better example would be efforts to ban abortion, penalize doctors and clinics who provide it, and even to keep people from travelling over state lines to get it. Mods: If you want to apply the "ban hammer" to this post that is fine, but please if you do also apply it to the one I am replying to.

 

[Mike Smith]

How can it be helpful that stirring up lies online leads to relief workers having to withdraw from communities for fear of violence?

Mike, your calls for an NRDB are passionate and could be very helpful to the US. I don't see why you would need to write articles linking to social media posts and adding editorial comments that "this" is all on Biden, Harris, and Cooper. "This" isn't even an actual thing which is happening.

Please, please, stop amplifying these social media people who do nothing but stir up hate and division. This year, three children were killed in a horrible incident in the UK. The same sort of social media accounts quickly posted lies about the attacker being a Muslim immigrant. Because of this, the following day hundreds of people started to riot in the streets where these families lived and were grieving. See how quickly it spreads and how dangerous this is?

Jamie, I am so filled with work at the moment, I do not have the time to do a point-by-point rebuttal of your comments except to say I stand 100% behind what I have written. As to "Biden, Harris, and Cooper," why is it incorrect hold politicians responsible for their mistakes or harmful actions? I believe there should be more accountability in politics, not less.

Thank you for taking the time to comment. While we disagree, appreciate the respectful exchange.

P.S. This just came across my Twitter feed:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1859366189585063995

 

[Marc Johnes]

Totally agree that AGW has become a real hot potato that won't leave weather discussions. On one hand it's important to separate specific weather events from long-term climate changes but we can't ignore human impact on the planet. What’s happening now is a result of political and scientific pressure that changes how we view weather.. Unfortunately the lack of constructive dialogue can lead to greater division so we should try to find a balance. After all we’re all here to talk about storms not politics.
But in this context sadly AGW seeps into everything

 

[William Monfredo]

Judith Curry, Ph.D. said to the Senate in 2023, "In spite of the recent apocalyptic rhetoric, the climate “crisis” isn’t what it used to be. Circa 2013 with publication of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, the extreme emissions scenario RCP8.5 was regarded as the business-as-usual emissions scenario, with expected warming of 4 to 5 oC by 2100. Now there is growing acceptance that RCP8.5 is implausible, and the medium emissions scenario is arguably the current business-as-usual scenario according to recent reports issued by the Conference of the Parties since 2021."
So, journalist & academics that still use that out-of-date, worst-case scenario come up with hyperbole that can alienate adults and scare kids.