Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

If the pedophile tool you postulate has no uses other than for doing evil, then it should be banned. That is obviously not the case with fossil fuels (or guns).

I'm not sure that is the case any more, but I will not debate the nature of "evil" here, I don't think.

[Steve3007]

In addition, electric cars feature regenerative braking; petrol-engined cars waste all the power used to reach current speed when slowing, and burn up brake pads too.

Yes, this is true. I always hate braking for that reason. Seems so wasteful of all that kinetic energy I've built up. I tend to change down and use engine braking as much as possible so as to at least spare the brake pads. So if we could eliminate losses from contact with the road and air resistance, and if we ended up at the same height above sea level as where we started, and if battery charging was 100% efficient, we could use no energy!

[GE Morton]

Yes, we were having a discussion about this at work just the other day and wondering if this means that in cold weather there's not enough waste heat from the engine to heat the inside of the car. Obviously with an internal combustion enginer there's more than enough. But apparently the battery generates a fair bit of heat. There's a guy at work who drives a Tesla. I'll have to ask him about it.

Apparently the recommendation is to heat the car while charging, so that the heating is done with station power, rather than battery power. Would work for typical commuting trips --- car would be warm from overnight charging when driving to work, and (if you can charge while at work), warm for the drive home. Not sure all models allow the heater to run while charging, however. Still need the battery power while on the road, though.

[GE Morton]

BTW, my friend with the electric car said that his dashboard "Estimated Range" (with current charge) display dropped instantly from 35 miles to 25 when he switched on the defroster.

[Sy Borg]

Less that one percent of people held over 43% of all wealth. The top 11% held over 82% of all wealth. Presumably that top 11% have far more resources to spend in burning fossil fuels and bear more responsibility to change their behaviour.

It would be interesting to see a similar pyramid not for wealth but for CO2 emissions. Jeff Bezos, for example, is roughly a million times richer than me, but I'd be very surprised if he personally pumps a million times more CO2 into the atmosphere than me. If I had to guess I'd say it's 10 times, or maybe 100. But not a million. He probably has a bigger car and flies in planes more. And maybe he has a few houses in which he tends to leave the lights on when he goes out. Or maybe not.

I think there's very little point in fretting and fuming about how bad those rich people are because they don't use their billions to personally bring about a reduction in CO2 emissions.

At no stage have I judged, fretted or fumed about rich people. That is a misrepresentation.

I simply pointed out that the MSM has a tendency - often more than a tendency - to advocate on behalf of their very wealthy owners and their very wealthy friends at the expense of the masses. That is, they spin the news to mislead the masses in convenient directions, often based on the "divide and rule" principle.

Somehow pointing out this very, very obvious situation has been spun as "hatred" and "fuming".

Is it not unfair to blame the masses for climate change, throwing the lion's share of responsibility on to them, while major companies and billionaires are cut slack, despite having far more capacity to control their greenhouse gas emissions? Private solar panels and electric cars are preferable to the alternative, but they are not going to make an appreciable difference when giant emitters are ploughing pollution into the atmosphere with no societal expectation to clean up after themselves, as they might have to do if they were dumping toxic chemicals in a lake.

I feel misrepresented. I have already said on the forum - more than once - that the exploitation of the masses is essential to long term human progress. So I'm hardly going to fume about the agents of that change. I have great faith in human progress "at the top end" but no faith at all in the masses. As athletes become bigger, strong, faster and more athletic as their audiences become ever fatter, weaker, slower and more cumbersome, and this bifurcation is the trend in all areas.

However, just because I effectively "barrack for a side" does not mean I should throw away my objectivity and become a partisan warrior like GE. I reserve the right to call out unfairness, even if that unfairness is ultimately "on my side".

I fume and fret about Murdoch because he stands in the way of most good policy options and promotes terrible ideas, eg. the Iraq invasion, Trump's election lies, COVID misinformation. Fox News is a misleading name. Giant Tapeworm News would seem more descriptive of the organisation's nature.

None of this should not be confused with my thoughts about the wealthy in general. Yes, of course they tend to be ruthless, disloyal and corrupt - the classic features of successful corporate psychopathy today that killed of the old idealistic notions of the "triple bottom line". However, top predators in nature must be utter rotters too. It's just life.

However, just because the masses must be exploited to allow those capable of major feats to achieve, that doesn't mean I should pretend it's not happening. Pointing out the bleeding obvious is not hating.

