Bloomberg: What's really warming the world?

[LeafByNiggle]

I, at least, wonder about the morality of tossing out aluminum cans. One frequently sees some very poor looking people going along the road collecting them. Given that aluminum is very persistent and resists corrosion, are we doing an act of charity by tossing an aluminum can from our car, or are we despoiling God’s creation?

Me, I resolve it in favor of charity toward the can-pickers. (shhhhhh )

If you could be sure that most of the cans tossed out are actually picked up, then you might have a reasonable case. But I suspect that more than half the cans tossed out on the side of the road are never found, because they don’t look everywhere.

Aluminum is about the best thing to recycle. “Recycling aluminum, can reduce energy consumption by as much as 95%. Savings for other materials are lower but still substantial: about 70% for plastics, 60% for steel, 40% for paper and 30% for glass.” - (the Economist)

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Are you seriously trying to attribute the growth of European population during the Industrial Revolution to the slight increase in CO2,

Why not?

There are those who claim that man made CO2 will cause the earth to burn to a crisp by next year…and people believe them.

 

[Ridgerunner]

If you could be sure that most of the cans tossed out are actually picked up, then you might have a reasonable case. But I suspect that more than half the cans tossed out on the side of the road are never found, because they don’t look everywhere.

Aluminum is about the best thing to recycle. “Recycling aluminum, can reduce energy consumption by as much as 95%. Savings for other materials are lower but still substantial: about 70% for plastics, 60% for steel, 40% for paper and 30% for glass.” - (the Economist)

Undoubtedly some cans are lost. But better that the pickers get 90% of the cans than that the landfill get them all.

I think I would have to question the energy economies with glass. A relative of mine is an electrical engineer who spent lots of years working for Owens Corning, and he told me it’s cheaper to make new glass out of sand and whatever than it is to recycle glass that’s already made. The reason is that there are lots of colors of glass, and you have to separate them. But more than that, there are things added to different kinds of glass to get different properties. It’s easier to start from scratch, and the energy required in the melting isn’t much different.

Aluminum is similar, but recycles better. I know a guy who has an aluminum recycling plant. It’s interesting to talk about the various alloys. Aluminum cans are almost pure aluminum, except the tops, which are an alloy. You can make almost anything from them except that they burn (oxidize) easily and you have to compress them a lot or they’ll just burn up in the furnace. Other things, like aluminum engines, transmission housings, lawn mower covers, on and on and on, are different alloys. Some have copper in them, some have silicon, etc, etc.

But even so, unlike with glass, it saves a lot to recycle aluminum because you can change the alloy once it has melted. You can even get it back to a pure state by oxidizing out the alloy metals. (A truly magnificent sight to see when they do it.) At least you can with most. Some alloys you just have to keep in the alloyed state because it’s too hard to get the non-aluminum out.

 

[Theo520]

So?

The real point is that the poor are not losing as much, since it is the poor who are mainly harmed by the externalities of dirty energy for electricity and vehicles – from resource extraction, processing, combustion, waste, and spills/accidents. From local, regional, and global environmental harms, including the many harmful effects from AGW.

SO??
The rich propose policy that makes them richer, while the poor are miraculously saved from the nebulous future harm. I gather you are on the receiving end of this wealth transfer, from your posts.

There are poor people in a town next to mine dying from leukemia, etc from a 33 acre benzene plume under their homes and schools caused by decades of petrol and natural gas leaking there, which the state refuses to clean up. That’s just one of the very many examples of how people, esp the poor, are harmed by dirty energy.

You are deflecting with a red herring, we have existing laws and the courts to deal with your claims.

While having an EV to a large extent does require that one own or live in a home – since they need to be plugged in – eventually apts may also provide outlets for EVs. And while it pretty much requires owning a home with a south sloping roof to get into PV solar energy, many can purchase renewable (subsidized and cheaper) energy, such as wind-generated energy, from local providers. For now for the most part it does require upfront investment money for many of these, even with the subsidies, which the poor often do not have, tho there are some schemes in some areas where a company provides that and gets paid back slowly with the savings from the renewables.

Yes, it requires an up front investment which is heavily subsidized (by the middle class), benefit goes to the rich with the land, the seed $, and a tax accountant.

You have raised a valid problem about the poor not being as able to get into the huge benefits of EVs and PV panels, but the solution is not end these subsidies and encourage people to go around killing and harming others from dirty energy use, but helping more poor people get into EVs and PV panels, esp since they not only reduce harms to others and future generations, but also end up saving people money long run. In that respect the poor really need to get into these things more than the rich do. And for now people would also have to be paying enough income tax to get full benefit of the EV and PV tax breaks, however they can take their tax breaks over 3 years, rather than just one year, so that people who are paying at least $2500 in taxes could get into these things.

