Recent Heatwaves and What Are We Doing About Them?

giphy.com

I am sometimes amazed by social media and what can be posted. A large portion of the planet has been experiencing heatwaves of late. Or so says social media sites I frequent. I am of the school of thought, that the frequency of heatwaves are a product of climate change. Let's be very clear about that.

What I found interesting was the heatwave in jolly old England. When the discussion turned to using Air Conditioners, the vast majority of Brits and other folks from the U.K., appeared solidly against such things, as a mere few days... from time to time, can be overcome.

That is fine, as it is their decision. However, they will also blame climate change for these mere few days that come from time to time. There seems to be a disconnect, in my opinion.

I have mentioned this in a previous blog, but we need to get all the governments of the world to get it in gear. However, even if they "get it in gear", we are still left with a changing climate for decades to come. 

Seriously, that crap in the sky will not suddenly disappear with a sudden and real global collective effort to reduce emissions. IF and this is a big if... we were to wake up tomorrow with every country on the planet completely committed to the current accords (getting it in gear), we are still left with the effects of what has happened previously. It will take decades.

I am not saying we should just throw our hands up and give up trying. It will only get worse, if we do that.

I guess what I am trying to say is... even IF all governments suddenly get on board with reducing emissions and actually do start to achieve those stated goals, the atmosphere will take decades to get rid of the emissions that are already there.

So those infrequent heatwaves will become more frequent for some decades into the future. They will become stronger or hotter, etc. In fact the cold snaps will become colder as well. Climate is changing.

It might be time for some Brits to check up on the cost of installing A.C. If the preference remains to not install A.C., that is fine also. 

Just please shut the ^*&* up the next time it gets hot!  Okay? It's almost as if you expect someone to come to the rescue and reverse global warming back to 200 years ago. Maybe in a few hundred years, but not overnight, or next year or the next decade, etc. 

I guess I am done for now. 

Global Warming!

This tends to be a sensitive subject, but as there will likely be no visitors or feedback, why not express my stupid opinion? Opinions are like theories, or so some #$&*s say.

Once you peal back the layers of this subject, from the outright liars, conspiracy theorists and fraudulent experts; as well as the predictors of doom, blathering fools trying to make every weather event a sign of the end times; you finally get to the core, in my opinion. Yes the earth is indeed warming.

That it is due to humans should go without saying. There are too many of us. Getting even half of us humans to agree on substantial emissions is folly, so we should not expect any real, meaningful and/or humane solution. Everybody, except for a small minority... wants someone else to do the heavy lifting.

The latest mantra is we need to cut net emissions by half by 2030 and to net zero by 2050. As I understand it the earth does have some capacity to absorb these emission, but we have been exceeding this for decades. It is the carbon sinks vs carbon emissions. As an example only, if the earth has the capacity to absorb 1 million of something through its various carbon sinks of oceans, forests, etc. and we are emitting 3 million of something, then cutting in half would mean a reduction of 1 million and net zero would require the other million in excess.

The problem in reality is the carbon sinks are being eroded, through clearing of forests, etc. Oceans can only absorb so much, similar to a glass of water. You can keep putting an ounce in that glass, until it finally holds no more.

Some of those carbon sinks are from centuries past and rest in ice. As those ice caps melt, those captured emissions are again released. And those ice caps are going to melt. There is no turning back from that conclusion, as we haven't halted the temperature rise and a reversal is what is required to save the ice caps. This reversal will not happen in my lifetime and frankly... not in my grandchildren's lifetime. Maybe their grandchildren's lifetime. 

My point being that we cannot achieve the 2030 or 2050 goals, unless technology is developed (and quickly) to capture these emissions.

Climate change is happening and coastal areas appear to expect everyone else to do something. They need to be moving to higher ground. Inland, storms will have greater impacts, so structures need to be built stronger. There are numerous issues coming, yet nothing is actually being done. Supposedly, green energy will save us all, but frankly... that is evolving much too slowly to have any impact during this century. Coal demand is higher than ever in places like China and India. Crude oil is still in high demand as evidenced by the price of crude and Biden's request for OPEC to pump more.

