Super typhoon Haiyan slams the Philippines

[Ben Kenobi]

Things like a coal power station and power grid to distribute it are expensive to build and maintain and require cohesive national infrastructure but for relatively low start up costs you can start sticking up a windmill or solar panel up and power a house or small village. People can start to organise these things themselves without relying on a central government.

The problem is reliability. Coal plants are much more reliable, and can be scaled up more than say, windmills and water mills. That's why coal replaced both. Renewables on a per watt basis are far more expensive and less reliable.

Also - there's the issue of dependency on small supplies of rare earths for the solar. Renewables aren't very 'environmentally friendly' - they just shift the consequences to where the minerals are mined from the point of use.

The real future are things like small scale Thorium reactors.

[regexcellent]

Ben please don't talk about things you know nothing about, or at least stick to being bad at history instead of pretending you know how a steam plant works because that's actually fairly complicated and technical and probably the only person who fully understands it on here is Ogie.

[regexcellent]

The idea that a country can industrialize without increasing its carbon output is ridiculous on its face because pretty much every aspect of industrialization, and pretty much every aspect of quality of life improvement from industrialization result in more transportation and therefore more fuel getting burned. Like the simple act of me buying food at the grocery store has a carbon impact because someone had to ship it there. The reason the US has the highest carbon dioxide output is because we're the wealthiest.

You can come up with zillions of minor examples of specific industries which are relatively clean but you're not putting a dent in the reality that:
1. increased exports will lead to increased imports which means more stuff moving around
2. more energy generation will mean more fuel getting burned

More energy generation is going to be the result of needing power for industry and needing power to satisfy new consumer demand due to increased income.

And none of these third world economies are going to go to an information based service economy. You can't just jump directly from peasant farmer -> computer programmer, that requires education investment beyond their capabilities. Which is why you need the intermediate step of light and heavy industry. Note that while labor is cheaper in India, skilled and educated labor is hard to come by.

[regexcellent]

As for ending poverty, that's never going to happen as long as our definition for poverty keeps getting revised upward or is fixed as the bottom x% of the population income-wise as it is now.

[giblets]

The main reason Americans are richer than Filipinos is because America's economy is a lot more efficient. The fact that Americans also burn a lot more fossil fuels is only a small contributor. Avoiding global warming would not force any country to stay poor. Of course it is entirely possible that if the Philippines became rich the country would suddenly be filled with global warming skeptics with all sorts of excuses for not cutting back emissions so that in practice development would lead to higher emissions.

As for ending poverty, that's never going to happen as long as our definition for poverty keeps getting revised upward or is fixed as the bottom x% of the population income-wise as it is now.

That's not how the poverty line is defined in the US.

[Sava]

As for ending poverty, that's never going to happen as long as our definition for poverty keeps getting revised upward or is fixed as the bottom x% of the population income-wise as it is now.

hahahahah

this is the foxnews "HEY THESE MOTHERFUCKERS HAVE MICROWAVES SO THEY AREN"T POOR" talking point

You are basically a meme, reg.

[Aeson]

It's true - environmentalism is very expensive. Poorer nations can't afford it. You have to be wealthy first.

Which is why the wealthy nations should help ensure it happens, via investment. That is the best way to reduce the environmental impact that we can be sure will happen otherwise. It's also a potential avenue for direct profit ... and certainly will increase the demand for our goods and services across the entire world economy. (eg. +billions of potential consumers)

[Hauldren Collider]

hahahahah

this is the foxnews "HEY THESE MOTHERFUCKERS HAVE MICROWAVES SO THEY AREN"T POOR" talking point

You are basically a meme, reg.

Expressing poverty in terms of access to actual material wealth is invalid?

[regexcellent]

The real problem with environmentalism is losing out on the +1 free trade route in each city, which is really too good to pass up. Besides which by the time I've researched ecology I've already cut down all the forests anyway.

[Aeson]

Expressing poverty in terms of access to actual material wealth is invalid?

