Google has fully offset its lifetime carbon emissions today

[Endymio]

Well for starters, those are two organizations. You state "every" environmental group has the same stance but two cherry picked examples are far from proving that.

I named five, including two of the largest and most prominent. Name one that isn't. Just one.

If you read on instead of just looking for catchy statements, you see that small hydro projects are acceptable.

Lol, I knew you'd bite on that. Sure, the Sierra Club says they don't automatically oppose small-scale hydro ... as long as it doesn't involve building a new dam, restricting the flow of the river in any way, or disturbing the habitat of any fish or other wildlife. End result: they oppose every proposed project. Not that there are many to oppose in the first place-- "small-scale hydro" is almost never cost-efficient.

Again, if you feel otherwise -- name a single case where a major environmental group has not opposed any major project anywhere in the world. No major dams or have been built in the US since the environmental movement ascended in the 1970s. None. Not one. We generate less hydro power today than we did 20 years ago.

Anyone saying you can't have cheap power and be environmentally responsible doesn't have 1st hand experience.

Absolutely! Now if we can only convince the environmentalists of that.

 

[Evernessince]

I named five, including two of the largest and most prominent. Name one that isn't. Just one.

Long considered a “clean” energy source, hydropower can actually be bad for climate - Energy Exchange

A new EDF study published this week in Environmental Science and Technology shows that hydropower — the leading renewable energy technology projected to grow rapidly — is not always as good for the climate as broadly assumed. Moreover, continuing to assume that it is could mean that projects...

blogs.edf.org

EDF is one of the biggest and isn't against hydro but does not the building requirements.

Lol, I knew you'd bite on that. Sure, the Sierra Club says they don't automatically oppose small-scale hydro ... as long as it doesn't involve building a new dam, restricting the flow of the river in any way, or disturbing the habitat of any fish or other wildlife. End result: they oppose every proposed project. Not that there are many to oppose in the first place-- "small-scale hydro" is almost never cost-efficient.

Again, if you feel otherwise -- name a single case where a major environmental group has not opposed any major project anywhere in the world. No major dams or have been built in the US since the environmental movement ascended in the 1970s. None. Not one. We generate less hydro power today than we did 20 years ago.

Opposed or cited concerns? Again your words with no sources to back it up. That's just one instance here as well.

Where exactly are you getting your infomration that a dam hasn't been built since 1970 or that we generate less hydro today than 20 years ago?

 

[SNGX1275]

You forgot to add thanks for eschewing science in favor of ignorance, and making it easier for dolts to pollute the air and the water once again. After all, Who needs clean air to breathe and clean water to drink when both are linked to serious health issues, right?

Don't let political differences get your emotions up enough that you make the same type of comment that you were railing against.

I work in the air pollution regulatory industry, and water pollution prior. The Trump Administration pulled back some regulations that went in effect late in the Obama Administration, but those were far stricter than anything before and were being challenged in the courts. So it isn't like some long set standards were just removed. Air and water in the US has gotten cleaner in every way, except CO2 since the late 60s, and CO2 emissions have been decreasing overall (again in the US) in the past decade or so.

Those health issues, with very few exceptions (PFAS being one), are all being decreased by the cleaner air and water we've achieved over the past 60 years.

 

[Endymio]

EDF is one of the biggest and isn't against hydro (link deleted).

Again-- do you read your sources before posting them? From your own link:

How hydropower can be worse for the climate than fossil fuels....

The entire article is a desperate attempt by the EDF to convince people that hydropower is A Bad Thing. They're against hydropower, period.

Where exactly are you getting your infomration that a dam hasn't been built since 1970 or that we generate less hydro today than 20 years ago?

Look, this is all very basic stuff. Google it or feel free to disbelieve it. I've led the horse to water enough times as it is. Drink or stay thirsty.

 

[Evernessince]

From your own link:
Again-- do you read your sources before posting them?

Says they guy who thought we were in the 20th century and even cited sea level data from that time period as if it was current sea level.

Perhaps you should spend more time finding sources instead of insuinating at the start of every one of your comments that everyone is less intellegent than you. You just look belligerent.

From your own link:
How hydropower can be worse for the climate than fossil fuels....