[GE Morton]

Reason Magazine's daily newsletter today has an extended review of Neal Stephenson's latest novel, Termination Shock, which explores a future society in which the challenges of climate change have been met primarily by human adaptation. Apparently he sets forth dozens of micro-strategies clever people have devised to deal with one aspect of the problem or another.

Stephenson is, IMHO, among the smartest and most imaginative people alive today. His previous novels, especially Cryptonomicon and the 3-volume Baroque Cycle, are in a class by themselves in the history of science fiction, in terms of sweep, scientific and historical accuracy, and philosophical sophistication --- not to mention superb story-telling.

The Reason piece is here:

https://reason.com/2021/11/16/neal-step ... -at-a-time

Here is the Wiki article on Stephenson:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Stephenson

Just ordered the hardcover novel from Amazon.

[GE Morton]

It's easy to throw responsibility on to the poorest and let the powerful off scot-free. The wealth pyramid developed by Suisse makes clear how misleading your claims are:

https://cdnext.credit-suisse.com/about- ... lisher.JPG

Less that one percent of people held over 43% of all wealth. The top 11% held over 82% of all wealth. Presumably that top 11% have far more resources to spend in burning fossil fuels and bear more responsibility to change their behaviour.

Where did I suggest that the "powerful" should be let off scot-free? They would have the same responsibility for CO2 emissions as everyone else who uses electricity or drives an automobile, that responsibility being proportionate to the kW/hours they consume and the miles they drive or fly.

The disagreement here was not about the relative culpability of "the rich" vs. "the poor," but between producers of fuel and users of that fuel.

[Sy Borg]

It's easy to throw responsibility on to the poorest and let the powerful off scot-free. The wealth pyramid developed by Suisse makes clear how misleading your claims are:

https://cdnext.credit-suisse.com/about- ... lisher.JPG

Less that one percent of people held over 43% of all wealth. The top 11% held over 82% of all wealth. Presumably that top 11% have far more resources to spend in burning fossil fuels and bear more responsibility to change their behaviour.

Where did I suggest that the "powerful" should be let off scot-free? They would have the same responsibility for CO2 emissions as everyone else who uses electricity or drives an automobile, that responsibility being proportionate to the kW/hours they consume and the miles they drive or fly.

The disagreement here was not about the relative culpability of "the rich" vs. "the poor," but between producers of fuel and users of that fuel.

It's not a level playing field. Besides, as I say, factories should be responsible for - and pay for - pollution mitigation. If cleaning up their pollution - rather than leaving it to the public purse - prevents a company from making a profit, then it was a faulty business model relying on shonky practices to gain commercial advantage. It's akin to construction companies that only succeed because they scrimp on OH&S and covertly dump their waste.

Let the weak companies fail if they cannot afford to deal with all aspects of their own business, and let them be replaced by more efficient operations that can clean up their own waste and still turn a profit. At present, governmental soft handling of fossil fuel companies amounts to market interference, slowing the introduction of more efficient and sustainable technologies.

[psyreporter]

The idea that Nature and Earth's development and climate amounts to 'nothing' beyond the idea that "what has been observed is limited to what has been observed" may not be valid. The origin of life cannot be factored out because it hasn't been observed.

Is there no meaning to Nature, climate or to Earths development?

A recent study showed that rocks on earth developed the first photosynthesis by which the earth obtained oxygen that enabled life to arise. It started hundreds of millions of years before the first organic life forms existed.

(2021) Non-classical photosynthesis by earth's inorganic semiconducting minerals
Our work in this new research field on the mechanisms of interaction between light, minerals, and life reveals that minerals and organisms are actually inseparable. ... producing hydrogen and oxygen from water
https://phys.org/news/2021-01-non-class ... cting.html

Rocks and minerals may not be 'meaningless'.

The human may hold the natural idea that its interest is more important than a rock, but when it concerns Nature as a whole, such a short-term self-interest perspective may undermine what makes human life possible.

Blocking sunlight (solar geo-engineering) for a short-term self-interest perspective, may not be optimal for Nature and earth's long term prosperity and development.

Similar to Eugenics on Nature (GMO) with which humans intend to 'top down' control the fabric and genetic evolution of Nature, which is based on the potentially flawed idea that the human can 'stand above life', controlling earths climate processes for a 'fixed result' may not be optimal for long term prosperity and evolution (beyond what exists) of Nature on earth.

There are indications that bacteria in clouds are controlling them intelligently, to control climate. While it can be said: why then, should the human not do it using science? The bacteria may do it from a position as a servant of Nature (to serve 'meaning'), while the human may potentially use flawed ideas such as Eugenics and short-term self-interests (of a few individuals or a company) while neglecting or even destroying Nature.