The have nots are needing helps from the haves. First and foremost, the haves are viewing this as a money making opportunity.

Just like an approaching hurricane, people sit on their hands till the very last minute, to do something... generally when it is too late.

I suppose humans have survived worse, but have any civilizations?

I will personally be able to meet that net zero emission target by 2050 and what is troubling to me... I might meet it by 2030 or even earlier.

Strategic Petroleum Reserve and Politics?

I have read a couple of times, where our leaders have asked OPEC and others to turn on the oil spigot to overcome some shortages of crude. I have even read where the president has "released" some crude out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR).

On the other hand, "we are trying to talk" about reducing fossil fuel consumption, particularly now that COP26 is underway. I say trying to talk, because I doubt anything meaningful will be adopted, except for promises yet to be broken... again.

I am not the brightest bulb in the pack, but it would seem to me that a commitment to reduce reliance on fossil fuels would also consider a plan to reduce the SPR over time. While this might seem an odd thing to do, it would reduce the current inflationary effects of crude prices as well as send a signal that we are moving away from this fossil fuel. 

Naturally an argument could be made that this method would cheapen the market price of fossil fuels, which would prolong their consumption, while reducing the current state of semi-independence for imported fossil fuels. However, I would consider a gradual reduction to be in order. Something akin to a planned reduction of 170,000 barrels per day for 10 years.

Of course, there is the horse and buggy phenomenon.  I am referring to the period where cars started to become mass produced. The horse and buggy industry saw the writing on the wall, ceased expansion and began reduction of inventory, etc., which became very profitable for a brief period, until the industry virtually faded away. 

We are seeing the beginning states of this in the U.S. oil production companies, in my opinion. It is quite a tightrope to walk between keeping these producers operating at near net import/export levels or accelerating the reduction in U.S. Oil. 

The origins of the SPR are rooted in the 1970s and an oil embargo. Here is a brief overview, entitled... History of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Here is some SPR Quick Facts. Then there is the IEA, with The global oil market remains vulnerable to a wide range of risk factors. Which states in part...

In accordance with the Agreement on an International Energy Programme (I.E.P.), each IEA country has an obligation to hold emergency oil stocks equivalent to at least 90 days of net oil imports. 

Which brings me to current situation... (the upper cut off is the 90 day line, which was broken through at various times in the early 90s and has been above that threshold since 2-2012)

Currently, the total volume of SPR is 614.2 Millions Barrels. Here is the 4 week net average of imports/exports from the EIA. Whatever measure... the 90 day rule applies would indicate a net import of 6.8M barrels per day... a figure not seen that high in 8 years. Currently it is running in the 1M barrels per day and below range. 

Clearly, the internal production of the U.S. oil industry could begin to fall to the wayside, if crude prices were to fall, and it is understood that financing of the industry could begin to subside, but at some point near the end it would collapse. 

Hence the politics angle. Any suggestion of sizable reduction at this point would be a nightmare for certain D.C. politicians of both stripes. There are those beholden to the oil industry, which would receive a dramatic drop in prices and those beholden to the green energy sector, for allowing a drop in energy prices to prolong the use of fossil fuels. 

That is why I would suggest that slow drawdown over a long period. No one really wins.

But that is just my silly idea, and I realize the notion of releasing a fossil fuel during a global climate meeting is preposterous. Not addressing the SPR is kicking the oil can down the road, imo. Not unlike what the global community is doing with climate change.

Trying To Push That Proverbial Rope.

We are familiar or should be... with the causes of current supply chain problems.

Let's be clear... the bottleneck is EMPTY containers taking up room on chassis and spilling over into container warehouses, docks, etc. This is clogging up the system and creating situations where multiple movements of both empty and full containers beyond the normal efficient "just-in-time" movement cannot take place.

To keep the goods moving, more containers are being built and a premium is being placed on empty containers. Just as the goods traffic is snarled, so are the return of empty containers. This is why the major rails shut down for one week in July and have since started metering to their midwestern hubs. For every chassis laden with goods inbound to that midwestern hub, the port must take one chassis laden with either an empty container or outbound goods. Here's a sampling from Freightwaves.