The entire article is a desperate attempt by the EDF to convince people that hydropower is A Bad Thing. They're against hydropower, period.


Look, this is all very basic stuff. Google it or feel free to disbelieve it. I've led the horse to water enough times as it is. Drink or stay thirsty.

Straight back to the drama-queen antics. I'm going to quote both the potential issues and the proposed solutions, all from the article you should have read instead of jumping to conclusions.

The potential problems

"How hydropower can be worse for the climate than fossil fuels

Hydropower is produced when water stored behind a dam is released, using the power of gravity to spin turbines, which generate electricity. There is no fossil fuel burning or smokestacks involved. Which is why, on average, electricity from a hydropower facility has a smaller carbon footprint per unit of energy than electricity generated from fossil fuels.

Long considered a “clean” energy source, hydropower can actually be bad for climate Click To Tweet
But the reservoirs where water is stored also produce both carbon dioxide and methane (an even more potent greenhouse gas, with over 80 times the warming power of CO2 for the first 20 years after it’s released). Both carbon dioxide and methane are released when vegetation decomposes under water. And here, there are enormous differences from facility to facility due to a range of varying reservoir features and meteorological characteristics.

Some hydropower reservoirs are actually carbon sinks, taking in more carbon through photosynthesis by organisms living in the water than they emit through decomposition, while others have carbon footprints equal to or greater than, fossil fuels. In fact, of the nearly 1,500 plants worldwide that we examined and account for half of global hydropower generation, more than 100 facilities have greenhouse gas emissions that cause more warming than fossil fuels.

Further, some regions, such as Africa and India, have proportionally more plants with high greenhouse gas emissions from hydropower compared to the rest of the world. Unfortunately, these also happen to be hotspots for future hydropower growth. For example, electricity generation from hydropower in India is projected to increase by 230% between 2015 and 2040.
"

Solutions

"There are things that can be done when planning a new hydropower project that can help keep emissions down.

For example, if a facility draws from a large reservoir, but generates a relatively small amount of electricity – it’s likely to produce disproportionate greenhouse gas emissions. Keeping this ratio in mind is a valuable part of the planning process as this “power density” has been found to be the best indicator of overall greenhouse gas emissions from hydropower facilities.

Temperature of the reservoir water can also play a role in the production of methane emissions, and therefore avoiding development in extremely hot places could also lower emissions."

At no point do they make hydro out to be some boggyman as you hyperbolicly claim (they even state that they can sometimes be carbon sinks). In addition, they even provide solutions for the potential problem. It should be mentioned that scientists have known for a long time that hydro-plants can produce methane but there is just a large variance from location to location that it wasn't a point to bring up to the public as frankly it's not that alarming. That said I see absolutely no problem with ensuring that a potential high methane facility takes steps to reduce methane output and the great part is, those steps are relatively simple.

 

[mgwerner]

What are the benefits of higher co2 levels?

More plants.

And dinosaurs. Big ones.

 

[monte]

Virtue signaling? Noble but will have little effect. Nuclear power is the solution.

 

[wiyosaya]

Don't let political differences get your emotions up enough that you make the same type of comment that you were railing against.

I work in the air pollution regulatory industry, and water pollution prior. The Trump Administration pulled back some regulations that went in effect late in the Obama Administration, but those were far stricter than anything before and were being challenged in the courts. So it isn't like some long set standards were just removed. Air and water in the US has gotten cleaner in every way, except CO2 since the late 60s, and CO2 emissions have been decreasing overall (again in the US) in the past decade or so.

What difference does it make if the rules were stricter if they are aimed at making things better for us all?

Those health issues, with very few exceptions (PFAS being one), are all being decreased by the cleaner air and water we've achieved over the past 60 years.

Yes, I get that. IMO, that is a desirable outcome. If we are not careful, the progress that has been made over the decades will be reversed. Is that something that anyone wants to see in the name of profit?

 

[wiyosaya]

More plants.

And dinosaurs. Big ones.

I think you have your gasses confused. Current thinking is that Dinosaurs got so big because of oxygen levels in their time. https://phys.org/news/2019-08-dinosaurs-linked-oxygen.html

 

[wiyosaya]

I named five, including two of the largest and most prominent. Name one that isn't. Just one.