Your solution is to further expand the subsidies, and tell the poor to get a tax accountant? What if they are renting?

In my area there is an organization, Proyecto Azteca, to help colonia people (who are extremely poor and live in shacks in unincorporated areas, historically the migrant farm community) move into homes with solar panels, energy efficient construction, and xeriscaped yards. They have to go thru training and put in some “sweat equity,” but are gaining the benefits of those savings and subsidies. We need more programs like that.

I’ve helped many times with Habitat but suggest they make the call on building more houses vs adding solar.

As for the mainly well-off who are doing the right thing by switching to renewable energy and EVs they are helping provide a better future and hope for life on earth, while those well-off people who could afford these things and have homes that make them feasible, esp if they are also energy/resource hogs (inefficient and non-conservative), are remiss in not doing the right things for the poor and future generations. Shame on them.

Why give the rich these subsidies at all? The community minded will do it out of their own pocket and we’ll avoid the wealth transfer to those who don’t need it?

These subsidies are “seed money” to help these cleaner industries become viable and give incentives for people to support them by their purchases so that we all, rich and poor, can have a better world. Eventually they will not be needed, especially since they are rapidly becoming financially beneficial as much as they are environmentally beneficial. (It would also be good to end all the fossil fuel subsidies and tax-breaks, as well; maybe even get rid of corporate welfare and give the money to the poor instead.)

There is no evidence they need installation subsidies to advance the cost model. Heck all we had to do was start manufacturing in China to bring it down.

People using dirty electricity and driving dirty ICE cars should be feeling guilty of the harms they are doing. I know I was until we switched to an EV and PV panels, and I still feel there is more we can and should do…and I think I’ll feel that way and be into doing more up until the day I die.

What does your energy shaming have to do with the topic, except to deflect.

We are our brothers keepers, and should not be in the business of harming them thru our profligate dirty energy use. Hurrah for the policy-makers who have made it easier for people to get into cleaner energy. They are true heroes.

You end with rationalizing policy that transfers more wealth to the rich, I’m embarrassed for you. The rich don’t deserve my tax $ so they can ‘feel green’.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Undoubtedly some cans are lost. But better that the pickers get 90% of the cans than that the landfill get them all.

The landfill is the worst alternative. Of course I was thinking of recycling as the alternative.

I think I would have to question the energy economies with glass. A relative of mine is an electrical engineer who spent lots of years working for Owens Corning, and he told me it’s cheaper to make new glass out of sand and whatever than it is to recycle glass that’s already made…

Yes, I have heard that too. The Economist estimate of 30% was perhaps overly optimistic. But of course it is a totally different story with Aluminum, as you noted.

But if your really want to be kind to the pickers, save your cans in a bag in the car, and the next time you see someone picking through the trash, stop and give him a nice full bag of cans.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The landfill is the worst alternative. Of course I was thinking of recycling as the alternative.

Yes, I have heard that too. The Economist estimate of 30% was perhaps overly optimistic. But of course it is a totally different story with Aluminum, as you noted.

But if your really want to be kind to the pickers, save your cans in a bag in the car, and the next time you see someone picking through the trash, stop and give him a nice full bag of cans.

I realize this makes me a dirty polluter, sort of, but there is not the least possibility that I will save my aluminum cans, particularly since my wife and I use almost none. The only time I ever have aluminum cans is when I am drinking a can of pop or beer in the country (yes, yes, I know about “open container”). I know where the pickers go. Interestingly, there are more pickers in the country around here than on the major highways, by far. Probably they know the can tossers are far more likely to do it on country roads than on some highway. That’s where the underage drinkers all go, and most of the hillbillies, including me.

Sort of amusingly, one time when I was opening the gate to some land I own, a picker, a rather elderly lady, actually asked me if I would try to throw my cans in a particular location when I thought about it, because it made it easier for her. I agreed I would, even though I really don’t drink pop or beer very often. I did find a can in my truck, though, and handed it to her.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I realize this makes me a dirty polluter, sort of, but there is not the least possibility that I will save my aluminum cans, particularly since my wife and I use almost none.

Actually that makes you greener than those whose use a lot of cans and recycle them. Using less is even better than recycling.

 

[Theo520]

The landfill is the worst alternative. Of course I was thinking of recycling as the alternative.

Yes, I have heard that too. The Economist estimate of 30% was perhaps overly optimistic. But of course it is a totally different story with Aluminum, as you noted.

But if your really want to be kind to the pickers, save your cans in a bag in the car, and the next time you see someone picking through the trash, stop and give him a nice full bag of cans.

Just remember that recycling isn’t just about recreating the prior product. While making new bottles may be done best with sand, used glass has many non-container uses:
fiberglass, tile, bricks, add to aggregate for parking lots or concrete, “glassphalt”, industrial abrasive, etc.