(2021) Bacterial presence in Clouds and its impact on the Climate
These data add to a growing body of evidence that biological organisms are affecting clouds. Right now, he cautions, “We still don’t know on a global scale how important these processes are.”
https://adbioc.in/2021/06/14/bacterial- ... e-climate/
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/germy-chance-hail

Science and securing human prosperity is logically a first priority, but a base level of respect may be vital for Nature's ability to prosper and there may be arguments by which it can be said that the human is a part of Nature and cannot stand above or apart from it.

[Steve3007]

Is it not unfair to blame the masses for climate change, throwing the lion's share of responsibility on to them, while major companies and billionaires are cut slack, despite having far more capacity to control their greenhouse gas emissions? Private solar panels and electric cars are preferable to the alternative, but they are not going to make an appreciable difference when giant emitters are ploughing pollution into the atmosphere with no societal expectation to clean up after themselves, as they might have to do if they were dumping toxic chemicals in a lake.

I see the emission of greenhouse gases as a completely different issue from something like the dumping of toxic chemicals in a lake, or other kind of pollution. Obviously if a company, or anyone else, dumps some toxic chemicals in a lake then I think government legislation should exist to incentivise them to clean it up (by punishing them if they don't). In that case, it would be the company itself doing the dumping and the chemical would be toxic, which is different on both counts from the situation with greenhouse gases. In the case of CO2 emissions we're not talking about their toxicity and we're not talking about companies directly pumping it into the atmosphere. We're talking about them selling products which, when used by end-customers, do so.

As I said, I think apportioning blame for CO2 emissions doesn't help. When considering issues like this I prefer to think about what actions, by whom, would be most likely to have the best results. Clearly it's not the case that large companies are personally pumping the amount of CO2 into the atmosphere which is causing the warming. It's the products that they produce and sell to their customers which do that, when they're used. Obviously they're going to keep doing that so long as it's profitable and they can get away with it. And obviously the consumers of their products are going to keep consuming them for as long as they're the cheapest and most convenient legal way to get the things that they want (such as travelling around easily). Sure, some idealistic individuals will deliberately try to choose what they judge to be more environmentally friendly products, despite them being (currently) more expensive and inconvenient. But most won't. And, if challenged, they'll make arguments as to why they won't. That's just a fact of life that we have to try to work with. There would be no point in apportioning blame anywhere there.

So, If we think there's a problem that isn't going to be solved by the action of free markets then it's up to governments to tax and legislate to give both companies and their customers the incentive to move to what we deem to be fuels that result in less greenhouse gasses being emitted. That means they need to be able to see the commercial case for it. It would be no good just telling them that it's their moral duty or whatever. Again, I don't see the purpose of any blame concept here. I just see a process of identifying what motivates people (both producers and consumers) to act as they do, identifying what we think needs to be done and identifying what legislation and tax regime needs to be put in place to motivate them to do what we think is right. So rather than "You are to blame for this so you ought to fix it!", or similar, we say something more along the lines of: "If you do X then Y will happen." and they then decide if it's in their interests to do X.

As well as being separate from issues like pollution by toxic chemicals, I think this is also separate from any arguments that people might have as to the extent that anthropogenic climate change is actually happening to a degree which means that action is required. The above is all on the assumption that it is. If anyone wanted to argue that it isn't, that would be a separate discussion, in my view. If we accept, at least for the sake of the argument, that it is, then as far as I can see, we all essentially agree. GE Moreton, for example, as a believer in minimal taxation, has said that he agrees that government actions like taxes are necessary if they're required for the protection of a natural common, such as the atmosphere. So on this issue, any substantive disagreement we have with him would only be on whether anthropogenic climate change is actually happening to a degree which means that action is required. Not on what to do if it is.

[Steve3007]

Where did I suggest that the "powerful" should be let off scot-free? They would have the same responsibility for CO2 emissions as everyone else who uses electricity or drives an automobile, that responsibility being proportionate to the kW/hours they consume and the miles they drive or fly.

The disagreement here was not about the relative culpability of "the rich" vs. "the poor," but between producers of fuel and users of that fuel.

It's not a level playing field. Besides, as I say, factories should be responsible for - and pay for - pollution mitigation. If cleaning up their pollution - rather than leaving it to the public purse - prevents a company from making a profit, then it was a faulty business model relying on shonky practices to gain commercial advantage. It's akin to construction companies that only succeed because they scrimp on OH&S and covertly dump their waste.