Lol, I knew you'd bite on that. Sure, the Sierra Club says they don't automatically oppose small-scale hydro ... as long as it doesn't involve building a new dam, restricting the flow of the river in any way, or disturbing the habitat of any fish or other wildlife. End result: they oppose every proposed project. Not that there are many to oppose in the first place-- "small-scale hydro" is almost never cost-efficient.

Again, if you feel otherwise -- name a single case where a major environmental group has not opposed any major project anywhere in the world. No major dams or have been built in the US since the environmental movement ascended in the 1970s. None. Not one. We generate less hydro power today than we did 20 years ago.

Absolutely! Now if we can only convince the environmentalists of that.

Good luck with that since hydro causes other environmental issues and removal of dams has shown to reverse the degradation caused by the dams https://www.nature.org/en-us/about-.../stories-in-new-jersey/the-columbia-lake-dam/

 

[wiyosaya]

Also, sea life requires dissolved carbon dioxide in the water allowing algae to grow and feed the higher food chain.

Too much CO2 in the ocean causes acidificattion which causes harm to marine life https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/acidification.html

 

[wiyosaya]

Do you feel this is some sort of rebuttal?

Your post implies that the rate of sea level rise has remained relatively constant. Their is no guarantee that it will remain constant. You are making an assumption that has no basis in objective reality.

Do you need a reference to the fact that plants require CO2?

Show us a reference that says that plants need 400ppm of CO2 for optimal growth, or your point is irrelevant and based on us taking your word without establishing it as scientific consensus. Do you really expect everyone to just take your word for it?

When you get your "science" from the media, rather than scientists, you will always be misinformed. The PBS link you cite begins with the quote: "Disastrous hurricanes ... it's not hard to conclude that something's up with the weather, and many scientists agree". Unfortunately, most scientists studying hurricanes agree on the exact opposite: that global warming leads to less total hurricane activity. In modeling, the storms that do form tend to be very slightly larger and longer-lived, but this is more than compensated for by a much larger decrease in the total number of storms. And, unlike many of the predictions made by numerical climate models, this one is borne out by real-world data: there has been no detectable trend in global ACE (accumulated cyclone energy over the last 160 years of data:

Journal Cite: Hurricane Trend Detection

EDIT: Yes, the media is always fake news. Where have we heard that before?? Personally, I trust PBS and Nova more than your word.

The video does a good job of explaining just how CO2 causes climate change. It also presented evidence of how warmer oceans lead to stronger storms.

Furthermore, in the year 1931, the world saw 3.7 million people die from natural disasters. 2018 saw just 11,000 die -- a year when world population was four times higher than it was in 1931.

The numbers of deaths may be due to other reasons. Perhaps better building codes, among others.

Is man having an effect on the climate? Undoubtedly. But no reputable scientific body has ever stated that climate change threatens the future of mankind or the collapse of civilization, or anything remotely close to such apocalyptic threats.

There are those that believe we are in the throes of another extinction event. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/nature-decline-unprecedented-report/ The headline of this paper, attributes at least some of the current species extinction to climate change https://www.pnas.org/content/117/8/4211
I think, sadly, you may be misinformed.

 

[Endymio]

I'm going to quote both the potential issues and the proposed solutions, all from the [Environmental Defense Fund] article...

This is getting rather silly. Since the 1970s, the EDF has initiated or enjoined over 75 lawsuits to block dam/hydroelectric construction projects. They have lobbied in support of none. Zero. Often, they even advocate for tearing down existing dams. The article of theirs I cited frames hydro -- the cleanest source of energy known to mankind -- as a potential danger, while their "solutions" when applied to actual construction have always resulted in a laundry list so long and impractical that the project is cancelled.

Here is the EDF advocating that the Hetchy-Hetchy hydroelectric system, a major source of power for N. California, be torn down: link.