I think it's more of a big picture thing. Just having one specific item (of nebulous origin and resale value) doesn't mean much if you're lacking a whole lot of other "basics" ... can't afford to take your child to the doctor for an infection, about to go homeless because of being foreclosed on, can't find a job, etc. If you are in such a position and have a $40 microwave that's a few years old, it doesn't mean much of anything as far as what financial position you're in. Maybe you could sell it for a few bucks and pay the bus fare to the doctors office ... but what then?

[Aeson]

Now if they have a luxury SUV, then that's something you could point at and reasonably say, can't really be poor when you have that ... (though even then you're assuming it's not about to be repossessed)

[notyoueither]

My own experience with middle class America and here in the Philippines. I've already noted several specific cases where environmental impact from being poor is greater than it has to be from being rich.



You mean like having cut down a hectare of forest to graze a "plow" on? The "plow" used on 2x to 10x more land because yields are 1/2 to 1/10th what they could be with modern farming practices? Needing more fertilizers to get the same (poor) yields because of damage to the soil. Needing more and more irrigation to get the same (poor) yields because of damage to the water shed?

This is part of the process of desertification of the land that once sequestered thousands of tons of organic matter (carbon) per hectare while providing food supplements (fruits) and helping to maintain soil fertility not only for their own area, but for everything downstream.

These are the types of things that need to be taken into account. Keeping people poor has it's own horrible effects on the environment. The worst environmental impacts in human history are happening and have happened in very poor (by modern Western standards) areas. The slash and burn of the rain forests, and the disappearance of most of the forests in Europe and N America. (And resulting desertification in many areas.)

Even though we use more wood in N American nowdays, we actually maintain the health of our remaining forests much better than generations past did.

When you pump a ton of carbon into the atmosphere, that's bad. (Maybe.) That carbon will stay in the atmosphere for 5-10 years? (More if methane.) It may take ~100 years to completely sequester it again. When you destroy the ability of the land to sequester a ton of carbon it will stay that way for hundreds, thousands or even millions of years without a lot of work to bring it back.

If we really want to reduce our environmental footprint, we need to start with agriculture. We can produce the food we need (including extra for those who are currently malnourished) on much less land than we use now. Poor people cannot afford this though. So keeping half the world poor is going to result in horrible environmental impact.



Transportation is something that is much less efficient here too. I already mentioned dirty engines. There's bad roads. This is hard on the vehicles, meaning you replace more parts more often. (After 4 years we've essentially had to replace or fixed virtually everything in our multicab! Some parts we've gone through several times. We've had to weld most of the body because of rust.) You use more fuel because of bad road conditions. Smaller vehicles are used for deliveries, less efficient use of fuel because. No rail network for mass transit or mass transport of goods.

The shipping (sea) here is pretty efficient though. But could be moreso with more modern equipment.



A rich person can afford a high quality CFL and has stable current from a high quality electric grid. After years, the CFL will burn out and can be disposed of properly. A poor person has a CFL that lasts weeks or months and then gets thrown in the trash pit.

Essentially every item I can get here falls into this category. I brought over some can openers from the US last time I cam. They use less material than the ones I buy here. They actually cost less than the ones I buy here. They've lasted a year (one of them in storage because we haven't needed to break it out yet). The year before I bought 4 here! They all were ****, which is why I made a point to buy some quality ones in the US. These useless can openers all had more raw materials go into them, and probably cost just as much to make. Certainly they cost more to transport (heavier). Certainly they weren't recycled to reclaim the materials that went into their construction. They're in a trash pit rusting. (There is some limited recycling here, but only "pure" metals and specific types of glass containers. And usually that doesn't even happen.)

This type of "excess of the poor" is not just excess... it literally has no point! It's bad in every possible way! Lower quality, less lifespan, less recycling, more dirty waste. At least the excesses of the rich tend to have some positive value gleaned from them at some point.

Yes, rich people could do a lot better too... but that's not a reason to tell people they need to live in shacks and not have food to feed their children.



The problems with rich people's consumption are relatively easy to address. The problems with poor people's consumption can only be addressed by helping them become rich, or killing them. Obviously I would choose the problems of affluence over the crimes again humanity.

Remember that rich people have fewer kids than poor. Outside everyone becoming Mormon (which happens at a much higher rate in poorer communities than richer ones) ... increasing affluence in poorer countries is likely to lower the upper limit we hit on world population in the future.