Until such time as the hubs in middle America are "un" choked, the ports will remain congested. And yes, there are driver shortages throughout the system. Truckinginfo.

It was nice optics to have some politico state the ports were now going to function 24/7 and then get 24/7 news coverage of the statement, but saying that and doing that are very different things. Where is the in-depth coverage and follow-up?

COP26

A meeting in Glasgow is to begin soon, to discuss ways to reduce carbon emissions and achieve some targets. A noble cause and more power to them BUT... apparently China and India can't even supply the expected paperwork AND at least one of their leaders is simply skipping the conference.

The current goals are cutting emissions in half by 2030 and net zero by 2050. Considering China and India are nearly one half of current emissions... it would require the rest of the world to be net zero right now. As both China and India are having difficulty finding enough coal to currently generate electricity and driving prices of coal upwards... if they were the only emitters, that 2030 goal is toast, imo. 

This is no reason to give up on emissions reduction, but realism needs to be on the table. It is certainly admirable to hope for the best but... we need to prepare for the worst as well. 

It should be noted Jaguar Land Rover is furnishing 240 electric vehicles to transport these folks around. However, there is likely not enough recharging capacity available, so Diesel generators will be used to re-charge. But this is not going to be that dirty oil, but HVO (hydrogenated vegetable oil). The type in fryers. Presumably this makes everything alright... even these vegetable oils were grown and harvested with old fashioned diesel vehicles. Or maybe all farm vehicles in the U.K. are now electric. /s

Oh, and before I forget, this from Deutsche Welle - UN says national climate targets 'fall far short'. So the even promises are not making the grade and we should recognize that promises often fall short of expectations.  

Note: Article written on 10-16-2021 and links may no longer be viable OR behind a paywall.

Random Thoughts - 10-17-2021

Courtesy of CDC

Covid

It's been nearly 2 years, depending on the actual start. Here is some stats, courtesy of Our World in Data...

• 47.5% of the world population has received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.
• 6.65 billion doses have been administered globally, and 20.44 million are now administered each day.
• Only 2.7% of people in low-income countries have received at least one dose.

In the USA, we have achieved 68.4% fully vaccinated of persons 18 and over, per the CDC. 

Burrowing down, indicates my state (Kentucky) has 69.86% of that age groups full vaccinated. 

• The seven day average infection rate (KY) of 1, 932 compared to average daily rate from beginning of 1,265. 
• The seven day average death rate is 34, compared to average daily rate since the beginning of 16.

I eagerly anticipated the point where the 7 day death rate falls below the "since beginning" rate. 

The average age of infection and deaths has fallen since pre-vaccination, when the death rate was primarily over 60, with 92% of deaths above that range, with above 80 counting over half of deaths, 70~80 was about 1/4 and 60~70 was about 1/7. The average age was approximately 78, with infection's average age at 44. 

Since the start, the average age of death is now 74 and infections at 40, with the 7-day age of death at 66 and infection at 37.

The good news if such a thing is possible... both infections and deaths are dropping rather fast. However, this is a global pandemic and until that low income vaccination rate above improves... another wave of some new variant is not out of the realm of possibilities. 

The WHO has decried wealthier countries with plentiful vaccine access are...

Hoarding

Tis true, but food hoarding is starting to crop up... and I don't mean just in my pantry. There are countries that are net exporters of food and countries that are net importers. Whether you believe in climate change is irrelevant at this specific point in time. Weather has wreaked havoc on food importing AND exporting countries. Importing regions such as large swaths of heavily populated countries in Asia and most of Africa

The extent is some countries are beginning to limit exports, due to their own needs, just as countries that import are facing reduced crops. 

While it is likely food shortages will occur in some areas, much higher prices will be likely for all. It is no different than natural gas, petroleum, coal, etc. 

While I have received my booster shot and have a full to overflowing pantry, does not mean I am immune to the potential of societal breakdown on a global scale. If it comes, it will be due to a dearth of leadership. It is what fills that void, that is the worry. 

Of course, I am probably over reacting and everything is hunky dory!