Here are a few of their prior actions:

EDF loses lawsuit seeking to block Two Forks Dam: link.
EDF suit to block California's Auburn Dam: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1800972/environmental-defense-fund-v-e-bay-mun-util-dist/
EDF sues to block construction of Truman Dam/Osage hydropower project: link.
EDF Sues TVA to block Tellico Dam project: link.
EDF Sues Army Corp of Engrs to block constricution of the Gilham Dam: link.
EDF joins suit to block multiple Colorado River dams, hydro projects, and electric transmission lines: link.

I reiterative -- not once in their half-century history has EDF ever advocated for a major hydroelectric project. But they've stopped or tried to stop hundreds. They have even created a new website devoted to drumming up public opposition to 50 of the world's largest dams:

EDF: Large Dams Threaten The Environment.

 

[Endymio]

The numbers of (lower natural disaster) deaths may be due to other reasons. Perhaps better building codes, among others.

Excellent! You are, of course, correct. That is indeed a major factor. But the point is that building codes (and building materials) continue to grow stronger, at a far faster pace than even the worst-case predictions of increased storm activity. Conclusion: in the future, the risk from extreme weather events is only going to decline. The Chicken-Little types who claim it threatens mankind aren't credible.

There are those that believe we are in the throes of another extinction event.

Almost certainly we are -- if one defines extinction event as reduced speciation. To the uninformed layman, "extinction event" sounds horribly frightening, as if plants and animals are dying off. But the reality is that the total biomass of the planet -- the total sum of all plants and animals -- is actually increasing at a substantial pace. The "extinction" is just a reduced number of overall species, as our modern transportation system has reduced the geographic barriers that allowed species to diverge. Every time an insect or a plant seed unwittingly hitches a ride halfway around the world, it has an opportunity to interbreed with (or outcompete) the native species where it arrives.

 

[Endymio]

Good luck with that since hydro causes other environmental issues

My thanks for helping to make my point that ill-informed environmentalists are indeed almost uniformly in opposition to clean hydroelectric power. It is the sole reason that, despite there being enough untapped hydro in North America to supply the entire continent, we haven't built a single major new dam in nearly half a century.

 

[Evernessince]

This is getting rather silly. Since the 1970s, the EDF has initiated or enjoined over 75 lawsuits to block dam/hydroelectric construction projects. They have lobbied in support of none. Zero. Often, they even advocate for tearing down existing dams. The article of theirs I cited frames hydro -- the cleanest source of energy known to mankind -- as a potential danger, while their "solutions" when applied to actual construction have always resulted in a laundry list so long and impractical that the project is cancelled.

Here is the EDF advocating that the Hetchy-Hetchy hydroelectric system, a major source of power for N. California, be torn down: link.

Here are a few of their prior actions:

EDF loses lawsuit seeking to block Two Forks Dam: link.
EDF suit to block California's Auburn Dam: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1800972/environmental-defense-fund-v-e-bay-mun-util-dist/
EDF sues to block construction of Truman Dam/Osage hydropower project: link.
EDF Sues TVA to block Tellico Dam project: link.
EDF Sues Army Corp of Engrs to block constricution of the Gilham Dam: link.
EDF joins suit to block multiple Colorado River dams, hydro projects, and electric transmission lines: link.

I reiterative -- not once in their half-century history has EDF ever advocated for a major hydroelectric project. But they've stopped or tried to stop hundreds. They have even created a new website devoted to drumming up public opposition to 50 of the world's largest dams:

EDF: Large Dams Threaten The Environment.

From your first link:

"

• [t]he record shows that these [Two Forks] impacts were considered by the EPA, resulting in a finding that the quantitative and qualitative impacts on aquatic life and recreation were much greater for the Two Forks project and this court must be deferential to the expertise of the agency.
• The defendants [EPA] also have shown record support for the conclusion that even after mitigation the three proposals for the Two Forks Dam would result in significant and unacceptable adverse impacts.

"

All I see here is cherry picking without actually reading the details, again.

Not surprising at this point.

 

[Endymio]

All I see here is cherry picking without actually reading the details, again.

And all I see is someone who doesn't wish to admit they were wrong, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The EDF never met a major dam or hydro project they liked. My "first link" that you quote from is their own site. Do you somehow believe it proves anything that they justify their reasons for blocking dam construction?

