Will India halt global warming?

[RobertU]

While many developed nations have made large strides in reducing their carbon footprint, global temperatures continue to rise, prompting some to consider implementing geoengineering to cap global warming. Solar geoengineering would cool the Earth by adding small reflective particles to the upper atmosphere, increasing reflective cloud cover in the lower atmosphere, or thinning high-altitude clouds that can absorb heat.

I believe the nation most likely to first implement that strategy will be the country that relies heavily on fossil fuel for economic development while suffering large impacts from climate change and has an authoritarian leader who values economic growth over green initiatives: India. That country is particularly vulnerable to deadly heatwaves and flooding due to climate chaos. While India has set ambitious renewable energy targets, coal still supplies about 70% of the country’s energy needs.

As a nation that already has a space program and churns out techies serving corporations around the world, India is certainly capable of initiating climate manipulation. One could see a worst-case scenario in which India cools the Earth at the same time the ocean current (AMOC) that keeps Europe warm collapses, thus pitting India in a “cold war” against Europe.

 

[BitterPill]

No.

MAGA.

 

[Gozaburo]

While many developed nations have made large strides in reducing their carbon footprint, global temperatures continue to rise, prompting some to consider implementing geoengineering to cap global warming. Solar geoengineering would cool the Earth by adding small reflective particles to the upper atmosphere, increasing reflective cloud cover in the lower atmosphere, or thinning high-altitude clouds that can absorb heat.

I believe the nation most likely to first implement that strategy will be the country that relies heavily on fossil fuel for economic development while suffering large impacts from climate change and has an authoritarian leader who values economic growth over green initiatives: India. That country is particularly vulnerable to deadly heatwaves and flooding due to climate chaos. While India has set ambitious renewable energy targets, coal still supplies about 70% of the country’s energy needs.

As a nation that already has a space program and churns out techies serving corporations around the world, India is certainly capable of initiating climate manipulation. One could see a worst-case scenario in which India cools the Earth at the same time the ocean current (AMOC) that keeps Europe warm collapses, thus pitting India in a “cold war” against Europe.

Lmao

 

[OrphanSlug]

That is cute, people think India will actually do something about "global warming."

BTW, both India and China have 60%+ of their energy produced by coal, both have no interest in slowing down energy from fossil fuels, both signed the useless Paris Climate Agreement a long way back, and both largely get their coal from Russia and Australia (among other nations, sometimes the US too.)

 

[Slavister]

That is cute, people think India will actually do something about "global warming."

BTW, both India and China have 60%+ of their energy produced by coal, both have no interest in slowing down energy from fossil fuels, both signed the useless Paris Climate Agreement a long way back, and both largely get their coal from Russia and Australia (among other nations, sometimes the US too.)

I think China, which is already BY FAR the largest world producer and consumer of green energy is more than interested in it and WILL start getting off of coal in coming years and fast.

 

[OrphanSlug]

I think China, which is already BY FAR the largest world producer and consumer of green energy is more than interested in it and WILL start getting off of coal in coming years and fast.

You think so huh?

China still produces the most emissions, is #3 in the most emissions per capita, has the most and has installed the most coal plants in the last decade, overall China alone is responsible for 35% of all emissions world wide, and all on the back of 50% of all energy from coal world wide being produced in China.

 

[Slavister]

You think so huh?

China still produces the most emissions, is #3 in the most emissions per capita,

with US being #1 ...

has the most and has installed the most coal plants in the last decade, overall China alone is responsible for 35% of all emissions world wide, and all on the back of 50% of all energy from coal world wide being produced in China.

Indeed, they are #1 in coal production AND #1 in green energy production. I believe they view coal as short term solution and green energy as long term one where they want to go asap.

 

[OrphanSlug]

with US being #1 ...

In per capita, correct the US is #1, take a wild stab in the dark who is #2. It is kinda surprising.

Indeed, they are #1 in coal production AND #1 in green energy production. I believe they view coal as short term solution and green energy as long term one where they want to go asap.

Why do you believe that? As in exactly why.

 

[Slavister]

In per capita, correct the US is #1, take a wild stab in the dark who is #2. It is kinda surprising.

Canada. Not surprising - they are pretty much just like US... Soon to be part of US, or so I hear.

Why do you believe that? As in exactly why.