I’m all for keeping stuff out of landfill where we can cost effectively put it to good use.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Just remember that recycling isn’t just about recreating the prior product. While making new bottles may be done best with sand, used glass has many non-container uses:
fiberglass, tile, bricks, add to aggregate for parking lots or concrete, “glassphalt”, industrial abrasive, etc.

I’m all for keeping stuff out of landfill where we can cost effectively put it to good use.

Fiberglass and insulation are made with new glass. I don’t know about use of old glass in aggregate or concrete or industrial abrasives. I think I recall reading, though, that it’s not popular in asphalt highways because it’s hard on peoples’ tires.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Some paper can be used in cattle feed if it’s roasted and mixed with other things like distillers’ grain. But a lot of ink is toxic, so it’s one of those things that are sort of potentially useful for that purpose without being actually useful.

There are fence posts made out of paper; reduced to lint and compressed with resin added. But I have always been leery of trying it.

There are paper recyclers who, I believe, turn it into a sort of “lint” and reconstitute it into rougher paper products like box material.

 

[Theo520]

Fiberglass and insulation are made with new glass. I don’t know about use of old glass in aggregate or concrete or industrial abrasives. I think I recall reading, though, that it’s not popular in asphalt highways because it’s hard on peoples’ tires.

Yes, ground glass adds value where extra road traction is a plus, probably parking lots and driveways but not highways.

Regarding insulation, it seems regulation is driving inclusion rather than economics.

Fiberglass Manufacturers Incorporate Recycled Glass
Manufacturers are adding recycled glass in expectation of government requirements to do so, said Newton. California already requires 10% recycled content for fiberglass insulation plants in the state

 

[Ridgerunner]

Yes, ground glass adds value where extra road traction is a plus, probably parking lots and driveways but not highways.

Regarding insulation, it seems regulation is driving inclusion rather than economics.

Fiberglass Manufacturers Incorporate Recycled Glass
Manufacturers are adding recycled glass in expectation of government requirements to do so, said Newton. California already requires 10% recycled content for fiberglass insulation plants in the state

I’m not a glass expert, so I don’t know whether mandatory inclusion of recycled glass in insulation is practical or not. I do know the insulation manufacturers have their own formulas for the kind of glass they want. It has to have certain characteristics to spin out readily into fibers of the right length and flexibility. Until I can ask someone who really knows, I remain doubtful about it.

California might just end up driving fiberglass manufactories out of the state, but I doubt it would bother California if it did, even though they hire people all up and down the skill spectrum.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

So?

The real point is that the poor are not losing as much, since it is the poor who are mainly harmed by the externalities of dirty energy for electricity and vehicles – from resource extraction, processing, combustion, waste, and spills/accidents. From local, regional, and global environmental harms, including the many harmful effects from AGW.

There are poor people in a town next to mine dying from leukemia, etc from a 33 acre benzene plume under their homes and schools caused by decades of petrol and natural gas leaking there, which the state refuses to clean up. That’s just one of the very many examples of how people, esp the poor, are harmed by dirty energy.

That is bunk!

There are 97 producing oil wells pumping 150 million barrels of crude oil per year under Beverly Hills California and no one is getting sick.

There is no such thing as “dirty” energy

In my area there is an organization, Proyecto Azteca, to help colonia people (who are extremely poor and live in shacks in unincorporated areas, historically the migrant farm community) move into homes with solar panels, energy efficient construction, and xeriscaped yards. They have to go thru training and put in some “sweat equity,” but are gaining the benefits of those savings and subsidies. We need more programs like that.

Proyecto Azteca is a front organization that serves the ILLEGAL immigrant population that is burdening our country with criminals, drug dealers, and corruption.

As for the mainly well-off who are doing the right thing by switching to renewable energy and EVs they are helping provide a better future and hope for life on earth, while those well-off people who could afford these things and have homes that make them feasible, esp if they are also energy/resource hogs (inefficient and non-conservative), are remiss in not doing the right things for the poor and future generations. Shame on them.

Al Gore comes to mind…

People using dirty electricity and driving dirty ICE cars should be feeling guilty of the harms they are doing. I know I was until we switched to an EV and PV panels, and I still feel there is more we can and should do…and I think I’ll feel that way and be into doing more up until the day I die.

What you are doing…is making yourself “feel good”…nothing more.

We are our brothers keepers, and should not be in the business of harming them thru our profligate dirty energy use. Hurrah for the policy-makers who have made it easier for people to get into cleaner energy. They are true heroes.

No they are the totalitarian dictators who force people to do things they do not want to do. Mainly spend more $$$ for energy.