My original statement stands. The primary reason the US produces less clean, safe hydroelectric electricity today is because -- for utterly inexplicable reasons -- all major environmental organizations have fought them tooth and nail.

 

[Evernessince]

And all I see is someone who doesn't wish to admit they were wrong, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The EDF never met a major dam or hydro project they liked. My "first link" that you quote from is their own site. Do you somehow believe it proves anything that they justify their reasons for blocking dam construction?

My original statement stands. The primary reason the US produces less clean, safe hydroelectric electricity today is because -- for utterly inexplicable reasons -- all major environmental organizations have fought them tooth and nail.

Self projection is a hilarious thing. You still haven't admitted that you mistook the 20th century for the 21st and implied that sea level data from then was actually now. That was the whole linchpin for your sea level rise being a non issue argument by the way. Not mention, in the same paragraph you did that you called me out for using washington post when in fact the source was the Smithsonian. You never addressed that point again either because apparently all you had was the ability to attack sources you don't agree with. FYI attacking the entity and not the data isn't a viable way to dismiss a source. You need to provide reasons if you are going to dismiss a source. Lack of evidence on their part, no links to source, ect. Disagreeing with them is not enough.

I addressed and fixed my single mistake (wrong link was provided), you act like yours never happened and refuse to address those points at all.

Are the reasons provided by the EDF really so illogical and anti-hydro that even the EPA and the judge agreed? Are they anti-hydro now too?

 

[wiyosaya]

Do you feel this is some sort of rebuttal?

Do you need a reference to the fact that plants require CO2?

So where is your link? Is an attempt to belittle others debating you all you rely on because I see you attempting to do that in the rest of your posts to this thread. Straw men never make good debating points in case you have not realized that yet.

Where is it? Show me a link that specifically states that plants do best in concentrations of CO2 of 400 ppm. Without it, you have no evidence it is true, and I, for one, am not taking your word for it especially in light of recent research which states that 40-percent of all plant species in the world are in danger of extinction. If plants are doing so well with increased CO2 concentrations, why does an international study show that 40-percent are dying off https://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/1341833/plants-facing-extinction-study

 

[Endymio]

So where is your link?
Where is it? Show me a link that specifically states that plants do best in concentrations of CO2 of 400 ppm.

That's not what I said, and it's not true. Commercial greenhouses raise the CO2 levels far above the 400ppm level. Since you're having trouble using Google, I'll help out:

Exposure of plants to lower levels of CO2 even for a short period can reduce rate of photosynthesis and plant growth. Generally, doubling ambient CO2 level (I.e. 700 to 800 parts per million) can make a significant and visible difference in plant yield.

Oklahoma State Univ: CO2 Supplementation

In greenhouses, the growth rate and development of all plants can be improved by controlling CO2 concentrations at levels of around 800 ppm. This is approximately twice as much as the natural concentration of CO2 in natural ambient air. Higher CO2 concentrations up to 2000 ppm have been used in greenhouses and hydroponics...Optimised CO2 levels in greenhouses raise productivity and crop yields considerably, up to 40%

Carbon Dioxide Dosing in Commercial Greenhouses

I, for one, am not taking your word for it especially in light of recent research which states that 40-percent of all plant species in the world are in danger of extinction. If plants are doing so well with increased CO2 concentrations, why does an international study show that 40-percent are dying off

This is why people shouldn't attempt to get their science from journalists. Let's start with the largest fallacy in your conclusion. A reduction in biodiversity (I.e. a loss of plant species) is far different than a reduction in plants themselves. In fact, these two figures are moving in opposite direction. The total plant-based biomass of the planet (the sum total of all plants growing) is increasing sharply. Translation: there are more plants alive today -- and growing more vigorously -- than there were 100 years ago.

Fallacy 2. A species being "at risk" of extinction is far different than actually going extinct. But yes, many species are indeed doing so. Why? The largest factor is simply that the earth is becoming a much smaller place -- in terms of evolutionary geography, that is. I'll illustrate with an example. Let's say we have an island that due to tectonic drift, slowly splits off from its main continent. Over the next few million years, every plant and animal on that island will diverge into distinct species, as they can no longer interbreed with the mainland varieties.