I'm certainly not advocating keeping people poor and the things you've pointed out that are impacts from people living in poverty and poor societies are interesting.

However, I am finding it difficult to accept the average 1000 people living in underdeveloped countries are consuming the same as the average 1000 people in the first world. Sure there can be terrible inefficiencies, but it would take a lot of burnt wood to equal the carbon output of my last trip to Cancun on a jet.

That was Mike's point that got me back into the thread. People with more money will not sacrifice meat, consumer products, cars, travel, etc until we are at a point where it is forced. I agree with him, am looking at what's happening in India, China and elsewhere, and saying the math of preventing large scale climate change from happening doesn't seem to work. I am somewhat heartened to hear that China's GHG emissions should be going down with the increase in their wealth according to your model. Unfortunately your model does not seem to be accurate in predicting a lack of rising pollution in that state.

[Aeson]

However, I am finding it difficult to accept the average 1000 people living in underdeveloped countries are consuming the same as the average thousand people in the first world. Sure there can be terrible inefficiencies, but it would take a lot of burnt wood to equal the carbon output in my last trip to Cancun on a jet.

I have already noted in my verbiage that I don't expect consumption to fall. I have pointed out areas where development can decrease environmental impact of consumption though.

Not everyone will be able to fly to Cancun on a jet of course. It will become more expensive to do so if the poor people in the world become more affluent. Demand for limited resources (fuel in this case) will drive up prices. Second, prices in Cancun will be driven up for virtually everything due to higher wages of people working there, making it less attractive a destination for budget conscious travelers.

The end result is you're likely to not pay for that use of that fuel at all. Instead it will go towards something more imminently useful or at least lest expensively wasteful.

That was Mike's point that got me back into the thread. People with more money will not sacrifice meat, consumer products, cars, travel, etc until we are at a point where it is forced.

As prices rise, consumption will also change. Prices will naturally rise if the labor force becomes more expensive, the consumer base becomes bigger (all those workers making more money), and the resources available remain the same.

I agree with him, am looking at what's happening in India and China and elsewhere, and saying the math of preventing large scale climate change from happening doesn't seem to work.

I noted it's already too late to do what would be best for China and India in regard to power generation. That ship has sailed. (As it's too late to take back our past mistakes.) It doesn't have to be that way for those economies that are just starting, or haven't really started yet. We can help them skip the dirtiest part of development. The technology already exists.

They will develop either way. We can help decide how much environmental damage will occur from that development though, and of course we can always play our part in limiting environmental damage.

I am somewhat heartened to hear that China's GHG emissions should be going down with the increase in their wealth according to your model. Unfortunately your model does not seem to be accurate in predicting a lack of rising pollution in that state.

a) I haven't dealt with GHG emissions, it's important to keep a much more holistic view of the environment. Keeping temperatures from increasing doesn't really matter if the entire world loses it's forests and all the rivers in the world are filled with garbage in the process. (To ignore that it would likely be impossible for that eventuality to not lead to increased global temperatures.)

b) I've already noted that what I suggest (as far as helping development skip dirty steps) hasn't happened in China and India on any large scale, of course they (and the environment, and thus us) can't benefit from something that didn't happen.

c) You'll note that China and India are still rather poor countries on a per capita basis. Huge numbers of people in both countries still live in abject poverty. You'll have to wait until they actually have affluent populations before it could possibly apply to what I am talking about.

[Dr Strangelove]

In southwest Virginia there's a small plot of land in the Jefferson National Forest that is special. Less than 1 square mile in size, it's the only peice of virgin forest left east of the Mississippi river.

[Aeson]

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rs6t83

NGCP MEDIA ADVISORY, 24Nov2013: NGCP's Ormoc-Maasin 138kv line was energized at 5:19th, while the Maasin-Ubay (Bohol) 138Kv was energized at 6:06 pm, allowing power from Leyte to be extended to Maasin City, Southern Leyte & Bohol Province.(end)

From the national power grid's official twitter feed. Facebook reports from various places on the island are that power is back on...