 

[sps49]

I’m not a glass expert, so I don’t know whether mandatory inclusion of recycled glass in insulation is practical or not. I do know the insulation manufacturers have their own formulas for the kind of glass they want. It has to have certain characteristics to spin out readily into fibers of the right length and flexibility. Until I can ask someone who really knows, I remain doubtful about it.

California might just end up driving fiberglass manufactories out of the state, but I doubt it would bother California if it did, even though they hire people all up and down the skill spectrum.

I suppose it depends on how you define “inclusion.” Cullet is used as a fluxing agent for melts, so technically it may be considered as an inclusion. There may be thresholds for impurities, and they are kept to a minimum to insure the product is sound, and cullet may be used for other things once it’s in the “black box” of the process, and who knows what the system boundaries of that box are.

California is an interesting case:

latimes.com/business/la-fi-california-manufacturing-20150120-story.html

That bit about people with advanced degrees taking lower pay when jobs disappear is particularly interesting. I have noticed a severe decline in the general expertise of engineering staff. My suspicion is that the highly skilled engineering staff has relocated, retired or are still working the few challenging and rewarding positions that are left. There are undoubtedly some who are taking lower pay, but usually one moves to keep their skills sharp; the knee of that curve is brutal.

 

[Theo520]

This table shows how well do we understand the contribution factors to climate and if they are included in our climate models.

Factor / Understood? / Contribution to models predictions
ENSO / No / 0%
Ocean Oscillations / No / 0%
Ocean Currents / No / 0%
Volcanoes / No / 0%
Wind / No / 0%
**Water Cycle / Partly / (built into Water Vapour, below)
**The Sun / No / 0%
Galactic Cosmic Rays (and aerosols) / No / 0%
Milankovich cycles / No / 0%
**Carbon Dioxide / Yes / 37%
Water Vapour / Partly / 22% but suspect
**Clouds / No / 41%, all highly suspect

wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/17/how-reliable-are-the-climate-models/

 

[Hans_W]

This table shows how well do we understand the contribution factors to climate and if they are included in our climate models.

Factor / Understood? / Contribution to models predictions
ENSO / No / 0%
Ocean Oscillations / No / 0%
Ocean Currents / No / 0%
Volcanoes / No / 0%
Wind / No / 0%
**Water Cycle / Partly / (built into Water Vapour, below)
**The Sun / No / 0%
Galactic Cosmic Rays (and aerosols) / No / 0%
Milankovich cycles / No / 0%
**Carbon Dioxide / Yes / 37%
Water Vapour / Partly / 22% but suspect
**Clouds / No / 41%, all highly suspect

wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/17/how-reliable-are-the-climate-models/

Theo, you owe me a new keyboard. I just ruined it with coffee coming out through my nose.
We don’t understand how the sun contributes to climate change???

 

[Theo520]

Theo, you owe me a new keyboard. I just ruined it with coffee coming out through my nose.
We don’t understand how the sun contributes to climate change???

From the link,

The Sun : Understood? No. Contribution in the models : 0%.
Now this may come as a surprise to some people, because the Sun has been studied for centuries, we know that it is the source of virtually all the surface and atmospheric heat on Earth, and we do know quite a lot about it. Details of the 11(ish) year sunspot cycle, for example, have been recorded for centuries. But we don’t know what causes sunspots and we can’t predict even one sunspot cycle ahead.

Various longer cycles in solar activity have been proposed, but we don’t even know for sure what those longer cycles are or have been, we don’t know what causes them, and we can’t predict them. On top of that, we don’t know what the sun’s effect on climate is – yes we can see big climate changes in the past and we are pretty sure that the sun played a major role (if it wasn’t the sun then what on Earth was it?) but we don’t know how the sun did it and in any case we don’t know what the sun will do next.

So the assessment for the sun in climate models is : Understood? No. Contribution in the models : 0%. Reminder : this is the contribution to predicted future warming]

 

[LeafByNiggle]

On top of that, we don’t know what the sun’s effect on climate is – yes we can see big climate changes in the past and we are pretty sure that the sun played a major role (if it wasn’t the sun then what on Earth was it?) but we don’t know how the sun did it

Let me give you a hint. Sunshine makes things hot.

 

[Theo520]

Let me give you a hint. Sunshine makes things hot.

Nice deflection Leaf,
The the models still ignore all the points raised in my paste, assuming the sun is a big fat unvarying constant.

Here’s an article from NASA about the sun’s influence on climate not being well understood
science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

Strike one, care to swing at any of the other points?

 

[Hans_W]

Nice deflection Leaf,
The the models still ignore all the points raised in my paste, assuming the sun is a big fat unvarying constant.

Coming back full circle to post #1: bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

The role of the sun is very well understood.

Strike one, care to swing at any of the other points?

Yes, if I can take my pick: the orbital changes of the earth around the sun. They beautifully explain the last ten ice ages.