Now, along comes man and builds a bridge from that island to the mainland, or simply runs a ship back and forth. Plants and animals from both sides now get occasionally transported across. For each diverged species, what happens is one of three things:

a) The mainland species outcompetes the island variety.
b) The island species outcompetes the mainland variety.
c) The two species fruitfully interbreed.

In all three cases, the total number of species declines, even as the number of actual living creatures stays the same or even rises. It's not an alarming event, though to the scientifically illiterate, it certainly sounds scary. And point in fact, at least two of the past "extinction events" in geologic history happened due not to any giant "die off", but simply due to reduced speciation.

By the way, I'm sure you can reason through on your own how my "island" example works for speciation even within a single continental land mass. There are geographic barriers which exist besides oceans. And, of course, there are other factors than geographic convergence. Loss of habitat is another major factor, particularly in areas such as the Amazon which are seeing widescale clearing. But what is not a factor is increased CO2 levels.

 

[wiyosaya]

That's not what I said, and it's not true. Commercial greenhouses raise the CO2 levels far above the 400ppm level. Since you're having trouble using Google, I'll help out:

Exposure of plants to lower levels of CO2 even for a short period can reduce rate of photosynthesis and plant growth. Generally, doubling ambient CO2 level (I.e. 700 to 800 parts per million) can make a significant and visible difference in plant yield.

Oklahoma State Univ: CO2 Supplementation

In greenhouses, the growth rate and development of all plants can be improved by controlling CO2 concentrations at levels of around 800 ppm. This is approximately twice as much as the natural concentration of CO2 in natural ambient air. Higher CO2 concentrations up to 2000 ppm have been used in greenhouses and hydroponics...Optimised CO2 levels in greenhouses raise productivity and crop yields considerably, up to 40%

Carbon Dioxide Dosing in Commercial Greenhouses

This is why people shouldn't attempt to get their science from journalists. Let's start with the largest fallacy in your conclusion. A reduction in biodiversity (I.e. a loss of plant species) is far different than a reduction in plants themselves. In fact, these two figures are moving in opposite direction. The total plant-based biomass of the planet (the sum total of all plants growing) is increasing sharply. Translation: there are more plants alive today -- and growing more vigorously -- than there were 100 years ago.

Fallacy 2. A species being "at risk" of extinction is far different than actually going extinct. But yes, many species are indeed doing so. Why? The largest factor is simply that the earth is becoming a much smaller place -- in terms of evolutionary geography, that is. I'll illustrate with an example. Let's say we have an island that due to tectonic drift, slowly splits off from its main continent. Over the next few million years, every plant and animal on that island will diverge into distinct species, as they can no longer interbreed with the mainland varieties.

Now, along comes man and builds a bridge from that island to the mainland, or simply runs a ship back and forth. Plants and animals from both sides now get occasionally transported across. For each diverged species, what happens is one of three things:

a) The mainland species outcompetes the island variety.
b) The island species outcompetes the mainland variety.
c) The two species fruitfully interbreed.

In all three cases, the total number of species declines, even as the number of actual living creatures stays the same or even rises. It's not an alarming event, though to the scientifically illiterate, it certainly sounds scary. And point in fact, at least two of the past "extinction events" in geologic history happened due not to any giant "die off", but simply due to reduced speciation.

By the way, I'm sure you can reason through on your own how my "island" example works for speciation even within a single continental land mass. There are geographic barriers which exist besides oceans. And, of course, there are other factors than geographic convergence. Loss of habitat is another major factor, particularly in areas such as the Amazon which are seeing widescale clearing. But what is not a factor is increased CO2 levels.

EDIT: Explaining yourself in the first place keeps people from having to track down information to support your argument. Even so -

Once again, you are condescending and changing the argument. So because commercial green houses raise CO2 concentrations, that is an argument to raise the CO2 level of the entire planet???? How does that conclusion even remotely make sense???

EDIT: The history of humanity is ripe with ideas that sounded good, but then proved to be detrimental.

How do you measure the impact of plant species extinction and just what benefit does plant biomass bring to the equation - besides the implied assumption that plant biomass increase will decrease CO2 concentrations or keep up with human CO2 emissions?