Let the weak companies fail if they cannot afford to deal with all aspects of their own business, and let them be replaced by more efficient operations that can clean up their own waste and still turn a profit. At present, governmental soft handling of fossil fuel companies amounts to market interference, slowing the introduction of more efficient and sustainable technologies.

I think by conflating the emission of greenhouse gases with the different issue of toxic pollution, the extent to which you actually agree with each other is hidden, as I mentioned in the last paragraph of my previous post.

Since the industrial revolution, CO2 levels in the atmosphere have risen, essentially due to being "breathed out" by the various machines we've made for the purpose of making our lives easier. If we've decided that this needs to stop, and if we've decided that the global energy market, acting only under the influence of free market forces, won't stop it in time (because oil is such a conveniently extracted/transported/stored and energy-dense fuel), then we would like our governments to pass legislation and levy taxes in a way that tends to incentivise both producers and consumers, in unison, to move to energy sources that reduce or eliminate CO2 emissions, in a way that keeps the global economy running during the transition. So we'd like our governments to put in place conditions whereby it's more profitable for producers, and cheaper and more convenient for consumers, to switch.

Does anyone disagree with the above paragraph, keeping in mind the "ifs"?

[Steve3007]

Apparently the recommendation is to heat the car while charging, so that the heating is done with station power, rather than battery power. Would work for typical commuting trips --- car would be warm from overnight charging when driving to work, and (if you can charge while at work), warm for the drive home. Not sure all models allow the heater to run while charging, however. Still need the battery power while on the road, though.

OK. Makes sense. I'm in the office today so, as it's now close to winter, I'll ask my Tesla driving co-worker for his take on that!

BTW, my friend with the electric car said that his dashboard "Estimated Range" (with current charge) display dropped instantly from 35 miles to 25 when he switched on the defroster.

Yes, I presume the estimated range is calculated from the amount of current being drawn from the battery and the amount of charge left in it. Anything that increases the current draw decreases the range. I think one thing about the development of electric cars is that it goes hand-in-hand with the development of things like GPS, Satnavs and cell phone technology. Using those technologies the car can always know how close it is to the nearest charging point. There are online maps apps, like Zap Map (and presumably loads of others) that show all the various types of charging outlets and their type. I think one of the the developments that's already emerging is private individuals renting out their charging points and advertising them on maps. I think that will go along with a massive increase in charging points on streets and in places like supermarket parking lots.

But of course, one of the issues with charging is the time it takes, compared to the time taken to fill a tank with gasoline. It illustrates just how energy-dense gasoline is. I've read somewhere that to achieve the same rate of energy transfer as you get when filling your tank, the electric current would be so high that you'd need a cable about a foot in diameter or something (to achieve an acceptably low level of resistive heating).

[Steve3007]

An interesting illustration of the energy density of gasoline/petrol:

The energy density of gasoline is about 46 MJ/kg. A litre of gasoline has a mass of about 0.75kg and a typical fuel tank in a car has a capacity of around 50 litres. So the chemical energy stored in a tank of fuel is about 1725 MJ (mega-Joules). If it takes 1 minute to fill it up, that's an energy transfer rate of about 29 MJ per second. That's 29 MW (mega-watts). I think the highest powered car chargers are about 50 KW. That's only about 1/500th of the energy transfer rate when you're filling your car with gasoline. But since internal combustion engines in cars are only about 25% efficient (and electric motors are 90% efficient) I guess we could call that ratio about 1/150th. So to charge a car with the amount of energy to give it the range of a gasoline car with a full tank would take about 2 1/2 hours. I guess that's why you get about 100 miles of range from a 30 minute charge at the fastest possible charging rate of an electric car. And that explains why to fully charge a car in 1 minute you'd need a massively thick cable (even if the battery could charge that quickly).

[GE Morton]

It's not a level playing field. Besides, as I say, factories should be responsible for - and pay for - pollution mitigation. If cleaning up their pollution - rather than leaving it to the public purse - prevents a company from making a profit, then it was a faulty business model relying on shonky practices to gain commercial advantage.

You can't seem to grasp the point: CO2 emissions are not "their pollution." They are YOUR pollution.

[Pattern-chaser]

I see the emission of greenhouse gases as a completely different issue from something like the dumping of toxic chemicals in a lake, or other kind of pollution.

What's the difference between polluting the air and polluting the water? They look like exactly the same thing to me. Different pollutants, yes, but no significant difference that I can see...?