kurtster wrote:
That might easier than challenging the cheap energy entitlement in places like the USA (and many others).   

Climate change will help.   Flooding, coastal storms, extreme heat and cold all have wonderful potential to kill and kill again.

Thanks to world-beating US obesity-sitting-dementia policies — don't worry, Canadians love them too — more Americans in bad health will die in the future from what should be otherwise  survivable shocks to weather.  

I wonder what the Christian Deity (or Deities, depending) think of all this.  Is there not a passage or two in the bible that warns against trashing the temple of the soul?  

 kurtster wrote: 
you still think funny. There is a critical distinction between methane and CO2.

Cows burp methane.. I suspect you don't (well, only a little).

 R_P wrote: 
Also from my unsourced source way farther down is this little tid bit ...
.
Physiologically speaking, the existence of people and our livestock is removing carbon from the atmosphere, albeit at an incredibly slow rate.

That shoots down the whole cow thing, which is foundation to so many arguments against raising cows as a food source, eh ?  Turns out the opposite is true, like so many of the canned climate change fear mongering "facts" y'all like to use.

 Manbird wrote: 

 kurtster wrote:

Do you think the number of people on this planet is:
A. Too few
B. Just right
C. Too many

 kurtster wrote: 


you think funny.   Getting back to the main point. Simply waiting for technology alone to solve the problem is now IMHO criminally complacent. The technology is not there yet on the scale we need it. Ergo, we need to change consumption patterns, this goes hand-in-hand with technological progress. The two are not incompatible.

And the ironic thing is, it seems the younger generation has already realized this and is acting on it. It's just us old farts who, despite being the first generation to really benefit from the abundance of post WWII growth, seem totally intransigent when it comes to being just a wee bit more responsible about what and how we consume, and yes I put myself in that group. 

 

 kurtster wrote:
Unsourced kurtsterian blather.

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
So what about the CO² emissions from humans ?

The average human exhales about 2.3 pounds of carbon dioxide on an average day. ... Take this number and multiply by a population of 7 billion people, breathing away for 365.25 days per year, and you get an annual CO2 output of 2.94 billion tons.

Time to reduce the human population, too ?

 Ohmsen wrote: 
huh?  Kurtster brought up the vegan thing, not me. FWIW I am not vegetarian but my wife is.

 Ohmsen wrote: 
my beef with industrial farming is primarily the loss of biodiversity and topsoil depletion, but yes, it also has a carbon footprint.. 

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
Oh noes, The Deep State is coming for your hamburgers/steaks!

 kurtster wrote: 
nope. you're forgetting all those frictional losses aka bovine burping and farting.. which will be avoided by going vegetarian/vegan..

it is waaaay more efficient for us to eat the crops directly (well ok, not grass, but you get my drift).

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
Well, if we go vegan, then we have to make energy efficiency improvements for the expansion required in other parts of agriculture in order to replace the offenders, energy efficiently.
.
Right ?

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
You seemed to imply that with your expression of urgency and impatience.

and btw.. it is not just energy consumption in all those sectors

 kurtster wrote: 
who says that?  

 Ohmsen wrote: 
Not only what you said, but regarding the bolded above in NoEnz's thought, flattening the energy curve applies to all of the sectors above in the chart.  It is in the natural best interest to improve energy efficiency in all of them.  To think that no one is trying is just bizarre at any informed level.

energy production and transport are just part of the problem. 
"flattening the demand curve" as you put has to extend to all other sectors as well OR we find new technologies to allow demand to stay high but simultaneously become more sustainable, or, even better, we do both at once for the fastest possible response.
 

 kurtster wrote: 
I've got no real idea of what you are actually trying to say here.. that climate activists should just shut up because it is all going to fix itself because of natural incentives?
Like this kind of natural incentive?



it's just natural economics. 

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
Yes, but no.  The best and fastest solution, imho, is to flatten and then reduce the energy demand curve, while we work on electrical energy generation advances.

There is a natural incentive to do this as energy is a huge part of the cost of production, let alone just living.  This natural incentive does not need political or ideological intervention, hence the opposition or diversion from this type of approach.  It is just simple economics.

And then we have to also work on electrical energy transmission problems, so that it does not start wildfires such as in NorCal, for example.