Not just because they say that but also because China keeps increasing percentage of energy produced from green sources while reducing that percentage for coal.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Canada. Not surprising - they are pretty much just like US... Soon to be part of US, or so I hear.

It kinda surprised me, when removing the smaller nations that have odd emissions per capita scores, the order was #1 US, #2 Canada, #3 China, #4 was South Africa, and all of the EU was #5. The sad part is by trending line only one is on the incline in CO2 emissions per capita, China, everyone else is reducing.

Not just because they say that but also because China keeps increasing percentage of energy produced from green sources while reducing that percentage for coal.

You have to be really careful with those stats.



Yes, China is producing more energy by percentage from green sources. However their overall energy production from Coal is still rising faster than any other source apart from wind and hydropower, and from the above China is the only nation in the top 10 that is on the incline in CO2 emissions per capita *and* is only along side India and Russia in more production in more Coal use year on year.

It is simply disingenuous to suggest China or India (or Russia or several other nations) are all that interested in global warming changing their energy use.

 

[dmpi]

Do it because energy waste cost money. Do it because we only have a limited amount of earth resources. Do it because breathing in pollution is irritating and harmful. Just don't do it because liberals say the sky is falling due to man-made climate change.

 

[Slavister]

It kinda surprised me, when removing the smaller nations that have odd emissions per capita scores, the order was #1 US, #2 Canada, #3 China, #4 was South Africa, and all of the EU was #5. The sad part is by trending line only one is on the incline in CO2 emissions per capita, China, everyone else is reducing.



You have to be really careful with those stats.

View attachment 67556471

Yes, China is producing more energy by percentage from green sources. However their overall energy production from Coal is still rising faster than any other source apart from wind and hydropower, and from the above China is the only nation in the top 10 that is on the incline in CO2 emissions per capita *and* is only along side India and Russia in more production in more Coal use year on year.

It is simply disingenuous to suggest China or India (or Russia or several other nations) are all that interested in global warming changing their energy use.

Well, we'll see in few years I guess. I am trying to be optimistic here but could definitely be wrong too. China appears to be growing enormously in its power consumption and even though it still needs coal to grow, I am hoping as they proceed with green tech revolution it will continue to overtake other sources and coal usage will start going down.

 

[Greg 1]

Getting India to develop responsibly would likely take an expensive global effort. Right now, I don't see the will in developed nations to make such an effort.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

That is cute, people think India will actually do something about "global warming."

BTW, both India and China have 60%+ of their energy produced by coal, both have no interest in slowing down energy from fossil fuels, both signed the useless Paris Climate Agreement a long way back, and both largely get their coal from Russia and Australia (among other nations, sometimes the US too.)

There was a time when the USA would lead the way on things such as this, and encourage and help other nations follow suit.

 

[longview]

There was a time when the USA would lead the way on things such as this, and encourage and help other nations follow suit.

We can’t lead the way to anything unless we properly identify the problem!
The physical observations are all wrong for the observed warming to be caused by added CO2!
Clearing past air pollution is the most likely cause.
Moving forward the best bet is focusing on energy sustainability, and fresh water.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Moving forward the best bet is focusing on energy sustainability, and fresh water.

Hmmmm. Well I guess gutting the EPA should help with that eh? MAGA!

 

[longview]

Hmmmm. Well I guess gutting the EPA should help with that eh? MAGA!

Except they cannot get there looking at CO2 as a solution! Achieving net zero will change nothing!

 

[OrphanSlug]

There was a time when the USA would lead the way on things such as this, and encourage and help other nations follow suit.

That day is gone, once these agreements started to look more like a money movement system over any sense of doing something about the climate it is not shocking Republicans were able to capitalize and remove the US from them.

 

[longview]

That day is gone, once these agreements started to look more like a money movement system over any sense of doing something about the climate it is not shocking Republicans were able to capitalize and remove the US from them.

The US could still led the way, and show the world that the scientific method still works,
even when the funding is almost all going one direction.
It will mean killing the goose that lays the golden egg, and governments all over the world
will lose a valuable control tool, but I think the integrity of the Scientific Method is important enough.

 

[OrphanSlug]

The US could still led the way, and show the world that the scientific method still works,
even when the funding is almost all going one direction.
It will mean killing the goose that lays the golden egg, and governments all over the world
will lose a valuable control tool, but I think the integrity of the Scientific Method is important enough.

The US, or any other nation, or nations in combination by understanding and/or agreement could do many things.

In this nation it is far more than just money, it is how our political landscape is shaped by duopoly. One consequence of our two party dominant system of politics is the extremism of yes or no to many subjects and that includes the concept of climate change and the science behind it.

It is a pessimistic attitude to have I agree, but being a cynic means pointing out in the US the whole thing has devolved into two camps. Modern conservatism which is literally head in the sand on all things climate change. The alternative is the other extreme of modern liberalism that is more or less soup throwing, blocking traffic, and other spectacles of protest. Neither one moves the needle over the longer term near enough to match what science tells us.

And we already have an apparatus for governments to try to agree on these things, but everyone's own self interests has seen things like the Accords turn into money movement schemes entirely devoid of any nation held to any course for improving their own contribution to climate change. As this subject has played out, India has no more interest in climate change than the US, Canada, Russia, China, the list goes on and on.

But we will still fly elites all over the world, frequently, to meet and talk about it. Rip lithium and other metals out of the earth, in the worst of conditions, mostly using slavery like conditions, still consuming a plethora of power and burning fossil fuels to refine it, all over the world thinking we are doing the right thing about it.

In all the feel goodness of actions to date, all the frustration of the far right and far left on this subject, I would argue we have checked out no matter how much science tells us to continue to find new methods to handle power and transportation needs.

 

[longview]

The US, or any other nation, or nations in combination by understanding and/or agreement could do many things.

In this nation it is far more than just money, it is how our political landscape is shaped by duopoly. One consequence of our two party dominant system of politics is the extremism of yes or no to many subjects and that includes the concept of climate change and the science behind it.

It is a pessimistic attitude to have I agree, but being a cynic means pointing out in the US the whole thing has devolved into two camps. Modern conservatism which is literally head in the sand on all things climate change. The alternative is the other extreme of modern liberalism that is more or less soup throwing, blocking traffic, and other spectacles of protest. Neither one moves the needle over the longer term near enough to match what science tells us.

And we already have an apparatus for governments to try to agree on these things, but everyone's own self interests has seen things like the Accords turn into money movement schemes entirely devoid of any nation held to any course for improving their own contribution to climate change. As this subject has played out, India has no more interest in climate change than the US, Canada, Russia, China, the list goes on and on.

But we will still fly elites all over the world, frequently, to meet and talk about it. Rip lithium and other metals out of the earth, in the worst of conditions, mostly using slavery like conditions, still consuming a plethora of power and burning fossil fuels to refine it, all over the world thinking we are doing the right thing about it.

In all the feel goodness of actions to date, all the frustration of the far right and far left on this subject, I would argue we have checked out no matter how much science tells us to continue to find new methods to handle power and transportation needs.

I agree! the reality is that our goal needs to be to have enough energy so that everyone alive can achieve
a first world lifestyle, should they choose to. We cannot get there with fossil fuels, simply because ethe supply
is insufficient. There is enough sunlight reaching the surface to do this, but the form and duty cycle of that
energy does not match our demands.
Within the scope of existing technology, I only see Power to Liquid fuels as having the energy storage capability.
I know it loses a lot of energy to Carnot loses, but in the case of seasonal energy storage, the energy would be lost at 100%.
As we build out Solar capacity, we will start to see large surpluses in Spring and Fall, when the supply is still high but the demand is low.
For many grid attached solar systems they play a shell game called net metering, but that is unsustainable at higher levels.
The bottom line is that any single watt of electricity generated for the grid, must be consumed within a second, or it is lost as heat.
Storing that surplus energy as fuel is better than losing 100% of it.
While it is not important, this path also leads to Net Zero CO2 emissions, as the carbon in the fuel is harvested from atmospheric CO2.
Globally the real advantage is in the very rural places, where a small solar farm could greatly enhance agriculture,
by supplying fuel for farm equipment and market transport.

Future warming is limited to however clear the skies become.
We dimmed the sunlight with air pollution, and as we cleared that pollution, we reveled warming that should have already
happened slowly, but in just a few decades. Unfortunately we do not know where zero pollution is, so we do not know
how much warming remains in the system, only that skies are back to ~1950 clarity.
Historically warmer is better for Humanity, so I say the future is bright.